TL;DR: The CyberTruck is 17 times more likely to have a fire fatality than a Ford Pinto

  • jjagaimo@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    24·
    7 days ago

    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.

    • AtariDump@lemmy.world
      14·
      7 days ago

      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 ©.
      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