stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Slow lane or fast lane? There's a big difference in speed in the far left and far right lanes (HOV excepted, where anything goes). Of course that does also affect the probability of debris.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Interesting enough, the one thing we know for certain is that there is an increased chance for a fire in an older ICE car. Fuel lines wear out, oil leaks and spills when adding oil mean that there is a buildup of combustibles sitting on hot engine parts, and gasket leaks mean that there is a much greater chance of fire in an older ICE than a newer one. It is very unlikely (I have never heard it to be true) that a Model S will be any different as they age. So there is no increase in the chance of fire over the life of the car. The result is that looking at the overall fire risks of a gas car is valid when comparing to an EV and a Model S. This whole argument of car age is again trying to make a comparison to a ICE car. It is also a way for detractors and the uninformed to try and poke holes in EV adoption and Tesla in particular.
Debating how often LEAFs are driven at speed misses the point I was trying to make. The LEAF's battery chemistry is inherently very stable, so much so that there's not even a battery cooling system in the LEAF. Tesla's batteries need to be more actively managed in order to keep them safe. The tradeoff, of course, is that Tesla vehicles can achieve far greater driving range. It's a very worthwhile tradeoff, IMHO. But one that NHTSA will need to understand with a proper sense of perspective.
Agreed. No one says to gasoline and diesel ICE manufacturers that they need to use less volatile fuel even though there are numerous fires and deaths every day because of them. No one has gone to the car companies and told them to use vegetable oil instead of gasoline just because it is less flammable. You work with what you have. Tesla has chosen to go with the battery chemistry they did. They have built their pack around that chemistry to deal with the repercussions that could possibly result. The results we have seen is they were very successful. Their packs are safe and when damaged badly they have responded well. I'm sure that Tesla is going to continue to build their packs even better in the future based on the batteries and new chemistries they receive. Will they be 100% successful with absolutely no deaths and no serious injuries? Of course not. That is unrealistic. Cars use a lot of energy and drive at high speeds which make them inherently dangerous. For most of us they are the most dangerous things we deal with on a daily basis. They are useful tools but we don't hand them over to children and we all have to take tests and pass them in order to get behind the wheel. From what we've seen Tesla has done their job and made a very safe car. There are still a lot of people that don't understand that though.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
People say it as a matter of fact, but I would like to point out that although the Leaf's cathode (lithium manganese) is more thermally stable than Tesla's (NCA), a battery is not solely made out of cathode. There's also the anode, electrolyte, and separator. As discussed elsewhere, even though the Leaf's cathode is supposed to do better in a wide temperature range, Nissan skimped on the separator which has resulted in accelerated calendar losses (subject of a lawsuit).
And I don't agree on the conclusion that the Leaf is necessarily safer in a pack puncture. Any battery type can short circuit from a pack or cell puncture (evidence of this an a123 pack in a Prius that caught fire from short circuit despite using chemistry many times more thermally stable than even the Leaf's). Plus the Leaf''s battery, like most batteries, still uses flammable electrolyte.
The fact is the Leaf is simply have not experience pack puncture (and people are discussing why), but not necessarily that it will do better in the same scenario.
This thread has gone all over the place. To try and get back on subject, the point is to debate how NHTSAs outcome will affect the stock price. This is in the investor portion of the forum. Its not useful to debate if there's a heightened risk. If NHTSA determines there's no heightened risk, the result is pretty obvious to be the stock rallying. Look at the German counterpart's press release effect on the stock today.
Meanwhile, NHTSA has sent a formal request for information to Tesla which has a demanding tone. Doesn't look like they're giving Tesla a pass.
NHTSA Issues Legally Enforceable Request to Tesla for ALL Model S Specific Information
I'm leaning towards thinking NHTSA will make some token requirement for a minor change to the Model S so that they can prove that they did something. I would assume the stock would rally some on the news (at least from the 120s, maybe not from the 140s). Only potential downside of such a requirement as well as their request for information, is that it may indicate that they want to be more involved going forward with Tesla's product development, which can only slow it down.
Meanwhile, NHTSA has sent a formal request for information to Tesla which has a demanding tone. Doesn't look like they're giving Tesla a pass.
NHTSA Issues Legally Enforceable Request to Tesla for ALL Model S Specific Information
I'm leaning towards thinking NHTSA will make some token requirement for a minor change to the Model S so that they can prove that they did something. I would assume the stock would rally some on the news (at least from the 120s, maybe not from the 140s). Only potential downside of such a requirement as well as their request for information, is that it may indicate that they want to be more involved going forward with Tesla's product development, which can only slow it down.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I'm surprised too at the effect, but I'll wait until the day ends to see if it's just some over-optimism.
I am hoping the NHTSA would remain engineering focused rather than political. They didn't make some token requirement for the Volt when it got even bigger political flack, so I hope they don't for Tesla.
Chickenlittle
Banned
No i think you are off tarjet with postulates that are false. in addition to wrong assumption of increased risk you are now adding that the request for information is somehow out of the ordinary. where did you get that they want to be involved in tesla product development more than any other car?????
why would tesla be interested in a pass? i dont believe there will be any concerns they need to be worried about. the posters here are right on track. your tactics are transparent.
got to wonder how much you lost yesterday (since as you point out this is an investors section). care to share?
Why are you trolling this thread? Why does discussion of tesla stock illicit such an emotional response. Do you invest or own and trying to justify some past decision? Anyway, the ignore list is useful at times. You can just ignore this thread if it upsets you.
Chickenlittle
Banned
huh just responding to what your writing. please answer the questions i posed. why do you think the request for imformation is not the standard operating procedure?
why do you think the ntsb is signaling their taking more control of the design process
if you think asking you to explain your statements are not reasonable please report this to the moderators. i resent the "troll" label. remember your supposed to respond to issues and not name calling.
NigelM
Recovering Member
Everyone play nice. And let's knock off using the "troll" label; next time everything's going youknowwhere.
Chickenlittle
Banned
Tesla deploying titanium shield.
This is the most extreme of possible solutions Tesla could have done and shows that NHTSA did determine there was an elevated risk of fire and Tesla was forced to respond.
I had hoped that Tesla would have be able to get away with a minor software change such as raising the car. A titanium shield is the most expensive solution other than changing the battery chemistry which would have been a death knell.
This should alleviate the risk.
Interesting that the stock is not moving this morning. Recalling all existing cars and retrofitting with titanium should be relatively expensive.
This is the most extreme of possible solutions Tesla could have done and shows that NHTSA did determine there was an elevated risk of fire and Tesla was forced to respond.
I had hoped that Tesla would have be able to get away with a minor software change such as raising the car. A titanium shield is the most expensive solution other than changing the battery chemistry which would have been a death knell.
This should alleviate the risk.
Interesting that the stock is not moving this morning. Recalling all existing cars and retrofitting with titanium should be relatively expensive.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/te...-2014-03-28-81034331?link=MW_home_latest_news
I don't know, it doesn't sound that expensive to me. How much can it cost? A couple hundred bucks? I really don't know, but even if it costs $500, then that is a small price to pay for the safety of its customers.
And if you don't see any fires for the next year then people might start believing that this car is indeed extremely safe.
$500 means that TSLA will reach 27.5% gross margin instead of 28%, but I am sure that they can sneek in a price hike to recover the investment. If not, then the increase in demand from hightening the safety will more than offset the cost.
I am extremely pleased with this announcement.
I don't know, it doesn't sound that expensive to me. How much can it cost? A couple hundred bucks? I really don't know, but even if it costs $500, then that is a small price to pay for the safety of its customers.
And if you don't see any fires for the next year then people might start believing that this car is indeed extremely safe.
$500 means that TSLA will reach 27.5% gross margin instead of 28%, but I am sure that they can sneek in a price hike to recover the investment. If not, then the increase in demand from hightening the safety will more than offset the cost.
I am extremely pleased with this announcement.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
It's not a recall. And it appears the market understands that. It doesn't hurt that the NHSTA closed their investigation independent of this. (I suspect Elon wanted the investigation closed first.)
The question is the hit to the bottom line. Titanium is MUCH stronger than aluminum and the strongest material they could have reasonably used. Its only disadvantage is cost. It does make the Model S MUCH safer. Everyone should get the retrofit. The triple shield should make the battery literally bullet proof.
Interesting that the stock went down to $120 based on NHTSA fears, but once the worst reasonable outcome occurs, the stock rallies from $207.
Interesting that the stock went down to $120 based on NHTSA fears, but once the worst reasonable outcome occurs, the stock rallies from $207.
Similar threads
- Locked
