4 ms·

LOL idealistic. Basically, if Tesla hasn’t made the absolute safest cars on the market, the auto industry would have sufficiently spread enough FUD about people

by fipple 8y ago

LOL idealistic. Basically, if Tesla hasn’t made the absolute safest cars on the market, the auto industry would have sufficiently spread enough FUD about people’s kids burning up in battery fires.

SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
I have a relative in the car industry here in the UK who keeps telling me that Teslas keep bursting into flames and there's some kind of massive cover-up. Surely if it were true we'd be hearing a lot more about it? They can't seem to cover-up their crazy CEO's antics or the autopilot issues, so how would they get away with this?
- Latteland 8y ago
  Of course the auto industry incumbents would publicize any weakness in tesla that they can find. Tesla fire danger is lower than ice cars, search google and find many article with hard numbers. Any fire is terrible, but the number of ice cars with fires is surprisingly large.
dsfyu404ed 8y ago
No amount of "but muh skateboard is hard to roll over" will chance the fact that all lithium batteries, provide fuel and an ignition source in one place whereas liquid fuels do not. If batteries weren't more volatile than gasoline we'd store them in thin sheet-metal or plastic enclosures (like we do with gasoline) instead of enclosures so substantial that it makes sense to use them as a structural member in the vehicle.
- fipple 8y ago
  Ok, reconcile your incontrovertible fact with the incontrovertible fact that the flagship electric car company’s products are safer than their liquid fuel competitors.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    It's really quite simple and has little/nothing to do with fuel storage. The flagship electric car company can use a drive-train layout that gives them more space for impact absorption and they can take full advantage of this in their vehicle design because they do not have to accommodate ICE vehicles on the same platform.
- 51lver 8y ago
  The explorer firestone tire issue (overheating fuel pump, rollover, boom!), the ZJ grand cherokee fuel tank recall (totally unsafe without a tow hitch installed behind the tank), and the ford pinto come to mind. Heck, on my dads 66 chevy, if you forget to put on the gas cap and drive off, the gas will literally fall out of the back of the car). Maybe instead of saying that batteries are more dangerous so they put them in stronger boxes you should instead be demanding to know why gasoline cars do not put their power source in a safer container.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    >The explorer firestone tire issue (overheating fuel pump, rollover, boom!), That was purely a rollover issue. They didn't catch fire with any noteworthy regularity. I'm not sure how you can say otherwise. Ford used that same basic fuel system (modified in size and shape for the application) from the early 90s up through the late 2000s in their trucks (Ranger platform included) and full-size vans. There is nothing particularly bad about it. It's actually one of the best OEM fuel systems out there since it uses stainless steel for all the hard line and braided stainless over nylon(?) for all the soft line though based on some of the Rangers I've worked on I think they started making the lines coming off the fuel sender out of non-stainless steel sometime in the 2000s. >he ZJ grand cherokee fuel tank recall (totally unsafe without a tow hitch installed behind the tank) Rest assured, we'll have these same issues with EVs when the Chryslers and Kias of the world start making them en-mass. > Heck, on my dads 66 chevy, if you forget to put on the gas cap and drive off, the gas will literally fall out of the back of the car). Don't you think it's a little disingenuous to compare a modern Tesla to a 1966 Chevy? The 66 Chevy didn't have seat-belts or airbags either. It's 50yr older, what do you expect. Pickups had the gas tank in the cab through most of the 70s. >Maybe instead of saying that batteries are more dangerous so they put them in stronger boxes you should instead be demanding to know why gasoline cars do not put their power source in a safer container. Repeat after me class "liquid fuels do not provide their own ignition source." EVs are the way of the future but trying to pretend that sitting on top of a box full of nasty chemicals that contain a bunch of electrons that really want to be elsewhere is safer than sitting on a jug of nasty liquid fuel, all else equal is just that, pretending. That's why Tesla makes the battery a structural member. They can't in good faith protect it much less than that so they may as well go a little overboard and reap some benefits in terms of chassis rigidity and then use the resulting safety as one of their pro-EV talking points.

by fipple 8y ago

SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago

I have a relative in the car industry here in the UK who keeps telling me that Teslas keep bursting into flames and there's some kind of massive cover-up. Surely if it were true we'd be hearing a lot more about it? They can't seem to cover-up their crazy CEO's antics or the autopilot issues, so how would they get away with this?

Latteland 8y ago
Of course the auto industry incumbents would publicize any weakness in tesla that they can find. Tesla fire danger is lower than ice cars, search google and find many article with hard numbers. Any fire is terrible, but the number of ice cars with fires is surprisingly large.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago

No amount of "but muh skateboard is hard to roll over" will chance the fact that all lithium batteries, provide fuel and an ignition source in one place whereas liquid fuels do not. If batteries weren't more volatile than gasoline we'd store them in thin sheet-metal or plastic enclosures (like we do with gasoline) instead of enclosures so substantial that it makes sense to use them as a structural member in the vehicle.

fipple 8y ago
Ok, reconcile your incontrovertible fact with the incontrovertible fact that the flagship electric car company’s products are safer than their liquid fuel competitors.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  It's really quite simple and has little/nothing to do with fuel storage. The flagship electric car company can use a drive-train layout that gives them more space for impact absorption and they can take full advantage of this in their vehicle design because they do not have to accommodate ICE vehicles on the same platform.
51lver 8y ago
The explorer firestone tire issue (overheating fuel pump, rollover, boom!), the ZJ grand cherokee fuel tank recall (totally unsafe without a tow hitch installed behind the tank), and the ford pinto come to mind. Heck, on my dads 66 chevy, if you forget to put on the gas cap and drive off, the gas will literally fall out of the back of the car). Maybe instead of saying that batteries are more dangerous so they put them in stronger boxes you should instead be demanding to know why gasoline cars do not put their power source in a safer container.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  >The explorer firestone tire issue (overheating fuel pump, rollover, boom!), That was purely a rollover issue. They didn't catch fire with any noteworthy regularity. I'm not sure how you can say otherwise. Ford used that same basic fuel system (modified in size and shape for the application) from the early 90s up through the late 2000s in their trucks (Ranger platform included) and full-size vans. There is nothing particularly bad about it. It's actually one of the best OEM fuel systems out there since it uses stainless steel for all the hard line and braided stainless over nylon(?) for all the soft line though based on some of the Rangers I've worked on I think they started making the lines coming off the fuel sender out of non-stainless steel sometime in the 2000s. >he ZJ grand cherokee fuel tank recall (totally unsafe without a tow hitch installed behind the tank) Rest assured, we'll have these same issues with EVs when the Chryslers and Kias of the world start making them en-mass. > Heck, on my dads 66 chevy, if you forget to put on the gas cap and drive off, the gas will literally fall out of the back of the car). Don't you think it's a little disingenuous to compare a modern Tesla to a 1966 Chevy? The 66 Chevy didn't have seat-belts or airbags either. It's 50yr older, what do you expect. Pickups had the gas tank in the cab through most of the 70s. >Maybe instead of saying that batteries are more dangerous so they put them in stronger boxes you should instead be demanding to know why gasoline cars do not put their power source in a safer container. Repeat after me class "liquid fuels do not provide their own ignition source." EVs are the way of the future but trying to pretend that sitting on top of a box full of nasty chemicals that contain a bunch of electrons that really want to be elsewhere is safer than sitting on a jug of nasty liquid fuel, all else equal is just that, pretending. That's why Tesla makes the battery a structural member. They can't in good faith protect it much less than that so they may as well go a little overboard and reap some benefits in terms of chassis rigidity and then use the resulting safety as one of their pro-EV talking points.