Model S Accident/Fire

[kevin99]

That has to be one of the best official statements I've ever read.

You bet Elon must have personally pen it!

 

[RobotGrease]

Because they don't have data to support that assertion, yet.

"OMG OMG OMG Tesla must respond immediately."
Tesla responds.
"Tesla didn't say enough therefore..."
Tesla responds more, with incomplete data, and overstates things.
"Tesla proven to be wrong, film at 11."

Calm down and stop jumping to conclusions based on things not said.

Jeepers creepers.

+2 million (extra million for going through the trouble of spelling it out for them)

 

[brianman]

If you want to judge their statement based on candor and forthrightness, it's a failure. Say whether the battery pack was involved, or not. I think it's abundantly obvious that it was (given crediting pack structure and lack of denial), but as posters on this thread prove, leaving it vague keeps people.... misinformed.

Again, I disagree.

Perhaps they should do the sane thing and respond when they have more data and have processed it sufficiently.

Leaving it unstated isn't "leaving it vague" it's avoiding making statements that "aren't ready yet".

If you want a fast response, you have to accept that it will be incomplete. That's not misinformation that's timely response.


Man, I hope some of these people never get on a Beta because they clearly don't get it.

 

[yngwie_2012]

I think Tesla should take an old Model S and reconstruct the accident with the metal object to prove how it really happened. So they could show the whole skeptics that there was no problem with the main battery. They could go even further with the experiment and use a gasoline car as control object to show what would have happened to the gasoline car after the accident. I think it would be good invested money for Tesla PR. Otherwise the electric car skeptics will use this story for a long time to claim that electric cars are not safe!

 

[rolosrevenge]

Cascading combustion of lithium ion cells is an inherent danger in any large pack. Tesla wouldn't have taken time to file a dozen patents on how to prevent or mitigate it if it wasn't. That doesn't mean that a protection system can't be defeated by a catastrophic impact with a metal object. I don't see why folks would find this objectionable.

And to be fair, a similar fire could occur in an ICE if you ripped out the oil pan and punctured the gas tank while causing sparks with the metallic item. Most cars don't have extensive crash plates protecting these things. I had an old SUV back in the day which had 1/4" steel plates covering all of the vitals to prevent rocks from doing the same thing. I doubt that a Model S has a similar level of protection.

 

[vfx]

Dr Computer ran over a giant thick walled pipe on the freeway. It had a cross piece of angle iron welded to it. Ripped up and bent both left wheels a small scratch in the front A arm. This kind of debris could have easily ripped a giant gash in the battery pack.

 

[CapitalistOppressor]

Maybe because they don't know for sure yet. Car may not have been towed to a Tesla SC yet. Maybe insurance wants to look at it first. Maybe it was towed to a body shop. Accidents, drivers and passengers always say, happen in slow motion. Accident aftermaths happen in even slower motion.

I agree with CO that Occam's Razor suggests a battery pack breach from damage inflicted by collision with road debris. But I doubt anyone from Tesla Motors has seen the car yet. I would suggest that Occam's Razor also suggests Tesla raced to put something out fast because they saw the stock plummeting.

The fact that Tesla commented on the incident makes it likely that the media, if they have any brain cells, will follow up with Tesla and demand more details. I hope Tesla provides them.

Look, I'll allow that there are still a number of other plausible causes that don't seem as probable to me. I didn't mean to imply that there was any kind of 100% certainty that the pack caught fire.

It just seems like the most likely option given what I personally know, and my brain is wired to rapidly solve complex problems based on limited information. I get paid a lot of money to do that, but I'll be the first to admit that I can be, and often am wrong. I didn't intend to make folks think I was trying to shut down debate.

 

[kevin99]

Looks like we have an answer. Appears to be a pack fire (though its not stated as such, Tesla would have specifically denied it if it was not IMHO) caused by an impact with debris.

CO, I would think if Tesla knows it is battery pack related and make that statement, it would be very cunning for them to try to spin away from "battery on fire" as they also mention battery pack specifically:

"Subsequently, a fire caused by the substantial damage sustained during the collision was contained to the front of the vehicle thanks to the design and construction of the vehicle and battery pack."

If it turns out the battery pack is involved, I really don't know how to read the above line.

 

[NigelM]

By "ripped open" I mean breached.

Thanks for the clarification; although many people would probably think that there's a huge difference between those terms.

Anything that is enough to displace the cells and cause a short could cause a cascade.

No it can't. The battery pack is designed specifically to prevent a catastrophic cascade. Having seen the battery up close on many occasions I doubt that the pack itself could have been breached; it would be much more likely that the coolant lines could have been broken but the battery would have protected itself. Note that the car instructed the driver to pull over safely and stop the car, this would not have been possible if there had been a catastrophic battery failure.

 

[dsm363]

It would be highly irresponsible for Tesla to confirm or deny anything before they have more facts.

I still don't see how you can jump to the conclusion it is a 'cascading fire' just from a few stills and videos. We don't know much at this point.

 

[lorih]

Again, I disagree.

Perhaps they should do the sane thing and respond when they have more data and have processed it sufficiently.

Leaving it unstated isn't "leaving it vague" it's avoiding making statements that "aren't ready yet".

If you want a fast response, you have to accept that it will be incomplete. That's not misinformation that's timely response.


Man, I hope some of these people never get on a Beta because they clearly don't get it.

Agreed, short of evidence they are rightfully careful. They did report on the important part that they were 100% sure of

1) fire due to hitting something metal
2) car warned passenger (as it was ENGINEERED to do)
3) enough time for passenger to exit safely (also important, warning doesn't matter if you don't have enough time to unbuckle seatbelt)
4) engineering design contained fire in front of vehicle

I think these are all good things, and again, just shows good engineering.

 

[kevin99]

What contains enough energy in the front of the car that when hit, would ignite a fire like that?

I agree with CapOp.

You never know what stuff the owner might put in the frunk!

 

[omarsultan]

There is zero evident there was any damage to the under carriage. The press release said the MS ran into something not over it, so all the conjecture about the battery pack being ripped open is so much unfounded conjecture. Occam's Razor would point to something even simpler like the 12V got damaged in the initial impact which gave rise to the fire which was contained to the front of the vehicle. You could easily argue this means that whatever happened in the frank did not spread to the main pack, which would be some pretty damn good engineering.

As for the statement, kudos for a) providing a statement this quickly and b) limiting it what they currently know.

O

 

[NigelM]

Maybe the "large metallic object" was one of these?:

 

[CapitalistOppressor]

Thanks for the clarification; although many people would probably think that there's a huge difference between those terms.



No it can't. The battery pack is designed specifically to prevent a catastrophic cascade. Having seen the battery up close on many occasions I doubt that the pack itself could have been breached; it would be much more likely that the coolant lines could have been broken but the battery would have protected itself. Note that the car instructed the driver to pull over safely and stop the car, this would not have been possible if there had been a catastrophic battery failure.

Ok, the coolant lines breaking is an interesting twist I hadn't thought of. Quite plausible, and perhaps easier to accomplish than breaching the pack. Same with the radiators. That still leads us to a cascade though (in this case caused by lack of cooling), or else we wouldn't have had the fire.

Have you seen the interior of the pack? Tesla has a number of patents showing various partitioning schemes, and if I recall the most robust would still leave ~48 cells exposed to each other. I'm not sure if 48 could give the energy needed to blow off the burst panels and cause a fire like this. Some of the designs had more batteries exposed though. A whole sheet of 96 maybe?

 

[jomo25]

There is zero evident there was any damage to the under carriage. The press release said the MS ran into something not over it, so all the conjecture about the battery pack being ripped open is so much unfounded conjecture. Occam's Razor would point to something even simpler like the 12V got damaged in the initial impact which gave rise to the fire which was contained to the front of the vehicle. You could easily argue this means that whatever happened in the frank did not spread to the main pack, which would be some pretty damn good engineering.

As for the statement, kudos for a) providing a statement this quickly and b) limiting it what they currently know.

O

I agree with this completely. I don't think of 'colliding' as the same as 'running over'. I guess its a collision in some ways, but would be a very odd choice of words.

I also agree I this hypothesis.

 

[dirkhh]

Maybe the "large metallic object" was one of these?:

View attachment 31990

+1

I am just blown away by the rampant speculation and statements made "with high certainty" with no access to the actual facts...

 

[pfq1982]

Again, I disagree.

Perhaps they should do the sane thing and respond when they have more data and have processed it sufficiently.

Leaving it unstated isn't "leaving it vague" it's avoiding making statements that "aren't ready yet".

If you want a fast response, you have to accept that it will be incomplete. That's not misinformation that's timely response.


Man, I hope some of these people never get on a Beta because they clearly don't get it.

Tesla obviously has enough info that they feel comfortable releasing a statement lauding their engineering and design. If they didn't know, their statement should have (would have?) said they were still gathering information and would release more information when available.

However, I think it's highly likely they have a good idea what happened. You don't even need a lot of time: 1. interview driver 2. examine bottom of pack 3. draw conclusion.

 

[rolosrevenge]

True, they could have collided with something large that they didn't drive over. I'm just trying to give plausible scenarios.

 

[Alexander]

Not sure if this was posted yet. But it looks like Tesla responded to this incident already:

"Yesterday, a Model S collided with a large metallic object in the middle of the road, causing significant damage to the vehicle. The car’s alert system signaled a problem and instructed the driver to pull over safely, which he did. No one was injured, and the sole occupant had sufficient time to exit the vehicle safely and call the authorities. Subsequently, a fire caused by the substantial damage sustained during the collision was contained to the front of the vehicle thanks to the design and construction of the vehicle and battery pack. All indications are that the fire never entered the interior cabin of the car. It was extinguished on-site by the fire department."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-is-tanking-2013-10#ixzz2gbH3RukB