-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Another Tesla fire in a garage, this time in Toronto
- Thread starter yobigd20
- Start date
borat99
Member
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
NigelM
Recovering Member
Mod Note: treads merged and title amended to reflect that there haven't been multiple Toronto fires. Also, thread moved to 'Driving Dynamics' sub-forum where safety and fire issues have been covered in the past.
borat99
Member
I checked the creation/modify date on the three images and all were between 4:00-4:02PM ET (most likely reprocessed by the blogging software). Anyway, it probably means that someone pushed the publish button right at 4PM. Just a thought.
Well, it's certainly weird. The car reportedly wasn't plugged in, so this isn't charging, and the damage appears to be at the front of the car - nowhere near the charge port.
Either the car didn't start the fire, or maybe it was a 12V system short.
Either the car didn't start the fire, or maybe it was a 12V system short.
Doug, The article said it was confirmed it did NOT start in the battery, charging port or charge cable/adapter.....
'In this particular case, we don’t yet know the precise cause, but have definitively determined that it did not originate in the battery, the charging system, the adapter or the electrical receptacle, as these components were untouched by the fire.'
12V battery is separate from the main battery. It's completely electrically isolated. The HV+ wire from the battery could touch the metal frame of the vehicle and you wouldn't feel a thing (this is a typical safe system design for EVs... very few EVs have a non-isolated HV system.)
Does it look to anyone else like the door handles are extended? Very odd if front end of vehicle was involved in fire - would not expect 12V etc to be functional.
Does it look to anyone else like the door handles are extended? Very odd if front end of vehicle was involved in fire - would not expect 12V etc to be functional.
Right, so maybe the 12V? That's about all it could be, if the car was indeed the source of the fire.
"The company also offered to take care of the damages and inconvenience caused by the fire, but the owner declined."
My apologies for asking this, but why would Tesla offer to "take care of the damages and inconvenience caused by the fire" if it wasn't somehow related to or caused by the vehicle? Is Tesla in the business of paying people to fix their homes, or is there some culpability here? I don't think Tesla would do this if they didn't feel responsible in some way. Am I the only one reading it this way?
My apologies for asking this, but why would Tesla offer to "take care of the damages and inconvenience caused by the fire" if it wasn't somehow related to or caused by the vehicle? Is Tesla in the business of paying people to fix their homes, or is there some culpability here? I don't think Tesla would do this if they didn't feel responsible in some way. Am I the only one reading it this way?
If Tesla came to me and said "we'll pay for everything, if you agree not so sue us," I might decline, too. Not because I would be planning to sue them, but because I just wouldn't be sure weather Tesla was culpable or not. (Note that I have no idea if Tesla actually attached strings to their offer.)
Canuck
Well-Known Member
This is very odd. I would bet that if Tesla pays for damages, they get to keep the car. Why would any sane person decline a sure offer? The timing and the actions of the owner seem very fishy to me.
It's more likely that he reported it to his insurer and he has an adjuster dealing with Tesla who declined the offer because they owe a duty to their insured under the policy of insurance following with they have the right of subrogation. It would be a breach of the insurance contract for an insurer to hand it over to a third party and in Canada (as well as the US) such conduct could be considered bad faith and would expose the insurer to significant punitive damages.
Yeah that seems strange to me. Maybe the "damages and inconvenience" they were referring to the car only?
that is a reasonable line of thinking AR, though I would say suggestive, not conclusive (you might recall that JB Straubel initially apologized to John Broder about his incident making comments that implied that the car had failed Broder and saying something along the lines of "hope you can cut us some slack, we're working on this technology).
as to other possible causes of the fire... hmm, maybe the lexus parked next to the Model S?
Could also be caused by the owner hooking something up the 12V system which failed. This cannot be emphasised more: always fuse anything attached to the 12V system, like on any car. And use an automotive safe fuse (like Littelfuse ATOF.) However, unlike an ordinary car, substantial continuous current is available from these points with the ignition OFF with minimal risk of draining any battery, which seems to encourage continuous connection setups. I have seen some people tie into the 12V "jump start" points in the front of the vehicle. These are probably unfused and can provide over 150 amps continuous, with many more supplied by the 12V battery. (I presume the battery is wired in parallel with the DC/DC converter. If it is arranged in a pass-through fashion, it might be fused.)
When you dump 150 amps into thin wiring going to some lighting or camera accessory, you melt stuff, and the front of the vehicle has a lot of plastic which can burn. Boom, you've got a fire.
When you dump 150 amps into thin wiring going to some lighting or camera accessory, you melt stuff, and the front of the vehicle has a lot of plastic which can burn. Boom, you've got a fire.
Similar threads
- Article
