3 hours ago, wyx087 said:

Just over 150 electric vehicle (BEV, PHEV and REx EV) is a rather small sample size......

 

Even according to the highest statistical likelihood per year seen previously, 150 * 5 * 0.011% = 0.083 car...... Regardless of powertrain, anything greater than 1 in such small sample size is unusual.

 

 

What that report also does not take into account is the total number of each type of powertrain, or their ages. Given the UK governments push towards diesel for a number of years, there are likely to be a higher number of diesels currently on the roads, than petrol and also many of those ICE cars will be considerably older than the oldest BEV, PHEV, Rex or EV so yes anybody in their right mind would expect similar results and would expect that more ICE cars catch fire, but it is and never was as far as I was concerned all about car fires, only battery fires and those are way more dangerous and difficult to put out or even control than a conventional car fire. Like I said to @Ootohere above, BEV, PHEV, REx or EV also carry the same fire risk as other cars, so even if one of those cars is on fire, it does not mean that the HV battery caused it or is even on fire, but for some muppets every electric car fire must mean the HV battery is the cause of it. 🙄

Edited 18 August, 20241 yr by Graham Butcher

As to the Scottish Government vehicles in the FOI it would be nice to see what they are, ages etc.

The Teslas might have gone along with Nicola Sturgeon's husband and her. 

What the various Government Vehicles are used for will be interesting.

Deliveries of internal mail, Transport Scotland maybe, some Official Parliament business with Minister. 

 

As to Fire risk and actual fires across the UK the number of those that are a case of arson is relevant.

There might well be some areas or countries of the UK where that is more common.  

Maybe like at times of riots. 

 

Nice cars.

Some substantial ones...

Edited 18 August, 20241 yr by Ootohere

2 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

What that report also does not take into account is the total number of each type of powertrain, or their ages. Given the UK governments push towards diesel for a number of years, there are likely to be a higher number of diesels currently on the roads, than petrol and also many of those ICE cars will be considerably older than the oldest BEV, PHEV, Rex or EV so yes anybody in their right mind would expect similar results and would expect that more ICE cars catch fire, but it is and never was as far as I was concerned all about car fires, only battery fires and those are way more dangerous and difficult to put out or even control than a conventional car fire. Like I said to @Ootohere above, BEV, PHEV, REx or EV also carry the same fire risk as other cars, so even if one of those cars is on fire, it does not mean that the HV battery caused it or is even on fire, but for some muppets every electric car fire must mean the HV battery is the cause of it. 🙄

 

  

On 08/10/2023 at 18:30, Graham Butcher said:

you always defend the EVs, you just can't help it.

Same to you regarding diesel fire risk 😛 

 

I only referenced the table to say how probability works and why the sample size is important.

10 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

 

  

Same to you regarding diesel fire risk 😛 

 

I only referenced the table to say how probability works and why the sample size is important.

Good grief, please re-read my post again, you have once again misread what I'm saying 🙄

11 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

Given the UK governments push towards diesel for a number of years, there are likely to be a higher number of diesels currently on the roads, than petrol and also many of those ICE cars will be considerably older than the oldest BEV, PHEV, Rex or EV so yes anybody in their right mind would expect similar results and would expect that more ICE cars catch fire

You are saying because ICE vehicle data include older vehicles and older = higher fire risk. Making excuse for the higher likelihood number in the table.

Although poor excuse because higher number of vehicles does not change likelihood probability.

 

Your other point regarding fires originate elsewhere are entirely valid. But the first part is not needed. As I said, you just can't help but slip in your biases.

Yesterday a Tesla Semi truck crashed into trees and the batteries went into thermal runaway and shut Interstate 80 highway down for over 16 hours with a 1 mile exclusion zone.

 

 

& it was a Trailer-less one.

They would not be trialling Auto Pilot would they?

 

Edited 21 August, 20241 yr by Ootohere

All of those people producing tables etc, from official bodies like paid for consultancies by various governments from around the world in the pursuit of getting net-zero, so the pushing of a narrative that electric vehicles is the way to achieve that and hence the big push towards a total ban on the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2035 and in the UK, a lower date of 2030, are presenting misleading information.

 

I have been stating for some time that I believe we are foolishly chucking everything at the electric utopia theory when it should be considered as an alternative only with a free market choice only. We should be examining other alternatives at the same time, such as reducing engine sizes in both capacity and power outputs, seeing as in most parts of the civilised world it is impossible to use the available power and performance of these big powerful engines.

 

Seeing as this thread is all about fires and as mentioned above, we are being fed duff information, which the critical thinker should have been able to see through all the smoke and mirrors, when they come out with statements and claims that ICE vehicles are many times more likely to catch fire than electric vehicles, therefore EV vehicles are way safer than ICE ones and that I should just accept that as a true fact and that I'm a doom and gloom merchant with extreme bias against electric vehicles. To which I counter that of course there will be more ICE vehicles involved in fires because of their numbers on the road being far greater, coupled with their ages are also considerably older and older vehicles are more prone to failures of all kinds, so that kind of makes perfect sense and I always thought 10 years plus years was when they start the downward decline and becoming more likely to be a fire risk as they lose value and repair costs could be more than the vehicle is worth, so corners tend to get cut. As the vehicles gets even older, their value tends to increase and the vehicles become classics and their owners then can see that the better ones are worth spending money on and restoring them to almost new condition as they become valuable assets.

 

This analysis of fires in parking buildings, carried out in New Zealand, nicely re-enforces the above and was pre EV vehicles, which really helps my theory. It was done from 1995 to 2003 and this link takes you to this report Analysis of vehicle fire statistics in New Zealand parking buildings - CORE Reader and the graph and data on pages 11 and 12 it clearly demonstrates that the number of fires dramatically increases when the vehicles reach 11 to 15 years old and once they get past that age they suddenly start getting to roughly the same as that of newer vehicles, which fits my theory perfectly.

 

Now we currently do not have electric cars of that age on our roads, so when these claims that state electric vehicles have extremely low odds of catching fire when compared to their ICE counterparts, they are NOT comparing apples with apples, instead they are making sure that the net-zero narrative is not being derailed, and hoping that by the time they reach that age, that engineers will have solved fire hazards and mitigated the risks to similar levels of ICE vehicles and that includes the hazmat hazards also being contained to a similar level.

 

I have been saying that the information being put out is flawed, and we are being hoodwinked, and we need to be aware of this ourselves.

 

 

Real world.  No idea if New Zealand farmers and others might be like Scottish ones. Maybe some from the Old country went to NZ.  Kept up the tradition of a barn fire / insurance job every few years or decades just because they could.   Nee machinery / vehicle time...

The fire starting risk is inconclusive, I agree. There is a bias for older ICE vehicle in the data set. Only way to really compare is to compare similar amount of vehicle from same age. For example, less than 5 year EV outnumber greater than 5 year by 3:1, so the dataset for ICE vehicle should have similar bias.

 

Other points regarding your very personal opinions about maintaining "narratives" and "hoodwinked"....... I'll refrain from commenting.

1 hour ago, Ootohere said:

Real world.  No idea if New Zealand farmers and others might be like Scottish ones. Maybe some from the Old country went to NZ.  Kept up the tradition of a barn fire / insurance job every few years or decades just because they could.   Nee machinery / vehicle time...

Yes, in fact that report does state that arson was the number 1 reason for car fires, so there is a lot of truth in what you say.

1 hour ago, wyx087 said:

The fire starting risk is inconclusive, I agree. There is a bias for older ICE vehicle in the data set. Only way to really compare is to compare similar amount of vehicle from same age. For example, less than 5 year EV outnumber greater than 5 year by 3:1, so the dataset for ICE vehicle should have similar bias.

 

Other points regarding your very personal opinions about maintaining "narratives" and "hoodwinked"....... I'll refrain from commenting.

Yes, none of the reports or consultations actually state that they are only looking at cars of the same age groups and the same number in the data set, and of course as I have previously said, not all electric car fires are started by or even involve the HV traction batteries, as they still have the same amount of 12v equipment and wiring as a normal ICE so it could well be that some electric cars have been included as the start of a fire incorrectly. Take the case of the recent fire at Lisbon airport when a Tesla was deemed by staff and witnesses to the cause of almost the entire number of cars on the top floor being destroyed. Now it might well have been a Tesla that started the chain reaction off, but the actual initial fire might have been a 12v normal electrical fire that transferred enough heat to the HV battery causing it to go into runaway. Either way, it cannot be argued that the presence of that HV battery did not make a bad situation even worse.

"The Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) reported 23 fires in 611,000 EVs during 2022, or 0.004 per cent in a year, which makes it 20 times less likely to happen than ICE car fires, which burned 3,400 times in 4.4 million cars, or 0.08 per cent"

 

Whichever group you look at fires are rare.

 

They just make big news.

3 hours ago, Stonekeeper said:

"The Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) reported 23 fires in 611,000 EVs during 2022, or 0.004 per cent in a year, which makes it 20 times less likely to happen than ICE car fires, which burned 3,400 times in 4.4 million cars, or 0.08 per cent"

 

Whichever group you look at fires are rare.

 

They just make big news.

Very true, but that percentage change of a fire shoots up quite a bit higher as the cars age, and I can see exactly the same thing happening when and if electric cars last until they reach 11 to 16 years of age. Plastics and other insulation will begin to breakdown etc and fail leading all kinds of things happening as old electrical appliances in the home also begin to fail as they age.

/me waits for the first person to post tinfoil Geoffs video on the Rivian factory fire

I do not click on his vids anymore. 

I have now read the various news articles covering the fire 

Didn't know this one. Thanks.

 

https://www.theverge.com/2024/8/26/24228982/rivian-factory-ev-fire-damage-battery

Vehicle fire in parking lot, multiple vehicle damaged, no injury.

Cause is under investigation.

 

 

From the way it's parked, probably new vehicle holding lot.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/RivianEV/posts/1721643631926244/

Edited 28 August, 20241 yr by wyx087

BMW / MINI have had to do a STOP DELIVERY on NEW CARS due to brake issues. 

 

Then they have this issue. Never rains but it pours!

 

**My MINI Cooper SE 2023 is not showing on the DVLA RECALL Site as part of the Recall.**

(That means nothing as it might well appear come time..)

 

 

Edited 29 August, 20241 yr by Ootohere

@Graham Butcher  'Groan'   Really, what is the issue?

There were MINI,s from Oxford on the Car Transporter that went on fire. 

So dodgy insulation which could cause a fire of it breaks down, no replacement of battery but instead software update that will monitor the battery and if it identifies an insulation breakdown (presumably voltage drop from internal short circuit) it will discharge the battery to below 30% SOC.

 

I would not like to be behind the wheel when it puts the heater on full and deploys full throttle against maximum braking knowing that while this is happening the battery is going into thermal meltdown, they should at least fit an ejector seat 😄

 

This is not a 'Software Fix' Recall according to this in the UK. 

Hardware...

 

Edited 29 August, 20241 yr by Ootohere

More smoke and mirrors.

@Graham Butcher  There are reports of a recall by MINI / BMW 12,535 vehicles, no idea in which countries and if left hand or right hand drive and if it matters.

If it matters if Soft top or hard tops.     

There were 40,000 or so MINI Electric built in Oxford every year as far as i know.  (i read)

And then in the UK there is an actual DVSA Safety Critical recall on a few hundred cars.  459

What is smoke and mirrors about it? 

Edited 29 August, 20241 yr by Ootohere