Quote from: _MT_ on May 02, 2022, 11:56:11Which current EVs can't have battery replaced?

I guess I was under the impression that some of them couldn't, especially based on how difficult they are to access. Regardless, even if they can be replaced, it may not be cost-effective to do so, as you pointed out. Granted, it's not quite the same thing, but a hybrid owner I know has had their batteries start failing and was told it's far too expensive to replace them and not worth it. I hope, at least, that things like this are considered when designing EVs, and from what I've seen they have become a lot better in this regard (though this is a massive step backward, as confirmed in a later article here on NBC), but there were many cars built for several years at the start of the EV revolution, namely hybrids, that it clearly wasn't, and it makes me wonder what we'll find in 10-20 years with all the new ones being designed and built.

Quote from: JB Kickback on May 06, 2022, 23:41:53Hmmmm catch fire
I guess you've never owned a BEV

NHTA reported that out of a Billion miles driven last year there were 53 ICE cars (internal combustion) that caught on fire as opposed to 3 BEVs (battery electric cars)
I guess if you think about it -- that figure shouldn't surprise us ---- it's actually in the name internal COMBUSTION!!!!

Owning or not owning one has no bearing on it. Even if I owned one for 50 years and it never caught fire, that doesn't mean anything, because it would be a single sample size. And even if* EVs catch fire less often, when they do it takes a substantially larger volume of water to put them out, and with the fuel source (batteries) built into the frame, surrounding the occupants, it's reasonable to question whether, when they do catch fire (and, I'll also point out, a vehicle can catch fire due to other reasons besides the fuel source, e.g. cigarettes), they would pose a greater harm to the occupants.

*Statistics can be manipulated to tell any story one wants. IMO, that NHTA statistic is not reliable for a multitude of reasons. Also, I'd guess that most ICE vehicle fires involve a collision, i.e. they typically need something to set it off, whereas EV fires, similar to phone and laptop fires, have been known to occur spontaneously which, to me, is a greater risk, considering most people park them inside their homes. Even so, if we're to assume EVs have even a 93% reduced chance of catching fire, there's still a chance, and assuming that chance is equal regardless of whether the batteries are internalized into the frame, then the original question still remains valid: is doing this an increased safety risk compared to not doing it?

Tesla is already producing model y's with a structural battery pack.

Hmmmm catch fire
I guess you've never owned a BEV

NHTA reported that out of a Billion miles driven last year there were 53 ICE cars (internal combustion) that caught on fire as opposed to 3 BEVs (battery electric cars)
I guess if you think about it -- that figure shouldn't surprise us ---- it's actually in the name internal COMBUSTION!!!!

Wow
That is really bad "reporting" IF you can even call it that.
The structural battery pack that Tesla pioneered is already being produced in Giga Factory Austin.

So another copy cat company recognizes Tesla's superior technology and wants to duplicate it

Quote from: vertigo on May 01, 2022, 20:26:02
I wonder if these catch fire how much more hazardous they would be since the occupants would be surrounded by them and how resistant they would be to extinguishing. Also, while current EVs typically can't have the batteries replaced, which makes them worse, not better, in an environmental sense, this is going in the wrong direction for that, making replacement completely impossible.

Which current EVs can't have battery replaced?

They're going to be in the same place. It's just that the body will act as a container for cells, instead of having a self-contained box that's bolted on. If you design it to the same standard, there won't be any difference when it comes to safety. But it has implications for assembly and service. Sure, it can be more efficient, both in terms of space and weight. Just like monocoque vs. body-on-frame. You're limited by the way the box attaches (you don't want to weld it on) and you typically want a continuous space, meaning a body can't have reinforcing elements in there. But it can make a battery an integral part of a body. In which case, they'll either have to repair the battery itself, which is possible but requires specific training that current mechanics don't have. Or a battery issue will mean that the entire car is a write-off. It can be refurbished at a factory, but they won't fix it at a service center. It might be viable if failure rates are low enough. It's also possible to have specialized regional centres and such cars would be shipped there for repair. One of the reasons why we have self-contained battery units is to facilitate a replacement at a dealer. It's expensive to replace an entire battery instead of e.g. replacing a faulty cell, but it's cheaper than replacing the entire car. It's one thing to know how to handle high-voltage cables without killing yourself, it's another to work inside a powerful battery.

The batteries are still in the floor but are rearranged to allow less frame material

I wonder if these catch fire how much more hazardous they would be since the occupants would be surrounded by them and how resistant they would be to extinguishing. Also, while current EVs typically can't have the batteries replaced, which makes them worse, not better, in an environmental sense, this is going in the wrong direction for that, making replacement completely impossible.