I'm more concerned about the overcomplicated dual clutch transmissions in many newer cars breaking down, quite a few of them being infamous for problems early on. (Probably not as much of a concern in Europe where manual transmissions are still common.)
In any case I am not worried about an EV catching fire. It's an insured event, and I'm much more likely to be involved in a serious car accident than I am to be involved in a random vehicle fire.
I'm more concerned about the overcomplicated dual clutch transmissions in many newer cars breaking down, quite a few of them being infamous for problems early on. (Probably not as much of a concern in Europe where manual transmissions are still common.)
Dual clutch boxes are not nearly as problematic as CVTs.
I don't know about you, but if my house burned down insurance would only cover a small fraction of my belongings. They might give me some money for the other stuff but so much of it is vintage/one-off stuff that is irreplaceable that money can't replace. If I had a newer more easily replaced car and it burned up on the side of the road insurance could replace it with a comparable car. If my car caught fire in the garage attached to my house and set the house on fire that would be a catastrophe.
In any case I am not worried about an EV catching fire. It's an insured event,
Remember the time 20 years ago when Ford was infamous for catching fire at random? That should have been a good reason to install fire sprinklers in residential garages.
Oh it's insured!
Wonder what it all has to do with Fran though...
I'm more concerned about the overcomplicated dual clutch transmissions in many newer cars breaking down, quite a few of them being infamous for problems early on. (Probably not as much of a concern in Europe where manual transmissions are still common.)
You do realise that insurance companies are like casinos? The house always wins! In case of insurances: the lower the risk, the less money you have to pay. IOW: Insurance companies are not in the business of handing out free money to allow people to do stupid things. Also, if somebody's car causes damage to you or your property, you better hope the owner has the car insured. Otherwise you'll be out of luck... Your own insurance won't cover such an event.
in the UK recently there has been media concern regarding a child death caused (allegedly) by an infection linked to mold in a damp room - my lay understanding of these ozone generators was that they could be used, in such rooms, with obvious precautions to remove animals and electronic equipment from the area.
You do realise that insurance companies are like casinos? The house always wins! In case of insurances: the lower the risk, the less money you have to pay. IOW: Insurance companies are not in the business of handing out free money to allow people to do stupid things. Also, if somebody's car causes damage to you or your property, you better hope the owner has the car insured. Otherwise you'll be out of luck... Your own insurance won't cover such an event.
Insurance is only there to cover things that would be too expensive to reasonably cover yourself by pooling risk with others. The average motor insurer in the UK actually loses a bit on every premium when claims and admin costs are considered (they make it up by investing your premium for that year.)
The average motor insurer in the UK actually loses a bit on every premium when claims and admin costs are considered (they make it up by investing your premium for that year.)So they still make a profit which validates my point. The house always wins!
Trying to keep this on-topic:
Saw in a recent video that Fran is having problems with the neighbors who are smoking and using ozone generators to cover it up. She showed a rubber glove that had been eaten away by the ozone in her apartment. So now her health is at risk
Ozone is toxic. If there's enough to be a concern, she should just have someone measure ozone levels officially in the building and take legal action.
You guys not concerned about ozonized health of the poor smoker ?
You guys not concerned about ozonized health of the poor smoker ?
So much confirmation (NOT!), that her choice of where to live (location and the specific building she chose), still have one or more, apparently 'nasty' people, potentially causing her difficulties and even possibly damage to her health.
That's the thing about if she owned her own, house (or similar), property somewhere. Nonsense like that (other people causing Ozone dangers), should be much, much less likely to occur (assuming the houses are separate/detached and don't have any shared usage spaces).
As far as I'm aware. Living in factory (like) units, is strongly discouraged, and/or NOT allowed by laws and regulations, in the UK.
Some (small) shops, have rooms/flats (typically) above the ground floor shop unit. Where either the shop owner(s) can live, or they can rent it out.
But this (apparent) concept, of mixed use factory (and living in the factory unit), doesn't seem to be something I've heard about in the UK.
I'm more concerned about the overcomplicated dual clutch transmissions in many newer cars breaking down, quite a few of them being infamous for problems early on. (Probably not as much of a concern in Europe where manual transmissions are still common.)
Multiple plate clutches have been used successfully in all manner of gear for 50+ years that I remember.
Trucks, tractors, race cars etc. Have modern designers no link to historical designs ?
Or do they just reinvent the wheel that already works just to break it ?