Some thoughts on the Tesla Model S fire saga

"DCCARGEEK" (dccargeek) 11/10/2013 at 12:49 • Filed to: Tesla, EV

11

92

What happens when you take a 4,000lb man-made container filled with potential energy, propel it at 110 feet-per-second and put Earth’s biggest fool, man, in the driver’s seat? Disaster. One way or another, this always ends in some form of disaster.

The objective of regulatory safety standards is to reduce the risk of injury and death. In other words prevent disaster.

To date, there appear to be three incidents involving a Model S fire. All three incidents involved some form of accident meaning that none of the cars decided to fireball while sitting parked.

Two of the accidents share striking (pun intended) similarities: striking large pieces of metallic road debris at highway speed. In none of these accidents were injuries reported. And as !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , buyers seem overjoyed to get back into one of Musk's luxury EVs.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

The media, and special interests groups, appear to have concluded two things:

1. NHTSA needs to investigate the Tesla Model S fires

2. Tesla’s stock is sinking because of said fires

A Hot Investment

Tesla has won over buyers and investors. Owners love Tesla’s products and investors their stock.

I’ll quickly take up the stock topic as I’m oblivious on the notion of how business works, let alone speculative investing. My venture know-how is limited to a $500 day-trading game I played in college.

I have no idea what non-GAAP net income or convertible debt is, but looking at this historical graph of Tesla’s stock price, I find myself asking how a hockey stick curve such as this can be sustainable for such a young and untested company.

Is Tesla’s stock slipping because fires are making investors wary of the product safety or has the fire burned off the glittery sparkle leaving less-attractive things like long term cash flows and losses? Are the flames a finger-snap back to reality for those tanked-up on Tony Spark-iritas? Maybe the stock is self-correcting and isn’t a direct result of three fires. Then again where is the fun and link bait in an article titled, “Tesla’s stock self corrects after period of market speculation.”

Safety & NHTSA

As most of you know, and has been reported, the Model S went through all the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! that every other automaker is required to participate in and scored very well (amazing, spectacular, better-than-any-other-car-EVER, etc.).

Those tests (see above) include various barrier impact tests and a rollover (car-on-a-rotisserie) examination.

After an EV has gone through the impact tests that simulate typical road-going accidents it is required to adhere to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .

“FMVSS No. 305 specifies performance requirements for limitation of electrolyte spillage, retention of propulsion batteries, and electrical isolation of the chassis from the high-voltage system during the crash event. This standard applies to vehicles that use electricity as propulsion power.”

This is where things get interesting.

As far as I can tell NHTSA doesn't have a "large piece of metal in the road " testing requirement. The standard for battery survival is based on the battery's condition after the tests administered to every light duty vehicle (described above).

As you can see from the pictures above, the armor plating that protects the Model S’ battery packs was barely impacted by traditional impact testing. The report also indicated there was no battery leakage.

But the armor plating isn’t tested against direct impact. The car isn't flipped over and stabbed with a metal pipe moving at highway speed. While the fire in both cases was likely caused by thermal runaway, a chemical reaction in a battery leading to fire, the catalyst for that runaway could have been a short circuit. Meaning the batteries aren't to blame, but rather the vulnerability of the armor protecting them.

That raises the question - should there be a standard for hazardous debris and floorboard protrusion in EVs? If the fuel source has moved from the rear of the vehicle to beneath the vehicle should the government consider a new stress test that focuses on direct impact of the underbody?

NOTE: I couldn’t find any testing or standard that addresses underbody or hazardous road debris.

Controlling thermal runaway is good, preventing it is better.

While doing a bit of research last night I came across a !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! filed in March and published November, 5 by Tesla regarding the subject of batteries and thermal runaway.

The patent titled, “"Hazard Mitigation within a Battery Pack Using Metal Air Cells,” deals with how to expend the buildup of gas in a thermal runaway to lower “the risk of collateral damage.”

What the patent doesn’t speak to is the penetration vulnerabilities of the armor plate protecting the batteries. Ensuring the batteries can vent during a thermal runaway is good, but preventing a thermal incident, say a short circuit caused by a trailer hitch would be an evenwiser investment.

Seeing that the plate that protects the battery is an easily accessible component and wouldn’t likely require a large investment to re-engineer or strengthen, I imagine Tesla is exploring options to upgrade, reinforce or redesign the armor to withstand a stronger direct impact.

Another thing to consider is that any change to the batter plate might also impact the planned battery-swapping option.

What does this mean for Tesla, EVs, America? (OK, maybe not America)

If Tesla addresses the issue head on, or at the least publicly states their case why this isn’t an issue, they’ll get through this without too much pain.

With new technology comes new issues (i.e. could ride height from the first performance EV contributed to a risk in hitting things on the road? ).

While I encourage the regulatory body to follow these issues, I hope they’ll be cautious to ensure that any action they take isn't seen as an unfounded risk.

If there is a risk associated with having a fuel source under a vehicle, perhaps NHTSA should consider a hazardous debris tests for EVs?

Until we have more information, we can conclude that Tesla's are safe, the company's stock is (likely) overvalued and NHTSA will, eventually, do something.

Victorious Secret > DCCARGEEK 11/10/2013 at 12:58

16

As much as the NHTSA needs to up their testing game, we have to keep in mind that the fires occurred in such a manner that allows the occupants to GTFO with plenty of warning. That in and of itself is pretty exceptional.

I can see Tesla installing a dry chemical extinguisher system going forward and slapping on a slab of exotic metal to help the situation down under.

Tim (Fractal Footwork) > DCCARGEEK 11/10/2013 at 13:24

0

Its definitely a problem that needs to be fixed.

The way its going right now though, the market should fix the problem. Looking at all the bad press Tesla is getting in light of these fires, for the small investment they take to fix this, they should get more sales from their buyer's perception of increased safety compared to what it is now.

But I do believe the NHTSA should look at a regulation to fix this problem as well, because if it happened to one manufacturer, it will happen to another; perhaps a Chinese company that doesn't care about its reputation.

Tom McParland > DCCARGEEK 11/10/2013 at 13:40

1

Excellent analysis Juan!

Galant Enthusiast > Victorious Secret 11/10/2013 at 13:41

0

The occupants were safe but there was still the issue of a flaming car on the side of the road. That brings with it all sorts of issues.

Galant Enthusiast > DCCARGEEK 11/10/2013 at 13:45

0

If its just the plate breaking that really shouldn't be that hard to fix. I feel like admitting its an issue and having a recall might turn out well for them.

DCCARGEEK > Victorious Secret 11/10/2013 at 13:49

2

Yes, the fact people weren't injured and these were slow moving thermal runaway fired and not sudden massive balls of fire is key. The patent seems very focused on keeping thermal events limited to one cell if possible. But again, when a piece of debris (speculating here) busts through 2-3 cell firewalls it sort of negates any safety measures you engineered into the design. I doubt these cells were designed with direct puncture in mind as opposed to NHTSA side barrier (I.e real world) impacts.

rabbitman > Tim (Fractal Footwork) 11/10/2013 at 13:50

5

I would say this is better then the occupants getting impaled by the pieces of metal these things hit. I would also say if this was a normal vehicle that hit something like this that could puncture those cells would of most likely went into the cabin of a regular vehicle and impale the occupants.

Yup said it twice to be clear, the Tesla saved lives.

Like this

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2012/…

The vehicles also like VS said warned the occupants to pull over and get out. It is not a problem that needs to be investigated. It was mitigated and no one has been hurt. Maybe they need to take a look at the vehicles that had unsafe loads and dropped the things that punctured the vehicles first before, they go after a company for something that is not their fault.

DetroitMuscle > DCCARGEEK 11/10/2013 at 13:51

1

The stock is slipping because that happens quickly to any stock that I buy.

Sorry about that.With all certainty, if I sell it will spike.

Corduroy Club. > DCCARGEEK 11/10/2013 at 13:53

0

Cousin of the Pinto

colorfulyawn > DCCARGEEK 11/10/2013 at 13:54

8

We should probably look into doing a better job of keeping large chunks of metal debris off of our roadways too, while we're at it.

wtrmlnjuc > Tim (Fractal Footwork) 11/10/2013 at 14:00

0

I think the problem lies more on the people who leave junk on the street. This shouldn't be a thing. And with a new testing procedure, The Model S and other electrics wouldn't be the only vehicle which should require this testing either as it poses a hazard for occupants of other vehicles as well.

wtrmlnjuc > DetroitMuscle 11/10/2013 at 14:01

0

It's slipping more to the fact that it was way over where it's supposed to be. Tesla's still quite a startup and that price is too high.

JDIGGS > DCCARGEEK 11/10/2013 at 14:07

0

Very DISTURBING. NHTSA rates the car as being SUPER SAFE, yet they never encountered a fire?

Makes you wonder if their testing is worth a damn to begin with?

Maxaxle > colorfulyawn 11/10/2013 at 14:08

4

Martial_Bob > DCCARGEEK 11/10/2013 at 14:10

0

While a fire in a Tesla is a different kind of fire than could occur in a normal car is it more likely to happen? Normal cars can and do burst into flames when they get into accidents so I got to wonder just how much of this is a real issue.

MTY85 > DCCARGEEK 11/10/2013 at 14:14

0

A hot investment? A car company that doesn't make money selling cars doesn't really seem like a very good investment to me.

DCCARGEEK > rabbitman 11/10/2013 at 14:26

1

Playing devil's advocate, say the floor did protect the occupants. Is it fair that the entire car be at a total loss because a piece of metal stabbed the floorboard? Again, taking away the safety and human aspect and looking at the property loss aspect. Also, I understand the car is insured, but what if the rates double based on this potential, albeit somewhat 'safe' design element.

stopcrazypp > Victorious Secret 11/10/2013 at 14:28

0

I'm not sure how good a dry chemical extinguisher will do in this case. When a metal object punctures the pack there will very likely be short circuits and that heats up the pack. That's why Tesla recommends large amounts of water in the case of pack fire. The dry chemical might be able to extinguish the initial fire, but it can flare up again a second time if the heat is not controlled (that's what happened in the first fire).

As for a slab of metal on the bottom, nothing short of military spec armor would be able to prevent all punctures. And if there's a recall it must also be retrofit-table and not change crash test results dramatically (something too rigid and/or heavy might).

I would say the existing strategy of keeping the fire compartmentalized and under control and warning the driver to stop the vehicle is a fairly good strategy for now (under the assumption you can't prevent all punctures).

There were also other suggestions like looking into improving ground clearance (and a detail there is that the ground clearance measurement for the Tesla is pretty much to the entire under side of the pack given it's completely flat, unlike other vehicles where the lowest point is usually the front air dam or exhaust pipe). Specifically, the air suspension of the car automatically lowers the pack to about 5.2" ground clearance when travelling above ~45-55mph (people suggest having a setting that allows you to pick instead, esp. useful if you know you are in a debris ridden area).

BullittFan_Fords4Life > Galant Enthusiast 11/10/2013 at 14:29

2

No. People like you somehow want Tesla to accept responsibility for random metal debris puncturing the undercarriage of their cars in the field. You would never think to make that statement about a typical Toyota, Ford, Chevy, etc if it happens to run over an object on the highway that destroyed the engine oil pan or which caused underbody fuel lines to catch fire. Cut the bullshit with your fucking ignorant double standards.

DCCARGEEK > Galant Enthusiast 11/10/2013 at 14:30

0

Agree. If it's simply going from one material or density to another (.25 vs .50'' plating) it shouldn't make for a very difficult fix. But even if Tesla says the cars are safe they'll need to lay out exactly what happened here and explain, in simple terms, how the fires happened. I know that not every automaker is required to do this when one of their cars is burned, but Tesla is a different story altogether.

It would be sort of like what Chrysler did when NHTSA marched out a chart of fire risk per vehicle and then Chrysler released their own data to the public

colorfulyawn > DCCARGEEK 11/10/2013 at 14:31

0

I'm thinking pretty much any car that hit what those two Teslas hit would probably be a total loss from the damage.

Scrape > DCCARGEEK 11/10/2013 at 14:34

2

At issue is that the most vulnerable part of the car, the battery, is where it can be most exposed to potential damage, under the car. A poorly engineered speed bump can ruin this car. And the battery type leds itself to being easily damaged and causing a fire as a result. There will always be crap in the middle of the road, and most cars just have it hit the from fascia and that is all the damage it does. For some reason, probably inadequate design, the fascia allows large debris to pass under it and directly impact the front edge of the battery casing. It should never happen.

Unless Tesla does something subtantial to fix this situation, it will just keep on happening, and will destroy Tesla like the fires really hurt Fisker. I don't know what it is about this car or the drivers of this car, but they seem not to do so well in a crash damage-wise. I've seen a few wrecked around DC, and in each case, the car was a write off, while the other vehicles involved were pretty much okay and could be easily repaired or even driven away. A fender-bender should not total a $50k car.

Roundle79 > DCCARGEEK 11/10/2013 at 14:34

2

So, three Teslas have gone up in smoke. What's that in terms of % of Teslas sold? And how does this compare to other car makes?

DCCARGEEK > colorfulyawn 11/10/2013 at 14:36

1

That's why I think it's very important that Telsa frame the level of force and specifics in both these cases to the public.

It's one thing to say "everything is fine". It's another to say "watch the video of SOME GENERIC CAR hit the exact same piece of debris at the same speed INSTANT CARNAGE/FIREBALL.

DCCARGEEK > Scrape 11/10/2013 at 14:38

0

I hadn't really thought about the lack of engine components and other front-end items that might open up the battery to a world of debris hurt.

I'm not sure why, maybe it's the whole living in DC thing, but I keep thinking MRAP when we talk under body armor, force and debris.

DCCARGEEK > Roundle79 11/10/2013 at 14:41

0

That is a good question and I'm afraid I don't know. The latest investor update from Tesla talked about 20,000 units, but that is world wide and I think a hopeful end-of-year number.

I know NHTSA has the fire rates per vehicle still on their desktop thanks to the Jeep incident. If we hear from the government and we'll likely here this stat you are looking for as a basis for their action.

DropTopEnvy > DCCARGEEK 11/10/2013 at 14:53

0

Just wanted to point this out, a crash that happened in my hometown last night - a Panamera crashed into a median, then an office building (my best guess, around 50 mph impact on the median, slowing before hitting the building, based on trajectory and knowing the turn he was trying to make) and burst into flames. Porsche, Ferrari, Tesla.. no one manufacturer is immune from the fiery death! (No death occured..) http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Fie…

scramblesthedeathdealer > DCCARGEEK 11/10/2013 at 14:53

0

I posted this in another Tesla article but it's at least relevant to the stock discussion:

The S&P 500's historical price-to-earnings ratio is about 15.5, slightly lower if you take out the ridiculous hikes immediately preceding recessions (bubbles). Some statisticians, such as Nate Silver and Robert Shiller, believe P/E ratios as a general indicator to whether specific markets are over or undervalued. Average market P/E ratios have increased over time, and a liberal investor might conclude that 20 would be an accurate pricing in today's markets, anything higher overvalued and vice versa.

With all that said, Tesla's price-to-earnings is 719.81. There are, of course, many other things to consider when analyzing a stock or company but this points to insanely overpriced.

1993Miata > Scrape 11/10/2013 at 14:53

4

I really doubt a speed bump is going to pierce the armor plating for the battery pack no matter how poorly designed.

rabbitman > DCCARGEEK 11/10/2013 at 14:54

0

Insurance companies will probably try to do that. But they better make it across the board on all EV's. Most of them have had battier fires in some form or another, except the Leaf that thing seems to be pretty safe all around even when burnt to a crisp.

Rust-y > Scrape 11/10/2013 at 14:59

0

With modern cars, I would say that any moderately serious crash results in a write off. The energy absorbing design in the event of a crash approach pretty much rules out repairability. Yes you can repair it, but after that the car will no longer perform to the same standards that were set at the moment of production. The use of different alloys and complex internal structures that are designed to be rigid or energy absorbing make it difficult for just anybody to repair with a blow torch.

Galant Enthusiast > DCCARGEEK 11/10/2013 at 15:12

0

Exactly. This shouldn't be that much worse than Jeep's trailer hitch solution.

Scrape > Rust-y 11/10/2013 at 15:12

0

The last Tesla crash I saw the rear bumper was where the back seat is, and the front tne was smushed up to the windshield. The other two vehicles? One was a newer Jeep and just needed new nose and quarter-panels and a new radiator. And the van the Tesla ran into had to have the bumper reattached. The Tesla was totalled. If this is the case with these not being able to withstand even minor crashes, the insurance on them will just go through the roof.

Scrape > 1993Miata 11/10/2013 at 15:15

0

It may not pierce it, but neither did this debris. It merely DENTED the plate which then damaged the battery. Putting any stress or flex on the battery, such as a bottom out over a speed bump, can cause the internals of battery to give way and spark a fire. There needs to be more substantial protecttion in the form of a proper skid-plate or rails on the bottom of the car or raise the battery further up off of the ground.

Burrito de EJ25 > Scrape 11/10/2013 at 15:38

0

A poorly engineered speed bump can ruin this car.

Uhm. No.

Burrito de EJ25 > Scrape 11/10/2013 at 15:41

0

I don't think you understand the forces behind these "dents".

Who is barreling down a road with speed bumps that when bottomed out on would cause 25 tons worth of pressure?

No. Sorry.

Mosqvich > DCCARGEEK 11/10/2013 at 15:45

0

I wonder if any research from the JIEDDO (Joint Improvised Explosive Ordance Device Defeat Organization) would help or perhaps lessons learned from v-shaped hull vehicles?

GrauGeist > DCCARGEEK 11/10/2013 at 15:46

1

A lithium battery is similar to (actually worse than) a gasoline tank, except that it's easier to burn up due to self-ignition and thermal runaway issues.

What Telsa is doing is the equivalent of placing the gasoline tank across the entire floor of the car. If a modern OEM did that with a gas tank, they'd be fucking crucified, "armor plating" or not.

Quite frankly, lithium batteries will need specific safety requirements, different from lead-acid battery safety handling. At this point, the law is not clear because it is too new. But going forward, one can reasonably expect a Federal (and global) mandate to minimally protect lithium batteries like gasoline tanks.

Additional cutoffs & safety features would be akin to self-sealing racing bladders, which we do not see today. But basic passive safety should be mandated, and the Telsa should probably be taken off the road.

stopcrazypp > Scrape 11/10/2013 at 15:50

0

The small bit of plastic front fascia isn't going to do much to prevent something that can pierce 1/4" plate from going through.

GrauGeist > Roundle79 11/10/2013 at 15:51

0

Telsa refuses to release proper sales data like a normal OEM, but estimates are of approximately 18,000 cars sold in 2013 ("20,000" is a marketing number that rounds up).

If you go to GM's investor relations, they clearly state 18,782 cars sold as of October. Nissan has slightly fewer sold this year. Out of 37,000+ Volt and Leaf sold this year, NONE have caught fire from ordinary road hazards. Out of 80,000+ Volt and Leaf sold since Dec. 2010, NONE have caught fire at all. And when you look at passenger-mile safety, it's ridiculous.

stopcrazypp > GrauGeist 11/10/2013 at 15:53

2

I'm not sure that's the right comparison. Don't forget there's also oil and transmission fluid pans which are across the floor also.

And one thing to keep in mind, is pack punctures don't always lead to fires (as people seem to be assuming). There's a couple that happened to the Model S previously that didn't lead to fire. I'm not even sure it has been confirmed yet what caught fire in this case (the fire seems to be more forward than in the previous cases).

GrauGeist > DCCARGEEK 11/10/2013 at 15:55

0

It's not at all uncommon for a car to encounter roadway debris.

Tesla Marketing claiming huge numbers is all well and good, but a typical car/truck wouldn't have had an issue with it. It's not like there were dozens of cars taken out by that same piece of debris prior to the Tesla finally catching fire.

Scrape > Burrito de EJ25 11/10/2013 at 15:56

0

That 25 ton number Tesla is throwing out is marketing bs. 25 tons is 50,000 lbs, and if that is per square inch, that number would render this battery pack essentially bullet proof from penetration. And the penetration force is not the force of deformity. Neither always matters. Deflection, flex/twist, or deformity into the cell can cause more damage to these battery packs than a penetration ever could.

GrauGeist > stopcrazypp 11/10/2013 at 16:05

0

Oil & trans pans rarely cause fires when punctured - they're not fire hazards like gasoline or lithium batteries.

I believe the fire is forward, simply because that's the part of the pack that got hit - note that the Tesla pack does go the full length of the passenger compartment.

Rust-y > Scrape 11/10/2013 at 16:38

0

Crumple zones: a safety device of the modern motorcar. Most modern passenger vehicles are built to deform in the event of a crash to absorb as much energy as possible, with the intent of passing as little as possible on to the occupants. Thereby rendering any modern vehicle a write off in any moderately serious crash (being sandwiched rather violently between two other vehicles is pretty serious), by protecting the occupants . Besides, modern cars come with many airbags that pretty much destroy the car's interior upon deployment.

The Model S is an $80,000 something vehicle. Yes, rich-people-car. They're not worried about a little insurance premium, when it might save them possibly larger hospital bills.

Ger > DCCARGEEK 11/10/2013 at 16:39

0

Im not criticizing anyone's marketing strategy or testing procedures, but if you want to test vehicle performance, chassis strength, fire safety, and refueling speed the best way, in my opinion, is a race! Tesla S GT3!

VideoPgh > JDIGGS 11/10/2013 at 17:05

0

Well the safety tends to be re: occupants surviving a crash and being able to walk away from a crash. Damage and what may or may not happen to the car tends to be secondary to "are people safe" and since in the fire cases, the fires were slow developing to the point where the occupants survived the crash and exited the car and the fire happened later the cars are "safe" as far as they are considered.

everyonejustcalmdown > DCCARGEEK 11/10/2013 at 17:48

0

So I have to ask...if you tally up all the noxious fumes from the burning Teslas, and spread it out over all Tesla's owned, how does it compare to the air pollution created by the equivalent amount of traditional combustion engine vehicles? Doesnt seem so environmentally friendly.

zeksteve > Scrape 11/10/2013 at 17:52

0

The same way debree can puncture any fuel cell? with fuel instead of being contained it spills

Mercwri > Mosqvich 11/10/2013 at 18:11

1

After reading the post I had a similar idea, if you raised the ride height slightly but used a double layer armour skid.

Say the top layer (touching the packs) is say a 1/8" aluminium sheet, on that are 3 steel spines with a taller (say 1/4" also) one in the center and one evenly spaced on either side that is thinner (say 1/8", running across would be steel ribs matching the rake of the angle created by the spines, add to that a thin steel plate on each side of the main rib (1/8" plate also)

Mosqvich > Mercwri 11/10/2013 at 18:13

0

Even a gradual V-hull might do the trick. I wonder if carbon fiber would work in lieu of steel or perhaps some lighter alloy? The Model S is already hefty.

PatBateman > DCCARGEEK 11/10/2013 at 18:55

0

Great article. A couple of points:

The sudden drop in the stock's price was initiated not because of the battery problems, but more directly coincide with the company's quarterly earnings report. Major investment firms (UBS, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch) have target prices on this stock. As I've said before on numerous other posts, look to see what those are. Due to my FINRA licenses, I cannot directly comment as to my personal and professional opinion of TSLA online, but I can point to those companies' reports. A simple google search will show you what they think.

While there aren't any NHTSA tests that directly test the undercarriage of an electric car currently, I think that there needs to be. This is, for all intents and purposes, a new kind of car. We need new tests to make sure there aren't any hidden weaknesses found on traditional vehicles.

Xedicon > Rust-y 11/10/2013 at 19:09

1

No matter how hard you try Rust-y, there a tons of people out there who simply can not and will not accept that when modern cars fold up in a moderate to serious crash that it's a good thing . The very description Scrape's using to "prove" that the Tesla isn't safe describes a car that performed very well in terms of safety.

I long ago gave up on the very argument you're trying to make. Better to let those who are not willing to listen and learn and research and accept fact drive their super safe 50's Thunderbird and be removed from the Earth's breeding pool.

Boss2452stolemylunchmoney > DCCARGEEK 11/10/2013 at 19:30

1

I think that the car behaved in an entirely safe fashion.

1) The armor of the battery kept the debris from penetrating the passenger cabin, which immediately makes it safer than just about any other road vehicle.

2) The car warned the operator that the vehicle had been damaged and then warned the operator that the vehicle was no longer safe to operate. NO OTHER ROAD CAR DOES THIS. PERIOD. Zero other road cars have any kind of warning systems that let the driver know that there is an unsafe condition and it is no longer safe to drive. The closest you get is the brake system warning lights, but they don't tell you to pull over immediately, they just tell you that your brake system isn't functioning correctly.

3) The vehicle took several minutes once the thermal runaway started to actually produce a fire. Thermal runaway in a gasoline powered car takes about a second to produce a fire. And, once again, the car won't give you any warning at all.

The only thing that makes this Tesla fire issue an issue is that no other auto manufacturers make a car even close to this safe.

King Ginger, not writing for Business Insider > DCCARGEEK 11/10/2013 at 19:34

0

Excellent write up my friend.

Boss2452stolemylunchmoney > GrauGeist 11/10/2013 at 19:37

1

Oh you'd better believe that oil and transmission fluid can lead to fires....bad bad bad fires. The most significant threat to fire from these are from something like a transmission cooling line breaking and spraying high pressure oil all over something very hot, like the exhaust. This will typically result in a very intense and fast burning fire. Hot oil burns pretty easily too, and this can result from a bad collision where the engine block is damaged.

MossInTheUSA > GrauGeist 11/10/2013 at 20:29

0

Honda seems to have escaped being "crucified" despite having the gas tank under the front seats in the first gen Fit.

DCCARGEEK > PatBateman 11/10/2013 at 20:45

1

Pat - Thank you for response.

On the stock price, like I said in my post, I won't pretend to understand the full breadth of the investment world. My primary point was to show the rapid growth of share prices and try to help people understand that there are forces at work outside of just the fires.

On the NHTSA stuff I hate to speculate, but I can only imagine this will result in some form of new standard. As many have said, the location of the fuel source, even if the occupants are 'safe' safe in a crash, is something that needs to be looked at for risk, even if to property and not life.

ZFTG > 1993Miata 11/10/2013 at 20:50

0

I have seen speed bumps that were tall and had the bolts that hold them to the ground sticking out. A C6 Corvette rolled over it and the bolt ripped a hole in the floor.

It "Could" happen to a Tesla, but it is somewhat unlikely.

Tjzyx > rabbitman 11/10/2013 at 20:56

1

Not all ev's have the entire bottom of the vehicle covered with batteries. What the insurance companies better do is charge based on the available evidence.

wjbean > DCCARGEEK 11/10/2013 at 20:58

0

Compared to a car with a fifteen to twenty gallon fuel tank, I still think these battery packs, their location in the car, and the plating around them, is far superior to having a car fueled with liquid dynamite.

I'm sure at some point Tesla will either come up with another containment material (such as Kevlar) or move the battery packs within the space between the front and rear wheels.

Still, when you consider that a cup of gasoline has the potential explosive power of one stick of dynamite, this is "much ado about nothing much."

viper3ez > Boss2452stolemylunchmoney 11/10/2013 at 21:43

0

i guess check engine lights, high temperature lights, ouil pressure lights which have been in ICE cars for decades are not warning lights for safety anymore since tesla invented vehicle warning systems.

if you ran over a tow hitch which punctured your oil pan, you will get a light, if the integrity of an ICE motor was compromised, there is also a warning for that.

i tell you, the tesla discussion is really starting to sound like apple discussi0ns

Mercwri > Mosqvich 11/10/2013 at 23:01

1

Carbon Fibre is good against torsion and loading, but it isn't really good for impacts until you get into pie in the sky shit like CarboTanium, at that point and for that money you may as well take the current design and make it out of Inconel.

Boss2452stolemylunchmoney > viper3ez 11/10/2013 at 23:04

2

None of those lights would tell you to pull over immediately. Furthermore, if you were driving along and something punctured your oil pan, chances are strong that you would have an immediate vehicle fire. The low-oil pressure light would take several seconds to respond, would tell you nothing you really needed to know except that your engine had low pressure. It would not tell you that you needed to immediately shut down the vehicle and it would not tell you that your car was now on fire. If you are experienced in auto mechanics, you probably would know that the light meant you needed to immediately shut down the vehicle and you may know that there's a good chance the vehicle may be on fire before even come to a stop, but the warning light would not give you that information.

Alexander Botts > GrauGeist 11/10/2013 at 23:50

0

'Out of 80,000 Volts and Leafs sold since Dec 2010, NONE have caught on fire.'

IIHS tester Volt-B-que 2011

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

I remember differently. So does Kinja. About two years ago, an Obamamobile did exactly that a few days after an IIHS test.

You stand corrected, sir.

That said, although i'm a huge critic of the Volt and its political implications; and not an EV advocate, I just don't buy the 'Tesla is unsafe' argument. It is truly a remarkable vehicle, and by the numbers among the safest cars ever built.

Musk Inc. will figure out a way to counterspin this in the media; the car is just plain too popular. A recall isn't necessary either unless one is speaking of recalling all the unsecured shit off the road.

Use this!

Beju > Boss2452stolemylunchmoney 11/11/2013 at 00:18

0

That sort of vehicle fire happened to my cousin.

He was driving along the highway in his Suburban when something in his either his transmission or differential (I forget which) failed, resulting in transmission fluid or gear oil spraying onto hot exhaust components and a subsequent fire.

He got no warning from the vehicle, nor did he realize it immediately. Fortunately, another motorist saw the fire coming from his rear wheel well and got his attention before the tire blew out.

JForce > DCCARGEEK 11/11/2013 at 00:21

0

GrauGeist > Alexander Botts 11/11/2013 at 01:15

0

Correction: that wasn't "on the road".

GrauGeist > MossInTheUSA 11/11/2013 at 01:21

0

I had to Google this to see the Honda Fit fuel situation for myself.

The side view looks insane.

The underbody detail is more helpful, as it shows the tank to be well inboard from the sides and protected by frame members pretty much all the way around.

Unorthodox, but much less exposure and greater protection than the Telsa pack.

GrauGeist > Boss2452stolemylunchmoney 11/11/2013 at 01:23

0

Those failures aren't consistent with a punctured pan, though.

And it's not like OEMs place those high pressure lines where they're nearly as exposed as the oil pan.

somemarine > DCCARGEEK 11/11/2013 at 03:46

0

I'm just glad I sold my stock. I would still buy a Tesla....but I'm glad I got out.

bRkiX > rabbitman 11/11/2013 at 05:20

1

in the ass of timo...

RatMR2 > Mosqvich 11/11/2013 at 06:53

0

Kevlar isn't that expensive, it's lightweight, and it works well enough for these:

wkile > DCCARGEEK 11/11/2013 at 07:24

0

Does the NHTSA need to review testing on EV's? Maybe. But as far as the battery packs being on the floor, it's not spanning the entire cabin area. And last time I looked aren't most modern gas tanks under the rear passenger seat? EV's are newer tech (sort of), so when something happens, the media wants to jump all over it and crucify it. However as was stated, 2 of these fires were cause by large metal debris in the road. Run over that in an IC car and see what kind of damage can be done. The other was due to a man in Mexico driving through a barrier then hitting a tree....I think most vehicles, EV or not may catch fire.

Also let's look at numbers, as someone else pointed out. How many Tesla's have been sold, so we can see a % of fires/car. Now lets look at how many "traditional" IC cars catch fire in a given day. And let's be honest, we should all be happy that no one has been injured, and they are not like the Fiskar Karma and igniting themselves.....LOL.

Finally, thank you to those who understand that the drop in Tesla's stock price is largely due to their quarterly profit (or loss as the case may be), and not due to the 3 fires.

MTD324 > DCCARGEEK 11/11/2013 at 07:31

0

I bet if they started testing "road debris penetration", the actual problem in most vehicles would be related to the direct safety of the passengers.

I don't know for sure, but I can't imagine there being much plating to protect the passenger compartment in a pipe-lunged-at-highway-speed test.

I for one would much rather my "engine" compartment catch on fire several minutes after I safely exit the vehicle than have a pipe, or piece of re-bar etc. impale me through the fire-wall.

The most important thing to remember in all of this is the damage to the components of the vehicle must always be a secondary concern when compared to the safety of the passengers.

As stated in the article, not only were all the passengers perfectly fine, they love their cars and had no reservations about getting another one.

I believe Subaru had a commercial recently showing devastated Legacy in the junkyard. The owner then went to take the shift-knob as a memento of the car that saved his life by making sure HE was safe....

kevin ponder > Boss2452stolemylunchmoney 11/11/2013 at 08:40

0

puncturing the oil pan should not lead to a fire, the oil drains out of the engine - leading to a seized motor but not a fire. Oil doesn't combust the way fuel does, this is why it can be used as a lubricant within the engine at high temperatures.

spyderman4g63 > Boss2452stolemylunchmoney 11/11/2013 at 09:08

1

Don't forget about those new flammable refrigerants we're going to have to use since dupont's patent is up on current ones.

Spectre6000 > DCCARGEEK 11/11/2013 at 11:01

0

I think the real issue is an exceptional up and comer that everyone is trying to find fault with. Statistically impossible accidents happen all the time. If we got all bent out of shape every time a conventional car caught fire after an accident, it would be headlines every few seconds. I'm sure Tesla is going to do something about it, but let's be fair and admit that they're making an incredible product that is safer than just about everything else on the road (the "just about" is in case I'm forgetting some safety car experiment from the 70s or something). If and when they get this "issue" rectified to the public's satisfaction, they will only be stronger and an even bigger threat to the collective disappointment that is the modern American auto industry. Disclaimer, I do not own and have not invested in Tesla; the newest car I own is a '58, my daily is a '57, and I think a giant iPad for a control panel is an abomination.

Ceadda > DCCARGEEK 11/11/2013 at 11:01

0

Well, regardless of whether or not they set on fire they are pretty slick looking... Saw this one outside of a Wal-Mart in my local area and pretty much waited for the owner to come back to ask about the car... I've read quite a bit about them, I was actually surprised to find one and see it up close...

DCCARGEEK > Spectre6000 11/11/2013 at 11:06

0

You can't fault them for the product and like you said statistically impossible accidents will always happen. I'm sure more people in F-150s were killed by deer this year, but you don't see an outrage for a deer warning system on America's number one selling truck.

DCCARGEEK > Ceadda 11/11/2013 at 11:06

0

Even more surprised to see one at Wal-Mart.

yellowdatsun > DCCARGEEK 11/11/2013 at 11:14

0

I think people are way over-reacting, and doing so solely because there's heightened publicity surrounding this new technology. Gasoline cars have fires all the time, and nobody ever seems to care. Nissan had issues back in the 80's and 90's where their fuel injectors decided to crack and spew fuel all over the hot engines, nobody seemed to care. It resulted in a rather quiet recall. The force required to damage these Teslas was huge, hitting a solid metal object at speed. Probably enough force that the said object would have come through the floor in a normal car and injured the occupants. If that happened nobody would bat an eye, and chock it up to just a freak incident. How many vehicles still have fuel tanks under the body? A LOT. Had this happened to any of those it would have been a fireball of death, and I'd bet nobody would be saying a word.

Ceadda > DCCARGEEK 11/11/2013 at 11:22

0

It's on the edge of an affluent part of the metro here in Kansas City... Although when I first pulled up near it the first thing in my head was the horrible parking job...

Burritoes > DCCARGEEK 11/11/2013 at 12:48

0

Since I am terrible at photoshop, I am just going to describe the image I want to create to post: a Tesla Model S with a bulldozer attached to the front, Mad Max style.

DCCARGEEK > Burritoes 11/11/2013 at 14:23

0

Hahaha. Check my feed www.dcautogeek.kinja.com :)

blahrgen > viper3ez 11/11/2013 at 14:28

0

i guess check engine lights, high temperature lights, ouil pressure lights which have been in ICE cars for decades are not warning lights for safety anymore since tesla invented vehicle warning systems.

No, they aren't. They never were. the "check engine light" according to 99% of people who own a car is the "keep driving this thing for 3 more years and ignore it" light. The "high temperature light" and "oil pressure light" are the "keep driving as long as nothing's smoking" lights, otherwise known as "go see the mechanic in three months" lights. Hell, even the brake warning light is known as "the car still stops so it's just the computer being stupid" light.

So no, there are no cars on the road that will tell you immediately that there is a safety issue at this very moment that can kill you.

m > Roundle79 11/11/2013 at 14:47

0

That is THE question as far as I'm concerned. All cars store a tremendous amount of chemical energy and then move it around at high speed. So they're all vulnerable to an uncontrolled release of that chemical energy to heat (a fire). Unless this particular model is seeing significantly higher incidence of fire per mile driven than the rest of the population, there's no reason for NHTSA or anyone else to really be taking notice.

Boss2452stolemylunchmoney > spyderman4g63 11/11/2013 at 16:41

0

Don't get me started on those!

danwat1234 > Scrape 11/12/2013 at 05:35

0

I don't think a badly designed speed bump could ruin the car. 2 of the 3 Tesla incidents were sharp objects pushing against the battery pack in a small area (3rd was a violent crash). A speed bump would hit the battery pack bluntly, it probably would only get a slight imprint and keep on driving.
@Thetexashoon, yea that's different

danwat1234 > DCCARGEEK 11/12/2013 at 15:20

0

Juan, URL broken?

Scrape > danwat1234 11/12/2013 at 20:23

0

It isn;t the impact, if it gets hung up, the stress of the having the car's weight on it and any twisting/torquing that may occur could damage or mis-shape the battery or rupture cells. Really, any kind of impact on the bottom can have disasterous results, which is why GM put the reVolt's battery, and every other RV manufacturer, puts the battery internal to the car's structure rather than just hanging it off the bottom. Remember, the Tesla was designed with quick battery swaps in mind.

DCCARGEEK > danwat1234 11/13/2013 at 06:57

0

http://dcautogeek.kinja.com/

It works for me....Hmmm