Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

wildrussy t1_ivmt3bd wrote

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

>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