-
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
Uncle Paul
Well-Known Member
Here's a link to the picture on Twitter that is not square - https://twitter.com/nashvillain_/status/398189459860389888
The reason that doesn't make sense to me is that all 3 of these happened in the same month... If you calculate the probabilities, thats very unlikely if they were all independent of the P85+ configuration.
We have had air suspension being shipped since last year but no car has had issues till now so...
mitch672
Active Member
So let me get this straight, the "bears" got together, and staged 3 fires, to cause the stock to plummet, that's the theory?
sounds like a good movie, but probably not very likely, in reality. Would make a helluva movie though, maybe they can put that scene in the "Wolf of Wall Street"
So let me get this straight, the "bears" got together, and staged 3 fires, to cause the stock to plummet, that's the theory?
sounds like a good movie, but probably not very likely, in reality. Would make a helluva movie though, maybe they can put that scene in the "Wolf of Wall Street"
Thats not what I'm saying. I'm saying there is some sort of issue with the P85+ specifically, and those need to be recalled.
So let me get this straight, the "bears" got together, and staged 3 fires, to cause the stock to plummet, that's the theory?
sounds like a good movie, but probably not very likely, in reality. Would make a helluva movie though, maybe they can put that scene in the "Wolf of Wall Street"
I don't believe he was saying it is a conspiracy. I believe he was trying to find a common thread that may make a particular configuration more vulnerable to 'pole vaulting' battery injuries. The P85+ became available about VIN 10,000 so he is speculating it may be something to do with that configuration.
I pointed out 'maybe the air suspension'.
No conspiracy.
mitch672
Active Member
I don't think Tesla has released exactly what Model the first or second cars where, the second one could have been anything, the car was abused. Maybe they can release what model's the first and the most recent fires where, no one knows if they where P85+ or not.
steve841
Active Member
Ok I will toss in my speculation... Coolant leak.
My S had a coolant leak and it was made very clear NOT to drive the car.
If someone had a leak and ignored the warning to reach a destination, I'm sure it's possible a fire could result. But escaping the pack would seem to be difficult.
My S had a coolant leak and it was made very clear NOT to drive the car.
If someone had a leak and ignored the warning to reach a destination, I'm sure it's possible a fire could result. But escaping the pack would seem to be difficult.
Zzzz...
Member
Media is picking up. This one citing TMC as their source...
$TSLA Another Car on Fire? | Stock Option Traders Chat Room
$TSLA Another Car on Fire? | Stock Option Traders Chat Room
Last edited:
gg_got_a_tesla
Model S: VIN 65513, Model 3: VIN 1913
The Kent, WA car was a Signature (there's a mention of its three-digit VIN in Jerome's email to the owner). So, not P85+ for sure.
Bad "karma" a year after that other car suffered at the hands of a bad fan, Hurricane Sandy and so on.
Bad "karma" a year after that other car suffered at the hands of a bad fan, Hurricane Sandy and so on.
In all likelihood it was caused by driving over debris on the road again IMHO. Driving over debris causes a high probability of creating severe torque action on the flat bottom of a vehicle causing punctures.
This is the danger with having your energy source so close to the road surface. I think we are going to see Tesla making additional improvements to the shielding of their battery packs in the future.
This is the danger with having your energy source so close to the road surface. I think we are going to see Tesla making additional improvements to the shielding of their battery packs in the future.
Once was a fluke, the 2nd a crazy drunk guy, but 3 times in short order gets some serious skepticism to just saying it's just bad luck. From a public perception viewpoint, I'm not sure it'd even matter if it was bad luck and extreme coincidence.
I'm a Tesla fan and I'm having a hard time not having doubts about whether the packs are really any less likely to catch fire than an ICE. And if that's me, I can only wince as I consider how it's going to perceived by the market at large. People are going to ask me why these are happening and how it didn't catch fire in the NHTSA test and I have no answer this time around.
I'm a Tesla fan and I'm having a hard time not having doubts about whether the packs are really any less likely to catch fire than an ICE. And if that's me, I can only wince as I consider how it's going to perceived by the market at large. People are going to ask me why these are happening and how it didn't catch fire in the NHTSA test and I have no answer this time around.
Why do you keep saying this? Two of the three are not possibly P85+ cars based on the facts presented yet you have jumped to some crazy conclusion that the P85+ is the problem and needs to be recalled. I would ask that you retract your statement.
Here's an official statement from Tesla:
We have been in contact with the driver, who was not injured and believes the car saved his life. Our team is on its way to Tennessee to learn more about what happened. We will provide more information when we’re able to do so.
We have been in contact with the driver, who was not injured and believes the car saved his life. Our team is on its way to Tennessee to learn more about what happened. We will provide more information when we’re able to do so.
That indicates there was an accident of some sort or debris and not just a spontaneous event
Similar threads
- Question
