EVs at Castle Coombe
Discussion
I have been on the Castle Coombe website today and I note that the circuit has now removed its restriction on EVs taking part in its track days. I am very much looking forward to taking my Porsche Taycan there next month.
Which leaves Anglesey circuit's decision to ban EVs rather isolated as I believe it is the only circuit in the UK to do so. i have read the CEO's reasoning and it does not seem to based on any evidence whatsoever. From my personal experience of having done over 50 track days, I have never seen any EV cause a red flag at any track day I have attended.
Which leaves Anglesey circuit's decision to ban EVs rather isolated as I believe it is the only circuit in the UK to do so. i have read the CEO's reasoning and it does not seem to based on any evidence whatsoever. From my personal experience of having done over 50 track days, I have never seen any EV cause a red flag at any track day I have attended.
Let’s put the EVs catch fire myth to bed first. According to the Gov.uk website 19,256 vehicle fires were reported up to June 23. Of those 56 were fires related to EVs. That’s 0.3% of all vehicle fires.
And as you point out, not many EVs attend track days so the risk of fire is minuscule compared to a petrol car.
EVs are about as likely to run out of energy as any petrol car. All the usual lights and warnings are there to guide you.
So in summary, the Anglesey decision is largely based on fear, based on ignorance. Every other circuit has done an informed risk assessment and decided to allow them.
In answer to your question, most track days I attend are fully booked. So the answer is whatever the track can support.
And as you point out, not many EVs attend track days so the risk of fire is minuscule compared to a petrol car.
EVs are about as likely to run out of energy as any petrol car. All the usual lights and warnings are there to guide you.
So in summary, the Anglesey decision is largely based on fear, based on ignorance. Every other circuit has done an informed risk assessment and decided to allow them.
In answer to your question, most track days I attend are fully booked. So the answer is whatever the track can support.
E-bmw said:
You are wasting your time, as he has clearly indicated he is only looking at one side of the risk assessment, the LIKELIHOOD part & completely ignoring the CONSEQUENCE side of the assessment.
As anyone that carries out formal risk assessments will tell you both need to be considered to come up with a true assessment of risk.
I do carry out formal risk assessments as part of my job. So let's have a go, shall we?As anyone that carries out formal risk assessments will tell you both need to be considered to come up with a true assessment of risk.
In my risk register I would have an entry titled "Vehicle Fires". I would describe how a car might catch fire due to accident or poor maintenance. My mitigation against accidents would be to enforce the rules to maintain discipline on track, and to try and ensure that poorly maintained cars did not take part in my track day. I would also need to describe the actions I would take in the event of a fire which would revolve around marshal training and their use of fire fighting equipment, although I would not expect the track staff to take risks with a serious vehicle fire. I would assess the risk of a vehicle fire as low to medium and that is based on the fact that I have never seen a vehicle fire at any of the 50+ track days I have attended. Plenty of crashes but no fire.
You will notice I have not even mentioned EVs yet. Currently, very few EVs attend track days. I am often the only one. We also know that 0.3% of all vehicle fires are attributable to EVs. So in effect, an EV attending a track day does not increase the vehicle fire risk factor at all, as it is much more likely a petrol car will catch fire.
bigothunter said:
Don't ignore the risk of electric shock or electrocution in the event of a severe EV accident. Marshals must be trained to deal safely with this extra hazard.
The Porsche Taycan automatically isolates the HV battery when the airbags go off, to protect the driver/marshal/emergency services iin the event of an accident.Ken_Code said:
You are (deliberately) misunderstanding the issue here. Dealing with an EV fire is not the same as dealing with a non-EV fire. If there is crash damage there is also a risk of electrocution.
It requires different equipment, and can take far longer to deal with.
I think it is you that is misunderstanding the issue. Have a look at the Porsche Emergency Responder document for more information if you would like to know more about dealing with an accident involving an EV.It requires different equipment, and can take far longer to deal with.
https://assets-v2.porsche.com/us/-/media/Project/P...
Ken_Code said:
grahamsimmonds said:
The Porsche Taycan automatically isolates the HV battery when the airbags go off, to protect the driver/marshal/emergency services iin the event of an accident.
If it’s crash damaged then the batteries can come into contact with other components so can’t be “isolated.”Porsche are good at engineering, but aren’t good enough to overcome the laws of physics.
Again, we are in the world of probability. It is far more likely a petrol car will catch fire in the event of an accident. Having said that, most petrol cars don't catch fire even then so the probability of an EV catching fire is insignificant in comparison.
matt5964 said:
Not to mention the costs involved as well as possible infrastructure improvements , not to even mention that the circuit owner may not event want to have EVs on there circuit at this point, after all it’s there decision to make
I think you may have hit the nail on the head there. Certainly Anglesey does not want EVs on its circuit at this time. Knowing that there is no evidence whatsoever to back this decision up on safety grounds, it will be solely down to a bias against EVs, based on ignorance.b0rk said:
If you’re going to assess the risks correctly then you need to consider the full range of potential risks with each incident. The run away EV fire is a low probability, low frequency, high impact case due to the difficulty of mitigating should it occur.
The risk score being probability x frequency x impact.
For a ICE car fire the mitigation is to have on site fire fighting equipment to deal with a typical fuel fire. You don’t need that much foam to extinguish petrol or oil fed fire and this is not unusual for marshals to deal with. The impact is at worst medium, possibly low.
The EV battery is a self contained chemical fuel store that doesn’t for most chemistries require anything external to sustain combustion. Once alight realistically it’s a case of letting it burn and waiting for the local fire brigade to attend to spray it with cooling water. They are not going to extinguish it, just manage the heat and limit spread.
We have at work a decent sized ESS (energy storage system) which I have for my sins had to write the fire risk assessment for. The uncontained thermal run away case I’ve assessed states that in such situation we’ll just leave it to burn with the factory unit it’s inside closed. That’s for a battery located inside a room engineered to have four hours fire resistance and a bunded entry.
Does it increase our insurance premium absolutely but as the risk is low probably it’s been deemed acceptable. We have other processes much more likely to burn the building down.
"The risk is low probably its been deemed acceptable". Exactly my point. All circuits bar one have reached this conclusion including Castle Coombe. The risk score being probability x frequency x impact.
For a ICE car fire the mitigation is to have on site fire fighting equipment to deal with a typical fuel fire. You don’t need that much foam to extinguish petrol or oil fed fire and this is not unusual for marshals to deal with. The impact is at worst medium, possibly low.
The EV battery is a self contained chemical fuel store that doesn’t for most chemistries require anything external to sustain combustion. Once alight realistically it’s a case of letting it burn and waiting for the local fire brigade to attend to spray it with cooling water. They are not going to extinguish it, just manage the heat and limit spread.
We have at work a decent sized ESS (energy storage system) which I have for my sins had to write the fire risk assessment for. The uncontained thermal run away case I’ve assessed states that in such situation we’ll just leave it to burn with the factory unit it’s inside closed. That’s for a battery located inside a room engineered to have four hours fire resistance and a bunded entry.
Does it increase our insurance premium absolutely but as the risk is low probably it’s been deemed acceptable. We have other processes much more likely to burn the building down.
Ken_Code said:
You seem completely unable to separate severity from probability. If a car goes into the barriers things happen to it which are sub-optimal, including batteries being short-circuited. When that happens the resultant fire is far more difficult to deal with than a petrol fire, given the chemical properties of lithium.
You are giving an excellent example here of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.
I think I understand the difference between probability and severity only too well. I have attended over 50 track days in my Taycan and it has not blown up, caught fire or any other circumstance your furtive imagination can come up with. It has never broken down or caused a red flag. Like all Porsches, it is designed for track use. If I thought for one minute that it was not safe to drive it on a track, I would not do so. In fact, I would venture that it is much safer than many of the jalopies that turn up on track days, that end up causing red flags due to poor maintenance.You are giving an excellent example here of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.
Gassing Station | Track Days | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff