Roadsters and Fires

[414RA]

My scheduled visit with Pete to discuss the progress of the upgrades ordered for my 2008 #423 on the Monday following the Saturday morning fire was somewhat of a shock to stay the least.
My takeaway from the visit:
WHEN ASKED ABOUT WHY DIDN’T THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM CUT ON AND STOP THE FIRE BEFORE IT REACHED THE ROADSTERS AND THEIR BATTERIES?
PETE’S ANSWER AND I QUOTE - “OH THE BUILDING WAS GRANDFATHERED IN AND DID NOT REQUIRE A SPRINKLER SYSTEM. THAT SAVED US $400,000 ON THE EXPENSE OF A SPRINKLER SYSTEM”. Unquote.
And the quiet calmness and business as usual was somewhat deafening.

 

[im4uttx]

My scheduled visit with Pete to discuss the progress of the upgrades ordered for my 2008 #423 on the Monday following the Saturday morning fire was somewhat of a shock to stay the least.
My takeaway from the visit:
WHEN ASKED ABOUT WHY DIDN’T THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM CUT ON AND STOP THE FIRE BEFORE IT REACHED THE ROADSTERS AND THEIR BATTERIES?
PETE’S ANSWER AND I QUOTE - “OH THE BUILDING WAS GRANDFATHERED IN AND DID NOT REQUIRE A SPRINKLER SYSTEM. THAT SAVED US $400,000 ON THE EXPENSE OF A SPRINKLER SYSTEM”. Unquote.
And the quiet calmness and business as usual was somewhat deafening.

Glad he saved $400,000 and stuffed 30 roadsters into that building...Damn (in the voice/tone of Laurence Fishburne in "Passengers" discussing the "termination" of the hibernation pod)...

 

[OakvilleMYP]

My scheduled visit with Pete to discuss the progress of the upgrades ordered for my 2008 #423 on the Monday following the Saturday morning fire was somewhat of a shock to stay the least.
My takeaway from the visit:
WHEN ASKED ABOUT WHY DIDN’T THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM CUT ON AND STOP THE FIRE BEFORE IT REACHED THE ROADSTERS AND THEIR BATTERIES?
PETE’S ANSWER AND I QUOTE - “OH THE BUILDING WAS GRANDFATHERED IN AND DID NOT REQUIRE A SPRINKLER SYSTEM. THAT SAVED US $400,000 ON THE EXPENSE OF A SPRINKLER SYSTEM”. Unquote.
And the quiet calmness and business as usual was somewhat deafening.

Now thats a ‘state of the art’ facility!

 

[Sonics2020]

Now thats a ‘state of the art’ facility!

“Auto shop of the FUTURE!”

 

[carrotted]

Narrator: A building occupied by my company that specifically repairs rare, expensive, highly combustible, delicate, complex vehicles burns with a bunch of my customers’ rare vehicles inside. Now, should I install sprinklers in my next building? Take the number of customers, A, multiply by the probability of another fire, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of sprinklers, I don’t install them in the next building.

Woman on plane: Are there a lot of these kinds of fires?

Narrator: You wouldn't believe.

(With apologies to Chuck Palahniuk)

 

[OakvilleMYP]

Narrator: A building occupied by my company that specifically repairs rare, expensive, highly combustible, delicate, complex vehicles burns with a bunch of my customers’ rare vehicles inside. Now, should I install sprinklers in my next building? Take the number of customers, A, multiply by the probability of another fire, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of sprinklers, I don’t install them in the next building.

Woman on plane: Are there a lot of these kinds of fires?

Narrator: You wouldn't believe.

(With apologies to Chuck Palahniuk)

Whats the out of court settlement about?
If you occupied grandfathered legally, every owner had insurance on the vehicle, nothing comes back to the owner of the shop is the way I see it. So long as it’s an accident.
Falling asleep with a cigar in your hand is an accident, regardless of if it’s negligent. The only time insurance causes a fuss is if you intentionally lit the cigar with the intent of burning the house down to commit fraud. Good luck proving that.
It would come back to shop owner if someone was underinsured, but that is another matter that would have to be dealt with on a case by case basis, but unlikely it would be successful.

Yes I know it’s from, just can’t break club rules.

 

[IslandRoadster]

Why add me to the nefarious component of your reply? I am not the one with credibility issues.

I think you misread my email, Carl. I am saying that we should not assume that anyone is doing something wrong until the facts prove otherwise.

 

[IslandRoadster]

It isn't just about whatever ignition source triggered the fire... The conditions for the fire to spread are important to consider as well. Having these rare cars surrounded by loose sheets seems really ill advised.

I agree, @TEG, whether there was a proper fire suppression system should certainly be something that owners consider when deciding where to have their Roadsters serviced. I personally have no idea whether Gruber did or did not have one. (see next comment). Never been there as I had my Roadster serviced by Tesla in Virginia or Medlock in Seattle (as I live in the Seattle area). But that doesn't mean that he was legally negligent because his fire suppression system could not stop a runaway lithium battery fire. If his building met code when constructed, which one could reasonably assume since his building permits would require inspection prior to occupancy, then negligence would not result solely from the presence of a code-compliant system that was incapable of stopping a fire; there would have to be something more. And there may have been in this case, but we do not know. Everyone in this forum is mostly speculating.

It's pretty clear from some of the energetic comments in this thread that many people have chosen sides and some are already sure what happened in absence of actual fact. I am merely suggesting that we rely on facts to make our conclusions. And what we know now is that there was a really big fire that destroyed his building and a bunch of rare vehicles. We don't know too much more about the actual fire and its cause.

 

[IslandRoadster]

My scheduled visit with Pete to discuss the progress of the upgrades ordered for my 2008 #423 on the Monday following the Saturday morning fire was somewhat of a shock to stay the least.
My takeaway from the visit:
WHEN ASKED ABOUT WHY DIDN’T THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM CUT ON AND STOP THE FIRE BEFORE IT REACHED THE ROADSTERS AND THEIR BATTERIES?
PETE’S ANSWER AND I QUOTE - “OH THE BUILDING WAS GRANDFATHERED IN AND DID NOT REQUIRE A SPRINKLER SYSTEM. THAT SAVED US $400,000 ON THE EXPENSE OF A SPRINKLER SYSTEM”. Unquote.
And the quiet calmness and business as usual was somewhat deafening.

And that addresses my earlier comment on what code required. Seems like a stupid decision to not put in a sprinkler system, particularly in hindsight. But if code didn't require it, it will be difficult to argue that he was negligent when he met code. Now, if some practice or failure led to the fires, then negligence would be easier to prove.

 

[drewski]

I think this was a picture of Roadster #666's ESS ( I think under a lift with the Roadster above it ) as seen in Gjeeb's video:

Only some of the sheets were marked as being from #666. Where did the other sheets come from?
I guess the "party line" on that is "from some salvaged Roadsters". But they usually mark where the sheets came from.
Maybe the unmarked ones were good original #666 sheets, and the marked ones were ones they removed, repaired, and replaced again?
The narration talked about "isolating bad cells", so I guess the repair procedure involved taking any malfunctioning cells out of the circuit without actually disassembling the sheet.
Maybe this whole practice is sort of "underground industry standard" but it seems each shop has come up with their own process as I don't think there is any public training guides on how to do this sort of stuff. Medlock was factory trained, Gruber not, so I would trust Medlock's knowledge on "best practices" more.

By the way, what does "BR# 1&2&3" mean to anyone on that sheet above?
( "Bricks (within the sheet) #1, #2, and #3 all have had bad cells isolated?" )

I interpreted the markings to be the bad sheets to track when removed and the others were from #666 and OK, which is the option you gave in the 3rd sentence.

But again, all speculative.

 

[im4uttx]

And that addresses my earlier comment on what code required. Seems like a stupid decision to not put in a sprinkler system, particularly in hindsight. But if code didn't require it, it will be difficult to argue that he was negligent when he met code. Now, if some practice or failure led to the fires, then negligence would be easier to prove.

I guess a question might be ask "did code reflect the nature of the business" when being taken into account? Grandfathering a building into NOT requiring fire suppression when you KNOW you are going to store/charge lithuim Ion batteries is a bad idea. Then to put ~30 roadsters into that building was a disaster waiting to happen, and it did.

 

[CAR3NUT]

My understanding of putting out a battery fire it would take 8,000 to 10,000 gallons of water and it is the reason fire departments don't try to put out a fire of and EV on the highway. Now take 30 cars x 10,000 gallons, that is 300,000 gallons. What kind of sprinkler system can supply that amount of water in a short period? Then you have to take into account other combustibles. I don't have a NFPA manual to figure this out, maybe someone else does.

 

[MP3Mike]

My understanding of putting out a battery fire it would take 8,000 to 10,000 gallons of water and it is the reason fire departments don't try to put out a fire of and EV on the highway. Now take 30 cars x 10,000 gallons, that is 300,000 gallons. What kind of sprinkler system can supply that amount of water in a short period? Then you have to take into account other combustibles. I don't have a NFPA manual to figure this out, maybe someone else does.

But the entire building, and its contents, didn't break out in fire at once. If there had been a sprinkler system the fire may not have spread as much, or at all. (If it really started in an electrical panel.)

Of course there would have been a lot of water damage...

 

[im4uttx]

My understanding of putting out a battery fire it would take 8,000 to 10,000 gallons of water and it is the reason fire departments don't try to put out a fire of and EV on the highway. Now take 30 cars x 10,000 gallons, that is 300,000 gallons. What kind of sprinkler system can supply that amount of water in a short period? Then you have to take into account other combustibles. I don't have a NFPA manual to figure this out, maybe someone else does.

I think everyone agrees that once the batteries are ignited, there is little chance of putting them out with a sprinkler system, or even a fire department.

Some issues are:
1) could the fire have been stopped prior to a battery igniting by having a sprinkler system.
2) could a sprinkler system have prevented the rapid spread of the fire, even if one battery ignited and/or was the original source of the fire.
3) was proximity of storage of ~30 roadsters/EVs without any barriers a poor choice of usage of the building as grandfathered without a sprinkler system.

If precautionary rules are followed, most EV garages don't have much fire danger outside of the batteries, imo. No gas or oil to speak of, so the sources of fire, other than the batteries is probably all electrical, i.e. supply/panel/wiring/etc. In this case a suspected cause of fire was an electrical panel failure. How did the fire get from an electrical panel failure to ignite the first battery(ies)?

Let's be clear here: any likely legal fault is not going to be found in this case. The question is whether the history of the first fire should have been a case of "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" or now that there is a second fire does it NOW become that statement, imo.

Does GMC still have vast knowledge of Tesla roadsters and other cars? The answer is yes.

Is the history of fires at GMC enough to take my business elsewhere? For me, the answer is yes, as far as sending parts/car to GMC for long term work to be done (meaning, I would not send my PEM/roadster for repair unless they could turn the repair in less than a week).

 

[eHorses]

These are all valid “coffee house/water cooler“ talk as we learn more from this and other EV related fires. Even Tesla have had similar fires at there centers. Granted, it’s not to the same tragic magnitude of lost for the roadster community.

Tesla store caught on fire in Surrey, half the building has been damaged

Earlier today, a Tesla store and service center in Surrey in the UK caught on fire – resulting in half...

electrek.co

We’ll need clear guidelines (and I’m afraid laws) to help prevent similar lost. Tesla has some helpful info to help first responders to deal with these fires but I don’t see any preventative guidelines.

First Responders | Tesla UK

First Responders information that assists in safely handling emergency situations involving Tesla vehicles.

www.tesla.com

 

[IslandRoadster]

My understanding of putting out a battery fire it would take 8,000 to 10,000 gallons of water and it is the reason fire departments don't try to put out a fire of and EV on the highway. Now take 30 cars x 10,000 gallons, that is 300,000 gallons. What kind of sprinkler system can supply that amount of water in a short period? Then you have to take into account other combustibles. I don't have a NFPA manual to figure this out, maybe someone else does.

If anyone is a glutton for punishment, here is one fire sprinkler calculator. Someone could tackle the calculation and tell us what an adequate system might look like for a building the size of Gruber's. I'm not going to do the calculation as math is not my strong suite, but I know there are many on here who like the maths, so, have at it!

 

[carrotted]

As one data point, Tesla currently has approximately 500 Service Centers - some of which have been operating for over a decade without any major incidents.

If you want a strong EV aftermarket, with right-to-repair and any degree of choice when it comes to who works on your vehicles, public perception of the safety of electric vehicles - and, by extension, of third-party electric vehicle repair facilities - should concern you. Incidents like this are a potential existential threat for these nascent businesses.

If these facilities are seen as uninsurable, or if their insurance rates go sky-high, it may prevent a generation of entrepreneurial would-be Medlocks, Benoits, Ramirezes, Williamses and Grubers from ever opening their doors. This would mean higher repair costs, higher lifetime cost of ownership, fewer used vehicles on the roads, and a bigger carbon footprint for the industry as a whole.

It's more or less the same thing as EVs themselves catching fire: while rare, it's newsworthy because it's novel. Public scrutiny and breathless news coverage is to be expected. EV repair facilities must hold themselves to a higher standard than ICE shops.

I realize we're still in the Wild West days of EV repair - but if existing zoning and fire code regulations fall short of ensuring safety and accountability, perhaps there's a need for basic industry standards and best practices? Or, at the very least, an industry association that vouches for its members' adherence to certain basic expectations? (Does such a thing already exist?)

 

[TEG]

As one data point, Tesla currently has approximately 500 Service Centers - some of which have been operating for over a decade without any major incidents.

If you want a strong EV aftermarket, with right-to-repair and any degree of choice when it comes to who works on your vehicles, public perception of the safety of electric vehicles - and, by extension, of third-party electric vehicle repair facilities - should concern you. Incidents like this are a potential existential threat for these nascent businesses.

If these facilities are seen as uninsurable, or if their insurance rates go sky-high, it may prevent a generation of entrepreneurial would-be Medlocks, Benoits, Ramirezes, Williamses and Grubers from ever opening their doors. This would mean higher repair costs, higher lifetime cost of ownership, fewer used vehicles on the roads, and a bigger carbon footprint for the industry as a whole.

It's more or less the same thing as EVs themselves catching fire: while rare, it's newsworthy because it's novel. Public scrutiny and breathless news coverage is to be expected. EV repair facilities must hold themselves to a higher standard than ICE shops.

I realize we're still in the Wild West days of EV repair - but if existing zoning and fire code regulations fall short of ensuring safety and accountability, perhaps there's a need for basic industry standards and best practices? Or, at the very least, an industry association that vouches for its members' adherence to certain basic expectations? (Does such a thing already exist?)

My understanding is the Tesla service centers did limited repairs. Mainly just swapping parts. Things like ESS repairs and PEM repairs (I think) tended to have the units sent back to HQ to be dealt with under more controlled/expert conditions.

 

[bolosky]

My understanding of putting out a battery fire it would take 8,000 to 10,000 gallons of water and it is the reason fire departments don't try to put out a fire of and EV on the highway. Now take 30 cars x 10,000 gallons, that is 300,000 gallons. What kind of sprinkler system can supply that amount of water in a short period?

This kind, with room to spare.

 

[ML Auto]

I've singed my eyebrows more that once over the years from gasoline (damn plastic fuel injection lines), so I'll take a slow starting electrical fire over a gas explosion any day. I've seen melted transformers, ballasts and motors, and they all gave off odors and smoke before a fire. I had a 12v battery charger burn up overnight, but it was on concrete, safely away from the car. I also had a power adapter set off my smoke alarm in the middle of the night-I'm glad I was there. So this isn't something that just started with electric cars. But leaving a high current charger operating unattended overnight is. A simple solution is to just turn off/unplug everything when people leave the building.