Battery Fires
- Thread starter saneagle
- Start date
I just looked at a bit of data and established that there are approximately 40 times as many ICE cars on the road as EVs. It's only since 2020 that EV sales started to pickup and the average age of all ICE cars on the road is approximately 10 years old, so there are as many ICE cars sold before 2015 as there have been since, and still on the road.
When they say that incidents of ICE vehicles catching fire is 5 times the chance of an EV, and taking into consideration how many of each are on the road, that would mean if you're sitting in an EV, the chance of a fire would be 8 times more likely than if you were sitting an any random ICE car, who's age is 78.2% likely to be in the range 12.5 years to 7.5 years.
Additional to that, you have to consider how well the cars are looked after. 20 year old cars could be full of bodges done by various owners over the years, when they installed various electrical accessories, chipped their ECUs, fitted non-standard exhausts and did various other "go faster" modifications. EVs would generally be left alone, partly because they're newer (about 2 years old average), and partly because they're more likely to be only dealer serviced, as the majority are/were on leases.
I'm no expert, but I would assume that the average 10 year old ICE car would be more likely to catch fire than a 2 year old one. We can only guess at the difference. What would you say - twice as much? If you went with twice as much, that would mean 16 times as much chance of a fire from any random EV compared with any random ICE car of the same age.
We all know that the internal resistance of battery cells increases as they wear out. Does that mean that EV batteries would run hotter as they age, or can all cooling systems cope with that? In other words are fires more likely in old EVs compared with modern ones and how will that change in the future?
To be honest, I don't care about any of that because the overall risk is low. I do, however have one major concern, which is increasing every day. When EVs catch fire, the flames flare out and set fire to anything around them. When we get to the day that every car in the carpark is an EV and one catches fire, surely, the whole carpark will go up in flames. This is what's happened on cargo boats transporting EVs and road transporters. You can probably include to an extent Luton Airport too. At the moment, if an EV goes off, it might set light to the ICE cars around it, but that's as far as it would go. If you look at what happens in battery storage for powerplants, when one module goes off, it sets lights to all the ones around it, and the fire becomes unstoppable. Now, they're building them with space and walls around each module to stop the fire from spreading. Would they have to do the same in a car park, like walls and space between the bays? That would be a massive problem because there's hardly enough parking space already. It could, of course, be solved if there would be a lot fewer cars requiring parking space.
I reckon the probability is about the same. Consider that cars may last a million miles and most people would do a fith of that. Factors that may contribute to fire are so widespread that age of the car is one of many.
Quite a lot of EV fires are connected to one particular chemistry. Also, consider how fast battery technology improves, if you buy an EV today or next year, the probability of fire would be tiny. In 5 years, they would be solid state batteries, eliminating practically fire risks.
BTW, why Leicester for the FOI?
Maybe he lives in Leicester. i don't know him, so I can't ask.
I think last time we looked at the causes of car fires, arson was one of the main causes, which brings me to the next question: Are all those Teslas set light to by activists going to be classed as EV fires and appear in the statistics? Everybody on both sides hates Teslas now, so it's going to be fun watching how this all plays out.
You're a bit late mate!
Probably a good idea to delete that post to save boring everybody to death.
it's difficult to start a fire on a car with solid state battery. Lithium-ion batteries has oxygen, solid state batteries don't.
Yes but deliberate fires are separated out:
FIRE0302: Primary fires, fatalities and non-fatal casualties in road vehicles by motive
Fire statistics data tables - GOV.UK
Thanks. It doesn't really help the Tesla drivers, though. If they look at the statistics, which show that the chance of getting burned in an EV is only 0.000335%, while a gang of lunatics dressed in black with ski masks are throwing molatovs at their nice new car that's stuck in a traffic jam.
Revealed: Fires in London sparked by 'dangerous' e-bikes and e-scooters double in three years
Exclusive: Standard investigation uncovers 120 injuries and 3 deaths in the capital linked to vehicles catching alight
"In 2022, firefighters from 31 brigades attended at least 141 fires involving e-scooters and e-bikes, which injured 35 people.
Last year that figure soared to at least 229 fires and 79 injuries."
www.standard.co.uk
Exclusive: Standard investigation uncovers 120 injuries and 3 deaths in the capital linked to vehicles catching alight
"In 2022, firefighters from 31 brigades attended at least 141 fires involving e-scooters and e-bikes, which injured 35 people.
Last year that figure soared to at least 229 fires and 79 injuries."
Revealed: London fires sparked by e-bikes and e-scooters double in three years
Exclusive: Standard investigation uncovers 120 injuries and 3 deaths in the capital linked to vehicles catching alight
www.standard.co.uk
Last edited:
A stupid question, but has anyone tried wargaming what effect potential restrictions will have?
Anecdotally at least, it seems a number of these fires are being caused by riders in the delivery sector, who use their e-bike as a tool of their trade. There are already several problems with that sector:
While I 100% agree there are some simple technical things that can be done to restore confidence in those consumer e-bikes, if there's a corner to be cut in the illegal world it'll be cut. I worry that technical measures improving the 'good' side of the market won't affect the illegal side and won't stop the battery fire headlines.
So do the rules think about what it'll do to the illegal supply chains etc? For example, if a decent BMS was just part of every pack made in China then economies of scale would make it more expensive to make a custom dangerous thing than a commodity safe one and safe would become the norm. But if you do a special UK only standard then there's always AliExpress or more nefarious import routes for the shady supply chain. If Deliveroo clamp down on ebike use, will those couriers just be hired by restaurants directly? etc etc.
When you have an adversary (people cutting corners to make money) you need to think several steps ahead of your next move.
Anecdotally at least, it seems a number of these fires are being caused by riders in the delivery sector, who use their e-bike as a tool of their trade. There are already several problems with that sector:
- Use of throttle e-bikes which are illegal
- People with the right to work in the UK renting out their ID and substituting with people who aren't legally allowed to work
- People delivering without the right to work living in overcrowded conditions, or in a modern slavery situation
- Illegally upgraded bikes they use to to do their job quicker. Since such delivery couriers are not mechanics or electronic engineers, there must be a shady supply chain of people procuring, modifying and maintaining these bikes
While I 100% agree there are some simple technical things that can be done to restore confidence in those consumer e-bikes, if there's a corner to be cut in the illegal world it'll be cut. I worry that technical measures improving the 'good' side of the market won't affect the illegal side and won't stop the battery fire headlines.
So do the rules think about what it'll do to the illegal supply chains etc? For example, if a decent BMS was just part of every pack made in China then economies of scale would make it more expensive to make a custom dangerous thing than a commodity safe one and safe would become the norm. But if you do a special UK only standard then there's always AliExpress or more nefarious import routes for the shady supply chain. If Deliveroo clamp down on ebike use, will those couriers just be hired by restaurants directly? etc etc.
When you have an adversary (people cutting corners to make money) you need to think several steps ahead of your next move.
Last edited:
In the first place, I'd like to see the police enforce the rules more for ebikes. To many of us, it's obvious which ones are illegal, and I see illegal ones nearly every time I ride my bike.
The higher power motors in the illegal bikes put a much higher strain on the battery, which is probably one reason that they're catching fire. Another is that they often have batteries in bags. They look OK when the bike is stationary, but when riding, the battery is jumping about in the bag, which can wear through wires.
The systems in the legal bikes are pretty sound and well thought out, but the problem is quality control. They make mistakes in production that find there way into ebikes, like poorly soldered joints, badly crimped connectors, BMSs that don't always shut down when they should and things like that. In the automobile industry, any safety critical points and controls are indicated in the documentation. For those, the manufacturers must work to a zero defect plan, which involves complicated statistical techniques and robust testing methods. The Chinese factories are a long way behind that, but they are learning and improving all the time. So, IMHO, nobody needs to make stuff more complicated. They just need to make it right.
I saw two ebikes whilst walking in to town end of last week , both were illegal andpretty obvious to a trained eye and knowledge of the law. And you have probably guessed it , both deliveroo type fast food rider.
The YT guy is just an EV hater. He'd ignore petrol/diesel vehicles going up in smoke in any given week and focus only on a single EV that did the same, claiming because of their technology that they are overly dangerous, and should be banned.
Statistics on vehicle fires in the UK per year -
" In the UK, there are roughly 100,000 car fires every year - electric car fires make up a fraction of this figure. "
Statistics on vehicle fires in the UK per year -
" In the UK, there are roughly 100,000 car fires every year - electric car fires make up a fraction of this figure. "
I presume the Warwick Manufacturing Group testing results got posted here? Seems to be the best available broad testing we have on batteries falling into the e-bike and 'other' space:
OPPS / Warwick test
OPPS / Warwick test
A Tesla dealer ship went up in smoke a couple of days ago in Rome, 17 vehicles destroyed .
Cause as yet hasn't been determined though arson is suspected.
Cause as yet hasn't been determined though arson is suspected.
Two people died because of that fire. I don't think it was because somebody hated EVs. That accident showed up an issue that if an EV has a bump in an enclosed carpark, the result can be devastating. As well as the lives lost and injuries, the damage was massive.
If you see a car fire, it's a small chance that it's an EV, but if you're sitting in an EV, there's a 6 times higher chance that it'll catch fire than an ICE one. The figures you quote are unrealistic because it doesn't take into consideration that there are far fewer EVs on the road than ICE ones. The risk of fire is real, and it's really difficult and dangerous to deal with any fire if one starts. That's not hating EVs, just facts. Trying to pretend that there's no issue doesn't help anyone.
I saw a multi-story carpark yesterday that had the EV bays on the top floor in a separate area at the edge, which I though was a good idea at first, but it puts all the EVs together, so if one goes up, it'll take all the others with it, but at least the ICE cars should be OK.
There's a recall on that particular vehicle at the moment and a warning from the manufacturer that the battery might spontaneously catch fire; however, they don't have the capacity and maybe the knowhow to deal with the issue, which is very awkward for them. If I had spent £120k on one of those cars, I wouldn't be very happy.
Post from that forum:
"I’ve posted this elsewhere already, I’m repeating it for anyone who has jumped in part way through this thread, who may not understand how the impact differs by country and even within a country.
One purpose of the ARB6 & 7 recall communications is Porsche seeking to transfer liability for any thermal events (fires) caused by their suppliers defect and their design omission (the absence of monitoring and alerting and fire prevention mechanisms) to owners.
The 80% charge limit (of residual usable capacity) and workshop visits every 60 days are inconveniences, but they’re not fatal - they do not prevent continued use of the product, they just constrain its use.
The ARB6 letter issued to me by Porsche GB relays a UK DVSA requirement “all Battery Electric Vehicle users affected by a safety recall (affecting a high voltage battery) to not charge the vehicle under cover and /or to ensure the vehicle is not parked adjacent to or under buildings whilst charging”. (Others in the UK have received an ARB6 letter without this constraint).
That makes the car unusable. If there’s no safe place to charge it I also can’t get it to the dealer every 60 Days.
Porsche GB & the DVSA are reviewing all of the above and some other ambiguities in the recall letter."
Attachments
Last edited:
So you dont think he is bias, despite his channel being only against EV's and the channel symbol being a pic of a car, with a plug attached, inside a red circle with a line through it.
I mean are you blind, or just being argumentative ?
"A study by the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency backs up Tusker’s findings. It concluded that EVs are 20 times less likely to catch fire than petrol and diesel cars.
With data corroborated from a US insurer, the study found that EVs suffer 25 fires per 100,000 sold.
Petrol or diesel vehicles were found to experience 1,530 fires per 100,000, with hybrid vehicles at a notably higher risk of 3,475 fires per 100,000."
Tusker fleet data reveals the truth about EV fires
The salary sacrifice specialist has analysed data from its fleet to understand if there is any truth behind some of the commonly shared myths surrounding EVs.
www.fleetnews.co.uk
Electric Vehicles Not Guilty Of Excess Short-Term Fire Risk Charges
Data shows EVs are much less likely to burst into flames than ICE vehicles. A clean bill of health? Not quite. EV history is too short for historical comparison.
www.forbes.com
Your assertion that ICE cars are less likely to go up in flames is completely false. Electric cars can certainly go up in flames, but proportionate to their numbers they do it less frequently than petrol and diesel cars - and not by a small margin.
On the other hand - most EV cars are quite new at the moment since the big rise in their popularity is quite recent. Who knows how age may alter the equation?
Those sources you quoted are very misleading with what they tell you. It's the same sort of argument as 40% of accidents involve drunk drivers and 60% don't, therefore you're less likely to have an accident if you're drunk. Clearly that's absurd because it doesn't take account of the ratio of drunk to sober drivers on the road at any time."A study by the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency backs up Tusker’s findings. It concluded that EVs are 20 times less likely to catch fire than petrol and diesel cars.
With data corroborated from a US insurer, the study found that EVs suffer 25 fires per 100,000 sold.
Petrol or diesel vehicles were found to experience 1,530 fires per 100,000, with hybrid vehicles at a notably higher risk of 3,475 fires per 100,000."
.Tusker fleet data reveals the truth about EV fires
The salary sacrifice specialist has analysed data from its fleet to understand if there is any truth behind some of the commonly shared myths surrounding EVs.
Electric Vehicles Not Guilty Of Excess Short-Term Fire Risk Charges
Data shows EVs are much less likely to burst into flames than ICE vehicles. A clean bill of health? Not quite. EV history is too short for historical comparison.
Your assertion that ICE cars are less likely to go up in flames is completely false. Electric cars can certainly go up in flames, but proportionate to their numbers they do it less frequently than petrol and diesel cars - and not by a small margin.
On the other hand - most EV cars are quite new at the moment since the big rise in their popularity is quite recent. Who knows how age may alter the equation?
Let's put it right with simple logic. The average life of an ICE car is 10 years, so there are as many cars on the road between 20 and 10 years old as 10years to new. It's only in the last 5 years that EVs have started to ramp up to around 20% of total sales, so going from 0 to 20% in 5 years is the same as 10% for 5years compared with 15 years at 100% and 5 years of 90% for ICE cars. That means the ratio of EVs on the road to ICE cars is 5/195, or 39 times as many ICE cars as EVs on the road today.
If a single fire in a car is 1/20 the chance of being an EV compared to ICE (disputable, other stats said 1/5), that would mean if you're sitting in an EV, or own one, it's approximately twice as likely to catch fire as an ICE one. (39/20)
Related Articles
-
MTF Enterprises announces acquisition of EMU Electric Bikes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Wisper 806T folding bike wins Which? ‘Best Buy’- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Sustrans calls for protected cycle lanes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Amazon launch their first UK e-cargo micromobility hub- Started by: Pedelecs
