-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Preventing battery damage from road debris
- Thread starter wcalvin
- Start date
2.371%
- - - Updated - - -
It's moot. A nearly completely discharged pack will be parked and charging.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Sort of. You still need something to start the chemicals on fire, and that something is voltage potential. If you had a completely discharged cell, which of course would never happen in a car since the cells are never allowed to get near fully discharged, and you then punctured it and shorted the internals, with no voltage there would be no current flow across the short, and no heating, so I don't think it could actually cause a fire.
Raffy.Roma
Rome (Italy)
I had an idea. Since I read on TMC that Tesla is planning to implement in the future a new battery pack based on new cells maybe that such battery pack could be designed bearing in mind that main purpose is to get a lighter battery pack and less vulnerable to flames (better coolant, firmware controlling the battery pack and so on). This way we would have a lighter Model S, which is important to decrease the energy involved in the crashing between the Model S and the road debris, and a battery pack less vulnerable to fires. The range of the Model S in the case of the 60KWh and 85KWh battery packs would remain the same but we would have a better reliability.
What do you TMC Members think about my idea?
What do you TMC Members think about my idea?
Raffy.Roma
Rome (Italy)
Sorry of having posted in the middle of a discussion. I just came back home and I posted a thought that I had. I didn't realize that there was a discussion going on.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I'm not sure I understand it. I'm sure Tesla already intends to build a smaller, lighter, and safer battery pack when the technology allows it.
Raffy.Roma
Rome (Italy)
Ok that would be good. IMO best thing would be to announce a new battery pack with these features soon. It could work out the PR/image situation and also be positive for NHTSA.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
They can't announce it soon because the cell technology has not advanced enough to allow it yet.
Raffy.Roma
Rome (Italy)
I think that the Research and Development should focus mainly on this subject rather than trying to get a bigger range. With the Supercharger network we don't need longer ranges but we need to increase safety and reliability, not for real safety reasons but for PR/image reasons.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
People seem to want more range, and a smaller pack does not guarantee safety. If you want the same range in a smaller pack then the Gen3 vehicle is probably going to be the only choice for a while.
It doesn't matter the height of the vehicle... debris is debris and will puncture floorboards, fuel tanks. In this case it's a chunk of rubber from a blown tire:
Debris Punctures Tank on Big Rig, Spilling Fuel on Highway 101 at San Ysidro Road
Had that been a gasoline tank like on my bucket truck, expect an explosion, fire, and a serious engulfing of the passenger cabin.
Debris Punctures Tank on Big Rig, Spilling Fuel on Highway 101 at San Ysidro Road
Had that been a gasoline tank like on my bucket truck, expect an explosion, fire, and a serious engulfing of the passenger cabin.
Raffy.Roma
Rome (Italy)
@FlasherZ
I agree with you. Many TMC Members proposed to rise the air suspensions of the Model S to work out this road debris matter but IMO it wouldn't work.
The best advice that I saw would be to use an adaptable spoiler like that used by Porsche. Ok in case of a trailer hitch like that which caused the latest fire the spoiler would get damaged but this would be better than a fire of course.
I agree with you. Many TMC Members proposed to rise the air suspensions of the Model S to work out this road debris matter but IMO it wouldn't work.
The best advice that I saw would be to use an adaptable spoiler like that used by Porsche. Ok in case of a trailer hitch like that which caused the latest fire the spoiler would get damaged but this would be better than a fire of course.
I hesitate to post because I don't want to perpetuate this thread. I think we are the main ones making a big deal about this at this point. To do a "fix" for PR reasons when there is no problem is an illogical mistake.
Here's the deal: If you want to be able to run over large metal objects at high speed and not worry about your battery catching on fire, the Model S may not be the car for you. For the other 90+% of people, TM is still production-constrained for the foreseeable future, hurry up and reserve if you don't want to have to wait even longer to get your car.
Here's the deal: If you want to be able to run over large metal objects at high speed and not worry about your battery catching on fire, the Model S may not be the car for you. For the other 90+% of people, TM is still production-constrained for the foreseeable future, hurry up and reserve if you don't want to have to wait even longer to get your car.
Raffy.Roma
Rome (Italy)
I agree with you. As I told in a previous post all this matter of the road debris is not a safety matter but a PR/Image matter. Problem is that if you want to get out of the production-constrained logic you have to consider this aspect.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Actually it does, the higher the ride height the lower the number of objects that could potentially case damage. Of course that doesn't mean you'll never hit an object, it just reduces the chances.
Raffy.Roma
Rome (Italy)
From a statistical point of view you are right. Problem is that taller road debris are more dangerous for cars and in particular for the Model S. So I agree with FlasherZ.
InTheShadows
Active Member
I agree, I was on I-280 heading to NYC this summer in my F-350 at 70mph and as I was going around a bend there was half of a truck tire in my lane that I hit with my tire, it jolted the truck hard but I drove right over it with no damage. Had I been in our VW Golf the minimum would have been body damage, max, a wreck.
