1 hour ago, motdaeng said:

it is 3 out of 100'000 ... ????

Read it again. It's 3,474.5 out of 100,000. 

That equals 3.4745 out of 100

That equals 3.4745%

 

If you combine Hybrids and ICES. It's 5,004.4 out of 100,000. 

That equals 5.0044 out of 100

That's over 5%

 

That's one in 20....

 

Ridiculous 

 

Wonder how many of those fires were from vehicles reported stolen.

Regularly see comments online saying that EV batteries last less than 10 years. So if that was true an 8 year old Tesla would be cheap as chips, because everybody keeps saying they the batteries are too expensive to replace.

 

Just had look at 8 year old Tesla Model S in the UK on Autotrader

 

 

 

3 year old Tesla Model 3s are similar money to what they cost new 3 years ago!

 

On 5/22/2022 at 4:59 PM, Yellowtail said:

You're right, EVs are perfect for no-brainers...

 

Not sure about Thailand, but in the US, the government  mandates mast stations can still pump gas and diesel when the grid goes down. 

 

 

As far as I've been able to determine, only a few state governments mandate that. not the Federal govt.

On 5/22/2022 at 7:17 PM, Yellowtail said:

The article is ridicules. Do you really think over three out of a hundred Hybrids are burning?

 

I've seen a few car fires, most were arson or accidental while doing engine work.

Here's an actual link to the article.

https://www.autoinsuranceez.com/gas-vs-electric-car-fires/

It seems that most fires occur after collisions. So it's not spontaneous combustion that seems to be the main issue.

Also, BYD, a major chinese ev manufactures now uses  blade batteries. They are extremely fire resistant.

Solid State batteries, which are just barely beginning to be used in EVs, don't have flammable liquid electrolytes which are the main cause of fires in the batteries of EVs.

3 hours ago, Bandersnatch said:

Regularly see comments online saying that EV batteries last less than 10 years. So if that was true an 8 year old Tesla would be cheap as chips, because everybody keeps saying they the batteries are too expensive to replace.

 

Just had look at 8 year old Tesla Model S in the UK on Autotrader

 

 

 

3 year old Tesla Model 3s are similar money to what they cost new 3 years ago!

 

The resale value of EV's seems to depend largely on range. So EVs that have a limited range decline in value by a far larger percentage than do those with longer range.

"According to KBB, models having operating ranges of over 200 miles are holding their values the best in the resale market. The Bolt EV is rated at 238 miles, with the I-Pace at 234 miles and the e-tron promising 248 miles. This effectively nixes the so-called range anxiety that tends to plague owners of older EVs that could only muster 100 or fewer miles per charge."

https://www.myev.com/research/buyers-sellers-advice/electric-vehicles-with-the-best-resale-values-for-2019

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

"According to KBB, models having operating ranges of over 200 miles are holding their values the best in the resale market. The Bolt EV is rated at 238 miles, with the I-Pace at 234 miles and the e-tron promising 248 miles. This effectively nixes the so-called range anxiety that tends to plague owners of older EVs that could only muster 100 or fewer miles per charge."

https://www.myev.com/research/buyers-sellers-advice/electric-vehicles-with-the-best-resale-values-for-2019

I guess the most popular EVs sold in Thailand (< ฿1m) should do just fine then.  As most in the 400 kms / 250 miles  range.

 

MG EP Plus - 380 kms

MG ZS - 403

GWM OGC - 400

23 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Read it again. It's 3,474.5 out of 100,000. 

 

@Yellowtail

sorry, my bad!  i did not look carefully ... this number is really high!

 

8 hours ago, placeholder said:

The resale value of EV's seems to depend largely on range. So EVs that have a limited range decline in value by a far larger percentage than do those with longer range.

"According to KBB, models having operating ranges of over 200 miles are holding their values the best in the resale market. The Bolt EV is rated at 238 miles, with the I-Pace at 234 miles and the e-tron promising 248 miles. This effectively nixes the so-called range anxiety that tends to plague owners of older EVs that could only muster 100 or fewer miles per charge."

https://www.myev.com/research/buyers-sellers-advice/electric-vehicles-with-the-best-resale-values-for-2019

 

I agree with you but 11 year old Nissan Leaf (2011) -  24kWh are still selling and they are great as a second car for the school run and trips to the shops

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Bandersnatch said:

 

I agree with you but 11 year old Nissan Leaf (2011) -  24kWh are still selling and they are great as a second car for the school run and trips to the shops

 

 

 

I agree. And their low resale price makes makes them a bargain as a second car.

Searching and can not find how many cycles the MG ZS EV battery is rated for.   Going with the common accepted standard, on most sites, of 1500-2000 cycles, battery life of EVs.

 

At those numbers, and 400 kms per cycle, on optimum performance, one would expect 600,000 to 800,000 kms.   I'm not that optimistic about any product.

 

So let's go extreme negative, my usual when doing, planning anything financial or budget wise.  Using only 1000 cycles, and only 300 kms per cycle, and puts us at 300,000 kms.

 

I'll be using solar to charge at home, so cost, next to -0- since having the system anyway.

 

ICE version:  300k kms / 11 kms per liter X ฿35 per liter = ฿954,545

Which coincidentally, is about the cost of the new MG ZS EV w/incentives.

MG EP is ฿771k and rated 380 kms range, if wanting to save on buy in price.

 

ICE - COST same on just fuel to operate, as BUYING a new ZS

EV - saved enough money to buy a new ZS

 

hmm ... someone want to point out the negatives again ... ????

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

Searching and can not find how many cycles the MG ZS EV battery is rated for.   Going with the common accepted standard, on most sites, of 1500-2000 cycles, battery life of EVs.

 

At those numbers, and 400 kms per cycle, on optimum performance, one would expect 600,000 to 800,000 kms.   I'm not that optimistic about any product.

 

So let's go extreme negative, my usual when doing, planning anything financial or budget wise.  Using only 1000 cycles, and only 300 kms per cycle, and puts us at 300,000 kms.

 

I'll be using solar to charge at home, so cost, next to -0- since having the system anyway.

 

ICE version:  300k kms / 11 kms per liter X ฿35 per liter = ฿954,545

Which coincidentally, is about the cost of the new MG ZS EV w/incentives.

MG EP is ฿771k and rated 380 kms range, if wanting to save on buy in price.

 

ICE - COST same on just fuel to operate, as BUYING a new ZS

EV - saved enough money to buy a new ZS

 

hmm ... someone want to point out the negatives again ... ????

You can tell us if you get any......????

2 minutes ago, transam said:

You can tell us if you get any......????

Any ?  

Just now, KhunLA said:

Any ?  

You can tell us if you get any negatives....????

15 minutes ago, transam said:

You can tell us if you get any negatives....????

Watched a vid the other day, '10 things I hate about my MG ZS EV', and have to agree, not a fan of the app.  We don't use anyway, and didn't even download on our phone.  Nothing the app can tell us, the car displays can't.  I don't need to remote start the car.

 

9 out of the 10 things mentioned, I think, pertained to the app.  Which 3 or 5 also pertain to the ICE version.  None actually affect the operation of the car, just annoying if impatient, or don't plan.

 

Example: every 5 or 10 times you start the car, that app will cycle on, which delays you use of 'options' until done cycling (20 seconds).  Meaning you can't adjust the AC to higher fan, if you didn't remember to before turning off.   Or another one, the radio comes on every time you start the car, so need to turn that off, if you don't listen to it, which we don't.  Weird little things.

 

One's  safety, which don't know why he complained about that, when in reverse, you lose your entertainment and option to change settings of anything.  Do you really need to watch or change things while backing up ????  Other things pertained to while charging you couldn't do things.

 

1 thing I don't like about the ZS, can't leave car running w/AC on & lock the doors.   So the dog can't come with us all the time.   As like taking her with us, and if we stop to eat, can't leave her in the car w/AC on.   Means she gets left behind at times.????

 

All other things are very minor, and nit picking.

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

Example: every 5 or 10 times you start the car, that app will cycle on, which delays you use of 'options' until done cycling (20 seconds).  Meaning you can't adjust the AC to higher fan, if you didn't remember to before turning off.   Or another one, the radio comes on every time you start the car, so need to turn that off, if you don't listen to it, which we don't.  Weird little things.

 

On the ZS EV, the two things you mention above have nothing to do with the app. 

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

Watched a vid the other day, '10 things I hate about my MG ZS EV', and have to agree, not a fan of the app.  We don't use anyway, and didn't even download on our phone.  Nothing the app can tell us, the car displays can't.  I don't need to remote start the car.

I agree that the app is not useful, except for one, or maybe two things:

 

1. You can remotely turn on the AC. This is great!

 

2. Also, you can view your tyre pressures. I could live without this feature, but I quite like it.

13 minutes ago, macahoom said:

On the ZS EV, the two things you mention above have nothing to do with the app. 

The app is in the car, simply accessible via the app on the phone, I think.  Whichever, neither have anything to do with the drivetrain and driving the ZS, and that's the important thing.

2 hours ago, KhunLA said:

1 thing I don't like about the ZS, can't leave car running w/AC on & lock the doors.   

 

1 hour ago, macahoom said:

I agree that the app is not useful, except for one, or maybe two things:

 

1. You can remotely turn on the AC. This is great!

to KhunLa: that should work also for your dog, should't it?

2 minutes ago, motdaeng said:

 

to KhunLa: that should work also for your dog, woudn't it?

May have to give that a try.

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

May have to give that a try.

The remote AC activation is programmed to run for only 10 minutes.

 

You could try repeating it every 10 minutes. Might be wise to set alarms on your phone for every 10 minutes; wouldn't be good if you forgot to turn the AC on!

On 5/23/2022 at 11:04 PM, placeholder said:

Here's an actual link to the article.

https://www.autoinsuranceez.com/gas-vs-electric-car-fires/

It seems that most fires occur after collisions. So it's not spontaneous combustion that seems to be the main issue.

Also, BYD, a major chinese ev manufactures now uses  blade batteries. They are extremely fire resistant.

Solid State batteries, which are just barely beginning to be used in EVs, don't have flammable liquid electrolytes which are the main cause of fires in the batteries of EVs.

Yes, the same article that says one in twenty cars burn every year. 

29 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Yes, the same article that says one in twenty cars burn every year. 

Here's a link to the one I referenced to, seems pretty damn safe to me, as hit so hard the car split in half, and driver walk away from it:

 

 

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Yes, the same article that says one in twenty cars burn every year. 

 The article does not say per year. It's per 100K sales of vehicles. So  that's over the lifetime of a vehicle. What's more, you're reading that chart incorrectly. You're not supposed to add up the figures in the FIRES column to come up with a total. So it's not even 5 percent of vehicles over their lifetime. For hybrids it's about 3.5 percent, for ICE vehicles it's about 1.5 percent, and for EV's, .0025 percent.

There's probably some bias in favor of hybrids and even more so in the case of  EV's, since a much higher percentage of those originally purchased are still in use so they still have a way to go and accidents and other failures to succumb to. 

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

Here's a link to the one I referenced to, seems pretty damn safe to me, as hit so hard the car split in half, and driver walk away from it:

 

 

I would not at all be worried about a name-brand EV catching fire.

 

Incidentally, I worked Gulstream Park in Hallandale back in the late '70s & '80s, great spot! 

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

I would not at all be worried about a name-brand EV catching fire.

 

Incidentally, I worked Gulstream Park in Hallandale back in the late '70s & '80s, great spot! 

Back then, yea, now, I think you'd need to speak Spanish, as demographics reversed (40% white).

 

I used to have a place at Delray Beach, about the same time, 80s.  Kind of wish I kept it.

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

 The article does not say per year. It's per 100K sales of vehicles. So  that's over the lifetime of a vehicle. What's more, you're reading that chart incorrectly. You're not supposed to add up the figures in the FIRES column to come up with a total. So it's not even 5 percent of vehicles over their lifetime. For hybrids it's about 3.5 percent, for ICE vehicles it's about 1.5 percent, and for EV's, .0025 percent.

There's probably some bias in favor of hybrids and even more so in the case of  EV's, since a much higher percentage of those originally purchased are still in use so they still have a way to go and accidents and other failures to succumb to. 

What are you saying about the chart?  Does it or does it not say that about 5,000 out of every 100,000 cars sold burns? That's one in twenty, so unless we're counting junkyards, it's ridiculous. If that's not what you understand it to say, please explain it. I'm guessing it's off by a factor of ten. 

 

The article appears useless to me. Did they even try to  include any real data or sources? 

 

I would bet plenty of cars burn the insurance companies never hear about, particularly old ICEVs, and any car that only has a minor fire. 

 

For the record, I do not know or even believe EV's are more prone to catch fire than ICEVs, they might be, but if I had to bet, I would bet a greater percentage of ICEVs burn than EVs,  but that has nothing to do with the article being a POC.

33 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Back then, yea, now, I think you'd need to speak Spanish, as demographics reversed (40% white).

No shortage back then....

33 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

I used to have a place at Delray Beach, about the same time, 80s.  Kind of wish I kept it.

Why? If you're going to wish, which you had put it in something that grew a lot more!

23 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What are you saying about the chart?  Does it or does it not say that about 5,000 out of every 100,000 cars sold burns?

No, it doesn't. It says that approx 3,500 out of every 100,000 hybrid vehicles, 1,500 out of every 100,000 ICE vehicles and 25 out of every 100,000 Electric vehicles ends up in a fire during their lifetime.

 

You can't add up the numbers of fires per 100K of each type and then say that applies to 100K of all different vehicle types together - that's not a valid presentation of the numbers.

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

What are you saying about the chart?  Does it or does it not say that about 5,000 out of every 100,000 cars sold burns? That's one in twenty, so unless we're counting junkyards, it's ridiculous. If that's not what you understand it to say, please explain it. I'm guessing it's off by a factor of ten. 

 

The article appears useless to me. Did they even try to  include any real data or sources? 

 

I would bet plenty of cars burn the insurance companies never hear about, particularly old ICEVs, and any car that only has a minor fire. 

 

For the record, I do not know or even believe EV's are more prone to catch fire than ICEVs, they might be, but if I had to bet, I would bet a greater percentage of ICEVs burn than EVs,  but that has nothing to do with the article being a POC.

First off, I want to thank you for your open acknowledgement that that you were mistaken when you claimed that  5 percent of cars burned on a yearly basis. That, in fact, nothing close to that was claimed....Oh...wait a minute...

And no, it doesn't say that about about 5000 in every 100000 car eventually have a fire. What it says is that about 3, 500 hybrid sales out of of 100,000 result in a fire. 

It says that about 1500 ICE vehicle sales out of 100000 eventually result in a fire.

And about 25 EV sales out of 100000 result in a fire. So that total would come to about 5000 fires per 300,000 vehicle sales.

As for where they got the info from

"To determine whether gas or electric cars are at a greater risk of catching fire, our team of researchers dived into data from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), and government recall data from Recalls.gov."