EV general discussion

chanjy said:
Having had both Ipace and Born I do think the Ipace is still a good step above the Born. If only it was reliable haha

This is coming from a RWD version though not the VZ
Click to expand...

I agree and have said as such, but if the I-Pace is an 8.5 - 9 out of 10 drivers car (for EVs), then a Born (non VZ) is a 7 - 7.5 while a Megane e-tech is a 5 or 5.5 at best.

Note: I am referring to the handling and not the outright performance which the I-Pace hands the Born its ass. I’m also not scoring on a relaxing to drive a perspective. For example on a simple A to B run, our Volvo C40 is more relaxing to drive than the I-Pace. It has lighter steering, smaller and more agile and of course is more spongy over bumps. But it also can’t remotely be called a “drivers car”.
 
Last edited:
bigmike20vt said:
ANOTHER ship? perhaps this time it will actually be an EV fire which caused it but all the other "EV fire" caused disasters ended up being caused by ICE vehicles.

why is it when ever there is an ICE car fire or a gas explosion people do not suddenly start whaling about the danger of fossil fuels?

it has been shown time and again that statistically an EV is far less likely to catch fire than an ICE vehicle. and the good news is, IF you are worried about EV battery fires if you do a little homework you can choose to buy an EV even less likely still to catch fire - you just sacrifice a bit of energy density.

i cant read the link however you didnt mention if anyone was hurt. if not then that is great news and shows that people were able to get off safely before it got too dicey. who is to say it would have been that way if it had been full of petrol cars?
Click to expand...

To be fair, I highly doubt they would ship ICE cars with full fuel tanks!

That being said, that article is a load of cow faeces, with such classics as:

"shipping around 3,000 cars [...] included about 800 EVs"

"It’s unclear at this stage which brand’s electric vehicle caught fire, the people said, who asked not to be identified discussing preliminary findings."

So... statistically it's almost 3x more likely to have been an ICE than an EV, and "the people" (whoever the **** they are), don't even have a clue which vehicle caught fire (or even if it was a car which caused the fire in the first place)?

I guess it would be embarrassing for the writer's bias and agenda to be so obvious if they weren't clearly too stupid to realise in the first place :cry:
 
Why would the fuel tank be the source of the fire? Cars are generally made from materials which are highly combustible (plastic, foam etc.) even without the fuel.

IIRC the last one that went up was assumed to be an electrical fault in an ICE car.
 
Haggisman said:
To be fair, I highly doubt they would ship ICE cars with full fuel tanks!
Click to expand...
fair point i actually had in mind the ICE range rover which went up in that airport car park when i was writing some of that. You are right it would not make much sense to ship cars full of petrol.
That said....... back when i was a kid my dad told me an almost empty fuel can is more dangerous than a completely full one. i dont know if practically that is true but logically it makes sense (more room for fumes to build up i expect which is way more flammable / explosive than the petrol itsself).

with that in mind.............. again just spitballing. would a fully charged battery be hypothetically more flammable than a flat one - as it contains more energy?

if so then shipping EVs at 20% charge may make sense.

given most car fires are started by electrical faults, i guess the question really is what is more dangerous when a car has already set on fire.... a tank of fuel or a battery.
 
Last edited:
b0rn2sk8 said:
Why would the fuel tank be the source of the fire? Cars are generally made from materials which are highly combustible (plastic, foam etc.) even without the fuel.
Click to expand...

That comment was in response to "who is to say it would have been that way if it had been full of petrol cars?" Fuel source aside, ICE/EV are both made of essentially the same materials, so that wouldn't have made a difference.

bigmike20vt said:
fair point i actually had in mind the ICE range rover which went up in that airport car park when i was writing some of that. You are right it would not make much sense to ship cars full of petrol.
That said....... back when i was a kid my dad told me an almost empty fuel can is more dangerous than a completely full one. i dont know if practically that is true but logically it makes sense (more room for fumes to build up i expect which is way more flammable than the petrol itsself).
Click to expand...

Depends what danger you're considering. A full tank is worse in terms of stored energy and the overall amount of fire it can actually feed, however an almost empty one is more likely to explode, you need the air mixture for that to happen (this is for petrol, as far as I'm aware diesel doesn't really explode under normal circumstances, it just burns, hence why diesel engines need much higher compression than petrol)

bigmike20vt said:
with that in mind.............. again just spitballing. would a fully charged battery be hypothetically more flammable than a flat one - as it contains more energy?
Click to expand...

I'm fairly sure the answer is "yes", which is why the IATA advise lithium batteries should be shipped below 30% charged

bigmike20vt said:
given most car fires are started by electrical faults, i guess the question really is what is more dangerous when a car has already set on fire.... a tank of fuel or a battery.
Click to expand...

An excellent question! I would guess that a tank of fuel is more likely to explode, whereas lithium battery fires are notoriously difficult to extinguish
 
Haggisman said:
To be fair, I highly doubt they would ship ICE cars with full fuel tanks!

That being said, that article is a load of cow faeces, with such classics as:

"shipping around 3,000 cars [...] included about 800 EVs"

"It’s unclear at this stage which brand’s electric vehicle caught fire, the people said, who asked not to be identified discussing preliminary findings."

So... statistically it's almost 3x more likely to have been an ICE than an EV, and "the people" (whoever the **** they are), don't even have a clue which vehicle caught fire (or even if it was a car which caused the fire in the first place)?

I guess it would be embarrassing for the writer's bias and agenda to be so obvious if they weren't clearly too stupid to realise in the first place :cry:
Click to expand...
Unless they knew which area the fire started in and that area only contained EV's.

Whether they are carrying combustion vehicles, electric vehicles or balls of cotton wool it seems that there is a pretty strong case for better fire suppression systems on these ships :eek:
 
Last edited:
lordrobs said:
Unless they knew which area the fire started in and that area only contained EV's.
Click to expand...
This would make sense but it didnt stop the "EV caused ship fire" in that one a few years back where someone sadly died despite iirc the EVs on that ship being largely untouched. (from memory so apologies if not 100% accurate) in the fire a few years back the EVs were stored in the base of the ship, where as the fire broke out in one of the top decks.

whilst most of the usual suspect media were happy to have massive clickbait headlines about EV car fires, they were far more muted at reporting any followup
 
Last edited:
bigmike20vt said:
This would make sense but it didnt stop the "EV caused ship fire" in that one a few years back where someone sadly died despite iirc the EVs on that ship being largely untouched. (from memory so apologies if not 100% accurate) in the fire a few years back the EVs were stored in the base of the ship, where as the fire broke out in one of the top decks.
Click to expand...
Difficult one that as, if it's the article I just found, they were directly quoting what the ships owner was stating. Whether that then ended up being incorrect isn't really on the media as the owner of the ship would have to be taken as a credible source.

The company told the NOS public broadcaster there was “a good chance that the fire started with electric cars”, of which about 25 were on board. “But we are not entirely sure of the cause, we are waiting for the investigation,” it said.
Click to expand...

I mean... its not really anti EV propaganda.

That was from The Guardian so other media outlets may have put their own spin on it.
 
lordrobs said:
Unless they knew which area the fire started in and that area only contained EV's.
Click to expand...

True, we'll see I guess. Either way I guess it's a pretty sad state of affairs when the lies/misinformation is so prevalent that the default response to any report of an EV fire tends towards skepticism

lordrobs said:
Whether they are carrying combustion vehicles, electric vehicles or balls of cotton wool it seems that there is a pretty strong case for better fire suppression systems on these ships :eek:
Click to expand...

Agreed! If only there was an essentially infinite supply of water available to them... :p
 
Last edited:
You may not have noticed but the original poster was posting in other threads a good hour after I first challenged their post.

I’m going to go with it was a ‘haha EV’s lol’ post and run and they actually had no intention to actually engage in a meaningful discussion.
 
Last edited:
I am actually surprised at how few bugs/annoyances i have encountered with the MG4 and its App so far. Everything so far seems to work fine.

The main niggles are stupid things like the custom drive setting somehow defaulting the braking force to normal (when i have set it to sport) everytime i restart the car. It saves the steering mode, so why not the braking force? Very odd. The car drives so much better with the steering and braking force in sport (brakes feel far too spongy in any other setting), but i like to have the engine mode in normal sometimes (for less battery drain as it doesnt always have both motors on unless you floor it) so i like to use the custom setting a lot. More assignable toggles/features should be added to the quick drop down shortcut menu and steering wheel buttons too. I feel like these are easy/simple things to implement so it is frustrating for MG not to have done them.

The screen is actually quite responsive too which is contrary to some of the earlier reviews.

I think the latest update has improved things a fair bit from what Ive read so perhaps the software/screen was poor to begin with.
 
Last edited:
Thought it was that xiaomi car burned out on chinese highway after the ignored fsd 'hands on wheel' crash that was more worrying, it shook their share price.

Born handling is to ID3, what the junior velocee/a290/5 e-tech are to the megane e-tech - just need to wait until their newness has worn off and they are available 2nd hand or mftr reductions.



Rroff said:
You can't go on just weight alone even though you can never entirely hide the weight - I've driven a fair few 2T vehicles and there is a big difference - some can even feel far better to drive than lighter ones.
Click to expand...
The inertia, mass endows, is good if you are going in a straight line for side-winds or damping vertical perturbations due to road surface, but once you want to stop or change direction the mass is penalising
if mass is really contributing to crash protection (polestar maybe?) then ok that's a reasonable trade-off.
Adaptive dampers seems a solution to improve ev body control, I just don't see why tesla are reluctant to have optioned it in on model3 3/Y - maybe mftr's don't know about the poor state of UK roads,
and assume they are all like South of France where for cycling/driving you don't need a mental pot-hole map
 
jpaul said:
Thought it was that xiaomi car burned out on chinese highway after the ignored fsd 'hands on wheel' crash that was more worrying, it shook their share price.
Click to expand...

Not sure any of that is relevant to being an EV, if you take your hands off the wheel of an ICE and have a crash then there's a chance it will catch fire also...
 
jpaul said:
Adaptive dampers seems a solution to improve ev body control, I just don't see why tesla are reluctant to have optioned it in on model3 3/Y - maybe mftr's don't know about the poor state of UK roads,
and assume they are all like South of France where for cycling/driving you don't need a mental pot-hole map
Click to expand...

Cos its yet another part of technology Tesla dont put on their cars, they have a perceived 'technology' leadership as you can play games in the car, make whoopie cushion soundes and pretend the car can drive itself whilst keeping hardware variants as small as possible. The sidewalls are the issue for a pothole anyway, not the damper! Clearly you need to actually drive a car first anyway.

They cut cost to minimal, hence no indicator in the facelift (2nd) Model 3. Remember all that 'no facelifts like legacy automakers' lie at the start.
 
Model 3 Performance has adaptive dampers ;)

But yeh as Jonny said, their entire MO is to have as few variants of the car as possible to cuts costs but also limits what features they can offer to hit a certain price point/profitability.

The other part that @jpaul has missed is that in reality most people don’t know or care what an adaptive damper is. They just buy the car they want and the most consider the most important choice is what badge is on the front/back and what colour it is and that applies to those making £5k purchases and £200k purchases.
 
Last edited:
Is it generally a bad idea to charge your car up to 100% frequently? I've read it is ok if you are using it straight after or soon after charging, but then what if it then sits at say, 90% for a day or two without use?

Can't really get much definitive information on it (perhaps it just isnt really yet known or proven etc)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom