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

[BillHamp]

Not even close to equal amounts, negative articles on SA alone are probably 5 to 1. Plus the negative press is usually fact free FUD while the positives are actual interactions with the car.

I never said they were equal, but that the publicity was embellished both on the positive and negative sides of the spectrum. As I pointed out, that isn't my original analysis. Those words come from Musk himself. He uttered them (I paraphrased what he said) after the factory incident where the workers were burned. His point is valid.

As to whether the positive articles are more factual than the negative, you would have to do an analysis to figure that out. I doubt that the negative articles are less factual given Elon's hair trigger on slander suits. My guess is that the facts are pretty straight all around, with minor errors and omissions common to all journalism (sad, but true).

We should keep in mind that the media has not obligation to report the way we deem appropriate. It is an entertainment industry and always has been. They'll report the news that sells and news about Tesla, good or bad, sells. In the end, most of the reporting works out well for the company. Some of it will be damaging, but there doesn't seem to be a concerted effort to smear the company or any "revenge-type" news. It's just the news that sells, so the media is all over it.

 

[JRP3]

I suspect I've been following Tesla and EV's longer and more acutely than you have, and I can assure you the negative FUD has always outweighed the positive. Optimism about future potential is not the same type of misinformation as factual errors about known technologies and events.

 

[FluxCap]

there doesn't seem to be a concerted effort to smear the company

There are many ways to tarnish a competitor's brand, and there are firms that can be hired to engage all manner of efforts to do just that, just as there are firms that can be hired to "embellish" a company's brand. I believe that to pretend there is no group of interested parties anywhere on this planet that is undertaking a concerted effort to discredit Tesla Motors is to be extremely naive, or deliberately misleading. Even paid forum shilling is a thing.

Also, BillHamp we never managed be properly introduced. Are you an investor in Tesla Motors stock or options, and/or considering a Tesla Motors product purchase?

 

[Room_A113]

Edmunds has a good write-up speculating on the type of hitch that the Tennessee Model S driver may have hit. The writer is definitely not anti-Tesla. One of his lines: "To his point about the impact itself, the Tesla Model S's underfloor battery box represents a 4-inch thick barrier that prevents objects like this from piercing the cabin. That's no bad thing from a direct-injury point of view."

http://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-...is-this-the-sort-of-trailer-hitch-he-hit.html

 

[BillHamp]

I suspect I've been following Tesla and EV's longer and more acutely than you have, and I can assure you the negative FUD has always outweighed the positive. Optimism about future potential is not the same type of misinformation as factual errors about known technologies and events.

You assurances aside, I would like to see some compiled evidence rather than an opinion, no matter how informed it may be. We're all subject to bias, so opinion cannot substitute for fact. As I said, I was simply relaying what Elon Musk himself said. I think Tesla gets a great deal of positive and negative press, but which is greater would have to be compiled and evaluated statistically. I don't think either of us has the time to do that, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

- - - Updated - - -

There are many ways to tarnish a competitor's brand, and there are firms that can be hired to engage all manner of efforts to do just that, just as there are firms that can be hired to "embellish" a company's brand. I believe that to pretend there is no group of interested parties anywhere on this planet that is undertaking a concerted effort to discredit Tesla Motors is to be extremely naive, or deliberately misleading. Even paid forum shilling is a thing.

Also, BillHamp we never managed be properly introduced. Are you an investor in Tesla Motors stock or options, and/or considering a Tesla Motors product purchase?

Hi FluxCap,

I'll answer the second question first. I am not interested in the Model S, it is too big for my tastes. I am interested in the Model X, and am patiently waiting on it. No, I do not invest in Tesla stock.

Now to the first. I agree, there are lots of ways to tarnesh a competitor's brand. However, there is no obvious concerted effort in the media or elsewhere to smear Tesla. If you want to make that argument and expect me to give it credence, then I'd like to see some evidence or support for it. I'm sure there are loads of people who would like to see Tesla fail, but the idea that they all got together to create fires in accidents and embellish the reporting of said accidents is a strethc. Anyway, they don't need to do that. The media loves to report on Tesla (good or bad), so the company will get press not matter what.

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting article. I wonder why he felt the need to speculate on the type of hitch. Given the variety of them out there, it seems like a hopeless endeavor without more information.

 

[JRP3]

You assurances aside, I would like to see some compiled evidence rather than an opinion, no matter how informed it may be. We're all subject to bias, so opinion cannot substitute for fact. As I said, I was simply relaying what Elon Musk himself said. I think Tesla gets a great deal of positive and negative press, but which is greater would have to be compiled and evaluated statistically. I don't think either of us has the time to do that, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'm not arguing that Tesla does not get a lot of good press, I'm arguing that it is mostly accurate and deserved, while much of the negative is not. If you want examples simply start reading all the Tesla articles on Seeking Alpha. Anyone can sign up and submit articles, they are overwhelmingly negative, and most of the negativity is based on false information. This is not opinion since facts can be checked and verified, which is exactly what many of us have been doing.

- - - Updated - - -

Hi FluxCap,

I'll answer the second question first. I am not interested in the Model S, it is too big for my tastes. I am interested in the Model X, and am patiently waiting on it. No, I do not invest in Tesla stock.

The S it too big but you want the larger Model X?

 

[BillHamp]

I'm not arguing that Tesla does not get a lot of good press, I'm arguing that it is mostly accurate and deserved, while much of the negative is not. If you want examples simply start reading all the Tesla articles on Seeking Alpha. Anyone can sign up and submit articles, they are overwhelmingly negative, and most of the negativity is based on false information. This is not opinion since facts can be checked and verified, which is exactly what many of us have been doing.

- - - Updated - - -



The S it too big but you want the larger Model X?

I meant for a sedan. My cars are a small sedan for simple trips and small things along with a larger SUV for hauling larger things (do a lot of projects with lumber, plants, etc.). I rarely drive it though and certainly not for daily activities. So I would way a small electric car (Leaf Size) and a larger, utility vehicle for hauling. It wouldn't be an everyday use thing, it would be more like once a week or a few times per month.

As I said, we'll just have to disagree on the positive/negative thing. I'm not interested in arguing with you about it as you aren't interested in providing a statistical analysis of all articles written on Tesla and neither am I. You've formed your opinion and that's fine. I'm holding off judgement, saying you could be right or wrong depending on the evidence. As I'm not all that invested in the answer, I don't intend to the compile the evidence myself, but would look at it is some else did. Fair enough?

 

[ABVA]

Not exactly--it had a manufacturing defect that led to a heightened fire risk, which led to its recall. The same is true of any number of other cars out there.

There's no indication that the Tesla has any sort of manufacturing defect. The argument, to the extent that I have seen it articulated, is that it is a design defect that leads to increased fire risk, but when it comes to a car using an entirely new technology, judging what "increased" means is tricky. What is your baseline?

Is it ICE cars? That hardly seems fair, since of course the Tesla is going to have different vulnerabilities from a car using an entirely different method of propulsion. I can wave a match around the refueling port of the Tesla all day and not have any problem. I would not try that with my Golf.

Is it different battery chemistry, i.e., is it a "defect" if it turns out that Tesla's choice of battery chemistry is more prone to fire than a Leaf or Volt? That also does not make sense. Gasoline powered cars are much more prone to explosions than diesel powered cars, just because of the nature of the fuel. Does that mean a gas powered car is "defective"?

These are all difficult and thorny questions, and I have no doubt that NHTSA will consider them. But it is WAY too early to be characterizing the Tesla as defective based on the evidence that is available to the public.

Do agree with you whole heartedly. You have so appropriately identified analytical “Comparison Points”. i.e. What is the Data Set?
Is it EV to EV comparison? OR is it EV to “Plug-in Range Extending” Vehicles? (IMHO these are still Hybrids), OR is it EV to Hybrid Comparison? OR Is it EV to all Cars comparison? So the choice becomes upon who/which group is providing the analysis (Media, Owners, Wannabe Owners, Detroit, Oil industry, Lobbyists -----, and the list goes on). Need to also analyze the vested interests of these various groups.
We are the land of invention and innovation. TESLA/Ellon Musk is continuing to prove that innovative spirit. At the end of the day I very strongly believe that NHTSA/TESLA/MUSK will deliver.

 

[rogbmw]

Thoughts on Possible Tesla Fires

After seeing how the press has reacted to the 3 tesla fires, I started to “speculate” on why they have seemed to look dramatic, but in actuality occur after an accident, after the car tells the driver to pull over and stop the car, and all have ultimately protected the passengers. As we all have seen in the recent photographs, is seems the three fires have involved the front of the car. Plus, it has been noticed after a period of time, and probably caused by a punctured cell in the battery.

Here is my possible theory for why the fires have looked the way they did: As we know, we do not have a motor up front. If one looks at the front of the car without the Fronk in place, it has various mechanical items, most of which are not really flammable. So, why do we have the pictures of the front end burning….I theorize that a small hot fire from the battery ignites the plastic tub that makes up the Fronk. As we know, it takes time for plastic to start burning, and a plastic piece the size of the Fronk’s can produce a pretty good blaze (remember what a burning tire looks like).

BUT…and here is what I think is the important part – it does not immediately burst into flames! It takes a while for plastic to combust into what we have seen on the front of the three Tesla’s.

So…ultimately I think what we have seen in these three cases is the burning of the fronk’s plastic liner which has produced the dramatic footage. Remember, in all the crash tests there was no fire.

I drive my Model S every day – it is my daily driver. And I have never felt safer for me and my family!

Just my thoughts….

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Interesting idea! If such was the case the issue could we solved by changing the plastic tub with a non-flammabable tub. I think that Tesla engineers could check this thesis.

 

[trils0n]

I thought the battery pack was designed to vent the flames to the front of the car to avoid fire entering the cabin to protect the occupants.

 

[eepic]

I thought the battery pack was designed to vent the flames to the front of the car to avoid fire entering the cabin to protect the occupants.

this.

Most things you can build the frunk contents with are going to be flammable. So far the fires have actually shown the mechanism to vent the fire to the front works quite well. I hope NHTSA comes out with a statement supporting Tesla's safety claims.

 

[rogbmw]

I thought the battery pack was designed to vent the flames to the front of the car to avoid fire entering the cabin to protect the occupants.

That I don't know about. I was just speculating on why the fires "looked" dramatic, but in fact did not start like that at the time of the accident from all reports. Plus, if you have had the opportunity to see the production line pictures of the underbody before the battery is attached, it looks like the passenger compartment is pretty much sealed from the battery. Again...just my 2 cents worth.

 

[NigelM]

Mod Note: some posts went here - Discussion-of-statistical-analysis-of-vehicle-fires-as-it-relates-to-Model-S

 

[BillHamp]

The passenger compartment is pretty much sealed from the battery. Such a design is common with all electric vehicles because it allows the drive train/most "operating" components to be separate from the aesthetic components. This makes for easy platform sharing, reduced costs, etc.

 

[brianman]

The passenger compartment is pretty much sealed from the battery. Such a design is common with all electric vehicles because it allows the drive train/most "operating" components to be separate from the aesthetic components. This makes for easy platform sharing, reduced costs, etc.

You know this for certain? I know, for example, that some EV conversions that I've seen in person don't do anything of the sort.

 

[JRP3]

As someone who has done EV conversions you can't compare what we may do to what OEM's do.

 

[BillHamp]

Yes, on most EV designs, which is very few to begin with, the passenger compartment is separate from the drive train. That is not to say all, but any means. You are speaking about EV conversions, not designed from the ground up cars. I should have been clearer about that particular point.

 

[ABVA]

After seeing how the press has reacted to the 3 tesla fires, I started to “speculate” on why they have seemed to look dramatic, but in actuality occur after an accident, after the car tells the driver to pull over and stop the car, and all have ultimately protected the passengers. As we all have seen in the recent photographs, is seems the three fires have involved the front of the car. Plus, it has been noticed after a period of time, and probably caused by a punctured cell in the battery.

Here is my possible theory for why the fires have looked the way they did: As we know, we do not have a motor up front. If one looks at the front of the car without the Fronk in place, it has various mechanical items, most of which are not really flammable. So, why do we have the pictures of the front end burning….I theorize that a small hot fire from the battery ignites the plastic tub that makes up the Fronk. As we know, it takes time for plastic to start burning, and a plastic piece the size of the Fronk’s can produce a pretty good blaze (remember what a burning tire looks like).

BUT…and here is what I think is the important part – it does not immediately burst into flames! It takes a while for plastic to combust into what we have seen on the front of the three Tesla’s.

So…ultimately I think what we have seen in these three cases is the burning of the fronk’s plastic liner which has produced the dramatic footage. Remember, in all the crash tests there was no fire.

I drive my Model S every day – it is my daily driver. And I have never felt safer for me and my family!

Just my thoughts….

Very well said. IMHO we need to think about, why is the media emphasizing/magnifying the fires alone? And not the safety warnings and the fact that every time occupants walked away without a scratch. Are cars more important than human lives? My cars are not. So why this tilted emphasis on fire alone. Fact so far is that in case of TESLA fires 100% of occupants were able to walk away without any serious injury.
There is a car fire every 96 seconds in the United States. Is there any other Auto Maker on the face of this earth that can lay claim to occupant safety 100% of the times in case of fire? If there is one, I would appreciate the reference.

 

[JRP3]

So why this tilted emphasis on fire alone.

Fear sells. EV's are new technology, so that creates fear, EV's are potentially going to completely change the way we drive and the entire automotive and energy industry, so that creates fear, and Tesla has created the most disruptive example of all those changes and shown the way to truly successful EV's, which creates even more fear. The entire anti-EV movement has been built on fear of change.