Battery Fires

[Ghost1951]

Legal entities known as people, who convert their bikes using kits exist and not in a vaccuum - there are a lot of us, we should be represented at these meetings, and not by largely self-serving manufacturers or lobbyist who usually represents pesticides, big tobacco, big oil or whatever interests he/she/it//WTH/they are normally paid to lobby for. I realise I'm p*ssing into the wind and will probably cease going on about this here soon.

No. DON't Cease going on about it. I REFUSE loudly to be constrained because some people are morons. I REFUSE to have sellers of complete ebikes interfering through their lobbying, to prevent me buying a cheap OPEN Chinese kit of parts to assemble my own e-bike, so they can get more of the market and become richer than they were before. It was I thought normal practice that people with a financial vested interest declare it in political discussion, so they are not able to push regulations in directions which suit them financially.

 

[saneagle]

From what I've seen, the greater number of bikes and scooters that catch fire are illegal regarding riding on the street. The problem of fires would be substantially reduced if they were simply removed. You can see them everywhere in any city, and many of them around any town with big motors and batteries running with massive current. I really surprised that so little has been done about them.

 

[Ghost1951]

From what I've seen, the greater number of bikes and scooters that catch fire are illegal regarding riding on the street. The problem of fires would be substantially reduced if they were simply removed. You can see them everywhere in any city, and many of them around any town with big motors and batteries running with massive current. I really surprised that so little has been done about them.

Completely agree. I see them flying about on pavements with wok sized motors. I have been close passed by them at high speed. They are everywhere and those motors are pulling a lot of amps and probably have VERY hot batteries. The delivery boys will likely be fast charging too so draw your own conclusions about whether they are likely to run into a thermal melt down.

If no law enforcement applies to these, and largely it doesn't, what chance the new nanny state regs will actually be enforced.

When politicians react to the 'something must be done' outcry in response to an incident. I suggest they take a cold bath instead

 

[flecc]

Is there anyone involved in these consultations that would represent the various interests of pedelecs members ?

Given your interest in the above subject, I thought you might like to know about the AVERE organisation (AVERE means to have):

"AVERE is the only European association representing and advocating for electromobility on behalf of the industry, academia, and EV users at both EU and national levels. On top of advocacy, we provide our members with a unique forum for exchanging knowledge, experience, and ideas on how to stimulate electromobility throughout Europe. As a European Federation, we take pride in bringing together the entire e-mobility ecosystem with different members such as National Associations, actors who are active in the charging infrastructure industry and stakeholders who are active on the vehicle side."

https://www.avere.org/

To give an idea of how active they are at a high level, the following is a letter they wrote defending our right to demand fully acting throttles on our EAPCs. It's a tough read!

From: a.roetynck@telenet.be [mailto:a.roetynck@telenet.be]
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 7:40 AM
To: JEAN Philippe (GROW)
Cc: BONVISSUTO Barbara (GROW); GIELEN Guido (GROW); BROERTJES Peter (GROW); Joeri de Ridder; bert.witkamp2

Subject:Amendments and Corrections to L category type approval

Dear Mr Jean,

In January, AVERE has submitted to the European Commission a number of comments on the different legislative texts relating to the type approval. One of our comments concerned Annex X, Appendix 4 of the REPPR. We have argued that the current scope and wording of this appendix is such that vehicles in sub category L1e A equipped with an auxiliary motor but without pedal assistance, the so called “openthrottle” electric bicycles, cannot technically comply. The requirements which we pointed out pertain to pedal assistance, a characteristic which may not be present in an open throttle bicycle. We are very surprised to read the EC’s reply to our comment in the latest list of errors and comments: “when an L1e-A powered cycle is equipped with a throttle it has to comply with this criterion, else the vehicle has to be classified as an L1e B moped complying with point 1.1.2 of Annex XIX to the RVFSR. It means also that L1e-A vehicles, even if these are equipped with a throttle have to comply with the requirements in points 3.1., 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5. and should be designed such that these tests can be performed and shall therefore not be irrelevant for that powered cycle type.”

This means that, according to the Commission, for powered cycles with an open throttle there are two options. One, they are also equipped with pedal assistance in which case they may be type approved according to the requirements above. Two, they have no pedal assistance, in which case they are classified as mopeds L1e-B and have to comply with all type approval requirements for this category. The latter case means that type approval prevents such vehicles from coming on the market since it is impossible for them to technically comply with the moped requirements. In the unlikely situation that a manufacturer of such vehicles would manage to obtain type approval for a moped, this type approval will by no means assure the putting on the market of a safe vehicle. Open throttle electric bicycles without pedal assistance have very similar, if not identical parts and components to pedal assisted L1e-A or L1e-B vehicles. These are subject to specific tests of parts such as frame, forks, etc., tests which will not apply to identical or similar frames of open throttle bicycles classified as L1e-B mopeds.

We are all the more surprised about the EC’s reply since the Commission has confirmed in an email of 5 July 2013 to ETRA that open throttle bicycles will be considered to be categorised in L1e-A. Below we send you a copy of this correspondence. As the Secretary General of ETRA, Annick Roetynck who is currently AVERE LEV Policy Manager, explicitly asked for this confirmation because the introduction of factor 4 for pedal assisted bicycles caused exactly the problem brought to your attention in this mail for open throttle bicycles. This was only one of several objections ETRA had against the introduction of factor ‘four’. The Commission and ETRA reached an agreement which included 2 elements to compensate for the inclusion of factor ‘four’ : categorisation of open throttle bicycles as L1e-A and the addition of a preamble to the Regulation guaranteeing further research into factor ‘four’.

In view of all the above, we would very much appreciate your reply to our following questions. What is the reason for the Commission changing position on the subject of “open throttle bicycles”? Such vehicles do have a real market potential for instance with elderly people, physically impaired people, delivery services, etc. What is the reason for establishing a type approval that prevents these vehicles from coming on the market by imposing type approval rules which are impossible to achieve, whilst at the same time not guaranteeing a safe vehicle? Should the safety of the vehicle not be the one and only factor determining type approval requirements? In the meantime, Avere urges the Commission to introduce the amendments to Annex X, Appendix 4 of the REPPR as proposed in order to allow type approval of "open throttle" bicycles in category L1e-A. Alternatively, should there be a proposal not to apply factor 4 and switch off distance requirements to the L1e-A category in general, then of course AVERE supports such a proposal. As mentioned, the agreement with ETRA included 2 elements. As for the second element, the preamble, we are also very surprised to read the Commission’s “ok” to CONEBI’s proposal to delete this preamble following a report from the University of Hannover Harburg. Apart from the fact that we have not had sufficient time yet to study this report and to consult in depth with other academic sources on this issue, we do not agree that this report can qualify as the necessary “further scientific research and assessment”. Also, the preamble states: “(...) scientific data and statistics on vehicles placed on the market”. From our first reading of this report we conclude that there is no mention of any statistics on vehicles placed on the market. It is far too early to have any relevant statistics on such vehicles since the requirement of factor 4 has only taken effect since beginning last year and the number of vehicles concerned on the market is still too limited to be relevant.

In the meantime, we have submitted the Hannover Harburg report to competent departments at the VUB and at KUL Campus Gent. In their preliminary analysis, both universities, independently from each other, conclude that the Hannover-Harburg report does not provide sufficient solid arguments to conclude that factor 4 is necessary for safety and that further scientific research is required. Herewith attached, we send you these preliminary analyses. Unfortunately, we have not yet had the time to translate the analysis from KUL Campus Gent in English. We send you the Dutch version since Mr Gielen and Mr Broertjes are able to read thisdocument. We will send you the translation next week. On the basis of these two documents, AVERE urges the Commission not to delete the preamble yet but to allow more time for further scientific research and assessment. We are confident that the VUB and KUL Campus Gent are prepared to further participate in this process.

Unfortunately, we are unable to attend the motorcycle working group meeting of 14 April. However, we are at your disposal for a bilateral meeting any time as of 20th April. Looking forward to receiving your reply.

Yours Sincerely,


Joeri de Ridder,
AVERE President

Annick Roetynck,
AVERE LEV Policy Manager
.

 

[Wisper Bikes]

Given your interest in the above subject, I thought you might like to know about the AVERE organisation (AVERE means to have):

"AVERE is the only European association representing and advocating for electromobility on behalf of the industry, academia, and EV users at both EU and national levels. On top of advocacy, we provide our members with a unique forum for exchanging knowledge, experience, and ideas on how to stimulate electromobility throughout Europe. As a European Federation, we take pride in bringing together the entire e-mobility ecosystem with different members such as National Associations, actors who are active in the charging infrastructure industry and stakeholders who are active on the vehicle side."

https://www.avere.org/

To give an idea of how active they are at a high level, the following is a letter they wrote defending our right to demand fully acting throttles on our EAPCs. It's a tough read!

From: a.roetynck@telenet.be [mailto:a.roetynck@telenet.be]
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 7:40 AM
To: JEAN Philippe (GROW)
Cc: BONVISSUTO Barbara (GROW); GIELEN Guido (GROW); BROERTJES Peter (GROW); Joeri de Ridder; bert.witkamp2

Subject:Amendments and Corrections to L category type approval

Dear Mr Jean,

In January, AVERE has submitted to the European Commission a number of comments on the different legislative texts relating to the type approval. One of our comments concerned Annex X, Appendix 4 of the REPPR. We have argued that the current scope and wording of this appendix is such that vehicles in sub category L1e A equipped with an auxiliary motor but without pedal assistance, the so called “openthrottle” electric bicycles, cannot technically comply. The requirements which we pointed out pertain to pedal assistance, a characteristic which may not be present in an open throttle bicycle. We are very surprised to read the EC’s reply to our comment in the latest list of errors and comments: “when an L1e-A powered cycle is equipped with a throttle it has to comply with this criterion, else the vehicle has to be classified as an L1e B moped complying with point 1.1.2 of Annex XIX to the RVFSR. It means also that L1e-A vehicles, even if these are equipped with a throttle have to comply with the requirements in points 3.1., 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5. and should be designed such that these tests can be performed and shall therefore not be irrelevant for that powered cycle type.”

This means that, according to the Commission, for powered cycles with an open throttle there are two options. One, they are also equipped with pedal assistance in which case they may be type approved according to the requirements above. Two, they have no pedal assistance, in which case they are classified as mopeds L1e-B and have to comply with all type approval requirements for this category. The latter case means that type approval prevents such vehicles from coming on the market since it is impossible for them to technically comply with the moped requirements. In the unlikely situation that a manufacturer of such vehicles would manage to obtain type approval for a moped, this type approval will by no means assure the putting on the market of a safe vehicle. Open throttle electric bicycles without pedal assistance have very similar, if not identical parts and components to pedal assisted L1e-A or L1e-B vehicles. These are subject to specific tests of parts such as frame, forks, etc., tests which will not apply to identical or similar frames of open throttle bicycles classified as L1e-B mopeds.

We are all the more surprised about the EC’s reply since the Commission has confirmed in an email of 5 July 2013 to ETRA that open throttle bicycles will be considered to be categorised in L1e-A. Below we send you a copy of this correspondence. As the Secretary General of ETRA, Annick Roetynck who is currently AVERE LEV Policy Manager, explicitly asked for this confirmation because the introduction of factor 4 for pedal assisted bicycles caused exactly the problem brought to your attention in this mail for open throttle bicycles. This was only one of several objections ETRA had against the introduction of factor ‘four’. The Commission and ETRA reached an agreement which included 2 elements to compensate for the inclusion of factor ‘four’ : categorisation of open throttle bicycles as L1e-A and the addition of a preamble to the Regulation guaranteeing further research into factor ‘four’.

In view of all the above, we would very much appreciate your reply to our following questions. What is the reason for the Commission changing position on the subject of “open throttle bicycles”? Such vehicles do have a real market potential for instance with elderly people, physically impaired people, delivery services, etc. What is the reason for establishing a type approval that prevents these vehicles from coming on the market by imposing type approval rules which are impossible to achieve, whilst at the same time not guaranteeing a safe vehicle? Should the safety of the vehicle not be the one and only factor determining type approval requirements? In the meantime, Avere urges the Commission to introduce the amendments to Annex X, Appendix 4 of the REPPR as proposed in order to allow type approval of "open throttle" bicycles in category L1e-A. Alternatively, should there be a proposal not to apply factor 4 and switch off distance requirements to the L1e-A category in general, then of course AVERE supports such a proposal. As mentioned, the agreement with ETRA included 2 elements. As for the second element, the preamble, we are also very surprised to read the Commission’s “ok” to CONEBI’s proposal to delete this preamble following a report from the University of Hannover Harburg. Apart from the fact that we have not had sufficient time yet to study this report and to consult in depth with other academic sources on this issue, we do not agree that this report can qualify as the necessary “further scientific research and assessment”. Also, the preamble states: “(...) scientific data and statistics on vehicles placed on the market”. From our first reading of this report we conclude that there is no mention of any statistics on vehicles placed on the market. It is far too early to have any relevant statistics on such vehicles since the requirement of factor 4 has only taken effect since beginning last year and the number of vehicles concerned on the market is still too limited to be relevant.

In the meantime, we have submitted the Hannover Harburg report to competent departments at the VUB and at KUL Campus Gent. In their preliminary analysis, both universities, independently from each other, conclude that the Hannover-Harburg report does not provide sufficient solid arguments to conclude that factor 4 is necessary for safety and that further scientific research is required. Herewith attached, we send you these preliminary analyses. Unfortunately, we have not yet had the time to translate the analysis from KUL Campus Gent in English. We send you the Dutch version since Mr Gielen and Mr Broertjes are able to read thisdocument. We will send you the translation next week. On the basis of these two documents, AVERE urges the Commission not to delete the preamble yet but to allow more time for further scientific research and assessment. We are confident that the VUB and KUL Campus Gent are prepared to further participate in this process.

Unfortunately, we are unable to attend the motorcycle working group meeting of 14 April. However, we are at your disposal for a bilateral meeting any time as of 20th April. Looking forward to receiving your reply.

Yours Sincerely,


Joeri de Ridder,
AVERE President

Annick Roetynck,
AVERE LEV Policy Manager
.

We are members of LEVA EU, Annick is the general secretary and a freind.

We have fought many battles together including trying to stop the anti dumping measures, pushing for the use of throttles and questioning whether or not the Machinery Directive is necessary.

She is anti the control of the industry by the big players, and very vocal constructing strong arguments.

If there are questions Pedelecs members would like me to put to her regarding battery safety regulation, I’d be very happy to assist.

All the best, David

 

[flecc]

We are members of LEVA EU, Annick is the general secretary and a freind.

We have fought many battles together including trying to stop the anti dumping measures, pushing for the use of throttles and questioning whether or not the Machinery Directive is necessary.

She is anti the control of the industry by the big players, and very vocal constructing strong arguments.

If there are questions Pedelecs members would like me to put to her regarding battery safety regulation, I’d be very happy to assist.

All the best, David

Thanks David. Yes I well remember your long fight against the EU anti-dumping measures.
.

 

[lenny]

As a matter of interest we are not anti kits, just anti dangerous kits.

"Kent Fire and Rescue Service believe that the fire in St Margaret's Banks on July 18th was started when sunlight bounced off a vanity mirror and onto the pair's bedroom curtains. "

Couple warn to keep reflective surfaces away from direct sunlight

Sam and Michael from Rochester, Kent, were at home when a devastating blaze broke out. Crews believe it may have started because of a bedroom mirror reflecting the sun.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[lenny]

Northbrook Road, Ilford fire: Baby thrown from window

""In this case, the e-bike was not on charge but it was stored by the front door, which impeded the occupants’ escape. "

Baby thrown from window as 10 escape 'ferocious' fire caused by e-bike battery

A baby was thrown out of a window and a woman jumped from a first floor as flames and smoke ripped through a house after a e-bike battery…

www.ilfordrecorder.co.uk

 

[lenny]

Is this right?

"If all Li-ion were replaced with LiFePO4 ebike fires would cease."

Figures here suggest that the space for a 500Wh Li-ion battery would hold about 450Wh of LiFePO4.

https://ecotreelithium.co.uk/news/lifepo4-battery-energy-density/

"Many Chinese urban districts have banned the charging of lithium-ion vehicle batteries indoors. "

UK government to bring in lithium-ion battery fire safety bill - Best Magazine

In its legislative programme, the UK’s new Labour government said it would bring in a Product Safety and Metrology Bill that would address new challenges such

www.bestmag.co.uk

 

[Wisper Bikes]

“Batteries can fail if they have been built poorly, are fake or counterfeit, are damaged, overcharged or the incorrect charger is used.”

 

[AntonyC]

If it fails through reasonable consumer misuse I think of a battery as poorly built, as in the case of falling from hand height, overcharging or an incorrect charger.

Would the bodies working on regulation be open to viewing it this way? It would make for easier and safer solutions.

 

[lenny]

Currently the move is towards the electronics system on each and every bike model being separately certified, at extortionately high cost. We with the BGAB are opposed to this and believe that a closed ebike electronics system should be tested and certified so we can use on multiple models or indeed as a kit. Anyone wanting to create their own closed system would need to go through the same certification process that would be prohibitively expensive.

If there are questions Pedelecs members would like me to put to her regarding battery safety regulation, I’d be very happy to assist.

I wouldn't buy a bike with proprietary technology. Cheap or expensive it is a false economy. Buy a bike which you can repair and expect to be able to buy spare parts in the future.

I know nothing about them and less about the brand of mid motor (particularly if they are self repairable or tied up in CANbus proprietary nonsense)

Proprietary bikes like Bosh, Gazelle , Yamaha , Giant and others use CANbus or other hand shaking electrics to confirm thta only a correct battery type is used. These will also have extra wire inputs for the communications.

4) no proprietary tech to stop upgrades/fixes or time out with warranty ending

Your Giant is using proprietary technology. Expensive to buy and expensive to service/repair.

Useless range in a couple of years? Highly likely expensive impossible to repair proprietary communication locked to hell protocol batteries, they always seem to be in electric cars.

While the connections may not be fully proprietary the battery and controller case is so it would be difficult to do. I feel if you have space you would be better off getting another bike and converting that to an ebike.

Much better components, but proprietary technology.

though I'd be slightly wary as
(a) they have stooped manufacturing
(b) they use a proprietary system (Mahle SmartBike Systems X35+, 250W, Max Torque: 40Nm with Islabikes tune)

I'm fortunate in that someone 'gifted' me a TSDZ2 (they sold their soul to a Bosch fitted machine) so I have a complete spare, but TBH buying a complete TSDZ2 to keep as a spare is really not a bad option and cost effective given the costs faced by those with proprietary systems.

How old is the battery?
Maybe instead of resuscitation it would make more sense just to buy a new one? Prices of batteries are now at lowest level I have seen. Is Pendleton using generic battery or proprietary?

If conversion is on the table a mid drive motor might be a viable option .. (off the shelf mid drives are invariably locked up with proprietary tech) both Bafang and TDZ have powerful 250w mid drive motors and these can climb hills better by using the bikes gears,, Woosh is a uk mid drive kit supplier, as well as 48v hub drive systems..

Basically, you have a proprietary bike with proprietary parts, which makes changing things really tricky. That's why I always recommend that if you want that type of bike, you should get a standard Chinese one, where you can hack, change and upgrade everything.

 

[guerney]

I along with many ebike brands, there were 42 of us at a meeting regarding battery fires on Tuesday, are busy trying to find a method of accreditation to differentiate bikes with tested systems from systems cobbled together often by people who don’t understand basic electronics. It seems that nearly all battery fires take place in batteries that are bought separately to the rest of the electronics system. Most of the remaining fires are caused when a component such as a controller or more importantly a charger is purchased from a third party and is not compatible with the system.

Currently the move is towards the electronics system on each and every bike model being separately certified, at extortionately high cost. We with the BGAB are opposed to this and believe that a closed ebike electronics system should be tested and certified so we can use on multiple models or indeed as a kit. Anyone wanting to create their own closed system would need to go through the same certification process that would be prohibitively expensive.

We understand that there are some very highly qualified and competent electronics engineers putting safe systems together, however most are not. The number of fires occurring in bike batteries in the food delivery industry backs this up.

Unfortunately for those competent system builders out there, legislators have to consider the LCD which means the scope to design and build one’s own ebike system (not unlike chemists building and setting off their own fireworks in public spaces) will eventually become illegal.

All the best, David

What's the timeline of this project? What are the milestones?

The amount of e-waste we throw into landfill to poison us and future generations is apalling. Will the BMSs be easily replaceable, or like Bosch, will the entire battery pack be thrown into landfill when the BMS fails, even if the battery pack has shown no signs of failure: overheating, severely out of balance cells etc?

Safety rules for e-bikes to stop them from catching fire. We can guess what sort of things will be in them. Some or all of these:
1. Voltage specific connectors to stop people plugging a 48v charger into a 36v battery.
2. Charger tied to specific battery or battery type by comms, so that the charger only works for that type of battery.
3. EC testing and marking of all batteries.
4. Wires from the batteries have to be fixed and guarded (trunking).
5. System has to be tamper-proof. No possibility to swap controllers or batteries. Possibly to be locked by comms.
6. Only certified cells to be used.
7. Temperature control by BMS mandatory with at least two sensors.
etc.

6. Only certified cells to be used.

Perhaps certain certified BMSs should only be used with certain configurations of certified packs composed of certain certified cells? Rather a lot of sellers of cheap Chinese celled battery packs lie about what continuous current discharge they're capable of, are sold with inappropriate BMSs installed, leading to stressed batttery packs which fail early - a notable example was Billyboya's, which failed after a couple of months use with his eRider moped.

Might just mean no diy tampering of UK only OEM bikes but doesn't stop one from swapping out complete systems for a KT one . KT for instance aren't going to panda/adopt UK big brother do as I say reg's.

They'll outlaw KT kits, as they have those dangerous UPP batteries?

 

[Nealh]

KT don't sell full kits with batteries , they simply supply the electric systems or parts sans any battery. OEM or third party sales.

 

[Nealh]

They will have to legislate to ban any kit bikes or alter the EAPC legislation to do so.
Those who already have kits will be unaffected as any legislation will be post dated so us guys will simply buy or make sure we have spares pre any legislation that might take effect.
It simply won't happen, the UK will be the odd man out .

 

[guerney]

KT don't sell full kits with batteries , they simply supply the electric systems or parts sans any battery. OEM or third party sales.

It does sound as though the era of relatively open kits is coming to a end.

 

[guerney]

They will have to legislate to ban any kit bikes or alter the EAPC legislation to do so.

Post Brexit, they are free to legislate however they like.

 

[Nealh]

It does sound as though the era of relatively open kits is coming to a end.

I doubt it , unless all of the china producers fall in line to keep the UK & EU happy, their biggets market is USA and other countries who have little ebike restriction.

 

[guerney]

I doubt it , unless all of the china producers fall in line to keep the UK & EU happy, their biggets market is USA and other countries who have little ebike restriction.

I expect as usual, they'll keep the price of law enforcement low by illegalising non-proprietary kits, but not blocking sales to the UK of KT and other kits much. Get caught with one on the road, be fined?

Those who already have kits will be unaffected as any legislation will be post dated so us guys will simply buy or make sure we have spares pre any legislation that might take effect.

How long can hoarding work for us? Spare controllers BMs etc. might keep for up to 10 years, but spare batteries won't.

It simply won't happen, the UK will be the odd man out .

Post Brexit we're free to be the odd man out, and this consortium of vested interests appear to be determined to lock everything down and illegalise everything else.

 

[Nealh]

You guys running BBS mid motors will see more comm's restriction before hub kits.

The main issue with kit /battrey fires is as we know the dodgy set ups we all see from the fast food boat riders we see riding around. 25 /30 mph with no pedalling , riding paths and constantly red lighting signals .
They just don't give a fig and if stopped will wave the discrimination flag.

Gov't don't need to legislate against batteries they need to send plod in force for a month to every fast food joint and confiscate and nick all the illegal riders, they will illegal in two ways .
1. Riding a moped unregistered &
2. Being in the country illegally and working claiming asylum or what ever when they shouldn't be.
The fast food industry needs to clean itself up big time and is overdue legislation on the riders it employs using these death traps.