WRC future

[wyler]

I'm not claiming the otherwise. I'm calling the claim factually false.

how?
if there are no statistics, how can you call it factually false? There's no fact.
so your statement is as true (or false) as theirs. no actual data to compare. u can base your claim on your competence -i don't doubt is high-, they can base it on their experience in actually build that car. u can say they can't prove it true, they can say u can't prove it wrong. it can be either true or false in both cases until we get data. time will tell.
anyway, didn't want to fire up an argument! : )

[wyler]

Where does the water come from?

I'd also like to know what happens if the water comes into contact with hot lithium. Doessn't that release hydrogen which in itself is a fire/explosion hazard.

don't know, just reporting paddon's answer! you can try to ask him on twitter, he's responding to a lot of question on the project!

[SubaruNorway]

Where does the water come from?

I'd also like to know what happens if the water comes into contact with hot lithium. Doessn't that release hydrogen which in itself is a fire/explosion hazard.

The battery is already water cooled like an road car i guess so probably just an valve to lett the water into the cells, it also heats the battery up on cold days extending the range.

[Mirek]

how?
if there are no statistics, how can you call it factually false? There's no fact.

The fact is that there are no data to support the claim. Why is that so difficult to understand? It's up to the one who claims something to support his claim however we know (that is the fact) that his claim is unfounded because no relevant data for electric rallycars exists.

Without data it's possible to talk about prognosis or calculated probability but that is most likely going to be very different than the reality and therefore it can not be compared with statistical probability coming from hard data of the tough life of rallycars. Simply said you can't take known number of incident among existing CE rallycars and compare it with pure theory. Those are uncomparable values.

[Mirek]

The battery is already water cooled like an road car i guess so probably just an valve to lett the water into the cells, it also heats the battery up on cold days extending the range.

AFAIK (and I may be wrong) no vehicle battery at the moment uses water-flooding system (maybe some motorsport ones do) but in theory it shall work - however since the system was never used in rallying before, it is not possible to speak about probabilty comparison with CE cars. If the thermal runaway is detected early the flooding probably is able to stop the thermal runaway from spreading over multiple cells. It would help if the water was de-ionised (but it will gradually become electrically conductive anyway with polution from the fire).

[wyler]

The fact is that there no data to support the claim. Why is that so difficult to understand? It's up to the one who claims something to support his claim however we know (that is the fact) that his claim is unfounded because no relevant data for electric rallycars exists.

Without data it's possible to talk about prognosis or calculated probability but that is most likely going to be very different than the reality and therefore it can not be compared with statistical probability coming from hard data of the tough life of rallycars. Simply said you can't take known number of incident among existing CE rallycars and compare it with pure theory. Those are uncomparable values.

i do understand. it's just rethoric...

it's like the existence of god. there's no data. you can't prove is there. you also cannot prove isn't there.
and both can ask the others to give proof:
"It's up to the one who claims something to support his claim" is valid both ways: you can't support your claim on EV either, for the same reason. no data! you can't use CE data to speak about EV behaviour. you can have data from CE experience, but that's not the point, don't mix it up! The point is the claim on EV! As u said first, u cannot compare it with pure speculation. so both positions on EV are speculation!

Anyway, I don't care so much to argue more! I'm ok with the blind trust of the petrolheads! discussion on rethoric is a bit off topic!

[Mirek]

i do understand. it's just rethoric...

it's like the existence of god. there's no data. you can't prove is there. you also cannot prove isn't there.
and both can ask the others to give proof:
"It's up to the one who claims something to support his claim" is valid both ways: you can't support your claim on EV either, for the same reason. no data! you can't use CE data to speak about EV behaviour. you can have data from CE experience, but that's not the point, don't mix it up! The point is the claim on EV! As u said first, u cannot compare it with pure speculation. so both positions on EV are speculation!

Anyway, I don't care so much to argue more! I'm ok with the blind trust of the petrolheads! discussion on rethoric is a bit off topic!

No, you don't understand at all.

Last attempt - you read what I never wrote. In that my sentence I didn't claim anything about CE fire probability being better - not at all. I only said the Paddon's claim was false because it was unsupported. It doesn't mean it can't turn out to be true but at this very monent it's just unsupported claim and nothing else.

[wyler]

No, you don't understand at all.

Last attempt - you read what I never wrote. In that my sentence I didn't claim anything about CE fire probability being better - not at all. I only said the Paddon's claim was false because it was unsupported. It doesn't mean it can't turn out to be true but at this very monent it's just unsupported claim and nothing else.

last attempt here too: lack of support doesn't make it false. just... unsupported.

to make it false it has to be proven false, as much as to be proven true. at this very moment is not true nor false. it's just speculation based on each other theoretical knowledge.
paddon can ask you to prove him to be wrong as much as you are asking him to prove to be right. again: "no data" is a valid support for both.

he is running the car to prove the point.

[focus206]

to make it false it has to be proven false, as much as to be proven true. at this very moment is not true nor false. it's just speculation based on each other theoretical knowledge.
paddon can ask you to prove him to be wrong as much as you are asking him to prove to be right. again: "no data" is a valid support for both.

You make it sound like both Paddon and Mirek claimed something that is not supported and not yet proven and they're on equal ground, when in reality Mirek said that Paddon's statement is not yet proven because we lack statistics, simple as that. Nobody is treating what Paddon said as if it's an absolute wrong 1+1=3 statement. It's up to Paddon to prove himself right either by datas or facts, it's not up to anybody to prove that their doubts about an unsupported statement are legitimate. Even because, if it's not legitimate to have doubts on an unsupported statement, it would mean we should just believe what everybody says without asking for datas/proofs? We could believe in Paddon's good faith and wait for him to show us, but it's not a mandatory law.

[Steve Boyd]

@doubled1978
@NickRally
@SubaruNorway

Thanks for the replies.