The truth about EV fires - don't buy a hybrid...
Discussion
The truth: https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/tusker-fleet-data...
And crucially some really interesting stats:
With data corroborated from a US insurer, the study found that EVs suffer 25 fires per 100,000 sold. Petrol or diesel vehicles were found to experience 1,530 fires per 100,000, with hybrid vehicles at a notably higher risk of 3,475 fires per 100,000
I'm aware of course that an EV fire can be particularly nasty and difficult to put out (and stay out). But the numbers suggest that for every one EV fire there are over sixty ICE fires, so no matter how bad an EV fire might be, the sheer number of ICE fires has to create more danger/damage.
But the really surprising one for me is that hybrid cars are 3 time more likely than even standard ICE to catch fire.. I hadn't seen that stat before despite the endless 'EV fire' debates on these forums.
EDIT: For transparency the 60:1 ratio of fire risks from the US insurer is higher than the Tusker number (also in the article linked) of 20:1 chance. Vut whichever stats are used, plainly the risk of far, far lower with a BEV car.
And crucially some really interesting stats:
With data corroborated from a US insurer, the study found that EVs suffer 25 fires per 100,000 sold. Petrol or diesel vehicles were found to experience 1,530 fires per 100,000, with hybrid vehicles at a notably higher risk of 3,475 fires per 100,000
I'm aware of course that an EV fire can be particularly nasty and difficult to put out (and stay out). But the numbers suggest that for every one EV fire there are over sixty ICE fires, so no matter how bad an EV fire might be, the sheer number of ICE fires has to create more danger/damage.
But the really surprising one for me is that hybrid cars are 3 time more likely than even standard ICE to catch fire.. I hadn't seen that stat before despite the endless 'EV fire' debates on these forums.
EDIT: For transparency the 60:1 ratio of fire risks from the US insurer is higher than the Tusker number (also in the article linked) of 20:1 chance. Vut whichever stats are used, plainly the risk of far, far lower with a BEV car.
Edited by TheDeuce on Tuesday 7th May 17:11
OutInTheShed said:
How many people do you know who've had a car fire?
Personally I know one person whose neighbour's LandRover caught fire, in 40-odd years of motoring.
And when I was about 5, somebody in the next village set fire to an old reliant shell, producing copious smoke.
The stats are hugely skewed by stolen cars getting torched.
All the stats are very dodgy.
If you look at the metric of fatalities in car fires in the UK, 100 per year is widely sprayed around the internet.
But the LGA says 22 for the whole of England.
The celtic fringe must be carnage?
80 people have died in Tesla fires allegedly?
Six million Teslas, mostly not on the road for very many years.
Put that on a long list of things you might die from any year with a 1 in a million chance?
Do those high figures for hybrids include i3REx's, I'm aware a few of those have immolated.
I know one person who had a car fire, me.. it hadn't been driven for a while, a few miles later it ground to a halt and then smoke started billowing out. 10 mins later it was a smouldering shell.Personally I know one person whose neighbour's LandRover caught fire, in 40-odd years of motoring.
And when I was about 5, somebody in the next village set fire to an old reliant shell, producing copious smoke.
The stats are hugely skewed by stolen cars getting torched.
All the stats are very dodgy.
If you look at the metric of fatalities in car fires in the UK, 100 per year is widely sprayed around the internet.
But the LGA says 22 for the whole of England.
The celtic fringe must be carnage?
80 people have died in Tesla fires allegedly?
Six million Teslas, mostly not on the road for very many years.
Put that on a long list of things you might die from any year with a 1 in a million chance?
Do those high figures for hybrids include i3REx's, I'm aware a few of those have immolated.
I wouldn't expect fatalities very often, most people decide to get out of the car fairly early on during it burning.
So are you suggesting that the ICE stats are skewed because there's so many older ICE cars, easy to steal and torch? I'd agree that has to skew the numbers, although I think it can only account for a relatively small part of the difference in car fire frequency between ICE and EV. And it certainly doesn't explain why the hybrid stats are so much higher, as they're mostly new and as unlikely to be stolen as an EV.
Edited by TheDeuce on Tuesday 7th May 18:50
OutInTheShed said:
I'm mostly suggesting I don't trust any of the stats.
Does that airport car park count as one fire?
You need trustworthy stats compiled in a coherent standardised manner across all classes of vehicle.
It's like the alleged statistic that the most dangerous conveyance is the Pogo stick, because it created a lot of A&E visits for not much forward progress.
Space Shuttles and Apollo missions are very safe on the same measure, because when they don't explode, they do a lot of miles.
If you google 'Prius Fire' you'll get some hits, but there are literally millions out there and they do a lot of miles.
Isn't the tusker report reasonable and balanced though? That's all for same age bracket cars etc. no reason they should twist the numbers either.Does that airport car park count as one fire?
You need trustworthy stats compiled in a coherent standardised manner across all classes of vehicle.
It's like the alleged statistic that the most dangerous conveyance is the Pogo stick, because it created a lot of A&E visits for not much forward progress.
Space Shuttles and Apollo missions are very safe on the same measure, because when they don't explode, they do a lot of miles.
If you google 'Prius Fire' you'll get some hits, but there are literally millions out there and they do a lot of miles.
OutInTheShed said:
TheDeuce said:
Isn't the tusker report reasonable and balanced though? That's all for same age bracket cars etc. no reason they should twist the numbers either.
Not really, it's a witless mish-mash of random data from various countries.Just filler for a trade rag.
That article is like someone trying to pick some data to prove their point, but they forgot what the point was.
The other numbers are given separately in that article and serve to corroborate the fact that EV fires are far rarer than ICE.
Your stance seems to be that you'll entirely ignore any and all reports so long as you can find a way to pick holes in them or identify a factor they haven't allowed for - such as car theft and arson etc. I think that's nonsensical. All evidence to date very clearly demonstrates that EV fires are incredibly rare. It doesn't matter if none of the datasets are 'perfect' or that not every factor is accounted for.. All that matters is that a trend in the data is very obvious and should be easy to acknowledge.
Whataguy said:
With manufacturers calling anything a hybrid that has a few extra components it won’t all be real hybrids.
If we only include hybrids with a 1kw battery pack or more, that reduces the numbers.
I haven’t heard of Toyota hybrid 1.5kw battery pack fires, even if they did catch fire it’s such a small pack that it’s unlikely to do much damage. They’ve been making them for 25 years now.
I do agree that some hybrids probably don't deserve the term...If we only include hybrids with a 1kw battery pack or more, that reduces the numbers.
I haven’t heard of Toyota hybrid 1.5kw battery pack fires, even if they did catch fire it’s such a small pack that it’s unlikely to do much damage. They’ve been making them for 25 years now.
However, the ratio of fires in cars sold as hybrid is clearly far higher than plain ICE. Whether or not they deserve to be called a hybrid doesn't effect the numbers - it suggests there is something about the combination of electrification (even if very little) with ICE that increases the fire risk quite significantly.
dvs_dave said:
TheDeuce said:
It's great that people on this thread are actually refusing to believe official numbers simply because it doesn't fit their expectation/desire
According to google there’s approx 35 million ICE vehicles in England. Using the suggested ICE fire rate of 1,530/100,000 and applying that over a reasonable 10 year timeframe, that works out as approx 54,000 (non arson) ICE vehicle fires annually. Government stats say approx 20,000.It’s not even close.
So it’s clearly not about expectation/desire. It’s about facts debunking fiction. Either way, up to you what to believe.
Also why are we suddenly taking arson attacks out of the equation? I think the US insurer figure is for total fire stats.
People steal and/or torch EV's too if they need to destroy evidence or need to make a claim to pay off finance etc...i expect the rate of such crimes will differ around the globe but that's irrelevant, as is the total accuracy of any single report. The trend is very clear to see - whatever report you look at, EV's are far less likely to end up on fire.
I suspect a large number of ICE fires are from cars far older than ten years that have become poorly maintained and a bit 'leaky'.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff