Grin’s perspective of Ebike fires

[Hillhater]

No, it's just a misconception.
In similar vehicle classes and driver profiles, electric cars tend to have similar insurance rates.

How much does it cost to insure an electric vehicle?​

Electric vehicle owners in Australia pay more for insurance. The average premium for an electric vehicle is $2545, whereas the average premium for a petrol vehicle is $1702. Electric vehicle owners pay around 40% or $843 per year more than petrol car owners.

That’s not just because electric vehicles tend to be newer and more expensive. Comparing average premiums for cars of the same age shows that owners of new electric vehicles pay nearly 30%, or $575, more for a year of insurance than owners of new petrol cars.

This gap persists for older vehicles too, if you look at the average price to insure a 1-year-old electric car compared with a 1-year-old petrol car, the price difference is still staggering: $2458 for an EV compared with $1949 for a petrol car. Owners of 1- to 4-year-old electric vehicles overall pay 22–27% more for insurance than owners of petrol cars of the same age.

The cost of insuring electric vehicles - CHOICE

While EV owners may save on fuel, they'll likely need to budget more for insurance.

www.choice.com.au

Model
For similar make and model cars…..

MSRP	Insurance EST
Mercedes-Benz EQA 250	$84,900	$4243
Mercedes-Benz GLA 250	$80,500	$2630
Electric variance	+5.5%	+61.3%

Why are electric cars more expensive to insure?​

Insurers claim EVs are typically more expensive to cover due to their complex systems and parts, supply limitations, as well as a severe labour shortage in the maintenance and repair industry.

Are electric cars really that much more expensive to insure?

High insurance costs are often cited as a barrier in electric car adoption in Australia. But is it true? Not always.

www.drive.com.au

 

[bananu7]

I mean in the very article you linked, it plainly states:

the cost of insurance isn’t the result of it being an electric vehicle, it’s the result of the type of car you’re buying

and

Tesla cars typically fetch higher insurance costs “not [because] it’s an electric vehicle, it’s just a higher-tech car

That's why it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. Obviously if you're insuring the value of the car and the car is more expensive, the insurance will be higher. And again, the insurance cost isn't just the car's raw value, the companies take a lot of factors into account and so any and all statistics will be skewed.

For example, if EVs were overall bought with a higher percentage of adoption by more clumsy people that bump into things, you'd see that trend and might assume it's caused by the drivetrain. Same could happen if, I don't know, EVs are bought mostly in the cities (where there's more infrastructure) and where insurance rates are higher than in the countryside.

That's why stats like "average premium" that doesn't account for other factors can only be understood as a symptom, not a cause.

 

[Hillhater]

the cost of insurance isn’t the result of it being an electric vehicle, it’s the result of the type of car you’re buying

Tesla cars typically fetch higher insurance costs “not [because] it’s an electric vehicle, it’s just a higher-tech car

neither of those explain the difference in insurance of the Mercedes EqA/GLA 250 example !..?
And, of course ..” the type of car”, and “higher tech car” is the exact definition of an EV vs ICE .
… But keep deluding yourself if it suits !

 

[neptronix]

Tesla has made parts expensive and repair inaccessible.
Aluminum bodies don't help! no amount of bondo can fix that compromised aluminum part. But you can bend steel back and expect it to not have lots tons of strength.

Going negative on reparability means insurance is going to get very expensive.
It's one of the few car companies to make it's own insurance unit, since first party is the only way to get decent repair costs.

Gas cars are having repairability issues lately too ( stemming from anti-consumer designs ), and a lot of traditional ICE mechanics are looking to get out of the game because it's got so bad.

 

[neptronix]

BTW isn't this a thread about ebike battery fires?
How did we get started on cars?

 

[rf]

One conclusion is going to rattle the regulators. Don't blame the users..... "It's all about the cells, dummy!"

I knew UL testing was expensive, having worked with them 40 years ago, but Justin said $40K to test one model and he sells 13 models,making it pretty costly to get that label,

It's not just about the cells. Though that IS important.

I built my first ebike and home-spun battery pack some 20 years ago. But I used safer cells. Lithium Iron Phosphate from Dewalt tools. They last much longer and are much safer from thermal runaway. Drive a nail through a cell and it still won't catch fire.
Unfortunately, they are a little heavier. Various Tesla model cars have used them.

But ... the biggest problem may be the chargers. Teslas allow you to choose how full you charge your batteries. The claim is that charging regularly to 90% makes the batteries last roughly twice as long. Charging to 80% makes the batteries last roughly four times as long. Some Tesla fleets suggest they seem to "last forever". The resale value of well maintained Teslas is quite high, often based on the residual available charge.

So using better chemistry cells or controlling charging better are apparently both worth the trouble. Many Lithium ion batteries are often attributed to charging and also sitting fully charged. When you charge a battery to 100% and then the surrounding temperature rises, as on a hot day, it's equivalent to over-charging the battery. Which is definitely not good.

Rare chargers allow cutoff to be set at 80% or 90%, which increases battery lifetime substantially, and increases safety. But it reduces profits for those selling battery replacements ... perhaps why we don't see many smarter chargers around.

It appears that the standard cutoff voltage for Lithium Ion cells may have been poorly chosen. More leeway seems appropriate for everyday usage cycles.

 

[99t4]

Rare chargers allow cutoff to be set at 80% or 90%, which increases battery lifetime substantially, and increases safety. But it reduces profits for those selling battery replacements ... perhaps why we don't see many smarter chargers around.

Or it could be that adjustable cutoff chargers are more expensive and most consumers don't see the value in buying one over a less expensive "adequate" charger.

 

[BatteryMooch]

Rare chargers allow cutoff to be set at 80% or 90%, which increases battery lifetime substantially, and increases safety. But it reduces profits for those selling battery replacements ... perhaps why we don't see many smarter chargers around.

Everyone talks about cycle life being important but I’ve seen very few who actually prioritize it over run time. And even fewer who want to, or even can, deal with the complexity of a smart charger. It’s a huge step up from “plug pack in and you’re done” to a charger that requires a setting to be chosen (even just for initial config).

It appears that the standard cutoff voltage for Lithium Ion cells may have been poorly chosen. More leeway seems appropriate for everyday usage cycles.

If you’re referring to the typical 2.50V/4.20V cutoffs for “standard” chemistry li-ion cells, those are cutoffs set to reach the guaranteed minimum cycle life specs in the datasheets (actual cycle life is often double that or more). They’re perfectly chosen for that.

If I only wanted to run my cells from 3.3V-3.5V, to gets tens of thousands of cycles, then I could say that cutoffs at 3.8V-4.0V were poorly chosen since they would result in much shorter cycle life than the ones I used.

We can always sacrifice more run time and increase cycle life by narrowing the voltage window, and many do that at the bottom end. Some at the top end too, choosing a voltage around 80%-90% SOC. All of the cutoffs can be “correct” or ”appropriate” though, which just depends on your priorities.

 

[neptronix]

The voltage was chosen to maximize energy density, which has been a huge problem for lithium tech until quite recently.
I'm a big fan of the cycle satiator for the ability to set whatever voltage and amperage i feel like.

 

[AnthonyC]

It appears that the standard cutoff voltage for Lithium Ion cells may have been poorly chosen. More leeway seems appropriate for everyday usage cycles.

That's my conclusion too. Both chargers and BMS could use a fixed 4.15 V instead of 4.2V without added cost or complexity. Loosely speaking cell 'stress' increases 'exponentially' with voltage so stress would be significantly reduced in exchange for 4% less capacity, which is nothing compared to what a battery loses over its lifetime.

And we're not getting charging right. By the chill of night the safe charging profile's quite different to in a warm test lab and even slow CC charging may not be cautious enough. Here again 4.15 V would make an appreciable difference for a simplistic fix.

 

[neptronix]

Nobody is game to advertise less capacity when constructing a battery by picking a 4.15v max voltage. In fact, most vendors fib a bit.

 

[AnthonyC]

Who would balk at adding 4% to a fib? Seriously though, take this example:

48V 19.6Ah battery & 4A charger, EM3EV $424 + $93 delivery
48V 20Ah battery & 5A charger, Chamrider $336 delivery included

To many of us the brand assurance is worth the 54% markup. A claim of better safety must be worth 4% even if it's one many don't fully understand, so long as others seem to. The dangers are so widely known that it wouldn't hurt sellers to mention safety features.

It would read as 40.5 miles range vs 39 miles but with less cell stress and longer life as a result.

 

[lnanek]

Could just be a datasheet difference in this case. The Chamrider site says they use Samsung 18650. The EM3EV says Samsung 21700 50GB. Meanwhile the datasheet on that only promises 4.9Ah. 4.9Ah * 4 = 19.6Ah:


EM3EV seems quite honest. I bought a Samsung 21700-50G pack recently with cells that are rated even slightly worse at 4.87Ah, I think, but seller stated 20Ah. Was a 52V 20Ah Reention Dorado battery from Green Bike Kit for $349 + $58 shipping to California.

 

[BlueSwordM]

Who would balk at adding 4% to a fib? Seriously though, take this example:

48V 19.6Ah battery & 4A charger, EM3EV $424 + $93 delivery
48V 20Ah battery & 5A charger, Chamrider $336 delivery included

To many of us the brand assurance is worth the 54% markup. A claim of better safety must be worth 4% even if it's one many don't fully understand, so long as others seem to. The dangers are so widely known that it wouldn't hurt sellers to mention safety features.

It would read as 40.5 miles range vs 39 miles but with less cell stress and longer life as a result.

Both are correct, likely with exact same ranges.

It's just the difference between minimum and typical capacities at the cell level.

However, I'd pick the EM3EV pack 100% of the time considering it's built a lot better.

 

[lnanek]

Both are correct, likely with exact same ranges.

It's just the difference between minimum and typical capacities at the cell level.

However, I'd pick the EM3EV pack 100% of the time considering it's built a lot better.

Nah, the Chamrider site says that pack is Samsung 35E:


Datasheet:


6P * 3.35Ah = 20.1Ah. They also have a drop down for 17.5Ah that's the Samsung 29E. So both companies were using the minimum value from the datasheet in this case.

 

[BlueSwordM]

Oof. Considering the same 35E is an inferior cell to the 50GB, that is not amazing.

 

[lnanek]

Yeah, 18650 cells are really obsolete for eBike packs. Companies are quoting 20-30% improvement moving to 21700. Wastes less of the pack's weight and volume on cans.