Luton airport...

Hades said:
Yes that was my point. ICE provides the fuel for the fire. So I'm not sure why you are suggesting it is "completely the opposite way around".
Click to expand...
It’s opposite way around in that EV is safer as it’s much less likely to set on fire. They should just have better fire suppression systems and possibly space vehicles out a little more.
 
Last edited:
Latest comments from the fire service are that it was likely started from a diesel vehicle that had arrived shortly before the fire started.
 
Mr Jack said:
EV was my first thought, but it's not like pure ICE cars never catch fire is it? My money is still more on some kind of vehicle fault than deliberate arson.
Click to expand...

Could it be a charger fault?
This is more likely than a pure EV just catching fire right?
 
413x said:
Isn't diesel really difficult to ignite?
Click to expand...

Compared to petrol, and various other liquid fuels, sure. But if you have enough heat and a continuous flame - both things that a faulty vehicle can easily provide - then it'll burn just fine.
 
Mr Jack said:
Compared to petrol, and various other liquid fuels, sure. But if you have enough heat and a continuous flame - both things that a faulty vehicle can easily provide - then it'll burn just fine.
Click to expand...

If it was a diesel it must surely have started by something in the car or someone setting the car alight?

I guess we'll find out soon enough
 
I think the point on ev's and fire is that if a petrol car catches fire you can put it out in 20 mins with a fire extinguisher. If an EV catches fire it can burn for days and be almost impossible to put out.
 
How much does the typical car insurance cover? 1200 cars and the collapse of a multi storey car park will be expensive.
 
That 2018 merseyside multi-storey fire rpt : https://www.bafsa.org.uk/wp-content...er/2018/12/Merseyside-FRS-Car-Park-Report.pdf
hmmh - Running fuel fires, due to failure of plastic fuel tanks, in early stages of vehicle firescan be expected. It is estimated 85% of European vehicles have plastic fuel tanks
similar norway fire - the many ev's weren't observational, by firemen, blamed more than ice, albeit no post mortem on batteries.

- not obvious they identified patient zero in either case.
 
jpaul said:
That 2018 merseyside multi-storey fire rpt : https://www.bafsa.org.uk/wp-content...er/2018/12/Merseyside-FRS-Car-Park-Report.pdf
hmmh - Running fuel fires, due to failure of plastic fuel tanks, in early stages of vehicle firescan be expected. It is estimated 85% of European vehicles have plastic fuel tanks
similar norway fire - the many ev's weren't observational, by firemen, blamed more than ice, albeit no post mortem on batteries.

- not obvious they identified patient zero in either case.
Click to expand...
It was a 16 year Land Rover for the Liverpool one. There’s actually a picture of the vehicle on fire so there’s no doubt.

The fire at the carpark in Norway in 2020 was caused by a diesel Opal Zafira. The interest here in EV contribution was that there are huge number of EVs in Norway (more than 88% of new vehicles sales are EV). However the investigation found that EVs did not contribute beyond any conventional vehicle to the fire.
 
Last edited:
Hades said:
No. It's common sense.
Click to expand...

It’s really not and I prefer to make decisions based on evidence rather than the feels.

While the data is still building, but what data there is suggests EVs are considerably less likely to catch fire than an ICE car as has already been posted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom