IT’S OFFICIAL: THE CYBERTRUCK IS MORE EXPLOSIVE THAN THE FORD PINTO
IT’S OFFICIAL: THE CYBERTRUCK IS MORE EXPLOSIVE THAN THE FORD PINTO
We now have a full year of data for the Cybertruck, and a strange preponderance of headlines about Cybertrucks exploding into flames, including several fatalities. That’s more than enough data to compare to the Ford Pinto, a car so notoriously combustible that it has become a watchword for corporate...
TL;DR: The CyberTruck is 17 times more likely to have a fire fatality than a Ford Pinto
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
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?
Honestly curious as to why someone downvoted this too?
I was tempted to downvote this for continuity and lulz but I didn't
It would have been fine, I was half doing that out of comedy, half doing it out of just shining a spotlight on some automated process that always adds exactly one downvote to every comment being added.
Etc. etc., etc. ?
Pointing out someone downvoting you attracts more downvotes. Don't do that if you don't want more.
Well I think it's okay to honestly ask why someone is doing it, what the rationale was, as part of the conversation.
Might be someone who doesn't like Jeremy and down voting top gear related comments. Either way, don't think too much about it as there is always someone mad doom scrolling internet.
Was just honestly curious, that's all.
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.
Wherever I'm going, I'll be there to apply the formula. I'll keep the secret intact.
It's simple arithmetic.
It's a story problem.
If a new car built by my company leaves Chicago traveling west at 60 miles per hour, and the rear differential locks up, and the car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside, does my company initiate a recall?
You take the population of vehicles in the field (A) and multiple it by the probable rate of failure (B), then multiply the result by the average cost of an out-of-court settlement (C).
A times B times C equals X. This is what it will cost if we don't initiate a recall.
If X is greater than the cost of a recall, we recall the cars and no one gets hurt.
If X is less than the cost of a recall, then we don't recall.Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club
That design is even worse than I realized. It’s fucked that didn’t put them out of business honestly
That's only half the story and not really the part that makes it so significant. The recall was only done after a report sent to NHTSA was released to the public detailing the cost benefit analysis that safer fuel systems was considered more expensive to society than just allowing some people to die due to less safe cars and therefore the car industry shouldn't have to meet the safety standards the NHTSA was proposing. This was a landmark moment in legal ethics and while it was pretty standard stuff in the corporate and regulatory world of the time (and today) and the dollar values assigned to human lives were based on NHTSAs own figures, not Fords it enraged enough people and a recall was done.
"Tort Museum"
Only in America