I see more laptop fires, so when is everyone going to give up their laptops?

Carbon monoxide poising from ICE cars? I don't think this is a risk with EVs. where does this fit in the health scare/death metric.?

Kansas Kid said:

---

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.

---

I see what you're trying to get at, but it looks to me like you still can't explain how to quickly extinguish an EV fire, so you're building a strawman about airplanes and arguing against that instead. At least you've made it clear you don't understand the position you're trying to argue against- "harder to put out" is the understatement of the year.

And btw I'm a frequent flyer since you keep trying to bring up airplanes.

So you agree that the odds of a catastrophic event matter because if you didn't, you wouldn't fly.

In the decision to buy an EV, I don't think the time it takes to put out the fire is an issue that matters. There are way more important safety issues like the odds to be in an accident and the odds of surviving an impact.

If you think fires do matter, the more important issues are the likelihood of a fire and the speed with which a car can get engulfed in flames. While there are examples of a quick spread for an EV like the Shanghai garage fire, it is way more likely for an ICE to spread rapidly/explode because gasoline and diesel fires are much more common and they naturally want to burn quickly/explode.

hph6203 said:

---

Basically all of the vehicles affected were resolved via software update. Tesla's actual hardware/require visit to service were negligible in vehicles impacted..

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

---

That's not the headline though. And Joe Car Buyer is not going to scour X and Reddit looking for counterpoints to the headlines like the EV fanbois will.

Agreed, fake news is a problem. As they say, can't fix stupid.

So all that matters is sensational headlines and not facts. Sounds like you and your fellow EVidians.

Kansas Kid said:

---

So all that matters is sensational headlines and not facts. Sounds like you and your fellow EVidians.

---

You exaggerate but you're not far off. Here's another example. GM has long split truck development between the Chevy and GMC nameplates. This is because of their dealer network. The Cadillac and Buick dealers needed a non-Chevy pickup to sell and got GMCs. They were essentially the same trucks with different nameplates.

Ford just sold one truck. So by the numbers Ford outsold Chevy every year by a lot and many buyers still believe that. But those willing to go past the headlines would know to combine Chevy and GMC truck sales to get a more accurate picture of how the two companies fared against one another in pickup sales.

You admit that the headline is a distortion of reality with respect to the frequency and significance of Tesla's recalls and yet gleefully use it to try to push a narrative that Tesla is prone to significant recalls, which makes you a dishonest individual. That's the point. In your example you would see a headline that Ford crushes GM in truck sales and tell people that it's true, knowing full well it's not.

hph6203 said:

---

You admit that the headline is a distortion of reality with respect to the frequency and significance of Tesla's recalls and yet gleefully use it to try to push a narrative that Tesla is prone to significant recalls, which makes you a dishonest individual. That's the point. In your example you would see a headline that Ford crushes GM in truck sales and tell people that it's true, knowing full well it's not.

---

I'm not gleeful about it. I do continue to be mildly amused and slightly amazed at the level of zeal certain posters have for electric cars on here, leading to all kinds of vitriolic attacks against those who disagree.

Kansas Kid said:

---

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.

---

FWIW, the Corpus Christi FD's position on how to handle lithium fires is just to ensure they're contained and to monitor them until they burn out...

techno-ag said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

You admit that the headline is a distortion of reality with respect to the frequency and significance of Tesla's recalls and yet gleefully use it to try to push a narrative that Tesla is prone to significant recalls, which makes you a dishonest individual. That's the point. In your example you would see a headline that Ford crushes GM in truck sales and tell people that it's true, knowing full well it's not.

---

I'm not gleeful about it. I do continue to be mildly amused and slightly amazed at the level of zeal certain posters have for electric cars on here, leading to all kinds of vitriolic attacks against those who disagree.

---

The criticism you receive is for the dishonesty/distortion of facts that you just admitted that you're aware you're doing, not the fact that you don't like EVs. You should have some self reflection on that. You seemingly have no experience with them, dislike them, and spend more time on this thread than any other poster.


Instead of "It's great that Tesla can fix their cars over the internet with a software update, and they have far and away the highest rate of recall repair compliance in the industry." Your propaganda bent says "Look how many recalls Tesla has."

NHTSA did an analysis on rate of compliance for recall repairs. Industry average is 58%, Tesla's is 93%. That should be applauded, not criticized, and yet you rush to criticize every recall notice sent for Tesla and have not once posted a recall notice for any other vehicle.



I like Tesla as a company. I think they're a great American company that makes great American vehicles. I think they're working harder than any other company to change the world with the projects they're working on. I appreciate their efforts, and enjoy discussing what they're working on. You on the other hand don't like the company, don't like the cars, and insist on distorting reality to make them look worse. Who exactly is the zealot? Ask yourself why you invest so much time focusing on something you don't like, and not only focusing on it, but lying about it. Cue you saying you don't dislike them, and yet ALL of your actions would indicate otherwise, because you lie to make the company look worse.

The policy where I live is the same with both EVs and ICE once they are largely engulfed as far as letting them burn out unless they are threatening other structures/vehicles. In that case they try to drag it away and absent that, they go with the hoses to cool them down. With both types their concerns are around the toxic fumes from all the materials in the cabin and body which is why they let them burn themselves out.

That said, my buddy that is a Captain says the EV plan is still untested because they haven't fought an EV fire so far. They have had them from electric bikes, hoverboards, computers, etc.

hph6203 said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

You admit that the headline is a distortion of reality with respect to the frequency and significance of Tesla's recalls and yet gleefully use it to try to push a narrative that Tesla is prone to significant recalls, which makes you a dishonest individual. That's the point. In your example you would see a headline that Ford crushes GM in truck sales and tell people that it's true, knowing full well it's not.

---

I'm not gleeful about it. I do continue to be mildly amused and slightly amazed at the level of zeal certain posters have for electric cars on here, leading to all kinds of vitriolic attacks against those who disagree.

---

The criticism you receive is for the dishonesty/distortion of facts that you just admitted that you're aware you're doing, not the fact that you don't like EVs. You should have some self reflection on that. You seemingly have no experience with them, dislike them, and spend more time on this thread than any other poster.


Instead of "It's great that Tesla can fix their cars over the internet with a software update, and they have far and away the highest rate of recall repair compliance in the industry." Your propaganda bent says "Look how many recalls Tesla has."

NHTSA did an analysis on rate of compliance for recall repairs. Industry average is 58%, Tesla's is 93%. That should be applauded, not criticized, and yet you rush to criticize every recall notice sent for Tesla and have not once posted a recall notice for any other vehicle.



I like Tesla as a company. I think they're a great American company that makes great American vehicles. I think they're working harder than any other company to change the world with the projects they're working on. I appreciate their efforts, and enjoy discussing what they're working on. You on the other hand don't like the company, don't like the cars, and insist on distorting reality to make them look worse. Who exactly is the zealot? Ask yourself why you invest so much time focusing on something you don't like, and not only focusing on it, but lying about it. Cue you saying you don't dislike them, and yet ALL of your actions would indicate otherwise, because you lie to make the company look worse.

---

This is what I mean. Instead of getting a calm reasonable discussion, you come out with something like this.

Good grief. Take a deep breath. It's gonna be okay.

I dunno man, that was pretty calm and reasonable to me. You admitted to being intentionally dishonest. That's not a great look.

Zobel said:

---

I dunno man, that was pretty calm and reasonable to me. You admitted to being intentionally dishonest. That's not a great look.

---

No. The issue is the story stated Tesla had the most recalls this year. He added nuance noting as we always do that most of the recalls were OTA things the safety regulators demanded Tesla address. I agreed with the nuance but pointed out the typical car buyer is only going to see the factual headline without digging into the nuance. This was misconstrued as me lying and admitting to it.

techno-ag said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I dunno man, that was pretty calm and reasonable to me. You admitted to being intentionally dishonest. That's not a great look.

---

No. The issue is the story stated Tesla had the most recalls this year. He added nuance noting as we always do that most of the recalls were OTA things the safety regulators demanded Tesla address. I agreed with the nuance but pointed out the typical car buyer is only going to see the factual headline without digging into the nuance. This was misconstrued as me lying and admitting to it.

---

Hmmm, my wife's DD is a Ford Escape Titanium and mine is Jaguar F-Type V8 S Cabrio, both '14, I never heard of a recall on the Jag but have had several on the Escape. Not that I haven't had trouble with the Jag...

Anecdotally, the Ford is...inferior.

Once the Escape has served its purpose or if it should have a second catastrophic failure, I'm getting a Tesla, they're just less prone to failure and their battery life is turning out to be better than an internal combustion engine, particularly modern ones with high tolerances and low viscosity oils, not to mention the forced induction most require to be effective. Maintenance on ICE cars has become a PITA that I used to enjoy, not so much in my old age.

Hope you enjoy it.

Drove one for a couple weeks..... I did enjoy it...fine automobile! If money were no object the Roadster would be fabulous...though I'm pretty sure I would miss the sound of the Jag's engine while in sport mode.

k. whatever helps you sleep at night.

techno-ag said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I dunno man, that was pretty calm and reasonable to me. You admitted to being intentionally dishonest. That's not a great look.

---

No. The issue is the story stated Tesla had the most recalls this year. He added nuance noting as we always do that most of the recalls were OTA things the safety regulators demanded Tesla address. I agreed with the nuance but pointed out the typical car buyer is only going to see the factual headline without digging into the nuance. This was misconstrued as me lying and admitting to it.

---

You are aware of the nuance, and eagerly spread the information that Tesla has the most recalls without providing the nuance. That's called a lie of omission.

Let me lay it out to you like this.

You've got a friend, we'll call him, I dunno, Elon. Elon's got a wife, we'll call her Tesla, hippie chick, as you can tell by her name. Elon goes out to the bar with you, gives you a little nudge with the elbow, a wink and a smile and says man you cannot believe my wife Tesla. She absolutely LOVES to make me happy. Every morning just putting a smile on my face, every night same thing. I mean EVERY day. Can't believe how giving she is, if you know what I mean. He says "You know man, she's great at that, great with my kids, but not great at keeping the house clean, but I can hire a maid for that."

You, armed with this information go to people in your community and tell them that his wife is a total ween fiend and really can't contain herself, knowing full well the only ween that she fiends for his her husbands, but allow the people you tell to believe that she's a indiscriminate ween fiend. Tesla calls up some of the women in your community and says "Hey, we should get the husbands and wives together and have a dinner party to get to know one another better." And the wives say "No, I don't think so. We've heard about you and we don't really want our husbands to 'get to know you better' if you know what I mean."

Does Elon have reason to be pissed at you for talking trash about his wife?

*clicks on "I will never buy an electric vehicle"*

*is surprised when EV's are getting roasted*

Can't make this stuff up

& I say this as someone who intends to buy one when we're up for a new vehicle in a few years.

If a person wants a safe space without any commentary on their claims they could start a blog and turn the comments off. This is a discussion forum.

hph6203 said:

---

If a person wants a safe space without any commentary on their claims they could start a blog and turn the comments off. This is a discussion forum.

---

Absolutely agree.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

If a person wants a safe space without any commentary on their claims they could start a blog and turn the comments off. This is a discussion forum.

---

Absolutely agree.

---

This Tesla FSD 13.2.2 FSD drive in the Financial District & "city" highways in Manhattan is the most challenging drive I have ever recorded or seen online.

Watch as Full Self Driving navigates for over 2 hours (condensed to 45 min) in the most complex parts of New York City. I… pic.twitter.com/nHnVfA01HU

— Jordan Camina (@hletes) December 24, 2024

Hertz continues flooding the used market. These are literally golf cart prices now.

https://www.benzinga.com/24/12/42666220/hertz-sells-used-evs-including-chevrolet-bolt-tesla-model-3-for-whopping-discounts-in-bid-to-reduce-evs-in-fleet

Fix Or Repair Daily. Ford remains gun shy about its EV fleet.

https://www.wired.com/story/ford-electric-explorer-ev-test-drive/

I don't get how a bad business decision and model have anything to do with EVs esp tesla.

If I decided to sell water next to costco at 4x the price doesn't mean water doesn't sell. It just mean I was dumb to try to sell water next to costco that was selling for 25 cents.

Now if I took the same water and sold it for $1 at an amusement park that was selling for $5, then I would have a good business model.

I really think you are becoming deranged and fixated on EVs which is not healthy. Let it go man. You have already been exposed as dishonest so whatever you say have very little relevance.

The amount of time you spend on this thread just tells me you are probably some tick tock warrior in their parent's basement spending all of his/her free time surfing the internet/reading on EVs that you hate. Get out and enjoy life. Its too short to be searching on something you hate.

I don't like fishing and have never spent a minute researching fishing stuff.

Just weird the amount of time you put into something you don't like. Move on and be productive.

Medaggie said:

---

I don't get how a bad business decision and model have anything to do with EVs esp tesla.

If I decided to sell water next to costco at 4x the price doesn't mean water doesn't sell. It just mean I was dumb to try to sell water next to costco that was selling for 25 cents.

Now if I took the same water and sold it for $1 at an amusement park that was selling for $5, then I would have a good business model.

I really think you are becoming deranged and fixated on EVs which is not healthy. Let it go man. You have already been exposed as dishonest so whatever you say have very little relevance.

The amount of time you spend on this thread just tells me you are probably some tick tock warrior in their parent's basement spending all of his/her free time surfing the internet/reading on EVs that you hate. Get out and enjoy life. Its too short to be searching on something you hate.

I don't like fishing and have never spent a minute researching fishing stuff.

Just weird the amount of time you put into something you don't like. Move on and be productive.

---

You click on a thread titled "I will never buy an electric powered vehicle" almost everyday to post here. Stop projecting

Stock price: this analyst thinks it's a mirage.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4746287-tesla-a-house-of-cards-ready-to-collapse

Better short it then

I think there is utility to analysts reducing industrial companies to 'intrinsic' values based on things like revenue, EBITDA growth, taxes etc, but I think the reality is Tesla is still a bit unique in so far as while they are first, and foremost today an EV manufacturer, in truth their objective is to be much more than that (AI, self-driving, etc). While I think the pullback in sales in Europe in particular is challenging for them, I also think they have a long-term cost of goods advantage in EV's vs. non-Chinese manufacturers in particular, and frankly generally build a better product than the legacy mfg's in many instances.

Ultimately, if subsidies were removed across the board (yes, I know that won't happen), Tesla would net benefit if the total new-vehicle market share for EV's crests around 20-25 percent. I think they've exhausted their federal credits/subsidies in the US but still benefit for trading with mfg's who don't make decent EV's, but I could be wrong vs. state subsidies etc. I certainly won't buy/consider one, but I don't think they will crash in valuation anytime soon either. (Full disclosure: I do not own any of their stock etc).

Anyway, I am glad the national fire protection agency is going to complete the third phase of their project to determine 'modern vehicle' fire suppression standards in parking garages.

Quote:

---

Funding for this one-year project has been provided by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), along with support from industry sponsors, including the American Fire Sprinkler Association (AFSA), the American Society of Health Care Engineers (ASHE), Arup, Johnson Controls (JCI), National Fire Sprinkler Association (NFSA), Victaulic, Viking, and the FPRF Property Insurance Research Group (consisting of AXA XL, CNA Insurance, FM, The Hartford, Travelers Insurance, Verisk, and the Zurich Insurance Group).

While vehicle fires in parking structures that develop into large-scale incidents are rare and the rate of civilian injuries is low, recent fires that occurred at Liverpool's Echo Arena in the UK and Stavanger Airport in Norway involved hundreds of automobiles and resulted in severe structural damage, underscoring the damage and economic losses that can incur.

"Modern vehicles burn differently than traditional combustion engine vehicles, as a result of recent changes in vehicle design, materials, and motor technologies," said Victoria Hutchison, a senior research project manager with the Foundation. "Recent events have highlighted the need to reclassify modern vehicle fire hazards based on results of large-scale fire testing and reevaluate recommended protection measures."

---

This type of standards based research is what will drive insurance contracts structures/requirements moving forward, making all of us who park in such structures safer over time.

Auto industry concerned about EVs.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/business/3253786/what-auto-industry-says-about-evs-2024/

Ford lost $132,000 for every electric car they sold this year.

Surveys are showing disinterest in EVs.

Quote:

---

J.D. Power Executive Director of EV Intelligence Stewart Stropp issued a statement in May when his company released its most recent study of EV consideration, reporting the first time interest dropped since the study's inception in 2021. According to its survey of over 8,000 respondents, 24% reported they were "very likely" considering going electric, which was down 2% from last year.

---

Concerns about job loss in US and Japan.

Concerns about the billions spent on only 8 superchargers by the government.

From Jan 1 to Oct 31 Americans bought 1.3 million plug in hybrids and EVs. Last year Americans bought 1.4 million which at the time was a 50% increase over 2022 due in part to increased interest in hybrids. So, not nearly the growth this year. We'll likely end the year at 1.5 million combined sales.