The word “quantitatively” is fundamentally incompatible with an opinion piece.  

I’ve read the entire article and I see no quantitative analysis that supports the headline claim. So at this point my conclusion is that you don’t actually know what the word “quantitative” means.

It means that you know what the fuck you are talking about and can prove it with math.

If you had any experience with those papers, you would use the word “show” and not “prove”. So there’s that.

when you try and pass something off as fact when its an opinion piece... yes.

I’d rather argue with somebody who has 3 peer-reviewed sources than somebody with an opinion. how is this a bad thing?

I’m siding with Bubba here. And for context, I’m an automotive engineer. tall and short sidewalls have their place. It isn’t so much that one is better than the other, its that each has pros and cons in different context. tldr: its application dependent.

Quantitatively is literally the wrong word.

Google the definition for “quantitatively” and it should be clear why an opinion piece shouldn’t have that in the title.  

The fact that only a few places tried to bring RICO charges against them (and that, as far as I know, those charges never went anywhere) makes me sad. It’s a criminal organization and should be treated as such.

I bought a 1981 LJ80 convertible with steel doors brand new. It was the slowest road vehicle I’ve ever owned. I daily drove it in the winter here in Ontario, Canada and just used it off road and as a camp vehicle in the summer. It even once saw duty as an autocross vehicle with a velocity stack on the carb, the…

Only one of those statements was concerning law.

Why would I want a more expensive, worse-performing option?

It says a lot about people that they can’t separate an attack on a poorly written article from an attack on the opinion (which I stated I agree with).

We’re defined by our tactics. If we let bad arguments slide when they’re in our favor, we have no ground to stand on when we attack bad arguments that are against our…

Yes! It’s still around because it still sells. Someone slapped big wheels on a vehicle, it sold well, others capitalized on it and it became a consumer expectation.

Regardless if whether any of us agree or disagree with his opinion, Bubba is correct that this is a very poorly (non-existently) cited article. It reads as more of a rant or opinion piece. And throwing ad hominem insults about him (Bubba) and his choice of cars is lazy and a poor excuse for debate.

I read it perfectly fine. The only paragraph in which you provide anything resembling numbers gets caught, as I said, in the “correlation does not equal causation” trap.

“For one, they’re aerodynamically inefficient. If you opt for the largest wheel on a Tesla Model X, your range is reduced by about 10%. This is true…

What’s driving this trend is that wheels are a great opportunity for design and to enhance the aesthetics of a car. They present a dynamic surface that can be given an array of styles and finishes and can very easily be offered in multiple designs even on the same model. All a car gives up aesthetically to get more…

“Production cars often imitate design elements of race cars to make them look sportier, but fat sidewalls have ruled in the top levels of stock car and open-wheel racing for decades.“

Yes, because the rules limited those particular classes to a small diameter wheel. Large diameter wheels have been used in every other…

It doesn’t. Workplaces with “unlimited” PTO tend to have employees use less of it than workplaces with set amounts