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

[jvonbokel]

The damage to the radiator immediately in front of the tire there... is that melting from fire, or could the debris have created that large hole? I believe the S has a pair of radiators like that, but damaging either one could result in the cooling system being disabled. Could that eventually lead to a fire in the battery pack? I guess we'll find out within a few days when Tesla publishes some official comment after their investigation.

 

[MilosK]

It was italicized for emphasis, and placed next to the later part of your quote where you did the exact same thin you criticized another member for. So you're correct, it was on purpose. I'm not sure how any of the middle section is relevant given the above, as I was merely pointing out that you were quick to judge, but I'll quote you in full in the future.

It was relevant because you said that you could compare older versus new vehicles. And I had said you could compare anything you wanted depending on what question you were asking and used ground clearance just as an example specifically adding 'etc.' you could compare older versus newer, red cars vs green cars ( people who buy red may drive more aggressively), whatever you like. I don't understand how you can't see it was not only relevant but specifically addressing your point.

 

[efusco]

If there was no real problem, NHTSA will not be forcing a recall. NHTSA asked about the first accident, but decided it was not worthy to investigate. If Tesla offers a "fix" it'll only be for PR purposes.

Sorry, but that's naive. NHTSA is as political as any governmental body. The Toyota Prius brake recall fine and issue was total BS.

 

[dmckinstry]

I have been preaching for better tow hitch regulation in this country for years.

Exactly. Should we file a class-action suit against all car companies that don't properly restrain their tow hitches from falling into the roadway?:wink:

 

[jvonbokel]

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.

Thanks for adding some valuable information. That makes perfect sense to me, as well. Property damage is (almost) always cheaper than human damage.

 

[efusco]

The damage to the radiator immediately in front of the tire there... is that melting from fire, or could the debris have created that large hole? I believe the S has a pair of radiators like that, but damaging either one could result in the cooling system being disabled. Could that eventually lead to a fire in the battery pack? I guess we'll find out within a few days when Tesla publishes some official comment after their investigation.

My inexpert opinion is that that is all melting...there had to have been a LOT of heat..the whole front of the car melted.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Sorry, but that's naive. NHTSA is as political as any governmental body. The Toyota Prius brake recall fine and issue was total BS.

You mean the broader Toyota floormat/accelerator recall. The Prius brake was a legitimate issue related to the blended regen braking (first incidents came from Japan, not NHTSA).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009–11_Toyota_vehicle_recalls

But the case on the broad recall was a media show by Congress and there were actual deaths related to it, so that's a bit different (I don't think the same thing will happen to Tesla and everyone walked from the fires). In most normal cases, the NHTSA will only force a recall if it's a real issue.

 

[BillHamp]

Yes, I'll grant you my math is flawed there. I am in the midst of doing several different things at once so some number got mixed up. It doesn't change the overall message however.

 

[RoverS]

Whether intended or not, posts like this have racist undertones, just as the referenced viral youtube videos do.

uhhh... i'm black, bro. LOL

 

[BillHamp]

As some have pointed out, I made a math error. It doesn't change the overall point, but to avoid nitpicking the misses the bigger point, I will fix it.

I've been doing the math and Tesla has a problem on its hands. If you consider average age of the car, then Tesla is far more likely to catch fire than any ICE vehicle. Let me explain.

The average ICE vehicle is 11.4 years old (we'll just use 11). During those 11 years, the rate of fire is ~138,600/230,000,000 (controlling for intentional fire, etc.). That means risk of fire over the life of an ICE car is 0.0006. To get the risk per year, we have to divide by 11. We get 0.00005.

Now, do the same calculation for Tesla. The average care is 1 year old (actually younger, but this will favor Tesla to use 1 year). There have been 3 fires and there are about 12,500 Model S sedans out there. That means we have 3/12,500 = 0.00024. We divide by 1 to get the same answer back.

That means risk of fire is 0.0024/vehicle yr for Tesla and 0.00005/vehicle hr for an ICE. That means risk of fire is 4.8 fold higher for the Tesla. It gets worse though.

According to the NHTSA, risk of fire in an accident is about 2.9/1,000 accidents in an ICE. The rate of accident overall is about 2% of all vehicles on the road. If we do that calculation for Tesla, then there would have been 12,500 * 0.02 = 344 accidents so far. If we have 3 fires, then rate of fire per accident is 3/344 = 0.0087, which is 8.7/1,000. That is a three fold higher risk of fire per accident. For Tesla to be at the same rate of fires/accident, there would need to be ~1,000 accidents or roughly 8% of all Model S would need to be wrecked.

None of this bodes well for what was, until now, the "safest car in the world." Telsa needs to figure out what is going on and fix it IMMEDIATELY because this will not just kill the company, it will set EVs back decades.

It should be 12,500 * 0.02 = 250. The 344 came from another calculaton I was doing regarding Tesla and I simply confused the two while typing. Unfortunately, this does nothing to change the big picture. The reisk changes from 8l.7/1000 to 8 per 1000. So, it is still nearly 3 fold higher risk of fire per accident than in an ICE car.

Now, the point is not to suggest the Model S is a bad car. The point is that sticking our fingers in our ears and pretending their isn't a problem to be addressed is a bad idea. THere is a problem. The data bear that out. It is to be expected with new technology. Now, let's hope Musk and Co. stop spouting off about it and put some their purported genius to work fixing it. Pointing out that ICE cars burn does nothing to fix the problem for Tesla. In other words, Tesla fans should stop acting like delusional fanboys and start acting like the mature consumers they claim to be. THe car is great, but it has a flaw that needs attention. Rather than attempt to divert the issue, let's bring focus too it, prove that Tesla is a different kind of company, and show the automotive world how to fix a problem right.

 

[MilosK]

It was italicized for emphasis, and placed next to the later part of your quote where you did the exact same thing you had just criticized another member for. So you're correct, it was on purpose. I'm not sure how any of the middle section is relevant given the above, as I was merely pointing out that you were quick to judge, but I'll quote you in full in the future. I apologize if I've offended you.

I responded to this post a few minutes earlier, but I see you added an apology since at the end that wasn't there a few
minutes ago. Well okay, it wasn't that I was offended I was just a little incredulous that you cut out the very point I addressed that you were criticizing my post for. That you could compare whatever parameters you liked solely depending on what question you're asking, which could include exactly what you said "older vs newer"

 

[yobigd20]

I remember when the Concorde was brought down by debris on the runway, and the debris penetrated the fuel tank while the Concorde was taking off, the solution figured out was to protect the fuel tank with Kelvlar.
Kevlar is bulletproof and such a solution would add to the cost. Looking at the price of about $17 per meter (ihttp://www.alibaba.com/showroom/kevlar-price.html) it would cost less than $100 per car. I think that looking at the overall cost of a MS that is a doable solution.

It's already protected by a ballistic shield. Patent application title: Vehicle Battery Pack Ballistic Shield http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20120312615

 

[BillHamp]

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.

 

[FluxCap]

SO MANY first-time posters with negative comments in this thread. Hmm, wonder why?

Keep spreading that FUD, oil industry. I'll be buying back in when the dust settles.

 

[MilosK]

As some have pointed out, I made a math error. It doesn't change the overall point, but to avoid nitpicking the misses the bigger point, I will fix it.



It should be 12,500 * 0.02 = 250. The 344 came from another calculaton I was doing regarding Tesla and I simply confused the two while typing. Unfortunately, this does nothing to change the big picture. The reisk changes from 8l.7/1000 to 8 per 1000. So, it is still nearly 3 fold higher risk of fire per accident than in an ICE car.

Now, the point is not to suggest the Model S is a bad car. The point is that sticking our fingers in our ears and pretending their isn't a problem to be addressed is a bad idea. THere is a problem. The data bear that out. It is to be expected with new technology. Now, let's hope Musk and Co. stop spouting off about it and put some their purported genius to work fixing it. Pointing out that ICE cars burn does nothing to fix the problem for Tesla. In other words, Tesla fans should stop acting like delusional fanboys and start acting like the mature consumers they claim to be. THe car is great, but it has a flaw that needs attention. Rather than attempt to divert the issue, let's bring focus too it, prove that Tesla is a different kind of company, and show the automotive world how to fix a problem right.

I mentioned your math only in passing – my bigger point was your choice of parameters to compare - ie accident rates per vehicle. I said you could compare whatever you like and certainly thought that accident rates per mile driven was a fairer comparison, which gave a completely different picture - half the ICE car rate. But also other comparisons could give different pictures.

 

[tdelta1000]

Anything protruding down will reduce curb clearance. Fact of the matter is you really can't build downward at all below the current bottom surface of the car. Your options are:

-Increase reinforcement
-Relocate battery pack
-Raise suspension

Mr. Bunch... I agree with your first idea. reinforcement of the panels is the fastest way the curb this issue.

 

[doug]

I remember when the Concorde was brought down by debris on the runway, and the debris penetrated the fuel tank while the Concorde was taking off, the solution figured out was to protect the fuel tank with Kelvlar.
Kevlar is bulletproof and such a solution would add to the cost. Looking at the price of about $17 per meter (ihttp://www.alibaba.com/showroom/kevlar-price.html) it would cost less than $100 per car. I think that looking at the overall cost of a MS that is a doable solution.

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.

 

[Twiddler]

SO MANY first-time posters with negative comments in this thread. Hmm, wonder why?

Keep spreading that FUD, oil industry. I'll be buying back in when the dust settles.

+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.

 

[Gizmotoy]

I responded to this post a few minutes earlier, but I see you added an apology since at the end that wasn't there a few
minutes ago. Well okay, it wasn't that I was offended I was just a little incredulous that you cut out the very point I addressed that you were criticizing my post for. That you could compare whatever parameters you liked solely depending on what question you're asking, which could include exactly what you said "older vs newer"

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...

I mentioned your math only in passing – my bigger point was your choice of parameters to compare - ie accident rates per vehicle. I said you could compare whatever you like and certainly thought that accident rates per mile driven was a fairer comparison, which gave a completely different picture - half the ICE car rate. But also other comparisons could give different pictures.

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

 

[juan]

IMO large metal objects such as tow pikes laying out on highways are widow makers and not merely road debris. Both drivers are lucky to be alive.