-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Ugh. Another Model S fire - 2013-11-06
- Thread starter tommolog
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Driving Dynamics fire Model S
Incredulocious
LEAF → RAV4EV → Model 3 → Model Y
I'm one of those that likes to leave a large following distance and I'm amused when I hear people say this, "but people will go in front of you!" Yeah? So? ;-) Yeah, it happens, people will sometimes go in front of me and I'll still drop back again. It doesn't really happen very often though (particularly if you're keeping up with the flow or moving faster than the other lanes) and the payoff is every time something happens or appears ahead, I usually have plenty of time, even with hard stops. It's particularly nice in situations like coming down I-80 from Tahoe in winter conditions. "Oh look at that, somebody's spinning out up ahead... this might get interesting..." ;-)
And I find I'll sometimes end up passing those folk trying so hard to "be in front" as they sit on somebody's bumper while I cruise by in a far right lane. Definitely a U.S. thing, or at least California thing, everybody migrates so hard to the left lane that the rightmost lane often opens up.
bareyb
Active Member
Thanks for that Video of the ICE vehicle being impaled. I'm saving that one to my favorites so I can post it every time someone thinks having a four inch thick slab between us and the road is more dangerous than the sheet metal floors in ICE cars. 
Last edited by a moderator:
All vehicles should have plating and deflecting mechanisms, as this video proves. Had a child been in the rear seat, he or she would have been seriously injured or killed. All manufactures should be required to have plating and active deflection mechanisms. Either that or the gov't needs to clean the roads we pay them to maintain.
roblab
Active Member
Here is an interesting take on the Model S fires: Tesla batteries haven Energy and Clean Tech
From what I can tell, the RAV4EV pack is also mounted on the underside of the vehicle, just as in the Model S. I wonder if Toyota will be doing its own investigation. The one thing the Model S definitely has over the RAV4 is looks. What an ugly vehicle. Does anyone know anything about the armor plating on the RAV4 (less, more, the same compared to MS)?
From what I can tell, the RAV4EV pack is also mounted on the underside of the vehicle, just as in the Model S. I wonder if Toyota will be doing its own investigation. The one thing the Model S definitely has over the RAV4 is looks. What an ugly vehicle. Does anyone know anything about the armor plating on the RAV4 (less, more, the same compared to MS)?
I think the final sentence in this article says it all...
"So what accounts for the difference? Perhaps it’s simply a question of more cars on the road equaling more accidents — and more fires. After all no car, whether powered by gasoline or electricity, is immune."
Personally i I couldn't agree more with this. At some point this much stored potential energy will want to catch fire - whether electric or gasoline - all that is required in either case is the right (or wrong..) trigger. There weren't any Model S fires until the number of vehicles and accidents got to be sufficient that the probability of a fire reached a realistic threshold.
But from my personal viewpoint, the biggest thing in favor of the Model S is the characteristic of the fire itself. These vehicles are not exploding. They are starting to smoke and then eventually catch fire several minutes after the triggering event, and also after the occupants have already left the vehicle which notified them that it was experiencing difficulties. No gasoline car has the ability to notify you that it has a problem that might lead to a fire (except for low coolant and/or overheating related fires) - for the simple reason that gasoline related dies do not occur in parts of the vehicle that are subject to computer monitoring. They are, by definition, an uncontrolled unmonitored total failure of the system. In the Model S (and any liIon battery system) the battery is constantly being monitored as a necessary function of the car. In the unlikely event of a thermal runaway occurring that the battery is no longer to control through cooling (because, for instance, it was punctured and there is no coolant remaining) the system is still aware of what is happening and thus notifications can happen. Also the design of the Model S battery is such that these fires have been contained within only a small percentage of the total battery - and the heat is intentionally vented to the side to avoid the passenger cabin.
Frankly I for one feel safer in my Model S than I have ever felt in any other car, period. And to know that a battery puncture fire is now a warranty and not an insurance issue is quite simply incredible.
"So what accounts for the difference? Perhaps it’s simply a question of more cars on the road equaling more accidents — and more fires. After all no car, whether powered by gasoline or electricity, is immune."
Personally i I couldn't agree more with this. At some point this much stored potential energy will want to catch fire - whether electric or gasoline - all that is required in either case is the right (or wrong..) trigger. There weren't any Model S fires until the number of vehicles and accidents got to be sufficient that the probability of a fire reached a realistic threshold.
But from my personal viewpoint, the biggest thing in favor of the Model S is the characteristic of the fire itself. These vehicles are not exploding. They are starting to smoke and then eventually catch fire several minutes after the triggering event, and also after the occupants have already left the vehicle which notified them that it was experiencing difficulties. No gasoline car has the ability to notify you that it has a problem that might lead to a fire (except for low coolant and/or overheating related fires) - for the simple reason that gasoline related dies do not occur in parts of the vehicle that are subject to computer monitoring. They are, by definition, an uncontrolled unmonitored total failure of the system. In the Model S (and any liIon battery system) the battery is constantly being monitored as a necessary function of the car. In the unlikely event of a thermal runaway occurring that the battery is no longer to control through cooling (because, for instance, it was punctured and there is no coolant remaining) the system is still aware of what is happening and thus notifications can happen. Also the design of the Model S battery is such that these fires have been contained within only a small percentage of the total battery - and the heat is intentionally vented to the side to avoid the passenger cabin.
Frankly I for one feel safer in my Model S than I have ever felt in any other car, period. And to know that a battery puncture fire is now a warranty and not an insurance issue is quite simply incredible.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
To some extent I agree. I would point out, however, that most newer ICE vehicles do have fuel monitoring and shutoff systems in place. In fact, that is one of the reasons that people have been saying that the Tesla should not be compared to older (more than 7-10 years) cars in terms of fire risk because new cars are not as prone to fire and substantially safer than previous generation cars. The other thing I find objectionable is the contention that ICE vehicles explode commonly. In fact they don't. They tend to just burn. They can explode, but so can Li-Ion. You have to build up a lot of gasoline fumes for there to be an explosion and that generally doesn't happen with cars. Remember that liquid gasoline isn't all that flammable. Only atomized or gas-phase gasoline burns well. It's a fine line. At any rate, I think that the biggest thing Tesla has going for it is a focus on safety and a car that, so far, has warned its passengers to get out and get away. That saved at least three lives, which is should be lauded. On the same note, Musk needs to be careful not to rely on those safety mechanisms entirely if there is more that can be done. He is also walking a fine line. Let's hope he doesn't step off on the wrong side.
- - - Updated - - -
Yeah, I thought that part was a bit oddly worded. I think what they are saying is that, given the debris involved, the difference would have been negligible. I'm really curious to see if Toyota, who has had some serious safety issues with its other cars, does anything in this case.
The other important points:
- the fire has been limited to the front of the vehicle
- there are photos and video evidence that the containment systems worked. Though I do wish somebody had been there to film Dr Bigtime getting back into the car and retrieving stuff from the glove box.
Note the fire yesterday that claimed actor Paul Walker and another in a Porsche. No other car involved.
From CNN: "Deputies arrived at the scene to find a vehicle on fire, he said. Once fire crews put the flames out, they found two occupants, both of whom were pronounced dead at the scene. Saturday evening, all that remained was the burnt mangled metal of the red car and a light pole that had been knocked down. The county coroner said that, given the condition of the bodies, it will take some time to definitively identify them.
It appears that they did not have time to get out before the flames overtook them.
You will also remember the recent fire of a limo carrying a Bridal Party in San Francisco. The Limo burst into flames, no accident involved. Bride and several members of the bridal party burned to death before they could get out the car door.
From CNN: "Deputies arrived at the scene to find a vehicle on fire, he said. Once fire crews put the flames out, they found two occupants, both of whom were pronounced dead at the scene. Saturday evening, all that remained was the burnt mangled metal of the red car and a light pole that had been knocked down. The county coroner said that, given the condition of the bodies, it will take some time to definitively identify them.
It appears that they did not have time to get out before the flames overtook them.
You will also remember the recent fire of a limo carrying a Bridal Party in San Francisco. The Limo burst into flames, no accident involved. Bride and several members of the bridal party burned to death before they could get out the car door.
I've been curious if Tesla or the NHTSA would comment on this at some point (60 vs. 85).
- - - Updated - - -
Channelling bonnie: Really? That's the only thing? Every other feature in the cars is in the "PRO" column for the RAV4 vs. the "CON" column for the Model S?
Holy cow. I need to go buy a RAV4. It must be absolutely fantastic.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
A reference to use for anyone thinking ICE's don't catch fire from road debris impacts:
http://seguingazette.com/news/article_b24f9222-b0fb-11e1-bdef-0019bb2963f4.html
http://seguingazette.com/news/article_b24f9222-b0fb-11e1-bdef-0019bb2963f4.html
Can't imagine anyone who thinks ICEs don't catch on fire from road debris. 4% of ICE fires are from debris collision. If you figure 160,000 car fires a year that works out to 6400 ICE fires from debris collision a year.
ColinM
Member
Passed a car fire on my way to work today. Haven't seen it on the news yet. Oh wait! It was a GM ICE car - so it's not newsworthy - no-one is interested in an everyday occurrence. I'll stop holding my breath. ;-)
Had a somewhat heated discussion in our local Tesla store last night with a guy who claimed to have withdrawn his deposit after the first fire. I told him "good luck buying a car
that doesn't have the potential to burn". He seemed up to date about the fires but not that there were no injuries or that the fires weren't spontaneous.
Methinks you have something there:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leilani-munter/its-on-oil-vs-electric_b_4423011.html
bareyb
Active Member
Similar threads
- Question
