Hacker News Reader

Comment by Cthulhu_ | Hacker News Reader

And yet, I can't help but feel they're being very, very defensive over it. I can't blame them, of course, given how something trivial like a car fire (trivial given the average frequency of them) is turned into a national news event.

At the same time, Tesla's attention to quality and perfection and what-have-you will end up in them being heavily scrutinised. It's not that different from Apple in that respect; random mp3 player breaks, no problem. iPod breaks and the torches and pitchforks come into view.

View on HN

Tesla is very, very defensive over this. This hasn't been stated explicitly, but it is very clear if you read between the lines of their PR initiatives.

According to statements from the company, the media coverage after the fires last year caused a sharp decline in the rate of Model S reservations. It has since recovered, but after these events Tesla started viewing poor public perception as an existential threat. The reasoning is that new and unfamiliar technology (battery propulsion) is scrutinized very, very closely and held to a much higher standard than the status quo. This is evident from the ridiculous headlines every time a Model S is involved in a fire. (Garage fires, house fires from unrelated accidents and the two floorpan fires + the high-speed crash referenced in the article). Poor public perception equals lower sales to an already skeptical public, and perhaps the second demise of the electric car.

A different strategy than the one Tesla is pursuing, would be to not change anything and just repeat the (correct) message that their electric cars are statistically much less likely to catch fire than a gasoline automobile. But this leaves them wide-open to PR attacks from skeptics and the established auto industry the next time an inevitable fire occurs. It's already been firmly established that there is a big PR machinery which will jump on any opportunity to call Tesla's technology into question - and there will be plenty of competition from the incumbent manufacturers. They're playing it safe.

(Tl;dr: Yes.)

They're being responsive, not aggressive or defensive. If someone makes false accusations or in a blown out of proportion way, do you just take it and not react? I know how I feel when I let someone walk over me or is being a bully.

Man are we going to have a difficult time with self-driving cars.

Headline: Is a society where 33% don't believe in evolution and don't understand video aspect ratios ready for computer-driven cars? What Betteridge's law tells you may shock you!

> given how something trivial like a car fire (trivial given the average frequency of them) is turned into a national news event.

This is how media bias works. They take something trivial like a car fire and make it the most important news item of the day. People start to think it's happening everywhere. There are billions of "newsworthy" things happening all the time. The selection of stories and insinuation layered on top of them by the news media can easily drive agendas and influence the public.

Also don't forget the usual thing: News, by definition is stuff that happens rarely (and thus is note- or newsworthy). So in turn it's rarely something that we need to worry about.

Edit: I see, someone else has quoted Schneier exactly on that already: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7487144

I'm surprised no journalists are taking the advantage of the views they will get by writing the opposite story. i.e. write about how many fires per vehicles capita in cars from other manufacturers vs tesla.

I personally would love to see normalized fire figures for other manufacturers like Ford, Chevrolet, Honda, etc.

Yep, people rarely realize this when they talk about media bias but it's a major element of influence. No matter how "balanced" a report is within itself (rarely actually balanced), if all you hear is stories about the IRS targeting specific political groups and the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi (conservative stations) or anecdotes about how much money Obamacare is saving people and how many local government programs are underfunded (liberal stations), you're going to walk away with a skewed perspective. The choice of stories and tone will tell you everything about a media organization's biases.

Yeah, it's unfortunate. I actually had to explain the reality of the Tesla car fires to my mother (who is usually very good at seeing through media bias). She was under the impression that the Tesla fires were actually indicative of the car being less safe than normal cars...

>It's not that different from Apple in that respect; random mp3 player breaks, no problem. iPod breaks and the torches and pitchforks come into view.

Considering that a "random mp3 player" costs $6 on Amazon and that an Apple iPod costs over $200, I'd say people are totally justified to get upset. They spent the extra money expecting a product whose quality matched its price.

I'd say this is true of cars as well. When your used Ford Escort breaks down, you're hardly going to be surprised. When your exceedingly expensive Tesla breaks down and/or catches fire, you're going to be a tad upset.

That said, I'd say people lose all rights to be upset when they are the cause of the malfunction. You can't be too upset at a broken iPod after you drop it down a flight of stairs, and you can't be too upset at your Tesla catching fire after you ran it into a tree at 110 MPH. (I'm not saying the Tesla driver was upset mind you- I think all the Tesla hate is just coming from frightened car manufactures and the media.)

> I'd say this is true of cars as well. When your used Ford Escort breaks down, you're hardly going to be surprised. When your exceedingly expensive Tesla breaks down and/or catches fire, you're going to be a tad upset.

Actually the doctor who owned one of the Tesla cars that caught fire said the car saved his life. He was happy to have been in a Tesla and was going to buy another one (before Musk actually gave him a replacement).

Teslas aren't exceedingly expensive. They're not cheap, but they're not iPod vs Amazon MP3 expensive.

Compared to what? A Tesla isn't anywhere near my price range (and I drive a C-class).

My Infiniti payment is something like ~$550/month. To go to a Model S would only cost me ~$800 more per month, which is 5 hours of my time from a billable perspective.

Yes, the payment is higher, but I'd have no fuel expenses (currently ~$350/month), so technically its only $450 more a month (3 hours of my time).

If you went with the 60 kWh Model S, your payment would only go up $130, INCLUDING gas. If you're spending $350 a month in gas, you'd actually save money over your Infinity.

http://www.teslamotors.com/true-cost-of-ownership

Think you just sold me on one. Well done :)

I'm not worried about going with the smaller pack; it only takes 90 seconds to swap it with a new, higher capacity pack down the road.

That just indicates that you make enough money to buy a more expensive car, not that the Tesla is not significantly more expensive (i.e., about double what you are paying).

That's entirely fair. I didn't look at it that way.

What do we consider affordable? I haven't had the time to do this, but you could take US Census data (average/median income per zip code), derive a formula for percentrage of income someone can spend on transportation, and thereby determine what affordable is.

A Model S is definitely a luxury item at this time; on the other hand, if it was self-driving, and could roll into bays to recharge all in software, with access being on-demand (Uber, with no drivers), they wouldn't be expensive. It would be the same as a company buying airplanes and selling seats on said expensive aircraft.

Maybe we're looking at Tesla wrong. They're not selling luxury cars; they're bootstrapping a mobility company by selling to the wealthy.

Maybe we're looking at Tesla wrong. They're not selling luxury cars; they're bootstrapping a mobility company by selling to the wealthy.

I would agree with this statement 100%.

It's the best strategy also because it makes sense to them to produce a car that has a controlled demand, since they're essentially limited by battery production. It also showcases the quality of the brand, associating it with reliability and luxury -- and it's a sedan, which has a smaller power requirement than other luxurious classes.

> and it's a sedan, which has a smaller power requirement than other luxurious classes.

Model S vs the new Corvette Stingray

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VOqW...

If you need more power than that, you might as well bolt a turbine engine on your car.

That is actually what Elon Musk has explicitly said: http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/secret-tesla-motors-master-p...

"1. Build sports car

2. Use that money to build an affordable car

3. Use that money to build an even more affordable car"

Yes, but you're assuming those affordable cars are for purchase. If Elon can make them self-driving, you get the benefit of never having all the expenses that go with vehicle ownership, and he makes the spread between an expensive electric transportation appliance and people paying dirt cheap rates to get from A->B (because electric is so much cheaper per mile than petroleum).

What? I'm not assuming anything. All I did was post a link to Elon Musk's own words.

So at 3 hours per month you are talking about 36 hours per year or three to four days of holiday (depending on the length of your work day).

That sounds significant to me. It might be worth it but there are other ways to spend that time and money.

We each value our time differently. 3 hours per month is more than acceptable to me.

They're being defensive because a few fires crushed the stock price (irrationally), evaporating a ton of money. These headlines matter.

Those fires were the best thing to ever happen to my stock portfolio, knowing the real story behind the fires almost felt like insider trading

>crushed the stock price (irrationally)

The high valuation of this company is equally irrational. It's a massive speculative play, so there's a load of volatility.

Plane goes missing and it's the top story of every news cast. It's sad but there are so many other issues in the world right now that outweigh a missing plane. The news can sell that plane though.

>It's sad but there are so many other issues in the world right now that outweigh a missing plan

A plane? How about a plane with 200+ innocent, unsuspecting people on board goes missing, and all are now presumed dead? It's woefully ignorant to think the story is about the plane.

It's sad no doubt but in the grand scheme of things 200 people dying is not much compared to the number of people dying each day. It's just that it scares people more because it could have been us on that plane. Someone I didn't know that works for my company was on that plane, so that hits kind of close to home. How many millions of people day every day because they don't have access to clean water? I'm just saying that the news (especially in the US) will sell whatever can get them the most eyeballs and ignore much bigger issues.

Defensive but addressing a rare issue with a proper solution, free of charge (possession and installation) retroactively. What's not to love.

It's being responsive, perhaps mistaken as aggressive when in fact to me it looks prompt and blunt.

Then again, Apple goes to great lengths to conceal just how often those iPods exploded and turned into molten metal fountains. Most folks were NDA'd the to hilt. They've got quite the white washing operation. With Tesla, it's harder to conceal a several thousand pound ball of flames on a public road, so they've got to fix the problem, no matter how small.

How does Apple convince victims to sign an NDA? Is it attached to a massive cash settlement or something? I'm surprised the cover-ups haven't loudly backfired on them yet.

It's entirely possible they know something we don't - like the results of the investigation into the Tesla fires - and are trying to get this story out ahead of something more negative. It'd certainly be a smart move.

I don't take Elon for a dishonest person.

Elon is always very defensive. Instead of being diplomatic, he reacts with long-winded arguments and makes public spectacles, like the Top Gear controversy, the New York Times controversy, his response to the car fires, and the public and political feuds over car dealerships. Besides that he'll lob casual insults at hybrids and insinuate he should take over all of Detroit's plants, etc. He should just not ever be allowed to talk.

Wow. Long-winded arguments, I assume you're referring to the depth of his explanations that he gives painting a clear picture of situations? Do you rather people give shallow explanations? Most people aren't used to founders and CEOs being so proactive and engaged with the public. I've never heard him "lob" insults (like what you're currently doing and even suggesting censorship of speech?) - he does however state his thoughts when he thinks something is a bad idea or not the best idea.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com