3 ms·

Tesla batteries do not extend to the edge of the frame. There is a buffer for t-bones and side impacts. Thousands of crashes and 8 years in your odds of burstin

Tesla batteries do not extend to the edge of the frame. There is a buffer for t-bones and side impacts. Thousands of crashes and 8 years in your odds of bursting into flames seem lower in an EV than an ICE car with a tank of gas.

evgen 6y ago
You do realize that real life is not a Hollywood movie, right? Cars do not explode like you see on TV. The crash danger to be concerned about is not that the car will burst into flames, but rather that when you wrap your car around a tree the rescue crew will be unable to extract you due to electrocution risk and so you will slowly bleed out while they wait for specialists with the right EV extraction experience to arrive. This was a major problem when the Prius hit the scene and suddenly there were high voltage cables that needed to be avoided, but if a crash could possibly electrify body panels or other more exposed pieces then things may get dangerous.
- BenjiWiebe 6y ago
  I saw a pickup truck run into a train at ~60 mph. 30 seconds later it was completely engulfed in flames. Sometimes ICE vehicles do catch fire very quickly (still not an explosion though).
  - HeyLaughingBoy 6y ago
    That's hardly surprising. You have a high-speed frontal collision, a fuel line gets ruptured and high-pressure gasoline comes squirting out onto a hot engine (bonus points if it hits the exhaust manifold) with plenty of airflow. Under those circumstances a fire is far from unlikely. But that wasn't what OP was talking about.
macjohnmcc 6y ago
Television shows in the 1970's had me convinced that if a car went off a cliff that it would explode on impact with the ground and that almost any damage to a car would result in an eventual explosion. But that hasn't played out and so far quicksand hasn't proven to be a big risk either.
- axaxs 6y ago
  In fairness, cars were much more likely to explode back then. I still remember my dad bolting a piece of steel behind the rear seat of a mustang, because there was a good chance of the passengers being engulfed in flames from a rear end collision due to the location and configuration of the gas tank. I think the Pinto was even worse if my memory serves.
  - macjohnmcc 6y ago
    And the Corvair. A good looking car with some serious design flaws.
  - NikolaeVarius 6y ago
    As far as I am aware, the Pinto was not special in terms of it catching fire than any other car during its time. It was mostly extremely bad press that gave it a bad look.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
Fire risk is about the same at the time of a crash. Random fire happening hours later basically never happens with liquid fuel whereas it's a possibility with EVs. The towing industry has all this figured out. It's not common but it's common enough that your insurer is gonna be real ticked off if you park a crashed EV inside and they have to pay out for a burned down building.

evgen 6y ago

You do realize that real life is not a Hollywood movie, right? Cars do not explode like you see on TV. The crash danger to be concerned about is not that the car will burst into flames, but rather that when you wrap your car around a tree the rescue crew will be unable to extract you due to electrocution risk and so you will slowly bleed out while they wait for specialists with the right EV extraction experience to arrive. This was a major problem when the Prius hit the scene and suddenly there were high voltage cables that needed to be avoided, but if a crash could possibly electrify body panels or other more exposed pieces then things may get dangerous.

BenjiWiebe 6y ago
I saw a pickup truck run into a train at ~60 mph. 30 seconds later it was completely engulfed in flames. Sometimes ICE vehicles do catch fire very quickly (still not an explosion though).
- HeyLaughingBoy 6y ago
  That's hardly surprising. You have a high-speed frontal collision, a fuel line gets ruptured and high-pressure gasoline comes squirting out onto a hot engine (bonus points if it hits the exhaust manifold) with plenty of airflow. Under those circumstances a fire is far from unlikely. But that wasn't what OP was talking about.

macjohnmcc 6y ago

Television shows in the 1970's had me convinced that if a car went off a cliff that it would explode on impact with the ground and that almost any damage to a car would result in an eventual explosion. But that hasn't played out and so far quicksand hasn't proven to be a big risk either.

axaxs 6y ago
In fairness, cars were much more likely to explode back then. I still remember my dad bolting a piece of steel behind the rear seat of a mustang, because there was a good chance of the passengers being engulfed in flames from a rear end collision due to the location and configuration of the gas tank. I think the Pinto was even worse if my memory serves.
- macjohnmcc 6y ago
  And the Corvair. A good looking car with some serious design flaws.
- NikolaeVarius 6y ago
  As far as I am aware, the Pinto was not special in terms of it catching fire than any other car during its time. It was mostly extremely bad press that gave it a bad look.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

Fire risk is about the same at the time of a crash. Random fire happening hours later basically never happens with liquid fuel whereas it's a possibility with EVs. The towing industry has all this figured out. It's not common but it's common enough that your insurer is gonna be real ticked off if you park a crashed EV inside and they have to pay out for a burned down building.