If someone regularly drives long distances (over 500 miles) I wouldn't recommend an EV at all.

Teslag said:

---

If someone regularly drives long distances (over 500 miles) I wouldn't recommend an EV at all.

---

Especially one that can't use the Tesla Supercharger network.

Teslag said:

---

If someone regularly drives long distances (over 500 miles) I wouldn't recommend an EV at all.

---

"Regularity" is an absurdity in the analyses, imho. It's those 'irregular' moments in life, whether the death of a loved one (as an example of a family emergency/crisis), or natural disaster, that should mitigate the analyses of a non-believer more, even outside the politics/environmental/deadly fire hazard risks.

nortex97 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

If someone regularly drives long distances (over 500 miles) I wouldn't recommend an EV at all.

---

"Regularity" is an absurdity in the analyses, imho. It's those 'irregular' moments in life, whether the death of a loved one (as an example of a family emergency/crisis), or natural disaster, that should mitigate the analyses of a non-believer more, even outside the politics/environmental/deadly fire hazard risks.

---

Making a major purchasing decision like the best vehicle for your situation based on the possibility of a one off situation isn't a good idea. If it's a truly a one off drive then it won't matter, you'll just deal with the charging on that rare event. And for some natural disasters I'd rather have my Tesla than my truck.

Big day for Tesla news after their cyber truck was filmed having trouble getting a Christmas tree out of a field. Now comes word they're the most accident prone.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevebanker/2023/12/18/tesla-has-the-highest-accident-rate-of-any-auto-brand/amp/

Quote:

---

Tesla drivers are the most accident-prone, according to a LendingTree analysis of 30 car brands. It found that Tesla drivers are involved in more accidents than drivers of any other brand. Tesla drivers had 23.54 accidents per 1,000 drivers. Ram (22.76) and Subaru (20.90) were the only other brands with more than 20 accidents per 1,000 drivers for every brand.

This was not a causal study; the study did not analyze the reason for an incident. But it comes amid news that Tesla recently recalled more than 2 million Tesla vehicles over a safety issue related to its Autopilot software - specifically, a feature called Autosteer, which is part of the driver-assistance system. The recall affects nearly all the cars Tesla has sold in the United States.

---

Quote:

---

Cold weather and winter driving conditions can significantly reduce fuel economy. Fuel economy tests show that, in city driving, a conventional gasoline car's gas mileage is roughly 15% lower at 20F than it would be at 77F. It can drop as much as 24% for short (3- to 4-mile) trips.

Cold weather effects can vary by vehicle model. However, expect conventional gasoline vehicles to suffer a 10% to 20% fuel economy loss in city driving and a 15% to 33% loss on short trips.

The effect on hybrids is typically greater with fuel economy dropping about 30% to 34% under these conditions. For hybrids, fuel economy typically decreases by 20% to 40% in city driving and 25% to 45% on short trips.

For electric vehicles (EVs), fuel economy can drop roughly 39% in mixed city and highway driving, and range can drop by 41%. About two-thirds of the extra energy consumed is used to heat the cabin. When the cabin heater is not used, EV fuel economy is 8% lower at 20F than at 75F. Driving range is about 12% lower.

---

Quote:

---

That's a catch "when the cabin heater is not used." Yikes. We drove back from Indianapolis to North Carolina one wintery trek in our Audi. Oh, we had heat, but no defrost as our mechanics had worked a last minute miracle on that cranky system so we could leave town, and stay safely warm. A day-after-Christmas snow storm meant having to drop the front windows on the freeway to bang slushy snow and ice off the wipers and windshield. Even at reduced speeds thanks to the conditions, it was not a fun experience at 35 outside. But we DID have heat inside.

---

Quote:

---

So the data in the chart above was culled from vehicles on the road, not laboratory test runs or manufacturers' experiments, and they've got a couple years' worth now.

Quote:

---

Electric Cars React to Winter in Very Different Ways
This chart compares 12 popular EV models to show range loss in freezing temperatures, as compared to the ideal driving temperature. Note that the ideal driving temperature is defined as the temperature at which a specific model sees its highest average range. This exact temperature varies from car to car.

This analysis includes aggregated and anonymized data from over 10,000 vehicles in the Recurrent community from across the United States as well as tens of thousands of data points from on-board devices that provide data on energy usage

---

---

Via Hot Air



LINK

Is that accurate?

Tesla installed a new battery in this guy's model X. It promptly caught on fire.

https://www.autoblog.com/2023/11/13/tesla-owner-heard-a-hissing-sound-from-the-battery-before-it-caught-on-fire-in-his-garage/

Yes, I have noticed large drops in range in very cold temps. Another reason they aren't good for long road trips.

Teslag said:

---

Yes, I have noticed large drops in range in very cold temps. Another reason they aren't good for long road trips.

---

Can you get heat inside the car?

Yes of course. It's a just a range drop. Basically rather than being able to drive 85mph for 270 miles I'd get about 175 miles and need to drive about 65 to 70 mph.

techno-ag said:

---

Tesla installed a new battery in this guy's model X. It promptly caught on fire.

https://www.autoblog.com/2023/11/13/tesla-owner-heard-a-hissing-sound-from-the-battery-before-it-caught-on-fire-in-his-garage/

---

Will EV's ever be able to use an automatic on board extinguisher? Similar to the ones used in nice boats?

Teslag said:

---

Yes of course. It's a just a range drop. Basically rather than being able to drive 85mph for 270 miles I'd get about 175 miles and need to drive about 65 to 70 mph.

---

Okay.

You do understand I don't like EVs because I live on a ranch and towing is an issue for us. I mean no disrespect, just trying to figure crap out here.

aggiehawg said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Yes of course. It's a just a range drop. Basically rather than being able to drive 85mph for 270 miles I'd get about 175 miles and need to drive about 65 to 70 mph.

---

Okay.

You do understand I don't like EVs because I live on a ranch and towing is an issue for us. I mean no disrespect, just trying to figure crap out here.

---

Without a doubt, towing is a problem with EVs which is why a lot of us have said they are the right tool for some jobs and horrible for others. People need to have the ability to choose what is right for their needs and not have the government decide for them.

Where EVs make the most sense is for daily drivers, especially in major cities with stop and go traffic assuming you can charge at your residence. That also makes them great for someone like the postal service and many police departments where they do a lot of idling and start/stops. They can charge overnight/between shifts and they save a ton on fuel. Many police departments have also reported a major drop in maintenance expenses such as brake jobs, fluid changes, etc.

aggiehawg said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Yes of course. It's a just a range drop. Basically rather than being able to drive 85mph for 270 miles I'd get about 175 miles and need to drive about 65 to 70 mph.

---

Okay.

You do understand I don't like EVs because I live on a ranch and towing is an issue for us. I mean no disrespect, just trying to figure crap out here.

---

Yes. An EV would be a terrible option for you. That's why we still need the option for ICE. We have a Tesla and a diesel Silverado, both excel at what they are intended to do.

Teslag said:

---

Yes of course. It's a just a range drop. Basically rather than being able to drive 85mph for 270 miles I'd get about 175 miles and need to drive about 65 to 70 mph.

---

That seems like a choice that people should not have to make, to me.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Tesla installed a new battery in this guy's model X. It promptly caught on fire.

https://www.autoblog.com/2023/11/13/tesla-owner-heard-a-hissing-sound-from-the-battery-before-it-caught-on-fire-in-his-garage/

---

Will EV's ever be able to use an automatic on board extinguisher? Similar to the ones used in nice boats?

---

No, thermal run-away precludes that working for Li-Ion batteries, once they start melting down, so to speak. Basically have to just let it burn out/throw 30K gallons of water at it until it is done. It basically doesn't need an oxygen source once it goes.

That's why these really shouldn't ever be responsibly stored, let alone charged, within 20-40 feet of a dwelling structure, imho.

aggiehawg said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Yes of course. It's a just a range drop. Basically rather than being able to drive 85mph for 270 miles I'd get about 175 miles and need to drive about 65 to 70 mph.

---

That seems like a choice that people should not have to make, to me.

---

If you're not driving that far there's no choice to even make.

I thought these things were supposed to be high quality and well made.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/tesla-customers-failure-defective-car-part-1234933901/amp/

Quote:

---

An alarming report published by Reuters on Wednesday details how the electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla has shirked responsibility for the failures of parts it knew to be defective, including suspension and steering systems. The investigation comes shortly after a recall of 2 million Teslas to add safety guardrails to the cars' Autopilot features - whose capabilities CEO Elon Musk tends to grossly exaggerate - as well as a study showing that Tesla drivers had the highest accident rate among all auto brands over the past year.

Reuters journalists reviewed thousands of Tesla documents revealing how the company tracked design flaws but routinely made customers pay substantial out-of-pocket fees to repair those very issues. Tens of thousands of drivers, the outlet reported, have experienced steering and suspension problems in newer cars due to these faulty parts. In one incident, a 2023 Tesla Model Y carrying a driver along with his wife and young daughter blew its right-front suspension because of a slow turn. The owner had bought the car the day before.

---

I knew Tesla was #1 in some categories, but I didnt know crashes was one of them. Are they speculating that it is an auto pilot issue? A car construction issue? Or a personality issue?

I could definitely understand more crashes from drivers engaging in tom foolery, perhaps these gimmicks just attract casuals?

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Tesla installed a new battery in this guy's model X. It promptly caught on fire.

https://www.autoblog.com/2023/11/13/tesla-owner-heard-a-hissing-sound-from-the-battery-before-it-caught-on-fire-in-his-garage/

---

Will EV's ever be able to use an automatic on board extinguisher? Similar to the ones used in nice boats?

---

I dunno man. Fire departments seem to have a tough time putting these giant battery fires out. Not sure if an onboard suppression system would help much if the fire department can't do it.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

I knew Tesla was #1 in some categories, but I didnt know crashes was one of them. Are they speculating that it is an auto pilot issue? A car construction issue? Or a personality issue?

I could definitely understand more crashes from drivers engaging in tom foolery, perhaps these gimmicks just attract casuals?

---

Well autopilot was just recalled so there's a possibility there. But I'd say all the three contribute to some degree.

Teslag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Yes of course. It's a just a range drop. Basically rather than being able to drive 85mph for 270 miles I'd get about 175 miles and need to drive about 65 to 70 mph.

---

That seems like a choice that people should not have to make, to me.

---

If you're not driving that far there's no choice to even make.

---

Pardon me but that is just dumb. Cold outside? Well make a choice. Heat the inside car or make it to the next charging station? With wife and kids?

At this point in their evolution, EVs are very expensive, VERY specialized tools… or an expensive toy. Nothing more.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

I knew Tesla was #1 in some categories, but I didnt know crashes was one of them. Are they speculating that it is an auto pilot issue? A car construction issue? Or a personality issue?

I could definitely understand more crashes from drivers engaging in tom foolery, perhaps these gimmicks just attract casuals?

---

The study in question was based on insurance claims filed and not actual accident data. Look at the three cars with the lowest rates
Meanwhile, drivers of Pontiac (8.41), Mercury (8.96) and Saturn (9.13) were involved in the least amount of accidents. The analysis was done across cars of 30 brands.
Saturn hasn't produced new cars since 2010. I doubt many drivers are carrying coverage beyond liability. The same with Pontiac which stopped in 2010 and Mercury stopped producing cars in 2011.
Most brands on the market have been produced for at least a few decades so many of their cars also likely don't carry collision coverage.

Tesla on the other hand is mostly new cars so most likely have full coverage and on top of that, as documented hear, low speed incidents are more likely to lead to claims big enough to trigger a filing.

Tesla reported data based on airbag deployments that show a much lower rate. If someone thinks the data is flawed, PM Hawg and have her find some securities attorney to file a claim against Tesla for misleading investors.

Neither analysis is perfect but I would say the lending tree data is the more flawed because they should have adjusted for cars carrying comp and not the total fleet on the road.

Will movies with vehicles powered by internal combustion engines be banned in the future?

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

I knew Tesla was #1 in some categories, but I didnt know crashes was one of them. Are they speculating that it is an auto pilot issue? A car construction issue? Or a personality issue?

I could definitely understand more crashes from drivers engaging in tom foolery, perhaps these gimmicks just attract casuals?

---

The study in question was based on insurance claims filed and not actual accident data. Look at the three cars with the lowest rates
Meanwhile, drivers of Pontiac (8.41), Mercury (8.96) and Saturn (9.13) were involved in the least amount of accidents. The analysis was done across cars of 30 brands.
Saturn hasn't produced new cars since 2010. I doubt many drivers are carrying coverage beyond liability. The same with Pontiac which stopped in 2010 and Mercury stopped producing cars in 2011.
Most brands on the market have been produced for at least a few decades so many of their cars also likely don't carry collision coverage.

Tesla on the other hand is mostly new cars so most likely have full coverage and on top of that, as documented hear, low speed incidents are more likely to lead to claims big enough to trigger a filing.

Tesla reported data based on airbag deployments that show a much lower rate. If someone thinks the data is flawed, PM Hawg and have her find some securities attorney to file a claim against Tesla for misleading investors.

Neither analysis is perfect but I would say the lending tree data is the more flawed because they should have adjusted for cars carrying comp and not the total fleet on the road.

---

Facts are Tesla haters kryptonite

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

I knew Tesla was #1 in some categories, but I didnt know crashes was one of them. Are they speculating that it is an auto pilot issue? A car construction issue? Or a personality issue?

I could definitely understand more crashes from drivers engaging in tom foolery, perhaps these gimmicks just attract casuals?

---

The study in question was based on insurance claims filed and not actual accident data. Look at the three cars with the lowest rates
Meanwhile, drivers of Pontiac (8.41), Mercury (8.96) and Saturn (9.13) were involved in the least amount of accidents. The analysis was done across cars of 30 brands.
Saturn hasn't produced new cars since 2010. I doubt many drivers are carrying coverage beyond liability. The same with Pontiac which stopped in 2010 and Mercury stopped producing cars in 2011.
Most brands on the market have been produced for at least a few decades so many of their cars also likely don't carry collision coverage.

Tesla on the other hand is mostly new cars so most likely have full coverage and on top of that, as documented hear, low speed incidents are more likely to lead to claims big enough to trigger a filing.

Tesla reported data based on airbag deployments that show a much lower rate. If someone thinks the data is flawed, PM Hawg and have her find some securities attorney to file a claim against Tesla for misleading investors.

Neither analysis is perfect but I would say the lending tree data is the more flawed because they should have adjusted for cars carrying comp and not the total fleet on the road.

---

Teslas are #1 in Crashes

"Thats not true! Teslas are #1 in crashes involving insurance"

Probably not the slam dunk you think it is.

I have no reason to dispute the data above. But I do find it funny you're using data from Tesla to show how someone else's data about Tesla is wrong.

lead said:

---

I have no reason to dispute the data above. But I do find it funny you're using data from Tesla to show how someone else's data about Tesla is wrong.

---

No, I am just trying to show depending on how you gather data, you can get radically different answers. I also said that I think there are flaws in both analysis but I think one is more flawed than the other.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

I knew Tesla was #1 in some categories, but I didnt know crashes was one of them. Are they speculating that it is an auto pilot issue? A car construction issue? Or a personality issue?

I could definitely understand more crashes from drivers engaging in tom foolery, perhaps these gimmicks just attract casuals?

---

The study in question was based on insurance claims filed and not actual accident data. Look at the three cars with the lowest rates
Meanwhile, drivers of Pontiac (8.41), Mercury (8.96) and Saturn (9.13) were involved in the least amount of accidents. The analysis was done across cars of 30 brands.
Saturn hasn't produced new cars since 2010. I doubt many drivers are carrying coverage beyond liability. The same with Pontiac which stopped in 2010 and Mercury stopped producing cars in 2011.
Most brands on the market have been produced for at least a few decades so many of their cars also likely don't carry collision coverage.

Tesla on the other hand is mostly new cars so most likely have full coverage and on top of that, as documented hear, low speed incidents are more likely to lead to claims big enough to trigger a filing.

Tesla reported data based on airbag deployments that show a much lower rate. If someone thinks the data is flawed, PM Hawg and have her find some securities attorney to file a claim against Tesla for misleading investors.

Neither analysis is perfect but I would say the lending tree data is the more flawed because they should have adjusted for cars carrying comp and not the total fleet on the road.

---

Teslas are #1 in Crashes

"Thats not true! Teslas are #1 in crashes involving insurance"

Probably not the slam dunk you think it is.

---

Are you disputing the basic premise that cars on the road a long time are by definition way less likely to have an insurance claim than cars less than 3-4 years old?

As I also stated, they are more likely to have a claim in low speed incidents which is definitely a negative but the fundamental method of Lending Tree is heavily flawed.

Why else would three makes not produced in over a decade have the lowest rate of insurance claims? Do you think people buying the junkers are way safer drivers and their vehicles have way less mechanical failures leading to accidents?

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

I knew Tesla was #1 in some categories, but I didnt know crashes was one of them. Are they speculating that it is an auto pilot issue? A car construction issue? Or a personality issue?

I could definitely understand more crashes from drivers engaging in tom foolery, perhaps these gimmicks just attract casuals?

---

The study in question was based on insurance claims filed and not actual accident data. Look at the three cars with the lowest rates
Meanwhile, drivers of Pontiac (8.41), Mercury (8.96) and Saturn (9.13) were involved in the least amount of accidents. The analysis was done across cars of 30 brands.
Saturn hasn't produced new cars since 2010. I doubt many drivers are carrying coverage beyond liability. The same with Pontiac which stopped in 2010 and Mercury stopped producing cars in 2011.
Most brands on the market have been produced for at least a few decades so many of their cars also likely don't carry collision coverage.

Tesla on the other hand is mostly new cars so most likely have full coverage and on top of that, as documented hear, low speed incidents are more likely to lead to claims big enough to trigger a filing.

Tesla reported data based on airbag deployments that show a much lower rate. If someone thinks the data is flawed, PM Hawg and have her find some securities attorney to file a claim against Tesla for misleading investors.

Neither analysis is perfect but I would say the lending tree data is the more flawed because they should have adjusted for cars carrying comp and not the total fleet on the road.

---

Teslas are #1 in Crashes

"Thats not true! Teslas are #1 in crashes involving insurance"

Probably not the slam dunk you think it is.

---

Are you disputing the basic premise that cars on the road a long time are by definition way less likely to have an insurance claim than cars less than 3-4 years old?

As I also stated, they are more likely to have a claim in low speed incidents which is definitely a negative but the fundamental method of Lending Tree is heavily flawed.

Why else would three makes not produced in over a decade have the lowest rate of insurance claims? Do you think people buying the junkers are way safer drivers and their vehicles have way less mechanical failures leading to accidents?

---

No, I'm not disputing any of that: Teslas are the #1 vehicle in crashes involving insurance.

Poot said:

---

At this point in their evolution, EVs are very expensive, VERY specialized tools… or an expensive toy. Nothing more.

---

That's pretty standard for many technological advances, and like the ones in the past, prices will come down to where more and more can afford them.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

I knew Tesla was #1 in some categories, but I didnt know crashes was one of them. Are they speculating that it is an auto pilot issue? A car construction issue? Or a personality issue?

I could definitely understand more crashes from drivers engaging in tom foolery, perhaps these gimmicks just attract casuals?

---

The study in question was based on insurance claims filed and not actual accident data. Look at the three cars with the lowest rates
Meanwhile, drivers of Pontiac (8.41), Mercury (8.96) and Saturn (9.13) were involved in the least amount of accidents. The analysis was done across cars of 30 brands.
Saturn hasn't produced new cars since 2010. I doubt many drivers are carrying coverage beyond liability. The same with Pontiac which stopped in 2010 and Mercury stopped producing cars in 2011.
Most brands on the market have been produced for at least a few decades so many of their cars also likely don't carry collision coverage.

Tesla on the other hand is mostly new cars so most likely have full coverage and on top of that, as documented hear, low speed incidents are more likely to lead to claims big enough to trigger a filing.

Tesla reported data based on airbag deployments that show a much lower rate. If someone thinks the data is flawed, PM Hawg and have her find some securities attorney to file a claim against Tesla for misleading investors.

Neither analysis is perfect but I would say the lending tree data is the more flawed because they should have adjusted for cars carrying comp and not the total fleet on the road.

---

Teslas are #1 in Crashes

"Thats not true! Teslas are #1 in crashes involving insurance"

Probably not the slam dunk you think it is.

---

Are you disputing the basic premise that cars on the road a long time are by definition way less likely to have an insurance claim than cars less than 3-4 years old?

As I also stated, they are more likely to have a claim in low speed incidents which is definitely a negative but the fundamental method of Lending Tree is heavily flawed.

Why else would three makes not produced in over a decade have the lowest rate of insurance claims? Do you think people buying the junkers are way safer drivers and their vehicles have way less mechanical failures leading to accidents?

---

No, I'm not disputing any of that: Teslas are the #1 vehicle in crashes involving insurance.

---

No, I'm pushing anything I find to support my agenda. Here, and other places. Sad.

No Spin Ag said:

---

Poot said:

---

At this point in their evolution, EVs are very expensive, VERY specialized tools… or an expensive toy. Nothing more.

---

That's pretty standard for many technological advances, and like the ones in the past, prices will come down to where more and more can afford them.

---

Fair, but I don't think it's right or prudent to make policies and plans for future policies aimed at mandating a new/developing technology that is involved in an absolutely vital part of our lives such as transportation.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

I knew Tesla was #1 in some categories, but I didnt know crashes was one of them. Are they speculating that it is an auto pilot issue? A car construction issue? Or a personality issue?

I could definitely understand more crashes from drivers engaging in tom foolery, perhaps these gimmicks just attract casuals?

---

The study in question was based on insurance claims filed and not actual accident data. Look at the three cars with the lowest rates
Meanwhile, drivers of Pontiac (8.41), Mercury (8.96) and Saturn (9.13) were involved in the least amount of accidents. The analysis was done across cars of 30 brands.
Saturn hasn't produced new cars since 2010. I doubt many drivers are carrying coverage beyond liability. The same with Pontiac which stopped in 2010 and Mercury stopped producing cars in 2011.
Most brands on the market have been produced for at least a few decades so many of their cars also likely don't carry collision coverage.

Tesla on the other hand is mostly new cars so most likely have full coverage and on top of that, as documented hear, low speed incidents are more likely to lead to claims big enough to trigger a filing.

Tesla reported data based on airbag deployments that show a much lower rate. If someone thinks the data is flawed, PM Hawg and have her find some securities attorney to file a claim against Tesla for misleading investors.

Neither analysis is perfect but I would say the lending tree data is the more flawed because they should have adjusted for cars carrying comp and not the total fleet on the road.

---

Teslas are #1 in Crashes

"Thats not true! Teslas are #1 in crashes involving insurance"

Probably not the slam dunk you think it is.

---

Are you disputing the basic premise that cars on the road a long time are by definition way less likely to have an insurance claim than cars less than 3-4 years old?

As I also stated, they are more likely to have a claim in low speed incidents which is definitely a negative but the fundamental method of Lending Tree is heavily flawed.

Why else would three makes not produced in over a decade have the lowest rate of insurance claims? Do you think people buying the junkers are way safer drivers and their vehicles have way less mechanical failures leading to accidents?

---

No, I'm not disputing any of that: Teslas are the #1 vehicle in crashes involving insurance.

---

If I am choosing a car based on safety, I would rather buy one that is less likely to have accidents that deploy air bags than a car that has lower insurance claims especially when the primary reason for lower insurance claims is the age of the fleet resulting in few with full coverage.