Do I trust your buddy and an HOA full of Karen's, or do I trust a national survey of vehicle fires?

Quote:

---

According to MSB data, there are nearly 611,000 EVs and hybrids in Sweden as of 2022. With an average of 16 EV and hybrid fires per year, there's a 1 in 38,000 chance of fire. There are a total of roughly 4.4 million gas- and diesel-powered passenger vehicles in Sweden, with an average of 3,384 fires per year, for a 1 in 1,300 chance of fire. That means gas- and diesel-powered passenger vehicles are 29 times more likely to catch fire than EVs and hybrids.

---

And no, I won't go to Yahoo. Haven't had that AIDS infected site load on any device I own since I was a pre-teen. Not starting because some 55 year old woman or 60 year old effeminate man trying to tell people how to paint their fence saw a story about a car fire on the evening news and decided the best thing to do with dues is give it to a lawyer.

What isn't captured in that data is that nearly all early electric vehicles were produced using high nickel batteries that are significantly more volatile than the industry trend of putting LFP batteries in more and more models. It was a misunderstanding of the capability of LFP batteries and how efficiently you could build an EV, and is presently a crutch used by non-Tesla manufacturers as they figure out how to build more efficient EVs.

Teslag said:

---

fullback44 said:

---

No EV bro .. don't be be lazy and look up the facts .. I don't need to show those that are too lazy to look it up when it's right in front of you …

btw .. your new round boosters are ready ! Safe free and effective

---

So you've got nothing. Just as we suspected.

---

EV bro .: look it up.. I'm too busy to attach all those links.

Look I love it that All you EV lovers are buying these cars, I've made over $200k alone by owning Freeport McMoran stock that's done nothing but gone up because of all the copper those cars use .. people don't realize who is pushing the entire EV issue, it's a money play by the copper mining companies and lithium battery companies .. I have stock in 4-5 copper and lithium mining companies .. you guys keep buying them and I'll keep making cash on the stocks just don't burn down anything I own

I looked it up.

Quote:

---

Hybrid-powered cars were involved in about 3,475 fires per every 100,000 sold. Gasoline-powered cars, about 1,530. Electric vehicles (EVs) saw just 25 fires per 100,000 sold.

---

Damn, I knew EV's were the safest cars available but didn't know it was that definitive.

hph6203 said:

---

I looked it up.

Quote:

---

Hybrid-powered cars were involved in about 3,475 fires per every 100,000 sold. Gasoline-powered cars, about 1,530. Electric vehicles (EVs) saw just 25 fires per 100,000 sold.

---

---

Once again there are a lot of problems with such analyses. It aims clearly to demonstrate something that the authors intend, but lacks reasoning, because (I'll just list a few factors) (a) 98.6% of cars on the road that are built before 2019 are ICE vehicles (older vehicles are more likely to catch fire of course) biasing the data set significantly, (b) most EV's actually sold are…likely to have been produced in the past few years, and (c) ICE vehicle fires are easily extinguished, while EV fires, whether in a parking lot or inside a dwelling structure might take up to 72 hours to let them be extinguished, plus (d) they might happen in the middle of the night instead of when a poorly maintained vehicle has just been parked.

Again, these statistics the EV-supporting side of the argument/discussion rely on are myopic at best and distorted/propaganda more likely. For instance, if an older EV is 1/5 as likely to catch fire at any time as an equally aged ICE vehicle (say, at 11 years/150,000 miles), it might easily be the case that the EV is more hazardous because at that point it is (a) more likely to be store/charged overnight in a garage, and (b) it might be using a 'degraded' battery still that despite dash warning lights etc. the user decides to use anyway in lieu of the exorbitant replacement cost, and (c) if it does catch on fire as a consequence it could burn down several subdivision homes and could conflate much more quickly/hazardously than a simple ICE vehicle more likely to be parked outside. The fire department might even be forced to just circle the little street and wait for the homes to finish burning.

HTH, again.

cecil77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Fire incidences of EVs are 1/30th of ICE vehicles.

---

Not for stationary, vehicle turned off, it's not. If you have supporting data, by all means, share it.

---

Go look at my post from 9/23/2023. 8% of car fires were at a residence. Given the number of annual vehicle fires, that is a large number.

I can't say how many were stationary vs say a car running into a house and catching it on fire but I would assume the former is the vast majority of the cases.

Quote:

---

Once again there are a lot of problems with such analyses.

---

Namely, that it puts to bed one of your last arguments against EV's.

EV fires are clearly less frequent but more severe. Are they less frequent because the cars are newer? Or are they just downright less likely to catch fire? I doubt there is any age/mileage adjusted vehicle fire frequency data comparing EVs to ICEs so we probably won't know for another decade.

And how much more severe are the EV fires vs the ICE fires? If EVs really will burn down a whole neighborhood while an ICE just smolders in the garage is there property damage data available yet? I doubt it.

This thread is a bunch of skewed data sources and anecdotes because the data just doesn't exist

Quote:

---

This thread is a bunch of skewed data sources and anecdotes because the data just doesn't exist

---

Quote:

---

I can't say how many were stationary vs say a car running into a house and catching it on fire but I would assume the former is the vast majority of the cases.

---

I would assume the vast majority were from cars that were running, whether moving or not, and that the majority of house fires was from cars running into houses.

The only salient comparison under discussion is for cars that are parked and not running.

And we just had one of the world's largest ICE car makers tell it's owners to not park 3 million ICE vehicles stationary in the garage.

To the extent you are asking if there is real data supporting the claims I think you are right.

To those with a basic understanding of engineering/the vehicles involved it's sort of just common sense though. EV thermal/electrical complexity are an order of magnitude more dangerous to both cause and then become a more dangerous fire hazard. Comparing the relative risk involved is akin to comparing the MMR vaccine risk to an infant vs. a new/untested MRNA vaccine that skipped normal approvals/human trials.

But you have to realize EV's are the 'in thing' so the MSM/propaganda press won't work to deliver real, accurate data, and the cheerleading section of customers/news consumers/brand snobs will just be happy to support 'their team.'

Here's my initial post that he replied to saying I don't know what I was talking about and see whether or not your post roughly aligns with my initial statement. EV fires are less common, in part due to age, in part due to the underlying technology and whether that extreme differentiation persists is unknown, but my perspective is it's unlikely that EVs will ever become as prone to fires, much less more prone to fires than ICE (as he stated, and I countered). The statistics suggest that I shouldn't expect my vehicle to catch on fire, any of my 8 neighbors (Rear, diagonally to the rear, front, and diagonally to the front), nor any of their neighbors will have a fire in my entire lifetime.

Your risk tolerance and overall impressions of EVs leads you to believe that harder to fight fire means the risk isn't worth it. Mine says less frequent fires is the more important metric. That's a difference of opinions, not facts.

Quote:

---

Fire incidences of EVs are 1/30th of ICE vehicles. The average ICE vehicle fire causes $10,000 in damage. When you say more prone, you mean less prone. The issue with lithium battery fires is not the frequency, but the intensity and difficulty of extinguishing the fires not the frequency with which they occur.

The tradeoffs are less frequent, more energetic, more difficult to extinguish.

Or

More frequent, less energetic, easier to extinguish.

Make no mistake, ICE fires still cause a lot of damage and they are fully capable of occurring while you're not driving the car. i.e. while it's parked in your garage.

Statistics suggest you should expect to have one car related fire in your life with a gas vehicle. Statistics suggest you shouldn't experience an EV fire in 30 lifetimes.

Whether those incidence differentiations persist into the future as EVs age is undetermined, but the technology around batteries is shifting to allow for less volatile, less likely to experience thermal runaway batteries. Any increase in incidence due to age is mitigated by that reality.

LFP and LMFP batteries will likely dominant the passenger vehicle market and sodium ion batteries (even less volatile, cheaper) will likely dominate grid storage systems.


This is a decent video that explains cost reductions, volatility and use case for each current battery chemistries in production.

---

Ok, and I don't mean this in an offensive way I'm just glad we're not neighbors.

And I do have some EV's already in my HOA but I have yet to see any of the drivers/owners out there with a mirror/camera inspecting the underside for dings/road damage to make sure the batteries are at least as safe as intended. I would expect that at least weekly, but I know 'risk tolerances' etc. allow folks to feel comfortable over time. Any little ding from a rock etc. could lead to a 'hot spot' that could advance corrosion/fire risk over time.

The biggest issue with getting EV fires out is the batteries aren't easily accessible to get water to put out the fire given the battery location and encasement. In no surprise, technology has been developed to greatly improve the ability to fight these fires.

Summary
Fast Simple operation and setup can be achieved in less than 2 minutes; deployment of the piercing nozzle happens in 8 milliseconds gaining internal access to effectively cool all battery pack designs.
Efficient Bringing water exactly where it is needed to effectively cool the battery pack, modules, and cells from within. The ability to halt a thermal runaway battery pack fire in as little as 10 minutes, flowing at a mere 8 gal/min at 100 PSI, far less than using the current EV manufacturer safety data sheets advising a minimum of 8,000 gallons of water to achieve the same results.

https://rosenbaueramerica.com/rosenbauer-battery-extinguishing-system-technology/

Quote:

---

I have yet to see any of the drivers/owners out there with a mirror/camera inspecting the underside for dings/road damage to make sure the batteries are at least as safe as intended. I would expect that at least weekly,

---

I live in the country, but do people in residential neighborhoods really act this Karen when spying on their neighbors? Good Lord. Just let people drive what they want and leave them alone. There's enough nosey nellies in this world already.

nortex97 said:

---

Ok, and I don't mean this in an offensive way I'm just glad we're not neighbors.

And I do have some EV's already in my HOA but I have yet to see any of the drivers/owners out there with a mirror/camera inspecting the underside for dings/road damage to make sure the batteries are at least as safe as intended. I would expect that at least weekly, but I know 'risk tolerances' etc. allow folks to feel comfortable over time. Any little ding from a rock etc. could lead to a 'hot spot' that could advance corrosion/fire risk over time.

---

The underside of a Tesla battery casing is made of 1/4" aluminum and is separated from the battery modules by a ~1" air gap. A piece of debris on the road big enough and hard enough to damage the underside of the battery pack enough to impact the thermal characteristics of the battery modules is not going to go unnoticed by the driver. It's going to shake them to their bones.

I don't know what the other manufacturers do, but they will converge on the best practice to prevent damage, which likely includes some combination of metal material and an air gap.

hph6203 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Ok, and I don't mean this in an offensive way I'm just glad we're not neighbors.

And I do have some EV's already in my HOA but I have yet to see any of the drivers/owners out there with a mirror/camera inspecting the underside for dings/road damage to make sure the batteries are at least as safe as intended. I would expect that at least weekly, but I know 'risk tolerances' etc. allow folks to feel comfortable over time. Any little ding from a rock etc. could lead to a 'hot spot' that could advance corrosion/fire risk over time.

---

The underside of a Tesla battery casing is made of 1/4" aluminum and is separated from the battery modules by a ~1" air gap. A piece of debris on the road big enough and hard enough to damage the underside of the battery pack enough to impact the thermal characteristics of the battery modules is not going to go unnoticed by the driver. It's going to shake them to their bones.

I don't know what the other manufacturers do, but they will converge on the best practice to prevent damage, which likely includes some combination of metal material and an air gap.

---

it doesn't matter what you show some of these folks...the confirmation bias is real and their minds are made up. Like that one guy that said he didn't have time to post links....but said to go look it up...then when somebody looks it up and reports back...the deny...deflect...and make counter accusations game really ramps up LOL.....critical thinking.....unfortunately....not all Aggies can do it.

I don't think that is true, in most instances anyway (admittedly, I think the structural battery packs are actually stronger/more resistant to damage, but I try not to get into some of these back and forths with tesla's in particular for reasons I've stated already).



Again, if you're driving a car for 10 years, and have this sort of thing happen, even if you get it inspected and a letter from the mfg saying 'all good' I'd expect any buyer to look at it with a skeptical eye.

Your claim was not that batteries can get damaged and I didn't make a counterclaim that they cannot. Your claim was that an individual could be driving down the road, hit something that they were unaware of and it could have damaged the battery pack of the vehicle, and that they should periodically inspect the underside of their vehicle like a member of a bomb squad to determine whether or not there are (your words) scratches or little dings that could compromise the thermal integrity of the battery. My counterpoint was that there is no effing way that a person could hit something large enough and sturdy enough to damage the battery module and be unaware of it.

The object in that YouTube video is not the battery pack FYI. It is the underbody aeroshield that is made of plastic and it is there to reduce drag, not to protect the battery. Yes, plastic is capable of being ripped to shreds from a large rock that fell during a rock slide (what the person in that video hit, not some small landscaping stone that they didn't see). The follow-up video of that particular incident was that he took it to a Tesla service center, paid a couple of hundred dollars to have the plastic aero shield replaced, and the repair took less than an hour.

The other individual on Reddit with the coolant leaking said they hit a rock the size of a softball plus 1" in a lowered vehicle. They ultimately replaced their battery.

The other person with the actual picture of the battery pack said that the rock they hit was large enough to lift the rear wheels off the ground causing the car to display a warning about the rear wheels and disengaged the autopilot. They did not ultimately replace their battery.

The battery pack has an underside aluminum plate that is 1/4" thick and there is an air gap between the battery modules and the casing. You can see the torn-down battery of a 2020 Model Y, which is prior to the implementation of the structural battery pack, in the video below. The structural battery pack did not go into production until 2022 and is exclusively being built in the Giga Texas factory.

You can see the battery modules encased in a plastic casing and bolted to an aluminum standoff (i.e. an air gap) on an aluminum plate in the below video.

What you are saying doesn't matter. Some people have their minds made up for a variety of reasons and they won't change under any circumstance and that is their right. When you point out risks in the alternative product, they selectively chose to ignore and deflect because their minds can't process that things like gasoline vapors can explode and/or catch a house on fire.

The biggest risk with any car is driving and it is the biggest risk most people take in any given day and getting into an accident. There is only one way to avoid that, stay in your basement like FJB.

See, this is exactly why I deliberately try not to discuss Tesla's in particular. Sandy Munro is basically a spokesperson/paid advertiser for them nowadays a la shamwow guy. But anyway, so what if they eliminate a bolt, or some painter's tape, or anything else that is 'built exclusively' in the gigafactory in Texas?

Ultimately it comes down to such fandom, around "well look at this in all their 2022+ Tesla models built here" and anything else/extraneous to the religious faith in…that is dismissed as just wrong/heretical.

The idea that someone wants to seriously discuss EV's but exclude any discussion on the market leader, and maker of the most popular car in the US, speaks volumes.

So what if they eliminate a bolt? Reducing cost and increasing reliability in one step is incredibly important. I love his obsessive hatred for threaded fasteners.

Ford, GM, VW and others had an opportunity to reinvent themselves with Mach-E, the Ultium platform, and MEB. Instead they released expensive messes that may bankrupt their companies.

The purpose of posting the video was not the entirety of the video, but rather the timestamp that I linked the video to where you can see the standoffs and the resulting air gap between the battery module and the underside of the casing, which is 1/4" aluminum. i.e. a rigid material that requires significant force to deform with an additional safety measure that requires, not just some, but a significant amount of deformation in order to cause damage to the battery module.

The purpose of pointing out that it was definitively not a structural pack is that you stated that you believed the structural pack was more robust than previous interactions of the battery pack, and I'm just making sure you understand that, no, this is not the structural pack. Every Tesla ever manufactured since the introduction of the Model S has, at minimum, a 1/4" aluminum plate underneath it.

In other words, your claim that a small ding or scratch or non-significant impact from a rock a driver didn't notice is not going to cause any degradation of the thermal integrity of the battery pack, which is what you claimed. They are not danty little things that can be taken out by a landscaping rock the size of a golf ball. If you hit something capable of damaging the battery modules, you are going to know it. You are going to feel it and you're going to think "Oh ****, I hit something big I need to check that." You don't need to periodically check the underside of an EV like a bomb squad member any more than you need to pressure wash the engine compartment of an ICE vehicle.

Not particularly trying to change anyone's mind. Sometimes people post stuff on this thread and my reaction is "I wonder what the reality of it is." And then I go looking for what is actually true. That doesn't mean that what I find is true, but I'm at least trying and if I find information that contradicts what they're saying I might as well post it. I knew that the underside of the battery pack was made of fairly thick metal, and wasn't at risk from smaller impacts and scratches, but didn't know that there were standoffs that created such a large air gap that made it even less likely to cause damage to the battery modules. Now if anyone asks I can say there's a 1/4" piece of metal and an air gap that provides extra separation from any object that might cause damage to the battery.

Manhattan said:

---

So what if they eliminate a bolt? Reducing cost and increasing reliability in one step is incredibly important. I love his obsessive hatred for threaded fasteners.

Ford, GM, VW and others had an opportunity to reinvent themselves with Mach-E, the Ultium platform, and MEB. Instead they released expensive messes that may bankrupt their companies.

---

I don't disagree largely with you there, I just try to avoid discussing Tesla because some react to any such discussion as though it involves a discussion around their love for their mother/spouse/religious beliefs around certain tenets of their faith etc. It's just sort of bizarre to me.

My wife bought a Y. After 6 weeks the entire battery needed to be replaced for some reason. Never was explained. We left it with Tesla for 3 weeks. She loves it but it is buzzy and fidgety. The acceleration is fantastic but the build quality is not.

WestAustinAg said:

---

My wife bought a Y. After 6 weeks the entire battery needed to be replaced for some reason. Never was explained. We left it with Tesla for 3 weeks. She loves it but it is buzzy and fidgety. The acceleration is fantastic but the build quality is not.

---

"for some reason"

"never was explained"

Sorry man, but I don't believe this. I've had Tesla service out to my house twice...once to replace a brake light that had moisture in it (no charge and done in 10 mins) and once to replace a cabin air filter, and Tesla documents and explains what's going on ad nauseam.

Ya it's literally in your Tesla app which details what was performed and done

Rumors that Ford is getting out of the electric vehicle business

First things first -

BREAKING:

Reports of Ford cancelling Lightning EV orders across the country (dealer stock)!

Unclear just how wide-spread this is ATM.

Going to disclaim this post as *unconfirmed* until I get more details.

More to come

— CarDealershipGuy (@GuyDealership) September 29, 2023

That's just click bait, imho. Even if they'd decided to massively scale back EV commitments, it would take many years to be reflected in product/ordering.

nortex97 said:

---

That's just click bait, imho. Even if they'd decided to massively scale back EV commitments, it would take many years to be reflected in product/ordering.

---

Totally agree. They may be scaling back one model but that is done all the time in the auto industry.

Teslag said:

---

Ya it's literally in your Tesla app which details what was performed and done

---

"Replaced battery"

He told you what was done. This isn't the "gotcha" you think it is.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Ya it's literally in your Tesla app which details what was performed and done

---

"Replaced battery"

---

Clearly, anyone who disparages Tesla is a liar.