Of the clever misdirection? After reading the rest of your comment, you should be too. The issue under discussion isn't the safety of the passenger versus road debris, it's the vehicle catching fire after colliding with road debris.
This is a clever mechanism to turn discussion to the armor plating under the vehicle; as both replies to me evidence, it worked.
This is a fair point, and, to be honest, I don't have any idea of whether a standard car may catch fire in a similar circumstance.
Had you been clear from the get go, you might not have been downvoted like you are now.
That being said, even if standard cars wouldn't catch fire, it is not necessarily aggravating for Tesla. The technology is different, and the kind of risk being run differs. This doesn't mean that Tesla cars are inherently safer or more dangerous (we'll need more data to determine this).
>The issue under discussion isn't the safety of the passenger versus road debris, it's the vehicle catching fire after colliding with road debris.
Says who? You? The issue under discussion is the safety of a Tesla versus other cars in similar circumstances. If I was evaluating the relative safety of cars while purchasing a car, a fire after a few minutes of striking a big piece of debris seems to be safer than major damage or loss of control(if that's the case).
Whether an equivalent non-Tesla car would actually be more dangerous is certainly up for debate, but I don't see anything insightful in your post. We can already see the domain name even before clicking on the article and we know this is Tesla publishing the letter so it's likely to be one sided. In fact, the current top comment on HN points it out.
Your comments shouting "PR! misdirection!" add nothing to the discussion. Are you arguing that a non-Tesla car would not catch fire in similar circumstances? Can you share your reasoning?
I can't find what the base plate is made of, but I would be very surprised if it was "armor" as used in military vehicles.
I would guess shielding or impact protection are better, more objective terms to describe it. And yes, it will probably be stronger than in a gasoline car because of the fire risk.
Just because it's not military grade doesn't mean its not "truly armor"; How would you explain armor worn by humans? Is that not armor just because it's not used in military vehicles?
I don't think that is a strong argument. You wouldn't call a car fast/strong/large/etc if it was fast/strong/large/etc relative to a soldier or a ship fast/strong/large/etc if it was fast/strong/large/etc relative to an armored vehicle.
I agree you wouldn't call a car fast/strong/large/etc.. if it was fast/strong/large/etc to soldier and etc... But, you're comparing apples with oranges now.
"Is that truly armor? I can't find what the base plate is made of, but I would be very surprised if it was "armor" as used in military vehicles."
What is "truly armor"? It sounded as if you were saying something could only be called armor if it is X,Y, or Z. But, armor can be pretty much anything given its definition is a protective covering, but there are different strengths of armor. I'm saying a diamond is still a diamond regardless of its grade. Similarly, armor is still armor regardless of its strength.
