Says it all

https://news.sky.com/story/luton-airport-fire-pictures-show-damage-after-huge-blaze-at-multi-storey-car-park-12982342

While it may not have been an electric car that started the fire, I feel
sure that BEVs accelerated it out of all proportion. I think potential
buyers of BEVs might have a rethink and existing owners may well have
buyers remorse.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

Xeno wrote:
> Says it all
>
> https://news.sky.com/story/luton-airport-fire-pictures-show-damage-after-huge-blaze-at-multi-storey-car-park-12982342
>
>
> While it may not have been an electric car that started the fire, I
> feel sure that BEVs accelerated it out of all proportion. I think
> potential buyers of BEVs might have a rethink and existing owners may
> well have buyers remorse.
>
>
>

l bet the mainstream media won't be reporting much if anything about the
risk of fire with BEV's. they would be under pressure from auto
companies, and possibly the govt, not to do so. for example when there's
been a car fire, it's just been reported as a car catching fire, no
mention of whether the vehicle was electric or not.

--
Have a nice day!..

On 13/10/2023 8:51 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Xeno wrote:
>> Says it all
>>
>> https://news.sky.com/story/luton-airport-fire-pictures-show-damage-after-huge-blaze-at-multi-storey-car-park-12982342
>>
>> While it may not have been an electric car that started the fire, I
>> feel sure that BEVs accelerated it out of all proportion. I think
>> potential buyers of BEVs might have a rethink and existing owners may
>> well have buyers remorse.
>>
>>
>>
>
> l bet the mainstream media won't be reporting much if anything about the
> risk of fire with BEV's. they would be under pressure from auto
> companies, and possibly the govt, not to do so. for example when there's
> been a car fire, it's just been reported as a car catching fire, no
> mention of whether the vehicle was electric or not.
>
Well, yes, and in the above case they are saying it was started by a
diesel vehicle. Hmmm, not so sure about that. Diesel takes pressure or a
lot of heat to get it burning. Petrol - not so much.
Anyway, regardless of the initial cause, you could guarantee a
percentage of the vehicles were BEVs so they would have fueled such a
fire and made it nigh on impossible to put out. Lithium ion batteries
burn hotter and longer than petrol fueled fired. A L-Ion battery can get
up to 400C in a matter of seconds once it get started and then get
progressively hotter. The Luton fire was in excess of 600C according to
reports. Apparently the fire was so hot it compromised the structural
integrity of the concrete and steel resulting in a collapse. Nasty.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 12/10/2023 11:01 pm, Xeno wrote:
> Says it all
>
> https://news.sky.com/story/luton-airport-fire-pictures-show-damage-after-huge-blaze-at-multi-storey-car-park-12982342
>
> While it may not have been an electric car that started the fire, I feel
> sure that BEVs accelerated it out of all proportion. I think potential
> buyers of BEVs might have a rethink and existing owners may well have
> buyers remorse.
>
>
>
Like petrol doesn't burn like that?

On 13/10/2023 8:51 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Xeno wrote:
>> Says it all
>>
>> https://news.sky.com/story/luton-airport-fire-pictures-show-damage-after-huge-blaze-at-multi-storey-car-park-12982342
>>
>> While it may not have been an electric car that started the fire, I
>> feel sure that BEVs accelerated it out of all proportion. I think
>> potential buyers of BEVs might have a rethink and existing owners may
>> well have buyers remorse.
>>
>>
>>
>
> l bet the mainstream media won't be reporting much if anything about the
> risk of fire with BEV's. they would be under pressure from auto
> companies, and possibly the govt, not to do so. for example when there's
> been a car fire, it's just been reported as a car catching fire, no
> mention of whether the vehicle was electric or not.

It's interesting to note that there is *nothing* in the article that
Clueless Clasener cites that even mentions electric vehicles being
present, let alone that they played any role in the fire whatsoever, and
his "feeling" that the fire was made worse by EV's is based on nothing
but his own prejudices and ignorance.

In the *real* world, EV's are far less likely to represent a fire risk
if you want to look at the statistics:

> https://www.whichcar.com.au/car-advice/are-ev-batteries-more-dangerous-than-petrol

> https://www.autoweek.com/news/a38225037/how-much-you-should-worry-about-ev-fires/

> https://theconversation.com/electric-vehicle-fires-are-very-rare-the-risk-for-petrol-and-diesel-vehicles-is-at-least-20-times-higher-213468

Regardless of what source you wish to use, virtually every statistical
analysis on the planet suggests that vehicle fires per 100,000 units is
*far* lower for EV's than with conventional ICE powered vehicles, and
there is no credible evidence anywhere that suggests otherwise.

Further, your comments that the media is deliberately keeping quiet on
the issue under pressure from "auto companies and possibly the govt" is
nothing but fanciful nonsense, as the exact opposite is true. The Media,
in their never ending quest for sensational hysteria, is deliberately
reporting incidents out of proportion in the interests of pandering to
the prejudices of people like you.

That's how they make their money, and that's why people like you believe
that there is a massive fire risk with EV's despite the real world
statistics showing it *not* to be the case at all.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 13/10/2023 10:07 am, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 12/10/2023 11:01 pm, Xeno wrote:
>> Says it all
>>
>> https://news.sky.com/story/luton-airport-fire-pictures-show-damage-after-huge-blaze-at-multi-storey-car-park-12982342
>>
>> While it may not have been an electric car that started the fire, I
>> feel sure that BEVs accelerated it out of all proportion. I think
>> potential buyers of BEVs might have a rethink and existing owners may
>> well have buyers remorse.
>>
>>
>>
> Like petrol doesn't burn like that?

Cars are flammable devices regardless of what motive power they use, and
the claim that EV's represent an increased fire risk is an utter
nonsense. In fact, of all motorised vehicles currently available EV's
have the *lowest* fire risk of the lot, and by a very long way.

But that doesn't stop the deliberate misinformation like we see here.

Clueless Clasener starts this nonsensical thread off with the header of
"The end of the EV????" and adds the line "Says it all" in his post, and
then posts a link to a massive fire where there there is no mention of
EV's and actually says *nothing* about electric vehicles playing any
role in the fire whatsoever.

What this nonsense actually says is that it takes some *special* kind of
stupid to be this ridiculously inventive, and it's yet another perfect
example of how distanced from reality this mental defective actually is.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 13/10/2023 10:07 am, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 12/10/2023 11:01 pm, Xeno wrote:
>> Says it all
>>
>> https://news.sky.com/story/luton-airport-fire-pictures-show-damage-after-huge-blaze-at-multi-storey-car-park-12982342
>>
>> While it may not have been an electric car that started the fire, I
>> feel sure that BEVs accelerated it out of all proportion. I think
>> potential buyers of BEVs might have a rethink and existing owners may
>> well have buyers remorse.
>>
>>
>>
> Like petrol doesn't burn like that?

Yes, petrol does. As I said, I don't think it was started by a diesel
vehicle unless there was a spectacular electrical fault in it. It may
also not have been started by a BEV. IOW, it could well have been
started by a petrol vehicle. Please read between the lines. If the fire
got out of control, then involved parked BEVs, it becomes a BEV fire
regardless of origin. And the BEV fires make it all so much more dangerous.

This chap is thinking along the same lines as I.

https://youtu.be/Rs44yW7vOP4

Also, it seems that the Range Rover diesel that is suspected of causing
the fire *is a hybrid*. Not much mention in the press of that little
detail last night. That means it had a lithium ion battery. What's more,
those Range Rover diesel hybrids had a recall because of a fire risk. I
just can't imagine a pure diesel vehicle spontaneously combusting.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 13/10/2023 10:31 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 13/10/2023 8:51 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Xeno wrote:
>>> Says it all
>>>
>>> https://news.sky.com/story/luton-airport-fire-pictures-show-damage-after-huge-blaze-at-multi-storey-car-park-12982342
>>>
>>> While it may not have been an electric car that started the fire, I
>>> feel sure that BEVs accelerated it out of all proportion. I think
>>> potential buyers of BEVs might have a rethink and existing owners may
>>> well have buyers remorse.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> l bet the mainstream media won't be reporting much if anything about
>> the risk of fire with BEV's. they would be under pressure from auto
>> companies, and possibly the govt, not to do so. for example when
>> there's been a car fire, it's just been reported as a car catching
>> fire, no mention of whether the vehicle was electric or not.
>
> It's interesting to note that there is *nothing* in the article that
> Clueless Clasener cites that even mentions electric vehicles being
> present, let alone that they played any role in the fire whatsoever, and
> his "feeling" that the fire was made worse by EV's is based on nothing
> but his own prejudices and ignorance.

The heat intensity of the fire would suggest that there were BEVs in the
mix. The percentage of BEVs on the road suggest that there would be some
interspersed throughout the car park. Also note, there were no
sprinklers and the fire was in a confined space with poor ventilation -
horizontal ventilation only - very conducive to spreading a fire.
>
> In the *real* world, EV's are far less likely to represent a fire risk
> if you want to look at the statistics:
>
>> https://www.whichcar.com.au/car-advice/are-ev-batteries-more-dangerous-than-petrol
>
>> https://www.autoweek.com/news/a38225037/how-much-you-should-worry-about-ev-fires/
>
>> https://theconversation.com/electric-vehicle-fires-are-very-rare-the-risk-for-petrol-and-diesel-vehicles-is-at-least-20-times-higher-213468
>
> Regardless of what source you wish to use, virtually every statistical
> analysis on the planet suggests that vehicle fires per 100,000 units is
> *far* lower for EV's than with conventional ICE powered vehicles, and
> there is no credible evidence anywhere that suggests otherwise.
>
> Further, your comments that the media is deliberately keeping quiet on
> the issue under pressure from "auto companies and possibly the govt" is
> nothing but fanciful nonsense, as the exact opposite is true. The Media,
> in their never ending quest for sensational hysteria, is deliberately
> reporting incidents out of proportion in the interests of pandering to
> the prejudices of people like you.
>
> That's how they make their money, and that's why people like you believe
> that there is a massive fire risk with EV's despite the real world
> statistics showing it *not* to be the case at all.
>

The real risk with BEV fires is not the *quantity* but the severity and
difficulty in extinguishing a BEV fire. Not to mention that their
offgassing during a Lithium fire is highly toxic and life altering
should one breathe the fumes.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 13/10/2023 10:44 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 13/10/2023 10:07 am, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 12/10/2023 11:01 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>> Says it all
>>>
>>> https://news.sky.com/story/luton-airport-fire-pictures-show-damage-after-huge-blaze-at-multi-storey-car-park-12982342
>>>
>>> While it may not have been an electric car that started the fire, I
>>> feel sure that BEVs accelerated it out of all proportion. I think
>>> potential buyers of BEVs might have a rethink and existing owners may
>>> well have buyers remorse.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Like petrol doesn't burn like that?
>
> Cars are flammable devices regardless of what motive power they use, and
> the claim that EV's represent an increased fire risk is an utter
> nonsense. In fact, of all motorised vehicles currently available EV's
> have the *lowest* fire risk of the lot, and by a very long way.

The relative flammability *is not the issue*. What is at issue is the
difficulty extinguishing a BEV fire and the danger of the toxic gas
given off during the fire. A BEV fire in a large multi level car park
would be *extremely difficult* to fight and would require firefighters
to be appropriately equipped. Hell, on Bev fire recently required 30,000
litres of water to control it. That, I might add, is 3 large truckloads
of water. How in hell are you going to get that much water into the
confines of one of those multilevel car parks? Note, no sprinkler system
in those car parks, at least not in the UK - not a legal requirement. At
least not yet. That is likely to change and very soon. It's the only way
they'll get water and lots of it to a BEV fire in such a car park.
>
> But that doesn't stop the deliberate misinformation like we see here.
>
> Clueless Clasener starts this nonsensical thread off with the header of
> "The end of the EV????" and adds the line "Says it all" in his post, and
> then posts a link to a massive fire where there there is no mention of
> EV's and actually says *nothing* about electric vehicles playing any
> role in the fire whatsoever.

Ever seen a *car park fire* like that in your lifetime? The only fire
similar was on the Felicity Ace and, hey, that was just like a *car
park* there as well - with guaranteed BEVs and look how that fire turned
out.
>
> What this nonsense actually says is that it takes some *special* kind of
> stupid to be this ridiculously inventive, and it's yet another perfect
> example of how distanced from reality this mental defective actually is.
>
People will have seen this fire, made their own assumptions, conspiracy
theories included, and might well decide to avoid buying a BEV,
especially given how the Luton car park fire bore many similarities to
the Felicity Ace fire.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 13/10/2023 12:01 am, Xeno wrote:
> Says it all
>
> https://news.sky.com/story/luton-airport-fire-pictures-show-damage-after-huge-blaze-at-multi-storey-car-park-12982342
>
> While it may not have been an electric car that started the fire, I feel
> sure that BEVs accelerated it out of all proportion. I think potential
> buyers of BEVs might have a rethink and existing owners may well have
> buyers remorse.
>
>
>

**Why?

Do you imagine that petrol and Diesel is not flammable?

Then there's this:

https://www.autoweek.com/news/a38225037/how-much-you-should-worry-about-ev-fires/

Li-Ion batteries are not the only battery technology available.
Moreover, Al-Ion batteries are way safer and are likely to be the next
development for BEVs.

https://graphenemg.com/graphene-products/graphene-aluminium-ion-battery/

Right here in Australia too.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 13/10/2023 10:00 am, Xeno wrote:
> On 13/10/2023 10:07 am, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 12/10/2023 11:01 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>> Says it all
>>>
>>> https://news.sky.com/story/luton-airport-fire-pictures-show-damage-after-huge-blaze-at-multi-storey-car-park-12982342
>>>
>>> While it may not have been an electric car that started the fire, I
>>> feel sure that BEVs accelerated it out of all proportion. I think
>>> potential buyers of BEVs might have a rethink and existing owners may
>>> well have buyers remorse.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Like petrol doesn't burn like that?
>
> Yes, petrol does. As I said, I don't think it was started by a diesel
> vehicle unless there was a spectacular electrical fault in it. It may
> also not have been started by a BEV. IOW, it could well have been
> started by a petrol vehicle. Please read between the lines. If the fire
> got out of control, then involved parked BEVs, it becomes a BEV fire
> regardless of origin. And the BEV fires make it all so much more dangerous.
>
> This chap is thinking along the same lines as I.
>
> https://youtu.be/Rs44yW7vOP4
>
> Also, it seems that the Range Rover diesel that is suspected of causing
> the fire *is a hybrid*. Not much mention in the press of that little
> detail last night. That means it had a lithium ion battery. What's more,
> those Range Rover diesel hybrids had a recall because of a fire risk. I
> just can't imagine a pure diesel vehicle spontaneously combusting.
>
>
A floor in an airport car park, maybe 250 cars, average say 30 litres of
petrol each, 7500 litres of petrol make a pretty hot burn. Then there
are all the other combustibles, tyres, plastics and, importantly,
aluminium wheels. Aluminium takes a fair bit to get it going, but burns
intensely. Just ask the Royal Navy about their experience in the
Falklands war.

On 13/10/2023 11:21 am, Xeno wrote:

> The relative flammability *is not the issue*. What is at issue is the
> difficulty extinguishing a BEV fire and the danger of the toxic gas
> given off during the fire. A BEV fire in a large multi level car park
> would be *extremely difficult* to fight and would require firefighters
> to be appropriately equipped. Hell, on Bev fire recently required 30,000
> litres of water to control it.

Control it? Did it extinguish it? Yes ot no?

That, I might add, is 3 large truckloads
> of water. How in hell are you going to get that much water into the
> confines of one of those multilevel car parks? Note, no sprinkler system
> in those car parks, at least not in the UK - not a legal requirement. At
> least not yet. That is likely to change and very soon. It's the only way
> they'll get water and lots of it to a BEV fire in such a car park.

Water, shit-fer-brains? Water wont stop a Lithium Ion fire. It will
keep the area around the fire cool...

This will extinguish a LI-ion fire, and I have one here....
https://www.repco.com.au/tools-equipment/safety-protection/fire-extinguishers/firebox-9ltr-lithium-ion-battery-fire-extinguisher-fb9lf-500/p/A5592085?kwSearch=lithium-ion%20battery%20fire%20extinguisher

Noddy wrote:

snip irrel

> In the *real* world...

You may be eligible to vote Fraudster, but you have absolutely no chance
at all of representing "the real world".

snip more ratbaggery

alvey

Noddy wrote:
> On 13/10/2023 10:07 am, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 12/10/2023 11:01 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>> Says it all
>>>
>>> https://news.sky.com/story/luton-airport-fire-pictures-show-damage-after-huge-blaze-at-multi-storey-car-park-12982342
>>>
>>>
>>> While it may not have been an electric car that started the fire, I
>>> feel sure that BEVs accelerated it out of all proportion. I think
>>> potential buyers of BEVs might have a rethink and existing owners may
>>> well have buyers remorse.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Like petrol doesn't burn like that?
>
> Cars are flammable devices regardless of what motive power they use, and
> the claim that EV's represent an increased fire risk is an utter
> nonsense. In fact, of all motorised vehicles currently available EV's
> have the *lowest* fire risk of the lot, and by a very long way.
>
> But that doesn't stop the deliberate misinformation like we see here.

There's only one source of "deliberate misinformation" in here
Fraudster. And here's a clue!

"...the business name was Noddy's Automotive, in the Slough Estate of
Altona. The guy I sold it to was a competitor who closed it down to
boost his own business's trade..." Fraudster, 14Nov03

alvey

On 13/10/2023 9:12 am, lindsay wrote:
> On 13/10/2023 11:21 am, Xeno wrote:
>
>> The relative flammability *is not the issue*. What is at issue is the
>> difficulty extinguishing a BEV fire and the danger of the toxic gas
>> given off during the fire. A BEV fire in a large multi level car park
>> would be *extremely difficult* to fight and would require firefighters
>> to be appropriately equipped. Hell, on Bev fire recently required
>> 30,000 litres of water to control it.
>
>
> Control it? Did it extinguish it? Yes ot no?
>

More likely control the spread and let it burn itself out.

>  That, I might add, is 3 large truckloads
>> of water. How in hell are you going to get that much water into the
>> confines of one of those multilevel car parks? Note, no sprinkler
>> system in those car parks, at least not in the UK - not a legal
>> requirement. At least not yet. That is likely to change and very soon.
>> It's the only way they'll get water and lots of it to a BEV fire in
>> such a car park.
>
> Water, shit-fer-brains?  Water wont stop a Lithium Ion fire. It will
> keep the area around the fire cool...
>

Yes, the aim to control the reduce heat and prevent spread to other
vehicles and structures due to the heat generated.

> This will extinguish a LI-ion fire, and I have one here....
> https://www.repco.com.au/tools-equipment/safety-protection/fire-extinguishers/firebox-9ltr-lithium-ion-battery-fire-extinguisher-fb9lf-500/p/A5592085?kwSearch=lithium-ion%20battery%20fire%20extinguisher
>
>
>

You're right and 9kg F500 will extinguish a ~4.8KW/h power bank. But a
typical 40-100KW/h EV power pack is a different animal not just because
of size and lack of accessibility but also the speed at which they
spread due to thermal runaway. By the time a fire truck gets there
pretty much all they can do is contain the spread and clear the area to
prevent people breathing in the toxic gases.

If you only have a 9kg F500 extinguisher and are faced with an EV fire
you're better off legging it for all the good it will do :-)

--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

On 13/10/2023 11:50 am, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 13/10/2023 10:00 am, Xeno wrote:

>>
>> Also, it seems that the Range Rover diesel that is suspected of
>> causing the fire *is a hybrid*. Not much mention in the press of that
>> little detail last night. That means it had a lithium ion battery.
>> What's more, those Range Rover diesel hybrids had a recall because of
>> a fire risk. I just can't imagine a pure diesel vehicle spontaneously
>> combusting.
>>
>>
> A floor in an airport car park, maybe 250 cars, average say 30 litres of
> petrol each, 7500 litres of petrol make a pretty hot burn. Then there
> are all the other combustibles, tyres, plastics and, importantly,
> aluminium wheels. Aluminium takes a fair bit to get it going, but burns
> intensely. Just ask the Royal Navy about their experience in the
> Falklands war.

You might be talking about Magnesium. Aluminium doesn't burn. It melts.

In a former life as a tow truck driver I pulled plenty of cars out of
fire damaged areas. Some from bushfires, and some from factories. Cars
are incredibly powerful sources of heat when they burn.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 13/10/2023 1:28 pm, Norman wrote:
> Noddy wrote:

>
> There's only

Shut up Alvey, you stupid little attention whoring cunt. No one is
interested in anything you have to say.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 13/10/2023 11:39 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 13/10/2023 12:01 am, Xeno wrote:
>> Says it all
>>
>> https://news.sky.com/story/luton-airport-fire-pictures-show-damage-after-huge-blaze-at-multi-storey-car-park-12982342
>>
>> While it may not have been an electric car that started the fire, I
>> feel sure that BEVs accelerated it out of all proportion. I think
>> potential buyers of BEVs might have a rethink and existing owners may
>> well have buyers remorse.
>>
>>
>>
>
> **Why?

Because he's making a ridiculous argument based on nothing.

> Do you imagine that petrol and Diesel is not flammable?
>
> Then there's this:
>
> https://www.autoweek.com/news/a38225037/how-much-you-should-worry-about-ev-fires/
>
> Li-Ion batteries are not the only battery technology available.
> Moreover, Al-Ion batteries are way safer and are likely to be the next
> development for BEVs.
>
> https://graphenemg.com/graphene-products/graphene-aluminium-ion-battery/
>
> Right here in Australia too.

If and when they ever get here they'll be great. But you've been singing
their praises for some time now, and they're no more a practical reality
today then when you first mentioned them years ago.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 13/10/2023 11:39 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 13/10/2023 12:01 am, Xeno wrote:
>> Says it all
>>
>> https://news.sky.com/story/luton-airport-fire-pictures-show-damage-after-huge-blaze-at-multi-storey-car-park-12982342
>>
>> While it may not have been an electric car that started the fire, I
>> feel sure that BEVs accelerated it out of all proportion. I think
>> potential buyers of BEVs might have a rethink and existing owners may
>> well have buyers remorse.
>>
>>
>>
>
> **Why?
>
> Do you imagine that petrol and Diesel is not flammable?

Very well aware. And I know the *differences* in their flammability. But
both need *oxygen* in a fire situation. L-Ion batteries generate their
own oxygen when they burn. That is the problem, that and the toxic gases
they give off.
>
> Then there's this:
>
> https://www.autoweek.com/news/a38225037/how-much-you-should-worry-about-ev-fires/
>
> Li-Ion batteries are not the only battery technology available.
> Moreover, Al-Ion batteries are way safer and are likely to be the next
> development for BEVs.
>
> https://graphenemg.com/graphene-products/graphene-aluminium-ion-battery/
>
> Right here in Australia too.
>

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 13/10/2023 8:00 am, Xeno wrote:
> On 13/10/2023 10:07 am, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 12/10/2023 11:01 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>> Says it all
>>>
>>> https://news.sky.com/story/luton-airport-fire-pictures-show-damage-after-huge-blaze-at-multi-storey-car-park-12982342
>>>
>>>
>>> While it may not have been an electric car that started the fire, I
>>> feel sure that BEVs accelerated it out of all proportion. I think
>>> potential buyers of BEVs might have a rethink and existing owners may
>>> well have buyers remorse.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Like petrol doesn't burn like that?
>
> Yes, petrol does. As I said, I don't think it was started by a diesel
> vehicle unless there was a spectacular electrical fault in it. It may
> also not have been started by a BEV. IOW, it could well have been
> started by a petrol vehicle. Please read between the lines. If the fire
> got out of control, then involved parked BEVs, it becomes a BEV fire
> regardless of origin. And the BEV fires make it all so much more dangerous.
>
> This chap is thinking along the same lines as I.
>
> https://youtu.be/Rs44yW7vOP4
>
> Also, it seems that the Range Rover diesel that is suspected of causing
> the fire *is a hybrid*. Not much mention in the press of that little
> detail last night. That means it had a lithium ion battery. What's more,
> those Range Rover diesel hybrids had a recall because of a fire risk. I
> just can't imagine a pure diesel vehicle spontaneously combusting.
>
>

Unlikely, but it can on a common rail diesel with a rail/pipe leak. The
fuel mist produced can potentially auto-ignite under the bonnet from a
hot exhaust manifold or turbo with quite explosive results.

That's why you have to replace the injector fuel pipes on certain common
rail systems (and I'm not sure on the Range Rover) if you have to remove
or otherwise crack the lines as the seal can no longer be guaranteed
which, I might add, is something our resident incompetent blowhard
argued tooth and nail against as being a requirement.

But that's why you don't take your cars to shonks that can't diagnose a
basic fault with a diagnostic scan tool and resorts to part swapping and
shotgunning in hope :-)

--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

On 13/10/2023 11:50 am, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 13/10/2023 10:00 am, Xeno wrote:
>> On 13/10/2023 10:07 am, Keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 12/10/2023 11:01 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>> Says it all
>>>>
>>>> https://news.sky.com/story/luton-airport-fire-pictures-show-damage-after-huge-blaze-at-multi-storey-car-park-12982342
>>>>
>>>> While it may not have been an electric car that started the fire, I
>>>> feel sure that BEVs accelerated it out of all proportion. I think
>>>> potential buyers of BEVs might have a rethink and existing owners
>>>> may well have buyers remorse.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Like petrol doesn't burn like that?
>>
>> Yes, petrol does. As I said, I don't think it was started by a diesel
>> vehicle unless there was a spectacular electrical fault in it. It may
>> also not have been started by a BEV. IOW, it could well have been
>> started by a petrol vehicle. Please read between the lines. If the
>> fire got out of control, then involved parked BEVs, it becomes a BEV
>> fire regardless of origin. And the BEV fires make it all so much more
>> dangerous.
>>
>> This chap is thinking along the same lines as I.
>>
>> https://youtu.be/Rs44yW7vOP4
>>
>> Also, it seems that the Range Rover diesel that is suspected of
>> causing the fire *is a hybrid*. Not much mention in the press of that
>> little detail last night. That means it had a lithium ion battery.
>> What's more, those Range Rover diesel hybrids had a recall because of
>> a fire risk. I just can't imagine a pure diesel vehicle spontaneously
>> combusting.
>>
>>
> A floor in an airport car park, maybe 250 cars, average say 30 litres of
> petrol each, 7500 litres of petrol make a pretty hot burn. Then there
> are all the other combustibles, tyres, plastics and, importantly,
> aluminium wheels. Aluminium takes a fair bit to get it going, but burns
> intensely. Just ask the Royal Navy about their experience in the
> Falklands war.

Wasn't it a magnesium alloy? That's a bit nastier.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 13/10/2023 1:35 pm, Clocky wrote:
>
> More likely control the spread and let it burn itself out.

Most likely kept it cool and under control - sort of.
>
>>   That, I might add, is 3 large truckloads
>>> of water. How in hell are you going to get that much water into the
>>> confines of one of those multilevel car parks? Note, no sprinkler
>>> system in those car parks, at least not in the UK - not a legal
>>> requirement. At least not yet. That is likely to change and very
>>> soon. It's the only way they'll get water and lots of it to a BEV
>>> fire in such a car park.
>>
>
> Yes, the aim to control the reduce heat and prevent spread to other
> vehicles and structures due to the heat generated.

Yep. Regardless, you still need a lot of water.
>
>
> You're right and 9kg F500 will extinguish a ~4.8KW/h power bank. But a
> typical 40-100KW/h EV power pack is a different animal not just because
> of size and lack of accessibility but also the speed at which they
> spread due to thermal runaway. By the time a fire truck gets there
> pretty much all they can do is contain the spread and clear the area to
> prevent people breathing in the toxic gases.
>
> If you only have a 9kg F500 extinguisher and are faced with an EV fire
> you're better off legging it for all the good it will do :-)

Yep, it's like trying to piss on a fire to put it out.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 13/10/2023 1:53 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 13/10/2023 1:28 pm, Norman wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>
>>
>> There's only
>
> Shut up Alvey, you stupid little attention whoring cunt. No one is
> interested in anything you have to say.
>
Darren, you only speak for yourself. You lack *credibility*.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 13/10/2023 1:24 pm, harvey wrote:
> Noddy wrote:
>
> snip irrel
>
>> In the *real* world...
>
> You may be eligible to vote Fraudster, but you have absolutely no chance
> at all of representing "the real world".

But is he eligible to vote? We have only his say so, his *word*. Because
of his propensity to lie, make fraudulent claims, suffer delusions, etc.
I'd hazard a guess that Darren is capable only of representing
*fairyland*. For sure that's where he spends most of his time!
>
> snip more ratbaggery
>
>
> alvey

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 13/10/2023 1:56 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 13/10/2023 11:39 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 13/10/2023 12:01 am, Xeno wrote:
>>> Says it all
>>>
>>> https://news.sky.com/story/luton-airport-fire-pictures-show-damage-after-huge-blaze-at-multi-storey-car-park-12982342
>>>
>>> While it may not have been an electric car that started the fire, I
>>> feel sure that BEVs accelerated it out of all proportion. I think
>>> potential buyers of BEVs might have a rethink and existing owners may
>>> well have buyers remorse.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> **Why?
>
> Because he's making a ridiculous argument based on nothing.

No I'm not. I'm making an estimation of buying trends as a consequence
of the car park fire.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)