Still want an EV? (NO POLITICS)

[fcman]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

So, what people? Should I just walk the streets of the top 35 cities in the US and just ask random people if they think BMWs build long lasting durable vehicles? Or should I get PII and ask just BMW owners throughout the USA? Should I pay tens of thousands of dollars to get vehicle registration data (which really doesn't record milage use data) and perform some data analytics? Perhaps VIN data; I'll go to all 50 states and ask for BMW VIN information and that will tell us at least the age of BMWs by VIN for each state. I'll spend the next year of my life collecting data just to prove my point, again, which I've already proven seveal different ways so far. Lol.

I'll offer that BMW has done the data analytics and basis its OE parts business forecast. Low and behold, it still routinely offers parts for models 25, 30, and 40 years old.

You made the claim, how you decide to provide supporting evidence or proof is up to you. Consumer surveys would be a great start though imo, though sampling BMW owners only would be a flawed methodology

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by fcman

Not a logical fallacy to ask for proof of a claim, nor is it moving the goalposts. Consumer surveys would be a great start and at least open the debate and provide a basis for his claim.

Burden of proof logical fallacy:



The concept of "burden of proof" is a 2 way street.



changing the terms or reach of a claim to debunk it is not debunking the original claim.

Doing both at the same time is, well, kinda sad

It may advance a discussion to bring up these terms, but it's not "winning", and no one owes you a response on your terms.

We aren't a defending a PHD thesis here, no one owes you the replies you want.

[fcman]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

Burden of proof logical fallacy:



The concept of "burden of proof" is a 2 way street.



changing the terms or reach of a claim to debunk it is not debunking the original claim.

Doing both at the same time is, well, kinda sad

It may advance a discussion to bring up these terms, but it's not "winning", and no one owes you a response on your terms.

We aren't a defending a PHD thesis here, no one owes you the replies you want.

"Burden of Proof" is not a logical fallacy, "Shifting the burden of proof" is. He made a claim, I asked for proof, if he asked me for proof that disproved his claim, that could potentially be Shifting the Burden. He has not asked for me to do that though so no shifting burden fallacy has been made by either of us

Again, I never moved the goalposts, he made a claim, I asked for proof of the exact claim he made. He has not provided any basis for his claim.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by fcman

"Burden of Proof" is not a logical fallacy, "Shifting the burden of proof" is. He made a claim, I asked for proof.

Logic tells us such a claim can never be proven.

If I write "Trump was a great president, it's well known", and you demand I prove it, can I? If I can't, does that mean you win and the claim is thus false? Whatever methods you could use to "Prove" such a claim can also be used to "diss-prove" it.

Whatever methods you could use to "Diss-Prove" such a claim can also be used to "Prove" it.

This is why it's considered Logical fallacy ...

Again, I never moved the goalposts, he made a claim, I asked for proof of the exact claim he made. He has not provided any basis for his claim.

You didn't ask him to defend his comment, you asked him to defend your summary of it, and added more descriptive terms to your standard to be met. You literally moved the goal post.

[fcman]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

Logic tells us such a claim can never be proven.

If I write "Trump was a great president, it's well known", and you demand I prove it, can I? If I can't, does that mean you win and the claim is thus false? Whatever methods you could use to "Prove" such a claim can also be used to "diss-prove" it.

Whatever methods you could use to "Diss-Prove" such a claim can also be used to "Prove" it.

This is why it's considered Logical fallacy ...

No logical fallacy has been committed

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor

"what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

"the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it."

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

You didn't ask him to defend his comment, you asked him to defend your summary of it, and added more descriptive terms to your standard to be met. You literally moved the goal post.

Nope, I have only asked him to defend his statement that BMW's have a reputation for longevity (he may call it whatever he wishes, I will not hold him to my definitions or descriptions of reliability vs durability). No evidence has been posted about BMW's reputation so I cannot have moved the goalposts

[G35POPPEDMYCHERRY]

GODAMMNIT you all and you fallacies. THIS IS AMERICA.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by fcman

No logical fallacy has been committed

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor

"what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

He has offered evidence, you want proof. That's moving the goal post. "Proof" is absent from Hitchens edict.


we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.

Nope, I have only asked him to defend his statement that BMW's have a reputation for longevity (he may call it whatever he wishes, I will not hold him to my definitions or descriptions of reliability vs durability). No evidence has been posted about BMW's reputation so I cannot have moved the goalposts

No, now you are moving the goal posts back Now he can offer whatever evidence he wishes, and there is little you can do about it.

[G MONEY]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

No, now you are moving the goal posts back Now he can offer whatever evidence he wishes, and there is little you can do about it.

You 2 girls should go see Barbie together and work this shit out. No one gives a fuck about your little cat fight. DM each other for god sake.

[fcman]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

He has offered evidence, you want proof. That's moving the goal post. "Proof" is absent from Hitchens edict.


we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.

He has not provided any evidence of BMWs reputation. If he has, please quote it.

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

No, now you are moving the goal posts back Now he can offer whatever evidence he wishes, and there is little you can do about it.

Nope, still the same goalposts. He can absolutely offer the evidence which supports his claim, he has not done so

[M5Rick]

^ You've ordered a new M2, so have you a current Bm fcman..

[fcman]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

^ You've ordered a new M2, so have you a current Bm fcman..

Not yet, but yes I will have one very soon

Sad to see my C7 go though, gonna miss the loud N/A V8

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by fcman

Not yet, but yes I will have one very soon

Sad to see my C7 go though, gonna miss the loud N/A V8

A Corvette I see, quite a come down from 6.2 litres and then the M2 twin turbo 6 is at 456 hp, holy crap that is a pocket rocket ship, no EV for you then

[fcman]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

A Corvette I see, quite a come down from 6.2 litres and then the M2 twin turbo 6 is at 456 hp, holy crap that is a pocket rocket ship, no EV for you then

Yeah, I want something small and sporty with back seats, also came close to buying an 800whp ZL1 1LE a few months ago but the car was catless and in my county the car has to pass emissions to be able to sell it, so the deal fell through.

We have a Tesla Model Y for shuttling the kid to and from school though.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by fcman

Yeah, I want something small and sporty with back seats, also came close to buying an 800whp ZL1 1LE a few months ago but the car was catless and in my county the car has to pass emissions to be able to sell it, so the deal fell through.

We have a Tesla Model Y for shuttling the kid to and from school though.

4WD so should get you out of trouble when the snow comes, so what happens if the main battery should pack up

[fcman]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

4WD so should get you out of trouble when the snow comes, so what happens if the main battery should pack up

Luckily not much snow down here in Georgia. And still have 6+ years and over 100k miles left on my powertrain warranty so if something happens I'll get it replaced. The car will probably be sold/traded in well before the warranty is up.

I think the market will change very quickly though, at this point only around 2% of Teslas have passed the 8 year mark. There just really isn't much of a market yet for 3rd battery repair because a large majority of cars are still under warranty.

We'll see though, I plan on checking out some other EV options eventually, waiting for some attractive 3 rows.

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

so what happens if the main battery should pack up

You had to go there?

[fcman]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

So just to play the game, I googled "cars with the reputation for durability". So all kinds of stuff comes up about reliability. Of course in every search result Toyota pops up as the leader for "reliability" "trouble free", "longevity", etc. Some site called "cool stuff" listed the 2023 BMW 4-Series as 4th on their list. So that's interesting to find a 2023 BMW listed as a car that has long term reliability when it's not even a model year old. And why is not the 3-series listed? It's the same car underneath the skin. I could have cited the 4-series as "proof" but I doubted the rating. So I'll take any internet result with a grain of salt.

That is very strange to be sure

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I'll be happy to go to a Toyota meet and match up my 26-year old non-pampered Z3 to any 26 year old Toyota and see which chassis is in better overall shape.

I think you would be surprised how well a 1997 Supra holds up

[Car-Addicted]

Tesla spontaneously catches fire, firefighters tag Elon Musk in social media post



A Tesla spontaneously caught fire last week while stored in a high-end auto yard, prompting responding firefighters to grab the attention of Elon Musk, head of the electric car company.

Images shared by the Metro Fire of Sacramento show crews hosing down a burned black Tesla on Aug 2 in Rancho Cordova.

The vehicle was salvaged due to flooding in Florida and was idle when it burst into flames, authorities said.

"Crews are unable to move it to a safe location to burn out, the vehicle is blocked in and surrounded by millions of dollars in salvaged vehicles including Ferraris, Lamborghinis and Bentleys.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

Tesla spontaneously catches fire, firefighters tag Elon Musk in social media post



A Tesla spontaneously caught fire last week while stored in a high-end auto yard, prompting responding firefighters to grab the attention of Elon Musk, head of the electric car company.

Images shared by the Metro Fire of Sacramento show crews hosing down a burned black Tesla on Aug 2 in Rancho Cordova.

The vehicle was salvaged due to flooding in Florida and was idle when it burst into flames, authorities said.

"Crews are unable to move it to a safe location to burn out, the vehicle is blocked in and surrounded by millions of dollars in salvaged vehicles including Ferraris, Lamborghinis and Bentleys.

Any salvaged Tesla or indeed any salvaged EV should be kept well away from gas vehicles and it does keep coming back to batteries. Even 'healthy' EV's could combust without warning so a double edged sword here..
Firemen have jacked the T there to hose the battery easier.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by fcman

No logical fallacy has been committed

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor

"what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

"the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it."




Nope, I have only asked him to defend his statement that BMW's have a reputation for longevity (he may call it whatever he wishes, I will not hold him to my definitions or descriptions of reliability vs durability). No evidence has been posted about BMW's reputation so I cannot have moved the goalposts

"Shall it not be validated by the internet, then therefore it cannot be true".

Dumass Googleheim's razor...

[KRS_SN]

Originally Posted by fcman

These examples may show that bmw is committed to the long term for its vehicles, but they do not say anything about BMW’s reputation for building long lasting cars. And keep in mind, you are now discussing the AGE of cars, not the mileage or the overall durability. And the availability of parts has no direct correlation to durability either.

Bmw has a roaring approved used program.
It makes a lot of money this way. Probably more than on selling new cars. So they have an incentive for making their vehicles last. Tesla for eg doesn't have thos...it doesn't even have a extended warranty program for its cars (at least in the UK).

[Car-Addicted]

"The vehicle was salvaged due to flooding in Florida and was idle when it burst into flames"

This raises several questions:
Are all cars with minor flood damage forced into a salvage title? With the batteries making up the belly pan of a EV it will not take much water to submerged the battery and not damage the car. What is to keep someone from selling a flood damaged EV rather than to accepting a insurance settlement?
The used EV market is already depressed without the possibility of damaged EV's showing up.