Massive EV cement truck fire: official 'explanation' versus the facts.

[vk6zgo]

   I'm trying to see this in light of all the criticism.  That is, all the criticism of the reviewer / host of the video.  Sure his comments can be harsh....but he is talking about ARROGANCE, basically, and in light of some very real and dangerous differences, as that cement truck is basically conducting testing...testing better done in, um, err, PRIVATE! 
  Ok, it's irritating the way some of the video is delivered, but please don't think I care, or not, if the dude is ego driven.  His message really is the arrogance of that particular EV producer, and the 'Green / Woke' aspects put it over the top (arrogance-wise).
   Took me a minute to understand his points made regarding Transportation Safety and driver safety, and how absolutely critical such care and proper attitude.
   I'm seeing such reckless additude approach in other venues, these days.  That host, ego or not, points out some concepts, like having proper tests (in remote areas) as absolute necessary, and thats not happening that way, but on public roads.
   Sorry, but the video host (ie Auto Expert) is pointing out some serious-sss shhi.
I'd take (his) ego over the arrogance.

He is also arrogant!

[EEVblog]

   I'm trying to see this in light of all the criticism.  That is, all the criticism of the reviewer / host of the video.  Sure his comments can be harsh....but he is talking about ARROGANCE, basically, and in light of some very real and dangerous differences, as that cement truck is basically conducting testing...testing better done in, um, err, PRIVATE! 
  Ok, it's irritating the way some of the video is delivered, but please don't think I care, or not, if the dude is ego driven.  His message really is the arrogance of that particular EV producer, and the 'Green / Woke' aspects put it over the top (arrogance-wise).
   Took me a minute to understand his points made regarding Transportation Safety and driver safety, and how absolutely critical such care and proper attitude.
   I'm seeing such reckless additude approach in other venues, these days.  That host, ego or not, points out some concepts, like having proper tests (in remote areas) as absolute necessary, and thats not happening that way, but on public roads.
   Sorry, but the video host (ie Auto Expert) is pointing out some serious-sss shhi.
I'd take (his) ego over the arrogance.

He is also arrogant!

If Catogan is completely wrong and it wasn't an EV, then as a creator I for one would have removed the video. But that's just me.

[lezginka_kabardinka]

We’re ALL arrogant in different aspects. Who cares. Human nature. If you’re rude (and civil and kind, and a real man) you say sorry.

[thm_w]

Read more here
https://www.tesladeaths.com/resources

And in how many of those was the fire the cause or merely a factor in a high speed collision?

And I'll ask again: Where's the reporting of the other 4600+ fires which simply must be occuring?

Many of those stories I'm reading from that site, they died from the high speed crash. There is even one article that says "Tesla hits fire hydrant and burns" then I read the link and there was no mention of a fire at all... just a DUI driver that hit a tesla.

If anything, this would be an argument that we should limit all production car top speeds and acceleration, which I would be happy with.

[tom66]

It's not really surprising that a Tesla catches fire when involved in a 100+ mph crash.  Many cars will, and even if they don't, very few people are making it out of that car alive, so is it exactly a problem? 

That's the issue I have with that website. 

Tesla catching fire in a garage spontaneously or whilst driving = that's bad. 

Tesla being driven recklessly, crashes, occupant dies and vehicle burns = meh, Darwin's thinning the gene pool.

Yet they don't distinguish the two nor provide an easy way to filter them.

[RJSV]

Last few posts yield some interesting data, if you use a text sampling technique.  Outlined like this:
   1.). Grab a random sample.  In this case grab the last 5 posts, maybe with some minor filtering.
   2.). If a text sentence mentions the OP saying, in this case, "...they don't actually extinguish a battery fire..." ...Then that's a good 'hit'.

   Also maybe mentions "...burning at 2500° F. enough to melt steel...rather than 750° F for
diesel fueled fire...".  That also is counted as a 'hit' because it's direct from the OP.

   Now then, what would be counted if the small text sample quotes a seemingly related point, just not directly from OP,    AND strongly stays tightly linked.  Like for example if unrelated fires in an industrial battery waste dump ALSO achieve the steel-melting high temperatures.  That's a good hit.

    What wouldn't count, in your little informal tally, is quoting data from a crash...who died, or who didn't die, in a crash.  That's A MISS, and if you do this survey correctly, you can start to count the little tests up, yay or nay.

   Reading the last few recent posts, there is very little mention, of any 'steel melting' hazards.  Well gee whizz, the OP sure did mention that dynamic, as pretty darn significant.

   You can build up a small, informal table, and then, whattayaknow:  The OP posts discussed 'steel melting' while the responses, you note, seem to divert away from that failure mode, instead substituting a seemingly same concept.
But melting structural steel isn't the same as a Tesla driver dying in a high speed crash...even if the driver suffers the 2500° F burns.

   See what I mean ?  There are ways to sample text (especially in political discourse) to obtain a crude measure of subtle diversions, vs staying directly on-topic.  It's harder, here in this topic, to maintain discussion on that 'steel melting' structural risk, when a responder wants to shift to 'high speed crashes', out on open road somewheres.
   And, since we are in the subject, what high speed 100 mph + crashes are there, down inside a 3 level building parking basement?

   Text sampling filters can quantify that sort of B.S. feeding.  And I'm just a mere amateur.

[RJSV]

   There's likely a technical term, in professional debate, for creating a SCORE, of the 'quality' of treatment a topic gets, in the numerous responses.
   Interestingly, a properly set-up AI could do these sorts of surveys, of transparency in the nightly media newscast.  I bet the vocal analysis will eventually handle complex 'cues' and audio nuances, while attempting to do cursory judgements.
   But in just analyzing text, you could get a report, such as saying:
   1.). No response given, to question about temperature range being catastrophic.
   2.) (for example) 5 of the response statements diverted to off-topic or effectively off-topic arguments.
   3.). 3 of the responders questioned the validity of OP's posts in general (debate people probably would term that as 'impeachment' or invalidation of OP's presentation.
   That's a tough one, I'm maybe so mixed on the whole 'character' thing, as to just throw that factor out of the survey.
   "OP has lied before, and some people don't trust him"...it's a start, of an unproven 'maybe'.

   At any rate you would be, eventually, able to say or give a quantifying measure, of the whole of the response the subject matter is getting.
Might get a result like:  4 positives, reinforcing the (several) statements by OP, and 9 diverting concepts, that don't contain reinforcement.

   Then, you still have the task of, in my example here, figuring out if (or which) of the slightly off-topic mentions are simply B.S. diversions or distracting arguments, vs which mentions are 'promising' enough to count them.
   I don't think that saying 'he stinks' is effective, but if you get 100 accusations, yet unproven,  instincts start to kick in.  You've got to be carefull of the 'mob' dynamic.

[Monkeh]

Read more here
https://www.tesladeaths.com/resources

And in how many of those was the fire the cause or merely a factor in a high speed collision?

And I'll ask again: Where's the reporting of the other 4600+ fires which simply must be occuring?

Many of those stories I'm reading from that site, they died from the high speed crash. There is even one article that says "Tesla hits fire hydrant and burns" then I read the link and there was no mention of a fire at all... just a DUI driver that hit a tesla.

That appears to be the link for the incident below - in which nobody in a Tesla died and nothing the Tesla did contributed in any way shape or form. In other words, meaningless drivel listed just because the name Tesla appeared in the article.

They probably meant this one: https://diyatvusa.com/2023/07/14/amrik-wander-arvind-ram-die-in-california-car-crash/

In which someone drove at high speed into multiple obstacles and a fire resulted. Which of course has never happened to an ICE vehicle.. except all the times it does happen. Every single day.