If the Slate PU came only as an ICE, I would buy one.

[sodamo]

Stop, reason isn’t helpful lol. If it was, we wouldn’t have had this conversation for so long

Time for Admin to lock?

 

[Driven5]

Against my better judgement, I'm going to give this one last honest shot...

I've never refuted the reports summary of 4.2 vs. 10.4 (I'm not sure what the unit of measure is however - it's not very clear).

It was very clearly stated multiple times in this thread (including your own posting), in all of the articles, and in the study data itself, that the units of measure is breakdowns per 1000 registered vehicles, more specifically those 2-4 years old. Per 1000 is a variation on percent, which is simply per 100. Since only a few breakdown categories exceed 1 percent, like ICE breakdowns at 1.04% (10.4 per 1000) doing it this way just makes the numbers easier to to work with. It's the same reason we use percent rather than the 0.0104 of pure math.

When I went to school, I learned 8% is less than 13%, 45% is less than 50%. I did not learn that 18% is less than 10%. Maybe you guys did.

First, the reporting of that tire data was very poorly done. They should have specified that ICE having fewer tire problems than EV was also only for model year 2020 cars. The remaining 2021-2022 model years and overall (as reported by AZFox) tire results all still have EV with fewer tire problems than ICE.

Second, speaking of units of measure, you are mixing and matching units of measure that are not directly comparable between the percentages. Percent OF WHAT matters. Percentages can only be directly compared to the specific thing they are 'of'. Comparing them across groups of things requires normalizing the data between the groups (i.e. multiplying the percentage against the total) before comparing them.

For example:

40% of Ferrari's are red. Ferrari produced 15,000 total cars.
4% of Ford's are red. Ford produced 1,500,000 total cars.

Are there fewer red Ferrari's or red Ford's produced?

If you say that there are fewer red Ford's produced than red Ferrari's, because 4% is less than 40%, despite them being "of" similar-but-different (much like "of EV" and "of ICE") units of measure, then you're agreeing with your previous posts on how to analyze the data.

If you say that there are fewer red Ferrari's produced than red Ford's, because normalizing them puts 40% of the 15k cars Ferrari produces at 6,000 red Ferrari's, and 4% of the 1.5M cars Ford produces at 60,000 red Ford's, then you're agreeing with our previous posts on how to analyze the data.

The question remains though, will you actually take the time to fully understand and reflect on all of what has been written here, before responding?

 

[AZFox]

The data say ICEVs break down six times more frequently compared to EVs when you disregard the 12v battery and tire issues ICEVs and EVs have in common.

Why?

 

[E90400K]

The data say ICEVs break down six times more frequently compared to EVs when you disregard the 12v battery and tire issues ICEVs and EVs have in common.

Why?

Then why not too, disregard the categories "Generator, Starter, Electrical System, Lighting", " Keys, Immobilizer", and "Other"?

 

[E90400K]

Against my better judgement, I'm going to give this one last honest shot...


It was very clearly stated multiple times in this thread (including your own posting), in all of the articles, and in the study data itself, that the units of measure is breakdowns per 1000 registered vehicles, more specifically those 2-4 years old. Per 1000 is a variation on percent, which is simply per 100. Since only a few breakdown categories exceed 1 percent, like ICE breakdowns at 1.04% (10.4 per 1000) doing it this way just makes the numbers easier to to work with. It's the same reason we use percent rather than the 0.0104 of pure math.



First, the reporting of that tire data was very poorly done. They should have specified that ICE having fewer tire problems than EV was also only for model year 2020 cars. The remaining 2021-2022 model years and overall (as reported by AZFox) tire results all still have EV with fewer tire problems than ICE.

Second, speaking of units of measure, you are mixing and matching units of measure that are not directly comparable between the percentages. Percent OF WHAT matters. Percentages can only be directly compared to the specific thing they are 'of'. Comparing them across groups of things requires normalizing the data between the groups (i.e. multiplying the percentage against the total) before comparing them.

For example:

40% of Ferrari's are red. Ferrari produced 15,000 total cars.
4% of Ford's are red. Ford produced 1,500,000 total cars.

Are there fewer red Ferrari's or red Ford's produced?

If you say that there are fewer red Ford's produced than red Ferrari's, because 4% is less than 40%, despite them being "of" similar-but-different (much like "of EV" and "of ICE") units of measure, then you're agreeing with your previous posts on how to analyze the data.

If you say that there are fewer red Ferrari's produced than red Ford's, because normalizing them puts 40% of the 15k cars Ferrari produces at 6,000 red Ferrari's, and 4% of the 1.5M cars Ford produces at 60,000 red Ford's, then you're agreeing with our previous posts on how to analyze the data.

The question remains though, will you actually take the time to fully understand and reflect on all of what has been written here, before responding?

The insideEV article discussing the ADAC study said ths:

"A fan favorite gets a thumbs-down

A quick glance over the results published by the ADAC shows that most EVs have had few breakdowns, with the exception of the Hyundai Ioniq 5, which breaks the mold with a rather disappointing breakdown rate of 18.3 for cars built in 2021. To make matters worse, the units manufactured in 2022 had a breakdown rate of 22.4."

If you know what that actually means relative to 4.2 EV breakdowns per 1,000 cars, then good for you. For the 2021 Ioniq 5, does it mean just 18.3 of all 2021 Ioniq 5 registered in Germany brokedown? Or, does it mean 18.3 of 1,000 Ioniq 5 registered in 2021 broke down? Or does it mean of the 1,000 cars that broke down, 18.3 were Ioniq 5? insideEV wrote breakdown "rate of 18.3", rate of what?

In an earlier post #120, AZ stated the ADAC data show the (ICEV) Toyota C-HR had 63.1 breakdowns per 1,000 cars, which he found astonishing, he wrote "Interesting that the Big Stinker is a Toyota." How does C-HR relate to ICEV breakdowns of just 10.4 per 1,000 cars? If the C-HR is 63.1% of all ICEV breakdowns then it certainly skews the ICEV data towards just one model.

I don't think anyone knows what they are talking about or what the data actually mean.

Regarding your Red Ferrari/Red Ford diatribe, the analogy is the same, Ford produces less percentage of cars with red paint at 4% of its production, yet the total quantity is more. You keep missing this point. If the Carscoops article says EV are less reliable than ICEV in the breakdown category of "12 Volt Battery" 50% of EV breakdowns (2.1 in quantity) vs. 45% ICEV breakdowns (4.68 in quantity) then it follows that EV are less reliable than ICEV at 18% EV breakdowns (.76 in quantity) than ICEV at 10% breakdowns (1.04 in quantity). In other words, if you own an EV you can expect its breakdowns to be the 12V battery 50% of the time and its electric motor drivetrain to be 18% of the time. If you own an ICEV you can expect its breakdowns to be the 12V battery 45% of the time and its engine drivetrain to be just 10% of the time. When you look at each architecture's vehicle part content as a whole the ICEV has less drivetrain failures as a percentage of total failures despite is higher content of "moving" parts, or just more parts in general.

 

[Dorbiman]

I think that’s it all. Time to pack it up lol

 

[Driven5]

If you know what that actually means relative to 4.2 EV breakdowns per 1,000 cars, then good for you. For the 2021 Ioniq 5, does it mean just 18.3 of all 2021 Ioniq 5 registered in Germany brokedown? Or, does it mean 18.3 of 1,000 Ioniq 5 registered in 2021 broke down? Or does it mean of the 1,000 cars that broke down, 18.3 were Ioniq 5? insideEV wrote breakdown "rate of 18.3", rate of what?

In an earlier post #120, AZ stated the ADAC data show the (ICEV) Toyota C-HR had 63.1 breakdowns per 1,000 cars, which he found astonishing, he wrote "Interesting that the Big Stinker is a Toyota." How does C-HR relate to ICEV breakdowns of just 10.4 per 1,000 cars? If the C-HR is 63.1% of all ICEV breakdowns then it certainly skews the ICEV data towards just one model.

It just so happens that I do, as do the others posting here. Understanding rates and percentages all comes back to asking that one simple question... Of what? It's not spelled out each time because it supposed to be self-explanatory. When they say the EV breakdown rate, it's per 1000 registered vehicles OF EV's. When they say ICEV breakdown rate, it's per 1000 registered vehicles OF ICE. When they say 2021 Ioniq 5 breakdown rate, it's per 1000 registered vehicles OF 2021 Ioniq 5. When they say 2020 C-HR breakdown rate, it's per 1000 registered vehicles OF 2020 C-HR.

Again, if per 100 works easier for you than per 1000, just move the decimal. Then it simply becdomes 0.42% OF EV had breakdowns, 1.04% OF ICEV had breakdowns, 1.83% OF 2021 Ioniq 5 had breakdowns, and 6.31% OF 2020 C-HR had breakdowns.

If the Carscoops article says EV are less reliable than ICEV in the breakdown category of "12 Volt Battery" 50% of EV breakdowns (2.1 in quantity) vs. 45% ICEV breakdowns (4.68 in quantity) then it follows that EV are less reliable than ICEV at 18% EV breakdowns (.76 in quantity) than ICEV at 10% breakdowns (1.04 in quantity). In other words, if you own an EV you can expect its breakdowns to be the 12V battery 50% of the time and its electric motor drivetrain to be 18% of the time. If you own an ICEV you can expect its breakdowns to be the 12V battery 45% of the time and its engine drivetrain to be just 10% of the time. When you look at each architecture's vehicle part content as a whole the ICEV has less drivetrain failures as a percentage of total failures despite is higher content of "moving" parts, or just more parts in general.

So close, yet so far. These are percentages OF A PERCENTAGE. Starting with the breakdown rates of 0.42% of EV's and 1.04% of ICEV's above, it's further breaking down each of those percentages. Remember, you have to have a breakdown before it you can count the cause of the breakdown.

So If you have an EV, the probability of having a 12V battery problem is 50% of 0.42% of EV's, while the probability of a having tire problem is 18% of 0.42% of EV's. If you have an ICEV, the probability of having a 12v battery problem is 45% of 1.04% of ICEV's, while the probability of having a tire problem is 10% of 1.04% of ICEV's.

Let's try this:
1% of EV's have a breakdown.
50% of ICEV's have a breakdown.
50% of EV breakdowns are powertrain related.
10% of ICEV breakdowns are powertrain related.

If 50% of 1% of EV's have a powertrain related failure, then the overall probability of having a powertrain relatated breakdown is 0.5% for EV's.

If 10% of 50% of ICEV have a powertrain related breakdown, then the overall probability of having a powertrain related breakdown is 5.0% for ICEV's.

That overall probability of a powertrain related breakdown (0.5% EV vs 5.0% ICEV) is what is more commonly discussed as powertrain "reliability".

 

[E90400K]

It just so happens that I do, as do the others posting here. Understanding rates and percentages all comes back to asking that one simple question... Of what? It's not spelled out each time because it supposed to be self-explanatory. When they say the EV breakdown rate, it's per 1000 registered vehicles OF EV's. When they say ICEV breakdown rate, it's per 1000 registered vehicles OF ICE. When they say 2021 Ioniq 5 breakdown rate, it's per 1000 registered vehicles OF 2021 Ioniq 5. When they say 2020 C-HR breakdown rate, it's per 1000 registered vehicles OF 2020 C-HR.

Again, if per 100 works easier for you than per 1000, just move the decimal. Then it simply becdomes 0.42% OF EV had breakdowns, 1.04% OF ICEV had breakdowns, 1.83% OF 2021 Ioniq 5 had breakdowns, and 6.31% OF 2020 C-HR had breakdowns.



So close, yet so far. These are percentages OF A PERCENTAGE. Starting with the breakdown rates of 0.42% of EV's and 1.04% of ICEV's above, it's further breaking down each of those percentages. Remember, you have to have a breakdown before it you can count the cause of the breakdown.

So If you have an EV, the probability of your having a 12V battery problem is 50% of 0.42% of EV's and a tire problem is 18% of 0.42% of EV's. If you have an ICEV, the probability of your having a 12v battery problem is 45% of 1.04% of ICEV's and a tire problem is 10% of 1.04% of ICEV's.

Let's try this:
1% of EV's have a breakdown.
50% of ICEV's have a breakdown.
50% of EV breakdowns are powertrain related.
10% of ICEV breakdowns are powertrain related.

If 50% of 1% of EV's have a powertrain related failure, then the overall probability of having a powertrain relatated breakdown is 0.5% for EV's.

If 10% of 50% of ICEV have a powertrain related breakdown, then the overall probability of having a powertrain related breakdown is 5.0% for ICEV's.

That overall probability of a powertrain related breakdown (0.5% EV vs 5.0% ICEV) is what is more commonly discussed as powertrain "reliability".

Exactly. Percentages of percentages. Hummmm on that data analysis technique.

Then there is this paragraph in the insideEV article:

"The good news is that, irrespective of the powertrain, the breakdown rate is steadily decreasing. In 2020, EVs had 8.5 breakdowns on average, while combustion cars had 12.9. These figures went down to 4.3 for EVs in 2021 and 1.7 in 2022, while combustion-powered vehicles had an average breakdown rate of 8.2 in 2021 and 5.4 in 2022."

EV: ICEV:
2020 @ 8.5 2020 @ 12.9
2021 @ 4.3 2021 @ 8.2
2022 @ 1.7 2022 @ 5.4
Average 4.8 Average 8.8

So, what is this data representative of? Are these the same set of automobiles MY 2020 thru 2022, or automobiles for Model Years three years earlier, 2017, 2018 and 2019? So, the 2024 study data say EV are at 4.2 and ICEV at 10.4, if the 2024 data are for the same 3-year MY group of 2020 - 2022, the cars are getting more reliable as they age? As the reader, I am supposed to guess? If the article is not precise in what model years comprise the 2020 to 2022 (study?) data how is it relevant to the 2024 study? If I have to guess, then I find the data and the study suspect.

You're statement:

"So close, yet so far. These are percentages OF A PERCENTAGE. Starting with the breakdown rates of 0.42% of EV's and 1.04% of ICEV's above, it's further breaking down each of those percentages. Remember, you have to have a breakdown before it you can count the cause of the breakdown.

So If you have an EV, the probability of your having a 12V battery problem is 50% of 0.42% of EV's and a tire problem is 18% of 0.42% of EV's. If you have an ICEV, the probability of your having a 12v battery problem is 45% of 1.04% of ICEV's and a tire problem is 10% of 1.04% of ICEV's."

This exactly what I said:

"In other words, if you own an EV you can expect its breakdowns to be the 12V battery 50% of the time and its electric motor drivetrain to be 18% of the time. If you own an ICEV you can expect its breakdowns to be the 12V battery 45% of the time and its engine drivetrain to be just 10% of the time. When you look at each architecture's vehicle part content as a whole the ICEV has less drivetrain failures as a percentage of total failures despite is higher content of "moving" parts, or just more parts in general."

 

[Driven5]

Car A has a 0.000001% chance of a failure occurring, with a 100% chance that a failure would be drivetrain related.

Car B has a 99.999999% chance of a failure occurring, with a 50% chance that a failure would be drivetrain related.

Which car has the more reliable drivetrain?

 

[Susan]

And the 1.04 figure excludes starter and alternator breakdowns that are ICEV-only moving parts.

I've had the alternator breakdown on the highway in three different cars. I'm really looking forward to never having an alternator again.

 

[AZFox]

The time has long passed, @E90400K .