Can you claim 50S cells are safer from a fire safety point of view?

[null]

So a guy on the French forum claimed that Samsung 50S cells were safer regarding fire safety due to this text on eWheels.

The most valuable component of any Wheel is its battery pack, the beating pulse of the machine. Over the years it has been found, from painful experience, that pairing a high-powered machine with a battery cell that is not designed for high peak-power applications can result in latent/delayed catastrophic thermal runaway events.

As far as I know battery fires are mostly due to:
- Water ingress, rust, short etc
- Cells being unbalanced to the point some die.
- Unfit cells like the M50T. (corrected model name)

I'd be glad to know that the 50S was safer than others, but it seems a lot like extrapolation for now. One could also extrapolate that a fire could start even faster due to all the power that can be unleashed. IDK. Seems to me that cells that go haywire on high demand are already damaged making the higher discharge capacity a minimal benefit at best..

It seems premature to me to state this as fact. Fire safety is too important to be taken lightly.
Opinions or any other solid source?

Edited January 19 by null

[RagingGrandpa]

49 minutes ago, null said:

claim that Samsung 50S cells were safer regarding fire safety due to this text on eWheels.

Quote

• Higher Operating Temperatures: the specifications of the 50S has a vast operating range, from -20 to 80°C/-4 to 176°F vs -20-60°C/-4-140°F with the commonly used 50E/GB cell & as high as 100°C/212°F in Samsung’s test data! This massive margin not only allows the 50S to output up to 3x more power than the 50E, but perhaps more importantly, will greatly improve battery pack safety, there is no conceivable scenario in which these limits will ever be reached, or exceeded.  

This implies that healthy cells used to a lower percentage of their maximum ratings will be less likely to have catastrophic failure.

I think it's a bit misleading... healthy cells almost never experience catastrophic failure (in the absence of the abuse conditions you mentioned: physical deformation, overcharging, moisture and corrosion, etc). 

So this argument that "higher ratings are safer" is suggesting that the almost never can become 'even less than almost never.'

 

Instead, I think the practical difference between 50GB and 50S is recharging current ratings. 50S will remain cooler and can tolerate much higher recharging currents without the pack reaching shutdown temperatures. If you're planning to recharge your EUC > 0.5C, then it's an easy choice for 50S. And if you're not, there's no practical difference between the two.

(I'll leave the hot desert organized racing event riders out of this conversation, since they're a slim minority...)