Ugh. Another Model S fire - 2013-11-06

[JRP3]

If it goes off of recent searches, who is the one looking for Single Asian Women?

Who isn't? :biggrin:
Back on topic, this is a fast moving thread so I'll again repeat what has been said previously, this is not about statistics, or driver behavior, or the actual safety of the Model S, it's about perception. Those suggesting improved driver behavior or training are simply way off the mark. It's not going to happen and it's not the answer. The Model S is under far more scrutiny than probably any other vehicle in history, with a large number of people actively hoping that it's going to fail. Add to that every person on the road has a camera with them at all times. I'm not buying into some of the conspiracy theories in the least, (though if it turns out John Petersen is driving around tossing tow hitches off a truck I would not be surprised), but the exposure these incidents are going to get is unprecedented. That means Tesla will have to go above and beyond what is reasonable, and that probably means some improved pack protection.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

Tesla needs to gather all of the data and will certainly issue a statement. While I understand the concerns being voiced by anyone, the reality is that the media frenzy (and stock market panic) is subsiding and there is no need to issue a statement until they have analyzed all of the information that they gather, decide whether there is anything more that a PR problem, and have made a decision on how to proceed.

The company is too smart to rush into a statement before they are ready to make one, and will certainly address the matter head on when they are ready to do so. Everyone take a deep breath and all will turn out okay.

While the people at the test drive events may be making sarcastic comments, they are still showing up. That is a good sign as those are the people that Tesla needs to be most concerned about....

Agreed.

I was hoping for a statement today, but I would rather they get the facts correct than rush and make a mistake. It is still not clear to me, based on the photos, that the main pack ignited after the collision with the tow hitch.

I am sure that the team at Tesla knows they have a PR problem that needs to be quickly addressed. Hopefully they will have enough info to release a statement next week.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

Of the two incidents involving metal object collisions, does anyone know if the Model Ses involved were equipped with air suspension, and if so, what their height setting was at the time of impact?

The air suspension Model S highway cruises at clearance of only 5.21", which is barely higher than a Subaru BRZ sport coupe. In contrast, standard suspension Model S highway cruises at 6.6", which is more tolerant than a current generation Honda Accord sedan (5.8").

 

[Shumdit]

Of the two incidents involving metal object collisions, does anyone know if the Model Ses involved were equipped with air suspension, and if so, what their height setting was at the time of impact?

The air suspension Model S highway cruises at clearance of only 5.21", which is barely higher than a Subaru BRZ sport coupe. In contrast, standard suspension Model S highway cruises at 6.6", which is more tolerant than a current generation Honda Accord sedan (5.8").

While its certainly possible it could be a factor, I think in case one it would have made no difference based on what I read about the circumstances. Case two is too soon to say, but it seems like what is happening here is not an impact from the front but rather a upward impact and I doubt that inch would necessarily make a difference.

 

[teslasguy]

So, now we have a law firm filing a class action suit. Pomerantz Law Firm Has Filed a Class Action Against Tesla Motors, Inc. and Certain Officers -- TSLA - Yahoo Finance

 

[birdsaresmarter]

So, now we have a law firm filing a class action suit. Pomerantz Law Firm Has Filed a Class Action Against Tesla Motors, Inc. and Certain Officers -- TSLA - Yahoo Finance

yes I think this was being discussed in one of the investor threads too

 

[FluxCap]

yes I think this was being discussed in one of the investor threads too

A Class Action Lawsuit AGAINST

This is a known "troll" law firm.

 

[birdsaresmarter]

A Class Action Lawsuit AGAINST

This is a known "troll" law firm.

yes some ppl have also been discussing viability of counter action and yes they are trolls..to me, like patent trolls

 

[Ocelot]

Who isn't? :biggrin:
Back on topic, this is a fast moving thread so I'll again repeat what has been said previously, this is not about statistics, or driver behavior, or the actual safety of the Model S, it's about perception. Those suggesting improved driver behavior or training are simply way off the mark. It's not going to happen and it's not the answer. The Model S is under far more scrutiny than probably any other vehicle in history, with a large number of people actively hoping that it's going to fail. Add to that every person on the road has a camera with them at all times. I'm not buying into some of the conspiracy theories in the least, (though if it turns out John Petersen is driving around tossing tow hitches off a truck I would not be surprised), but the exposure these incidents are going to get is unprecedented. That means Tesla will have to go above and beyond what is reasonable, and that probably means some improved pack protection.

Agreed on all accounts. Even if these incidents were " fluke" why not try to improve pack protection anyhow to decrease the amount of fluke accidents happening int the future. do it now...cause if it happens again, they might get forced into doing something, which will devalue the companies perception and potentially set ev adoption back years. The only counter argument would be money. But in the long run more money will be made by Tesla acting now.

 

[stopcrazypp]

yes some ppl have also been discussing viability of counter action and yes they are trolls..to me, like patent trolls

More like barratry, or colloquially "ambulance chasers", which is illegal in some states.

- - - Updated - - -

do it now...cause if it happens again, they might get forced into doing something

What if it happens again AFTER they do something. Because I don't think there's a viable solution that can prevent all metal debris punctures. You can reduce the risk, but not to zero (esp. given the ride height). I'll wait for the investigation (both Tesla and NHTSA). If NHTSA signs off and says there's no safety issue and it's a fluke, then I think that's the end of that (even if another fire happens).

 

[engle]

As far as I know, there have been zero car fires of this nature with the Leaf and Volt (someone correct me if I'm wrong.) There was one Leaf that burned to the ground in a forest fire, yet the battery still didn't ignite. So in the context of fires per mile driven, yes it is far more fires per mile driven in the model S, because there are far more miles driven in volts and leafs than in Model S's.

Comparing the Model S to a low performance, low range Leaf or a low performance also boring Volt is not valid IMHO. Model S is a high performance sports sedan that many owners drive *very* fast. "Spirited driving". I use a radar detector, and if I owned one, I'd be driving it at high speeds when no other vehicles are around me. After all, it's the safest car on the road according to crash test results. When people drive Model S' very fast, impacts with large road debris like a sharp tow hook are going to hit the bottom plate of the battery pack with significantly more force than somebody driving a Leaf 55-65 mph so they don't run out of charge. I'm also guessing the Model S with air suspension rides closer to the ground at speed than a Leaf or Volt?

You can't test for everything. NHTSA doesn't have a "drive at high speed over a tow hook" test! LOL! Tesla has many of the most brilliant engineers in the industry. I'm sure they will get to the root cause of these road debris incidents and either design an upgrade to better protect the battery pack from being breached, or make a change in production of future vehicles. Or maybe not since the probability of it happening to any vehicle is extremely low and the drivers always walk away? (And end up with a new Tesla S!)

I think it will be less likely these road objects will be able to pierce the Model X's battery pack because it has a higher ground clearance than S.

I think "fires" are dramatic and the media just loves to report on and sensationalize them to sell more advertising. The key takeaway is ALL the drivers walked away uninjured because Model S was designed to keep a battery pack fire out of the passenger compartment.

PS. I don't own a Model S, since I'm waiting for the Model X (P83) which has the versatility I need to replace my ML 350 Bluetec SUV. My 80 y/o mom from Southern NJ is also a shareholder. When the stock dipped to $135 on Friday she saw it as a buying opportunity and doubled her stake (her original cost basis ~$30). When she flies out for Thanksgiving, she's going to test drive an S. She told me on Friday, "I can buy it to replace my Town Car, and when I drive up to the Cape, I'll just rent a car." Of course I told her about the East Coast superchargers. She was very happy and is looking forward to her test drive at the factory store here in Fremont.

 

[Liz G]

A Class Action Lawsuit AGAINST
This is a known "troll" law firm.

Apparently, you needed to be able to see the future to get in on this lawsuit since it says "you have until January 7, 2013 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. "

 

[surfingslovak]

Comparing the Model S to a low performance, low range Leaf or a low performance also boring Volt is not valid IMHO

I think I can relate to what you mean. That said, this is not about driving fast in a sleek car, which hugs the road. This is about battery technology. I did not hesitate to defend Tesla against what appeared to be baseless sensationalism after the first incident in Kent, WA. Unfortunately, the numbers are starting to reveal that Tesla's battery technology might be at significantly greater risk of thermal events when compared to what the LEAF or the Volt are using.

There is only one Volt fire, which has been reported. In a vehicle that was crash tested and left stored against manufacturer recommendations for three weeks before the fire started. No fires have been reported for the LEAF anywhere. Between these two vehicles, they shipped probably ten times the volume of the Model S and have about ten times more fleet miles with no fire incident. There have been severe accidents involving LEAFs and Volts. One of the ActiveE drivers was involved in a very serious accident, which left the front battery deformed and with a gaping 8-inch hole from hitting a metallic object. The car did not catch fire. BMW uses a chemistry, which is similar to the Volt.

On the following graph the energy release from batteries with LiMn2O4 cathode is shown to be nearly as good as LiFePO4. Hope this helps. I unfortunately don't have much more time to entertain this discussion, but I hope that Tesla will find a way to defuse the situation and identify an appropriate remedy.

Click to open

If you were looking for more authoritative sources of information, Kim suggested the Chemical & Engineering News in his MNL post. A short search yielded the following article. It's worth noting that the LEAF uses a LiMn2O4 cathode and the Roadster used a LiCoO2 cathode. The Model S uses a LiNiCoAlO2 cathode.

Assessing The Safety Of Lithium-Ion Batteries | February 11, 2013 Issue - Vol. 91 Issue 6 | Chemical & Engineering News

Choosing a safe cathode is one key aspect of battery construction. LiCoO2 cathodes developed in the early 1990s made Li-ion batteries the commercial success they are today. Yet it is less stable than other cathode materials. At elevated temperatures, LiCoO2 liberates oxygen, which can react with organic cell components.

LiMn2O4 tolerates heat better than LiCoO2, but the manganese-based material's charge capacity is lower, and it too decomposes at high temperature. In contrast, LiFePO4 stands up especially well to thermal abuse due to the strength of phosphorus-oxygen bonds.

 

[bsd]

Between these two vehicles, they shipped probably ten times the volume of the Model S and have about ten times more fleet miles with no fire incident. There have been severe accidents involving LEAFs and Volts. One of the ActiveE drivers was involved in a very serious accident, which left the front battery deformed and with a gaping 8-inch hole from hitting a metallic object. The car did not catch fire. BMW uses a chemistry, which is similar to the Volt.

Prior to October there had been a number of horrific crashes (many documented here on TMC) involving Model S without any subsequent fire. One poster, in a thread about availability of parts, mentioned passing a car body shop in California with a number of Model S awaiting significant repairs. Neither of these two flaming road debris incidents involved collisions. From Musk's brief description on the Q3 conference call, I doubt any vehicle would have survived the Mexican incident.

For me, as an owner, these flaming batty incidents are *reassuring*. These incidents are worst-case scenarios and the car passed: the occupants were able to walk away. I feel better: after all, you never know when a freak accident is going to hit you.

 

[mrdoubleb]

As crazy as it sounds, Tesla releasing figures on the total number of Model S crashes so far could help. As the media only reports on fires, it may seem to some that every time a Tesla racshes it bursts into flames. Showing that the were, e.g. 300 crashes so far could put things into perspective.

 

[JRP3]

What if it happens again AFTER they do something. Because I don't think there's a viable solution that can prevent all metal debris punctures. You can reduce the risk, but not to zero (esp. given the ride height). I'll wait for the investigation (both Tesla and NHTSA). If NHTSA signs off and says there's no safety issue and it's a fluke, then I think that's the end of that (even if another fire happens).

No, if NHTSA signs off and says there is no safety issue and then there is another fire not only will Tesla be facing issues so will NHTSA, and they will indeed open another investigation and quite likely conclude that there is an issue.

 

[JST]

One thing I don't understand--assuming that there have not been significant pack fires in Leaves (which I take to be true from what others have said), is the difference chassis design or chemistry? Or both?

Put another way, if you deliberately pierced a Leaf pack with a piece of metal, would it burn? Or is the chemistry of the battery such that it would not?

 

[swaltner]

While I don't have references handy right now, from what I remember reading on mynissanleaf.com, the battery chemistry in the Nissan Leaf is much less susceptible to a thermal runaway event (fire) when the battery is shorted out (damaged in an accident).

 

[Zythryn]

No, if NHTSA signs off and says there is no safety issue and then there is another fire not only will Tesla be facing issues so will NHTSA, and they will indeed open another investigation and quite likely conclude that there is an issue.

I disagree. The NHTSA stating there is no safety issue is not the same as saying a catastrophic event will never happen.

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

One thing I don't understand--assuming that there have not been significant pack fires in Leaves (which I take to be true from what others have said), is the difference chassis design or chemistry? Or both?

Put another way, if you deliberately pierced a Leaf pack with a piece of metal, would it burn? Or is the chemistry of the battery such that it would not?

Probably both. The Leaf is smaller, slower, and has a different chassis.

There's a good chance it would burn if it was punctured, because it also has a flammable liquid electrolyte, but it probably wouldn't be as intense as Lithium batteries that contain cobalt in the cathode. See page 31 of the Leaf safety manual, and page 42 of the fmglobal pdf I've linked to.

http://www.evsafetytraining.org/~/media/Electric Vehicle/Files/2013NissanLEAFFRG 1st Rel.pdf

http://www.fmglobal.com/assets/pdf/P13037.pdf

This is in contrast to the LFP batteries in something like the Spark EV, that probably won't ignite or burn intensely.

Tesla is using a chemistry that has a flammable electrolyte and will release a lot more energy during combustion than some other chemistries, which is why they have a very sophisticated BMS that can isolate modules during a fire and can warn the driver to pull over a exit the vehicle. They also built a very large and powerful sedan, that may not have a low enough front subframe, a sufficiently recessed pack, or sufficient protection for the pack. Only time and/or an NHTSA investigation will determine whether or not Tesla needs to update the MS's module/body to reduce vehicle fires.