Technology

59340 readers

5096 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

265

EV Batteries Are Dangerous to Repair. Here’s Why Mechanics Are Doing So Anyway (www.scientificamerican.com)

submitted 10 months ago by flango@lemmy.eco.br to c/technology@lemmy.world

99 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Fixing car and e-bike batteries saves money and resources, but challenges are holding back the industry

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Total failure due to dead shorts in too many cells has been happening around the 14 to 18 year area. That’s when you decide to sell it for $3,000 or pay $15,000 to install another battery.

If I get to 14 to 18 years on a car without every having to replace an engine, transmission, it never gets in a crash that writes it off entirely, and its still worth $3k at the end I consider that a win.

[–] AntY@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

My old Volvo is 43 years old and has never had engine or transmission changed. It’s gone for 350,000 km and is still going strong. Is probably worth somewhere in the region of $2k. I don’t see any of the cars made today managing the same feat.

[–] You999@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That's straight up survivorship bias

[–] wikibot@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Here's the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:

Survivorship bias or survival bias is the logical error of concentrating on entities that passed a selection process while overlooking those that did not. This can lead to incorrect conclusions because of incomplete data. > Survivorship bias is a form of selection bias that can lead to overly optimistic beliefs because multiple failures are overlooked, such as when companies that no longer exist are excluded from analyses of financial performance. It can also lead to the false belief that the successes in a group have some special property, rather than just coincidence as in correlation "proves" causality.> Another kind of survivorship bias would involve thinking that an incident happened in a particular way because the only people who were involved in the incident who can speak about it are those who survived it. Even if one knew that some people are dead, they would not have their voice to add to the conversation, making it biased.

^article^ ^|^ ^about^

[+] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

and most that aren’t is due to accidents.

You're making my point for me. The likelihood a car, any car BEV or not, is going to make it to your (unproven) theoretical point of being a problem is 1 in 4.

If your premise is that BEVs are good up until the 200k mark, then you're making a bad bet on your ICE or Hybrid needing to survive to the 200k mark to be worth it. With your numbers I have a 75% chance of being right, while you only have a 25% chance, and that's even if I agree with your premise (which I think is a bit suspect).

[–] CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

But what does that number even mean? There are also 278 million vehicles registered in the US and only 233 million registered drivers, so I'm betting a lot of those 16+ year old vehicles aren't people's primary mode of transportation. I spend 2-3 hours commuting on the freeway and certainly don't see 1 in 4 being 16+ years old. My own car is 10 years old now and I would say it's on the older side of what I typically see.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I have three working vehicles. Four if you count my motorcycle. Two are 16 years old. A prius and a sienna. One is 18 years old. A mazda tribute. My motorcycle is 28 years old. A Suzuki bandit. I don't even own a vehicle newer than 16 years old. Did just junk an 18 year old Nissan altima because my 16 year old kid blew up the engine after way over filling the oil.

Chances are you aren't seeing 1 in 4 vehicles on your route that are over ten years old. But part of the reason (but not all the reason) is the same reason you never noticed how many of the vehicle you drive were out on the road until after you bought one. You're never looking around and thinking about it.

Also your location and what you do for a living. You a white collar going into a nice office area at 8 am or so? Newer vehicles. Go head to the old or run down portion of a city and you'll see 20 year old vehicles abound. My area has several well off rednecks that drive old fixed up diesel pick up trucks just because they don't like all the tech and tracking and Def fluid requirements on the ones from the past 15 years. One of them is currently thinking about buying an early 90s dodge Cummins for like $30k he looked at.

Myself, I like doing shade tree mechanic stuff and think it's dumb to spend a lot of money on a vehicle that looses $5,000 of its value after you drive it out of the lot. I've never had a car payment, always paid cash, and always done my own automotive work. I've spent 25 years just buying 10+ year old vehicles. Newest I've ever owned was 8 years old. Even now we're about to downsize on the minivan we don't really need any more and replace it with a 2007 matrix if we buy it, tomorrow.