Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

wildrussy t1_ivmhqbt wrote

Reply to comment by pacific_beach in Tesla Recalls 40,000 Vehicles Over Potential Power Steering Failure by Additional-Two-7312

Right off the bat: this is already a cherry picked data set. You chose exclusively non-crash fires (a tiny minority of vehicle fires).

I question why we chose to focus on this tiny subset of vehicle fires. Is it, perhaps, because that's the dataset that EVs (and Teslas) underperform in?

When we focus on this subset, Teslas catch fire 50% more than ICE vehicles. When we widen our subset to all vehicle fires, ICE vehicles catch fire 6000% more than Teslas.

Strange.

10

pacific_beach t1_ivmnd0c wrote

It's not cherry picked, it's the only dataset that exists in the US (as far as I know)

The reason why the dataset is good is because it includes vehicle miles driven and is limited to the contemporary model years for tesla. Apples to apples.

0

wildrussy t1_ivmpcxx wrote

I agree that per mile driven is an important metric, and Teslas benefit from being newer than an average ICE vehicle.

But that's still far inferior to using every vehicle fire (in the dataset I cited above), due to how tiny this subset is. If you only pick non-crash fires, batteries will be disfavored heavily.

3

pacific_beach t1_ivmpsje wrote

They're comparing CONTEMPORARY model-year vehicles that spontaneously combust (not in an accident) and adjust for miles driven. Tesla's ignite more than ICE. This is not difficult.

1

wildrussy t1_ivmt3bd wrote

>They're comparing CONTEMPORARY model-year vehicles

Heard ya loud and clear the first time, my guy. I just pointed out that yes, Tesla benefits from having newer models. The idea that comparing by same model year has merit isn't lost on me.

>spontaneously combust (not in an accident)

Tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny minority of vehicle fires. You selected the exact subset where EVs perform worse.

>Tesla's ignite more than ICE. This is not difficult.

Good lord. Here, maybe if I adopt your methods and capitalize the letters:

ONLY if you SELECT a TINY subset of the data do Teslas ignite more than ICE vehicles. This is an EGREGIOUS mischaracterization of their ACTUAL RELATIVE SAFETIES.

The difference isn't minor. It's not even close. There's a SIXTY FOLD difference between the two. This is largely due to the enormous reservoir of explosive liquid they carry around with them.

ICE vehicles ignite more than Teslas. This is not difficult.

5

pacific_beach t1_ivn47bc wrote

You have no data and a lot of worthless paragraphs.

0

wildrussy t1_ivn5nes wrote

>And gasoline vehicles (i.e. the majority) are vastly more likely to catch fire than EVs are. This is according to accident data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and the National Transportation Safety Board. Tesla makes up a plurality of the EV portion of this data, and for every vehicle fire their cars undergo, the "average" vehicle catches fire over 61 times (1529.9 fires per 100k for gas vehicles and just 25.1 fires per 100k sales for electric vehicles).

>You have no data

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

2

pacific_beach t1_ivn6jl5 wrote

Post the data you fucking idiot

0

wildrussy t1_ivnaehr wrote

You have to be one of the pettiest human beings I've ever met. If you wanted a link, you could've just asked for a link. Much as I'd like to tell you to shove it:

The oft-cited study is this one, compiled by insurance analysts and published to their website (and, ostensibly, independently verified).

The fire data itself is, again, from the NTSB, with sales data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. It's all public and you're free to do a little legwork yourself, if you care to.

I'm not going to run the database searches for you, especially not after being called a "fucking idiot". You can take the study at face value, go verify it with the NTSB data yourself, or shut up about it.

Or I suppose you could keep spreading falsehoods and insulting people for pointing out you're wrong. I guess that's up to you at this point, isn't it?

2