Electric Vehicles

Shh, don't let our resident "investigative journalist" find that out

 

I've blocked him, but I think this is from one of his posts. Maybe he's opened his eyes to the fact that gas cars are 3 thousand times more likely to catch fire than an EV. At least that's what his post shows.

 

The number l remember seeing in that article was 64 percent, but it may have included other things like the cars being burned up in house fires, garage fires, forest fires etc...

 

the statistic should be viewed as a per capita, ie # of ICE vehicle fires as compared to total on the road, and the same for Hybrids, EV, as there is considerable disparity in total #s of vehicles in each fuel type category. I think that would give a better picture of the risk.

Duh EDIT I see the correct post now.

 

True. Although I will say in Seattle metro, the % of Teslas on the road vs the general population is def higher than many areas I have lived (DC/LA/SLC) and def still notice that any vehicle fires I do come across are ICE, usually aged big 3.

I'm no EV enthusiast, but any fire risk they do have is almost always a secondary from something else like impact, etc.

 

"The times they are a changing".

 

The Duh's on me . . and you are right I compared the actual number of EVs today with gas cars and 3,000 times is correct but makes me guilty of twisting the numbers. My bad and I apologize. I hate number twisters and I will strive to think things through in the future. This is a case where I should have understood the chart itself before posting anything. After further inspection the infographic from the resident troll is its own exercise in number twisting. Comparing car fires to the number of cars sold is a stupid measurement. The article linked below goes into greater detail, but the TLDR is the infographic is bullshit that isn't based on any numbers tracked by reputable organizations. On it surface it says EVs are much less likely to catch fire. However the numbers appear to be made up so take them with a 50 pound bag of water softener salt. I'm also going to edit the original post.
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a40163966/cars-catching-fire-new-york-times-real-statistics/

 

For some, the goal is obfuscation, not clarification

Guess which one requires more effort?

 

I just read an article on Motor Trend about a Lightning Nightmare Road Trip and this issue stood out.

“Starting with the battery charged to 100 percent and the range meter reading an ever-optimistic 324 miles (as we've covered previously, Ford thought it would be a good idea for the Lightning to display best-case EPA-rated range when charged above 80 percent on either a Level 1 or 2 charger), we cued up our preplanned FordPass route in the Lightning. Before we even pulled out of the driveway, our range meter dropped down to 200 miles, and "Range Revised Due to Route" flashed on the instrument cluster.”

Why are these manufacturers allowed to give out false ranges?