Re:One in four 2020 Tesla Model 3 failed the Danish periodic...
by jmkd on Monday January 27, 2025 @04:30AM
(#42839113)
Quite possible. However it's also unclear if this includes hybrids. I'm certainly not a Tesla apologist, but I think journalistic misuse of or ambiguity around statistics should always be called out.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:One in four 2020 Tesla Model 3 failed the Danish periodic...
by Dylan16807 on Monday January 27, 2025 @04:42AM
(#42839192)
A hybrid is an electric car with extra parts so I'm not sure why including them would be unfair to Tesla either?
(Weight is a factor but lots of electric cars are similar weight to lots of hybrid cars so it's something to keep in mind no matter what and not a particular reason to exclude hybrids.)
Re:One in four 2020 Tesla Model 3 failed the Danish periodic...
by jmkd on Monday January 27, 2025 @05:03AM
(#42839324)
The only point I'm trying to make is you need to compare apples to apples, and if you don't that contributes to misinformation. People run with figures from articles and press releases as if they are gold standard info, but often they are not. It's irrelevant to my point whether that is more or less fair to Tesla.
Re:One in four 2020 Tesla Model 3 failed the Danish periodic...
by Dylan16807 on Monday January 27, 2025 @05:09AM
(#42839367)
It's not misinformation if a criticism understates things a bit. The direction matters.
Re:One in four 2020 Tesla Model 3 failed the Danish periodic...
by jmkd on Monday January 27, 2025 @05:48AM
(#42839591)
If misuse of statistics gets a pass due to the direction of travel that doesn't help anyone decipher future misuse of information.
Re:One in four 2020 Tesla Model 3 failed the Danish periodic...
by Dylan16807 on Monday January 27, 2025 @12:44PM
(#42843649)
I would not usually call it misuse when someone uses an overly generic statistic that somewhat weakens their point. It's closer to giving benefit of the doubt.
Re:One in four 2020 Tesla Model 3 failed the Danish periodic...
by omnimus on Monday January 27, 2025 @05:00AM
(#42839301)
Hybrids are also a lot more complex so i would think much less reliable. Even Volvo Polestar hybrids are pretty cursed on second hand market.
Re:One in four 2020 Tesla Model 3 failed the Danish periodic...
by pbmonster on Monday January 27, 2025 @06:13AM
(#42839764)
While you're right in principle, having Toyota's massive fleet of hybrids included in the dataset could indeed mask trouble with other electric cars - because Toyotas are extremely popular here, and they are pretty much bomb proof.
Which is not surprising, since Toyota now has almost three decades worth of experience with the Hybrid Synergy Drive system, and double that experience in building reliable cars in general.
Re:One in four 2020 Tesla Model 3 failed the Danish periodic...
by rickdeckard on Monday January 27, 2025 @04:46AM
(#42839211)
It also doesn't mention if the cars have comparable horsepower.
Question is how relevant all that is if the reported issues are related to brakes, lights, wheels and steering...
Re:One in four 2020 Tesla Model 3 failed the Danish periodic...
by sehansen on Monday January 27, 2025 @04:47AM
(#42839220)
Hybrids (including plug-in hybrids) aren't usually grouped under electric cars in Danish media.
Re:One in four 2020 Tesla Model 3 failed the Danish periodic...
by eptcyka on Monday January 27, 2025 @10:40AM
(#42842241)
I would hope that with the significantly decreased complexity of electric cars, comparing a tesla against hybrids would be rather favorable, no? It should be an easier win for the electric car than for the hybrid car.