No, Tesla's Cybertruck isn't "More Dangerous Than The Ford Pinto" | Carscoops

      If you examine a recent report closely, you'll discover more inaccuracies than in both a Cybertruck and a Pinto.

      A recent article suggests that the Tesla Cybertruck is more prone to explosions than the Ford Pinto, yet it overlooks several critical factors.

      Firstly, the limited number of Cybertruck sales makes it misleading to compare fire statistics with those of the Pinto.

      Nevertheless, the report is gaining traction online, and we aim to differentiate facts from misleading data throughout this discussion.

      The Tesla Cybertruck has proven to be one of the most divisive vehicles of the past fifty years. Whether it's facing vandalism in parking lots, receiving high praise from loyal fans, losing trim pieces, or allegedly crashing into light poles, the truck elicits strong reactions wherever it goes. Such polarizing opinions bring immense attention, necessitating a skeptical approach to headlines concerning the vehicle.

      A claim in an article by Kay Leadfoot on FuelArc asserts that the Cybertruck is more explosive than the Ford Pinto and has circulated widely across various platforms.

      In the article, the author states that the Cybertruck is significantly more explosive (a key term we will revisit) than the Pinto, claiming it is 17 times more likely to result in a fire fatality. To substantiate this, they reference five reported fatalities related to the Cybertruck in three separate fires.

      Examining the Statistics

      Leadfoot estimates that Tesla has sold approximately 34,438 Cybertrucks to date, implying an average of 14.52 fire fatalities per 100,000 units sold. To clarify, this figure reflects five reported fire-related fatalities across three different incidents.

      In contrast, the Ford Pinto has seen only 27 fire fatalities despite approximately 3,173,491 units sold over its ten-year production span from 1970 to 1980, resulting in just 0.85 fire-related deaths per 100,000 units sold. This comparison illustrates the limited scope of Leadfoot's analysis.

      To put it plainly, this data is far from an objective comparison. The Cybertruck's relatively low delivery figures compared to the Pinto render any comparative analysis problematic. For instance, consider two companies that specialize in starting campfires.

      Company A manages to start one campfire, while Company B successfully builds 1,000 campfires but only starts two. Although Company A boasts a 100% success rate compared to Company B's 0.2%, it is misleading to compare their performances due to the disparate sample sizes.

      Flawed Information and Misleading Classifications

      Further complicating matters, Leadfoot counts the Las Vegas explosion as one of the three "fires," which raises questions about the study's credibility. The author even acknowledges the controversy over including this incident, stating that the driver’s burns were reportedly postmortem, allowing readers to exclude the Las Vegas case from their calculations. However, even without that incident, the significant difference in data sets remains crucial.

      Moreover, FuelArc’s report fails to distinguish between different types of fires, which is vital since the causes of fires are particularly relevant. In the Pinto's case, fires were connected to a known design flaw—a poorly positioned fuel tank that could rupture in rear-end collisions. One fatal Cybertruck incident involved the driver crashing into a tree, another into a ditch, and the third case does not qualify as relevant since it was a terrorist attack.

      What Does “Explosive” Really Mean?

      Lastly, let’s examine the assertion that the Cybertruck is more “explosive” than the Pinto. This terminology is significant as Leadfoot upholds that the reporting is “honest” and that "explosive" is a precise descriptor. According to the Oxford Dictionary, explosions are characterized as “a violent expansion in which energy is transmitted outward as a shock wave.”

      This description applies only to the Las Vegas incident involving actual fireworks; in other Cybertruck fires, the battery remained intact. Leadfoot does not clarify that the fireworks could also explode in any vehicle. Even the ruptured gas tanks of the Pinto did not truly result in explosions; they resulted in fuel spreading everywhere, often igniting afterward.

      This isn't to imply that the Cybertruck is completely devoid of safety concerns or without its own issues. However, it highlights that sensational headlines may not provide a complete picture. In a few years, with ample data from hundreds of thousands of Cybertrucks, a significant safety issue may emerge, and a proper comparison between the two vehicles might be feasible. For the moment, this report seems more like an outlier than reliable data for drawing any substantial conclusions.

      Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

      As Mark Twain famously stated, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. The current situation appears to fit this description. If Leadfoot aimed to attract attention, that goal has been accomplished. However, if the intent was to deliver genuine insights, they've evidently missed their mark entirely. (And for the record, please do not attempt a collision between the two vehicles, as together, they