Tesla S

[Dieselman]

It seems to me that there is a fundamental conceptual difference between ICE cars and EVs when it comes to fires.

To get petrol to light you need to puncture the (well protected) tank, let the fuel mix liberally with oxygen and then give it a source of igniton - all quite feasible in a serious crash but car fires are by no means a given in a serious crash because the source of ignition is often missing (and tanks don't often rupture in the first place). In other words, an ICE car is a massive source of fuel but not much in the way of ignition.

But the difference with an EV is that the battery pack is an excellent source of the ignition that every fire needs to get started. All you need is to bring the positive and negative of a cell together to set things off, perhaps through distortion of the battery cases (in an accident) or simply by providing plenty of water to the battery array. I don't know if the battery packs also make an excellent fuel supply for the fire, but I suspect they are not anyway near as flammable as a good 50 litres of liberally sprayed petrol.

In other words, the EV is a massive source of ignition but not much fuel for a fire.

I guess that means that the EV is in theory more vulnerable to catching alight, but much safer in that the fire will not be anyway near as furious (as previously pointed out).

The bit in your post about electric car fires being slower is correct, however the part about them being more likely to catch fire isn't.

“The odds of fire in a Model S, at roughly 1 in 8,000 vehicles, are five times lower than those of an average gasoline car and, when a fire does occur, the actual combustion potential is comparatively small,” Musk said in a March 28 statement.

There were 172,500 vehicle fires in the U.S. in 2012, resulting in 300 deaths, according to National Fire Protection Association data. None of the fatalities involved electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles, said Grant.

Gasoline fires can happen much faster, said Dan Doughty, a former Sandia National Laboratory scientist who now runs Battery Safety Consulting Inc. in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Battery fires have a longer “induction period,” Doughty said in a phone interview. “Gasoline is always ready to go. Introduce a spark and oxygen and it will go up.”

With electric vehicles, “the delay can be because the battery experiences a short circuit and responds by dumping a lot of high current very quickly,” he said. “That high current causes resistive heating in the cells and eventually leads to ‘thermal runaway,’ but it can take a little while.”

Tesla’s Model S safety claims don’t appear to be wrong, based on accident data so far, Grant said. “But it’s also too early and there’s too little information” to make a conclusive statement, he said.

Stolen Tesla Motors Inc car?s fatality-free L.A. crash surprises safety experts | Financial Post

 

[219]

As opposed to a petrol car that is sitting on 20 gallons of explosive fuel?

I did comment on that back in post 212 .

I don't see that many burnt out cars resulting from crashes ; if fire does occur non-deliberately , it is usually as a result of an electrical fault , often involving the car battery being shorted out ; I have seen a number of fires involving the engine bay of cars where the battery shorted out , not always following a crash .

I've only been at one crash involving a petrol car which was in a high speed crash , turned over , resulting in fuel being spilled and catching alight , I don't know what ignited it .

On the other hand , cars are frequently set alight deliberately using petrol , only the criminal elements often have no conception of fuel/air mixtures and often get it wrong .

 

[219]

Plenty of Mercs have gone up in flames, but I know of one W211 that burned out entering the dealers premises...right in front of the showroom...Everyone was watching...Class.

Plenty of all makes of cars have gone up in flames , and I'd hazard a guess that the most common cause is electrical faults , with fuel sometimes becoming involved as a secondary issue , petrol cars being much more likely to go big time than Diesel ones , due to the different volatility of the fuel and greater ease of ignition , although both can burn given the right conditions .

One of my Triumph Heralds did its best to catch fire as smoke started billowing from behind the dash as I drove along , but I managed to stop and disconnect the battery in time .

Similarly with my Ponton , but it happened as I was starting the car and , again , I caught it in time . Both of these instances were 'old car' issues due to ageing wiring looms .

I've seen first hand two Audis with engine bay fires caused by the battery terminals shorting against the bulkheads , made me think 'design flaw' .

All this talk of electrical fires in EV's was just me wondering , purely because of my experience of electrical fires in fossil fuelled cars and my notion that , put simply , the bigger the battery , the more potential for the energy stored within to discharge under the wrong conditions and cause a fire .

I'd hope the design engineers are aware of the dangers and allow for them .

I'm all for EV's , as long as they are properly engineered .

 

[markjay]

Perhaps there are specific fire risks relating to EVs, but at least there is no hot exhaust to ignite leaking fuel or oil (and obviously there is no fuel or oil either....)

 

[Dieselman]

I'd hope the design engineers are aware of the dangers and allow for them .

I'm all for EV's , as long as they are properly engineered .

Well, seeing as the Tesla-S was just knocked up in a shed by a couple of blokes back from the pub, I'd say they probably didn't think about such things as electrical shorts...after all, doesn't the passenger have to carry the battery on their lap?

 

[prprandall51]

Well, seeing as the Tesla-S was just knocked up in a shed by a couple of blokes back from the pub, I'd say they probably didn't think about such things as electrical shorts...after all, doesn't the passenger have to carry the battery on their lap?

Seeing as Lamborghini and Ferrari can still make cars that spontaneously combust, and GM can make ignition switches that - even by their own admission - cause fatal accidents, and Ford can make a fuel tank that punctures in even a relatively minor rear accident, then I would not make any assumptions about the ability of any automotive manufacturer to have thought through every aspect of a design.

 

[219]

Well, seeing as the Tesla-S was just knocked up in a shed by a couple of blokes back from the pub, I'd say they probably didn't think about such things as electrical shorts...after all, doesn't the passenger have to carry the battery on their lap?

Were those couple of blokes called Clarkson and Hammond ?

 

[John Jones Jr]

Five days & 247 posts in. So, the question I got ask is: Who's actually buying one, Dieselman?

 

[RWDpetrol]

My money is on Diesleman getting a diesel CLS.

 

[Dieselman]

Five days & 247 posts in. So, the question I got ask is: Who's actually buying one, Dieselman?

Good question.

Not sure about doing anything right now. I really like the Tesla but due to the high price and there not being a proper payback method for fuel usage, it looks a bit of a non starter for business use, for me.

My money is on Diesleman getting a diesel CLS.

Possible.

 

[nb_racing]

Here's another angle on the fire debate, food for thought;
As James May disscussed on one of his many infotainment telly shows a while back, in our modern day world of health and safety and litigation, if someone came up with the concept of the motor car as we know it today and for the past 100 odd years, would it actaully take off: the typical car, a 1500kg metal box almost entirely controlled by a human, free to drive as they wish, where they wish, at any speed they wish. The car is powered by a highly flammable liquid dispensed for every other street corner by a hose with no real controlled usage. Would this concept take off?

Joined with this thought:
We are on the brink of electric vehicle explosion (no pun intended), and there are questions over the safety of the batteries, questions about fire as is being discussed here right now. Which is all well and fine.

So,
Because we live in this world obsessed with health and safety and litigation, we are naturally wary of these potential problems withe electric cars. But the world is happy for us to use petrol stations and carry around 10 or 20 gallons of the stuff at 70mph; why? because we always have done, and no-one can can every 'stop' the use of cars.

What i'm trying to say is, both ICE and EV have inherant saftey concerns when you look at them on paper. But because we have always accepted ICE cars we don't think about the fire saftey issue, we just get on with it. With the new technology, we are naturally wary of the potential fire issues because it is a new revolution, a major evolution, and, crucially, it has happened in a different world to the mass marketing of petrol cars.

I hope that makes sense. Just food for thought. Or drivel...

 

[ItalianTuneUp]

The rate will be set to bring in equivalent or greater levels of revenue that are currently derived from hydrocarbon fuel taxes, and the method will be GPS-based road charging. Why do you think HMG keeps trying to convince the electorate that road charging is an essential part of managing our transport infrastructure, and why do you think Europe as a whole have invested in the Galileo project?

Just to back up and complement your quote above:

Galileo: What does a more accurate sat-nav system mean?


"
With the planned launch of two satellites aboard a Soyuz rocket from French Guiana later this month, Europe is pushing ahead with its own satellite-navigation system, known as Galileo.

It promises much great accuracy in locating where we or objects are on the planet and could have a profound effect on how we live our lives.
So far we've used the US GPS (Global Positioning System) which is accurate up to a few metres. Galileo has the potential to offer accuracy up to a few centimetres.

The potential practical benefits of more accurate navigation include driverless cars, more flexible charging systems on toll motorways, more efficient air traffic control, more accurate navigation for ships, and even helping blind people get around cities.
"

source: BBC News - Galileo: What does a more accurate sat-nav system mean?

Let's enjoy our relative road freedom now before we're charged per mile (on top of fuel/electric charges) to drive on our roads.

 

[ItalianTuneUp]

Here's another angle on the fire debate, food for thought;
As James May disscussed on one of his many infotainment telly shows a while back, in our modern day world of health and safety and litigation, if someone came up with the concept of the motor car as we know it today and for the past 100 odd years, would it actaully take off: the typical car, a 1500kg metal box almost entirely controlled by a human, free to drive as they wish, where they wish, at any speed they wish. The car is powered by a highly flammable liquid dispensed for every other street corner by a hose with no real controlled usage. Would this concept take off?

Joined with this thought:
We are on the brink of electric vehicle explosion (no pun intended), and there are questions over the safety of the batteries, questions about fire as is being discussed here right now. Which is all well and fine.

So,
Because we live in this world obsessed with health and safety and litigation, we are naturally wary of these potential problems withe electric cars. But the world is happy for us to use petrol stations and carry around 10 or 20 gallons of the stuff at 70mph; why? because we always have done, and no-one can can every 'stop' the use of cars.

What i'm trying to say is, both ICE and EV have inherant saftey concerns when you look at them on paper. But because we have always accepted ICE cars we don't think about the fire saftey issue, we just get on with it. With the new technology, we are naturally wary of the potential fire issues because it is a new revolution, a major evolution, and, crucially, it has happened in a different world to the mass marketing of petrol cars.

I hope that makes sense. Just food for thought. Or drivel...

All good points, and no, not drivel at all

My 2 cents worth would be simply to say that it's because we don't often see fires or explosions, due to years of engineering and safety work with ICE cars, that enables us to 'just get on with it'. Electric cars will reach that level of safety one day too...it just takes years of finding issues, reporting them and then re-engineering to fix them. Rome wasn't built in a day

 

[grober]

While safety developments have markedly reduced the hazards of fuel in ICE cars its probably fair to say that they still present a greater hazard than EVs That's not to say that Electric vehicles are not entirely hazard free either as their manufacturers might like us to believe. The inherent problem with cars is that by nature they have to contain a concentrated source of energy to propel themselves and their passengers to the destination. Where problems arise is the sudden uncontrollable release of this energy so this must apply to any "car" no matter what its energy source. I get the impression that in general there is a consensus about the hazards of EVs. What I find far more fascinating and more of a mystery is exactly how EV's can hope to make money if they are not " vehicles" forgive the pun, that don't extract revenue from their owners in some shape or form. Organisations that give away free energy simply don't exist in our capitalist society. We constantly fight wars over energy! With ICE for the majority its pretty simple--- you titrate a certain volume of fuel into your car - then money or facimile of same- credit card- account etc changes hands- a fairly easily understood transaction has taken place. With EV vehicles things remain slightly " murky" How exactly people pay for their energy remains unclear.

Its Tesla supercharge filling station a few years down the line- after queuing for 1/2 an hour you plug your car into the "free " supercharge point.

Welcome Mr Smith and " Maurice" here at Tesla we like to give all our cars names and we have detected from your other purchases on your credit card you have an "alternative" life style. Unfortunately we have detected Maurice is running Supercharge Vista. We no longer support Supercharge Vista as our fuelling system. You can however upgrade to Supercharge 8+1 for a small additional charge of £750.
Please note that full charging rates will not be available unless Supercharge 8+1 is used with our new quad powerpipe charging unit available at your local Tesla dealer for £1500.
Remember every day at Tesla is a free fuel day and as we like to say here at Tesla - Hasta la vista Baby

 

[wemorgan]

IMHO most people will charge at home where it is paid for. The free charge points are small incentives similar to fuel vouchers given at supermarkets.

 

[grober]

IMHO most people will charge at home where it is paid for. The free charge points are small incentives similar to fuel vouchers given at supermarkets.

AGREED but how long before government, the big 6 power companies and the car manufacturers get together to work out an industry standard power point to charge your car at home- needless to say metered at a different rate from your domestic electricity.

The Domestic Motivation Power Act of 2020.

It shall be an offence to keep/charge a vehicle designed to be powered by rechargeable batteries at an address other than the vehicle registered address. Said vehicle must be charged via the approved charge point sealed by the official HM Customs and Excise wired seal. Any domestic premises found in breach of said conditions will be assumed to have used all domestic electricity for the charging of said vehicles and billed accordingly and any vehicles on the premises forfeit. ----- type of thing.
All I am saying is that at present despite the less than transparent costs of running an electric car they may well make sense-- in the short term. However when sufficient people buy them to make inroads into government taxation revenues or place too much demand on existing power generation infrastructure will be the point when they may begin not to make sense ?

Failing that there's always road charging as st13phil has already mentioned. As one Daniel Defoe said "Nothing is certain but death and taxes" although its evident he never visited Lichtenstein

 

[nb_racing]

Agreed as well.
I touched on this thought a few pages back.
Should the EV revolution take off, homes will be installed with a second meter from which your car is charged. This meter would be subject to the same laws as your domestic meter, ie it is illegal to tamper with it. The government will come up with fancy words to justifty taxing the electricity so the end user pays 4 or 5 times the price of the electricity powering your home. 5 years later we end up paying the same on day to day running costs vs ICE cars.

Just more of my thoughts.

 

[John Jones Jr]

5 years later we end up paying the same on day to day running costs vs ICE cars.

Without a shadow of doubt.

 

[wemorgan]

5 years later we end up paying the same on day to day running costs vs ICE cars.

Then by the same time it's likely ICE will be x5 more expensive than EV to run. IMHO energy costs are only going to rise over time. Becoming more efficient isn't only about saving money, but it's a natural instinct displayed across all engineering and other disciplines. Don't fight it, embrace it.

 

[ItalianTuneUp]

All good and interesting points here.

Considering that the 'green system' ('climate change' / eco transition from oil etc) is being endorsed & bankrolled by the Rockefeller (oil: Standard Oil: Esso etc) & Rothschild (banking) family dynasties, it's probably just keeping vehicle energy supply (EVs now) 'in the family', so to speak: a transition for them from oil profits to electricity profits (eco taxes etc). The price point set for the energy, acts as an accelerator or brake on our economies (to enable expansion or cause contraction as 'required'...along with money supply).

For proof of their involvement, see the following vid - I'm surprised it hasn't been removed yet:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUdgiehz9dU

grober: isn't the system we currently live under called 'communitarianism'? Supposedly a mix of the best bits of capitalism and the best bits of socialism/communism... 'the third way', no?:
Communitarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://nord.twu.net/acl/research/thirdway.html

http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/reinventing-government/third_way.htm