kevin99
Member
That has to be one of the best official statements I've ever read.
You bet Elon must have personally pen it!
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That has to be one of the best official statements I've ever read.
Because they don't have data to support that assertion, yet.
"OMG OMG OMG Tesla must respond immediately."
Tesla responds.
"Tesla didn't say enough therefore..."
Tesla responds more, with incomplete data, and overstates things.
"Tesla proven to be wrong, film at 11."
Calm down and stop jumping to conclusions based on things not said.
Jeepers creepers.
Again, I disagree.If you want to judge their statement based on candor and forthrightness, it's a failure. Say whether the battery pack was involved, or not. I think it's abundantly obvious that it was (given crediting pack structure and lack of denial), but as posters on this thread prove, leaving it vague keeps people.... misinformed.
Cascading combustion of lithium ion cells is an inherent danger in any large pack. Tesla wouldn't have taken time to file a dozen patents on how to prevent or mitigate it if it wasn't. That doesn't mean that a protection system can't be defeated by a catastrophic impact with a metal object. I don't see why folks would find this objectionable.
Maybe because they don't know for sure yet. Car may not have been towed to a Tesla SC yet. Maybe insurance wants to look at it first. Maybe it was towed to a body shop. Accidents, drivers and passengers always say, happen in slow motion. Accident aftermaths happen in even slower motion.
I agree with CO that Occam's Razor suggests a battery pack breach from damage inflicted by collision with road debris. But I doubt anyone from Tesla Motors has seen the car yet. I would suggest that Occam's Razor also suggests Tesla raced to put something out fast because they saw the stock plummeting.
The fact that Tesla commented on the incident makes it likely that the media, if they have any brain cells, will follow up with Tesla and demand more details. I hope Tesla provides them.
CO, I would think if Tesla knows it is battery pack related and make that statement, it would be very cunning for them to try to spin away from "battery on fire" as they also mention battery pack specifically:Looks like we have an answer. Appears to be a pack fire (though its not stated as such, Tesla would have specifically denied it if it was not IMHO) caused by an impact with debris.
By "ripped open" I mean breached.
Anything that is enough to displace the cells and cause a short could cause a cascade.
Again, I disagree.
Perhaps they should do the sane thing and respond when they have more data and have processed it sufficiently.
Leaving it unstated isn't "leaving it vague" it's avoiding making statements that "aren't ready yet".
If you want a fast response, you have to accept that it will be incomplete. That's not misinformation that's timely response.
Man, I hope some of these people never get on a Beta because they clearly don't get it.
What contains enough energy in the front of the car that when hit, would ignite a fire like that?
I agree with CapOp.
Thanks for the clarification; although many people would probably think that there's a huge difference between those terms.
No it can't. The battery pack is designed specifically to prevent a catastrophic cascade. Having seen the battery up close on many occasions I doubt that the pack itself could have been breached; it would be much more likely that the coolant lines could have been broken but the battery would have protected itself. Note that the car instructed the driver to pull over safely and stop the car, this would not have been possible if there had been a catastrophic battery failure.
There is zero evident there was any damage to the under carriage. The press release said the MS ran into something not over it, so all the conjecture about the battery pack being ripped open is so much unfounded conjecture. Occam's Razor would point to something even simpler like the 12V got damaged in the initial impact which gave rise to the fire which was contained to the front of the vehicle. You could easily argue this means that whatever happened in the frank did not spread to the main pack, which would be some pretty damn good engineering.
As for the statement, kudos for a) providing a statement this quickly and b) limiting it what they currently know.
O
+1
Again, I disagree.
Perhaps they should do the sane thing and respond when they have more data and have processed it sufficiently.
Leaving it unstated isn't "leaving it vague" it's avoiding making statements that "aren't ready yet".
If you want a fast response, you have to accept that it will be incomplete. That's not misinformation that's timely response.
Man, I hope some of these people never get on a Beta because they clearly don't get it.