Car buyers should have 'long, hard think' about diesel

Status
Not open for further replies.
wuyanxu said:
Your source to disprove this graph? This graph (came from Electrek article you linked, but do note the non-zero axis) claims to be "top 50 vehicles tested by NHTSA", completely opposite of what you are saying.
m3-nhtsa-blog-09272018-1-e1565182103728.jpg



So that's how it is. The industry feels "just above average" safety level is worth a full mark. Making it difficult for the customers to choose safest car available.
Click to expand...
So you are saying the 38 vehicles tested with less than 2.5% more chance of injury are just above average. In that case at what looks like 2.4% difference in the graph, Tesla are also just above average.
 
dod said:
And you do it again :LOL:
Car manufacturers and pricing policy is a black art at best. They're all guilty of misleading customers with dubious sales practices. Tell us something we don't know.
Click to expand...
Car manufacturers are required to display On the Road prices. The exact price including any admin fees, tax, etc. No black art at all. Yet Tesla have been using pricing that accounted for fuel saving in an attempt to pitch it against the cost of ICE cars to make them seem cheaper and giving the impression that would be the price you would pay.
 
wuyanxu said:
Your source to disprove this graph? This graph (came from Electrek article you linked, but do note the non-zero axis) claims to be "top 50 vehicles tested by NHTSA", completely opposite of what you are saying.

So that's how it is. The industry feels "just above average" safety level is worth a full mark. Making it difficult for the customers to choose safest car available.

I feel Tesla, being different again, say their car as "safest tested" is a valid statement, not misleading at all. Just because industry and testing agency doesn't like representing data like this, doesn't mean the information is wrong.
Click to expand...

The graph was produced by Tesla.

I'm going to ignore the industry feels just above average stuff, you are just making made up statements based on zero knowledge.

The NHTSA stated that the statements made by Tesla were misleading and went against the guidelines of the NHTSA and Government.

Now, only the NHTSA and Tesla have the actual data so out of the two who are you going to believe? Bear in mind a cease and desist notice was issued to Tesla as this is not the first time they had breached the guidelines.

The 'Electrek's Take' in the linked to article is an opinion.
 
nilagin said:
Tesla Model 3 being the "safest" car was mentioned in the last couple of weeks. I would classify that as recent.
Tesla have a habit of misrepresentation. As already mentioned they gave the model S a 5.4 safety rating yet the maximum rating is 5. In Germany Tesla were told to stop misrepresentation of the pricing of their vehicles giving an equivalent price to not having to buy petrol/diesel instead of the actual price of the car. Tesla repeated the exact same practice at the beginning of this year and were told to stop again.
I am not discrediting Tesla at all, they are doing a fantastic job of that themselves, even to the point of rewording their original mission statement.
Click to expand...
Tesla does not have a habit of misrepresenting. They have a habit of not doing industry norm and use data to their advantage. None of what they have represented are technically wrong.

Model S is deemed safer than other rated 5 star vehicles, so logically it should receive a rating higher than 5.
Fuel saving is part of ownership, not including this during car decision making is illogical.

Their method of data representation is akin to you saying "I don't burn fuel when braking". Technically it is correct, but there's always more story behind the stats. I thought you knew the in's and out's of this spin technique. ;)

nilagin said:
Car manufacturers are required to display On the Road prices. The exact price including any admin fees, tax, etc. No black art at all. Yet Tesla have been using pricing that accounted for fuel saving in an attempt to pitch it against the cost of ICE cars to make them seem cheaper and giving the impression that would be the price you would pay.
Click to expand...
They have always displayed On the Road price. What are you talking about?

They have also never hidden how the fuel saving is calculated, you can even go in and change your mileage to see your own potential savings.

PaulF said:
The graph was produced by Tesla.

I'm going to ignore the industry feels just above average stuff, you are just making made up statements based on zero knowledge.

The NHTSA stated that the statements made by Tesla were misleading and went against the guidelines of the NHTSA and Government.

Now, only the NHTSA and Tesla have the actual data so out of the two who are you going to believe? Bear in mind a cease and desist notice was issued to Tesla as this is not the first time they had breached the guidelines.
Click to expand...
All NHTSA data can be seen by clicking through to the test report PDF file on their website. You've just proven my point, no one will look at the data beyond the 5 stars.

The guideline is to use star ratings. But how could the customer tell the difference if most cars get 5 stars? We all know engineering is a game of trade-off's. The guidelines are clearly in place to favour the manufacturer that do the least amount of work on safety, at expense of higher potential for injury in an accident. Because why would they spend engineering effort in safety if the car can scrape by and get a 5 star rating?

Are you suggesting because most cars tested get an easily obtainable 5 stars, it is okay to not distinguish between them? Because you have chosen to ignore the statement that points this out. I do have zero knowledge, but you can clearly see the simple logic behind that statement, source of information is from our industry expert.

Why isn't car safety rating more critical like other star ratings? Average should get 3 stars, only the most exceptionally safest cars should get 5 stars.
 
wuyanxu said:
Tesla does not have a habit of misrepresenting. They have a habit of not doing industry norm and use data to their advantage. None of what they have represented are technically wrong.

Model S is deemed safer than other rated 5 star vehicles, so logically it should receive a rating higher than 5.
Fuel saving is part of ownership, not including this during car decision making is illogical.

Their method of data representation is akin to you saying "I don't burn fuel when braking". Technically it is correct, but there's always more story behind the stats. I thought you knew the in's and out's of this spin technique. ;)


They have always displayed On the Road price. What are you talking about?

They have also never hidden how the fuel saving is calculated, you can even go in and change your mileage to see your own potential savings.


All NHTSA data can be seen by clicking through to the test report PDF file on their website. You've just proven my point, no one will look at the data beyond the 5 stars.

The guideline is to use star ratings. But how could the customer tell the difference if most cars get 5 stars? We all know engineering is a game of trade-off's. The guidelines are clearly in place to favour the manufacturer that do the least amount of work on safety, at expense of higher potential for injury in an accident. Because why would they spend engineering effort in safety if the car can scrape by and get a 5 star rating?

Are you suggesting because most cars tested get an easily obtainable 5 stars, it is okay to not distinguish between them? Because you have chosen to ignore the statement that points this out. I do have zero knowledge, but you can clearly see the simple logic behind that statement, source of information is from our industry expert.

Why isn't car safety rating more critical like other star ratings? Average should get 3 stars, only the most exceptionally safest cars should get 5 stars.
Click to expand...
5 is the maximum rating so how can they get a higher rating. You said yourself to get a 5, a car only has to be just above average, well the model S is only 1.5% better than the just above average, so would also be just above average. If there was a 6 star rating the difference would have to be significantly more than just 2.4% to meet a higher rating.
Let's put it this way, you are being paid to do something and there are three ways of doing it, it is piece work, the more you complete the more you get paid. Option 1, you are unlikely to get hurt, but it will take you an hour. Option 2 there is a 2.4% chance you may hurt youself but it will be quicker taking 50 minutes to complete the task or the third option will take. Option 3 will take 30 minutes but you have a 30% chance of hurting yourself. You have a 6 hour day, which option will you chose. Will you pass up on option 2 because there is a 2.4% higher chance of hurting yourself?

Tesla has misrepresented their pricing twice in Germany. They have been told twice now to stop doing it. Unless you are monitoring the German Tesla site, how do you know they didn't do it?
 
wuyanxu said:
We all know engineering is a game of trade-off's. The guidelines are clearly in place to favour the manufacturer that do the least amount of work on safety, at expense of higher potential for injury in an accident. Because why would they spend engineering effort in safety if the car can scrape by and get a 5 star rating?
Click to expand...
Spouting yet more rubbish.
 
nilagin said:
Car manufacturers are required to display On the Road prices. The exact price including any admin fees, tax, etc. No black art at all. Yet Tesla have been using pricing that accounted for fuel saving in an attempt to pitch it against the cost of ICE cars to make them seem cheaper and giving the impression that would be the price you would pay.
Click to expand...
And they confuse that with dodgy trade in deals, sales that aren't, making hidden money on the finance, misleading PCP deals etc etc etc. Yet all you do is say "Tesla bad". They may well be, that doesn't clear the others. Everyone knows how bad car industry is, but feel free to defend the following from Parkers

https://www.parkers.co.uk/car-advice/salesmans-tricks-you-need-to-avoid/


PaulF said:
The graph was produced by Tesla.

I'm going to ignore the industry feels just above average stuff, you are just making made up statements based on zero knowledge.

The NHTSA stated that the statements made by Tesla were misleading and went against the guidelines of the NHTSA and Government.

Now, only the NHTSA and Tesla have the actual data so out of the two who are you going to believe? Bear in mind a cease and desist notice was issued to Tesla as this is not the first time they had breached the guidelines.

The 'Electrek's Take' in the linked to article is an opinion.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that's quite right reading the letter.
This appears to centre around the fact that the information has not been used in accordance with the Advertising and Communication guidelines. They have referred Tesla to the appropriate authorities to consider whether or not it actually is deceptive or misleading. In other words, at this stage not proven (unless there has been a finding published that isn't referenced?) . Additionally, they also acknowledge in their press release that it is a 5 star system. They're only claiming that the actual score based on the results they got was the equivalent of 5.4, it's very clever.

But all that doesn't change the fact that it scored well in all areas. The rest is interpretation of how those results are presented. I've never seen a marketing campaign yet I'd say was 100% "honest", there's always a spin.
 
nilagin said:
Tesla has misrepresented their pricing twice in Germany. They have been told twice now to stop doing it. Unless you are monitoring the German Tesla site, how do you know they didn't do it?
Click to expand...
Your source on this? Have you been monitoring German Tesla site?

I've spec'd up cars both on US and UK Tesla sites. They always display the price you will have to pay. Fuel saving used to be displayed by default, you have to click a toggle to display OTR purchase price. But the "with fuel saving" wording was highly visible right next to the price. IIRC there was a period where both prices were displayed next to eachother, "with fuel saving" were slightly larger. Perhaps the 2 changes were in response to the 2 incidents you are referring to.

But your assertion is wrong. They have always displayed the price you will have to pay.

nilagin said:
Spouting yet more rubbish.
Click to expand...
You accuse me of spouting rubbish. Yet, you don't deny it.
Would there be significant engineering efforts to make the car safer, if the car can scrape by with a 5 star rating? No, I don't believe bean counters will authorise this.
(disclaimer, I have no car industry insider knowledge. The above belief is deduced from my engineering experience and managerial attitude towards a better engineered product)
 
Last edited:
wuyanxu said:
All NHTSA data can be seen by clicking through to the test report PDF file on their website. You've just proven my point, no one will look at the data beyond the 5 stars.

The guideline is to use star ratings. But how could the customer tell the difference if most cars get 5 stars? We all know engineering is a game of trade-off's. The guidelines are clearly in place to favour the manufacturer that do the least amount of work on safety, at expense of higher potential for injury in an accident. Because why would they spend engineering effort in safety if the car can scrape by and get a 5 star rating?

Are you suggesting because most cars tested get an easily obtainable 5 stars, it is okay to not distinguish between them? Because you have chosen to ignore the statement that points this out. I do have zero knowledge, but you can clearly see the simple logic behind that statement, source of information is from our industry expert.

Why isn't car safety rating more critical like other star ratings? Average should get 3 stars, only the most exceptionally safest cars should get 5 stars.
Click to expand...

Ok, I have a completely different view to you regarding the rating system and the amount of work/effort that goes into achieving a given rating by the manufacturers.
Firstly, I don't believe the "guidelines are clearly in place to favour the manufacturer that do the least amount of work on safety". Do you not have any type of standards in the industry you work in? Are those standards set so the business's within the industry have an easier ride and can make more money? I'd guess yes to the first and no to the second.

Onto the NHTSA safety ratings. The system is based on a set safety standard per 'star' in basic terms, this does not change. If most cars currently produced meet only the 4 star rating the rating scale is not then reduced so everyone can get a 5 star rating.
Would you consider that the majority of modern car manufacturers have increased the level of safety in their vehicles over the last decade, multiple air bags, pedestrian friendly bumpers/bonnet, emergency brake systems, early warning systems etc etc and therefore the majority of new cars would meet the highest safety standard on the range.

Now, there may be a discussion around whether the 5 star system used could be extended to incorporate a higher safety level range with vehicles taking into account manufacturers advancements but that is not the point, nor is it down to Tesla to make that change on there own.

Personally I'd say the Tesla's are as safe as any other modern car from a reputable manufacturer, you may have a slightly higher chance of getting away without any injury in certain circumstances, you also have a higher chance that in a Tesla it may just crash on it's own :)
 
Fair enough, and well put.

I, on the other hand, felt star rated standards are misleading. Star rating tend to say how good something is, like rating for films. So I'd expect 5 stars to be exceptionally good and only a few should get awarded this high appraisal.

We design to many standards, A to D for example. A being highest standard and D is lowest. If we aim for B standard, then we will aim to do the minimum required to achieve B. So I felt the star rating is the same thing, and there is a missing extra star to award the safest car. This is perhaps the reason why Tesla felt the need to disregard the guidelines.
 
Last edited:
wuyanxu said:
Your source on this? Have you been monitoring German Tesla site?

I've spec'd up cars both on US and UK Tesla sites. They always display the price you will have to pay. Fuel saving used to be displayed by default, you have to click a toggle to display OTR purchase price. But the "with fuel saving" wording was highly visible right next to the price. IIRC there was a period where both prices were displayed next to eachother, "with fuel saving" were slightly larger. Perhaps the 2 changes were in response to the 2 incidents you are referring to.

But your assertion is wrong. They have always displayed the price you will have to pay.


You accuse me of spouting rubbish. Yet, you don't deny it.
Would there be significant engineering efforts to make the car safer, if the car can scrape by with a 5 star rating? No, I don't believe bean counters will authorise this.
(disclaimer, I have no car industry insider knowledge. The above belief is deduced from my engineering experience and managerial attitude towards a better engineered product)
Click to expand...
The article where Tesla were pulled up about price representation was at the beginning of the year, I daresay I linked it into a post at the time.
This article says the NHTSA have stated that whilst the Tesla achieved a 5 star rating, as other cars have done there is no way of interpretting that one 5 star rated car is actually safer than another 5 star rated car.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....ansparency-after-crash-subpoena-revealed/amp/
To achieve a 5 star rating the car has to reach a certain percentage in various tests.
Tesla 3 NCAP results,
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/tesla/model-3/37573
BMW 3 Series NCAP results
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/bmw/3-series/10914
The Tesla doesn't rate so well for pedestrians, yet it was still awarded 5 stars.
Of course I deny it. I have worked on car press tooling for over 30 years I have seen the improvements in car safety cells year in year out, manufacturers are constantly looking for new ways to improve safety.
 
wuyanxu said:
Fair enough, and well put.

I, on the other hand, felt star rated standards are misleading. Star rating tend to say how good something is, like rating for films. So I'd expect 5 stars to be exceptionally good and only a few should get awarded this high appraisal.

We design to many standards, A to D for example. A being highest standard and D is lowest. If we aim for B standard, then we will aim to do the minimum required to achieve B. So I felt the star rating is the same thing, and there is a missing extra star to award the safest car. This is perhaps the reason why Tesla felt the need to disregard the guidelines.
Click to expand...
The star ratings are self explanatory. Just like exam results, if you achieve 90% and above, you get an A, achieve 80% -89% you get a B and so on. You don't invent your own classification just because you got 100%.
A high number of cars getting a 5 star rating means they have got a 5 star rating. It doesn't mean the bar has been set low just so cars can get a 5 star rating.
 
dod said:
And they confuse that with dodgy trade in deals, sales that aren't, making hidden money on the finance, misleading PCP deals etc etc etc. Yet all you do is say "Tesla bad". They may well be, that doesn't clear the others. Everyone knows how bad car industry is, but feel free to defend the following from Parkers

https://www.parkers.co.uk/car-advice/salesmans-tricks-you-need-to-avoid/
Click to expand...
Most of that relates to buying used cars not new.
It also relates to people who just want to buy a car, not a specific car. A person like that is any salesman's dream because the customer doesn't have a clue what they want. A salesmans base wage isn't too great and improved with bonuses from sales. Why would they pass up the chance of earning themselves a few extra quid on a sale, it could be the only sale they get that week.
Whenever I have financed a car, I have never had a problem understanding the finance. It clearly states the size of the deposit, the monthly payment, the term of the loan, maximum annual mileage if a pcp deal, admin fees, settlement figure, rate per mile if the mileage is exceeded. How much you will be borrowing, how much interest you will pay. Nothing is ever hidden.
Anyone without a rough idea of the trade in value of their car is a fool, there are plenty of tools on the internet to get a rough idea of how much you could get for your car. Ford even have a valuation search on their website. I used it to get an idea of how much I would get for my previous car as a trade in on my current car, I also got a valuation from We buy any car. The latter was around £500 less than the Ford valuation as they are usually quite low. On trade I got £200 less than the Ford valuation as an online valuation can't fully account for condition and as the bonnet had several stone chips letting it down, so £200 less was actually a very good offer. If anything doesn't ring true, I just walk away and buy the car I want elsewhere.
I have only dealt with 2 salesmen who have had to keep consulting the sales manager. The last one was a new salesman and needed guidance. The car I was buying was already £1-2k less than the price other same spec cars were selling for. They gave me exactly what I wanted on my trade in, knocked £500 off what was already an under priced car and paid for a years gap insurance on it. I didn't even have to haggle. The other occasions where the sales manager had to be consulted, after the 2nd time on each sale the salesman having to talk to the manager, I just left and went to another dealership. If they are using tricks, you can see them a mile off, only a fool would fall for them. If you don't know enough about cars, take someone who does and they will see the tricks coming.
 
nilagin said:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....esla-german-regulators-drop-gas-savings-price
Not the article I saw earlier in the year but still shows Tesla were guilty of showing wrong pricing as I stated. The article that I read earlier in the year that this was the second time the German regulators had told Tesla to stop promoting these prices instead of the actual full prices.
Click to expand...
If you actually read the article:
These adjusted prices show up next to the pictures of the company’s cars, while the actual sticker price is found at the bottom of the order page. The German association, also known as Wettbewerbszentrale, didn’t like this.
Click to expand...
As I have said, they have always showed the price customer will have to pay. You were outright wrong here
nilagin said:
In Germany Tesla were told to stop misrepresentation of the pricing of their vehicles giving an equivalent price to not having to buy petrol/diesel instead of the actual price of the car.
Click to expand...



nilagin said:
The star ratings are self explanatory. Just like exam results, if you achieve 90% and above, you get an A, achieve 80% -89% you get a B and so on. You don't invent your own classification just because you got 100%.
A high number of cars getting a 5 star rating means they have got a 5 star rating. It doesn't mean the bar has been set low just so cars can get a 5 star rating.
Click to expand...
Using your analogy, if vast majority of students are getting A grades, then this usually suggests the test is too easy.

nilagin said:
I have worked on car press tooling for over 30 years I have seen the improvements in car safety cells year in year out, manufacturers are constantly looking for new ways to improve safety.
Click to expand...
These tests are constantly evolving, so must the cars. What you've said is just a case of manufacturers keeping up with the trend.
Working on press tooling is quite a bit different to designing the metal structure and modelling deformation in CAD. The latter is where engineering decisions are made, for example, to save weight or make the material stronger.
 
wuyanxu said:
Using your analogy, if vast majority of students are getting A grades, then this usually suggests the test is too easy.
Click to expand...
That's a strange conclusion to jump to without evidence.
 
Last edited:
wuyanxu said:
If you actually read the article:

As I have said, they have always showed the price customer will have to pay. You were outright wrong here





Using your analogy, if vast majority of students are getting A grades, then this usually suggests the test is too easy.


These tests are constantly evolving, so must the cars. What you've said is just a case of manufacturers keeping up with the trend.
Working on press tooling is quite a bit different to designing the metal structure and modelling deformation in CAD. The latter is where engineering decisions are made, for example, to save weight or make the material stronger.
Click to expand...
If I am totally wrong, why were Tesla told twice to cease puttin the wrong prices next to the pictures of the cars and hiding the real price further down the page?
You are talking s***

The fact that the majority of manufacturers can achieve a 5 star rating isn't because the standard is low, it is because they put the work in to get a 5 star rating. If a manufacturer is doing better than others in a particular area of the tests, they will buy such a car tear it apart, see how it differs from their own and why it performs better and use this ideas to improve on their own vehicles.
Just because in your industry it is acceptable to scrape through with a B, it doesn't mean other industries follow the same thinking.

So now you are an expert on designing car structures and panels in CAD and press toolmaking. Yet again you are talking s***. Unless you have any idea about press toolmaking, a CAD designer won't have a clue if it is even possible to make the panel in the first place. You have to know how metal flows, how it stretches, what can be done to prevent it from thinning out too much, even after a panel is designed, they have simulator software to see how a panel will turn out, but it isn't fool proof, I have proved countless times that the panel can't be made without reengineering and it was my job to come up with solutions in the presses. I have even produced better panels than the simulations showed and what the engineers had been willing to accept.
 
Interesting article

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48956000

Now that might make me think about an electric car, forget they are "cheaper" to run (overall, if in fact true) but they are FUN to drive, now there's an argument we can all get behind.
 
nilagin said:
If I am totally wrong, why were Tesla told twice to cease puttin the wrong prices next to the pictures of the cars and hiding the real price further down the page?
You are talking s***

The fact that the majority of manufacturers can achieve a 5 star rating isn't because the standard is low, it is because they put the work in to get a 5 star rating. If a manufacturer is doing better than others in a particular area of the tests, they will buy such a car tear it apart, see how it differs from their own and why it performs better and use this ideas to improve on their own vehicles.
Just because in your industry it is acceptable to scrape through with a B, it doesn't mean other industries follow the same thinking.

So now you are an expert on designing car structures and panels in CAD and press toolmaking. Yet again you are talking s***. Unless you have any idea about press toolmaking, a CAD designer won't have a clue if it is even possible to make the panel in the first place. You have to know how metal flows, how it stretches, what can be done to prevent it from thinning out too much, even after a panel is designed, they have simulator software to see how a panel will turn out, but it isn't fool proof, I have proved countless times that the panel can't be made without reengineering and it was my job to come up with solutions in the presses. I have even produced better panels than the simulations showed and what the engineers had been willing to accept.
Click to expand...


Why have you got such a 'beef' against Tesla?
 
Because they have new ideas and his employers (Ford) haven't ever had one...
 
Nod said:
Because they have new ideas and his employers (Ford) haven't ever had one...
Click to expand...
What new ideas have Tesla had that aren't based on anything used before?
Ford invented the moving production line, where would car production or lots of other production be with out that? Heated front windscreen.
 
DK602 said:
Why have you got such a 'beef' against Tesla?
Click to expand...
Nothing. Just pointing out the glaringly obvious reasons of why they aren't as great as some people like to believe.
 
nilagin said:
What new ideas have Tesla had that aren't based on anything used before?
Ford invented the moving production line, where would car production or lots of other production be with out that? Heated front windscreen.
Click to expand...


No. Ford adapted the idea of a moving production line to cars (and Olds started at about the same time.) Heated front windscreen, I'll give you. ONE idea in 100 or so years...
 
nilagin said:
What new ideas have Tesla had that aren't based on anything used before?
Ford invented the moving production line, where would car production or lots of other production be with out that? Heated front windscreen.
Click to expand...

While I love my heated front windscreen on icey days, surely it's just an improvement on the heating system on rear windscreens, just embedded in the glass, so it's still based on something that was already in use?
 
MatBin said:
That's a strange conclusion to jump to without evidence.
Click to expand...
It's fairly common. School exam results are a good example where the grades are adjusted according to the scores being achieved.

Beyond that it's fairly easy to see that if I set standards X years ago which assign a score based on a set of criteria most manufacturers will strive to meet those criteria. Over time those criteria are exceeded by advances in technology and engineering so the scoring system actually becomes outdated. i.e. every car, even "poor" ones (relative to current technology) , score an A.
 
Last edited:
Nod said:
No. Ford adapted the idea of a moving production line to cars (and Olds started at about the same time.) Heated front windscreen, I'll give you. ONE idea in 100 or so years...
Click to expand...
Inflatable (airbag) seatbelts.
SQUID Superconducting Quantum Interference Device - used to measure extremely subtle magnetic fields.
First manufacturer to start fitting safety glass windscreen.
Not an idea as such, but the Model T was the first affordable car attributed to mobilising the masses. (Tesla's original mission statement was to build an affordable EV to mobilise the masses. At around £10k over the average price of a new car in the UK, we are still waiting on it, the fact that the mission statement has been changed and no longer mentions it, sort of confirms that isn't going to happen).
 
Last edited:
KitsuneAndy said:
While I love my heated front windscreen on icey days, surely it's just an improvement on the heating system on rear windscreens, just embedded in the glass, so it's still based on something that was already in use?
Click to expand...
No one else thought to incorporate it into the front screen though.
 
nilagin said:
If I am totally wrong, why were Tesla told twice to cease puttin the wrong prices next to the pictures of the cars and hiding the real price further down the page?
You are talking s***
Click to expand...
Despite presented with clear evidence (this post), from the source you've provided. You still insist I am talking rubbish and you are right. Proving you not only cannot read, you also lack the ability to be humble.

In this quoted post, you are also attempting to twist your original words, so it is in line with the article.

Is there anything you won't do to throw dirt on Tesla?

MatBin said:
That's a strange conclusion to jump to without evidence.
Click to expand...
My university used to do this. Because exams were set by professors, sometimes the exam results may lean to one side. The grade you get from the exam will be a normalised result relative to everyone else.
Same story in GCSE or A-levels. Too many high grades devalue the grading system. For example: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/educati...nts-gaining-A-grades-top-examiner-admits.html

I'm not saying car rating system should work like this, obviously engineered products are completely different to pupils. I'm just pointing out possible reason why Tesla may have chosen to publish data the public don't usually see, because their cars scored higher, yet there's no higher rating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dod
wuyanxu said:
Despite presented with clear evidence (this post), from the source you've provided. You still insist I am talking rubbish and you are right. Proving you not only cannot read, you also lack the ability to be humble.

In this quoted post, you are also attempting to twist your original words, so it is in line with the article.

Is there anything you won't do to throw dirt on Tesla?


My university used to do this. Because exams were set by professors, sometimes the exam results may lean to one side. The grade you get from the exam will be a normalised result relative to everyone else.
Same story in GCSE or A-levels. Too many high grades devalue the grading system. For example: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/educati...nts-gaining-A-grades-top-examiner-admits.html

I'm not saying car rating system should work like this, obviously engineered products are completely different to pupils. I'm just pointing out possible reason why Tesla may have chosen to publish data the public don't usually see, because their cars scored higher, yet there's no higher rating.
Click to expand...
You really are an idiot. Tesla were told to stop placing fake prices next to the cars. Tesla were deliberately misrepresenting the price. The practice is to display the real price in plain view and then display their fake price further down the page, not the other way round as Tesla were doing. I can read very well thank you and also comprehend. You are seriously lacking in both skills. I can only assume the qualifications to become a chartered engineer can be acheived by collecting vouchers off the back of packets of cereal.
 
dod said:
Beyond that it's fairly easy to see that if I set standards X years ago which assign a score based on a set of criteria most manufacturers will strive to meet those criteria. Over time those criteria are exceeded by advances in technology and engineering so the scoring system actually becomes outdated. i.e. every car, even "poor" ones (relative to current technology) , score an A.
Click to expand...
That isn't the case.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...DxAK&usg=AOvVaw2QghsCjqOi5aHcb4FMw4i_&ampcf=1
 
nilagin said:
Nothing. Just pointing out the glaringly obvious reasons of why they aren't as great as some people like to believe.
Click to expand...

Ok - tomorrow I'm going to buy an EV - tell me which Ford I should buy and why is it superior to a Tesla?
 
DK602 said:
Ok - tomorrow I'm going to buy an EV - tell me which Ford I should buy and why is it superior to a Tesla?
Click to expand...
Ford GT, sounds alot better and it will be an appreciating asset.
If you want an EV though I would buy one that doesn't shorten it's range when you do a software update, unless you want to join the unhappy Tesla owners of course.
 
Last edited:
As a long time Mustang/Shelby fan -

"shut up and take my money!" if only money was no object

EV Mustang by brit start up company "Charge Cars"
Electric-Ford-Mustang-1960-Classic-1000x600.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
nilagin said:
Ford GT, sounds alot better and it will be an appreciating asset.
If you want an EV though I would buy one that doesn't shorten it's range when you do a software update, unless you want to join the unhappy Tesla owners of course.
Click to expand...
....but that doesn't answer the question I asked you! What EV built by Ford should I buy and why is it better than a Tesla?
 
nilagin said:
Ford GT, sounds alot better and it will be an appreciating asset.
If you want an EV though I would buy one that doesn't shorten it's range when you do a software update, unless you want to join the unhappy Tesla owners of course.
Click to expand...

After some research this indicates that when new the range was approx 260 miles on a 100% charge and is now 220 miles after 130,000 miles - that is hardly a devestating drop after a software upgrade!

I would suspect that an ICE car doesn't do the same mpg after 131,000 miles?

This all shows you are clearly envious of another manufacturer who is well ahead of the game than the company who employs you.

P.S. I am a big Ford fan and own a Ford GT; I also own a Superformance GT40 recreation with a Roush 427 engine. (y)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top