Second Fire cause by impact with a metal object. Recall necessary?

[ZenMan]

I believe having one battery fire after caused by running over a metal object could have been considered a fluke. A second fire within a month will lead many to believe that there is a flaw in the design. What happens to the Tesla narrative if you have late night comedians cracking jokes about the Tesla battery fires?

I believe the only way to put these battery fire concerns to rest is to introduce a retrofittable redesign. A recall. Change the 1/4" aluminum plate to titanium or kevlar....or some other design fix.

The battery pack is designed for a quick changeout, so I'd like to see a recall that drops the battery and changes or adds something to the armor plating.

 

[Clemsons2k]

The increased cost of switching an aluminum panel to titanium or kevlar would be rediculous.

 

[Johan]

What is your engineering background?

 

[yngwie_2012]

you dont need titan. Its too expensive. You just need something like 6-8mm st52 or some E500TM steel. Its heavier than alu, but that will do it. IT MUST BE RETORFITABLE, a redesign is too costy

 

[electrictorque]

Maybe just raise the ground clearance? did 1st and 3nd cars have air suspension?

 

[ZenMan]

I just looked at the underside of my Model S. There are four U channel supports that run the length of the battery. There U channels protrude down approx 1/4" from the main aluminum armor. A retrofit could easily be made to fit three panels between these four channels.

 

[Right_Said_Fred]

Two identical incidents don't prove anything. Ten years could go by without a similar incident. Who knows? No need for such heavy measures yet. If Tesla concludes something needs to be done, a simple software upgrade could suffice: raising the car's suspension from low to normal during highway driving, will probably already make a big difference.

 

[Cameron]

I see nothing wrong with the car. Obviously if you run over/hit a large metal object at highway speeds you are going to do some serious damage. In both of these scenarios it seems the driver was able to safely pull over and get out unharmed. It wasn't until a little while after did the fire start (at least that was the case with the incident in Washington, and I would assume its the case in Tennessee as well). Im sure if we looked up what happens to ICE cars after hitting large metal objects, the results are much more catastrophic. If Tesla needs to retro fit something to put everyones mind at ease then sure, go for it. Otherwise we can't really do anything about driver error + physics.

 

[SFOTurtle]

Did the car explode on impact? Were any of the passengers seriously injured in any of these accidents with large metal objects at freeway speeds? is the car fundamentally unsafe? Shouldn't the answers to these questions be yes before Tesla undertakes a major recall and retrofit of the MS?

 

[Norse]

Seriously? Let Tesla Motors and NHTSA take care of this.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

IMO a battery pack redesign is needed because it's not acceptable that the battery pack catch fire after having hit a debris.

 

[bonnie]

So how many months and how many miles went by without a single incident? Two in one month would mean something if it were the first month the cars were on the road.

It's not.

 

[ZenMan]

Two identical incidents don't prove anything. Ten years could go by without a similar incident. Who knows? No need for such heavy measures yet. If Tesla concludes something needs to be done, a simple software upgrade could suffice: raising the car's suspension from low to normal during highway driving, will probably already make a big difference.

Possibly. But the time to do something is before it becomes the prevailing narrative.

 

[bonaire]

Possibly. But the time to do something is before it becomes the prevailing narrative.

For peace of mind, someone should consider looking into the true strength of the bottom of the battery casing. Musk called it armor in the first fire situational interview and press release. However, that is a word that should perhaps not be used unless the material is armor-grade. If it is not ballistics or armor grade, what level of protection is the patent-based bottom sheet below the battery?

There are numerous Teslas that have been wrecked and totalled and the battery case should be made available for an independent research party to review. Not because of a federal investigation but perhaps even a Tesla owner could put something together with a salvage-car.

 

[SFOTurtle]

IMO a battery pack redesign is needed because it's not acceptable that the battery pack catch fire after having hit a debris.

Oh boy, here we go again. Re-design the entire car because of two (and only two, in all of the months the thousands of MS have been on the roads) accidents with significant size metal objects at freeway speed, neither of which resulted in any injury to the passengers? Really? What should Tesla do, double the width and weight of the protective steel on the underside and give the car the range of a Leaf, just so the car can be protected against large metal objects on freeways? Put the battery pack on top of the Pano? "Battery pack redesign" is basically saying, let's shut down the company and throw years of engineering and design out the window.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

@SFOTurtle

IMO re-design the battery pack is different from re-design the entire car. I am not a battery expert but maybe that some slight changes to the battery pack would work out the situation with respect to the danger of debris hitting it.

To this purpose I am reporting a post took from another thread:

Basically, you need to assume that the battery compartment WILL get damaged, and design in safety features to cope with the damage.

IMO this means: better fire detection and suppression (not just retardant) and immediate electrical isolation of individual cells that stop working within their design parameters.

 

[apacheguy]

If Tesla concludes something needs to be done, a simple software upgrade could suffice: raising the car's suspension from low to normal during highway driving, will probably already make a big difference.

IMHO, the ability to lower the car at highway speeds is a critical feature of the air suspension that improves efficiency. Removing this feature as a workaround to address another issue is not acceptable. Not saying we should sacrifice safety, but I highly doubt Tesla would consider doing this at any rate.

 

[ZenMan]

RobotGrease posted this article in another thread. I have been trying to make the same argument about perception becoming reality, but the author of this article does it much better:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrog...ally-has-a-headache-someone-grab-the-tylenol/

 

[epley]

http://www.car-accidents.com/car-fire-crash-burn.html

Lots of regular cars catch on fire after hitting metal objects, trees, other cars, sitting still, and for many other various and sundry reasons. Of the number of Tesla crashes, several have caught fire. It would be interesting to know if this rate is any higher than for ICE cars.

They wouldn't have to make this pdf (http://www.nfpa.org/~/media/Files/Safety%20information/Safety%20tip%20sheets/car_fire_safety.pdf) if it didn't happen a lot.

 

[tslafan123]

http://www.car-accidents.com/car-fire-crash-burn.html

Lots of regular cars catch on fire after hitting metal objects, trees, other cars, sitting still, and for many other various and sundry reasons. Of the number of Tesla crashes, several have caught fire. It would be interesting to know if this rate is any higher than for ICE cars.

They wouldn't have to make this pdf (http://www.nfpa.org/~/media/Files/Safety information/Safety tip sheets/car_fire_safety.pdf) if it didn't happen a lot.

It's not about just catching fire. It's about vulnerability to debris on road. Is Tesla more vulnerable? I don't know the answer to it. If it is Yes, hell yeah, they better make it safer.