3 ms·

I am not trying to say you are wrong but some examples would be nice

by 3825 13y ago

protomyth 13y ago
Not the gp, but their unprofessional, pre-biased behavior around the Suzuki Samurai. Not quite as bad as NBC strapping a model rocket engine to a GMC Truck fuel tank, but they wanted a result before testing.
- Amadou 13y ago
  Wikipedia summary of the Suzuki testing is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzuki_v._Consumers_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzuki_v._Consumers_Union One piece of missing context is whether the rate of rollover injuries is higher than average for the small-suv market segment. Following the link to the original source for those numbers reveals a lot more about suzuki and GM internal memos (but nothing about whether or not the rates of injury are out of the ordinary). http://www.theautochannel.com/news/press/date/19970422/press001971.html http://www.theautochannel.com/news/press/date/19970422/press...
  - protomyth 13y ago
    You probably should read the talk page to get the info on the video that they argue over sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Suzuki_v._Consumers_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Suzuki_v._Consumers_Union Also, quoting a CU press release is a bit much. Every car built has memos that talk about safety. I would bet Tesla probably would not want some internal memos and e-mail revealed because it will be taken out of context. CU's own statement from the settlement had the quote ""never intended to state or imply that the Samurai easily rolls over in routine driving conditions". The video of Consumer Reports testing and the driver logs discovered in the lawsuit proves they did it wrong and had something to prove. They tested 4 SUVs that day and the Suzuki performed the best, but was the one singled out. Basically, CU has an agenda.
    - Amadou 13y ago
      You probably should read the talk page to get the info on the video that they argue over source Full length version of the suzuki produced video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2Bv9WL3vpY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2Bv9WL3vpY Basically, CU has an agenda. Worst case, CU had an agenda in this specific case. CU does not have a history of bias on anything even approaching a regular basis. Given the disproportionate amount of money available to CU versus what most big manufacturing corporations have available for litigation if CU did have an agenda of untruthfulness, it would have been sued into oblivion long ago.
      - protomyth 13y ago
        "Worst case, CU had an agenda in this specific case." Given all the extra testing to make it fail, they had an agenda. People with agenda's don't stop with one thing, and most auto manufactures will let is slide due to the difficulty of suing the press. It was so blatant in the Suzuki case that they went for it. CU is pretty useless for testing autos. Heck, they did their oil test wrong (cabs - 24x7 so the oil was hot) ignoring the more dangerous times for oil (cold starts). It sounded good and I guess that's what counts.

I am not trying to say you are wrong but some examples would be nice

by 3825 13y ago

I am not trying to say you are wrong but some examples would be nice

Not the gp, but their unprofessional, pre-biased behavior around the Suzuki Samurai. Not quite as bad as NBC strapping a model rocket engine to a GMC Truck fuel tank, but they wanted a result before testing.

Amadou 13y ago
Wikipedia summary of the Suzuki testing is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzuki_v._Consumers_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzuki_v._Consumers_Union One piece of missing context is whether the rate of rollover injuries is higher than average for the small-suv market segment. Following the link to the original source for those numbers reveals a lot more about suzuki and GM internal memos (but nothing about whether or not the rates of injury are out of the ordinary). http://www.theautochannel.com/news/press/date/19970422/press001971.html http://www.theautochannel.com/news/press/date/19970422/press...
- protomyth 13y ago
  You probably should read the talk page to get the info on the video that they argue over sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Suzuki_v._Consumers_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Suzuki_v._Consumers_Union Also, quoting a CU press release is a bit much. Every car built has memos that talk about safety. I would bet Tesla probably would not want some internal memos and e-mail revealed because it will be taken out of context. CU's own statement from the settlement had the quote ""never intended to state or imply that the Samurai easily rolls over in routine driving conditions". The video of Consumer Reports testing and the driver logs discovered in the lawsuit proves they did it wrong and had something to prove. They tested 4 SUVs that day and the Suzuki performed the best, but was the one singled out. Basically, CU has an agenda.
  - Amadou 13y ago
    You probably should read the talk page to get the info on the video that they argue over source Full length version of the suzuki produced video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2Bv9WL3vpY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2Bv9WL3vpY Basically, CU has an agenda. Worst case, CU had an agenda in this specific case. CU does not have a history of bias on anything even approaching a regular basis. Given the disproportionate amount of money available to CU versus what most big manufacturing corporations have available for litigation if CU did have an agenda of untruthfulness, it would have been sued into oblivion long ago.
    - protomyth 13y ago
      "Worst case, CU had an agenda in this specific case." Given all the extra testing to make it fail, they had an agenda. People with agenda's don't stop with one thing, and most auto manufactures will let is slide due to the difficulty of suing the press. It was so blatant in the Suzuki case that they went for it. CU is pretty useless for testing autos. Heck, they did their oil test wrong (cabs - 24x7 so the oil was hot) ignoring the more dangerous times for oil (cold starts). It sounded good and I guess that's what counts.