Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by romaaeterna 2364 days ago
> That ONE Tesla failed with fewer than 6,000 miles is not surprising or remotely concerning.

Yeah, it "just happened" to be one owned by Car and Driver. If they are seeing this sort of failure with review models, you can be sure that the real failure rate is big.
2 comments
ogre_codes 2363 days ago
How can I be sure? Why would the other owners keep quiet about it, some grand conspiracy?

Everything that happens with Tesla gets amplified 10 fold. If the failure rate was "big", I'm certain we'd have heard about it by now.

Regardless, this isn't a special review unit, C&D leased the Tesla from the dealer like any other schmuck, it was just luck of the draw. https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a29515368/tesla-model-3-lo...

link
perl4ever 2362 days ago
"Everything that happens with Tesla gets amplified 10 fold"

Well, one reason people do that is because of the ridiculous things everybody has been saying for years - like how electric cars are inherently way more reliable than ICE vehicles.

It's like how certain people get enraged over short sellers influencing stock prices, and somehow it doesn't occur to them that way more information is distorted in favor of public companies.

And sure, there's no reason to think it was a special unit, but that's the best case, and it's not rational to assume the most likely case is the best.

link
romaaeterna 2361 days ago
You misunderstand. Of course it wasn't "a special review unit". It was the randomly selected review unit.

As in any test methodology, if your random sample has problems, it's a bad sign for failure rates for the batch.

link
hgoel 2364 days ago
Are these reviewers big enough in the industry for there to be any reason to assume they got a pre-tested vehicle? If not there's absolutely no indication that this failure suggests a higher overall failure rate.
link