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.
Ben Tracy is doing a piece on Tesla tonight (5:30-6:00 central).
Just a heads up for anyone that wants to see it.
Wow, I'd go even further. I think it was an excellent report, no sensationalism, putting things into perspective, even mentioning the FW upgrade.Here is the video connected to this:
Tesla car fires under investigation - CBS News Video
I thought it wasn't too bad. In fact, I thought it was pretty positive toward Tesla.
I don't know that I would say the reporting was excellent. The problem is that they use the same flawed statistics as Musk did to claim that fire in the Model S is far below that of an ICE car. The NHTSA isn't concerned about fire in general, it is concerned about fire following an accident (namely an undercarriage strike). In that limited circumstance, the Tesla may be MORE vulnerable than an ICE car. So, the real problem is not fire/car, it is fire/accident. More accurately, it is fire/underbody strike. The last stat is not available or at least not easy to find. However, when it comes to fires/accident, Tesla is definitely on the border of statistical significance. That is why the NHTSA is investigating. There may be a very specific vulnerability (no one could have predicted necessarily) that would be easy to remedy.
The NHTSA isn't concerned about fire in general, it is concerned about fire following an accident (namely an undercarriage strike).
This is the NHTSA's Mission statement:
"Save lives, prevent injuries and reduce economic costs due to road traffic crashes, through education, research, safety standards and enforcement activity."
Tesla will probably exceed all with the exception of economic costs. I assume each of time there is a fire the car is totaled. But!!!! now that Elon has said fires are covered under warranty, it will not be a financial problem for anyone other than Tesla.
You can't have statistical significance with 2 or 3 cases. Please stop.
You can't have statistical significance with 2 or 3 cases. Please stop.
Ditto. At least 75 incidents would be required for statistical significance and even that would be marginal. 2 or 3 cases does not even approach statistical significance.
The mission of the NHTSA is to be concerned about passenger safety. Period. Fire, strike, etc only to extent it impacts passenger safety.
You hit the nail on the head, my friend. NHTSA's focus is on those areas. The vehicle's occupants were never at risk. In fact, in the last fire, the driver technically could have sat in his seat while the fire was still being put out. Now, the drunk Mexican guy is another story.
One of the Austin Gallery employees and I were talking the other day that Tesla should deny the Mexican guy to purchase another Model S. He's already proven he can't control his liquor or his car, why would Tesla give him another chance to do the same or worse???
I wanted to clarify my point about statistical signifcance, so here goes.
Another way to look at this is that, no matter what changes are made, the probability of a battery fire will never reach absolute zero. Lithium cells, like gasoline, are volatile. The point of mitigation is to reduce the odds to an acceptable level, and Tesla already achieved that when they designed the battery pack's internal safety systems. Let us not forget that during federal crash testing there was not so much as a puff of smoke out of the battery. Likewise, in numerous documented accidents involving the Model S, including some pretty serious head-on crashes, the battery was not involved. And most importantly, there have been no serious injuries thus far in any of these battery fire events—likely due to the fact that battery fires take a few minutes to get going. This fact makes it all the more ridiculous to make a statistical comparison to explosive gas car fires.