[gblansten]

Originally Posted by jmg

"More"... really?

There is absolutely nothing new in this article, yet you are presenting this as a new outrageous problem and mounting evidence to support you bias. Yet, this has been discussed several times in this thread with valid points brought up by BOTH sides.

Bringing this up as if this is new information indicates either poor memory or intellectual dishonesty. In other words, they are either not capable of retaining the information, or are pretending to not retain the information. Both undermines credibility.

Covered multiple times and quite recently. Agree. There is broad consensus that the EV charging build out needs much more work.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by jmg

"More"... really?

There is absolutely nothing new in this article, yet you are presenting this as a new outrageous problem and mounting evidence to support you bias. Yet, this has been discussed several times in this thread with valid points brought up by BOTH sides.

Bringing this up as if this is new information indicates either poor memory or intellectual dishonesty. In other words, they are either not capable of retaining the information, or are pretending to not retain the information. Both undermines credibility.

Say what you like, it does not detract that more and more public are not considering EV's, its the beginning of the end for them and it will be a long painful process of understanding that its a climate change dream gone horribly wrong.
I'm providing newsworthy proof of why this is so and where is yours?

[jmg]

I liked your post Efthreeoh, because it's so predictable, and so your MO. Follow me for a bit:

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Your last 3 bullets are your own conclusions

Which ones and how?

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

which you then claim are unsubstantiated.

I don't see that. Specifically where did I claim that and what was I referring to?

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

None of the people you refer to as the echo chamber made any of those ascertations, so you are arguing with yourself.

Which acertations are you referring to?

This is either another strawman argument, or you are being purposefully vague to mislead people into thinking you have a valid point. This lack of transparency makes your argument appear stronger than it is, and the echo chamber loves it, since it doesn't matter how nonsensical the argument is, just that it supports the bias.

This is a common tactic in debate and especially in this thread. This is part of the reason I constantly have to quote entire discussions. It's an effective way to maintain a clear picture so that others cannot use confusion to make weak arguments.

Additionally, this tactic you used is an attempt at evading counterarguments, likely because you are concealing a weakness in your argument by changing the subject. This is a TEXTBOOK example, as evident of your reply that is literally making a hard right from the dangers of the EV from runaway scenarios to the inconvenience of charging:

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

In the current state of the automotive environment, EV do not make a compelling argument to switch from ICEV. Regarding the MME, the manufacturer states at-home Level 2 charging is best for maintaining high voltage traction battery health....

It's as if the echo chamber had a secret meeting to turn the tide of a losing debate by agreeing to change the subject.

Here was attempt #1:

Originally Posted by M5Rick

More EV hell and I don't suppose charging machines take cash, no thought not.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/2427...s-paying-fuel/

Your post is attempt #2.

Here is attempt #3:

Originally Posted by M5Rick

Say what you like, it does not detract that more and more public are not considering EV's, its the beginning of the end for them and it will be a long painful process of understanding that its a climate change dream gone horribly wrong.
I'm providing newsworthy proof of why this is so and where is yours?

It's so transparent, it's almost insulting people's intelligence. This is a circus.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by jmg

Which ones and how.

I don't see that. Specifically where did I claim that and what was I referring to?



Which acertations are you referring to?

This is either another strawman argument, or you are being purposefully vague to mislead people into thinking you have a valid point. This lack of transparency makes your argument appear stronger than it is, and the echo chamber loves it, since it doesn't matter how valid the argument is, just that it supports the bias.

This is a common tactic in debate and especially in this thread. This is part of the reason I constantly have to quote entire discussions. It's an effective way to maintain a clear picture so that others cannot use confusion to make weak arguments.

Additionally, this tactic you used, is an attempt at evading counterarguments, likely because you are concealing a weakness in your argument by changing the subject. This is a TEXTBOOK example, as evident of your reply:




You are attempting to change the subject from the dangers of the EV from runaway scenarios to the inconvenience of charging. It's as if the echo chamber had a secret meeting to turn the tide of a losing debate by agreeing to change the subject. Here was attempt #1:



It's so transparent, it's almost insulting people's intelligence. This is a circus.

Mate . You have inadvertently built your own flying circus and are swinging on the ropes without a safety net.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

Mate . You have inadvertently built your own flying circus and are swinging on the ropes without a safety net.

The echo chamber is your safety net.

Rope swinging is more entertaining without it.



Mate.

[G35POPPEDMYCHERRY]

i miss BGM at least he knew how to troll

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

.

Follow along:

Originally Posted by jmg

The handbrake or lack of a handbrake is not exclusive to the EV. Plenty of ICE vehicles also have an electronic handbrake.

There are plenty of ICE vehicles that are push button start and an electronic drive mode selector. These are not EV exclusive features.

I was thinking this too, but the regenerative braking function is downstream of the brake system. There is no regenerative component that directly affects brake pressure, and it actually senses wheel speed, the brakes don't even need to be depressed for the system to initiate.

[EDIT: Apologies, I had a zoom meeting, so I didn't have time to expand on this thought until now:]

However, for argument's sake let's imagine a scenario, regardless of how unlikely, that the regenerative braking system somehow caused the brakes to fail:

• While it increases efficiency, regenerative braking is not an essential component to the EV.
• The validity of the EV as an alternative to the ICE on a global scale does not hinge upon a non-essential component.
• Addressing risk factors with the component is the solution, not dismissing the EV as a viable means of transportation.

These unsubstantiated assumptions are counterproductive and undermine the overall credibility of the anti-EV sentiment in this thread. It's difficult for anyone with sound reason outside of the filter bubble to take these arguments seriously. This is why these echo chambers are so attractive. It provides validation for very little actual worth.

These unsubstantiated assumptions are referring to you and M5Rick' statements which are quoted in in that post. I apologize if that was unintentionally unclear.

[carseatsm5]

I know it’s immature.

[KRS_SN]

Originally Posted by jmg

His argument is presented as two statements of evidence to support his conclusion, however, those statements are ineffective:


Evidence #1: "An ICE without Adaptive cruise control might not develop a software glitch that makes it keep going at 30mph"
An ICE with AAC could develop this glitch, so this doesn't establish this as an issue exclusive to the EV.



Evidence #2: "Also brake failures don't keep.a car going at 30mph for long"
For argument's sake, let's imagine this is true (it is not). This statement only speculated that there is likely more than just brake failure to blame in this scenario, but does not state what that could be, nor does it state a reason that is exclusive to the EV.



Conclusion: "This sounds like a software specific issue and EV are full of software etc.."
After two statements that do not establish this as an issue exclusive to the EV, KRS jumps to the conclusion that it is exclusive to the EV. To an echo chamber eager to reach the favorable conclusion, this might sound like a good argument, but it doesn't hold under scrutiny.

The "evidence" is completely disconnected from the conclusion. It's a non sequitur, and it fails to provide any coherent support for your argument.

If you were an attorney(perhaps you are a student) and stood up in court spouting this its possible the senior judge probably would do you in for contempt of court not before scratching his head in frustration at the frantic antics. Ps no proof provided it's a echochamber after all..the defence mechanism is strong on this one :-)

[jmg]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

If you were an attorney(perhaps you are a student) and stood up in court spouting this its possible the senior judge probably would do you in for contempt of court not before scratching his head in frustration at the frantic antics. Ps no proof provided it's a echochamber after all..the defence mechanism is strong on this one :-)

I think you need to look up what "contempt of court" means before you try to belittle someone.


Here is what you said:

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

An ICE without Adaptive cruise control might not develop a software glitch that makes it keep going at 30mph. Also brake failures don't keep.a car going at 30mph for long. This sounds like a software specific issue and EV are full of software etc..

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

An ICE without Adaptive cruise control might not develop a software glitch that makes it keep going at 30mph.

This statement is misleading because it states a premise that does not establish, one way or another, a distinction between an ICE or an EV that both have adaptive cruise control.

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

Also brake failures don't keep.a car going at 30mph for long.

This statement doesn't show how this relates to the EV being related to this problem.

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

This sounds like a software specific issue and EV are full of software etc..

This conclusion based on the two arguments above is a non sequitur. Nothing that was said in the 2 previous sentence logically leads to this conclusion.

Your reply was a chaotic jumble of disconnected thoughts masquerading as logic. "Proof" of their flaw is as obvious as a train wreck. The disjointed mess of an argument is a dirty street drug for the echo chamber junkies, providing a cheap high that leaves it's users addicted to ignorance.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Interesting is both you and fcman claim your EV stop completely without touching the brakes. Yet you say regenerative braking is not a essential component of EV. You also say regenerative braking is "downstream" of hydraulic braking.

Downstream means that the regenerative braking system does not come between the driver input and the mechanical braking system. That means that a failure in the regenerative braking system does not affect the mechanical brakes. In fact, the regenerative braking system does not even come into contact with the brakes nor the rotors.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

the logical thought is regenerative braking is the key difference when considering a failed brake system event on an EV when, as you say, all else being equal (i.e. both car types have hydraulic brakes).

This would make actual sense if an ICE never experienced brake failure, but it has, and since this particular EV has the same brakes as an ICE, then it destroys your argument.

This is where predisposed bias is an obstacle to critical thinking. Tunnel vision causes the echo chamber to jump to that conclusion that the key difference between two systems is the logical point of failure. This is a myopic oversimplification, and this reductionist perspective ignores obvious facets of the failure in favor of those that support the bias.

Here is a hypothetical and it should go without saying that I am in no way shape or form saying this is what actually happened, because I know someone will say something glib like "How do you know the EV had a bad seal, it could have been the software!". This is just an example, echo chamber, of how you cannot assume that the key difference between two systems is the cause of failure. I know I'm going to hear it, because you guys like to troll, but here is the hypothetical anyway:

An EV is equipped with a brake caliper with a defect: The master cylinder seal leaks brake fluid.
This EV car is driven by a customer and they experiences brake failure due to this bad seal.
The anti-EV echo chamber at bimmerpost blames the regenerative braking system because that is the key difference between the ICE and EV braking system.

It really is that simple.

[Banana Clipper]

Picked up an iX a couple weeks ago. 2 years free charging from BMW, $10k rebate, gave me $5k on my M340i ($40k total for those who clowned on me for trying to sell it for $38k), $4k out of pocket and I'm paying less on the iX than the M340i... faster than the M340i as well

Enjoy your sterotyping

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Banana Clipper

Picked up an iX a couple weeks ago. 2 years free charging from BMW, $10k rebate, gave me $5k on my M340i ($40k total for those who clowned on me for trying to sell it for $38k), $4k out of pocket and I'm paying less on the iX than the M340i... faster than the M340i as well

Enjoy your sterotyping

Congrats! I'm not current on the rebates and incentives. Is the $10k a combo of state and federal rebates plus factory incentives?

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

YOU say the regen is downstream to the hydraulic system, yet it sounds like from what you and fcman have stated, regen acts first to slow an EV down. Acts first to the point where the driver needs not to touch the brake pedal (fcman quote). So that means if regen acts first upon the EV to slow it down, the hydraulic system is downstream to the regen system.

And that is the point. If the story is true, it's possible the hydraulic system didn't have a mechanical failure but rather a software failure in the brake-by-wire function as a conflict between the motor regenerative force and the operation of the hydraulic system (i.e. anti-lock control unit). It's a plausible explanation and unique to EV architecture even though both ICEV and EV share similar hydraulic brake components.

While regen can slow the car down first, that is not what I mean when I used the term "downstream".

I used the term downstream in terms of input and control meaning regen does not have an input between the driver's brake pedal, and the engagement of the brakes themselves. Like you, I'm no expert, but that is my limited understanding. Due to this, admittedly, the regen system interfering with the brakes is not entirely impossible. Regardless, objectivity requires that we consider the hydraulic mechanical brakes themselves. Given that the brakes on the MG ZS EV are also allegedly mechanical (according to that forum I linked to earlier), and that mechanical brakes do fail on ICE vehicles as well, then one cannot say that this runaway scenario was definitely caused by the fact that it was an EV since the mechanical brakes themselves have not yet been ruled out.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Your premise is the hydraulic system couldn't fail as a failsafe and ICEV do not suffer such failure, so EV shouldn't either.

I said no such thing. I said that hydraulic brakes HAVE failed, which is the complete opposite of what you are claiming I said.

Here is what I said:

Originally Posted by jmg

This would make actual sense if an ICE never experienced brake failure, but it has, and since this particular EV has the same brakes as an ICE, then it destroys your argument.

You have either misinterpreted my words through error, or are misrepresenting my words purposefully to create confusion.

If it's the latter, it's a dishonest tactic that displays a complete disregard for logic, reason and integrity. This isn't the first time you've used a strawman argument and, frankly, it's lazy and disappointing.



Once again, I have to quote myself to prove your strawman argument, which you so cleverly mocked me for:

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Allow myself to... ah... quote myself.

If quoting myself bothers you so much, then cease to use such infantile tactics.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

If you were an attorney(perhaps you are a student) and stood up in court spouting this its possible the senior judge probably would do you in for contempt of court not before scratching his head in frustration at the frantic antics. Ps no proof provided it's a echochamber after all..the defence mechanism is strong on this one :-)

...also wasting courts' time with his 'neutral' stance.

[KRS_SN]

Originally Posted by jmg

This conclusion based on the two arguments above is a non sequitur. Nothing that was said in the 2 previous sentence logically leads to this conclusion.

Your reply was a chaotic jumble of disconnected thoughts masquerading as logic. "Proof" of their flaw is as obvious as a train wreck. The disjointed mess of an argument is a dirty street drug for the echo chamber junkies, providing a cheap high that leaves it's users addicted to ignorance.

You talk about belittling and then go in to belittle me and others.
I'm adding you to the ignore list because 'giant bore'

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

You talk about belittling and then go in to belittle me and others.
I'm adding you to the ignore list because 'giant bore'

+1

[M5Rick]

'Bargain' EV's from China are reportedly under investigation by the present Brussels control.
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...QyNzExLjAuMC4w

[KRS_SN]

The demand is cratering

https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/2427...roduction-evs/


BBC News - Electric car sales to private buyers fall sharply
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67017972

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said sales to private buyers fell by 14%, but overall registrations of electric cars rose almost 19%.The growth was entirely driven by company fleet buyers.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

To rephrase this by removing the double negative: "the regen system interfering with the brakes is entirely possible." Which is what I've been saying all along.

That is not the section of the statement I objected to, it was the non sequitur conclusion you made that was deduced from the statement, which you have conveniently left out to change the narrative:

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Interesting is both you and fcman claim your EV stop completely without touching the brakes. Yet you say regenerative braking is not an essential component of EV. You also say regenerative braking is "downstream" of hydraulic braking. But regenerative braking is the main difference in the vehicle braking function between ICEV and EV. While I find your position incongruent regarding EV braking function, the logical thought is regenerative braking is the key difference when considering a failed brake system event on an EV when, as you say, all else being equal (i.e. both car types have hydraulic brakes). Since regenerative braking involves more software code, attributing the MG's failure to the regenerative braking function is quite plausible.

My direct response to this bolded statement was:

Originally Posted by jmg

This would make actual sense if an ICE never experienced brake failure, but it has, and since this particular EV has the same brakes as an ICE, then it destroys your argument.

You stating that this "is what I've been saying all along." doesn't provide new information, it doesn't support your argument, and it conveniently avoids addressing the point I just made in that quote. Once again you are using a strawman tactic to distract from your lack of counterargument.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

You talk about belittling and then go in to belittle me and others.

This post was made on 10/06/2023 at 16:21PM

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

If you were an attorney (perhaps you are a student) and stood up in court spouting this its possible the senior judge probably would do you in for contempt of court not before scratching his head in frustration at the frantic antics. Ps no proof provided it's a echochamber after all..the defence mechanism is strong on this one :-)

Here is my reply to you on 10/06/2023 at 17:02PM

Originally Posted by jmg

This conclusion based on the two arguments above is a non sequitur. Nothing that was said in the 2 previous sentence logically leads to this conclusion.

Your reply was a chaotic jumble of disconnected thoughts masquerading as logic. "Proof" of their flaw is as obvious as a train wreck. The disjointed mess of an argument is a dirty street drug for the echo chamber junkies, providing a cheap high that leaves it's users addicted to ignorance.

1. You threw the first stone at me
2. I attacked your argument

Again, it's hypocritical to admonish me for personal attacks while allowing Efthreeoh to do the same simply because he shares your opinion:

10/03/2023:

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Lol. The shit people get taught in school these days.

This was made a few hours after Efthreeoh deleted another personal attack.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Allow myself to... ah... quote myself.

This post was made after his "mandate" campaign fell apart, conveniently never to be addressed again. Once again lowering himself to infantile attacks because they couldn't come up with a valid counter argument. Very consistent.

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

I'm adding you to the ignore list because 'giant bore'

That's your decision to block me, but that exasperates the problems associated with echo chambers. It's disturbing how quickly individuals retreat to ideological cocoons the moment low effort back-patting is interrupted by diverse ideas that challenge preconceived bias.

Here is your echo chamber colleague, your ideological peer, posting childish nonsense:

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

EeeecHoOo ChaAaMmber!!!!!!!

This is a grown adult, mind you, encouraged with "likes" to act childish. They have demeaned themselves to a new low standard...
and you are proud of this?

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

EeeecHoOo ChaAaMmber!!!!!!!

Maybe I'm remembering this wrong, but from a previous conversation, you gave me the impression that you were a bit older than I am given that you had an electric car in the 1970's or something like that. Now I'm confused.