Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Another Tesla fire in a garage, this time in Toronto

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
#41
If it is true that Tesla offered to pay for the damages, then Tesla is absolutely admitting fault. A company doesn't offer to pay for something unless it's their fault, not even Tesla. Tesla's statement is also oddly worded. At no point do they say it wasn't caused by the car, which is what you'd expect. Instead, they cite specific systems that were not at fault. This clearly leaves the door open.

Watch this story, I have a feeling we're going to hear a lot more about this as well as the fact that it did have something to do with the car - enough so that Tesla offered to pay. That part sticks out like a sore thumb to me.
 
#42
AmpedRealtor said:
If it is true that Tesla offered to pay for the damages, then Tesla is absolutely admitting fault. A company doesn't offer to pay for something unless it's their fault, not even Tesla. Tesla's statement is also oddly worded. At no point do they say it wasn't caused by the car, which is what you'd expect. Instead, they cite specific systems that were not at fault. This clearly leaves the door open.

Watch this story, I have a feeling we're going to hear a lot more about this as well as the fact that it did have something to do with the car - enough so that Tesla offered to pay. That part sticks out like a sore thumb to me.
Click to expand...

Do you find it odd that this happened on Feb 1st and it hit the news wire just after market close today?
 
#45
You shouldn't try to parse the statements in the article too much. Reporters are notoriously poor at getting the details right. Editors often make changes that can often make things worse. Meeting deadline is more important than accuracy, every time.
 
#46
AmpedRealtor said:
If it is true that Tesla offered to pay for the damages, then Tesla is absolutely admitting fault. A company doesn't offer to pay for something unless it's their fault, not even Tesla. Tesla's statement is also oddly worded. At no point do they say it wasn't caused by the car, which is what you'd expect. Instead, they cite specific systems that were not at fault. This clearly leaves the door open.

Watch this story, I have a feeling we're going to hear a lot more about this as well as the fact that it did have something to do with the car - enough so that Tesla offered to pay. That part sticks out like a sore thumb to me.
Click to expand...

Perhaps they just offered to pay for any damages done to the car but the owner declined because there was no damage done to the car? Notice how this suspicious article is very vague on that part.
 
#47
The one piece that many of you are missing is that the design of the Model S exhausts/vents all of the fire out frontwards out of the frunk to protect the passengers. If you've seen the pics of the other fires the middle and passenger and rear of the cars remain completely unscathed and that is the by design (incredibly smart design). Unfortunately these pics do not show the front of the model S so you cannot tell if the front is melted down like the others. What you can tell is that the garage in front and above the front is burnt out pretty bad which could be front the model S if it was venting the flames out. So far I don't see anything that says it wasn't coming from the front of the car, nor do I see anything that says the car front was untouched too so we have no idea what the source is. Neither do they.

The timing is coincidental again. Very surprising this held out for two weeks and then out of nowhere its published. Well if history repeats itself there's going to be a good in-point again for buying stock while it dips. I wish I had money to invest but I spent it all buying my P85.
 
#50
AmpedRealtor said:
If it is true that Tesla offered to pay for the damages, then Tesla is absolutely admitting fault. A company doesn't offer to pay for something unless it's their fault, not even Tesla. Tesla's statement is also oddly worded. At no point do they say it wasn't caused by the car, which is what you'd expect. Instead, they cite specific systems that were not at fault. This clearly leaves the door open.

Watch this story, I have a feeling we're going to hear a lot more about this as well as the fact that it did have something to do with the car - enough so that Tesla offered to pay. That part sticks out like a sore thumb to me.
Click to expand...

Amped, you make good points, and it may well have been a fire related to the car.

nonetheless, as pointed out by another poster, news stories often get things wrong (I could give you some real doozies just the past year and a half with Tesla)... perhaps, Tesla offered to pay for damages, or perhaps they told the owner that if the Model S was the cause they would pay for damages.

I will say, if Business Insider is accurately reporting, this first sentence of the response they've received from Tesla on this incident, is also suggestive of your point,

“Dealing with occasional fires is something that every car company has to do, as no vehicle is completely fireproof under all circumstances..."
 
#51
Doug_G said:
You shouldn't try to parse the statements in the article too much. Reporters are notoriously poor at getting the details right. Editors often make changes that can often make things worse. Meeting deadline is more important than accuracy, every time.
Click to expand...


This whole article stinks of manipulation. If you click on the authors name you get a list of all her recent work. Its all about financial business and mostly in New York. And now she is going to write about a garage fire in Toronto? And she is the one to break the story 2 weeks after the event? Who took all the photos and why was this not a small story in the local paper the next day? Lots of misleading sentences pointing to Tesla as the source of the fire. And they had two weeks to get this story written properly, how come it is still so unclear.

They are going to look very bad if the Tesla is cleared of even having any connection to the fire at all.

Either way, it will be good. This will either put an end to the fire story because it will end up a non event for the stock, or it will go down and then all us longs get a buying opportunity.
 
Last edited:
#52
AmpedRealtor said:
If it is true that Tesla offered to pay for the damages, then Tesla is absolutely admitting fault. A company doesn't offer to pay for something unless it's their fault, not even Tesla. Tesla's statement is also oddly worded. At no point do they say it wasn't caused by the car, which is what you'd expect. Instead, they cite specific systems that were not at fault. This clearly leaves the door open.

Watch this story, I have a feeling we're going to hear a lot more about this as well as the fact that it did have something to do with the car - enough so that Tesla offered to pay. That part sticks out like a sore thumb to me.
Click to expand...

Have you seen any statements from Tesla where they offered to pay for damages? This is a sensational article written to drive traffic to their site. How do you know the statement "Tesla offered to pay" is true?
 
#55
I have to admit, Kraken, that was my first thought. Fake story and photoshopping. I'm in the wait and see category...though I definitely think that even if their was a garage fire, the Tesla had nothing to do with it.
 
#56
All the conspiracy theories aside. Think with a level head. The car was NOT the cause of the fire or anything really related to it (just going by words). The problem here is the wording of the headline implying that the car caught fire. Does anybody have pictures of the front of the car. You have to remember that Tesla is offering world class service and to PUT THE MINDS of its customers at ease. When it offers to pay for damages (it could mean to the car or some other part). It's definitely not an admission of guilt (although construed to be one). I see nothing wrong with a car company going above and beyond to help out. Maybe the person didn't get the new "recalled adapter" which is why Tesla might be doing this, maybe the owner declined the update (because he didn't want to lose suspension lowering). There can be a TON of things.
 
#57
Another thing to keep in mind is that all tesla said was that the fire didnt originate in any of those places. For all we know something else in the car or house caught fire and the heat triggered a reaction in which the battery did catch fire and cause the shown damage.
 
#59
I'm wondering if there's anyway to find out if the cars owner is a TSLA investor, either long or short, or has a relationship with any financial interest that own TSLA?

Here's a good conspiracy theory: They set the fire in the garage, perhaps with an accelerant. Called the fire department, took pictures and sat on the story.
Waited for TSLA to hit a new all time high, shorted or bought puts on a large qty of shares, then called the reporter to release the "story"
Yeah, it could happen, and I wouldn't put it past any of the "shortys", they are truly desperate with the acceleration of the stock recently.

This is just a theory, we really don't know, and probably never will.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Pyro fuse blew in Powerwall in garage?
Replies
7
Views
2K
Tesla Energy
BGbreeder
B
T
Model S Floor model purchase is a Tesla scam
Replies
1
Views
369
Model S: Ordering, Production, Delivery
HankLloydRight
HankLloydRight
PKMAN
  • Article
Solo Roadtrip from San Diego to Vancouver (Canada) in a 2022 Tesla Model 3 Long Range
Replies
35
Views
2K
Road Trips
Watts_Up
Watts_Up
E
My Model 3 Experience - Pre-Owned to Car Fire
Replies
1
Views
2K
Insurance
Hank42
Hank42
kayrish
  • Article
5 Years with the Model 3
Replies
27
Views
9K
Model 3
nicksp
N
Top
Back
Blog
New
Forum list
Marketplace
Menu