Teslag said:

---

geoag58 said:

---

Why do you come on every thread critical of EV's? Are you paid to do this?

---

It's a political message board. The point is back and forth and debate. If you don't want that just say so.

These threads are never stated by EV drivers. Are they paid by the oil companies?

---

Are you being paid by someone to post on here yes or no?

Of course not. Are you being paid by oil companies to post here?

Teslag said:

---

richardag said:

---

Lone Stranger said:

---

An engineering expert witness I know in the battery arena said based on data from the last two years EV's are 3.2 times more likely to catch on fires than an ICE vehicle. So for every 1 ICE vehicle fire there are 3.2 EV vehicle fires. Sounds about right.

---

Well, kind of. The difference is the sheer numbers of ICEs compared to EVs.

---

That's why the NTSB publishes the numbers in per 100,000 rates. And it overwhelmingly shows ICE bombs to be more fire prone.

---

This does not separate out fires on the open road versus parked in a garage. Shirley, you are intelligent enough to understand this very important distinction in this debate.

I'm just interested to see what happens when we have 15-20 year old degraded batteries driving around on the road.

Teslag said:

---

richardag said:

---

Lone Stranger said:

---

An engineering expert witness I know in the battery arena said based on data from the last two years EV's are 3.2 times more likely to catch on fires than an ICE vehicle. So for every 1 ICE vehicle fire there are 3.2 EV vehicle fires. Sounds about right.

---

Well, kind of. The difference is the sheer numbers of ICEs compared to EVs.

---

That's why the NTSB publishes the numbers in per 100,000 rates. And it overwhelmingly shows ICE bombs to be more fire prone.

---

That's right there are a lot fewer EVs out there. The problem is when they catch on fire they're more dangerous and a lot harder to put out.

https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/local/2023/07/25/ev-fires-are-more-dangerous-farmington-hills-fire-department-hopes-new-equipment-can-help/

Teslag said:

---

Yet those are necessary components of the ICE power plant are they not?

---

So there are no sensors that could could get damaged and short out resulting in the EV's battery catching fire?

What you are calling out in the case of the Ford/Lincoln recall is a failure in engineering design of the battery sensor system.

jt2hunt said:

---

Teslag said:

---

richardag said:

---

Lone Stranger said:

---

An engineering expert witness I know in the battery arena said based on data from the last two years EV's are 3.2 times more likely to catch on fires than an ICE vehicle. So for every 1 ICE vehicle fire there are 3.2 EV vehicle fires. Sounds about right.

---

Well, kind of. The difference is the sheer numbers of ICEs compared to EVs.

---

That's why the NTSB publishes the numbers in per 100,000 rates. And it overwhelmingly shows ICE bombs to be more fire prone.

---

This does not separate out fires on the open road versus parked in a garage. Shirley, you are intelligent enough to understand this very important distinction in this debate.

---

That lack of data didnt stop everyone on this thread from jumping to a conclusion now did it?

Teslag said:

---

Of course not. Are you being paid by oil companies to post here?

---

If they paid me enough, I would post on here about how I love the oil industry! By the way, you can also like electric wind, solar, whatever floats your boat and also appreciate oil!

I hope electric vehicles are highly successful. But I'm not going to be blind to issues that are occurring. Same thing with New York when they're talking about all the fires caused by electric bicycles and buildings.

Teslag said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

Teslag said:

---

richardag said:

---

Lone Stranger said:

---

An engineering expert witness I know in the battery arena said based on data from the last two years EV's are 3.2 times more likely to catch on fires than an ICE vehicle. So for every 1 ICE vehicle fire there are 3.2 EV vehicle fires. Sounds about right.

---

Well, kind of. The difference is the sheer numbers of ICEs compared to EVs.

---

That's why the NTSB publishes the numbers in per 100,000 rates. And it overwhelmingly shows ICE bombs to be more fire prone.

---

This does not separate out fires on the open road versus parked in a garage. Shirley, you are intelligent enough to understand this very important distinction in this debate.

---

That lack of data didnt stop everyone on this thread from jumping to a conclusion now did it?

---

It is a legitimate debate right now, because the few data points we have seem to indicate that there's more fires inside of structures caused by electric vehicles than internal combustion engines. The data is very limited because the industry is so new on the electric vehicle side.

Burn
Mercedes
Witch

Teslag said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

Teslag said:

---

richardag said:

---

Lone Stranger said:

---

An engineering expert witness I know in the battery arena said based on data from the last two years EV's are 3.2 times more likely to catch on fires than an ICE vehicle. So for every 1 ICE vehicle fire there are 3.2 EV vehicle fires. Sounds about right.

---

Well, kind of. The difference is the sheer numbers of ICEs compared to EVs.

---

That's why the NTSB publishes the numbers in per 100,000 rates. And it overwhelmingly shows ICE bombs to be more fire prone.

---

This does not separate out fires on the open road versus parked in a garage. Shirley, you are intelligent enough to understand this very important distinction in this debate.

---

That lack of data didnt stop everyone on this thread from jumping to a conclusion now did it?

---

You were caught being being misleading.

jt2hunt said:

---

Teslag said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

Teslag said:

---

richardag said:

---

Lone Stranger said:

---

An engineering expert witness I know in the battery arena said based on data from the last two years EV's are 3.2 times more likely to catch on fires than an ICE vehicle. So for every 1 ICE vehicle fire there are 3.2 EV vehicle fires. Sounds about right.

---

Well, kind of. The difference is the sheer numbers of ICEs compared to EVs.

---

That's why the NTSB publishes the numbers in per 100,000 rates. And it overwhelmingly shows ICE bombs to be more fire prone.

---

This does not separate out fires on the open road versus parked in a garage. Shirley, you are intelligent enough to understand this very important distinction in this debate.

---

That lack of data didnt stop everyone on this thread from jumping to a conclusion now did it?

---

It is a legitimate debate right now, because the few data points we have seem to indicate that there's more fires inside of structures caused by electric vehicles than internal combustion engines. The data is very limited because the industry is so new on the electric vehicle side.

---

People on this thread aren't debating. They are speaking as if it's fact with no data to back it up other than random articles and YouTube videos of propane vehicle explosions.

cecil77 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

Teslag said:

---

richardag said:

---

Lone Stranger said:

---

An engineering expert witness I know in the battery arena said based on data from the last two years EV's are 3.2 times more likely to catch on fires than an ICE vehicle. So for every 1 ICE vehicle fire there are 3.2 EV vehicle fires. Sounds about right.

---

Well, kind of. The difference is the sheer numbers of ICEs compared to EVs.

---

That's why the NTSB publishes the numbers in per 100,000 rates. And it overwhelmingly shows ICE bombs to be more fire prone.

---

This does not separate out fires on the open road versus parked in a garage. Shirley, you are intelligent enough to understand this very important distinction in this debate.

---

That lack of data didnt stop everyone on this thread from jumping to a conclusion now did it?

---

You were caught being being misleading.

---

Not true at all. An ice bomb doesn't get to exclude everything outside the engine block.

Teslag said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

Teslag said:

---

richardag said:

---

Lone Stranger said:

---

An engineering expert witness I know in the battery arena said based on data from the last two years EV's are 3.2 times more likely to catch on fires than an ICE vehicle. So for every 1 ICE vehicle fire there are 3.2 EV vehicle fires. Sounds about right.

---

Well, kind of. The difference is the sheer numbers of ICEs compared to EVs.

---

That's why the NTSB publishes the numbers in per 100,000 rates. And it overwhelmingly shows ICE bombs to be more fire prone.

---

This does not separate out fires on the open road versus parked in a garage. Shirley, you are intelligent enough to understand this very important distinction in this debate.

---

That lack of data didnt stop everyone on this thread from jumping to a conclusion now did it?

---

You were caught being being misleading.

---

Not true at all. An ice bomb doesn't get to exclude everything outside the engine block.

---

If you continue using the word ice bomb, then I suppose in fairness, all electric vehicle should be referred to as electric bombs?

Regarding the fires in garages, EV fires are much, much simpler, safer and quicker to extinguish than ICE bombs, right?

jt2hunt said:

---

Teslag said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

Teslag said:

---

richardag said:

---

Lone Stranger said:

---

An engineering expert witness I know in the battery arena said based on data from the last two years EV's are 3.2 times more likely to catch on fires than an ICE vehicle. So for every 1 ICE vehicle fire there are 3.2 EV vehicle fires. Sounds about right.

---

Well, kind of. The difference is the sheer numbers of ICEs compared to EVs.

---

That's why the NTSB publishes the numbers in per 100,000 rates. And it overwhelmingly shows ICE bombs to be more fire prone.

---

This does not separate out fires on the open road versus parked in a garage. Shirley, you are intelligent enough to understand this very important distinction in this debate.

---

That lack of data didnt stop everyone on this thread from jumping to a conclusion now did it?

---

You were caught being being misleading.

---

Not true at all. An ice bomb doesn't get to exclude everything outside the engine block.

---

If you continue using the word ice bomb, then I suppose in fairness, all electric vehicle should be referred to as electric bombs?

---

Exactly my point. Both are ludicrous terms. But if one side is going to embellish then what's good for the goose and all

Teslag said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

Teslag said:

---

richardag said:

---

Lone Stranger said:

---

An engineering expert witness I know in the battery arena said based on data from the last two years EV's are 3.2 times more likely to catch on fires than an ICE vehicle. So for every 1 ICE vehicle fire there are 3.2 EV vehicle fires. Sounds about right.

---

Well, kind of. The difference is the sheer numbers of ICEs compared to EVs.

---

That's why the NTSB publishes the numbers in per 100,000 rates. And it overwhelmingly shows ICE bombs to be more fire prone.

---

This does not separate out fires on the open road versus parked in a garage. Shirley, you are intelligent enough to understand this very important distinction in this debate.

---

That lack of data didnt stop everyone on this thread from jumping to a conclusion now did it?

---

You were caught being being misleading.

---

Not true at all. An ice bomb doesn't get to exclude everything outside the engine block.

---

Not the point. Burning in a collision is not the same as burning all alone in a garage.

But for that matter, yes you can isolate fire causes to power generation to compare the two technologies.

Look, you know EV fires are a problem, both in frequency and severity. You didn't even address it in the "EVs should be banned" thread. It's one thing to advocate, but your mono-maniacal blindness to any problems is just plain silly, and a little sad. (yes, yes, I know you've got an ICE truck...)

Every article I posted on this thread involved ice vehicles burning in the driveway or garage

jt2hunt said:

---

Teslag said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

Teslag said:

---

richardag said:

---

Lone Stranger said:

---

An engineering expert witness I know in the battery arena said based on data from the last two years EV's are 3.2 times more likely to catch on fires than an ICE vehicle. So for every 1 ICE vehicle fire there are 3.2 EV vehicle fires. Sounds about right.

---

Well, kind of. The difference is the sheer numbers of ICEs compared to EVs.

---

That's why the NTSB publishes the numbers in per 100,000 rates. And it overwhelmingly shows ICE bombs to be more fire prone.

---

This does not separate out fires on the open road versus parked in a garage. Shirley, you are intelligent enough to understand this very important distinction in this debate.

---

That lack of data didnt stop everyone on this thread from jumping to a conclusion now did it?

---

You were caught being being misleading.

---

Not true at all. An ice bomb doesn't get to exclude everything outside the engine block.

---

If you continue using the word ice bomb, then I suppose in fairness, all electric vehicle should be referred to as electric bombs?

---

Electric bombs on four wheels. Not a bad way to describe them.

Teslag said:

---

Every article I posted on this thread involved ice vehicles burning in the driveway or garage

---

Not the stats you quoted.

Quote:

---

Look, you know EV fires are a problem, both in frequency and severity.

---

And no I don't know this and neither do you because the only "data" we have on this thread are rando articles and YouTube shorts.

cecil77 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Every article I posted on this thread involved ice vehicles burning in the driveway or garage

---

Not the stats you quoted.

---

Which weren't an article. Why do you not take the other side to task when they post no data at all?

96AgGrad said:

---

Having an electric car is like playing the lottery, except you don't want to win.

---

Usually called Russian Roulette

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Look, you know EV fires are a problem, both in frequency and severity.

---

And no I don't know this and neither do you because the only "data" we have on this thread are rando articles and YouTube shorts.

---

"Who are you gonna believe? Me or your own eyes?"
-Teslag

Because you are attempting to assert that ICE vehicles have more fires (per unit) than EVs.

It was pointed out that the ICE numbers (per 100K) aren't limited to single vehicle, garaged fires, which invalidates your implied contention.

Teslag said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

Is this going to be an issue were insurance companies are going to make it almost impossible to park and electric vehicle inside your home?

---

No, insurance companies generally rely on actuaries and data analysis rather than random articles of one off fires.

---

Yes, from the American Academy of Actuaries:

Quote:

---

As prices top $4 a gallon, should you consider an electric vehicle? One consideration: They're more expensive to insure and repair.

---

From another source, the Actuarial Post:

Quote:

---

According to new research from comparethemarket.com, drivers choosing to 'go green' by opting for an electric car are having to pay 45% more to insure their vehicle than the average motorist.

---

cecil77 said:

---

Because you are attempting to assert that ICE vehicles have more fires (per unit) than EVs.

It was pointed out that the ICE numbers (per 100K) aren't limited to single vehicle, garaged fires, which invalidates your implied contention.

---

And what data set has your side presented?

Sims said:

---

Teslag said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

Is this going to be an issue were insurance companies are going to make it almost impossible to park and electric vehicle inside your home?

---

No, insurance companies generally rely on actuaries and data analysis rather than random articles of one off fires.

---

Yes, from the American Academy of Actuaries:

Quote:

---

As prices top $4 a gallon, should you consider an electric vehicle? One consideration: They're more expensive to insure and repair.

---

---

And? That says nothing of fire risk. Generally they are more expensive to insure because they are also expensive and so are the parts.

Teslag said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Because you are attempting to assert that ICE vehicles have more fires (per unit) than EVs.

It was pointed out that the ICE numbers (per 100K) aren't limited to single vehicle, garaged fires, which invalidates your implied contention.

---

And what data set has your side presented?

---

You're just not gonna answer any anything, are you?

Do you believe an ICE vehicle is more likely to catch fire sitting by itself in a garage than an EV?

Teslag said:

---

Per the NTSB EV's have a fire rate of 0.3% per 100,000 compared to 1.05% per 100,000 for ICE.

---

wanna know something funny? the ev fire rate is about the same as the covid-19 infection fatality rate for the 0-19 age group (0.0003%). concern trolling about ev fire rates is just that: concern trolling.

Teslag said:

---

Sims said:

---

Teslag said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

Is this going to be an issue were insurance companies are going to make it almost impossible to park and electric vehicle inside your home?

---

No, insurance companies generally rely on actuaries and data analysis rather than random articles of one off fires.

---

Yes, from the American Academy of Actuaries:

Quote:

---

As prices top $4 a gallon, should you consider an electric vehicle? One consideration: They're more expensive to insure and repair.

---

---

And? That says nothing of fire risk. Generally they are more expensive to insure because they are also expensive and so are the parts.

---

Marine insurance is skyrocketing for vessels transporting EVs overseas...because of runaway fire risk.

cecil77 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Because you are attempting to assert that ICE vehicles have more fires (per unit) than EVs.

It was pointed out that the ICE numbers (per 100K) aren't limited to single vehicle, garaged fires, which invalidates your implied contention.

---

And what data set has your side presented?

---

You're just not gonna answer any anything, are you?

Do you believe an ICE vehicle is more likely to catch fire sitting by itself in a garage than an EV?

---

Yes, I do and I've yet to see any data to indicate otherwise. Have you?

Teslag said:

---

Per the NTSB EV's have a fire rate of 0.3% per 100,000 compared to 1.05% per 100,000 for ICE.

---

Can you post a link? I'd like to read if the data is corrected for age of vehicle.

Obviously a bunch of older, non-maintained ICE vehicles would be a bad comparison for a relatively young fleet of EVs.

Sq4fish83 said:

---

"It's not a Tesla"

In before Salute the Vaccine shows up

---

Stop saying his name. Because then he shows up.

So what column are y'all placing PHEV fires under, EV or ICE? The majority of the propulsion comes from the ICE but they qualify as an EV for the percent sales goal.