August 1, 20241 yr Can you explain the reasons why charger matching/comms would be a sensible measure? You need comms for fast charging, monitoring and datalogging. Charger matching is second best. Batteries are usually supplied with matching chargers but some people would search the internet for the cheapest compatible chargers ignoring the risk. Prevention is cheaper and better than cure.
August 1, 20241 yr “The occupants were asleep when the battery started to make a crackling noise in the bedroom as it was charging. It is pure chance that the battery owner heard the noise.” Arguably, charging in the room he was sleeping in saved his whole flat. Moving it to the fire escape is questionable.
August 1, 20241 yr Am I correct [mention=4]flecc[/mention] and [mention=181]Wisper Bikes[/mention] have been involved in the drafting of legislation in the past ? Is there anyone involved in these consultations that would represent the various interests of pedelecs members ? No. Wisper has represented supplier interests in a very few meetings with our own British legislators but not in the wider EU legislation context as far as I know. They have on the other hand used a parliamentary lobbyist on behalf of pedelecers interests. I've never taken any part in any pedelec legislation creation, on the contrary I have acted to successfully prevent prosecutions. Saneagle has done similar. Yes, there are people representing pedelecs members interests in the many meetings involved in creating legislation. Pedelecs member Tiberius (Nick) is a scientist and keen pedelecer who was involved in the EU meetings bringing the laws up to date at various stages. His credentials are impeccable for that role. For example he attended the three annual weekend pedelecs festivals which we once had at Presteigne, at which there were racing and hill climbing events. For the third one he created his own bike from the ground up, even to the extent of a frame modified by welding, then winning both events.** But the reason the legislation we have can be so frustrating is due to compromise. Some at those meetings have a vested interest in preventing what we want. The moped and light motor cycle interests don't want pedelecs making inroads on their business so they oppose up having throttles on spurious safety grounds and get backed up by ROSPA and police interests who would ban everything that might conceivably cause an accident. So compromise is ever present in the resulting laws, with no interest present getting exactly what they want. ** Link to Nick's post Link to photos of Nick's winning pedelec Link to the parade photos at one of the Presteigne events . Edited August 1, 20241 yr by flecc
August 1, 20241 yr It seems that nearly all battery fires take place in batteries that are bought separately to the rest of the electronics system. Most of the remaining fires are caused when a component such as a controller or more importantly a charger is purchased from a third party and is not compatible with the system. Where are the stats for that? Do you have links? I've never seen a detailed breakdown of ebike fire causes. What are these assertions based on? I certainly hope they're not just opinions from parties with vested interests. Was there anyone present at that meeting representing the interests of kit conversioners? If so, who? If we're not represented, why aren't we? And what about right to repair? Who chaired this meeting anyway? I'd like to write to them, send them emails, put up a website, write to totally uninterested newspapers etc. From my cold head hands!
August 1, 20241 yr No. Wisper has represented supplier interests in a very few meetings with our own British legislators but not in the wider EU legislation context as far as I know. They have on the other hand used a parliamentary lobbyist on behalf of pedelecers interests. Who is this lobbyist and what does he usually lobby for? I fear the wind has changed direction, and we're heading slowly and inexorably towards the rocks for an inevitable sinking of kit conversions as we know them. Does sound to me like the only "repairs" allowed may be by way of replacement of certified compatible modules, as opposed to inexpensive component level repairs we see so often here on this forum. Bloody wasteful and very ungreen!
August 1, 20241 yr Who is this lobbyist and what does he usually lobby for? Historic now, he no longer is, but he was a member of the House of Lords and of the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group. .
August 1, 20241 yr Historic now, he no longer is, but he was a member of the House of Lords and of the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group. . Even if there was someone representing kit converters at the meeting [mention=181]Wisper Bikes[/mention] described, it would been a bunch of wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Loads of howling and drooling drowning out the pitifully quiet bleating.
August 1, 20241 yr Even if there was someone representing kit converters at the meeting [mention=181]Wisper Bikes[/mention] described, it would been a bunch of wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Loads of howling and drooling drowning out the pitifully quiet bleating. We can't have such a person, kit bikes are not legal unless taken through Single Vehicle Approval, which makes them a motor vehicle in law. There is no provision for them in law otherwise, so they exist in a sort of vacuum. An EAPC as a complete vehicle only exists by virtue of an exception for them to exist and be used in the Type Approval legislation. And the technical standards for EAPCs in EN15194 are only for complete manufactured machines. .
August 1, 20241 yr https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13555153/Blaze-e-scooter-battery-terrace-houses.html When this happened, I wondered what the impact would be. Always more restrictions....
August 1, 20241 yr You need comms for fast charging, monitoring and datalogging. Charger matching is second best. Batteries are usually supplied with matching chargers but some people would search the internet for the cheapest compatible chargers ignoring the risk. Prevention is cheaper and better than cure. Monitoring and datalogging are available (openly) via a Bluetooth BMS, fast charging commonly uses comms but doesn't need to. Comms moves info and that lets you relocate circuitry should you choose to. I explained how legislating to obligate that can make products less safe.
August 1, 20241 yr Monitoring and datalogging are available (openly) via a Bluetooth BMS, fast charging commonly uses comms but doesn't need to. Comms moves info and that lets you relocate circuitry should you choose to. I explained how legislating to obligate that can make products less safe. I assume than when such legislation is introduced, some charging standards for e-bikes would be introduced like CHAdeMO. We can't continue with law of the jungle like it is at the moment.
August 1, 20241 yr We can't have such a person, kit bikes are not legal unless taken through Single Vehicle Approval, which makes them a motor vehicle in law. There is no provision for them in law otherwise, so they exist in a sort of vacuum. An EAPC as a complete vehicle only exists by virtue of an exception for them to exist and be used in the Type Approval legislation. And the technical standards for EAPCs in EN15194 are only for complete manufactured machines. . Legal entities known as people, who convert their bikes using kits exist and not in a vaccuum - there are a lot of us, we should be represented at these meetings, and not by largely self-serving manufacturers or lobbyist who usually represents pesticides, big tobacco, big oil or whatever interests he/she/it//WTH/they are normally paid to lobby for. I realise I'm p*ssing into the wind and will probably cease going on about this here soon. Edited August 1, 20241 yr by guerney
August 1, 20241 yr Currently the move is towards the electronics system on each and every bike model being separately certified, at extortionately high cost. We with the BGAB are opposed to this and believe that a closed ebike electronics system should be tested and certified so we can use on multiple models or indeed as a kit. That's great progress. Is there mileage in taking it a logical step further? The certifiable black box has shifted from ebike model to closed electronics system, could it become the consumer-proof battery (perhaps alongside systems)? By that I mean one with all the protections that can keep the cells stable in a consumer environment: riding, charging, storage, consumer misuse (not abuse). Pretty much what we hope for from a reputable supplier. (I'll spare the details but assume other components can't make a consumer-proof battery catch fire.)
August 1, 20241 yr Where are the stats for that? Do you have links? I've never seen a detailed breakdown of ebike fire causes. What are these assertions based on? I certainly hope they're not just opinions from parties with vested interests. Was there anyone present at that meeting representing the interests of kit conversioners? If so, who? If we're not represented, why aren't we? And what about right to repair? Who chaired this meeting anyway? I'd like to write to them, send them emails, put up a website, write to totally uninterested newspapers etc. From my cold head hands! This has been evidenced by the London Fire Brigade and by various parties including me, studying all available imagery. You will need to do your own digging I am afraid. The meeting was arranged and chaired by the Bicycle Association of Great Britain who are eagerly trying to change the public opinion of "Dangerous eBikes". Yes we do have vested interests, we are very much trying to stop the incidence of these catastrophic fires and reduce their effect on the industry. As a matter of interest we are not anti kits, just anti dangerous kits. https://www.bicycleassociation.org.uk/ Have a look on their site, there is a lot of useful information regarding the problem and possible remedies that you may find of interest. Membership is open to anyone in the industry, manufacturer or retailer. I am sure that as a Kit Manufacturer or Retailer you would be most welcome. Historic now, he no longer is, but he was a member of the House of Lords and of the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group. . I still am a member of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Walking and Cycling. I no longer am involved in lobbying outside being and active member of the BAGB. I was Chairman and a founding member of the British Electric Bicycle Association and helped merge into the BAGB as the cost of lobbying and the time it takes was too much for a small group. BAGB are an absolutely first class organisation doing a massive amount for the industry as a whole. All the best, David
August 1, 20241 yr Who is this lobbyist and what does he usually lobby for? I fear the wind has changed direction, and we're heading slowly and inexorably towards the rocks for an inevitable sinking of kit conversions as we know them. Does sound to me like the only "repairs" allowed may be by way of replacement of certified compatible modules, as opposed to inexpensive component level repairs we see so often here on this forum. Bloody wasteful and very ungreen! The problem for me is that because SOME people act stupidly, everyone has to lose freedom to act as free people who may wish to make some changes to their bicycle. It is fundamentally wrong to tie everyone up in legislation and regulation when they wish to act in ordinary ways. Government should stay right out of our lives as far as is possible. However, politicians in general and some parties in particular seek to intervene at every opportunity that presents itself. Taking the logic of - harm has befallen foolish people therefore we must at once ban the activities that preceded that harm, we would be looking at banning a vast array of ordinary activities and freedoms. If the logic of legislating for harm reduction is taken to its logical conclusion, no one would be allowed ride a bicycle on the roads at all. People are killed every year bicycling on roads, hundreds of them. Certainly far more than have been killed in e-bike fires. No one would be allowed to walk on a cliff path unless it was securely fenced. All water sports would be banned, roads would be fenced off from pavements lest an unwise pedestrian stepped into the path of a vehicle, alcohol would be outlawed, and no one would be allowed to open a window lest anyone fell out. You may say that these examples are specious and go too far, I don't agree. The motive to ban is a serious problem. I note that in the listing of the Argos cheap e-bike the suppliers go to some lengths to WARN the buyers about certain hazardous actions, such as charging a hot battery or swapping chargers. THAT IS ENOUGH WARNING in my opinion. When I bought my conversion from a very small business near Durham, the chap who did the work made sure I understood how to look after the kit and issued warnings about dangerous practices. He included a sheet of paper with do's and don'ts laid out clearly.
August 1, 20241 yr Legal entities known as people, who convert their bikes using kits exist and not in a vaccuum - there are a lot of us, we should be represented at these meetings, and not by largely self-serving manufacturers or lobbyist who usually represents pesticides, big tobacco, big oil or whatever interests he/she/it//WTH/they are normally paid to lobby for. I realise I'm p*ssing into the wind and will probably cease going on about this here soon. No. DON't Cease going on about it. I REFUSE loudly to be constrained because some people are morons. I REFUSE to have sellers of complete ebikes interfering through their lobbying, to prevent me buying a cheap OPEN Chinese kit of parts to assemble my own e-bike, so they can get more of the market and become richer than they were before. It was I thought normal practice that people with a financial vested interest declare it in political discussion, so they are not able to push regulations in directions which suit them financially.
August 1, 20241 yr Author From what I've seen, the greater number of bikes and scooters that catch fire are illegal regarding riding on the street. The problem of fires would be substantially reduced if they were simply removed. You can see them everywhere in any city, and many of them around any town with big motors and batteries running with massive current. I really surprised that so little has been done about them.
August 1, 20241 yr From what I've seen, the greater number of bikes and scooters that catch fire are illegal regarding riding on the street. The problem of fires would be substantially reduced if they were simply removed. You can see them everywhere in any city, and many of them around any town with big motors and batteries running with massive current. I really surprised that so little has been done about them. Completely agree. I see them flying about on pavements with wok sized motors. I have been close passed by them at high speed. They are everywhere and those motors are pulling a lot of amps and probably have VERY hot batteries. The delivery boys will likely be fast charging too so draw your own conclusions about whether they are likely to run into a thermal melt down. If no law enforcement applies to these, and largely it doesn't, what chance the new nanny state regs will actually be enforced. When politicians react to the 'something must be done' outcry in response to an incident. I suggest they take a cold bath instead
August 1, 20241 yr Is there anyone involved in these consultations that would represent the various interests of pedelecs members ? Given your interest in the above subject, I thought you might like to know about the AVERE organisation (AVERE means to have): "AVERE is the only European association representing and advocating for electromobility on behalf of the industry, academia, and EV users at both EU and national levels. On top of advocacy, we provide our members with a unique forum for exchanging knowledge, experience, and ideas on how to stimulate electromobility throughout Europe. As a European Federation, we take pride in bringing together the entire e-mobility ecosystem with different members such as National Associations, actors who are active in the charging infrastructure industry and stakeholders who are active on the vehicle side." https://www.avere.org/ To give an idea of how active they are at a high level, the following is a letter they wrote defending our right to demand fully acting throttles on our EAPCs. It's a tough read! From: a.roetynck@telenet.be [mailto:a.roetynck@telenet.be] Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 7:40 AM To: JEAN Philippe (GROW) Cc: BONVISSUTO Barbara (GROW); GIELEN Guido (GROW); BROERTJES Peter (GROW); Joeri de Ridder; bert.witkamp2 Subject:Amendments and Corrections to L category type approval Dear Mr Jean, In January, AVERE has submitted to the European Commission a number of comments on the different legislative texts relating to the type approval. One of our comments concerned Annex X, Appendix 4 of the REPPR. We have argued that the current scope and wording of this appendix is such that vehicles in sub category L1e A equipped with an auxiliary motor but without pedal assistance, the so called “openthrottle” electric bicycles, cannot technically comply. The requirements which we pointed out pertain to pedal assistance, a characteristic which may not be present in an open throttle bicycle. We are very surprised to read the EC’s reply to our comment in the latest list of errors and comments: “when an L1e-A powered cycle is equipped with a throttle it has to comply with this criterion, else the vehicle has to be classified as an L1e B moped complying with point 1.1.2 of Annex XIX to the RVFSR. It means also that L1e-A vehicles, even if these are equipped with a throttle have to comply with the requirements in points 3.1., 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5. and should be designed such that these tests can be performed and shall therefore not be irrelevant for that powered cycle type.” This means that, according to the Commission, for powered cycles with an open throttle there are two options. One, they are also equipped with pedal assistance in which case they may be type approved according to the requirements above. Two, they have no pedal assistance, in which case they are classified as mopeds L1e-B and have to comply with all type approval requirements for this category. The latter case means that type approval prevents such vehicles from coming on the market since it is impossible for them to technically comply with the moped requirements. In the unlikely situation that a manufacturer of such vehicles would manage to obtain type approval for a moped, this type approval will by no means assure the putting on the market of a safe vehicle. Open throttle electric bicycles without pedal assistance have very similar, if not identical parts and components to pedal assisted L1e-A or L1e-B vehicles. These are subject to specific tests of parts such as frame, forks, etc., tests which will not apply to identical or similar frames of open throttle bicycles classified as L1e-B mopeds. We are all the more surprised about the EC’s reply since the Commission has confirmed in an email of 5 July 2013 to ETRA that open throttle bicycles will be considered to be categorised in L1e-A. Below we send you a copy of this correspondence. As the Secretary General of ETRA, Annick Roetynck who is currently AVERE LEV Policy Manager, explicitly asked for this confirmation because the introduction of factor 4 for pedal assisted bicycles caused exactly the problem brought to your attention in this mail for open throttle bicycles. This was only one of several objections ETRA had against the introduction of factor ‘four’. The Commission and ETRA reached an agreement which included 2 elements to compensate for the inclusion of factor ‘four’ : categorisation of open throttle bicycles as L1e-A and the addition of a preamble to the Regulation guaranteeing further research into factor ‘four’. In view of all the above, we would very much appreciate your reply to our following questions. What is the reason for the Commission changing position on the subject of “open throttle bicycles”? Such vehicles do have a real market potential for instance with elderly people, physically impaired people, delivery services, etc. What is the reason for establishing a type approval that prevents these vehicles from coming on the market by imposing type approval rules which are impossible to achieve, whilst at the same time not guaranteeing a safe vehicle? Should the safety of the vehicle not be the one and only factor determining type approval requirements? In the meantime, Avere urges the Commission to introduce the amendments to Annex X, Appendix 4 of the REPPR as proposed in order to allow type approval of "open throttle" bicycles in category L1e-A. Alternatively, should there be a proposal not to apply factor 4 and switch off distance requirements to the L1e-A category in general, then of course AVERE supports such a proposal. As mentioned, the agreement with ETRA included 2 elements. As for the second element, the preamble, we are also very surprised to read the Commission’s “ok” to CONEBI’s proposal to delete this preamble following a report from the University of Hannover Harburg. Apart from the fact that we have not had sufficient time yet to study this report and to consult in depth with other academic sources on this issue, we do not agree that this report can qualify as the necessary “further scientific research and assessment”. Also, the preamble states: “(...) scientific data and statistics on vehicles placed on the market”. From our first reading of this report we conclude that there is no mention of any statistics on vehicles placed on the market. It is far too early to have any relevant statistics on such vehicles since the requirement of factor 4 has only taken effect since beginning last year and the number of vehicles concerned on the market is still too limited to be relevant. In the meantime, we have submitted the Hannover Harburg report to competent departments at the VUB and at KUL Campus Gent. In their preliminary analysis, both universities, independently from each other, conclude that the Hannover-Harburg report does not provide sufficient solid arguments to conclude that factor 4 is necessary for safety and that further scientific research is required. Herewith attached, we send you these preliminary analyses. Unfortunately, we have not yet had the time to translate the analysis from KUL Campus Gent in English. We send you the Dutch version since Mr Gielen and Mr Broertjes are able to read thisdocument. We will send you the translation next week. On the basis of these two documents, AVERE urges the Commission not to delete the preamble yet but to allow more time for further scientific research and assessment. We are confident that the VUB and KUL Campus Gent are prepared to further participate in this process. Unfortunately, we are unable to attend the motorcycle working group meeting of 14 April. However, we are at your disposal for a bilateral meeting any time as of 20th April. Looking forward to receiving your reply. Yours Sincerely, Joeri de Ridder, AVERE President Annick Roetynck, AVERE LEV Policy Manager . Edited August 1, 20241 yr by flecc
August 1, 20241 yr Given your interest in the above subject, I thought you might like to know about the AVERE organisation (AVERE means to have): "AVERE is the only European association representing and advocating for electromobility on behalf of the industry, academia, and EV users at both EU and national levels. On top of advocacy, we provide our members with a unique forum for exchanging knowledge, experience, and ideas on how to stimulate electromobility throughout Europe. As a European Federation, we take pride in bringing together the entire e-mobility ecosystem with different members such as National Associations, actors who are active in the charging infrastructure industry and stakeholders who are active on the vehicle side." https://www.avere.org/ To give an idea of how active they are at a high level, the following is a letter they wrote defending our right to demand fully acting throttles on our EAPCs. It's a tough read! From: a.roetynck@telenet.be [mailto:a.roetynck@telenet.be] Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 7:40 AM To: JEAN Philippe (GROW) Cc: BONVISSUTO Barbara (GROW); GIELEN Guido (GROW); BROERTJES Peter (GROW); Joeri de Ridder; bert.witkamp2 Subject:Amendments and Corrections to L category type approval Dear Mr Jean, In January, AVERE has submitted to the European Commission a number of comments on the different legislative texts relating to the type approval. One of our comments concerned Annex X, Appendix 4 of the REPPR. We have argued that the current scope and wording of this appendix is such that vehicles in sub category L1e A equipped with an auxiliary motor but without pedal assistance, the so called “openthrottle” electric bicycles, cannot technically comply. The requirements which we pointed out pertain to pedal assistance, a characteristic which may not be present in an open throttle bicycle. We are very surprised to read the EC’s reply to our comment in the latest list of errors and comments: “when an L1e-A powered cycle is equipped with a throttle it has to comply with this criterion, else the vehicle has to be classified as an L1e B moped complying with point 1.1.2 of Annex XIX to the RVFSR. It means also that L1e-A vehicles, even if these are equipped with a throttle have to comply with the requirements in points 3.1., 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5. and should be designed such that these tests can be performed and shall therefore not be irrelevant for that powered cycle type.” This means that, according to the Commission, for powered cycles with an open throttle there are two options. One, they are also equipped with pedal assistance in which case they may be type approved according to the requirements above. Two, they have no pedal assistance, in which case they are classified as mopeds L1e-B and have to comply with all type approval requirements for this category. The latter case means that type approval prevents such vehicles from coming on the market since it is impossible for them to technically comply with the moped requirements. In the unlikely situation that a manufacturer of such vehicles would manage to obtain type approval for a moped, this type approval will by no means assure the putting on the market of a safe vehicle. Open throttle electric bicycles without pedal assistance have very similar, if not identical parts and components to pedal assisted L1e-A or L1e-B vehicles. These are subject to specific tests of parts such as frame, forks, etc., tests which will not apply to identical or similar frames of open throttle bicycles classified as L1e-B mopeds. We are all the more surprised about the EC’s reply since the Commission has confirmed in an email of 5 July 2013 to ETRA that open throttle bicycles will be considered to be categorised in L1e-A. Below we send you a copy of this correspondence. As the Secretary General of ETRA, Annick Roetynck who is currently AVERE LEV Policy Manager, explicitly asked for this confirmation because the introduction of factor 4 for pedal assisted bicycles caused exactly the problem brought to your attention in this mail for open throttle bicycles. This was only one of several objections ETRA had against the introduction of factor ‘four’. The Commission and ETRA reached an agreement which included 2 elements to compensate for the inclusion of factor ‘four’ : categorisation of open throttle bicycles as L1e-A and the addition of a preamble to the Regulation guaranteeing further research into factor ‘four’. In view of all the above, we would very much appreciate your reply to our following questions. What is the reason for the Commission changing position on the subject of “open throttle bicycles”? Such vehicles do have a real market potential for instance with elderly people, physically impaired people, delivery services, etc. What is the reason for establishing a type approval that prevents these vehicles from coming on the market by imposing type approval rules which are impossible to achieve, whilst at the same time not guaranteeing a safe vehicle? Should the safety of the vehicle not be the one and only factor determining type approval requirements? In the meantime, Avere urges the Commission to introduce the amendments to Annex X, Appendix 4 of the REPPR as proposed in order to allow type approval of "open throttle" bicycles in category L1e-A. Alternatively, should there be a proposal not to apply factor 4 and switch off distance requirements to the L1e-A category in general, then of course AVERE supports such a proposal. As mentioned, the agreement with ETRA included 2 elements. As for the second element, the preamble, we are also very surprised to read the Commission’s “ok” to CONEBI’s proposal to delete this preamble following a report from the University of Hannover Harburg. Apart from the fact that we have not had sufficient time yet to study this report and to consult in depth with other academic sources on this issue, we do not agree that this report can qualify as the necessary “further scientific research and assessment”. Also, the preamble states: “(...) scientific data and statistics on vehicles placed on the market”. From our first reading of this report we conclude that there is no mention of any statistics on vehicles placed on the market. It is far too early to have any relevant statistics on such vehicles since the requirement of factor 4 has only taken effect since beginning last year and the number of vehicles concerned on the market is still too limited to be relevant. In the meantime, we have submitted the Hannover Harburg report to competent departments at the VUB and at KUL Campus Gent. In their preliminary analysis, both universities, independently from each other, conclude that the Hannover-Harburg report does not provide sufficient solid arguments to conclude that factor 4 is necessary for safety and that further scientific research is required. Herewith attached, we send you these preliminary analyses. Unfortunately, we have not yet had the time to translate the analysis from KUL Campus Gent in English. We send you the Dutch version since Mr Gielen and Mr Broertjes are able to read thisdocument. We will send you the translation next week. On the basis of these two documents, AVERE urges the Commission not to delete the preamble yet but to allow more time for further scientific research and assessment. We are confident that the VUB and KUL Campus Gent are prepared to further participate in this process. Unfortunately, we are unable to attend the motorcycle working group meeting of 14 April. However, we are at your disposal for a bilateral meeting any time as of 20th April. Looking forward to receiving your reply. Yours Sincerely, Joeri de Ridder, AVERE President Annick Roetynck, AVERE LEV Policy Manager . We are members of LEVA EU, Annick is the general secretary and a freind. We have fought many battles together including trying to stop the anti dumping measures, pushing for the use of throttles and questioning whether or not the Machinery Directive is necessary. She is anti the control of the industry by the big players, and very vocal constructing strong arguments. If there are questions Pedelecs members would like me to put to her regarding battery safety regulation, I’d be very happy to assist. All the best, David
August 1, 20241 yr We are members of LEVA EU, Annick is the general secretary and a freind. We have fought many battles together including trying to stop the anti dumping measures, pushing for the use of throttles and questioning whether or not the Machinery Directive is necessary. She is anti the control of the industry by the big players, and very vocal constructing strong arguments. If there are questions Pedelecs members would like me to put to her regarding battery safety regulation, I’d be very happy to assist. All the best, David Thanks David. Yes I well remember your long fight against the EU anti-dumping measures. .
August 2, 20241 yr As a matter of interest we are not anti kits, just anti dangerous kits. "Kent Fire and Rescue Service believe that the fire in St Margaret's Banks on July 18th was started when sunlight bounced off a vanity mirror and onto the pair's bedroom curtains. " https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13701779/bedroom-mirror-house-fire-rochester-kent-st-margarets-banks.html
August 4, 20241 yr Northbrook Road, Ilford fire: Baby thrown from window ""In this case, the e-bike was not on charge but it was stored by the front door, which impeded the occupants’ escape. " https://www.ilfordrecorder.co.uk/news/24480485.northbrook-road-ilford-fire-baby-thrown-window/
August 4, 20241 yr Is this right? "If all Li-ion were replaced with LiFePO4 ebike fires would cease." Figures here suggest that the space for a 500Wh Li-ion battery would hold about 450Wh of LiFePO4. https://ecotreelithium.co.uk/news/lifepo4-battery-energy-density/ "Many Chinese urban districts have banned the charging of lithium-ion vehicle batteries indoors. " https://www.bestmag.co.uk/uk-government-to-bring-in-lithium-ion-battery-fire-safety-bill/
August 4, 20241 yr “Batteries can fail if they have been built poorly, are fake or counterfeit, are damaged, overcharged or the incorrect charger is used.”
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.