F150 Lightning EV Fire in Service Bay

[RickLightning]

So to recap. There’s a video reporting a Lightning caught in fire in a service bay with no other details about the truck or circumstances known…… I’m shocked we’re 3 pages in.

Forum clicks. Advertising. Money. YouTube video with zero outside validation. ZERO.

Sponsored

 

[Runaway Tractor]

Forum clicks. Advertising. Money. YouTube video with zero outside validation. ZERO.

What exactly do you want? Free youtube content with no advertising and a complete change to YouTube's algorithms? You're whining in the wrong place. Or does this only apply to videos you don't like?

The Chinese have already solved this problem and mandated safer batteries.

The chinese have not solved this problem. Their batteries and fires are no different than ours.

 

[ClevelandBeemer]

Forum clicks. Advertising. Money. YouTube video with zero outside validation. ZERO.

Make that 4 pages in.

 

[chl]

I received a reply - the battery was NOT in the vehicle at the time!

-----

John C. Hamilton
From:[email protected]
To:xxxxxxxx

Good morning,

We did have a fire involving an EV battery on June 18, 2026. The location was 1710 N. Expressway. The battery was not in the vehicle at the time of the incident.


John C. Hamilton | Fire Chief
Griffin Fire
(770) 229-6415 ext. 553


[email protected]


-----

 

[RickLightning]

I received a reply - the battery was NOT in the vehicle at the time!

-----

John C. Hamilton
From:[email protected]
To:xxxxxxxx

Good morning,

We did have a fire involving an EV battery on June 18, 2026. The location was 1710 N. Expressway. The battery was not in the vehicle at the time of the incident.

-----

Bingo.

Maybe @TaxmanHog will change the title of the thread from

F150 Lightning EV Fire in Service Bay

to

EV Battery on Dolly Fire Sets F-150 Above It on Lift on Fire

 

[chl]

It's a standard insert on the majority of his productions, common with start-up YouTube channels

OK, thanks for the info. BTW, I posted the response from the Fire Chief - the battery was not in the truck at the time of the incident.

 

[Runaway Tractor]

Bingo.

Maybe @TaxmanHog will change the title of the thread from

F150 Lightning EV Fire in Service Bay

to

EV Battery on Dolly Fire Sets F-150 Above It on Lift on Fire

Does it have to be giant annoying bold font too? What's next, a disclaimer that even though there are pictures, videos, a reliable reputable YoutTube channel, and confirmation from the chief that maybe it is still fake?

 

[TaxmanHog]

Pedantic

 

[inchman254]

Everything you just said is wrong. He's an electrical and battery engineer by trade, and a firefighter, and does training on this for the fire service. He's not anti-EV and none of his videos are anti-EV. Go find a video where he is anti EV. Please, find one. We'll wait. But try to grasp that reporting on an EV vehicle fire with facts and science to teach people how to handle the situation does not constitute being anti anything. If his job was reporting on house fires, would he be anti-house?

It happens to be the topic he reports on and trains on. His job is not reporting on ICE vehicle fires. Just like he doesn't report on cow's escaping, it is not his job. There is also nothing new and unique about ICE vehicle fires. There is no new education or new tactics needed for ICE fires. ICE vehicle fires do not require specialized equipment and training to extinguish.

It also happens to be a topic you apparently would prefer be concealed because nothing bad is allowed to be said about EVs or something.

At first I felt like you caught me jumping to conclusions so I had a look at his website and it appears that he does have a legitimate business consulting on battery fires of all types.

The thing that triggered me was when he said "EVs shouldn't be left indoors either, especially if there is damage to the high voltage system or if there's some type of electrical issue going on". If he hadn't said "especially", it was good, sound advice. Otherwise, he's explicitly saying "EVs shouldn't be left indoors" even if the electrical system is ok. It's like saying "People shouldn't swim in the ocean , especially if there are sharks around." The especially implies that the first part is dangerous, but it's even worse if the second part is true. It's probably a good idea to not leave ANY type of vehicle indoors with an electrical problem.

I have heard him say sorta the same type of stuff in other videos. I've always felt it had that undertone against EVs. Maybe it's just him being un-careful and me hearing it wrong because we're surrounded by FUD every day.

And I did go back to look at some of the vids. He has 3 (THREE) videos that debunk the (admittedly) wild numbers that keep getting quoted about EV fires compared to ICEVs. He points out that, in the US, there isn't a code for fire departments to differentiate between gas and battery fires and that the wild numbers are based on news reports.

He's the professional. Why doesn't he call up the American Property Casualty Insurance Association and find out the actual numbers? Insurance companies know exactly the year, make, model, drivetrain and color of the car for every claim and how it met its maker. You can say "It's not up to him", But he spent a more than a few days making videos about how the numbers aren't right and even adding more lithium to the fire looking at just one source, that is a wild guess at best. The numbers he shows "from NIST" (not) are equivalent to a 95% confidence level that there can be a 250% error in their data.

He also says that you can't tell if a VIN belongs to an EV or not. The 8th character indicates the drive type. For those of us with 2-motor Lightnings, you will find a 7 in the eighth position of your VIN.

In the Description of the YouTube video, he says " The data we've been relying on isn't fire data. It's news coverage. And those are very different things." But that's almost exactly the same type of data the "saviour" paper depends on.

So then he goes into a bunch of data he attributes to NIST, a highly (for now) reputable source. He implies that, because it is NIST, it is an authoritative source, but when you download the document he refers to, they put a disclaimer popup that I guarantee he had to answer OK to: "NIST does not necessarily endorse the views expressed or the facts presented on this site." The article is actually written for the Department of Commerce, but the federal government and Howard Lutnick couldn't be biased against EVs could they?

He even adds in other stuff saying how numbers about tool battery fires are underreported because people just kick the battery to the side and let it burn out and never call the fire department. Don't people put out gasoline fires without calling the FD? And that's not what the video is supposed to be about... it's supposed to be about "EV" fires... first word in the title. Just throw in some other battery fire stuff to improve the effect, I guess.

There are a number of home battery fires reported in the paper, and a lot in garages. But these could be anything from lead acid to tool battery fires (which I have heard is quite common). I'm pretty sure (which seems to be the standard of the paper) that very few of these are whole-home type batteries with robust battery management systems. Every time he says LIB, it can be anything from a 2 Ah, 20V knockoff to a 15 kWh Powerwall.

This section ends with "Garage fires may include ones involving lead-acid batteries as well, which would reduce the relevance of the garage results for this analysis". So, why even include it?

There is no mention of the age of the burning EVs, either. Again, probably available through insurance providers. Technology has changed a lot.

The paper points out (and StacheD dutifully reports it), that EV fires increased 45% per year. But wait... they say they don't have accurate numbers. They give this a +- of 11, but their 95% confidence range is 250%. This is just another guess. And, even though it's right in the data beside his 85,000 to 198,000 data, he doesn't report that the paper says that there have been 5718 EV fires since 2019 to 2023 with a error range of 2866 to 10,846. Also right there... In 2023, they report a BEV fire range of 216 to 1530 with an actual estimate of 596 (by excluding Florida data). There were 3.5 million BEVs on the road that year. At the high end, this is a 0.000437 chance of a BEV fire. Why is he even talking about this?

The NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) says that there were 201,000 auto fires in 2022 and 232 million cars. That works out to 0.000866. So slmost double the rate of the high end estimates of EV fires and maybe as much as 14 times EV fires. The 201,000 would include EV fires, but the EV numbers would have little effect.

Then there are recent Norwegian and Swedish studies showing the fire safety ratio (20x) of EVs over ICEVs. In one of his earlier videos he quotes an old Swedish one but says it doesn't mean anything because the numbers were too small. There's one from 2025 with good numbers that he doesn't mention in his 2026 video.

So I guess it's ok to spread FUD about EV and their batteries because it promotes his business.

Unfortunately, publicizing EV fires and just saying that the data is wrong while not offering available, credible alternative sources of information adds to overall public perception that they're unsafe, so, even if he's not all the way anti-EV, he's certainly on that side of the line. He does say that gas F-150s melt just as easily as EV F-150s, so why can't he say that EVs are no more prone to fires than ICEVs.

So, your post made me think I jumped the gun a bit, but it turns out that's not the case. I set out to find out as much as I could within a reasonable time. I watched some of his videos and I read the paper he refers to, and did some additional searching, so I think I did my part.

He found a source that agrees with him and published parts of it without, apparently, looking any farther and getting more information. He says he wants better data. I hope he reports it when he finds it.

 

[Runaway Tractor]

You're making my point for me. The fact that this much complication has to exist regarding EV fires is exactly why his channel and his career exists. And it is why the fire service will be stuck with this endlessly as the adoption expands and technology changes.

But some people would rather this problem just be ignored since it is not all unicorns and rainbows for their precious EVs.

 

[Maxx]

If compatible,, we may be getting safer batteries when we replace the pack after warranty:

https://www.cartoq.com/car-news/china-toughest-ev-battery-safety-rules-july-2026/

 

[TaxmanHog]

He also says that you can't tell if a VIN belongs to an EV or not. The 8th character indicates the drive type. For those of us with 2-motor Lightnings, you will find a 7 in the eighth position of your VIN.

Depending on the model year(s) the code has changed to several different values.

ie. 2022 & 2023 are V=ER & L=SR

 

[TaxmanHog]

I'm confident major manufacturers do their best to educate dealer technicians across all brands, but it's telling when something goes wrong in a certified shop.

Hopefully our "shade tree" EV technicians are as well informed about mitigating risks while implementing best work processes servicing EV's.

Pat's mission is about educating his fellow firemen, this forum is about educating owners and tinkerers.

 

[s10mods]

Seen this last night. I know there's always a small risk but any reason for concern on these trucks? It Almost appears that the battery is out of the truck.

 

[sfringer]

See this thread:

Sponsored