Luton Airport fire: EV involved?

[charles]

or driving up the kerb to park on the pavement. That's why they're called "off the road" vehicles

[The Natural Philosopher]

That seems to be the nomenclature in common useage, yes..

[Tim Streater]

If I were buying electric at this point, one of those is what I'd go for. It would be a good match for most of our journeys. Fully electric? Probably not.

[The Natural Philosopher]

I agree. It would suit me as well . If it had 300bhp on tap and a luxury interior and didnt look like an overstyled golf cart. And cost £60,000+...and...and

[Bob Eager]

I have nowhere to plug one in.

I have a full hybrid (FHEV) and I'm very pleased with it. Good economy too.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Its not a bad solution to town driving at all.

[Paul]

"Trolley type battery pack. The S04 can be driven with one or two removable trolley-type batteries, which incorporate wheels and a handle to be transported comfortably and safely."

Top speed 52mph <=== on the flat and level, maybe

The price of the vehicle is wrong, because a competing product was only £6000. But the cheaper one, does not have that kind of top speed either.

How these seek to compete with BEVs, is they attempt to be classified as a "non-car" for crash worthiness, backup cameras, and other baloney.

No conventional BEV, that I know of, has removable packs. Some of those city-cars, have also had two batteries, one of which is removable, and gives the opportunity to "rescue" the vehicle with a charged pack.

While the above vehicle is still not all that practical, the top speed is heading in the right direction.

Sooner or later, the big car companies are going to have to make a cheaper car, before these smaller companies steal their lunch.

And isn't there one MBA out there, who can make a proper list of requirements for these things ??? Why must all the offerings be "half-baked", with the only other option being "too expensive".

Paul

[Andy Burns]

There's a twatter video showing it from the front (together with the two used-up extinguishers) it claims the reg is E10 EFL (I can't make it out to confirm) but if correct that comes back from DVLA as a 3 litre, 9 year old, land rover diesel

[The Natural Philosopher]

It almost certainly was not

[Theo]

There's a slightly less compressed version of that on Youtube:

I ran that through a 400% AI upscale via Tensorpix. Here's a still from the result: That does confirm E10 EFL as the reg.

DVLA tax database says that's a red 2993cc diesel Land Rover, registered May 2014. MOT database:

LAND ROVER RANGE ROVER SPORT first reg 30 May 2014, done 84k miles. No outstanding recalls.

Range Rovers seem to come with quite a few variations of 'faces', including aftermarket body kits, but the 2014 3.0 Sport does look like a good match:

When I put E10 EFL into Eurocarparts, it offers 8 types of lead acid (AGM) battery. In the Range Rover EPC: the batteries are AGM, even on the stop start models.

So: It's a diesel It's not a traditional hybrid It may or may not have stop-start It uses an AGM lead acid battery It doesn't use a lithium battery The battery is in the boot, not under the seat

Theo

[Andrew]

JLR has been a private company since 2008 when Ford sold it to Tata group, an Indian company. No shares.

[Andrew]

Hint: Hot air rises

[The Natural Philosopher]

Ergo it is certainly not the vehicle in the CCTV images Its just another desperate attempt by an EV shill to pretend this wasn't a lithium fire.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Tata is a publicly listed company.

[Spike]

Having seen at least some of the videos, processed or otherwise, I can’t make out that registration number.

There are no flames showing in the cabin or boot area, they seem to come from the area outside the main structure under the front passenger seat.

If that vehicle was in the process of leaving after being parked, everything would be cold, including the catalyser; and diesel fuel is hard to light. There is surely too much conflagration for a brake-fluid fire, and no obvious source of ignition for that fluid.

I think we can now look forward to all diesel-hybrid fires being described as occurring in ‘diesel cars’.

This happened a few days ago, I don’t recall it reaching the national news:

[charles]

Sounds to me more like an anti-EV propagandist

[Colin Bignell]

To my eyes, that number is too blurred to confirm anything. The first group does start E and end zero, but there is too much clutter between to just be the number 1. To me, it looks as though it actually starts EX, rather than E.

The second group could be EFL, but only the L is unambiguous.

[The Natural Philosopher]

What to set fire to an EV just to discredit EVs? I hardly think so.

The mere fact that there is no definitive official answer on what vehicle was responsible is, in itself, fairly revealing.

Dont tell me they dont know. They just want to wait until the issue is off the front page before finally revealing it, in the hope that no one will register it.

[The Natural Philosopher]

All I can see is a pixelatted COOL

I guess people see what they want to see.

But we dont have to rely on number plates. The VIN number and the engine number and examination of the wreckage would quickly solve the identity.

But if its been done, no one in the MSM is trumpeting the results to exonerate EVs , are they?

Just astroturfing propaganda sites thinly disguised as social media...

[Theo]

Here's the upscaled video:

Even if it's not E10 EFL, the face of the vehicle is a good match to the Range Rover Sport L494 2013-17, which doesn't have a MHEV model or lithium batteries. The later 2018 facelift did introduce an MHEV, but the front of those look different.

Theo