Tesla on fire: not good.
Discussion
herewego said:
REALIST123 said:
Whilst I agree with your second paragraph I’m not sure your stats are that representative.
Where’s the 263M come from? Is that ICE in the USA or is it just the ICE cars built since the launch of the S, which might be more representative, though harder to calculate?
Given the average age of ICE cars in the USA is about 12 years, there are a lot of much older cars than Teslas can be and maintenance and age etc presumably play a part. Who knows what the stats would be in another 10 years or more?
But as said, stats can show whatever we wish them to.
I think the average life is about 13 years not the average age.Where’s the 263M come from? Is that ICE in the USA or is it just the ICE cars built since the launch of the S, which might be more representative, though harder to calculate?
Given the average age of ICE cars in the USA is about 12 years, there are a lot of much older cars than Teslas can be and maintenance and age etc presumably play a part. Who knows what the stats would be in another 10 years or more?
But as said, stats can show whatever we wish them to.
To be fair the statistic is widely reported. It’s well over 8 years in the UK, even with our climate.
RobDickinson said:
that wasnt teslas data that was official us data
I did take a look at it that's why I'm asking as that data is for all vehicles on the roads in the USA not just private cars.I keep pushing as Tesla seems very defensive and deflective with every incident. Is it maybe because they took a chance with the battery tech and removed some safety margins in the interests of increased capacity on the S and X.
The 3 has a different, safer battery cell design with proper ventillation for each cell in case of runaway.
I don't know, maybe that's not the truth but so long as people focus on the stats of ICE cars and allow themselves to be drawn away from the Tesla fire then there's little incentive for open and honest discussion to take place about the brand.
Blaster72 said:
I don't know, maybe that's not the truth but so long as people focus on the stats of ICE cars and allow themselves to be drawn away from the Tesla fire then there's little incentive for open and honest discussion to take place about the brand.
It really depends whether it's a matter of open and honest discussion of the brand, or a scaremongering attempt to give the impression that fire is a particular risk of EVs and a reason we should stick to ICE.Yep, I see both things happening for sure. You can't however have lots of interest in a brand but expect not to have any interest when something bad happens.
Some folks have the view that any negative talk about any EV incidents is somehow an attack on EV's as a mode of transport. Lets face it, they're coming in force over the next 10 years. I'd rather they were as safe as humanly possibly and that any early incidents are properly debated and investigated to iron out an issues before they're no longer a niche product.
As for the battery tech S,X vs 3.
https://www.teslarati.com/inside-tesla-model-3-217...
Lets face it, these cars really should not catch fire if they haven't been damaged , messed with or crashed. If the one this thread started really did just self combust it should be taken very seriously.
Some folks have the view that any negative talk about any EV incidents is somehow an attack on EV's as a mode of transport. Lets face it, they're coming in force over the next 10 years. I'd rather they were as safe as humanly possibly and that any early incidents are properly debated and investigated to iron out an issues before they're no longer a niche product.
As for the battery tech S,X vs 3.
https://www.teslarati.com/inside-tesla-model-3-217...
Lets face it, these cars really should not catch fire if they haven't been damaged , messed with or crashed. If the one this thread started really did just self combust it should be taken very seriously.
Edited by Blaster72 on Wednesday 20th June 11:25
hairyben said:
Also don't forget battery cars can't go that far so need to represent adjusted for milage to be fair.
Not sure if serious...but just in case, of course I can do the same mileage (20k) in my EV this year as I did in my ICE last year. I might need to stop to "re-fuel" more often but it'll be cheaper to do so and the car won't produce any emissions at point of use.EDIT - grammar
Edited by arfursleep on Wednesday 20th June 12:11
Blaster72 said:
Lets face it, these cars really should not catch fire if they haven't been damaged , messed with or crashed. If the one this thread started really did just self combust it should be taken very seriously.
You keep saying things need to be fair, and then make statements ^^ like that. Which should your bias.by "cars like these" what do you mean? An EV is no more likely to catch fire than an ICE (as shown, it's less likely to do so) and yet you keep saying that EVs need to be investigated but no mention of also investigating ICEs that catch fire MORE OFTEN!!
All cars should not be catching fire, this thread is about a Tesla catching fire hence the continued attempts to focus on that rather than a multitude of ICE cars. We all know they catch fire more often, I think that point has been hammered home.
If you'd like to start a thread about ICE cars catching fire feel free.
Given the title of thread and the conversation so far I think "these cars" is pretty obvious
If you'd like to start a thread about ICE cars catching fire feel free.
Given the title of thread and the conversation so far I think "these cars" is pretty obvious
Max_Torque said:
Blaster72 said:
Lets face it, these cars really should not catch fire if they haven't been damaged , messed with or crashed. If the one this thread started really did just self combust it should be taken very seriously.
You keep saying things need to be fair, and then make statements ^^ like that. Which should your bias.by "cars like these" what do you mean? An EV is no more likely to catch fire than an ICE (as shown, it's less likely to do so) and yet you keep saying that EVs need to be investigated but no mention of also investigating ICEs that catch fire MORE OFTEN!!
Vague, cherry picked, statistics don’t count.
I am a real detractor myself on EV. I think citing them catching fire as a wider argument against the model is a weak position and not a reasoned argument.
If focussing around why they catch fire then yes, that is a very valid argument in isolation. No vehicle should. But there is no reason that could not be improved and then the detractors would be back to square one.
The discussions on EV as a model have stronger and less easily addressed objective arguments on both sides of the fence.
If focussing around why they catch fire then yes, that is a very valid argument in isolation. No vehicle should. But there is no reason that could not be improved and then the detractors would be back to square one.
The discussions on EV as a model have stronger and less easily addressed objective arguments on both sides of the fence.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff