Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Your wrong.

---

Then show me your data. Because NTSB says the ICE is more prone to fire per 100,000 vehicles.

---

The NTSB doesn't investigate fires from parked vehicles, their data is irrelevant.

cecil77 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Your wrong.

---

Then show me your data. Because NTSB says the ICE is more prone to fire per 100,000 vehicles.

---

Not sitting in a garage turned off they don't. So, yes, you are wrong.

---

Show me this data, Thanks!

ntxVol said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Your wrong.

---

Then show me your data. Because NTSB says the ICE is more prone to fire per 100,000 vehicles.

---

The NTSB doesn't investigate fires from parked vehicles, their data is irrelevant.

---

https://www.kbb.com/car-news/study-electric-vehicles-involved-in-fewest-car-fires/

Quote:

---

Researchers also tallied fire-related recalls filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 2020. Gasoline-powered cars were subject to far more recalls for fire risk. EVs came in second and hybrids were a distant third that year. However, we should caution that limiting recall research to 2020 means the analysts missed most of last year's escalating series of Chevy Bolt fire recalls.

---

Might be problematic for someone who requires zero risk. I guess you can always ride a bike.

You keep missing the very simple fact that an EV fire is much more catastrophic than the typical ICE fire.

ntxVol said:

---

You keep missing the very simple fact that an EV fire is much more catastrophic than the typical ICE fire.

---

Even if it is, it doesn't reduce the ICE risk to 0%, Which was your standard for family safety.

Teslag said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Your wrong.

---

Then show me your data. Because NTSB says the ICE is more prone to fire per 100,000 vehicles.

---

Not sitting in a garage turned off they don't. So, yes, you are wrong.

---

Show me this data, Thanks!

---

You first.

But dang, you are the best troll ever!

cecil77 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Your wrong.

---

Then show me your data. Because NTSB says the ICE is more prone to fire per 100,000 vehicles.

---

Not sitting in a garage turned off they don't. So, yes, you are wrong.

---

Show me this data, Thanks!

---

You first.

But dang, you are the best troll ever!

---

Generally, the person making a definitive claim or conclusion posits their findings for reference.

Teslag said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Your wrong.

---

Then show me your data. Because NTSB says the ICE is more prone to fire per 100,000 vehicles.

---

Not sitting in a garage turned off they don't. So, yes, you are wrong.

---

Show me this data, Thanks!

---

You first.

But dang, you are the best troll ever!

---

Generally, the person making a definitive claim or conclusion posits their findings for reference.

---

Hmmm.. expanding the posts you referenced, looks like you made the first statement of fact ('you're wrong is an opinion). So by your own assertion, I repeat, you first.

And you thought I was the one being hardheaded and difficult...


Certain folks are unwilling to recognize any issues with EVs and will defend their EV to the very end.

I had an old boss about 20 years ago who parked their Expedition at the airport and it spontaneously caught fire whilst they were traveling. Destroyed their car and damaged adjacent vehicles. So it can happen in an ICE just sitting there.

But, common sense tells you an EV hooked into a "supercharger" in a parking garage, public or private, inherently poses more risk than an ICE vehicle.

Factor in the difficulty in extinguishing the fire and the occurrence rate x amount of loss is almost certainly going to tilt against EVs. I don't need data when obvious is obvious but some EV fanbois are always hunting for data that belies common sense thinking.

Quote:

---

Certain folks are unwilling to recognize any issues with EVs and will defend their EV to the very end.

---

EV's have plenty of real issues for many people and are simply not the best choice for a large subset of people in the united states. However, the fire fear mongering is laughably absurd and not based on any presented evidence.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Certain folks are unwilling to recognize any issues with EVs and will defend their EV to the very end.

---

EV's have plenty of real issues for many people and are simply not the best choice for a large subset of people in the united states. However, the fire fear mongering is laughably absurd and not based on any presented evidence that I choose to acknowledge .

---

FIFY

What is your evidence then? Can you even post a rate of incidence?

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Smart EV manufacturers will move away from lithium completely. Hopefully, that happens soon.

---

What current failure rate are you basing this on? Care to share your findings? You said the tolerances should be much more stringent. What are they now? Where does each manufacturer fall in regards to those tolerances from your research?

---

How many horror stories do you want us to post? Just go back through this thread and actually read some of the news items instead of asking for proof every time.

So with 1.2 million EV's sold this year, and several more in total before that you're looking at about 2 to 3 million EV's on the road now.

If there's about 5 or so articles posted on this thread then that's what, 5 incidents in about 3 million?



Nothing. Burger.

Agreed. I feel bad for this poor Mercedes customer, but hopefully this thread (and others related to it) helps get more information out to possible vehicle buyers (and renters/lessors/borrowers as here) to be careful. I would never put an EV in a dwelling-connected structure. Just doesn't pass the common sense test, imho.

Quote:

---

I would never put an EV in a dwelling-connected structure. Just doesn't pass the common sense test, imho.

---

Not everyone is good at math.

Just proper risk management at this point.

These EVs are supposed to be the smartest of the smart cars. Do they not call the fire department on themselves when they enter self destruct mode? Seems like that would be a no brainer.

Teslag said:

---

What is your evidence then? Can you even post a rate of incidence?

---

Quote:

---

Because NTSB says the ICE is more prone to fire per 100,000 vehicles.

---

Show me this evidence, applied to garaged and turned off ICE vehicles.

SockStilkings said:

---

Just proper risk management at this point.

These EVs are supposed to be the smartest of the smart cars. Do they not call the fire department on themselves when they enter self destruct mode? Seems like that would be a no brainer.

---

Funny story, at my wife's school, she had a lady that couldn't even get in to unlock it, as for some reason she had to be on WiFi in her new, ahem, not to be mentioned brand of EV last year. My wife is on staff and had to get her close enough to the building and put her on the school VPN/WiFi network so she could just get in and drive off with the kiddo.

So no, I don't think they are 'smart' enough to call the FD when/if they start burning.

Texting Elon and let him know he has a new feature to fiddle with.

Ideally, it would blast itself out and into the middle of the street in such a situation.

cecil77 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

What is your evidence then? Can you even post a rate of incidence?

---

Quote:

---

Because NTSB says the ICE is more prone to fire per 100,000 vehicles.

---

Show me this evidence, applied to garaged and turned off ICE vehicles.

---

Why am I the only one expected to provide evidence?

Quote:

---

Funny story, at my wife's school, she had a lady that couldn't even get in to unlock it, as for some reason she had to be on WiFi in her new

---

What a terribly ****ty design. I just have to walk up and open the door.

Teslag said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

What is your evidence then? Can you even post a rate of incidence?

---

Quote:

---

Because NTSB says the ICE is more prone to fire per 100,000 vehicles.

---

Show me this evidence, applied to garaged and turned off ICE vehicles.

---

Why am I the only one expected to provide evidence?

---

You're not, but you brought it up.

I question your assertion that garaged and turned off ICE vehicles spontaneously combust at a greater rate than EVs.

And please not that your response is non-responsive.

nortex97 said:

---

Ideally, it would blast itself out and into the middle of the street in such a situation.

---

No ideally it would seek out fellow EV owners and/or those with Biden signs in their front yard before completing its self destruction.

cecil77 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

What is your evidence then? Can you even post a rate of incidence?

---

Quote:

---

Because NTSB says the ICE is more prone to fire per 100,000 vehicles.

---

Show me this evidence, applied to garaged and turned off ICE vehicles.

---

Why am I the only one expected to provide evidence?

---

You're not, but you brought it up.

I question your assertion that garaged and turned off ICE vehicles spontaneously combust at a greater rate than EVs.

And please not that your response is non-responsive.

---

At least I'm posting something. You won't even do that.

Teslag said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

What is your evidence then? Can you even post a rate of incidence?

---

Quote:

---

Because NTSB says the ICE is more prone to fire per 100,000 vehicles.

---

Show me this evidence, applied to garaged and turned off ICE vehicles.

---

Why am I the only one expected to provide evidence?

---

You're not, but you brought it up.

I question your assertion that garaged and turned off ICE vehicles spontaneously combust at a greater rate than EVs.

And please not that your response is non-responsive.

---

At least I'm posting something. You won't even do that.

---

Nope it was not a meaningful response at all. And I respond all the time, even assisting you on other posts.

Do you assert that ICE vehicles, garaged and shut down, spontaneously combust at a greater rate than garaged EVs?

Quote:

---

Do you assert that ICE vehicles, garaged and shut down, spontaneously combust at a greater rate than garaged EVs?

---

I don't have that data, neither does anyone on this thread. The only real data we do have is the NTSB showing a higher rate of fire overall than ICE vehicles.

What is your opinion?

Tesla I do not understand you at all. This is not a dig but I need to know.

Do you really feel like you're accomplishing anything by asking posters for peer reviewed studies to verify their concerns? Were all just sharing our feelings/opinions and you come in here asking for the data that validates our opinions. I'd never scoff at or shame someone who avoids something out of safety concerns; even if the data doesn't validate their concerns. What is your goal here? Chirping at folks who don't have the same risk tolerance seems pointless. What am I missing?

ICE fires old and busted, EV fires new hotness

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Tesla I do not understand you at all. This is not a dig but I need to know.

Do you really feel like you're accomplishing anything by asking posters for peer reviewed studies to verify their concerns? Were all just sharing our feelings/opinions and you come in here asking for the data that validates our opinions. I'd never scoff at or shame someone who avoids something out of safety concerns; even if the data doesn't validate their concerns. What is your goal here? Chirping at folks who don't have the same risk tolerance seems pointless. What am I missing?

---

Peer reviewed study? Hell at this point I'd be lucky to get some rough numbers written in crayon from them.