More information: 1. How many EV fires have there been in Australia, and what were they? Read this. facebook.com/evfiresafeproject/posts/pfbid0q1zsoezocpckeji4GBfQjGKHw569twL1MBAMcHJC9vJyVGrauuoJkhsFMn7jK4JZl 2. A historical perspective on EV fire risk. l2sfbc.com/evs-fires-a-historical-perspective/ 3. Are EVs less likely to catch fire? The data appears to indicate yes. However, remember that total risk is a function of probability and consequence. Most people live their entire life and never experience a house fire, but you have alarms and insure it. 4. Detailed EV fire interview ruclips.net/video/Cm7Z8LshHJw/видео.html
There is a CSIRO report a few years ago into the age of cars (ICE powered) that burn. Very few cars burn before seven years, and there's a sudden spike after ten years. The average age of cars is 9 to 11 years, depending on which State. Comparing the extremely young EV fleet to the mature ICE fleet for fire risk is pointless, without adjusting for age.
@@tomparker5000 EVs have been in Australia since the late 2000s/early 2010s. There's 15 year old Nissan Leafs and iMievs still kicking around on the roads with their old-school pouch cells and air cooling. Very few EVs in Australia have caught fire, out of the approximately 250,000 fleet of EVs on Aussie roads, only eight have been reported to have ever caught fire. eight fires in a solid 15+ years of them being out there in the public says a lot, really.
What an excellent video Robert!. Nothing but fact, clear and concise, no bias on the part of Emma who is obviously extremely knowledgable on the subject. I was impressed to learn that there have only been 8 fires in EV's thus far. Thats a pretty good safety record. Would be interested to know what brands were involved (just out of interest, because there is no way any kind of opinions could be formed with such a small sample size)
I suspect it's 8 fires that involved the battery, as that's what EV fire safe usually works with. for reference, we had 38 fires in EV's in sweden last year. but only 3-4 of them involved the battery, the rest were just fires in the 12v system or cabin that was easily put out.
I would not go anywhere near that or any other vehicles that has been burnt out for health reasons. When I was in the police we had a fireman brief us on the dangers of cars that had been burnt out. To say I was surprised was an understatement. The materials of the car go under rather nasty changes when under extreme heat and the combinations of materials can cause the loss of limbs and worse from the particles that are created. Just getting certain by products of these on your skin or in your airways will do your health zero good in my opinion. This was also before e.v's really came on to the U.K. roads so even more nasty by products are most probably produced for all those batteries in my opinion.
I did a track day last weekend at Luddenham in Sydney. I was the first EV to run in a CSCA Supersprint event and as such was not allocated a class or awarded any points, it was just for fun, which is fine by me. The venue’s EV fire plan is to tow your car into a dam😂. I was very happy with how my Tesla performed, mid field in a group of track prepped race cars of all sorts. Quite more learning for me with this platform. Thank you for providing an un-biased, factual report on this EV fire. There’s so much FUD out there it’s ridiculous.
I have another video on an EV-only motorsport event. I did wonder if the fire plan was put it in the dam! The Tesla has such great acceleration that delivers impressive laptimes, although they are fine handling vehicles too.
"According to the Korea Insurance Development Institute, the number of fire and explosion incidents involving EVs has been higher than that of internal combustion engine vehicles over the past five years. EVs had 0.93 incidents per 10,000 vehicles, while non-EVs had a lower rate of 0.90 incidents. Moreover, the financial losses incurred in these incidents were significantly higher for EVs, with the average loss per incident tallied at 13 million won ($9,700), which is 1.9 times higher than the average of 6.9 million won for non-EVs."
Good stuff mate. So much misinformation around this subject, I suspect by big oil and legacy car manufacturers. Some would have you believe you only have to look sideways at an ev and it catches fire.
I don't think the misinformation comes from big oil etc. I think EVs are now a political thing, and there money to be made from exploiting hate and fear by content creators.
please stop the crap about oil companies or car manufacturers! there are dozens of causes of car fires, everything from electrical faults to faulty repairs to aftermarket gadget installations to vandalism and much more! a fire doesnt just suddently happen from nowhere! the other funny thing is we hear all the times about car fires but they never talk about the causes its just the empty comments.
the problem with EV fires is that they are much harder to put down! ICE have had to carry emergency fire estinguishers in some places around the world to eventualy minimise the fire propagations.
Presumably the passengers got out before the fire took hold. Otherwise they'd be messing around with bit of the corpses. An EV fire, which is very rare, give you time to escape. A petrol car often explodes, with you up-side down and trapped.
Good video. Hope this helps start to dispel the misinformation about EV fires that gets thrown around so often. It would have also been interesting to ask about propensity to actually catch fire to begin with (my understanding is that the rate of EVs actually catching fire is significantly less than ICE cars - something like 80-90% less likely).
See pinned post. This was more specific to that fire, not general, I put a link in the pinned post for EV fires to date. Also, 80-90% less is misleading. The chances are tiny, and tiny doubled is still tiny. Consider buying a lottery ticket; you can buy 1, 2 or 3, and double, triple your chances...but it's still so unlikely it makes no difference.
Potentially catastrophic. In this case, there was a fire and no catastrophe. The fire was extinguished, nobody was hurt. However, it would be wrong to extrapolate that to all EV fires.
As an engineer who supports the uptake of EVs where they are suitable for a customer's needs, I think we need to be very careful making direct comparisons of EV vs ICE fires. The average age of the ICE fleet is much older that the EV fleet, and the ICE average age has actually increased during the last few years - at this point it's believed to be as a result of Covid supply interruptions to general vehicle availability driving retention of older vehicles. As a general rule older vehicles are just statistically more likely to have failures that result in fires. To my knowledge, to date no-one has done a specific age-for-age EV vs ICE fleet fire comparison. The other thing that's critical when comparing like for like, is to ensure we correctly identify if the fire is powertrain related. ICE vehicles have electrical systems, and EVs have both powertrain and accessory electrical systems. Attributing fire cause to EV or ICE powertrains, when in fact it isn't powertrain related, is also misleading. I have no doubt it's only a matter of time before someone does an in-depth study now that this has become a common question. It will be interesting to see the results - though my guess at this point is age and maintenance history will be the driving factors more than the powertrain.
Agreed - and to add to that, there is also vehicle usage patterns which have an effect on fire risk, as well as modifications which are often a source of fires. EVs tend to have low risk usage patterns, being roadcars and rarely commercially used, and are not often modified or do a lot of hard commercial work. So, I'm also a little sceptical about the lower probability, but have no hard data to prove otherwise. I don't think the base data is collected either.
@@L2SFBC EV Fires (and House Battery Fires) are a topic of RFS training and this adds to the knowledge given the relatively rare occurrence of but increasing possibility of EV incidents
Two things about probabilities. 1. Probability is only part of a risk assessment. The other part is consequence. Most people will never experience a house fire, but we have smoke alarms and insurance. 2. As the number of EVs increases, the probability of a fire somewhere also increases. If it's say one in million km, and there's one EV on the roads...that's effectively zero. If there's a million EVs, then the chances of a fire somewhere are effectively 1. Then, see consequence. l2sfbc.com/evs-fires-a-historical-perspective/
Presumably the passengers got out before the fire took hold. Otherwise they'd be messing around with bit of the corpses. An EV fire, which is very rare, give you time to escape. A petrol car often explodes, with you up-side down and trapped.
I suggest you have a look at the 5 recent fatal fires for EV's 2 Germany...1 in France...1 in USA and another in Canada. The commonality all crashed into hard objects and burst into flames so fast a believe only 2 people total made it out of these vehicles because the vehicles where instantly on fire after the crash. I'll never own an EV.
Presumably the passengers got out before the fire took hold. Otherwise they'd be messing around with bit of the corpses. An EV fire, which is very rare, give you time to escape. A petrol car often explodes, with you up-side down and trapped.
These are LiFePO4 cells, only the oily electrolyte can burn. The chemistry is all but inert, but the energy density can produce enormous heat and burn anything near that including the electrolyte.
@@fredio54 Thermal runaway can occur in all energetic compounds, petrol, diesel, lithium battery chemistries of all sorts, it all depends on a multitude of factors. The simple fact that the cell design, chemistry and pack structure all contributed directly to a reduction of fire spread, as well as the work of the RFS who managed to get on scene and control the blaze, shows that this was an event that despite the shocking end result, resulted in the occupants of the vehicle surviving the incident. Cars can be replaced. People cannot.
@@fredio54 LFP can absolutely experience thermal runaway just like NMC, but it requires a significantly higher temperature. plenty of good scientific studies about it a single google search away. :)
@@rtmpgt yes but lfp 'thermal runaway' is child's play compared to nmc thermal runaway. nmc burns way hotter. both give off really toxic fluoride fumes though.
In the last 8 weeks 21 people died in fiery Tesla crashes! Some of them were burnt alive, resp. died from toxic fume gases while trapped in the burning wreck.
So roughly 3 fires per 100,000 cars on the road. Also these are the trailblazers, so presumably 2024 models are even safer. Would be interesting to see what the rate is for ICE vehicles.
there are litteraly millions of new and even more of used ICE and alot with faulty repairs, sketchy aftermarket installations and alot more crazy things on the roads! fires can be caused by sooooo many different things and vandalism isnt excluded.
LFP batteries are much less likely to suffer thermal runaway than the Lion batteries which are fitted usually to long range models . I have seen demos of LFP batteries being shot drilled etc and very little propagation to nearby batteries. Lion batteries are another matter with hundreds of virtually uncontrollable fires from Bicycles and scooters this year alone. There is a Coroners investigation in NSW on how to reduce these fires. The problem is that they make their own oxygen , hence the videos of Teslas burning underwater. I am happy to have 2LFP batteries in my car and caravan and 2LFP batteries for golf buggies in my garage. I only learned recently that all standard range Tesla Model 3s have LFP batteries and these are the highest selling models . However I would not like to be in an apartment block or parking station where a Lion fitted car is being charged. One problem highlighted in Canada and UK is that if the battery guard is dented on say a Porsche Taycan the company insists on battery replacement at astronomical cost, hence one blogger saying his 130K GBP Taycan was now worth 30K GBP.
@@keegan773 I'd be thanking the design of the Tesla and its crash structures and battery. They seem to have done their legwork when it comes to safety.
@ and what about the people who couldn’t open the electronic doors and perished because they couldn’t get out of the vehicles suffering a thermal runaway.
"Don't swerve for wildlife" 😂 Wait, is that serious advice? If yes, I am listening....is it because there's less damage to human occupants if they hit small wildlife instead of swerving?
Yep just brake and staying straight in a line is the best method. Obviously entirely depends on the size Obstacle in this case a Roo. Main point is not to carry speed and lose control.
Yes, it's very serious advice. First off, human lives are worth more than wildlife. Second, swerving is often pointless as the wildlife may run off the road..into the path you're taking as you're swerving. So, if you don't swerve, you *may* hit the animal, and if you do, the car may be damaged but it will protect you. If you swerve, you may also STILL hit the animal, but there is a 99% change you will significantly damage your car, and possibly injure yourself if it rolls or hits a tree. So, playing the odds, not swerving is the best option.
Only the cybertruck has a 48v system battery. This 48v was necessary in the CT due to the use of 3x 5hp motors for the steer by wire system in the CT. Higher voltage keeps the current down to these 5hp motors.
Not really, this is more or less showing us how well the vehicle performs in a crash. Both occupants survived this incident which is fantastic news and a testament to how safe the car actually is. Human survival is the most important thing to worry about in incidents like this.
A mechanic clock it’s expensive, but rarely fails or break. When cassio starts selling digital clocks they where cheaper and added calculator, alarms… The electric car is exactly the oposite… less reliable but much more expensive. That’s for posh people in the city. Im still waiting for e-gasoline and e-diesel, to just change 4 inyectors, some gaskets and o-rings to be more ecologist than any electric vehicle. They are allready testing Classic cars at competitions with sintetic fuel in england. You can watch that at RIchard Hammond’s last tv show. Electric car is to destroy more the enviroment for more litium, rare earths, etc… to burn norwegian oil to create electricity to charge them with energetic looses at every step. Not common sence at all, just make elon musk rich so he can play with phallic artificial rockets. Now is Trump’s (petrol advocate) bestie and they make pijama partys. They are laughting at our faces, just care about money and almost everybody believes advertirsements and propaganda, but know nothing about science. Rich people it’s gonna drive their ferraris and lambos when u where in a electric schooter.
Always good to see Emma out there spreading the truth behind the very minimal dangers of EV fires and how incredibly rare they are compared to ICE fires.
Well, I wouldn't say a burning car is minimal danger, EV or not. As for rarity, if there is a very tiny chance of something, and that chance is doubled, it's still a tiny chance.
5:21 & 6:09 ... The same gash in the underside that likely damaged battery cells and initiated thermal runaway (3:30) likely also gave fire fighting water a chance to actually get in to cool the affected battery cells and prevent further thermal runaway propagation to the neighboring cells within the same module & also to the neighboring un-gashed battery modules ... that and that fire fighters were on scene amazingly quickly. Kudos. 1:25 7:15 ... So some Elonmobiles are now switching to prismatic geometry battery cells? And, switching chemistry to LiFePO4 / LFP? Cybertrucks haven't. Sandy Munro shows us that Cybertrucks are using cylindrical 4680 cells. And, 4680's are not LFP, they're NMC, I believe ... as are the previous Elon standard 18650 & 21700 cells, I believe, mentioned by Miss Emma -- 7:25 Prismatics then apparently new to Elonmobiles, and, perhaps a very tacit admission there's a real thermal runaway issue here -- generally, and considering this video -- a thermal runaway issue with all of their cars, no? And LFP sacrifices range for claimed improvement in safety, correct? Thus, range-xiety being a major hurdle for EV appeal, only potential mitigation of thermal runaway risk could push Elon away from NMC, et al., and into LFP, it would seem. Then there's the extra charging time with LFP as they apparently don't like to be charged less than 100%. Folks, ask a friend how long that last 10% of charge takes, 90% to 100%. Maybe Elon's just experimenting on Australians -- he's been keen to comment recently on the fact Australians can't defend themselves with guns. Finally, it should be noted that Elon doesn't provide rear passenger, inside mechanical door handles in any of his cars, not even the Cybertruck. U2oob: Cybertruck Piedmont ... or ... Tesla Toronto ... or Google: Tesla Niort ... etc.
The explanation is excellent and far more detailed than any other video I have seen on the subject. Just because you dont like the conclusion does not make it any less valid
Nobody "deserves" to be in a car accident. This accident resulted in both people surviving this incident, and whilst the car is absolutely totaled, a gas car would've suffered the same fate if it was involved in that same kind of accident and said accident resulted in a fire. What matters is the lives of the occupants.
@@anthonywalsh2164 You're talking about the Long Range Model Y, which have Tesla/Panasonic's 4680 Cell design in some markets. The 4680 cells have a bonding foam which also acts as a fire retardant of sorts between the cells. This particular Model Y is a Shanghai-built LFP equipped RWD Model Y with CATL Prismatic LFP Cells. Both cell types still sit within an armoured case akin to this one. They're just held together inside the pack in different ways.
More information:
1. How many EV fires have there been in Australia, and what were they? Read this. facebook.com/evfiresafeproject/posts/pfbid0q1zsoezocpckeji4GBfQjGKHw569twL1MBAMcHJC9vJyVGrauuoJkhsFMn7jK4JZl
2. A historical perspective on EV fire risk. l2sfbc.com/evs-fires-a-historical-perspective/
3. Are EVs less likely to catch fire? The data appears to indicate yes. However, remember that total risk is a function of probability and consequence. Most people live their entire life and never experience a house fire, but you have alarms and insure it.
4. Detailed EV fire interview ruclips.net/video/Cm7Z8LshHJw/видео.html
There is a CSIRO report a few years ago into the age of cars (ICE powered) that burn. Very few cars burn before seven years, and there's a sudden spike after ten years. The average age of cars is 9 to 11 years, depending on which State. Comparing the extremely young EV fleet to the mature ICE fleet for fire risk is pointless, without adjusting for age.
@@tomparker5000 EVs have been in Australia since the late 2000s/early 2010s. There's 15 year old Nissan Leafs and iMievs still kicking around on the roads with their old-school pouch cells and air cooling. Very few EVs in Australia have caught fire, out of the approximately 250,000 fleet of EVs on Aussie roads, only eight have been reported to have ever caught fire.
eight fires in a solid 15+ years of them being out there in the public says a lot, really.
I love a hype free factual video.
Good job explaining by Emma! I think this is one of the very few non hysterical factual explanation of EV fire. Thank you!
Excellent video. No bias or bullshit. Just well explained facts.👍
What an excellent video Robert!. Nothing but fact, clear and concise, no bias on the part of Emma who is obviously extremely knowledgable on the subject. I was impressed to learn that there have only been 8 fires in EV's thus far. Thats a pretty good safety record. Would be interested to know what brands were involved (just out of interest, because there is no way any kind of opinions could be formed with such a small sample size)
See pinned post has that detail. And thanks!
I suspect it's 8 fires that involved the battery, as that's what EV fire safe usually works with.
for reference, we had 38 fires in EV's in sweden last year. but only 3-4 of them involved the battery, the rest were just fires in the 12v system or cabin that was easily put out.
Rule #1.
Very basic: Never swerve for wildlife!
...if it's big enough to drive beneath it.
I would not go anywhere near that or any other vehicles that has been burnt out for health reasons. When I was in the police we had a fireman brief us on the dangers of cars that had been burnt out. To say I was surprised was an understatement. The materials of the car go under rather nasty changes when under extreme heat and the combinations of materials can cause the loss of limbs and worse from the particles that are created. Just getting certain by products of these on your skin or in your airways will do your health zero good in my opinion. This was also before e.v's really came on to the U.K. roads so even more nasty by products are most probably produced for all those batteries in my opinion.
I did a track day last weekend at Luddenham in Sydney. I was the first EV to run in a CSCA Supersprint event and as such was not allocated a class or awarded any points, it was just for fun, which is fine by me. The venue’s EV fire plan is to tow your car into a dam😂. I was very happy with how my Tesla performed, mid field in a group of track prepped race cars of all sorts. Quite more learning for me with this platform. Thank you for providing an un-biased, factual report on this EV fire. There’s so much FUD out there it’s ridiculous.
I have another video on an EV-only motorsport event. I did wonder if the fire plan was put it in the dam! The Tesla has such great acceleration that delivers impressive laptimes, although they are fine handling vehicles too.
great interviewee great interviewer and great video editor
I'm two of those three :-)
"According to the Korea Insurance Development Institute, the number of fire and explosion incidents involving EVs has been higher than that of internal combustion engine vehicles over the past five years.
EVs had 0.93 incidents per 10,000 vehicles, while non-EVs had a lower rate of 0.90 incidents.
Moreover, the financial losses incurred in these incidents were significantly higher for EVs, with the average loss per incident tallied at 13 million won ($9,700), which is 1.9 times higher than the average of 6.9 million won for non-EVs."
so essentially identical, and both microscopic. No additional worry needed.
Good stuff mate. So much misinformation around this subject, I suspect by big oil and legacy car manufacturers. Some would have you believe you only have to look sideways at an ev and it catches fire.
I don't think the misinformation comes from big oil etc. I think EVs are now a political thing, and there money to be made from exploiting hate and fear by content creators.
please stop the crap about oil companies or car manufacturers! there are dozens of causes of car fires, everything from electrical faults to faulty repairs to aftermarket gadget installations to vandalism and much more! a fire doesnt just suddently happen from nowhere! the other funny thing is we hear all the times about car fires but they never talk about the causes its just the empty comments.
the problem with EV fires is that they are much harder to put down! ICE have had to carry emergency fire estinguishers in some places around the world to eventualy minimise the fire propagations.
Presumably the passengers got out before the fire took hold. Otherwise they'd be messing around with bit of the corpses. An EV fire, which is very rare, give you time to escape. A petrol car often explodes, with you up-side down and trapped.
Good video. Hope this helps start to dispel the misinformation about EV fires that gets thrown around so often. It would have also been interesting to ask about propensity to actually catch fire to begin with (my understanding is that the rate of EVs actually catching fire is significantly less than ICE cars - something like 80-90% less likely).
See pinned post. This was more specific to that fire, not general, I put a link in the pinned post for EV fires to date. Also, 80-90% less is misleading. The chances are tiny, and tiny doubled is still tiny. Consider buying a lottery ticket; you can buy 1, 2 or 3, and double, triple your chances...but it's still so unlikely it makes no difference.
Typically the probability of battery fire risk is low to medium but consequence is catastrophic.
Potentially catastrophic. In this case, there was a fire and no catastrophe. The fire was extinguished, nobody was hurt. However, it would be wrong to extrapolate that to all EV fires.
As an engineer who supports the uptake of EVs where they are suitable for a customer's needs, I think we need to be very careful making direct comparisons of EV vs ICE fires. The average age of the ICE fleet is much older that the EV fleet, and the ICE average age has actually increased during the last few years - at this point it's believed to be as a result of Covid supply interruptions to general vehicle availability driving retention of older vehicles. As a general rule older vehicles are just statistically more likely to have failures that result in fires. To my knowledge, to date no-one has done a specific age-for-age EV vs ICE fleet fire comparison.
The other thing that's critical when comparing like for like, is to ensure we correctly identify if the fire is powertrain related. ICE vehicles have electrical systems, and EVs have both powertrain and accessory electrical systems. Attributing fire cause to EV or ICE powertrains, when in fact it isn't powertrain related, is also misleading.
I have no doubt it's only a matter of time before someone does an in-depth study now that this has become a common question. It will be interesting to see the results - though my guess at this point is age and maintenance history will be the driving factors more than the powertrain.
Agreed - and to add to that, there is also vehicle usage patterns which have an effect on fire risk, as well as modifications which are often a source of fires. EVs tend to have low risk usage patterns, being roadcars and rarely commercially used, and are not often modified or do a lot of hard commercial work. So, I'm also a little sceptical about the lower probability, but have no hard data to prove otherwise. I don't think the base data is collected either.
Enjoyed that clip a lot.
Even the dogs.
Well explained.
kelpies are the BEST!
@ I have an old Kelpie x Whippet. Has great traits from each breed.
Thanks Robert. I'm sharing this with my RFS Brigade.
Please do, love to be able to help the services!
@@L2SFBC EV Fires (and House Battery Fires) are a topic of RFS training and this adds to the knowledge given the relatively rare occurrence of but increasing possibility of EV incidents
Two things about probabilities.
1. Probability is only part of a risk assessment. The other part is consequence. Most people will never experience a house fire, but we have smoke alarms and insurance.
2. As the number of EVs increases, the probability of a fire somewhere also increases. If it's say one in million km, and there's one EV on the roads...that's effectively zero. If there's a million EVs, then the chances of a fire somewhere are effectively 1. Then, see consequence.
l2sfbc.com/evs-fires-a-historical-perspective/
@@L2SFBC For clarity, my use of the term "incident" refers to a callout to an MVA (Motor Vehicle Accident) regardless of whether there is a fire.
Jeeps are catching on fire and so are Toyotas maybe do some reporting on that.
So are Ferrari's...whats your point?
@@andyg9991 the reporting on this.
BMW Straight 6 Diesel are the one with Fire RECALL. Here in Aus just happens to be where they dump those cars with those engines.
Tell this to all to those dead people in those crashed EVs.
It's getting alarmingly bad.
Just now. 2 in Austria.😢😢 Damn.
Presumably the passengers got out before the fire took hold. Otherwise they'd be messing around with bit of the corpses. An EV fire, which is very rare, give you time to escape. A petrol car often explodes, with you up-side down and trapped.
I suggest you have a look at the 5 recent fatal fires for EV's 2 Germany...1 in France...1 in USA and another in Canada. The commonality all crashed into hard objects and burst into flames so fast a believe only 2 people total made it out of these vehicles because the vehicles where instantly on fire after the crash. I'll never own an EV.
Link please. Would love to see your sources.
Presumably the passengers got out before the fire took hold. Otherwise they'd be messing around with bit of the corpses. An EV fire, which is very rare, give you time to escape. A petrol car often explodes, with you up-side down and trapped.
These are LiFePO4 cells, only the oily electrolyte can burn. The chemistry is all but inert, but the energy density can produce enormous heat and burn anything near that including the electrolyte.
Thermal runaway isn't applicable to these like it is in NMC. She's just wrong.
@@fredio54 Thermal runaway can occur in all energetic compounds, petrol, diesel, lithium battery chemistries of all sorts, it all depends on a multitude of factors. The simple fact that the cell design, chemistry and pack structure all contributed directly to a reduction of fire spread, as well as the work of the RFS who managed to get on scene and control the blaze, shows that this was an event that despite the shocking end result, resulted in the occupants of the vehicle surviving the incident.
Cars can be replaced. People cannot.
@@fredio54 LFP can absolutely experience thermal runaway just like NMC, but it requires a significantly higher temperature. plenty of good scientific studies about it a single google search away. :)
@@rtmpgt yes but lfp 'thermal runaway' is child's play compared to nmc thermal runaway. nmc burns way hotter. both give off really toxic fluoride fumes though.
@@jimmybrad156 it's one of the many reasons why I ordered an LFP car.
In the last 8 weeks 21 people died in fiery Tesla crashes! Some of them were burnt alive, resp. died from toxic fume gases while trapped in the burning wreck.
Autopsy after cremation of an EV.
:-) funniest yet!
6:00 FYI: if you smell it, your PPE is probably not good enough.
What about the dog?
R.I.P and Condolences to those associated 😢.
Both occupants survived the crash completely unscathed.
Wow that Model Y got opened up by a giant can opener.
Impressive that it survived well enough to allow the occupants to escape entirely unharmed. Remember, cars are replaceable, people aren't.
nmc / lpg and they'd prob be toast. petrol prob same result (tank sliced open and metal-on-metal sparks giving plenty of ignition with air-space.)
So roughly 3 fires per 100,000 cars on the road. Also these are the trailblazers, so presumably 2024 models are even safer.
Would be interesting to see what the rate is for ICE vehicles.
This should also be kept in mind that vehicle fires as a whole are extremely rare as far as accidental damage is concerned.
there are litteraly millions of new and even more of used ICE and alot with faulty repairs, sketchy aftermarket installations and alot more crazy things on the roads! fires can be caused by sooooo many different things and vandalism isnt excluded.
@@rtmpgt exactly!
LFP batteries are much less likely to suffer thermal runaway than the Lion batteries which are fitted usually to long range models . I have seen demos of LFP batteries being shot drilled etc and very little propagation to nearby batteries. Lion batteries are another matter with hundreds of virtually uncontrollable fires from Bicycles and scooters this year alone. There is a Coroners investigation in NSW on how to reduce these fires. The problem is that they make their own oxygen , hence the videos of Teslas burning underwater. I am happy to have 2LFP batteries in my car and caravan and 2LFP batteries for golf buggies in my garage. I only learned recently that all standard range Tesla Model 3s have LFP batteries and these are the highest selling models . However I would not like to be in an apartment block or parking station where a Lion fitted car is being charged. One problem highlighted in Canada and UK is that if the battery guard is dented on say a Porsche Taycan the company insists on battery replacement at astronomical cost, hence one blogger saying his 130K GBP Taycan was now worth 30K GBP.
LFP is a type of lithium-ion battery, as is NMC.
Not a big incident…….
Look at the state of the Tesla remains. 😳
The occupants survived this crash completely unharmed. That's the most important thing.
@ true, thank the Lord.
Please do not call Musk the Lord
@@keegan773 I'd be thanking the design of the Tesla and its crash structures and battery. They seem to have done their legwork when it comes to safety.
@ and what about the people who couldn’t open the electronic doors and perished because they couldn’t get out of the vehicles suffering a thermal runaway.
"Don't swerve for wildlife" 😂
Wait, is that serious advice? If yes, I am listening....is it because there's less damage to human occupants if they hit small wildlife instead of swerving?
Yep just brake and staying straight in a line is the best method. Obviously entirely depends on the size Obstacle in this case a Roo. Main point is not to carry speed and lose control.
Yes, it's very serious advice. First off, human lives are worth more than wildlife. Second, swerving is often pointless as the wildlife may run off the road..into the path you're taking as you're swerving. So, if you don't swerve, you *may* hit the animal, and if you do, the car may be damaged but it will protect you. If you swerve, you may also STILL hit the animal, but there is a 99% change you will significantly damage your car, and possibly injure yourself if it rolls or hits a tree. So, playing the odds, not swerving is the best option.
What I've learned is, never buy one.
Really? I would suggest this video is evidence of safety!
@L2SFBC
Let's just watch the real world results for a while longer.
Is not the Tesla house battery 48V?
Yes should have mentioned it is most are 12v.
Only the cybertruck has a 48v system battery. This 48v was necessary in the CT due to the use of 3x 5hp motors for the steer by wire system in the CT. Higher voltage keeps the current down to these 5hp motors.
The Cybertruck got a 48V Battery
If you mean the Powerwall house battery then that is 400V.
With LiFePO4 thermal runaway isn't a thing. She's just wrong about that.
No, she's not.
@@L2SFBC doubt any of those cells wouldve spared if they were nmc's.
Dont buy a golf cart, they b u r n good
Fan boys will be triggered 😂
Not really, this is more or less showing us how well the vehicle performs in a crash. Both occupants survived this incident which is fantastic news and a testament to how safe the car actually is. Human survival is the most important thing to worry about in incidents like this.
A mechanic clock it’s expensive, but rarely fails or break. When cassio starts selling digital clocks they where cheaper and added calculator, alarms… The electric car is exactly the oposite… less reliable but much more expensive. That’s for posh people in the city. Im still waiting for e-gasoline and e-diesel, to just change 4 inyectors, some gaskets and o-rings to be more ecologist than any electric vehicle. They are allready testing Classic cars at competitions with sintetic fuel in england. You can watch that at RIchard Hammond’s last tv show. Electric car is to destroy more the enviroment for more litium, rare earths, etc… to burn norwegian oil to create electricity to charge them with energetic looses at every step. Not common sence at all, just make elon musk rich so he can play with phallic artificial rockets. Now is Trump’s (petrol advocate) bestie and they make pijama partys. They are laughting at our faces, just care about money and almost everybody believes advertirsements and propaganda, but know nothing about science. Rich people it’s gonna drive their ferraris and lambos when u where in a electric schooter.
Carbon industry shills
Always good to see Emma out there spreading the truth behind the very minimal dangers of EV fires and how incredibly rare they are compared to ICE fires.
Well, I wouldn't say a burning car is minimal danger, EV or not. As for rarity, if there is a very tiny chance of something, and that chance is doubled, it's still a tiny chance.
5:21 & 6:09 ... The same gash in the underside that likely damaged battery cells and initiated thermal runaway (3:30) likely also gave fire fighting water a chance to actually get in to cool the affected battery cells and prevent further thermal runaway propagation to the neighboring cells within the same module & also to the neighboring un-gashed battery modules ... that and that fire fighters were on scene amazingly quickly. Kudos. 1:25
7:15 ... So some Elonmobiles are now switching to prismatic geometry battery cells? And, switching chemistry to LiFePO4 / LFP?
Cybertrucks haven't.
Sandy Munro shows us that Cybertrucks are using cylindrical 4680 cells. And, 4680's are not LFP, they're NMC, I believe ... as are the previous Elon standard 18650 & 21700 cells, I believe, mentioned by Miss Emma -- 7:25
Prismatics then apparently new to Elonmobiles, and, perhaps a very tacit admission there's a real thermal runaway issue here -- generally, and considering this video -- a thermal runaway issue with all of their cars, no?
And LFP sacrifices range for claimed improvement in safety, correct?
Thus, range-xiety being a major hurdle for EV appeal, only potential mitigation of thermal runaway risk could push Elon away from NMC, et al., and into LFP, it would seem.
Then there's the extra charging time with LFP as they apparently don't like to be charged less than 100%. Folks, ask a friend how long that last 10% of charge takes, 90% to 100%.
Maybe Elon's just experimenting on Australians -- he's been keen to comment recently on the fact Australians can't defend themselves with guns.
Finally, it should be noted that Elon doesn't provide rear passenger, inside mechanical door handles in any of his cars, not even the Cybertruck.
U2oob: Cybertruck Piedmont ... or ... Tesla Toronto ... or Google: Tesla Niort ... etc.
The explanation given is poor and not clear how the fire started. All supposition not fact
The armco post slicing the batteries open like a can open is supposition?
🤡
The explanation is excellent and far more detailed than any other video I have seen on the subject. Just because you dont like the conclusion does not make it any less valid
get a life.
Dude the Battery pack got Sliced Open with a giant can opener that was the up right beam of the guard rail.
people who buy---deserve em, so green hey
Incredibly dumb comment. 🤪
LOL You copied and pasted a script and didn't even comprehend what the video is about.
Nobody "deserves" to be in a car accident. This accident resulted in both people surviving this incident, and whilst the car is absolutely totaled, a gas car would've suffered the same fate if it was involved in that same kind of accident and said accident resulted in a fire. What matters is the lives of the occupants.
Aren’t the newer model Ys constructed differently with the cast rear and front sections. The batteries now in a sort of foam packaging?
@@anthonywalsh2164 You're talking about the Long Range Model Y, which have Tesla/Panasonic's 4680 Cell design in some markets. The 4680 cells have a bonding foam which also acts as a fire retardant of sorts between the cells. This particular Model Y is a Shanghai-built LFP equipped RWD Model Y with CATL Prismatic LFP Cells.
Both cell types still sit within an armoured case akin to this one. They're just held together inside the pack in different ways.