Yes, and? If that was their claim, there'd be nothing to talk about.
Instead, we have all kinds of wild claims, from rocket cars to full-self-driving to amphibious trucks to battery swaps. None of which exist.
That's not even close to reality and not intellectually honest. It's a fact that anything with "Tesla" on the headline gets clicks. A Tesla gets t-boned by another vehicle and the next day will get headlines like:
"Telsa involved in a serious accident" While make/model of other accidents is never mentioned in other accidents even when there's a fatality.
You're just making things up.
We are talking about very specific claims in this thread.
>A Tesla gets t-boned by another vehicle and the next day will get headlines like: "Telsa involved in a serious accident" While make/model of other accidents is never mentioned in other accidents even when there's a fatality.
Show me this article.
I made all of these headlines up?
https://news.google.com/search?q=Tesla%20accident
Find me the same amount of headlines where another make/model of the vehicle involved in a serious accident is mentioned on the headline itself.
Here's one on our very own Hacker News https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38806707
Also incidents blaming autopilot get hundreds of upvotes and comments blaming Tesla, and when it turns out months after police investigation of that incident that Autopilot wasn't involved, that article never gets upvotes.
When it's bad news about a different car brand, we just get a headline like this talking about an "electric vehicle". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38741228
Same with recalls, Tesla's software update recalls are given disproportionate attention, and don't mention it's a software recall in the headline.
It doesn't "blame" anything on the Tesla; instead, it seems to be praising it for lack of damage and injury to the passengers.
Is this interesting news? Not to me. But I suppose it's relevant being as how the Cybertruck is the most hyped vehicle of all-time, and there are only a handful on the road.
Which means they could publicly promise to do better than everyone else and still meet those promises.
So promising things that are unrealistic (ie Level 5 FSD 5 years ago) is an unforced error, an own-goal that could be avoided but they have chosen not to avoid this over and over.
Tesla and Space X have accomplished more than any other company in the last 70 years within their respective industries.
> Tesla and Space X have accomplished more than any other company in the last 70 years within their respective industries.
That's absolutely not in contradiction to my point.
I believe Musk is also tarnishing the Tesla brand by his antics. I noticed that the association to Musk is kinda turning some left-leaning liberals away from Tesla.
Tesla delivers. That’s above par for the current course. The problem is Musk’s antics create opportunity for competitors. If he could have the discipline he does with SpaceX, Tesla’s long-term prospects would be stronger.
This is short sighted. Their threat profile from new entrants (whether de novo or legacy) is massive. Most people I know considering EVs are not prioritising Teslas. They haven’t ruled them out. But it’s an even comparison between the Tesla on the lot and whatever they need to put a deposit down on for delivery in a few months or even years.
Tesla continues to trounce every other car manufacturer because despite the fact that us fanboys (and bitterboys) are regularly disappointed at underdelivering on the hype, they still produce the most compelling EV for the price when compared to everyone else.
"Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars."