Model S Accident/Fire

[Mike_Schlechter]

As a Model S owner, EMS training officer on a volunteer fire department, and a trained firefighter (admittedly I only run ambulance calls these days, but the training and experience is still there), I think the Model S performed admirably under a very extreme situation.

Similarly, the responding department did an amazing job managing a fire scene that is not something we commonly come across and could easily be mistaken as a hazmat or other more uncommon and dangerous situation. While the responders didn't follow the Tesla protocol to the letter (how could they reasonably know to use water only?), they still effectively and promptly suppressed the fire. This is a testament to their training and problem solving as well as the design and engineering of the Model S, the battery pack and the isolation methods build into the battery in case of fire.

Best of all, no one was hurt! The best calls are the ones where everyone gets to go home that night.

I was asked by a friend if I still think my Model S is the safest car on the road. I do.

Well done to all involved!

 

[pfq1982]

Don't think Elon's use of statistics is legit. He's comparing a 1 year old fleet of Model S's to fire stats associated with a national fleet that averages 11 years old. A big % of those fires are going to be associated with older cars which are more prone to fire.

He needs to use the # of fires associated with random events like driving over debris if he wants to use miles driven as basis of comparison. Those fires are going to be a small % of the reported 150k. Can someone explain how this isn't misleading?

And to be clear, I think the Model S (With the new door handles..) is one of the safest cars on the road today. So troll-hunters please leave me alone.

 

[WhiteKnight]

So it sounds like Capitalist Oppressor was 100% correct in his initial speculations. Kudos!

 

[texex91]

Don't think Elon's use of statistics is legit. Can someone explain how this isn't misleading?

No, we'll leave that for you, the short sellers and media to do for us.

 

[omarsultan]

So a couple of things we can clarify after over 700 posts' worth of conjecture:

1) The battery was pierced through the bottom, not the front
2) The battery is designed to vent downwards, not forwards
3) The frunk fire was caused by the FD puncturing the metal firewall, so opportunity for Tesla to do some outreach to FDs with that

Overall, Tesla engineers should be feeling pretty damn proud of themselves.

O

 

[wraithnot]

Don't think Elon's use of statistics is legit. He's comparing a 1 year old fleet of Model S's to fire stats associated with a national fleet that averages 11 years old. A big % of those fires are going to be associated with older cars which are more prone to fire.

I can understand why a conventional car might be more prone to fire as it ages due to mechanical parts that come into contact with fuel and/or possible ignition sources wearing out. But why would you expect a Model S to be more prone to fire as it ages? What mechanical parts are going to wear out to make it more fire prone? If a Model S doesn't become more fire prone with age then the comparison of a new Model S fleet to the existing conventional car fleet is correct.

 

[Lump]

I need a few good examples explaining to my wife what 25 tons of force is

(From the blog)

The geometry of the object caused a powerful lever action as it went under the car, punching upward and impaling the Model S with a peak force on the order of 25 tons. Only a force of this magnitude would be strong enough to punch a 3 inch diameter hole through the quarter inch armor plate protecting the base of the vehicle.

 

[Mike_Schlechter]

3) The frunk fire was caused by the FD puncturing the metal firewall, so opportunity for Tesla to do some outreach to FDs with that

The frunk fire wasn't caused the the fire department's response. They were spot on with what they did. Perhaps the elapsed time of the burn was increased, but the fire was a result of the damage, and not of any action on the part of the responding Engine.

Yes, Tesla needs to do outreach to FD's and the NFPA. As more EVs come on the market fire departments and the NFPA will adjust their training accordingly, but based on the situation their actions were 100% appropriate and effective in the case of this car fire.

 

[SteveG3]

Don't think Elon's use of statistics is legit. He's comparing a 1 year old fleet of Model S's to fire stats associated with a national fleet that averages 11 years old. A big % of those fires are going to be associated with older cars which are more prone to fire.

He needs to use the # of fires associated with random events like driving over debris if he wants to use miles driven as basis of comparison. Those fires are going to be a small % of the reported 150k. Can someone explain how this isn't misleading?

And to be clear, I think the Model S (With the new door handles..) is one of the safest cars on the road today. So troll-hunters please leave me alone.

pfq, you seem to be standing on a whale fishing for minnows,

Elon's blog makes it clear this was a rather freakish event. We have some idea how often this happens in ICE cars, the data so far is clear it happens less often in a Model S, and as of yet, the only Tesla event we have is a perfect storm scenario... as the years go by Elon's one in five estimate may be a vast underestimate of the car's greater safety.

 

[bluetinc]

I need a few good examples explaining to my wife what 25 tons of force is

(From the blog)

The geometry of the object caused a powerful lever action as it went under the car, punching upward and impaling the Model S with a peak force on the order of 25 tons. Only a force of this magnitude would be strong enough to punch a 3 inch diameter hole through the quarter inch armor plate protecting the base of the vehicle.

A loaded trash truck, or school bus, balanced on a coffee cup.

Peter

 

[Lump]

When the fire department arrived, they observed standard procedure, which was to gain access to the source of the fire by puncturing holes in the top of the battery's protective metal plate and applying water. For the Model S lithium-ion battery, it was correct to apply water (vs. dry chemical extinguisher), but not to puncture the metal firewall, as the newly created holes allowed the flames to then vent upwards into the front trunk section of the Model S. Nonetheless, a combination of water followed by dry chemical extinguisher quickly brought the fire to an end.


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans]Sounds like they made the fire worst??? I wonder what would have happened without the FD puncturing the firewall & creating more holes? [/FONT]

 

[texex91]

When the fire department arrived, they observed standard procedure, which was to gain access to the source of the fire by puncturing holes in the top of the battery's protective metal plate and applying water. For the Model S lithium-ion battery, it was correct to apply water (vs. dry chemical extinguisher), but not to puncture the metal firewall, as the newly created holes allowed the flames to then vent upwards into the front trunk section of the Model S. Nonetheless, a combination of water followed by dry chemical extinguisher quickly brought the fire to an end.


Sounds like they made the fire worst??? I wonder what would have happened without the FD puncturing the firewall & creating more holes?

Yes, they did make it worse:

“The fire appeared to be extinguished, then reignited underneath the vehicle,” said the incident report. After they sprayed the car with water, the situation got worse. “The application of water seemed to intensify the fire activity.”

Responders then applied dry chemical flame retardant, which “put down the majority of the fire.” But in order to fully extinguish the flames, responders had to use a circular saw to “cut an access hole into [the] front structural member to water the battery pack.”

 

[cor]

To picture the 25 tons of force making the 3" hole:
take approx 10 SUVs (think Hummer) stacked on top of each other,
then place one support under that stack with the diameter (size) of an average apple or orange, that carries the entire weight of those 10 SUVs.
That is the force we are talking about here and the hole size that was created in the armor undercarriage plating.

 

[SFOTurtle]

pfq, you seem to be standing on a whale fishing for minnows,

Elon's blog makes it clear this was a rather freakish event. We have some idea how often this happens in ICE cars, the data so far is clear it happens less often in a Model S, and as of yet, the only Tesla event we have is a perfect storm scenario... as the years go by Elon's one in five estimate may be a vast underestimate of the car's greater safety.

To satisfy PFQ, we need to find some statistics of all cars that are one year old (this was a Sig version we're talking about), no more than one year old, that ran over large metal objects at highway speeds that could exert forces of 25 tons into the underside of the car.

 

[Mike_Schlechter]

Seriously, I'm basically a Tesla Fanboy, but I'm even more of a fire department Fanboy!

The responding crew did nothing wrong in their response. That the Model S deviates from the norm that we are trained to respond to doesn't change how we should respond at this stage of the game.

Yes, new trainings will need to be developed, but questioning the crew's actions is ill-informed. Fire service operates in very specific ways to ensure the safety of the crew, bystanders and property. When new things come along there is often a lead time for protocols and trainings to catch up. That said, I'm a Model S owner, have read the first responder guide and watched the extrication video and I will still stand by the actions of the crew. We punch holes in things and then put water on them. It is the way it is because it is the right thing to do in almost every scenario.

 

[theganjaguru]

I need a few good examples explaining to my wife what 25 tons of force is

(From the blog)

The geometry of the object caused a powerful lever action as it went under the car, punching upward and impaling the Model S with a peak force on the order of 25 tons. Only a force of this magnitude would be strong enough to punch a 3 inch diameter hole through the quarter inch armor plate protecting the base of the vehicle.

A 2013 Mini Cooper weighs 2855 lbs or 1.4275 tons. So 17.5 mini coopers at peak force.

PS The speculation on this thread was fantastic. Lots of interesting comments based off lack of empirical evidence. Some critical thinkers here and some comedians makes for good reading.

 

[Lump]

I am not blaming the FD in any way, just trying to understand what happened, Firefighters are a lot braver then I will ever be..they go towards the fire!

 

[SteveG3]

very funny SFO :smile:

 

[pfq1982]

I can understand why a conventional car might be more prone to fire as it ages due to mechanical parts that come into contact with fuel and/or possible ignition sources wearing out. But why would you expect a Model S to be more prone to fire as it ages? What mechanical parts are going to wear out to make it more fire prone? If a Model S doesn't become more fire prone with age then the comparison of a new Model S fleet to the existing conventional car fleet is correct.

Perhaps my note wasn't clear. I don't think Model S is more prone with age, but even if it was it's a non-issue since the fleet is not even 1 year old on average.

My concern is Elon uses the 150k car fire stat. This includes fires of all kinds for all cars. So lets realize the average age of the population is ~ 11 years, and most of those fires are related to typical ICE issues in the engine block, or old 12Vs, etc. These are cars that have had a lot of lifetime miles put on them, have been through weather, and have aging components. In other words, they are prone to fire. The 150k represents a stat for a population that is prone to fire.

I believe the mistake occurs when he calculates frequency with miles-driven and uses it as a basis of comparison. IF every fire is a random occurrence (like running over debris), Elon would be correct. Random occurrences happen with constant frequencies over many miles driven, so the comparison would be fine.

BUT, most of those 150k AREN'T related to random events like running over road debris. They are related to the typical engine block/12V/fuel line things you would expect. Things that are at risk as components age and fail. Things that, by the way, aren't found in the Model S (except the 12V, but again you have an age issue).

So Elon effectively says "look at our super rare frequency of a random fire related to driving miles (like running over debris) of our new cars vs. the more common frequency of fires of all sorts related to cars averaging a decade older". -> Of course the Model S is going to look golden!

I don't doubt the claim that BEVs are safer than ICE cars. I just take issue with using all these statistics to provide false credence. I think it's misleading, and, if you perceive that, it begs the question why. Maybe the answer is to dazzle the 99% of folks who won't appreciate the issue.

Or maybe I'm wrong -- that's why I'm asking for someone to point out how I'm wrong

 

[omarsultan]

questioning the crew's actions is ill-informed

Mike - also a fan of first responders and not looking to dump on them in this scenario.

I made a point to be factual and not assign blame--per Elon's blog post, punching holes in the battery allows the fire to spread to the frunk. If Teslas need to be handled differently, then I think its incumbent on Tesla to communicate that to FDs. As I have said up-thread, the Tesla First Responder pages could probably be beefed up a bit.

O