Model S Accident/Fire

[NigelM]

FYI - More details I've picked up from sources - Car was a 2012 Sig, VIN ***0489 (report obstructed some numbers of the VIN).

Just noting that the car looks blue to me (but tough to tell) and that would mean it's not a Sig. Also noting that VIN 498 was a California car and not WA State. I guess it could be VIN 10489 but that would make it 2013......

Just making the point that even our assumptions on the car may be wrong.

 

[Doug_G]

The media reports most facts wrong even when they talk directly to a knowledgeable source.

+1000. Most reporters don't even care if they get the facts straight. They just need to meet deadline.

 

[Chgd Up]

"Company spokeswoman Liz Jarvis-Shean said the fire Tuesday was caused by a large metallic object hitting one of the battery pack's modules in the pricey Model S. The fire was contained to a small section at the front of the vehicle, she said, and no one was injured."
From AP

All sounds pretty reasonable, except that she referred to the car as a "pricey Model S". The large orange flames along with the flowing burning liquid are likely from the plastic in the front of the vehicle. Anyone who has witnessed a car fire will have noted that the plastics burn spectacularly, after all they are hydrocarbons. The small bright flash is consistent with a lithium cell failure.

 

[richkae]

Um, yea...we all know that. We're all speculating, is that a problem? I hadn't perceived it as such. We observe, we speculate, and we see what's ultimately found. It's like a game, we see who guessed right.

I was just trying to underscore that reading media reports and calling them evidence is a bad idea.

- - - Updated - - -

The small bright flash is consistent with a lithium cell failure.

It is consistent with any ignition event. The front of the car has several flammable liquids available for that.

 

[rolosrevenge]

Wow, this thread did run long. I'm sure Tesla will tell what happened as soon as they know. I'm still on the fence with my theory of the main pack being the cause of the fire (there isn't any hard evidence of this yet, only a theory that happens to fit the facts), but ultimately I'm not concerned if it was. Eventually there will be a fire caused by the main pack. There are too many things that can possibly happen and eventually one of them will. I see nothing wrong with this since ICE cars burn all the time. This has shown that the Model S is still as safe or safer than any ICE.

 

[jerry33]

If the tires had caught fire they would have acted in the way that the fire department indicated (repeated re-ignitions and water not helping) because a tire fire is basically an oil fire.

 

[vfx]

More wacky theories. TMC post #331

There was a mention of the driver running over scaffolding. Here are some pictures of their medal. (metal!) They are like spears that with sufficient speed could easily

penetrate the bottom of the MS (ever see those post-tornado pictures of a piece of straw that penetrated a tree?

The front of the MS floor is not the thicker ballistic sheet that protects the battery. Imagining a 60 MPH piece of pipe puncturing right through the lower front.

The FD tried to get in the front and of course the fire was contained to the front. This picture shows all the vulnerable to skewering parts in the front area of the MS.

Since the physical 12V battery is high up in the car (closer to the windshield wipers) and sits cradled in a metal enclosure of sorts. If the "battery" mentioned in the Kent FD report was the 12V then it was probably dead-shorted a ways away from the actual battery and it perhaps overheated and sparked so of the cabling.

Here is what may have happened. The skewering maybe happened on the front of the powertrain battery pack. (seen above - you can just barely read the word TESLA on it recessed letters gray on gray) Perhaps where the vertical ribbing is. This area does not appear to have ballistic shielding, just rigidity ribbing. The pipe may have forced itself or something in front of it into the sealed battery compartment. Opening it up like a can of spam.

We know that both the Roadster and the Models S can run if one or more batteries have a problem. If an entire sheet goes out the car still runs but gives the driver a warning that the car should safely pull over and call Tesla service.
So if this part of the battery was damaged the car would still amazingly be able to drive off the ramp and signal the driver there is a "problem".

The driver reported smell of burning and this might have been the shorted battery or glowplug hot wiring (either battery actually touching and igniting some of the plastic frunk shell or carpet. This fire was burning pretty good in the video and the later pictures of the FD on scene show the fire is still burning so was it all carpet, wire and plastic of the frunk? Maybe the hole in the front of the battery pack was flaming out successive batteries since there was now air holes to feed the flames (air is important here the batteries are designed sealed) The Fire Dept (as described) tried to get to the battery from the front (back of the frunk) and the bottom. A Front hole fits their efforts and shows how well the car held off flames from entering the driver's area.

 

[JPP]

I'm happy to report that this story hasn't seemed to travel much beyond Tesla fan sites and Stock trading sites. My other forums where we are discussing the Model S have not posted anything about any of this. Not even the drop in the stock price. It would seem the rest of the World isn't all that interested. Of course, that doesn't mean some news source on TV won't pick it up, but that remains to be seen. I am hoping this is simply a case of a tempest in a Tea Pot.

It's hitting the 'lay' press. it's on the San Francisco Chronicle (SFGate) web site.

 

[Mr X]

Lol on KCAL 9 they just did a report on it, said the car "exploded into a ball of flames" "it may not be the safest car its proclaimed to be" "no comment from tesla tonight"



and of course the indicative price mentions

 

[Amped]

Possibly the metallic object was not found as it could still be stuck in the bottom of the pack.

 

[DaveT]

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2013...battery/?_r=1&

"In an e-mail late Wednesday, a Tesla spokeswoman, Elizabeth Jarvis-Shean, said that part of the battery had burned. She said the fire was caused by the “direct impact of a large metallic object to one of the 16 modules within the Model S battery pack.” Her e-mail continued, “Because each module within the battery pack is, by design, isolated by fire barriers to limit any potential damage, the fire in the battery pack was contained to a small section in the front of the vehicle.”

 

[RDoc]

But, isn't the 12V battery a standard lead-acid battery? There's nothing in such a battery to burn and certainly nothing that would behave like a burning liquid.

 

[gameon]

But, isn't the 12V battery a standard lead-acid battery? There's nothing in such a battery to burn and certainly nothing that would behave like a burning liquid.

yeah I see frontend crash on ICE car without fire :wink: (not all of them or neither witness one in person)

 

[brianman]

direct impact of a large metallic object to one of the 16 modules within the Model S battery pack

Sounds like there might be an option to refurbish the pack as a 60+ kWh without having to replace any modules.

- - - Updated - - -

yeah I see frontend crash on ICE car without fire :wink: (not all of them or neither witness one in person)

Except in the movies where everything blows up as much the film budget supports.

 

[stopcrazypp]

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2013...battery/?_r=1&

"In an e-mail late Wednesday, a Tesla spokeswoman, Elizabeth Jarvis-Shean, said that part of the battery had burned. She said the fire was caused by the “direct impact of a large metallic object to one of the 16 modules within the Model S battery pack.” Her e-mail continued, “Because each module within the battery pack is, by design, isolated by fire barriers to limit any potential damage, the fire in the battery pack was contained to a small section in the front of the vehicle.”

So I take this to mean the fire started in the module. Would be hard to tell if it's a short from a deformed pack or any cell penetration. But again, it does point out that Tesla does very good containment given it didn't spread to the rest of the pack or other modules.

Given the front section has two modules stacked on each other, that may be why the firefighters said they couldn't access the "battery pack" from the bottom. Their "battery pack" probably refers to "battery module" instead.

 

[Yggdrasill]

It must have been a quite extreme impact if the battery pack was damaged. Assuming it was a scaffold pipe that speared the battery pack, that falls into what I would call a freak accident, not likely to be seen again any time soon.

If it had been a gasoline car we could just as easily have been taking of fatalities if a scaffold pipe had speared the gas tank, causing the car to burst into flames.

 

[DDotJ]

Lol on KCAL 9 they just did a report on it, said the car "exploded into a ball of flames" "it may not be the safest car its proclaimed to be" "no comment from tesla tonight"



and of course the indicative price mentions

exploded... really KCal 9? The driver got off of an off ramp and got out of the vehicle, then he started to smell burning...
I'm seeing comments like this underneath the CNET article: Scary ... Tesla is UNSAFE. How did it pass safety standard by the government ... disgusting! I guess nobody's ever heard of a gasoline car fire before

 

[omarsultan]

But, isn't the 12V battery a standard lead-acid battery? There's nothing in such a battery to burn and certainly nothing that would behave like a burning liquid.

Actually, lead-acid batteries produce oxygen and hydrogen gas from electrolysis of the water during charging, especially if you end up overcharging. One of the causes for lead acid battery explosions is low electrolytes creating a space for gas to accumulate. Bear in mind this is true for all batteries and not specific to EVs--its the reason you don't jump start a car by directly connecting the two battery terminals together--you don't want to create a spark in the potential presence of the hydrogen gas.

O

 

[rolosrevenge]

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2013...battery/?_r=1&

"In an e-mail late Wednesday, a Tesla spokeswoman, Elizabeth Jarvis-Shean, said that part of the battery had burned. She said the fire was caused by the “direct impact of a large metallic object to one of the 16 modules within the Model S battery pack.” Her e-mail continued, “Because each module within the battery pack is, by design, isolated by fire barriers to limit any potential damage, the fire in the battery pack was contained to a small section in the front of the vehicle.”

It appears that CO and I were right in a punctured pack and contained fire theory, if this email is in fact legitimate.

 

[K5ING]

It happened Tuesday morning. 8 a.m.

Does anyone have a picture of the underbelly of a Model S? I'm curious what that looks like. Is it just the solid underplate of the battery case or are there other things (Coolant wires?) that could have been damaged and cause a battery fire.

Also, to those doubting rational conclusions from reasonable fact patterns, the AP says the fire department had trouble extinguishing the blaze because it kept re-igniting. More evidence of battery pack involvement.

Ask, and ye shall receive....With, and without the covers....