12 ms·

We're reading this on Tesla's site, and they obviously wouldn't have posted it if it weren't at least somewhat flattering, so we have that lens to view it throu

by blahedo 13y ago

We're reading this on Tesla's site, and they obviously wouldn't have posted it if it weren't at least somewhat flattering, so we have that lens to view it through. But, the letter does raise the important idea that before we decry how awful the failure mode is ("the car caught on fire!"), it's worth considering what the alternative would be---what happens in similar situations in combustion engines?

gamblor956 13y ago
Nothing. Conventional cars are designed not to catch fire when they run over road debris, especially not cars built within the last two decades. At worst, debris may cause a flat if it punctures one of the tires.
- redthrowaway 13y ago
  >At worst, debris may cause a flat if it punctures one of the tires. That's dismissive hyperbole. Debris regularly causes serious damages to all vehicle types. If the object in question, as in this case, is hard enough and hit with enough force to penetrate the battery, it's hard enough and hit with enough force to seriously damage any system it hits. It may not crack the engine block, but it can destroy radiators/suspension/brakes/fuel tanks/etc. The worst case scenario is most certainly not "a flat".
- eholder 13y ago
  The term "road debris" can mean anything from dust to entire engine blocks[1]. The debris in question here is a metal tow hitch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_debris#Examples http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_debris#Examples See my other comment upthread for an example of a gasoline car catching fire because of cardboard boxes.
- thomasmeeks 13y ago
  >At worst, debris may cause a flat if it punctures one of the tires. That's just not true. I had about $2k in damage on a Mini Cooper (2006, stock) that hit the remnants of a blown out semi truck tire in the road. Similar situation to the blog post -- a pickup truck cleared it but I did not. I was not in a safe position to swerve. The tire chewed up the lower front bumper and punctured the radiator. I had to immediately pull over and have the car towed. It happened to hit below the foam & all the fancy crash reinforcement on the bumper. Good times. That was just 70lbs of steel-wrapped rubber. I can easily imagine a trailer hitch as described taking out a radiator or oil pan on a modern car. Unlikely to cause a fire for sure, but it'll certainly disable a vehicle.
- Natsu 13y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_debris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_debris "In 2004, a AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety study revealed that vehicle-related road debris caused 25,000 accidents—and nearly 100 deaths—each year."
corresation 13y ago
it's worth considering what the alternative would be---what happens in similar situations in combustion engines? What happens then? There are several innuendos throughout this thread that allude to some sort of catastrophic scenario if it were a normal vehicle, however this seems unsupported. Yes, normal combustion engines catch on fire, but they don't explode in a fireball when they hit debris on the highway (there is absolutely nothing rare about hitting debris on the highway). Further there are millions of combustion engine vehicles on the roadway -- there are currently some 250 million traditional vehicles in the United States. Last I read Tesla is delivering something in the range of 30,000 vehicles per year.
- revelation 13y ago
  The Tesla didn't explode in a fireball, it vented the heat to the front, away from the battery pack and the cabin, and then the front caught fire.
  - corresation 13y ago
    I am not implying that it did explode in a fireball. We see the evidence several times now that it was a controlled, escapable loss of property, which is an ideal worst-case. I was replying to the "what could have happened if" innuendo about combustion engines.
- nonchalance 13y ago
  I'd point out that those innuendos are based on manipulative statistics: the standard is comparing the rate of car fires, but most of those 250 million cars are far older than Tesla Model S (decades as opposed to months old). A proper apples-to-apples comparison would look at new cars (within a year, lets say) and compare those rates.
  - aidos 13y ago
    I know nothing about the physics of it but would that not depend on the causes of fires? I may be misunderstanding but it sounds like you're implying that fires are more likely in older cars - maybe that is actually the case (I'd be willing to believe it).
RockyMcNuts 13y ago
ummh... you really think Tesla's PR team didn't write that and ask the guy to sign it? implying how nicely they were going to treat him if he did? Sure, it's quite possible as a fanboy he did it totally on his own. But I wouldn't bet that way, and I have to think most people who know how the tech industry works would feel the same.
- calinet6 13y ago
  I'm guessing most Tesla owners at this point are rich, well-educated and level-headed people who are also early adopters and a fan of the car and company. It seems reasonably likely that it's genuine.
- p1mrx 13y ago
  I find it unlikely that Tesla PR would attribute their cars' safety to a supernatural being.
  - RockyMcNuts 13y ago
    ha, good point. not sure if it adds to the overall credibility. bottom line, the guy likes the car enough to write/cooperate, even after it hit a bump and burned up, how much of that is the car's greatness, rose-colored fanboi glasses, good old-fashioned working the media...unclear.
Natsu 13y ago
> We're reading this on Tesla's site, and they obviously wouldn't have posted it if it weren't at least somewhat flattering, so we have that lens to view it through. In this case, we've seen reports from the driver in 2 of the 3 accidents, so it's hard to make a case for selection bias. Though feel free to argue it further if you know details of the crash in Mexico that I'm not aware of. Driving a car is one of the least safe things we do regularly, FWIW. With the population large enough, we are virtually guaranteed to see more of these. Unfortunately, the media does terrible things to our risk perception by giving us incomplete evidence and leaving us to extrapolate. For example, to compare whether the Tesla is unsafe--and for all we know, maybe there is some flaw that helps road debris catch on the plate and puncture it--it would be more informative to see fires/#miles driven for a large cross-section of common cars, as well as fatalities/#miles driven and the like. Of course, even that is somewhat biased, because there might be effects where, hypothetically, risky drivers are drawn certain cars or something like that.
threeseed 13y ago
When was the last time you saw a car accident on the news where the car burst into flames ? Maybe it's just a case that combustion engine based cars have had more time to resolve this issue properly.
- mikestew 13y ago
  >>When was the last time you saw a car accident on the news where the car burst into flames ? Last month, right here in Seattle: http://www.king5.com/traffic/news/Collision-causes-car-fire-in-downtown-Seattle-223204141.html http://www.king5.com/traffic/news/Collision-causes-car-fire-...
  - wiredfool 13y ago
    Last night, in Seattle: http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Fiery-crash-follows-150-mph-chase-on-I-90-231284641.html?mobile=y&clmob=y&c=n http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Fiery-crash-follows-150-m...
- KevinEldon 13y ago
  Local traffic reporters (in Atlanta at least) have been known to call cars catching on fire 'Car-B-Qs'. It's a distasteful name but indicates that cars catching on fire isn't that uncommon.
Shivetya 13y ago
Normal vehicles don't have their fuel tank along the whole bottom of the car, let alone that far to the front. All that is for a reason. Tesla made a choice to arrange packs like this for swap purposes. It certainly wasn't going all out for safety. Throw in the fact battery tech really isn't all there yet and you get a very large battery that compromises have to be made. Tesla chose a compromise based on their swap tech. They could have put more batteries in the rear or made the stack shorter. Used a central tunnel for more, etc.
- Havoc 13y ago
  >Tesla made a choice to arrange packs like this for swap purposes. That might have contributed, but I think lowering the center of gravity was the main consideration.
JoeAltmaier 13y ago
A normal car would not tell you there was a problem and suggest corrective action, then demand you pull over when safety parameters were exceeded, keeping you safe and healthy with minutes to spare. The first you would know there was a problem in a normal car, would be when you felt or saw the fire.

by blahedo 13y ago

gamblor956 13y ago

Nothing. Conventional cars are designed not to catch fire when they run over road debris, especially not cars built within the last two decades. At worst, debris may cause a flat if it punctures one of the tires.

redthrowaway 13y ago
>At worst, debris may cause a flat if it punctures one of the tires. That's dismissive hyperbole. Debris regularly causes serious damages to all vehicle types. If the object in question, as in this case, is hard enough and hit with enough force to penetrate the battery, it's hard enough and hit with enough force to seriously damage any system it hits. It may not crack the engine block, but it can destroy radiators/suspension/brakes/fuel tanks/etc. The worst case scenario is most certainly not "a flat".
eholder 13y ago
The term "road debris" can mean anything from dust to entire engine blocks[1]. The debris in question here is a metal tow hitch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_debris#Examples http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_debris#Examples See my other comment upthread for an example of a gasoline car catching fire because of cardboard boxes.
thomasmeeks 13y ago
>At worst, debris may cause a flat if it punctures one of the tires. That's just not true. I had about $2k in damage on a Mini Cooper (2006, stock) that hit the remnants of a blown out semi truck tire in the road. Similar situation to the blog post -- a pickup truck cleared it but I did not. I was not in a safe position to swerve. The tire chewed up the lower front bumper and punctured the radiator. I had to immediately pull over and have the car towed. It happened to hit below the foam & all the fancy crash reinforcement on the bumper. Good times. That was just 70lbs of steel-wrapped rubber. I can easily imagine a trailer hitch as described taking out a radiator or oil pan on a modern car. Unlikely to cause a fire for sure, but it'll certainly disable a vehicle.
Natsu 13y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_debris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_debris "In 2004, a AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety study revealed that vehicle-related road debris caused 25,000 accidents—and nearly 100 deaths—each year."

corresation 13y ago

it's worth considering what the alternative would be---what happens in similar situations in combustion engines? What happens then? There are several innuendos throughout this thread that allude to some sort of catastrophic scenario if it were a normal vehicle, however this seems unsupported. Yes, normal combustion engines catch on fire, but they don't explode in a fireball when they hit debris on the highway (there is absolutely nothing rare about hitting debris on the highway). Further there are millions of combustion engine vehicles on the roadway -- there are currently some 250 million traditional vehicles in the United States. Last I read Tesla is delivering something in the range of 30,000 vehicles per year.

revelation 13y ago
The Tesla didn't explode in a fireball, it vented the heat to the front, away from the battery pack and the cabin, and then the front caught fire.
- corresation 13y ago
  I am not implying that it did explode in a fireball. We see the evidence several times now that it was a controlled, escapable loss of property, which is an ideal worst-case. I was replying to the "what could have happened if" innuendo about combustion engines.
nonchalance 13y ago
I'd point out that those innuendos are based on manipulative statistics: the standard is comparing the rate of car fires, but most of those 250 million cars are far older than Tesla Model S (decades as opposed to months old). A proper apples-to-apples comparison would look at new cars (within a year, lets say) and compare those rates.
- aidos 13y ago
  I know nothing about the physics of it but would that not depend on the causes of fires? I may be misunderstanding but it sounds like you're implying that fires are more likely in older cars - maybe that is actually the case (I'd be willing to believe it).

RockyMcNuts 13y ago

ummh... you really think Tesla's PR team didn't write that and ask the guy to sign it? implying how nicely they were going to treat him if he did? Sure, it's quite possible as a fanboy he did it totally on his own. But I wouldn't bet that way, and I have to think most people who know how the tech industry works would feel the same.

calinet6 13y ago
I'm guessing most Tesla owners at this point are rich, well-educated and level-headed people who are also early adopters and a fan of the car and company. It seems reasonably likely that it's genuine.
p1mrx 13y ago
I find it unlikely that Tesla PR would attribute their cars' safety to a supernatural being.
- RockyMcNuts 13y ago
  ha, good point. not sure if it adds to the overall credibility. bottom line, the guy likes the car enough to write/cooperate, even after it hit a bump and burned up, how much of that is the car's greatness, rose-colored fanboi glasses, good old-fashioned working the media...unclear.

Natsu 13y ago

> We're reading this on Tesla's site, and they obviously wouldn't have posted it if it weren't at least somewhat flattering, so we have that lens to view it through. In this case, we've seen reports from the driver in 2 of the 3 accidents, so it's hard to make a case for selection bias. Though feel free to argue it further if you know details of the crash in Mexico that I'm not aware of. Driving a car is one of the least safe things we do regularly, FWIW. With the population large enough, we are virtually guaranteed to see more of these. Unfortunately, the media does terrible things to our risk perception by giving us incomplete evidence and leaving us to extrapolate. For example, to compare whether the Tesla is unsafe--and for all we know, maybe there is some flaw that helps road debris catch on the plate and puncture it--it would be more informative to see fires/#miles driven for a large cross-section of common cars, as well as fatalities/#miles driven and the like. Of course, even that is somewhat biased, because there might be effects where, hypothetically, risky drivers are drawn certain cars or something like that.

threeseed 13y ago

When was the last time you saw a car accident on the news where the car burst into flames ? Maybe it's just a case that combustion engine based cars have had more time to resolve this issue properly.

mikestew 13y ago
>>When was the last time you saw a car accident on the news where the car burst into flames ? Last month, right here in Seattle: http://www.king5.com/traffic/news/Collision-causes-car-fire-in-downtown-Seattle-223204141.html http://www.king5.com/traffic/news/Collision-causes-car-fire-...
- wiredfool 13y ago
  Last night, in Seattle: http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Fiery-crash-follows-150-mph-chase-on-I-90-231284641.html?mobile=y&clmob=y&c=n http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Fiery-crash-follows-150-m...
KevinEldon 13y ago
Local traffic reporters (in Atlanta at least) have been known to call cars catching on fire 'Car-B-Qs'. It's a distasteful name but indicates that cars catching on fire isn't that uncommon.

Shivetya 13y ago

Normal vehicles don't have their fuel tank along the whole bottom of the car, let alone that far to the front. All that is for a reason. Tesla made a choice to arrange packs like this for swap purposes. It certainly wasn't going all out for safety. Throw in the fact battery tech really isn't all there yet and you get a very large battery that compromises have to be made. Tesla chose a compromise based on their swap tech. They could have put more batteries in the rear or made the stack shorter. Used a central tunnel for more, etc.

Havoc 13y ago
>Tesla made a choice to arrange packs like this for swap purposes. That might have contributed, but I think lowering the center of gravity was the main consideration.

JoeAltmaier 13y ago

A normal car would not tell you there was a problem and suggest corrective action, then demand you pull over when safety parameters were exceeded, keeping you safe and healthy with minutes to spare. The first you would know there was a problem in a normal car, would be when you felt or saw the fire.