lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
Very likely Tesla bought the car to get it out of the wild as well as for the other reasons mentioned.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Accelerants can be detected with combustible vapour detectors at the fire scene. The combustible gas indicator is designed to indicate vapours of aromatic hydrocarbons in the flammable and toxic ranges. These devices are quite sensitive.
Gas Liquid Chromatography can detect even trace amounts of accelerants in fire debris.
I doubt that Tesla will go that far to test the fire debris. It might be easier to examine the circumstances surrounding the event, such as driver's story and his credibility. Car interference history and/or service records might also give clues.
One possibility is that the fire started by overheated bad connection in car circuitry whilst charging. I hope that Tesla does a thermal scan of plugged cars as part of regular service, especially after the service.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
No, I think he's saying not to loan me YOUR S, because I'll undoubtedly leave an overcharged hoverboard plugged in & walk away. It's what I do.
I seem to recall that TM (Elon?) promised the guarantee to cover any and all Model S fires, even if the cause had nothing to do with the car itself. That would be maybe a couple of years back, when the wiring in a garage started a fire.
Sorry, not gonna search for the facts myself, just going by memory. So I could be wrong.
Sorry, not gonna search for the facts myself, just going by memory. So I could be wrong.
DFibRL8R
Active Member
From Blog post by Elon Nov 2013 in response to fires:
"Third, to reinforce how strongly we feel about the low risk of fire in our cars, we will be amending our warranty policy to cover damage due to a fire, even if due to driver error. Unless a Model S owner actively tries to destroy the car, they are covered. Our goal here is to eliminate any concern about the cost of such an event and ensure that over time the Model S has the lowest insurance cost of any car at our price point. Either our belief in the safety of our car is correct and this is a minor cost or we are wrong, in which case the right thing is for Tesla to bear the cost rather than the car buyer."
https://www.teslamotors.com/blog/mission-tesla
No, I think he's saying not to loan me YOUR S, because I'll undoubtedly leave an overcharged hoverboard plugged in & walk away. It's what I do.
So you are saying that a hoverboard caused the fire?
Now I'm really confused.
.
.
.
.
Goes hides that way ---->
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
Correct. I outlined several such scenarios earlier.
So while it's good news that the supercharger cabinet/stall itself didn't appear to be at fault, we still don't know what in-car components involved in a supercharging session may have been involved, if any.
Even if they do identify an in-car fault, that's not indicative of an overall faulty design. Out of 10's of thousands of cars manufactured, there are going to be faults in components, assembly, damage during assembly, etc...
I'd rather know it was an isolated incident of a bad connection in the car than not know at all.. at least that way Tesla has data to make an informed decision. If the seat latch and seat-belt voluntary recalls are any indication, they'll go above and beyond to make sure we are well protected.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
The fact (if it is a fact) of Tesla buying the hulk from the insurer does not mean that the owner has been made whole. He gets whatever value the insurance company agrees to pay, which should be close to the CPO price he paid, but might not be.
Isn't the fire warranty a battery fire warranty? If the fire were determined to have resulted from Bonnie having left her overcharged hover board in the trunk,
The story says that tesla made a deal with the owner not the insurance company. I'm assuming that means Tesla paid him better than insurance would have.
Once they did that the insurance company is no longer involved. It was sold and the claim canceled.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
This has me wondering, if Tesla finds the issue was with the cargo, will Tesla announce that? Seems like it would conflict with goodwill with the owner (edit: actually as noted below, I remember the owner wasn't the one driving it at the time, so I guess this would be less of an issue).
- - - Updated - - -
This would presumably have to happen in the scene shortly after the fire, right? It's been so long afterwards, would something like that still be possible now?
I don't think the indirect method would be as useful in this case. The car was a used car and the one driving it wasn't the owner.
So if it wasn't the Supercharger and charging wasn't the issue and the car itself didn't initially catch on fire but contents inside the car did the title as it stands now seems to indicate it was the act of Supercharging that caused the fire.
It's possible to come to that conclusion, but by that logic (ok, stretching it a bit), Norway could be just as responsible as it is also in the title.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
I was in Norway summer last year, and stayed for a night in a small Bed + Breakfast in a rural part of the country (near the Trollstigen). I wasn't in the Tesla, but conversation somehow strayed onto EV's. I was surprised how not everyone is particularly happy with the skewing of benefits for EV's
So let's just stretch things a little further and say it was Norwegian Luddites setting fire to Teslas in revenge attacks
Yes, I think so. What better announcement can Tesla possible be making then "The fire was not caused by either the car or the supercharger, it was completely an error of the owner/driver with some dangerous cargo. But we still replaced it on warranty!" (or bought it back for a reasonable price). Neither the owner or the driver has been exposed in the media, and will feel that they are given the blame in public, and the car was after all replaced or sold for an acceptable price. So I can't see that it will be any conflict with the goodwill.
- - - Updated - - -
So let's just stretch things a little further and say it was Norwegian Luddites setting fire to Teslas in revenge attacks
The police have concluded that it was no reason to believe any crime have been committed. So no, this is not what happened. (But yes, more then one have thought about this possibility.)
thegruf
Active Member
...and stayed for a night in a small Bed ...
wow that seems a bit mean, how much extra do you have to pay to get a full size bed?
