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

[lorih]

... the real issue could be the speed at which the Tesla driver is going when he hits the debris. My guess is Tesla drivers are moving a lot faster than a guy in a Leaf or a Volt. Makes it both harder to avoid the debris and causes more damage when you hit it...

Yes. It doesn't seem fair to compare a Leaf to Model S for driving practice. Leaf is by nature a city car (max range 75 miles, max speed 90 MPH). Very few even make it to the highway, most stay local, and I doubt they are being driven close to their top speed (battery range and handling alone would limit that).

I would venture to guess that many Model S owners regularly drive further than 70 miles in one leg, at speeds around 85-100 MPH (which is not even top Model S speed).

 

[stopcrazypp]

Why do LEAFs and Volts survive similar collisions?

Have there been any reported incidents of "similar collisions" (metal debris on undercarriage and a high speed crash through a wall and tree)? The Tesla has also been involved in many car accidents with no fire.

 

[PeterJA]

Anything protruding down will reduce curb clearance. Fact of the matter is you really can't build downward at all below the current bottom surface of the car.

You can if the deflector pops down only when a sensor sees debris ahead, or only at highway speed like the NASCAR scoop idea.

 

[Jeff N]

AFAIK the Volt uses plastic for its battery casing

The Volt's battery tray, the bottom portion which faces the road on an installed battery, is made of steel. The Volt uses a lot of high and ultra-high strength steel (80% of the frame) but I'm not sure what kind of steel is used in the tray or how thick it is. The sides and top of the pack are surrounded by a fiberglass-reinforced thermoplastic cover but this is not exposed to the bottom of the car. The plastic cover separates and protects the cells from the sides of the steel tunnel that the battery is mounted within.

 

[stopcrazypp]

It's invalid because you're comparing a car with at most 1 year of data to an entire history of cars of all ages.

That's only invalid if there's a lot of vehicle age related fires. But anyways, given the only reliable data available looks at cars of all ages, it's not like we have to data to make claims either way.

 

[smartypnz]

My insurance guys says that

$100,000 to replace car is nothing - especially when compared to payouts for injuries (hospital, etc) or deaths.
This Tesla stuff is a mere blip. Should and will cause no difference in ratings.

 

[heems]

Based on what I have seen from Elon he's very data/engineering driven. They'll probably enhance the shielding, but also stage an environment where ballistic projectiles (from borrowed SpaceX parts?) are fired at the battery pack from every which way. The results along with logs (with lots of engineering terms like vector, force, angle of impact, etc.) are the put up on youtube or blogged out. Then all will be good again .... and you can continue driving a Model S and feel like a million bucks if you already have one, or continue wishing you had one so you could feel like a million bucks.

 

[manitou820]

Yes. It doesn't seem fair to compare a Leaf to Model S for driving practice. Leaf is by nature a city car (max range 75 miles, max speed 90 MPH). Very few even make it to the highway, most stay local, and I doubt they are being driven close to their top speed (battery range and handling alone would limit that).

I would venture to guess that many Model S owners regularly drive further than 70 miles in one leg, at speeds around 85-100 MPH (which is not even top Model S speed).

We can argue all day about the driving habits of the different cars, but so far Tesla has 3 fires that has occurred in the past 2 months. I'm very confident the Model S is an extremely safe car, and probably one of the safest of the road.

Is there a higher risk of fires? Who knows, and even if there is, it's still probably safer overall compared to most vehicles. I've driven several hundred thousand miles in my life and I have never hit a large metal object on the road. Seems like a pretty low risk.

However, Tesla needs to work on some sort of fix to show they are addressing the issue. Just like GM did with the Volt. Even if it's somewhat of a bullshit fix, it needs to be done. If the NHTSA forces a recall, it will be a huge deal. If Tesla, issues a voluntary recall to "fix" the car, then it will calm everyone down.

 

[1051]

Article from Yahoo's home page:

Third Tesla Model S fire raises fresh questions, NHTSA query
"The biggest concern to Tesla owners would be that they need a new vehicle."

http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/null/third-tesla-model-fire-crash-raises-fresh-questions-164339075.html

 

[bigsmooth125]

Whether intended or not, posts like this have racist undertones, just as the referenced viral youtube videos do.

 

[MilosK]

We could say the same thing regarding your response. Note that Elon was comparing across all ICE cars. Were you to limit the comparison to ICE cars a year older or newer, I think you'd get a much different picture. That is to say, fires are more likely in older icars than new ones.

If you're going to quote me, please do so accurately. You totally edited out the middle of my post where I specifically addressed your point and said:


" (It could get really complicated as you could just compare fire rates for cars with a certain ground clearance etc. It all depends on what question you're asking.)"


so sure - you could compare whatever you want, older vs newer if you like.

I don't understand how you could take the first sentence of my post and join it to the end making it look like that's all I said. And specifically cut out the point you're criticizing my post for! (You can tell where you cut sort of, because it goes from italics to regular font)

 

[efusco]

I remember when the Concorde was brought down by debris on the runway, and the debris penetrated the fuel tank while the Concorde was taking off, the solution figured out was to protect the fuel tank with Kelvlar.
Kevlar is bulletproof and such a solution would add to the cost. Looking at the price of about $17 per meter (ihttp://www.alibaba.com/showroom/kevlar-price.html) it would cost less than $100 per car. I think that looking at the overall cost of a MS that is a doable solution.

With the first fire this was my thought too, you've got the hard metal, but you need something more flexible as well, and perhaps a 3rd protective layer that is energy absorbing.

 

[stopcrazypp]

However, Tesla needs to work on some sort of fix to show they are addressing the issue. Just like GM did with the Volt. Even if it's somewhat of a bullshit fix, it needs to be done. If the NHTSA forces a recall, it will be a huge deal. If Tesla, issues a voluntary recall to "fix" the car, then it will calm everyone down.

If there was no real problem, NHTSA will not be forcing a recall. NHTSA asked about the first accident, but decided it was not worthy to investigate. If Tesla offers a "fix" it'll only be for PR purposes.

 

[RobotGrease]

Looks like an investigation is likely:

http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/null/third-tesla-model-fire-crash-raises-fresh-questions-164339075.html

"NHTSA said Thursday it would get in touch with crash investigators in Tennesse to see whether it needs to take any additional steps. Ditlow says the data so far suggest NHTSA should open a formal probe — but that the Tesla fires don't pose the danger usually associated with a vehicle accident."


Interesting quote:

"The good news is it's not a crash where you're knocked senseless or can't get out," said Ditlow. "The potential for death or injury is relatively low in these vehicles. The fires are of a nature where you have enough warning to get off the road.
"The biggest concern to Tesla owners would be that they need a new vehicle."

 

[Gizmotoy]

That's only invalid if there's a lot of vehicle age related fires. But anyways, given the only reliable data available looks at cars of all ages, it's not like we have to data to make claims either way.

It seems impossible for there not to be. Safety systems in vehicles are under constant improvement. Gas tanks alone have several anti-fire safety features today that they didn't have in the 70s and 80s, and those old vehicles will all be included in overall population stats. Modern vehicles have fuel shut-off valves that automatically halt the flow of gas when an accident is detected. Some use bladders in the fuel tanks to reduce the chance that a tank puncture would spill gas. Others cut off electricity to all non-essential systems to decrease the chance of a spark.

It's hard for me agree that age has no bearing on fire safety when there have been so many advancements, and given general automotive safety has increased dramatically over the same period.

 

[stopcrazypp]

It seems impossible for there not to be

There is probably some contribution, but it's hard to tell how significant it is without real data. Also older cars like cars from the 70s and 80s are likely only a very small proportion of the overall statistics and miles. When you get to the 90s and 00s, then the gap in safety equipment is going to be much, much less (and it's a distribution that's probably skewed toward newer cars as people switch their cars out, esp. with Cash for Clunkers's impact on the used car market).

 

[Gizmotoy]

If you're going to quote me, please do so accurately. You totally edited out the middle of my post where I specifically addressed your point and said:
" (It could get really complicated as you could just compare fire rates for cars with a certain ground clearance etc. It all depends on what question you're asking.)"
so sure - you could compare whatever you want, older vs newer if you like.
I don't understand how you could take the first sentence of my post and join it to the end making it look like that's all I said. And specifically cut out the point you're criticizing my post for! (You can tell where you cut sort of, because it goes from italics to regular font)

It was italicized for emphasis, and placed next to the later part of your quote where you did the exact same thing you had just criticized another member for. So you're correct, it was on purpose. I'm not sure how any of the middle section is relevant given the above, as I was merely pointing out that you were quick to judge, but I'll quote you in full in the future. I apologize if I've offended you.

 

[sullitf]

Well, yeah. But let's compare apples to apples. Have you priced the engine on a Panamera S recently? Or an Audi S7? Neither have I, but I'm going to guess that it rivals the cost of a Model S battery.

Sorry a little late to reply, threads grow fast here!

I think there's an important distinction here. I 100% agree that an engine in a Panamera, S7, or similar could cost as much or more than a Model S battery, but the question is how likely is it that road a specific scenario would require a new engine vs. a new battery pack? I can guarantee you that replacing the oil pan on an S7 or Panamera is cheaper than replacing a Model S's battery pack, and that's assuming the damaged battery pack does not impact the rest of the vehicle.

In the case of road debris, could running over a hitch do enough damage to a Panamera's engine that it would need to be completely replaced? I expect not but if yes, the damage would also likely result in a fire (warm engine block/exhaust + catastrophic damage likely leads to a gas fire). Either way you'd be totaling out the car, but how often does an ICE drive over debris and catch fire because of it? I don't want to begin trying to speculate on odds or probabilities, but suffice it to say Teslas are drastically outnumbered by ICEs on the road and yet it isn't a common occurrence for road debris to set a vehicle on fire. Teslas are currently getting much more media attention for every issue (or non-issue), but have you ever heard of an ICE catching fire due to running over road debris?


The way I see it there is a big distinction between vehicle safety and cost of repair after the vehicle has to protect its occupants. I have no doubt that the Model S is one of the safest cars on the road, and its been proven both by crash tests and (unfortunately) real-world accidents/fires. If I could afford it I would absolutely trust a Model S with my and my wife's lives. However the potential financial cost of an accident is separate to the safety. The car may be safer but what is the average cost of repair after an accident? And are there scenarios that result in accidents for one type of car but not another (ex: is an ICE likely to sustain enough damage from road debris to file it on insurance)?

 

[Gizmotoy]

There is probably some contribution, but it's hard to tell how significant it is without real data. Also older cars like cars from the 70s and 80s are likely only a very small proportion of the overall statistics and miles. When you get to the 90s and 00s, then the gap in safety equipment is going to be much, much less (and it's a distribution that's probably skewed toward newer cars as people switch their cars out, esp. with Cash for Clunkers's impact on the used car market).

Certainly I agree. I, too, wish we had real data.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I don't want to begin trying to speculate on odds or probabilities, but suffice it to say Teslas are drastically outnumbered by ICEs on the road and yet it isn't a common occurrence for road debris to set a vehicle on fire.

It's not commonly reported. We don't know if it is a common occurrence without the statistics (I believe in the first fire, people tried to come up with statistics on this but didn't succeed). The number to compare would be 2 out of 100 million miles (for the Tesla Model S).