Are new cars really as bad as they say?

Herzlos

Arunmor said:

Only yesterday 7 new BYD cars went up in a puff of smoke on the M5, without a diesel Land Rover in site!

Was that the car transporter fire? It seems like you're implying that 7 different cars spontaneously combusted. I don't think there's any indication of the cause yet. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/m5-delays-fire-lorry-electric-car-national-highways-b2837098.html


Here's the article you screenshotted: 

https://trellis.net/article/the-ev-pullback-why-these-5-automakers-are-retreating-from-big-plans/

I've never heard of Trellis but it appears to be American and about the American market, who have a much stronger anti-EV misinformation thing going on. Some of it is valid particularly the lower power domestic electricity supply impacting home charging times. The article itself seems light on pretty much everything though. 


If you look at SMMT for actual UK sales figures, you'll see that sales of BEV and PHEV are up, whilst salves of hybrids are down slightly, and EV's (of some sort) are making up nearly 50% of new car sales by month or year: 

https://www.smmt.co.uk/vehicle-data/electric-vehicle-registrations/


So they seem to be doing fine. 

DrEskimo

Exodi said:

I dare not engage with a thread like - I have seen the cesspit of Facebook comment sections on the topic.

IMO this stems from a human aversion to change. You see similar vacuous 'debates' between ICE vs EV as you do for Manual vs Auto, Cash vs Card, Meat vs Vegetarian, etc.

In my personal experience, the financial aspect of an EV is fantastic (e.g. cheap overnight tariff, BIK tax, etc), though it does have it's drawbacks - mainly infrastructure is still lacking (and if you do manage to get to a charging point, can expect to pay 10x what you would charging at home) and there was some backwards design choices (e.g. it takes multiple presses on the touch screen to change temperature, instead of one tactile knob).

On the other hand, most of the journeys I do are short-medium distance, so I generally never need to charge away from home except in very rare circumstances. This means I save the time compared to the bi-monthly trip the fuel pumps. There's also no competition on the cost per mile. The acceleration is fantastic and I haven't had any repair issues to date (though my EV is only a few years old).

However these debates are plagued with ridiculous examples like comparing drives between Portsmouth to Inverness or the suggestion that EV's are spontaneously setting on fire up and down the country on a daily basis.

It's why I don't like to engage in topics like this, they rarely feel like a debate in good faith, but more people with unalterable pre-existing views slinging extreme examples and anecdotes back and forth.

EDIT: sorry, noticed this started as New Vs Old, rather than EV vs ICE as I assumed as OP is clearly anti-EV.

I can't say my experience aligns with the idea that new cars are breaking down all the time, I would suggest an element of 'The Fox & the Grapes'.

My frustrations with these discussions is that you are suddenly labelled a 'EVangelist' through simply pushing back against outlandish claims, like all batteries need replacing in 7years. It's simply not true and incredibly unhelpful for those looking to understand if it's something they should consider.

I see the pro and cons of both EVs and ICE as modes of transports and TBH find the ownership of an EV a complete non-event. It's just a car that suits my needs that I enjoy driving, and have enjoyed driving for the last 7-yrs now. Like you say, the tribal response to them is very odd...

Exodi

Herzlos said:

Arunmor said:

Only yesterday 7 new BYD cars went up in a puff of smoke on the M5, without a diesel Land Rover in site!

Was that the car transporter fire? It seems like you're implying that 7 different cars spontaneously combusted. I don't think there's any indication of the cause yet. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/m5-delays-fire-lorry-electric-car-national-highways-b2837098.html

I remember last year the Luton Airport parking went up in flames due to a vehicle fire (I remember it clearly as I was due to fly out for a stag do when it happened! Incredibly we were still able to fly). I remember EV skeptics at the time suggesting things like "yet another EV fire", and a significant amount of articles and posts doing the rounds on social media along the lines of 'even the airports aren't safe from EV's'.

Unfortunately, I did not see the same virality when it was later confirmed the fire started in a diesel vehicle...

So bad was the misinformation, the subsequent summary explicitly confirmed: "At this time, we can confirm the vehicle involved was a diesel-powered vehicle. To further clarify it was neither a fully electric vehicle (EV) nor a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV)."

In a twist of irony, given Arunmor's comment, the vehicle in question was a diesel Range Rover:

https://www.bedsfire.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-10/Significant Incident Report LLA Car Park 2 fire.pdf

Page 87 (Impact of Electric Vehicles on the Spread of Fire) somewhat confirms my experience - "In the immediate aftermath of the incident there was considerable speculation within the press and across social media platforms about the fire originating from an electric vehicle (EV). This was despite statements at the time from Bedfordshire FRS stating that the Service believed the vehicle to a be a diesel vehicle.229 Subsequently it has been confirmed by the fire investigation report that the fire originated in a diesel vehicle230 and the cause was accidental. 231"
"There has also been speculation about the impact of electric vehicles on fire spread even if the fire did not originate in one"

Like here - an article where an ICE vehicle carrying EV's has caught fire, it hasn't been confirmed what the cause was yet so it this is almost like deja-vu to me. Yet how is it being framed here? By implying that the 7 9 EV's seemingly spontaneously combusted.

I'm not for one second suggesting EV's don't experience issues, all cars do, or that it wasn't an EV in this situation. I'm confused by the seeming desperation by particular people to draw particular conclusions.

It's a pointless debate. People that don't want to buy EV's won't buy EV's, data or experience does not matter, feelings do.

ElefantEd

I think that the point of responding to outlandish and spurious claims in a discussion about any such topic isn't to convince (in this case) the anti-EV people, it's to show any neutral people reading the facts.

Arunmor

Well looks like the manufacturers in Europe and Japan would disagree with you.  There is a huge amount of smoke and mirrors going on in EV sales.

As for implying 7 cars spontaneously combusted is nonsense, most likely scenario is 1 did.  I very much doubt the transporter was engulfed or a hidden Range Rover diesel!

Exodi

Arunmor said:

Well looks like the manufacturers in Europe and Japan would disagree with you.  There is a huge amount of smoke and mirrors going on in EV sales.

As for implying 7 cars spontaneously combusted is nonsense, most likely scenario is 1 did.  I very much doubt the transporter was engulfed or a hidden Range Rover diesel!

It also sounded to me like that was what you were implying, given that you specifically referenced the number (it's now 9 now IIRC). If we agree it was most likely caused by one vehicle, there didn't seem to be much point drawing attention to the outcome (though of course in the context of your position, i can understand why you did). ICE vehicles aren't fire-proof either, so I'm sure you would challenge me if I framed the Luton Airport fire as "~1300 ICE up in flames an Luton... and people still think they're safe to drive?"

Plus, for all we know, the transporter could have caused the fire... I don't know, but then neither do you.

henry24

Herzlos said:

henry24 said:

So the electric motor will stop it dead 

Are you missing the distinction between engine braking the physical braking?

An EV still has brakes that work when you hit the pedal, and will stop just as quickly as any other car. 

But what they also do is use regenerative braking; where the energy goes back into the motor so that when you're slowing down gradually (because you're leaving a suitable distance to the car in front) you both recharge the battery and don't wear the brakes. This regenerative breaking is so good that you can go a surprisingly long time without actually engaging the mechanical brakes, hence the problem being mentioned here that rust can build up due to lack of use. They'll still stop in an emergency though but will be noisy.

So it's an improved version of engine braking without the waste. Counter-intuitively it also means that EV's get better economy in stop-start traffic than on the open road. 

I was replying to the post say that you don't need to use the brake pedal to make an emergency stop 

WellKnownSid

henry24 said:

Herzlos said:

henry24 said:

So the electric motor will stop it dead 

Are you missing the distinction between engine braking the physical braking?

An EV still has brakes that work when you hit the pedal, and will stop just as quickly as any other car. 

But what they also do is use regenerative braking; where the energy goes back into the motor so that when you're slowing down gradually (because you're leaving a suitable distance to the car in front) you both recharge the battery and don't wear the brakes. This regenerative breaking is so good that you can go a surprisingly long time without actually engaging the mechanical brakes, hence the problem being mentioned here that rust can build up due to lack of use. They'll still stop in an emergency though but will be noisy.

So it's an improved version of engine braking without the waste. Counter-intuitively it also means that EV's get better economy in stop-start traffic than on the open road. 

I was replying to the post say that you don't need to use the brake pedal to make an emergency stop 

That is true in all modern cars now, surely?

Arunmor

Exodi said:

Arunmor said:

Well looks like the manufacturers in Europe and Japan would disagree with you.  There is a huge amount of smoke and mirrors going on in EV sales.

As for implying 7 cars spontaneously combusted is nonsense, most likely scenario is 1 did.  I very much doubt the transporter was engulfed or a hidden Range Rover diesel!

It also sounded to me like that was what you were implying, given that you specifically referenced the number (it's now 9 now IIRC). If we agree it was most likely caused by one vehicle, there didn't seem to be much point drawing attention to the outcome (though of course in the context of your position, i can understand why you did). ICE vehicles aren't fire-proof either, so I'm sure you would challenge me if I framed the Luton Airport fire as "~1300 ICE up in flames an Luton... and people still think they're safe to drive?"

Plus, for all we know, the transporter could have caused the fire... I don't know, but then neither do you.

ICE cars wouldn't combust on the back of a transporter without a point of ignition.  Whereas EV batteries can whether cell faults or other faults within the battery.

paul_c123

I strongly believe it was the transporter which caught fire initially, but then because it was carrying EVs, these caught fire and are more problematic to put out.

Thinking more deeply about it (and with the well established science of the fire triangle) I think its extremely unlikely an EV would catch fire unless it was either being charged or running at the time (energy source actively converting energy and producing some heat in the process). So they're pretty safe on a car transporter.

Obviously a petrol or diesel vehicle has plenty of heat generated and managed during running and for some significant time period afterwards, and a few different fuel sources (fuel, oil, electrical insulation, plastic trim/body panels etc) so are much more likely to catch fire in the first place, if an ignition source was to occur outside the engine.

Regarding EV fires on transporter ships, the issue is the battery self-oxygenates, so if its breached with sufficient heat, the traditional method of CO2 quenching in a confined space (which is how large ships normally deal with onboard fires in confined areas) is not possible.