Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Electric cars are more efficient and are better for the environment because they don't burn fossil fuels. They do, however, burn... and seven at once on a car transporter is pretty darned efficient   (bbc.co.uk) divider line
    More: Fail, southbound carriageway, Dual carriageway, Single carriageway, carriageways, large smoke plume, spokesman, fire, motorists  
•       •       •

2609 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Dec 2022 at 8:05 PM (8 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



91 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2022-12-05 6:57:55 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-12-05 7:06:03 PM  
I'm a total gear head, and will never give up my GTI even while I switch to electric, which I would like to do

There really needs to be a better response to an electric car fire than dump 30k gallons on it, it just isn't a great plan

No, didn't read the article, just my .02
 
2022-12-05 7:15:18 PM  
Welp, we'd better go back to rolling coal since a technology never improves beyond a particular state during its infancy.
 
2022-12-05 7:17:41 PM  
Jaguars.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-12-05 7:21:34 PM  

mjjt: [Fark user image 754x856]


What really puts me off Tesla's is the unique combination of cars that can catch fire spontaneously or after a minor accident and cars that have electronic interior door controls that depend on the batteries that have just caught fire to open the doors, with on some models the mechanical emergency door opener hidden behind a speaker grille or under the floor carpet....

So they're likely to catch fire and if they do you might not be able to get out.
 
2022-12-05 8:08:27 PM  
Come on now. You have to say TESLAS burn, not EVs because Elmo.
 
2022-12-05 8:09:09 PM  

mjjt: [Fark user image image 754x856]


The Ford Pinto is a perfect example to bring up since it was also subject to a media slander campaign, including prime time news rigging one with explosives to get it to blow-up.

It is weird that decades later, we bought into the discredited lies.
 
2022-12-05 8:09:17 PM  

Carter Pewterschmidt: mjjt: [Fark user image 754x856]

What really puts me off Tesla's is the unique combination of cars that can catch fire spontaneously or after a minor accident and cars that have electronic interior door controls that depend on the batteries that have just caught fire to open the doors, with on some models the mechanical emergency door opener hidden behind a speaker grille or under the floor carpet....

So they're likely to catch fire and if they do you might not be able to get out.


Window breaking tools are good to keep in a car. In a Tesla they seem mandatory.
 
2022-12-05 8:09:46 PM  

Carter Pewterschmidt: mjjt: [Fark user image 754x856]

What really puts me off Tesla's is the unique combination of cars that can catch fire spontaneously or after a minor accident and cars that have electronic interior door controls that depend on the batteries that have just caught fire to open the doors, with on some models the mechanical emergency door opener hidden behind a speaker grille or under the floor carpet....

So they're likely to catch fire and if they do you might not be able to get out.


A friend of a friend has a Tesla.

He was woken up one morning by the fire brigade. Apparently, his car had caught fire, sensed the fire and called the emergency services.

I thought, what a great feature that they spent time developing instead of the not-catching-fire feature I would have preferred.
 
2022-12-05 8:10:08 PM  
I forgot how our electricity is all clean energy supplied by solar, wind, geothermal, and nuclear means. Oh wait...
 
2022-12-05 8:11:28 PM  

anuran: Come on now. You have to say TESLAS burn, not EVs because Elmo.


Teslas catch fire a lot FOR AN EV. They are still much, much, much less likely to catch fire than an ICE car.

ICE cars catch fire about 160,000 times a year in the US, roughly 0.1% of ICE cars catch fire every year. It happens so often it is unremarkable. Non-Tesla EVs almost never catch fire and Tesla EVs catch fire vastly less often than an average ICE car.
 
2022-12-05 8:13:44 PM  
Wait till one of these catches next to a support beam of an old skyscraper in a garage with a 7 foot roof that no fire truck can get to. That little sprinkler will be like peeing on a bonfire. Imagine 3 parked next to that beam at chargers. It's gonna happen.
 
2022-12-05 8:14:22 PM  

baka-san: I'm a total gear head, and will never give up my GTI even while I switch to electric, which I would like to do

There really needs to be a better response to an electric car fire than dump 30k gallons on it, it just isn't a great plan

No, didn't read the article, just my .02


Dumping a farkton of water on a metal fire is sometimes the only solution available beyond letting it burn out.

/the Navy's solution to a metal fire is that, or just get it off the ship somehow.
 
2022-12-05 8:17:09 PM  

meanmutton: mjjt: [Fark user image image 754x856]

The Ford Pinto is a perfect example to bring up since it was also subject to a media slander campaign, including prime time news rigging one with explosives to get it to blow-up.

It is weird that decades later, we bought into the discredited lies.


The "rigged with explosives" was the Pinto, that was the GM pickups with "sidesaddle" (outside of the frame) fuel tanks.

They weren't rigged with "explosives" either.  They were rigged with an incendiary (think like a kid's sparkler) to make sure that there was an ignition source for when the fuel tank ruptured in the side collision that 60 Minutes set up for the cameras.

The thing the pickups and the Pinto had in common was their propensity for fuel tank rupture in collisions.

As far as a "smear campaign" goes:  Based on historical documents, Ford first performed rear end collision testing on the Pinto way back December 1970, months after it was currently in production. At first, a total of 11 crashes were conducted, and in 8 instances, the gas tanks ruptured and burst into flames.
 
2022-12-05 8:17:30 PM  

mjjt: [Fark user image image 754x856]


Way more people on the roads these days. Way bigger vehicles to interact with on the roads. Apples and Oranges.  Technically true but very misleading and needlessly contributing to the incorrect perception that e-vehicles are less safe.

Did you get that from Breitbart?
 
2022-12-05 8:18:32 PM  

scanman61: meanmutton: mjjt: [Fark user image image 754x856]

The Ford Pinto is a perfect example to bring up since it was also subject to a media slander campaign, including prime time news rigging one with explosives to get it to blow-up.

It is weird that decades later, we bought into the discredited lies.

The "rigged with explosives" was the Pinto, that was the GM pickups with "sidesaddle" (outside of the frame) fuel tanks.

They weren't rigged with "explosives" either.  They were rigged with an incendiary (think like a kid's sparkler) to make sure that there was an ignition source for when the fuel tank ruptured in the side collision that 60 Minutes set up for the cameras.

The thing the pickups and the Pinto had in common was their propensity for fuel tank rupture in collisions.

As far as a "smear campaign" goes:  Based on historical documents, Ford first performed rear end collision testing on the Pinto way back December 1970, months after it was currently in production. At first, a total of 11 crashes were conducted, and in 8 instances, the gas tanks ruptured and burst into flames.


Dammit......wasn't the Pinto
 
2022-12-05 8:21:33 PM  
I see a Jag and maybe a BMW in those pictures, so regrettably no reason to express my undying hatred of Elon Musk.

fark that guy though.
 
2022-12-05 8:21:36 PM  
I wonder if using a saturated salt solution to put one of these out would work. The batteries would discharge through a conductive fluid, and the stored energy would get dissipated by heating and boiling away water instead of feeding combustion.
 
2022-12-05 8:24:08 PM  

meanmutton: mjjt: [Fark user image image 754x856]

The Ford Pinto is a perfect example to bring up since it was also subject to a media slander campaign, including prime time news rigging one with explosives to get it to blow-up.

It is weird that decades later, we bought into the discredited lies.


No, there were real engineering problems with the Pinto, that were cheap to fix and were quickly fixed once the eye of the public was drawn to them and the manufacturer suffered the shame of releasing it without safeguards against the issue.
 
2022-12-05 8:25:48 PM  
I like how TFA never mentioned the types of cars, but subby assumes it's EVs and everyone else just goes along with it. Because I have never seen an ICE vehicle just go up in flames in my field of view with no visible cause. I certainly did not see it three times.
 
2022-12-05 8:25:52 PM  

the money is in the banana stand: I forgot how our electricity is all clean energy supplied by solar, wind, geothermal, and nuclear means. Oh wait...


See this? This is a perfect, textbook example of how stupid a human mind can be, at it's absolute stupidest.
If all humans thought like this, we would still be non-tool-using primates.
 
2022-12-05 8:27:03 PM  

meanmutton: anuran: Come on now. You have to say TESLAS burn, not EVs because Elmo.

Teslas catch fire a lot FOR AN EV. They are still much, much, much less likely to catch fire than an ICE car.

ICE cars catch fire about 160,000 times a year in the US, roughly 0.1% of ICE cars catch fire every year. It happens so often it is unremarkable. Non-Tesla EVs almost never catch fire and Tesla EVs catch fire vastly less often than an average ICE car.


Those stats are iffy. There are 278 million ICE cars in the US of various ages and styles. 160000 would be 0.05% and Ice vehicles can start fire in 100 different ways since gas and oil are so combustable and many parts get very hot.

Batteries could be sealed and shielded and if they were, they wouldn't ever start on fire. It's 10000 times easier to safeguard EVs but Tesla cant add more cost. They don't make money now without subsidies.

We don't even know how bad EVs will be as they get older. There is no way to test age other than time. Accelerated tests for batteries don't come close to simulating real life.
 
2022-12-05 8:27:10 PM  
Yeah, better for the environment...


THIS

Fark user imageView Full Size


Versus this

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-12-05 8:28:48 PM  

BolloxReader: I like how TFA never mentioned the types of cars, but subby assumes it's EVs and everyone else just goes along with it. Because I have never seen an ICE vehicle just go up in flames in my field of view with no visible cause. I certainly did not see it three times.


ICE vehicles burn and blow up all the time. You just don't hear nearly as many stories about it because they go up too fast for the people to get out, and they, you know.....die.
 
2022-12-05 8:29:12 PM  

scanman61: meanmutton: mjjt: [Fark user image image 754x856]

The Ford Pinto is a perfect example to bring up since it was also subject to a media slander campaign, including prime time news rigging one with explosives to get it to blow-up.

It is weird that decades later, we bought into the discredited lies.

The "rigged with explosives" was the Pinto, that was the GM pickups with "sidesaddle" (outside of the frame) fuel tanks.

They weren't rigged with "explosives" either.  They were rigged with an incendiary (think like a kid's sparkler) to make sure that there was an ignition source for when the fuel tank ruptured in the side collision that 60 Minutes set up for the cameras.

The thing the pickups and the Pinto had in common was their propensity for fuel tank rupture in collisions.

As far as a "smear campaign" goes:  Based on historical documents, Ford first performed rear end collision testing on the Pinto way back December 1970, months after it was currently in production. At first, a total of 11 crashes were conducted, and in 8 instances, the gas tanks ruptured and burst into flames.


It wasn't the design, it was the leaked memo that it would cost less to pay the claims than to fix the design(including recalls)

Plenty of 70's cars had the same issue, just one leaked memo showed how little corporate cares about people

Other than the gas tank, the pinto was a pretty good design and went on to have a long career in various SCCA classes
 
2022-12-05 8:29:37 PM  

iToad: I wonder if using a saturated salt solution to put one of these out would work. The batteries would discharge through a conductive fluid, and the stored energy would get dissipated by heating and boiling away water instead of feeding combustion.


Who's gonna pay for that in every podunk burgh?
 
2022-12-05 8:30:35 PM  

meanmutton: anuran: Come on now. You have to say TESLAS burn, not EVs because Elmo.

Teslas catch fire a lot FOR AN EV. They are still much, much, much less likely to catch fire than an ICE car.

ICE cars catch fire about 160,000 times a year in the US, roughly 0.1% of ICE cars catch fire every year. It happens so often it is unremarkable. Non-Tesla EVs almost never catch fire and Tesla EVs catch fire vastly less often than an average ICE car.


Shhhh. EVs are bad. We've had three threads on it today. That proves they're bad.
 
2022-12-05 8:30:45 PM  

Carter Pewterschmidt: Jaguars.

[Fark user image image 321x576]


Had a 75 Spitfire, surprisingly, other than having to replace the ignition switch, never had an electrical issue in the 3 years it was my daily driver
 
2022-12-05 8:31:01 PM  

baka-san: I'm a total gear head, and will never give up my GTI even while I switch to electric, which I would like to do

There really needs to be a better response to an electric car fire than dump 30k gallons on it, it just isn't a great plan

No, didn't read the article, just my .02


Dumptruck full of sand.  I thought I read somewhere that In California they actually had special sand shipping containers they could drop on a car.
 
2022-12-05 8:31:03 PM  

iToad: I wonder if using a saturated salt solution to put one of these out would work. The batteries would discharge through a conductive fluid, and the stored energy would get dissipated by heating and boiling away water instead of feeding combustion.


How much would you need and how quickly would it evaporate? Those batteries are big. What is the mah of an EV battery?
 
2022-12-05 8:32:24 PM  

p51d007: Yeah, better for the environment...


THIS

[Fark user image 744x389]

Versus this

[Fark user image 850x552]


So - that one pump produces the same amount of energy as that rare earth pit?
Well, that's not a very good deal. I guess oil is the way to go!:D
 
2022-12-05 8:33:03 PM  

baka-san: I'm a total gear head, and will never give up my GTI even while I switch to electric, which I would like to do

There really needs to be a better response to an electric car fire than dump 30k gallons on it, it just isn't a great plan

No, didn't read the article, just my .02


Fark user imageView Full Size

Uncle Rich at Rich Rebuilds has you covered but I suck at linking YouTube
His SEMA build (ev side by side) got a little smoky but didn't catch fire
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-12-05 8:34:30 PM  
I'm completely in favor of electric vehicles but they seem to have a lot of environmental drawbacks. Catching on fire is probably the least of them. Those batteries suck. The cars are made of plastic. Electricity as clean energy isn't ready yet. And only rich people can afford them. I could go on. I use public transportation, or I walk.
 
2022-12-05 8:36:14 PM  

baka-san: scanman61: meanmutton: mjjt: [Fark user image image 754x856]

The Ford Pinto is a perfect example to bring up since it was also subject to a media slander campaign, including prime time news rigging one with explosives to get it to blow-up.

It is weird that decades later, we bought into the discredited lies.

The "rigged with explosives" was the Pinto, that was the GM pickups with "sidesaddle" (outside of the frame) fuel tanks.

They weren't rigged with "explosives" either.  They were rigged with an incendiary (think like a kid's sparkler) to make sure that there was an ignition source for when the fuel tank ruptured in the side collision that 60 Minutes set up for the cameras.

The thing the pickups and the Pinto had in common was their propensity for fuel tank rupture in collisions.

As far as a "smear campaign" goes:  Based on historical documents, Ford first performed rear end collision testing on the Pinto way back December 1970, months after it was currently in production. At first, a total of 11 crashes were conducted, and in 8 instances, the gas tanks ruptured and burst into flames.

It wasn't the design, it was the leaked memo that it would cost less to pay the claims than to fix the design(including recalls)

Plenty of 70's cars had the same issue, just one leaked memo showed how little corporate cares about people

Other than the gas tank, the pinto was a pretty good design and went on to have a long career in various SCCA classes


The first generation (1964-1970) Mustangs were even worse.  They had a drop in gas tank in the trunk.  When they got hit and the tank burst it splashed gas into the passenger's compartment.
 
2022-12-05 8:36:27 PM  

p51d007: Yeah, better for the environment...


THIS

[Fark user image image 744x389]

Versus this

[Fark user image image 850x552]


Cool
Now do one with air quality
 
2022-12-05 8:36:47 PM  

RogermcAllen: baka-san: I'm a total gear head, and will never give up my GTI even while I switch to electric, which I would like to do

There really needs to be a better response to an electric car fire than dump 30k gallons on it, it just isn't a great plan

No, didn't read the article, just my .02

Dumptruck full of sand.  I thought I read somewhere that In California they actually had special sand shipping containers they could drop on a car.


I was thinking that it would need something like a dumpster to surround the car then fill it with water,

If the sand thing works, then it wouldn't be a big step for FD's to outfit them

Other Than the red paint, gold leaf, diamond plate, and homoerotic calander pics
 
2022-12-05 8:37:53 PM  

p51d007: Yeah, better for the environment...


THIS

[Fark user image 744x389]

Versus this

[Fark user image 850x552]


external-content.duckduckgo.comView Full Size

external-content.duckduckgo.comView Full Size

external-content.duckduckgo.comView Full Size
 
2022-12-05 8:41:02 PM  

meanmutton: anuran: Come on now. You have to say TESLAS burn, not EVs because Elmo.

Teslas catch fire a lot FOR AN EV. They are still much, much, much less likely to catch fire than an ICE car.

ICE cars catch fire about 160,000 times a year in the US, roughly 0.1% of ICE cars catch fire every year. It happens so often it is unremarkable. Non-Tesla EVs almost never catch fire and Tesla EVs catch fire vastly less often than an average ICE car.


You are risking a permanent ban for trying to defend anything Muck has ever done.  The haters do not like facts.
 
2022-12-05 8:43:09 PM  

BolloxReader: I like how TFA never mentioned the types of cars, but subby assumes it's EVs and everyone else just goes along with it. Because I have never seen an ICE vehicle just go up in flames in my field of view with no visible cause. I certainly did not see it three times.


Did they update the article? Because the version I'm looking at says, "Nottinghamshire Fire and Service said seven electric vehicles on the transporter were left "well alight"."
 
2022-12-05 8:46:40 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-12-05 8:48:41 PM  

RogermcAllen: baka-san: I'm a total gear head, and will never give up my GTI even while I switch to electric, which I would like to do

There really needs to be a better response to an electric car fire than dump 30k gallons on it, it just isn't a great plan

No, didn't read the article, just my .02

Dumptruck full of sand.  I thought I read somewhere that In California they actually had special sand shipping containers they could drop on a car.


And then a bulldozer to clean up the contaminated sand?
 
2022-12-05 8:50:28 PM  
Can't be any worse than when the Felicity Ace burned up with a hundred Audi E-trons and a load of Porsche, Bentley, and Lambos. Fortunately it's all in the middle of the Atlantic and probably never going to pinpoint which electric car started the fire.
 
2022-12-05 8:51:03 PM  

natazha: meanmutton: anuran: Come on now. You have to say TESLAS burn, not EVs because Elmo.

Teslas catch fire a lot FOR AN EV. They are still much, much, much less likely to catch fire than an ICE car.

ICE cars catch fire about 160,000 times a year in the US, roughly 0.1% of ICE cars catch fire every year. It happens so often it is unremarkable. Non-Tesla EVs almost never catch fire and Tesla EVs catch fire vastly less often than an average ICE car.

You are risking a permanent ban for trying to defend anything Muck has ever done.  The haters do not like facts.


I think you need to give him a handy if you want a horse.
 
2022-12-05 8:52:06 PM  

badplaid: RogermcAllen: baka-san: I'm a total gear head, and will never give up my GTI even while I switch to electric, which I would like to do

There really needs to be a better response to an electric car fire than dump 30k gallons on it, it just isn't a great plan

No, didn't read the article, just my .02

Dumptruck full of sand.  I thought I read somewhere that In California they actually had special sand shipping containers they could drop on a car.

And then a bulldozer to clean up the contaminated sand?


Bull dozer to scoop the cremains into a screen, then reuse the sand, adding more as is gets turned to glass.
 
2022-12-05 8:56:17 PM  

p51d007: Yeah, better for the environment...


THIS

[Fark user image image 744x389]

Versus this

[Fark user image image 850x552]


You know, we also strip mine for limestone and granite much more commonly. But no one complains about it...

... nor the particulates in the air anyone living nearby are constantly breathing in. They are easy enough to see by any house security light at night.
 
2022-12-05 9:00:09 PM  
A fully charged lithium battery has the same energy potential as a 16 gal tank of gas. If things go sideways in a gas fire, you get the same results as a fully charged battery. Maybe they ought to ship them with a quarter charge. Enough to keep battery function, and move the car but not enough to be carrying all that potential energy. Look at some of the utube videos about puncturing at charge battery versus a discharged battery.
 
2022-12-05 9:01:20 PM  

natazha: The haters do not like facts.


I think you're mistaken. I'm a hater. And I f**king LOVE facts.
Tell me a fact, and I'll prove it to you.
You think you know what you are talking about, but guys like you are how bad information gets passed around.
 
2022-12-05 9:01:32 PM  

BolloxReader: I like how TFA never mentioned the types of cars, but subby assumes it's EVs and everyone else just goes along with it. Because I have never seen an ICE vehicle just go up in flames in my field of view with no visible cause. I certainly did not see it three times.


Looking at the photos it's clear they are Jaguar iPace, and they're EV only.
 
2022-12-05 9:06:14 PM  
If your local metro power comes from natural gas or coal, then your EV is burning fossil fuels.
 
2022-12-05 9:15:53 PM  

meanmutton: They are still much, much, much less likely to catch fire than an ICE car.


At what rate do ICE vehicles catch fire spontaneously?  Your comment seems to have not mentioned that statistic.
 
Displayed 50 of 91 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.