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 greed. Let’s start with the data […]
TL;DR: The CyberTruck is 17 times more likely to have a fire fatality than a Ford 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
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.
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