Tesla myth buster

No, because the rate given is an average of all gasoline cars, in order for one or two brands to be throwing off the average as badly as you imply, pretty much every car that brand makes would have to burst into flames.

then, if it is an average as you say, then it is still misleading

In what universe is it misleading?

your mathematics don't work, i gave an example, now your turn, convince me i'm wrong, rather than just saying i am. you're saying pretty much all of one manufacturers cars would have to burst into flames to affect the average, this is untrue, as given by my simple equation, where's yours?

But you haven't given an example though, you just keep claiming the numbers are misleading.

i stated the numbers for the tesla are based on one company, whereas the gasoline cars are based on multiple companies, if you compare tesla's 1 in 6333 catching fire to say Ford, it might be 1 in 12,000, or GM, 1 in 15,000, but you bring in a cheap China Wall, where it is 1 in 1000, it throws out the balance, as i explained earlier.

And I then pointed out than, in order to achieve an average of 1 in 1350 across all gasoline cars based on only a few brands, those brands would have to catch fire at an absurd rate.

point being, tesla is facing a disadvantage when it's their one company, against many other gasoline car manufacturers. without having the exact statistics of where they get their figures, the results can't be believed. and they don't have to catch fire at an absurd rate either, just more than the big three.

But you're not looking at the market share, the rate really would have to be absurd if one or two brands are bringing down the average of all gasoline cars that much. If one or two or even three brands of car were catching fire that often it would make the news no matter how much money was thrown into PR.
Why do you have such a hard time believing that a form of car powered igniting a flammable liquid will catch fire more often?

i never said i didn't believe it, i just asked for a basic mathematical example of why you believe what you do. as you can't provide it, as i have, there isn't much to argue about, you failed to provide a reasonable argument.

You're the one who claims the statistics are misleading, I've demonstrated your only argument to be absurd, but still you push that assertion.

i've explained my version with an example of basic mathematics, you haven't, only to say my reasoning is absurd because you say so isn't explaining it to me.

You haven't given an example of basic mathematics; your arguments boils down to "what if gasoline cars are better an it's just a few brands throwing off the average", but when you take into account the market share of various brands, for a small number of smaller brands to throw off the average that much would require their cars to catch fire at an absurd rate which could not be kept out of the news. The only thing you've demonstrated is your own failure to understand how statistics work.

i understand, it doesn't need to be an absurd rate to throw out the statistics, just more. say ford have 1 in 10,000 catch fire, manufacturer x has 9 in 10,000, combined that is 10 in 20,000. or 1 in 2000. basic maths, now how is an absurd rate work for you, give an example, not just say "absurd"

You're still failing to take into account the market share of the brands; there's a reason the "big three" you referred to earlier are called "the big three". 1 in 10,000 for one brand and 9 in 10,000 for another does not work out to 1 in 2,000 when the latter makes up only 5% of the cars, to get the effect you're talking about it'd have to be 18 in 1,000, or approximately 1 in 50. If a brand was catching fire at that rate, it would be in the news and they'd go out of business.

combined, they are 10 in 20,000, 10/10=1 and 20,000/10=2000, 1 in 2,000. 1 in 50 is 400 over 10,000 units. your math is off just a little. market share has nothing to do with that.

1. If you can't see how the market share affect the combined average then your knowledge of statistics is even worse than I thought.
2. 400 in 10,000 = 4 in 100 = 2 in 50. Your math is off, not mine.

i'm corrected on that, but i still see no reason to believe what you're saying, market share has nothing to do with it if 1 in 6333 cars catch fire, or 1 in 1350. my math was out, late, tired, not my understanding, but good to see you provide something, thought it doesn't prove your point.

Market share definitely does matter in the scenario you suggest. If one brand makes ten times as many cars then the rate at which those cars catch fire will have ten times the effect on the combined average, because there are ten times as many of them out there. This is why, for a smaller brand to have the effect on the combined average you are suggesting, the rate at which their cars catch fire would have to be absurd, or at least impossible to cover up.

1 in 6333, doesn't mean they made only 6333 cars, nor does 1 in 1350 mean they made 1350 cars, 19,000 teslas on the road, and 3 caught fire, so it's 1 in 6333, if 1,350,000 gasoline cars, that's 1,000 fires. market share got nothing to do with the results. like wise, if there are 13,500 cars, 10,000 made by ford, none catch fire, 3,500 made by unknown manufacturer 10 catch fire, then combined, it's 1 in 1350 caught fire. regardless of market share. if you read this, the statistics were not correct, as teslas were only involved in collisions, whereas the others were involved in collisions, arson, mechanical failure and other accidents.

the result is, the tesla result is too specific, whereas the gasoline is too broad, a better result would be against each manufacturer against the same conditions, ie only collisions.

Diff guest here, some statistical analysis requires that the top and bottom number be thrown out to avoid anomalies.

1. I never said Tesla only made 6,333 cars, no idea where you got that from.
2. Market share definitely does matter in the scenario you suggested, where most gasoline cars are better and it's just one or to bad brands throwing off the average, I've covered this several times, how do you not understand this?
3. "...market share got nothing to do with the results. like wise, if there are 13,500 cars, 10,000 made by ford, none catch fire, 3,500 made by unknown manufacturer 10 catch fire, then combined, it's 1 in 1350 caught fire." You have simultaneously contradicted yourself and proved my point.
4. The comparison is not between brands but between types of car, gasoline vs. electric, as Tesla is the only available electric car with functionality comparable to a gasoline car, the comparison is valid.

there are other electric car manufacturers, tesla brought out this statistic, look it up, there are details how it's not a reliable result. i didn't contradict myself, merely trying to point out that the 1 in 1350 cannot be put for all. if ford never had any car fires, or 1 in 10,000, you can claim that fords are safer than tesla as they don't catch fire as often.

1. I never said there were other electric car manufacturers, just that none had functionality comparable to a gasoline car.
2. So, what are these details about how it's not a reliable result? Why not post them instead of your rambling misunderstanding of statistics?
3. 1 in 1350 is the average for gasoline cars; the comparison is type of car, not brand.

and the comparison on one type of brand, to others, if you can't use google to look it up, then don't. these statistics were released by tesla, you don't think they might have been biased?

I never said the statistics can't be biased, I just pointed ou that the grounds your used to call them misleading were not valid.

if it is biased, it is misleading, full statistics are required, not just what is perceived by the car company boosting it's own reputation.

Again, I've not said anything about bias, I only pointed out how your grounds for claiming the statistics were misleading were not valid.

and again, it's one company against many, not just electric versus gasoline.

Except it's the only company that produces electric cars with the same functionality as gasoline cars.

it's not, there are others, with more on the way

Really? Care to give an example of a BEV sedan with a 200+ mile range?

there are about a dozen electric vehicles on the market and coming out, where does it say it needs a 200+ range?

As I've said, several times, "electric cars with the same functionality as gasoline cars".