7 ms·

Tesla Motors Inc stock sinks as third car in 5 weeks catches fire

ameister14 13y ago
Well, as most of Tesla's stock performance has been based on rampant speculation, I'd say this has been coming for a while. I did the math on Tesla when I invested in it early this year, and it should have topped out at around 44-46 a share, calculating in the difficulty of reaching their goals over the next two years with no significant issues. Then, after different stages were reached, it should have risen. This did not happen. Instead, it rocketed up immediately. That was all flash in the pan investment and not real analysis of the company, so it's no surprise that it's decreasing when there are minor problems.
- Nicholas_C 13y ago
  >I did the math on Tesla when I invested in it early this year, and it should have topped out at around 44-46 a share What math did you do? An intrinsic valuation? That would seem very speculative given Tesla's uncertainty.
  - 001sky 13y ago
    math has a funny way of revealing all kinds of flaws
Zikes 13y ago
Isn't it pretty standard for a vehicle to catch on fire when significantly damaged? I've personally witnessed a few that were the result of wrecks, and just the other weekend I drove by a couple guys trying to put out a flaming engine on a beat up old truck. How exactly do these compare to gasoline/diesel powered vehicles?
- hemancuso 13y ago
  Running over a tow hitch seems to be a pretty low standard for significantly damaged.
  - Zikes 13y ago
    But is it completely improbable that a gasoline-powered car could suffer from the same result? It just feels like somebody's looking for an excuse to go after Tesla. I read these articles about people leaping over concrete barriers and wrapping their car around a tree and just wonder "what the hell did you expect would happen?"
    - ars 13y ago
      > But is it completely improbable that a gasoline-powered car could suffer from the same result? Yes, quite improbable. It might break the engine, but there is nothing in the front of a car that would catch fire from such an impact.
    - jusben1369 13y ago
      Good Lord no. This isn't about going after Tesla. Just think of it in terms of %. 3 fires in 5 weeks. If they Toyota Camry had the same ratio that might be something like 3000 fires in 5 weeks. I'm a big Tesla fan and hope they succeed but this is starting to look like a real issue.
      - astrodust 13y ago
        > According to the U.S. Fire Administration, there are around 194,000 vehicle fires on U.S. roads each year. So 194,000 vehicle fires per year, or 18,602 within any given five week period. Toyota's market share is 14.2%, so if the fires are evenly distributed, there would've been 2,641 vehicles of that brand catching fire. That's pretty close to 3,000.
        tedunangst 13y ago
        2461 new toyotas catching fire?
- Shivetya 13y ago
  * I posted this comment on the same story elsewhere. Face it, battery technology is not sufficiently advanced to deliver good range without some serious trade offs. The trade off of the Tesla may prove to be the wrong choice long term. No one would ever suggest lining the bottom of a car with a gasoline tank, fortunately we don't have too because the power density is so high. Hence they can put tanks where a collision or road debris damage are least likely to damage them. However Tesla needs a stupendous amount of battery to get its range. Hence we get large cars where they have chosen to isolate the entire pack at the floor of the car. They made the choice to dispense with a central tunnel which could hold more batteries, not use the front engine area or any trunk space. There were two or more reasons for their design choice, first because of the sheer amount of batteries needed and second because of pack swapping. I don't think the trade off is worth it. They can use some of the front "frunk" area to have a raised stack of batteries where the traditional firewall is and do similar in the rear. The could have a raised tunnel down the center line and reduce the need of having batteries so far forward. There were many choices available but they wanted swappable packs. What statistic I want to see is, how many penetration events have their been versus how many fires. How many cells have to be penetrated to create a fire? Is there some flaw that another component is failing during these minor accidents that is causing the fires?
  - stcredzero 13y ago
    As a short term fix, raise the car 1/4", reinforce the front battery section with kevlar, and include a system that can flood at least one of the packs with some kind of fire retardant foam. As a longer term fix, move the battery pack rearward and design in a little more protection.
    - moocowduckquack 13y ago
      Just do the foam thing, but do lots of it all round the battery so in the event of a battery fire the battery pops out and is enclosed and the car ends up sitting on a couple of feet or so of foam.
  - umsm 13y ago
    I don't think placement could solve the points you mention. Sure, debris can damage the underside and cause the car to catch fire, but putting the packs in the front or rear of the car can cause it to explode on impact as well. Having it on the underside will probably cause fewer fires than having it in the front for example. That said, consider gasoline cars: The fuel needs to travel from the tank to the engine. Effectively, an impact anywhere on the fuel line can cause a fire.
- ars 13y ago
  The main reason gasoline engines catch fire is they overheat - i.e. not due to an accident, but rather poor maintenance. So when you read statistics on car fires you should try to exclude those if you can. Fire from road debris would be very very unlikely. How would that even happen? I suppose it could cut a water pipe, and then cause overheating. Fires from a violent crash do happen of course, and no one would criticize Tesla for those types, but from road debris? That shouldn't happen.
  - ceejayoz 13y ago
    > So when you read statistics on car fires you should try to exclude those if you can. How on earth would that make a better comparison?!
    - tedunangst 13y ago
      All of the Teslas sold so far are presumably well maintained, so doesn't it make sense to compare them to well maintained gas vehicles?
    - ars 13y ago
      Are we analyzing the owner of the car (maintenance) or the car (effects of minor road incidents)?
  - stcredzero 13y ago
    The main reason gasoline engines catch fire is they overheat - i.e. not due to an accident, but rather poor maintenance. So when you read statistics on car fires you should try to exclude those if you can. Then to be fair, one should also take into account the increased reliability of the electric drivetrain.
- stcredzero 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_tank#Placement_and_safety http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_tank#Placement_and_safety There have been a lot of problems with fuel tank placement, with some designs being responsible for spraying passengers with flammable fuel, which subsequently catches fire. The design criteria for internal combustion cars seems to be to place the energy storage such that it minimizes the chance of damage, and to take steps to ensure that the contents do not endanger the passengers. Gas tanks are not designed to withstand highway speed collisions with pointed steel objects and never burn. To apply such standards to electic cars is a double standard. By the general standards of passenger cars, I'd say that the Tesla model S is a bit fragile, but still quite safe.
  - 001sky 13y ago
    I'd say that the Tesla model S is a bit fragile, but still quite safe What's fragile about 6mm armour plate? And what's safe about 100% of the fires having a single source? It sounds like TSLA needs to put the battery somewhere more protected. They have it exposed right now (presumably for lower CoG and better handling). That might just be a design flaw. I think we can still keep an open mind on LiIon untill the designs are iterated upon more.
    - stcredzero 13y ago
      What's fragile about 6mm armour plate? Urgh. Nice context switch. To be fair, the system as a whole seems to be a bit fragile, which is what I was actually saying. But in this specific strawman context: Lots of things are "fragile" when a piece of steel has a significant fraction of the momentum of a car behind it. To me, still very dependable and robust for something with sportscar performance.
fleitz 13y ago
Which would make this news if a 3.7% daily move wasn't average daily volatility for this stock.
timjensen 13y ago
Lithium Ion batteries pack a lot of energy it takes less than you think to start a cascade failure.
- greglindahl 13y ago
  Tesla's battery is engineered to prevent cascade failures. That system worked OK in the first fire, and the short duration of the latest fire probably means it worked there, too.
- pkulak 13y ago
  Depends on the chemistry. Notice a lack of any Leaf or Volt fires, despite many more being on the road? Li-manganese and li-phosphate go into thermal runaway at 2.5C and 3.4C respectively (C being the rate at which a battery would be depleted in one hour). The Tesla batteries do it at about 300C. Tesla gets a cheaper and much more energy dense battery in exchange for that risk, but they also have to deal with PR events like this. As an aside, I'd totally drive a Tesla if I could afford it. I'm not trying to say the car is unsafe. They use a riskier chemistry, but they've also gone to extraordinary lengths to manage that risk with really aggressive thermal management, barriers, etc. There have yet to be any injuries.
kunai 13y ago
One share is still worth more than 4 times ORCL's share... so I guess that's something.
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  That is completely irrelevant. That's like saying "There are more micrograms in this one-gram object than there are grams in this one-kilogram object, and therefore the one gram object is heavier."
- rebel 13y ago
  Share price is an irrelevant number when you aren't taking the shares outstanding into account. Oracle's market cap is $159B, Tesla's market cap is $17B. Oracle is worth nearly 10x Tesla currently.
- chollida1 13y ago
  > One share is still worth more than 4 times ORCL's share... so I guess that's something. It's actually nothing. From my bloomberg terminal I can see ORCL US Equity has a Mkt Cap of $156,024.6M and TSLA US Equity has a Mkt Cap of 16,945.9M So Oracle is about 9.2 times bigger than Tesla.
  - AsymetricCom 13y ago
    From my Google terminal, I can see the same thing. :D What's more important is the percent of the company you're getting with a share. (Obviously the same information in a different form), but I think more important to the small investor than share price. 121.45M - TSLA 4.56B - ORCL So you're getting significantly more share of the company for your investment when you go for TSLA.
  - mr_luc 13y ago
    Or to put it another way, its market cap is approximately 1 million dollars per Model S it has sold to date.
- Mikeb85 13y ago
  Market cap is what matters when valuing a company. Share price is nothing more than market cap/outstanding shares...
JonSkeptic 13y ago
We've all known that the correction was coming for a long time. TSLA was an awesome stock, and it will be again. But I'm glad it's happening now, the sooner the correction is over with, the sooner we can get a sane valuation, and the sooner people can focus less on how ridiculous the price is, and more on how freaking awesome the cars are. (Fires and all)
- kirpekar 13y ago
  >> We've all known that the correction was coming for a long time. Sorry, but NOBODY (much less we all) can predict short term stock movements. If I KNEW a correction was coming, I'd be a billionaire by now.
- larrys 13y ago
  What do you mean by "TSLA was an awesome stock" exactly?
  - JonSkeptic 13y ago
    I mean that I hope you sold recently. It'll be a great time to buy soon, but now it's finally a good day in shortville.
- jusben1369 13y ago
  I think you're mixing up some fundamental issues here. I don't think cars catching on fire is a stock correction from a frothy market. Stock corrections come from missing earnings by 5 or 10% and taking a 30% haircut. Your car's catching on fire can destroy your company if it goes on too long. It likely will cost you large sums of money's in recalls.
stcredzero 13y ago
Really, this headline should read: Lithium Ion Batteries Catch Fire When Mangled!
- meepmorp 13y ago
  Which is a problem for a company that uses them extensively in large consumer products that tend to get mangled with some frequency.
  - stcredzero 13y ago
    Sort of like gas tanks?
    - 001sky 13y ago
      Sort of like gas tanks? Petrol is way safer. The tanks are protected behind the second axle, and the fuel lines are either hardened or flexible, and in any event also well protected. That is why data show only 2% of fires are caus by problems relating to the fuel system. Tesla would need to have 200 more fires that did not involve the LiIon to become safer (on an apples to apples comparison). Something tells me that proving that case wouldn't do them any good.
      - stcredzero 13y ago
        Petrol is way safer. Yes, but with petrol cars, we're benefitting from over 100 years of experience and engineering -- with many, many horrific fatalities included in the "experience." Considering how recently the Tesla engineers started off, I'd say they're doing a stellar job. (For heavens sakes, the system tells you what's up and warns you to pull over and get out!)
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - ubersoldat2k7 13y ago
tzs 13y ago
If corporations had senses of humor, Boeing would make a public offer to help Tesla with their batteries.
- sp332 13y ago
  "Have you tried flying your cars through the air? There's less junk to run in to up there."
bliti 13y ago
Gasoline powered vehicles are not exempt from fire issues. Fact is, one of the best selling vehicles[1] in the U.S. had a recall due to how it would catch fire while parked. I personally saw one on fire on a parking lot. It was baffling. Another recall from the 70's was this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Fuel_tank_defect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Fuel_tank_defect People seem to forget that they are driving around with gallons of combustible liquid. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/27/automobiles/27FORD.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/27/automobiles/27FORD.html?_r...
- sbov 13y ago
  That happened to my parents' ford. They were at a stoplight and it caught fire, and were able to put it out in a nearby parking lot. At the time Ford was denying there were any fire problems with their model (an F150), but it seems like they eventually admitted there was an issue with their cruise control wiring.
- tedunangst 13y ago
  The recent ford recall had nothing to do with gasoline. I think people keep missing that point. If tesla's cruise control switches were the parts catching fire, this wouldn't be a big deal.
  - moocowduckquack 13y ago
    The obvious difference being that if a random switch goes wrong and catches fire, it is not going to set the batteries alight. It was the fuel tanks of these cars that burnt them out, not the switch fires.
    - tedunangst 13y ago
      Was it the fuel tank that caught on fire?
  - bliti 13y ago
    >The recent ford recall had nothing to do with gasoline. I disagree with this point. A fire in a gasoline powered vehicle always has to do with gasoline. Even if the fire did not start due to an issue in the fuel delivery system. This system is commonly laid out in a way that most of the vehicle is near a fuel line at all times. I am not defending Tesla, but pointing out that gasoline powered vehicles also carry fire risks. Do realize that gasoline powered vehicles also carry batteries that may explode/catch fire under given circumstances. I've had a battery or two blow up near me before, and it is not fun.
rajpaul 13y ago
to me these are the most important points in the article: General Motors and Nissan make the top-selling electric cars in the nation, the Volt and Leaf. Neither knows of any real-world blazes in those vehicles. A Chevrolet Volt caught fire two years ago after a government crash test, but the government closed an investigation into the incident after GM agreed to a safety campaign to bolster shielding around the battery. GM has sold more than 50,000 Volts in the U.S. since late 2010. Nissan has sold almost 38,000 Leafs. Tesla has sold an estimated 16,251 Model S cars in the U.S., according to Autodata Corp.
auctiontheory 13y ago
It might be useful to see some data on how many Tesla cars have had front-end accidents and not had fires. To ask it another way, do 100% of accidents result in a huge fire? Or 0.01%?
gojomo 13y ago
At this point, I'm worried that stock manipulators could be setting Tesla fires.
- philwelch 13y ago
  Anything that doesn't shatter your godlike image of Elon Musk, eh?
  - gojomo 13y ago
    Has nothing to do with my estimation of Musk. There are amoral people who have giant pools of money, who will do anything to make even more money. Spreading rumors is one very common tactic, but actual sabotage/'black ops' are also very possible.
    - philwelch 13y ago
      It just seems odd that you prefer some conspiracy theory over the simpler explanation that Model S has an unforeseen flaw involving battery fires, which are a decades-known risk of lithium batteries anyway.
      - gojomo 13y ago
        It just seems odd that you're reading Musk/Tesla-love, or an exclusion of the possibility of flaws, into my comments. It's like you're responding to someone else. I'm mentioning another non-exclusive possibility... and one that would work synergistically to expand the stock impact of any actual flaws. (It becomes more likely once the initial idea is planted, be it by flaw or random coincidence. Turn 2 or 3 real fires into twice as many with a little help, collect a billion dollars.) Or do you think high-flying volatile stock values are never unethically manipulated in either direction? Hey, where were you during each of the fires so far?
        philwelch 13y ago
        I thought it was odd that you were positing conspiracy theories when they were not the Occam-optimal explanation. Musk worship is common around these parts so it seemed the more likely motivation for believing crazy conspiracy theories over more likely explanations.

Well, as most of Tesla's stock performance has been based on rampant speculation, I'd say this has been coming for a while. I did the math on Tesla when I invested in it early this year, and it should have topped out at around 44-46 a share, calculating in the difficulty of reaching their goals over the next two years with no significant issues. Then, after different stages were reached, it should have risen. This did not happen. Instead, it rocketed up immediately. That was all flash in the pan investment and not real analysis of the company, so it's no surprise that it's decreasing when there are minor problems.

Nicholas_C 13y ago
>I did the math on Tesla when I invested in it early this year, and it should have topped out at around 44-46 a share What math did you do? An intrinsic valuation? That would seem very speculative given Tesla's uncertainty.
- 001sky 13y ago
  math has a funny way of revealing all kinds of flaws

Zikes 13y ago

Isn't it pretty standard for a vehicle to catch on fire when significantly damaged? I've personally witnessed a few that were the result of wrecks, and just the other weekend I drove by a couple guys trying to put out a flaming engine on a beat up old truck. How exactly do these compare to gasoline/diesel powered vehicles?

hemancuso 13y ago
Running over a tow hitch seems to be a pretty low standard for significantly damaged.
- Zikes 13y ago
  But is it completely improbable that a gasoline-powered car could suffer from the same result? It just feels like somebody's looking for an excuse to go after Tesla. I read these articles about people leaping over concrete barriers and wrapping their car around a tree and just wonder "what the hell did you expect would happen?"
  - ars 13y ago
    > But is it completely improbable that a gasoline-powered car could suffer from the same result? Yes, quite improbable. It might break the engine, but there is nothing in the front of a car that would catch fire from such an impact.
  - jusben1369 13y ago
    Good Lord no. This isn't about going after Tesla. Just think of it in terms of %. 3 fires in 5 weeks. If they Toyota Camry had the same ratio that might be something like 3000 fires in 5 weeks. I'm a big Tesla fan and hope they succeed but this is starting to look like a real issue.
    - astrodust 13y ago
      > According to the U.S. Fire Administration, there are around 194,000 vehicle fires on U.S. roads each year. So 194,000 vehicle fires per year, or 18,602 within any given five week period. Toyota's market share is 14.2%, so if the fires are evenly distributed, there would've been 2,641 vehicles of that brand catching fire. That's pretty close to 3,000.
      - tedunangst 13y ago
        2461 new toyotas catching fire?
Shivetya 13y ago
* I posted this comment on the same story elsewhere. Face it, battery technology is not sufficiently advanced to deliver good range without some serious trade offs. The trade off of the Tesla may prove to be the wrong choice long term. No one would ever suggest lining the bottom of a car with a gasoline tank, fortunately we don't have too because the power density is so high. Hence they can put tanks where a collision or road debris damage are least likely to damage them. However Tesla needs a stupendous amount of battery to get its range. Hence we get large cars where they have chosen to isolate the entire pack at the floor of the car. They made the choice to dispense with a central tunnel which could hold more batteries, not use the front engine area or any trunk space. There were two or more reasons for their design choice, first because of the sheer amount of batteries needed and second because of pack swapping. I don't think the trade off is worth it. They can use some of the front "frunk" area to have a raised stack of batteries where the traditional firewall is and do similar in the rear. The could have a raised tunnel down the center line and reduce the need of having batteries so far forward. There were many choices available but they wanted swappable packs. What statistic I want to see is, how many penetration events have their been versus how many fires. How many cells have to be penetrated to create a fire? Is there some flaw that another component is failing during these minor accidents that is causing the fires?
- stcredzero 13y ago
  As a short term fix, raise the car 1/4", reinforce the front battery section with kevlar, and include a system that can flood at least one of the packs with some kind of fire retardant foam. As a longer term fix, move the battery pack rearward and design in a little more protection.
  - moocowduckquack 13y ago
    Just do the foam thing, but do lots of it all round the battery so in the event of a battery fire the battery pops out and is enclosed and the car ends up sitting on a couple of feet or so of foam.
- umsm 13y ago
  I don't think placement could solve the points you mention. Sure, debris can damage the underside and cause the car to catch fire, but putting the packs in the front or rear of the car can cause it to explode on impact as well. Having it on the underside will probably cause fewer fires than having it in the front for example. That said, consider gasoline cars: The fuel needs to travel from the tank to the engine. Effectively, an impact anywhere on the fuel line can cause a fire.
ars 13y ago
The main reason gasoline engines catch fire is they overheat - i.e. not due to an accident, but rather poor maintenance. So when you read statistics on car fires you should try to exclude those if you can. Fire from road debris would be very very unlikely. How would that even happen? I suppose it could cut a water pipe, and then cause overheating. Fires from a violent crash do happen of course, and no one would criticize Tesla for those types, but from road debris? That shouldn't happen.
- ceejayoz 13y ago
  > So when you read statistics on car fires you should try to exclude those if you can. How on earth would that make a better comparison?!
  - tedunangst 13y ago
    All of the Teslas sold so far are presumably well maintained, so doesn't it make sense to compare them to well maintained gas vehicles?
  - ars 13y ago
    Are we analyzing the owner of the car (maintenance) or the car (effects of minor road incidents)?
- stcredzero 13y ago
  The main reason gasoline engines catch fire is they overheat - i.e. not due to an accident, but rather poor maintenance. So when you read statistics on car fires you should try to exclude those if you can. Then to be fair, one should also take into account the increased reliability of the electric drivetrain.
stcredzero 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_tank#Placement_and_safety http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_tank#Placement_and_safety There have been a lot of problems with fuel tank placement, with some designs being responsible for spraying passengers with flammable fuel, which subsequently catches fire. The design criteria for internal combustion cars seems to be to place the energy storage such that it minimizes the chance of damage, and to take steps to ensure that the contents do not endanger the passengers. Gas tanks are not designed to withstand highway speed collisions with pointed steel objects and never burn. To apply such standards to electic cars is a double standard. By the general standards of passenger cars, I'd say that the Tesla model S is a bit fragile, but still quite safe.
- 001sky 13y ago
  I'd say that the Tesla model S is a bit fragile, but still quite safe What's fragile about 6mm armour plate? And what's safe about 100% of the fires having a single source? It sounds like TSLA needs to put the battery somewhere more protected. They have it exposed right now (presumably for lower CoG and better handling). That might just be a design flaw. I think we can still keep an open mind on LiIon untill the designs are iterated upon more.
  - stcredzero 13y ago
    What's fragile about 6mm armour plate? Urgh. Nice context switch. To be fair, the system as a whole seems to be a bit fragile, which is what I was actually saying. But in this specific strawman context: Lots of things are "fragile" when a piece of steel has a significant fraction of the momentum of a car behind it. To me, still very dependable and robust for something with sportscar performance.

fleitz 13y ago

Which would make this news if a 3.7% daily move wasn't average daily volatility for this stock.

timjensen 13y ago

Lithium Ion batteries pack a lot of energy it takes less than you think to start a cascade failure.

greglindahl 13y ago
Tesla's battery is engineered to prevent cascade failures. That system worked OK in the first fire, and the short duration of the latest fire probably means it worked there, too.
pkulak 13y ago
Depends on the chemistry. Notice a lack of any Leaf or Volt fires, despite many more being on the road? Li-manganese and li-phosphate go into thermal runaway at 2.5C and 3.4C respectively (C being the rate at which a battery would be depleted in one hour). The Tesla batteries do it at about 300C. Tesla gets a cheaper and much more energy dense battery in exchange for that risk, but they also have to deal with PR events like this. As an aside, I'd totally drive a Tesla if I could afford it. I'm not trying to say the car is unsafe. They use a riskier chemistry, but they've also gone to extraordinary lengths to manage that risk with really aggressive thermal management, barriers, etc. There have yet to be any injuries.

kunai 13y ago

One share is still worth more than 4 times ORCL's share... so I guess that's something.

jamesaguilar 13y ago
That is completely irrelevant. That's like saying "There are more micrograms in this one-gram object than there are grams in this one-kilogram object, and therefore the one gram object is heavier."
rebel 13y ago
Share price is an irrelevant number when you aren't taking the shares outstanding into account. Oracle's market cap is $159B, Tesla's market cap is $17B. Oracle is worth nearly 10x Tesla currently.
chollida1 13y ago
> One share is still worth more than 4 times ORCL's share... so I guess that's something. It's actually nothing. From my bloomberg terminal I can see ORCL US Equity has a Mkt Cap of $156,024.6M and TSLA US Equity has a Mkt Cap of 16,945.9M So Oracle is about 9.2 times bigger than Tesla.
- AsymetricCom 13y ago
  From my Google terminal, I can see the same thing. :D What's more important is the percent of the company you're getting with a share. (Obviously the same information in a different form), but I think more important to the small investor than share price. 121.45M - TSLA 4.56B - ORCL So you're getting significantly more share of the company for your investment when you go for TSLA.
- mr_luc 13y ago
  Or to put it another way, its market cap is approximately 1 million dollars per Model S it has sold to date.
Mikeb85 13y ago
Market cap is what matters when valuing a company. Share price is nothing more than market cap/outstanding shares...

JonSkeptic 13y ago

We've all known that the correction was coming for a long time. TSLA was an awesome stock, and it will be again. But I'm glad it's happening now, the sooner the correction is over with, the sooner we can get a sane valuation, and the sooner people can focus less on how ridiculous the price is, and more on how freaking awesome the cars are. (Fires and all)

kirpekar 13y ago
>> We've all known that the correction was coming for a long time. Sorry, but NOBODY (much less we all) can predict short term stock movements. If I KNEW a correction was coming, I'd be a billionaire by now.
larrys 13y ago
What do you mean by "TSLA was an awesome stock" exactly?
- JonSkeptic 13y ago
  I mean that I hope you sold recently. It'll be a great time to buy soon, but now it's finally a good day in shortville.
jusben1369 13y ago
I think you're mixing up some fundamental issues here. I don't think cars catching on fire is a stock correction from a frothy market. Stock corrections come from missing earnings by 5 or 10% and taking a 30% haircut. Your car's catching on fire can destroy your company if it goes on too long. It likely will cost you large sums of money's in recalls.

stcredzero 13y ago

Really, this headline should read: Lithium Ion Batteries Catch Fire When Mangled!

meepmorp 13y ago
Which is a problem for a company that uses them extensively in large consumer products that tend to get mangled with some frequency.
- stcredzero 13y ago
  Sort of like gas tanks?
  - 001sky 13y ago
    Sort of like gas tanks? Petrol is way safer. The tanks are protected behind the second axle, and the fuel lines are either hardened or flexible, and in any event also well protected. That is why data show only 2% of fires are caus by problems relating to the fuel system. Tesla would need to have 200 more fires that did not involve the LiIon to become safer (on an apples to apples comparison). Something tells me that proving that case wouldn't do them any good.
    - stcredzero 13y ago
      Petrol is way safer. Yes, but with petrol cars, we're benefitting from over 100 years of experience and engineering -- with many, many horrific fatalities included in the "experience." Considering how recently the Tesla engineers started off, I'd say they're doing a stellar job. (For heavens sakes, the system tells you what's up and warns you to pull over and get out!)
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
    - ubersoldat2k7 13y ago

tzs 13y ago

If corporations had senses of humor, Boeing would make a public offer to help Tesla with their batteries.

sp332 13y ago
"Have you tried flying your cars through the air? There's less junk to run in to up there."

bliti 13y ago

Gasoline powered vehicles are not exempt from fire issues. Fact is, one of the best selling vehicles[1] in the U.S. had a recall due to how it would catch fire while parked. I personally saw one on fire on a parking lot. It was baffling. Another recall from the 70's was this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Fuel_tank_defect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Fuel_tank_defect People seem to forget that they are driving around with gallons of combustible liquid. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/27/automobiles/27FORD.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/27/automobiles/27FORD.html?_r...

sbov 13y ago
That happened to my parents' ford. They were at a stoplight and it caught fire, and were able to put it out in a nearby parking lot. At the time Ford was denying there were any fire problems with their model (an F150), but it seems like they eventually admitted there was an issue with their cruise control wiring.
tedunangst 13y ago
The recent ford recall had nothing to do with gasoline. I think people keep missing that point. If tesla's cruise control switches were the parts catching fire, this wouldn't be a big deal.
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  The obvious difference being that if a random switch goes wrong and catches fire, it is not going to set the batteries alight. It was the fuel tanks of these cars that burnt them out, not the switch fires.
  - tedunangst 13y ago
    Was it the fuel tank that caught on fire?
- bliti 13y ago
  >The recent ford recall had nothing to do with gasoline. I disagree with this point. A fire in a gasoline powered vehicle always has to do with gasoline. Even if the fire did not start due to an issue in the fuel delivery system. This system is commonly laid out in a way that most of the vehicle is near a fuel line at all times. I am not defending Tesla, but pointing out that gasoline powered vehicles also carry fire risks. Do realize that gasoline powered vehicles also carry batteries that may explode/catch fire under given circumstances. I've had a battery or two blow up near me before, and it is not fun.

rajpaul 13y ago

to me these are the most important points in the article: General Motors and Nissan make the top-selling electric cars in the nation, the Volt and Leaf. Neither knows of any real-world blazes in those vehicles. A Chevrolet Volt caught fire two years ago after a government crash test, but the government closed an investigation into the incident after GM agreed to a safety campaign to bolster shielding around the battery. GM has sold more than 50,000 Volts in the U.S. since late 2010. Nissan has sold almost 38,000 Leafs. Tesla has sold an estimated 16,251 Model S cars in the U.S., according to Autodata Corp.

auctiontheory 13y ago

It might be useful to see some data on how many Tesla cars have had front-end accidents and not had fires. To ask it another way, do 100% of accidents result in a huge fire? Or 0.01%?

gojomo 13y ago

At this point, I'm worried that stock manipulators could be setting Tesla fires.

philwelch 13y ago
Anything that doesn't shatter your godlike image of Elon Musk, eh?
- gojomo 13y ago
  Has nothing to do with my estimation of Musk. There are amoral people who have giant pools of money, who will do anything to make even more money. Spreading rumors is one very common tactic, but actual sabotage/'black ops' are also very possible.
  - philwelch 13y ago
    It just seems odd that you prefer some conspiracy theory over the simpler explanation that Model S has an unforeseen flaw involving battery fires, which are a decades-known risk of lithium batteries anyway.
    - gojomo 13y ago
      It just seems odd that you're reading Musk/Tesla-love, or an exclusion of the possibility of flaws, into my comments. It's like you're responding to someone else. I'm mentioning another non-exclusive possibility... and one that would work synergistically to expand the stock impact of any actual flaws. (It becomes more likely once the initial idea is planted, be it by flaw or random coincidence. Turn 2 or 3 real fires into twice as many with a little help, collect a billion dollars.) Or do you think high-flying volatile stock values are never unethically manipulated in either direction? Hey, where were you during each of the fires so far?
      - philwelch 13y ago
        I thought it was odd that you were positing conspiracy theories when they were not the Occam-optimal explanation. Musk worship is common around these parts so it seemed the more likely motivation for believing crazy conspiracy theories over more likely explanations.