dabbler wrote:

---

There was no mention of EVs in the BMW recall I read. An ICE specific component is faulty and BMW are blaming their parts supplier (which makes you hope it doesn't turn in another Takata). Recalls cover models produced over a period of 17 years and it's the third recall in the last 5 years. However it's not transport related as the ICE needs to be operating.

---

 Yes, that's what I read but there are some people who will just jump onto anything and turn it into their pet hate.   Can anything those people say be trusted?

Rob Driver wrote:

---

Well how good is it that now Wikipedia articles now reference the old word for FIRE as, wait for it, THERMAL RUNAWAY.

How clever is that in there article on EV fires they dont have a fire anymorewho are they kidding.

---

Thermal runaway and fires are two different things. Thermal runaway may be the cause of a fire, but it isn't a fire in itself. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_runaway

"Thermal runaway describes a process that is accelerated by increased temperature, in turn releasing energy that further increases temperature. Thermal runaway occurs in situations where an increase in temperature changes the conditions in a way that causes a further increase in temperature, often leading to a destructive result. It is a kind of uncontrolled positive feedback."

Basically, there will be accidents where a lithium battery fire is the result of thermal runaway. That's all they are saying.

Dorian,

At what point does a fire start.

Here is the link to Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_runaway

This is fruitless Dorian, FFS no one said a lithium battery was on fire, smouldering or even out getting a sun tan.

My suggestion and thoughts behind the use of the term *thermal runaway* in a document released by a manufacturer of a car, a washing machine, a fridge, or any fu%ken piece of equipment that catches fire when it is not supposed to is just a cop out so as not to admit the bloody thing catches fire.

As usual you have overthought a general comment, in this case on my distaste for any manufacturer using this terminology when directing advice to any consumer on an obvious and dangerous condition whereby their product catches fire.

It appears to be the common trend is to provide a *snow job* with unnecessary *glossy* words to describe a basic condition.

My point is,
In the case of some BMW models, they simply catch fire.

This whole argument is because when a manufacturer stuffs up and their product catches fire they then run out and employ *legal eagles* to prepare quotations such as this to cover their arses.

When the owner of the said model that catches fire experiences his loss I guess he feels fully compensated knowing that his car suffered *thermal runaway* and the fact that his car caught fire in his home garage and burnt his house to the ground has now been fully explained by some bull**** terminology.

When something burns, in layman terms, it is called a fire

Funny, this debate is still going on.

I read it yesterday and thought I would ask my wife and then my 11yo grandson what they thought thermal runaway meant.
My wife just shrugged her shoulders and then said,; what do you mean.

My grandson came into the room and when I asked him he said ; I dont know Pa, what is it.

Some might argue that they arent necessarily technically minded so would not be able to deduct what the term meant.

From what I see of the above rants is that is what RD was getting at is that the use of less than clear terminology is not conducive to every person understanding the reason in this case, for the recall on the BMW.

Rob Driver raised a point worth more thought.

Using my wife once again in an example. Lets assume she owns an effected BMW and she gets a letter from them saying that there is a recall as their car might suffer a thermal runaway
She lives by herself and has little contact with others.
Does she park her car in her UMR garage that night or does she know the vehicle may burst into flame overnight and burn her and her house to the ground.

Unfortunately we live in a world where this rubbish is becoming rampant and what is worse is that we as a society accept it.

The old chestnut is, if it doesnt pass the pub test or an 11yo child has difficulty with its reason then we really should be asking ourselves do we need this overuse of our language, particularly in warning and legal conversation.

Dorian, the above example with my wife and her car is imaginary, there will be no wiki link or web page that we can refer to.

Now to reply to the OP.

I agree peter67 the greens dont want to hear this and our media wont comment as it doesnt suit their current agenda.

Rob Driver wrote:

---

dorian wrote:

---

Rob, you still don't get it. No manufacturer, no Wikipedian, nobody on this planet, is denying that a fire is a fire. Thermal runaway is the cause of some fires. That's all there is to it.

---

 No Dorian,

you missed the point.

My suggestion is that using that term in a recall is not informing the consumer correctly.

Everyone knows the word fire, only some of us have followed your crap to realise that we need two diodes facing north on a windy day while wearing red undies to have a thermal runaway when the larger percentage of us may more easily understand the term as a fire.

You need to buy a car and caravan and get out more.

---

 I often wondered if he was actually a nomad or a caravanner. 

Dorian said

Let's all be grateful that Wikipedians don't write articles that are constrained by the vocabulary and knowledge of a 10-year-old child. Rob, if you are going to bash Wikipedia, then at least try to understand the subject matter.

First up Dorian, I made no mention of a 10 year old or any child for that matter and I did not bash Wikipedia.

My point which you conveniently want to overlook is the fact that the MANUFACTURER used the terminology.

The reasons for this are obvious

I said this above.

you missed the point.

My suggestion is that using that term in a recall is not informing the consumer correctly.

What I am saying is

Unfortunately many consumers dont have this advantage of the ability or the time to analyse every word nor do they have the understanding of these *trendy* terminologies.

For the record I havent bothered to click on all those links you so kindly provided so

I offer nothing more than I have already said and that is that there is no need for a manufacturer to use confusing terminology that may under certain circumstances, be misunderstood or misinterpreted by a consumer.

boab wrote:

---

I am very pleased this post was written as i had no idea what a thermal runaway was i had never heard the term used before and because it is 60 yrs since i left school at age 15 i am no where near as educated as Dorian obviously is, i would of just assumed the term thermal runaway was something to do with hang gliding. silly me

---

 This is a very valid point.

Back in about 2012 my son was using industry generated contracts in his business. At about that same time he was advised by his company insurer that he needed to adopt their new contract paperwork in its entirety because the existing contracts in use did not comply with projected standards which will simplify wording and even right down to the size of the font type used.

He was fortunate that apart from obtaining new forms and computer generated contracts and reports he had nothing more to do.

At the time many insurance companies were finding that they were actually losing some court cases due to the client claiming that they did not understand some of the trade based terminology the paperwork contained.

Once an insurance company loses money in a court challenge they are generally quick to react.

In 2016 or thereabouts, you dont need to quote me dorian, the ACCC introduced new policies and some of these changes enforced the need for an average person to be able to understand the contract or document. I think that their words mentioned in the description was Layman or Laymen or similar. Maybe this was the term the insurance company used in the understanding of the new requirements of the ACCC.

As a result a simple word can be cause for a claim against another based on this new procedure.

To reverse this for the exercise of this topic the term thermal runaway could easily be challenged unless clarified and the reference could be understood by the Layman. It has been shown on here that this terminology is not easy to interpret for some.

A bloke on a computer and 4 hours of searching and claiming how good a quote on Wiki is will not protect the manufacturer should someone contest it.

I will admit I had never come across the term thermal runaway until now and more to the point about the discussion on this topic unless Dorian is a engineer or at the least trade based then he may very well not have heard of it either until his google finger became involved.

Any documents using words which are confusing and favour the manufacturer over the consumer are not permitted or at the very least discouraged. The ACCC does not view and approve every contract and neither they should unless there exists a doubt by a client.

The use of this and similar confusing wording may very well come back to bite a manufacturer should the matter be presented in front of an adjudicator who agrees that there could exist a lack of understanding of the wording.

I need to add that the dates and quotes above are all based on my memory and with a conversation with my son prior to me posting, so Wiki or any other part of google was not quoted or its use even suggested.

Back to the topic,

Nah! The OP has it spot on, Not worth the effort.