Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Fires and Firestorms: Let's Breathe and Review Some Car Fire Math
cartechboy writes "There are about 150,000 vehicle fires reported every year in the U.S. — about 17 every hour, on average. But when that vehicle fire is a Tesla, the Internet notices. There have now been three fires among roughly 20,000 Tesla Model S electric cars on the road so far. The stock is down, the Feds are asking questions and the Internet is swimming in Tesla news. It may be time to check the facts and review some math (hint: we're looking at roughly one fire for every 33 million miles driven so far) and then breathe. Then look at what we know, what we don't know, and what we should know."
It is not useful to simply compare the rate of vehicle fires. That is important, but it is only half of the question.
What would be useful would be to also compare the rate of non-Tesla car fires originating from the battery, with that of Teslas.
It would not be advantageous for Teslas to have 'essentially eliminated" the risk of fuel fires, if doing so also include drastically increasing the risk of battery fires.
According to the US Bureau of Transportation,there are over 250 million cars on the road in the US. There are 150,000 fires in those vehicles a year __according to the OP__.
There are 20,000 Tesla cars, with 3 fires.
Relative risk = ( 3 / 20000 ) / ( 150000 / 250000000 ) = 0.00015 / 0.0006 = 0.25.
Get a Tesla, so as to avoid vehicle fires. Maybe? Depends on whether the reported stats are correct.
In all 3 cases, it seems like the fire was caused by severe damage to the car from an outside source rather than a fault in the car. In all 3 cases the car's design prevented injury to the driver from the fire rather than contributing to the fire. And, let's face it, if we investigated every conventional model of car that was involved in 3 fires in a single month, every single model would be under investigation continuously. So, the people panicking over this and getting rid of Tesla stock, and the people pointing to this to impugn Tesla, need to get a grip. There's other reasons not to like Tesla, but it's not because their cars are in any way unsafe (or at least nomore unsafe than ~2 tons of steel barreling along at between 80 and 110 feet per second carrying between 10 and 30 gallons of highly flammable fuel (which forms explosive vapors under normal environmental conditions) in a thin sheet-metal tank with no armor or other protection against penetration).
I was looking to purchase some TSLA, here is my opportunity.
It is no surprise that the oil lobby is jumping on this. Even when in reality it is more dangerous to be in a car that runs on oil or gasoline than lion batteries. While batteries are not risk free, they are considerable lower risk than using oil and gasoline cars.
1. Stored energy is a hazard
2. Humans are fragile
3. Therefore create barriers between humans and stored energy.
Any self-powered vehicle with useful range needs a lot of stored energy. This can be in a form that drips and pours out of any opening in can find, like gasoline, or it can be chemical energy in a solid battery.
Tesla engineers implemented point 3 so well that the guy in Auburn opened the door and walked away from the uncontrolled release of energy happening in front of him.
Complete non-story, until they start catching fire spontaneously on the road like my neighbor's New Beetle.
... catch fire more than Japanese or European cars. Its got nothing to do with fuel type. Its down to poor engineering.
Or simply decades of relentless improvement.
The first automobile patent in the United States was granted to Oliver Evans in 1789. (google search)
The first gas powered car was invented by Karl Friedrich Benz around 1885 to 1886 in Germany....(google search)
Woops before gas power there was steam and electricity.
Still this is interesting and important if you are an engineer but
it is clear the industry is 'after' Tesla. The real threat to the auto industry
is the Tesla distribution model that has all the dealers in the US up in arms.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
Nope, Italian cars (Ferrari, Lambo) are the top car for catching fire! I know because I heard it on Jalopnik!
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
-T
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
Ya know, I feel real bad for the folks at Tesla, I'd like to volunteer my help to them. I'm offering to test drive a fully equipped Tesla to work, every day just so that Tesla can get some hard evidence of how their cars hold up under I405 traffic conditions. I see one to two car on semi accidents a day, my commute would make an excellent test environment. I will also offer to bring a fire extinguisher just in case something unforeseen happens. I know that the Tesla folks would want to see the initial damage without other damage occurring.
The vehicle carries energy. It's pretty much irrelevant whether that energy is stored as gasoline or inside a huge battery -- whenever there is a large amount of energy around, there is the potential of shit igniting.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
There are about 150,000 vehicle fires reported every year in the U.S. â" about 17 every hour, on average. But when that vehicle fire is a Tesla, the Internet notices "
True, there are over one hundreds thousand car fires per year, and that shouldn't even be any surprise, for they carry HIGHLY COMBUSTIBLE HYDRO-CARBON FUEL, - such as gasoline or diesel, - in them !
On the other hand, Tesla cars, being electrically powered, do NOT need gasoline, or do they??
Comparing the big number of hydrocarbon-powered vehicles which caught fire with the 3 cases of Tesla cars is, to put it very mildly, totally misleading !!
Most car fires are the result of defective or worn wiring. Gasoline catches fires as the result of a collision. Diesel generally won't catch fire since it's the same as home heating oil, which only burns when sprayed as an aerosol. When a new expensive electric vehicle catches fire, it is news. Maybe not stop-the-presses news, but news nonetheless.
Was the author getting any financial supprt from the Tesla car company ?
Really, you're going with that? Who paid you to post that? (So sick of people claiming anyone with a different opinion must be paid to post. I'd be rich if I had a hundred bucks for every time I'm accused of being Paid by X, only to be accused of being paid by X's competitors on the next post, often in the same thread.). You've been around here long enough to know better.
What the fuel source is has nothing to do with the statistics at hand. Fires per mile traveled is as good a measure as any other.
The fact remains that every self automobile has a combustible substance on board. Some burn less than others. Comparing power sources for safety is a perfectly normal thing to do, and when you do it, electricity looks way safer than gasoline.
Why is that so hard for your to see?
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
The real threat to the auto industry is the Tesla distribution model that has all the dealers in the US up in arms.
Exactly.
Every dealer is gunning for Tesla, even while the big US automakers and the Japan automakers are secretly hoping Tesla can prove
this distribution model works. They would all secretly love to sell direct.
But dealers are going to point out every flaw with Tesla to everyone who will listen.
In the meantime The Volt, Leaf, and Tesla will probably all add Kevlar battery protection, thermal breaks between battery segments and go about their business just as Boeing did.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
" There are about 150,000 vehicle fires reported every year in the U.S. â" about 17 every hour, on average. But when that vehicle fire is a Tesla, the Internet notices "
What is the real intention behind the above quote?
Was the author getting any financial supprt from the Tesla car company ?
Well, what is your intention? Are you getting any financial support from the oil industry? while there is no evidence one way or the other, some people have been saying that Taco Cowboy is being paid by Exxon. Even more so, some people have been claiming that Taco Cowboy may even have secretly donated to the Obama campaign.
All of that just kidding, I have no reason to believe that you are anything but honest and upstanding.
So now that we have gotten the thinly veiled accusations of paid shilldom and nefarious scofflawism out of the way, what might be reasons?
The reason is, that just like any other form of non-standard transportation or energy, every non-perfect outcome is trotted out and displayed as the utter failure of the technology. A Tesla catches on fire, showing that we need to abandon the technology. Just as Germany is more successful with solar power, because Germany is sunnier than the USA. Fox News told me so.
At the very least, how many gasoline vehicle fires have been posted and argued on Slashdot as indicative of the utter failure of gasoline powered engines?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
To a first approximation, the most dangerous thing under the hood of a gasoline or diesel powered car isn't the engine, it's the battery. It's fuel and oxidzer packed together in very close proximity.
Not unless the gas tank was moved to the front of the vehicle. And even then, if it didn't catch fire, it likely would have only leaked. The batteries actually create heat and catch fire.
I know people are scared of gas but gas cars actually have a few safety system built into them specifically because there were problems with fire in the past. This is no different so I do not understand why all the fanboyism trying to but but but everything. When gas cars went to electric fuel pumps, the fuel kept pumping with the key on and engine off so they put inertia sensors in them to cut the pumps if an impact was detected. There is also a circuit in most electronic fuel injected cars that will not allow the pump to run unless the motor is running. It measures the spark and if it is not present, outside of energizing when the key is first turned on, it will not pump the fuel. When we went to electronic fuel injection, the head pressure was at one point actually increased so a fuel line leak would cause the car to either stop or run so poorly the driver would pull over. The fuel tanks are designed to contain spillage in the vast majority of collisions and are tucked away so that it takes a serious impact to damage them. There are even anti siphon valves on the fuel line in order to prevent the fuel from flowing if a line is cut and and the car is off.
Most of these safety features were designed and implemented due to the small risk of fires over several dozen years. So we have primarily one manufacturer of EVs and it happens that there are some fires when specific problems happen. The solution is not to say, well, other cars can do it to, but to find a way to prevent it from happening or determine if it is such a rare position that it doesn't happen often. Maybe something as simple as replacing the aluminum shielding with a stronger composite material or perhaps steel and biting the weight disadvantage is the answer. Perhaps using rubber bushings in the plate in order to allow some of the impact energy to be displaced instead of all being absorbed is the answer but we will not know unless we understand the mechanisms causing the fires first.
I will repeat The investigations should not be seen as an attack but rather as a way to improve safety.
When a car randomly ignores the driver's controls and accelerates and kills people, that's a design flaw.
When a car is in a major accident, suffers severe damage, and the driver can pull over and get out safely, that's not an obvious design flaw. Any car will fail given sufficient damage, so the question is how the car handled the damage, and how the passengers came out. So far, the Tesla looks pretty good.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
When a new expensive electric vehicle catches fire, it is news. Maybe not stop-the-presses news, but news nonetheless.
Yup. Comes down to observer bias, just like nuclear energy. A nuke plant has an accident that results in a tiny leak of radioactive steam (resulting in exactly 0 deaths)? OH NOES!! THE WURST THING EVAR!!!!! But if a coal power plant spits out literally TONS of CO2, ash, soot (and even radioactive isotopes that were in the coal!), and that's a "Meh".