You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wow no one has posted anything here? There's an electrek article about what I presume is this issue.
Can anyone find a blogger claiming this isn't an official NHTSA investigation so we can deny the problem?The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in a statement to The Times, said it is “well aware of the reports regarding this issue and will take action if appropriate based upon the facts and data.” The agency also reminded auto manufacturers that they are required “to notify the agency within five days of when the manufacturer becomes aware of a safety related defect and conduct a recall.” Tesla appears to never have issued such notification.
The National Transportation Safety Board also issued a statement to The Times. The board said it is “in the final stages of completing a Special Investigative Report based upon its investigations of several crashes involving electric vehicles and the resultant battery fires/thermal events.”
but it’s not a loose coolant connection causing this issue.
That's odd, since you've made definitive statements that the ONLY cause of these problems MUST be dendrite growth, and repeatedly castigated anyone who dared suggest otherwise.I'm only now researching it but on the surface I think maybe this could be the cause of everything.
Can anyone find a blogger claiming this isn't an official NHTSA investigation so we can deny the problem?
'm only now researching it but on the surface I think maybe this could be the cause of everything. Apparently the coolant is caustic and conductive. It looks like an unchecked leak on the cells can cause short circuits and kickstart other dangerous brakdown processes. I can't believe Tesla knew about this years ago and just accepted they would have a fire problem as if that's OK and normal! I'm editing more here - apparently the coolant is flammable on its own too! So it can cause a short circuit and catch on fire inside the pack, but if the fire is stopped before it gets hot enough to ignite lithium it can be stopped. I think this data fits at least one or two of the fires under investigation, and leaky coolant causing battery terminals to chemically break down fits everything else we've discussed. High heat, high voltages, etc would all accelerate the chemical decomposition of the impacted cells.
apparently the coolant is flammable on its own too!
Wow no one has posted anything here? There's an electrek article about what I presume is this issue.
I just came here after reading the article. So Tesla knew about the issue and continued using the bad part/connection for something like 4 years?
@wk057 how many of the packs that you have torn down have you seen evidence of internal coolant leaks? (If you could be so kind as to provide a little bit of information about this.)
suggesting that Tesla does QA
From the LA Times article:
"Although Tesla used the same China-based supplier for four years, it’s not clear if and when the cooling tube problems were remedied before Tesla brought manufacturing in-house in 2016. Without information from the company or safety regulators, it’s impossible to know how many cars were affected."
So, basically the 2012-2016 Model S owners do not know if their cars have this critical safety defect. What a mess!!!
The coolant is definitely NOT flammable, anyway.
Which is why the NHTSA is talking 60k recalls. If Tesla can't say which specific cars are flawed, the only safe assumption is they all are. NHTSA has done recalls for 2 vehicles, when the manufacturer can ID specific cars that need it and show why other cars don't. If there is a safety risk with no way to identify it before catastrophe, every potentially affected car can be recalled. Small number recalls are also more likely when the recall is voluntarily provided in the name of immediate safety. Tesla keeping a lid on this safety hazard for 8 years won't earn them much leniency from the NHTSA's decision makers.
Tesla seems to have shown us their method of identifying specific catastrophic cars: Batterygate and chargegate. Maybe they can leverage that method of concealment to limit the recalled batteries, but I have a feeling that was just a way to ID cars mid-failure and not cars that are flawed. Chargegate is so widespread it makes it sound like Tesla thinks it's all of the chargegated cars potentially.
@wk057 are we safe to assume by the recall needing to be sent out in 2012 that the fires caused by these coolant leaks are your "condition X" they were expecting to find when they discovered something else as well?
Tesla uses Propylene glycol which absolutely is flammable. It gets even more flammable as it is heated, losing water and becoming easier to auto ignite. Since it's electrically conductive a leak on the cells it is wrapped around can lose water through electrolysis while creating heat through the short circuits it creates, lowering ignition temperature and providing an ignition spark. Electrolysis also creates trace amounts of hydrogen and oxygen gas, both flammable gases that can continue to exacerbate an uncontrolled reaction inside the battery pack.
I find it interesting that this brought you back to a thread you were not going to discuss. Since you're back, are you able to explain everything you had intended to say before you had were silenced? You originally gave a sort of ultimatum to Tesla, and I can understand not wanting to push that too far but now that the ultimatum comes from the US government's safety investigators I think you should be safe.
So wait wait. You're telling me that the NHTSA is going to force a recall of 60,000 vehicles, based on rumors and speculation, and not a single visible or provable case of this defect actually occurring? I mean, if you can point me to some information where owners had internal battery leakage not related to an accident... I'm all ears.
This is really a stretch.
These have nothing to do with coolant leaks.
I'm not sure what you're saying here (there's no recall I'm aware of). But, as noted above, nothing with the charge speed reductions or range reductions has anything whatsoever to do with coolant leaking. Again, the coolant leak thing is not actually a thing.
That's a lot of words... but no basis in reality.
I've got about 100 gallons of coolant recovered from Tesla battery pack coolant loops stored in drums at my shop. You're welcome to swing by and try to light some of it on fire.
Fun fact: The same coolant used in Tesla's battery packs are actually used in fire sprinkler systems around the world. The systems are filled with coolant to prevent freezing. When the system trips when a sprinkler head pops, hundreds of gallons of this coolant douse the fire before water from the pipes reach the sprinkler head. If it were even remotely flammable, this would not be a thing. (Source: I used to work in construction building and servicing these systems.)
So yeah, cut the BS. lol.
Was never silenced. I made the decision to stay out of this whole thing for a bunch of reasons, and again, this fake coolant leak stuff has nothing to do with the various "gate" things people have been going on about.
I'd like to see this "ultimatum [coming] from the US government's safety investigators." I can find nothing about this in any NHTSA docs.
So wait wait. You're telling me that the NHTSA is going to force a recall of 60,000 vehicles, based on rumors and speculation, and not a single visible or provable case of this defect actually occurring? I mean, if you can point me to some information where owners had internal battery leakage not related to an accident... I'm all ears.
Which is why the NHTSA is talking 60k recalls.
BI said:The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration also just initiated a probe into faulty Tesla Model S touch screens made from 2012-2015. The investigation covers 63,000 vehicles.
@wk057 are we safe to assume by the recall needing to be sent out in 2012 that the fires caused by these coolant leaks are your "condition X" they were expecting to find when they discovered something else as well?
Tesla uses Propylene glycol which absolutely is flammable.
MSDS said:NFPA Ratings
Health 0
Flammability 0
Reactivity 0
Specific hazard Not Available
Suitable (and unsuitable) extinguishing media: Product is not flammable. Use water spray, alcohol-resistant foam, dry chemical, or carbon dioxide. Use flooding quantities of water to cool containers.
The NHTSA said it's evaluating the recall of those 60k vehicles.
Tesla themselves seem to point to coolant as the source of the fire.
There is discussion of how the fires happen if you find the propylene glycol's MSDS to be unrealistic. I didn't write the MSDS, I just read it. You should too! Especially with that personal responsibility you have in direct use.
https://hmdb.ca/system/metabolites/msds/000/001/472/original/HMDB01881.pdf?1358895490#:~:text=Flammability of the Product: May,C (210.2°F).&text=Flammable Limits: LOWER: 2.6%,oxides (CO, CO2).
Here you are.
Since you had trouble reading MSDS info it when you asked me to help you look it up I'll copy and paste the relevant parts for you:
Sorry
No you just played word games, as usual, when you and everyone else knew perfectly well that colloquial use of the word theory is acceptable as hypothesis, speculation, etc. Again this is a general discussion forum, not a science forum.I said it was the most fitting hypothesis. You elevated my hypothesis to a theory because you didn't know what a hypothesis is. The scientific method makes us change our hypothesis to suit the data, which is why I informed you repeatedly that your use of "theory" is scientifically wrong and not helpful.