Owner of Battery Fire Tesla Vehicle: Car 'Performed Very Well, Will Buy Again'

cartechboy writes "The Tesla Model S fire that, to date, is either electric car Armageddon or 'no big deal' has been fun Internet theatre combined with a dose of crowd-sourced battery-pack pseudo-expertise. Now the actual car owner (and Tesla investor) weighs in with his take, which is, basically, 'nothing to see here and yes, I can't wait to get back into a Tesla.' Owner Robert Carlson wrote an email in response to contact by Tesla's vice president of sales and service, Jerome Guillen, saying he found the car had 'performed very well under such an extreme test. The batteries went through a controlled burn which the Internet images really exaggerates.' Carlson had no comment on the guy who videoed his car fire, who is now Internet infamous for shooting video in portrait mode." You can read Elon Musk's take, along with Carlson's correspondence.

Comments

The heater really works

[macsimcon]

It's powered by flaming batteries.

Re:The heater really works

[msauve]

Too bad it's not powered by flaming Anonymous Cowards. Travel would be free!

Re:The heater really works

[danomac]

I would say it's not very efficient though - most of the heat is outside the car.

Re:The heater really works

[fustakrakich]

That's to melt the ice or soften the asphalt on the road, for better traction.

Re:The heater really works

[binarylarry]

We sophisticated folk call that the Tesla Fireplace.

Muaaaaaaa.

Re:The heater really works

[FatdogHaiku]

That's to melt the ice or soften the asphalt on the road, for better traction.

You might think that, but this is actually the first step in a self recharging car that occasionally drops a flamed out battery pack to make room for new, chargeable batteries! Try not to park down wind of them... or, breathe in their general vicinity really...

The are mortal after all

[atlasdropperofworlds]

Tesla cars can burn under certain conditions. I guess they really are just like all the other cars out there.

Re:The are mortal after all

[ttucker]

Car fires tend to be pretty spectacular... gasoline is quite flammable.

Re: The are mortal after all

[Anonymous Coward]

Only in vapor form. You can put out a match by dipping it in gasoline. That's part of the reason gasoline is such a good vehicle fuel. It has to be conditioned in a carburetor or a fuel injection system to be very volatile so it's fairly safe as a fuel.

Re:The are mortal after all

[FridayBob]

... I guess they really are just like all the other cars out there.

A car that can't suddenly roast its occupants in an explosion should be regarded as a step forwards. Don't forget how dangerous it is to travel at speed in a vehicle that carries both a tank of highly volatile liquid and an engine that, even when functioning properly, turns 70-75% of that potential energy into heat.

Re:The are mortal after all

[Anonymous Coward]

Batteries burn up really nice when they go into thermal run-away conditions. LiPo Batteries really make a nice hot fire when they burn. If you have ever seen a Li-ion or LiPo battery burn up, you might feel safer in that gas powered car... lol

Re: The are mortal after all

[Smidge204]

Only in vapor form. You can put out a match by dipping it in gasoline. That's part of the reason gasoline is such a good vehicle fuel.

Good luck having a condition where you have spilled liquid gasoline but no gasoline vapor, which is QUITE flammable.

Gasoline was chosen as a vehicle fuel because once upon a time it was a waste product of kerosene production, so it was cheap and plentiful. The advantage it had was being VERY VOLATILE - easily evaporating into the air to form an explosive mixture. A carburetor does not need to "condition" it at all, just deliver a carefully controlled dose. Because of this you could produce an internal combustion engine without the need for a fuel injection system like diesel engines required, and with a lower compression ratio, so the engines would be simpler, lighter and faster. Less efficient, too, but who really cared when the fuel was so cheap?
=Smidge=

Re: The are mortal after all

[Lumpy]

Try heating it. If you want to see a spectacular fire have an ignition source near gasoline that has been heated. a good car fire is highly dangerous because the gasoline starts to boil at only 120 degrees F. and once it is boiling you can easily get the whole tank of fuel to the superheated vapor point by 200 degrees, easily achieved in a car fire. At that point if you release the pressure of the container and the WHOLE LIQUID MASS will nearly instantly vaporize.

That is the nice fireball you get. Gasoline is a good vehicle fuel because it's dirt cheap and easy to make, it's not because it is incredibly safe.

Re:The are mortal after all

[Lumpy]

Yup in the hobby world we charge our LiPo batteries in kevlar bags that have an anti flammable lining and a metal closure to keep air out.

LiPo batteries are dangerous as hell, I have no idea why they sell them everywhere to anyone. They are little bombs if you charge them wrong.

Re: The are mortal after all

[HairyNevus]

You can put out a match by dipping it in gasoline.

....Maybe, if you're very quick. But the gasoline would be giving off vapor upwards, which the match would run into downwards. I've seen the old "dip your hand in water and you can dunk it in liquid lead" trick, but this sounds more like that "heat up a spoon with duck tape around the handle then put it in cold water*" cruel prank.

*do NOT attempt!

Re:The are mortal after all

[Shadow of Eternity]

As opposed to a plastic bin full of highly volatile, easily vaporizable, combustible fuel?

Re: The are mortal after all

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah that's diesel not gasoline.

Re: The are mortal after all

[MightyYar]

You can put out a match by dipping it in gasoline.

That's probably true under certain conditions, but most of the time you hear that fact used for heavier fuels like diesel and kerosene/jet fuel. Gasoline has a pretty high vapor pressure compared to the other two, even including butane in the mix depending on the season.

Re: The are mortal after all

[syockit]

"heat up a spoon with duck tape around the handle then put it in cold water"

I wanted to call out on that, but then found it the thing actually exists.

But what's so special about this tape compared to a generic unbranded one, that you chose it particularly for this prank?

Re: The are mortal after all

[tftp]

A carburetor does not need to "condition" it at all, just deliver a carefully controlled dose.

A gasoline engine with a carburetor runs on air-fuel mixture, not on gas. If you pour gas down the inlet manifold, the engine stops. The carburetor "conditions" the gasoline by mixing it with air in ratio that is prescribed for the given mode (vacuum, RPM, gas pedal, etc. - as many variables as you have money for.) The later carburetors, before they got obsoleted, were quite complex.

Re: The are mortal after all

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry sir. Diesel fuel behaves that way. If you try that with gasoline, I will see you on Youtube.

Re: The are mortal after all

[ackthpt]

Only in vapor form. You can put out a match by dipping it in gasoline. That's part of the reason gasoline is such a good vehicle fuel. It has to be conditioned in a carburetor or a fuel injection system to be very volatile so it's fairly safe as a fuel.

Yes, you can put out a match in gasoline (petrol), but you have to be quick about it. If there's enough vapor about it will certainly go PHOOM!

I've seen plenty of regular cars burning by the side of the road, without even the benefit of striking or being struck by another vehicle. And when the gas tanks begin to boil, that's when the fire fighters are very circumspect about getting near one as an exploding tank can fling flaming fuel for a large radius.

In contrast, this Tesla car fire is dullsville.

Re: The are mortal after all

[Luckyo]

Essentially all ICEs run on a "air-fuel mixture". Burning requires both fuel and oxidizer, and O2 in the air makes for a suitable oxidizer.

Re: The are mortal after all

[HairyNevus]

Nothing, that's not the point. I just grew up seeing that brand so I spell it that way by default....

Re:The are mortal after all

[samwichse]

Yay uninformed internet conservative!

Re: The are mortal after all

[sherbang]

Duck brand tape is the original tape, capable of being used under water. Originally made for the military. Duct tape is the name given to knockoffs to avoid trademark problems. It's not well suited for use on duct work. So, the previous poster specified duck tape because that's the original, and more correct term.

Re:The are mortal after all

[Anonymous Coward]

One major difference is that your average gas tank do not contain oxidizer. In a battery, the chemicals are self contained separated by a special paper and dully ready to react. All you need is add heat to that mixture.

Re: The are mortal after all

[fisted]

You can put out a match by dipping it in gasoline.

You can do that with Diesel. I really wouldn't try it with gasoline.

Re: The are mortal after all

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the nice fireball you get. Gasoline is a good vehicle fuel because it's dirt cheap and easy to make, it's not because it is incredibly safe.

Umm, gasoline is incredibly safe if you think about it in terms of how much energy it actually contains. When you consider that only a dozen gallons of it contains enough energy to transport a vehicle loaded to 3,000 lbs over 400 miles, it's hard to imagine getting any similar amount of energy into a container and not have be incredibly dangerous.

I suppose the only thing better for energy density and safety is Diesel.

Re: The are mortal after all

[FrankSchwab]

Well, you can run an ICE just fine by pouring gas down the intake manifold. When I was younger and stupider, I did that with my ancient Oldsmobile. Yes, it required a bit of subtlety, but not as much as you'd expect.

Carburetors got quite complex because people expected perfect engine response, at all throttle settings, at environmental conditions ranging from startup at 10,000 feet in the winter to running below sea level at 120 degrees F in the summer, and the government expected minimal emissions in all those situations. But, basic though inefficient operation can be accomplished with a straw and a gas reservoir.

Re: The are mortal after all

[mrchew1982]

Bullshit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYuVUQJlXBE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Re:The are mortal after all

[Chrontius]

And this is why IMR and LiFePO4 are displacing LiCo chemistries - the oxygen is better contained. LiCo batteries evolve oxygen gas when heated, making their failure spectacular, violent, and when packed in metal cans, very nearly a detonation. LiNiCo offers some advantage in stability, without sacrificing the energy density that keeps people using LiCo. IMR (lithium manganese spinel) is very stable, requiring an external heat source or abuse like short-circuiting to fail spectacularly. They can also deliver more current, since LiCo is limited by how fast you can draw them down without making them likely to blow up by forming metallic lithium inside the cell. LiFePO4 store less energy still, but can deliver thick chewy amps because of its stability.

As I understand it, no electric cars use the old LiCo chemistry, or we'd have seen a far more exciting fire in this Tesla.

Re:The are mortal after all

[Anonymous Coward]

One major difference is that your average gas tank do not contain oxidizer.

I'm pretty sure my gas tank contains at least some oxygen...

Re: The are mortal after all

[PopeRatzo]

You can put out a match by dipping it in gasoline. That's part of the reason gasoline is such a good vehicle fuel.

If you're planning on putting matches out by throwing them into the gas tank, gasoline is just the BEST vehicle fuel. Plus, it's so cheap and easily obtainable. You can just back your car up to those gasoline lakes and fill 'er up.

But it's good to know I can throw a match into the gas tank and be perfectly safe. That's probably why internal combustion cars never catch fire.

Clearly, this Tesla fire is proof that electric cars can never work.

Re: The are mortal after all

[HairyNevus]

You realize even the Youtube comments attached to that video point out that it's bullshit. NT.

Re: The are mortal after all

[PopeRatzo]

I have a question: Why do you need a 3,000 lb vehicle to transport you to the grocery store and back?

Re:The are mortal after all

[Anonymous Coward]

Is wannabe chemist Elon Musk out to lunch?

For the Model S lithium-ion battery, it was correct to apply water (vs. dry chemical extinguisher)

LI-ion safety

Extinguishing this fire is dangerous as lithium burns violently when it comes in contact with water or moisture in the air; a suitable waterless fire extinguisher is recommended

Re: The are mortal after all

[NettiWelho]

When you consider that only a dozen gallons of it contains enough energy to transport a vehicle loaded to 3,000 lbs over 400 miles, it's hard to imagine getting any similar amount of energy into a container and not have be incredibly dangerous.

Solar panel. *ducks*

Re: The are mortal after all

[FatLittleMonkey]

The original tape was just rubber adhesive applied to a type of waterproof canvas called "duck cloth". Hence "duck tape".

The modern plastic-coated cloth tape is correctly called "duct tape", which is the industry it comes from. Although, just to confuse things further, they don't use duct-tape to tape ducts any more, they use much thinner silver plastic tape. So you can buy "Duck Brand Duct Tape" which is neither duck tape nor duct tape.

Re: The are mortal after all

[SuperAlgae]

Although most people now refer to it as "duct tape" the original term was "duck tape".
http://mentalfloss.com/article/52151/it-duck-tape-or-duct-tape

Re: The are mortal after all

[amicusNYCL]

I actually drove right by a vehicle fire today, on the 51 freeway in north Phoenix, around maybe 7th ave or so. It was a 90s-model Chevy pickup truck, with the engine compartment and front tires on fire (smelled fantastic, by the way). The thing I thought most impressive was that the lighted sign only about a mile before it already said there was a vehicle fire ahead, but when I got there it seemed like it had only started minutes before because of how small it was (hell, the tires hadn't even popped yet), and the fire truck didn't even have any people outside of it. I thought that it was really efficient for those lighted sign people to get that up so quick, they're really on the ball. I thought the government was shut down, but I still get a helpful sign that says there's a vehicle fire ahead, presumably at the base of the column of black smoke that I can clearly see.

Re: The are mortal after all

[iamhigh]

I have a question: Why do you need a 3,000 lb vehicle to transport you to the grocery store and back?

What a troll question as he was obviously using the weight and distance as an example of energy density. But you just have to make this about something other than the safety of gasoline and/or electric vehicles, don't you?

Now I have a question: How much gasoline does it take to push a 3,000 lb agenda?

Re:The are mortal after all

[kellymcdonald78]

Well considering that he has a degree in Physics, specifically material physics, and was planning to earn his PhD in Applied Physics (with a focus on advanced batteries), and he probably has a better understanding of how the batteries on the Model S are designed, I'll take his word on what the correct procedure is for extinguishing his batteries

Re: The are mortal after all

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a question: Why do you only use your vehicle to go to the grocery store?

Re: The are mortal after all

[Anonymous Coward]

Because of the vacuum created by the down stroke of the piston, and the heat from a running engine, you could pour gas into the intake manifold and will vaporize,
and or once it hits the cylinder the heat inside of it will vaporize it anyway.

The carbs manufactures made were poor attempts at running a cheap fuel injections system, those "emission carbs" were designed terribly and often did nothing to regulate or monitor how much air-to-fuel mixture, noting these vehicles also had ECM's (electronic control module aka, computer). The carbs often failed, or parts quickly wore out, and or the (cheap and really laughable) "senors" failed to work, (cheaply made but expensive to replace) and again all this on the carbs themselves, forget about the other "senors" placed on the engines intake manifold.

You could replace these carbs with an Edelbrock carb and watch your gas mileage increase and your emissions would drop. Edelbrock and the like keep the carb simple, something the later model carbs were. And they can be easily re-jetted depending on the type of engine or its power, compression ratio, camshaft, ect..
And the intakes manifolds from car makers were also poorly designed, it only added to poor emissions, and mileage.

They had to have had some major idiots working for them that had no idea how an engine works, which led to over thinking of how to make something simple into a cluster fuck, instead of trying to find ways to make it even more streamline and efficient. Something that always bothered me about manufactures intake manifold designs is why they failed to try and remove or deflect heat away from the intake manifold, this would increase fuel mileage, you are losing vapor from that heat, once it hits the intake manifold. Something I would do when I built engines, or during rebuild/mod.. I also used fuel injection..

Re: The are mortal after all

[MichaelSmith]

I once saw a car running on propane with the hose from the propane tank poked into the carburetor.

Re: The are mortal after all

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's another one: why do you live 400 miles from a grocery store?

Re: The are mortal after all

[bruce_the_loon]

I get your sarcasm clearly, but why does everyone think local and state government has shutdown just because the federals have? City, county and state should still be running in a federal shutdown, unless they've taken the opportunity to grab a vacation and blame it on the feds.

Re: The are mortal after all

[Anonymous Coward]

It's loaded with organic groceries being locally delivered to a inner cities orphans form Hati.

Re: The are mortal after all

[Anubis IV]

From what I understand, the point of the whole "hot spoon with duct tape" thing is not that it's supposed to explode, but rather that it's a cruel prank to heat up the duct tape's adhesive without the person realizing it before it sticks to and burns their hand. That video author "cheats" by holding it with a cloth, rather than gripping the duct tape directly. Of course the spoon doesn't explode, as some people claim. That still doesn't mean you should be doing it, since there's something else going on that's potentially dangerous.

Re: The are mortal after all

[rolfwind]

Not really. Duck tape was actually a generic term from early in the 20th century coming from duck cloth to a variety of strip products using duck cloth backing, some with adhesive, some not.. It fell out of use and was trademarked first in the 1970s, after ductape in fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duct_tape

After the war, the duck tape product was sold in hardware stores for household repairs. The Melvin A. Anderson Company of Cleveland, Ohio, acquired the rights to the tape in 1950.[12] It was commonly used in construction to wrap air ducts.[16] Following this application, the name "duct tape" came into use in the 1950s, along with tape products that were colored silvery gray like tin ductwork. Specialized heat- and cold-resistant tapes were developed for heating and air-conditioning ducts. By 1960 a St. Louis, Missouri, HVAC company, Albert Arno, Inc., trademarked the name "Ductape" for their "flame-resistant" duct tape, capable of holding together at 350–400 F (177–204 C).[18]

In 1971, Jack Kahl bought the Anderson firm and renamed it Manco.[12] In 1975, Kahl rebranded the duct tape made by his company. Because the previously used generic term "duck tape" had fallen out of use, he was able to trademark the brand "Duck Tape" and market his product complete with a yellow cartoon duck logo. In 1979, the Duck Tape marketing plan involved sending out greeting cards with the duck branding, four times a year, to 32,000 hardware managers. This mass of communication combined with colorful, convenient packaging helped Duck Tape become popular. From a near-zero customer base Manco eventually controlled 40% of the duct tape market in the US.[13][19]

Re: The are mortal after all

[serviscope_minor]

it's hard to imagine getting any similar amount of energy into a container and not have be incredibly dangerous.

Your imagination must not be very good then. Diesel for one is substantially less volatile than gasoline and actually has a higher energy density too.

And if you want to move into the realm of impractical for cars, then you could go for #6 fuel oil.

Re: The are mortal after all

[chihowa]

We used to do that all the time to drive cars with fuel system problems into the shop. It works like a charm as long as you don't push the gas pedal (or you're really quick with the valve on the propane tank). It works on modern cars, too, you just poke the tube into the air intake.

Re: The are mortal after all

[greg1104]

The Duck brand has nothing to do with the early history of the tape. The whole story is covered in duct tape. The first duck tape was developed by Revolite. The name "duck" was a mix of being made from cotton duck, named based on the "Dutch word doek, which refers to a linen canvas once used for sailors’ white trousers and outerwear", and that the resulting product had a duck-like resistance to water.

"Ductape" was the originally trademarked name for a heat-resistant version of the tape sold for duct work, developed by a different company.

The Duck brand is the current owner of the original tape design. But they didn't acquire that name until almost 50 years after the "duck cotton" name started.

Re: The are mortal after all

[MichaelSmith]

In our case we were touring Europe in a Commer based camper van. The engine is right between the two front seats under a hatch which swings back. The carby had a press-on sheet metal cap. We had run out of fuel a few km before a border and would have had to cash another travellers cheque to buy fuel so we gambled on having enough and lost. This was in the 1970s, my dad was driving. So I grabbed the propane tank for my dad and he got the engine going. It was noisy, smelly (like, almost ready to explode) and thus quite dangerous but we know it works now.

Re:The are mortal after all

[Carewolf]

You watch too many hollywood movies. Cars do not catch on fire when driving off clifs or coliding with other cars. In fact cars almost never catch on fire in normal accidents, when they do catch fire it starts as electric fires.

Re: The are mortal after all

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know of a gasoline engine that can run without an oxidizer?

Re: The are mortal after all

[BlackPignouf]

Just curious : what happens with the spoon?

Re: The are mortal after all

[Anonymous Coward]

Then he dropped out of school to found PayPal and become the next Bill Gates. What sort of PhD candidate he would have made, we'll never know now.

Re: The are mortal after all

[TeknoHog]

The whole story is covered in duct tape.

Great, another government cover-up. Not that I actually wanted to read it anyway...

Re: The are mortal after all

[PopeRatzo]

Now I have a question: How much gasoline does it take to push a 3,000 lb agenda?

My agenda is solar powered, friend.

Re: The are mortal after all

[Anonymous Coward]

It would take a lot of solar panels. You'll need enough that can give enough power in less than ideal sunlight and you'll need enough to compensate for the added load of pulling a trailer full of solar panels.

Re: The are mortal after all

[Lumpy]

BINGO!!!!

It's a better fuel all the way around, problem is the lack of education here in america keeps them from being popular.

Re: The are mortal after all

[Anonymous Coward]

the problem is the diesel engine, its complicated, less reliable, and german patent encumbered

Re: The are mortal after all

[Anonymous Coward]

IOW it's ni going anywhere regardless of weight, and is really just a scheme to get a govt. kickback.

Re: The are mortal after all

[Anonymous Coward]

To meet Federal safety standards? Even a Smart car is about 2000 lbs,and for a lot of people who don't live in a dense city center, that small a car just doesn't cut it as a vehicle.

Re: The are mortal after all

[mepperpint]

I recently discovered the answer to this question. It's because everyone else has one. When you get rear ended on a bicycle by a car going 30mph, you are quickly accelerated from 15mph to 45mph and then wipe out. This has a tendency to break limbs, cause concussions, and do other damage. The only known defences are to ride somewhere else (which frequently means you can't actually get to the grocery store) or add mass. If you up your mass to 3000 lbs, then the acceleration and damage are minimal. I prefer to put that mass into the vehicle, but you can try adding 3000lbs in body fat if you want.

Re: The are mortal after all

[znanue]

No idea why you are modded funny.

Is it not obvious to you that one of the things that Tesla Co has to work against is the anti-environmentalist faction? Individuals who want Tesla to fail only because they perceive it as a challenge (eventual or otherwise) to their personal right to pollute? Someday, electric self-driving cars may be the only sensible option for reasons of pollution and road safety and practical enough to enforce with a law.

People in love with the romance of driving these 'powerful combustion engines' talk about this and claim it is a personal right to drive a combustion vehicle and seize upon news like "Tesla car fire" as further argument for their agenda. Look at how carefully constructed and persuasively written Elon Musk's letter is. We shouldn't have to be reminded that this is a sample of one and that combustion engines catch fire (other than in the appropriate way) all the time. But, the politics surrounding the Tesla means this is necessary and a big part of those politics is the anti-environment faction.

Re:The are mortal after all

[CanHasDIY]

A thousand times this; does half of /. check out their brains anytime a Tesla story is posted, or do they really not understand that movie physics are not real physics?

Re:The are mortal after all

[ColdWetDog]

LiCo batteries evolve oxygen gas when heated, making their failure spectacular, violent, and when packed in metal cans, very nearly a detonation.

Cool. I'm on it!

Re: The are mortal after all

[MikeBabcock]

The GP was correct - all it does is allow it to evaporate into the intake air by controlling amounts of fuel and air taken in.

Re: The are mortal after all

[publiclurker]

I notice that even you are unable to explain why anyone needs that large of a vehicle to go to the store and back. Just because a bunch of easily influenced people bought into the idea that a big car can make up for their insignificance in other areas of their existence is not a really good justification.

Re: The are mortal after all

[publiclurker]

That and the fact that the previous batch (1980's or so) of diesel powered cars in this country were pretty bad.

Re:The are mortal after all

[Raenex]

I'm guessing he's relying on his engineers and not shooting from the hip, regardless.

Re: The are mortal after all

[PopeRatzo]

To meet Federal safety standards?

My bicycle doesn't violate any federal safety standards, and it only weighs about 20lbs.

My motorcycle also complies with all federal safety standards, and it weighs less than 1/4 of an average automobile.

My question is, "Why do we need cars the size of locomotives to bring the kids to school or to go shopping?"

Re: The are mortal after all

[PopeRatzo]

It's because everyone else has one.

I understand your reasoning. But it's kind of a good argument for Federal fuel economy standards, isn't it?

There's no incentive for car manufacturers to make lighter vehicles, so it will never happen. Plus, you have people who want to drive locomotives because fuck you that's why.

The only reason we're going to break the cycle of cars getting bigger and heavier is to set some standards. Because even if gas goes to $20/gallon, there's going to be some rich prick who says, "I need my 8,000 lb SUV because I'm the biggest dog on the block". So now everybody else has to get a bigger car so they're safe from John Galt in the SUV. In the meantime, all that weight causes the roads to breakdown sooner, which we've all got to pay for and all the other external costs like pollution and the wars that are necessary to keep a steady supply of cheap gasoline coming.

Re: The are mortal after all

[atlasdropperofworlds]

It's safe until you burn it. Then it changes the composition of the atmosphere. Safety is not guaranteed at that point.

Re: The are mortal after all

[Holi]

Great now load up 200 dollars of groceries on your bike(either one) and tell me how safe you are on your ride home.

I am pretty sure you would violate state and federal safety regulations on your motorcycle attempting that stunt.

Re: The are mortal after all

[kellymcdonald78]

Unlike Bill Gates he does have 2 degrees (in Business and Physics). Yes he dropped out of Stanford (hence the "planned" commend I made) long before he got his PhD

Re: The are mortal after all

[PopeRatzo]

Great now load up 200 dollars of groceries on your bike(either one) and tell me how safe you are on your ride home.

I carry >$100 worth of groceries home on my bike regularly. Got these nifty snap-on panniers and handlebar basket.

I'm not against driving cars. We own two. My point is that we don't all need to be driving >3000lb cars and nobody needs to be driving an 8000lb SUV unless they're using it for business.

This notion of "My family is much more valuable than any other family so I have to buy an SUV as big as a locomotive so that if there's an accident I can be sure whoever had the misfortune of being rear-ended by my wife pays the ultimate price.

Monday, when you're commuting to work, count the number of large SUVs on the highway with only a single passenger - the driver.

Re:The are mortal after all

[Shadow of Eternity]

No, it just happens to be completely surrounded by an oxygen atmosphere...

Re:The are mortal after all

[samwichse]

Odd, a Dodge Charger crossed the line and hit a tow truck head on near my work (this is the new Charger, not the old school one).

Not only were both occupants killed, but they were toasted nicely in a fire long and hot enough to melt the asphalt. I drove past it burning like a torch on the way in a couple months ago.

Not only that, but gasoline cars catch on fire just driving if not properly maintained. In my (heavily populated) area the traffic reporters probably average about one car fire per week causing traffic issues.

Let me paint a super easy scenario for you:
A small crack in a fuel line where it say... enters the fuel filter or manifold seeps gasoline, which evaporates quick enough it doesn't cause any problem. Until it gets slightly worse, runs back down the [pressurized] fuel line and likewise drips onto a source of heat. Ignition, and the fuel line forms a source of evaporating vapors as the tank is heated by the burning car, further feeding the fire, and under the right circumstances, leading to a nasty explosion.

In a wreck? There are tons of ways for this to happen, and tons of safety devices to prevent it. Inertial switches on the fuel pump to cut it off and keep it from spraying fuel all over (the tesla has an inertial contactor to break the pack in the middle). Baffles in the fuel tank to help prevent fire spread (the Tesla has its pack partitioned 16 ways). Fuel tank located in the safest place: inside the passenger safety cage (yep, Tesla's done this too). Membrane gas tanks to prevent fuel leakage if the tank is deformed (I don't know what the inside of the Tesla modules looks like, but they've supposedly got 1/4" steel armor plating to prevent intrusion).

All in all, the strategy is to try and keep the fuel in the tank at all costs, because once it's out, yes it is extremely dangerous and likely to burn violently. Tesla is meeting the same set of issues gasoline cars with the added bonus that the batteries won't evaporate into an explosive vapor mix if cracked open.

Re: The are mortal after all

[Anonymous Coward]

Complicated??? Are you high?

I suggest you actually learn about them before spouting such sillyness.

Re: The are mortal after all

[Lumpy]

Yeah, you know nothing at all about cars in general or what people do.

I know several people that own smartcars and they drive the 40-50 mile highway commute to the nearest city for work and back. Granted, the US version of the smartcar is a joke getting less than 40mpg highway while my 2007 civic constantly gets 44mpg on the highway. I also see Nissan Leaf's as well on the commute.

Anyone that believes you have to have a 8 foot wode canyonero to commute from the country is a complete and utter moron. I have driven a honda civic through snow that SUV owners were crying on the side of the road over. I walked right up an icy hill that 3 4x4's could not make it up. (The secret is in the tires and driver skill)

So please, come on back with a real example. and let's ignore all the people I see commuting on motorcycles.

Re: The are mortal after all

[Lumpy]

not a problem. My motorcycle can easily carry $300 worth of groceries safely. and I see people riding a bicycle home with more than I carry on this secret DARPA project they have around here that they attach to their bicycles.

It's called a trailer. SHOCKING I know, and dont tell China or they will have that secret area 51 technology and overtake us all.

Re: The are mortal after all

[Lumpy]

Yes, because paying attention while you are riding and being defensive is not an option. Or something really silly like wearing a helmet.

Re:The are mortal after all

[CanHasDIY]

From reading your post, I assume you missed the part where OP said:

In fact cars almost never catch on fire in normal accidents

It really is a rare occurrence for a car to burst into flames as the result of an accident (considering the volume of MVAs that happen on a daily basis); it's practically unheard of for one to literally explode ala Die Hard/Mission Impossible/What-have-you.

All in all, the strategy is to try and keep the fuel in the tank at all costs, because once it's out, yes it is extremely dangerous and likely to burn violently.

Only when introduced to a source of ignition - I, personally, have seen fuel tanks rupture and empty during an accident, but did not catch fire due to a lack of spark or sufficient heat.

Side Note: This discussion, and an episode of Top Gear I watched last night, caused me to ponder: What would happen to a Tesla, or any electric car for that matter, if it were to come into contact with a live power line?

Re: The are mortal after all

[ttucker]

Now I have a question: How much gasoline does it take to push a 3,000 lb agenda?

My agenda is solar powered, friend.

So you have an electric car agenda? The Tesla Model S weighs 4,600 lbs... what is your point? Solar will magically and mysteriously make cars lighter?

Re: The are mortal after all

[ttucker]

Only in vapor form. You can put out a match by dipping it in gasoline. That's part of the reason gasoline is such a good vehicle fuel. It has to be conditioned in a carburetor or a fuel injection system to be very volatile so it's fairly safe as a fuel.

It will be reassuring to know that the liquid gasoline is not burning my car.

Re: The are mortal after all

[Agent0013]

You would not want to throw the match into a gas tank. That is enclosed and will have sufficient vaporized fuel to possibly be a problem. The lack of fresh oxygen might save you, but I wouldn't bet on it. I know a mechanic that says they used to use a bucket of gasoline to throw their cigarettes into. The open top of the bucket allows the vapor to stay at a low enough concentration that it does not ignite.

Re: The are mortal after all

[Agripa]

The fuel economy standards you refer to have the unintended side effect of encouraging the production of heavier low MPG vehicles. As the standards are raised, the manufacturers discontinue models and add weight to their replacements to avoid the more stringent requirements.

Re: The are mortal after all

[Stuarticus]

I think he was thinking about diesel, which you can safely drop a match in, petrol, not so much...

Re: The are mortal after all

[PopeRatzo]

So you have an electric car agenda? The Tesla Model S weighs 4,600 lbs.

And the train that takes my wife to work weighs 200 tons. Does that mean it's less efficient than your Nissan Armada?

The bicycle that takes me to my office weighs about 22 lbs. So who wins?

Point is, nobody needs a 2-ton vehicle to take just themselves to the grocery store and back. Look at who's on the highway with you. SUV after SUV, 3000, 4000, 6000 lbs. Carrying one person. If it was just a matter of how much money you want to waste, I wouldn't care. But your waste affects me. Your external costs affect me.

Re: The are mortal after all

[ttucker]

The bicycle that takes me to my office weighs about 22 lbs. So who wins?

Can your bicycle propel you and four passengers across the country at 75 mph? Hypothetically, if you crashed your bicycle into a tree at 50 mph, would you live? Can your bicycle get you to the store at even 15 mph? Is it suitable transportation for the very young, elderly, or disabled? Does it perform well in bad weather?

But your waste affects me. Your external costs affect me.

Aren't you painting with broad strokes buddy? You do not know anything about me, besides your mental stereotype of... whoever your villain is. Riding a bicycle is not an option for me, the grocery store is 20 miles away. Riding a motorcycle is not an option, because I refuse to risk my life to save a few hundred ounces of petrol. If you want to save the world, start with, "Here is a practical solution to the problem." Hint, it is not to replace motor vehicles with bicycles. Calling everyone who drives a vehicle, that you consider to be inefficient, an asshole, is not going anywhere.

Re: The are mortal after all

[neonKow]

3000 lbs is not a big car. It's a compact. A 3000 lb car is a, given current technology, probably the most reasonable solution for regularly carrying people in a reasonably safe way. There don't seem to be many vehicles on the road that get better mileage by reducing the SIZE.

Re: The are mortal after all

[neonKow]

What are you smoking??!! Increasing the MPG requirements of cars results in lower MPG vehicles??!! Is your head so stuck in the sand that you've lost your grasp of basic logic?

Increasing the MPG requirements results in better MPG vehicles. The reason manufacturers can build low MPG trucks is because of a loophole, and the problem is obviously with the loophole, not the regulation.

Manufacturers are all quickly adopting more efficient vehicles because most consumers who bought SUVs for commuting got burnt badly by the gas price hikes, and because not everyone exploits every loophole they can find (unless they're in finance). If your business model relies on a loophole, then you're boned when the loophole gets closed.

Re: The are mortal after all

[Agripa]

This article covers the problem better than I can explain it in a short post:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/10/how-cafe-killed-compact-trucks-and-station-wagons/

Kind of on topic

[AbRASiON]

For the love of all things holy, can camera software / smartphone software detect if the user has _initiated_ the recording rotated and adapt appropriately?
Alternatively, can we get some simple, easy software which rotates video easily? Pictures are a breeze, video seemingly not. It's 2013 already!

Re:Kind of on topic

[__aayhdn3968]

For the love of all things holy, can camera software / smartphone software detect if the user has _initiated_ the recording rotated and adapt appropriately? Alternatively, can we get some simple, easy software which rotates video easily? Pictures are a breeze, video seemingly not. It's 2013 already!

Rotating video on something like a mobile is difficult, there's not much processing power so it will take a while with large videos and drain your battery. As for detecting if the user has "rotated" the phone, how can we know if this isn't intentional? If a user intentionally rotates a phone to achieve a desired effect and we rotate it again this could cause frustration.

Re:Kind of on topic

[Dunbal]

You're simply holding the Apple product wrong. What you suggest would require innovation, something lacking in Cupertino. Just learn to hold your phone correctly. /sarcasm

Re:Kind of on topic

[wiredlogic]

Software can't fix vertical video since the sensor was oriented the wrong way to begin with . The only "fix" would be to crop down to a lower resolution or design a phone where the sensor rotates independent of how it's held.

Re:Kind of on topic

[Oil_Tan]

http://www.virtualdub.org/

Re:Kind of on topic

[SJHillman]

But what if they *want* it in portrait? It should do what the *user* wants, not what most people think is right.

Re:Kind of on topic

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't rotate video afterward as you are going to crop a lot of the vertical to make a portrait into a landscape video.

Re:Kind of on topic

[sexconker]

What's software going to do? Rotate the sensor back the other way?
Rotating the video will result in you having to tilt your head to watch the video.
If it bothers you so much just rotate your monitor.

People record in portrait because it's easier to hold and operate a phone one handed in that orientation.
You don't have to like it, but the "OMG FUCK PORTRAIT VIDEO" parade is really over blowing things.

Re:Kind of on topic

[AbRASiON]

The phones are capable of shooting in portrait or landscape and auto-rotating the video.

One would assume when you start the recording process in a portrait state, you want to see it "normal".
Furthermore, how hard would it be for a camera app to display a small arrow on the display depicting where "up" is.

Finally, I don't care about rotating on the phone itself, rotating even on a PC isn't that simple either :/

Re:Kind of on topic

[reub2000]

Why not use a square sensor?

Re:Kind of on topic

[clem.dickey]

The lens probably provides an orientation neutral, disc-shaped image. If the image sensor and recorder supported a disc shape, then the viewer (or editor) could choose the framing: horizontal, or vertical, square, Cinerama, or just leave it as a disc.

Re:Kind of on topic

[Anonymous Coward]

Better yet, a circle. That way you can hold it at any angle without it affecting your composition.

Re:Kind of on topic

[farble1670]

software can write the bits anyway it wants. it can write the bits such that "up" in the video corresponds to the current up direction of the camera.

Re:Kind of on topic

[LordKronos]

Why not use a square sensor?

Because it would be sensor space that would rarely be used. It's not that common that people would hold in portrait but intend to shoot in landscape. And then on top of that, I don't know that it is technically possible to manufacture a plus-shaped sensor. If not, then that would mean either there would be a lot of the sensor that is completely unused (which means wasted cost of manufacturing, and possibly wasted battery life if it's not possible to keep portions of the sensor powered down), or you'd have to shrink the square sensor down to fit inside the circular lens (which means your effective sensor would be lower resolution). Neither of those are ideal trade-offs for somethings that might be used 5% of the time.

Re:Kind of on topic

[Anonymous Coward]

Software cant fix stupid. And that is the problem, Most people are pretty darn stupid when using a camcorder or phone to record.

Re:Kind of on topic

[Anonymous Coward]

My DSLR is square.

Re:Kind of on topic

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you play the video with the original aspect ratio despite the angle at which it was taken.

Re:Kind of on topic

[GiMP]

Nobody should intend to film in portrait mode except in rare conditions that do not apply here with phones. The reason people do it is because it is the natural way to hold the phone, not because it is the natural way to watch the video. The phone should fix their mistake by cropping the image down to landscape or square. I don't understand what you mean by "sensor space that would rarely be used". With a square sensor, the recording would ALWAYS be square regardless of portrait or landscape orientation. It might be different than what users expect, so the cropped area on the display could show application icons for various features that are often hidden in pie menus.

Re:Kind of on topic

[phantomfive]

Arguably the problem is in video players that can't properly display videos taken in portrait mode.

Why can't youtube display vertical movies? It's 2013 already!

Re:Kind of on topic

[Anonymous Coward]

It is. What are you talking about? Did you have to run your head sideways to watch the video?

Re:Kind of on topic

[Ol Olsoc]

But what if they *want* it in portrait? It should do what the *user* wants, not what most people think is right.

As my Photography professer told me early on. "You have to know the rules in order to break them."

After viewing the footage, I doubt this guy was breaking the rules. as he knew them. Which an observer could come to a quick conclusion that he had no idea what he was doing

Re:Kind of on topic

[LordKronos]

Nobody should intend to film in portrait mode except in rare conditions that do not apply here with phones. The reason people do it is because it is the natural way to hold the phone, not because it is the natural way to watch the video.

Why should nobody intend to do it? I do it from time to time, and I intend it. If the subject I'm capturing is naturally vertical, and I don't intend to view it full screen on an HDTV, why should I waste all that space and resolution capturing stuff I don't care about on each side? I'll shoot it portrait and capture the subject that I am actually interested in with as much detail as possible.

The phone should fix their mistake by cropping the image down to landscape or square.

Then you end up with a much lower resolution, which is very undesirable.

I don't understand what you mean by "sensor space that would rarely be used". With a square sensor, the recording would ALWAYS be square regardless of portrait or landscape orientation. It might be different than what users expect, so the cropped area on the display could show application icons for various features that are often hidden in pie menus.

But to use a square sensor, you give up a lot of resolution. A lens is circular. People generally prefer photos that are rectangular rather than square. Well, for a given circle diameter, you can fit a wider 2:3 rectangle in it than you can a sqaure. That means for a given lens size, your 2:3 sensor will capture more detail than a square sensor which you crop down.

Re:Kind of on topic

[evilviper]

Alternatively, can we get some simple, easy software which rotates video easily? Pictures are a breeze, video seemingly not. It's 2013 already!

A single image is always going to be easier to modify than 100,000 images (ie. a video). That said, kmenc15, virtualdub, etc., can easily flip, rotate, gamma correct, crop, or do many other modifications to your video.

Re:Kind of on topic

[VortexCortex]

Rotating video on something like a mobile is difficult, there's not much processing power so it will take a while with large videos and drain your battery.

Negative. It takes no additional processing power at all to rotate the video on a mobile. I'm sorry, but the rest of us articulate beings shouldn't have to suffer simply because your lowest-bid manufacturer opted for fused wrist joints.

Re:Kind of on topic

[spongman]

Yeah. And maybe YouTube could handle showing fullscreen portrait video properly on a portrait-oriented device. *facepalm*

Re:Kind of on topic

[grumbel]

The core problem is that you record a video in 1080x1920 which is then scaled down to 608x1080 to fit into a horizontal player, thus you lose information. The trivial fix would be to simply not squish vertical video into a horizontal player, instead play it in a vertical player, thus preserving all the image detail.

Re:Kind of on topic

[adolf]

Why rotate it? From what I can see, the video is already rotated appropriately: Up on my monitor is up on TFV.

If you don't like the vertical viewpoint, just crop it and zoom it and bend it 90 degrees. You -will- lose information in doing so, just as you must in doing so with still pictures, even if the latter is "a breeze." (There are tools that make it "a breeze" with video if that's what you really want.)

Or are you requesting that image sensors on cell phones be a 1x1 matrix instead of a 4x3 or 16x9 matrix? Because then you've got a whole different, and perhaps very interesting, fight on your hands.

Myself, I'm just pleased to be in 2013, wherein a passing motorist (or the passenger, or whoever) can quickly whip out a video camera from their pocket, record video of an event, and easily share it with the world, no matter what orientation the video camera is in, and have that video be displayed appropriately to viewers.

Which, again, is what was done here.

(Go record your own Tesla fire if you think you can be a better videographer.)

Re:Kind of on topic

[reub2000]

Who says it needs to be wasted space? Let the user capture a square image.

Re:Kind of on topic

[edman007]

But it would have to crop the image as the sensor is fixed to the phone, if that's what you want you can crop your portrait to landscape post processing and get a fugly video.

Re:Kind of on topic

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up. The reason that it doesn't take additional processing power, is that the videos are encoded prior to storage. Rotating can be done trivially by scanning the pixels in horizontal order instead of vertical and vice versa. The total amount of pixels that need to be processed for encoding is the same either way.

Re:Kind of on topic

[Anonymous Coward]

If they *want* in in portrait, they are assholes. :D

Re:Kind of on topic

[AmiMoJo]

The quote you were looking for is:

"Just avoid holding it that way."
- Steve Jobs

Re:Kind of on topic

[Anonymous Coward]

Rotating video on something like a mobile is difficult, there's not much processing power so it will take a while with large videos and drain your battery.

For sequential rendering (If you access the write buffer in a linear fashion.) arbitrary rotation with free scaling costs two additions per pixel plus tow extra additions for every new line.
The frame setup involves four multiplications. People do arbitrary rotation in realtime on old 8-bit computers.

90 degree rotation is a special case where the values you multiply with are 0, 1 or -1. If you don't want to rescale the image a 90 degree rotation is as inexpensive as copying an image from one location to another. (Except for messing up the cache lines slightly.)

Re:Kind of on topic

[Anonymous Coward]

Even better, give us square screens.

Seriously. In every place I have a screen it is the width that limits the size of the screen, the space above it is always empty.
4:3 was pretty good, widescreen is mostly horrible. But I guess widescreen provides a larger diagonal compared to the surface area so it's probably good for marketing purposes.

Re: Kind of on topic

[Anonymous Coward]

In the old days we could just flip the polarity of the deflection coils. Flip both vertical and horizontal and the picture becomes a mirror image. I used to do that and then give the TV away for free.

Re:Kind of on topic

[MikeBabcock]

And how do you propose to write the data out then? Shall we create new data streams each time the user rotates? Shall we tell the video that its resolution changed part way through and watch video players cough and sputter? Or shall we write out the bits raw and hope the flash memory can keep up (hint: it can't).

This isn't as simple as some neophytes think it is.

Re:Kind of on topic

[Anonymous Coward]

Negative. It takes no additional processing power at all to rotate the video on a mobile. .

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Re:Kind of on topic

[Xyde]

Yeah I don't get the hate. I'm browsing in portrait mode, you mean if I watch the video it will fill my screen? Great.

Re:Kind of on topic

[Anonymous Coward]

Camera software, like cameras of old, get used in lots of different ways where filming in portrait, upside down etc can actually be useful and wanted. If every time you tried to film something at a different or weird angle (check out the scenes in 1960's Batman TV show where the villains are shown) the camera reoriented itself, then it would stuff a lot of idea footage up. Adding an option to turn the 'auto orient to film video in landscape mode and up the right way' off would cause complications when the camera person is trying to film something in a hurry and the only way to fit it all in was to hold the camera at a diagonal or something. It's much easier to assume a camera person actually has some idea about using a camera, and if they don't, they can learn.

Didn't blow up, would buy again

[Anonymous Coward]

So much for the Airlines being scared of laptop batteries because of their power density...
(yes, I know, not same tech...)

Captcha: suicide... can't make that one up.

Re:Didn't blow up, would buy again

[Jack Malmostoso]

In fact, it's exactly the same tech. Tesla uses laptop batteries for their vehicles.

Re: Didn't blow up, would buy again

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy is a tesla investor. The fire could have consumed his infant grandchildw and he wouldn't badmouth Tesla. If I has money locked up in something like that I woud say the same things to the press, too. Also, today he probably has 5 times as much equity in Tesla as a week ago (nudge nudge) We are talking about a company controlled by the guy who came up with frickin' PayPal, for petes sake.

Re:Didn't blow up, would buy again

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, thousands of 18650 Li-ion cells.

Same ones as used in laptops, power tools, and flashlights.

http://forums.aussievapers.com/club-vape-|-off-topic-discussion/12754-tesla-roadster-car-uses-18650-batteries.html

Re:Didn't blow up, would buy again

[Lumpy]

Actually things like Kindles use the far more dangerous LiPo battery.

Re:Didn't blow up, would buy again

[Anonymous Coward]

I stand corrected.
So why is the TSA so dumb, then?
It's not like Tesla can afford to load their car with massive chunks of airplane-threatening-explosion-proof metal dividers, and obviously it didn't go all firecrackers for the lack of them.

Re: Didn't blow up, would buy again

[Anonymous Coward]

For $180, I could be a Tesla Investor. (should have bought yesterday, it's up over 4%)
I'm more cynical than most, but you went a bit overboard.

Re: Didn't blow up, would buy again

[Anonymous Coward]

Being an investor doesn't mean shit. For $1000 I could be an investor in almost every one of the Fortune 50 companies.

My cellphone bill cost more per month than it cost to become an investor in Tesla.

Re: Didn't blow up, would buy again

[mattr]

What a stupid post. It is no-brainers like you that shut down the government to make a point.
Listen, probably anyone who buys a Tesla also invests in companies including Tesla, because they like it and believe in it.
The best electric car in the world.
If you read the blog post, you can see that even though an L shaped piece of metal levered up and punctured quarter inch armor (which ordinary cars don't even have), the engineering design worked perfectly, flame was compartmentalized and directed downward, no flame entered the passenger compartment, and total combustible power was 1% of an ordinary car. Even after being punctured, instead of exploding the vehicle told the driver to get off the road and exit the vehicle. That's a smart car! And the company dealt with him very professionally too.
In the end, you are just a FUD-monger subhuman and your posts are not worth the electricity it takes to read your drivel and I ask you politely to get off slashdot and crawl back into your asshole. The rest of us want to work hard, do a good job, and make enough money to buy one one day.
Incidentally although I have not invested in Tesla and don't even have a car I have gotten in one and had a salesman give me a test drive.
The car is fricking awesome. It was built by an awesome businessman who took his money and built yet another one or two awesome things with that. This story is so high in the stratosphere above your grimy imaginings I don't expect you to understand, I just hate the idea of your poison leaching out of your septic tank into the wide world.

Re: Didn't blow up, would buy again

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe someday you will earn enough to afford your Tesla. In the meantime keep up the slavish worship. Maybe somebody will notice you doting over their car and let you ride in it.

What does anything in the prior comment have to do with the govt. shutdown? Apparently that issue gets you upset, but you don't have to see it in everything around you.

Be careful what sentiments you humor and allow to motivate you, or you'll be driving your non-Tesla over a barricade in fury. The Secret Service shoot to kill.

Re:Didn't blow up, would buy again

[Anonymous Coward]

Eno - Burning Airlines Give You So Much More (1974) - YouTube

Re: Didn't blow up, would buy again

[Anonymous Coward]

No, don't tell him to get off slashdot. Please, bring this TO slashdot. Exposing this kind of thing to criticism and inevitable debunking is doing a service to humanity, far better than just letting it fester in the shadows. Expose it to the light of day and watch it shrivel.

shoot the video in a format that fits the subject

[Anonymous Coward]

it's a complete myth that we have to shoot video so it can be shown on a TV. who cares about TVs? the format should suit the subject material, not the shape some old guys in a smoky room settled on years ago.

Re:It's so dirty!

[sexconker]

I know this will probably get lost in the comments but, when my mom isn't home I like to go into her garden, cover myself in dirt, and pretend I'm a carrot.

Funny, that's how you were conceived.

seems about right

[Anonymous Coward]

If I learned anything from hollywood it's that a car will explode at the slightest touch.
If this had been a gasoline car the guy would be dead.

Exaggerates?

[Anonymous Coward]

The batteries went through a controlled burn which the Internet images really exaggerates.

That Internet, making up stuff you don't agree with again!

Re:Exaggerates?

[Anonymous Coward]

My neighbor's truck caught fire shortly after he parked it. Problem was a fuel pump which did not shut down properly, and continued to pump fuel to a hot engine with a leak on the fuel injector rail.

Things went from bad to worse very fast.

He was able to push the thing into the middle of the street while it was in the infancy of the burn stage.

During the height of the burn, all of the neighbors were out with their garden hoses trying to keep the gasoline down, but kinda useless... the tank overheated, ruptured, and sent a small stream of ignited gasoline down the street. Of course, everybody moved their cars pronto. The gasoline went on into the gutter and went underground - what happened to it down there is anyone's guess, but it was well lit and smoked a lot down there.

Point I am trying to make is that when the energy which was intended to move a car and its passengers hundreds of miles is released in the space of a few minutes, the results can be spectacular, and destructive.

The fact the car did not literally explode says a heck of a lot.

Re:Exaggerates?

[PPH]

We've told you a million times: Don't exaggerate!

Re:Exaggerates?

[Lumpy]

BMW motorcycles will burn to the ground. It's actually a common failure point. the germans used crap fuel lines that will age and crack in only 5 years. The other failure is burning starter relays that are undersized by "german engineering" but they fixed that in 2005.

Re:Exaggerates?

[FatLittleMonkey]

I think this is the only worthwhile comment I've read on this entire page.

Re:Exaggerates?

[tygt]

I can almost verify this; I was riding along one day (2003 BMW K1200GT) and suddenly my pant leg was saturated with cold fluid.
I quickly pulled over, and yep, it was gasoline... luckily, luiquid form and rapidly evaporating without a ready ignition source.
The bike has never been in an accident, it's been well taken care of - but the fuel lines were obviously not up to the task of carrying gasoline!

Re:Exaggerates?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Power of AC! :D

Re:Exaggerates?

[Lumpy]

I love my BMW motorcycle, but I hate that BMW engineers are some of the worst ones on the planet. This was not always the case, before 1995 they had real engineers, but then they decided that the car guys could do a better job and utterly ruined the motorcycles legendary reliability.

My favorite failure is that on my K1200LT that the clutch is a dry clutch in a sealed box that if the seals or the clutch slave fails, the fluid can not leak out and it contaminates the clutch so you have to pay $2500 to get it fixed. German engineering at it finest.... reliability would be 300X higher by drilling one hole to let the fluids drain out.

Re:Of course he doesn't think anything is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

An investor (of Tesla), not an executive. Those with the money to purchase a Tesla probably invest in lots of companies with the potential to make them their next million.

Re:Of course he doesn't think anything is wrong

[IICV]

... if it had been a regular car, fire would have been the least of your worries.

Re:Of course he doesn't think anything is wrong

[GiganticLyingMouth]

TFS states he's an investor, not an executive. Where did you get that idea? The quote "...performed very well under such an extreme test. The batteries went through a controlled burn which the Internet images really exaggerates." is from the driver, not the VP. Just the fact that a VP of the company contacted him about it would indicate that Tesla took the whole event rather seriously.

Re:Of course he doesn't think anything is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Regular cars don't burst into flames after running over a metal object.

Blasted portrait video!

[Anonymous Coward]

Last month I had the joy of having to create a DVD for a nonprofit event that had a combination of landscape and portrait recorded video that needed to go on it.

I chose the "better presentation" route - made the DVD in 4:3 mode, and cropped the portrait video to 4:3. Thankfully it was 1080p source, so I had MORE than enough resolution in the source for a DVD output. (And thankfully the portrait video was all shot stable enough with the subject still enough that it worked out.)

Re:Of course he doesn't think anything is wrong

[Lumpy]

Yes they can. In fact pick any car and I can get it to catch fire by driving it over a single metal object.

The metal object will be a puddle of molten stainless at 3000 degrees, the car will almost instantly burst into flames.

It's OK, its just fire.

[Anonymous Coward]

The darling of the left will not suffer 60 minutes of rapid acceleration and saddle fuel tanks fire enhanced by remote control explosives.

Re:Of course he doesn't think anything is wrong

[TheloniousToady]

The car catching fire is pretty bad, but at least the car's owner didn't get electrocuted. Now *that* would have been a shocker.

Re:Fire that wont go out

[Anonymous Coward]

The car also did inform the driver to pull over when it 'sensed' that there was a problem. Damn nice safety feature of the Tesla.

The TEsla investor is a commedian, also.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Controlled burn." Seriously? Ah, the sentiment of the bourgeois.

Better safe than sorry

[formfeed]

Till they fixed this problem I certainly will stay away from any Nvidia product.

Why Do Devices Support Portrait Mode Video?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do devices even support portrait-mode video? They've got accelerometers in them, can't they just display an error message when some knob turns them sideways? Do Apple, Adobe, and Sony have a secret plan to take the world by storm with an upcoming release of portrait-mode video editing software, monitors permanently mounted skinny-side up, and portrait-mode DVD players that surely everyone will want or something?

Re:Why Do Devices Support Portrait Mode Video?

[black3d]

They don't even need to do that - in most devices the CMOS is a square and it's simply software which dictates whether the output is portrait or landscape. You could simply force it to capture widescreen even when held in portrait mode. Probably the reason they don't do this is it would confuse the folks who.. don't understand this stuff. "I'm holding it vertically, why isn't it recording vertically?" Actually - it's really just usability, but perhaps there should be an option on most of these devices "Always capture widescreen video".

Now.. some devices do have slightly wider than tall CMOS sensors, such as the iPhone 5s slightly landscape sensor, but a minor down-sampling of video resolution (since, if it's in portrait mode, the sensor is portrait so not quite as wide) would have little effect - especially on the majority of camera phones which don't record 1080p in the first place, so a "full-width" 720p widescreen video could be captured in portrait mode anyhow.

Re:Why Do Devices Support Portrait Mode Video?

[gl4ss]

ever wanted to film sideways?

people take portrait mode pictures all the time on purpose.. why not video? as if this was the first instance of portrait cellphone video going viral..

Re:surprise

[The Wannabe King]

An impact with enough force to punch through the armour protecting the battery can not be classed as "fairly minor". According to Tesla, the force was 25 tons (which means 250 kN), which is a lot. Most likely, the results would have been much worse if had happened to any other car without the extra protection under the floor.

Re:Of course he doesn't think anything is wrong

[Luckyo]

No need. All you need is a tank puncture and a spark. Spark can be easily provided by friction caused by such puncture.

Of course, that won't "catch fire", it will "explode" with far more lethal consequences.

...yet was put out with water

[Albinoman]

The article linked to a letter from Elon Musk. In it he wrote:

"When the fire department arrived, they observed standard procedure, which was to gain access to the source of the fire by puncturing holes in the top of the battery's protective metal plate and applying water. For the Model S lithium-ion battery, it was correct to apply water (vs. dry chemical extinguisher), but not to puncture the metal firewall, as the newly created holes allowed the flames to then vent upwards into the front trunk section of the Model S. Nonetheless, a combination of water followed by dry chemical extinguisher quickly brought the fire to an end."

You should probably know what you're talking about before stating that as fact.

Re:...yet was put out with water

[JoeyRox]

And what happens if the firewall is already compromised when the firemen arrive? Are they suppose to stand in the middle of the flames while they reattach the firewall before attempting to extinguish the fire? Try to apply a bit more common sense and critical thinking before accusing others of not knowing what they're talking about.

Re:...yet was put out with water

[evilviper]

And what happens if the firewall is already compromised when the firemen arrive?

Well then, I guess there will be "flames [venting] upwards into the front trunk section" when they arrive. And then they will put the fire out.

Notice nobody said "OH GOD! DON'T EVER PUNCTURE THE FIREWALL! GAAH!" And even if they had, we already have a video showing that the earth isn't going to implode if that does happen, as it did here...

Re:...yet was put out with water

[Albinoman]

Seriously, you really should read the correspondence linked at the bottom of the summary. It really is quite informative. I'll just copy and paste the next two paragraphs, the pertinent stuff anyway.

"It is important to note that the fire in the battery was contained to a small section near the front by the internal firewalls built into the pack structure. At no point did fire enter the passenger compartment.
 
...the combustion energy of our battery pack is only about 10% of the energy contained in a gasoline tank and is divided into 16 modules with firewalls in between. As a consequence, the effective combustion potential is only about 1% that of the fuel in a comparable gasoline sedan."

You're probably smart, but more-than-the-entire-development-staff-at-Tesla smart? They were thinking of all these crazy scenarios long before you decided not to give them a fair try. Remember, these were the guys that offered to help Boeing with their battery problem. Tesla is really a battery and charging company more than an electric car company considering where all their innovation lies. If you are smart than people generally will believe what you say. You kinda have a responsibility to get it right. Besides, it sucks being called out when you've understood something as completely wrong as you have here. People will start thinking you're that guy that makes shit up a lot.

Re:...yet was put out with water

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually Tesla has designed the battery pack with really redundant systems to keep the whole thing from going up in flames. http://webarchive.teslamotors.com/display_data/TeslaRoadsterBatterySystem.pdf for more info.

Re:surprise

[SternisheFan]

Musk's bottom line is the accident outside Seattle that caused the Model S sedan and its battery pack to go up in smoke would have been far worse had it been a conventional gasoline-powered car. "Had a conventional gasoline car encountered the same object on the highway, the result could have been far worse," Musk, who is also CEO of rocket maker SpaceX, writes on Tesla blog. Just as authorities have reported, he says the Model S struck a "large metal object" as it traveled at highway speeds. It went under the car and struck with a force "on the order of 25 tons." He says the estimate is based on the result: a 3-inch hole through armor plate that compromised the car's battery pack. But from there, he says everything went as it should. The car's "onboard alert system" directed to the driver to stop and get out. The fire was contained by firewalls within the battery pack. Vents in the pack directed the flames down and away from the vehicle. The fire department followed the correct procedure in trying to deal with the fire by puncturing holes in a protective plate and shooting water into the pack. If the same accident had occurred under a conventional car, the thin metal shielding around the gas tank or tubing could have caused gasoline to pool and burn the entire car to the ground. "In contrast, the combustion energy of our battery pack is only about 10% of the energy contained in a gasoline tank and is divided into 16 modules with firewalls in between. As a consequence, the effective combustion potential is only about 1% that of the fuel in a comparable gasoline sedan," Musk writes. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/10/04/elon-musk-tesla-fire/2924423/

Re:surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Which part of pole vaulting a large chunk of metal that can put a 3 inch wide hole in 0.25 inch thick armor plate is minor?

Re:surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

An impact that punches a hole right through an armoured gas tank is not a "fairly minor impact". The car suffered fire in one cell after taking a direct hit to the battery. That's not something that would happen in a fender-bender, and even if it did, all the safeguards worked perfectly anyway.

Portrait mode video

[Anonymous Coward]

portait mode is sometime the best option : http://pinball.org/videos/tournament/papa/papa-13-final-game-creature-from-the-black-lagoon/

Search Youtube for "car fire 2013"

[Required Snark]

About 2,270,000 results

Search "car fire 2013 -race" About 1,740,000 results.

Eliminates motor sports car fires.

Yes, the burning Tesla is on the first page. However, you could spend the rest of your life just watching all the non-Tesla burning car videos for just one year.

So why is one Tesla on fire such a hot item?

Re:Search Youtube for "car fire 2013"

[tftp]

So why is one Tesla on fire such a hot item?

Because there are very few Teslas around, and because they showed up on the market just about a year ago.

Re:Search Youtube for "car fire 2013"

[amicusNYCL]

Because it appears to be the first one, and media might still remember the Fisker Karmas that ignited after hurricane Sandy. Personally, I still want a Tesla.

Re:Search Youtube for "car fire 2013"

[circletimessquare]

it's on fire, so it's a hot item

Want to know more about car fires in America?

[Michalson]

Here is some interesting information on car fires from the US Fire Administration (USFA->FEMA->DHS) and the National Fire Protection Association.

From 2008-2010 "Approximately one in seven fires responded to by fire departments across the nation is a highway vehicle fire. This does not include the tens of thousands of fire department responses to highway vehicle accident sites.". The leading factors in ignition where "mechanical failure" (44.1%) and "electrical failure" (22.3%). 1

The actual number of highway car fires in that period was approximately 582,000, or an average of over 500 car fires every day on American highways.2

In this accident which involved an electric car a large piece of sparking metal debris was run over by the car and thrown up with enough force to slice through the cars stored energy compartment, in this case one of the batteries. The driver was alerted via the display to a problem and instructed to pull over immediately due to the fact that one of the batteries was now leaking and smoldering. A short time later the burning ember reached critical temperature and was able to ignite the softer materials in the adjoining 'frunk', the carpeted front side trunk located where most cars have an engine. The other 15 battery compartments, having not been skewered by a giant metal spike, remained unharmed due to the firewalls and other protection, as did the passenger compartment.

If the owner had been driving a gas powered car and that metal spike had instead been driven up into the gas tank, ripping it open and showering the fuel with sparks as it was dragged along the highway, would the driver have had any warning other than a loud bump and then the passenger compartment being consumed by flames?

This is not the first Tesla fire, there was another involving the Roadster resulting in a recall of 439 vehicles. The source of the fire in that instance was not the advanced battery at all, it was one of the old style 12V lines (Tesla vehicles still include a regular 12V battery for lights/instruments and 'ignition') being in a bad position near a headlight and susceptible to damage that could spark a fire. Going back to the statistics above we have over 100 car fires each day (22.3% of 500) caused by those 12V wires and components being damaged and shorting out. For example Honda recalled over 140,000 (non-hybrid) Fits in the US this year because the wiring in a 12V door switch could get wet, short out and start a fire. GM had the same problem last year and had to recall almost half a million vehicles.

Re:Want to know more about car fires in America?

[rahvin112]

I attribute the serious press coverage and negative tone to paid coverage by other car manufacturers. They are scared of Tesla because they've developed everything in house and now hold patents on a lot of key electric car technology.

Anyone with any brains looked at this as said so what. I've seen car fires, obviously gas car fires and they are fucking scary. I watched a gas car go from a little smoke to smouldering ember in less than 2 minutes. The driver barely made it out alive. People are routinely killed in car fires because gas cars burn very very fast. Apparently the Model S told him there was trouble and to pull over and he was out of the car waiting for help long before the fire started. Though it makes for an interesting video had that been a gas fire the car would have been a smoking ember before the fire department got there.

Re:Want to know more about car fires in America?

[deadweight]

I had an old Porsche car I used to race and it burned up for no other reason than I tried to drive it out of my garage, yet somehow mass panic did not ensue. Minor panic maybe until I shoved it down the driveway........

Re:Of course he doesn't think anything is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Would have been funny if started selling his Tesla stock on his iPhone just after stepping out of the vehicle.

Re:It's so dirty!

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting. Tell me more about your mom and her sweet booty.

Re:PR Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus the janitor burgled his turds, if the rumors are true.

Oh!

[Anonymous Coward]

And pray tell how much $$$$ Musk is bailing this little media fiasco [i.e. extortion pay]?

Dumping on electric cars?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because no gasoline powered car has ever caught on fire either. No siree Bob.

Re:Of course he doesn't think anything is wrong

[PopeRatzo]

Car executive says that his car catching fire is no big deal.

Where do you get "car executive"?

Have you seen what Tesla stock has been doing lately?
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/tsla/stock-chart

A year ago, the stock was at $30. Today, it's close to $200. I bet there are more than a few owners of AAPL who wish they'd sold their Apple shares and bought Tesla last September.

Average volume is like 20million shares. There are a whole lot of people buying Tesla stock who are not "car executives". Although I bet there are a bunch of actual "car executive" who would love to have their company's stock price perform like that.

Re:Of course he doesn't think anything is wrong

[FatLittleMonkey]

More likely, and more common, rupturing a fuel-line near the engine. Fuel spraying over the hot engine or exhaust tends to ignite easily. (Or breaking the fuel filter, or damaging the fuel pump, or...)

Coincidentally, this would be roughly the same place that the Tesla was struck.

Not terribly surprising.

[John Pfeiffer]

I figure that anyone who's invested has probably got at least some idea how the battery tech works... And anyone who does, knows that compromising one or more cells with something conductive (I read something about metal road debris piercing the battery?) is literally one of the surest ways to cause a catastrophic failure of a lithium chemistry battery pack.

So yeah, if I were in his shoes, I'd be keeping things in perspective, too.

Man, I've seen photos of R/C car and plane batteries having done absolutely unreal amounts of damage, I can't begin to imagine what one of these suckers could do, worst case.

But that's just how it goes if you wanna store an assload of clean energy in a small enough space to power a vehicle. Just gotta work out ways to design them so they're self-extinguishing, or otherwise self-neutralizing.

Re:Not terribly surprising.

[circletimessquare]

But that's just how it goes if you wanna store an assload of clean energy in a small enough space to power a vehicle.

that's just how it goes if you want to store an assload of ANY KIND of energy in a small enough space

Who cares what a customer thinks!

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially some cheese eating, wine drinking, tree hugging, rich, hippy! Fire is dangerous! Outlaw electric vehicles, won't someone think of the children!?

Fire fighting procedures and battery...

[patniemeyer]

Actually the letter from Tesla said that, while the firefighters did follow their own standard procedure and ultimately got it under control, it would have been better in this case if they had not punctured the battery pack to inject water. The letter says these holes allowed the flames to enter the trunk area. The implication is that perhaps the fire would have remained confined to one section of the the (individually fire-walled) battery compartment or directed away from the car had it not been holes punched in the top.

Also, it's really interesting to read some of the patents that Tesla has on the battery technology. They include coating the individual battery cells in an "intumescent" material that expands and insulates the cells if they exceed a certain temperature. So the cells are effectively individually firewalled to try to limit the spread of heat through the compartments and redirect dangerous levels of heat to the metal casing.

Tesla put a lot of thought into this and from everything we know the car behaved exactly as it was designed.
 

tj;dr

[Thrill Science]

tl;dr Tesla INVESTOR paints a positive picture to keep his stock price up.

Reminds me of a joke:

[Tablizer]

"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

Re:The TEsla investor is a commedian, also.

[Sabriel]

Yes, seriously. As in, the burn was controlled by the car's safety mechanisms. As in, it did not spread rapidly, it did not explode, it did not turn part of the car into a violently expanding debris field, and nobody got hurt or killed.

Top Gear

[kf6auf]

I'm sure if this were remotely likely, it would have happened on Top Gear.

Speaking of which...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll just leave this here, to compare with the existing pics:

https://www.google.com/search?q=burnt+out+car&tbm=isch

Now compare those with the Tesla.

Let's just end any doubt...

[Loki_1929]

From the blog:

"Earlier this week, a Model S traveling at highway speed struck a large metal object, causing significant damage to the vehicle. A curved section that fell off a semi-trailer was recovered from the roadway near where the accident occurred and, according to the road crew that was on the scene, appears to be the culprit. The geometry of the object caused a powerful lever action as it went under the car, punching upward and impaling the Model S with a peak force on the order of 25 tons. Only a force of this magnitude would be strong enough to punch a 3 inch diameter hole through the quarter inch armor plate protecting the base of the vehicle.

The Model S owner was nonetheless able to exit the highway as instructed by the onboard alert system, bring the car to a stop and depart the vehicle without injury. A fire caused by the impact began in the front battery module – the battery pack has a total of 16 modules – but was contained to the front section of the car by internal firewalls within the pack. Vents built into the battery pack directed the flames down towards the road and away from the vehicle."

Who was this car owner...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Jerry Bruckheimer?

Re:Who was this car owner...

[deviated_prevert]

...Jerry Bruckheimer?

It definitely wasn't Ralph Nader. Though the press coverage might make you think it was! Lithium Ion tech has some growing pains however the Tesla has superior safety features to overcome the danger. The growing pains of using Li batteries on the 777 are more scary than a using them on a car. Tesla should not take a hit because of this though no doubt the accident and puncturing of the battery case was a pr God send for the oil companies.

As mass production of safe EV cars becomes a reality there will be technical problems not doubt but with onboard sensor safety systems like the one used in a Tesla the dangers are far less than that of gasoline tanks and the environmental costs of the oil industry.

Tesla does not scare the oil companies but GM, Nissan and other large manufacturers on the verge of selling viable urban commuter cars with advanced EV tech at the same price as gasoline models scares the shit out of them and it is about time!

Tesla goes after the high end which is great and will always be a niche product like having an Apple desktop, however the revolution will occur as new housing construction is mandated to have wiring for EV chargers, something which the oil companies are actively lobbying against no doubt. Currently (pardon the electrical pun) if one buys an EV commuter you also need to put in separate 30 amp breaker system to fast charge unless you want to trickle charge on a 120V 15 amp exterior GFI which most houses have.

There are fast charge stations starting to crop up in many city centers, here in Victoria BC we have them so it is only a question of a few years until small rechargeable commuter cars become a very viable alternative to the gasoline economy. My wife and I have been very seriously considering a Nissan Leaf just for around town and her commute to work for which an electric car is a viable alternative to her current car. And then keep our little 4x4 pickup only for vacations, yard work, and emergencies if the car is stuck with low amps. This make very good sense and will save money in only a few years and only requires that I wire in a 30 amp line rapid charging station to the driveway because we have a 200 amp service that will take it and this would bring down the full charge time to 30-40 minutes and the drive distance to over 100 kilometers. Thus it would be a very viable alternative right now to exclusively supporting the oil industry.

Can Manufacturers Help Out Firefighters?

[Kilo Kilo]

I know no one wants to think that the car they worked so hard on could catch fire or be in a wreck, but these things happen. Unfortunately, not to much attention is paid to the firefighters that have to respond to these incidents. Firefighters, for the most part, can handle a "traditional" car fire. When you start adding these big battery packs, dozens of airbags, combustible metals and higher ethanol fuels then things can start to get really hairy.

This article details some of the problems that the FD encountered with this fire. I know in the past Nissan released something for the Leaf, has Tesla done anything like that?

Hindsight is 20/20, but I think this FD was a little too aggressive considering they didn't know how the vehicle would react. We need to consider deploying foam or dry-chem on car fires from the start. Also, if there's no life hazard, I wouldn't want to create one by putting my head right next to a battery filled with I-don't-know-what and then proceeding to poke holes in it with my halligan.

Cars are dumpsters on wheels, you never know what's in them. The insurance company will buy the owner a new one, no need to get hurt for something that's already 99% burned by the time you get there.

Re:Can Manufacturers Help Out Firefighters?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you haven't even read... anything ever.

Re:Can Manufacturers Help Out Firefighters?

[ColdWetDog]

That article doesn't really say anything.

And, FWIW, fire departments train on all sorts of issues. Electric cars (and lithium battery tech) is a, excuse me, hot topic. We had a neat video a couple months ago on exactly that. We have manuals that show how to disassemble a Tesla and a Leaf.

The firefighters on the scene did a pretty good job. They knew enough to stabilize the situation safely. Apparently, they missed some subtle things (they didn't have to cut one of the holes) but hell, it's the first burning Tesla. You need to practice, practice, practice.

Who's next?

Nobody linked to the relevant xkcd yet?

[Hentes]

I'm disappointed.

Why is portrait mode a big deal?

[damn_registrars]

We're talking about someone who was near a notable event who happened to think to pull out their smart phone and hit record. They could have just as well sat and watched without recording anything. Sure, they gave us a lot of pixels of nothing-in-particular, but at least they recorded the event.

On top of that I'll also say that some phones are simply more comfortable to hold in portrait mode - they are, after all, often deisgned to be used as phones that way. My android phone is quite awkward in landscape mode (particularly if I need to use it one-handed), which causes me to take a lot of pictures in portrait just because it is easier to control in portrait.

WTF DID IT RUN INTO?!

[Gravis Zero]

they keep calling it a metal object in the road but do they mean another car, a tanker truck or what?

what exactly did the car run into that caused the damage leading to the fire?

Re:WTF DID IT RUN INTO?!

[Smidge204]

A chunk of unidentified debris that has been described as "A curved section that fell off a semi-trailer."

Could be anything, but it is currently believed that the curved nature allowed it to be lifted up and driven into the underside of the car by being wedged between the car and the road. This was apparently enough to puncture the 1/4" steel plate that forms the bottom of the battery casing and destroy some of the battery cells within, causing the fire.

Debris strikes like this are fairly common, usually destroying tires but also puncturing engine oil pans and such. The Model S battery pack is essentially the entire bottom of the vehicle so it's a nice big target.
=Smidge=

When you can afford a new electric car every day..

[Anonymous Coward]

They are disposable, it served it's purpose getting me to work and then burned up, so I'll buy another for the trip home now.

Re:surprise

[Smidge204]

No kidding - in a conventional vehicle that object would have ended up inside the passenger compartment, and possibly in the driver's leg.

=Smidge=

Being in a Tesla probably saved his life...

[Anonymous Coward]

From the description of what happened, I would bet a combustion engine would have been the end of him. Has anyone actually bothered reading the report before trashing Tesla?