Graham Butcher

Except that there are still people who make similar statements to those he quotes, here in this thread so there are still some in denial of facts.

Do you think that Tony has actually managed to get his point driven home in this video? It seems to be a constant uphill battle for some people to accept that not everyone can charge at home or indeed have access to either very cheap Lecky or free Lecky at either their destination or workplace, and not everybody only drives to places within the comfortable ranges of their cars. For instance, I will often drive to visit airfields to attend an event on the airfield which do not have any onsite charging at all, so I would need to use a public charger at some point in order to get back home again. As mentioned in the video, I can fill up locally at very good rates and have fuel in the tank to do the same journey at least 2 and maybe even 3 times without needing to fill up again until I get back home again and can fill up again at the bargain prices. Playing devil's advocate here, perhaps on some trips, depending on where I need to be, it might be possible to limp home with any range in an electric car and make it with a few miles left in the battery. Now here is the kicker, I also sometimes need to do the same trip the following day, leaving well before sunrise in order to make the arrival time fit the event, there would not be sufficient time to fully charge the battery in order to do that trip next day. I stress this point because it has been said to me so many times that I should look at getting an EV and charging at home and plan my journeys and maybe look at stopping overnight at my destination and charging while sleeping, all of which is costing more than it costs to drive twice in a reasonable diesel car, which is precisely the reason for having a diesel car. I like so many others can only afford to tax, insure, purchase 1 car, while I know that some have 2 or more cars and often 1 of those will be an ICE car for those occasions when an EV is just too much of a hassle, but these are the very people who just appear to lack the ability to appreciate that they are actually living the dream, that many others just wish they could be in a similar position, so please let's have some real understanding of these points. Just looking at some of the comments that Tony gets to his videos just highlights the fact loads of EV owners/drivers just cannot see how the real world impacts others, who can struggle to run a single car.

OK, so SEPA need a swift kick in you know where to wake them up to the dangers posed, that fire in the video was horrific.

To make that Fenix fire even worse, the site has been dormant since the last fire, back in April last year when the entire building was totally destroyed and the company lost their licence to carry on operating the battery recycling operation, the waste batteries which are stored in blue barrels, 1 year later decided to self ignite and that fire was the result. Just shows how dangerous these batteries really are. Those batteries have been since last year and quite possibly before that even and have been allowed to be kept outside, not recommended apparently, but also the UK Government really should have organised a proper clean up and safe removal of batteries/cells from the site and had them properly recycled well before now.

Yes, they mention the size, weight battery size and the w fans and its 1,000 hp in the video and with its 55-second lap time you would get about 6 or 7 laps of that circuit before needing a recharge again. I reckon that if those producers were not so hell-bent on getting blistering 0 to 60 and 0 to 100mph times, but instead slugged the performance figures to mimic those of an average ICE family car that they would be able to get a much more realistic range from their cars, which would increase their appeal to the normal motorist.

For sheer pure performance, this is going to take some beating, but its a totally bonkers car in the real world and I doubt that you'd be able to licence it for use on the public roads.

But I couldn't find any evidence to support what he was saying, and as you will see in the longest video that I could find of the fire, the reg has been blanked out for some reason. I'd have expected if it was a EV that the media would have been all over it like a rash, something about this does not feel right to me.

I couldn't find anything that actually showed the licence plate details, all the photos appeared to be blanked out.

Well, first and foremost, how sure are we that it was a hybrid? The video that I watched showed the car when it was just smoking, and it seemed to be coming from the engine compartment, so I thought it was a petrol leak that had caught fire. Yes, you did read that right, I doubt that it was anything to do with the traction battery (assuming it was a hybrid even), I always like to be fair in my assessment of these situations and the fire did not IMO exhibit the normal traits of an EV fire.

Major safety software flaw on GM electric vehicles....

Yes of course there may be a few, but it is far more likely to be batteries that users have deemed beyond further actual use, and not all of them will be Lithium either, many if not most are more likely to be Nickel-metal hydride from council recycle centres.

Last time I recall the fire was inside the building? This time it appears to be outside, and I wonder if it started in one of the little blue plastic barrels that they seem to transport used batteries in. But boy, considering that these batteries have been disposed of because they no longer hold an effective charge, just imagine how much worse that would be if those batteries were all fully usable, all of that energy has to go somewhere?

I'm seeing quite a few BYD cars on the road in my area, how about anyone else?

I have long doubted the data that BEV's are far less likely to catch fire than ICE vehicles as common sense kept telling me that the whole process and data collection was fatally flawed and was giving people a false sense of security and in some cases smugness has crept into the discussions here. Well it now seems that my sense was correct and is explained in this video along with all the supporting evidence. Hmmm, beginning to look like we have been moonlighted her and to me, it is beginning to look like diesel gate.

100% there is an issue, but that issue is there for all kinds of things, not just restricted to cars of any type, food and all kinds of things have recalls and they rely on people seeing the notices and then reading them etc, even down to Sainsburys own range of Taste the difference of chocolate bars which ave just been recalled with a warning not eat them as they may contain metal fragments and shards and cause harm if eaten. Tough luck on anyone did eat them or did not see the recall notice. Sainsbury's urgently recalls popular chocolate snack over safety fears - Essex Live

@Ootohere I was in the process of editing my earlier post re the recalls but was prevented by the server being offline for maintenance.

Eh? There has recently been some massive recalls announced on some BEVs because there is a high risk of them doing just that.

The thing with e-bikes and e-scooters is that there does not seem to be any real regulations that the makers have to follow or is it that there is, but the enforcement of them is lacking. Also of course, they are open to abuse by the owners either by way of using incorrect chargers/charges and tampering with them.

At long last there is real growing concern about the fire safety of batteries within tall buildings, not only in the buildings but in their underground car parking bays, be they residential, commercial or whatever, and just the fire but also the huge amounts of highly toxic gases that are produced prior to the battery being visibly on fire, and the explosiveness and flammability of those gases. A case in point was the Porsche Taycan that burst into fire in such a carpark in Madrid this week, killing 2 firefighters and injuring a third. This was very slow to filter out into the main media but due to the actions of some Vloggers who exposed it, it has now being reported on openly.

Update, at the moment I'm waiting on a reply from the suppliers who I purchased from "paintforcars". The paint was purchased back in Nov last year, but I have not had the ideal weather until yesterday. At the time of ordering, it was mandatory to provide your number plate which would identify your car info and the colour codes, so it does appear to be a supplier error, but let's wait and see what they have to say about it.

Here is the offending aerosol can, I gave the supplier all the info on the car at the time of ordering as well.

The code on the rattle can saya it's LR5Q petrol blue?

Over the years I have had 5 Superbs, 1st was 2004 Mystery Blue, 2nd was 2007 Cappuccino, 3rd was 2010 Amethyst Purple, 4th was 2013 Petrol Blue and current car 2023 Petrol Blue, colour charts below and there is no Lava blue

I agree, that is my colour, here are a couple of photos of the last 2 cars I had in that colour, the first is the one that was written off and the 2nd is my current car along with a photo of the sprayed washer cover.

Oh, thanks, but with the same code being used for both blues, that more than a bummer, it's a recipe for a disaster. So I wonder if the colour I have been supplied could be lava blue?