Hardly rocket science, the real truth is that there are currently many times more ICE vehicles on the road than BEV's thats a fact. Alongside of that fact there are far more greatly aged ICE vehicles than BEV's. It will be some time yet before today's BEV's reach a comparable age, and so we really do not know how those BEV's will hold up over a similar time period.

 

The other fact is that unless there is a rapid and universal reversal of current trends, BEVs will become more common on the roads and will make up the majority of vehicles in a few years time so the whole equation is then spun around and thus a fire in a similar situation to say the Luton carpark will be become far more deadly and common place, maybe not the actual fires but the end results and consequences will be dramatically increased and maybe loss of life as well. The article also highlights figures from USA saying that fires involving Tesla's are 11 times lower per mile than fires for petrol or diesel. What about the fact there are way more petrol and diesel cars then Tesla's on their roads? What other brands of BEV vehicles on the road?

 

This is not in my view a well-rounded and balanced article at all and is designed to continue pushing the political narrative.

34 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

The other fact is that unless there is a rapid and universal reversal of current trends, BEVs will become more common on the roads and will make up the majority of vehicles in a few years time so the whole equation is then spun around and thus a fire in a similar situation to say the Luton carpark will be become far more deadly and common place, maybe not the actual fires but the end results and consequences will be dramatically increased and maybe loss of life as well. 

This is an extremely big assumption to make. You assumed: 

1. BEV are more or similarly likely to catch fire, which current stats doesn't support. 

2. BEV fire spread the same as running fuel fire seen in multistory car park, this is unlikely. 

3. BEV vehicle propagate and catch fire at same rate or faster than ICE vehicle. This is unproven. 

 

34 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

The article also highlights figures from USA saying that fires involving Tesla's are 11 times lower per mile than fires for petrol or diesel. What about the fact there are way more petrol and diesel cars then Tesla's on their roads? What other brands of BEV vehicles on the road?

I think you are not understanding the meaning of per mile stats. 

 

This is the data source wording, as referreced by the Guardian article: 

https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport

Quote

From 2012 – 2021, there has been approximately one Tesla vehicle fire for every 210 million miles traveled. By comparison, data from the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and U.S. Department of Transportation shows that in the United States there is a vehicle fire for every 19 million miles traveled.

In order to provide an apt comparison to NFPA data, Tesla’s data set includes instances of vehicle fires caused by structure fires, arson, and other things unrelated to the vehicle, which account for some of the Tesla vehicle fires over this time period.

 

Total miles travelled by this fuel type of vehicle <divided by> All fire event for this fuel type 

This method is inclusive of the fact there's more of one type of vehicle. 

 

Edited 20 November, 20232 yr by wyx087

Or Per 100,000 vehicles from Sweden.  But then there is the instances of arson that can skew the figures.

58 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

This is an extremely big assumption to make. You assumed: 

1. BEV are more or similarly likely to catch fire, which current stats doesn't support. 

2. BEV fire spread the same as running fuel fire seen in multistory car park, this is unlikely. 

3. BEV vehicle propagate and catch fire at same rate or faster than ICE vehicle. This is unproven. 

 

No, I have not assumed.

1. Is it not true that there are older petrol and diesel cars around and more of them than then there are BEV's and older vehicles will tend to have less maintenance done on them as the cost of said maintenance can often be higher than the vehicle's worth and also things tend to suffer from rot and fatigue due to old age, a stage that BEVs have yet to reach, therefore the comparisons and the assumptions in the article are flawed

2. I never indicated that BEV's fire would be spread like burning running fuel, they will spread the fire by way of the gases venting under high-pressure from the batteries at low level sideways. There are videos online of them doing this while in charging stations, and they tend to be parked closer than that in a typical carpark so very high chance of spreading to adjacent cars quicker than running fuel could spread it. Burning fuel, running around on the ground is even further aggravated by firemen trying to extinguish fires like the Luton one, using water, oil floats on water and thus spreads quicker and further. Foam is what is required, as it cuts the oxygen supply to the burning liquid fuel. BEV batteries generate their own oxygen so water or foam will have much of an impact on quelling them, but as they burn far hotter, steel structures will give way far quicker, and this I think will be discovered in the finding for the collapse of the Luton carpark like we all saw on TV.  

 

3. I agree this is currently unproven.

 

The Telsa claims are for road accidents, not actual fires and as the popularity of not just Telsa's but all BEVs rises, there will be more and more incidents of them catching fire and I have not suggested that they will catch fire in greater numbers then their ICE counterparts, just that BEVs are nowhere near the ages of ICE vehicles yet, so the effects of rust, rot and fatigue and DIY maintenance etc have not yet happened so we just do not know what the end results will be, so that comparison is flawed

Edited 20 November, 20232 yr by Graham Butcher

36 minutes ago, Rooted said:

Or Per 100,000 vehicles from Sweden.  But then there is the instances of arson that can skew the figures.

 

We had this in our Paris and other cities EV car schemes. We were using solid state batteries so technical safer rather current Lithium ion and even Lithium Iron Phosphate, were use Lithium Metal Polyamide and Super Capacitors but there were some car fires.  Fire investigators found that homeless persons were breaking in to the cars sat on their charging stalls and making a little fire to keep warm inside the car in the cold Paris nights. Not good in a car body that was composite as I recall.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolloré_Bluecar 

 

Estimated we lost 25 cars to vandals.  Damn those mid European nomads.

 

 

19 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

1. Is it not true that there are older petrol and diesel cars around and more of them than then there are BEV's and older vehicles will tend to have less maintenance done on them as the cost of said maintenance can often be higher than the vehicle's worth and also things tend to suffer from rot and fatigue due to old age, a stage that BEVs have yet to reach, therefore the comparisons and the assumptions in the article are flawed

Whilst vehicle age is not currently taken into account (too few 10 year old examples). The Guardian article raised a valid point: BEV fire risk must be multiplied by a few times before the risk is similar to petrol/diesel. Meaning your point is only true if vast majority of petrol/diesel fire are started in its old vehicles AND if BEV fire risk increase exponentially near its end of life to bring up their risks. Neither have been proven to be true. 

 

23 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

There are videos online of them doing this while in charging stations, and they tend to be parked closer than that in a typical carpark so very high chance of spreading to adjacent cars quicker than running fuel could spread it.

Plastic fuel tank are only required to withstand open flame for 2 minutes. 

No data or requirement that I've seen on how long BEV battery are required to withstand open flame. But considering its large thermal mass and metal protection underneath against road debris, I think it will be much longer than 2min before it enters thermal runaway. 

 

On what basis do you say car parks full of BEV will spread fire faster?

Other than they are parked next to each other, and strangely you've agreed to my point number 3, which directly contradicts your statement. 

 

27 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

The Telsa claims are for road accidents, not actual fires

No, re-read the Tesla page. It is talking about vehicle fires. It is after the road accident section. 

 

 

15 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

Whilst vehicle age is not currently taken into account (too few 10 year old examples). The Guardian article raised a valid point: BEV fire risk must be multiplied by a few times before the risk is similar to petrol/diesel. Meaning your point is only true if vast majority of petrol/diesel fire are started in its old vehicles AND if BEV fire risk increase exponentially near its end of life to bring up their risks. Neither have been proven to be true. 

 

Plastic fuel tank are only required to withstand open flame for 2 minutes. 

No data or requirement that I've seen on how long BEV battery are required to withstand open flame. But considering its large thermal mass and metal protection underneath against road debris, I think it will be much longer than 2min before it enters thermal runaway. 

 

On what basis do you say car parks full of BEV will spread fire faster?

Other than they are parked next to each other, and strangely you've agreed to my point number 3, which directly contradicts your statement. 

 

No, re-read the Tesla page. It is talking about vehicle fires. It is after the road accident section. 

 

 

The plain truth is, that we are not actually comparing apples with apples at the end of the day, you have stated your views and I have stated my views, neither of us are experts in this field and so we could just keep going back and forth with claim and counterclaim and until the time when BEVs are in the same situation as ICE vehicles are now and we have similar ages of them, we cannot accurately predict/know just how they will compare in the realms of this discussion so I'm not going to continue this to and fro with you as it is tedious and must be boring the pants of many others.

 

Many of the questions you keep posing to me, you could always go and search for the answers your self, there are answers out there, but generally speaking newspapers are not a reliable source as they tend to blow things up out of proportion, use clickbait in order to get people to part with their money and buy a paper or take out an online subscription, they are a business and business just want your money. 

 

I take your point about plastic fuel tanks, but not all vehicles have them, many have steel tanks.

Good response, I can respect this and your views. I agree nothing much can be gained through this. 

 

The only thing I couldn't stand was your wording. It reads as though you are the authority and you can predict what will happen. So I felt compiled to point out assumptions you've made along the way and statements that are not yet proven to be true. Sorry if it reads as though I am dismissive of your views. 

37 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

but not all vehicles have them, many have steel tanks.

 

Not produced in this century.

The whole point of what I was trying to say is that the whole process of someone trying to prove that system A was better than system B is entirely pointless and impossible to prove with having the identical numbers in each sample used in the experiment and then both sets of examples must be exposed to the identical conditions and ageing etc in order to formulate a conclusion. That is currently not possible as there are so many unknown factors that come with ageing and also manufacturing process have also changed over years.

4 minutes ago, J.R. said:

 

Not produced in this century.

May or may not be true, but there are vehicles out there in daily use older than 23 years old is there not?

Is there not what?

Any updates?

Any helpful advice for those with EV,s or PHEV,s or even Mild Hybrids.

 

Which Ferries or Tunnels in the UK have EV,s been banned on since this thread started, or are there any car parks / multi-storey car parks where they are banned from? 

Re the older car thing.

 

They are like older people managed to get to the age they are.

In the UK if they are old enough (Vehicles) or appear to be old enough even though almost every part but the VIN Plate / Chassis number exists they get to not even require MOTs.

 

Maybe the DVSA / Dft will come up with new legislation that politicians can get put into law about EV,s, Age, checks other than the usual MOT,s as currently.

 

Maybe eventually they will get something sorted out about out of date Air Bags in vehicles, or potentially faulty ones or RECALL Actions not carried out, 

but i think there is something on Recalls showing at MOT time as advisories.

Different countries and documents 10 years apart. 

final_report_nfpa.pdf covered-car-parks-fire-safety-guidance-for-electric-vehicles.pdf

Section 2.6 in the covered car park fire guidance gives similar stat as the Guardian article, with the same caveats such as age of vehicle in the data set. 

 

 

EV likelihood of fire claim need to be ~10x than existing to match diesel. Exactly as pointed out by the Guardian article, Surely this isn't pushing a political narrative  

 

21 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

Section 2.6 in the covered car park fire guidance gives similar stat as the Guardian article, with the same caveats such as age of vehicle in the data set. 

 

 

EV likelihood of fire claim need to be ~10x than existing to match diesel. Exactly as pointed out by the Guardian article, Surely this isn't pushing a political narrative  

 

Personally I don't believe those figures, have you ever tried to set diesel on fire? It is very difficult whereas petrol will happily take you face off if you go anywhere near with a lit match, diesel will is more inclined to extinguish a match if you put a lit match on a pool of diesel. 

 

 

@wyx087 why the groan, did you watch the video?

56 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

@wyx087 why the groan, did you watch the video?

Because we've been through this many times. Just because the fuel itself is difficult to ignite, it does not mean the vehicle as a emergent system has less fire risk.

 

Arguing diesel vehicle has less fire risk than petrol based solely on the way fuel is ignited..... it's like arguing TV are better than smart phone based solely on screen size.

3 hours ago, wyx087 said:

Because we've been through this many times. Just because the fuel itself is difficult to ignite, it does not mean the vehicle as a emergent system has less fire risk.

 

Arguing diesel vehicle has less fire risk than petrol based solely on the way fuel is ignited..... it's like arguing TV are better than smart phone based solely on screen size.

I know that diesel can be burnt, but there are far fewer diesels than petrol cars and understanding that diesel does indeed need a lot of persuasion to catch fire, it is therefore less likely that the fuel is the source of the fire, even if there is a fuel leak. Petrol will be ignited even if the car has been standing for some time and the engine and exhaust system has got cold, if there is fuel leak and a spark or a discarded cigarette comes into range, the petrol will ignite, diesel will not. That is why I do not believe the figures quoted in that article or the Guardian. Don't forget that petrol will vaporise at temperatures from as low as -43C but diesel needs to be higher than +52C, so petrol remains a real threat for 95C lower temperature than diesel. Can diesel vehicles catch fire more?

 

Impossible in my view that the cause of the fire was the fuel, it could be anything else, arson, electrical who knows, but the same things apply equally to petrol and indeed PHEV, or BEV's.

 

The plain truth is that any vehicle fire seldom is started with the fuel being the culprit, it is more likely to be electrical, and the fuel may or not become a factor at a much later stage of the fire, very often it does not enter into the equation, even with plastic fuel tanks, as the plastic acts an insulator, unless the fuel tank is almost empty when it will begin to melt, but as long as there is fuel in the tank it will absorb some of the heat, petrol is again the worst fuel to be heated as it vaporises rapidly and becomes more flammable.

 

BEV, PHEV, Diesel or Petrol, the fuel used is not likely to be a factor in most car fires in the early stages, it could be at a later stage if the fire cannot be extinguished by the use of extinguishers or firemen with their equipment. 

 

 

Edited 23 November, 20232 yr by Graham Butcher

Come on! You are still focusing on the fuel itself. What other difference is there between a diesel vehicle and a petrol vehicle? Is there any difference in fuel line pressure? What about emission control equipments? Could faults in those increase fire risks?

 

4 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

That is why I do not believe the figures quoted in that article or the Guardian.

Also, the Guardian article did quote any figures, it only referenced other reports and only stated how many times likely for EV fires than petrol or diesel. The article never distinguished between petrol or diesel.

23 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

Come on! You are still focusing on the fuel itself. What other difference is there between a diesel vehicle and a petrol vehicle? Is there any difference in fuel line pressure? What about emission control equipments? Could faults in those increase fire risks?

 

From personal experience and having spent a few years working on a large fleet of diesel vehicles, I have to say no to the first statement/question you made. Modern cars are all injection are they not, true not operated at such high pressure as diesel injection do. 

 

I think that any fire caused by diesel being atomised and coming into contact with say a very hot exhaust manifold and possibly catching fire, is more likely to be because of  poor maintenance or the lack of it rather than a fault in the system.

 

Edited 23 November, 20232 yr by Graham Butcher

11 hours ago, wyx087 said:

Section 2.6 in the covered car park fire guidance gives similar stat as the Guardian article, with the same caveats such as age of vehicle in the data set. 

 

 

EV likelihood of fire claim need to be ~10x than existing to match diesel. Exactly as pointed out by the Guardian article, Surely this isn't pushing a political narrative  

 

This is where the association of the report and the Guardian figures came from.

10 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

Personally I don't believe those figures, have you ever tried to set diesel on fire? It is very difficult whereas petrol will happily take you face off if you go anywhere near with a lit match, diesel will is more inclined to extinguish a match if you put a lit match on a pool of diesel. 

Thanks for finally confirming there are ways vehicle can catch fire other than simple fuel being set on fire. 👏

 

2 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

This is where the association of the report and the Guardian figures came from.

No, the Guardian article never referenced this UK OZEV paper. It referenced Australia, Sweden, Norway and Tesla report/paper/data.

 

The figures you quoted is a screenshot from UK's OZEV paper posted by root. This is clearly stated in my earlier post.

1 hour ago, wyx087 said:

No, the Guardian article never referenced this UK OZEV paper. It referenced Australia, Sweden, Norway and Tesla report/paper/data.

 

The figures you quoted is a screenshot from UK's OZEV paper posted by root. This is clearly stated in my earlier post.

WTF??? Just where did you state the above in your earlier post, which I quote below, you thought you stated it but you didn't. The implication in your post was that the Guardian article gave a similar stat as the Guardian article, with the same caveats such as age of vehicle in the data set.

12 hours ago, wyx087 said:

Section 2.6 in the covered car park fire guidance gives similar stat as the Guardian article, with the same caveats such as age of vehicle in the data set. 

 

 

EV likelihood of fire claim need to be ~10x than existing to match diesel. Exactly as pointed out by the Guardian article, Surely this isn't pushing a political narrative  

 

You also said "Thanks for finally confirming there are ways vehicle can catch fire other than simple fuel being set on fire. 👏", where did that come from, I never said anything else, in fact I think I have always stated that most car fires do not include or originate from the type of fuel being used, far more likely to be an electrical fault and that was infact the Top Gear joke about French cars self combusting because of faulty electrics 😉