Car tax robbery by government

[b0rn2sk8]

How about this:

People want more refined, more luxurious and safer cars. Not to mention they prefer taller cars because, generally speaking, they are more comfortable and are perceived to be easier to drive because you have a higher driving position.

That’s not ridiculous, that’s human nature.

You only have to compare a 2005 model to the same 2026 model to see where the extra weight went. Then drive one into a concrete block at 70mph and compare the differences.

I know which car I would prefer to be sat in (and it’s not the 2005 model).

 

[deviation]

How about this:

People want more refined, more luxurious and safer cars. Not to mention they prefer taller cars because, generally speaking, they are more comfortable and are perceived to be easier to drive because you have a higher driving position.

That’s not ridiculous, that’s human nature.

You only have to compare a 2005 model to the same 2026 model to see where the extra weight went. Then drive one into a concrete block at 70mph and compare the differences.

I know which car I would prefer to be sat in (and it’s not the 2005 model).

As I've already shown even a base model cheap civic was one of the highest NCAP ratings (21). So that disproves that point.

Refined what cheap scratchy creeky plastic everywhere? Bar something very high end with carbon accents, which isn't what we're discussing for the average modern car.

None of these modern cars have more headroom, that's my point. They're just stupid raised up hatchbacks called crossovers, that aren't AWD, cant go off road, and don't gain anymore room inside or in the boot, all of which an estate will always do better in every way.

That's rubbish, they don't make the crash structure out of heavy metal, nor is there more of it, so no more weight at the front, and the engines are smaller so should be lighter, it's merely the shape of which it crushes, if anything it's just more plastic bumper skins/foam on the crash bar, so nope wrong again.

The current civic (2022 onwards) is the same safety rating as the 2005 - https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/honda/civic/47744 both score 4/5 on everything.

The brand new 3 series is 97% safe for adults yet the 2005 is 100% rated, so wrong again. The only thing the modern one gains is the bonnet lifts when you hit a pedestrain, but we were talking driver/passenger safety.
2005 https://www.euroncap.com/en/ratings-rewards/latest-safety-ratings/en/results/bmw/3+series/15658
2019 onwards https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/bmw/3+series/38531

That's great if you like poorly made, ugly looking crossovers full of cheap materials, sat too high up, with no benefit of a AWD, paired with rubbish electric steering and vague handling, that cant be parked anywhere whilst taking up the width of every road.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

Crikey, half the stuff you have written has no relevance to my post.

The NCAP test from 20 years ago isn’t the same as today. A 5 star car from 20 years ago wouldn’t get 5 stars today because they don’t have all the latest active safety features which are commonplace on more modern cars.

Are you suggesting that say a Corsa from 20 years ago achieves a similar level of refinement to a 2025 model? That’s just objectively not the case for almost* every car still on the market. Almost* all are significantly more refined than their 20 year old version.

*I’ve only say almost because ‘all’ is very absolute and I’m sure you could find a niche example somewhere if you really tried.

I never claimed modern cars have more headroom, I said people preferred the higher driving position [of a crossover]. I never said anything about them being cable off road or having a bigger boot. If they wanted AWD or a bigger boot, presumably they would buy a car with AWD or a bigger boot (assuming they could afford it). Way to miss the point spectacularly….

Who said anything anything about the structure of the car? Safety goes well beyond crash bars these days. So modern cars are no batter in a crash despite all the extra active safety equipment they carry? Yeh that’s not the case either.

I’ve got no idea what relevance the last paragraph has to what I wrote at all

Seriously, when did OCUK motors turn into the daily fail comments section?

 

[deviation]

Crikey, half the stuff you have written has no relevance to my post.

The NCAP test from 20 years ago isn’t the same as today. A 5 star car from 20 years ago wouldn’t get 5 stars today because they don’t have all the latest active safety features which are commonplace on more modern cars.

Are you suggesting that say a Corsa from 20 years ago achieves a similar level of refinement to a 2025 model? That’s just objectively not the case for almost* every car still on the market. Almost* all are significantly more refined than their 20 year old version.

*I’ve only say almost because ‘all’ is very absolute and I’m sure you could find a niche example somewhere if you really tried.

I never claimed modern cars have more headroom, I said people preferred the higher driving position [of a crossover]. I never said anything about them being cable off road or having a bigger boot. If they wanted AWD or a bigger boot, presumably they would buy a car with AWD or a bigger boot (assuming they could afford it). Way to miss the point spectacularly….

Who said anything anything about the structure of the car? Safety goes well beyond crash bars these days. So modern cars are no batter in a crash despite all the extra active safety equipment they carry? Yeh that’s not the case either.

I’ve got no idea what relevance the last paragraph has to what I wrote at all

Seriously, when did OCUK motors turn into the daily fail comments section?

How do you know that they've not updated their archived ratings to adjust to modern standards? Source?

A Corsa was never good, a Civic or Golf have always been worlds apart in terms of build quality from cheap junk like that, that's like suggesting a Dacia from any era, they're still cheap crap cars.

I've shown you 2 ends of the scale, an old version modern Civic, and a entry level 3 series old and new. Both of which match the safety ratings bar the modern car bonnets that lift when you run someone over, which is irrelevant to driver/passenger safety, of which we are discussing.

Higher driving positions are not always better, the only benefit to a raised up car, is entering/exiting it. Driving wise, having your eye line straight with the road is obviously better than looking downwards.

The people that used to buy bigger/raised up cars like X5's and Range Rovers etc, like them because they are AWD and safe in any weather, and don't get stuck anywhere you choose to take them, be that a dog walk in a wet/muddy forest car park, or field. They aren't going off roading.
So to clone that style 'look' of a car but remove one of the main features people like, safety in all weather/conditions, from AWD, is stupid, and just cost cutting, what you are left with, is a pointless hatchback that's FWD and raised for no reason, with zero benefit, nor the storage or passenger space, that a X5/Range Rover etc gives you.

The last section clearly relates to you, as you stated:

I know which car I would prefer to be sat in (and it’s not the 2005 model).

Of which, I mentioned the poor quality of modern cars.

How ironic. It's you who are arguing with everyone in this thread and failing, not me. I've providing stats on multiple posts with no bias. Just facts. You have been proved wrong each time, then thrown your toys out the pram and been sarcastic and rude to each person you've argued with.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

How do you know that they've not updated their archived ratings to adjust to modern standards? Source?

Two seconds on Google highlights the NCAP website with a handy timeline of how things have changed over the years:

Timeline | Euro NCAP

Euro NCAP was launched in 1997. Discover Euro NCAP's timeline and learn more about the most significant moments in the history of the organisation.

www.euroncap.com

The crash test framework is set to change again in 2026.

A Corsa was never good, a Civic or Golf have always been worlds apart in terms of build quality from cheap junk like that, that's like suggesting a Dacia from any era, they're still cheap crap cars.

I never claimed a Corsa was ‘good’. All I did was compare the same car on sale 20 years ago to today. You could replace Corsa with Golf, Civic or Range Rover, the outcome is identical. Modern cars are objectively more refined than say their 20 year old versions.

I've shown you 2 ends of the scale, an old version modern Civic, and an entry level 3 series old and new. Both of which match the safety ratings bar the modern car bonnets that lift when you run someone over, which is irrelevant to driver/passenger safety, of which we are discussing.

So you agree newer cars have additional onboard safety equipment?

I assume car manufacturers haven’t somehow managed to break the laws of physics and can produce said additional equipment out of fresh air.

Higher driving positions are not always better, the only benefit to a raised up car, is entering/exiting it. Driving wise, having your eye line straight with the road is obviously better than looking downwards.

I never said a higher driving position was objectively better, I said people prefer it. There is a significant difference between those two statements.

It is the thing that most people cite when asked about why they prefer a crossover to a ‘regular’ hatchback. That and things like it’s easier to deal with child seats and getting in and out the car generally, the last point is particularly the case for older people.

The people that used to buy bigger/raised up cars like X5's and Range Rovers etc, like them because they are AWD and safe in any weather, and don't get stuck anywhere you choose to take them, be that a dog walk in a wet/muddy forest car park, or field. They aren't going off roading.
So to clone that style 'look' of a car but remove one of the main features people like, safety in all weather/conditions, from AWD, is stupid, and just cost cutting, what you are left with, is a pointless hatchback that's FWD and raised for no reason, with zero benefit, nor the storage or passenger space, that a X5/Range Rover etc gives you.

See above.

The last section clearly relates to you, as you stated:

Of which, I mentioned the poor quality of modern cars.

How ironic. It's you who are arguing with everyone in this thread and failing, not me. I've providing stats on multiple posts with no bias. Just facts. You have been proved wrong each time, then thrown your toys out the pram and been sarcastic and rude to each person you've argued with.

How am I failing? Almost all of what you write has little relevance to the original topic of the thread or anything I wrote in response.

Your approach to having your posts challenged is to argue something else what wasn’t written down in said challenge.

I see no stats in your exchanges with me

 

[deviation]

Two seconds on Google highlights the NCAP website with a handy timeline of how things have changed over the years:

Timeline | Euro NCAP

Euro NCAP was launched in 1997. Discover Euro NCAP's timeline and learn more about the most significant moments in the history of the organisation.

www.euroncap.com

The crash test framework is set to change again in 2026.

I never claimed a Corsa was ‘good’. All I did was compare the same car on sale 20 years ago to today. You could replace Corsa with Golf, Civic or Range Rover, the outcome is identical. Modern cars are objectively more refined than say their 20 year old versions.

So you agree newer cars have additional onboard safety equipment?

I assume car manufacturers haven’t somehow managed to break the laws of physics and can produce said additional equipment out of fresh air.

I never said a higher driving position was objectively better, I said people prefer it. There is a significant difference between those two statements.

It is the thing that most people cite when asked about why they prefer a crossover to a ‘regular’ hatchback. That and things like it’s easier to deal with child seats and getting in and out the car generally, the last point is particularly the case for older people.

See above.

How am I failing? Almost all of what you write has little relevance to the original topic of the thread or anything I wrote in response.

Your approach to having your posts challenged is to argue something else what wasn’t written down in said challenge.

I see no stats in your exchanges with me

That has nothing to do with what I asked you? I said, Show me the source that says the previous stats for older cars haven't been updated to be relative to the modern ranking system - if they hadn't been, it would be pointless having the old cars data on there, as how would you know whether that X out of 5 rating or % is based on current or old? They clearly keep it up to date so you know if something new is safer than something old.

How are they? Because they use cheaper materials and fit cheap fingerprint magnet screens over buttons, more unreliable engines due to emissions-related parts and cheapening out on things like timing chains/tensioners, scoring crankshafts/bearings, breaking camshafts in various VAGs, and everything that once was metal being made out of fatiguing plastic.

Modern cars are made to last the length of a lease/finance, then be traded in for nothing/thrown away and then repeat. 90's and 00's cars were built to easily do 10-20 years with simple maintenance.

Who are these people? Just because manufacturers are deciding to only offer these designs, it doesn't mean it's what we want. We don't get a say in it.
The same as how everything has a massive grille now, because in China that is a well-known way of showing off that you're doing well in life/wealth; it probably is a nod to Rolls Royce grills, so now everyone is doing that for the Chinese market, and we're getting fed the same tacky junk.

Most people don't want a hatchback, that's what young drivers/people without families drive. The people's car of choice will always be the estate; it does everything well.

Yes, but older people would be a minority though. So that isn't everyone.

What? Each one of my replies to you has been a line b-by-line reply to what you've said in each line.
No stats? I sent you stats of both the old and new ciCivic and the 3 series; showing you the NCAP ratings being the same despite a 20 years difference.

You haven't provided anything, other than stating the obvious, that NCAP standards get better each year - obviously, technology advances.
This entire thread, all you've dodones argue with everyone, and come across as negative and venomous.

You clearly have never got anything positive or constructive to say, and just get a kick out of biting at people whenever possible, it is the same in every thread you post in. So I cannot be bothered anymore, as all you want is to continue arguing with no facts to back it up. It's obvious you're trolling at this point and bored.

 

[Kenai]

That has nothing to do with what I asked you? I said, Show me the source that says the previous stats for older cars haven't been updated to be relative to the modern ranking system - if they hadn't been, it would be pointless having the old cars data on there, as how would you know whether that X out of 5 rating or % is based on current or old? They clearly keep it up to date so you know if something new is safer than something old.

The ratings 'expire' and are only available for historical reference.

From Euro NCAP:

The latest star rating is always the most relevant and comparing results over different years is only valid if the updates to the rating scheme were small. Recently, the inclusion of emerging crash avoidance and driver assist technology has significantly altered the meaning of the stars.

Because of this evolution of the rating scheme, cars’ ratings expire when their date stamp (i.e. the year the car was rated, indicated on the rating) is more than six years old. An expired rating does not necessarily mean that the car has changed in any way; simply that the rating scheme has moved on so much since the car was rated that its assessment is largely irrelevant in comparison with cars tested more recently.

Comparing the rating of a 2005 car vs a 2025 is comparing apples and elephants.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

Sigh.. you’ve not been providing a line by line counter argument because you’ve consistently been arguing against points I haven’t made. You then resort to ad-hominem rather than actually addressing any of the points made.

I never claimed that NCAP have updated their scores for older cars based on the new methodology.

I said older cars which scored 5 stars when originally tested wouldn’t score 5 stars today. This is because the methodology has changed, there is a clear and distinct difference between those two things. NCAP don’t retest older cars when the methodology changes.

So you asking me for evidence that NCAP have revised their scoring for older cars is utterly irrelevant because it’s not something I ever argued they had done.

I never made any claims about the longevity of engines or individual parts. The only claim I made is that modern cars are more refined which they objectively are. Again, you are arguing against a point I never made.

Ironically, I’m pretty sure modern cars are generally more reliable despite their increased complexity. I don’t have any receipts for that claim but it’s my gut feeling. That doesn’t mean they aren’t more difficult to repair, I’d totally accept that as a reality.

You ask about who these people are, it’s most people who are not car enthusiasts. Normal people don’t buy cars for the driving feel, they are a vehicle to get them from A-B and view them completely differently to an enthusiast.

The market determines what manufacturers prioritise, not the other way round. They focus group the snuff out of everything, that’s how they know what to produce and to promote.

Just look at the top selling cars in the U.K., of the top 10, only two are traditional hatch backs, 8 are crossovers. It’s been pretty consistent that most of the top selling cars have been crossovers quite a while now, manufacturers have adjusted their portfolios accordingly based on the trend of increasing sales of crossovers and declined sales of hatch backs.

What young people drive is almost irrelevant to car manufacturers because they don’t buy new cars. They buy whatever is available on the used market for not a lot of money.

As for estates, you’d be correct if people actually bought them in volume but they don’t anymore. That entire market has basically been subsumed by crossovers at this point. You can still get an estate if you really want one, few people actually do.

 

[Diddums]

Bringing this back on topic slightly, the University of Edinburgh did a paper on whether heavier vehicles would accelerate wear on road surfaces and this is their findings:

We introduced the hypothesis “There will be significant and
quantifiable additional costs of road maintenance due to the
increased weight of ZEVs over ICE vehicles. This will be
markedly greater for BEVs than for HFCEVs.”
We find that this partially correct—in the case of the
largest vehicles, that is buses and heavy good vehicles,
the hypothesis is shown to be true. However, in the case
of smaller vehicles such as cars, light goods vehicles and
motorcycles, it is unlikely that there will be a significant
difference.
A complete conversion of the existing vehicle fleet to
BEV would be likely to increase annual road wear in Scot-
land by around 20–40%, with a modelled base case value of
31.0%. Conversely, the same conversion to HFCEV would
increase road wear by around 6% (Fig. 4). The combined,
or “Like for Like” future fleet, where existing diesel vehi-
cles are replaced by HFCEV and existing petrol vehicles are
replaced by BEV, would also lead to increased road wear of
around 6%.
We can see from Fig. 2 above that in each scenario, the
Road Wear Impact Factor is dominated by the relatively
small number of HGVs, 37,000 vehicles out of a total vehi-
cle fleet of approximately 3 million, which contribute around
87% of the Road Wear Impact Factor. The 14,000 buses and
coaches are also significant, contributing around 12%. The
Road Wear Impact Factors due to cars, light goods vehicles
and motorcycles are insignificant, contributing in total less
than 1% of the Road Wear Impact Factor in all scenarios.
This will not be news to highways engineers, but needs to
be understood in the energy sector. HGVs and Buses &
Coaches would be HFCEVs in both the all-HFCEV and
the Like for Like scenarios; as those are the vehicles over-
whelmingly responsible for road wear, this leads to the Road
Wear Impact Factors being effectively identical for both of
these scenarios.

The paper can be found here.

I'll keep my opinion out of it for now, I'm sure the relevant parties in this thread will read every single word to try and justify their argument and post up whichever words suit them best so I'll just leave it there

 

[Firestar_3x]

The current civic (2022 onwards) is the same safety rating as the 2005 - https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/honda/civic/47744 both score 4/5 on everything.

The brand new 3 series is 97% safe for adults yet the 2005 is 100% rated, so wrong again. The only thing the modern one gains is the bonnet lifts when you hit a pedestrain, but we were talking driver/passenger safety.
2005 https://www.euroncap.com/en/ratings-rewards/latest-safety-ratings/en/results/bmw/3+series/15658
2019 onwards https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/bmw/3+series/38531

That's great if you like poorly made, ugly looking crossovers full of cheap materials, sat too high up, with no benefit of a AWD, paired with rubbish electric steering and vague handling, that cant be parked anywhere whilst taking up the width of every road.

A 2005 crash test score is not comparable to one today as a part of the overall score is now made up of marks for safety systems, to further compound things a 5* civic is not the same as a 5* Large SUV and test results between vehicle categories cannot be compared.

Here:

Why Direct Comparison Is Problematic

• Different Protocols: Euro NCAP’s testing methods changed significantly between 2005 and 2019. For example, by 2019, cars were assessed for autonomous emergency braking, lane-keeping assist, and pedestrian protection — none of which were considered in 2005.
• Star Ratings Shift: A five-star car in 2005 might only earn two or three stars in 2019 due to missing modern safety tech, even if its crash structure is solid.
• Scoring Categories Expanded: In 2005, ratings focused mainly on adult occupant protection. By 2019, scores included child occupant, vulnerable road user, and safety assist categories

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

To add:
- I don’t want a taller vehicle. For one thing, they’re far more likely to “fall over” in the event of say a crash. So whilst they might pass the existing NCAP, doesn’t make them safer to me
- 4wd? Sure? If you’re a farmer and genuinely need it, though being fair, I’m guessing that some of that capability will be down to appropriate tyres for off road work. I wouldn’t be surprised if the road tyres fitted to say a Range Rover results in it being far less capable. Back in the land of suburbia, just pointless. People talk about snow capability. How many would be better off with winter tyres, that they’re too cheapskate to pay for.
4wd then adds those lovely benefits of more complexity (more to go wrong) and more weight (bad for fuel efficiency and the impact on anything that you might hit).

The current breed of softroaders are just ghastly.

 

[Nasher]

I see this claim regularly but how much evidence is there what a say 2T car ‘wears out the road more quickly’ than a 1.5T car?

Yes the 2T car has a bit more energy but does that actually equate to a material amount when you consider the road surface is built for trucks weighing 44T and potentially more for oversized loads.

I’d expect it to be within measurement error and road wear has much more to do with how people drive than the weight of the car. E.g. heavy acceleration, braking, cornering speed will have more impact.

It's still going to wear the surface away quicker over time, especially on back roads which are not designed for constant heavy loads. Some bridges have a 2t weight limit as well (I wonder how many people in 2t cars are ignoring those signs).

Also, that's going to do a lot more damage when it crashes than a 1 or 1.5 ton car. It's not eactly green either with that much material going in to a single car.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

And just like that we’re back to daily mail logic.

It's still going to wear the surface away quicker over time, especially on back roads which are not designed for constant heavy loads. Some bridges have a 2t weight limit as well (I wonder how many people in 2t cars are ignoring those signs).

The research reported cited by above says it’s negligible. Negligible means negligible over time also.

Weight limits are more about the foundations of the road/bridge and other issues like width and traffic management rather than the top level road surface.

Also, that's going to do a lot more damage when it crashes than a 1 or 1.5 ton car. It's not eactly green either with that much material going in to a single car.

That wasn’t the claim, goalposts shifting in 3, 2, 1…

Define a lot more? As we have already discovered, the damage to humans has been negated over time.

It’s also a good job that cars are recycled at the end of their lives and nearly all of that material is recovered.

 

[Nasher]

And just like that we’re back to daily mail logic.


The research reported cited by above says it’s negligible. Negligible means negligible over time also.

Weight limits are more about the foundations of the road/bridge and other issues like width and traffic management rather than the top level road surface.


That wasn’t the claim, goalposts shifting in 3, 2, 1…

Define a lot more? As we have already discovered, the damage to humans has been negated over time.

It’s also a good job that cars are recycled at the end of their lives and nearly all of that material is recovered.

But a lot of it isn't though. Most plastic isn't actually recycled, especially if it's already been recycled. Battery recycling rate is still quite low.

You can re-use metal many times. But now car bodywork is starting to be made using more composites to keep weight down, which can't be. You can't recycle carpet, you can't recycle the fake leather (more non-recyclable plastic) seats or the foam padding.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

There is not a material amount of EV batteries to recycle because so few have actually got to the end of their life. Battery recycling rates are now but not because of EVs. It’s the billions of batteries that you’ll find embedded in hard to dismantle consumer electronics driving this.

You can recycle already recycled plastics, obviously it depends on the specific type plastic what you can do with it and some virgin plastic is mixed in with it but the very notion you can’t recycle already recycled plastic is a nonsense. Where do you get this from?

 

[Nasher]

There is not a material amount of EV batteries to recycle because so few have actually got to the end of their life. Battery recycling rates are now but not because of EVs. It’s the billions of batteries that you’ll find embedded in hard to dismantle consumer electronics driving this.

You can recycle already recycled plastics, obviously it depends on the specific type plastic what you can do with it and some virgin plastic is mixed in with it but the very notion you can’t recycle already recycled plastic is a nonsense. Where do you get this from?

They are embedded and hard to dismantle in EVs as well, you need to take most of the car to bits to reach them. The ones in some (like Tesla) are inside a mass of glue and foam. Good luck with that. Makes me wonder how do you check if batteries are starting to swell or are already leaking?... Anyway.

If you recycle plastics you need to add more chemicals to it, otherwise it will lose it's structure and be way to weak. You will reach a point where it's just cheaper and easier to use new plastics. A lot of it just ends up in landfill.

 

[Feek]

katy81 has a different account?

 

[b0rn2sk8]

They are embedded and hard to dismantle in EVs as well, you need to take most of the car to bits to reach them. The ones in some (like Tesla) are inside a mass of glue and foam. Good luck with that. Makes me wonder how do you check if batteries are starting to swell or are already leaking?... Anyway.

I think you actually need to look up how batteries are actually recycled in 2025. Even packs which are glued together can be recycled and nearly all the valuable material is recoverable.

How do you check if a battery is swelling leaking? You don’t do it by physically opening it up and looking. The BMS tells you if it’s broken and needs attention.

As for being hard to remove from a car, no, that’s really not the case at all.

If you recycle plastics you need to add more chemicals to it, otherwise it will lose it's structure and be way to weak. You will reach a point where it's just cheaper and easier to use new plastics. A lot of it just ends up in landfill.

And back in reality where they regrade it and it’s used for another purpose e.g. as filler for another material.

Nice retrospective edit on your original post by the way. Last time I checked bumpers have been plastic on cars for a few decades, that’s not a new phenomenon. Neither is plastic based seats coverings and carpets, foam padding etc.

I’m not sure how this is remotely related to VED.

Any more ‘yeh buts’ you want to throw in which are way off topic?

 

[Nasher]

How do you check if a battery is swelling leaking? You don’t do it by physically opening it up and looking. The BMS tells you if it’s broken and needs attention.

Software won't be able to tell you that. In fact the onboard BMS won't tell you much and it's not very advanced equipment (which is expensive). You'll likely see all healthy one day and dead the next as that is the nature of lithium batteries.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Software won't be able to tell you that. In fact the onboard BMS won't tell you much and it's not very advanced equipment (which is expensive). You'll likely see all healthy one day and dead the next as that is the nature of lithium batteries.

They don't really just die.
The main issue is that the contacts get plated and as such there is genuinely plenty of warning available due to reduced charge and discharge rates.

I have no idea on cars specifically but for example in home based batteries they are compressed (slightly) as part of the structure. I suspect car batteries are the same, again to a specific compression.
That is to stop swelling and some other performance benefits.

As ever though the quality of the battery and the setting is important.
Cheapo dodgy stuff is likely to fail I have no doubt.

As far as battery recycling its pretty much a secret sauce industry right now, but all the ones I have seen they dump everything in, it all gets shredded and then the clever stuff (chemicals) grabs the lithium (etc) and the plastics, crud and other general crap gets dumped.
Foam, glue, plastic, mud etc all irrelevant.