## 4 Discussion  
In this subsection, we focus on comparing the results of temperature change during the car fire blanket application to the ICEV fire and the HTB fire. We aim to provide a detailed comparison of the effectiveness of the fire blanket concerning both types of propulsion. The colors of the graphs were chosen according to the colors of the thermocouples in the Results. The temperatures are compared as follows:  
* T0 Driver (ICEV) and T0 Left Side (HTB)--red color;
* T1 Interior (ICEV) and T2 Interior (HTB)--orange color;
* T2 Roof (ICEV) and T1 Surface (HTB)--green color;
* T3 Passenger (ICEV) and T0 Right Side (HTB)--blue color. Firstly, we compared the data from thermocouple T0 Driver (ICEV) and T0 Left Side (HTB) shown in Figure 19. In the ICEV fire, the temperatures ranged from 18 \({}^{\circ}\)C to 28 \({}^{\circ}\)C, which represented ambient temperature. Before the application of the car fire blanket, the temperature rose, and it decreased after the application at 01:01. Later, at 06:01, the temperature rose again. It can be deduced that the measured temperatures had no significant impact on either the ICEV fire or the effectiveness of the car fire blanket. In the HTB fire, there were slightly higher temperatures from 36 \({}^{\circ}\)C to 50 \({}^{\circ}\)C. Before the application of the car fire blanket, the temperature decreased, and it slightly rose after the application. Figure 19: Comparation of temperature–time curves of ICEV fire test (T0—Driver) and HTB fire test (T0—Left side). Figure 18: FLIR E96 14\({}^{\circ}\) footage of large-scale HTB fire test. (**a**) Time point right before car fire blanket application to HTB fire; (**b**) time point 1 min after application; (**c**) time point 2 min after application; (**d**) time point 3 min after application; (**e**) time point 4 min after application; (**f**) time point 5 min after application; (**g**) time point 6 min after application; (**h**) time point 7 min after application; (**i**) time point 8 min after application; (**j**) time point 9 min after application; (**k**) time point 10 min after application; (**l**) time point right after removal of car fire blanket. Secondly, data from thermocouples T1 (ICEV) and T2 (HTB) are compared in Figure 20. In the ICEV fire test, much higher temperatures were recorded compared to the HTB fire. Before the application of the car fire blanket, the temperature in the ICEV fire test increased. After the application of the car fire blanket from 01:01 to 13:01, a decrease in the temperature was identified. In the HTB fire test, there were no significant temperature changes. The temperature remained stable before, during, and after the use of the car fire blanket. Overall, the highest temperature compared to each thermocouple was recorded inside the vehicle. Thirdly, data from thermocouples T2 (ICEV) and T1 (HTB) are compared in Figure 21. Before the application of the car fire blanket, an increase in temperature can be observed in the ICEV fire test and a slight decrease in temperature in the HTB fire test. Subsequently, after the application of the car fire blanket at 01:01, there was a decrease in temperature in the ICEV fire test but an initial increase in the HTB fire test. The temperature continued to rise until approximately 03:10, followed by a decrease. Overall, the highest temperature was recorded on the surface of the HTB. Figure 21: Comparation of temperature–time curves of HTB fire test (T1—Surface) and ICEV fire test (T2—Roof). Figure 20: Comparation of temperature–time curves of ICEV fire test (T1—Interior) and HTB fire test (T2—Inside). Lastly, data from thermocouples T3 (ICEV) and T3 (HTB) are compared in Figure 22. In the case of the HTB fire test, no temperature changes were identified before, during, or after the use of the fire blanket. The temperatures remained between 30 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 35 \({}^{\circ}\)C. Conversely, higher temperatures were recorded in the ICEV fire test. Before the application, the temperature increased.