A Model S caught fire while supercharging in Norway (link in Norwegian)

[int32_t]

Non-owners are unwelcome? Well, that will certainly thin out the Model 3 subsection.

No kidding. No thanks! :scared:

 

[brucet999]

Thank you. I did not see the very slight color change of the word "this" to indicate it linked to the requested info. Maybe thats because I have had 4 retina detachments and thus require larger than normal color contrast differences. Same reason it is difficult to see the "ticks" on the speedometer of the Tesla since upgrading to V7.1. Thanks again.

I have neither detached retinas nor color vision deficit, but I could see no difference in either darkness or color of the word "this" until I accidentally scrolled over it and turned it red.

 

[redi]

No, they aren't unwelcome.
Posts made by someone with a VIN are labeled as such.
It is a nice system, I like it, although the rest of their forum is awful :crying:

As such you might be able to filter based on owner posts and qualified information, or "full reddit mode".

 

[bonnie]

TMC has long needed a VIN validation process in order to post.

No, TMC clearly has made it clear that enthusiasts are welcome here.

Let's not make people feel unwelcome when it simply isn't true.

 

[int32_t]

Bonnie saves the day and rescues sanity!

Back on topic: do any Norwegian folks have some new news? I was seriously expecting a media frenzy, but oddly that never happened. (If a frenzy did occur, it would have died out by now anyway, having fulfilled its purpose of preventing further public charger installations and would provide no further useful information.)

I'm hoping this is a 100% one-off unique event hopefully started and fueled by some type of cargo rather than the car itself.

 

[3mp_kwh]

This thread has been Off Topic almost all year.

 

[int32_t]

This thread has been Off Topic almost all year.

Since it's only January 19th, that's not saying much.

 

[DNAinaGoodWay]

Not SC's fault.

Tesla Model S fire not caused by Supercharger, investigators say - Autoblog
Tesla Model S fire not caused by Supercharger, investigators say

 

[fredag]

Back on topic: do any Norwegian folks have some new news? I was seriously expecting a media frenzy, but oddly that never happened. (If a frenzy did occur, it would have died out by now anyway, having fulfilled its purpose of preventing further public charger installations and would provide no further useful information.)

I'm hoping this is a 100% one-off unique event hopefully started and fueled by some type of cargo rather than the car itself.

Tesla was supposed to investigate the wreck further together with the insurance company, but Tesla did a deal with the car owner and now the insurance company doesn't own the wreck anymore. Tesla is now shipping the wreck to California.

http://www.aftenbladet.no/nyheter/lokalt/agder/Sender-utbrent-Tesla-til-California-3853532.html

I asked the local police a week or two ago whether there had been a thermal runaway in the batteries. They wouldn't comment, but adviced me and other EV owners to be attentive when connecting charge cables and starting charging. Sound advice, I guess. Like a quick visual check of the integrity of the supercharger plug before use. Do not use cracked or damaged plugs, and call Tesla if you see damaged SC plugs.

 

[dsm363]

So safe to change the title? It had nothing to do with Supercharging.

 

[apacheguy]

Not SC's fault.

Tesla Model S fire not caused by Supercharger, investigators say - Autoblog
Tesla Model S fire not caused by Supercharger, investigators say

Thanks for the update. Anyone know if the Model S will be replaced by Tesla due to the fire clause in the warranty?

 

[jerry33]

Thanks for the update. Anyone know if the Model S will be replaced by Tesla due to the fire clause in the warranty?

I'd guess it would depend on the actual cause of the fire. Fireworks in the back catching fire wouldn't be covered. Undetermined probably would.

 

[nienco2]

I'd guess it would depend on the actual cause of the fire. Fireworks in the back catching fire wouldn't be covered. Undetermined probably would.

"It appears that the reason may lie in a technical fault in the car, but we have not concluded yet, said sheriff Odd Holum in Risor, who has entrusted the matter to the insurance company Gjensidige and Tesla".


I think by now a rational person could deduce if any evidence indicated fire was started by; fireworks, cigarette or hoverboard, Tesla would not have seen it necessary to make an "arrangement" with the owner/insurance company and ship the car back to US. Let's hope it's a 1 in million one off, but also hope it's treated with transparency, for everyone's sake.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

"It appears that the reason may lie in a technical fault in the car, but we have not concluded yet, said sheriff Odd Holum in Risor, who has entrusted the matter to the insurance company Gjensidige and Tesla".


I think by now a rational person could deduce if any evidence indicated fire was started by; fireworks, cigarette or hoverboard, Tesla would not have seen it necessary to make an "arrangement" with the owner/insurance company and ship the car back to US. Let's hope it's a 1 in million one off, but also hope it's treated with transparency, for everyone's sake.

Tesla can't control the quality of every component. If it was the fault of a component inside the car it could very well happen again, that's just reality.

 

[stopcrazypp]

"It appears that the reason may lie in a technical fault in the car, but we have not concluded yet, said sheriff Odd Holum in Risor, who has entrusted the matter to the insurance company Gjensidige and Tesla".


I think by now a rational person could deduce if any evidence indicated fire was started by; fireworks, cigarette or hoverboard, Tesla would not have seen it necessary to make an "arrangement" with the owner/insurance company and ship the car back to US. Let's hope it's a 1 in million one off, but also hope it's treated with transparency, for everyone's sake.

If it was caused by cargo, I don't think it's possible to determine anyways given the fire department let the car burn to the ground. Tesla may have interest in the car regardless, given this is the only example of a Model S that has completely burned. In the previous examples, the fire department always extinguished the fire before it got to that point.

So I don't agree you can necessarily deduce they have ruled out cargo being the cause in this case.

 

[jgs]

Have they ruled out a crowbar dropped from orbit?

 

[scaesare]

So safe to change the title? It had nothing to do with Supercharging.

While it may not have been the fault of the Supercharger, that doesn't mean it didn't involve Supercharging.

 

[dhanson865]

Tesla was supposed to investigate the wreck further together with the insurance company, but Tesla did a deal with the car owner and now the insurance company doesn't own the wreck anymore. Tesla is now shipping the wreck to California.

http://www.aftenbladet.no/nyheter/lokalt/agder/Sender-utbrent-Tesla-til-California-3853532.html

I asked the local police a week or two ago whether there had been a thermal runaway in the batteries. They wouldn't comment, but adviced me and other EV owners to be attentive when connecting charge cables and starting charging. Sound advice, I guess. Like a quick visual check of the integrity of the supercharger plug before use. Do not use cracked or damaged plugs, and call Tesla if you see damaged SC plugs.

Thanks for the update. Anyone know if the Model S will be replaced by Tesla due to the fire clause in the warranty?

I'd assume the deal that changed the ownership so that Tesla owns the husk instead of the insurance company means that tesla bought the husk. Presumably that means the prior owner now has funds to buy another CPO as good or better than the one he sold.

I doubt Tesla bothered to provide a car when they can provide funds and let the owner make a new selection.

But you could say it meets the intent of the fire clause in the warranty. I haven't looked in that clause to see if it specifies a replacement car specifically or just the funds to offset the loss.

 

[brucet999]

I'd assume the deal that changed the ownership so that Tesla owns the husk instead of the insurance company means that tesla bought the husk. Presumably that means the prior owner now has funds to buy another CPO as good or better than the one he sold.

I doubt Tesla bothered to provide a car when they can provide funds and let the owner make a new selection.

But you could say it meets the intent of the fire clause in the warranty. I haven't looked in that clause to see if it specifies a replacement car specifically or just the funds to offset the loss.

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, then the warranty would not apply.

 

[Caligula]

So what you're saying is that I shouldn't leave my no name Chinese hover board and e-cigarette batteries Daisy chained into my Tesla's USB ports for overnight charging?