So a leak from the fuel line onto a hot component, or electrical component wouldn't be the cause?
Luton airport...
- Thread starter Uther
- Start date
The 250,000 ice zafiras that were recalled because they caught fire had an electrical component that was faulty.
Yes it was an electrical component running from the 12v.
Yet an ev fire and it gets blamed in the some reason it has a lithium battery.
The sooner they crack sodium batteries the better as numpties will have to come up with more fud.
Caporegime
The cause would be the thing that caused a leak.
When the shuttle challenger blew up. It wasn't the fuel that caused it to blow up. That isn't what root cause analysis is about. It was the O-rings that failed which was caused by the low temperatures causing them to shrink.
The cause of the challenger blowing up was the O-rings being susceptible to deformation with low temperatures.
Soldato
Right.
So what you are describing is a set of conditions that only applies to a diesel engine.
By the way what you attempted to do was the "5 whys" approach to simple root cause analysis.
Its really not a full blown root cause analysis as such but to give you a head start on what to look into.
Really in this situation with what we know now it would be :
Statement/problem : There was a car fire.
Why 1: Why?
Answer 1 : We don't know.
I think your getting a bit confused on the specifics of cause here. The car needs to be considered as a whole.
Why was there a fire? One or more of the components of the package "the diesel car" failed and triggered a fire.
The point of root cause analysis is to identify the issue and try to solve it.
Working in manufacturing where there is high risk, you always look for 2 things, point of failure (such as no grounding) and fuel source. You need both.
A spark is not an issue if there is no fuel. A fuel spill is no issue if there is no ignition source. But the two together are a problem.
So you try to ensure no ignition source near any fuel sources, and no fuel source near any ignition source.
Our FLTs for example are all modified to comply with ATEX. Its practically impossible for them to generate a spark on failure.
divert from an ice causing a fire all you want, it still happened.
Next time there's an ev fire, will youstop to think what the actual cause was or will it be a case of " oh its an ev of course its on fire"?
Caporegime
Again your FLT's are modified to reduce the risk of them catching fire. Which is great but obviously JLR products are not as good in that regards.
BTW I was IOSH, NEBOSH and all that jazz writing and modifying risk assessments in a manufacturing setting for around 15 years.
Like as you said in an ideal world you remove the risk entirely but when your car needs diesel to propel itself forward you have to reduce the risk as a much as possible.
It is irrelevant if I am describing a set of conditions that applies only to a diesel engine. It might mean that the risk of fire is higher (which it might well be) but it doesn't mean the cause of the fire is due to it being a diesel. They are two very different things.
Caporegime
I am not diverting anything. I actually agree there is less risk of an EV catching fire than a ICE engine.
If it was a Christmas cracker that combusted the implications would be equally as bad. Normal people would not collectively go "aaah gosh pesky darned crackers". Normal people would demand an investigation to ensure the pesky cracker didn't burn an airport car park to the ground again. A fool might say pesky crackers at it again though.
It matters a hell of a lot what fuel it was. We know diesel and petrol have been used in cars for a century at least and there will be an abundance of data regards fires from these fuels in vehicles.
If and i said IF in my original post because i do not know that it was an EV, but if it was an EV, which is a relatively new tech, then this one incident alone at Luton airport, and the subsequent damage that has been seen, will have massive implications on the storage of such vehicles, and rightly so.
The problem is nobody said the fire started because it was a diesel, just that it was a diesel. You have been arguing semantics over a claim I don’t recall anyone making.
“It was a fire caused by a diesel car” is not the same as, “it was a fire caused because the car was using diesel”. Unfortunately there seems to be a bit of a right wing campaign to demonise EVs and anything “green agenda”. So it has suddenly become important to identify the propulsion system in a petty blame game. You wouldn’t be guilty of such pettiness of course.
Last edited:
Those believing in the superior safety of ev's against fire do need to catch up on the CATL battery production problem that lead to Bolt fires (discussed in Motors)
www.cnbc.com
the technology was/is immature which lead to unexpected failure modes - we are still learning ...similar to the Challenger -
they found if they had two innocuous battery manufacturing defects together, that produced something much worse,
in comparison diesel/petrols have a few more miles under their belts.
LG to pay up to $1.9 billion to General Motors over Bolt EV battery fires
Problems with the Bolt – the company's flagship mainstream EV – have led the automaker to recall every one of the electric cars since production began in 2016.
www.cnbc.com
the technology was/is immature which lead to unexpected failure modes - we are still learning ...similar to the Challenger -
they found if they had two innocuous battery manufacturing defects together, that produced something much worse,
in comparison diesel/petrols have a few more miles under their belts.
Why is people talking about EV fire on this thread when it clearly is caused by an ICE car.
Madness.
It’s a Range Rover - it breaks and in this case it gets lit up like 4th of July. anyone noticed that the rear driving lights were on when the fire was developing? Maybe someone forgot to turn the car off - engine is off but the electrical systems were on and something went wrong and the wire loom get caught on fire then cascaded?
Incidentally saw an Audi E-tron got smashed to bits on M25 this morning, brand new car as well. It didn’t catch on fire. In fact there was no full carriage way closure due to oil/fuel leaks. And certainly not the usual spray of foam at the incident location if it is ICE car involved.
Madness.
It’s a Range Rover - it breaks and in this case it gets lit up like 4th of July. anyone noticed that the rear driving lights were on when the fire was developing? Maybe someone forgot to turn the car off - engine is off but the electrical systems were on and something went wrong and the wire loom get caught on fire then cascaded?
Incidentally saw an Audi E-tron got smashed to bits on M25 this morning, brand new car as well. It didn’t catch on fire. In fact there was no full carriage way closure due to oil/fuel leaks. And certainly not the usual spray of foam at the incident location if it is ICE car involved.
Last edited:
There was an EV scooter in the boot, the poor defenseless diesel was there just minding its own business and then BAM. Spontaneous EV scooter combustion. And that naughty EV scooter has even tried to frame the poor innocent range rover.
(did i do it right?)
For reference.
Apologies I edited my factual errors.
Burning car said to have started Luton car park fire
Footage emerges of the car which could have caused the massive blaze at Luton's Terminal 2 car park.
www.bbc.co.uk
Last edited:
Those believing in the superior safety of ev's against fire do need to catch up on the CATL battery production problem that lead to Bolt fires (discussed in Motors)
LG to pay up to $1.9 billion to General Motors over Bolt EV battery fires
Problems with the Bolt – the company's flagship mainstream EV – have led the automaker to recall every one of the electric cars since production began in 2016.
the technology was/is immature which lead to unexpected failure modes - we are still learning ...similar to the Challenger -
they found if they had two innocuous battery manufacturing defects together, that produced something much worse,
in comparison diesel/petrols have a few more miles under their belts.
I’m more of a beef burger guy than a steak guy to be fair. Oh I’m sorry, I thought we were injecting the thread with pointless irrelevant trivia.
What does this have to do with CATL if they're LG batteries?Those believing in the superior safety of ev's against fire do need to catch up on the CATL battery production problem that lead to Bolt fires (discussed in Motors)
LG to pay up to $1.9 billion to General Motors over Bolt EV battery fires
Problems with the Bolt – the company's flagship mainstream EV – have led the automaker to recall every one of the electric cars since production began in 2016.
the technology was/is immature which lead to unexpected failure modes - we are still learning ...similar to the Challenger -
they found if they had two innocuous battery manufacturing defects together, that produced something much worse,
in comparison diesel/petrols have a few more miles under their belts.
Soldato
Has this been verified? It's impossible for it to have been caused by a diesel car, so I highly doubt this is true. More investigation needed.
I know you are being a bit facetious for obvious reasons but I forgive you
Burning car said to have started Luton car park fire
Footage emerges of the car which could have caused the massive blaze at Luton's Terminal 2 car park.
www.bbc.co.uk
Apologies I read it as the owner took the video after trying to put the fire out but that may not be the case. The car is also possibly in a parking bay so clearly there are aspects that need clarification.
But it was a diesel
Last edited:
Caporegime
That will open up a whole can of worms if the extinguisher was empty and they check the service sticker on the back and it is out of date. If they find other discrepancies then the people who run the car park may end up being liable?
I am more surprised a multistorey car park doesn't require some sort of fire extinguisher system etc.
Soldato
I can see this thread getting locked soon lol