techno-ag said:

---

Saw my first broken down Cybertruck on the side of Hwy 6 today. Louisiana plates. Poor sap's battery prolly died before he could get to the supercharger in town. I hope he was able to find the secret mechanical door latch and get out of their safely.

---

I heard there were many broken down off of 6 on the way back to Houston after the game against the horns. Apparently not enough chargers in town for the crowd and several folks who gambled, lost.

techno-ag said:

---

Nortex has been killing it in this thread.

---

Always does a great job keeping the casuals like myself informed. Not sure how he has the time, but much appreciated.

Widespread devastating reports of computers going down in new Teslas.

https://www.chron.com/culture/article/tesla-new-car-failures-19990456.php

Quote:

---

Freshly delivered Tesla vehicles are having self-driving computer failures, throwing multiple features-including those involving safety-out of whack.

Electrek reports that a new version of Tesla's HW4 onboard self-driving computer is short circuiting in brand-new vehicles. As a result, drivers are reporting computer failures and problems with features such as active safety features, cameras, GPS, navigation and range estimations. The transportation publication reports that it's even causing a broken rear-view camera, violating federal safety regulations.

While a new car is usually a cause for celebration, the problems affecting these vehicles in the first few tens to hundreds of miles will likely come as a disappointment for Tesla owners. To make matters worse, the sudden influx of service appointments is causing the Austin automaker to delay appointments until the new year.

---

Source of the information is an activist "journalist", Fred Lambert, that is butthurt over Elon's conservative turn after he spent years worshipping him. Has for the last several years been writing Tesla hit pieces. We'll see if it actually materializes into reality.

Bitterness leads to bad decisions

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 16, 2024

Never made much sense to me why very successful capitalists would support socialism.

Not in their own self interests, profit wise.

Can be as charitable as they want with their own money for whatever bizarre leftist cause they wish.

But Gates, et. al. found ways to use their 'charitable' motives to achieve their own ends, to their own ultimate aggrandizement. Took the concept of noblesse oblige to a contorted version.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Nortex has been killing it in this thread.

---

Always does a great job keeping the casuals like myself informed. Not sure how he has the time, but much appreciated.

---

You can trust his 5 minutes worth of internet searches for "Bad things Xiaomi SU7" or the real world reality of Nissan heading towards bankruptcy/merging with Honda as a bail out due in no small part to shrinking market share in China, lost to China's domestic auto manufacturers making comparably competent cars/Nissan not having sufficient electrified vehicle offerings.

Or the fact that VW is considering closing manufacturing facilities for the first time in the company's history for the same reasons. Announcing 35,000 in job cuts through 2030 just today. And their CFO has basically said they only have a couple of years to figure it out or they're going to be out of business.



The point of that post was not "look at how desirable this car is" it was "look how cheap EVs are getting, and how much better China is getting at making cars, western auto manufacturers need to get their ass in gear or they're going to be out of business." I would never buy a Chinese vehicle if I have a choice, but we're trending towards a future where it's either China or Tesla. Perhaps the current manufacturers can merge and save their brands under a larger roof like they've tried to do with Stellantis, but I don't know that it's going to be a durable solution, like with Stellantis.

It is structurally difficult for the legacy automakers to compete with China/Tesla in the manufacture of automobiles, because the operate on a divide and conquer business plan (LOTS of part suppliers) whereas the Chinese operate as a conglomeration and Tesla is highly vertically integrated. Within the next 10 years I have little doubt that both Chinese auto manufacturers and Tesla will be producing at least some of their vehicles without a single human working on the production line.

Tesla in Shanghai are currently manufacturing at a tick rate of 28 seconds. It is their goal to reach ~15 seconds with their CyberCab/unboxed production process. That is roughly 4x faster than Toyota.


You can consider yourself property informed now, but you won't listen.

China has taken over the global auto market

A chilling chart posted by @zerohedge pic.twitter.com/7PGjTl0sdn

— Car Dealership Guy (@GuyDealership) December 16, 2024

techno-ag said:

---

700,000 Teslas recalled. OTA fix for tire monitors.

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-recalls-nearly-700000-vehicles-us-over-tire-pressure-monitoring-system-2024-12-20/

---

I'm so glad we have a regulator that is showing why we have them to help protect Americans.

"The issue has not caused any accidents, injuries or deaths, according to the recall report."

This is the example of how regulation's are killing American business. At least they are helping the USPS since every owner has to be mailed a recall notice. If this wasn't an issue with an EV, Texags would be saying this is the Biden administration trying to get even with Musk for helping elect Trump.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/tesla-recalls-over-694k-vehicles-software-update-related-tire-pressure.amp

Not that I'm concerned about paper mill trees. Just wasteful to require for a recall that is resolved by software to a car that has a giant touch screen with LTE connectivity and can display a recall announcement with ease.

About 50 trees' worth of paper will be used to notify owners about the recall.

The NHTSA requires all automakers in the US to mail paper letters to notify all affected owners, even if a recall can be addressed with an OTA software update & has already been completed even before… https://t.co/aRlFINykRN

— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) December 20, 2024

That's the thing, the paper letter often says "the software update has already been installed on your vehicle. No further action is required." So why send the letter in the first place?!

🫠

— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) December 20, 2024

Car doesn't just fix problems, it gets better through new features. For free.

If you bought a Model 3 in 2021, these are the features it has received since then

All via free over-the-air software updates pic.twitter.com/M8tmm2blMl

— Tesla (@Tesla) December 19, 2024

Most of that is irrelevant to my points but I think you do make a valid one which supports why I have been opposed to BEV market share growth from the get go; it's true that they are, net, a CCP trade weapon (and terrible for the environment etc). The battery materials (refined, global market share), and overall danger they represent to freedom of movement/travel/fire class risk over time are not in any way outweighed by 'well Tesla makes some here.'

Xiaomi is a new to the car business, cheapo consumer product company in China. Largely everything they make is intrusive, glitchy junk, but hey they sell a lot of it at low margins and keep costs low by providing practically no product support, which anyone can research in just a few minutes.

Quote:

---

One of the biggest and most-cited issues with Xiaomi phones concerns overheating issues. Go online literally anywhere and you'll find evidence of Xiaomi users experiencing overheating issues with their phones. And it isn't specific to any one model inside Xiaomi's range of phones it appears to be unpredictable and random.

There is a range of theories on how to fix overheating Xiaomi phones, ranging from removing the Google Play Store (weird) to rooting the phone and installing a fresh ROM. Either way, overheating phones are NO JOKE. They can explode. And no one wants that. If you're getting a Xiaomi phone this is one of the #1 things to watch out for.

---

Quote:

---

Another issue that affects Xiaomi phones is to do with its battery; you either get excessive battery drain or poor battery performance after a few months of usage. This problem isn't exactly common but it is something to be aware of should you buy a Xiaomi phone.

One of the chief culprits behind the excessive battery drain issue is to do with how the phone jumps from network to network. One method of solving this is by ensuring both SIM slots on the phone are locked to ONE type mobile data (turn off Dual 4G, basically, and select LTE for the SIM you're using).

---

Sure, that sounds like a company very likely to deliver a safe, reliable, 10-year life BEV battery in their first-ever car series they just started building like hotcakes in China. And the videos I've posted have around 50K or hundreds of thousands of views, they aren't just one-off's. The main utility is to…check the comments, btw.


Farley and others are complementary of them because…everyone wants some share of the Chinese market and Chinese batteries/costs. He'd love for Ford not to be losing $130K on each EV they sell, and probably see's the costs of Chinese labor/cheapo bits of the SU7 as something for Ford to strive for.

And if cheapo, low quality, and often quite dangerous CCP EV's are 'the future' that is taking out quality competitors (such as Porsche/VW) as you seem happy to cite, that is a problem, even if German/Japanese politics/companies are making bone headed decisions themselves. Every car company not named Tesla or run by the CCP isn't run by morons. Yet, as subsidies are pulled back EV share drops, which is a great thing.

Your strategy of dealing with China outflanking the U.S. on EVs after the U.S. created the market for them is to pretend it isn't happening or hope that it won't be successful. I think that is an absolute guaranteed losing strategy. I think that ends up with 50% of all cars in the U.S. being made by Chinese companies. Happened in the 70's and 80's with Japan (you know, the last country that bombed U.S. soil), and this time it's an even bigger problem for domestic manufacturers, because it's not just a matter of doing what they do better.

Western auto manufacturers aren't losing market share in China because the Chinese are deciding to buy Chinese. It's because the customers there prefer the feature set of the Chinese made vehicles over the western auto manufacturers. They see the western vehicles as outdated. Know how I know? Because Tesla still sells incredibly well in China (best selling BEV in the country). Ford, VW, GM. Their businesses there are collapsing.

You think they're going to make bad vehicles. I think you're wrong. Detroit thinks you're wrong. Jim Farley isn't complimenting a competitor in the Chinese market, because he wants Chinese market share. Ford's business in China is on life support. It is largely inconsequential to their business and it's not coming back. Battery suppliers aren't going to go "oooo he said nice things about a Chinese car, let's give him a deal." He said it, because he believes it and he is messaging to his company that they need to get it in gear. Your counterpoint to that is referencing listicles and pointing to a YouTube channel that literally makes profit by saying bad things about all things Chinese. It could be the best car in the world (it isn't) and they'd still say it's the worst.

You're under the false impression that we can roll back the clock and prevent EVs from happening. You win by winning, not by running, and you're not going to get people scared enough to stop it from happening.

GAC06 said:

---

I've wondered how it would perform in snow like that, and it looks like it handled it just fine. Presumably there would still be issues in more traffic or actively snowing in those conditions with mud and ice eventually obstructing the cameras?

---

Cool pic from tonight. Cool to see the new update camera heater! 😎. What other car just throws that in an update. 🤯 pic.twitter.com/yZJmmUFAwu

— DLRN_TRK (@GrayMatter_NEO) December 21, 2024

Another cheapo commie EV (from Vietnam this time) that is…not as safe as advertised. Carscoop:

Quote:

---

Companies across the world need to save money where they safely can. Sadly, some are willing to cut corners even when it jeopardizes safety. That's the accusation leveled at Vinfast by an engineer who helped the automaker design certain components for the VF6 and VF7. What's worse is that evidently, the man in question didn't get an award for blowing the whistle on unsafe practices. Apparently, he got a swift kick out the door.

The whistleblower in question is Hazar Denli, a seasoned engineer with extensive experience in the automotive industry. Denli previously worked for Tata Technologies Limited, a global engineering consultancy that VinFast contracted to aid with developing the VF6 and VF7. According to the BBC, Denli later joined Jaguar Land Rover, owned by the Tata Group, but was terminated in July of this year after raising safety concerns in online posts regarding Vinfast.

He tells the BBC that he led the engineering teams working on the front suspension and chassis. During testing, it turned out that the components weren't strong enough, he alleges. "We saw, for example, the front strut-to-knuckle connection was loosening, which could be extremely dangerous," he said. "It could cause a loosening of the entire structure that could cause wheels to come off. In a crash scenario, it could be completely unsafe. It could cause the vehicle to lose control."

Denli added that he told upper management but the company did nothing to fix the defects. Uncomfortable being associated with the project, he, like three of his previous counterparts, resigned from the position. Then, in April of this year, a family of four died in California after losing control of their Vinfast. The car struck a pole, caught on fire, and killed all four occupants. At that point, Denli says he couldn't stay silent.

---

nortex97 said:

---

Quote:

---

The car struck a pole, caught on fire, and killed all four occupants.

---

---

The cost of innovation says Farley. <sarcasm> for the true believers

Never mind those Chinese cars will come loaded with spyware and malware. Only idiots will buy those cars.

Have you… walked the streets of America? Turned on your TV?

hph6203 said:

---

Have you… walked the streets of America? Turned on your TV?

---

Yep. I try not to buy Chinese whenever I possibly can. Just because we are flooded with their crap doesn't mean you just give up and succumb to it.

Also, it's one thing to buy Chinese products that aren't connected; it's another to buy Chinese products that are. I go out of my way to not buy Chinese products that are connected to anything.

Obviously, sometimes that gets by me and when it does I correct it by replacing the product if at all possible.

So where was your phone assembled? How about your computer?

Kansas Kid said:

---

So where was your phone assembled? How about your computer?

---

"...if at all possible."

Phones: oligopoly hardware with duopoly operating systems. We don't have many options here.

My computer is custom and was assembled in the USA. I'm sure some of the parts are Chinese.

Kansas Kid said:

---

So where was your phone assembled? How about your computer?

---

As with 'burn rate' or 'frequency' it's not a similar class of danger.

An EV fires are much more dangerous because of the type of the threat, not the frequency.

The threat posed of having an electronic device made in China in my pocket is much different than driving one down I-35. There's really not much point in comparing them, imho.

YouBet said:

---

Never mind those Chinese cars will come loaded with spyware and malware. Only idiots will buy those cars.

---

Plenty of bozos will not only line up to buy them, but to brag about it.

YouBet said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

So where was your phone assembled? How about your computer?

---

"...if at all possible."

Phones: oligopoly hardware with duopoly operating systems. We don't have many options here.

My computer is custom and was assembled in the USA. I'm sure some of the parts are Chinese.

---

The phone is the most important devise to track people and their data. Cars aren't that important if you are looking to spy on the grand scheme of things.

Kansas Kid said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

So where was your phone assembled? How about your computer?

---

"...if at all possible."

Phones: oligopoly hardware with duopoly operating systems. We don't have many options here.

My computer is custom and was assembled in the USA. I'm sure some of the parts are Chinese.

---

The phone is the most important devise to track people and their data. Cars aren't that important if you are looking to spy on the grand scheme of things.

---

I realize this. My main point is that I don't just give in and give up on trying to mitigate risk.

I dispute the comment that always comes up on this topic which is: "you're already exposed because of your phone so mitigating risk is now pointless". No, it's not. That attitude defies the very practice of risk mitigation.

To bring this somewhat back on topic, this is also why I will be buying a vehicle as close as I can before the US governments big brother tech is implemented into all vehicles as part of the Infrastructure Bill.

I want to avoid having them in my car as long as possible.

nortex97 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

So where was your phone assembled? How about your computer?

---

As with 'burn rate' or 'frequency' it's not a similar class of danger.

An EV fires are much more dangerous because of the type of the threat, not the frequency.

The threat posed of having an electronic device made in China in my pocket is much different than driving one down I-35. There's really not much point in comparing them, imho.

---

You might want to work on reading comprehension since the issue being discussed was malware not fires.

As for your fire issue that you incessantly raise, if it such a massive issue, why is there not a single insurance company that adjusts house rates based on if there is an EV in the garage or not? Answer, because it isn't statistically significant and they have plenty of data available to analyze the real risk and not the clickbait risk that you and others fall for.

With your logic and planecrash guy, you would conclude to take a car over flying commercial because the consequences of a plane crash are much worse than a car crash. Real data analysis says the odds of dying per mile are much higher in a car. Also of note, which type of crash is much more likely to make national news/clickbait.

Are you saying insurance companies actually use a "risk equation"?

Kansas Kid said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

So where was your phone assembled? How about your computer?

---

As with 'burn rate' or 'frequency' it's not a similar class of danger.

An EV fires are much more dangerous because of the type of the threat, not the frequency.

The threat posed of having an electronic device made in China in my pocket is much different than driving one down I-35. There's really not much point in comparing them, imho.

---

You might want to work on reading comprehension since the issue being discussed was malware not fires.

As for your fire issue that you incessantly raise, if it such a massive issue, why is there not a single insurance company that adjusts house rates based on if there is an EV in the garage or not? Answer, because it isn't statistically significant and they have plenty of data available to analyze the real risk and not the clickbait risk that you and others fall for.

With your logic and planecrash guy, you would conclude to take a car over flying commercial because the consequences of a plane crash are much worse than a car crash. Real data analysis says the odds of dying per mile are much higher in a car. Also of note, which type of crash is much more likely to make national news/clickbait.

---

Most homeowners insurance policies don't require disclosure of an EV/what vehicle is stored inside. I'm not sure they would (or are legally able to) amend that as a coverage term. Electrical/wiring changes if disclosed can have an impact certainly on rates. EV's do cost more to insure, of course. I love when the Evangelist crowd starts angrily giving imperatives about how skeptics like myself must answer to whatever point they think they are emphatically proving (usually without a link provided or any real data as here).

Not sure what your little tirade about driving vs. flying has to do with anything I've said, whatever. I'm not a proponent of flying on some cheap Chinese battery-powered A320 knock-off either.

Kansas Kid said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

So where was your phone assembled? How about your computer?

---

As with 'burn rate' or 'frequency' it's not a similar class of danger.

An EV fires are much more dangerous because of the type of the threat, not the frequency.

The threat posed of having an electronic device made in China in my pocket is much different than driving one down I-35. There's really not much point in comparing them, imho.

---

You might want to work on reading comprehension since the issue being discussed was malware not fires.

As for your fire issue that you incessantly raise, if it such a massive issue, why is there not a single insurance company that adjusts house rates based on if there is an EV in the garage or not? Answer, because it isn't statistically significant and they have plenty of data available to analyze the real risk and not the clickbait risk that you and others fall for.

With your logic and planecrash guy, you would conclude to take a car over flying commercial because the consequences of a plane crash are much worse than a car crash. Real data analysis says the odds of dying per mile are much higher in a car. Also of note, which type of crash is much more likely to make national news/clickbait.

---

Could you link me where anyone actually made that argument about plane crashes? I can at least give you credit, you thoroughly defeated the strawman you made up in your own mind.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

So where was your phone assembled? How about your computer?

---

As with 'burn rate' or 'frequency' it's not a similar class of danger.

An EV fires are much more dangerous because of the type of the threat, not the frequency.

The threat posed of having an electronic device made in China in my pocket is much different than driving one down I-35. There's really not much point in comparing them, imho.

---

You might want to work on reading comprehension since the issue being discussed was malware not fires.

As for your fire issue that you incessantly raise, if it such a massive issue, why is there not a single insurance company that adjusts house rates based on if there is an EV in the garage or not? Answer, because it isn't statistically significant and they have plenty of data available to analyze the real risk and not the clickbait risk that you and others fall for.

With your logic and planecrash guy, you would conclude to take a car over flying commercial because the consequences of a plane crash are much worse than a car crash. Real data analysis says the odds of dying per mile are much higher in a car. Also of note, which type of crash is much more likely to make national news/clickbait.

---

Could you link me where anyone actually made that argument about plane crashes? I can at least give you credit, you thoroughly defeated the strawman you made up in your own mind.

---

Go reread what I said. I said that if we use your logic that all that matter is consequences and nothing else (something you have said many times), the same logical conclusion is don't fly because the consequences of almost all plane crash are much worse than most car crashes. Of course reality is different because the odds of a commercial aircraft are much, much less but you have repeatedly said the odds don't matter only the potential result.

Do we need to point you back to your comments like this in this thread?

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

So where was your phone assembled? How about your computer?

---

As with 'burn rate' or 'frequency' it's not a similar class of danger.

An EV fires are much more dangerous because of the type of the threat, not the frequency.

The threat posed of having an electronic device made in China in my pocket is much different than driving one down I-35. There's really not much point in comparing them, imho.

---

You might want to work on reading comprehension since the issue being discussed was malware not fires.

As for your fire issue that you incessantly raise, if it such a massive issue, why is there not a single insurance company that adjusts house rates based on if there is an EV in the garage or not? Answer, because it isn't statistically significant and they have plenty of data available to analyze the real risk and not the clickbait risk that you and others fall for.

With your logic and planecrash guy, you would conclude to take a car over flying commercial because the consequences of a plane crash are much worse than a car crash. Real data analysis says the odds of dying per mile are much higher in a car. Also of note, which type of crash is much more likely to make national news/clickbait.

---

Could you link me where anyone actually made that argument about plane crashes? I can at least give you credit, you thoroughly defeated the strawman you made up in your own mind.

---

Go reread what I said. I said that if we use your logic that all that matter is consequences and nothing else (something you have said many times), the same logical conclusion is don't fly because the consequences of almost all plane crash are much worse than most car crashes. Of course reality is different because the odds of a commercial aircraft are much, much less but you have repeatedly said the odds don't matter only the potential result.

Do we need to point you back to your comments like this in this thread?

---

So you're arguing against a position you made up and attributed to me. That is called a strawman. Thanks for confirming.

I was on a plane two weeks ago lol

Quote:

---

I said that if we use your logic that all that matter is consequences and nothing else (something you have said many times), the same logical conclusion is don't fly because the consequences of almost all plane crash are much worse than most car crashes.

---

I am trying to take this one seriously. There are people who commute to work via air travel, I think. Not many yet, but the Evtol individual air commuter vehicles don't seem very safe vs. operating a car on the road from what I have read.

nortex97 said:

---

Quote:

---

I said that if we use your logic that all that matter is consequences and nothing else (something you have said many times), the same logical conclusion is don't fly because the consequences of almost all plane crash are much worse than most car crashes.

---

I am trying to take this one seriously. There are people who commute to work via air travel, I think. Not many yet, but the Evtol individual air commuter vehicles don't seem very safe vs. operating a car on the road from what I have read.

---

You realize not everything is about EVs, right? This is a comment about commercial air travel vs car travel today.

Do you feel the need to bring up EvTol because you know I am right and you are going your usual deflection when you are in error?

Tesla overtakes Ford in recalls.

Hey look! They're number one in something.

https://www.carscoops.com/2024/12/tesla-and-stellantis-overtake-ford-as-2024s-most-recalled-brandsrecall-story-2024/

Basically all of the vehicles affected were resolved via software update. Tesla's actual hardware/require visit to service were negligible in vehicles impacted. This is genuinely the dumbest talking point you focus on. Next is complaining that Tesla has multiple exit options for their vehicles.

I dug into the data. Fiat Chrysler (FCA) was the most recalled automaker in the US in 2024, while @Tesla was one of the least. Tesla's over-the-air (OTA) software update recalls in the US affected 5,096,386 vehicles (many vehicles received multiple OTA recalls, so they are… pic.twitter.com/xuZAzMuLHO

— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) December 22, 2024

The ignorance on this thread from Tick tock armchair warriors are laughable.

I have driven a model Y for 100K miles in 4 years and have NEVER brought my car in for a recall. There was a recall that mobile service came over to fix in 30 minutes.

If the Model Y had almost zero physical recalls in 4 years, I suspect it is similar across their 4 cars.

It is almost like you just google bad Tesla news, then come here to post "facts" that were not really true.

Almost like saying Biden was sharp as a tack during his presidency b/c MSNBC said so.

Bravo......

Did I tell you in over 100K miles of driving that I have not taken the car to the dealership for anything? They did send mobile to change out my C charging port that burned likely from my 3rd party accessory for FREE no questions asked.

I just brought our Honda to the dealership, made an appointment, dropped it off. Service guy said it will be 3-4 dys til a technician trained in the error code will be available. WTH? Tesla would have sent a mobile guy to take care of it at m house to fix this in 30 minutes.

Our family will be ICE free in about 2 months because it is just a better product.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

So where was your phone assembled? How about your computer?

---

As with 'burn rate' or 'frequency' it's not a similar class of danger.

An EV fires are much more dangerous because of the type of the threat, not the frequency.

The threat posed of having an electronic device made in China in my pocket is much different than driving one down I-35. There's really not much point in comparing them, imho.

---

You might want to work on reading comprehension since the issue being discussed was malware not fires.

As for your fire issue that you incessantly raise, if it such a massive issue, why is there not a single insurance company that adjusts house rates based on if there is an EV in the garage or not? Answer, because it isn't statistically significant and they have plenty of data available to analyze the real risk and not the clickbait risk that you and others fall for.

With your logic and planecrash guy, you would conclude to take a car over flying commercial because the consequences of a plane crash are much worse than a car crash. Real data analysis says the odds of dying per mile are much higher in a car. Also of note, which type of crash is much more likely to make national news/clickbait.

---

Could you link me where anyone actually made that argument about plane crashes? I can at least give you credit, you thoroughly defeated the strawman you made up in your own mind.

---

Go reread what I said. I said that if we use your logic that all that matter is consequences and nothing else (something you have said many times), the same logical conclusion is don't fly because the consequences of almost all plane crash are much worse than most car crashes. Of course reality is different because the odds of a commercial aircraft are much, much less but you have repeatedly said the odds don't matter only the potential result.

Do we need to point you back to your comments like this in this thread?

---

So you're arguing against a position you made up and attributed to me. That is called a strawman. Thanks for confirming.

I was on a plane two weeks ago lol

---

Again you aren't following the point so I will try one last time and slower to show the error in your argument about the only thing that matters is the potential damage from an EV fire.

1) I think everyone on here agrees EV fires are harder to put out and burn hotter. This increases the potential damage caused by an EV fire*

2) EVs are demonstrably much less likely to catch fire as shown by insurance and other real world data.

3) You and others have stated many times the only thing that matters is the first point and that is why EVs should never be purchased, used or stored in a garage.

Now let's go to airplanes
1) The risk of dying if you are in an airplane crash is much higher than if you are in a car crash (I assume you and everyone will agree with this point)

2) The odds of being in an airplane crash on a commercial aircraft in the US is barely above 0 based on the last 10 years of data.

3) Real world statistics show the odds of dying per mile transported is much less in a commercial airplane than in a car.

4) Now here is the key issue, if a person uses your logic on EVs to plane crashes, you would never hop on a plane because the consequences of a plane crash are too high and that is all that matters. Guess what, a lot of people fall into that belief which is why they are scared of flying but think nothing of driving.

In other words the point here is a Freakanomics issue. People perceived risks about many things in life are way off from the real risk. There are a number of reasons to not buy an EV that many of that are accused of being EVangelists have pointed out and/or agreed with but the risk of a fire isn't one of them yet you and others seem oh think that is the biggest reason not to buy one.

*note, there are example of ICE cars causing the same amount of damage as you claim with EVs such as the London parking garage fire.

If EVs were a statistical significant risk of causing house fires, they would require disclosure and increase rates according just like they do on things like building materials, hot tub or pool, credit rating of the owner, crime statistics for the area, what type of heater do you have, how far are you from a fire hydrant, etc. These people look for any risk that they can use to more properly price the actual risk of a property.

Btw, a detached garage would seem to reduce the risk of your house catching fire since there is a gap between buildings but it actually increases the cost to insure.

https://www.honeyquote.com/post/factors-affecting-home-insurance#:~:text=Insurance%20companies%20favor%20homes%20that,away%20from%20a%20fire%20hydrant.