Luton car park fire: ultimately not caused by EV - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2024, 05:52:41 pm
content: I didn't want to necromance the last topic we had on this (EV cement truck fire) - but the fire report from the car park fire at Luton Airport has now been released. This fire resulted in the total destruction of Car Park 2 and the vast majority of vehicles within were lost (a few were recovered from the roof). No one was injured.https://www.bedsfire.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-10/Significant%20Incident%20Report%20LLA%20Car%20Park%202%20fire.pdfOrigin of the fire:"The fire originated in a privately owned car powered by a diesel fuelled internal combustionengine with the cause of fire determined to be accidental.""The initial 999 call was ‘received by Bedfordshire FRS Service Control at 20:47:20 hrs byCrew Manager Service Control B from the driver of the Range Rover that was on fire. Whenquestioned by Service Control, the caller advised their car was a diesel Range Rover that itwas located on the third floor.’ The subsequent fire investigation confirmed that the vehiclewas powered by a diesel non-hybrid internal combustion engine"Conspiracy theories about this being a fire in a hybrid or converted car appear to be nonsense. It definitely wasn't an electric car. It's unlikely the exact cause will be determined (there's probably nothing left but the body shell); the origin appears to be around the engine area of the vehicle, and it occurred whilst the vehicle was in motion, so the possibility of an engine fault or a fuel rail leaking is there. The driver noted that they had been driving for two hours without issue before the fire; if the vehicle was driven for a period of time on the motorway (Luton Airport is very well connected to a motorway) it is likely that components will have been under load for some time and perhaps the sudden cooling down caused an oil seal to fail, or a fuel rail leak occurred at that moment.On fire spread in car parks:"As they were making their way up the vehicle ramp from the second to the third floor BATeam Alpha 2 observed that the fire was spreading to the second floor due to running fueland they retreated to extinguish this fire.""Initial crews from Bedfordshire FRS have indicated they witnessed “running fuel fires”. Thisis where fuels such as petrol and diesel have escaped from fuel tanks. Most modern vehiclesare manufactured with plastic fuel tanks, these are more susceptible to failure in the initialstages of a developing fire. It was confirmed that the Range Rover involved was fitted with aplastic fuel tank. Heat of the developing fire will have been sufficient to ignite some of thesefuels as they followed the sloping gradient of the roadway surface, spreading ignitable fuelbeneath vehicles and into the drainage system thus spreading to other floors beneath thepoint of origin.""On investigation looking through images taken by crews inside the car park it is evidentthat drainage pipes within the car park are of plastic construction. The heat from the fireand the running fuel fires entering the drainage system would have caused the pipes tofail leading to fire spread."Whether electric vehicles contributed significantly to the fire:"In the immediate aftermath of the incident there was considerable speculation within thepress and across social media platforms about the fire originating from an electric vehicle(EV). This was despite statements at the time from Bedfordshire FRS stating that the Servicebelieved the vehicle to a be a diesel vehicle. Subsequently it has been confirmed by thefire investigation report that the fire originated in a diesel vehicle and the cause wasaccidental.""Similarly, the fire investigation report for Luton airport identifies running fuel fires and anapproximately 10 mph wind along with the design of the car park with narrow gaps betweenthe parked cars as being the factors contributing to the spread of the fire. The 10mph windis based on a reading taken in Luton at a lower level, it should be noted that London LutonAirport is located at the top of a hill and fire was on the third floor."It should be noted the author of the report doesn't specifically eliminate EVs as contributing to the spread, but crews reported running fuel fire as being the greatest hazard. Such fires would be non-existent with EVs, and fire could only spread between vehicles by direct thermal exposure. However, they do cite a report from the Norwegian fire authorities on a similar incident where wastewater from the fire was tested for quantities of lithium and cobalt:"When it comes to the fire’s environmental impact, analyses of water samples in nearby waterbodies provide indications on the contribution of electric vehicle batteries (analyses carriedout by COWI,). The analyses included lithium and cobalt, main components of an electric carbattery. Lithium was not found in any of the water samples, and the analyses showed lowconcentrations of cobalt. This indicates that batteries from burnt out electric vehicles havenot contributed to the pollution of nearby water bodies.""Observations made during the fire, as well as water analyses in retrospect, thus imply thatelectric car batteries were not involved in the fire. However, technical investigations of theactual batteries of the burnt-out or partially burnt-out electric and hybrid vehicles arenecessary to substantiate this point and provide a definite answer."TL;DR - there's no direct evidence of contamination due to burning batteries, but it's impossible to say certainly at this stage that EV batteriesweren'tinvolved. However, the fire crews don't seem particularly bothered by this, and highlight lower risk (emphasis mine)."Regardless of the type of engine the fire load of a car is significant. As such, if a carcatches fire there is a strong possibility of the fire spreading to adjacent vehicles. Theopen sided design of most multi storey car parks means that wind can become acontributing factor in the fire spread.The issue of running fuel fires does not occur withelectric vehicles."Perhaps this will quell some of the speculation on EV fire risk... but I'm sure we'll still see plenty of YouTube posts from the likes of AutoExpert and friends about how this is the biggest risk ever in new vehicles and we'll all be seeing Tesla's bursting into flames left, right and centre if we don't stop them now and go back to those totally non-flammable combustion engine cars.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2024, 06:41:39 pm
content: The “narrow spacing” between cars in parking lots and structures is one of my gripes in general, and it makes sense with respect to propagation of fires.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2024, 06:45:53 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on December 03, 2024, 06:41:39 pmAmericans have things easy in car parks. In European car parks we normally have to hold the car door as we open it, and carefully squeeze out, or we will scratch the door of the next car. They've also shortened the spaces in recent years. 30 years ago a car like a BMW 5 or a Volvo V90 would fit lengthwise in most car park spaces. Now the last half a metre sticks out.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2024, 07:19:55 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on December 03, 2024, 06:45:53 pmTo be fair, that's my experience in many American car parks. Then again, that experience has also predominantly been in a Chevrolet Tahoe, which is approximately the size of a bus.We started making car parking spaces smaller to suit the sizes of car popular in the 90s and early 2000s, just in time for everyone to 'decide' (be told) that what they really want is a large SUV.

author: ajb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2024, 07:36:25 pm
content: A big but easily-overlooked factor in the intensity of vehicle fires is all of the plastic they contain -- particularly in the interior, but there's plenty under the hood and in the body as well -- and that's equally true for EVs and ICE vehicles. You don't need any gas/diesel or batteries to turn a car into a giant fireball when you have all those solid hydrocarbons sitting there.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2024, 07:50:11 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on December 03, 2024, 07:19:55 pmMy American experience with narrow parking spaces is mainly with privately-owned parking garages.There's an old suggestion for parking lots in shopping centers and similar places: when the center first opens, make the spaces large so that the lot looks busy.Later, as the center ages and business improves, reduce the spacing.Luckily, I no longer own a 1970 Buick two-door sedan, where the doors must open wide enough to allow use of the spacious rear seat.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2024, 07:55:06 pm
content: It's the same story every ****ing timeCars burn all the time, left and right. They always did. No one was interested before about 2020.Now when cars burn, main stream media speculates that it must have been caused by EVs, with zero evidence. Alternative media, political or non-political, speculates that it must have been caused by EVs, with zero evidence. The bigger the fire, the longer they keep speculating. And they don't even say they are speculating. They are running headlines of "EV fires" like their speculation is some kind of verified fact.Month or two or three passes, and investigation reveals exactly what was known from the start; that as always, ICE cars caught fire. Oopsie, but no news coverage. Not even a simple corrective article. Again no one's interested. Until the next fire, which of coursemust be caused by EVsbecause those EVs apparently cause fires all the time, remember all those previous cases which were in the media for months!

author: fred001
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: December 03, 2024, 08:21:17 pm
content: FWIW many older cars burnt when ethanol was added to gasolinehttps://forums.aaca.org/topic/257239-an-interesting-article-by-jay-leno-on-ethanol/

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2024, 08:24:19 pm
content: Can barely believe this bit:"Station Commander A notes that:‘At some point, I was made aware by Police that a person had been spotted within thecar park. I radioed Watch Commander A to establish if this was one of our personnelor, a member of the public. Watch Commander A got back to me very quickly andconfirmed that they had located a LLA worker and they were now out of the building.’It has since been established that the LLA worker referred to in Station Commander A’scontemporaneous notes worked for another organisation and was based in the terminalbuilding. This individual entered the car park in an attempt to retrieve their car which wasparked on level 3. They told Watch Commander A who rescued them that they had usedtheir position as a worker at the airport to gain access. 39 It is estimated that the entry of theworker into the car park and the subsequent rescue occurred between 21:30 and 22:17."This almost became a fatality... some people are unbelievable. It's a car! It can be replaced! You can't!!For reference, the structure was considered "fully ablaze" by 21:37 (major incident declared), and the fire started on level 3...

author: electr_peter
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 03, 2024, 08:33:30 pm
content: In short: car caught fire (which is not such a rare occurrence),initial fire was not contained, then fire spread and things went south. Failure to extinguish initial fire quickly is the most important part.Fire spread because of fuel spill from melted plastic fuel tank on slanted floor. Would EV be worse or better? Maybe at initial stage it could be better, but not sure overall. If nearby ICE cars catch fire and spill fuel themselves, then initial fire source (EV/ICE) is not that relevant.According to firefighters, once EV batteries goes on fire, it is almost impossible to extinguish as regular car/fuel fire (batteries are on fire within frame shielded from external influence) and even burns a bit hotter than ICE car (thus massive damage to parking structures). Point on EV vs ICE fire safety is moot.One of the scariest part about the fires is that there is no need for fire to make direct contact with objects nearby to spread - heat radiation alone is sufficient.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2024, 08:55:19 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on December 03, 2024, 05:52:41 pmThis is really bizarre, complaining about the quality/availability of wind measurement data... at an Airport. Is there a lack of instrumentation because pilots using the airport have never needed accurate information about the wind at various altitudes and positions?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2024, 09:06:11 pm
content: Quote from: electr_peter on December 03, 2024, 08:33:30 pmI don't agree. In order for an EV battery to go into thermal runaway, it needs to be exposed to a continuous external temperature in excess of 200C for about 5-10 minutes. This would be sufficient to get cell internals beyond the critical temperature of around 200C to trigger a thermal runaway event resulting in self ignition.Those situationscanoccur at the floor of the vehicle, in particular if the car interior were to burst into flames through other means. But it's unlikely to occur before the rest of the vehicle is on fire. And at that point, car fires between EV and ICE are about identical. See Table 5here- it shows that HRR (heat release rate) of EV and ICE fire in tests work out around the same at 5-8GJ. But the EV cannot spill fuel to easily combust the vehicle next to it, the fire can only spread by heat.Certainly different techniques and precautions are required in fighting these fires, but it seems that a parking garage full of EVs would actually represent an overalllowerrisk due to less fuel available to spread around. Providing the fire could be contained within a floor, it would be unlikely to spread elsewhere, whereas with the Luton fire, burning fuel travelled through drainage systems and down ramps to ignite other vehicles, and fuel tanks quickly failed once the ambient temperature was above the melting point of the plastic. Plastic fuel tanks are only required to withstand a small external flame for two minutes (UNECE Regulation 34, Annex 5, paragraph 5.1). HDPE fuel tanks will melt at around 200C, rapidly releasing all of that additional fuel into the fire.

author: electr_peter
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 03, 2024, 09:36:12 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on December 03, 2024, 09:06:11 pmThe point is that initial EV fire can start because of internal thermal runaway which is very bad. Whether or not EV carsnearbycan go into thermal runway because of external fire for some time is not a point I made. Main point is that once fire starts (whether from EV or ICE) and is not contained, it spreads. If initial fire can spread faster though EV or ICE vehicles nearby, I am not sure - both cases are terrifying.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2024, 09:46:37 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on December 03, 2024, 08:55:19 pmThe airport surely has full meteorological information available. As with all airports, it issues meteorological bulletins (METARS) to pilots on at least an hourly basis. No idea why they didn't make use of that information.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2024, 10:09:54 pm
content: I'm curious about self-combustion of parked, still cars being that "common". I luckily have very rarely seen that myself. And the rare occurence were very old stuff from mainly electrical short-circuits. Does anyone have statistics about it?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2024, 10:10:22 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on December 03, 2024, 09:46:37 pmBecause it is a different department. I once visited the offices of a very large airline company (for work) and needed a specific department so I went into an office and asked. Nobody knew. Turned out the department I was looking for was 4 doors next to the office I went in to ask. FFSAnd then I needed a key to enter an equipment room. Since nobody knew which key was needed, I ended up in an 'office' looking exactly like this:

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2024, 10:13:21 pm
content: Quote from: electr_peter on December 03, 2024, 08:33:30 pmA sprinkler installation would help a lot to at least cool cars down next to the fire. In underground garages, you typically find a combination of doors which shut off the air supply (and dividing the garage into sections) and sprinkers. I still wonder how a diesel vehicle could catch fire. It must have been an electrical problem as diesel fuel is very hard to ignite using a flame.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2024, 10:29:44 pm
content: Quote from: electr_peter on December 03, 2024, 08:33:30 pmJust like it's almost impossible to quickly open a hole in a mangled car without jaws of life. It's a question of tools.EV firefighting toolswill have to become standard kit same as hydraulic rescue tools and rescue saws.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2024, 10:30:13 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on December 03, 2024, 10:13:21 pmExactly.And even gasoline or ethanol, ignitiing that requires at least a spark (and that would be rather unlucky, try to ignite some ethanol with just a spark in your lab). But diesel fuel? No way.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2024, 10:44:38 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on December 03, 2024, 10:09:54 pmI think it was Ford that had a recall on their cars where a fire could start shortly after being parked up as they had a fan override circuit that would run the fan for 5 minutes after the car stopped. This was designed to improve reliability, unfortunately the circuit itself could cause a vehicle fire. Personally I know my dad had a Mercedes that spontaneously combusted after being parked up. No cause was determined and the car was a write off though it was 20 years old at the time so perhaps it was a case of a worn out seal or something leaking hot oil onto an exhaust or other component.Quote from: SiliconWizard on December 03, 2024, 10:30:13 pmA lot of people seem to get hung up on this, but a diesel vehicle doesn't needdiesel fuelto combust. It could quite well be an issue with an oil seal failing, or a fault with a 12V electrical system, that provides the origin of the fire. Once some plastics begin burning a small ignition source can rapidly become a large fire. A leak in the high pressure fuel rail can cause atomised diesel to be spread throughout the engine compartment; this can be combusted more easily by a spark or hot components. Engine coolant and ATF are typically flammable too.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2024, 10:55:50 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on December 03, 2024, 10:44:38 pmBrake fluid is also flammable. And for all flammable liquids, there's a 500C+ turbo housing and exhaust manifold waiting to meet them.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2024, 11:11:47 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on December 03, 2024, 10:44:38 pmWhen you look at the aftermath of an inferno in a glass, steel and concrete tower, its amazing what little more than a bunch of carpets and furnishings can do when they burn.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2024, 12:30:17 am
content: sometimes I wonder if electricity is easier to contain then fluids. Fluid leaks are so easy to get.Even sticky fluids. HoudiniI heard about leaks even from the most advanced expensive fittings that seem even theoretically impossible. Soldering or brazing it together seems to work the best, but its never an option for the entire system.Moreso, if the fluid interconnect is bad,If you keep thinking about a fluid valve on a physics level, with a poppet, seat, etc... you think WTF is this shit??? A electrical switches reliability is so much more believable.seriously your gonna tell me thats not gonna break??you know your affordable car valves are probobly getting made on some thing like that

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2024, 01:45:37 am
content: Quote from: Monkeh on December 03, 2024, 10:55:50 pmVarious sources report that just about every fluid in a typical automobile is able to burn, for one example a fire department:https://depts.washington.edu/vehfire/fuels/vehiclefluids.htmlQuote

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2024, 02:44:22 am
content: ^^^^^ Coolant? Doesn't it contain too much water to be combustible?All the others I have no trouble believing are inflammable. (Or flammable if you prefer ...)

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2024, 02:51:22 am
content: Quote from: coppice on December 03, 2024, 06:45:53 pma 1994 5-series was 1751m wide and 4720mm long, a 2024 5-series is 2156mm wide and 5060mm long ....

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2024, 09:36:11 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on December 04, 2024, 02:44:22 amIt's probably a case of the water boiling off and the remaining alcohol burning:Seems that the autoignition temperature is around 650-750C, so as things go it's probably not going to start the fire but it could definitely contribute to it.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2024, 10:00:40 am
content: I don't think that's a valid autoignition test - there are flames licking all around the can which will ignite the vapour coming out of it.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2024, 03:37:20 pm
content: Quote from: langwadt on December 04, 2024, 02:51:22 amBe careful how you measure. You have compared the width of the body of a 1994 car with the wing mirror to wing mirror tip distance of a 2024 car. I think the 2024 model is slightly wider, but not much. I'm not sure if the length comparison is also skewed. Things like bumpers have changed so much there may be something going on there too.The other car I mentioned, the V90, is 4.94m long, while a 1994 940 was 4.87m long. Only a slight increase there.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2024, 03:52:44 pm
content: Quotetry mixing glycol anti freeze with potassium permanganate water purifying tablets

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2024, 07:11:35 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on December 04, 2024, 03:37:20 pmNow compare the kerb weights

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2024, 08:06:15 pm
content: Quote from: AVGresponding on December 04, 2024, 07:11:35 pmHow does that affect parking? Now a Volvo 940 was rear wheel drive, and easy to manoeuvre in a car park. Now the V90 is front wheel drive, and much more of a PITA in tight spaces.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2024, 09:29:28 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on December 04, 2024, 08:06:15 pmDo you mean because of the poorer maximum steering angle? My old Lexus LS430 has rwd and the turning circle is amazing - much smaller than my fwd Rover 75, despite the Rover being significantly shorter.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2024, 09:35:18 pm
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on December 04, 2024, 09:29:28 pmYeah. Front wheel drive cars were fine when they were all small. Small cars have few turning problems. As front wheel drive grew into ever larger cars they couldn't compensate for the limited steering angle.

author: jh15
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2024, 10:01:08 pm
content: Didn't Toyota have trouble with cracking 50 psi fuel manifolds when they switched from metal to plastic?

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2024, 10:05:54 pm
content: Quote from: jh15 on December 04, 2024, 10:01:08 pmThere seem to have been quite a few reliability problems introduced in car engines by the use of plastics in places that get rather toasty.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2024, 03:29:10 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on December 03, 2024, 05:52:41 pmIf a leak had developed at speed, wind from the movement may be enough to keep any small flames from developing into larger ones.This is also the first time I hear of plastic fuel tanks being allowed in cars.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2024, 04:27:54 am
content: Quote from: amyk on December 05, 2024, 03:29:10 amYou.. haven't been underneath a car in the last 30 years, have you?

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2024, 04:55:44 am
content: Plastic gas tanks have been used for a good 3 decades now. (Possibly a bit longer even.)They usually don't cause issues unless they've been damaged. Damaged metal tanks can leak too.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2024, 09:46:13 am
content: I believe the argument was weight, a plastic fuel tank weighs around 1/4 as much. When the critical parameter is fuel economy these days, and emissions comes with that, then weight is everything (for a given segment, at least - obviously, SUVs will weigh more than hatchbacks).

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2024, 11:02:21 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on December 05, 2024, 04:55:44 amIt wouldn't surprise me if it turns out the plastic tanks are more durable against punctures and other damage (besides rust) compared to metal tanks. The flexibility of plastic makes the tank flex when it hits something. Metal will just catch on and tear open. From what I've seen, they use kevlar bags for fuel in racing cars. They are extremely resillient against punctures.

author: HwAoRrDk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2024, 11:08:34 am
content: QuoteSounds like it may be a wise idea to mandate that drainage pipes in such parking structures are to be made of non-flammable material like metal, so that situations like this don't exacerbate the entire conflagration.Quote from: tom66 on December 05, 2024, 09:46:13 amNot just weight - but longevity and safety as well. Plastic fuel tanks can't rust from moisture and other contaminants in the fuel, so won't pollute the fuel with particulate matter and clog filters and damage pumps, etc. Also I believe plastic tanks are safer in a crash, because they are more likely to deform and not burst, due to plastic being more malleable and having a seamless construction.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2024, 11:31:12 am
content: I would have thought sprinklers would have effectively prevented the running fuel fire too. Whilst individual vehicles may still have been able to burn, the spread of the fire would be much more limited had burning fuel not been able to spread between vehicles.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2024, 12:54:13 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on December 04, 2024, 03:37:20 pm

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2024, 03:19:59 pm
content: Quote from: langwadt on December 05, 2024, 12:54:13 pmYou are still comparing apples and oranges. Your second image looks like a genuine outline of a modern BMW 5. The first image is the vague Carsguide outline they use for a wide range of cars, and just stuff in some numbers for a specific car. They've used the dimensions of the 1994 BMW 5's body. If the wing mirror tip to wing mirror tip of a 1994 BMW 5 were really that small it would have been one of the narrowest cars on the market.

author: Haenk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2024, 03:38:20 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on December 03, 2024, 06:45:53 pmI don't think the space has been reduced, as those are defined by regulations. *However* (AFAIK) those have not been updated for decades, while cars are getting larger and larger. The Golf I was half a meter shorter than the current Golf; it was less wide, too. And even back then the Golf I was not a small car. But looks loughable small by todays standards though.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2024, 03:44:50 pm
content: Quote from: Haenk on December 05, 2024, 03:38:20 pmCertain models of car have certainly grown. Honda is the key example of that. They've keep the same names for their core cars for decades, but they tend to have expanded as their very loyal customer base has aged, and looked for larger cars. Honda used to sell a big car, the Legend. Now they only sell the Accord..... Oh wait, the Accord is now bigger than the Legend used to be.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2024, 04:07:54 pm
content: Problem for many multistorey car parks is pillars are set at specific locations, car park operators cannot necessarily make spaces on inner levels larger as the pillars will be in the way. This is an issue at a car park in Cambridge I use from time to time, I think it is probably over 30 years old and there are some spaces that my average-sized car cannot fit into and still be able to open the driver or passenger door, because average-sized cars are so big nowadays. Sometimes you can forward park instead of reverse park in these spaces, no good if you have back seat passengers though.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2024, 04:14:55 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on December 05, 2024, 04:07:54 pmThey rarely lay out the parking spaces to accommodate the pillars. There are lots of spaces in many car parks which can only accommodate quite a small car because a pillar is sitting in the middle of the space, cutting at least half a metre off its length. You'd think that a purpose built multi story car park might be built around the dimensions of a reasonable range of cars, but it seems more like they take the available space for the structure, spilt the length and width into equally spaced sections between pillars, and put the pillars wherever they fall.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2024, 04:46:27 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on December 05, 2024, 04:14:55 pmI think it's more likely that the car park was built with, say, 1.8m wide spaces and pillars to accommodate that. Now cars are bigger and are 1.8m wide, they need 2.2m wide spaces to open doors. So you end up with painted lines that often don't make sense because moving the pillars is nearly as complex as demolishing the whole building and starting again.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2024, 04:58:02 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on December 05, 2024, 04:46:27 pmWhen would 1.8m spacing ever have worked? There was nothing more mainstream in 1970 than a Ford Cortina, which was 1.65m wide, not including mirrors. Take a nasty little car from that era, like the Austin Allegro. That was 1.60m wide. The size of cars has always varied mostly in length, rather than width. Lets take something tiny, like a Fiat 850 from the 1960s - 1.42m wide. With a 1.8m spacing even a 1.42m wide car doesn't give you a lot of space to get out, especially as that it a 2 door car, and even on a small car a 2 door design requires more space to get out.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2024, 06:05:18 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on December 05, 2024, 04:58:02 pmI'll admit I didn't actually look up the width of 1980's car parking spaces. But take the Golf - my ID.3 is effectively the electric variant of that.Mk2 Golf (1980s) - 1610mm wide (3-door)Mk7 Golf (2020s) - 1790mm wide (5-door; the 3-door is discontinued)https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/volkswagen-golf-1980-3-door-hatchback-vs-volkswagen-golf-2019-5-door-hatchback/front/It has grown by 18cm. So if car parking spaces were, say, 1.9-2m wide to accommodate 1.6-1.7m wide cars in the 80's (giving 30cm egress room), then they need to be 2.1-2.2m wide now to accommodate 1.8-1.9m wide cars. The standard for new car parks is 2.2m.Remember as well the Golf is no longer as popular as it once was. A more common car might be something like a Tiguan midsize SUV, which is 1.85m wide. And then you get land-beasts like the Discovery which is 2.1m wide. Probably see so many of those parked in disabled bays illegally because they can't fit their ludicrous pedestrian-crushing tank anywhere else.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2024, 06:40:06 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on December 05, 2024, 06:05:18 pmApart from outliers like the Fiat 850, cars have always been about 1.6m to 1.8m wide. This hasn't changed much. If you are going to have two adults comfortably side by side, with a gearbox between them, you are going to get to that sort of size. Of modern cars, the last one I found narrow was the Renault Zoe, and that is 1.56m wide. Being built ground up electric, without a gearbox in the way, I guess they felt is was OK to shrink the width a bit, but its not by a massive amount.The Discovery seems to be 1.99m wide. 2.1m would be an outlier. Even a Rolls Royce Sceptre is only 2.02m wide. Interestingly the Rolls Royce Silver Shadow, from the 1970s, was only 1.8m wide, which wasn't much different to a family car, even though the doors were quite thick.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2024, 10:19:03 pm
content: In the Netherland the default size for a parking space is 250x500 cm.

author: Thomas
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2024, 12:19:37 pm
content: In Norway recommended size increased from 250x500cm to 260x500cm in 2023.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2024, 03:07:54 pm
content: According to this man who trains firefighters the biggest threat in EV's is not the traction battery as that's well protected it's the auxiliary lithium battery of 12 to 48 volts that posses the greatest risk of fire as the are not mechanically protected in the event of a crash, lithium batteries are now being fitted to ICE vehicles as well sometimes as after market, I wonder if the land rover in the Luton fire had one of those as there is video of flames coming out of the vehicle horizontally like a blow torch.https://youtu.be/Xl4LtE3wiGA?si=YArSu_ZaBElc05hQ

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2024, 03:11:29 pm
content: Quote from: G7PSK on December 06, 2024, 03:07:54 pmUnless it had an aftermarket modification, the Discovery Sport 3.0 TDV6 in the Luton fire was fitted with an ordinary 12V lead acid battery. It was not a hybrid model so there was no need for a lithium battery (like a 36/48V lithium ion battery for a mild hybrid system).

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2024, 03:31:40 pm
content: There must be quite few vehicles now with aftermarket lithium batteries, I very nearly purchased one for a stand by generator last month, I ordered a new lead acid for it and it was DOA would not accept a charge they sent a replacement and that was DOA as well, it was a toss up did I get another one or a lithium which in some ways might be more suitable for some thing standing idle for long periods. In the end I persuaded the vendors to supply a different brand and this time they did not even bother to collect the dud one, so at some time I will weigh it in along with the original, that's another reason I decided to keep wit the lead acid the scrap yards only accept batteries marked Pb and you get paid lithium you don't.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2024, 04:13:35 pm
content: Quote from: G7PSK on December 06, 2024, 03:31:40 pmI don't see anything particularly unusual about the fire that would indicate it had a lithium ion battery.Also, it's notable that when it was on fire, the lights were still on... at least at the start:Which would suggest that any fire was not directly impacting the battery... since you'd expect those to die as soon as anything like that happened. I don't know of any lithium ion cell that can still function whilst in a conflagration. In fact, the sudden drop of cell voltage to 0V and impedance going towards infinity is a common characteristic of thermal runaway and is used to detect the onset of it when testing new cell protection mechanisms.I find it odd that it is unbelievable that a car full of hot components adjacent to oil, fuel, ATF, coolant, brake fluid, etc. can have a fire, it must be a lithium ion battery that caused it. I even saw some suggestion of a faulty vape pen at one point, which doesn't add up with smoke being seen coming from the front of the car at the parking barrier.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2024, 04:33:01 pm
content: But it does look remarkably like the blow torch effect, I suppose it could have been very high wind bot that has not been mentioned anywhere. But the wind could have been funneled by the garage structure.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2024, 05:08:38 pm
content: The fire report notes an above-average 10mph wind and open-sided construction of the MSCP as contributing to the development of the fire. So that might be what you are noticing but honestly it just looks like a normal vehicle fire to me, I cannot see the blowtorch you mention. Remember that the front components of many cars are plastic now so once that bumper starts burning it will contribute a lot of fuel to the fire in that area. I don't think they are required to make the bumper out of fire-retardant materials.

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2024, 07:21:03 pm
content: A sprinkler system would not help much and maybe make it worse if there is a lithium fire?Sprinkler systems in an open outdoor structure would not work. The piping and heads etc. can freeze up. Luton seems to get that cold.In Canada, the sprinkler piping for apartment complexes can be (cold) in attic/roof spaces so we'll use heat trace cable and elaborate controllers to keep all piping, valves etc. above freezing, with national fire codes having many strict requirements for construction, pressure monitoring etc. Very expensive.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2024, 07:31:23 pm
content: Quote from: floobydust on December 06, 2024, 07:21:03 pmLi-ion batteries contain no free metallic lithium. They're not metal fires, they're chemical fires. There's no putting them out, but delaying the spread could well save a structure. In this case, where one wasn't even the origin of the fire, that's a moot point to the subject of sprinklers. A functioning fire suppression system could well have saved this relatively new structure.QuoteA long solved problem. You charge the system with air, when a head opens the release of air pressure opens the supply valve.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2024, 08:02:03 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on December 05, 2024, 06:05:18 pmThis is easily noticeable difference. Even though seating space and middle console are similar, doors are "thicker" nowadays for side impact safety reasons alone.Parking buildings built in 1990's or earlier with fixed pillar positions simply do not work with 2010's or later vehicles, unless they were originally built more loosely than absolutely necessary.That ~20cm difference sounds small but it's the difference between passengers being able to get out comfortably from 1980's-1990's car, versus having to first let out the passengers, then park, and do the opposite when leaving, so that only the driver has to squeeze out uncomfortably.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2024, 08:04:20 pm
content: Quote from: floobydust on December 06, 2024, 07:21:03 pmTo create a situation where sprinklers fail to keep the area surrounding the fire source below ignition temperature, you need a lot more than an EV battery.If it was actually a pile of metallic lithium sure, but it ain't.

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2024, 08:05:28 pm
content: I checked dry pipe systems under NFPA 13 "Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems" (which Canada uses).It's weird because here they build these four storey wooden frame apartment complexes which commonly get gutted during a fire. It spreads across in the roof trusses (where there are no sprinklers) - those are for the rooms belowBuilders wanted heating systems. They must be just cheap bastards. Why not just go dry?Unless false trips due to leaks are too costly? I'm not sure what volume of air has to be vented to activate the water supply valve.NFPA 13 they don't like antifreeze or foam in low temps. PVC piping as well has many extra hoops to go through, for the cheap builders.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2024, 08:12:31 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on December 06, 2024, 08:02:03 pmFun story: A long time ago I drove an old VW Golf (mk2 model IIRC). I needed to park it in a hurry and found a narrow parking space. Somebody had parked his /her car outside the parking space leaving only a narrow space between a wall and the car. So I lined my car up perfectly with the parking space, left the hand brake off (level floor) and pushed it into the parking space where it fitted very snuggly