Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Model S' started by Frank88, Jun 15, 2018.
Hey, have you guys seen this capability of this board?
What an awesome feature
It's not clear what the context was when the spokesperson insisted that the company's cars are far less likely to catch fire than gas vehicles.
Did they just say that right after saying the company is investigating? Or did they say it in response to something the dailymail said? To me it looks like the later.
It's not part of their official statement.
I feel like I'm being stalked.
Tesla's paint shop goes up in flames too. Again.
Elon Musk sent an email to Tesla employees about another fire in its factory on Sunday
GM spokesperson Ray Wert said the automaker had reached out to McCormack and offered her a Bolt EV as a loaner, before adding this light jab: “so she has a more dependable electric vehicle to drive.”
Nope, not the paint shop... And it didn't sound like there were much, if any, flames.
Small fire was in air filter on welding/ body line, not paint line.
I would considered this an insult if I was an owner of a Model S.
It's really nice of Jalopnik to give their former EIC free media like that.
Don’t have to be an owner to realize that’s an insult.
Owww... That's going to leave a mark.
They were trying out a new color, Ronson Red. The so-called 'fire' just proves how accurate the color is.
So I suppose Ford and GM and Toyota are all stressing over their car fires and fixing everything so they never happen again? Tesla seems far more concerned about safety than any other car company. Saying that Tesla must fix something just because of one fire (which we know very little about at this time) is nothing but fanboi baiting. Can we even confirm it's not an A/C compressor fire at this point? That ignore button is looking tempting at this point.
Tesla's battery packs are new tech and Tesla should (and does) investigate initial incidents to make sure there is nothing systemic that can be fixed. As opposed to batteries catching fire after the pack is ripped open in a high-speed accident. I'm as interested as the next owner to find out what caused this second apparently spontaneous fire. But I don't see Tesla as any less safe than any ICE vehicle due to one unexplained fire.
Gas cars should be fireproof. They have had over a century to get it right!
At least two evening news shows had this fire on the broadcast tonight. Not the lead story - but about mid-show. Trump proved that negative publicity is still good publicity. Or he proved the old adage "there's no such thing as bad publicity".
'There is no such thing as bad publicity' - the meaning and origin of this phrase
I'm not happy about the fire, as an owner. But I'm thrilled Telsa is getting national attention, even if its about a fire. Yes I know, if fires become a regular thing it could be very bad indeed. But I think we already know Tesla's don't catch on fire more than other cars. And national publicity is great - the more people know what a Tesla Model S is, the better.
If you'll excuse the pun, there is a bright side here.
So a new Ford GT with only 43 miles on it burned up spontaneously. But there is very little press about it...
There are only about 100 of these cars right now, with only 500 planned on being made. So between 0.2% and 1% of them have burned, not very good odds...
That doesn't strike me as right at all. I suspect that most people who are at all inclined to buy an electric car already are aware of Tesla at this point. For those who aren't aware of the car, it's not a good thing if the first time they see it is in the context of it shooting sparks out like a "safe and sane" fireworks cone.
My response had that happened to me: “Hail, no. If I wanted an EV that couldn’t get out of town, I’d drive a Fiat 500e. At least (some of) those come with espresso makers to help kill time during all that L2 charging.”
All I can depend upon a Chevy Dolt for is to look like a badly-designed sneaker, and to be sneered at by their own stealership minions.
If the problem could be solved with a software update why wasn't it caught before the release of the cars? Here's what I came across while researching M3's brake problem. "The bright side of the story is that Tesla has already sent a software update to the car and it is back on the road, looking for a fire truck to run into.
It would have if it had been seen/ caught in testing. For some reason the CR 0-60-0 one mile cool off 60-0 one mile cool off test routine caused the ABS system to consistently (two vehicle data points) adjust excessively to the conservative side of braking force. Tesla ran the same test, saw the same result, found the issue in the code/ calibration, and corrected it.
Nice info in the Jalopnick comments — pasted below. I hope it is correct.
So, in the 6 or so years since the Tesla Model S and X have been on the road, there have been 8 Tesla vehicle fires worldwide. This one in particular is 1 of the 2 that did not occur as the direct result of a car crash (the other 6 were due to crashes).
Compare that to gas vehicles, where there were 152,300 reported total vehicle fires per year in the U.S. from 2006-2010 according to the National Fire Protection Administration. This means that on average, 17 cars catch fire per hour in the U.S.alone.
Because there are approximately 250,000 Teslas worldwide, and those fires are spread across 6 years, that means there is a 0.0005% chance per year of a Tesla catching fire. There are 263.6 million cars in the U.S., almost all of which as internal combustion, that means there is about a 0.0578% chance of a gas car catching fire. Which if you notice, is quite a lot higher, like over 100 times higher.
Very weirdly, only 4% of all vehicle fires in the U.S. are caused by crashes, meaning the other 96% of all vehicle fires are not caused by crashes! Compare this to Tesla, where 75% of Tesla fires were a result of crashing. This again means crashing a gas car is almost 6 times more likely than a Tesla to catch fire. And your over 400 times more likely to catch fire not from a crash than a Tesla.