IT’S OFFICIAL: THE CYBERTRUCK IS MORE EXPLOSIVE THAN THE FORD PINTO
It's Official: the Cybertruck is More Explosive than the Ford Pinto - FuelArc News
TL;DR: The CyberTruck is 17 times more likely to have a fire fatality than a Ford Pinto
And the Pinto is actually cool looking.
Never forget that Chrysler did the exact same thing with the Grand Cherokee that resulted in deaths and never faced accountability.
"Top Secret " Love this movie!
fucking thank you. So many people have disagreed with me over the years. its even more baby mustang than the mustang 2. Like its the third child thats not trying to act tough like the second child, or all muscle no brains like the first child.
If I could get one even in shit condition I'd want to rebuild it as an electric. I'd totally take a mustang 2 if I could get one too though.
Hell yeah. It would be so cool to find one and rebuild it.
Um yeah I just perused the source website and agree. It's got an obvious anti-EV bias in both article sections, headlines and interpretations of data. The only author they seem to have for all their 'news articles' is a person that doesn't even have the guts to sign off with their real name, instead using the alias 'Kay Leadfoot'. They don't even have an 'about' page, just a contact form.
This is just the blog of some dude that hates EVs. Hot garbage source.
Hey, boss... If you say my name and don't knock on wood, I show up.
This place seems nice! I might post here in the future.
I do not hate EVs. Read my reviews of the Tesla Model 3, the new Dodge Charger EV, and the F-150 Lightning. If you don't like to read, the TL;DR is that I very much like each vehicle. Like many pickup truck people, I specifically do not like the Cybertruck, but that's because it's a lousy vehicle.
You should keep an open mind - just because you disagree with me, doesn't mean I have some unreasonable bias. I may have followed evidence to a different conclusion.
I do smile when Tesla fans ask me to announce my name. I already did! I'm Kay Leadfoot. You can learn more about me on my About page, which has definitely been there since Day 1. Unrelated to anything, please don't call me dude.
Since I'm half-intelligent, I won't pretend to understand most what you're saying here.
I don't think the article linked is nonsense, though. It certainly isn't leftist anything, miss me with that.
But... importantly... There is a statistically correct way to complete the following sentence:
"The Tesla Cybertruck is ______ times more/less explosive than the Ford Pinto."
If you disagree with my answer to that question, what is your answer? I showed my math, I even invite the readers to re-run the equation. If you re-run it, what do you come up with? I bet your answer will be informative and helpful to the conversation about EV safety, two elements that are the "sugar," "spice," and "everything nice" about good reporting.
While i agree with your intent here i thing we should rather begin with a more thoughtful criticism of the articles, rather than criticizing the websites name or if it's vibe can be considered pandering.
Like how the statistics used is hyperbolic in it's conclusions. While 34,438 produced cars are many, but not loads in car terms (especially when compared to the 3,173,491 built Pintos) and the there have only been two actual accidents with fire fatalities leading to 4 deaths. (The Vegas firebombing should not count.) Sure it's two to many but it's not really significant.
On the other hand the article does point out something here, "only" 27 deaths did lead to a huge recall, and i for one am not sure that a company that have yet to commit for a NHTSA will adhere to a similar standard. And fire safety over all has been a long concern in Tesla cars.
Thanks Iceman. I loved your work in Top Gun.
I think you touch on something important here. Some folks say the sample size is too small, on a strict statistical basis. Automotive safety works on different scales, often fast-paced decisions are made about auto safety and we don't wait around for "statistical significance" in an academically rigorous sense.
Ironically, the smallest production run of cars to receive a recall in the United States (that I could find) was... the Ford Pinto, because the accelerator pedal got stuck! That was its first year of production. All 26,000 were recalled 2 months after the model was released.
DOUBLE ironic... the smallest production run of pickup trucks to receive a recall in the United States (that I could find) was... the Tesla Cybertruck! ALSO because the accelerator pedal got stuck! All 4,000 were recalled a few months after deliveries started at scale, in the first full year of production.
Isn't that funny? History doesn't repeat itself, but it is basically a dirty limerick. And what an awful chapter of automotive history to repeat, our vehicles should be vastly safer in 2025 than they were in 1971.
No problem. steal $400 million from the taxpayers, clear the inventory - problem solved.
All caps doesn't make your post more interesting. Just annoying.
The title of the article is in all caps. I copied and pasted it into the post field.
If I had a nickel for every time a car company owned by a nazi sympathizer who wants to found his own exploitive company town made an infamously fiery car that you can hear rusting, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice.
Not saying Ford wasn't an exploitative nazi sympathizer, he was. But can't leave the Dodge brothers out of some of the blame while you're handing it out. They're the whole reason companies have to put shareholders first, after they sued Ford for trying to invest dividends back into the company and employee wages.
The cool thing is when you set records. Being the most anything is awesome.
It’s sarcasm, leave me alone.
this again? They didn't even read their own reference for the fire stats...
With its decade-long production run, the NHTSA reported that the Ford Pinto and its famously flawed gas tank behind the rear bumper caused 27 fiery deaths with its knowingly negligent design. https://www.autosafety.org/wp-content/uploads/import/ODIPinto.pdf
Cherrypicking galore:
At least they did get your clicks.
Facts getting in a way of hating on things we don't like????
Yeah, facts aren't very popular when it's about shitting on the cybertruck.:D
This 'news article' from OP is just some dudes one-man show blog, and looking through a few articles they seem to dislike all EVs not just Teslas. Absolutely garbage source, I'm not surprised you found errors.
yeah half the EV articles are about the CT on the blog. But I suspect it's because the haters click more. What would be a valid analysis after a little longer because the CTs haven't been on the roads long enough, is to compare them with the F150 Lightning. I suspect fire rates will be fairly similar between the two.
My childhood car was a Pinto. I was very grateful it never blew up when I read about the issues many years later.
How much of that is down to the electronic door locks keeping people from escaping?
New existential fear unlocked!
Thanks, dude.
Who would have guessed the armored tesla trucks have armor to protect whatever is outside of the tesla
That's a fucking terrible take dude. Be better
Thankfully mod removed it. Worst yet, it was upvoted.
But it's so common. It's okay to wish death, harm and property damage now on here. Mods do eventually remove it but it's too late. Everyone gets to read it and have the same conclusions, this behaviour is OKAY.
IT ISN'T, NEVER WAS. we want to pretend we're "better" than right... Yet we have exactly the same shit, it just targets change.
but how does it compare to tanks in the "deaths from fire per vehicle sold" test?
For those who don’t know about the Pinto:
In 1978, Ford recalled 1.5 million Pintos because the fuel tank was prone to rupturing in rear-end collisions at speeds of 20 mph or higher. This was the largest recall in automotive history at the time.
https://www.tortmuseum.org/ford-pinto/
Top Secret (1984) made fun of Ford Pinto
As a European who knew nothing about Ford Pinto, I thought they made fun of how cars always explode in movies.
Honestly curious as to why someone downvoted this?
To be more specific, the fuel tank was placed between the rear bumper and rear differential. In a rear end collision, the tank would get sandwiched by the bumper and differential, which had bolts protruding out the back and would pierce the tank, spilling fuel onto the road.
Additionally, rear end collisions would bend the frame in a way that jammed the doors so you couldnt get out.
They figured that people would die and their cost benefit analysis assumed a certain number of deaths and lawsuits. The resulting recall and larger than expected number of deaths and lawsuits made it a huge loss for them.
Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club
That design is even worse than I realized. It’s fucked that didn’t put them out of business honestly
"Tort Museum"
Only in America