16 ms·

The Mission of Tesla

348 points by GraffitiTim 13y ago

MrMeker 13y ago
Mr. Musk seems to have a habit of publicizing his back-of-the-napkin calculations. "Based on the Model S track record so far, you have a zero percent chance of being hurt in an accident resulting in a battery fire." It seems to have worked well for him. Maybe I should pick it up.
- tgb 13y ago
  Unfortunately, his napkin doesn't have the right calculations! See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_Succession http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_Succession
- svantana 13y ago
  He certainly doesn't shy away from questionable use of statistics for his own benefit. That and the quip about the odds of being struck by lightning are quite ridiculous IMO.
  - peeters 13y ago
    Yeah, seriously. Why even mention that lightning stat? The absolute odds of me dying from falling from the top of a building are pretty darn small too, but they go up quite significantly when I am walking near the edge of the building's roof without a harness. Obviously your risk of being in a Tesla that is on fire is much greater than being struck by lightning when you are a Tesla driver!
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- omegant 13y ago
  Mr. Musk seems to be ready to put his money where his napkin calculations are.. maybe that´s the secret.
- gambiting 13y ago
  It's just like in the 60-ties the US government calculated that there is a 0% risk of accidental detonation of nuclear bombs[1],because they have not experienced it yet. I believe that electric cars are safer than gasoline cars,but the sample size for Tesla is way to small to draw such conclusions yet. [1] Eric Schlosser, "Command And Control"
  - dkokelley 13y ago
    Out of curiosity, has there been an accidental detonation of a nuclear bomb yet? I browsed through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accide... but could only find non-nuclear detonations.
    - pwnna 13y ago
      There were a close call involving a bomber that accidentally ditched a nuke (i think?). It was the last fail safe that stopped it. I remember reading about it here, don't have the article in hand. I'm sure you can find it.
      - gambiting 13y ago
        Read that book I mentioned in the original post. It mentions plenty of nuclear-related accidents. The one you probably think about happened when an armed thermonuclear bomb fell out of a bomber, yanking the arming wire out, arming every subsystem as it fell - barometric switches activated,thermal batteries ignited , and upon hitting the ground the piezoelectric crystals in the nose cone crushed activating the high explosives surrounding the core. It would have detonated, except that the "fire-safe" switch in the cockpit was not switch to "fire". That switch was just two very low voltage wires running close together, and it was found later that pretty much anything in that bomber could have triggered it. It was extremely lucky that that bomb has not detonated that day. There were also a few bombs which were lost in fire on the ground, couple of those had their high explosives ignite without producing a nuclear yield but spreading plutonium around, contaminating ground. There were bombers which fell apart in the air, which crashed, most of the time the nuclear bombs they were carrying survived intact,but a few times those crashes resulted in a widespread contamination with plutonium - a famous one in Spain and another near an American Polar station that the bomber was monitoring from Soviet attack - that one is particularly interesting,because had the bombs aboard that bomber detonated and destroyed that station, it would be extremely likely that the US government would assume that it was destroyed by a Soviet nuclear strike,and not by their own machinery - and that would probably cause them to retaliate starting a nuclear war.
- deelowe 13y ago
  Agreed. While I agree with his thesis that the risk with electric cars is much lower, this "analysis" is very infuriating. He speaks in absolutes and compares the entire automotive industry to a single premium luxury car model. Of course he knows this. This is just a PR piece instead of a well articulated rebuttal of the fire risk claims. That said, he presents it as something else altogether (and will defend it quite boldly). Full disclosure: I'm an electric car owner (leaf) and I want to see tesla succeed, but Elon can be a rather poor spokesman at times.
jwise0 13y ago
The sentence -- "First, we have rolled out an over-the-air update to the air suspension that will result in greater ground clearance at highway speeds." -- for some reason deeply amuses me. I thought that it was scary to push out OTAs to phones (I hope everything works like it did in the dev environment); I can't imagine pushing an OTA to a $85,000 car! A few sentences later, though -- "Another software update expected in January will give the driver direct control of the air suspension ride height transitions." -- concerns me. Tesla's car computer is becoming increasingly complex, and the fact that the infotainment system will have such complete control over the car -- and will still accept data from outside sources -- is very concerning. I hope that at some point soon Tesla will begin talking about the security methodology that they use for the firmware running on the car, and how they prevent unauthorized code from running.
- booyaa00 13y ago
  So as there have been instances of an OTA update "bricking" phones, there will likely at some point be an OTA to cars which causes mass crashes and casualties. It's just a question of when... Yet more movement of freedom and power from individuals to corporations.
  - koide 13y ago
    How is that different from the cases where batches of faulty cars are sold and cause crashes and deaths? With OTA updates you can at least fix it with a rollback, quickly, before more people die. I fail to see this as a move of power from individuals to corporations.
    - booyaa00 13y ago
      I guess I just trust hardware far more than software in general.
  - manmal 13y ago
    I don't agree. There would be no OTA bricked phones if enough thought and cost were put into the verification and installation process. Critical components could e.g. be duplicated, such that critical software like the bootloader can be restored in case the new version cannot start up.
001sky 13y ago
Reading the headlines, it is therefore easy to assume that the Tesla Model S and perhaps electric cars in general have a greater propensity to catch fire than gasoline cars when nothing could be further from the truth. Actually, the Data do not support Him. He is starting to tread on shallow ground, and perhaps should re-evaluate and stratify his data analysis to fires 'on public highways'.[1,2] That is where all of the Tesla Fires are happening. Unfortunately, those data do not support him. By this metric, you are more than four and a half times more likely to experience a fire in a gasoline car than a Model S! Considering the odds in the absolute, you are more likely to be struck by lightning in your lifetime than experience even a non-injurious fire in a Tesla. And, Bayesian statistics might give you a different analysis. From a PR perspective, I wonder if this is really doing him any favours? The note he wrote after the october crash was flawed, but perhaps excusable. This is too pre-meditated and now must just be considered somewhere on the spectrum of 'wrong' to 'misguided' to 'misleading'. [1] In data terms, it excludes intentional fires like vandalism, and parked cars being struck, and accidents in motor repair facilities, etc. [2] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Public+highway http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Public+highway
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- AlexeyMK 13y ago
  If you're going to claim the numbers don't support the author's thesis, it would be helpful to provide accurate figures (or at least link to an article that does so).
- quarterto 13y ago
  So where are the data for gasoline car fires on public highways? You're accusing someone of not being supported by their data, and offering absolutely no data in counterpoint.
  - 001sky 13y ago
    see, for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6691541 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6691541
damon_c 13y ago
This is probably the first article I've read linked from HN where "firewall" referred to a barrier designed to partition fire.
nfm 13y ago
Why are people desperate to see Tesla fail? Is it a negative PR campaign from the auto or oil industry? This blog post shouldn't need to be written.
- ubernostrum 13y ago
  Personally, I just find delicious irony in Musk scrambling to spin fires in his battery-powered vehicles after all the condescending snark he heaped on Boeing...
  - deletes 13y ago
    Well to be fair, the Boeing planes were not involved in accidents( as far as i know ).
    - Jtsummers 13y ago
      Correct. They simply caught fire, and there were two potential design flaws in the system. The first was no fire suppression in the compartment with the batteries, only smoke detectors. The second was fire containment, concerns that it would be insufficient (especially paired with the lack of fire suppression systems) to contain a fire. Compare to the Tesla fires: still no fire suppression baked in; deliberate effort in containing and directing the fire away from passengers; ample notice (so far) to drivers that something is wrong! and that they should pull over. Also, I'd take a fire in a car over a fire on a plane any day. The car is: cheaper to repair/replace; already on the ground. If a plane has a fire, sure it'll end up on the ground, but depending on where on the aircraft and the effectiveness of detection and suppression systems it may not be a state where people can simply walk away from it.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
  - baddox 13y ago
    Ah, but there's a huge difference. Boeing isn't a company founded by Elon Musk.
bachback 13y ago
This just shows how insane the media world is. Great rebuttal. I love this one: "It is literally impossible for another car to have a better safety track record, as it would have to possess mystical powers of healing."
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
salimmadjd 13y ago
Flawed argument! Model S is only 1 year old and it's a premium vehicle. So the fire rate should be compared to those of premium vehicles about the same age.
- kozhevnikov 13y ago
  Flawed argument! The fire rate should be compared to those of premium electric vehicles about the same age... which don't exist. Not even Fisker or i3 would qualify if you restrict the criteria far enough. I think they should limit it to the same colour only as well.
  - MarcusVorenus 13y ago
    What? How are you supposed to assess the safety of electric vs gasoline cars by comparing electric vs electric?
- Cthulhu_ 13y ago
  Yeah, a lot of those arguments, while true, are not very representative; he's comparing statistics of the 19.000 brand new cars built within the last year with the millions of road cars currently out there. I do think the Tesla's fires have been blown way out of proportion by the media. And it's odd too; gasoline fires are much more impressive and descriptions of burning children and suchlike will create much more impressive headlines than "electrical car on fire". It's a desensitisation thing though, I think; dozens of cars (rough guess based on nothing) go up in flames every day, which is maybe noted in a local newspaper. Rare high-tech car has a fire and it's world news.
- lettergram 13y ago
  There are so many factors to take into consideration that the argument would be a book to get a full view... For example, if you want to move past generalizations (such as the author of the blog post made) you would also have to consider things such as the type of people using the cars vs other premium vehicles. Likely Tesla users are going to be more apt to try more things, which in turn makes them at a higher risk to drive erratically or at higher speeds (even perhaps higher than other premium vehicle users). Further, I would suspect premium vehicles have a higher rate of deaths due to accident than the average population of car. However, that data might not be available to him.
daily 13y ago
Hope it's not superfluous to point out, but it's kind of funny: "By By Elon Musk" is seen under the title. That sounds hostile :) (the duplicate By isn't seen in other posts on the blog)
cloudwalking 13y ago
Everybody is missing a huge point: Vehicle fire now completely covered under warranty, even when caused by operator error. "Third, to reinforce how strongly we feel about the low risk of fire in our cars, we will be amending our warranty policy to cover damage due to a fire, even if due to driver error. Unless a Model S owner actively tries to destroy the car, they are covered. Our goal here is to eliminate any concern about the cost of such an event and ensure that over time the Model S has the lowest insurance cost of any car at our price point. Either our belief in the safety of our car is correct and this is a minor cost or we are wrong, in which case the right thing is for Tesla to bear the cost rather than the car buyer."
- ams6110 13y ago
  Typically insurance would cover this anyway.
  - 001sky 13y ago
    His point is that insurance cost for an 85k car with a potential design flaw is (1) likely to go up; and (2) likely to be perceived as a red flag by potential buyers. Insurance companies are often accused of over-reacting to recent data (eg, a recent hurricane will jump up insurance next year). That being said, the insurance companies are also likely to actually look at the data and dis-regard pr spin when they are on the hook for the damages. By removing the insurance co's scrutiny from the data as well, it kills two birds with a single stone.
    - ams6110 13y ago
      You're right, I glanced over that part of the statement, and thought he was just trying to assure owners that they "are covered" in case their car bursts into flames.
    - loceng 13y ago
      Or at minimum an excuse for insurance companies to charge more. And Tesla keeping this insurance, at minimum, allows them to manage the costs for owners - and if there are 'profits' to the 'paid' insurance (embedded in cost of car, and the ecosystem as a whole), then it is Tesla that gains the benefits either as profit or can re-invest it into their ecosystem. Insurance overall is a scam, however government and politicians prefer to not be responsible or accountable by allowing private for-profit companies take advantage of everyone.
thom 13y ago
"It is also why arsonists tend to favor gasoline. Trying to set the side of a building on fire with a battery pack is far less effective." CHALLENGE ACCEPTED.
- Pitarou 13y ago
  I suggest you start here: http://www.terminalcornucopia.com/ http://www.terminalcornucopia.com/ Check out the "fraggucino", which combines a lithium battery, water, a condom, and a coffee flask to make a big bang.
  - PeterisP 13y ago
    Look at the bang made by that "fraggucino". Look at the effects of the same coffee flask if used as a Molotov cocktail. These two things are not in the same league.
    - Pitarou 13y ago
      And look at the tiny quantity of lithium involved. What could we do with, say, half-a-liter of powdered lithium? I should shut up now. I'm probably already on an NSA watchlist for the search term I used to find that site.
- asmithmd1 13y ago
  Here is a hint: https://www.google.com/search?q=9+volt+battery+steel+wool https://www.google.com/search?q=9+volt+battery+steel+wool
Killah911 13y ago
This whole fiasco reminds me of Ryan Holiday's book "Trust me I'm lying". I can't help but wonder if some "media manipulator" was involved in the possible manufacture of some negative PR for Tesla. This assumption is not unreasonable since Ralph Nader was attacked by hired gun media (hired by the big three) when he dared challenge the status quo. I'm not that the big three are involved, but the stink caused by the car fires seems a bit "manipulated". My friend rolled his truck this weekend. He's looking for the new car and when I suggested a Tesla, he gave me a Resounding no, due to fire hazard. While this a heuristic observation, he is a pretty innovative guy and I'm confident he would a picked or even considered a tesla had it not been for the negative press. Lastly, I wonder if Elon's doing the right thing by repeating this. Maybe he should talk to Ryan Holiday type. I genuinely hope that this blows over and that Tesla & Elon can get back to building awesome cars & changing the world rather than playing PR.
- ams6110 13y ago
  I don't think there's a conspiracy. The Tesla has been hyped to the the 9s by its founder and enthusiasts in the tech press. When you seek the spotlight, don't be surprised to find yourself in it. Lots of other rare automobile faults have made big headlines, because the press likes drama. See: uncontrolled acceleration problems in Audi and Toyota vehicles.
- 001sky 13y ago
  The media have been driven by the stock price, for the most part. It shot up to 180 and then dropped into 120's. It seems much of the odd behaviour around any discussion is attributable to that. Its not clear why people seem so 'invested' in the story, on either side. http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=TSLA+Interactive#symbol=TSLA;range=6m http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=TSLA+Interactive#symbol=T...
- anon1385 13y ago
  There has been some absolutely ridiculous media coverage from the usual suspects like Fox[1], but it doesn't really have the smell of a organised campaign to me (yet). It's just the usual right wing talking heads taking a skewed view of things because of their preexisting biases. I think a lot of Tesla fans are getting into the conspiracy theory zone with this and they are starting to sound fairly cult-like. HN and the Tesla users forums had quite a few people seriously suggesting that some agent of 'big auto' was out on the highway looking for teslas to throw debris under (no doubt the 'big auto' spies inside Tesla had alerted them to the vulnerability of the underside of the battery pack). The personality cult surrounding Musk turns a lot of people off. Also the Boeing incident is coming back to bite him now, and rightly so. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhMjRzvE1Ng https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhMjRzvE1Ng
felix 13y ago
Whatever you think of the blog post and Musk's spin - he puts his money where his mouth is. He's put into writing that if a 3rd party investigation into the fires finds anything they can do to improve safety - everyone gets a free retrofit. And short of an owner actively trying to destroy their car, Tesla's warranty will cover fire damage. How many CEO's have that level of confidence in their product? Can you imagine Honda, Audi, BMW or any of the others reacting that way to something like this? And they've been around for much longer.
- onebaddude 13y ago
  >Can you imagine Honda, Audi, BMW or any of the others reacting that way to something like this? Yes, I can. Do you really think he's doing this out of the goodness of his heart? These fires are both a legal and PR nightmare. Nobody, at this point, knows how big of a problem this is. Despite the yarn that Musk is spinning, ICE cars don't combust when they hit road debris. Personally, I think the problem is exaggerated, but let's not dismiss the fact that there's a battery across the whole bottom of these cars. Go to the Tesla forums; there are owners there that are legitimately concerned for their safety.
ZanyProgrammer 13y ago
To make money, of fucking course.
codex 13y ago
The Tesla counter spin to avoid a recall here is incredible. The OTA update is a de facto recall but it only partially addresses the issue.
- alex_c 13y ago
  So, what is the issue that needs to be addressed exactly? That cars get damaged when they hit things?
  - codex 13y ago
    That the rate of "fires from a collision" in a Tesla is 25x that of the average US car. The OTA update reduces the number of undercarriage collisions and thus the number of fires.
    - alex_c 13y ago
      OK, I tried to do a bit of digging but all I can find are vague allegations and handwaving everywhere. Where does the 25x number come from?
  - smackfu 13y ago
    That the "armor plate" they are using to protect the battery pack isn't strong enough to deal with some road debris. They seem to have underestimated exactly how much energy they were dealing with. And they could have made that metal thicker but it would have negative affected the range.
    - Wingman4l7 13y ago
      It's already much stronger than the typical protection of gasoline tanks -- and it was claimed that it was a very exceptional circumstance that allowed that armor plate to be penetrated.
san86 13y ago
I did not see Elon complaining when a car launch got so much attention from the press. This just seems to be the other side of the same coin. This happens to every runaway success. Remember the "death grip" nonsense for iPhone4 and how it was blown out of proportion? Media loves the story of a man who worked against all adds to build/create something amazing. Unfortunately, they love "the fall of the guy" even more.
- nonchalance 13y ago
  > Unfortunately, they love "the fall of the guy" even more. Tesla went out of their way to flaunt the safety features of the car, alleging a 5.4 NHTSA score when the agency explicitly said that they don't issue scores that high. Tesla said they had the safest cars on the road, and this is the eventual result (people actually expect it to be safer). IMHO the reaction is entirely appropriate given Musk's and Tesla's behavior up to this point. If Musk and Tesla weren't flaunting their safety claims, this wouldn't be a significant issue
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
TrainedMonkey 13y ago
I find their statistics to be somewhat misleading. Can we see fire statistics on cars produced from the same time as Model S? Because I am not surprised a lot of the older cars are catching on fire. I still believe Tesla will be safer then gasoline cars, but gap definitely would not be orders of magnitude.
ececconi 13y ago
Yes, but the Model S's on the road are less than a couple of years old. How many gasoline fires are caused by cars that are a couple of years old? I would guess this comparison would put the gasoline fires more in line with Tesla car rates. I would assume that most of the gasoline engines that catch fire are from older cars which haven't been maintained well.
11thEarlOfMar 13y ago
FD: TSLA Shareholder We should discuss whether the situation changes over time. As gasoline cars age, their likelihood of catching fire increases. As electric cars age, does their chance also increase? The flammable elements of a gas-powered car also have wear and tear issues, and poor service risks. A do-it-yourself mechanic replacing a fuel filter is a worry, for example. Or, an old engine with a compromised head gasket, coated in leaked oil and then overheating. No time to do the analysis myself, but I am guessing that the failure modes of a gas car that cause fire are many and the failure modes of a Tesla are few. Moreover, the likelihood of a particular failure mode in a Tesla may not increase at the same rate as gas as the cars age.
sciguy77 13y ago
Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is persuasive writing.
sanj 13y ago
"First, we have rolled out an over-the-air update to the air suspension that will result in greater ground clearance at highway speeds." Wow. Now I live in the future.
- freehunter 13y ago
  I'm actually curious on that statement as to how it affects the rated MPGe. My understanding is that the car is low to the ground for better handling and better aerodynamics. Even if this change doesn't result in lower MPGe, what would happen if a OTA update to a future car resulted in lower-than-rated MPG? I wonder what the EPA would have to say about that.
  - ams6110 13y ago
    Good observation... and by how much does this reduce the operating range of the car?
robomartin 13y ago
I've said this before and now I'll generalize my statement to say that the most important issue in the electric vehicle segment is and will be that of high power and high voltage system safety, of which the battery is one component. If the public becomes spooked by problems and accidents in this area it could set the electric vehicle market back a decade or more. The real test for electrics will come when one or two million electric vehicles of all types are sharing the road. That's when this issue of battery and power system safety will be hugely important. I can imagine semi's with a million Wh battery systems rolling down the highway. What I cannot imagine are chain reaction collisions involving a variety of electric and liquid fuel vehicles. Tesla is at the forefront of this movement, which means all eyes are on them, the arrows are on their backs and they have the burden of proof. One of the most expensive types of businesses to get into are those where you have to educate your customer base before a sales pitch can even begin. Having to educating the market before you can sell to them can seriously derail one's focus and cost bundles of money that could be put to better use elsewhere. I've been in markets like that. It's a horrible slog. Up until now, for the most part, electrics have avoided this territory. I fear that period is ending. Up until now the conversations about electrics were about range and relative cost when compared to gasoline vehicles. It feels like we are now entering the domain of having to potentially prove to the market that the technology is safe as well as to remove (or stop the potential of the development of) fears of fire and electrocution. Tesla, due to their position in the market, has the honor of having all microscopes aimed at everything they do. Every mishap is amplified. Now that the NTSB has officially opened an investigation every afternoon news show is jumping on the issues. It will soon be everywhere. And Tesla now has to defend, educate and prove to the market that what they are doing is safe. Competitors are now going to pull back and let Tesla take the hits. In markets where a huge investment is required in order to educate the customer base it is often a good idea to not be a pioneer. They will let Tesla burn reputation, bleed cash and resources to deal with the challenge of getting people to be comfortable with the technology. In these markets letting someone else slot through this phase is often the most intelligent strategy. Once things settle, competitors will come in and enjoy a market segment that has been paved flat by the pioneer/s. It is far less costly --at all levels-- to enter at that point. The mentality of a typical potential customer --after massive investments in educating them-- is now very different. Now customers look at the available products and think about which one to buy rather than whether or not to take a risk with this new technology. That's a massively different mind-set. That's a mind set primed for well executed product, marketing and sales strategies with wide distribution, solid sales channels and a solid post-sales support infrastructure --all of which the established players either know how to do or already have in place. Manufacturers entering the market after the education phase can focus on pricing, marketing and, in general, execution rather than educating or evangelizing the audience. There's a huge difference in cost of sales in "nicely paved markets". When that happens, when the market is "flat" and competitors enter in force, they could run right over Tesla, push them right off the edge of the market or they could be swallowed-up by a larger organization. Let's not forget Tesla sold somewhere in the order of twenty thousand cars --total. There are companies that probably sell that many cars per day. The difference in scale is huge. It is possible that Tesla is at the start of an existential threat. It is hard to predict which way this will go. It's all on them now and they are all-in. They can't afford many more fires. And they certainly can't afford to have the market turn on them. They need to be way ahead of this and spend lots of money to show people this technology is safe. And, if it isn't, they need to move quickly to make it safe and then show the market. Quickly. Volvo used to run commercials featuring cars being rolled and crashed in order to show how well they protected occupants. Tesla might have to crash a few cars into concrete walls or into each other to demonstrate how survivable their high voltage and high current systems might be. If they don't get ahead of this and more accidents are reported the cost to regain market trust will grow exponentially. And that could be very difficult to survive.
robomartin 13y ago
I don't know what's going on but I sometimes wish someone would tell Elon to cool it and really think things through before making public statements. I realize there's a lot of emotion involved. His competitors are loving every minute of him flying off the handle and making dumb statements. > Based on the Model S track record so far, you have a zero percent chance of being hurt in an accident resulting in a battery fire This is right up there with Bush's "Mission Accomplished", his Dad's "Read my lips. No new taxes.", Obama's red line and "You can keep your plan. Period". It's not true. Or put in better terms, the data is not statistically significant. And he knows it. These are the kinds of statements you really regret making when reality catches up with you. > There are now substantially more than the 19,000 Model S vehicles on the road that were reported in our Q3 shareholder letter for an average of one fire per at least 6,333 cars, compared to the rate for gasoline vehicles of one fire per 1,350 cars. By this metric, you are more than four and a half times more likely to experience a fire in a gasoline car than a Model S! Again, he knows this math is wrong. To make this comparison stick you'd have to aggregate data going back to the very introduction of gasoline powered vehicles. You'd also have to include every kind of vehicle --trucks, vans, busses, not just cars. And then you'd have to remove the percentage of fires that were caused intentionally which, from what I was able to garner, could represent a massive 20% to 30% of fires. Fires due to collisions represent a smaller fraction of all automobile fires. Further to that, you'd have to also consider vehicle age, maintenance and environment. Is it fair to compare a fire on a a 15 year old truck in a rural setting on substandard roads against a brand new Tesla in the city on great roads? How are Tesla's going to perform (in terms of safety) when they are five, ten, fifteen or twenty years old? Perhaps the comparison should be restricted to fires caused by collisions (not intentional or other non-collision causes) on new cars operating in the same urban centers where Tesla's are found. In other words, he is grabbing numbers without any though given to applicability. Again, these are statements that obviously come from anger and frustration and you could end-up regretting them. > you are more likely to be struck by lightning in your lifetime than experience even a non-injurious fire in a Tesla. From [1]: "The odds of becoming a lightning victim in the U.S. in any one year is 1 in 700,000. The odds of being struck in your lifetime is 1 in 3,000." So we are comparing the odds of something happening over someone's lifetime (50 to 90 years?) with a fire in a car that's been in the market for ONE YEAR? Really? How about we compare it to the 1 in 700,000 yearly case? It's still a bullshit comparison. But, hey, since we are slinging bullshit. Again. Please. Think before saying such things. All you need is one fire where someone gets hurt or killed and this statement could be thrown back as an utter joke. With only 20,000 cars on the road every incident has the potential to change numbers in a radical way. If that happens you now have a 1 in 20,000 chance of being killed in a Tesla in any one year. See how stupid it is to make such statements? > The far more deadly nature of a gasoline car fire deserves to be re-emphasized. Who do you think you are talking to? Who's your audience? Children? There are a BILLION cars in the world[0]. A BILLION. That number might not include motorcycles, trucks and other variants. I would suggest gasoline powered vehicles are pretty damn safe, particularly when you consider markets where they might not have pristine roads, regular maintenance and where cars are used for ten, twenty and thirty years rather than flipping them every few years as is often the case in affluent communities in the US and elsewhere. Anyhow, the point is that sometimes you have to lead by not reacting to things with emotion and by not saying things you know you will have to regret. The strongest statement he could make right now is to crash several Model-S's (as painful as that might be) into concrete walls, into each other and into gasoline cars and show --in a very public way-- just how safe they might be. If they are not. Fix it and then show the public. Release the videos and let people sort it out. [0] http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/08/23/car-population_n_934291.html http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/08/23/car-population_n_934... [1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0623_040623_lightningfacts.html http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0623_040623_...
codex 13y ago
In general, I'm not a big fan of linking directly to PR put out by self-interested parties. It's very hard for the average reader to de-spin the propaganda put out in these missives. They're being manipulated and don't know it. I'd much prefer a link to a well written analysis of events from an unbiased industry expert.
shaunrussell 13y ago
The amount of hate in this thread is sickening.
Pitarou 13y ago
This is a marketing problem. For marketing purposes, Teslas must be perceived to as safe, if not safer in every respect than gasoline cars. So if they're more likely to catch fire when they hit road debris, that's a problem.
chris_mahan 13y ago
What I want to know is what Elon Musk is working on next. He's not 100% on Tesla 24x7, because now he has people to optimize the factories and work out the next models. What else is he doodling about on his notepad. This is the Elon Musk I want to see, not the harried auto executive making PR stunts.
matponta 13y ago
I can't say enough how much I respect Tesla and the integrity they approach their market with. Other automotive companies are miles behind!
gress 13y ago
Why are comments here focussing on Tesla so much. Isn't it time to acknowledge that the media are actively damaging society with misinformation and fear mongering, often in support of entrenched corporate interests?

348 points by GraffitiTim 13y ago

Mr. Musk seems to have a habit of publicizing his back-of-the-napkin calculations. "Based on the Model S track record so far, you have a zero percent chance of being hurt in an accident resulting in a battery fire." It seems to have worked well for him. Maybe I should pick it up.

tgb 13y ago
Unfortunately, his napkin doesn't have the right calculations! See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_Succession http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_Succession
svantana 13y ago
He certainly doesn't shy away from questionable use of statistics for his own benefit. That and the quip about the odds of being struck by lightning are quite ridiculous IMO.
- peeters 13y ago
  Yeah, seriously. Why even mention that lightning stat? The absolute odds of me dying from falling from the top of a building are pretty darn small too, but they go up quite significantly when I am walking near the edge of the building's roof without a harness. Obviously your risk of being in a Tesla that is on fire is much greater than being struck by lightning when you are a Tesla driver!
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
omegant 13y ago
Mr. Musk seems to be ready to put his money where his napkin calculations are.. maybe that´s the secret.
gambiting 13y ago
It's just like in the 60-ties the US government calculated that there is a 0% risk of accidental detonation of nuclear bombs[1],because they have not experienced it yet. I believe that electric cars are safer than gasoline cars,but the sample size for Tesla is way to small to draw such conclusions yet. [1] Eric Schlosser, "Command And Control"
- dkokelley 13y ago
  Out of curiosity, has there been an accidental detonation of a nuclear bomb yet? I browsed through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accide... but could only find non-nuclear detonations.
  - pwnna 13y ago
    There were a close call involving a bomber that accidentally ditched a nuke (i think?). It was the last fail safe that stopped it. I remember reading about it here, don't have the article in hand. I'm sure you can find it.
    - gambiting 13y ago
      Read that book I mentioned in the original post. It mentions plenty of nuclear-related accidents. The one you probably think about happened when an armed thermonuclear bomb fell out of a bomber, yanking the arming wire out, arming every subsystem as it fell - barometric switches activated,thermal batteries ignited , and upon hitting the ground the piezoelectric crystals in the nose cone crushed activating the high explosives surrounding the core. It would have detonated, except that the "fire-safe" switch in the cockpit was not switch to "fire". That switch was just two very low voltage wires running close together, and it was found later that pretty much anything in that bomber could have triggered it. It was extremely lucky that that bomb has not detonated that day. There were also a few bombs which were lost in fire on the ground, couple of those had their high explosives ignite without producing a nuclear yield but spreading plutonium around, contaminating ground. There were bombers which fell apart in the air, which crashed, most of the time the nuclear bombs they were carrying survived intact,but a few times those crashes resulted in a widespread contamination with plutonium - a famous one in Spain and another near an American Polar station that the bomber was monitoring from Soviet attack - that one is particularly interesting,because had the bombs aboard that bomber detonated and destroyed that station, it would be extremely likely that the US government would assume that it was destroyed by a Soviet nuclear strike,and not by their own machinery - and that would probably cause them to retaliate starting a nuclear war.
deelowe 13y ago
Agreed. While I agree with his thesis that the risk with electric cars is much lower, this "analysis" is very infuriating. He speaks in absolutes and compares the entire automotive industry to a single premium luxury car model. Of course he knows this. This is just a PR piece instead of a well articulated rebuttal of the fire risk claims. That said, he presents it as something else altogether (and will defend it quite boldly). Full disclosure: I'm an electric car owner (leaf) and I want to see tesla succeed, but Elon can be a rather poor spokesman at times.

jwise0 13y ago

The sentence -- "First, we have rolled out an over-the-air update to the air suspension that will result in greater ground clearance at highway speeds." -- for some reason deeply amuses me. I thought that it was scary to push out OTAs to phones (I hope everything works like it did in the dev environment); I can't imagine pushing an OTA to a $85,000 car! A few sentences later, though -- "Another software update expected in January will give the driver direct control of the air suspension ride height transitions." -- concerns me. Tesla's car computer is becoming increasingly complex, and the fact that the infotainment system will have such complete control over the car -- and will still accept data from outside sources -- is very concerning. I hope that at some point soon Tesla will begin talking about the security methodology that they use for the firmware running on the car, and how they prevent unauthorized code from running.

booyaa00 13y ago
So as there have been instances of an OTA update "bricking" phones, there will likely at some point be an OTA to cars which causes mass crashes and casualties. It's just a question of when... Yet more movement of freedom and power from individuals to corporations.
- koide 13y ago
  How is that different from the cases where batches of faulty cars are sold and cause crashes and deaths? With OTA updates you can at least fix it with a rollback, quickly, before more people die. I fail to see this as a move of power from individuals to corporations.
  - booyaa00 13y ago
    I guess I just trust hardware far more than software in general.
- manmal 13y ago
  I don't agree. There would be no OTA bricked phones if enough thought and cost were put into the verification and installation process. Critical components could e.g. be duplicated, such that critical software like the bootloader can be restored in case the new version cannot start up.

001sky 13y ago

Reading the headlines, it is therefore easy to assume that the Tesla Model S and perhaps electric cars in general have a greater propensity to catch fire than gasoline cars when nothing could be further from the truth. Actually, the Data do not support Him. He is starting to tread on shallow ground, and perhaps should re-evaluate and stratify his data analysis to fires 'on public highways'.[1,2] That is where all of the Tesla Fires are happening. Unfortunately, those data do not support him. By this metric, you are more than four and a half times more likely to experience a fire in a gasoline car than a Model S! Considering the odds in the absolute, you are more likely to be struck by lightning in your lifetime than experience even a non-injurious fire in a Tesla. And, Bayesian statistics might give you a different analysis. From a PR perspective, I wonder if this is really doing him any favours? The note he wrote after the october crash was flawed, but perhaps excusable. This is too pre-meditated and now must just be considered somewhere on the spectrum of 'wrong' to 'misguided' to 'misleading'. [1] In data terms, it excludes intentional fires like vandalism, and parked cars being struck, and accidents in motor repair facilities, etc. [2] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Public+highway http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Public+highway

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
AlexeyMK 13y ago
If you're going to claim the numbers don't support the author's thesis, it would be helpful to provide accurate figures (or at least link to an article that does so).
quarterto 13y ago
So where are the data for gasoline car fires on public highways? You're accusing someone of not being supported by their data, and offering absolutely no data in counterpoint.
- 001sky 13y ago
  see, for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6691541 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6691541

damon_c 13y ago

This is probably the first article I've read linked from HN where "firewall" referred to a barrier designed to partition fire.

nfm 13y ago

Why are people desperate to see Tesla fail? Is it a negative PR campaign from the auto or oil industry? This blog post shouldn't need to be written.

ubernostrum 13y ago
Personally, I just find delicious irony in Musk scrambling to spin fires in his battery-powered vehicles after all the condescending snark he heaped on Boeing...
- deletes 13y ago
  Well to be fair, the Boeing planes were not involved in accidents( as far as i know ).
  - Jtsummers 13y ago
    Correct. They simply caught fire, and there were two potential design flaws in the system. The first was no fire suppression in the compartment with the batteries, only smoke detectors. The second was fire containment, concerns that it would be insufficient (especially paired with the lack of fire suppression systems) to contain a fire. Compare to the Tesla fires: still no fire suppression baked in; deliberate effort in containing and directing the fire away from passengers; ample notice (so far) to drivers that something is wrong! and that they should pull over. Also, I'd take a fire in a car over a fire on a plane any day. The car is: cheaper to repair/replace; already on the ground. If a plane has a fire, sure it'll end up on the ground, but depending on where on the aircraft and the effectiveness of detection and suppression systems it may not be a state where people can simply walk away from it.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- baddox 13y ago
  Ah, but there's a huge difference. Boeing isn't a company founded by Elon Musk.

bachback 13y ago

This just shows how insane the media world is. Great rebuttal. I love this one: "It is literally impossible for another car to have a better safety track record, as it would have to possess mystical powers of healing."

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

salimmadjd 13y ago

Flawed argument! Model S is only 1 year old and it's a premium vehicle. So the fire rate should be compared to those of premium vehicles about the same age.

kozhevnikov 13y ago
Flawed argument! The fire rate should be compared to those of premium electric vehicles about the same age... which don't exist. Not even Fisker or i3 would qualify if you restrict the criteria far enough. I think they should limit it to the same colour only as well.
- MarcusVorenus 13y ago
  What? How are you supposed to assess the safety of electric vs gasoline cars by comparing electric vs electric?
Cthulhu_ 13y ago
Yeah, a lot of those arguments, while true, are not very representative; he's comparing statistics of the 19.000 brand new cars built within the last year with the millions of road cars currently out there. I do think the Tesla's fires have been blown way out of proportion by the media. And it's odd too; gasoline fires are much more impressive and descriptions of burning children and suchlike will create much more impressive headlines than "electrical car on fire". It's a desensitisation thing though, I think; dozens of cars (rough guess based on nothing) go up in flames every day, which is maybe noted in a local newspaper. Rare high-tech car has a fire and it's world news.
lettergram 13y ago
There are so many factors to take into consideration that the argument would be a book to get a full view... For example, if you want to move past generalizations (such as the author of the blog post made) you would also have to consider things such as the type of people using the cars vs other premium vehicles. Likely Tesla users are going to be more apt to try more things, which in turn makes them at a higher risk to drive erratically or at higher speeds (even perhaps higher than other premium vehicle users). Further, I would suspect premium vehicles have a higher rate of deaths due to accident than the average population of car. However, that data might not be available to him.

daily 13y ago

Hope it's not superfluous to point out, but it's kind of funny: "By By Elon Musk" is seen under the title. That sounds hostile :) (the duplicate By isn't seen in other posts on the blog)

cloudwalking 13y ago

Everybody is missing a huge point: Vehicle fire now completely covered under warranty, even when caused by operator error. "Third, to reinforce how strongly we feel about the low risk of fire in our cars, we will be amending our warranty policy to cover damage due to a fire, even if due to driver error. Unless a Model S owner actively tries to destroy the car, they are covered. Our goal here is to eliminate any concern about the cost of such an event and ensure that over time the Model S has the lowest insurance cost of any car at our price point. Either our belief in the safety of our car is correct and this is a minor cost or we are wrong, in which case the right thing is for Tesla to bear the cost rather than the car buyer."

ams6110 13y ago
Typically insurance would cover this anyway.
- 001sky 13y ago
  His point is that insurance cost for an 85k car with a potential design flaw is (1) likely to go up; and (2) likely to be perceived as a red flag by potential buyers. Insurance companies are often accused of over-reacting to recent data (eg, a recent hurricane will jump up insurance next year). That being said, the insurance companies are also likely to actually look at the data and dis-regard pr spin when they are on the hook for the damages. By removing the insurance co's scrutiny from the data as well, it kills two birds with a single stone.
  - ams6110 13y ago
    You're right, I glanced over that part of the statement, and thought he was just trying to assure owners that they "are covered" in case their car bursts into flames.
  - loceng 13y ago
    Or at minimum an excuse for insurance companies to charge more. And Tesla keeping this insurance, at minimum, allows them to manage the costs for owners - and if there are 'profits' to the 'paid' insurance (embedded in cost of car, and the ecosystem as a whole), then it is Tesla that gains the benefits either as profit or can re-invest it into their ecosystem. Insurance overall is a scam, however government and politicians prefer to not be responsible or accountable by allowing private for-profit companies take advantage of everyone.

thom 13y ago

"It is also why arsonists tend to favor gasoline. Trying to set the side of a building on fire with a battery pack is far less effective." CHALLENGE ACCEPTED.

Pitarou 13y ago
I suggest you start here: http://www.terminalcornucopia.com/ http://www.terminalcornucopia.com/ Check out the "fraggucino", which combines a lithium battery, water, a condom, and a coffee flask to make a big bang.
- PeterisP 13y ago
  Look at the bang made by that "fraggucino". Look at the effects of the same coffee flask if used as a Molotov cocktail. These two things are not in the same league.
  - Pitarou 13y ago
    And look at the tiny quantity of lithium involved. What could we do with, say, half-a-liter of powdered lithium? I should shut up now. I'm probably already on an NSA watchlist for the search term I used to find that site.
asmithmd1 13y ago
Here is a hint: https://www.google.com/search?q=9+volt+battery+steel+wool https://www.google.com/search?q=9+volt+battery+steel+wool

Killah911 13y ago

This whole fiasco reminds me of Ryan Holiday's book "Trust me I'm lying". I can't help but wonder if some "media manipulator" was involved in the possible manufacture of some negative PR for Tesla. This assumption is not unreasonable since Ralph Nader was attacked by hired gun media (hired by the big three) when he dared challenge the status quo. I'm not that the big three are involved, but the stink caused by the car fires seems a bit "manipulated". My friend rolled his truck this weekend. He's looking for the new car and when I suggested a Tesla, he gave me a Resounding no, due to fire hazard. While this a heuristic observation, he is a pretty innovative guy and I'm confident he would a picked or even considered a tesla had it not been for the negative press. Lastly, I wonder if Elon's doing the right thing by repeating this. Maybe he should talk to Ryan Holiday type. I genuinely hope that this blows over and that Tesla & Elon can get back to building awesome cars & changing the world rather than playing PR.

ams6110 13y ago
I don't think there's a conspiracy. The Tesla has been hyped to the the 9s by its founder and enthusiasts in the tech press. When you seek the spotlight, don't be surprised to find yourself in it. Lots of other rare automobile faults have made big headlines, because the press likes drama. See: uncontrolled acceleration problems in Audi and Toyota vehicles.
001sky 13y ago
The media have been driven by the stock price, for the most part. It shot up to 180 and then dropped into 120's. It seems much of the odd behaviour around any discussion is attributable to that. Its not clear why people seem so 'invested' in the story, on either side. http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=TSLA+Interactive#symbol=TSLA;range=6m http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=TSLA+Interactive#symbol=T...
anon1385 13y ago
There has been some absolutely ridiculous media coverage from the usual suspects like Fox[1], but it doesn't really have the smell of a organised campaign to me (yet). It's just the usual right wing talking heads taking a skewed view of things because of their preexisting biases. I think a lot of Tesla fans are getting into the conspiracy theory zone with this and they are starting to sound fairly cult-like. HN and the Tesla users forums had quite a few people seriously suggesting that some agent of 'big auto' was out on the highway looking for teslas to throw debris under (no doubt the 'big auto' spies inside Tesla had alerted them to the vulnerability of the underside of the battery pack). The personality cult surrounding Musk turns a lot of people off. Also the Boeing incident is coming back to bite him now, and rightly so. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhMjRzvE1Ng https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhMjRzvE1Ng

felix 13y ago

Whatever you think of the blog post and Musk's spin - he puts his money where his mouth is. He's put into writing that if a 3rd party investigation into the fires finds anything they can do to improve safety - everyone gets a free retrofit. And short of an owner actively trying to destroy their car, Tesla's warranty will cover fire damage. How many CEO's have that level of confidence in their product? Can you imagine Honda, Audi, BMW or any of the others reacting that way to something like this? And they've been around for much longer.

onebaddude 13y ago
>Can you imagine Honda, Audi, BMW or any of the others reacting that way to something like this? Yes, I can. Do you really think he's doing this out of the goodness of his heart? These fires are both a legal and PR nightmare. Nobody, at this point, knows how big of a problem this is. Despite the yarn that Musk is spinning, ICE cars don't combust when they hit road debris. Personally, I think the problem is exaggerated, but let's not dismiss the fact that there's a battery across the whole bottom of these cars. Go to the Tesla forums; there are owners there that are legitimately concerned for their safety.

ZanyProgrammer 13y ago

To make money, of fucking course.

codex 13y ago

The Tesla counter spin to avoid a recall here is incredible. The OTA update is a de facto recall but it only partially addresses the issue.

alex_c 13y ago
So, what is the issue that needs to be addressed exactly? That cars get damaged when they hit things?
- codex 13y ago
  That the rate of "fires from a collision" in a Tesla is 25x that of the average US car. The OTA update reduces the number of undercarriage collisions and thus the number of fires.
  - alex_c 13y ago
    OK, I tried to do a bit of digging but all I can find are vague allegations and handwaving everywhere. Where does the 25x number come from?
- smackfu 13y ago
  That the "armor plate" they are using to protect the battery pack isn't strong enough to deal with some road debris. They seem to have underestimated exactly how much energy they were dealing with. And they could have made that metal thicker but it would have negative affected the range.
  - Wingman4l7 13y ago
    It's already much stronger than the typical protection of gasoline tanks -- and it was claimed that it was a very exceptional circumstance that allowed that armor plate to be penetrated.

san86 13y ago

I did not see Elon complaining when a car launch got so much attention from the press. This just seems to be the other side of the same coin. This happens to every runaway success. Remember the "death grip" nonsense for iPhone4 and how it was blown out of proportion? Media loves the story of a man who worked against all adds to build/create something amazing. Unfortunately, they love "the fall of the guy" even more.

nonchalance 13y ago
> Unfortunately, they love "the fall of the guy" even more. Tesla went out of their way to flaunt the safety features of the car, alleging a 5.4 NHTSA score when the agency explicitly said that they don't issue scores that high. Tesla said they had the safest cars on the road, and this is the eventual result (people actually expect it to be safer). IMHO the reaction is entirely appropriate given Musk's and Tesla's behavior up to this point. If Musk and Tesla weren't flaunting their safety claims, this wouldn't be a significant issue

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

TrainedMonkey 13y ago

I find their statistics to be somewhat misleading. Can we see fire statistics on cars produced from the same time as Model S? Because I am not surprised a lot of the older cars are catching on fire. I still believe Tesla will be safer then gasoline cars, but gap definitely would not be orders of magnitude.

ececconi 13y ago

Yes, but the Model S's on the road are less than a couple of years old. How many gasoline fires are caused by cars that are a couple of years old? I would guess this comparison would put the gasoline fires more in line with Tesla car rates. I would assume that most of the gasoline engines that catch fire are from older cars which haven't been maintained well.

11thEarlOfMar 13y ago

FD: TSLA Shareholder We should discuss whether the situation changes over time. As gasoline cars age, their likelihood of catching fire increases. As electric cars age, does their chance also increase? The flammable elements of a gas-powered car also have wear and tear issues, and poor service risks. A do-it-yourself mechanic replacing a fuel filter is a worry, for example. Or, an old engine with a compromised head gasket, coated in leaked oil and then overheating. No time to do the analysis myself, but I am guessing that the failure modes of a gas car that cause fire are many and the failure modes of a Tesla are few. Moreover, the likelihood of a particular failure mode in a Tesla may not increase at the same rate as gas as the cars age.

sciguy77 13y ago

Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is persuasive writing.

sanj 13y ago

"First, we have rolled out an over-the-air update to the air suspension that will result in greater ground clearance at highway speeds." Wow. Now I live in the future.

freehunter 13y ago
I'm actually curious on that statement as to how it affects the rated MPGe. My understanding is that the car is low to the ground for better handling and better aerodynamics. Even if this change doesn't result in lower MPGe, what would happen if a OTA update to a future car resulted in lower-than-rated MPG? I wonder what the EPA would have to say about that.
- ams6110 13y ago
  Good observation... and by how much does this reduce the operating range of the car?

robomartin 13y ago

I've said this before and now I'll generalize my statement to say that the most important issue in the electric vehicle segment is and will be that of high power and high voltage system safety, of which the battery is one component. If the public becomes spooked by problems and accidents in this area it could set the electric vehicle market back a decade or more. The real test for electrics will come when one or two million electric vehicles of all types are sharing the road. That's when this issue of battery and power system safety will be hugely important. I can imagine semi's with a million Wh battery systems rolling down the highway. What I cannot imagine are chain reaction collisions involving a variety of electric and liquid fuel vehicles. Tesla is at the forefront of this movement, which means all eyes are on them, the arrows are on their backs and they have the burden of proof. One of the most expensive types of businesses to get into are those where you have to educate your customer base before a sales pitch can even begin. Having to educating the market before you can sell to them can seriously derail one's focus and cost bundles of money that could be put to better use elsewhere. I've been in markets like that. It's a horrible slog. Up until now, for the most part, electrics have avoided this territory. I fear that period is ending. Up until now the conversations about electrics were about range and relative cost when compared to gasoline vehicles. It feels like we are now entering the domain of having to potentially prove to the market that the technology is safe as well as to remove (or stop the potential of the development of) fears of fire and electrocution. Tesla, due to their position in the market, has the honor of having all microscopes aimed at everything they do. Every mishap is amplified. Now that the NTSB has officially opened an investigation every afternoon news show is jumping on the issues. It will soon be everywhere. And Tesla now has to defend, educate and prove to the market that what they are doing is safe. Competitors are now going to pull back and let Tesla take the hits. In markets where a huge investment is required in order to educate the customer base it is often a good idea to not be a pioneer. They will let Tesla burn reputation, bleed cash and resources to deal with the challenge of getting people to be comfortable with the technology. In these markets letting someone else slot through this phase is often the most intelligent strategy. Once things settle, competitors will come in and enjoy a market segment that has been paved flat by the pioneer/s. It is far less costly --at all levels-- to enter at that point. The mentality of a typical potential customer --after massive investments in educating them-- is now very different. Now customers look at the available products and think about which one to buy rather than whether or not to take a risk with this new technology. That's a massively different mind-set. That's a mind set primed for well executed product, marketing and sales strategies with wide distribution, solid sales channels and a solid post-sales support infrastructure --all of which the established players either know how to do or already have in place. Manufacturers entering the market after the education phase can focus on pricing, marketing and, in general, execution rather than educating or evangelizing the audience. There's a huge difference in cost of sales in "nicely paved markets". When that happens, when the market is "flat" and competitors enter in force, they could run right over Tesla, push them right off the edge of the market or they could be swallowed-up by a larger organization. Let's not forget Tesla sold somewhere in the order of twenty thousand cars --total. There are companies that probably sell that many cars per day. The difference in scale is huge. It is possible that Tesla is at the start of an existential threat. It is hard to predict which way this will go. It's all on them now and they are all-in. They can't afford many more fires. And they certainly can't afford to have the market turn on them. They need to be way ahead of this and spend lots of money to show people this technology is safe. And, if it isn't, they need to move quickly to make it safe and then show the market. Quickly. Volvo used to run commercials featuring cars being rolled and crashed in order to show how well they protected occupants. Tesla might have to crash a few cars into concrete walls or into each other to demonstrate how survivable their high voltage and high current systems might be. If they don't get ahead of this and more accidents are reported the cost to regain market trust will grow exponentially. And that could be very difficult to survive.

robomartin 13y ago

I don't know what's going on but I sometimes wish someone would tell Elon to cool it and really think things through before making public statements. I realize there's a lot of emotion involved. His competitors are loving every minute of him flying off the handle and making dumb statements. > Based on the Model S track record so far, you have a zero percent chance of being hurt in an accident resulting in a battery fire This is right up there with Bush's "Mission Accomplished", his Dad's "Read my lips. No new taxes.", Obama's red line and "You can keep your plan. Period". It's not true. Or put in better terms, the data is not statistically significant. And he knows it. These are the kinds of statements you really regret making when reality catches up with you. > There are now substantially more than the 19,000 Model S vehicles on the road that were reported in our Q3 shareholder letter for an average of one fire per at least 6,333 cars, compared to the rate for gasoline vehicles of one fire per 1,350 cars. By this metric, you are more than four and a half times more likely to experience a fire in a gasoline car than a Model S! Again, he knows this math is wrong. To make this comparison stick you'd have to aggregate data going back to the very introduction of gasoline powered vehicles. You'd also have to include every kind of vehicle --trucks, vans, busses, not just cars. And then you'd have to remove the percentage of fires that were caused intentionally which, from what I was able to garner, could represent a massive 20% to 30% of fires. Fires due to collisions represent a smaller fraction of all automobile fires. Further to that, you'd have to also consider vehicle age, maintenance and environment. Is it fair to compare a fire on a a 15 year old truck in a rural setting on substandard roads against a brand new Tesla in the city on great roads? How are Tesla's going to perform (in terms of safety) when they are five, ten, fifteen or twenty years old? Perhaps the comparison should be restricted to fires caused by collisions (not intentional or other non-collision causes) on new cars operating in the same urban centers where Tesla's are found. In other words, he is grabbing numbers without any though given to applicability. Again, these are statements that obviously come from anger and frustration and you could end-up regretting them. > you are more likely to be struck by lightning in your lifetime than experience even a non-injurious fire in a Tesla. From [1]: "The odds of becoming a lightning victim in the U.S. in any one year is 1 in 700,000. The odds of being struck in your lifetime is 1 in 3,000." So we are comparing the odds of something happening over someone's lifetime (50 to 90 years?) with a fire in a car that's been in the market for ONE YEAR? Really? How about we compare it to the 1 in 700,000 yearly case? It's still a bullshit comparison. But, hey, since we are slinging bullshit. Again. Please. Think before saying such things. All you need is one fire where someone gets hurt or killed and this statement could be thrown back as an utter joke. With only 20,000 cars on the road every incident has the potential to change numbers in a radical way. If that happens you now have a 1 in 20,000 chance of being killed in a Tesla in any one year. See how stupid it is to make such statements? > The far more deadly nature of a gasoline car fire deserves to be re-emphasized. Who do you think you are talking to? Who's your audience? Children? There are a BILLION cars in the world[0]. A BILLION. That number might not include motorcycles, trucks and other variants. I would suggest gasoline powered vehicles are pretty damn safe, particularly when you consider markets where they might not have pristine roads, regular maintenance and where cars are used for ten, twenty and thirty years rather than flipping them every few years as is often the case in affluent communities in the US and elsewhere. Anyhow, the point is that sometimes you have to lead by not reacting to things with emotion and by not saying things you know you will have to regret. The strongest statement he could make right now is to crash several Model-S's (as painful as that might be) into concrete walls, into each other and into gasoline cars and show --in a very public way-- just how safe they might be. If they are not. Fix it and then show the public. Release the videos and let people sort it out. [0] http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/08/23/car-population_n_934291.html http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/08/23/car-population_n_934... [1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0623_040623_lightningfacts.html http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0623_040623_...

codex 13y ago

In general, I'm not a big fan of linking directly to PR put out by self-interested parties. It's very hard for the average reader to de-spin the propaganda put out in these missives. They're being manipulated and don't know it. I'd much prefer a link to a well written analysis of events from an unbiased industry expert.

shaunrussell 13y ago

The amount of hate in this thread is sickening.

Pitarou 13y ago

This is a marketing problem. For marketing purposes, Teslas must be perceived to as safe, if not safer in every respect than gasoline cars. So if they're more likely to catch fire when they hit road debris, that's a problem.

chris_mahan 13y ago

What I want to know is what Elon Musk is working on next. He's not 100% on Tesla 24x7, because now he has people to optimize the factories and work out the next models. What else is he doodling about on his notepad. This is the Elon Musk I want to see, not the harried auto executive making PR stunts.

matponta 13y ago

I can't say enough how much I respect Tesla and the integrity they approach their market with. Other automotive companies are miles behind!

gress 13y ago

Why are comments here focussing on Tesla so much. Isn't it time to acknowledge that the media are actively damaging society with misinformation and fear mongering, often in support of entrenched corporate interests?