Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> Had I not been in a Tesla, that object could have punched through the floor and caused me serious harm.

Clever misdirection.




Are you sure? The Model S has a quarter-inch thick armor baseplate, which is way more than a similar combustion engine vechicle undercarriage.


> Are you sure?

Of the clever misdirection? After reading the rest of your comment, you should be too. The issue under discussion isn't the safety of the passenger versus road debris, it's the vehicle catching fire after colliding with road debris.

This is a clever mechanism to turn discussion to the armor plating under the vehicle; as both replies to me evidence, it worked.


This is a fair point, and, to be honest, I don't have any idea of whether a standard car may catch fire in a similar circumstance.

Had you been clear from the get go, you might not have been downvoted like you are now.

That being said, even if standard cars wouldn't catch fire, it is not necessarily aggravating for Tesla. The technology is different, and the kind of risk being run differs. This doesn't mean that Tesla cars are inherently safer or more dangerous (we'll need more data to determine this).


>The issue under discussion isn't the safety of the passenger versus road debris, it's the vehicle catching fire after colliding with road debris.

Says who? You? The issue under discussion is the safety of a Tesla versus other cars in similar circumstances. If I was evaluating the relative safety of cars while purchasing a car, a fire after a few minutes of striking a big piece of debris seems to be safer than major damage or loss of control(if that's the case).

Whether an equivalent non-Tesla car would actually be more dangerous is certainly up for debate, but I don't see anything insightful in your post. We can already see the domain name even before clicking on the article and we know this is Tesla publishing the letter so it's likely to be one sided. In fact, the current top comment on HN points it out.

Your comments shouting "PR! misdirection!" add nothing to the discussion. Are you arguing that a non-Tesla car would not catch fire in similar circumstances? Can you share your reasoning?


Is that truly armor?

I can't find what the base plate is made of, but I would be very surprised if it was "armor" as used in military vehicles.

I would guess shielding or impact protection are better, more objective terms to describe it. And yes, it will probably be stronger than in a gasoline car because of the fire risk.


Just because it's not military grade doesn't mean its not "truly armor"; How would you explain armor worn by humans? Is that not armor just because it's not used in military vehicles?


I don't think that is a strong argument. You wouldn't call a car fast/strong/large/etc if it was fast/strong/large/etc relative to a soldier or a ship fast/strong/large/etc if it was fast/strong/large/etc relative to an armored vehicle.


I agree you wouldn't call a car fast/strong/large/etc.. if it was fast/strong/large/etc to soldier and etc... But, you're comparing apples with oranges now.

"Is that truly armor? I can't find what the base plate is made of, but I would be very surprised if it was "armor" as used in military vehicles."

What is "truly armor"? It sounded as if you were saying something could only be called armor if it is X,Y, or Z. But, armor can be pretty much anything given its definition is a protective covering, but there are different strengths of armor. I'm saying a diamond is still a diamond regardless of its grade. Similarly, armor is still armor regardless of its strength.


The batteries are located under the car, and their base plate is more armored than your usual car undercarriage.

edit: floor, floor -> base plate, undercarriage. Thanks grinich for improving my vocabulary.


And you telling me that reminds me that the misdirection works.


If you need a throw away account, maybe that's a sign you just shouldn't say anything?


Right. I shouldn't disagree with the status quo. That's a sign of a healthy community.

I made the throwaway to make a point to a friend of mine regarding HN voting in Tesla threads. It's working, right down to the prediction that I'd be called a troll within 30 minutes.


I'd argue HN is no longer a healthy community. At least, not as healthy as it used to be. Silly stunts like throwaway accounts and being overly concerned with reputation are one reason why.

For what it's worth I have my doubts about the article as well. If the driver didn't have enough time to avoid the object but the truck in front of him did, then it's probably because he was tailgating.

Regardless, please stand behind your words with a real account. It's the right thing to do. It will also help maintain the integrity of the community here. Which sounds like something you're concerned about.


I would be surprised if a truck had so little ground clearance that it would get caught up on a trailer hitch. The lowest part of a truck should generally be the rear differential, which gives a worst-case-scenario ground clearance of just under half the tire size. If the hitch wasn't centered in the middle of the truck, the ground clearance would be almost exactly half the size of the tires. Depending on the truck this could reasonably be a ground clearance of between 18" to 24", more than enough to clear a hitch without needing to swerve. Compare that to what, 5" clearance in the Tesla?

Swerving in a truck would also generally be much more dangerous than just hitting something.


For what it's worth I have my doubts about the article as well. If the driver didn't have enough time to avoid the object but the truck in front of him did, then it's probably because he was tailgating.

At highway speeds, all you need is a second of hesitation to erase a four car-length buffer. It probably takes over a half second to identify the object and determine it's too large to safely drive over.


>>It's working, right down to the prediction that I'd be called a troll within 30 minutes

Making the same argument multiple times in a thread turns this into a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy.


People will probably keep downvoting you until you explain your comment a little more.


I don't understand your point. What is misleading?


Misdirection is distracting from the issue at hand by pointing to something else. It's a magician's trick. If you can't see the driver mentioning that he felt the vehicle saved his life by not letting the tow hitch penetrate the cabin, and the very deliberate placement of that observation written in a blog post published by Tesla in response to the vehicle catching fire after a common collision scenario, then I don't know what else to say.


We crossed ways. See my reply in the other thread.


Troll.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: