EV Owners Frustrated as Samui Ferries Restrict EV Transport Over New Year Period

[transam]

3 minutes ago, Georgealbert said:

Do you mean firefighting equipment, not fire safety equipment, but then I doubt you understand the difference.

 

The same firefighting equipment is required for all fires, nothing different, which I have explained previously. So if the ban was based on inadequate firefighting provisions, then all vehicles would be banned.

 

Why the company made the decision has not been released, so it is pointless guessing. It is certainly not because of any new Thai regulations, or it would apply to all companies and ferries.

You seem to doubt a lot, as a layman I would suggest you are splitting hairs over firefighting and safety equipment, to me, come under the same banner on a boat.

 

You also don't seem to understand the difference between a petrol and an EV fire and the posible consequences on the OP boats.........🤔

[kwak250]

A ferry full of EV cars or

A ferry full of ICE cars.

let's be honest who would choose to sit on the EV ferry?

[motdaeng]

21 minutes ago, black tabby12345 said:

A sound judgement.

As the breakout of fire on a crowded boat will be catastrophic.

Transport operators cannot be too careful as they are responsible for many lives on board.

 i am not sure if you really mean that, or if it’s sarcasm ...

[richard_smith237]

5 minutes ago, transam said:

I think most of us have been on a car ferry at some time, the cars are jamb packed like sardines, job to open the door. 

When you think about it, any decent ferry will have the correct stuff to deal with a petrol or diesel fire in this overcrowded situation, but an EV fire, hmmmm, we have all seen what happens when one of those goes up, let alone the gases that are given off....

 

I doubt very much this company could deal with an EV fire, but it would be interesting to know...😊

 

Just like the hotel fires with emergency doors closed, broken deluges / sprinkler systems, the nightclub fires with no fire-exits (or locked exits), the passenger ferries with insufficient like jackets etc....

 

The doubts regarding the safety / fire equipment on such ferries are highly justified.

 

I think any fire that can't be dealt with in minutes with a single fire extinguisher is going to catastrophic enough to warrant  evacuation of passengers - then the lifeboats, life vests etc becomes a bigger issue which is why when considering such subjects my concern is not about EV's vs ICE's....  its about greater issues... 

 

Thus questioning the 'safety culture' on a whole, seems to have greater validity than arguing specifics of EV vs ICE particularly when decisions seem to be made more on emption than operational competence. 

 

 

 

[Georgealbert]

5 minutes ago, transam said:

You seem to doubt a lot, as a layman I would suggest you are splitting hairs over firefighting and safety equipment, to me, come under the same banner on a boat.

 

You also don't seem to understand the difference between a petrol and an EV fire and the posible consequences on the OP boats.........🤔

 

Spot the difference:

Fire Safety Equipment

Purpose: Designed to prevent fires, detect fires early, and ensure safe evacuation.

Function: Helps minimize the risk of fire or alerts people to the presence of fire so they can act quickly.

 

Firefighting Equipment

Purpose: Used to control or extinguish fires once they have started.

Function: Actively combats fires to stop them from spreading and to reduce damage.

 

I posted the research into ICEV an EV fires, but you just ignore the real research.so I will post again.

 

 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10694-023-01473-w

 

It is concluded that a fire in the two types of vehicles is different but have similarities. A fuel spill fire associated with an ICEV develops very rapidly, peaks high but burns out fast, whilst a fire starting in the battery pack of a BEV develops slower, is not as large but burns longer. The scenario of the fire in other combustibles, such as the tires, exterior and undercarriage plastic parts and inside the passenger compartment is similar.

[richard_smith237]

6 minutes ago, kwak250 said:

A ferry full of EV cars or

A ferry full of ICE cars.

let's be honest who would choose to sit on the EV ferry?

 

I'll ask this question differently... 

 

A ferry full of LPG cars or ICE Cars ?

A ferry full of Hybrid cars or ICE cars ?

 

My Answer: I'd chose a ferry full of EV cars than ICE's cars - because fires start more slowly and spread more slowly from EV's than than ICE's...  there's more time to escape to safety.

[KhunLA]

15 minutes ago, kwak250 said:

A ferry full of EV cars or

A ferry full of ICE cars.

let's be honest who would choose to sit on the EV ferry?

Got more chance of the ferry itself, catching on fire than the cargo it's hauling, as the ferry is the only think in operation; motor, fuel & electrical systems,  They've had their share of oops already, and actually avoid, for various reasons.

 

[Captain Flack]

A post commenting on moderation has been removed.

[richard_smith237]

9 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

20 minutes ago, kwak250 said:

A ferry full of EV cars or

A ferry full of ICE cars.

let's be honest who would choose to sit on the EV ferry?

Got more chance of the ferry itself, catching on fire than the cargo it's hauling, as the ferry is the only think in operation; motor, fuel & electrical systems,  They've had their share of oops already, and actually avoid, for various reasons.

 

And thats why people looking at the EV aspect alone are narrowing their focus on a flawed bias. 

 

With such a company there are greater safety concerns...  If the owners are making such daft decisions as banning EV's we can be sure they are making daft decisions elsewhere and these could be compromising our safety more severely - particularly when it comes to seaworthiness etc...    

 

... For me - this is the primary take away from this thread - not what is being discussed about EV's and the fire risk - but that this company clearly lacks technical competence if making such decisions, in which case I wonder what other decisions devoid of technical competence they have made elsewhere.

 

 

 

 

[kwak250]

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I'll ask this question differently... 

 

A ferry full of LPG cars or ICE Cars ?

A ferry full of Hybrid cars or ICE cars ?

 

My Answer: I'd chose a ferry full of EV cars than ICE's cars - because fires start more slowly and spread more slowly from EV's than than ICE's...  there's more time to escape to safety.

Why ask it differently?

Have you not seen EV cars catch fire?
If you call that slow them good luck to you
No chance to escape when those explode

[richard_smith237]

4 hours ago, kwak250 said:

Why ask it differently?

Have you not seen EV cars catch fire?
If you call that slow them good luck to you
No chance to escape when those explode

 

Take a moment to read up on the issue instead of relying on social media click-bait. 

 

You were already fed a link earlier.

 

Here is some info - you can educate yourself... 

 

 

 

 

The speed of a fire in an Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicle differs significantly from that in an Electric Vehicle (EV) with Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) batteries. Here's a comparison based on typical scenarios:

 

---

1. Fire Initiation Speed

ICE Vehicles:

• Time to Ignite: Fires in ICE vehicles can start almost instantaneously after an event like a fuel leak combined with a spark (e.g., from a crash or mechanical failure).
• Triggering Events:
  • Fuel leaks from damaged tanks or fuel lines.
  • Contact between hot engine components (e.g., exhaust manifolds) and flammable fluids like oil or coolant.
  • Electrical shorts in the wiring harness.
• Key Factor: Liquid fuels (petrol or diesel) are highly volatile (especially petrol) and ignite rapidly when exposed to heat or sparks.

 

EVs with LFP Batteries:

• Time to Ignite: Fires take longer to initiate in LFP battery systems due to their higher thermal stability. Thermal runaway or ignition typically requires seconds to minutes under extreme abuse conditions.
• Triggering Events:
  • Overcharging or internal short circuits.
  • Mechanical damage (e.g., puncturing of cells).
  • Prolonged exposure to external fires or heat.
• Key Factor: LFP batteries have a higher ignition threshold and are less likely to ignite spontaneously compared to petrol in ICE vehicles.

 

---

2. Fire Spread Speed

ICE Vehicles:

• Speed of Spread: Extremely rapid, especially if the fire involves petrol or vapour. Once ignited:
  • The fire can engulf the engine bay in seconds.
  • Fuel leaks can lead to flash fires that spread to the rest of the vehicle in 1–2 minutes.
  • Vapour fires (in petrol) are explosive and spread faster than liquid-phase fires.
• Key Factor: The volatility of liquid fuels contributes to rapid fire escalation.

 

EVs with LFP Batteries:

• Speed of Spread: Slower compared to ICE fires due to:
  • Lower flammability of LFP materials.
  • Gradual thermal runaway in affected cells, with propagation to neighbouring cells taking minutes to tens of minutes.
  • Fire containment measures in the battery pack, such as fire-resistant barriers.
• Key Factor: The controlled release of energy during thermal runaway leads to slower fire spread compared to liquid fuel combustion.

 

---

3. Toxicity and Heat Intensity

ICE Vehicles:

• Toxic Fumes: Burning petrol, diesel, plastics, and engine fluids produce dense, toxic smoke.
• Heat Output: Fires can reach extreme temperatures quickly due to the combustion of flammable liquids.

 

EVs with LFP Batteries:

• Toxic Fumes: Burning LFP batteries release less toxic gases compared to other lithium-ion chemistries but still produce harmful emissions, including carbon monoxide and potentially toxic electrolytes.
• Heat Output: The heat release is slower and less intense than ICE fires, as LFP chemistry produces less heat during decomposition.

 

---

Overall Comparison

Aspect	ICE Vehicles	EVs with LFP Batteries
Ignition Speed	Almost instantaneous	Seconds to minutes
Fire Spread Speed	Extremely rapid (seconds)	Slower (minutes to tens)
Explosiveness	High (vapour flash fires)	Low
Toxicity	High	Moderate
Heat Intensity	High	Lower than ICE fires

 

 

---

Conclusion

Fires in ICE vehicles ignite and spread far more quickly than fires in LFP-equipped EVs. In ICE vehicles, the combination of flammable liquids, heat, and sparks makes fire initiation and propagation nearly instantaneous. In contrast, the stable chemistry of LFP batteries and the design of EV battery packs provide a slower and more contained fire progression, offering critical time for evacuation and intervention.

[kwak250]

11 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Take a moment to read up on the issue instead of relying on social media click-bait. 

 

You were already fed a link earlier.

 

Here is some info - you can educate yourself... 

 

 

 

 

The speed of a fire in an Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicle differs significantly from that in an Electric Vehicle (EV) with Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) batteries. Here's a comparison based on typical scenarios:

 

---

Feel free to also educate yourself 

 

 

 

 

[Tropicalevo]

I wonder why it is that EV owners seem to be so fragile and touchy when it comes to protecting their little darlings' reputation.

It just a bloomin car for goodness sake.

Personally, I cannot be bothered to wait long to fill up my bike. Much quicker than any car - 2 minutes max I usually wait longer for the change. But the thought of having to wait whilst the battery was charging  zzzzzzzzz.

[KhunLA]

10 minutes ago, Tropicalevo said:

I wonder why it is that EV owners seem to be so fragile and touchy when it comes to protecting their little darlings' reputation.

It just a bloomin car for goodness sake.

Personally, I cannot be bothered to wait long to fill up my bike. Much quicker than any car - 2 minutes max I usually wait longer for the change. But the thought of having to wait whilst the battery was charging  zzzzzzzzz.

Most people are sleeping while the battery is charging.   When having our ICEV, it was a special trip to the petrol station, as none in my daily travels that I would use.

 

5-10  mins from pulling in to leaving, 52 weeks a year, so maybe 520 mins / 8.6 hrs a year.   Even when O&A, we never waited that long in one year.   Usually done charging about same time or sooner, than we are ready to continue down the road.  So rarely any wait time when charging at CSs.  Almost always charge while we're doing something else, so rarely even a special stop to charge the car.

 

We not fragile, just tire of the BS and false narrative that the trolls and ignorant people push.

[transam]

Well, one thing for sure, the EV-ers on here have noooooooo problem getting on one of these Thai ferries, even if the owners think its dodgy, or no EV fire capabilities, or..................😋

[josephbloggs]

1 hour ago, transam said:

Well, one thing for sure, the EV-ers on here have noooooooo problem getting on one of these Thai ferries, even if the owners think its dodgy, or no EV fire capabilities, or..................😋

 

I wouldn't get on a Raja ferry if you paid me - no matter what it is carrying.

[KhunLA]

1 hour ago, josephbloggs said:

I wouldn't get on a Raja ferry if you paid me - no matter what it is carrying.

[Tropicalevo]

2 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

 

I wouldn't get on a Raja ferry if you paid me - no matter what it is carrying.

 

The times when I used them, there was no choice.

Seatran wasn't around then.

I have not been on Raja since they arrived.

[transam]

This explains things a bit.........

 

https://www.khaosodenglish.com/life/socialmedia/2024/12/10/samui-ferry-operator-sparks-debate-with-ban-on-evs/#:~:text=potentially catch fire.-,Raja Ferry Port Public Company Limited in Samui District has,sign a declaration of risk.

[KhunLA]

39 minutes ago, transam said:

This explains things a bit.........

 

https://www.khaosodenglish.com/life/socialmedia/2024/12/10/samui-ferry-operator-sparks-debate-with-ban-on-evs/#:~:text=potentially catch fire.-,Raja Ferry Port Public Company Limited in Samui District has,sign a declaration of risk.

Good that some ferry lines are taking appropriated safety cautions, for any 'what if' scenarios.

 

Not sure how the mention of the freighter, Fremantle Highway, has any relevance, as cause of fire still unknown.  3800 vehicles, and only a couple 100 EVs.   If blaming a vehicle, would lean toward the one of higher numbers, if a betting person.   Neither IMHO, but for the owner of the freighter, beats taking responsibility with the insurance company.

[richard_smith237]

9 hours ago, Tropicalevo said:

I wonder why it is that EV owners seem to be so fragile and touchy when it comes to protecting their little darlings' reputation.

It just a bloomin car for goodness sake.

Personally, I cannot be bothered to wait long to fill up my bike. Much quicker than any car - 2 minutes max I usually wait longer for the change. But the thought of having to wait whilst the battery was charging  zzzzzzzzz.

 

I don't thing its being touchy at 'protecting the reputation about EV's'...  Its more a lack of tollerance for dumb arguments used by those who are anti-EV... You've just done it yourself by mentioning fragile and "protecting their little darlings" which highlights a bias....  

... thus its the inaccuracy that is somewhat irritating - I really couldn't careless if I have an EV or an ICE - I just get the car I like....   

... But if people starterted making unintelligent arguments against ICE's - I'd be highlighting the flaws in their points. 

 

 

But here's one point that highlights the flaw in an argument that you have presented...  so its the lack of intelligent thought which is, well, rather, zzzzzzzzz....

Most EV owners will have waited less to charge than you have had to wait for your Motorcycle to get refuelled. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

7 hours ago, transam said:

Well, one thing for sure, the EV-ers on here have noooooooo problem getting on one of these Thai ferries, even if the owners think its dodgy, or no EV fire capabilities, or..................😋

 

This is the issue with these threads...  When mostly there is intelligent balance, but to make a point the voice of the more radical and extremes gets louder...

..... with terms 'like EV-ers'...   its much the same with the computer or phone debates and using Apple Fan Boys, or when there is a debate about some issue in Thailand and some accuses someone who's just made a valid point of being a Thai-Basher, or Thai-Apologist, depending on perspective.... 

 

Now... What do you call someone who has both EV's and ICE's ???...   Are they EV-ers ??.... or ICE-ers ???

Or is it just possible that there are benefits and advantages to having both around ?

 

Just like the discussions on a cash-less society - its important to have choice....  But these stories regarding Raja ferries are borne out of stupidity and paranoia without any real solid basis in valid information, facts, statisics or a true understanding. 

 

Its just 'knee-jerk-stuff' which is fueling bias and prejudice without intelligent debate - some are even posting old videos made by outlier firefighters about batteries that are no longer used in EV's... 

 

[transam]

26 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

This is the issue with these threads...  When mostly there is intelligent balance, but to make a point the voice of the more radical and extremes gets louder...

..... with terms 'like EV-ers'...   its much the same with the computer or phone debates and using Apple Fan Boys, or when there is a debate about some issue in Thailand and some accuses someone who's just made a valid point of being a Thai-Basher, or Thai-Apologist, depending on perspective.... 

 

Now... What do you call someone who has both EV's and ICE's ???...   Are they EV-ers ??.... or ICE-ers ???

Or is it just possible that there are benefits and advantages to having both around ?

 

Just like the discussions on a cash-less society - its important to have choice....  But these stories regarding Raja ferries are borne out of stupidity and paranoia without any real solid basis in valid information, facts, statisics or a true understanding. 

 

Its just 'knee-jerk-stuff' which is fueling bias and prejudice without intelligent debate - some are even posting old videos made by outlier firefighters about batteries that are no longer used in EV's... 

 

Those who ride motorcycles are called riders, those who race cars are called racers, it's just a term.....😉

We all probably have different opinions on any subject, which keeps threads going, all part of the fun, I would have thought..🤗 

[richard_smith237]

2 hours ago, transam said:

Those who ride motorcycles are called riders, those who race cars are called racers, it's just a term.....😉

We all probably have different opinions on any subject, which keeps threads going, all part of the fun, I would have thought..🤗 

 

You didn't call us 'drivers' though..    'EV-ers' implied a negative tone because you disagree, apologies if that was not true.

 

What I observe in this discussion is a growing divide between those who drive internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles and those who drive electric vehicles (EVs), with the gap seemingly widened by exaggerated and flawed biases of those who refuse to look into or accept facts.

 

It appears that some 'anti-EV' individuals participate in these threads with a notable degree of negativity, often dismissing opinions that I find to be well-balanced and reasonable.

 

Regarding the 'fire threat' associated with Raja Ferries, I do not believe this poses any credible danger. If such a risk were genuine, we would already see car ferries in Western nations banning EVs, alongside documented incidents of fires occurring on ferries.

 

The reality is that the risk is so infinitesimally small as to be insignificant, yet it seems to provide some individuals with ammunition to advance an anti-EV agenda.

 

 

 

 

 

[madone]

On 12/10/2024 at 9:14 AM, gargamon said:

It's about EV batteries and the fire risk. Almost impossible to put out. I can see them being banned on sone bridges too.

Sure it is. No point in acknowledging that EV fires are little more than an outlier, and ICE engines are statically more likely to catch fire. 

 

Nor is it worth pointing out that no Western nanny state has yet banned EVs due to their dangers. 

This is simply some fool exercising what little authority they have. 

I'd like to say well-intentioned fool, but this is Thailand and given that EV sales accounted for a fair percentage of vehicles sold in Thailand over the last couple of years, it wouldn't surprise me if some Thai ICE vehicle manufacturing lobby was whispering in a few ears.  

 

it seems to me rather like the controversial vape and the thai tobacco monoply's successful effort to keep them illegal did despite the unhindered sale of cigarettes. 

[madone]

55 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

a growing divide between those who drive internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles and those who drive electric vehicles (EVs), with the gap seemingly widened by exaggerated and flawed biases of those who refuse to look into or accept facts.

 

remarkably like cyclists and motorists in the UK. 

Big ICE is a dangerous opponent it seems 

[Tropicalevo]

11 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

You didn't call us 'drivers' though..

And Truckers are not called drivers either .

Please stop feeling fragile.

[Georgealbert]

A development in this story can be found here:

 

[transam]

11 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

You didn't call us 'drivers' though..    'EV-ers' implied a negative tone because you disagree, apologies if that was not true.

 

What I observe in this discussion is a growing divide between those who drive internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles and those who drive electric vehicles (EVs), with the gap seemingly widened by exaggerated and flawed biases of those who refuse to look into or accept facts.

 

It appears that some 'anti-EV' individuals participate in these threads with a notable degree of negativity, often dismissing opinions that I find to be well-balanced and reasonable.

 

Regarding the 'fire threat' associated with Raja Ferries, I do not believe this poses any credible danger. If such a risk were genuine, we would already see car ferries in Western nations banning EVs, alongside documented incidents of fires occurring on ferries.

 

The reality is that the risk is so infinitesimally small as to be insignificant, yet it seems to provide some individuals with ammunition to advance an anti-EV agenda.

 

 

 

 

 

No it doesn't, that is YOUR interpretation of EV-ers and waaaaay off-topic.........😂

[richard_smith237]

3 hours ago, transam said:

No it doesn't, that is YOUR interpretation of EV-ers and waaaaay off-topic.........😂

 

As I wrote - apologies if my interpretation was flawed - but did wonder why you wrote EV'ers and not just Drivers.

 

On to the the other point I made regarding social media bias: IMO it does seem that there is a very firm bias against EV's in 'some' social media circles whenever there is an event... i.e. A car fire, in a car park etc, it seems before there is any proof a lot of commentators in forums such as this start pointing the finger at EV.... its almost an anti-Ev echo-chamber that self feeds...   

 

I also see similar anti-ICE bias in other threads when people start accusing ICE drivers of polluting the world etc - it seems there is an inability to have a discussion around the 'middle ground' as the voice from the extremes shouts loudest and the balanced median within which most of us remain remain ignored or unheard until pointing out the bias of the extremes - by which time we are labeled anti-this or pro-that etc...  the same happens in political discussions. 

 

One good example of the anti-EV bias was with the massive carpark fire at Luton Airport in October 2023 which destroyed 1352 vehicles in total and the carpark itself - following investigation the 'source' vehicle was found to be a Diesel Range Rover - but that did not stop a huge amount of comments at the time suggesting the cause was an EV's, or that EV's shouldn't be allowed in car parks etc....  Lots of heavily bias comments without factual backup.

 

With a name like Transam - I'd expect you to be quite bias towards V8' engines or a bloke call Sam who wears dresses, of course, we know its the former and given your forum posting history I'm surprised if you are actually bias and dislike EV's as you seem to have more genuine opinions and also take on the fight against the trolling extremes of whom there seem to be many on this forum. 

 

 

I'm interested in the balanced discussion -  particularly as we have an EV parked in-front of our house, if that goes up, so does the front of our house !!!...   IF I start reading 'facts' regarding the greater risk of EV fires, I'll re-think where I park my car, so I pay attention to stats, facts, real news and informed comments - but also object to the silliness that also arises. 

 

Thus for me, the debates in threads such as this are not just to 'attempt' to bring balance and rein in some of the ridiculous bias, but also to learn.

 

- One take away so far, is that I have greater confidence that EV's are significantly less of a fire risk than other vehicle types, but the time at which they are at highest (relevant) risk, is when they are charging (thats still relative and they are less at a risk of fire than an ICE, especially if it has just pulled up and parked)

 

- Another take away so far, is to discussion on thermal sensors - It would make sense to install a sensor overlooking the car where it charges, but I'd also argue, given the info and stats, if we are going to go down that road, it also makes sense to have such as sensor where any car is parked in front of or under our house.