Fire Safety Considerations for E-Bikes and E-Scooters

[@rdpalmer9333]

Good info thanks

[@Larry26-f1w]

If skyscrapers were destroyed by fire in 2001 how could fire regulations allow charging stations in parking anywhere inside or near a building ?

[@adambritton2272]

Very efficient and informative. Well done

[@jimpatterson5333]

AFAIK, the only company making e-bike batteries (not just the chargers, but the batteries) that are properly UL Listed is Bosch. A good reason to stick with them.

[@jeffjambois7696]

You are correct that Bosch has UL 2849 listing for their e-bike systems, and UL 2271 listing for their batteries. HOWEVER, you are very incorrect that they are the only e-system supplier with listed products/components. To be honest, most of the major bicycle manufacturers have been following EN 15194, which is the EU and international ebike safety standard, for almost a decade. UL 2849 was mostly based on this EN e-bike standard, so all of these ebikes which are international models and which were certified for EN 15194 are mostly compliant to UL 2849. Also, there are other agencies who will certify/List product to these standards (ETL/Intertek, SGS, TUV, etc.), so UL listing is just one certification path. I know that all of Trek's ebikes have been evaluated against EN 15194 and UL 2849, and that a few of the systems and batteries used on their bikes are listed by UL, or in the final process of being listed by UL.

[@afzalgujjar7197]

Great job 👍

[@jenniferlyons4150]

I live in San Diego, California and we have these bikes all around. Especially in the Downtown area.

[@anonymouselbow]

Do you have a video on the risks of natural gas systems? If not could make one of can I send an email to ask because I realize I know little about them.

[@MRD-x2c]

thank you

[@phuto9283]

Many extraordinary fires involve to LIthium-ion battery. They make properties damage.It's hard to control and distinguish a fire cause by Lithium-ion battery

[@2old4much]

As a specialist in the area of Li-ion Battery tech, the takeaway is that not all li-ion battery chemistries are equal. Some like NMC are highly volatile & do present a high risk fire potential if abused & note even high quality batteries are equally prone. Others like liFePO4 are significantly lower risk and one reason why some European governments have legislated this chemistry suitable for residential battery packs. So the trade off is, that on the evidence presented in the video, the eBike industry is using a NMC derivative. So the big question here, is how long do the makers expect the bike to keep running without charging v using the the LiFePO4 that has excellent power density, that is almost totally safe to be charged at home inside, but wont keep running for just quite as long? So, the easy way to stem the issue is for the authority to legislate the LiFePO4 derivative, since NMC technology to be totally safe, needs a permanent cooling & heating solution a full BMS to manage it when being charged. And note, to add all this technology [ as is used on all BEV cars] would significantly impact the size and weight & cost of the eBike.

[@jeffjambois7696]

I applaud NFPA for taking on the issue, but am a bit discouraged at the amount of disinformation in this video. Firstly, very few of the products shown in this video are even e-bikes, at least not according to federal definitions. The CPSC has defined electric bicycles as "a two- or three wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.), whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph." There has been some interpretation of this definition, specifically "when powered solely by such a motor", to mean that the motor can provide 20 mph, while the average rider can provide 8mph, so the max speed should be 28 mph max speed (20mph electric motor + 8 mph of rider power + 28 mph max speed). Most of the products in this video did not fit this definition of an e-bike, and when you look into the "e-bike fires" that have occurred in the US over the past few years, a substantial number of these also do not fit the definition of an ebike. So why is this even important? Well, as the video discusses, ebikes have been in other global markets for sometime. The definitions in each market vary slightly, but for the most part they are even more strictly defined than in the US (25kph max speed, no throttles, 250W max motor power). In places like Europe and Japan, the ebike boom started a decade ago, and thus these markets have had quite a bit of time to define safety standards, and protections for consumers. Global bicycle companies (e.g. Trek, Specialized, Cannondale, Giant, Shimano, etc.) have been selling ebikes for 2 decades now, and have had to apply a whole host of international safety standards to their products in order to sell ebikes in these makets. EN 15194 covers the safety of the overall ebike, and then prescribes a whole host of IEC standards to cover battery, charger, motor, EMC, etc. safety topics. UL 2849 pulled the majority of its content from this EN standard, and also prescribes many of the exact same battery, charger, etc. standards. Fast forward to present day US, these same global ebike manufacturers are still applying EN 15194 and UL 2849 to all their e-bikes, as it is required to sell in most markets. Many of these global ebike models are also sold in the US where they are also required to ensure their ebikes comply with UL 2849. However, electric vehicles which do not meet the definition of an ebike (i.e. go faster than 28mph, have greater than 750W of power, etc.), have no requirements in the US. Technically, these products should be regulated by NHTSA, but most of these "out of class" electric mopeds and motorcycles are sold under the guise that "they are for off road use only." Well, in reality we know they are being used in urban areas, on the public roads, on bike paths, etc. In fact, many of products being called "ebikes" and which are starting fires, shocking people, or causing other injuries tend to be from this "out of category" calls of electric vehicle. This is further complicated by actual ebikes being sold direct to consumers by off shore companies, who can capitalize on de minimus import regulations that allow import with minimal inspection, and then sell un-tested products with cheap batteries. These companies do not have a presence in the US, and often have many company names in China, and thus are nearly impossible to file legal action against if someone is injured or killed by their products. To be clear, whether or not every ebike in the US met safety standards or not, there will always be fires with Li-ion batteries. The 0.0001% quality-related failure in a population of 10 million batteries is still going to produce 10 failures, and there is no accounting for misuse and damage of batteries, people modifying or otherwise adulterant products, but we are seeing some of these out of class products and cheap off-shore products failing at rates high above what would be normally expected in systems ruled by good process control, safety validation testing, and use of high quality materials. So, I guess the point here is that if NFPA, CPSC, NHTSA, NY City Fire Commission, etc. are serious about addressing the safety issues surrounding electric mobility products, first they need to have some level of consistency in defining electric mobility products, and then they need to get serious about requiring safety standards be applied to ebikes, and any other category of electric mobility product that they come with for the 'out of class" vehicles. At minimum, battery and charger standards should be applied (this addresses most of the fire risk), and ideally, a wholistic safety standard that covers safety of the whole product. Additionally, they need to ensure that imported products are following the safety standards currently mandated for ebikes (UL 2849 and EN 15194), and which most of the current producers are complying with. Once we start getting better data on which products are causing injury and fire, I think we are going to find that they are mostly cheap imports and out of class, unregulated mobility products. All of the suggestions at the end of the video are certainly valid, but additionally consumers should: - buy ebikes from established bicycle brands. These brands have often have liability if someone is killed or injured in the US, and thus it is in their interest to apply safety standards, use quality materials, and generally provide products that do not hurt people through normal use. They have also been making ebikes the longest, and thus understand all the challenges and requirements of doing so (in most cases). - verify that the product meets safety standards. UL Listing is just one form of this. There are 12 other OSHA NRTL labs which are also able to certify products (Intertek ETL mark, SGS, TUV, ACT Labs and whole host of others are just as valid as UL listing. - when it comes to batteries, cheap is not good. If an ebike battery has the appropriate Battery Management System (BMS) and good quality cells, then it is not going to be cheap. Good quality cells come from LG, Samsung, Sony, Panasonic, etc., and have been fully tested and certified, use high quality materials, and have much lower statistical failure rates. Cheap batteries cut all of this out, it is how they make them cheap.

[@FullyCharged22]

Where have I heard this voice before!?