EV vehicles

[TallTom]

Refresh my memory if I used the word “Always”.
I am not the BS police, so I don’t necessarily check everything I come across.

Yes I have stated that I call out BS when I see it, on more than one occasion.

I can add, that I am not always correct, and when someone proves me wrong with facts, I agree and change my opinion.

So it follows that if someone who is posting BS gets upset because I present facts to the contrary of what they are posting, I don’t take any prisoners. Too bad if they don’t like that.

I never asked if you were the site monitor for all things. b/s. I really could care less about anywhere else you call it out. I intend on confining it to this E/V thread.

Does your answer still apply? Multiple times in this thread you've stated that?

 

[jellyrug]

I never asked if you were the site monitor for all things. b/s. I really could care less about anywhere else you call it out. I intend on confining it to this E/V thread.

Does your answer still apply? Multiple times in this thread you've stated that?

I did not keep a tally, but yes I did call out BS in this thread often. The last occasion was replying to your EV fire which has a 6,000 % per capita less incidence than ICE vehicle fires.

So you comments were not realistic.

Then when I called out your BS, you criticized me for not backing it up with a link, after I suggested you Google it.

Then I posted the link, which is one of many available, clearly stating per capita ICE fires are of a much greater number.

So now, you are blowing smoke, because unlike me, you don’t like it when someone shows you, you are wrong.

I thought that was what this was all about?

 

[TallTom]

I did not keep a tally, but yes I did call out BS in this thread often. The last occasion was replying to your EV fire which has a 6,000 % per capita less incidence than ICE vehicle fires.

So you comments were not realistic.

Then when I called out your BS, you criticized me for not backing it up with a link, after I suggested you Google it.

Then I posted the link, which is one of many available, clearly stating per capita ICE fires are of a much greater number.

So now, you are blowing smoke, because unlike me, you don’t like it when someone shows you, you are wrong.

I thought that was what this was all about?

Dude. I'll happily take up this specific area but I sort of need us all to be able to follow your logic use and presentation of it.

So let's go back just a little. I won't go back to page one. As you pointed out you call out what you feel is b/s multiple times when you feel you need to. The Cybertruck video link was posted multiple times. Did you ever respond to those video links by calling b/s?

 

[jellyrug]

Dude. I'll happily take up this specific area but I sort of need us all to be able to follow your logic use and presentation of it.

So let's go back just a little. I won't go back to page one. As you pointed out you call out b/s multiple times when you see it. The Cybertruck video link was posted multiple times. Did you ever respond to those video links by calling b/s?

No, because part of my career was working with Marketing executives as my associates, and that was good marketing. If you took that seriously and could not see the humor in that, with respect, it is a bit shallow.

C’mon a pickup truck racing a Porsche pulling a trailer??? I have not checked the actual 911 1/8th mile time of a 911 Porsche. I thought the whole deal was quite funny. You judge the size of a man by the size of the things he considers as serious.

Marketeers always ask us to do the impossible, sometimes we manage, sometimes we don’t. Never believe them and only take them seriously when someone’s job is in line.

Finally, again, I am not the BS police and do not necessarily dissect everything I come across into the finest detail to analyze it for BS.

But when a guy freaks out about EV fires which per capita are 6,000% less than ICE fire, the BS hits so hard, it is not humor, it is just plain stupid and hard to ignore.

 

[TallTom]

No, because part of my career was working with Marketing executives as my associates, and that was good marketing. If you took that seriously and could not see the humor in that, with respect, it is a bit shallow.

C’mon a pickup truck racing a Porsche pulling a trailer??? I have not checked the actual 911 1/8th mile time of a 911 Porsche. I thought the whole deal was quite funny. You judge the size of a man by the size of the things he considers as serious.

Marketeers always ask us to do the impossible, sometimes we manage, sometimes we don’t. Never believe them and only take them seriously when someone’s job is in line.

Finally, again, I am not the BS police and do not necessarily dissect everything I come across into the finest detail to analyze it for BS.



But when a guy freaks out about EV fires which per capita are 6,000% less than ICE fire, the BS hits so hard, it is not humor, it is just plain stupid and hard to ignore.

OK so you didn't call out B/S or even comment on marketing deception in this instance.

I'm just trying to help us all follow along with how to make sense of when you call out b/s. You had ample opportunity there and chose not to.

Then it gets de-bunked and then you knew it was a joke all along. So that's why I sort of needed some clarity on your humor going forward. Cuz I seriously thought you believe the crap you post lots of the time.

So now I can ask, have you stated on more than one occasion how it's hard for you to have conversations or discuss data with people that don't have sufficient skills or education to understand or follow? I recall specifically one where you expressed regrets that you are an engineer because you disliked trying to make non engineers understand things.

This is kind of "Is English your first language" type of content coupled with how you cite your data sources.

Then we can know you can fully support your use of data sources better.

I promise you will have a lot of room to discuss your 6000% data. I just need to make sure you can dumb it down enough for all the rest of us to follow along.

 

[Red05]

You judge the size of a man by the size of the things he considers as serious.

I like that!

C’mon a pickup truck racing a Porsche pulling a trailer??? I have not checked the actual 911 1/8th mile time of a 911 Porsche. I thought the whole deal was quite funny.

I thought it was pretty funny too. Just like the late night talk show guys picking on conservatives more than liberals, when the subject hits a nerve, it's hard to see the humor.

 

[Bumblebee]

I like that!

I thought it was pretty funny too. Just like the late night talk show guys picking on conservatives more than liberals, when the subject hits a nerve, it's hard to see the humor.

The crazy thing is Elon Musk is a big gear head and owns a lot of high end ICE vehicles apparently his favorite is a McLaren.....

I wonder why he chose a Porsche? Maybe Porsche pissed him off somehow.

 

[TallTom]

The crazy thing is Elon Musk is a big gear head and owns a lot of high end ICE vehicles apparently his favorite is a McLaren.....

I wonder why he chose a Porsche? Maybe Porsche pissed him off somehow.

Elon is brilliant in a lot of ways. I will never discredit that. He is a pioneer that has great vision. He is also a present day PT Barnum. He has a following that he has convinced are special. And he takes that all the way to the bank.

I listen to him discussing how and why he wants to put humans on Mars. And how he is going to do it. I'm like he is either brilliant or insane. Henry Ford had his eccentricities. Nobody remembers him for those. If anyone will get us to Mars it will be Elon. I will never say he can't do it.

As to Porsche. He does not like the 911 platform. He has some obsession about it being a successful rear engine performance benchmark the world respects.

 

[jellyrug]

OK so you didn't call out B/S or even comment on marketing deception in this instance.

I'm just trying to help us all follow along with how to make sense of when you call out b/s. You had ample opportunity there and chose not to.

Then it gets de-bunked and then you knew it was a joke all along. So that's why I sort of needed some clarity on your humor going forward. Cuz I seriously thought you believe the crap you post lots of the time.

So now I can ask, have you stated on more than one occasion how it's hard for you to have conversations or discuss data with people that don't have sufficient skills or education to understand or follow? I recall specifically one where you expressed regrets that you are an engineer because you disliked trying to make non engineers understand things.

This is kind of "Is English your first language" type of content coupled with how you cite your data sources.

Then we can know you can fully support your use of data sources better.

I promise you will have a lot of room to discuss your 6000% data. I just need to make sure you can dumb it down enough for all the rest of us to follow along.

Stop blowing smoke and let’s get back to your last paragraph.

Here is a reminder for you:

1.) You posted a video of an EV fire.

2.) I replied with three videos of ICE fires and challenged you to a linky contest to test your sense of humor.

3.) You failed the humor test.

4,) I suggested that there are a whole lot more ICE fires than EV fires and further suggested that you Google it.

5.) You criticized me for the fact that I did not back up my statement with a link.

6.) So I posted a link, one of many available indicating that ICE fires are around 6,000% more frequent than EV fires on a per capita basis.

So, stop wasting cyberspace and let’s get back to the point.

 

[TallTom]

Stop blowing smoke and let’s get back to your last paragraph.

Here is a reminder for you:

1.) You posted a video of an EV fire.

2.) I replied with three videos of ICE fires and challenged you to a linky contest to test your sense of humor.

3.) You failed the humor test.

4,) I suggested that there are a whole lot more ICE fires than EV fires and further suggested that you Google it.

5.) You criticized me for the fact that I did not back up my statement with a link.

6.) So I posted a link, one of many available indicating that ICE fires are around 6,000% more frequent than EV fires on a per capita basis.

So, stop wasting cyberspace and let’s get back to the point.

Why would we be wasting cyberspace if we are trying to keep up with your superior data research and analytical skills. We all need to be able to understand your skills at dissecting bullshit. Your are here to keep the lesser educated people, more educated. Jelly you love allowing us the benefit of your education a lot in this thread. I'd just like to have some clarity as we move into your link and your 6000%.

So I'll ask again.

Have you stated on more than one occasion how it's hard for you to have conversations or discuss data with people that don't have sufficient skills or education to understand or follow? I recall specifically one where you expressed regrets that you are an engineer because you disliked trying to make non engineers understand things.

This is kind of "Is English your first language" type of content coupled with how you cite your data sources.

Then we can know you can fully support your use of data sources better.

 

[fallenarch]

So let me get this straight, @jellyrug. You said (found research that says) EVs are 6,000% less likely to burn than ICE vehicles per capita?! I have never heard of an ICE car spontaneously combusting, and I assume it is rare. On the other hand, ICE cars obviously burn in an accident or while being fueled. So, aside from this current spat, I am interested in the conditions surrounding these fires. Those are interesting statistics.

It's sort of like plane crashes: People are afraid of dying in a plane crash when taking any other form of transportation is infinitely more dangerous. If EV's are safer in an accident (numerically speaking) and are burning while charging, that's a solvable problem in my opinion. Handling liquid fuel is what it is and accidents will happen.

 

[kim windsor]

So who s taking there bikes out for a ride today .? Just saying

 

[jellyrug]

So let me get this straight, @jellyrug. You said (found research that says) EVs are 6,000% less likely to burn than ICE vehicles per capita?! I have never heard of an ICE car spontaneously combusting, and I assume it is rare. On the other hand, ICE cars obviously burn in an accident or while being fueled. So, aside from this current spat, I am interested in the conditions surrounding these fires. Those are interesting statistics.

It's sort of like plane crashes: People are afraid of dying in a plane crash when taking any other form of transportation is infinitely more dangerous. If EV's are safer in an accident (numerically speaking) and are burning while charging, that's a solvable problem in my opinion. Handling liquid fuel is what it is and accidents will happen.

Check the link I posted which is one of many. The link gives numbers per capita. I did the percentage calculation using grade 8 math, so the 6,000% is my number.

EV fires just garner a lot more attention, as it is something new and the fire fighting procedures are different. Once a battery separator goes poof, nothing can stop electrons moving between cathode and anode, until a neutral balance is achieved. So the process cannot be stopped by firefighting, the only alternative is to contain it from not spreading to other areas.

In contrast, gasoline is highly flammable and has its own challenges to fire fight. The procedures have more than a century’s worth of experience though. I’s not new like battery fires.

 

[TallTom]

Check the link I posted which is one of many. The link gives numbers per capita. I did the percentage calculation using grade 8 math, so the 6,000% is my number.

Good. You've committed to use grade 8 math skills. Thank you. Like I said, we need you to dumb this down enough we can follow along. I think most everyone on the board has grade 8 math skills. And since you feel I don't know how to use math, I promise I'll let you use your calculator in front of us all as we go through your link. It won't be any more difficult than grade 8 math.

 

[jellyrug]

Good. You've committed to use grade 8 math skills. Thank you. Like I said, we need you to dumb this down enough we can follow along. I think most everyone on the board has grade 8 math skills. And since you feel I don't know how to use math, I promise I'll let you use your calculator in front of us all as we go through your link. It won't be any more difficult than grade 8 math.

How about getting back on track regarding our linky challenge?

You are just spinning wheels going nowhere.

Why is it so hard to admit that sometimes you may be wrong and missed something?

Show us if you are able to do grade 8 math and post the actual calculation. I doubt you can, but wait in anticipation.

 

[TallTom]

How about getting back on track regarding our linky challenge?

You are just spinning wheels going nowhere.

Why is it so hard to admit that sometimes you may be wrong and missed something?

Show us if you are able to do grade 8 math and post the actual calculation. I doubt you can, but wait in anticipation.

Oh we are not going nowhere at all. We are just getting to know how you choose your data. We need to learn how you know how to see b/s when you see it.

So I'll ask for the 3rd time. It's directly relevant to your link.

Have you stated on more than one occasion how it's hard for you to have conversations or discuss data with people that don't have sufficient skills or education to understand or follow? I recall specifically one where you expressed regrets that you are an engineer because you disliked trying to make non engineers understand things.

This is kind of "Is English your first language" type of content coupled with how you cite your data sources.

Then we can know you can fully support your use of data sources better.

 

[Bumblebee]

So who s taking there bikes out for a ride today .? Just saying

-20'C out there today so not I...

My crate won't be seeing pavement for months.

 

[TallTom]

So who s taking there bikes out for a ride today .? Just saying

This is an EV thread.

 

[TallTom]

-20'C out there today so not I...

My crate won't be seeing pavement for months.

Did you happen to catch the news piece out of Chicago? The EVs are piling up at the supercharger stations. Seems there are some issues with the cold temps. What a shock!

 

[jellyrug]

How about getting back on track regarding our linky challenge?

You are just spinning wheels going nowhere.

Why is it so hard to admit that sometimes you may be wrong and missed something?

Oh we are not going nowhere at all. We are just getting to know how you choose your data. We need to learn how you know how to see b/s when you see it.

So I'll ask for the 3rd time. It's directly relevant to your link.

Have you stated on more than one occasion how it's hard for you to have conversations or discuss data with people that don't have sufficient skills or education to understand or follow? I recall specifically one where you expressed regrets that you are an engineer because you disliked trying to make non engineers understand things.

This is kind of "Is English your first language" type of content coupled with how you cite your data sources.

Then we can know you can fully support your use of data sources better.

The post we are talking about is EV fires.

You are choosing to digress into something else entirely, because you know you are wrong regarding the specific post.

So yes, it is hard for me to try and have an intellectual debate with someone who is unable to contribute to a specific field of knowledge, because he lacks knowledge in that field.

So if you wish to digress into a character conversation, I will leave you to show me your ability in grade 8 math. Show me from the link how we calculate 6,000%.

If you are not able to do that, then I would rather bow out. There is no point in trying to have a meaningful discussion with someone who is ill equipped to do so. I will leave you to rant along at leisure.

They say never argue with an idiot, he will drag you down to his level and beat you with the experience.