So that you can't see the flames on the far side of the other car?? It is very offset left.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla Fire in Shanghai
- Thread starter TomServo
- Start date
So that you can't see the flames on the far side of the other car?? It is very offset left.
Silicon Desert
Well-Known Member
I know it is easy for us Tesla owners to look for reasons it might not be true, but I am struggling to see the evidence as to why this is staged. Can you help identify that evidence?
The off gas from a pack fire does not act like that, as far as I can tell...I know it is easy for us Tesla owners to look for reasons it might not be true, but I am struggling to see the evidence as to why this is staged. Can you help identify that evidence?
'Normal' fire:
This fire. note flames on other side of adjacent car:
Propane spill:
Sudre
Active Member
Not that I have reviewed the footage much but if I was going to fake burn my Tesla I would hook something up to the A/C condenser leads and start the A/C with the remote APP. Sure Tesla would find out after the investigation but I could make a fortune on a short position in a day.... or at least my partner could.
Silicon Desert
Well-Known Member
That's good info, but I am not quite convinced that I would claim it is totally stagged based on one video and no other info. I have seen a couple videos of EV fire where white smoke occurred shortly like in that video. It will be interesting to see what Tesla says. Thanks for the vid comparison. Frankly I hope it was staged.
Last edited:
Swampgator
Active Member
There is no doubt that the video has been altered at the 19-20 mark. If it's only a video edit to make the fire that actually occurred look more dramatic, then why would someone do that?
So I commented (in the other thread) when I first saw this late last night, that this video looked odd.
Issues with potentially manipulated surveillance video aside, I'm not sure that this is staged/deliberate either. It's just not how I expect a Tesla pack fire to appear. That's not to say it couldn't be legit... just a few things that raise my eyebrows:
- The pack is designed with pressure relief ports that feed in to the frame box-sections, which in turn channel any flame front/aft, away from the passengers and side of car. In this video, the flames are visible far to the side of the car... even to the point of appearing on the far side of the adjacent Audi.
- As a result of those vents, I'd expect smoke to show up front/aft first as well, but it seems to also come from the sides.
- Because of those pressure relief ports, previous fires have tended to be a conflagration that builds intensity, not "blow up" and explode
- The nature of packs built of thousands of individual cells, is that any damage to a set of cells causes them to heat/burn, in turn heating up adjacent cells, etc... a domino effect. This again supports a "rapid fire" instead of "explosive failure" scenario
- Of the observable cell failures in the open (see Rich's Disney car video and subsequent blow torch tests), and within the pack (see several accident fire videos), I've never heard/seen anything that indicated "explosion" as opposed to "caught fire".
- An internal short should blow the fuse for that cell... which means it alone would start to catch/burn, and the domino effect (as opposed to simultaneous heating of entire groups of cells) would still be in effect.
Given the fact the car ostensibly drove there under it's own power and was parked by a driver, and with all of the above I'm hard pressed to figure out why a pack would act this way. I have to assume there was some pack damage due to puncture or severe deformation during driving. If a bunch of cells were damaged, I'd expect them to start to burn, and the pack to begin venting fore and aft with increasing intensity.
The only way I could see it explosively blowing flames sideways 10-12 feet under the next car is if the vents somehow failed and there was a pressure buildup inside the pack. Given there are multiple vents, this seems unlikely.
Perhaps there's some mechanism at play here I'm not aware of.
Issues with potentially manipulated surveillance video aside, I'm not sure that this is staged/deliberate either. It's just not how I expect a Tesla pack fire to appear. That's not to say it couldn't be legit... just a few things that raise my eyebrows:
- The pack is designed with pressure relief ports that feed in to the frame box-sections, which in turn channel any flame front/aft, away from the passengers and side of car. In this video, the flames are visible far to the side of the car... even to the point of appearing on the far side of the adjacent Audi.
- As a result of those vents, I'd expect smoke to show up front/aft first as well, but it seems to also come from the sides.
- Because of those pressure relief ports, previous fires have tended to be a conflagration that builds intensity, not "blow up" and explode
- The nature of packs built of thousands of individual cells, is that any damage to a set of cells causes them to heat/burn, in turn heating up adjacent cells, etc... a domino effect. This again supports a "rapid fire" instead of "explosive failure" scenario
- Of the observable cell failures in the open (see Rich's Disney car video and subsequent blow torch tests), and within the pack (see several accident fire videos), I've never heard/seen anything that indicated "explosion" as opposed to "caught fire".
- An internal short should blow the fuse for that cell... which means it alone would start to catch/burn, and the domino effect (as opposed to simultaneous heating of entire groups of cells) would still be in effect.
Given the fact the car ostensibly drove there under it's own power and was parked by a driver, and with all of the above I'm hard pressed to figure out why a pack would act this way. I have to assume there was some pack damage due to puncture or severe deformation during driving. If a bunch of cells were damaged, I'd expect them to start to burn, and the pack to begin venting fore and aft with increasing intensity.
The only way I could see it explosively blowing flames sideways 10-12 feet under the next car is if the vents somehow failed and there was a pressure buildup inside the pack. Given there are multiple vents, this seems unlikely.
Perhaps there's some mechanism at play here I'm not aware of.
Yah it is very non typical, and having somehow had an explosive initiation, how was it still burning externally? There woukd not be any fuel, the fire would be at the cell/ pack vents where the O2 is...
Guys, you're in denial.
There's video from adjacent security cameras as well that's all over social media in China. Plus, the fire did happen, the fire department showed up, and lots of videos of the aftermath. It's all over the news in China.
There's no gas lobby and no real anti-Tesla movement in China. We also know that it's not the first time a car has caught fire while parked. So you guys can stop with the conspiracy theories... This is just stupid.
There's video from adjacent security cameras as well that's all over social media in China. Plus, the fire did happen, the fire department showed up, and lots of videos of the aftermath. It's all over the news in China.
There's no gas lobby and no real anti-Tesla movement in China. We also know that it's not the first time a car has caught fire while parked. So you guys can stop with the conspiracy theories... This is just stupid.
Well, the fact that it occurred in China where Tesla faces many EV competitors immediately makes me suspicious. CNBC reporting that Tesla views it as suspicious.
Mader Levap
Member
Recording of recording is automatically fishy. It makes hiding tampering with original video significantly easier.
No one is saying there was not a fire. What I am saying is that it did not match the behavior of other pack fires.
Silicon Desert
Well-Known Member
Well then I must be fishy as well.
Someone created an incident on my neighbors property during Christmas, so the fastest and easiest thing for me to do was to use my iPhone make a copy to email to the police dept until I could get back home to give them the actually high def version off my DVR. So to me, this didn't seem fishy at all. It seems that some folks look for fraud by default. As an engineer, I just like to get all the evidence first and not speculate.
Mader Levap
Member
So where I can watch directly that security tape instead of recording of screen that shows security tape?
PWlakewood
Active Member
PWlakewood
Active Member
From my own experience working in the drone and camera stabilization industry at www.freeflysystems.com we use lithium batteries in all of the equipment and when we have had fires in the past there was no white smoke emitted from the batteries. And some of the equipment uses 18650.
Sudre
Active Member
So you presented a recording to the police that has a person suddenly disappearing from the left side of the video and blinking over to the right?Well then I must be fishy as well.
Now I haven't watched all the videos but I did watch that one. In that video a person walked in front of the Tesla before it caught fire and it was not a smooth normal walk. It was choppy. That is why people are saying the videos are fishy. Can it simply be because of the way the video was record? sure. Still fishy.
When I give out video to a neighbor for something it doesn't have weird frames in it and I don't have expensive surveillance cameras.
The thing that is odd is that there seems to be some sort of gas that ignited all at once. I don’t see how batteries can vent flammable gas and then ignite it all at once in an explosive event. It is as if someone released accelerant and then lite it to cause an explosion, which subsequently can ignite a battery pack, especially if it was damaged in some way before.
