Slashdot Mirror


Tesla Model S Catches Fire: Is This Tesla's 'Toyota' Moment?

cartechboy writes "A Tesla Model S was involved in an accident in Washington state on Tuesday, and the car's battery pack caught fire (with some of it caught on video). The cause of the accident is pretty clear, and Tesla issued a statement that the vehicle hit 'a large metallic object in the middle of the road.' Whether that collision immediately set off a fire in the Model S's battery pack isn't known, but a report from the Regional Fire Authority of Kent, Washington went into detail on the battery pack fire saying the car's lithium-ion battery was on fire when firefighters arrived, and spraying water on it had little effect. Firefighters switched to a dry chemical extinguisher and had to puncture numerous holes into the battery pack to extinguish it completely. Aside from the details of how the battery fire happened and was handled, the big question is what effect it will have on how people view Teslas in the near and middle-term. Is this Tesla's version of 2010's high profile Prius recall issue where pundits and critics took the opportunity to stir fears of the cars new technology?"

78 of 388 comments (clear)

  1. Big Oil is Dancing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "That's TERRIBLE!" they laughed.

    1. Re:Big Oil is Dancing by Spy+Handler · · Score: 4, Funny

      I told you so!

      Signed,
      Edison

    2. Re:Big Oil is Dancing by TWiTfan · · Score: 4, Funny

      Fuck oil and electricity. I want a *nuclear* powered engine. Now THAT will be an accident!

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    3. Re:Big Oil is Dancing by OakDragon · · Score: 4, Funny

      Fuck oil and electricity. I want a *nuclear* powered engine. Now THAT will be an accident!

      I'm sure that in 2043, plutonium is available in every corner drugstore, but in 2013, it's a little hard to come by.

    4. Re:Big Oil is Dancing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      More insightful than funny. Edison did electrocute elephants with electricity in public to "prove" that Tesla's AC current was more dangerous than his DC current. Tesla won that round - AC is easier to transmit over long distances because of the ease of using transformers to step it up or down.

    5. Re:Big Oil is Dancing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because gasoline/diesel powered cars never ever ever catch fire after an accident.

    6. Re:Big Oil is Dancing by X0563511 · · Score: 3, Informative

      You mean like the Nucleon?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    7. Re:Big Oil is Dancing by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      AC is easier to transmit over long distances because of the ease of using transformers to step it up or down.

      Actually, AC used to be more efficient. With modern technology, high voltage DC is usually more efficient, especially for longer distances.

    8. Re:Big Oil is Dancing by TWiTfan · · Score: 2

      high voltage DC

      Somewhere in Australia, Angus Young just found a new album title.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    9. Re:Big Oil is Dancing by TWiTfan · · Score: 2

      schedule Jaws 19 to be a summer blockbuster.

      Easily the toughest item on the list.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    10. Re:Big Oil is Dancing by Benaiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Seriously though. I have seen a Diesel Toyota hilux catch fire after hitting a tree and diesel is very hard to start a fire with. Petrol cars catch fire all the time. I highly doubt that these battery packs are statistically more likely to catch fire than a Petrol car. Please ignore overly dramatic journalism. These cars are thoroughly tested before they get approval to be on the road. Much more so than the dodgey chinese imports that are arriving.

    11. Re:Big Oil is Dancing by sFurbo · · Score: 2

      Plutonium wasn't, radium was. Plutonium wasn't available until it was synthesized in 1941.

  2. vs gasoline cars by KernelMuncher · · Score: 5, Insightful

    obviously gasoline cars never catch on fire

    1. Re:vs gasoline cars by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Big Astrology has covered this up; but it turns out that your safety is almost entirely determined by who was appointed as the director for your life story.

      If it's a documentary type, the risk is nonzero; but quite modest. If it's a moody psychological thriller, you should avoid flashbacks but are utterly safe. If it's an action shlock-slinger, colliding with a pothole, shopping cart, or just about anything else at more than a few miles an hour will produce a massive fireball. Be sure to practice jumping improbably to safety. In this last case, the safest way to navigate the roads is actually to either be chasing or chased by armed criminals/terrorists/secret agents at all times. While cars not involved in high-speed chases routinely explode at the slightest stimulus, being involved in a high speed chase improves performance and fuel economy by at least 50%, provides an immunity to most bodywork damage(except bullet holes through inessential pieces of glass, be sure that your insurance covers windshield replacements), and makes explosions virtually impossible.

    2. Re:vs gasoline cars by CaptainLard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually despite what hollywood would have you believe, modern cars are very good at not catching fire in a crash. As is the Tesla in most cases I'm sure. As more of them get out there, more unforeseen circumstances will occur but I'm assuming no one got hurt (else that would have been the headline) so its a great data point to make a safe car even safer. And Prius sales are doing just fine....

    3. Re:vs gasoline cars by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hopefully tesla will point that out, but the story here is public relations. The public is illogical. They can easily come to believe that Teslas are much less safe than the competition, even if that isn't really the case. Car companies and the oil industry obviously have an interest in spreading FUD to foster that effect, and would have absolutely no qualms about doing so. They've played dirty so far.

      The name Tesla is fitting, since Nikolai Tesla faced a similar situation in life with Edison.

    4. Re:vs gasoline cars by Smidge204 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Every ~2 minutes, a fire department somewhere in the US responds to another call of a vehicle fire.

      Statistically, on a per-car basis, they are safe... but there are so many vehicles that vehicle fires are actually quite common.
      =Smidge=

    5. Re:vs gasoline cars by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      Gasoline vehicles burn ALL the TIME. You see it in every movie you watch nowadays.

      And after they catch fire, they EXPLODE!

    6. Re:vs gasoline cars by tripleevenfall · · Score: 2

      True, but how largely it's publicized It depends on if the domestic makes are in the middle of lobbying the government for a bailout at the moment because they are bankrupt, and if the burning car is a foreign marque.

    7. Re:vs gasoline cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Two can play the FUD game. The public might not consider that gasoline cars burn even worse when the gas tank is punctured by road "metal objects".

      So Tesla should tell them directly. "Yes, one of our cars burned this year - and nobody was hurt. And in the same year, x thousand gasoline cars burned, with z number of fatalities . . ." They could make a commercial based on this.
       

    8. Re:vs gasoline cars by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 2

      Yes cars catch on fire, what your stat doesn't shed any light on is how many of those fires are caused by the fuel system. There are countless other ways to get a car to catch fire.

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    9. Re:vs gasoline cars by omnichad · · Score: 4, Funny

      Funny story. On the way back from Thanksgiving during college, I was driving a couple classmates from my area with me. We hit a deer. I got out of the car to check the damage, and one of the girls in the car started running down the highway. In her adrenaline rush from the crash, she must have had a movie PTSD flashback and thought the car was going to explode.

    10. Re:vs gasoline cars by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 5, Funny

      obviously gasoline cars never catch on fire

      Gasoline vehicles burn ALL the TIME. You see it in every movie you watch nowadays.

      Which is much safer than the gasoline vehicles in movies from the 70's and 80's. They had a nasty habit of going over cliffs and exploding in tremendous pyrotechnic displays(after coming to a complete stop). The fireball could easily reach 50 feet. Often times they transformed from an expensive Ferrari into a Pinto before going over the cliff.

    11. Re:vs gasoline cars by Russ1642 · · Score: 2

      Yes they do. I've seen many many videos of this on Liveleak. In fact one was a car parked by the curb. It was completely engulfed in flames and pedestrian decided to walk past it on the sidewalk, and right them KABOOM. Gas tanks DO explode, maybe not as easily as in a Michael Bay movie but Hollywood didn't make it up.

    12. Re:vs gasoline cars by Russ1642 · · Score: 2

      Even gasoline cars have complex electrical systems. They love to catch on fire thanks to the quality materials and craftsmanship found in the modern car.

    13. Re:vs gasoline cars by SnowZero · · Score: 3, Funny

      ... crash ... thunk ....
      Boooooooooooooom!

    14. Re:vs gasoline cars by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      obviously gasoline cars never catch on fire

      They obviously do, but you're forgetting that the fire brigade had to use a POWDER extinguisher to put this fire out!! OMG PANIC!!!!

      --
      No sig today...
    15. Re:vs gasoline cars by MachDelta · · Score: 5, Funny

      Judging by the username, I'm going to go with shrooms.

    16. Re:vs gasoline cars by Richy_T · · Score: 3, Funny

      It does now.

    17. Re:vs gasoline cars by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Er I think you meant to say liquid gasoline doesn't EXPLODE, because it burns quite readily. Although it is the vapor that is ultra-sensitive to sparks or any open flame, but gasoline has no problem burning quite quickly and releasing a hell of a lot of energy while it does.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    18. Re:vs gasoline cars by intermodal · · Score: 2

      I've fought my share of car fires and worked my share of car wrecks, and I can tell you quite honestly that most car accidents do not result in fires. In fact, I've fought far more fires in cars that were either intentionally or unintentionally set by occupants, occurred while driving, or occurred while parked than I've fought car fires resulting from wrecks.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    19. Re:vs gasoline cars by petermgreen · · Score: 2

      I don't know where he lives but I do know a lot of older developments here in the UK have combined sewers. From looking at wikipedia it seems the same is true of parts of the US. Separate sewers are much better from an environmental point of view because they don't wastefully put surface water through the sewage treatment system and are much less likely to end up releasing raw sewage during storms but are rather hard to retrofit.

      Also even where the sewer and storm water systems are supposed to be separate people do sometimes misconnect them through laziness, ignorance or just plain mistakes.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    20. Re:vs gasoline cars by mellon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ha! Yes, this is true. But they also burn in real life. I've seen it happen twice. The heat that comes off of a burning gasoline car is intense even from a couple of lanes away. It's nothing like what's shown in this video. I think the Tesla engineers can pat themselves on the back—it looks like the battery of this car was severely compromised, and still did not dump all its energy at once.

    21. Re:vs gasoline cars by mellon · · Score: 2

      The best part is that they often explode while still airborne!

    22. Re:vs gasoline cars by msauve · · Score: 3, Funny

      That was an act of God. Lucas, the God of Darkness, to be precise.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    23. Re:vs gasoline cars by lgw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Car companies and the oil industry obviously have an interest in spreading FUD to foster that effect

      It may come as a shock to you, but Tesla is a car company. What's more, Tesla is an American car company. Let that sink in.

      IMO, the coolest thing about Tesla is it help shake the foundations of those who will only buy an "American" car, and those who will never buy an "American" car. Less nationalism and reverse-nationalism would be good here - especially since brand has little correlation with where a car was actually manufactured.

      You might also be surprised to know that there's barely an "Oil Industry" any more - no one big thinks of themselves that way. There are "energy companies" and "exploration companies" and so on, but everyone is trying to decouple their image from oil. And most energy companies are just as happy if you power your car with electricity that came from the natural gas they sell.

      They've played dirty so far.

      Every urban legend says so, so it must be true! Why, half their budget these days is for buying up patents for water-powered cars to make sure they never see the light of day! Most big established companies "play dirty" when it comes to branding and brand protection and trying to influence fashion in general - par for the course.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    24. Re:vs gasoline cars by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      Er I think you meant to say liquid gasoline doesn't EXPLODE, because it burns quite readily.

      No; gasoline in liquid form does not burn. Pour a fair amount into a coffee can, then throw a lit cigarette in. Or, spend 5 seconds on Wikipedia:

      Liquid gasoline itself is not actually burned, but its fumes ignite, causing the remaining liquid to evaporate and then burn.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    25. Re:vs gasoline cars by semi-extrinsic · · Score: 2

      Statistics from 1 data point is a bad idea. If out of the first 10,000 Tesla S owners there were 3 terrible drivers who crashed&burned in the first few months, you would be concluding that the Tesla S has an energy-source fire rate which is almost 25x that of normal cars. Because of 3 idiots who biased your stats. We'll have to wait several years before we can say anything conclusive about an event which is this rare.

      --
      for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
    26. Re:vs gasoline cars by drolli · · Score: 2

      Besides the uncertainty associated with only having a single data point, you cite the overall rate for problem in fuel systems, not the rate for problems in fuel systems which were hit by a piece of metal.

  3. Hitting stuff @ speed with your car can damage it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    News at 11.

    Gasoline burns too. I don't really see many people avoiding the purchase of gasoline-powered cars since, like FOREVER.

  4. So? by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course a gasoline-powered car has *never* caught on fire after a crash [/sarc]

    No matter what mechanism we use for storing large amounts of energy in a small package, there is *always* the risk that it will be subject to an uncontrolled release if it suffers a physical insult.

    Call me when a Tesla spontaneously explodes in flames... then it's time to get worried.

    1. Re:So? by PIBM · · Score: 2

      Multiple gasoline cars have spontaneously exploded in fire. Some even after recalls to prevent that.

      A single sample here: http://www.wreckedexotics.com/458/458_20101108_3.shtml

  5. Betteridge's Law of Headlines by ScottCooperDotNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No. A single incident without a fatality is rarely a cause for such panic unless this is hyped by those opposed to electric cars.

    1. Re:Betteridge's Law of Headlines by sjames · · Score: 2

      I am not aware of any government anywhere that forces people to buy an electric car instead of gasoline powered.

      As dirty as a coal plant is, it is cleaner than a gasoline powered engine due to it's efficiency and pollution controls.

  6. unexplained fires are a matter for the courts by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 3, Funny

    With an Canyonero

    1. Re:unexplained fires are a matter for the courts by Russ1642 · · Score: 2

      Can you name the truck with four wheel drive,
      smells like a steak and seats thirty-five..

      Canyonero! Canyonero!

      Well, it goes real slow with the hammer down,
      It's the country-fried truck endorsed by a clown!

      Canyonero! (Yah!) Canyonero!
      [Krusty:] Hey Hey

      The Federal Highway comission has ruled the
      Canyonero unsafe for highway or city driving.

      Canyonero!

      12 yards long, 2 lanes wide,
      65 tons of American Pride!

      Canyonero! Canyonero!

      Top of the line in utility sports,
      Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts!

      Canyonero! Canyonero! (Yah!)

      She blinds everybody with her super high beams,
      She's a squirrel crushing, deer smacking, driving machine!

      Canyonero!-oh woah, Canyonero! (Yah!)

      Drive Canyonero!

      Woah Canyonero!

  7. heh. by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Funny

    Tesla Model S Catches Fire: Is This Tesla's 'Toyota' Moment?

    Only when you consider Toyota's slogan is "Driving excitement". I can think of nothing more exciting than OH GOD OH GOD WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:heh. by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 3, Funny

      OH GOD OH GOD WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE.

      I am a Nissan Leaf on the wind, watch how I soar.

    2. Re:heh. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2

      I thought that was Pontiac's slogan.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  8. Water intensified the effect? Duh by mark-t · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Of course water intensified the effect... it's an electrical fire!

    Anyways... I didn't see anything in the article about it. Did the battery actually explode? If not, then there's an argument for increased safety over gasoline, isn't it?

  9. My car will never catch fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I am going to stick with my gasoline fuelled car. It will never catch fire

  10. No. by bmajik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Tesla has been very brilliant thus far in their product strategy.

    They have made expensive, high end products that are tailored to affluent enthusiasts. They have been working their way down from "least practical" to "most practical".

    Enthusiasts and early adopters are much more willing to put up with teething problems in new technologies.

    These are not disposable cars that you will see filled with McDonalds wrappers.

    So the typical tesla customer isn't stupid white trash looking to cash in on a lawsuit with the help of an ambulance chasing lawyer (yet).

    Furthermore, consider the competition: If you believe the party line, A Mercedes Benz can randomly eject its drivetrain and burn itself to a crisp, killing the occupants.

    Everyone (including the test data and real-world data) agrees that MB makes exceptionally survivable vehicles. So freak things may happen.

    What we saw in this case was that the Tesla hit something, nobody was hurt, the vehicle didn't lose control, and after the driver safely stopped and exited the car, the firefighters had to deal with a slightly new type of fire situation then they are used to.

    --
    My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    1. Re:No. by WheezyJoe · · Score: 2

      Furthermore, consider the competition: If you believe the party line, A Mercedes Benz can randomly eject its drivetrain and burn itself to a crisp, killing the occupants.

      Good to know the drivetrain is safe. I mean, if you're gonna have an accident, eject the most valuable parts, right?
      And who says it was random? Occupants efficiently terminated. Drivetrain available for re-use.

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
  11. Looks much less dangerous than a gasoline fire by gweihir · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is restricted to the motor area. A gasoline fire engulfs the whole car and can kill everybody pretty fast. Looks like there would be plenty of time to get people out safely from a Tesla in comparison.

    Face it: There is no really safe way of energy storage. But a well-made lithium battery is orders of magnitude more desirable than highly volatile and very toxic gasoline.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Looks much less dangerous than a gasoline fire by FilmedInNoir · · Score: 3, Funny

      And way way less dangerous than those atomic cars in Fallout 3.

      --
      Sig. Sig. Sputnik
  12. Thoughts and Insights... by PortHaven · · Score: 4, Interesting

    First, this was a direct puncture by a piece of large metal debris. Not a design failure. The metal object likely caused a short and the resultant fire.

    Second, from a number of articles and reports, Tesla's safety designs worked as planned. Numerous articles noted that the fire was contained in the front section of the vehicle where the impact occurred, and did not shift into the passenger compartment. This = GOOD!!!!

    The firefighters pouring of water on a chemical fire likely exasperated the situation.

    What Tesla should lean from this...

    a) evaluate design to see if the front underguard can be further strengthened for greater resistance to impact and puncture with minimal affect on price and performance.

    b) recognize the benefit of better trained fire departments, sell off some those stocks to found a non-profit with an endowment to help train nationally all fire departments in the handling of electric drive vehicle systems. Namely to utilize chemical extinguishers rather than water.

    c) perhaps evaluate whether a small extinguishing system could be incorporated into the design. (BONUS POINTS)

    a)

    1. Re:Thoughts and Insights... by omnichad · · Score: 2

      It sounds like a perfectly reasonable eggcorn on the other hand.

  13. Re:I doubt its a major issue by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is about the same as a large metal object ripping open your fuel tank and having the gasoline igniting save it's far more likely the fuel fire will consume the entire car quickly but on the reverse side it's probably easier to put out. The only real solution would be to not use lithium as a battery component which isn't possible at this time.

    It's a thing to note, in the sense that fire departments/first responder types need to behave differently around a light metal fire than they do around a hydrocarbon fire (this is one of the reasons why hazardous materials storage/reporting regulations have involved the local fire department for decades in many locations: if Warehouse B catches fire, will spraying it with water stop the fire, or cause the place to explode?); but we aren't talking markedly different overall amounts of stored energy here. Even if Teslas were magically impossible to extinguish, the 'stand at a safe distance and watch' strategy works.

  14. Re:Water intensified the effect? Duh by CastrTroy · · Score: 2

    Yeah, and there's lithium batteries. Lithium + Water = Big Explosions. The only useful information here is that fire crews need to be better trained to deal with electric cars.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  15. Of course not. by rainwalker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The driver hit something in the road; the vehicle detected the damage, realized it was going to catch on fire, and politely asked the driver to pull over and exit the vehicle. Once the driver had exited, the battery compartment started merrily burning, but the design kept the fire contained within the front compartment. At no point did the fire enter the passenger compartment, which would have been perfectly safe for the driver. Frankly, I can only dream of owning such a safe vehicle.

  16. Re:Just gonna make it worse by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Informative

    Tesla's battery packs are large multiple-battery units, with a crunchy plastic shell. If the fire is on the wiring in the shell, the proper way to extinguish it is to puncture the shell and apply a chemical extinguisher. That seems to be exactly what they did.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  17. No he does not by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seems to me that Elon Musk may have some egg on his face since he so boldly offered to help out Boeing redesign their battery system on the 787 not to long ago

    There is a huge difference between catching fire due to (apparently) catastrophic damage from flying debris and catching fire due under expected use conditions. So the answer is no, he does not have any egg on his face.

    It seems that Tesla's Li-ion batteries are just as likely to catch on fire!

    Any Li-ion battery can become flammable under the right conditions.

  18. Re:Careful by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Or Tesla spins it as "We're incorporating a built-in fire-suppression system, the same as all race cars have had for the last 20 years or so. Why our competitors haven't done so by now,... you'll have to ask them, they're the ones who've been fielding the racing teams using this technology.".

  19. Re:I doubt its a major issue by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Informative

    Firefighters get constant updates on all sorts of technologies. Two months ago, the monthly VFD meeting was all about LiOn batteries - from camcorders to cars. There was a slick video with all sorts of cool GoPro shots. Next month it's carbon composite airplanes like the 787. Those are supposed to be quite entertaining.

    You will notice, in the brief FA video, the firefighter standing there and looking at the scene. They're not rushing around with hoses. It looks like they understand what they're dealing with and acting accordingly.

    And some of us remember the magnesium transmission cases in Volkswagen bugs. Now, those were a PITA to extinguish. The world is full of all sorts of potentially dangerous things, emergency personnel get frequent instruction on how to safely deal with them.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  20. Meta-Pundits by Jahava · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is this Tesla's version of 2010's high profile Prius recall issue where pundits and critics took the opportunity to stir fears of the cars new technology?

    One thing is clear: Meta-pundits will use this opportunity to stir fears about what pundits will do.

  21. Re:Water intensified the effect? Duh by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

    Except that in TF video, they're just staring at the fire, not putting water on it. They have hoses out but they always do. Besides, there are things OTHER than lithium in the car.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  22. Re:Does Musk has egg on his face now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    admittedly it took a head-on collision to do that while the Boeing aircraft was just sitting there, but it seems that the Tesla has the same Achilles heal!

    Heel. And, no.

    Look, I dislike Elon Musk more than the next guy (this is Slashdot, so the next guy is probably a fanboi sycophant), but yeah, no. Metal debris impacting an absurdly powerful battery is not the same as, "plane caught on fire again for no reason, cap'n, lol".

  23. And By Extension by Phoenix666 · · Score: 2

    I completely agree with the other posters, gasoline cars never catch fire and burn their occupants to death. I'm shocked, shocked that an electric car would burn. Obviously it's a death trap.

    By extension, I'm also horrified by those who suggest we revive zeppelins to manage flight. Don't they know hydrogen burns? Also, jumbo jets never burn. Aviation fuel, I've read, is safe to drink and could never harm anyone. 13 people died awful agonizing deaths on the Hindenburg. Think of the humanity! What's that? 137 people died in a PanAm crash... *yawn* what's on Must-See TV tonight?

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
  24. Re:Does Musk has egg on his face now? by Guspaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Boeing 787: Multiple fires out of 83 deployed vehicles. All fires happened without collision, one happened while vehicle was parked.
    Tesla Model S: One fire out of ~14,000 deployed vehicles. The fire happened due to a collision.

    Yeah, I think Tesla's doing pretty well relative to Boeing here...

  25. Re:Water intensified the effect? Duh by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Reading the article, it appears that they did spray water on it first - makes sense, it's not like it's all that easy to ID a burning car. Then they noticed odd behavior, the fire got worse - OK, we know how to deal with that - stop the water, grab the dry chemical extinguisher.

    Then they had to puzzle through how to put the fire out completely given they were out in the middle of the road. Seems like they did a pretty good job. A few motorists were inconvenienced, no one was hurt. People learned things. Probably will be the talk of the department for weeks.

    I'll bet it was the highlight of their day (the FD folks, perhaps the owner, but in a different sense).

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  26. Re:Water and fire don't mix? by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

    No, you just are ill informed.

    educate yourself:
    http://www.teslamotors.com/firstresponders

    Look at the firefighting section and you will find that large amount of water will cool the battery and stop the fire. Remember the fire triangle.

  27. "little effect" by v1 · · Score: 2

    went into detail on the battery pack fire saying the car's lithium-ion battery was on fire when firefighters arrived, and spraying water on it had little effect.

    Well, I'd call that a very good thing. I would have expected "spraying water on a lithium fire" to have had a spectacular effect. Kudos to Tesla for managing to protect the firefighters from blowing themselves up!

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  28. Re:Water intensified the effect? Duh by Dare+nMc · · Score: 4, Informative

    Li-ion batteries contain no pure lithium, Li-ion doesn't react with water. Only reasons not to use water is because of potential voltages. The water could either conduct back to fire fighters, or as it gets contaminated cause more shorting internal and external to the battery.

  29. Re:Does Musk has egg on his face now? by bitt3n · · Score: 2

    Tesla has the same Achilles heal!

    wow, a self-repairing battery

  30. Re:Water intensified the effect? Duh by jbengt · · Score: 2

    Firefighters often use water in fire where they cannot directly put out the fire by dousing the burning material with water. This is because the water cools things down. This helps prevent adjacent materials from igniting, and can help to extinguish the fire by pulling heat out of it.

  31. Putting it out by Quila · · Score: 2

    Although not easily, gasoline cars will catch fire. It's just a product of hauling so much concentrated energy around.

    The big issue is how hard it was for the fire crew to put it out. They can just douse a gasoline-fueled car, and it's out. But they shouldn't have to pierce the battery pack to put out a Tesla.

    Maybe if they put temperature-sensitive dry chemical packs in the battery pack. If it gets too hot (as in the batteries are burning), the packs burst, forcing the chemical everywhere.

  32. Re:Water and fire don't mix? by neonfrog · · Score: 2

    No problem. Reading your link certainly makes it seem like the firefighters did do the right thing, and many commenters are missing that, so good post.

    --

    I'm thinking about it, therefore I might be.

  33. Powder extinguisher... by Firethorn · · Score: 2

    I'm almost surprised that they didn't go to this first thing - water isn't good for gasoline fires either, though the sheer amount a fire engine can put out will often put out fires that water would not otherwise be recommended for.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right