Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Andy_Ross said:
It has been officially confirmed by the fire service that it was a diesel car.
You can read the confirmation on their official website.
Click to expand...


As I suspect has already been pointed out on this interminable (and interminably ignorant & ill-informed, on the part of one poster) thread:

It would have taken even an inexpert eye (eg I could have done it myself) no more than a couple of minutes - once the car had cooled down enough to be examined properly - to ascertain with total certainty that

1) there was a sizeable engine under the bonnet (hood) which was clearly the powerplant;

2) the topology of the engine showed clearly that it was a diesel engine rather than a petrol (gasoline) engine; and

3) there was the total absence of either an electric motor or any form of Li-Ion battery cell structure anywhere in the vehicle.

Therefore, it was indeed possible for the Fire Service to be 100% certain, once they'd removed the vehicle to their premises and conducted a proper visual examination as outlined above, that this was a vehicle powered solely by a conventional diesel engine. And that, of course, is precisely what the Fire Service explicitly stated on its own website.

Anything else is either ignorance or obfuscation or both. I suspect both.
 
Vixen said:
"Believed to be a diesel car" is the verbatim accredited quote. Learn to understand what was actually said.
Click to expand...

I understand exactly what was said. The problem, for you, is that I can also understand the passage of time. So I can understand that someone can say "believed to be a diesel" at an earlier time, and then at a later time, when more evidence has been found, offer confirmation that it was, indeed, a diesel car.

You keep trying to play this game where you pretend that the earlier statement is the only statement that has been made on the matter. But the rest of us all know that this is not the case. And we all know that you know that it is not the case. We can see that you are aware that any earlier ambiguity you might have exploited to deny that it was a diesel car has been eliminated by the subsequent, unequivocal statement that it was a diesel car.

I do not believe that you are genuinely incapable of comprehending that an earlier statement qualified with the modifier "believed" is not meant as a final, unalterable declaration, and that a subsequent statement confirming the earlier suspicion does not supersede it. By ignoring the basic fact of the latter, definitive statement regarding the type of vehicle involved, you are simply confirming what the rest of us already know - that you would rather feign being obtuse than admit error.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
... is a secondary source. The Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service is a primary source for what the Befordshire Fire and Rescue Service says.

There is no aspect of this trivial concept you can honestly fail to grasp. What conclusion do you think people should draw from your continuing rejection of what they say on their own website?
Click to expand...


It's extraordinary, isn't it? And an insult to a critical thinking forum, for that matter.

The funny thing is that the only noteworthy public information about this incident is the contemporaneous news and SM reports on the fire, and the statements put out by the Fire Service (the most recent of which, of course, confirmed that "Car Zero" was a convention diesel vehicle). And yet this thread has been chasing its tale for weeks now, purely on account of one particular poster's ignorant, ill-informed and specious posts in support of a ludicrous and totally unsupported conspiracy theory.
 
Foster Zygote said:
I understand exactly what was said. The problem, for you, is that I can also understand the passage of time. So I can understand that someone can say "believed to be a diesel" at an earlier time, and then at a later time, when more evidence has been found, offer confirmation that it was, indeed, a diesel car.

You keep trying to play this game where you pretend that the earlier statement is the only statement that has been made on the matter. But the rest of us all know that this is not the case. And we all know that you know that it is not the case. We can see that you are aware that any earlier ambiguity you might have exploited to deny that it was a diesel car has been eliminated by the subsequent, unequivocal statement that it was a diesel car.

I do not believe that you are genuinely incapable of comprehending that an earlier statement qualified with the modifier "believed" is not meant as a final, unalterable declaration, and that a subsequent statement confirming the earlier suspicion does not supersede it. By ignoring the basic fact of the latter, definitive statement regarding the type of vehicle involved, you are simply confirming what the rest of us already know - that you would rather feign being obtuse than admit error.
Click to expand...


Ah no. I think Vixen's (ludicrous and unsupported) case is that the later statement is nothing but an imprecise rewriting of the earlier "believed to be a diesel" quote into "confirmed it was a diesel", by some fictional idiot named "Jenny in the comms department".

Total bollocks of course. But here we are......
 
LondonJohn said:
It's extraordinary, isn't it? And an insult to a critical thinking forum, for that matter.

The funny thing is that the only noteworthy public information about this incident is the contemporaneous news and SM reports on the fire, and the statements put out by the Fire Service (the most recent of which, of course, confirmed that "Car Zero" was a convention diesel vehicle). And yet this thread has been chasing its tale for weeks now, purely on account of one particular poster's ignorant, ill-informed and specious posts in support of a ludicrous and totally unsupported conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

You do NOT want to look at the Estonia thread.....
 
P.J. Denyer said:
You do NOT want to look at the Estonia thread.....
Click to expand...


Oh I've been there!! :boggled:

Both threads can be held up as exemplars of how a thread can be totally flushed down the toilet by the actions of a single contributor with no critical thinking skills, zero self-awareness, and subject matters way, way beyond their pay grade.
 
Vixen said:
"Believed to be a diesel car" is the verbatim accredited quote. Learn to understand what was actually said.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
You're lying again. The initial vehicle has been confirmed to be a diesel Range Rover.
 
Thermal said:
I think it is important to define "diesel" in this context. Has anyone proven that it is not being defined as "backyard tinkered hybrid EV converted vehiclle"? It's like I've got to do all the thinking here.
Click to expand...
Good point. Perhaps the narrative can still be saved.

YouTube video: It's OVER. The Luton Airport Fire just KILLED the EV market. Here's why.

An incendiary title like that and yet only 16k likes since Oct 11. Big Oil are obviously slipping.

Top comments:-

Being an engineer I found it very strange that a parked diesel vehicle spontaneously combusted, but if it was a Range Rover hybrid could this be the problem... Perhaps we will never know. But your right Geoff, EV's near any fire are a tremendous risk.
Click to expand...


I served for over 20 years in the FIre & Rescue Service, during that time I attended more ICE vehicles fires than I care to count, but I do know that...

Fires in ICE vehicles start small and, initially at least, develop relatively slowly, compared to fires in EV batteries which start quite dramatically with little prior warning, develop very quickly to 'thermal runaway' and often eject burning chemical projectiles, somewhat like a firework.
Click to expand...


Airports have their own 24 hour fire service, they attended immediately and a hand full of them ended up in hospital through smoke inhalation as they couldn't put the fire out. I have seen a large car set on fire on purpose and a single fire crew put it out in minutes, so i can only conclude this was a battery fire that was difficult/impossible to extinguish.
Click to expand...


I can only begin to imagine the MASSIVE pressure on fire investigators, from Government, to ensure that "it was NOT an EV that caused it... " We need to be SO careful about how this is done.
Click to expand...


Looking to the BBC for accurate reporting, is like asking Gary Lineker how to stop illegal immigration.
Click to expand...


Even if it is an EV, the BBC and the authorities will never admit it.
Click to expand...


My 11yo daughter turned to me when she saw the reports she and said "bet it's an electric car". Lol ... even the kids know..
Click to expand...


Even if it was a diesel it must have been parked next to an EV.
Click to expand...


The establishment will go out of their way to play it down if it was one
Click to expand...
1k likes! :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
If I take away any lesson from this incident it's that I'm not going to buy a used diesel car, just in case some previous owner has done a shoddy hybrid conversion to it, which then catches fire.

It may literally never have been attempted, but if only anyone had ever done that I think I can imagine how dangerous it might hypothetically be. You can't be too careful.
 
Speaking of which, VIXEN. Do you have an example of a diesel to hybrid conversion? Your two previous attempts to show that it was possible and done were both abysmal failures because they were nothing like what was asked. Will the third time be lucky?
 
I think it would be 'possible'- use a 4wd as the basis, disconnect one axle from the transfer case and fit an electric motor to the disconnected axle,use one axle as the 'ice motor' drive, put it in neutral and use the other axle as the 'EV motor drive'- I could see that being 'possible' but a lot of work, and hauling around the ice motor would make it particularly inefficient as an EV plus it would only work as a 2wd after that of course (matching the EV motor speed to the Ice motor speed on two different axles would be difficult in a 'home brew' rig lol
So not totally impossible, but a LOT of work, and the result would be pretty poor performance wise...
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Speaking of which, VIXEN. Do you have an example of a diesel to hybrid conversion? Your two previous attempts to show that it was possible and done were both abysmal failures because they were nothing like what was asked. Will the third time be lucky?
Click to expand...

The VIXEN technique is to give any old answer, no matter how absurd, then walk away. If pushed later on the subject you'll likely get a 'Answered, scroll back' dismissal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom