Dependent upon a 30x increase in the rate, which is an unlikely number considering that for ICE vehicles the increase from a population of vehicles with an average of 6.5 years (assuming a roughly normal distribution of age for the <13 year population) only increased by 4x to a population of vehicles that had an undetermined average age, but definitively >13 years (minimally a 6.5 year time gap, more likely 10-11 years).

At the time the 25 fires per 100,000 vehicles was established the average age of an EV was 3.5 years. So you'd need a 8x increase in the rate of fires in 3 years to match the 4x increase that ICE experienced to reach that 30x increase, when the rate of fire rate increase for ICE vehicles was primarily attributable to poor maintenance and repairs that is not a norm requirement for EVs.

In other words you would expect the rate of fire increase to be slower than ICE vehicles and it would necessitate a rate of increase that far exceeds ICE vehicles to reach that 30x figure.

If you assumed, generously, a 50% increase in the fire rate from year 3.5 to year 6.5 and then the same 4x increase from year 6.5 to >13 year population, you would need each fire to cause $117,000 in damages to match the risk profile for ICE vehicles. For a population of fires where over half of all fires are on the road, and the risk of fire from charging is dependent upon the rate of charge, i.e. most charging fires are likely to occur while DC fast charging in a parking lot rather than level 2 charging in a garage.

175.50 = .00025*(1.5)*(4) * C

C = $117,000


The reality is that on a population basis, not an individual fire event basis, EVs probably represent a reduction in risk from vehicle fires, but I'll just leave it at they do not represent a significant increase in fire risk relative to ICE vehicles.

GAC06 said:

---

I can't believe I'm going to have to take time out of my busy schedule to comply with this recall

---

Largest recall of 2024 so far, in Jan.

https://qz.com/car-recalls-2024-tesla-ford-kia-stellantis-1851544204#:~:text=All%20the%20Teslas,-All%20of%20Tesla's&text=By%20far%2C%20Tesla's%20January%2030,Model%20Y%2C%20and%20the%20Cybertruck.

Devastating

hph6203 said:

---

Dependent upon a 30x increase in the rate, which is an unlikely number considering that for ICE vehicles the increase from a population of vehicles with an average of 6.5 years (assuming a roughly normal distribution of age for the <13 year population) only increased by 4x to a population of vehicles that had an undetermined average age, but definitively >13 years (minimally a 6.5 year time gap, more likely 10-11 years).

At the time the 25 fires per 100,000 vehicles was established the average age of an EV was 3.5 years. So you'd need a 8x increase in the rate of fires in 3 years to match the 4x increase that ICE experienced to reach that 30x increase, when the rate of fire rate increase for ICE vehicles was primarily attributable to poor maintenance and repairs that is not a norm requirement for EVs.

In other words you would expect the rate of fire increase to be slower than ICE vehicles and it would necessitate a rate of increase that far exceeds ICE vehicles to reach that 30x figure.

If you assumed, generously, a 50% increase in the fire rate from year 3.5 to year 6.5 and then the same 4x increase from year 6.5 to >13 year population, you would need each fire to cause $117,000 in damages to match the risk profile for ICE vehicles. For a population of fires where over half of all fires are on the road, and the risk of fire from charging is dependent upon the rate of charge, i.e. most charging fires are likely to occur while DC fast charging in a parking lot rather than level 2 charging in a garage.

175.50 = .00025*(1.5)*(4) * C

C = $117,000


The reality is that on a population basis, not an individual fire event basis, EVs probably represent a reduction in risk from vehicle fires, but I'll just leave it at they do not represent a significant increase in fire risk relative to ICE vehicles.

---

That equation he posted wasn't meant to use actual numbers. He posted it because he thought it made him sound smart. Using real data blows his argument to pieces, so just let him have his smug moment. Or maybe modify it to account for "creating its own oxygen" and multiply by threeve.

GAC06 said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

Dependent upon a 30x increase in the rate, which is an unlikely number considering that for ICE vehicles the increase from a population of vehicles with an average of 6.5 years (assuming a roughly normal distribution of age for the <13 year population) only increased by 4x to a population of vehicles that had an undetermined average age, but definitively >13 years (minimally a 6.5 year time gap, more likely 10-11 years).

At the time the 25 fires per 100,000 vehicles was established the average age of an EV was 3.5 years. So you'd need a 8x increase in the rate of fires in 3 years to match the 4x increase that ICE experienced to reach that 30x increase, when the rate of fire rate increase for ICE vehicles was primarily attributable to poor maintenance and repairs that is not a norm requirement for EVs.

In other words you would expect the rate of fire increase to be slower than ICE vehicles and it would necessitate a rate of increase that far exceeds ICE vehicles to reach that 30x figure.

If you assumed, generously, a 50% increase in the fire rate from year 3.5 to year 6.5 and then the same 4x increase from year 6.5 to >13 year population, you would need each fire to cause $117,000 in damages to match the risk profile for ICE vehicles. For a population of fires where over half of all fires are on the road, and the risk of fire from charging is dependent upon the rate of charge, i.e. most charging fires are likely to occur while DC fast charging in a parking lot rather than level 2 charging in a garage.

175.50 = .00025*(1.5)*(4) * C

C = $117,000


The reality is that on a population basis, not an individual fire event basis, EVs probably represent a reduction in risk from vehicle fires, but I'll just leave it at they do not represent a significant increase in fire risk relative to ICE vehicles.

---

That equation he posted wasn't meant to use actual numbers. He posted it because he thought it made him sound smart. Using real data blows his argument to pieces, so just let him have his smug moment. Or maybe modify it to account for "creating its own oxygen" and multiply by threeve.

---

"Actual numbers"

You don't actually mean that, do you? You forgot to use per capita, and of course EV's look good. They're still a relatively tiny fraction of vehicles.

EV fires are less frequent (for now) but their destructive potential is almost infinitely greater.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

Dependent upon a 30x increase in the rate, which is an unlikely number considering that for ICE vehicles the increase from a population of vehicles with an average of 6.5 years (assuming a roughly normal distribution of age for the <13 year population) only increased by 4x to a population of vehicles that had an undetermined average age, but definitively >13 years (minimally a 6.5 year time gap, more likely 10-11 years).

At the time the 25 fires per 100,000 vehicles was established the average age of an EV was 3.5 years. So you'd need a 8x increase in the rate of fires in 3 years to match the 4x increase that ICE experienced to reach that 30x increase, when the rate of fire rate increase for ICE vehicles was primarily attributable to poor maintenance and repairs that is not a norm requirement for EVs.

In other words you would expect the rate of fire increase to be slower than ICE vehicles and it would necessitate a rate of increase that far exceeds ICE vehicles to reach that 30x figure.

If you assumed, generously, a 50% increase in the fire rate from year 3.5 to year 6.5 and then the same 4x increase from year 6.5 to >13 year population, you would need each fire to cause $117,000 in damages to match the risk profile for ICE vehicles. For a population of fires where over half of all fires are on the road, and the risk of fire from charging is dependent upon the rate of charge, i.e. most charging fires are likely to occur while DC fast charging in a parking lot rather than level 2 charging in a garage.

175.50 = .00025*(1.5)*(4) * C

C = $117,000


The reality is that on a population basis, not an individual fire event basis, EVs probably represent a reduction in risk from vehicle fires, but I'll just leave it at they do not represent a significant increase in fire risk relative to ICE vehicles.

---

That equation he posted wasn't meant to use actual numbers. He posted it because he thought it made him sound smart. Using real data blows his argument to pieces, so just let him have his smug moment. Or maybe modify it to account for "creating its own oxygen" and multiply by threeve.

---

"Actual numbers"

You don't actually mean that, do you? You forgot to use per capita, and of course EV's look good. They're still a relatively tiny fraction of vehicles.

EV fires are less frequent (for now) but their destructive potential is almost infinitely greater.

---

Please inform me. "Use per capita" and your equation with factual numbers. Cite your sources.

Per capita is Latin meaning "for every head", i.e. for every person (i.e. stands for id est, meaning "that is", meaning as a clarification. Latin again, so confusing!). It's used when the number of outcomes is greater than the number of people. Like the amount of beef Americans eat in a year (82 pounds per capita! Americans do love burgers! Cheese please!). If per capita was used then the denominator would be extremely large and would make EVs look even better because the population of electric vehicles (the actual test population) is substantially smaller than the ICE population.

When the number of outcomes is less than the test population the data is normalized to a segmented portion of the population so that you can make comparisons, like how homicides are normalized to the number for every 100,000 people (7.6 per 100,000 people in Texas, 24th in the U.S.! Not bad considering the border problem!).

In this instance because the rate of fires is lower than the number of vehicles, the rate was normalized to the number of fires for each individual vehicle type for a segmented population of 100,000 vehicles. 25 for every 100,000 electric vehicles, 1529 for every 100,000 ICE vehicles, disaggregated data! Who would've thought that was important?! (Not you!). The EV data was then adjusted by multipliers to account for the relative lack of age of the population of EVs (generously for your argument, I might add) and it still popped out a stupid cost per fire number and you're so stunned by it that you think it wasn't done "per capita."

This has been a two teas level dismantling

Used Tesla prices are dropping so fast, Hertz is hurrying to unload current inventory.

https://electrek.co/2024/08/01/hertz-accelerates-sales-of-tesla-vehicles-as-value-crumbles/

Tesla hurt previous customers by cutting prices. EV's as rental cars is a dumb idea for now.

Tesla struggles to attract new buyers. I think it's safe to say we've seen Tesla peak.

https://qz.com/elon-musk-tesla-car-sales-1851609883

Quote:

---

The typical Tesla driver is so stereotypical that they have a nickname: Tesla bro. These drivers are enticed by Tesla's user experience and high-tech accessories - and have more patience for features that are hard to use or have initial bugs.

But the non-Tesla-bro contingent is looking for something more practical that mimics the experience of their gas-powered car.

---

Anyone have the updated FSD software? The advancement is amazing. Drove over an hr from the lake to home, and only time I took over was because they had flaggers on the highway so didn't want to risk anything.

Car saw a deer jumping on the road driving 70mph and slowed down and swerved around it.

Didn't need to take control otherwise. Now, you don't even need to touch the wheel. Very close.

Now that sounds great, the way it is supposed to work.
But as is gets older, how will you know when it becomes unreliable?

I am sure self driving will become better than human driver if not better. But having it especially on long drives is a better driving experience especially on highway.

I would say it is better than the average humans already

First fatal Cybertruck crash and burn. In Texas.

https://electrek.co/2024/08/05/tesla-cybertruck-driver-dies-first-fatal-crash/

GAC06 said:

---

Tesla hurt previous customers by cutting prices. EV's as rental cars is a dumb idea for now.

---

Yeah. EV's are best suited for people who have the capability to charge them at home. Whereas the main market for rental cars is people who are traveling away from home.

Not directly EV related but I hope folks chuckle at this as I did:

What is Tucker Carlson's Daily Driver? A 1987 Chevy Silverado.

"There are no electronics in this. There's no air conditioning, there's no radio, and there's no way for the government to turn off my engine if I'm disobedient."@TuckerCarlson pic.twitter.com/AloJaIaubz

— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) August 5, 2024

If you think you have an EV model in mind to purchase, called your insurance agent first, and ask them what the rate will be compared to a gas powered vehicle that is similar.


You will be stunned !

Jeff Patel said:

---

If you think you have an EV model in mind to purchase, called your insurance agent first, and ask them what the rate will be compared to a gas powered vehicle that is similar.


You will be stunned !

---

Stunned how? My new Tesla is less expensive to insure than the Lexus GS-F it replaces.

Jeff Patel said:

---

If you think you have an EV model in mind to purchase, called your insurance agent first, and ask them what the rate will be compared to a gas powered vehicle that is similar.


You will be stunned !

---

Yup. Maintenance costs are lower (no oil changes), but explosive batteries that need to be replaced after minor collisions are expensive.

He's a double agent, only commies think air conditioning is bad.

hph6203 said:

---

He's a double agent, only commies think air conditioning is bad.

---

Prolly not needed much in Maine.

Jeff Patel said:

---

If you think you have an EV model in mind to purchase, called your insurance agent first, and ask them what the rate will be compared to a gas powered vehicle that is similar.


You will be stunned !

---

my Yukon Denali and my Rivian truck were both about the same to purchase ($100k), and both cost about the same to insure.

My 2023 MY is about 50% more than our 2018 minivan. but MY 2x more valuable.

Seems reasonable. I have been a MY owner for 4+yrs and its not more than expected and no more than our BMW back in the day given inflation.

Overblown again like almost all other complaints. Like a bunch of libs, just keep listening to the MSM/tick tock and think its true without context.

techno-ag said:

---

Yup. Maintenance costs are lower (no oil changes), but explosive batteries that need to be replaced after minor collisions are expensive.

---

You really must be the biggest troll. To say maintenance is lower with emphasis on only oil changes is just biased and ill informed.

Medaggie said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Yup. Maintenance costs are lower (no oil changes), but explosive batteries that need to be replaced after minor collisions are expensive.

---

You really must be the biggest troll. To say maintenance is lower with emphasis on only oil changes is just biased and ill informed.

---

That is exactly what previous posters on this thread, allegedly EV owners, have said. No oil changes was touted as a benefit.

as far as PM goes, EVs have no need to change oil or oil filter, no need to flush coolant, transmission fluid, brake fluid, or fuel lines, no need to change spark plugs. If all is working well, the only PM is to rotate the tires every 7.5k miles and change the cabin air filter if it gets dirty. ...and of course you get the savings difference between your cost per kwh at your miles/kwh rate vs the cost per gallon of gas at your other vehicle's mpg. The only added cost, again if all goes well, is that the added weight will lead to more tire tread wear so replacing four tires after 3-4 tire rotations instead of possibly getting a few more than that on an ICE vehicle. ...but I'm only 5 months in with my Rivian and haven't even had my first tire rotation yet, so we'll see how it goes.

oh no said:

---

as far as PM goes, EVs have no need to change oil or oil filter, no need to flush coolant, transmission fluid, brake fluid, or fuel lines, no need to change spark plugs. If all is working well, the only PM is to rotate the tires every 7.5k miles and change the cabin air filter if it gets dirty. ...and of course you get the savings difference between your cost per kwh at your miles/kwh rate vs the cost per gallon of gas at your other vehicle's mpg. The only added cost, again if all goes well, is that the added weight will lead to more tire tread wear so replacing four tires after 3-4 tire rotations instead of possibly getting a few more than that on an ICE vehicle. ...but I'm only 5 months in with my Rivian and haven't even had my first tire rotation yet, so we'll see how it goes.

---

Biased and ill informed according to the poster above you.

techno-ag said:

---

Medaggie said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Yup. Maintenance costs are lower (no oil changes), but explosive batteries that need to be replaced after minor collisions are expensive.

---

You really must be the biggest troll. To say maintenance is lower with emphasis on only oil changes is just biased and ill informed.

---

That is exactly what previous posters on this thread, allegedly EV owners, have said. No oil changes was touted as a benefit.

---

Your so dense and just argumentative thinking you have some gotcha moments. Oil change is a small part of what is essentially a zero maintenance car.

I have driven over 100k miles in my MY and have had zero scheduled maintenance such as oil/fluid/brakes. Biggest savings is about 66% savings compared to gas. But of course, your just being a troll and argumentative.

oh no said:

---

as far as PM goes, EVs have no need to change oil or oil filter, no need to flush coolant, transmission fluid, brake fluid, or fuel lines, no need to change spark plugs. If all is working well, the only PM is to rotate the tires every 7.5k miles and change the cabin air filter if it gets dirty. ...and of course you get the savings difference between your cost per kwh at your miles/kwh rate vs the cost per gallon of gas at your other vehicle's mpg. The only added cost, again if all goes well, is that the added weight will lead to more tire tread wear so replacing four tires after 3-4 tire rotations instead of possibly getting a few more than that on an ICE vehicle. ...but I'm only 5 months in with my Rivian and haven't even had my first tire rotation yet, so we'll see how it goes.

---

I am not even sure the tire issue is a big deal. I am at 34K miles on my MY, I am a typical avg driver, and still on the original tires with prob 5-10k miles left on it.

I changed my BMW X5 at around 35-40K miles.

Medaggie said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Medaggie said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Yup. Maintenance costs are lower (no oil changes), but explosive batteries that need to be replaced after minor collisions are expensive.

---

You really must be the biggest troll. To say maintenance is lower with emphasis on only oil changes is just biased and ill informed.

---

That is exactly what previous posters on this thread, allegedly EV owners, have said. No oil changes was touted as a benefit.

---

Your so dense and just argumentative thinking you have some gotcha moments. Oil change is a small part of what is essentially a zero maintenance car.

I have driven over 100k miles in my MY and have had zero scheduled maintenance such as oil/fluid/brakes. Biggest savings is about 66% savings compared to gas. But of course, you're just being a troll and argumentative.

---

Nice ad hominem. I don't think it is a gotcha moment nor did I bring it up as one. I simply reiterated what actual EV owners on this very thread have said is a big benefit of owning an EV. You are the one getting emotional and calling people names. Let's try to at least maintain rational conversation. Thanks.

South Korea is doing some soul searching over those incredibly rare but devastating EV fires.

https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/huge-fire-sparked-by-a-mercedes-benz-ev-adds-to-safety-concerns-dogging-industry-8143d058

Quote:

---

Huge Fire Sparked by a Mercedes-Benz EV Adds to Safety Concerns Dogging Industry

Blaze in South Korea prompts debate over whether electric vehicles should be allowed in the country's ubiquitous underground parking lots

The perceived risk of EVs is particularly acute in tightly packed South Korea, a country roughly the size of Indiana with roughly 52 million people. Seoul, the capital city, has a significantly higher population density than New York or Tokyo. Roughly half of South Koreans live in the greater Seoul metropolitan area.

Outdoor residential parking lots are relatively uncommon. The nation's ubiquitous high-rise apartments often feature underground parking, where firefighters must contend with restricted access.

The country had already been on edge about battery-related fires, following a blaze at a lithium-battery factory in late June that killed nearly two dozen people. The Mercedes EV blaze, in the port city of Incheon, occurred last week. Then, on Tuesday, a Kia EV6 caught fire in an apartment in a central South Korean town.

---

We've had lots of discussion about accidental fires.
But what if some government backed terrorist starts
setting car fires?

Worth mentioning (again) the fires are essentially inextinguishable.

Coral reefs and rain forests destroyed mining for nickel in Indonesia.

Quote:

---

The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that global demand for the metal will grow at least 65 per cent by 2030, and EVs and battery storage are set to take over from stainless steel as the largest end user of nickel by 2040.

Billion dollar Chinese firms anchor the nickel market in Indonesia, but they are often fed cheap ore by hundreds of smaller, mostly locally-owned mines that dot the rainforest. These mines have transformed once-peaceful agrarian villages and communities, providing economic opportunity but a health and environmental crisis looms from pollution.

---

Filthy Chicom batteries.