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

Model S Accident/Fire

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Always wear your runnin' shoes!!

Fleeing MS.jpg
 
Dent proof body panels actually have a use as the probability your car will be dented at least once in its lifetime is extremely high (almost inevitable). While in this case, the probability that you hit an object that will puncture 1/4 inch plate is extremely low, and adding a extra buffer does not necessarily prevent such a puncture (even in this exact same event).
I think there's a good chance it could. The cells in the pack might have prevented it from deforming, which could have prevented the puncture. Or not. In any case, if this is an uncommon, but consistent problem, I imagine that Tesla will come up with something to better secure the pack.
Whatever the object was punched a 3-inch diameter hole and also punctured or shorted cells (that's the only way the cells would catch fire). So I would assume the object was somewhat pole-like (or at least able to able to reach a certain depth into the pack such that the buffer you suggest may not be that useful).
It may or may not be. But ultimately, if this isn't a freak accident, and is just uncommon (say one car per year), it's probably worthwhile for Tesla to change their module design.
As I said, given what we know so far, this IS a freak accident. Keep in mind this is the first time this happened.
I strongly disagree with this as a factual statement. We don't know enough to say whether or not this is a freak accident. If an NHTSB investigator has already compiled a report on this accident, and also happens to have a readily available database of objects that have been involved in other accidents to compare to this object, then they could state whether or not this is a freak accident. But all the rest of us can do is speculate. Barring that, only time will tell.
Your low post count plus a majority of those posts expressing doubt in the Model S design rings bells for lots of people. There was another commenter in this thread that fit that profile and let's just say he got plenty of negative rep for it.
Prior to this thread, none of my posts expressed doubt, and even in this case all I'm asserting, as I've said before, is that the car may benefit from an improved module design if this isn't a freak accident. No car is perfect, and that includes the S.
 
I think there's a good chance it could. The cells in the pack might have prevented it from deforming, which could have prevented the puncture. Or not. In any case, if this is an uncommon, but consistent problem, I imagine that Tesla will come up with something to better secure the pack.
It may or may not be. But ultimately, if this isn't a freak accident, and is just uncommon (say one car per year), it's probably worthwhile for Tesla to change their module design.
I strongly disagree with this as a factual statement. We don't know enough to say whether or not this is a freak accident. If an NHTSB investigator has already compiled a report on this accident, and also happens to have a readily available database of objects that have been involved in other accidents to compare to this object, then they could state whether or not this is a freak accident. But all the rest of us can do is speculate. Barring that, only time will tell.
Prior to this thread, none of my posts expressed doubt, and even in this case all I'm asserting, as I've said before, is that the car may benefit from an improved module design if this isn't a freak accident. No car is perfect, and that includes the S.

Yawn....

sloth-yawn-cute.gif
 

Agreed. Bottom line is, there is nothing wrong with the design. It was contained to the single bank of cells that were punctured and was venting the fire down and out of the vehicle as it was designed. It wasn't until the FD punched holes in the top of the battery pack that it was able to spread to the Frunk. The only thing Tesla needs to do is spend a little money educating rescue workers on how the fire prevention and containment systems work on a Tesla. That would be money well spent.
 
Some errors of course. The NCA chemistry that Tesla uses is not the same as the LiCo chemistry that Boeing used. Boeing's problems were not really a spontaneous event, they were the result of consistently overcharging the cells.
Though lithium is a reactive metal, metallic lithium is not used in lithium ion batteries.
 
I think there's a good chance it could. The cells in the pack might have prevented it from deforming, which could have prevented the puncture. Or not. In any case, if this is an uncommon, but consistent problem, I imagine that Tesla will come up with something to better secure the pack.
It may or may not be. But ultimately, if this isn't a freak accident, and is just uncommon (say one car per year), it's probably worthwhile for Tesla to change their module design.
I strongly disagree with this as a factual statement. We don't know enough to say whether or not this is a freak accident. If an NHTSB investigator has already compiled a report on this accident, and also happens to have a readily available database of objects that have been involved in other accidents to compare to this object, then they could state whether or not this is a freak accident. But all the rest of us can do is speculate. Barring that, only time will tell.
I prefaced my statements with "given what we know so far", which is that this is the first occurrence after 100 million miles. That coupled with Tesla's statements is enough for most people to feel comfortable that this is likely a freak accident. If the NHTSA finds something else that proves there's a higher probability of occurrence than indicated so far (or we have a similar incident happen), so be it, but that's not going to happen for a while with the shutdown.

Prior to this thread, none of my posts expressed doubt, and even in this case all I'm asserting, as I've said before, is that the car may benefit from an improved module design if this isn't a freak accident. No car is perfect, and that includes the S.
Well, a majority of your posts are in this thread and the default way your profile displays activity is by most recent posts. I'm just pointing out that's how people will judge you here (given what I've seen happen to other people). If you had a lot more posts elsewhere and then commented here, then the reaction you get might be different. As for the reason why our forum members might be a little more "paranoid" than others is because we had multiple incidents happen where forum member statements have been taken out of context to write negative media reports on Tesla (that's why some have disclaimers in their signatures).
 
Last edited:
Here's some upside from all this: when dsm363 and I stopped by at both the Burlingame and Palo Alto stores yesterday, we were told that foot traffic actually picked up significantly after this incident followed by Elon's response. So, it's all good in the end.

A hearty thank you to the people who recorded the fire. The video is out there and everyone can see the fire was limited to the front.
 
Had one of the Dads at my son's soccer game today bring up "the incident". First thing out of his mouth was "I heard the Fire Department made it worse by punching holes in it". I told him "yep, if not for that it would have been a controlled burn". So it would seem that people are better informed than they were just a few days ago. The truth is getting out there. FWIW, I was at the Palo Alto store today and it was packed. The Model X is even more cool in person. ;)
 
Last edited:
The perfect tool for the firemen might be a straight hose extension with a tight 90 degree ell to reach under the car from the side rear quarter and try to find the opening in the bottom pan. Once located, the blast out the front would be reduced as heat was absorbed by the water. First responders have already smashed windows on both sides and filled the floor with a foot of cooling water (job 1).

Hose Extension 90*.jpg

--
 
I prefaced my statements with "given what we know so far", which is that this is the first occurrence after 100 million miles. That coupled with Tesla's statements is enough for most people to feel comfortable that this is likely a freak accident. If the NHTSA finds something else that proves there's a higher probability of occurrence than indicated so far (or we have a similar incident happen), so be it, but that's not going to happen for a while with the shutdown.
If this is something that happens every 100 million miles, I don't think it's a freak accident. The NHTSA conducted an investigation for Toyota's acceleration/gas pedal entrapment and that ultimately lead to a recall of several million vehicles, even though the ratio of complaints to vehicle models is much greater than the 100 million mile figure. This probably won't be an issue if it only happens once in the next ten years, but if it it's more common than that I wouldn't be surprised if Tesla updates the module design in the X, E, and future versions of the S.

With all that said, anyone willing to put their money where their mouths are instead of yawning, feel free to PM me. :tongue:
 
If this is something that happens every 100 million miles, I don't think it's a freak accident. The NHTSA conducted an investigation for Toyota's acceleration/gas pedal entrapment and that ultimately lead to a recall of several million vehicles, even though the ratio of complaints to vehicle models is much greater than the 100 million mile figure. This probably won't be an issue if it only happens once in the next ten years, but if it it's more common than that I wouldn't be surprised if Tesla updates the module design in the X, E, and future versions of the S.

With all that said, anyone willing to put their money where their mouths are instead of yawning, feel free to PM me. :tongue:

Toyota has had a few problems to say the least:

http://www.inquisitr.com/997645/toyota-recall-2013-failing-engines-brakes-and-airbags-oh-my/