bidens incredible transition to electric cars

With the load of the batteries I don't think the glide slope will be very favorable.
 
They got that one under control. Looks like the body and chassis metal melted off from the back seat to the bumper. That takes some serious heat!
 
@Etech



This is a good video, shows all of the details
 
Yeah it's pretty crazy. I'll try getting the links tonight. Sorry, been real busy.

Tesla put into Pitt to be put out

View attachment 141169
And once the hole is dug (which takes a LOT of time, I imagine), it's probably a challenge to push that fireball into that pit without damaging the tractor or endangering its operator....and how often do you have a tractor or backhoe handy for such a situation? :headbang::idk:
 
And once the hole is dug (which takes a LOT of time, I imagine), it's probably a challenge to push that fireball into that pit without damaging the tractor or endangering its operator....and how often do you have a tractor or backhoe handy for such a situation? :headbang::idk:
What, you mean you can't just use a $500,000 fire engine to push it in?




jk
 
How about this? 25.1 vs 1529.9? ICE cars burn more than 60 times more than electric!


............. Electric cars, according to the study, are in fact the least likely to catch fire. 25.1 out of every 100,000 electric vehicles sold caught fire. For the same number of combustion engine cars, 1,529.9 caught fire.

However, hybrid cars are certainly the ones that catch fire the most often. 3,474.5 out of 100,000 hybrid cars sold caught fire. This is more than double the number of cars using internal combustion engines.

According to these figures, hybrid cars burn most frequently, electric cars the least, and combustion engine cars fall somewhere in the middle.

The results of the study suggest that it is clear that electric cars do not burn more frequently than cars with combustion engines.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: sebastiantombs
I think this "fact check" has a few loose ends. Maybe just very poor writing skills:

"25.1 out of every 100,000 electric vehicles sold caught fire. For the same number of combustion engine cars, 1,529.9 caught fire."
Is it the same number of combustion vehicles as the total number of electric cars sold, or the total number of combustion vehicles sold, or 100,000 combustion vehicles, or ?

"hybrid cars are certainly the ones that catch fire the most often. 3,474.5 out of 100,000 hybrid cars sold caught fire. This is more than double the number of cars using internal combustion engines."
Don't hybrid cars use internal combustion engines?

"However, no clear conclusions can be drawn from these figures, as there are still far more combustion engine vehicles on the road than electric or hybrid vehicles."

"317 cars caught fire or had an overheated engine"
Overheated engines counted as fires?
 
How about this? 25.1 vs 1529.9? ICE cars burn more than 60 times more than electric!


............. Electric cars, according to the study, are in fact the least likely to catch fire. 25.1 out of every 100,000 electric vehicles sold caught fire. For the same number of combustion engine cars, 1,529.9 caught fire.

However, hybrid cars are certainly the ones that catch fire the most often. 3,474.5 out of 100,000 hybrid cars sold caught fire. This is more than double the number of cars using internal combustion engines.

According to these figures, hybrid cars burn most frequently, electric cars the least, and combustion engine cars fall somewhere in the middle.

The results of the study suggest that it is clear that electric cars do not burn more frequently than cars with combustion engines.
Catching on fire is a very broad term that could have many outcomes based on how severe the fire was and was it contained with just minor damage. It is still reported as "catching on fire", even though it might have been one small wire or a small fuel leak that was easily contained without a total loss of the car. I would like to see the stats on how many Petro cars are a total loss and burn to the ground.

Burning to the ground, on the other hand, is pretty much what happens when you short out high voltage DC wiring and their batteries or the batteries develop an internal short. Let's compare apple to apples, that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sebastiantombs
No matter what the numbers, extinguishing an EV fire is far more difficult and dangerous. In fact we have seen many just left to burn themselves out, cars and buses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smilingreen
In the case of Chevy Bolts, GM decided after recalling most of the cars they had manufactured, on at least 2 occasions, back to back, that their brilliant fix was to reduce the the battery capacity by 40%. So, if we have a petrol car model that keeps bursting in flames (Pinto fans, anyone?), the answer would be to reduce the size of the gas tank by 40%? No, you take the car off the market, chalk it up as a disaster and hopefully future engineers will learn from your mistakes and not repeat the same design. The EV industry needs to look closely at what Ford did in the 70's. Pull your dangerous product off the market, go back to the drawing board and design a new type of battery that isn't lithium based. After that, test the shit out of it in every single scenario imaginable, only then, when it doesn't catch fire spontaneously while it is just sitting there, introduce it back into the market.
 
No matter what the numbers, extinguishing an EV fire is far more difficult and dangerous. In fact we have seen many just left to burn themselves out, cars and buses.
Not only extinguishing fires, but rescues due to entrapment in an MVA is much more difficult. You can't cut through the posts and pillars anymore. That is where all the high voltage wiring is running. The chance of the car exploding and burning is much higher.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: sebastiantombs
Fire is a very good cleanser. On MVA's that have tanker trucks full of petrol that have been compromised and the contents caught in fire, most fire dept.s will block off the area of where the tanker is burning, protect the exposures around the truck, but let the contents of the tanker burn completely up. By doing that, they don't have to excavate soil and roads, remove the earth and materials to a special waste processing facility, then back fill and repave. The tanker and it's contents is already a total loss if it is burning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sebastiantombs
And with an EV you're left with a smoldering pile of toxic waste.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smilingreen
And with an EV you're left with a smoldering pile of toxic waste.
Lithium is a nasty chemical. It is one of the chemicals that the combustion triangle does not apply to. Lithium can and will burn in a total void of oxogen. The only way to put out a lithium fire is to either cool it down (remove the heat) below its combustion point so there is no more metal chemical reactions or just let it burn until it burns it self completely out (remove the fuel).
Applying water to a lithium fire, in a lot of cases, is not a intelligent option. There is a high probability the water mixed with lithium will produce a hydrogen explosion. Now, instead of your burning lithium contained in a single spot, you just distributed many burning lithium fires in a large radius around the original fire.
 
Having struggled through chemistry class, and knowing that lithium is highly flammable, I wonder why the lithium-cobalt batteries go up so spectacularly, yet the lithium iron phosphate batteries are reluctant to ignite and burn?