5 ms·

Elon Musk defiant in face of federal investigation of Tesla [video]

37 points by codegeek 13y ago

transfire 13y ago
They will not rest until Musk is destroyed. Oil=>$=>Media. Oil=>$=>Government. Oil hates Electric. So guess where Government and Media come down? Think that's crap? They have already outlawed the sale of Teslas in some states. They're just getting started folks. And then they're going to force Hydrogen cars down our throats. Talk about your fires! Anyone remember the Hindenburg?
TheBiv 13y ago
There is simply not enough time for either NTHSA or Elon Musk's comments to be true bc there is not enough data to be able to compare him to say GM/Ford/etc in regards to whether or not Tesla's are the safest cars on the road or wether the battery pack makes it more/less safe than the gas powered vehicles that catch fire.
- Shivetya 13y ago
  Quit comparing them to gasoline powered cars. We have a car more than qualified to compare it to, the Nissan Leaf. So the real question is, in comparable accidents is the Leaf as prone to a fire that destroys the vehicle? Was a compromise made in the S with the pack design so as to facilitate pack swaps that perhaps made it vulnerable when it would not have otherwise been? Also, is the battery design more susceptible to fires than that employed by other cars, namely the Leaf? I am a fan of alternative methods to power car and motorcycles. Yet the questions for each is the same, what are the safety issues with each and what compromises end up affecting safety?
  - JohnTHaller 13y ago
    > Quit comparing them to gasoline powered cars. Why? That's what these are being compared to in pretty much every other situation. It's a car. It's powered by something different, but it's still a car. Is it more or less safe than other cars? Are you really saying that if this is less safe than a Nissan Leaf (one specific car that's not in the same car class) it should be forced to change its design to raise the batteries higher -- raising the center of gravity and affecting handling -- even if it is as safe as or more safe than similar gasoline-powered cars in its class? If that's the situation, should we force one specific gasoline-powered luxury sedan to change its design if its less safe than a specific gas car in another class?
    - humanrebar 13y ago
      Do you know what car is least likely to catch fire? A horse. Honestly, as long as consumers are given accurate statistics regarding how safe these vehicles are, I think they should be able to buy (and insure) them even if they are a little less safe.
      - mdellabitta 13y ago
        > Do you know what car is least likely to catch fire? A horse. Actually, their fuel source conveys a significant fire risk: http://bchanicker.org/2013/09/27/risk-of-spontaneous-combustion-of-wet-hay/ http://bchanicker.org/2013/09/27/risk-of-spontaneous-combust...
  - TheBiv 13y ago
    I am not doing that. Elon Musk was.
kosei 13y ago
Doesn't automobile crash data exist somewhere in the public record? Couldn't someone ostensibly run statistical significance tests to measure the success/failure rates? I haven't seen any real analysis on the subject based on available data, but I imagine that with 19K+ cars having driven tens or hundreds of millions of miles, that we do have a good amount of data to make it worth it to investigate. Right?
- threeseed 13y ago
  Automobile crash data is irrelevant. What we are talking about is whether the location of the battery pack on Tesla's cars are uniquely dangerous. Which requires an investigation. And which has absolutely nothing to do with the apparent safety of other cars. We are talking about people's lives here.
  - Mikeb85 13y ago
    The only place you can realistically put battery packs on an electric car is beneath the floor. They're too heavy, so they need to be kept low or the car will have terrible (and unsafe) handling characteristics. And crash data is most definitely relevant - how gas cars react to striking similar objects at high speed is a valid comparison.
    - warble 13y ago
      Not true, the Mini-E has them in the back seat, and it handles pretty well. Batteries are heavy, and lower is better like you say as a rule, but it's not the only realistic solution by far. Also the Tesla battery pack isn't as well compartmentalized as it could be. There are things to be done to the battery pack to cause fire to be less damaging, so between the onboard warning systems, and firewalls, it's not a big deal when the battery does catch fire.
  - loganu 13y ago
    How is crash data not relevant? Why would the regulators not be able to identify and go for the lowest-hanging fruit, regardless of manufacturing origin? Obviously there are fewer data points for the Teslas, but they've outshone other manufacturers in all other safety tests (if I'm not mistaken). We're talking about people's lives here.
VladRussian2 13y ago
with all due respect to Musk (kind of hero of mine for fighting the uphill battle to really advance our civilization), and with Tesla S being an object of my desire, this sounds like a defect that have to be fixed : ( http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/19/5121706/tesla-elon-musk-responds-to-model-s-fires-begins-nhtsa-investigation http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/19/5121706/tesla-elon-musk-r... ) "it was damage to the cars' undercarriage and batteries, caused by striking metallic objects on the road while at high speeds, that caused both fires." The software update to increase suspension clearance looks like just a [cheap] band-aid to me. The third car fired as result of crash - that seems like a real and hard to avoid thing for lithium batteries and does seem like Tesla is ok here - the fire looked to be pretty limited.
- BHSPitMonkey 13y ago
  What exactly do you think should happen when a jagged metal object collides with your car with enough energy to rip through critical components? Do you think susceptibility to telephone poles and meteorites is also a defect that auto makers need to fix? Short of encasing the car's primary energy store with 6 inches of plated steel, what are you looking for, exactly? Is your car's gas tank similarly protected from being physically damaged? If not, does your car let you pull over and exit safely with voice and text guidance when a fire starts within?
  - VladRussian2 13y ago
    >What exactly do you think should happen when a jagged metal object collides with your car with enough energy to rip through critical components? Do you think susceptibility to telephone poles and meteorites is also a defect that auto makers need to fix? >Short of encasing the car's primary energy store with 6 inches of plated steel, what are you looking for, exactly? that is a bunch of 6in fallacies. Car fuel tanks are made of something like 1-2mm steel. As far as i understand Tesla doesn't have a 1mm steel sheet below the battery. That is the defect made obvious by these 2 accidents. Btw, modern cars are much better at hitting telephone poles and does tend to explode less when being hit by "meteorites" (say bullets) than they were say 40 years ago. So, yes bad crash results ("susceptibility to telephone poles") for example would be a defect.
BHSPitMonkey 13y ago
Wow. They're making it sound like the investigation is a bad thing and that Musk is whining about it.
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  Yep. This is a prime example of the massive media bias working against Tesla. Keep in mind that Tesla doesn't advertise, whereas the incumbent auto manufacturers do. Therefore the media channels know where their loyalties must lie.
  - ubernostrum 13y ago
    Or the media will pick up and hype pretty much any juicy-looking story. If I look back through your comment history will I find you suggesting Musk and the media were involved in a conspiracy to sabotage Boeing (which doesn't generally advertise on radio/TV) during the 787 issue? Or are you, like much of HN, having issues with this specific situation because it involves someone HN practically worships as a god?
    - enraged_camel 13y ago
      Boeing doesn't advertise because it doesn't sell to consumers. It sells to airlines. I don't "worship" Musk. But I am cognizant of the fact that he is one of a kind. Do you know of anyone else who simultaneously runs two equally ambitious tech companies, and, against all odds, does it successfully?
      - mytrash 13y ago
        Dean Kamen: DEKA and FIRST Robotics [0] Ignoring the non medical DEKA products (Segway) I think DEKA and FIRST (particularly FIRST) should have much more PR. Maybe you could argue ambition, but I still feel like mentioning these two organizations. 0: http://www.usfirst.org/ http://www.usfirst.org/
- deletes 13y ago
  He even requested it; quote from Musk from Tesla blog: >>Second, we have requested that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conduct a full investigation as soon as possible into the fire incidents.<<
codex 13y ago
Elon repeatedly tries to misdirect from the issue at hand. Teslas do not catch fire more often than the average U.S. car. But that is not in question. The question is, "after a collision, what happens?" And so far, the answer is, "the Model S has a 25x increased chance of catching fire." That is the focus of the investigation. Fires post-collision are a bad thing, even if the never reach the occupant: they can ignite other cars gas tanks (or other objects), and impede rescue work.
- adamrneary 13y ago
  It's not reasonable to say that the Model S has a 25x increased change of catching fire. The sample size is orders of magnitude too small (there were 3 instances so far?). Put simply, there is no statistically significant difference whatsoever between the Model S and the broader population in terms of fires post-collision, and Musk is understandably frustrated about the bogus press claiming there is.
  - sp332 13y ago
    Engineering lets you model things without having to do experiments. It's possible to know that a car design is more likely to catch fire just by analyzing it. You don't have to wait for thousands of cars to catch fire.
    - shiven 13y ago
      And are you saying then that Tesla has not done the Engineering?
      - sp332 13y ago
        I'm sure they have. But as codex said, Musk is simply not answering the question.
- genericuser 13y ago
  Where did you get the quote which you use to answer your question? It was not written in the article linked here, and I can't seem to find any similar quotes when searching except for a comment in a slashdot thread. I would like to see how they define collision and what exactly is 25x more likely but am finding myself unable to learn more about what exactly was considered with that calculation.
avelis 13y ago
I don't know how they did it but somehow Porche found a way to get their small plug in a news segment about another car brand.
jusben1369 13y ago
It would be interesting to compare this in a fair apples to apples way. You'd want to take competing cars to the Tesla of the same age. So how many car fires have their been amongst all the BMW 5/7 series, Mercedes E and S series that are 3 years or newer etc. Then you'd get a similar looking sample size for all the critical elements I would think.
notdrunkatall 13y ago
Keep dropping, TSLA! Another $50 or so and I'll start buying back in...

37 points by codegeek 13y ago

They will not rest until Musk is destroyed. Oil=>$=>Media. Oil=>$=>Government. Oil hates Electric. So guess where Government and Media come down? Think that's crap? They have already outlawed the sale of Teslas in some states. They're just getting started folks. And then they're going to force Hydrogen cars down our throats. Talk about your fires! Anyone remember the Hindenburg?

TheBiv 13y ago

There is simply not enough time for either NTHSA or Elon Musk's comments to be true bc there is not enough data to be able to compare him to say GM/Ford/etc in regards to whether or not Tesla's are the safest cars on the road or wether the battery pack makes it more/less safe than the gas powered vehicles that catch fire.

Shivetya 13y ago
Quit comparing them to gasoline powered cars. We have a car more than qualified to compare it to, the Nissan Leaf. So the real question is, in comparable accidents is the Leaf as prone to a fire that destroys the vehicle? Was a compromise made in the S with the pack design so as to facilitate pack swaps that perhaps made it vulnerable when it would not have otherwise been? Also, is the battery design more susceptible to fires than that employed by other cars, namely the Leaf? I am a fan of alternative methods to power car and motorcycles. Yet the questions for each is the same, what are the safety issues with each and what compromises end up affecting safety?
- JohnTHaller 13y ago
  > Quit comparing them to gasoline powered cars. Why? That's what these are being compared to in pretty much every other situation. It's a car. It's powered by something different, but it's still a car. Is it more or less safe than other cars? Are you really saying that if this is less safe than a Nissan Leaf (one specific car that's not in the same car class) it should be forced to change its design to raise the batteries higher -- raising the center of gravity and affecting handling -- even if it is as safe as or more safe than similar gasoline-powered cars in its class? If that's the situation, should we force one specific gasoline-powered luxury sedan to change its design if its less safe than a specific gas car in another class?
  - humanrebar 13y ago
    Do you know what car is least likely to catch fire? A horse. Honestly, as long as consumers are given accurate statistics regarding how safe these vehicles are, I think they should be able to buy (and insure) them even if they are a little less safe.
    - mdellabitta 13y ago
      > Do you know what car is least likely to catch fire? A horse. Actually, their fuel source conveys a significant fire risk: http://bchanicker.org/2013/09/27/risk-of-spontaneous-combustion-of-wet-hay/ http://bchanicker.org/2013/09/27/risk-of-spontaneous-combust...
- TheBiv 13y ago
  I am not doing that. Elon Musk was.

kosei 13y ago

Doesn't automobile crash data exist somewhere in the public record? Couldn't someone ostensibly run statistical significance tests to measure the success/failure rates? I haven't seen any real analysis on the subject based on available data, but I imagine that with 19K+ cars having driven tens or hundreds of millions of miles, that we do have a good amount of data to make it worth it to investigate. Right?

threeseed 13y ago
Automobile crash data is irrelevant. What we are talking about is whether the location of the battery pack on Tesla's cars are uniquely dangerous. Which requires an investigation. And which has absolutely nothing to do with the apparent safety of other cars. We are talking about people's lives here.
- Mikeb85 13y ago
  The only place you can realistically put battery packs on an electric car is beneath the floor. They're too heavy, so they need to be kept low or the car will have terrible (and unsafe) handling characteristics. And crash data is most definitely relevant - how gas cars react to striking similar objects at high speed is a valid comparison.
  - warble 13y ago
    Not true, the Mini-E has them in the back seat, and it handles pretty well. Batteries are heavy, and lower is better like you say as a rule, but it's not the only realistic solution by far. Also the Tesla battery pack isn't as well compartmentalized as it could be. There are things to be done to the battery pack to cause fire to be less damaging, so between the onboard warning systems, and firewalls, it's not a big deal when the battery does catch fire.
- loganu 13y ago
  How is crash data not relevant? Why would the regulators not be able to identify and go for the lowest-hanging fruit, regardless of manufacturing origin? Obviously there are fewer data points for the Teslas, but they've outshone other manufacturers in all other safety tests (if I'm not mistaken). We're talking about people's lives here.

VladRussian2 13y ago

with all due respect to Musk (kind of hero of mine for fighting the uphill battle to really advance our civilization), and with Tesla S being an object of my desire, this sounds like a defect that have to be fixed : ( http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/19/5121706/tesla-elon-musk-responds-to-model-s-fires-begins-nhtsa-investigation http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/19/5121706/tesla-elon-musk-r... ) "it was damage to the cars' undercarriage and batteries, caused by striking metallic objects on the road while at high speeds, that caused both fires." The software update to increase suspension clearance looks like just a [cheap] band-aid to me. The third car fired as result of crash - that seems like a real and hard to avoid thing for lithium batteries and does seem like Tesla is ok here - the fire looked to be pretty limited.

BHSPitMonkey 13y ago
What exactly do you think should happen when a jagged metal object collides with your car with enough energy to rip through critical components? Do you think susceptibility to telephone poles and meteorites is also a defect that auto makers need to fix? Short of encasing the car's primary energy store with 6 inches of plated steel, what are you looking for, exactly? Is your car's gas tank similarly protected from being physically damaged? If not, does your car let you pull over and exit safely with voice and text guidance when a fire starts within?
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  >What exactly do you think should happen when a jagged metal object collides with your car with enough energy to rip through critical components? Do you think susceptibility to telephone poles and meteorites is also a defect that auto makers need to fix? >Short of encasing the car's primary energy store with 6 inches of plated steel, what are you looking for, exactly? that is a bunch of 6in fallacies. Car fuel tanks are made of something like 1-2mm steel. As far as i understand Tesla doesn't have a 1mm steel sheet below the battery. That is the defect made obvious by these 2 accidents. Btw, modern cars are much better at hitting telephone poles and does tend to explode less when being hit by "meteorites" (say bullets) than they were say 40 years ago. So, yes bad crash results ("susceptibility to telephone poles") for example would be a defect.

BHSPitMonkey 13y ago

Wow. They're making it sound like the investigation is a bad thing and that Musk is whining about it.

enraged_camel 13y ago
Yep. This is a prime example of the massive media bias working against Tesla. Keep in mind that Tesla doesn't advertise, whereas the incumbent auto manufacturers do. Therefore the media channels know where their loyalties must lie.
- ubernostrum 13y ago
  Or the media will pick up and hype pretty much any juicy-looking story. If I look back through your comment history will I find you suggesting Musk and the media were involved in a conspiracy to sabotage Boeing (which doesn't generally advertise on radio/TV) during the 787 issue? Or are you, like much of HN, having issues with this specific situation because it involves someone HN practically worships as a god?
  - enraged_camel 13y ago
    Boeing doesn't advertise because it doesn't sell to consumers. It sells to airlines. I don't "worship" Musk. But I am cognizant of the fact that he is one of a kind. Do you know of anyone else who simultaneously runs two equally ambitious tech companies, and, against all odds, does it successfully?
    - mytrash 13y ago
      Dean Kamen: DEKA and FIRST Robotics [0] Ignoring the non medical DEKA products (Segway) I think DEKA and FIRST (particularly FIRST) should have much more PR. Maybe you could argue ambition, but I still feel like mentioning these two organizations. 0: http://www.usfirst.org/ http://www.usfirst.org/
deletes 13y ago
He even requested it; quote from Musk from Tesla blog: >>Second, we have requested that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conduct a full investigation as soon as possible into the fire incidents.<<

codex 13y ago

Elon repeatedly tries to misdirect from the issue at hand. Teslas do not catch fire more often than the average U.S. car. But that is not in question. The question is, "after a collision, what happens?" And so far, the answer is, "the Model S has a 25x increased chance of catching fire." That is the focus of the investigation. Fires post-collision are a bad thing, even if the never reach the occupant: they can ignite other cars gas tanks (or other objects), and impede rescue work.

adamrneary 13y ago
It's not reasonable to say that the Model S has a 25x increased change of catching fire. The sample size is orders of magnitude too small (there were 3 instances so far?). Put simply, there is no statistically significant difference whatsoever between the Model S and the broader population in terms of fires post-collision, and Musk is understandably frustrated about the bogus press claiming there is.
- sp332 13y ago
  Engineering lets you model things without having to do experiments. It's possible to know that a car design is more likely to catch fire just by analyzing it. You don't have to wait for thousands of cars to catch fire.
  - shiven 13y ago
    And are you saying then that Tesla has not done the Engineering?
    - sp332 13y ago
      I'm sure they have. But as codex said, Musk is simply not answering the question.
genericuser 13y ago
Where did you get the quote which you use to answer your question? It was not written in the article linked here, and I can't seem to find any similar quotes when searching except for a comment in a slashdot thread. I would like to see how they define collision and what exactly is 25x more likely but am finding myself unable to learn more about what exactly was considered with that calculation.

avelis 13y ago

I don't know how they did it but somehow Porche found a way to get their small plug in a news segment about another car brand.

jusben1369 13y ago

It would be interesting to compare this in a fair apples to apples way. You'd want to take competing cars to the Tesla of the same age. So how many car fires have their been amongst all the BMW 5/7 series, Mercedes E and S series that are 3 years or newer etc. Then you'd get a similar looking sample size for all the critical elements I would think.

notdrunkatall 13y ago

Keep dropping, TSLA! Another $50 or so and I'll start buying back in...