This fire at Luton Airport car park

nice back-pedalling

Not back-pedalling at all – that is exactly why I put the gritted teeth emoji there in the first place.

It is interesting that the point even comes up, I wonder if before ICE you’d have petrol drivers suggesting it was diesel? (too young to know if there was that divide, honest).

On subject of propaganda, it’s similar to the “EV is so heavy they cause way more damage to roads”

For those asking who is liable, a similar case happened here a few years ago and it seems they went after the car manufacturer and the garage that sold it.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0713/1153085-shopping-centre-fire/

It’s really easy to be mis-understood.
Statement like “I wonder whether” also read in a quite accusatory manner.
For example….
”
I wonder whether @johndoh reads the Daily Mail 😬
”
Note – this is not a personal attack – I’m not actually suggesting he does, just illustrating how this type of sentance can come across.

5labFull Member
if the owner hasn’t been demonstratably negligent then they’re only on the hook for their own car. everyone else claims off their own insurance. 3rd party coverage doesn’t cover “everything caused by your car” it just covers “things you negligently did in your car”, so if your car is burned by a “random” fire event in the car next door (which is possible, I’ve had a car do it), their insurance isn’t covering jack.

This is correct, every man for themselves insurance wise, unless they can prove that the owner of the vehicle that caught fire was negligent, which is very unlikely, on account of everything having been on fire. This is a common misunderstanding even within the insurance industry, just because the fire started somewhere else, doesn’t mean that someone else will pay your claim.

TBH its way more likely to be a petrol or diesel fire : A week back I drove past the remnants of a new-ishdiesel Merc that went bang and was still being dampened down by the fire brigade. Such things tend to be caused by either oil or fuel leaking onto a hot Turbo or catalytic converter from a worn linkage or broken pipe. A lot of the FUD (Fear, Uncertanty and Doubt) regarding EV catching fire is from people who ignore all of the “normal” car fires that dont make the news.

Anyway, lots of cars in a semi-enclosed space such as a multi storey car park will make for a very big fire.  Consider the amount of Diesel, Petrol, Oil, Brake fluid, plastics,Rubber and Aluminium that are present in several hundred vehicles that will burn very intensively. Open sides on the car park means there is a lot of airflow too. Its no wonder the structure colapsed the heat from all of the fuel/oil/platics fire would start to melt the steelwork in the carpark (so nothing to do with the weight of all of the vehicles)

Not back-pedalling at all – that is exactly why I put the gritted teeth emoji there in the first place.

Ah! Maybe you needed an Edinburgh castle emoji instead.

Its no wonder the structure colapsed the heat from all of the fuel/oil/platics fire would start to melt the steelwork in the carpark (so nothing to do with the weight of all of the vehicles)

But according to the 9/11 truthers out there, fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel.

Makes you think.

Now it’s come out it was a Diesel I’ve seen quite a lot of conspiracy theory type posts over on facebook / twitter. Anything to fit their pre-existing belief it was an EV. However, the lack of trust in “the establishment” not to cover this up is quite worrying.

However, the lack of trust in “the establishment” not to cover this up is quite worrying.

It’s nothing to do with trust. It’s a conscious decision not to belive any narrative that doesn’t agree with their own.

Yippee, another excuse for why the building works are not completed by 2030!!

EV Insurance will sky rocket after this….

@buttonmoon -I don’t follow – why will EV insurance rise ?

My thinking, so totally unsubstantiated.

It’s an airport. You have both airport fire appliances and civilian. Both are equipped to deal with fuel fires, especially the former.

Yet the fire engulfed the whole building. Something must have prevented the fire being extinguished.

I’d guess that the several hundred cars complete with their fuel tanks, bodywork and tyres etc combined with the air coming in from the open sides would make for a difficult fire to extinguish, with or without EV’s in there.

https://x.com/joerichlaw/status/1712075303428751832?s=20

Yet the fire engulfed the whole building. Something must have prevented the fire being extinguished.

-Access

-The speed at which the fire spreads

-The amount of water you can flood in there

-No sprinklers

-Diesel and oil will burn with the temperatures seen

It’s an airport. You have both airport fire appliances and civilian. Both are equipped to deal with fuel fires, especially the former.

Presumably if the airport fire engines are busy in the car park it can’t remain open anyway, but initially they can’t be redirected immediately if aircraft are landing or taking off.

The cars aren’t all stacked 700 ontop of each other 😅

Airport fire appliances are designed to extinguish giant aluminium frames with wings full of fuel in literally minutes. Roughly the same materials as ICE cars.

I guess they are big though, so maybe they couldn’t get close enough to lay the foam blanket over the fire.

It’s an airport. You have both airport fire appliances and civilian. Both are equipped to deal with fuel fires, especially the former.

The report and video indicate it was a couple of floors up and tucked away inside. So doubt the appliances would have been able to get close enough to be useful initially before it spread enough to be difficult to put out.

Airport fire appliances are designed to extinguish giant aluminium frames with wings full of fuel in literally minutes. Roughly the same materials as ICE cars.

On a runway. Not buried inside a carpark.
On their own. Not surrounded by other giant aluminium frames full of fuel

You may as well ask why they don’t use those same appliances to fight fires on a submarine given they’re so good at fighting fires or why not use halon on the fire engines given it is good enough to use on a plane in flight.

Even the best tech has limitations.

[edit: u also imagine all the security infrastructure designed to stop you driving a truck onto the runway is also a pita for rapidly deploying airside assets to a publicly accessible carpark. Response time is at least as important as the quality of your equipment for stopping “just another RR with a heater problem” taking hold and becoming towering inferno in that situation.]

the daily mail comments are quite the thing

– it was an EV

– ok it wasn’t an EV that started it, but it was only this bad because of EVs

– it was EV’s that caused it to collapse

– it was an EV but its being covered up because conspiracy

it’s going to be way too hot inside to deal with anyway once a few petrol/diesels are on fire in such a confined space, surely!

Sprinklers aren’t just for cooling, the steam released snuffs out the fire by starving it of oxygen.

I wouldn’t have thought most car parks had sprinklers unless they’re part of another building like underground car parks, they wouldn’t have high enough occupancy rates to justify them.

Range Rover that started it – that explains it ! Dodgy electrics as fitted standard at factory. LOL

BTW it takes a good long while to melt a plastic tank

To comply with the regulations (see below) a plastic fuel tank has to last for TWO MINUTES subjected to a flame without losing fuel. Not what I’d call a good long while……………

<h1 class=”main-publication-title”>Regulation No 34 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UNECE) — Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the prevention of fire risks [2016/1428]</h1>

To comply with the regulations (see below) a plastic fuel tank has to last for TWO MINUTES subjected to a flame without losing fuel. Not what I’d call a good long while……………

How does it compare with a metal one?

Also the hoses and so on. No point the fuel tank outlasting the rest of the vehicle – or indeed just developing a lovely hole at either end that allows burning vapour to escape right down to the point it has a good mix of air and fuel.

Airport fire appliances are designed to extinguish giant aluminium frames with wings full of fuel in literally minutes. Roughly the same materials as ICE cars.

They also are used on the runway and don’t respond to the car parks. 

I hope the driver is insured, as so many Range Rovers are getting stolen now, the insurers either won’t insure or they have put their prices right up.

How does it compare with a metal one?

I don’t have the time to search for the Standard for metal tanks but here’s a firefighters view from https://www.fireengineering.com/firefighter-training/vehicle-fires-plastic-fuel-tanks/#gref

Metal fuel tanks can be exposed to and resist the high temperatures brought on by fires for much greater times. When fires occur, metal tanks are far less likely to break down when compared to the newer style plastic tanks. When I first began my firefighting career, it seemed as though most of the vehicle fires to which we responded simply involved vehicle components. Fast forward 15-plus years, and it’s not uncommon to roll up to a car fire with a stream of gasoline on fire and flowing down a graded slope on Interstate 95.

A Land Rover diesel tank was responsible for the most disappointing day in my time at the MOD. Sat in front of 4 jets of mixed propane, aluminium powder and liquid oxygen it failed to do anything interesting at all. A dreadful waste of hundreds of feet of 16mm film 🙂

The anti-ev lobby are out in force over the Luton fire. Desperate to prove it was an EV and not a diesel Range Rover that started it, despite video evidence to the contrary. 

A Land Rover…
…failed to do anything interesting at all

No surprise there.

In all likelihood it failed because being a LR it has fallen off and rusted through about two days before leaving solihull and was consequently bone dry

The anti-ev lobby are out in force over the Luton fire. Desperate to prove it was an EV and not a diesel Range Rover that started it, despite video evidence to the contrary.

*Gets popcorn and sits back to watch*

Desperate to prove it was an EV and not a diesel Range Rover that started it, despite video evidence to the contrary.

Wasnt the Liverpool carpark fire also caused by a Range Rover?
Sounds like they need banning.

Wasnt the Liverpool carpark fire also caused by a Range Rover?
Sounds like they need banning

Carparks or scousers?
Does it have to be only one of them? I mean, it’s an easy choice but there’s definitely merit in both answers.

To comply with the regulations (see below) a plastic fuel tank has to last for TWO MINUTES subjected to a flame without losing fuel. Not what I’d call a good long while……………

Current tanks will go *slightly* over 2 minutes before failure.

Fire in car park at Stavanger airport that trashed my neighbours car. Started by a diesel

https://www.aftenbladet.no/lokalt/i/EaEnmG/kort-oppsummert-brannen-i-p-huset-paa-flyplassen

Fire in car park at Stavanger 

Ooo, off topic but I do like Stavanger, you’re very fortunate to live in such a part of the world 

Going back to the “EV being too heavy, damages carpark strucutrally” argument, seems a Range Rover can be up to 2.8 tonnes, compared to 1.9 for a tesla model Y.

Edit – an Evoque, which it appears this is, can be up to 2.1.

Range Rover can be up to 2.8 tonnes

Can’t be true. I often see them towing 3.5t trailers.

Ah! Maybe you needed an Edinburgh castle emoji instead.

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿
🏰