Jaguar Land Rover electric car whistleblower sacked(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Jaguar Land Rover electric car whistleblower sacked
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20nr3zdppjo
15 comments
The key takeaway is that Tata Group doesn't care about safety at all.
True. Nor does any other manufacturer of cars nor toys nor paint nor cosmetics nor AI software nor canned foods....
Consumers and victims care about safety. Regulation is the only reason safety exists.
Consumers and victims care about safety. Regulation is the only reason safety exists.
Way too extreme. Seeing the world in such manicheanist terms is not healthy.
All companies care about safety, to varying degrees and for a mix of reasons ranging from PR to regulatory burden to the fact the CEO uses the product.
Many don’t care enough by my subjective standards, but it’s silly and childish to say no company cares even the tiniest bit about safety in any context.
All companies care about safety, to varying degrees and for a mix of reasons ranging from PR to regulatory burden to the fact the CEO uses the product.
Many don’t care enough by my subjective standards, but it’s silly and childish to say no company cares even the tiniest bit about safety in any context.
i'm sorry but
> All companies care about safety
is naive at best.
yes, all companies care about safety...after profits
we've structured corporations that this is the main driver, full stop.
as an example, earlier in my career i worked in aviation test equipment. for commercial and govt't agencies. let's just say i avoid flying anywhere at all costs now if i can. why? because, as always, safety is secondary to profits (and most of the time, you hope it is secondary and not ternary or worse). and this was in a 'highly regulated' industry.
> All companies care about safety
is naive at best.
yes, all companies care about safety...after profits
we've structured corporations that this is the main driver, full stop.
as an example, earlier in my career i worked in aviation test equipment. for commercial and govt't agencies. let's just say i avoid flying anywhere at all costs now if i can. why? because, as always, safety is secondary to profits (and most of the time, you hope it is secondary and not ternary or worse). and this was in a 'highly regulated' industry.
Everything a company does must be "after profits" if you lose money on everything you do then you aren't running a company you are running (poorly I might add) a charity.
First it has to be profitable, then it has to be useful to the customer.
First it has to be profitable, then it has to be useful to the customer.
Meh — you’re getting into mind reading. Safety and profits are related. If you prefer to think every person who works at any company is a moustache-twirling villain, have at it. That hasn’t been my experience.
Safety and profits are related.
Except the relationship is not strong enough to compel companies to always do the right thing (or even to do so adequately often). Especially when they perceive that the market will let them get away with it. For example when negative impacts are scheduled to occur far into the future (or in the present but affecting non-customers, or the environment).
Or when they occur in the present, but (as with seatbelts before they were mandatory) the customers just don't perceive the risks.
If you prefer to think every person who works at any company is a moustache-twirling villain
The comment you initially chimed in on was definitely quite hyperbolic. But this take is also.
Of course not "every" person working at a company needs to be ethically challenged for bad things to happen. All that's need are a few bad apples (whom we know are in no short supply) at approrpriate levels of responsibility. The rest will simply go along, to keep their jobs.
You know that.
Except the relationship is not strong enough to compel companies to always do the right thing (or even to do so adequately often). Especially when they perceive that the market will let them get away with it. For example when negative impacts are scheduled to occur far into the future (or in the present but affecting non-customers, or the environment).
Or when they occur in the present, but (as with seatbelts before they were mandatory) the customers just don't perceive the risks.
If you prefer to think every person who works at any company is a moustache-twirling villain
The comment you initially chimed in on was definitely quite hyperbolic. But this take is also.
Of course not "every" person working at a company needs to be ethically challenged for bad things to happen. All that's need are a few bad apples (whom we know are in no short supply) at approrpriate levels of responsibility. The rest will simply go along, to keep their jobs.
You know that.
PR doesn't matter in the short-term, investors only care about the short-term.
> In 1949, Wisconsin-based Nash Motors became the first car company to offer them as an additional feature. Almost no one asked for them. In 1968, when seat belts became standard equipment, some drivers responded by cutting them out of their vehicles. In 1982, when Michigan State Rep. David Hollister introduced a state seat belt law, he received hate mail comparing him to Hitler. The reception to such laws in other states was similarly cool. In the 1980s, only 14% of all Americans used seat belts.
https://www.the-rheumatologist.org/article/revisionist-histo...
So, yeah, without the law there's no seatbelt on your car.
https://www.the-rheumatologist.org/article/revisionist-histo...
So, yeah, without the law there's no seatbelt on your car.
[deleted]
Lucid and Volvo both care very much about safety. Safety is core to both their brands, and part of what they’ve built them on.
Volvo is a (mostly) made in China brand of a large Chinese automotive company. If in the past safety conscious swedish engineers cared about it, they surely have very little say right now.
Lucid has a sample size too small to evaluate.
What matters for safety is precisely one thing. Does the company culture, meaning the engineers on the ground, view it as a goal by itself or a list of checkboxes you need to tick.
Lucid has a sample size too small to evaluate.
What matters for safety is precisely one thing. Does the company culture, meaning the engineers on the ground, view it as a goal by itself or a list of checkboxes you need to tick.
> If in the past safety conscious swedish engineers cared about it, they surely have very little say right now
Subsidiaries can have a different culture from their parent organizations. Volvo still has engineers and designers in Sweden, and Tata owns Land Rover and Jaguar, which seem to be doing okay safety wise and don't appear to be obviously cutting corners like the Vinfast project. I have seen no evidence of a decline in Volvo's safety record, the "but surely Geely doesn't care." argument is a reverse appeal-to-authority, in the absence of evidence. It is entirely possible that Geely (and Tata) may have poor safety cultures, but their foreign subsidiaries do a much better job.
Subsidiaries can have a different culture from their parent organizations. Volvo still has engineers and designers in Sweden, and Tata owns Land Rover and Jaguar, which seem to be doing okay safety wise and don't appear to be obviously cutting corners like the Vinfast project. I have seen no evidence of a decline in Volvo's safety record, the "but surely Geely doesn't care." argument is a reverse appeal-to-authority, in the absence of evidence. It is entirely possible that Geely (and Tata) may have poor safety cultures, but their foreign subsidiaries do a much better job.
Companies like Stellantis are very keen on brands using standardized platforms. I would be very surprised if in the future Volvos weren't using engineered in China Platforms, which are localized for Europe (same for Land Rover with engineered in India).
If Swedish engineers are just developing hats, their influence on crash safety is significantly reduced. Right now Volvo still uses an inhouse platform, where they do actually have control, but it is obviously inefficient to develop numerous similar platforms for different brands.
If Swedish engineers are just developing hats, their influence on crash safety is significantly reduced. Right now Volvo still uses an inhouse platform, where they do actually have control, but it is obviously inefficient to develop numerous similar platforms for different brands.
Sure, but we should be clear that it's speculation on future behavior (sound as it may be). That has not happened (yet). Some MNC's succeed in not killing the goose that lays the golden eggs (I'm also speculating)
I agree that it would be unfair to evaluate the company on what it hasn't done.
Volvo is an interesting case. Being acquired, becoming a subsidiary, is famous last words for the past culture and focus. If the acquirer really cared to retain that safety focus, I would have expected doubling down on related advertising and PR work.
But from where I sit, Volvo advertising and safety PR has entirely disappeared. That does not bode well for that "safety focus". Anyone has current info?
But from where I sit, Volvo advertising and safety PR has entirely disappeared. That does not bode well for that "safety focus". Anyone has current info?
As pointed out elsewhere their cars still perform well on crash tests and they still use their own platform.
I think what will or won't break the whole thing os whether their next generation of cars will still use a self developed platform. If they do, then I would consider it quite likely that management at Volvo has the independence needed to keep their own vision. If Geely forces a platform onto them, then I think it is a pretty clear statement that they see Volvo as nothing but brand recognition.
I think what will or won't break the whole thing os whether their next generation of cars will still use a self developed platform. If they do, then I would consider it quite likely that management at Volvo has the independence needed to keep their own vision. If Geely forces a platform onto them, then I think it is a pretty clear statement that they see Volvo as nothing but brand recognition.
For that matter, is Volvo popular in China? Does Volvo advertise in China?
I agree, except that Lucid’s small sample size has achieved the only complete 5-star rating on every test on their one vehicle; this can’t happen unless, as you say, the engineers on the ground view it as a goal by itself.
The only other company that has done this, to my knowledge, is Volvo.
The only other company that has done this, to my knowledge, is Volvo.
>this can’t happen unless, as you say, the engineers on the ground view it as a goal by itself.
Obviously it can. Cars are engineered to satisfy specific test, which are well known in advance. You can always engineer cars to satisfy them.
Crash tests aren't everything though and I mention sample size because issues might only reveal themselves after a prolonged period in a few cars. E.g. a defect on a very important component, which only occurs after some years in a few circumstances is an obvious safety issue which Lucids could not have proven themselves against.
I say this not as particular slight against Lucid, but because safety is more than satisfying tests. Often safety is where you are doing things which aren't tested at all.
>The only other company that has done this, to my knowledge, is Volvo.
Looking at the Euro NCAP is the VW ID.7 Tourer is also getting pretty decent marks.
Obviously it can. Cars are engineered to satisfy specific test, which are well known in advance. You can always engineer cars to satisfy them.
Crash tests aren't everything though and I mention sample size because issues might only reveal themselves after a prolonged period in a few cars. E.g. a defect on a very important component, which only occurs after some years in a few circumstances is an obvious safety issue which Lucids could not have proven themselves against.
I say this not as particular slight against Lucid, but because safety is more than satisfying tests. Often safety is where you are doing things which aren't tested at all.
>The only other company that has done this, to my knowledge, is Volvo.
Looking at the Euro NCAP is the VW ID.7 Tourer is also getting pretty decent marks.
Volvo in the past absolutely cared, future Volvo it's still unknown(they have a new owner and their position is unknown last I checked).
Volvo is majority-owned by Geely, a car brand that is definitely not known for safety.
I meant Volvo’s position under the new ownership. It’s possible Geely enforces Volvo to care as much as they care. It’s also possible they let Volvo be Volvo around safety and have some other way to juice the returns and make them a bunch of money from the purchase. Time will tell.
I think Volvo is a good example for why most companies don't care about safety any more than the law and basic PR requires: the market does not reward companies that try to use safety as a selling point. Volvo is the only major car company that consistently manufactures cars that widely exceed legal safety requirements, but have a global market share of less than half a percent.
That's probably about the number of people who take safety into consideration as a major factor when making purchasing decisions.
That's probably about the number of people who take safety into consideration as a major factor when making purchasing decisions.
>the market does not reward companies that try to use safety as a selling point.
But it absolutely does punish companies whose products are shown to be dangerous.
>Volvo is the only major car company that consistently manufactures cars that widely exceed legal safety requirements
Exceeding safety standards can easily be a negative. Their cars will be more expensive than similar ones.
Also, do the Chinese care at all? Or are you just talking about the past?
But it absolutely does punish companies whose products are shown to be dangerous.
>Volvo is the only major car company that consistently manufactures cars that widely exceed legal safety requirements
Exceeding safety standards can easily be a negative. Their cars will be more expensive than similar ones.
Also, do the Chinese care at all? Or are you just talking about the past?
"Exceeding safety standards can easily be a negative. Their cars will be more expensive than similar ones."
That's exactly my point.
That's exactly my point.
Thats a bit weird take given that safety standards are increasing year on year.
Crash tests from 2000 are way stricter today.
So they all force the manufactures to fight for 5 stars
Crash tests from 2000 are way stricter today.
So they all force the manufactures to fight for 5 stars
I'm not sure how what you said disagrees with what I said?
Counterpoint: safety can be a market differentiator. Volvo had seatbelts as standards before regulators mandated them. To this day, and leans heavily into safety. I can confidently say Volvo cares more about safety than Vinfast.
You are wrong about cars. There are many automakers who absolutely care about safety, particularly in Germany, where even the slightest possibility of safety concerns can end an initiative.
Not everyone is following the China model.
Not everyone is following the China model.
Disregard for the public long predates modern Chinese business, and in the OP has nothing to do with China.
Companies care about:
- Regulators. And caring about regulations means caring about safety.
- Consumers. Who value safety a great deal. Being able to credibly signal the safety of your product is a huge factor in selling a car
- Regulators. And caring about regulations means caring about safety.
- Consumers. Who value safety a great deal. Being able to credibly signal the safety of your product is a huge factor in selling a car
that's why we have regulations and bureaucracies like NHTSA to report to. Probably better than reporting on reddit I would guess.
It’s all about economics. Just apply the formula: https://youtu.be/SiB8GVMNJkE
(May not be SFW depending on where you work)
(May not be SFW depending on where you work)
Who cares actually? Nobody. See initial Tesla problem with wheels falling off: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/us-age...
Launch fast, ignore obvious things. I see it daily: „just ship products, we finish them when they come for repairs“. Scary new world, nobody is really responsible for this. The workers do not stay long. As well as managers.
Launch fast, ignore obvious things. I see it daily: „just ship products, we finish them when they come for repairs“. Scary new world, nobody is really responsible for this. The workers do not stay long. As well as managers.
I recall a discussion here about the decline in software quality, from many years ago. Someone argued that if we designed hardware the way we design software, we'd be too afraid to go outside. At the time, I thought it was just hyperbole...
It's still clearly an exaggeration, but one could argue that reality is gradually moving in that direction.
It's still clearly an exaggeration, but one could argue that reality is gradually moving in that direction.
My take on this that's more to do with increase in software complexity and "quarterly thinking" than "people just don't care." As an embedded engineer I don't get much to say except maybe sprint to sprint unless I start my own company.
"Quarterly thinking" is an implementation detail of "people just don't care".
My director pushes production guys really hard. They sometimes close an eye and ship a bit faulty product. No screws on heatspreader or wrong thermal pad. And here you go, these things do not last long. But in the books revenue was made in that year. Repairs will come later as separate expense.
> I recall a discussion here about the decline in software quality, from many years ago. Someone argued that if we designed hardware the way we design software, we'd be too afraid to go outside. At the time, I thought it was just hyperbole...
That meme goes back at least to the 90s: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/car-balk/
That meme goes back at least to the 90s: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/car-balk/
>gradually moving in that direction
Lead paint on children's toys and asbestos in the walls suggest there has never been a culture of making sure it is safe before putting it in production even in the physical world.
Lead paint on children's toys and asbestos in the walls suggest there has never been a culture of making sure it is safe before putting it in production even in the physical world.
Lead pipes, yes.
But asbestos in the walls is great for the safety of those living there — the place doesn't burn down so easily. It's the safety of anyone who inhales the dust when the place gets broken down that's endangered by asbestos.
But asbestos in the walls is great for the safety of those living there — the place doesn't burn down so easily. It's the safety of anyone who inhales the dust when the place gets broken down that's endangered by asbestos.
[deleted]
> Who cares actually? Nobody.
I do. Speaking only for myself, but Tesla has a long long way to go to repair its manufacturing reputation in my eyes.
I do. Speaking only for myself, but Tesla has a long long way to go to repair its manufacturing reputation in my eyes.
Volvo has their own safety center.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=wOJrhNCsPL4
https://youtube.com/watch?v=wOJrhNCsPL4
Do you think any medium sized car company doesn't have that?
Tesla and Tata are both famously worse than the rest of the industry, though.
Tesla is, by far, the most egregious representative of this. Tata is second.
Plenty of companies do care. These two don’t.
Plenty of companies do care. These two don’t.
Or at least blacklisted from that platform they use for recruitment?
https://magnitglobal.com/us/en/workforce-management-platform...
> AI-powered Talent Matching: Leverage AI to identify and match top talent across blue collar and white collar roles from a broad range of sources including contingent workers, freelancers, and project-based workers.
https://magnitglobal.com/us/en/workforce-management-platform...
> AI-powered Talent Matching: Leverage AI to identify and match top talent across blue collar and white collar roles from a broad range of sources including contingent workers, freelancers, and project-based workers.
Is that even legal in the UK?
I wonder how an industry wide blacklist complies with GDPR right to be forgotten.
Oh wait, it doesn't, but because it's not a tech company it gets a free pass.
Oh wait, it doesn't, but because it's not a tech company it gets a free pass.
You are being downvoted because you fail to understand the basic tenants of the GDPR.
Choosing to remain ignorant of such important legislation is ridiculous.
Choosing to remain ignorant of such important legislation is ridiculous.
>> because you fail to understand the basic tenants of the GDPR
Hi! In the spirit of improving communication and assuming that you'd like to know:
A tenant is someone who rents a property
A tenet is a principle or belief that is generally considered to be true
Hi! In the spirit of improving communication and assuming that you'd like to know:
A tenant is someone who rents a property
A tenet is a principle or belief that is generally considered to be true
Disagree, I think it's more about the snark.
GDPR may have technically replaced the right to be forgotten with a more limited right of erasure, but unless you care about legal phrasing it's an easy thing to mix up.
Also, it does look like a GDPR issue to me — not that I'm a lawyer, so usual caveat applies, all I can do is look at the plain language of GDPR on the Commission website.
GDPR regulates "personal data" (information that relates to an identified or identifiable individual), and looking at the "lawful purposes" list in Article 6, people running such a thing would seem to me to need to make some kind of argument about "legitimate interests" or "performance of a contract".
It may be that a plain reading of this isn't giving me the correct answer, but I don't see how placing specifically whistleblowers (rather than, say, known embezzlers) on a blacklist would meet the standards: https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/r...
GDPR may have technically replaced the right to be forgotten with a more limited right of erasure, but unless you care about legal phrasing it's an easy thing to mix up.
Also, it does look like a GDPR issue to me — not that I'm a lawyer, so usual caveat applies, all I can do is look at the plain language of GDPR on the Commission website.
GDPR regulates "personal data" (information that relates to an identified or identifiable individual), and looking at the "lawful purposes" list in Article 6, people running such a thing would seem to me to need to make some kind of argument about "legitimate interests" or "performance of a contract".
It may be that a plain reading of this isn't giving me the correct answer, but I don't see how placing specifically whistleblowers (rather than, say, known embezzlers) on a blacklist would meet the standards: https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/r...
Thanks to the brave person who was willing to speak out in the face of retaliation.
People like this are heroic and are essential to keeping unscrupulous bureaucrats in check.
Hopefully he gets paid in court.
People like this are heroic and are essential to keeping unscrupulous bureaucrats in check.
Hopefully he gets paid in court.
https://www.reddit.com/r/VinFastCommunity/comments/1d3be8z/i...
Self-identifying yourself on Reddit and then posting classified company information in a childish tone would definitely get you blacklisted. If you read the post, it's clear that he didn't care about fixing the problems, he just wanted to dunk on the company for Reddit updoots.
Self-identifying yourself on Reddit and then posting classified company information in a childish tone would definitely get you blacklisted. If you read the post, it's clear that he didn't care about fixing the problems, he just wanted to dunk on the company for Reddit updoots.
Does the fact that he blew the whistle infer that he cared about the problems?
What would you have done if you realised that something you're working on was a death-trap, and managed ignored your concerns?
What would you have done if you realised that something you're working on was a death-trap, and managed ignored your concerns?
A) Inform your Boss
B) Inform the Boss of your Boss
C) Inform the certifying authorities
D) Inform the Media
If none of these are willing to listen, it isn't your fault. But posting years after the fact on Reddit is negligence.
If none of these are willing to listen, it isn't your fault. But posting years after the fact on Reddit is negligence.
FTA:
He reported the "extremely concerning" incidents to colleagues at Tata Technologies Limited (TTL), the consultancy's UK division
…
He escalated his concerns to senior executives at TTL and VinFast
…
Mr Denli asked Tata Technologies to reassign him to another project but senior managers refused.
Unhappy to be associated with the VinFast car, he says, in May last year he resigned.
He reported the "extremely concerning" incidents to colleagues at Tata Technologies Limited (TTL), the consultancy's UK division
…
He escalated his concerns to senior executives at TTL and VinFast
…
Mr Denli asked Tata Technologies to reassign him to another project but senior managers refused.
Unhappy to be associated with the VinFast car, he says, in May last year he resigned.
Reddit is the Media.
Sure, buddy.
The Oxford dictionary defines "mass media" thusly The main means of mass communication, such as broadcasting, publishing, and the internet, considered collectively.
The reason Vinfast investigated his account was because he was publicizing its flaws, leading to his firing. Bad PR is the mechanism that going to a newspaper or TV station would have led to reform, he got the same result by going to Reddit: you can't argue with the results.
The reason Vinfast investigated his account was because he was publicizing its flaws, leading to his firing. Bad PR is the mechanism that going to a newspaper or TV station would have led to reform, he got the same result by going to Reddit: you can't argue with the results.
*imply
The fact that there is a process to blacklist someone at all points to a serious problem in society.
That's your read. I read him as someone who did want to fix problems and was actively prevented from doing so for a long time, and has left that part of his career extremely frustrated as a result.
Yeah, maybe he could've been more professional. I guess. In my mind though the far more important takeaway is how a major automaker is (yet again) cutting corners and turning out ever shittier products at ever higher prices and pocketing the margins. And as someone who is actually looking into a vehicle in similar categories, if I could get an engineer like him from every manufacturer to give me the non-corporate-speak truth of what goes on in their design process, that would be 1000x more valuable than all the samey-bullshit-marketing-fluff that all of them turn out.
And you know, if the company itself was more interested in making a quality product than just telling people their product is quality they probably wouldn't give half a shit if an engineer was out discussing the process. I get that NDAs are most often (and for!) protecting a company's IP, and that makes good and is sense. However the same agreements also allow said company to do all kinds of horseshit with at least a decent expectation that their engineers won't spill the beans to the wider public, and that sucks ass.
Yeah, maybe he could've been more professional. I guess. In my mind though the far more important takeaway is how a major automaker is (yet again) cutting corners and turning out ever shittier products at ever higher prices and pocketing the margins. And as someone who is actually looking into a vehicle in similar categories, if I could get an engineer like him from every manufacturer to give me the non-corporate-speak truth of what goes on in their design process, that would be 1000x more valuable than all the samey-bullshit-marketing-fluff that all of them turn out.
And you know, if the company itself was more interested in making a quality product than just telling people their product is quality they probably wouldn't give half a shit if an engineer was out discussing the process. I get that NDAs are most often (and for!) protecting a company's IP, and that makes good and is sense. However the same agreements also allow said company to do all kinds of horseshit with at least a decent expectation that their engineers won't spill the beans to the wider public, and that sucks ass.
Ah yes, don’t accept retaliation against whistleblowers unless a redditor finds their tone to be Childish and their motives Vain.
I recommend reading the article, not just the post.
I recommend reading the article, not just the post.
how you feel about this depends if you're a means or an ends guy
I do find it wild he used his main account instead of a throwaway ranting about vinfast and communists (and still actively responding with account about how he won't suicide in thread about article). Seem's like clout chasing behavior but maybe he just doesn't give a shit.
The weird thing for me here is why it is relevant that it's an electric car, at the end of the day the failure was with the engineering of the suspension, nothing to do with the way that it is powered. This could have happened with any vehicle, this article seems to be click baiting on the fact that the model was an EV.
Electric vehicles are very heavy, which means a lot of mechanical stress for the suspension. And any rate, if a particular EV model was what's affected, why not specify that?
>> Electric vehicles are very heavy, which means a lot of mechanical stress for the suspension
Not necessarily - as an example:
Tesla Model 3 Standard: 3,862 lbs (1755 kg)
Tesla Model 3 Long Range: 4,034 lbs (1834 kg)
Tesla Model 3 Performance: 4,054 lbs (1843 kg)
BMW M3: 3,990 lbs (1814 kg)
These are effectively the same weight for comparably-positioned sports sedans.
Not necessarily - as an example:
Tesla Model 3 Standard: 3,862 lbs (1755 kg)
Tesla Model 3 Long Range: 4,034 lbs (1834 kg)
Tesla Model 3 Performance: 4,054 lbs (1843 kg)
BMW M3: 3,990 lbs (1814 kg)
These are effectively the same weight for comparably-positioned sports sedans.
This comparison is stupid. It is just 3 versions of one car and one version of another car.
The broad trend that electric cars are heavier and need to be designed differently than combustion cars is undeniable.
The broad trend that electric cars are heavier and need to be designed differently than combustion cars is undeniable.
I'd still say that it's motor vehicles in general that are getting bigger and heavier. The unfair comparison (Mazda CX-9 SUV) has an ICE vehicle weighing in heavier, but even my small-by-modern-standards Mazda 3 Sport is <200kg from the base Tesla Model 3. Lighter, but not dramatically so. Same with the Ford Mustang fastback (~3600lbs), and the ragtop is even chunkier (at ~3700lbs).
EVs might have started heavier, but it's modern vehicles that are heavy more than EVs. Sure, you can point to the OEMs that brute-forced their way into the market (the Hummer springs to mind), but the truly preposterous are, fortunately, small in number.
EVs might have started heavier, but it's modern vehicles that are heavy more than EVs. Sure, you can point to the OEMs that brute-forced their way into the market (the Hummer springs to mind), but the truly preposterous are, fortunately, small in number.
>> This comparison is stupid. It is just 3 versions of one car and one version of another car.
Huh? Why is it a stupid comparison? It is comparing the Model 3 (very popular EV) against a similarly-positioned ICE vehicle. I showed three trims of the Model 3 in order to avoid people saying, "yeah, but you didn't post the weights of all the different versions..."
GP said simply "Electric vehicles are very heavy" - that means all EVs. Not some EVs. So showing a comparable pair of EV & ICE vehicles to disprove it is a completely reasonable comparison.
Huh? Why is it a stupid comparison? It is comparing the Model 3 (very popular EV) against a similarly-positioned ICE vehicle. I showed three trims of the Model 3 in order to avoid people saying, "yeah, but you didn't post the weights of all the different versions..."
GP said simply "Electric vehicles are very heavy" - that means all EVs. Not some EVs. So showing a comparable pair of EV & ICE vehicles to disprove it is a completely reasonable comparison.
Because the M3 might be totally unrepresentative of ICE vehicles. It is silly to try to demonstrate a general trend with two examples.
It is also particularly disingenuous (although irrelevant) that you ignored the different 3er Variants.
It is also particularly disingenuous (although irrelevant) that you ignored the different 3er Variants.
I'm not trying to "demonstrate a general trend." I'm providing evidence to disprove a blanket statement. And from a logic point of view, showing a single counterexample disproves it.
Separately, the Model 3 Performance is most comparable to the M3. And they are virtually the same weight (as the data that I presented showed). So, not a disingenuous comparison. But thanks for the accusation :)
Separately, the Model 3 Performance is most comparable to the M3. And they are virtually the same weight (as the data that I presented showed). So, not a disingenuous comparison. But thanks for the accusation :)
I'm not sure about that, my electric vehicle weighs about a ton less than a Mustang.
https://www.cjponyparts.com/resources/mustang-curb-weights
2024 Mustang curb weight is 3588 - 3949 lbs.
So you're suggesting you drive an EV that weighs approximately 1588 - 1949 lbs. Which EV is that?
https://www.topspeed.com/lightest-electric-cars/
At least in the U.S., the lightest EV starts at 2952 lbs (Fiat 500e).
https://www.topspeed.com/cars/car-news/at-1627-pounds-the-va...
There is at least one EV that is light enough, though I suspect it is not your daily driver.
2024 Mustang curb weight is 3588 - 3949 lbs.
So you're suggesting you drive an EV that weighs approximately 1588 - 1949 lbs. Which EV is that?
https://www.topspeed.com/lightest-electric-cars/
At least in the U.S., the lightest EV starts at 2952 lbs (Fiat 500e).
https://www.topspeed.com/cars/car-news/at-1627-pounds-the-va...
There is at least one EV that is light enough, though I suspect it is not your daily driver.
Not OP, but also not US.
The Dacia Spring is available around here (Berlin), and while it's a bit more than that mass, it's close enough to be "about" a ton lighter.
The Dacia Spring is available around here (Berlin), and while it's a bit more than that mass, it's close enough to be "about" a ton lighter.
Looks like 2300 lbs but if you're comparing base trims that's 1200 lbs lighter than the base Mustang. A bit of a stretch for "about". And also a nonsensical comparison. Different purposes, different class of vehicle, different regulatory / safety requirements.
Is it a skateboard? Mustangs aren't even 2 tons.
An ~1800-lb limit, to be a ton less than a mustang, doesn't give you much room to make a full-size vehicle. A prius is over 3,000 lbs.
An ~1800-lb limit, to be a ton less than a mustang, doesn't give you much room to make a full-size vehicle. A prius is over 3,000 lbs.
Even if it is a skateboard, it is still heavier than a non-electric skateboard. As GP said, electric vehicles are very heavy. My electric bike weighs considerably more than non-electric bikes, our electric scooters weigh more than kick scooters, and parent is being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.
Quibble: Electric vehicle weight is compared to the ICE alternatives. You’re comparing electric vehicles to things without motors at all
Then your electric car is exceptional. A mustang weighs about 3,600 pounds. Which is heavy to be sure.
But lighter than almost all electric cars. Certainly not a ton heavier.
Tesla model 3: 3900 pounds Tesla model S: 4700 pounds Chevy bolt: 3600 pounds Nissan Leaf: 3900 pounds Volkswagen ID4: 4600 pounds
EVs are heavy. I’d be interested in your 2600 pound EV.
But lighter than almost all electric cars. Certainly not a ton heavier.
Tesla model 3: 3900 pounds Tesla model S: 4700 pounds Chevy bolt: 3600 pounds Nissan Leaf: 3900 pounds Volkswagen ID4: 4600 pounds
EVs are heavy. I’d be interested in your 2600 pound EV.
A Mitsubishi I-MiEV at 2268 LB (3329 LB GVWR - 661 LB vehicle capacity weight) isn't a ton lighter than a Ford Mustang, but it's on the lighter side for an EV.
Source: my I-MiEV owner's manual
Source: my I-MiEV owner's manual
2024 Toyota Camry - 3595lbs
So is the mustang heavy? Compared to what?
So is the mustang heavy? Compared to what?
Mustang is a big heavy GT style car. It has heavy engines, a wide body, big tires, etc.
A 2-door mini cooper is 2600 pounds. A Nissan Versa is about the same.
For larger cars, the Elantra and Civic are both less than 3000 pounds.
A 2-door mini cooper is 2600 pounds. A Nissan Versa is about the same.
For larger cars, the Elantra and Civic are both less than 3000 pounds.
Same reason phone headlines always mention branding when they're iPhones: more people click on headlines like that. In this case one could argue that it's relevant because no ICE models had this flaw, but I'm not convinced this wasn't done to make money off the EV/anti-EV flame wars that are happening online every day.
[deleted]
Useful interview pattern for candidates:
Candidate: Is this a newly created roll?
Company: No.
Candidate: <breezily> What did the last guy die of?
You'd be surprised how few interviewers are able to lie fast enough and convincingly enough.
Candidate: Is this a newly created roll?
Company: No.
Candidate: <breezily> What did the last guy die of?
You'd be surprised how few interviewers are able to lie fast enough and convincingly enough.
Small nit: they call it Jaguar Land Rover electric car, but everything seems to be about Vinfast a completely different company?
The headline is clickbaity for sure. Vinfast hired JLR to design some aspects of their cars and the guy was one of the engineers assigned to it.
On Reddit, he praises JLR engineering standards and says the problem was Vinfast’s leadership ignoring engineering concerns, always picking the cheapest materials, and skipping safety tests.
The title makes it seem like JLR’s cars are the ones being whistleblown, which isn’t true.
On Reddit, he praises JLR engineering standards and says the problem was Vinfast’s leadership ignoring engineering concerns, always picking the cheapest materials, and skipping safety tests.
The title makes it seem like JLR’s cars are the ones being whistleblown, which isn’t true.
Vinfast is acting as a Tier 1 for Jaguar, designing parts of the front chassis. This guy was on one of the engineering teams.
It’s the opposite. Vinfast hired JLR to design their cars. This guy works for JLR and blew the whistle on Vinfast’s leadership not caring about the safety of VF6 and VF7.
> posting concerns on Reddit
He started commenting after NHTSA was already on the case. He was commenting the investigation where VinFast was cooperating.
It would be better to report to media, regulators or, relevant hedge fund who could start shorting.
He started commenting after NHTSA was already on the case. He was commenting the investigation where VinFast was cooperating.
It would be better to report to media, regulators or, relevant hedge fund who could start shorting.
Nice self-own by Tata. Guy blows whistle while working at their obscure VinFast brand, but they sack him once he's moved to work for Jaguar - so all the headlines are about JLR rather than VinFast...
Trying to make cheap non-electrical vehicles makes sense, because it's mainstream and has been for a long time. A cheap brand would make a car like the ones we had 5 years ago, which are safe. A kind of random number, but you get the idea.
I've always viewed EVs as a luxury. While it's interesting to experiment with cheap EV designs, the short or midterm goal shouldn't be production.
There's a reason Tesla sells its cars even though they are expensive. They're supposed to be expensive since they are basically high-scale experiment.
I've always viewed EVs as a luxury. While it's interesting to experiment with cheap EV designs, the short or midterm goal shouldn't be production.
There's a reason Tesla sells its cars even though they are expensive. They're supposed to be expensive since they are basically high-scale experiment.
First rule of blowing the whistle: never disclose your identity if you can avoid it, even to authorities. There’s no upside to that and authorities are incompetent at preserving anonymity if it’s even legal for them to do so. (Exception: you’re filing a whistleblower report to the SEC, there’s sweet anonymous $$$ for you then.)
This happened in the other SEC when a football player at an SEC school provided evidence that there were illegal benefits being provided to some of his teammates. The PDF report blacked out his name but was done in such a way that copying and pasting the redacted portion of the report showed his name in clear text.
PDFs have so many ways to smuggle data. The only way I would feel safe sharing a PDF was to reprocess it in a dedicated pipeline that took a fuzzy monochrome screenshot of each page and package it up as a cbz (zip file of sequential images).
But what about the ego? Any virtuous act might be fueled by the expectation of recognition.
For some reason this has been downvoted, it seems some people on here think that whistleblowing is never about ego. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a factor most of the time.
So if the name is disclosed it‘s ego and if the source stays anonymous it’s not trustworthy.
Got it.
Got it.
Didn't say that. Didn't say anything close to that. Not to mention you can be trustworthy and still do something for self-serving purposes.
Might makes right sycophants without own opinions or values are worthless company wherever you go..
Reading the reddit thread it reeks of fresh out of school MEs making the wrong assumptions and implicit value judgments when weighing tradeoffs because it's what they're familiar with and school does a really great job indoctrinating them to pursue performance on first order metrics (e.g. weight) the detriment of secondary or "not even mentioned but implied" metrics (failure mode, serviceability, tooling costs, etc) and a lack of senior people like the whistleblower to call them on it.
While I sympathize with the complaints about budget and time that kind of further reinforces my point. In the face of those constraints experienced engineers would have designed something conservative with room for improvement. It's new engineers who more frequently tend to over-optimize design something right up to within an inch of its life when faced with tight constraints.
While I sympathize with the complaints about budget and time that kind of further reinforces my point. In the face of those constraints experienced engineers would have designed something conservative with room for improvement. It's new engineers who more frequently tend to over-optimize design something right up to within an inch of its life when faced with tight constraints.
From the article
> He soon became concerned VinFast was cutting corners with safety, keeping costs down by employing a small team of inexperienced engineers.
> His concerns grew when he heard three of his predecessors had quit after short spells on the project.
This to me sounds like the boss issued a task that was impossible to do safely and fired anyone who splashed reality into the mix.
> He soon became concerned VinFast was cutting corners with safety, keeping costs down by employing a small team of inexperienced engineers.
> His concerns grew when he heard three of his predecessors had quit after short spells on the project.
This to me sounds like the boss issued a task that was impossible to do safely and fired anyone who splashed reality into the mix.
A lot of stuff that is perfectly possible to do "safely" is only possible if your head is full of a decade of experience and familiarity with the real world successful solutions to similar problems. People with that knowledge and in an environment were other corners are being cut tend to produce designs that have room for minor revision by other parties as well as corner cutting (i.e. the testing guys pencil whip it) while still actually working well in reality, though perhaps leaving some performance in key areas on the table.
If you are fresh out of school and your head is full of ancient knowledge that is in the textbooks and lessons and tidbits of "the new hotness" and you are too reliant on simulation, testing, and other process that is done for process sake in school you are likely to design something that leaves less potential performance in measured areas (weight, cost, etc) but has lot of teething issues on secondary or unmeasured criteria (i.e. the tool and die guys will hate you, your item will wear rapidly in a case that while not average, represents a large number of users, etc)
Look at Juicero. It hit the key points, it juiced things, but it was wildly expensive and a bear to manufacture and operating costs were comical because there were no adults in the room to tell the noobs that their weighting of the tradeoffs both expressed and implied wasn't quit right. Here the same sort of inexperienced people were told to produce a suspension befitting a sexy new EV but also to make it cheap. Well they did that, but they also made something that's coming apart at the seams from day 1 and doesn't age gracefully at all and in cases of extreme use results in spectacular failures.
You see this sort of pattern in all sorts of technical fields.
If you are fresh out of school and your head is full of ancient knowledge that is in the textbooks and lessons and tidbits of "the new hotness" and you are too reliant on simulation, testing, and other process that is done for process sake in school you are likely to design something that leaves less potential performance in measured areas (weight, cost, etc) but has lot of teething issues on secondary or unmeasured criteria (i.e. the tool and die guys will hate you, your item will wear rapidly in a case that while not average, represents a large number of users, etc)
Look at Juicero. It hit the key points, it juiced things, but it was wildly expensive and a bear to manufacture and operating costs were comical because there were no adults in the room to tell the noobs that their weighting of the tradeoffs both expressed and implied wasn't quit right. Here the same sort of inexperienced people were told to produce a suspension befitting a sexy new EV but also to make it cheap. Well they did that, but they also made something that's coming apart at the seams from day 1 and doesn't age gracefully at all and in cases of extreme use results in spectacular failures.
You see this sort of pattern in all sorts of technical fields.
Jaguar and Land [Range] Rover are notorious for their electrical problems. I wouldn't trust an ICE vehicle from them let alone an EV. I doubt that even with new ownership or investment (or whatever is going on here) they can overcome the culture of unreliability and poor quality that has been built over a century.
As a car guy I heard about the whole VinFast saga a few months ago. It was kinda shocking because just about every car Youtuber that got a chance to review the VinFast shat all over it. Apparently after a while they pulled all review cars and eventually let more reviewers access them after they sorted them out. But IIRC even after that, reviewers of the "sorted" cards noted that their were still issues and they all seemed to be getting the same set of "sorted" cards which indicates the ones on the lot were probably still dogshit.
Sad to see what's happened to a once great, once British, brand.
Jaguar was historically known for terrible quality control, right? When I was young, the joke was that you had to own two; one to use while the other was in the shop...
Yeah "once great" is definitely a huge exaggeration. They're terribly unreliable. In the 90s we had one Jag in the neighborhood I lived in and it never moved lol. Everyone knew they were junk even back then.
How it usually went (not sure about now, but certainly 10 years ago): Dodge < Jaguar/Landrover < Germans cars < American cars < Japanese cars
How it usually went (not sure about now, but certainly 10 years ago): Dodge < Jaguar/Landrover < Germans cars < American cars < Japanese cars
> once British
All of its senior executive leadership is still British
https://www.jaguarlandrover.com/leadership
All of its senior executive leadership is still British
https://www.jaguarlandrover.com/leadership
All of its senior executive leadership is still British
Obviously not true.
One of them is German.
Obviously not true.
One of them is German.
As British as the British Royal Family then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Windsor
Both speak Germanic languages, close enough?
Even better then.
Is there any society on the planet that isn't fundamentally corrupt at this point? We put whistleblower protection on the books and they punish those who step forward. It's just disgraceful.
What are you doing about it? Do you refuse to buy those brands? Vote for leaders who will do something about it?
The answer always begins with the people in mirrors, including the one in my mirror too.
The answer always begins with the people in mirrors, including the one in my mirror too.
At this point? Do you think corruption is increasing compared to 100 years ago, globally?
[deleted]
Key takeaways here are probably "Vinfast doesn't have much in house engineering" and "don't buy one right now".