Battery Electric Vehicle News / Enjoying the Transportation Revolution

philologus

"One Tesla vehicle was involved in a fire accident per 210 miles travelled from 2011 to 2021."

So all they had to do was to remove this "One Tesla vehicle" from the roads and the problem was solved. :-:smiley:

Grumpy_chap

Magnitio said:

JKenH said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Magnitio said:

"One Tesla vehicle was involved in a fire accident per 210 miles travelled from 2011 to 2021." Really? What is this supposed to mean?

Clearly, that issue has been resolved since 2021.
This week, I did the normal commute to the office at the start of the week, 100 miles round-trip.
Then I travelled away for work and back, 300 miles round trip and did not catch fire once.
Then, I did a 180- mile round trip the following day and, again, still did not catch fire.

I think the problem here is you are choosing to dwell on one (an extreme one) out of the many statistics quoted in the Honest John article when the whole point of me linking the article was to demonstrate the wide range of statistics quoted both pro and anti EV. You are then applying your personal experience to make the argument that as it hasn’t happened to you that statistic must be rubbish. I could just as easily make the argument that my grandad smoked 20 cigarettes a day and lived to be 80 so any report that says smoking causes cancer must be rubbish.

The problem for authorities assessing the risk of EV fires is not their incidence but the problems they pose in extinguishment. Look at it that way and there may be some merit in playing it safe. I’m not sure if this has happened yet but I think some regulations are coming out that domestic batteries should not be fitted in certain areas. Is this scaremongering as well?

edit: I am guessing your comment was tongue in cheek

Let's not dwell on just one out of the many statistics quoted. Let's look at another:

 The risk of a Tesla car catching fire in 2024 is 0.8%

With approximately 5 million Tesla's on the road, that would mean 40,000 catching fire this year. 109 Tesla's every day catching fire. Do you really believe this? If not, why do you post such alarmist information?

The trouble here is Honest John seems to have posted statistics that "One Tesla vehicle was involved in a fire accident per 210 miles travelled" - John may well be honest but he also seems to be careless.

Then another Journalist looking for a unique article reads that and works out a different way of expressing the statistic to "The risk of a Tesla car catching fire in 2024 is 0.8%".

Then someone on an internet forum looks up some other data that there are 5 million Tesla's on the road (unsourced, and unclear - is that 5 million Worldwide, or UK, or USA, or where?).  They work out that means 40k fires in the year, so 109 per day.

Then that gets picked up by another Journalist looking for a story and, with an assumption thrown in plus some rounding the headline becomes "Shocking 110 Tesla Fires every day in UK".
Then there is a Daily Fail campaign to ban EV's.
Then this ">100 TESLA fires daily" becomes common belief.
Then the insurance industry put the premiums up.
Then the Government ban EV's .

Statistic must always be quoted with care.
Quoting obviously absurd statistics (missed "million") is dangerous.

michaels

WE seem to be letting the carp statistics on number of fires (as we know generally misreported for 'attracting clicks' reasons) interfere with the substantive issue that is 'severity of fires'.  EVs could be (ad possibly are) 100 times less likely to spontaneously combust than cars but if 100% of car fires can be extinguished before they spread but 1% of EV fires will result in a conflagration that takes down the whole car park (and threatens the adjoining hospital) then it becomes a problem.

Personally I do worry about EVs on the channel tunnel and ferries because they are harder to extinguish and we simply don't have the experience of dealing with these fires.

Grumpy_chap

michaels said:

if 100% of car fires can be extinguished before they spread but 1% of EV fires will result in a conflagration that takes down the whole car park (and threatens the adjoining hospital) then it becomes a problem.

Oh, yes, just like Luton airport.
https://www.bedsfire.gov.uk/news/fire-airport-car-park-started-accidentally

OOOPS - that was an ICE.  So "100% of car fires can be extinguished before they spread" cannot be true.  We seem to have let another erroneous statistic enter the thread.

I do think we should consider the relative merits and fire safety of the horse and cart versus the ICE versus the EV so that we have a full consideration of appropriate transport types.  

I have realised why the calculation upthread of 100 or so Tesla fires per day is erroneous.  That was based upon there being 5 millions Tesla's on the road.  That cannot be true given the previously discussed statistic that the average Tesla bursts into flames within a couple of hundred miles.  Five million Tesla's may have been sold, but most have now spontaneously combusted and recycled as scrap.  My Tesla must be just about the only one still left without a single scorch mark.

Netexporter

The risk of explosion from equine flatulence in multi-storey cart parks is not to be sniffed at.

Martyn1981

Wifey popped up to Scotland last week, to catch up with a friend, so some silly bits and bobs she updated me on during her trip of about 500 miles.

First leg 285Wh/mile warming up the car, and driving out of wet Wales. Second leg 265Wh/mile, then 255Wh/mile for third leg, which seems surprising, since it's all uphill to Scotland.     Not at Coastalwatch / Grumpy Chap levels of efficiency, but not bad for such a big girl (ooh er missus!)

She was aiming to arrive with lots of charge for driving around while there, so left with a full charge, and charged at first stop (pee break), and lunch break, then last stop (50 miles from destination). Batt SOC never low enough to get a really high rate of charge, so 125kW at a V2 charger, about 170kW at a V3 charger, and about 150kW at the final stop a V4 charger. V4's are still limited to V3 levels, but she arrived with a bit more SOC than her lunch stop. But what I found interesting, was that TiMmY was still pulling 33kW at 91% SOC. Not bad I think.

She sent a pick of a police TM3 Highland car charging nxt to her at one stop, made me chuckle.

And at the last stop, that V4 station, she rang me for a chat (which was when I looked at my phone to see the info). Been for a break, and then sitting in the boot(!) finishing a snack, whilst the batt charged to 95%. That's when I noticed and joked with her (@ 3.30pm) to get going, as the price there changes from 34p to 43p at 4pm (4pm to 8pm).

Also impressed at the number of 7-50kW charging options near her friend's home - within about 5m radius I quickly counted 6 locations, with 2 to 4 chargers. As others have mentioned over the years, Scotland does seem to be ahead of the curve.

michaels

Grumpy_chap said:

michaels said:

if 100% of car fires can be extinguished before they spread but 1% of EV fires will result in a conflagration that takes down the whole car park (and threatens the adjoining hospital) then it becomes a problem.

Oh, yes, just like Luton airport.
https://www.bedsfire.gov.uk/news/fire-airport-car-park-started-accidentally

OOOPS - that was an ICE.  So "100% of car fires can be extinguished before they spread" cannot be true.  We seem to have let another erroneous statistic enter the thread.

I do think we should consider the relative merits and fire safety of the horse and cart versus the ICE versus the EV so that we have a full consideration of appropriate transport types.  

I have realised why the calculation upthread of 100 or so Tesla fires per day is erroneous.  That was based upon there being 5 millions Tesla's on the road.  That cannot be true given the previously discussed statistic that the average Tesla bursts into flames within a couple of hundred miles.  Five million Tesla's may have been sold, but most have now spontaneously combusted and recycled as scrap.  My Tesla must be just about the only one still left without a single scorch mark.

I didn't introduce any facts, did you?  I was just observing that the consequences of different vehicle fires might be different.

(Aside - not sure if Luton airport fire was so hard to put put might have been because there were also EVs in the carpark which as far as I am aware have different fire characteristics to ice cars?  See - nothing to do with how likely - or basically unlikely - EVs are to catch fire but only an observation on the differential consequences.  Perhaps that car park in Liverpool is not worried about EVs starting fires but about EVs being involved in fires started by ICE vehicles?)

Grumpy_chap

Martyn1981 said:

First leg 285Wh/mile warming up the car, and driving out of wet Wales. Second leg 265Wh/mile, then 255Wh/mile for third leg, which seems surprising, since it's all uphill to Scotland.     Not at Coastalwatch / Grumpy Chap levels of efficiency, but not bad for such a big girl (ooh er missus!)

I've just shared my latest long trip data in the EV Discussion Thread.
Not sure why you and I see such a variance in Wh/mile.  I know your TMY is a bit taller and heavier than my TM3, but I would not have thought it would make that much difference.

Martyn1981

Grumpy_chap said:

Martyn1981 said:

First leg 285Wh/mile warming up the car, and driving out of wet Wales. Second leg 265Wh/mile, then 255Wh/mile for third leg, which seems surprising, since it's all uphill to Scotland.     Not at Coastalwatch / Grumpy Chap levels of efficiency, but not bad for such a big girl (ooh er missus!)

I've just shared my latest long trip data in the EV Discussion Thread.
Not sure why you and I see such a variance in Wh/mile.  I know your TMY is a bit taller and heavier than my TM3, but I would not have thought it would make that much difference.

It's a surprisingly large (tall) vehicle, with enormous space inside with tall upright sitting positions. We can comfortably get two large retrievers/labs in the boot with the rear seats up. I suspect that's the main reason for the efficiency difference, as the Cd figures are about the same (afterall they are pretty much the same frontal design). So after multiplying the Cd by the larger (taller) frontal area, that may account for some of it. Maybe some due to rolling resistance too, as the Y wears big shoes, 255 v's 235?

Only a very rough estimate, as many factors, such as head/tailwind will throw things out, but we got ~250Wh/mile from the TM3 on the motorway at 75mph, whilst the TMY is about 265Wh/mile. But the 3 wasn't a heatpump model, whilst the Y is, so perhaps a 10% difference in our case?

And now the Highland 3 which seems to be about 10% better again, and the LR RWD Y in the US, which seems to gain around 3% by dropping the front motor.

Martyn1981

Hi GC, had a 'Doh!' moment. We should be able to just compare the official ranges, for a rough comparison of Wh/mile ratio/efficiency, since the 3 & Y will share all the same leccy components.*

So the LR Y has a stated range of 331 miles.
The LR 3 range is 390 miles, but that's the new Highland model.
So I Googled 2022 model (to avoid any 2023 crossover) and found a rating of 358 miles.

So, perhaps the rough ratio is 331 : 358, or the 3 is ~8% more efficient?

*Small disclaimer, as the batts change over time, and possibly by production line, but the kWh's will be the same, so I think it's a reasonable comparison for our purposes.