EV-type Battery Hazards

[Johnnycomelately]

Fallout from last year’s Morning Midas fire and sinking: insurance costs are now prohibitive for ocean shippers to carry EVs between Alaska and the lower mainland.

This story is about the problem faced by the few (a comment says 80) Alaskan owners of Rivian EVs, because their nearest warranty service shops are in Washington State. The implications are obviously much broader.

Another commenter says his shipper won’t carry even small non-EV batteries:

My freight forwarder that runs goods on a barge from Tacoma to Anchorage no longer accepts any lithium ion batteries. Outside of home solar storage, there is an increasing volume of lithium ion powered devices that consumers use today: power tools, vacuum cleaners, lawn mowers, ebikes, and chainsaws just to name a few. Eventually they will either have to make the batteries less likely to run away, or figure out how to contain them in transit.

https://www.thedrive.com/news/alaska...g-restrictions

Alaska Rivian Owners Are Getting Screwed Out of Warranty Work by EV Shipping Restrictions

Free warranty work now costs thousands of dollars in shipping after major carriers banned EVs from boats over fire risk.

ANDREW P. COLLINS
PUBLISHED APR 28, 2026 1:06 PM EDT

A Rivian owner in Alaska needs warranty work on his 2024 R1T. Rivian will only do it at its nearest service center in Seattle—a big inconvenience in the best of times, but right now, it’s a bona fide logistical quagmire. Commercial barges won’t take EVs out of Alaska since one caught fire last summer, and passenger ferries will only take them in extremely limited quantities. Even if you’re willing to cough up a couple of grand to send your EV on the boat ride, the lead time for a slot is months, not weeks. Rivians in the land of the midnight sun are currently caught in a perfect storm of a super-limited service infrastructure and impossible shipping stipulations.

The R1T driver who reached out to us has been understandably frustrated that he can’t access the warranty work he’s entitled to. A few seconds of searching on Reddit revealed that while some Rivian service in Alaska has been handled by mobile technicians and authorized third parties, getting work done at the Seattle center has been arduous. Rivian does promise “complimentary emergency towing to transport the inoperable Vehicle to either the nearest authorized Rivian service location or to a mutually agreed-upon location for warranty-related issues,” but there are asterisks, and being far as hell from a service center appears to be one of them.

On the positive side, the same person who flagged this issue for us is optimistic that Rivian will figure out a solution and indicated that the Seattle service team seems committed to helping the Alaskan contingent, but even so, it’s a logistical puzzle with a lot of expensive pieces.

Overland transportation is impractical at best, and not even possible at worst. Some population centers in Alaska (Juneau, for example) are completely inaccessible by road—you must take a ferry to get there. Even if you’re not on an island, the costs to ship an inoperable EV across Canada are well over $5,000. See, lithium-ion batteries are classified as Class 9 Dangerous Goods. Under Transport Canada and US DOT (49 CFR) reciprocity, any vehicle with a “potentially compromised” or “defective” battery requires a whole litany of special considerations because it’s treated like hazmat hauling.

I dropped Rivian’s communications people a line to ask about potential solutions, and will update this story if they have any official insight to share. This isn’t the company’s fault, really, but it’s not a great look for a vehicle billed as an off-road adventure machine. Still, a Facebook group, Alaska Rivian Collective, recently researched and posted the total count of Rivians registered in the state: There are only 80. On one hand, that doesn’t bode well for the company building out a much bigger service infrastructure up there; on the other, it might increase the odds of the automaker making exceptions to standard policies to help out such a small group of pioneering owners.

Even if the vehicles technically require servicing with specialized tools that might only be set up at a Rivian center, surely an improvisational fix could be executed via a mobile tech with some kind of computer override.

Obviously, owning a cutting-edge vehicle 2,200 miles from its nearest dealerships comes with inherent practical risks. But the boat-transportation snafu is creating a uniquely painful situation for the folks brave enough to drive these things north of the 60th parallel right now.


Why EVs Are Stuck in Alaska: Explained

Here’s the specific breakdown of what’s happening and why EV owners in Alaska are up a bit of a creek right now.
The Core Crisis: The “Barge Ban” of 2025

In June, 2025, the cargo vessel Morning Midas had to be abandoned off the coast of Alaska while carrying about 3,000 cars due to an uncontrollable battery fire. After that, pretty much every private carrier in the cars-to-and-from-Alaska shipping business said “no more EVs.”

Alaska Marine Lines (AML): Enacted a total ban on EVs and PHEVs as of September 2025. They cite “astronomical insurance costs” and the inability to safely manage thermal runaway at sea.

Matson & TOTE: Both major carriers suspended EV shipments indefinitely, leaving no commercial barge option for owners in Juneau, Ketchikan, or Sitka.

The Bottleneck: Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS)

With barges off the table, the state-run ferry is the only remaining route. Demand is high, and slots are limited.

The “Two-EV Limit”: Due to fire safety protocols, each ferry sailing is strictly limited to two electric vehicles.
Safety Requirements: EVs must be parked in designated spots with extra physical buffers and are monitored with specialized fire blankets.

The Booking Gap: As of this month, “EV slots” for the Bellingham–Juneau route are sold out through August. A motorist needing warranty work in Seattle today faces a three– or four-month wait just for a ferry reservation.
The Rivian Warranty Problem

Chevrolet, Ford, Nissan, Tesla, and even Porsche have dedicated service centers in the state of Alaska. You’d still be screwed if you needed one towed out of Juneau, but if you can get one of those cars to Anchorage, you can get service. Not the case for Rivians, though.

Service Center Scarcity: The nearest major service center for an Alaskan Rivian is in Bellevue, Washington.

Logistical Costs: Because barges are banned, owners are forced to use the ferry or specialized “low-boy” ground transport through Canada. That Reddit thread I linked earlier confirmed a $6,500 for a one-way transportation bill from Alaska to Washington.

The Policy Conflict: Rivian’s warranty typically covers the repair, but shipping is often only covered if the vehicle is deemed “undrivable” due to a failure, and even then, Rivian has reportedly pushed back on covering the extreme costs of “limited-capacity” maritime shipping.
If we were talking about getting a gas-powered Ford F-150 from Alaska to the contiguous U.S., it’s not cheap, but it’s not really an issue. You could call a barge company today and have the truck in Seattle by next week for about $2,000.

For a Rivian, the situation is unprecedented as owners are effectively blockaded by maritime insurance polices because the 2,500-mile overland ride down the Alcan Highway is impractically expensive (and impossible with an inoperable truck). The private sector refuses to carry lithium-ion batteries, which has forced a high-tech vehicle population into a state-run ferry system that is physically and legally unable to handle the volume.

So, where does an Alaskan Rivian owner go from here?

Got any advice for folks up north with Rivans? Leave us a comment or drop me a line at andrew.collins@thedrive.com.

ANDREW P. COLLINS
Executive Editor

Automotive journalist since 2013, Andrew primarily coordinates features, sponsored content, and multi-departmental initiatives at The Drive.

[Anchor]

Who wants a breakdown of the different types of Lithium battery in common use with their risk profiles?

I completed some research on this when I was obtaining "domestic clearance" for my new office batteries (Lithium Iron Phosphate) which are in located the house and worried Mrs Anchor until I showed that they were safe.

[Johnnycomelately]

Posted by Anchor (here)
Who wants a breakdown of the different types of Lithium battery in common use with their risk profiles?

I completed some research on this when I was obtaining "domestic clearance" for my new office batteries (Lithium Iron Phosphate) which are in located the house and worried Mrs Anchor until I showed that they were safe.

Yes, please!

[Anchor]

The Lithium family is so named because the anode of the batteries are based on Lithium the electrochemical process is the transfer of Litium Ions.

The primary rechargeable lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery types are distinguished by their cathode (or, in the case of LTO, anode) chemistry.

These chemistries determine key performance characteristics, including energy density, cycle life, cost, and—most relevant here—safety and risk profiles. Safety is evaluated primarily through resistance to thermal runaway (a self-sustaining exothermic reaction that can lead to fire, gas venting, or explosion), thermal stability (onset temperature for decomposition), propensity for propagation of failure to adjacent cells, and tolerance to abuse conditions such as overcharge, puncture, crushing, or high temperatures. All Li-ion batteries require a Battery Management System (BMS) for protection, but intrinsic chemistry plays the dominant role in failure outcomes.

The six main chemistries are summarized below (emerging solid-state or lithium-metal variants are not yet widespread in consumer or industrial use and are excluded here).

Note: "Lithium-polymer" (LiPo) batteries are a packaging format (typically pouch cells with gel electrolyte) rather than a distinct chemistry and are usually based on LCO or NMC; their flexible casing can increase vulnerability to physical damage but does not alter core chemical safety.


Lithium Titanate (LTO): Uses a Li₄Ti₅O₁₂ anode (often paired with LMO or NMC cathodes). Offers very low energy density (50–80 Wh/kg) but exceptional cycle life (3,000–7,000+ cycles), ultra-fast charging, and wide temperature tolerance. Applications include grid storage, military/aerospace, and high-cycle industrial uses.

Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP or LiFePO₄): Cathode-based chemistry with excellent cycle life (2,000–5,000+ cycles), moderate energy density (90–160 Wh/kg), and low cost. Widely used in electric vehicles (especially standard-range models), stationary storage, and material handling.

Lithium Manganese Oxide (LMO or LiMn₂O₄): Cathode chemistry providing good power density and moderate energy density (100–120 Wh/kg). Historically used in early EVs and power tools; often blended with other chemistries.

Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide (NMC or LiNiMnCoO₂): Common cathode with varying Ni:Mn:Co ratios (e.g., NMC811, NMC532). Balances high energy density (150–220 Wh/kg) with reasonable power and cost. Dominant in many EVs and consumer electronics.

Lithium Nickel Cobalt Aluminum Oxide (NCA or LiNiCoAlO₂): High-energy cathode (200–260 Wh/kg) optimised for performance. Primarily used in premium EVs and high-power applications.

Lithium Cobalt Oxide (LCO or LiCoO₂): High-energy cathode (150–190 Wh/kg) suited to compact devices. Common in smartphones, laptops, and small electronics; shorter cycle life (500–1,000 cycles).

Safety comparison hinges on thermal runaway onset temperature, heat release during failure, and propagation risk. Higher onset temperatures and lower exothermic energy release correlate with reduced likelihood of fire or dangerous outcomes upon failure (e.g., mechanical damage, overcharge, or short circuit). Real-world risk is also mitigated by cell design and BMS, but chemistry remains the fundamental determinant.

Summary List Ordered by Increasing Risk

The following orders the chemistries from lowest risk (safest, where failure is least likely to cause significant damage or dangerous situations such as fire, explosion, or propagation) to highest risk, based on thermal stability data, abuse testing (nail penetration, crush, overheating), and consensus across industry analyses.

1. LTO (lowest risk): Exceptional thermal stability and resistance to thermal runaway; minimal volume change during cycling prevents dendrite formation and lithium plating. Extremely low heat release and propagation risk; considered among the safest available.

2. LFP: Outstanding safety with thermal runaway onset typically ~270 °C (or higher); low exothermic reaction, minimal gas/heat generation, and low propagation even under abuse. Incombustible under many failure modes and tolerant of full charge or high temperatures.

[ a newer battery technology that is unrelated to Lithium sits in here, it is SIB or Sodium-ion batteries (Na-ion batteries) battery chemistry that utilises sodium ions (Na⁺) as the charge carriers

very low risk; thermal-runaway onset 220–260 °C with reduced heat release and propagation compared with most lithium-ion cells; additional practical safety benefits (zero-volt tolerance, lower toxicity gases). ]

3. LMO: Good thermal stability (superior to cobalt-rich chemistries) with moderate heat release; safer than nickel-dominant options and suitable for high-power applications where safety margins are needed.

4. NMC: Moderate safety profile; thermal runaway onset ~210 °C. Manganese improves stability relative to pure cobalt systems, but higher nickel content can reduce thermal tolerance. Risk increases at high state-of-charge (SOC); well-managed in modern designs.

5. NCA: Moderate-to-higher risk than NMC; similar onset temperatures but higher energy density contributes to greater heat release potential. Aluminum doping aids stability, yet performance-oriented use (high SOC) elevates failure severity.

6. LCO (highest risk among common types): Poor thermal stability with lower onset temperatures and higher exothermic energy release. More prone to runaway, venting, and propagation; requires stringent BMS and is best suited to low-power, small-format applications.


Personal note: my car: the 2020 Nissan Leaf (ZE1 generation) uses a lithium-ion battery with a Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide (NMC or Ni-Co-Mn) cathode chemistry.

My new office battery is LiFePO₄ based (4 x 12v 314Ah) and I am entirely confident in the safety of them for my application which is to electrically isolate my office which runs in "van life" style on 12v.

Disclaimer: AI helped a lot of the research and did the risk ranking. I have reviewed the content and made some changes and stand behind it.

[Johnnycomelately]

Posted by Anchor (here)
The Lithium family is so named because the anode of the batteries are based on Lithium the electrochemical process is the transfer of Litium Ions.

The primary rechargeable lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery types are distinguished by their cathode (or, in the case of LTO, anode) chemistry.

These chemistries determine key performance characteristics, including energy density, cycle life, cost, and—most relevant here—safety and risk profiles. Safety is evaluated primarily through resistance to thermal runaway (a self-sustaining exothermic reaction that can lead to fire, gas venting, or explosion), thermal stability (onset temperature for decomposition), propensity for propagation of failure to adjacent cells, and tolerance to abuse conditions such as overcharge, puncture, crushing, or high temperatures. All Li-ion batteries require a Battery Management System (BMS) for protection, but intrinsic chemistry plays the dominant role in failure outcomes.

The six main chemistries are summarized below (emerging solid-state or lithium-metal variants are not yet widespread in consumer or industrial use and are excluded here).

Note: "Lithium-polymer" (LiPo) batteries are a packaging format (typically pouch cells with gel electrolyte) rather than a distinct chemistry and are usually based on LCO or NMC; their flexible casing can increase vulnerability to physical damage but does not alter core chemical safety.


Lithium Titanate (LTO): Uses a Li₄Ti₅O₁₂ anode (often paired with LMO or NMC cathodes). Offers very low energy density (50–80 Wh/kg) but exceptional cycle life (3,000–7,000+ cycles), ultra-fast charging, and wide temperature tolerance. Applications include grid storage, military/aerospace, and high-cycle industrial uses.

Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP or LiFePO₄): Cathode-based chemistry with excellent cycle life (2,000–5,000+ cycles), moderate energy density (90–160 Wh/kg), and low cost. Widely used in electric vehicles (especially standard-range models), stationary storage, and material handling.

Lithium Manganese Oxide (LMO or LiMn₂O₄): Cathode chemistry providing good power density and moderate energy density (100–120 Wh/kg). Historically used in early EVs and power tools; often blended with other chemistries.

Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide (NMC or LiNiMnCoO₂): Common cathode with varying Ni:Mn:Co ratios (e.g., NMC811, NMC532). Balances high energy density (150–220 Wh/kg) with reasonable power and cost. Dominant in many EVs and consumer electronics.

Lithium Nickel Cobalt Aluminum Oxide (NCA or LiNiCoAlO₂): High-energy cathode (200–260 Wh/kg) optimised for performance. Primarily used in premium EVs and high-power applications.

Lithium Cobalt Oxide (LCO or LiCoO₂): High-energy cathode (150–190 Wh/kg) suited to compact devices. Common in smartphones, laptops, and small electronics; shorter cycle life (500–1,000 cycles).

Safety comparison hinges on thermal runaway onset temperature, heat release during failure, and propagation risk. Higher onset temperatures and lower exothermic energy release correlate with reduced likelihood of fire or dangerous outcomes upon failure (e.g., mechanical damage, overcharge, or short circuit). Real-world risk is also mitigated by cell design and BMS, but chemistry remains the fundamental determinant.

Summary List Ordered by Increasing Risk

The following orders the chemistries from lowest risk (safest, where failure is least likely to cause significant damage or dangerous situations such as fire, explosion, or propagation) to highest risk, based on thermal stability data, abuse testing (nail penetration, crush, overheating), and consensus across industry analyses.

1. LTO (lowest risk): Exceptional thermal stability and resistance to thermal runaway; minimal volume change during cycling prevents dendrite formation and lithium plating. Extremely low heat release and propagation risk; considered among the safest available.

2. LFP: Outstanding safety with thermal runaway onset typically ~270 °C (or higher); low exothermic reaction, minimal gas/heat generation, and low propagation even under abuse. Incombustible under many failure modes and tolerant of full charge or high temperatures.

[ a newer battery technology that is unrelated to Lithium sits in here, it is SIB or Sodium-ion batteries (Na-ion batteries) battery chemistry that utilises sodium ions (Na⁺) as the charge carriers

very low risk; thermal-runaway onset 220–260 °C with reduced heat release and propagation compared with most lithium-ion cells; additional practical safety benefits (zero-volt tolerance, lower toxicity gases). ]

3. LMO: Good thermal stability (superior to cobalt-rich chemistries) with moderate heat release; safer than nickel-dominant options and suitable for high-power applications where safety margins are needed.

4. NMC: Moderate safety profile; thermal runaway onset ~210 °C. Manganese improves stability relative to pure cobalt systems, but higher nickel content can reduce thermal tolerance. Risk increases at high state-of-charge (SOC); well-managed in modern designs.

5. NCA: Moderate-to-higher risk than NMC; similar onset temperatures but higher energy density contributes to greater heat release potential. Aluminum doping aids stability, yet performance-oriented use (high SOC) elevates failure severity.

6. LCO (highest risk among common types): Poor thermal stability with lower onset temperatures and higher exothermic energy release. More prone to runaway, venting, and propagation; requires stringent BMS and is best suited to low-power, small-format applications.


Personal note: my car: the 2020 Nissan Leaf (ZE1 generation) uses a lithium-ion battery with a Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide (NMC or Ni-Co-Mn) cathode chemistry.

My new office battery is LiFePO₄ based (4 x 12v 314Ah) and I am entirely confident in the safety of them for my application which is to electrically isolate my office which runs in "van life" style on 12v.

Disclaimer: AI helped a lot of the research and did the risk ranking. I have reviewed the content and made some changes and stand behind it.

Thanks, Anchor. Good to see AI used responsibly, managed and vetted. Good post.

Timely recent vid by Pat at mainly-batteries chan StacheD. Here he covers an incident involving an LFP thermal runaway in an autonomous transporter in a hospital. So, probably topknotch equipment, but a fairly big emergency (tho no one got hurt, and no surrounding damage).

Pat speaks about LFP with an industry man whose outfit destructively tests those and the other chemistries. For LFP, at least, seems ventilation is essential for safety.

L = 11:47.

LFP Batteries Aren't as Safe as You Think

StacheD Training and Electric Goddess

Apr 27, 2026

Training & Consulting: https://www.stachedtraining.com

https://www.electricgoddess.co/

LFP batteries have a reputation for being the safe option. No thermal runaway, no fire, problem solved. But that's not what the data shows.
In this video I sit down with Luke from Electric Goddess — a battery scientist with 20 years in the field — to break down what actually happens when LFP cells fail. We cover thermal runaway testing, why LFP produces significantly more carbon monoxide and hydrogen than NMC during a failure, and why the chemistry label on a battery tells you a lot less about safety than most people think.

We also get into what cell manufacturers can actually do to make batteries safer — from separator design to pack-level propagation resistance — and why not every battery has those features.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=_lMSDe4-6B4

[Johnnycomelately]

Another report about an LFP (Lithium Iron Phosphate, LiFePO) battery failure. This one caused an explosion, not of the battery itself, but of the hydrogen gas that had been released and mixed with air in an enclosed space — a dedicated outbuilding. The building was located “30 yards away” from the fellow’s house, and his front door was still blown in. The structure was built robust and airtight, and lacked any blow-out panels.

Remember the vid of the Fukushima reactor building exploding, on 11 March 2011? That was hydrogen and oxygen combining very eco-friendlyly (no typo), producing only the purest* water molecules (disclaimer for subsequent radio-nuleotide lil buddies). *Regarding my “purest”, anybody know the works of Marcel ~Fogel (?) RIP regarding memories held by water? I wonder how new water molecules are, like whether they start off by registering any trauma brought about by their explosive birth.

OP Pat cautions that this LFP chemistry, although comparatively safer than the other types, can still go into thermal runaway.

This explosion didn’t injure anyone kinetically, but the owner suffered for a year from breathing the toxic gasses when he went to check out the aftermath.

L = 8:25

Built Like a Bunker: How LFP Batteries Blew It Apart

StacheD Training
70.2K subscribers

May 5, 2026

Training & Consulting: https://www.stachedtraining.com

On November 17th, 2022, a dedicated solar battery storage building exploded on a property in Riverside County, California. The owner built it with 2x6 framing, 3/4" plywood sheathing, double insulated, and deliberately airtight. Six Discover AES LiFePO4 batteries. Roughly 44 kWh of stored energy.

The explosion leveled the building. Structural debris was found within a 100-yard radius.

It was never reported in the news.

LFP batteries are widely marketed as the safe lithium chemistry. They are harder to push into thermal runaway — but they aren't immune. And in a sealed enclosure, the gases they release during a failure have nowhere to go.

This is the Cal Fire investigation report nobody saw.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=6LbBryib8yY

[Anchor]

Good video !

Yes I saw this video soon after it came out tragic for the person who built that shed - I hope he gives it another go. I nearly burned my shed down in my early DIY off grid days about 15 years go because some bolts on a high current connection got loose and the contact resistance caused a hot spot that almost ignited the supporting structure (wood...). We live and learn. I have refined my approach over many years now.

I watched it all and internally ran through my checklist to see if I can learn anything from it. I think I did ok.

There are always accidents with LiFePO4 batteries - even though rare - there always will be and it comes first in the form of venting - where during a cell failure pressure builds up in a cell and must be released - usually there is a place on the cell designed for that to happen "pressure release vent".

The incident shown in the video was largely avoidable, particularly the resulting explosion. The airtight enclosure was a critical oversight. No reputable battery installer—regardless of chemistry—considers a fully sealed, unvented space acceptable. Proper ventilation is a fundamental principle in both battery systems and general construction to prevent moisture buildup and other hazards.

I would say there is more than one lesson to be learned in this video.

a) Cell venting is a genuine risk that must be anticipated in any installation. A properly designed system allows safe release of gases and pressure; venting itself does not normally cause fire unless confined conditions (such as an airtight space) enable gas accumulation or ignition.

b) Battery construction plays a significant role in overall safety. Systems assembled from numerous small cylindrical cells often incorporate more electrical connections and potential points of failure. The batteries featured in the video were of this cylindrical-cell design.

An alternative is to select batteries utilizing prismatic cells (which is what I elected to do).

These feature a rigid, rectangular prism-shaped metallic enclosure that allows efficient packing. When integrated into a well-engineered module—including insulation boards, proper cell clamping under controlled compression, and adequately sized busbars—the result is a mechanically robust system with improved structural integrity and reduced risk of arcing or thermal issues. Such configurations generally cost more - ironic as I dont think that was a problem for the person who built that shed.

[Anchor]

--
Will Prowse backing up StacheD on the dangerous properties of LFP batteries. Makes reference to the above video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvZlTMgEU6s

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zvZlTMgEU6s

[Johnnycomelately]

Posted by Anchor (here)
--
Will Prowse backing up StacheD on the dangerous properties of LFP batteries. Makes reference to the above video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvZlTMgEU6s

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zvZlTMgEU6s

Thanks Anchor for that chan tip. Got him in my interest tabs (parallel set of tabs, all the video home pages I check for new content, since my YT notifications have mostly stopped (tho still get responses to my comments so there’s that)), and look forward to his uploads.

He certainly repped Pat’s StacheD chan, even wrapped up with that. Good.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=_3eC35LoF4U

[Johnnycomelately]

A DIY battery test, forced thermal runaway, looking mostly at the resulting risk of explosion in a confined space.

No violent explosion, but shows the evolution of outgassing by a series of fire events. He used some kind of glass for a box resembling a small aquarium, and runs a continuous spark gap for ignition.

L =10:58.

DIY LFP Battery Explosion! Is it Possible??

DIY Solar Power with Will Prowse
1.11M subscribers

May 25, 2026

0:00 Test Setup
0:27 Overcharging
1:11 Explosion!
1:51 We NEED More Oxygen!
3:33 Test Done. Or Is It?!
4:53 Fear Mongering?
5:11 Credit to StacheD Training
5:47 What Happened?
8:45 Solutions
10:23 How does this work?!
10:32 Conclusion

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=yL_pHNIttlc