I certainly wouldn't take any meaningful risk, like running into a burning building without the proper equipment. But I would do what I could to avoid my house potentially burning down. A garden hose would likely be sufficient to subdue the flames long enough for the fire department to arrive.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
@EarlyAdopter
Full PPE does not mean full invincibilty suit. It means full protection from the risks likely to be apparent to the individual, under foreseeable circumstances (from a detailed risk assessment) undertaking the task in hand.
Full PPE for a fireman != full PPE for a HV linesman (who don't just wear rubber boots)
Ultimately it's a can carrying culture, and no one wants that can. Rightly or wrongly a connected car was (IMHO) rightly seen as an elevated and unknown risk, and dealt with as such.
I really don't see the problem in this approach, it keeps people safe, and avoids potentially worse outcomes.
So whilst you and I probably agree on the likelihood of risk from different approaches, we have the luxury of time and maybe more importantly lack of any personal repercussions.
Full PPE does not mean full invincibilty suit. It means full protection from the risks likely to be apparent to the individual, under foreseeable circumstances (from a detailed risk assessment) undertaking the task in hand.
Full PPE for a fireman != full PPE for a HV linesman (who don't just wear rubber boots)
Ultimately it's a can carrying culture, and no one wants that can. Rightly or wrongly a connected car was (IMHO) rightly seen as an elevated and unknown risk, and dealt with as such.
I really don't see the problem in this approach, it keeps people safe, and avoids potentially worse outcomes.
So whilst you and I probably agree on the likelihood of risk from different approaches, we have the luxury of time and maybe more importantly lack of any personal repercussions.
Top tip, don't spray the flames, spray the area near the car, especially the walls of your house. Keep the exposures cooled below ignition point, then wait for the fire brigade to turn up....
This was simply a test of the new policy of dealing with cars that park at a SC more than twenty minutes after charge completion.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
Last edited by a moderator:
A Model S just caught fire while supercharging in Norway (link in Norwegian)
The fire personal are likely also trained to pull meters, breakers, switches, etc before entering a fire. This was probably their first step. So plugged in or not shouldn't matter.
But yes, as others have pointed out, staying back and watching it burn is a cautious and valid approach. Protect life before property.
What I'm curious about is if there was battery involvement and complete destruction of the batteries? If so, it proves the safety to some extent.
The fire personal are likely also trained to pull meters, breakers, switches, etc before entering a fire. This was probably their first step. So plugged in or not shouldn't matter.
But yes, as others have pointed out, staying back and watching it burn is a cautious and valid approach. Protect life before property.
What I'm curious about is if there was battery involvement and complete destruction of the batteries? If so, it proves the safety to some extent.
Some battery fires can be put out with water with no risk, but some battery materials become explosive when mixed with water. The amount of lithium in Li-ion cells is low enough Li-ion cell fires can be put out with water safely. However, lithium batteries (non-rechargeable) have enough lithium in them to make them explosive if the lithium got wet.
Additionally, a BEV on fire is in an unknown electrical state. The battery pack is capable of producing 400V and quite a few amps of current. All it takes is about 200mA at 50V to kill a human (some sources draw the line at different values, but that's the ballpark). Even one module of a Model S battery still working that shorts to ground through a stream of water could be potentially fatal to anyone in the circuit.
ICE car batteries can produce a lot of current, but with only 12V, it's unlikely to be fatal. The current going through you is V/R, with R being your body's resistance. If the V is low, the current can't get high enough to kill you, even if the source can produce lethal levels of current. The electrical resistance of a human varies quite a bit (dry skin, sweaty skin, differences from one person to another, etc.), which is probably one reason why the different sources disagree on what is needed to kill someone. In any case, fighting ICE fires with water has few dangers and spraying water on a BEV fire has potential risks.
Last edited by a moderator:
Police - No specific faults with the charging station
Police have released the charging station on Brokelandsheia after one Tesla Model S burned last week. The charging station is still closed.
Google Oversetter
"We have finished our investigations of the charging station. So far the police haven't uncovered any specific faults with it. Had we found any faults, we wouldn't have released it, says the sheriff in Gjerstad, Odd Holum."
"It's too early to conclude what caused the fire, he says."
Police have released the charging station on Brokelandsheia after one Tesla Model S burned last week. The charging station is still closed.
Google Oversetter
"We have finished our investigations of the charging station. So far the police haven't uncovered any specific faults with it. Had we found any faults, we wouldn't have released it, says the sheriff in Gjerstad, Odd Holum."
"It's too early to conclude what caused the fire, he says."
Thanks for update Yggdrasill.
My limited understanding after reading the linked info is that the police have not found a fault with the charging station. The charger is still closed for charging.
I have troubles understanding the meaning of 'police released the charging station'. I wonder if that means that they stopped investigating the charging station as a potential cause.
I am also surprised that the local police has the capability to conduct fire investigations. I would expect accredited fire investigators to lead the investigation.
Tesla car fires seem to be troublesome on many levels. Each fire is likely to attract disproportionate attention and to throw doubt at Tesla's technology or service. This places the onus on Tesla to investigate each incident, to find a root cause and address it, unless the finding is that the fire was caused by some external uncontrollable factors.
I hope that Tesla has a capable fire forensic team that can be called to this task at every opportunity.
My limited understanding after reading the linked info is that the police have not found a fault with the charging station. The charger is still closed for charging.
I have troubles understanding the meaning of 'police released the charging station'. I wonder if that means that they stopped investigating the charging station as a potential cause.
I am also surprised that the local police has the capability to conduct fire investigations. I would expect accredited fire investigators to lead the investigation.
Tesla car fires seem to be troublesome on many levels. Each fire is likely to attract disproportionate attention and to throw doubt at Tesla's technology or service. This places the onus on Tesla to investigate each incident, to find a root cause and address it, unless the finding is that the fire was caused by some external uncontrollable factors.
I hope that Tesla has a capable fire forensic team that can be called to this task at every opportunity.
SebastianR
Active Member
So my understanding of this is:
- There is no fault in the Supercharger (i.e. they know the charger didn't cause it, thus they "release" the charger as "being safe")
- There is ongoing investigations on the car: they are not certain yet what has caused the fire: if it was due to a mistake/defect in the car or something with cargo / human interference
- They will only release information if it confirms a part was not the root cause, they will not release information relating to what may have caused the fire until that's confirmed.
I must say I'm very impressed with how this is going: this seems to be the most responsible and sensible way to go about the investigation. I wish criminal cases would be dealt with everywhere in the same sane, thorough, sensible approach - even if that is not satisfying the feeding frenzy of the so called "news" media.
It is sometimes extremely difficult to pinpoint an exact root cause of some incidents. Often the cause can not be positively proven, the possible causes can be speculated in most probable terms.
In some freakish incidents, only people with specific expertise and experience may have a chance to come up with plausible explanations.
This morning, in pouring rain, there was a huge fire in a car auction yard in Sydney. More than 120 cars were destroyed in a few hours it took to put out the fire. I heard over the radio that the car battery is suspected as a cause, but I could not find any write up on the possible cause yet, only tweets.
In some freakish incidents, only people with specific expertise and experience may have a chance to come up with plausible explanations.
This morning, in pouring rain, there was a huge fire in a car auction yard in Sydney. More than 120 cars were destroyed in a few hours it took to put out the fire. I heard over the radio that the car battery is suspected as a cause, but I could not find any write up on the possible cause yet, only tweets.
My understanding is that they have collected all the data they need to collect, and that they are almost certain the Supercharger isn't to blame. Tesla has probably provided data from the supercharging session, logging current/voltage over time, and any error messages, maybe even they log the temperature at the plug. This data combined with an inspection of the supercharger (sampling for accelerant, etc.) has likely been sufficient to rule out the supercharger.
The entire supercharger station has been off limits, blocked off with crime scene tape. I assume this tape has now been removed, and Tesla can start repairing the supercharger.
A previous article said they had brought in a forensic technician from Oslo. And Tesla has also been involved in the investigation - maybe they have sent a drivetrain expert or something.
I agree they should devote attention to each and every fire. Only by learning from accidents can we avoid them in the future.
I am, as Auzie, quite surprised with the fact that Police is involved in the fire investigation, unless there is a suspicion of the foul play. I am not, of course, knowledgeable about the procedures that are involved in fire investigations in Norway, perhaps Yggdrasil can elaborate on this point in more detail?
Last edited:
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
According to Norwegian Law this can be said:
(According to an official circular by the Norwegian Attorney General, 1973):
"All fires are to be investigated by the police, regardless of if the fire appears suspicious or not (reference to the prosecution law §65). The main task for the police is to investigate if a criminal offence has been comitted in association with the fire (such as arson, insurance fraud - see the Penal Code §272). The circular states that if the local police does not have the proper resources to investigate the fire in a satisfactory manor they must bring in outside assistance. Such assistance can be brought in from the local electrical supervision authority, the fire deparment or NEMKO (the Norwegian Elecrical Materials Control Association). As a general rule insurance company experts should not be involved, since they will normally represent a party with financial interests in the outcome of the investigation".
The Norwegian Accident Investigation board has started an inquiry into the fire.
The report will be published here The Accident Investigation Board Norway
The report will be published here The Accident Investigation Board Norway
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
Thanks, interesting.
According to this article: Siste nytt Møre it seems that it's the Norwegian Road Administration that has asked the Accident Investigation Board to due a formal examination.
"The task for the Accident Investigation Board will be to find the root cause of the fire and to evaluate if there is a more general risk with regards to one specific type of fast charging, and if there is a risk of repeated fires from charging".
