[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

It was heading for Egypt, probably Port Said and it didn't get very far until the disaster struck..just one car erupting in flames out of nowhere destroying probably all the cars on it with the ship.

Just wait for it to happen on a train in a channel tunnel .
I think it's just a matter of time...

[David70]

Originally Posted by BGM-M3COMP

Dude where were you this entire thread?

These people are clueless. Let's monitor this progress in one year increments. I already shitted on another dudes theory back in december 2021 and he remained silent when december 2022 came around.

Let the cheerleaders do their hip hop hooray right now in 2023.

It's not a race it's a rally!

2030 will be the holy chit mang it's actually happening year!

I find these places both strange and disappointing. Mob mentality has them come to an agreement, like all "EV's are bad", "EV's are dangerous", it's black/white, good/bad, and when someone comes in and asks for proof it's like some crazy accusation against them. Nothing personal, I won't believe it until it is proven, sorry.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by ///M Power-Belgium

Just wait for it to happen on a train in a channel tunnel .
I think it's just a matter of time...

If I ever used the channel tunnel again I wouldn't at all be happy with EV's on the train.

[KRS_SN]

Originally Posted by RM7

That one isn't far off though. People were losing their **** years ago when Toyota introduced the Prius...with a BATTERY. There was no shortage of predictions of terror and apocalypse due to this, with projections of dead Priuses everywhere, how it would fail completely, how they couldn't be repaired, how it was going to take their jerbs, etc. People are losing their **** again. Calm down honey, it's not going to change overnight, you'll be ok.

Great that you bring up the prius. I have always thought of Tesla as the prius part 2(only without the toyota build quality). Efficient butt ugly and destined to be around for a while and no one says wow when they see one.

[Murf the Surf]

Originally Posted by David70

This doesn't prove the EV is more dangerous. Once there is a fire it is very difficult to put out and this fire department needs new equipment to fight it.

So I'm going to suggest that there are countless storys about how dangerous EV fires are, about how they are involved in more accidents as a percentage than ICE vehicles. But I guess you need to wait for some government agency to do a 10 year study to confirm what people who deal with this on a daily basis are saying. No need to reply because I suspect we won't come to an agreement on it. Cheers.

https://www.brusselstimes.com/287315...es-study-shows

https://jalopnik.com/european-resear...oll-1849478907

https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2022/09/...urance-company

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/29/elec...heres-why.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/aut...fires-n1271084

[David70]

Did you read the articles or just the headlines?

Originally Posted by Murf the Surf

So I'm going to suggest that there are countless storys about how dangerous EV fires are, about how they are involved in more accidents as a percentage than ICE vehicles. But I guess you need to wait for some government agency to do a 10 year study to confirm what people who deal with this on a daily basis are saying. No need to reply because I suspect we won't come to an agreement on it. Cheers.

https://www.brusselstimes.com/287315...es-study-shows

First line

The high number of accidents has actually nothing to do with the technology, but everything to do with the driving behaviour of the drivers.

Originally Posted by Murf the Surf

https://jalopnik.com/european-resear...oll-1849478907

First paragraph

New research data from European insurer AXA has found that when electric cars crash, they’re more expensive to fix and can do more damage than a comparable combustion-engined vehicle. But when you think about it, those findings aren’t exactly a shock.

See, EVs are generally loaded up with a ton of new technology. Batteries are expensive, and electrified vehicles often feature more advanced cabin tech that, if damaged, can lead to a hefty repair bill.

https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2022/09/...urance-company

The company attributed the higher damage from crashes to what it called "the overtapping effect" that causes electric cars to accelerate far faster than their conventional counterparts using the same amount of force on the acceleration pedal.

- I guess you are against cars that accelerate quickly because they are so dangerous?

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/29/elec...heres-why.html

Research by another firm, AutoinsuranceEZ, says battery electric vehicles have just a .03% chance of igniting, compared to internal combustion engine vehicle’s 1.5% chance. Hybrid electrics, which have both a high voltage battery and an internal combustion engine, have a 3.4% likelihood of vehicle fires according to their study.

if we believe your article the ICE is 50 times more likely to catch fire (.03% to 1.5%). Hard to believe but you posted it. How does this help your cause?

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/aut...fires-n1271084

Fires are difficult/dangerous to fight, nothing in here says anything about which vehicle is more dangerous.

[Car-Addicted]

David70 Some of your links are broken? Yes I really do read articles that don't promote my personal viewpoints.

[Murf the Surf]

Originally Posted by David70

Did you read the articles or just the headlines?
First line



First paragraph

https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2022/09/...urance-company

- I guess you are against cars that accelerate quickly because they are so dangerous?

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/29/elec...heres-why.html


if we believe your article the ICE is 50 times more likely to catch fire (.03% to 1.5%). Hard to believe but you posted it. How does this help your cause?

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/aut...fires-n1271084

Fires are difficult/dangerous to fight, nothing in here says anything about which vehicle is more dangerous.

The point is that there are real issues with EV's when they catch fire and that they are heavier with quicker acceleration than ICE vehicles. To just dismiss those issues is short sited.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by David70

I find these places both strange and disappointing. Mob mentality has them come to an agreement, like all "EV's are bad", "EV's are dangerous", it's black/white, good/bad, and when someone comes in and asks for proof it's like some crazy accusation against them. Nothing personal, I won't believe it until it is proven, sorry.

Exactly. 900-mile battery and 15-minute recharge. I won't believe it until it's proven and is affordable for the average car owner.

Nothing personal.

[Car-Addicted]

So what we KNOW:
1)EV's are not green (material production and transportation makes them a bigger source of CO2 than similar ICE vehicles).
2)There is not enough material to produce the batteries to complete government EV plans.
3)The current power grid is not capable of supporting significant change to EV's.
4)EV's sales are supported by government largess and majority of cars are leases.
5)EV battery recycling is not currently viable and most are sent to land fills.
6)EV batteries when damaged produce massive fires and vehicle destruction.
7)Fire departments are having problems with EV fires due to the intensity of the fire and the massive quantity of water required to control the burn.
8)EV being heavier have reduced tire life and increased road wear.
9)EV vehicle depreciation is higher that similar ICE vehicles.

[PhaceN52]

Originally Posted by David70

if we believe your article the ICE is 50 times more likely to catch fire (.03% to 1.5%). Hard to believe but you posted it. How does this help your cause?

I found that too in an article (through jalopnik if I recall) by an American insurer company, it read as a generic comparison but then specified it was related to cars involved in accidents, citing PHEVs as the most prone, that makes sense having both a battery and a gas tank. I'll try to retrieve it

[TheGeekGuy]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

So what we KNOW:
1)EV's are not green (material production and transportation makes them a bigger source of CO2 than similar ICE vehicles).
2)There is not enough material to produce the batteries to complete government EV plans.
3)The current power grid is not capable of supporting significant change to EV's.
4)EV's sales are supported by government largess and majority of cars are leases.
5)EV battery recycling is not currently viable and most are sent to land fills.
6)EV batteries when damaged produce massive fires and vehicle destruction.
7)Fire departments are having problems with EV fires due to the intensity of the fire and the massive quantity of water required to control the burn.
8)EV being heaver have reduced tire life and increased road wear.
9)EV vehicle depreciation is higher that similar ICE vehicles.

OK, you've made the apparent case for not having EVs, what is your alternative?

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by TheGeekGuy

OK, you've made the apparent case for not having EVs, what is your alternative?

Not at all. I think people should be able to buy and drive anything they want.
I believe in the free market and not people with an agenda forcing a technology that IMO is not ready yet.
I believe in energy conservation both in transportation and housing.
I don't believe in inflicting pain on the poor and destroying the middle class to benefit the wealthy and connected.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

Not at all. I think people should be able to buy and drive anything the want.
I believe in the free market and not people with an agenda forcing a technology that IMO is not ready yet.
I believe in energy conservation both in transportation and housing.
I don't believe in inflicting pain on the poor and destroying the middle class to benefiting the wealthy and connected.

Well said. And me too.

[kyriian]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

Not at all. I think people should be able to buy and drive anything the want.
I believe in the free market and not people with an agenda forcing a technology that IMO is not ready yet.
I believe in energy conservation both in transportation and housing.
I don't believe in inflicting pain on the poor and destroying the middle class to benefiting the wealthy and connected.

Pretty much spot on. Free market should decide base on their own individual needs.
If it fits your needs and you can buy them without government subsidies more power to you.
Cars are not life necessities, why should government use taxpayers money to promote them, fix public transportation, fix the roads, support your elderly, improve public health are all far better way to spend the money. But I guess it doesn’t make for an interesting headline when government actually spend money wisely.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by David70

So you have the proof just not the time/interest to look it up? We both know this doesn't make sense.

It makes perfect sense: I'm not up to it, as I said in my last post.

You are late to the party, sorry you missed it.

Great, now you point out you also haven't said EV's are more dangerous. Thanks, we both agree. I also haven't said which is more dangerous because I really don't know.

But remember, proof =/= belief. Absent proof, some will just choose to believe the upside of Ice outweighs the upside of EV, and some of the risks we have discussed are part of their equation. It is all based on facts and evidence, even if "proof" is hard to find. There are plenty of things that can't be "proven" that we still act upon, man-made global warming is one of them. There is plenty of evidence and facts, but proving it is an elusive standard. The "prove it" standard is part of the problem really, and is getting in the way of making meaningful strides in what may be the right direction. Many just choose to believe what they believe because they have seen enough.

I also can't prove my wife loves me, but I'm not ready to walk away absent proof.

[BGM-M3COMP]

Originally Posted by David70

I find these places both strange and disappointing. Mob mentality has them come to an agreement, like all "EV's are bad", "EV's are dangerous", it's black/white, good/bad, and when someone comes in and asks for proof it's like some crazy accusation against them. Nothing personal, I won't believe it until it is proven, sorry.

I agree.

Like i'm all for ICE. My new ICE toy is being built right now but they call me an EV fanboy lol.

It came to a point where i started to root for the EV future just to spite everyone who are anit-ev.

They say they're not. But literally EVERY SINGLE thing you can talk about that might be pro EV to them, they'll pull an excuse out of their shitty asshole and say it won't work.

This won't charge fast enough, this might blow up, fires at your house, where would you recycle the battery. All fucking bullshit.

Whether or not they might have a point but it's like shut the fuck up already the 2035 EV transition is happening. Get over it already.

[G MONEY]

Originally Posted by BGM-M3COMP

I agree.

Like i'm all for ICE. My new ICE toy is being built right now but they call me an EV fanboy lol.

It came to a point where i started to root for the EV future just to spite everyone who are anit-ev.

They say they're not. But literally EVERY SINGLE thing you can talk about that might be pro EV to them, they'll pull an excuse out of their shitty asshole and say it won't work.

This won't charge fast enough, this might blow up, fires at your house, where would you recycle the battery. All fucking bullshit.

Whether or not they might have a point but it's like shut the fuck up already the 2035 EV transition is happening. Get over it already.

Copy/paste/post
Yawn🤡

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by TheGeekGuy

OK, you've made the apparent case for not having EVs, what is your alternative?

I think the alternative is the serial hybrid (pretty much similar to the Chevy Volt). A serial hybrid generates electricity on-board to drive a completely electric drivetrain. The ICE is used for the generator only and can be made lighter, made of different materials that are more temperature tolerant compounds (like ceramic) to lose less heat from combustion and tuned to run at peak efficiency. The engine can even be of different mechanical design to improve combustion efficiency. The serial hybrid uses a small EV battery for smoothing out energy needs to support speed deviation of traffic. Not charging large EV batteries reduces the transmission line and stepdown transformer losses associated with moving electricity over hundreds of miles to the EV battery; the electricity is generated on board just a mere few feet away.

The serial hybrid would be lighter than a comparable battery EV vehicle and as much or more of a modular construction to develop a far more diverse model range at lower manufacturing cost. Use of a serial hybrid allows for scaling to make super-fast EVs like there are now, or more energy efficient focused vehicles not competing for speed trophies. The serial hybrid can be a plug-in hybrid, but it is not necessary. Without huge 75 kWh batteries to recharge the electric grid remains unstressed. While gasoline consumption will somewhat be reduced, the serial hybrid EV doesn't require massive recapitalizing of the world's petrochemical industry to meet the different demands of a different fuel/chemical output ratio. And the need for Government subsidies to build EV charging infrastructure in the middle of Montana ceases. Such a vehicle is easy to adopt now, with zero societal of financial impacts. Nothing changes except overall lower consumption of gasoline and diesel and increased efficient travel. Even road funding does not have to be converted to a mileage-based tax.

That's mine.

[Socal_R8]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

So what we KNOW:
1)EV's are not green (material production and transportation makes them a bigger source of CO2 than similar ICE vehicles)
2)There is not enough material to produce the batteries to complete government EV plans.
3)The current power grid is not capable of supporting significant change to EV's.
4)EV's sales are supported by government largess and majority of cars are leases.
5)EV battery recycling is not currently viable and most are sent to land fills.
6)EV batteries when damaged produce massive fires and vehicle destruction.
7)Fire departments are having problems with EV fires due to the intensity of the fire and the massive quantity of water required to control the burn.
8)EV being heaver have reduced tire life and increased road wear.
9)EV vehicle depreciation is higher that similar ICE vehicles.

literally everything u state is bullshit

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/el...-vehicle-myths

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by SoCal_NSX

literally everything u state is bullshit

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/el...-vehicle-myths

Disagree, everything that Car-Addicted stated is right on.

[BGM-M3COMP]

Originally Posted by SoCal_NSX

literally everything u state is bullshit

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/el...-vehicle-myths

lmaooooooo got em again!!!!