EV are they worth it?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Meh... I'm agnostic on that one. The giant hunk of engine block is actually a big chunk of weight which, once it has hit the wall, isn't part of the mass being decelerated (unless you're in a Porsche 911 or something else with the engine behind you)! It's also a convenient "wall" between you and whatever you hit - particularly in a transverse-engined layout. Handy, if what you hit, happens to be a telegraph pole! EV manufacturers are hampered by the massive eight of the battery and the fact that there are regulations on what can and can't happen to it in the crash tests. It's part of the reason EVs aren't lighter than they currently are. I certainly don't see them as significantly more dangerous, but I don't see them as safer either. Just "different". The regulatory framework for EVs is struggling to keep up with developments in the field, with it being such a new technology.
Not really because that hunk of metal doesn't compress, it just goes straight through your knees. It just moves the 'pole' or whatever else you've hit closer to your legs.

EVs are easier to design safely.
 
Sponsored Links
Not really because that hunk of metal doesn't compress, it just goes straight through your knees. It just moves the 'pole' or whatever else you've hit closer to your legs.

EVs are easier to design safely.
Not with you there? It's not supposed to compress! It's not an energy-absorbing structure, it's a barrier to intrusion. For half a century, car manufacturers have been building ICE vehicles with transverse driveline layouts and they're pretty much on top of that now. I don't think you'll find any of those EuroNCP tests on ICE vehicles where the engine comes through the bulkhead and takes out your knees! Sure, you'll see EuroNCAP tests where there are knee injuries, but they're usually caused by the diver's knee hitting some bit of steering column or dashboard mounting bracket in the knee impact zone. That's an area where ICEVs and EVs are actually pretty similar in their design.

When it comes to pedestrian safety, I think EV's might have a bit of an advantage, because they can get a lower bonnet line whilst still leaving enough of a gap between the underside of the bonnet and the top of what would have been an ICE engine, but they still have the same front suspension strut tops as the highest point under the bonnet. In side and rear impacts, EVs have the disadvantage of having the battery taking up a lot more space than a conventional fuel tank, so they can tolerate less intrusion before the battery gets clobbered. In rollover accidents, they have a massively heavy battery pressing down on the pillars and roof.

I think (comparing like-for-like vehicles, in terms of size and price), there's not much to choose between the two?
 
Not with you there? It's not supposed to compress! It's not an energy-absorbing structure, it's a barrier to intrusion. For half a century, car manufacturers have been building ICE vehicles with transverse driveline layouts and they're pretty much on top of that now. I don't think you'll find any of those EuroNCP tests on ICE vehicles where the engine comes through the bulkhead and takes out your knees! Sure, you'll see EuroNCAP tests where there are knee injuries, but they're usually caused by the diver's knee hitting some bit of steering column or dashboard mounting bracket in the knee impact zone. That's an area where ICEVs and EVs are actually pretty similar in their design.

When it comes to pedestrian safety, I think EV's might have a bit of an advantage, because they can get a lower bonnet line whilst still leaving enough of a gap between the underside of the bonnet and the top of what would have been an ICE engine, but they still have the same front suspension strut tops as the highest point under the bonnet. In side and rear impacts, EVs have the disadvantage of having the battery taking up a lot more space than a conventional fuel tank, so they can tolerate less intrusion before the battery gets clobbered. In rollover accidents, they have a massively heavy battery pressing down on the pillars and roof.

I think (comparing like-for-like vehicles, in terms of size and price), there's not much to choose between the two?
That's not how any of it works.

The engine reduces the effective crumple zone and can be forced back. NCAP limits the test environment to a realm that ICEs can manage. Just 50kp/h.

In terms of rollover EVs don't roll as they have such a low center of gravity. The Model X has the lowest roll probability of any SUV that was around when it was tested. They're very stable.

In term of roof strength the Model S broke the test machine.
Tesla's have fallen off cliffs, ended up with cars on top of it, survived big trees and laughed at it all.
 
That's not how any of it works.

The engine reduces the effective crumple zone and can be forced back. NCAP limits the test environment to a realm that ICEs can manage. Just 50kp/h.

In terms of rollover EVs don't roll as they have such a low center of gravity. The Model X has the lowest roll probability of any SUV that was around when it was tested. They're very stable.

In term of roof strength the Model S broke the test machine.
Tesla's have fallen off cliffs, ended up with cars on top of it, survived big trees and laughed at it all.
That's exactly how it works. Take it from someone who has spent more than a fair share of his career in crash labs! It's one of the big attractions of that kind of drivetrain layout to a car manufacturer.

And no, the current set of tests aren't "limited" to what an ICE vehicle can achieve any more than any other kind of vehicle. The requirements are performance standards that set out injury criteria for occupants, and really don't care whether they're in EVs, ICE or steam-powered cars! In fact, due to the specific issues around electric vehicle batteries, NEW regulations have been introduced to cover crashworthiness of batteries.

LOL! Don't fall for all the Tesla hype! Andre Citroën was throwing cars off cliffs and photographing the remains as some kind of pseudo-science testament to how crashworthy they were, back in the 1930s!

I'm not saying Teslas are bad cars - far from it, but they're nothing special in terms of crashworthiness. For what it's worth, I "broke" a seat belt anchorage test rig, trying to rip the belt anchorages out of an old scrap Alfa 164. It just means the cars were a bit over-engineered in that area...
 
Sponsored Links
Rubbish! If the car had stopped before the back wheels went over the edge, why did the back wheels go over the edge? Once something has stopped, it has no momentum (which is the product of mass and velocity).

Momentum is stored in the springs and rubbers that deform and reform. During the reforming phase some of the momentum is returned.
 
Momentum is stored in the springs and rubbers that deform and reform. During the reforming phase some of the momentum is returned.
Momentum is M x v where M is the mass and v is the velocity. If the car has stopped, v = 0. Anything multiplied by 0 = 0.

The car was most likely an auto - they're more common in America and some of the Far East. The most likely explanation, is that the driver got their feet mixed up and pressed the throttle instead of the brakes, smashing through the wall. Lots of online clips of people doing just that in autos.
 
If you are buying an older EV, be aware as batteries are not as good as the newer cars that have improved battery and charging speeds and capacity.

Also be aware that the gov is bigging this up just like they did with diesel cars and tax and diesel was cheaper look at the price of diesel now

Watch out for the electric prices may cost more than diesel/petrol plus you pay loads more for the car.

Hybred is possibly the way forward IMHO
 
Also be aware that the gov is bigging this up just like they did with diesel cars and tax and diesel was cheaper look at the price of diesel now

Absolutely this. Also, the claimed green credentials of EV's for its full life cycle are far from proven. There is also a very obvious problem with raw materials and the tiny little issue of access to charging points, people who live in terraced housing with no parking, flats, range, battery recycling, elon musks nasal hair...the list is endless.

I do have an EV as a second car because it's convenient with home charging and OK for local journeys. For longer journeys, the technology isn't there unless you want to spend £80k on a model S or whatever. I'd never actually buy an EV as I don't think they are a very good ownership proposition. I only got into EV's as there was a very good leasing rate for the Mini Electric at the end of last year and after quite a bit of back and forth, we were able to get a build date pretty much immediately, rather than in 2023, which is what we were told two weeks after ordering. Perhaps a lot of people cancelled due to loss of charging point grant. Claimed range of mini is 140 miles. In reality, 110 in warm weather with everything off. Very limiting.
 
I favour the "cockup" over the "conspiracy" view. Politicians seem to be quite simple creatures when it comes to "techie" stuff. Global warming was all the rage back then, and CO2 was public enemy No. 1. They pushed diesel for no reason other than they were good on CO2, and we, the public, largely went along with it because they were also good on fuel.

However, in doing so, politicians took their eyes off the ball on air quality. The result being that we now have a massive air quality problem, exacerbated by people modifying their cars to delete EGR valves, cats, DPFs, etc.

So now, they're back on air quality, and diesels are the spawn of Satan himself, once more!
 
If anyone does any serious painting on exterior wood, they will know how insidious water is. It will find its way in every which way. This is why EV's go up in smoke.

 
EVs are less likely to catch fire than ICEs, and both are less likely than Hybrids.


Fully electric vehicles, on the other hand, were deemed far safer than both hybirds and gas cars; they are far less likely to catch fire, with just 25.1 fires per 100,000 sales. That’s compared to 3,474 hybrid fires and 1,529 ICE fires per 100,000 sales respectively.

The stats are from an insurance company, they have the best statisticians around for obvious reasons. Given they're based on the legacy EV fleet, which didn't include the much more safe LFP batteries the future is bright, and not on fire.
 
EVs are less likely to catch fire than ICEs, and both are less likely than Hybrids.


The stats are from an insurance company, they have the best statisticians around for obvious reasons. Given they're based on the legacy EV fleet, which didn't include the much more safe LFP batteries the future is bright, and not on fire.
Fires per 100,00 miles travelled would give a more accurate indication of the potential to catch fire.

Owners of fully electrical cars may be driving far less miles per year than owners of hybrids and ICE.

To burn petrol, diesel or gas requires oxygen from the atmosphere and these fires can be extinguished by smothering with foam or other means that prevent oxygen reaching the fuel.

Lithium batteries do not require oxygen from the atmosphere to release their stored energy as heat. Putting small batteries into water is often effective in dissipating that heat and reducing the number of cells that overheat and go into thermal runaway,

Fire brigades called to an burning EV battery will very often concentrate on protecting adjacent property from spread of fire.
 
Fires per 100,00 miles travelled would give a more accurate indication of the potential to catch fire.

Owners of fully electrical cars may be driving far less miles per year than owners of hybrids and ICE.

To burn petrol, diesel or gas requires oxygen from the atmosphere and these fires can be extinguished by smothering with foam or other means that prevent oxygen reaching the fuel.

Lithium batteries do not require oxygen from the atmosphere to release their stored energy as heat. Putting small batteries into water is often effective in dissipating that heat and reducing the number of cells that overheat and go into thermal runaway,

Fire brigades called to an burning EV battery will very often concentrate on protecting adjacent property from spread of fire.


There's various studies that find the same thing. EVs get used more than the equivalent ICEs.

Plus the difference is never going to be that big. EVs don't drive 30x less than ICEs or 50x less than hybrids. In any sensible difference you can think of the milage has to be a small factor compared to others. It would be interesting though.

Really we should look at Norway and see if their automotive fire rate has risen or fallen. They're now mostly buying EVs and plugins, so that should start to show in national statistics.
 
Last edited:
Given the relative infancy of the technology, I expect the problems in dealing with EV first will be overcome. Already there are various solutions emerging, like just dunking them in a big tank of water.


 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top