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

[Liverpool Lou]

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

How about a Samui one?

 

How about one that had a problem with EVs on it?

[KhunLA]

6 minutes ago, Celsius said:

A lot of posters here like to brag owning these lemons 

I don't understand either.  What is so great about overpriced under performing ICEV.   One guy on another thread going on how his Raptor, cost 2X+, would blow me away, since being 2 secs faster getting to 100 kph.

 

Or another going on about their Fortuner can carry more people.   Like I want to take the in-laws with me everywhere I go 

 

Here I'm stuck with that short, fire trap that could could flame up if wet, or blow up if I hit  bump.   Not to mention I'm not contributing to the economy, since charge with solar.

 

I also apologize for being a successful white male ... please forgive me 

[KhunLA]

.... "“Firstly, the battery pack in a new electric car is significantly more fireproof than in an old one. When we short-circuited the battery cells in a Renault Fluence, the whole battery caught fire. When we ignited it in a newer Tesla model 3, only the battery cell affected caught fire.

 

Secondly, the positive message is that fires in electric cars on board ferries are manageable and not something we need to fear. All the fires in our tests could be extinguished, so with the correct fire-fighting technologies on board, the correct training of the crew and well-coordinated collaboration with the onshore emergency services, electric cars should not pose a safety problem in ferry traffic,” says Alexander Kleiman." 

[Celsius]

17 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

I don't understand either.  What is so great about overpriced under performing ICEV. 

 

I agree with all your points, but in actuality it's the electric cars that are overpriced with their 5 year lifespan. These cars are now on par with iphones where they will have to be replaced sooner than other  cars because of poor software updates, battery life or simply bankruptcies. Read about Neta in China is about to go bust. Meanwhile my wifey's Jazz that she bought in 2017 for 600,000 baht and has 210,000km on it is still worth half that on the second hand market.

[novacova]

2 minutes ago, Celsius said:

Read about Neta in China is about to go bust.

I think only Chinese drive Neta’s. And MG’s as well for that matter.

[JonnyF]

33 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Here I'm stuck with that short, fire trap that could could flame up if wet, or blow up if I hit  bump.   Not to mention I'm not contributing to the economy, since charge with solar.

 

Not strictly true.

 

You certainly helped the Chinese economy (and their government) when you purchased it. 

[richard_smith237]

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

7 hours ago, Georgealbert said:

Raja Ferry’s suspension has caused significant inconvenience, as it leaves only one operator available for EV transportation.

So what?  Isn't it a private company that can impose its own rules and procedures?  

 

Of course, the company is free to make its own rules and procedures...  its their right, as you imply - but they have also outed a certain degree of stupidity within the company with their announcement. 

 

7 hours ago, Georgealbert said:

The company cited risks associated with EV batteries, particularly the potential for overheating and fires, as the reason for the decision.

 

In making this announcement, the company has inadvertently exposed a concerning lack of understanding and critical thinking, casting doubt on how thoughtfully other aspects of their safety ethos are evaluated.

 

This decision is, quite frankly, an egregious misstep, one that seems entirely devoid of empirical evidence.

 

Contrary to popular misconceptions, internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles are statistically at a significantly higher risk of vehicle fires compared to electric vehicles (EVs). The data speaks for itself:

 

- In the United States, fire rates are: EV's - 25 fires per 100,000 vehicles sold, compared to ICE's - 1,530 fires and Hybrids - 3,475 fires (Source: Reuters)

 

- In the United Kingdom, petrol and diesel vehicles are nearly 20 times more likely to catch fire than EVs. (Source: House Grail)

These facts underscore a troubling lapse in intellectual rigour and an apparent failure to base decisions on sound, evidence-backed reasoning. Such oversights are not only disappointing but also raise serious questions about the organisation's commitment to informed and responsible decision-making.

 

 

 

 

[phetphet]

2 hours ago, BKKBike09 said:

 

Given Raja's track record, it's rich to see them highlighting 'safety concerns' associated with EVs ...

 

 

I was thinking the same thing. Oh! the irony.

[richard_smith237]

Regarding the weight concerns / comments:  these are, frankly, unfounded. Ferries are specifically engineered to accommodate a wide range of vehicle weights, with safety hinging on proper weight distribution and strict adherence to load capacity limits, standards that ferry operators are expected to enforce diligently (theoretically).

 

Drawing comparisons to the iPhone vs Android or Mac vs PC debates, this argument about EV weight stems more from bias than factual reasoning. Individuals often cherry-pick information to suit their preconceptions, rather than engaging with evidence and forming balanced conclusions.

 

Unfortunately, this article achieves little more than showcasing the lack of critical thinking within the company in question. It inadvertently arms the anti-EV faction with superficial talking points, which they will eagerly exploit to perpetuate their bias agenda.

 

A factual analysis would reveal that the risks associated with EVs and internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles on ferries are virtually indistinguishable. The real issue here as I see it is the apparent knee-jerk decision-making within the company, which casts doubt on its overall operational competence.

 

The inconsistency is telling: if the alleged risk were genuine, why impose a ban on EVs only during the New Year period?

Such a policy seems purely emotional, driven by someone in a position of authority within the company who lacks the requisite technical knowledge.

 

This raises broader concerns about other decisions that may be made with similarly flawed reasoning, particularly where safety is concerned. I would avoid this company with an ICE or an EV due to the outright stupidity of this announcement - IMO they've shot themselves in the foot, though I fear many are not smart enough to recognise this. 

 

[KhunLA]

23 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Not strictly true.

 

You certainly helped the Chinese economy (and their government) when you purchased it. 

And very happy that I did.  I support countries and manufacturers the produce the best product for the best price, so they can continue do so.   

 

Yes, all better and more affordable ... BEV,s; car, MC, ebike, drones, some camera gear, some appliances & our Solar system.

 

Feel free to spend more on inferior products ... UP2U

[richard_smith237]

46 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Secondly, the positive message is that fires in electric cars on board ferries are manageable and not something we need to fear. All the fires in our tests could be extinguished, so with the correct fire-fighting technologies on board, the correct training of the crew and well-coordinated collaboration with the onshore emergency services, electric cars should not pose a safety problem in ferry traffic,” says Alexander Kleiman." 

 

It is highly unlikely that the Raja Ferry Company has equipped its aging fleet with modern fire-fighting technologies.

 

In fact, I strongly doubt that their vessels adhere to up-to-date fire safety standards or undergo regular seafaring and fire safety inspections as standard. 

 

Considering that internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles are 20 to 60 times more likely to catch fire than electric vehicles (EVs), any fire incident on such a ferry would be a significant concern.

 

Ultimately, when examining the core issue, the greater risk may lie in using this ferry company at all - regardless of the type of vehicle transported - rather than debating the relative fire risks associated with ICEs versus EVs.

 

IMO - this is theatre - designed to announce to stupid people that "we are safe, use us" - when in reality their announcement highlights the opposite. 

 

An intelligently ran company would be announcing they'd upgraded their 'Fire Fighting Equipment and Technology' ahead of the New Year travels instead of highlighting their inadequacies. 

 

 

 

[transam]

Joking aside, I would have thought a petrol or diesel fire can be dealt with via regular onboard equipment, but I assume an EV battery fire is a totally different kettle of fish to deal with in the confines of a cramped, sandwiched car park deck...........😕

[Captain Flack]

Several off topic posts have been removed

[KhunLA]

Just now, richard_smith237 said:

 

It is highly unlikely that the Raja Ferry Company has equipped its aging fleet with modern fire-fighting technologies.

 

In fact, I strongly doubt that their vessels adhere to up-to-date fire safety standards or undergo regular seafaring and fire safety inspections as standard. 

 

Considering that internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles are 20 to 60 times more likely to catch fire than electric vehicles (EVs), any fire incident on such a ferry would be a significant concern.

 

Ultimately, when examining the core issue, the greater risk may lie in using this ferry company at all - regardless of the type of vehicle transported - rather than debating the relative fire risks associated with ICEs versus EVs.

 

IMO - this is theatre - designed to announce to stupid people that "we are safe, use us" - when in reality their announcement highlights the opposite. 

 

An intelligently ran company would be announcing they'd upgraded their 'Fire Fighting Equipment and Technology' ahead of the New Year travels instead of highlighting their inadequacies. 

 

 

 

Once again, people blame the BEV manufacturers for things out of their control.  If the govt is pushing BEV & Hybrids, maybe 'THEY' should insure the necessary safeguards and CS networks are in place.  

 

Not the auto manufacturer responsibility, but yet, everything is the fault of the EV manufacturers.   Ferries will catch for because inadequate equipment of fight fires.   There grid can supply enough electric, or there aren't enough CSs.  All things out of their/EV makers control.

 

Theoretically, the govt does what the people want.  So it's the ICEV voters who don't require the govt to put their paranoia at ease.  You want EV, but fail to prepare for them.

 

Not mine or MG's or CN's fault ... deal with it, as we're happy just the way things are, since not delusional.

 

Have a nice day

[richard_smith237]

3 minutes ago, transam said:

Joking aside, I would have thought a petrol or diesel fire can be dealt with via regular onboard equipment, but I assume an EV battery fire is a totally different kettle of fish to deal with in the confines of a cramped, sandwiched car park deck...........😕

 

That depends what the vehicle is carrying....     When we have LPG vehicles, busses, Trucks, along with regular Gasoline vehicles....   and then consider what is being carried by the trucks and lorries etc..  we have to wonder if targeting soley on EV's is based on any intelligent decision at all. 

 

Then we should consider the statistics themselves and the likelihood of a fire onboard being negligible.

 

 

While EV fires are of course more difficult to deal with, I think this singular facet is being amplified by the bias of those who are anti-ev.... 

 

Placing this into reality - when was the last time any of us saw a 'car on fire' in person - I'm sure some of us have, but was it an ICE or an EV ?

 

Now...  The media doesn't count, as the contagion effect means that there will always be a report on an EV fire, where as an ICE fire will often go unreported as it simply does not attract the same level of attention. 

 

Thus - when evaluating the risk, we should consider the 'risk to us' and when we look at that we realist this article is based on a rather unintelligent decision by a company that is already known for shoddy safety.

 

 

 

 

[transam]

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

That depends what the vehicle is carrying....     When we have LPG vehicles, busses, Trucks, along with regular Gasoline vehicles....   and then consider what is being carried by the trucks and lorries etc..  we have to wonder if targeting soley on EV's is based on any intelligent decision at all. 

 

Then we should consider the statistics themselves and the likelihood of a fire onboard being negligible.

 

 

While EV fires are of course more difficult to deal with, I think this singular facet is being amplified by the bias of those who are anti-ev.... 

 

Placing this into reality - when was the last time any of us saw a 'car on fire' in person - I'm sure some of us have, but was it an ICE or an EV ?

 

Now...  The media doesn't count, as the contagion effect means that there will always be a report on an EV fire, where as an ICE fire will often go unreported as it simply does not attract the same level of attention. 

 

Thus - when evaluating the risk, we should consider the 'risk to us' and when we look at that we realist this article is based on a rather unintelligent decision by a company that is already known for shoddy safety.

 

 

 

 

Hence, they could never deal with an EV fire, buckets of water will not cut it...................🤗

[richard_smith237]

40 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Not strictly true.

 

You certainly helped the Chinese economy (and their government) when you purchased it. 

 

If you are going down that road, you are sorely mistaken if you believe you have managed to avoid 'supporting' the Chinese economy and their government because you purchased a Honda Scoopy instead !!!!...  

 

... Consider everything else you've used and owned in your life and you'll then scratch the surface on the flawed hypocricy with which you present your argument. 

 

As much as I'd like to agree with you and avoid supporting the economy of The government of the People's Republic of China and thus the Chinese Communist Party - the reality of living a normal live and achieving this quite different.... 

[DavisH]

3 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Guess you should ban anything over 1600kg, all those big ICE SUV, 4x4s, that way more than most EVs.

 

Ours only weighs 1570kg

Raptor ... >2000kg

Fortuner ... 1,980 to 2,140 kg

Camry ... 1,665 kg

LOL most ev's ae 2tonnes + or vey close too it. weight isn't the problem. but if there's  ev fire on a ferry.... there is NO way to put it out. 

Just park at the parking lot and take the ferry over. How hard is it? 

[richard_smith237]

2 minutes ago, transam said:

5 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

That depends what the vehicle is carrying....     When we have LPG vehicles, busses, Trucks, along with regular Gasoline vehicles....   and then consider what is being carried by the trucks and lorries etc..  we have to wonder if targeting soley on EV's is based on any intelligent decision at all. 

 

Then we should consider the statistics themselves and the likelihood of a fire onboard being negligible.

 

 

While EV fires are of course more difficult to deal with, I think this singular facet is being amplified by the bias of those who are anti-ev.... 

 

Placing this into reality - when was the last time any of us saw a 'car on fire' in person - I'm sure some of us have, but was it an ICE or an EV ?

 

Now...  The media doesn't count, as the contagion effect means that there will always be a report on an EV fire, where as an ICE fire will often go unreported as it simply does not attract the same level of attention. 

 

Thus - when evaluating the risk, we should consider the 'risk to us' and when we look at that we realist this article is based on a rather unintelligent decision by a company that is already known for shoddy safety.

 

 

 

 

Expand  

Hence, they could never deal with an EV fire, buckets of water will not cut it...................🤗

 

Neither will buckets of water and hose 'cut it' for a petrol or LPG fire, particularly when cars are packed in so tightly. 

 

Any fire, no matter the vehicle would be devastating without enclosed bays that have heat-sensors, deluge systems and can be flooded with foam and CO2 - which is rather impractical for any ferry company. 

 

Thus: the statistical likelihood of a fire takes greater precedence...  and when a hybrid car is 140x more likely to catch fire than an EV (data links provided in an earlier comment) why not ban hybrids ???   when an ICE is 20 to 60x more likely to catch fire - perhaps an EV should be the favoured vehicle instead ?... 

 

If we're going to approach such subjects with intelligence, lets also use intelligent balance. 

 

The reality is that any fire at all, no matter the type of power used is so very rare its not a major concern.

The reality also is that batteries are getting safer and safer.

 

Another reality is - any vessel should have life boats and life rafts and any fire in a tightly pocked cargo bay should be handed with one set of responses: 

- Vessel Fire Team dispatched.

- All Passengers mustering to lifeboats ready for evacuation

- Evacuation the moment it is suspected the fire cannot be controlled 

 

 

It doesn't matter what source the fire is then - with cars so highly packed and such a high density of high energy fuel, any fire in the cargo bay (parking bay) can turn to catastrophic in a very short time frame. 

 

IF there is an ICE Fire / LPG fire on a ship - all passengers should be mustering and prepare for abandonment immediately.

An EV doesn't change that.

 

 

 

[Ben Zioner]

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

No surprise.

 

Not only the fire risk but the weight. For the weight of 3 EV's they could take 4 ICE cars. Simple economics. 

Yeah those lead batteries are a real burden. Can't even carry my Ipad around.

[richard_smith237]

1 minute ago, DavisH said:

LOL most ev's ae 2tonnes + or vey close too it. weight isn't the problem. but if there's  ev fire on a ferry.... there is NO way to put it out. 

Just park at the parking lot and take the ferry over. How hard is it? 

 

Just understand that Hybrids are 140x more likely to catch fire than an EV, and an ICE 20 to 60x more likely.

How hard is that ???

 

When was the last vehicle you saw on the side of the road on fire (that had no been in a crash) - not social media hype and click-baiting... but the last time you saw in person a car on the side of the road ??...    

Have you ever seen that ? was it an EV ??

 

Its the same as SuperCars - the media would have us believe supercars are more likely catch fire because when one does catch fire it goes viral... but Fred's mini-down the road is of no interest to anyone. 

 

We should be approaching these topics with intelligence, not dumb paranoia or poorly focused pre-loaded agenda. 

[Ben Zioner]

4 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

It doesn't matter what source the fire is then - with cars so highly packed and such a high density of high energy fuel, any fire in the cargo bay (parking bay) can turn to catastrophic in a very short time frame. 

That's a point. The only extra risk from EVs that I could see is that a the ferry operator may not be ready to handle a battery fire.

[KhunLA]

9 minutes ago, DavisH said:

LOL most ev's ae 2tonnes + or vey close too it. weight isn't the problem. but if there's  ev fire on a ferry.... there is NO way to put it out. 

Just park at the parking lot and take the ferry over. How hard is it? 

And be a captive customer dependent on the taxi mafia, no thanks.

 

All irrelevant, as I'd never return to Samui, as one of if not my least favorite place of TH.

[transam]

5 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Neither will buckets of water and hose 'cut it' for a petrol or LPG fire, particularly when cars are packed in so tightly. 

 

Any fire, no matter the vehicle would be devastating without enclosed bays that have heat-sensors, deluge systems and can be flooded with foam and CO2 - which is rather impractical for any ferry company. 

 

Thus: the statistical likelihood of a fire takes greater precedence...  and when a hybrid car is 140x more likely to catch fire than an EV (data links provided in an earlier comment) why not ban hybrids ???   when an ICE is 20 to 60x more likely to catch fire - perhaps an EV should be the favoured vehicle instead ?... 

 

If we're going to approach such subjects with intelligence, lets also use intelligent balance. 

 

The reality is that any fire at all, no matter the type of power used is so very rare its not a major concern.

The reality also is that batteries are getting safer and safer.

 

Another reality is - any vessel should have life boats and life rafts and any fire in a tightly pocked cargo bay should be handed with one set of responses: 

- Vessel Fire Team dispatched.

- All Passengers mustering to lifeboats ready for evacuation

- Evacuation the moment it is suspected the fire cannot be controlled 

 

 

It doesn't matter what source the fire is then - with cars so highly packed and such a high density of high energy fuel, any fire in the cargo bay (parking bay) can turn to catastrophic in a very short time frame. 

 

IF there is an ICE Fire / LPG fire on a ship - all passengers should be mustering and prepare for abandonment immediately.

An EV doesn't change that.

 

 

 

An EV fire is nothing like a petrol or diesel fire, I thought EV batteries created their own oxygen supply, whereas, petrol and diesel need a supply of oxygen, which is a big difference in trying to control a fire.

 

We can say EV fires are rare, but, if there was one, in an enclosed area like a car park deck, there would be hell to play, even on here.............🤭

[richard_smith237]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Apples and oranges.

 

Why not compare a Cybertruck to a Honda Jazz?

 

Like for like, EV's are heavier than ICE and the ferries have a weight limit.

 

Plus the fire risk, salt water and EV's don't get on too well. 

 

Lets compare apples to apples.. 

The Max Gross vehicle weight of the last 5 cars I owned.

 

- Large SUV (ICE) - 3200 kgs

- Mid Sedan (ICE) - 2200 kgs

- Large SUV (ICE) - 2800 kgs

- Mid SUV (ICE) - 2200 kgs

- Mid SUV EV (ICE) - 2500 kgs

 

 

Anyone attempting to argue that weight is important in this debate is barking down the wrong rabbit hole (and yes, that mixed metaphor was deliberately placed to emphasise the stupidity of the weight aspect of the debate)

 

 

[Georgealbert]

Here is real research into car fires on ferries. Yes this looks at fixed fire drencher systems on enclosed decks, but the same outcomes are achievable using firefighting hose linked to a ships pumps, using water spray patterns, on open deck situations.

 

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]

2 minutes ago, transam said:

An EV fire is nothing like a petrol or diesel fire, I thought EV batteries created their own oxygen supply, whereas, petrol and diesel need a supply of oxygen, which is a big difference in trying to control a fire.

 

We can say EV fires are rare, but, if there was one, in an enclosed area like a car park deck, there would be hell to play, even on here.............🤭

 

Agreed.... IF there was an EV fire, the outcome would be a lot worse as it would be far more difficult to extinguish. 

But, is that the only facet of this debate that should be discussed ??...   

 

 

On another thread one poster was arguing that his Raptor was safer than a BYD Seal because in a head on collision its heaver...   However, head on collisions are only 5% accidents in Thailand, where as skid & roll over events account for 56% of accidents.... 

 

The bigger picture has to be evaluated instead of going down a rabbit hole and focusing on one aspect.

 

The reality here is that the risk of a fire on a boat is tiny. 

It would be the same as an obese or old person, or someone with a broken leg places all other passengers at risk because the can't escape a plane as quickly in the event it ditches in the sea !!!...    the likelihoods are tiny and there are far more other factors involved.

 

The important part of this debate for me is the elephant in the room no one wants to discuss as focus is driven by a talking point I would consider superficial. 

The article showcases the lack of critical thinking within the Ferry company in question.  The real issue here is the knee-jerk decision-making within the company that casts doubt on its overall competence.

More telling is the inconsistency: If the alleged risk were genuine, why impose a ban on EVs only during the New Year period instead of all year round ??? 

This policy is an emotional decision by the company and for me this raises broader concerns about other decisions that may be made with similarly flawed reasoning.

 

 

 

[daveAustin]

3 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Guess you should ban anything over 1600kg, all those big ICE SUV, 4x4s, that way more than most EVs.

 

Ours only weighs 1570kg

Raptor ... >2000kg

Fortuner ... 1,980 to 2,140 kg

Camry ... 1,665 kg

I've got more cars than you. Na na na-na na! 😋

How does the Raptor go, btw?

[Georgealbert]

Plenty of research going on into extinguishing EV fires, a couple of simple examples below.
 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214157X23011954

 

https://ctif.org/news/new-revolutionary-method-extinguishes-lithium-ion-ev-fires-ten-minutes-minimal-water

Below is some of the latest guidance for emergency responders on dealing with EV fires, supported by the Australian government.

 

https://www.evfiresafe.com/ev-fire-suppression-methods

[transam]

18 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Agreed.... IF there was an EV fire, the outcome would be a lot worse as it would be far more difficult to extinguish. 

But, is that the only facet of this debate that should be discussed ??...   

 

 

On another thread one poster was arguing that his Raptor was safer than a BYD Seal because in a head on collision its heaver...   However, head on collisions are only 5% accidents in Thailand, where as skid & roll over events account for 56% of accidents.... 

 

The bigger picture has to be evaluated instead of going down a rabbit hole and focusing on one aspect.

 

The reality here is that the risk of a fire on a boat is tiny. 

It would be the same as an obese or old person, or someone with a broken leg places all other passengers at risk because the can't escape a plane as quickly in the event it ditches in the sea !!!...    the likelihoods are tiny and there are far more other factors involved.

 

The important part of this debate for me is the elephant in the room no one wants to discuss as focus is driven by a talking point I would consider superficial. 

The article showcases the lack of critical thinking within the Ferry company in question.  The real issue here is the knee-jerk decision-making within the company that casts doubt on its overall competence.

More telling is the inconsistency: If the alleged risk were genuine, why impose a ban on EVs only during the New Year period instead of all year round ??? 

This policy is an emotional decision by the company and for me this raises broader concerns about other decisions that may be made with similarly flawed reasoning.

 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Georgealbert said:

Plenty of research going on into extinguishing EV fires, a couple of simple examples below.
 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214157X23011954

 

https://ctif.org/news/new-revolutionary-method-extinguishes-lithium-ion-ev-fires-ten-minutes-minimal-water

Below is some of the latest guidance for emergency responders on dealing with EV fires, supported by the Australian government.

 

https://www.evfiresafe.com/ev-fire-suppression-methods

On the vessel in question..........😂

 

Now I would assume the vessel in question has insurance to transport cars, perhaps the boat's insurance goes up if he carries EV battery vehicles, or they do not want to invest in the extra EV fire equipment..........