5 ms·

The problem with that analysis, as pointed out in the reddit comments https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/bg2rib/are_teslas_historically_more_likely_t

The problem with that analysis, as pointed out in the reddit comments https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/bg2rib/are_teslas_historically_more_likely_to_catch_fire/elhy65l/ https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/bg2rib/are_tes... > This is misleading, the average vehicle on the road is much older than a tesla. You should represent the data showing in rate of fires per model year

toomuchtodo 7y ago
If you read further down the thread you linked to, the cause of vehicle fires in older ICE vehicles is due to neglected maintenance (maintenance not required in an EV). EVs have no ignitable fluids, nor hot surfaces to ignite those fluids. Ergo, their risk of spontaneous combustion during operating goes down drastically. I concede they may still catch fire after an accident severe enough to breech the battery; this is not preventable due to the energy storage requirements of a light vehicle, combustion-based or otherwise.
- TAForObvReasons 7y ago
  We don't have 15 year data on Tesla vehicles, period. There are theoretical arguments about how the batteries won't explode or corrode, but an apples-to-apples analysis would compare vehicles of similar maintenance and age. The citation the (unfortunately downvoted) parent was asking for was about the statistical claims.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
urda 7y ago
The real story here is a choir teacher is not a proper source or a replacement for teams of Scientists and Engineers that do these crash analysis for a living.
- TAForObvReasons 7y ago
  The voting around this chain is really disappointing for a community that at least claims to be more well-versed in technical and math areas. Statistical claims that parrots Tesla's marketing is upvoted, a request for citation is heavily downvoted, and a flawed statistical presentation is upvoted while critiques are downvoted.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    The downvotes are because the pessimists are asking for data that doesn't exist (due to how new most EVs are in general), and ignoring data that does exist (that EVs don't spontaneously combust as frequently as internal combustion vehicles). No one is parroting Tesla's marketing (I'm unsure where they even market "our cars don't catch fire" explicitly), and the only way to accurately make a determination will be to wait until the average vehicle age of the EV fleet arrives at parity to the existing internal combustion fleet (as you mention in your own comment [1]). [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20190711204039/https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20414685 https://web.archive.org/web/20190711204039/https://news.ycom...
    - TAForObvReasons 7y ago
      So in that case, the original claim [1] should never have been made. Why that is being upvoted so heavily, given that the claim is not justified by the numbers, is the real surprise here. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20414075 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20414075
      - toomuchtodo 7y ago
        Perception is reality and the numbers don't exist to make a concrete claim either way. This shouldn't be a surprise at all, regardless of forum. People will arrive at conclusions with the data available to them. But saying "the risk is not yet quantifiable" isn't that exciting of a discussion topic.

toomuchtodo 7y ago

If you read further down the thread you linked to, the cause of vehicle fires in older ICE vehicles is due to neglected maintenance (maintenance not required in an EV). EVs have no ignitable fluids, nor hot surfaces to ignite those fluids. Ergo, their risk of spontaneous combustion during operating goes down drastically. I concede they may still catch fire after an accident severe enough to breech the battery; this is not preventable due to the energy storage requirements of a light vehicle, combustion-based or otherwise.

TAForObvReasons 7y ago
We don't have 15 year data on Tesla vehicles, period. There are theoretical arguments about how the batteries won't explode or corrode, but an apples-to-apples analysis would compare vehicles of similar maintenance and age. The citation the (unfortunately downvoted) parent was asking for was about the statistical claims.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

urda 7y ago

The real story here is a choir teacher is not a proper source or a replacement for teams of Scientists and Engineers that do these crash analysis for a living.

TAForObvReasons 7y ago
The voting around this chain is really disappointing for a community that at least claims to be more well-versed in technical and math areas. Statistical claims that parrots Tesla's marketing is upvoted, a request for citation is heavily downvoted, and a flawed statistical presentation is upvoted while critiques are downvoted.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  The downvotes are because the pessimists are asking for data that doesn't exist (due to how new most EVs are in general), and ignoring data that does exist (that EVs don't spontaneously combust as frequently as internal combustion vehicles). No one is parroting Tesla's marketing (I'm unsure where they even market "our cars don't catch fire" explicitly), and the only way to accurately make a determination will be to wait until the average vehicle age of the EV fleet arrives at parity to the existing internal combustion fleet (as you mention in your own comment [1]). [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20190711204039/https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20414685 https://web.archive.org/web/20190711204039/https://news.ycom...
  - TAForObvReasons 7y ago
    So in that case, the original claim [1] should never have been made. Why that is being upvoted so heavily, given that the claim is not justified by the numbers, is the real surprise here. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20414075 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20414075
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      Perception is reality and the numbers don't exist to make a concrete claim either way. This shouldn't be a surprise at all, regardless of forum. People will arrive at conclusions with the data available to them. But saying "the risk is not yet quantifiable" isn't that exciting of a discussion topic.