On ‎17‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 08:27, wyx087 said:

Which wear far far less than ICE cars. There is no denying there's less work needs to be done on EV's in comparison to ICE vehicles, like I say.

 

 

Less but only slightly....just people think that by having a nice EV car they get rid off ALL the problems, which is WRONG.....

 

You still have the same suspension & braking & steering systems as the ICE car.. brake fluid change ever 2yrs, pads,...discs, springs, dampers, bushes etc...which can fail.

 

The only service items you don't have to do is engine oil change, oil filter change, fuel filter change & spark plug change.

 

However you have a complex diagnostics procedure which requires the manufacturers special computer....& loads of visual inspection by some one who is specially trained & level "3" HVC in VAG if VAG car.

 

So just different problems...not no problems, as people think...

 

 

Also I never really trust Li-Ion....I remember experimenting with lithium in science...nice hot fires...& yes Li-ion batteries are everywhere & in most stuff, so I take care...

 

But loads of fires on expensive big brand well designed stuff & remember the Boeing Dreamliner?...Li-ion battery heat problems...

 

Wiki has this to say:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_electric_vehicle_fire_incidents

 

One Tesla fire was:- ""The statement said that a curved piece of metal from a semi-trailer that had fallen on the roadway appeared to have impaled the one-quarter-inch (0.64 cm) plate on the base of the vehicle""" ... which basically set the battery pack on fire. Now Tesla have fitted & retro fitted titanium three laver shield & raised the air suspension up to give more ground clearance...but that adversely affects stability & drag at high speed....which is why they lowered at high speed in the first place.

 

But what is really funny is this statement from Musk:-

""Musk closed the official statement explaining that the result of this accident could have been "far worse" had a conventional gasoline-powered car encountered the same object on the highway, because most gasoline cars do not have an armored underbody, leaving the fuel lines and tank vulnerable. ""

 

If the same happened to a ICE car the plastic fuel tank will just leak & the car will leave a trail of fuel..which will not ignite unless something very hot touches it.......his car went up on fire because the battery pack was punctured & this caused the fire WITHIN the battery pack.....

 

Nice crash in Austria:-

https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/4721171/terrifying-tesla-video-shows-unstoppable-electric-car-inferno-that-took-35-firefighters-to-extinguish/

 

How about it catching fire whilst charging?....

Smart for two Essex this July:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/10/electric-car-gutted-flames-set-fire-charging/

 

OK can it be hacked to set on fire?

Er......YES if the charger or Apps have internet access at the time:-

https://www.nccgroup.trust/uk/about-us/newsroom-and-events/blogs/2017/july/when-batteries-go-bang-as-electric-cars-charge-insights-from-a-cyber-security-perspective/

 

So these battery fires get way hotter than petrol fires & can take 24hrs to go out, can relight, require huge amounts of water to put out...eh? what??..what do Fire brigades say??

https://www.firerescue1.com/Firefighter-Training/articles/197589018-What-firefighters-need-to-know-about-electric-car-batteries/

 

What do the EV car makers say?

https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/firstresponders?redirect=no

 

So you think you are safer now in an EV because you don't have a nice big tank of petrol under the rear seats??....er WRONG!!!

 

I'll just wait until a safer chemical is used.....maybe graphine...no electrical resistance....so no thermal build up....& no nasty chemicals....well graphite is used as the base for the highest temperature reliable grease (1300+C)

Edited 19 November, 20178 yr by fabdavrav

15,000 mile or 12 month brake fluid changes, really!

2017-LEAF-service-maintenance-guide.pdf

Nissan Leaf Maintenance Review - Consumer Reports.mhtml

Edited 19 November, 20178 yr by Headinawayoffski

1 hour ago, Headinawayoffski said:

15,000 mile or 12 month brake fluid changes, really!

2017-LEAF-service-maintenance-guide.pdf

Nissan Leaf Maintenance Review - Consumer Reports.mhtml

You beat me to it .

I never took a Japanese new car back for any servicing and never had any problems selling on.

Being boring has its advantages.

Lexus had that 120,000 mile oil change interval i believe, no idea if that went out the window. (correct me if an internet myth please.)

When Subaru went to a 18,000 mile service interval years ago the issue was there was too long a period of time before safety checks were done.

 

It is bad enough in the UK that vehicles with lights wrongly set from the factory or PDI can go 3 years before a trained person or even an untrained one is aware of it.

3 minutes ago, Headinawayoffski said:

Lexus had that 120,000 mile oil change interval i believe, no idea if that went out the window. (correct me if an internet myth please.)

When Subaru went to a 18,000 mile service interval years ago the issue was there was too long a period of time before safety checks were done.

 

It is bad enough in the UK that vehicles with lights wrongly set from the factory or PDI can go 3 years before a trained person or even an untrained one is aware of it.

The 120,000 would be a myth George if only because it would encourage owners to not bother coming back for the profitable servicing.

Yes,i  should not of gone to Spec Savers, there will have been a decimal point, or it will have been a sealed transmission oil change.

17 hours ago, fabdavrav said:

 

Less but only slightly....The only service items you don't have to do is engine oil change, oil filter change, fuel filter change & spark plug change.

 

Yes, I agree, a lot less in an EV.

 

Skoda major service does the following, stuff in bold are actual work, and stuff crossed out are no longer needed in a connected EV.

• Oil & filter change (fully synthetic oil)
• Vehicle inspection and diagnostic check including report
• Full vehicle road test**
• Vehicle & software enhancements from ŠKODA’s database
• Replacement pollen filter ^
• Re-set service interval display
• Wash and vacuum
• ŠKODA stamp in service book
• Replacement air filter ^
• Spark plugs ^ (petrol engine) or fuel filter ^ (diesel engine)
• Remove wheels and check brakes
• Check/adjust tension of all drive belts
• Check/replenish gearbox oil (where applicable)
• Check/replenish final drive oil (where applicable)
• Check suspension system
• Check heating/aircon operation

Out of 12 actual service work, 7 is no longer required with connected EV like a Tesla. 6 is no longer needed in a Leaf.

 

Minor servicing an EV is just checks, no need to worry about engine oil, oil filter. Thus, I personally feel the £99 Nissan charges is over priced.........

 

17 hours ago, fabdavrav said:

So you think you are safer now in an EV because you don't have a nice big tank of petrol under the rear seats??....er WRONG!!!

 

I'll just wait until a safer chemical is used.....maybe graphine...no electrical resistance....so no thermal build up....& no nasty chemicals....well graphite is used as the base for the highest temperature reliable grease (1300+C)

 

You are absolutely right, Lithium batteries can burn violently and it's a big problem. Tesla knows this by installing a very thick plating underneath and firewall between battery and passenger compartment.

 

But in terms of fire safety, I'd say both technologies are about the same. There are a lot of normal car fires also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_fire#Causes

"Fuel leaks from ruptured fuel lines also can rapidly ignite, especially in petrol fuelled cars where sparks are possible in the engine compartment."

Diesel is probably safest in this regard.

 

As you've said, future EV can be made safer thanks to use of more stable battery chemistry. But that's way too far in the future, emissions in city centre is way too much right now.

 

 

EV are safer in a crash because of the possibility for softer front crumple zone, no leg room intrusion in a crash, the battery slab can help protect the occupants in certain crash conditions.

https://electrek.co/2016/05/06/tesla-model-s-crash-large-crumple-zone-gallery/

https://electrek.co/2017/01/16/tesla-model-s-high-speed-crash-save-life/

http://bgr.com/2017/05/23/tesla-crash-photos-walk-away/

 

Of course, not all EV are made the same. The Leaf is built like a traditional ICE car, the inverter and electric motor is packaged into one piece like a front engine. So the front crumple zoon is not as good as Tesla's and leg intrusion is still possible. But the pole protection is still present thanks to the slab of battery under the car.

^ Some interesting stuff there, cheers.

 

Like any crash they can happen at any speed, and can be a T-Cut out or more serious damage, and some will catch fire, some will not, 

some might even explode.

 

1st one, was the Software Modded by the Owners, no idea where that line of investigation went, or to do with former occupation rather than the current one at time of death?

2nd one is a beaut.   Stolen with keys??

 

Edited 20 November, 20178 yr by Headinawayoffski

2 hours ago, wyx087 said:

 

You are absolutely right, Lithium batteries can burn violently and it's a big problem. Tesla knows this by installing a very thick plating underneath and firewall between battery and passenger compartment.

 

EV are safer in a crash because of the possibility for softer front crumple zone, no leg room intrusion in a crash, the battery slab can help protect the occupants in certain crash conditions.

 

 

Of course, not all EV are made the same. The Leaf is built like a traditional ICE car, the inverter and electric motor is packaged into one piece like a front engine. So the front crumple zoon is not as good as Tesla's and leg intrusion is still possible. But the pole protection is still present thanks to the slab of battery under the car.

 

The thick under tray was of no use to the Tesla which crashed in Austria that I linked to...front end crash & not to bad crash damage....

 

Also most small EV will have to put the motor etc where the ICE used to be....no other place for it..Tesla is a big car more room....so Leaf, Smart, e-Golf, E-up etc, etc.  will always have Motor up front, ....so no safer that ICE in that respect....

 

The Smart For2 that I also linked to was not involved in a crash it was charging & overloaded & caught fire....or like I said it has been proved that if the charger or cars controller apps are connected to the web it is easy to hack & force the car to over charge & catch fire...again in the stuff I link to...

 

EV are not as "problem free & safer than petrol" as people think.....& insurance companies might start asking if you have your EV plugged in & charging overnight unattended in your garage (if you have)....insurance might go up.....might require yearly inspections by independent inspectors of your charging units...due to high voltage/or amp draw..

 

Just trying to be a realist...

 I think the Toyota iQ was a perfect car to have as a small EV,

safer than a EV Smart i would have thought, pity they are no more, maybe Toyota will go back to get to the future.

 

 

Edited 20 November, 20178 yr by Headinawayoffski

17 minutes ago, fabdavrav said:

EV are not as "problem free & safer than petrol" as people think.....& insurance companies might start asking if you have your EV plugged in & charging overnight unattended in your garage (if you have)....insurance might go up.....might require yearly inspections by independent inspectors of your charging units...due to high voltage/or amp draw..

My EV is plugged in and timed charging over night completely unattended on the driveway. Insurance hasn't gone up and doesn't require yearly inspection of any kind. Please just stop with that kind of baseless fear mongering.

 

Hacking is the exact reason why these connected cars need OTA updates like Tesla. Jeep hacking issue already proved as much, except that is an ICE. So the hacking issue is not entirely limited to EV and battery tech.

 

Tesla Model 3 is able to provide the same front boot space while in a smaller package than X/S. BMW i3 is able to provide a front storage space while being smaller than a Golf. Size of the car doesn't matter as long as it has been engineered from the ground up to be an EV and doesn't use ICE production lines. LEAF uses the same Juke production line, the engine fitting step becomes EV component fitting section, hence the lack of front crumple zone compared to dedicated EV's.

 

EV are exactly that: less maintenance and safer than ICE, and best of all no engine noise/vibration. All cars will have problems, but with less moving parts do come with many benefits.

Edited 20 November, 20178 yr by wyx087

@wyx087 - So which is it? You don't need software updates, or you need them way more often, like a Windoze PC gets them every month rather than just every year? You can't have it both ways any more than you can say that something car size should be exempt from a Con Tax because it burns its fuel someplace other than the inner city.

1 minute ago, KenONeill said:

@wyx087 - So which is it? You don't need software updates, or you need them way more often, like a Windoze PC gets them every month rather than just every year? You can't have it both ways any more than you can say that something car size should be exempt from a Con Tax because it burns its fuel someplace other than the inner city.

You 100% DO need to get OTA updates every other week. Everything connected to the internet need to be updated regularly. My network OWL energy monitor, my smart thermostat, my security IP camera all get regular automatic updates. Nothing is 100% secure forever, but things can be made 100% secure for all exploits found up to date.

 

When have I said you don't need software updates?

 

I'm sure congestion charge will catch up to EV's when the time is right. Right now, it doesn't make sense to strangle a cleaner+quieter vehicle for the city centres.

4 hours ago, wyx087 said:

 

Yes, I agree, a lot less in an EV.

 

Skoda major service does the following, stuff in bold are actual work, and stuff crossed out are no longer needed in a connected EV.

• Oil & filter change (fully synthetic oil)
• Vehicle inspection and diagnostic check including report
• Full vehicle road test**
• Vehicle & software enhancements from ŠKODA’s database
• Replacement pollen filter ^
• Re-set service interval display
• Wash and vacuum
• ŠKODA stamp in service book
• Replacement air filter ^
• Spark plugs ^ (petrol engine) or fuel filter ^ (diesel engine)
• Remove wheels and check brakes
• Check/adjust tension of all drive belts
• Check/replenish gearbox oil (where applicable)
• Check/replenish final drive oil (where applicable)
• Check suspension system
• Check heating/aircon operation

Out of 12 actual service work, 7 is no longer required with connected EV like a Tesla. 6 is no longer needed in a Leaf.

 

 

OK you did specifically say "Skoda's sw database", but I think the need for updates is more significant than who's database they're from.

3 hours ago, wyx087 said:

My EV is plugged in and timed charging over night completely unattended on the driveway. Insurance hasn't gone up and doesn't require yearly inspection of any kind. Please just stop with that kind of baseless fear mongering.

 

Hacking is the exact reason why these connected cars need OTA updates like Tesla. Jeep hacking issue already proved as much, except that is an ICE. So the hacking issue is not entirely limited to EV and battery tech.

 

 

Couple of points:-

 

Insurance companies look at what the causes of the claim are & then if this accident/incident occurs more they start to up the insurance more & more...to cover their costs.

 

So in the EV crashes the car is a write off like an ICE car......the problem lies with the fact the car has to be "quarantined for 48hrs" which costs fire service personnel. Also the amount of water & fire crews to initially addend to the burning car. Both of these requirements are more than the current ICE cars, so is the disposal of the highly toxic melted mess of metal, lithium, cobalt etc.etc...

 

Then you have the fact that ICE cars are filled by people in attendance, & yes accidents happen, but it is quickly noticed. Filling only takes 5mins. NOW you want to leave the car  unattended for hrs on end at night when NO person is in attendance!!

 

Basically if the car decided to go up in flames whilst charging like that Smart did early this year then you are screwed & your house will burn down also....The Smart car incident was lucky it was daytime & it still caused damage to the building, look at the now boarded windows behind, both fire damaged.. This incident, insurance will look at, I wouldn't be surprised if the building insurance want to now know if the building has an EV car charger, if so what KW & type & inspection certs. This is now another type of "damage" that will occur to any building that has an EV charger, & the building insurance has to cost this out!! So look out for these questions on your next insurance renewal in a few years time!!

 

Then oh well update the car, which is fine & yes ICE cars are exposed this way. However they are NOT exposed when the car is switched off & powered off, & tucked away in a garage...your EV charging unattended car IS exposed to hacking etc if the charger or car requires  web access at the time, & most do for the fancy battery status log files etc...

 

 

As for "baseless fear mongering."....I provided links to my statements, those are facts prove them wrong....I can't help it you want to keep looking through rose tinted specs...

Edited 20 November, 20178 yr by fabdavrav
grammer/spelling

H2O, 

stuff that can go in drains / sewers.  Does Michael Gove MP know about that?

 

This charging of the likes of Li-Lon seems so dangerous that the mobile phone is going to have to be able to call the Fire & Emergency Services, 

cut the power and deploy the Fire Extinguisher System built into the vehicle or charging place.

Hopefully not a water extinguisher system unless a fine spray.

Edited 20 November, 20178 yr by Headinawayoffski

14 hours ago, KenONeill said:

OK you did specifically say "Skoda's sw database", but I think the need for updates is more significant than who's database they're from.

Software updates should not be a dealer visit. Security patches should be pushed as soon as possible after any exploit are found. Updates need to be applied regularly over the air (OTA), not at every dealer visit. Hence with an internet connected car, it is no longer a dealer service item, it needs to happen automatically. (like Windows updates  remember the not kept up-to-date NHS XP machines? )

 

14 hours ago, fabdavrav said:

So in the EV crashes the car is a write off like an ICE car......the problem lies with the fact the car has to be "quarantined for 48hrs" which costs fire service personnel. Also the amount of water & fire crews to initially addend to the burning car. Both of these requirements are more than the current ICE cars, so is the disposal of the highly toxic melted mess of metal, lithium, cobalt etc.etc...

 

Then you have the fact that ICE cars are filled by people in attendance, & yes accidents happen, but it is quickly noticed. Filling only takes 5mins. NOW you want to leave the car  unattended for hrs on end at night when NO person is in attendance!!

 

Basically if the car decided to go up in flames whilst charging like that Smart did early this year then you are screwed & your house will burn down also....The Smart car incident was lucky it was daytime & it still caused damage to the building, look at the now boarded windows behind, both fire damaged.. This incident, insurance will look at, I wouldn't be surprised if the building insurance want to now know if the building has an EV car charger, if so what KW & type & inspection certs. This is now another type of "damage" that will occur to any building that has an EV charger, & the building insurance has to cost this out!! So look out for these questions on your next insurance renewal in a few years time!!

 

 

As for "baseless fear mongering."....I provided links to my statements, those are facts prove them wrong....I can't help it you want to keep looking through rose tinted specs...

 

I can't help with the lack of links to your above statements. Your statements are based on 1 isolated incident, and theoretical examples from a security company trying to sell its product using the unrelated electrical fault in isolated incident. In the link there were 2 examples.

First example says "The attacker then modifies the car configuration to indicate that the installed battery has a significantly larger capacity than it really has." As though that is configurable. 

Second example: "With engineering access to the charging station the attackers are able to reconfigure the system and remove safety features from the charging process. " So arson, forgetting that the BMS controls charging, charger only provides basic safety checks on the cable to the car.

 

Not sure how the statement in bold isn't baseless fear mongering........ Also, no, building insurance does not care about EV charging. I don't want to leave the car unattended for hours, I DO leave the car unattended over night charging like almost all other EV drivers. As mentioned, the burnt out Smart was a single isolated incident.

How many office worker leaves their LI-on laptops connected? How many people leave their phone plugged in at night? Are all those people "screwed" by your definition?

 

It may seems like I look through rose tinted specs, but I've also been pointing out limitations of current EV's. I'm only here to set the record straight on some of the false facts being spread by interested parties.

48 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

 

Not sure how the statement in bold isn't baseless fear mongering........ Also, no, building insurance does not care about EV charging. I don't want to leave the car unattended for hours, I DO leave the car unattended over night charging like almost all other EV drivers. As mentioned, the burnt out Smart was a single isolated incident.

How many office worker leaves their LI-on laptops connected? How many people leave their phone plugged in at night? Are all those people "screwed" by your definition?

 

It may seems like I look through rose tinted specs, but I've also been pointing out limitations of current EV's. I'm only here to set the record straight on some of the false facts being spread by interested parties.

 

Right then....

 

"false facts"....no those links were to actual Tesla crashes, the Smart which caught fire & various other FACTS. They may be few & far between for now, as the amount on the road is very small. Never the less these incidents/fires have happened.

 

As far as being screwed if it goes up in flames...my next door neighbours house was gutted by fire due to overheating mulitplugs/charger as far as the assessors can tell....masses of other house fires around the world have been started by devices overcharging & going bang.

 

This old website just one of many that lists the most common fire starts...& look laptops etc. are there also...Samsung galaxy note 7 anyone????

https://www.electriciancourses4u.co.uk/blog/common-causes-electrical-house-fires/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37255127

 

Heres another FACT:-

Tesla burnt to the ground (totally) whilst connected to a Tesla (on public highway) supercharging station...high AMPs & high Volts.... what do you expect ....

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/220237-tesla-model-s-catches-fire-at-supercharger-station-in-norway

 

Re insurance, I suggested in a few years time that they might add clauses on the forms, not now...Most insurance want to know what types of heating, if you have open fire, or stove, if you have a garage joined onto the house, if it has in adjoining internal door, etc. They want to know every fire risk. Charging a EV car (a way bigger version of a laptop battery) is more risky (no previous appliances with the Ah & V that an EV car battery has) than what has gone on before, & insurance companies will ask for it in the future I bet....

 

Just because there are few EV cars & a few incidents does not warrant burying ones heads in the sand...these accidents do & are happening FACT...that's not scaremongering. & don't belittle these facts just because you don't want me to warn others about ALL the facts regarding EV....

 

I have loads of Li-ion stuff, but only charge in daytime & when I am around to switch off when finished charging..

PS...I never leave anything charging over night...

Edited 21 November, 20178 yr by fabdavrav

We must hope that the DVSA / DfT are taking EV's Charging and any risks while charging or driving seriously.

 

They are not that concerned or ready to act with all fire issues and with manufacturers, risk to life and limb can be allowed to just continue until owners

get UK Authorities to move their lazy incompetent backsides.

http://bbc.co.uk/news/business-39738302 

Edited 21 November, 20178 yr by Headinawayoffski

@wyx087 "Software updates should not be a dealer visit" - Justification for this statement? Being part of the "internet of things" is not justification for having a vehicle that can be hacked wirelessly, and the easiest way to protect against wireless hacking is to require a physical connection for updates.

1 hour ago, fabdavrav said:

 

Right then....

 

"false facts"....no those links were to actual Tesla crashes, the Smart which caught fire & various other FACTS. They may be few & far between for now, as the amount on the road is very small. Never the less these incidents/fires have happened.

 

As far as being screwed if it goes up in flames...my next door neighbours house was gutted by fire due to overheating mulitplugs/charger as far as the assessors can tell....masses of other house fires around the world have been started by devices overcharging & going bang.

 

Heres another FACT:-

Tesla burnt to the ground (totally) whilst connected to a Tesla (on public highway) supercharging station...high AMPs & high Volts.... what do you expect ....

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/220237-tesla-model-s-catches-fire-at-supercharger-station-in-norway

 

Just because there are few EV cars & a few incidents does not warrant burying ones heads in the sand...these accidents do & are happening FACT...that's not scaremongering. & don't belittle these facts just because you don't want me to warn others about ALL the facts regarding EV....

 

I have loads of Li-ion stuff, but only charge in daytime & when I am around to switch off when finished charging..

PS...I never leave anything charging over night...

 

Incidents happen, cars burn down, only difference is that "car burnt down" is less news worthy than "shinny new electric car burnt down". These things do happen but without solid statistical analysis, you can't really say one technology is safer than the other. What you ARE saying is that due to these isolated incidents, we must not use them in the way they are designed to be used. It's similar to saying vaccine causes autism.

 

Unlike mains/multiplug domestic charger, the EV charger is installed to a completely different circuit. My install comes out of the junction box where everything is connected (grid, solar, consumer unit, EV charger) and uses very thick correctly rated cable all the way through. Hardly comparable to a multiplug.

(Also, this is hardly EV Li-on related)

 

3 minutes ago, KenONeill said:

@wyx087 "Software updates should not be a dealer visit" - Justification for this statement? Being part of the "internet of things" is not justification for having a vehicle that can be hacked wirelessly, and the easiest way to protect against wireless hacking is to require a physical connection for updates.

Being part of "internet of things" means it is constantly vulnerable to hacking. Therefore needing multiple security patches between dealer visits. The less time between a security hole being discovered and it getting patched, the better.

 

Case in point: http://www.securityweek.com/tesla-increases-bug-bounty-payout-after-experts-hack-model-s 

"Within two weeks after being notified by the researchers, the carmaker pushed an over-the-air (OTA) update to every single Model S to addressed some of the vulnerabilities and increase the overall security of the system."

Same article goes on to say the Jeep issue where it was only fixed by an expensive recall.

 

Of course, the other side of argument is that the central OTA server could be hacked to flood every car with bad software. But from a security point of view, the constantly maintained server will always be more secure than products floating in the wild. This is why all IoT are adopting OTA updates. I wouldn't buy any IoT device without OTA updates!

 

(Leaf's connectivity works differently, its Carwings connectivity is extremely slow because everything goes through their servers. Exploits are fixed on the server side)

1 hour ago, wyx087 said:

 

Incidents happen, cars burn down, only difference is that "car burnt down" is less news worthy than "shinny new electric car burnt down". These things do happen but without solid statistical analysis, you can't really say one technology is safer than the other. What you ARE saying is that due to these isolated incidents, we must not use them in the way they are designed to be used. It's similar to saying vaccine causes autism.

 

Unlike mains/multiplug domestic charger, the EV charger is installed to a completely different circuit. My install comes out of the junction box where everything is connected (grid, solar, consumer unit, EV charger) and uses very thick correctly rated cable all the way through. Hardly comparable to a multiplug.

(Also, this is hardly EV Li-on related)

 

 

I NEVER stated that the EV car shouldn't be used as per manufacturer recommendations......

 

Just that there are some very serious fire risks with them even if parked up & charging....unfortunately some people think that all EV are way safer than ICE....

 

& thickness of cable & correct rating does not guarantee that the car won't decide to draw more Amp than the cable was designed for......& thus the cable over heats & a fire starts.....The Tesla car which caught fire was at a Tesla supercharger station, so that's not a cheap multiplug/adaptor....& yes it was the battery which caught fire, but I bet that cable got very hot as the battery drew too much power just before it went up...

 

& yes it is comparable to a multiplug...just its on a bigger scale & Amp is greater...plenty of electrical fires in junction boxes over the years even with every thing rated correctly...just requires the main grid to have a voltage spike & a high Watt item connected with high draw....so voltage goes up, wattage stays the same but Amp can increase...or Amp stays the same & Wattage increase.....result is a fire...as now you are out of the cable rating...

 

You forget that its the current draw that causes heat & fires....& EV cars are way more Amp/Ah than any other standard electrical appliance that is usually connected at home...therefore people need to be made more aware of the risks & not just gaily plug it in & not think about it....

 

P.S. I hope your junction box is correctly rated (& metal) & sited on flame proof backing/wall for the total load as everything (grid, solar, consumer unit, EV charger)  goes into it as you say...could get hot...

 

P.P.S. if you think that over voltage is not a problem & doesn't cause things to go bang:-

http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=205&threadid=40800&STARTPAGE=1&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

 

That is just one of a very large number of problems which happen on a daily basis around the world......very common.....so EV cars going up in flames whilst connected to charger will increase with the number sold.....

 

 

Edited 21 November, 20178 yr by fabdavrav
adding PPS

9 minutes ago, fabdavrav said:

 

I NEVER stated that the EV car shouldn't be used as per manufacturer recommendations......

 

Just that there are some very serious fire risks with them even if parked up & charging....unfortunately some people think that all EV are way safer than ICE....

 

& thickness of cable & correct rating does not guarantee that the car won't decide to draw more Amp than the cable was designed for......& thus the cable over heats & a fire starts.....The Tesla car which caught fire was at a Tesla supercharger station, so that's not a cheap multiplug/adaptor....& yes it was the battery which caught fire, but I bet that cable got very hot as the battery drew too much power just before it went up...

 

& yes it is comparable to a multiplug...just its on a bigger scale & Amp is greater...plenty of electrical fires in junction boxes over the years even with every thing rated correctly...just requires the main grid to have a voltage spike & a high Watt item connected with high draw....so voltage goes up, wattage stays the same but Amp can increase...or Amp stays the same & Wattage increase.....result is a fire...as now you are out of the cable rating...

 

You forget that its the current draw that causes heat & fires....& EV cars are way more Amp/Ah than any other standard electrical appliance that is usually connected at home...therefore people need to be made more aware of the risks & not just gaily plug it in & not think about it....

 

P.S. I hope your junction box is correctly rated (& metal) & sited on flame proof backing/wall for the total load as everything (grid, solar, consumer unit, EV charger)  goes into it as you say...could get hot...

I only said certain EV is safer than ICE in a crash due to the way it's been designed and that battery pack can help stop protrusion into cabin.

 

You bet that cable got hot, great.  I thought you were suggesting the Li-on can go up in flames by itself. Now it's changed to due to overcurrent, which means BMS fault? Which is it? And you are sure the DC fast chargers has no over current protection? There seems to be a lot of assumptions being made here.

 

EV charger is installed professionally whereas a multiplug is often purchased from budget store and used without much thought. EV charger only used for charging 1 EV, whereas it is possible for uninformed to use multiple high current appliances with it, a huge fire risk. Hence they are hardly comparable.

 

Yes, EV pulls more current. That is why we have OLEV grants installing EV chargers at home. Because it is not safe to always charge using the 3-pin "granny" charger, it is also very slow. But the risk is constant high current. Home circuit is not designed to be constantly serving 2.5kW over 10 hours, more designed for 3kW over 2 hours for the oven.

However, the granny charger does monitor itself, its cable, its plug and cut-off if there's possibility of excess heat being generated.

 

The junction box could get hot if you are constantly drawing close to its rated amount. But how often do you do that? Even if uninformed user put the kettle and oven on while charging their EV, that's 60 Amps out of 100 Amps for 2 minutes. It has other 23 hours of less than 10% of its rated capacity to cool down. That's quite far away from capacity and nothing to worry about.

It is way too late for anyone with money looking for a good investment opportunity like in a company mining cobalt.

 

If Norway is taking the Wealth Fund Investments out of Fossil Fuels i wonder where the investments are going, still extractions?

 

Edited 21 November, 20178 yr by Headinawayoffski