3 ms·
On a US$ 60-100k product it's absolutely a slap on the face, no questions, there's absolutely no reason to cheap out on a fastener for the pedal trim. Also put
by piva00 3y ago
On a US$ 60-100k product it's absolutely a slap on the face, no questions, there's absolutely no reason to cheap out on a fastener for the pedal trim.
Also puts in question what is actually happening on Tesla's engineering org, one just needs to have a moderate amount of reasoning power to think about the scenario "what happens in case this piece gets loose?" on a critical feature of a car, not even an engineering-related study nor a big brain, it's just a reasonable thought to have, so how could this piece pass all the engineering process review?
- diydsp 3y agoPersonally I think it should be, according to traditional (pre-y2k) values. But in a society of the spectacle, people find their meaning in relation to the larger show. Just listen to the satisfaction in the voice of the video above: He feels good because he was able to rectify the situation. He was also able to relate to a larger audience because of it. The Tesla's failure gave him meaning. Now other people will want to be like him and buy a cybertruck and find and fix issues and demonstrate them to a global audience...
- marcosdumay 3y agoI dunno. But my impression is that thing is way too expensive to buy as a hacker toy.
- Der_Einzige 3y ago"Among the many commentaries on Debord's demise, one scholar noted: "Guy Debord did not kill himself. He was murdered by the thoughtlessness and selfishness of so-called scholars (primarily trendy lit-criters) who colonized his brilliant ideas and transformed his radical politics into an academic status symbol not worth the pulp it's printed on…""
- matthewdgreen 3y agoWhat's happening in their engineering org is obvious: pressure is being applied to trim every unnecessary cost, even tiny ones, to maximize profit margin. And this pressure is clearly coming from the top. We've seen evidence of this from a number of high-profile changes that can't have escaped the notice of executive management: (1) the elimination of the radome, (2) the removal of sonar for parking, (3) the removal of turn signal and shifter stalks. What's different in this case is that now these penny-ante cost savings have reached safety-critical components.
- antonkochubey 3y agoI'd argue that physical stalks for windshield wipers and turn signals are also safety-critical.
- canadianfella 3y ago[dead]
- Terr_ 3y ago> (3) the removal of turn signal and shifter stalks. I remember reading about the removal of the turn-signal stalk, (moving it to buttons on the steering wheel itself) and IMO it's just bonkers. How the heck is someone already in some squiggly turns or a roundabout supposed to identify and touch the correct spot without taking their eyes off the twisting road or compromising their grip on the wheel that wants to return to the neutral position?
- Tempest1981 3y agoWe've heard for years that this is also the case at all US auto manufacturers. That they're run by accountants, not enthusiasts.
- organsnyder 3y agoMost accountants understand the financial implications of selling products with egregious safety issues.
- eep_social 3y agoindeed: “.. should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.”
- nebula8804 3y ago>(1) the elimination of the radome, (2) the removal of sonar for parking, (3) the removal of turn signal and shifter stalks Alternative explanation of this is if they have a vision to move users to a self driving future, it makes sense to start slowly transitioning users by eliminating things that don't make sense in that paradigm. If you can save some cost then its a bonus. (Their cars supposedly get ~30% margins so idk if cost was even really a primary rather than a secondary consideration).