GAC06 said:

---

I heard they create their own oxygen so statistics and numbers don't matter at all

---

You probably should look up how the chemistry works and what the catalysts etc. are while/once burning. Thermal runaway means it becomes self sustaining so even if oxygen is deprived it is able to use the oxygen from the reactions to keep going. That's precisely why throwing water on it only keeps it cool, instead of extinguishing it.

It is exactly a risk per unit of vehicles. You say it isn't, because you desperately want your years long crusade trying to engender a fear of EV fires to remain relevant. The majority of EV fires are the result of high speed collisions. I guess we should expect a rapid increase in reckless driving in parking garages to bring about your doomsday scenario.

Missed in Techno'a post is a claim from firefighters that they have gotten better at fighting EV fires while simultaneously EV manufacturers are building cars that are less and less prone to catch fire.

This is not a winning argument point for you, it makes you appear supremely biased/lacking in sober analysis. You're better off highlighting the fact that two EV drivers consume 770 kWh of electricity per month than trying to convince people that a 60 fold reduction in fires should be concerning.

Exactly. Risk = probability x severity unless fire = hot

It should be obvious to those understanding the risks and math that no EV should be parked in/under a dwelling structure overnight. I appreciate the social good this thread does in getting this message out.

nortex97 said:

---

It should be obvious to those understanding the risks and math that no EV should be parked in/under a dwelling structure overnight. I appreciate the social good this thread does in getting this message out.

---

I love how you still tilt at this windmill even after numerous ice vehicles have been told to not be parked inside

Don Wilson would still be alive if he had an EV

Teslag said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

It should be obvious to those understanding the risks and math that no EV should be parked in/under a dwelling structure overnight. I appreciate the social good this thread does in getting this message out.

---

I love how you still tilt at this windmill even after numerous ice vehicles have been told to not be parked inside

---

Your (and GAC's) steadfast lack of comprehension of the degree of risk and dismissal of what fire fighters/unions/departments say is what is impressive. It's not the green windmill stuff I am tilting against. A subset of new ICE vehicle models (which are much more prevalent of course vs. the subsidized/rejected EV market models) having recalls for fire risk is completely irrelevant to my point. The 20 year old Altima's are closer, but I don't want to get into another long pointless 'debate' to be frank.

You could have just said "I'll keep making claims and I refuse to back them up with facts" and saved some time

GAC06 said:

---

You could have just said "I'll keep making claims and I refuse to back them up with facts" and saved some time

---

For real

Somewhere around 20% of all vehicle fires are sourced from electrical failures. It is not a small subset of the fires for ICE vehicles. Random ignition of ICE vehicles while not in operation is not nearly as rare as you're claiming.

hph6203 said:

---

Somewhere around 20% of all vehicle fires are sourced from electrical failures. It is not a small subset of the fires for ICE vehicles. Random ignition of ICE vehicles while not in operation is not nearly as rare as you're claiming.

---

100 percent of BEV fires, a much more dangerous/intense type of fire, are electrically related. Again, you are missing the point/difference entirely.

The lack of an easy to access manual door latch for Teslas continues to make news.

https://www.fox13news.com/news/tampa-toddler-dressed-up-tinkerbell-trapped-inside-tesla-nearly-two-hours-this-was-terrifying.amp

GAC06 said:

---

You could have just said "I'll keep making claims and I refuse to back them up with facts" and saved some time

---

Maybe we should re run the numbers with a 3x damage multiplier. As long as we use delusional multipliers, the math checks out. I'll give you that.

Wow, I have no idea what the person driving this Cybertruck in Mexico was doing, but whoa, this crash is insane.

Everyone in the Cybertruck survived! If this doesn’t prove how safe Teslas are, then I don’t know what does. pic.twitter.com/sXbyhdHyw9

— LilHumansBigImpact (@BigImpactHumans) November 2, 2024

Impressive as hell. I think the CT design is/should be the future of vehicle construction.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

You could have just said "I'll keep making claims and I refuse to back them up with facts" and saved some time

---

Maybe we should re run the numbers with a 3x damage multiplier. As long as we use delusional multipliers, the math checks out. I'll give you that.

---

You claimed you were using that equation to evaluate risk. I'll ask yet again: what is the risk? Use your equation and show your work.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

You could have just said "I'll keep making claims and I refuse to back them up with facts" and saved some time

---

Maybe we should re run the numbers with a 3x damage multiplier. As long as we use delusional multipliers, the math checks out. I'll give you that.

---

30x. You are an order of magnitude off. Only if the rate of fires from EVs doubles due to age. As it stands it's 60x.

Devastating

nortex97 said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

Somewhere around 20% of all vehicle fires are sourced from electrical failures. It is not a small subset of the fires for ICE vehicles. Random ignition of ICE vehicles while not in operation is not nearly as rare as you're claiming.

---

100 percent of BEV fires, a much more dangerous/intense type of fire, are electrically related. Again, you are missing the point/difference entirely.

---

It is not the cause of the fire, but the possibility of a fire unrelated to operation that I was pointing out to you. You have a misperception that the risk of that occurring is wildly higher from an EV when the total incident rate of EV fire is substantially lower and the precipitating cause of the fire is a high speed collision.

hph6203 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

Somewhere around 20% of all vehicle fires are sourced from electrical failures. It is not a small subset of the fires for ICE vehicles. Random ignition of ICE vehicles while not in operation is not nearly as rare as you're claiming.

---

100 percent of BEV fires, a much more dangerous/intense type of fire, are electrically related. Again, you are missing the point/difference entirely.

---

It is not the cause of the fire, but the possibility of a fire unrelated to operation that I was pointing out to you. You have a misperception that the risk of that occurring is wildly higher from an EV when the total incident rate of EV fire is substantially lower and the precipitating cause of the fire is a high speed collision.

---

The incident rate is entirely irrelevant to my analysis. Happy to help.

Sounds like terrible "analysis"

I'd stay inside and put pillows on the wall if your risk assessment doesn't include incident rate.

Current annual damage from vehicle fires $2 billion. Number of fires annually ~200,000. Cost per incident $10,000. Average fire damage for EV to match total damage done by ICE vehicles, $611,600.


25 fires per 100,000 vehicles sold for EVs. Not annually. Per vehicle sold. Over half are from collisions. If 100% of the remaining 12.5 fires occurs in your garage it means that any car you buy has a .0125% chance of catching fire during its useful life. Making that assumption is absurd, but I'll grant the delusion to illustrate how delusional it is.

More likely to die from COVID in a lifetime than have an EV catch fire in your garage. Anyone unwilling to park an EV in their garage should cover their face with an N95. For their protection and ours.

GAC06 said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

You could have just said "I'll keep making claims and I refuse to back them up with facts" and saved some time

---

Maybe we should re run the numbers with a 3x damage multiplier. As long as we use delusional multipliers, the math checks out. I'll give you that.

---

You claimed you were using that equation to evaluate risk. I'll ask yet again: what is the risk? Use your equation and show your work.

---

1 x Infiniti > the sum of all ICE vehicle fire damage.

I will keep using Infiniti until you can tell me how to quickly extinguish an EV battery fire which creates its own oxygen. When you figure that out I'll be here, but whoever figures that out will be way too rich to spend time on TexAgs.

You're really really bad at math.

Maybe in the future don't claim you use an equation to evaluate risk when you clearly don't.

hph6203 said:

---

Current annual damage from vehicle fires $2 billion. Number of fires annually ~200,000. Cost per incident $10,000. Average fire damage for EV to match total damage done by ICE vehicles, $611,600.


25 fires per 100,000 vehicles sold for EVs. Not annually. Per vehicle sold. Over half are from collisions. If 100% of the remaining 12.5 fires occurs in your garage it means that any car you buy has a .0125% chance of catching fire during its useful life. Making that assumption is absurd, but I'll grant the delusion to illustrate how delusional it is.

More likely to die from COVID in a lifetime than have an EV catch fire in your garage. Anyone unwilling to park an EV in their garage should cover their face with an N95. For their protection and ours.

---

And yet, here we are.

https://www.dailydot.com/news/electric-vehicles-fire-risk/?amp

Quote:

---

'Do not leave them plugged in when you go to sleep': Expert says electric cars are too great of a fire risk.

The data appears to support the critics. According to an AutoinsuranceEZ analysis, hybrid vehicles actually have the highest vehicle fire risk at 3,475 fires per 100,000 sales, while electric vehicles have just 25.1 fires per 100,000 sales. This puts EVs at significantly lower risk than both conventional gas vehicles (1,530 fires per 100,000) and hybrids.

---

And yet, the perception remains. I think part of it has to do with people conflating battery EVs with hybrids.

So you post data that supports my statements and then quote a woman whose expert qualifications is she's married to a firefighter. It's like someone saying we shouldn't be worried about Monkey Pox and a guy says we should be seriously concerned because his boyfriend got it.

GAC06 said:

---

You're really really bad at math.

Maybe in the future don't claim you use an equation to evaluate risk when you clearly don't.

---

You are entitled to your opinion which I obviously disagree with, but I noticed you still can't tell me how to put the fire out.

When you figure it out feel free to let us know.

When you apply numbers to the formula you claimed to use, let us know. Until then, you're a clown.

GAC06 said:

---

When you apply numbers to the formula you claimed to use, let us know. Until then, you're a clown.

---

An inextinguishable fire has unlimited damage potential. My numbers are sound.

When you can tell me how to put it out, I'll be happy to recalculate.

Unlimited!

New proposal, EV fire power plant! Inexhaustible fuel source. Unlimited potential.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

When you apply numbers to the formula you claimed to use, let us know. Until then, you're a clown.

---

An inextinguishable fire has unlimited damage potential. My numbers are sound.

When you can tell me how to put it out, I'll be happy to recalculate.

---

Please reply to this to keep the embarrassment going. Nice formula

Just glad we figured out how to solve the energy problem of providing a married couple 770 kWh of energy a month to run their cars. The future of EVs has been saved! Cancel fusion research, it's a waste, we already have unlimited energy!

Unlimited

EV saves money to the individual compared to gas. The individual also profits because of EV tax credits. Is that fair to everyone with ice? No. But it is what it is until someone changes the tax codes / incentives.

Solar isn't even part of the equation. Solar can or cannot help someone regardless of if they have EV. So stupid to consider unless your EV vehicle use is HUGE.

Quote:

---

3.2.2. Use of a fire fighting lance
Dealing with the problem of injecting water directly into the battery housing led to the development of fire lances. The effect of such a device can be seen from Fig. 9. Conventional fire fighting started at time step 1080 s. However, although almost all flammable material had been consumed, the fire continued to re-ignite from the battery as the reactions inside the battery were still going on. This can be observed from the temperature curve in Fig. 9, where the temperature in the battery constantly increases although the overall fire load is already drastically reduced. At time step 1260 s the battery casing was punctured by a fire lance, a quite small amount of water was injected, and the temperature dropped immediately, resulting in a full extinction of the fire (see Fig. 16 left).

The efficiency of the fire lance was demonstrated in a test, where the whole 80 kWh battery pack of a BEV was set on fire by flooding the battery with liquid NaCl, resulting in simultaneous short-circuiting of the majority of the cells (see Fig. 16 right). After letting the fire develop another few minutes, a fire lance penetrated the battery casing and with around 30 l water it was possible to stop the thermal runaway and extinguish the fire within 2 min.

---

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379711222001722