Ugh. Another Model S fire - 2013-11-06

[doug]

+1. I seriously doubt that so many Tesla enthusiasts are creating an account and logging on for the first time just to post this stuff.

Please, lets welcome and educate first time posters. If something doesn't seem up to snuff, use the report feature.

 

[MilosK]

I see also a lot of "compare it to miles driven" talk. So I have compared accident risk based on accident rate and on age of vehicle. In both cases, the Tesla does not fair well. The claim is that the collective Model S fleet has traveled 100,000,000 miles. Okay. Using the same numbers, we find that in the same time frame, ICE vehicles put an estimated 1,000 miles per month * 5 months * 230,000,000 = 1.15 trillion miles down (and that is taking the low end of estimates for miles driven). In those five months, there were 57,750 fires (an averag). So:
1. Tesla fires per mile = 3/100,000,000 = 0.00000003
2. ICE fires per mile = 0.00000005

That means rate of fire is IDENTICAL for all intents and purposes. In other words, Tesla better hope it no more fires occur if it wants to maintain that it is LESS flammable than an ICE.

Elon - after the first fire:
The nationwide driving statistics make this very clear: there are 150,000 car fires per year according to the National Fire Protection Association, and Americans drive about 3 trillion miles per year according to the Department of Transportation. That equates to 1 vehicle fire for every 20 million miles driven, compared to 1 fire in over 100 million miles for Tesla. This means you are 5 times more likely to experience a fire in a conventional gasoline car than a Tesla!

He came up with 5 x safer after the first fire which now still would be 5/3 x safer. So we still have 2 more fires to go to be on par with ICE based on miles driven. Sorry Bill, I trust Elon's math more than yours!

 

[BillHamp]

1. The fire rate per mile driven is not 1/2 that of ICE cars, it is the same.
2. I gave fire per vehicle year and fires per accident. The latter is used by and stats came from the NHTSA, so they seem to think it is a damn good way of keeping track of things. In both cases, Tesla fares WORSE than an ICE car.

Ultimately, Tesla has a problem and ignoring it will only make it worse.

 

[Gizmotoy]

With the first fire, Kevlar (rather than thicker/stronger metal) was exactly the solution I thought of as well. What you want is something that would distribute the force of impact such that you'd end up with a dent instead of a puncture. Though, not sure how that's different from the existing ballistic shield.

From the other tow hitch event we know that denting the pack is a pretty big expense ($40k-$50k). Even if the impact is distributed and causes a dent, as in that case, the damage is extensive. Still, that's far, far, preferable to a fire. I'm somewhat tempted to wonder if it would be better to pay the weight penalty and switch the armor to steel. Steel+kevlar may be better.

 

[MilosK]

I see also a lot of "compare it to miles driven" talk. So I have compared accident risk based on accident rate and on age of vehicle. In both cases, the Tesla does not fair well. The claim is that the collective Model S fleet has traveled 100,000,000 miles. Okay. Using the same numbers, we find that in the same time frame, ICE vehicles put an estimated 1,000 miles per month * 5 months * 230,000,000 = 1.15 trillion miles down (and that is taking the low end of estimates for miles driven). In those five months, there were 57,750 fires (an averag). So:
1. Tesla fires per mile = 3/100,000,000 = 0.00000003
2. ICE fires per mile = 0.00000005

That means rate of fire is IDENTICAL for all intents and purposes. In other words, Tesla better hope it no more fires occur if it wants to maintain that it is LESS flammable than an ICE.

Elon - after the first fire:
The nationwide driving statistics make this very clear: there are 150,000 car fires per year according to the National Fire Protection Association, and Americans drive about 3 trillion miles per year according to the Department of Transportation. That equates to 1 vehicle fire for every 20 million miles driven, compared to 1 fire in over 100 million miles for Tesla. This means you are 5 times more likely to experience a fire in a conventional gasoline car than a Tesla!

He came up with 5 x safer after the first fire which now still would be 5/3 x safer. So we still have 2 more fires to go to be on par with ICE based on miles driven. Sorry Bill, I trust Elon's math more than yours!

 

[BillHamp]

Elon's numbers are wrong as follows:

1. 150,000 is off because it does not take into account intentionally set fires. It also includes ALL vehicles and my numbers include only passenger vehicles. THis is important for two reason. FIrst, it compares apples to apples as the Model S is a passenger vehicle. Second, age affects fire risk and many non-passenger cars are MUCH older and so skew results.
2. I also gave rates on fires per accident, which is different than anything Elon posted and shows Tesla faring worse.
3. The average is about 1,000 miles per month. I use 230,000,000 ICE cars on the road, which is generous to Tesla.


Feel free to trust Elon, but frankly that makes you vulnerable to accepting lies. Do the work yourself and see what you come up with. Elon has a vested interest in making the numbers look as good as possible. In the end, his statistical analysis does not account for as many variables as mine does. I'll admit that mine could be better, which means Elon's is basically junk.

- - - Updated - - -

Also note that this is wrong. I was using June 2013 as a start date. It should be June 2012. That means it is 12 months + 5 months of miles on ICE cars. That means the TESLA is even WORSE off than I initially calculated. It's funny how some are calling out my math, which is admittedly done in a hurry, only to find that doing so weakens their positions considerably.

 

[MilosK]

Sure, just chalk it up to a misunderstanding. I went back and read your post a dozen times, and still didn't understand what it is you were getting at in your responses to me until...



(emphasis mine)
So, yes, I basically agreed with you all along, I just didn't understand what you were saying. :redface:

Apologies for the double post – I'm posting on an iPhone and I'd actually written a totally different reply but my previous post was reposted instead. I'd tried to post:


That's funny! I thought we were in agreement that's why I was so surprised. What's really funny though, is that I used to tutor math, statistics and logic in college. It appears I've lost some eloquence over the years! :-/

 

[yobigd20]

Elon's numbers are wrong as follows:

1. 150,000 is off because it does not take into account intentionally set fires. It also includes ALL vehicles and my numbers include only passenger vehicles. THis is important for two reason. FIrst, it compares apples to apples as the Model S is a passenger vehicle. Second, age affects fire risk and many non-passenger cars are MUCH older and so skew results.
2. I also gave rates on fires per accident, which is different than anything Elon posted and shows Tesla faring worse.
3. The average is about 1,000 miles per month. I use 230,000,000 ICE cars on the road, which is generous to Tesla.


Feel free to trust Elon, but frankly that makes you vulnerable to accepting lies. Do the work yourself and see what you come up with. Elon has a vested interest in making the numbers look as good as possible. In the end, his statistical analysis does not account for as many variables as mine does. I'll admit that mine could be better, which means Elon's is basically junk.

- - - Updated - - -

Also note that this is wrong. I was using June 2013 as a start date. It should be June 2012. That means it is 12 months + 5 months of miles on ICE cars. That means the TESLA is even WORSE off than I initially calculated. It's funny how some are calling out my math, which is admittedly done in a hurry, only to find that doing so weakens their positions considerably.

oh just buy that Model S that you've been secretly wanting this whole time.

 

[achaar]

Ok, I've got the marshmallows. Who's bringing the Tesla. :wink: I know everyone wants resolution, but patience, grasshopper. All info will come out within a few days.

 

[BillHamp]

I think the Model S is a great car, but I don't want one just yet. I prefer to avoid the hassle of bleeding edge technology, so I let people like you who enjoy that sort of thing work out all of the bugs. When Tesla addresses known issues, like fires, then I'll be right there in line to get one.

 

[MilosK]

It's funny how some are calling out my math, which is admittedly done in a hurry, only to find that doing so weakens their positions considerably.

Originally when I noted your math was wrong, I knew it would amplify your point in that particular post, but I don't have an agenda, I like accuracy - even though I'm a huge Tesla supporter and have been following them since 2006.

 

[jvonbokel]

I'm somewhat tempted to wonder if it would be better to pay the weight penalty and switch the armor to steel.

AFAIK, the bottom of the battery pack (and possibly the whole pack) is already steel.

"The Model S battery's 16 modules are located underneath the car, protected by a steel plate."

"The Model S's steel plate keeps its battery protected during everyday driving."

Source: Tesla Model S: How Did it Catch on Fire? - ABC News

 

[PokerBroker]

My insurance guys says that

$100,000 to replace car is nothing - especially when compared to payouts for injuries (hospital, etc) or deaths.
This Tesla stuff is a mere blip. Should and will cause no difference in ratings.

Couldn't be more true... way cheaper to replace a car due to fire than to have to pay settlements for those injured or killed in crashes in more dangerous cars

 

[FluxCap]

Elon has a vested interest in making the numbers look as good as possible.

And what do you have a vested interest in, first-time poster? Do you own a Model S? Are you an investor? Why are you here?

According to the statistics here, there were 236,000 vehicle fires in 2008. That's an average of 646 vehicle fires per day. I'm sure the numbers are down since 2008, but the fact remains that cars hit things, cars catch fire, and when ICE cars catch fire people very frequently die. How many people have died in a Tesla fire so far?

Further, it is much more expensive for an insurance company to pay injury or death benefits than it is to replace a $100k machine that prevented injury, and premiums reflect this.

Welcome to our forums, I guess?

 

[BillHamp]

Fair enough. I appreciate accuracy as well.

 

[lorih]

We can argue all day about the driving habits of the different cars, but so far Tesla has 3 fires that has occurred in the past 2 months. I'm very confident the Model S is an extremely safe car, and probably one of the safest of the road.

Is there a higher risk of fires? Who knows, and even if there is, it's still probably safer overall compared to most vehicles. I've driven several hundred thousand miles in my life and I have never hit a large metal object on the road. Seems like a pretty low risk.

However, Tesla needs to work on some sort of fix to show they are addressing the issue. Just like GM did with the Volt. Even if it's somewhat of a bullshit fix, it needs to be done. If the NHTSA forces a recall, it will be a huge deal. If Tesla, issues a voluntary recall to "fix" the car, then it will calm everyone down.

My response was to someone's comment about "how do Leaf's drive over debris and not get punctured?" I was merely pointing out the physics of speed on impact, and likelihood of being driven at high speeds.

 

[BillHamp]

Agreed that cars hit things, but 236,000 is way off. It does not take into account intentional fires and it does not exclude non-passenger vehicles. My numbers are accurate to the best of the stats I can find. I also agree that no one has died in a Tesla fire, which is great. HOwever, it isn't exactly a selling point is say "Hey, our cars burn, but at least you can get out and watch it happen."

As to me being a first time poster, that is a logical fallacy you are committing there. Stick to the actual argument and void undermining your points by trying to shift focus.

Finally, I have no vested interest. As I said earlier, I think the Model S is a great car, but it needs some work before I invest in one.

 

[eepic]

I think the Model S is a great car, but I don't want one just yet. I prefer to avoid the hassle of bleeding edge technology, so I let people like you who enjoy that sort of thing work out all of the bugs. When Tesla addresses known issues, like fires, then I'll be right there in line to get one.

I'm not convinced there is an issue - all three cases were due to a high speed collision, with the occupant leaving the vehicle unharmed.

Any other car would likely have taken severe damage as well (though perhaps not totalled), and the occupants may or may not have been able to walk away uninjured.

In fact I google'd "car fire died" and here are a few of the top hits from the last few days. Conditions were not unlike with the 2nd Tesla fire, where the drunk driver escaped unharmed:
BMW Driver, Passenger Killed in High-Speed Riverside Crash, Fire | NBC Southern California
Driver killed in Cape Coral crash, fire was drunk - NBC-2.com WBBH News for Fort Myers, Cape Coral Naples, Florida

 

[stopcrazypp]

Elon's numbers are wrong as follows:

1. 150,000 is off because it does not take into account intentionally set fires. It also includes ALL vehicles and my numbers include only passenger vehicles. THis is important for two reason. FIrst, it compares apples to apples as the Model S is a passenger vehicle. Second, age affects fire risk and many non-passenger cars are MUCH older and so skew results.
2. I also gave rates on fires per accident, which is different than anything Elon posted and shows Tesla faring worse.

Elon is not wrong. He's just comparing different things than you. I would also like to see sources for your numbers too (esp. the definition of accident used in the source).

3. The average is about 1,000 miles per month. I use 230,000,000 ICE cars on the road, which is generous to Tesla.

Not sure where you got "about 1000 miles". At any rate, elon uses 3 trillion miles a year (he sourced the number here from the DOT: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2011/vm2.cfm). If you only want to consider passenger cars, that's 58.6% (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/onh2p9.htm) or 1.8 trillion miles per year (0.8 trillion miles per 5 months). Considering you end up with 1.15 trillion per 5 months you aren't really being generous.

 

[ckessel]

My response was to someone's comment about "how do Leaf's drive over debris and not get punctured?" I was merely pointing out the physics of speed on impact, and likelihood of being driven at high speeds.

Leaf's do highway speed just fine which is the speed that folks are hitting obstacles. Leafs are common commuter cars and commutes are frequently by freeway.

I'll grant the Model S is capable of long distance trips, but I don't think its percentage of highway miles is going to be that dramatically different since the bulk of miles driven aren't on long distance trips.