What's the problem with electric vehicles

[Linas.P]

40 minutes ago, First_Lexus said:

You just better hope I never get into power…😆

Likewise...

40 minutes ago, First_Lexus said:

^^ Totally disagree.

I totally disagree with your total disagreement! But what exactly we disagreeing about? This is clearly subjective... And by the way you talking with me as if I haven't spent 16 years living in London... I know how underground is... It stinks from a far... it is horrible... it should be considered "an unusual and cruel punishment". If I committed murder and if they would ask me whenever I would rather take death penalty or be forced to use London underground for the rest of my life twice a day everyday... I would take death penalty... and by the way busses are even worse!

The point is - what looks totally acceptable for you is totally unacceptable for me and vice versa... I don't think it is possible to agree on this and this is why public transport is fundamentally impossible to make it work. At any given time 30-80% of the people will actively hate it, because it is just not possible to build the system which caters to everyone's requirements, needs, values, perspectives etc. That is why public is always a synonym for trash, because it has to be sufficiently broad and flexible enough to allow majority of people to use it, but as we know what does everything never does anything well.

40 minutes ago, First_Lexus said:

Possible but risky. Even the proposed tunnels for the HS2 terminal are causing lots of anxiety. But yes, possible if not hugely practical.

ohhh HS2 is shaiteshow, full of corruption and inefficiencies, crying babies, pink hair Karens, rainbow flags and vegetables etc. Why do you think Chinese rail works? That is because if one stood in it's way they would be shot to the face... Am I saying that is solution - NO! But when we have national project and every vegetable with rainbow flag can stop it then let's not act surprised when it isn't exactly successful. In the time we managed to build 300 miles of HS2, Chinese build the length of all UK railways combined. Look at what happened with London Ring Road project in 60s and 70s... some vegetables took to the streets because it would have divided their "community"... now we all, and them are suffering every day because of that... and that is why your journey takes 2 hours instead of 25 minutes. I guess what I am trying to say here - if we ever embark on major national infrastructure project it has to run efficiently! Corruption is wide topic as well, but maybe for another time! Point - let's not use worst run project in a modern history as baseline for how the project are run.

40 minutes ago, First_Lexus said:

I am disabled and don’t really know where to start with that statement. I guess if you are lucky enough to be fully fit then you won’t understand. I won’t be able to walk at all over the next decade or so and there are many worse off than me. Even the best public solutions can’t cater for those who are in that situation. It can work for some, but there needs to be an option. If public transport ran 24/7 then key workers wouldn’t need to be exempt that’s partly true, but if you need a Doctor fast then he or she will need a car in some situations. There are always exceptions to every rule.

The public transport can be either good or bad, if it is good, then it is good for everyone and it should cater for disabled and work 24/7 etc. etc. and that is key issue with anything public. I think the statement that somebody with disability or in need of medical attention has arbitrary right above all to use private vehicles simply shows that they are MORE CONVINIENT... which then begs the question - who has a right to decide who can and who can't have convenience... and why somebody being able-bodied should be arbitrarily inconvenienced and use stinky public transport?

That is why I believe you contradicting yourself here, and it kind of shows how subjective it is as well... because if we say that public transport can hypothetically be made "decent" to use, then why exclude anyone... clearly your opinion is that it is not decent enough for "key worker", not decent enough for disabled, why do you think it is decent enough for me. And whose definition of "decent" are we using? Should I be forced to accept your definition of decent? It seems that you think it is already "decent" as it is? Well... I disagree... and then who has a right to subject me to physical and psychological suffering, just so that somebody on the bus could get where they going sooner? 

Now let's compare that to my alternative - we build the roads for all, there is PLENTY of money (we barely use 10% raised from the roads on the roads), as I said it is always possible to build the roads as long as we want to do it. And then everyone can choose - those who want to drive drives, those prefer sniffing what other commuters had for dinner last night can use public transport and by the way it seems that for people commuting the public transport is already decent as it is (you are not the only one surprised when I tell how horrible is public transport in London)... and commuters even have more space, because now people like me won't be on the train killing them with judgmental look every day... everyone happy?

[First_Lexus]

I’d love to understand (but never really will)…let’s take our opinions of London Underground. We’ve both clearly got significant experience of the network and yet our opinions are so different. It’s like we are speaking about entirely different things!

How can two people see the same thing so differently? I do find such things fascinating.

I consider it to be efficient and speedy. You find it smelly and horrid. Isn’t the human species and its capacity for seeing and feeling the same thing differently, simply brilliant? 

Somewhere along the line it must be about personal experience and values. I’d love to understand what and why…but as it is all opinion I don’t think I ever will. 

[Linas.P]

52 minutes ago, First_Lexus said:

I do find such things fascinating.

Absolutely, exactly the same here!

I almost happy that we can disagree on it... because otherwise we would never be able to consider how our own world view is uniquely different from others. 

This is why I almost always very critical of blanket rules, really does not matter what it is - speed limit, BEV mandate, promoting public transport, discouraging driving etc. The fact is - every person is different and trying to put everyone in the same box always going to hurt somebody. 

But hey - no matter how much I love cars and like driving them... I never say let's ban public transport, or let's fine drivers who do not speed, or let's ban BEVs, or ban cyclists... yet from my perspective I often have to defend what I consider to be valuable and good for me. I kind of find it strange that it seems my world views are the ones that are most often challenged. And by the way I am not in some fringe minorities in any of the areas I find under attack, often it is either majority or sizeable minority, but regardless of that it seems I always happen to take sides which requires defending, I sometimes trying to understand why is that?

I guess it has something to do with me being introvert (that is like 42% of society), conservative liberal (which kind of sounds oxymoron, but it isn't... the people who calls themselves "liberal" nowadays are most often care post-modernist liberals, not classical liberals, who by their comparison are now almost conservatives - that is clearly rare nowadays). I guess it explains why anything "public" is automatically bad for me, because "public" everything is socialist idea, liberals are more about individuality, personal freedom and less about community and group identity. I guess that to be honest explains quite a lot of why I don't like what I don't like.

[LenT]

1 hour ago, First_Lexus said:

I consider it to be efficient and speedy. You find it smelly and horrid. Isn’t the human species and its capacity for seeing and feeling the same thing differently, simply brilliant? 

I commuted from north London in to Central London every working week day for 25 years - and occasionally on weekends - by London Underground.

It was my experience that it could be all these things - and many more - in the course of one day!

[Linas.P]

46 minutes ago, LenT said:

I commuted from north London in to Central London every working week day for 25 years - and occasionally on weekends - by London Underground.

It was my experience that it could be all these things - and many more - in the course of one day!

I am glad you said that and I agree...

I guess this is sort of "glass half-empty or half-full" question... So from my perspective - if it is ever smelly and horrid, then it is always bad... the argument could be made "but what about the days/hours when it is nice"... and my answer to this "it doesn't matter, because I can't control it and I don't know when it happens", so I inevitably have to travel in stinky over crowded train, because I have no agency in what happens. If your car stinks you can clean it and make it nice, you are in control of how nice your car is, how hot or cold it is and you not even dependent on the schedule. And it is not like you going to come to your car one day and find that dog shat in it and homeless person is sleeping inside in his own vomit 

So even if say Elizabeth line is quite nice now, and if you travel off-peak it is really hard to fault, I still consider it bad regardless, because there is nothing in my power that I can do to travel in comfort next morning. And I guess we can say - yes, but if you avoid 8-10AM and 4-6PM then it is probably "decent"... maybe, but that doesn't help the slightest, because 8-10AM and 4-6PM is exactly the times when I need to use it, same as everybody else... so that it is nice at 9PM or 11AM really is no consolation to anyone.

Or for example... I have flight tomorrow departing 7:20AM... trains simply don't run at such time that I could get into airport by 5:30AM... and even if they would, the last thing I want to do is to carry luggage to and from station 4AM in the morning in the rain and using broken foot path. So it is inevitable to have private car even if I live in London. 

And then if I have to have a car anyway, then why wouldn't I use it every time. I already have to pay for the roads upfront, for insurance upfront, car maintenance (at least with Lexus) is mostly the same regardless if you do 4k a year or 12k a year. So then my only expense is realistically fuel vs. public transport fare... which is very high in London and it turns out that often it is literally cheaper to drive. When I used to work in Canary Wharf my train journey would have been £11/day and would take 1h10min each way and my fuel would cost me £2 and it would take 25-40 min to drive. If I had to pay for parking it was usually £8, but 4 days out of 5 would would not pay. And then what happens - the more you drive, the less per mile it costs to keep the car... 

[dutchie01]

A riddle for the extravert and introvert, ever heard of the Superblock? Started back in 2016 in Barcelona city as experiment and rapidly expanded into super- superblocks. Spoiler alert, its complete parts of the city where roads are turned into parks and playgrounds and vehicles are pushed out of the city. Combined with free public transport it proves pretty popular!

 

https://www.timeout.com/news/how-barcelonas-superblock-plan-is-carving-out-a-post-car-future-110721

 

[Linas.P]

15 minutes ago, dutchie01 said:

A riddle for the extravert and introvert, ever heard of the Superblock? Started back in 2016 in Barcelona city as experiment and rapidly expanded into super- superblocks. Spoiler alert, its complete parts of the city where roads are turned into parks and playgrounds and vehicles are pushed out of the city. Combined with free public transport it proves pretty popular!

https://www.timeout.com/news/how-barcelonas-superblock-plan-is-carving-out-a-post-car-future-110721

Isn't this basically the same things as "15 minute neighbourhoods" just probably marketed slightly more nicely? I guess Spanish weather makes everything look better?!

To be fair it isn't much of the riddle mate... it is quite clear that I would absolutely hate the idea, so this is more like a bait and less like a riddle... because the last thing I want after using stinky public transport is to get into public super superblock, where I have to walk around and see all the stinky people I hate 😄 You see - I will take a day out alone in my car anytime over socialising with my neighbours... so I can't even begin to comprehend why???

 

[dutchie01]

Maybe a city is not for you Linas?  Move to the countryside buy an old cottage in the middle of nowhere and dont forget an old defender diesel!

 

[Mr Vlad]

I'm disappointed no one has commented on the link David posted. WOW the poor people in Indonesia having to put up with all that belching brown smoke as big as skyscrapers so the fat cat businessmen get their huge profits from getting the stuff to make the batteries for EV'S. It's an #ffing disgrace what's happening to the world.

And that VW advert. How does it go. Making a carbon neutral car. B U L L *****.

[toffee_pie]

5 hours ago, DavidCM said:

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/workers-are-dying-in-the-ev-industrys-tainted-city

Read this to see how clean EVs are.

Its a scandal - but do you expect anything else from the government - like i said more than once anyone who thinks 2 tonne cars with half a tonne or more of lithium batteries is good for the planet really needs to stop listening to whatever place they get news stories from - that is just a single vehicle. I worked on these batteries and even putting a single 18650 cell on fire is a sight to behold -- for all the wrong reasons

I think there is some light at the end of the tunnel for us folks with petol cars that are wiping out humanity, it seems the wheels are getting a bit wonky on the EV bandwagon and with so many combustion cars in the world the fight is not over by a long margin

[toffee_pie]

A Tesla vehicle fire on Jan. 19, 2023 along Interstate-95 in Massachusetts that took firefighters more than 20,000 gallons* of water to extinguish. (Wakefield Fire Department) - [*90921.8L]

Firefighters trying to keep America’s roadways safe are reporting higher difficulties in putting out blazes involving Teslas and other electric vehicles, with a first responder in Michigan calling them "one of our worst nightmares." 

The concerns come as electric vehicle sales are trending upward in the U.S., with automakers selling 807,180 of them last year to increase market share to 5.8%, compared to 3.2% in 2021, according to a recent report by The Wall Street Journal. 

Fire departments in states such as California and Massachusetts say electric vehicle fires are taking hours to put out, with one in recent weeks needing more than 20,000 gallons of water to extinguish. The challenges are being blamed in part on the batteries found inside electric vehicles. 

"It can take four to five hours to extinguish a Battery fire and after that, once it gets to a tow yard, they have had those fires reignite -- even two to three days afterward," Lt. Robert Muylaert of Shelby Township Fire in Michigan told Fox2 Detroit. 

Once they start to burn, it goes into what is called thermal runaway," he added. "So in that one Battery, [it] puts out enough heat and fire to light the Battery next to it on fire." 

Capt. Parker Wilbourn of the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District in California told ABC 10 after a Tesla caught fire on Highway 50 near Sunrise Boulevard last week "Electric vehicle fires are just a whole different beast." 

"On last week’s incident, [the] driver... noticed smoke billowing from the undercarriage of the vehicle. Thankfully, she was able to pull off the side of the road and exit the vehicle safely, but that fire just continued to grow and ended up actually burning through the hood," he said. 

"These fires burn very hot and it is dangerous because there are different chemicals that are being produced," Wilbourn also told the station. "On a standard internal combustion engine, I can generally put that fire out if that vehicle is fully involved with my 700-gallon water tank on any fire engine that we have, not so much for our EV vehicles. We've had three that have burned in Metro Fire’s jurisdiction, and all of them have taken thousands of gallons of water to extinguish." 

In mid-January in Massachusetts, the Wakefield Fire Department outside of Boston said "more than 20,000 gallons of water were used" to extinguish a fire involving a Tesla vehicle that crashed along Interstate-95. 

"As sales of electric and hybrid vehicles increase, the fire service is continuing to modify our tactics to properly respond, protect property and firefighters as well as control these types of fires," said Wakefield Fire Provisional Chief Purcell. "Fire companies on the scene of an electrical vehicle fire should expect longer time frames to manage and control EV vehicle fires, ensure that large, continuous, sustainable water supply is established, as well as maintain heightened situational awareness and prepare for secondary fires.

Fire Engineer Matt Halleck, who works are a training officer in Hillsdale, Michigan, told the Hillsdale Daily News that "electricity and water do not mix." 

"As a firefighter, it's one of our worst nightmares," he said. 

FOX Business has reached out to Tesla for comment.

[toffee_pie]

It doesnt get much better.

Electric vehicles more expensive to fuel than gas-powered cars at end of 2022: consulting firm
Research shows that rising electricity prices and stabilizing gas prices made internal combustion engine cars more economical than their electric counterparts in late 2022

[toffee_pie]

1 hour ago, Mr Vlad said:

I'm disappointed no one has commented on the link David posted. WOW the poor people in Indonesia having to put up with all that belching brown smoke as big as skyscrapers so the fat cat businessmen get their huge profits from getting the stuff to make the batteries for EV'S. It's an #ffing disgrace what's happening to the world.

And that VW advert. How does it go. Making a carbon neutral car. B U L L *****.

What I am angry about is how all this occured without any referendums, I seem to recall Bojo having a 3 minute rant about climate and banning combustion cars a few years ago with C19 in the backdrop - it was over in few minutes-  sorry lads we are banning combustion cars as of 2030 - not good for the planet - usual. 

No questions asked - but its happened all over the west

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-29/the-rich-world-s-electronic-waste-dumped-in-ghana

[Linas.P]

1 hour ago, dutchie01 said:

Maybe a city is not for you Linas?  Move to the countryside buy an old cottage in the middle of nowhere and dont forget an old defender diesel!

I don't think urban environment is an issue. I been born and grow-up in the city, but there was never an assault on the cars there, because people are proud to be driving and don't see it as an issue at all. Public transport by the way is better as well, just a cultural thing, but if some 12 years old sits down with pack of chip and puts their dirty shoes on the seat in front, then in no time they are literally slapped over the head and kicked out. Drivers of say buses would not allow dirty people to get inside and it is much more acceptable overall. So it has nothing to do with city itself, it is more to do with priorities, seeing driving as undesirable, deliberately ruining the roads to deprive drivers of the routes and make it undrivable etc. etc. 

When I was growing-up it was popular to get into the cars, like we would organise 6-cars between the friends and we would go to meet-up in the middle of the city and park in front of what would be equivalent to St. Pauls Cathedral... it would be kind of social place where friends gather. There was free parking (although good luck finding the spot, so we often double parked in front of friends cars) and it would take like 20 minutes to drive like 25-30km from the outer districts into the literally middle of the centre of the city. Using public transport was unthinkable... that is for pensioner and school kids... no adult would use. Sometimes in extreme case where your car is in the workshop and there is nobody to give you a lift maybe... but honestly that maybe happened to me once. 

And by the way as I already said - yes when it comes to London, that is what I would definitely do... I would get out of it, but that is simply not an option. Do you think 10 million people just loves living in this hole? NO... this is simple where jobs are, where education is, where infrastructure is and it is not like everyone can pack-up and go and live in countryside. When I retire (which is not soon) I will definitely leave, but again it is not really my problem, nor it is problem that I live in the city - it is a problem with infrastructure, not enough roads, not wide enough roads, not enough parking and general hostility against cars. Well I did say that if I move the job again, then I definitely going to look for full-time remote job, because even 2-day a week going into London on hybrid schedule is way too disgusting for me to swallow. 

 

[Linas.P]

1 hour ago, Mr Vlad said:

I'm disappointed no one has commented on the link David posted. WOW the poor people in Indonesia having to put up with all that belching brown smoke as big as skyscrapers so the fat cat businessmen get their huge profits from getting the stuff to make the batteries for EV'S. It's an #ffing disgrace what's happening to the world.

And that VW advert. How does it go. Making a carbon neutral car. B U L L *****.

Honestly it is brained numbing... and after a while it just doesn't register... Yes it is horrible, but then some vegetable comes here and says "that is the best we got, still (somehow) better than what we drive today. After all our health in the west so sensitive and weak that we have to clean-up the air"... Nobody considers how this process makes it literal hell on earth in places where all the raw materials are being mined.

That is the reason why I generally agree with Eric - it doesn't look like this is about pollution or environment. For me it seems like a plan to control people, remove freedoms... and I think it is all linked to post-modernist neo-liberalist ideology 

Now to be very clear - neo-liberalist they are NOT liberals... they are rebadged communists. Communist tried and failed and in the west they are considered bad guys... sadly nobody equites them to nazis (which is what they are equivalent to), but if one calls themselves communist there clearly isn't many people interested in that ideology. Instead they call themselves "liberals" now, but unlike classical liberals they are not about freedoms, certainly not individual freedoms, they are about group identity, which is absolutely communist idea! And then they play good groups bad groups - women good, men bad, cyclist good, motorists bad, public transport users good, people who wants individual freedoms bad, vegans good, meat eaters bad. Now one thing for sure - communists were always against personal property and car ownership is like a big no no, likewise rebranded neo-liberals always were thinking how to eradicate cars, because personal freedom is BAD... and now they found the way... "we going say that cars is the reason for environmental issue, we going to force people to replace them with extremely compromised cars which will be basically useless apart of using them instead of bicycle locally, and we force everyone into public transport, because everything public was always the wet dream of communists". This is not coincidence and this is consistent to their ideology.

One thing I wanted to add - I have no issue that some people have such ideology, that is not a problem. What is a problem is that they misleading everyone and hiding what they are really seeking. If somebody comes up and says - I am communist, far left and I want to ban personal property and make everything into community (public) property. Fine - that is what they want, if they get democratic majority... well sad, but fair. What I am not ok with is that they coming-up sand saying - I am a liberal, I am centre, I want to protect the planet and I want to help humanity... by doing everything that the other guy suggested just without admitting that it has nothing to do with planet, I just hate people having nicer things like me and I rather see them stuck in the same train like me breathing the same farts, because I can't accept that somebody else can dare to drive when I am busy smelling armpits here.

By the way it is not a dig at anyone here - that is how I see many supposedly liberal "environmentalist" acting in our governments and all sort of environment groups. They pretend to be liberal, but they are really far-left rebranded commies. Sometimes they called neo-liberals, but that is misleading, the sometimes mislabel as libertarians... again there is nothing even remotely liberal (and they definitely do not seek autonomy or political freedom, they are quite happy with authoritarian methods and dictatorship) , they are far-left socialists or what we used to know as communist. Just look at what they doing - lockdowns, blanket banning cars, censorship, compelled speech  etc. These are authoritarian methods... not liberal. 

[flotsam]

13 hours ago, Linas.P said:

If I committed murder and if they would ask me whenever I would rather take death penalty or be forced to use London underground for the rest of my life twice a day everyday... I would take death penalty... and by the way busses are even worse!

You're right.

But even worse is commuting into London. You arrive at the platform 43 years early on a freezing cold morning, the train driver hasn't bothered to get out of bed so the train is late. There's no seats available so you have to stand all the way, having bought a 1st class season ticket in the hope of avoiding this. And then they go on strike too.

[flotsam]

9 hours ago, toffee_pie said:

Firefighters trying to keep America’s roadways safe are reporting higher difficulties in putting out blazes involving Teslas and other electric vehicles, with a first responder in Michigan calling them "one of our worst nightmares." 

Yes, once they get started they're very difficult to put out. LiFePo4 apparently doesn't have this thermal run-away issue and CATL are now also producing Li-Na batteries, though I don't know if they have this issue. Apparently they can charge much faster.

[Mr Vlad]

Excellent posts Eric. Reading that tesla fire story reminded me of a TV 'special ' about this very issue. EV'S and fire. From memory (and mine is krapp) a fire department somewhere here in England got an EV and in an open space on a concrete floor set it alight. They let it get out of control and proceeded to put it out, well try too. They started with water But water on electric fires we all know doesn't work (wonder why we don't trust the yanks lol). This fire department then used a foam. That worked upto a point. They even tried to smother it with a vast large fire blanket. After a dsy or so they took the blanket off but the vehicle started to smoulder quite a bit. They even had a huge skip type container to lift the car into. 

I can't remember the conclusion but it wasn't pretty. Oh one major factor was knowing where the kill swith is located (the switch to turn the Battery off).

Makes me wonder if they repeated that programme on TV. 

Interesting point Samantha about the newer batteries. 

What's starting to get at my goat is programmes like fifth gear recharge. Presented by petrol heads who praise to the highest that evs are the future. If only they spouted what goes on in those poor countries that dig up the 'gold' to make those batteries for those evs.

[NemesisUK]

48 minutes ago, Mr Vlad said:

Excellent posts Eric. Reading that tesla fire story reminded me of a TV 'special ' about this very issue. EV'S and fire. From memory (and mine is krapp) a fire department somewhere here in England got an EV and in an open space on a concrete floor set it alight. They let it get out of control and proceeded to put it out, well try too. They started with water But water on electric fires we all know doesn't work (wonder why we don't trust the yanks lol). This fire department then used a foam. That worked upto a point. They even tried to smother it with a vast large fire blanket. After a dsy or so they took the blanket off but the vehicle started to smoulder quite a bit. They even had a huge skip type container to lift the car into. 

I can't remember the conclusion but it wasn't pretty. Oh one major factor was knowing where the kill swith is located (the switch to turn the battery off).

Makes me wonder if they repeated that programme on TV. 

Interesting point Samantha about the newer batteries. 

What's starting to get at my goat is programmes like fifth gear recharge. Presented by petrol heads who praise to the highest that evs are the future. If only they spouted what goes on in those poor countries that dig up the 'gold' to make those batteries for those evs.

Tesla recommend the use of water to extinguish Battery fires and suggest not using foam or submersion in water.

https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/downloads/2016_Model_S_Emergency_Response_Guide_en.pdf

Perhaps the most current thinking is large fire blankets to smother the fire. The biggest problem is that these types of fire can spontaneously reignite hours, sometime days, latter. Recovery firms are very reluctant to be involved as there are obvious knock-on risks and legal responsibilities.

One UK fire brigade suggest to the 'controlled burn' is safest. Just let the vehicle burn out whilst they protect the local enviroment.

https://www.bedsfire.gov.uk/Community-safety/Road-safety/Fire-in-Electric-Vehicles.aspx

Either way it's a learning exercise. 

[javadude]

Fortunately EVs are much less like to catch fire than legacy ICE cars. This article found hybrids the most at risk: https://www.autoserviceworld.com/what-type-of-vehicle-catches-fire-most-often/

[toffee_pie]

Everything going ahead whether we like it or not - all them road works you see in local cities and councils - chances as they are climate change improvements.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11783739/How-authoritarian-eco-plan-slice-city-5-zones-latest-bid-eradicate-drivers.html

[Linas.P]

On 2/25/2023 at 1:16 PM, javadude said:

Fortunately EVs are much less like to catch fire than legacy ICE cars. This article found hybrids the most at risk: https://www.autoserviceworld.com/what-type-of-vehicle-catches-fire-most-often/

This has been raised and busted many times. The fire benefit is false statistics, or at very least misleading and disingenuous. I think when few of new Teslas caught fire there was massive PR campaign to make sure everyone knew that they are "safe"... except it is not at all the case or at very least the statistics doesn't show anything like that.

The issue is - the risk of any faults including the ones resulting in fire increases exponentially with the vehicle age and mileage. Meaning that brand new car is very unlikely to catch-fire, but one with 200k miles, several botched repairs and 20 years old is quite likely to catch fire. Those are ICE and hybrid cars which goes in flames... The BEVs that goes in flames are anomaly, because most of them are new cars with low miles. Even considering horrible statistics of new Ferraris and Lamborghinis going-up in flames, the risk of less than 5 years old ICE or hybrid catching fire is near 0. Yet there are loads of new BEVs burning, often because of accident, but sometimes just by themselves. On the other hand most of ICE fires are either exotics, or classics, or some absolute junk boxes rigged together with tape and zip ties.

This statistic is misleading in several dimensions - it ignores the fact that age, mileage and mechanical condition is key factor in fire risk (not fuel type), secondly it ignores the fact that 95% of the cars on the road are ICE or hybrids and only 5% are BEV. Instead it misleadingly quotes "per 100,000 sold", but sales figures have no relevance when it comes to existing carpark... so obviously there will be more accidents in the group of 95%+ of the cars. 

Simply said it is false that BEV are less likely to catch fire. That does not mean that every BEV is just a fire hazard on the road, but they are more likely to catch-fire compared to other brand new cars and they do they as well very difficult to put out. 

[toffee_pie]

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

This has been raised and busted many times. The fire benefit is false statistics, or at very least misleading and disingenuous. I think when few of new Teslas caught fire there was massive PR campaign to make sure everyone knew that they are "safe"... except it is not at all the case or at very least the statistics doesn't show anything like that.

The issue is - the risk of any faults including the ones resulting in fire increases exponentially with the vehicle age and mileage. Meaning that brand new car is very unlikely to catch-fire, but one with 200k miles, several botched repairs and 20 years old is quite likely to catch fire. Those are ICE and hybrid cars which goes in flames... The BEVs that goes in flames are anomaly, because most of them are new cars with low miles. Even considering horrible statistics of new Ferraris and Lamborghinis going-up in flames, the risk of less than 5 years old ICE or hybrid catching fire is near 0. Yet there are loads of new BEVs burning, often because of accident, but sometimes just by themselves. On the other hand most of ICE fires are either exotics, or classics, or some absolute junk boxes rigged together with tape and zip ties.

This statistic is misleading in several dimensions - it ignores the fact that age, mileage and mechanical condition is key factor in fire risk (not fuel type), secondly it ignores the fact that 95% of the cars on the road are ICE or hybrids and only 5% are BEV. Instead it misleadingly quotes "per 100,000 sold", but sales figures have no relevance when it comes to existing carpark... so obviously there will be more accidents in the group of 95%+ of the cars. 

Simply said it is false that BEV are less likely to catch fire. That does not mean that every BEV is just a fire hazard on the road, but they are more likely to catch-fire compared to other brand new cars and they do they as well very difficult to put out. 

You have a bigger pair of cojones than me if you are comfortable travelling at speed with half a tonne of highly combustible batteries under your arse - in my old job when I was working on a Battery powered hair straightner (I know, I know) - we had buckets in the lab with sand - to chuck in batteries when they went up in smoke - a product with 2 cells max - another room with bolted doors had a big red light that warned people not to enter when destructive tests were carried out. Lithium batteries pack alot of punch, that is a solitarty cell - unless you worked with them you wont know and it only takes one single dud Battery in that half tonne enclosure to set of a chain reaction of events and with so many batteries used per vehicle you are basically reliant on a 100 percent QA check each and every time.

I will stick with the petrol and honestly, i dont trust anything in the papers anymore - there was a huge fire on a shipping vessle a few years ago - when it occured the first thing I thought of was it electric cars transported -- sure enough a year or so later there was a few lines about it in some paper - it was loaded with EVs in transit from Germany to the USA - but got no news coverage - the usual. We are only told the good stuff they want us to know

In more climate news...

All drivers could face new 'tyre tax' charges in bid to slash emissions

We will be tethered to our rooms in 2030 at this rate

[Linas.P]

5 minutes ago, toffee_pie said:

You have a bigger pair of cojones than me if you are comfortable travelling at speed with half a tonne of highly combustible batteries under your arse

Having 60 litters of highly combustible petrol under my arse does not make me feel any safer... well - truth to be told I trust engineers with engineering and statistically speaking dying in the burning car is very unlikely outcome... so I am not afraid to be in either. The accident required to set the car on fire most likely going to kill any squishy meat thing inside before the car even starts burning... so really BEV Battery fires are not in the list of things keeping me awake at night.

My concern is purely principal, like it is in this case - misuse and manipulation of statistics, which aims to confuse people. They are taking 270 million ICE car in US with (~30 million of which are hybrids) with average age of 17 years and compares the numbers of fires with ~30million BEV with average age of 4.5 years and concludes that 4 times newer BEVs are less likely to spontaneously combust... shocker who would have known?! That is before we even consider simple thing like people do like to "wrench" on their old cars, but BEV maintenance is strictly regulate and very few people work on them themselves... So what they are saying there are more fires in the 270 million group where any hill billy can do whatever than in the group of 20 million new, expensive, highly complex cars where people are not allowed to work on them... and there are less fires in that later group... Yeah sure - I don't need statistics to know that much!

[toffee_pie]

12 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Having 60 litters of highly combustible petrol under my arse does not make me feel any safer... well - truth to be told I trust engineers with engineering and statistically speaking dying in the burning car is very unlikely outcome... so I am not afraid to be in either. The accident required to set the car on fire most likely going to kill any squishy meat thing inside before the car even starts burning... so really BEV battery fires are not in the list of things keeping me awake at night.

My concern is purely principal, like it is in this case - misuse and manipulation of statistics, which aims to confuse people. They are taking 270 million ICE car in US with (~30 million of which are hybrids) with average age of 17 years and compares the numbers of fires with ~30million BEV with average age of 4.5 years and concludes that 4 times newer BEVs are less likely to spontaneously combust... shocker who would have known?! That is before we even consider simple thing like people do like to "wrench" on their old cars, but BEV maintenance is strictly regulate and very few people work on them themselves... So what they are saying there are more fires in the 270 million group where any hill billy can do whatever than in the group of 20 million new, expensive, highly complex cars where people are not allowed to work on them... and there are less fires in that later group... Yeah sure - I don't need statistics to know that much!

Combustible fuel is in Automobiles since the 1800s so I think its pretty tried and trusted by now and you wont experience its flash point unless you have an accident - if a weak cell exists from the one of the thousdands in a EV you are toast, while sitting in your car waiting for it to charge up.

Anyway - like I said, in this era of 'experts' I suspect we are not told half the story and anything that is not fitting the subject is probably not even mentioned in the press - like the shipping vessle from a few years ago - was this related to climate or icebergs melting it would have had global coverage