bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
Sorry. You don't know my background (or the background of others here) to dismiss those that disagree with you so casually by saying that those that have the proper background agree with you.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Mario Kadastik
Active Member
I think we should also update the number of miles driven as time goes on and amount of fires remains the same. Tesla tweeted just yesterday that over 100M miles have been driven. Overall I think this discussion can't really reach much usefulness in any conclusions before at least a year or far more fires happen. While playing with pure numbers might give you a certain % value it's going to be a theoretical number and the reality has to take into account uncertainties associated with every aspect of the measurement and estimation process. That comes from the very ground up including the uncertainties associated with raw data from the NHTSA etc as well as uncertainties related to the assumptions made. And nature only follows statistics properly when we have reasonable quantity of everything. Up until then we're doing a prediction game and have to live with the fact that 3-4 sigma fluctuations (that's 0.3 or 0.003% probability events) do happen on a regular basis because there are so many things happening in the world daily. Therefore getting a sterile number that points towards ~1% probability with just 3 events is not statistically fully viable even though the numbers work out to it because noone's done a proper assessment of uncertainties on input data and assessments (in a physics analysis doing the analysis takes ~5% of the total time, assessing the error and drawing the conclusions takes 95% of the time and effort).
Hi Mario,
I agree that the numbers we have are not ideal, however they are all we have. Given that fact, I would point out two things.
First, all estimates made have favored Tesla. More accurate numbers are likely to push the estimations further toward concluding that Tesla is prone to fire. There are lots of reasons to say this, which I can go into again if you want, but most have been covered elsewhere on this board. Statistics are always flawed and never ideal. In fact, that is why we use statistics. If we could just have perfect numbers, there would be no need for stats. In that case, dismissing what the stats currently say as not perfect enough is a very unscientific approach and not one that an engineer, physicist, physician, or stock broker should use to guide decisions. The numbers are not "sterile," they have meaning and they have value. This brings me to the second point.
We can use the information from the stats to design experiments to test our hypotheses and tentative suspicions. This is what science is all about and is what the NHTSA is doing. The numbers are compelling enough to say that something isn't right. It is either random chance (which can happen no matter how significant the stats are) or it is a real phenomenon that needs to be addressed. The only way to get to the bottom of that is to do the experiments. That is where we are now.
Science is about observation and testing, stats just help out with the observation part and with designing tests that are more likely to yield accurate rather than random answers. So far, luv has treated this situation with the most objective analysis. He is the only one putting up both his numbers and his method. That says two things about luv. 1. He is honest, 2. He is ready to accept criticism of his methods and thus is open to other views if the numbers lead in another direction. So far, no one has given an analysis like his. Lots of people have criticized it, but not in a meaningful way. They claim it is biased, that he can't use the numbers he does, or that he is over-interpreting what the stats have to say. None of those are true, but more to the point, no one has disproved those points by offering their own analysis. While he puts down hard data, others offer opinion, fluff, and excuses. If people want to make a real argument, then they need to do the analyses and show their work as luv has. This is the stats thread, so it is the place to do it. You yourself have said you could do it and yet you have not. I would still very much like to see your analysis as it can add value to the discussion.
- - - Updated - - -
Well said. The stats are a good starting point and any serious auto manufacturer would investigate. Boeing was grounded for several months for similar stats and similar problems. It is reasonable to think there is something that needs to be investigated.
ModelS8794
Member
that statement is so clearly off base and provocative that it seems intended to foment discord.
NigelM
Recovering Member
Ummm, I'm pretty certain that the Boeing fires were not the result of impacts...IIRC those issues were the result of thermal runaway which has been fixed with a battery redesign. Calling them "similar" to the Tesla accidents is less than scientific.
Raffy.Roma
Rome (Italy)
Agree. On the contrary I would say that Boeing fires have a completely different nature with respect to Tesla accidents that are currently under NHTSA investigations.
I don't see how it is off base. Boeing was grounded for several months, for fires, that occurred in only a few of its 787 Dreamliners. The point is simply that even rare events can be indicative of a problem.
- - - Updated - - -
Hi Nigel,
The point was that rare events can be indicative of a problem. They need not be common to be acted upon. The similarity is two-fold. First, the stats are similar. Second, we are talking about fires that occur in the exact same type of Li-ion battery. The batteries are prone to fire from damage, thermal disregulation, and a number of other factors. Properly protecting the batteries is key to ensuring they don't short and catch fire. With Boeing, the problem was inadequate temperature regulation. They clearly don't suffer from impact problems, but that doesn't change my point, which is still valid and completely legitimate.
- - - Updated - - -
Here is an look at why the NHTSA is investigating: http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=520675
The most salient part is this:
"With the second crash we saw a number of similarities from the Tennessee crash, the newer crash, to the Washington state crash. With those particular similarities, the investigatory team came to me with a recommendation that we should have a preliminary evaluation, which is what I agreed to do."
Later, Strickland states that the Mexico crash is outside of NHTSA jurisdiction and not a data point. They'll look at any information Tesla has on it, but it didn't factor into their decision to investigate.
Raffy.Roma
Rome (Italy)
@BillHamp
I disagree with you. One thing is if the battery catches fire spontaneously. Then if the battery catches fire after having hit an obstacle is a completely different matter. Then also in the case of crashing it should be differentiated between crashing against road debris and collisions.
Actually we spoke about this matter before. I remember. It seemed like you agreed with me on this matter. I don't understand.
I disagree with you. One thing is if the battery catches fire spontaneously. Then if the battery catches fire after having hit an obstacle is a completely different matter. Then also in the case of crashing it should be differentiated between crashing against road debris and collisions.
Actually we spoke about this matter before. I remember. It seemed like you agreed with me on this matter. I don't understand.
Disagree with me about what? The comparison isn't between causes of fires, it is between the level of incidents required before someone concludes that an investigation needs to be done. That Li-ion batteries burn due to short circuit/thermal runaway is not up for debate. It is a fact.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
Bill, sorry, but you come across as totally suspect to me. I've gone through your forum posts. You show up and post after the first fire & with very few exceptions, your posts have all been about creating doubt as to the safety of Tesla's product.
What will you do after the NHTSA says 'no problem here'? Will you move on to ICE forums? Or have you already been on those forums talking about the lack of safety of gas engines and the danger of driving at high speeds with tanks of highly flammable liquid?
You've made your point repeatedly and keep bumping threads to keep them near the top. Sorry, I'm not buying that you're just a concerned citizen.
What will you do after the NHTSA says 'no problem here'? Will you move on to ICE forums? Or have you already been on those forums talking about the lack of safety of gas engines and the danger of driving at high speeds with tanks of highly flammable liquid?
You've made your point repeatedly and keep bumping threads to keep them near the top. Sorry, I'm not buying that you're just a concerned citizen.
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
Agreed.
These posts between me and FluxCap ended up in "snippines", written on his first day on this forum:
Johan said:
FluxCap said:
Krugerrand
Meow
Don't forget mountains; I also mentioned mountains and they get upset when they're overlooked.
I don't recall seeing your name on the Dion Warwick Psychic Friends' roster.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Seriously??? It's obvious that Raffys point is that batteries don't simply ignite... they require an outside influence; If properly designed... as Teslas appear to be... they must be damaged or shorted to experience thermal runaway... as has occurred in EVERY fire. That IC engines catch fire without any outside influence... just due to the inherent volatility of their fuel is not up for debate. It is a fact.
Raffy.Roma
Rome (Italy)
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I would point out that as a moderator you ought to know the rules better than anyone and avoid setting a bad example. Using this forum to make personal attacks against a poster rather than addressing the topic itself would get anyone else a warning or a ban. After all, the rules say:
Be Courteous!
Don't attack others. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully ... without insult and personal attack. We also ask that you maintain a level of objectivity and be aware of your own biases. Don’t try to state opinions as fact and be careful to distinguish between the two.
I expect you will move your post and my response to the snippiness thread where both belong. Then this thread can return to a discussion of the fires.
- - - Updated - - -
First of all, IC engines don't catch fire, the fuel or lubricants do. Second, batteries do catch fire without being damaged as a result of manufacturing defects, for instance.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
There's nothing in the TOS that says I'm not entitled to respectfully state an opinion. It was a factual post, devoid of name-calling. However we do get off-topic of the point of this thread, so I'll cull out all the others that bring up the same point and move them to an off-topic thread.
I still am curious if you have expressed concerns regarding driving around with tanks of highly flammable liquid.
- - - Updated - - -
Oh oops. I can't. I'm not a moderator for this section. I'll request it a trip to off-topic, however.
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
The investigation has happened already, so I don't see the point of discussing "level of incidents required before someone concludes that an investigation needs to be done". I thought what is currently discussed is the statistics in comparison to ICE, not whether investigation is necessary.
On that subject, actually I don't think they rely on just incident statistics, but rather common factors between the incidents. There have been many incidents that have occurred at lower probability than ICE fires in general that have been investigated simply based on the similarity of them and having a large enough sample (usually more than 10). There is another difference though discussing cross-industry incidents (the FAA is more strict than NHTSA for obvious reasons).
Similar threads
