Slashdot Mirror


With Burning Teslas In the News Ford Recalls Almost 140,000 Escapes

An anonymous reader writes "Tesla received a lot of attention over the Model S fires recently, but they're not the only car company having issues with spontaneous combustion. Ford has issued a recall on almost 140,000 Ford Escapes for potential engine fires. With little media attention on the recall, Musk might have a point about the unfair treatment Tesla gets in the news."

33 of 293 comments (clear)

  1. "Spontaneous"? by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I do not think it means what you think it means.

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    1. Re:"Spontaneous"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I had a colleague once whose Ford truck was happily parked at work, until it suddenly combusted for no apparent reason. Building evacuted, fire trucks galore, clouds of toxic smoke. Thank you Ford.

      In all the cases I read of with Tesla, some outside event caused damage before the fire ensued. They are being targeted by the incumbents.

    2. Re:"Spontaneous"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      The Ford was smoking crack.

    3. Re:"Spontaneous"? by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If a car catches fire when it's not in an accident, and it wasn't intentionally set ablaze - I would call that spontaneous.

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    4. Re:"Spontaneous"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Right, and the Tesla fires have resulted from impacts (accidents) with large metal objects that punctures the battery pack from below.

  2. Well, when you're in the news... by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can always tell a pioneer by the arrows in his back.

    --
    Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    1. Re:Well, when you're in the news... by lgw · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm sure the headline will be reprinted as "In the news: 140,000 Escape Burning Teslas, Ford Recalls". And I hear those SpaceX rockets catch fire every time they're launched!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  3. The peril of new technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course Tesla is getting lots of press, it's because electric cars are new. People (especially Americans) do not like change, they assume that the old way is the best way. With every new technology, you'll have those old bastards still crying about how their gas engines never did this (Even though they do, and on a much larger scale).

    The same press will plague the driverless car. Once one or two accidents happen the media will be in an uproar and so will the populace.

    1. Re:The peril of new technology by haruchai · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Electric cars are new AGAIN and they are very much the "old way"

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    2. Re:The peril of new technology by mjwx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course Tesla is getting lots of press,

      Tesla's failures are getting a lot of press because Musk wanted Tesla's successes to get a lot of press.

      Musk cant have it both ways, Live by the sword, die by the sword.

      Ford on the other hand, well we almost expect recalls from them.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    3. Re:The peril of new technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My favorite exhibit at the Vienna Museum of Technology always was the Porsche-Lohner Wagen. It's an all electric car built in 1900.

    4. Re:The peril of new technology by Woek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is something I truly do not understand. Americans should be extremely proud of Tesla Motors! An american company launches their first fully in-house developed electric car, almost out of nothing, and completely blows away anything that is available anywhere in the world. Including decades old multi-billion dollar companies in Europe and Japan. This car is not cheap, but it is exclusive, well built, comfortable, reliable, has good range, incredible performance, is innovative and almost legacy-free. And very importantly (and surprisingly for an american car if I may say so) actually looks very good! Furthermore, the company takes initiative to create a very useful charging network, and has amazing customer service.
      Americans, embrace Tesla Motors please!!

    5. Re:The peril of new technology by Bogtha · · Score: 5, Informative

      You have your numbers wrong. There have been zero spontaneous Tesla fires. All three Tesla fires were a result of a crash. Musk is denying the issue exists because there is no issue. When you impale a car, things like fires are going to happen. That's not a defect that warrants a recall.

      This Ford issue though, is a defect. Cars may catch fire spontaneously during normal operation without any accident having occurred. That's a defect that warrants a recall.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    6. Re:The peril of new technology by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Informative

      no car should catch fire as a result of running over debris in the road as happened wih the Teslas in question

      Yeah. That's a good point. That should be fixed in the majority of dino-burning cars. e.g. Buses should not catch fire after running over mattresses, Ambulances should not catch fire while sitting in the station house (most Ambulances are Fords, BTW) and trucks which run over tree branches should also not catch fire.

      not putting your fuel tank under your ass would be a good step towards minimisation of consequences like, say, fires, don't you think?

      The fuel tank is under the ass of the people in the back seat in any car designed worth a fuck. Or at least, right behind their ass, and below it.

      What sort of mental fault causes a person to argue that a fire which could have been avoided is okay because, well, at least nobody got hurt?

      What sort of mental fault causes a person to assume that a fire which was caused in spite of a big metal plate was avoidable, and would have been avoided in some other car?

      In the two cases where the cars weren't damaged by crashing into a wall and tree, the drivers were able to safely pull over.

      Eh, which stats are we looking at? You're implying at least 4 accidents...

      Uh, no. When someone says "two cases" they're not implying four accidents. And they only even mentioned three in the comment. What are you on about?

      the Ford problem is likely to happen when nobody is in the car (if the engine overheating which eventually leads to the problem occurs during driving, the owner will be warned to pull over and/or seek service, at least for current models); the Tesla problem is likely to happen during driving and without warning. So, the Tesla problem is more dangerous.

      You are being a disingenuous asshole specifically because the Tesla problem did not happen without warning. A major collision is in fact warning. Also, so far there has been warning. In the last case, there were even alert messages. If that's not warning, then fuck you. Also, the Ford problem is equally likely to happen any time the brakes are not depressed. It is probably more likely to happen while the vehicle is running, because of heat and vibration, and infinitesimally more likely to happen also because of the increased voltage output from the alternator while the vehicle is in operation (charging voltage.)

      "Oh but what I meant is that the Tesla problem only happens after an accident!!!" So what? Accidents happen. Your distinction artificially created to confirm your bias doesn't actually help anyone.

      Your comment is full of misleading bullshit artificially created to confirm your bias. You don't get to complain about the same without being the hypocrite that you are.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:The peril of new technology by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      I am not sure why you're fighting the evidence in front of you. It clearly doesn't take major impact,

      Wait. That's totally wrong. I am not sure why you're fighting the evidence in front of you. It clearly does take major impact. A major impact was involved in all three Tesla fires. A major impact to the undercarriage is still a major impact. This is not fucking rocket science; it is, in fact, elementary school English.

      To be clear: mounting a fuel tank with large surface area flush against the road is a generic road vehicle manufacturing fubar. Protecting the fuel tank, and protecting the humans from the fuel tank, are (obviously) old problems.

      And yet, it is utterly wrong in the majority of gasoline cars, which also mount the fuel tank near the road, and which have less protection for energy storage than does the Tesla. You're holding Tesla to a higher standard than other automakers while claiming that you're holding them to the same standard. You're either hypocritical or ignorant here.

      Modern cars are expected to fail gracefully during an accident, whether that's with seat belts, air bags, crumple zones, side impact panels, whatever. They may no longer "function" AFTER the accident, but their final duty is to behave as nicely as possible in preventing people from being seriously injured/killed.

      The Tesla does all of this to a greater degree than the gasoline vehicles, according to the available statistics.

      it is the driver's responsibility to drive the car.

      What does that last sentence mean?

      Your inability to understand it means I want you nowhere near me on the roads. Please don't drive in NoCal.

      I don't think we have enough evidence that a Tesla is safer than a comparably built ICE car with similar usage profiles.

      Right, I don't either. I think that so far the statistics suggest that a Tesla is safer, but they are inadequate in number to make declarative statements based on them. We have however seen that even when a Tesla is damaged to the point that it catches fire, the occupants have so far been safe.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  4. Better Outcome by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Funny

    With little media attention on the recall, Musk might have a point about the unfair treatment Tesla gets in the news.

    Well you haven't factored in that with a name like "Escape", you know the outcome of any fires will be fine. No such assurance strapping yourself into something named after a guy who lit 200 lightbulbs from a power source 26 miles away.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  5. Re:Thin-skinned whiner by mojo-raisin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One would almost think Musk had poured every dime he owned into Tesla and was in a bitter battle against an entrenched and corrupt industry. ... oh wait.

  6. Re:Fire vs. Potential Fire by haruchai · · Score: 4, Informative

    A quarter-million ICE vehicles catch fire every year in America alone so Ford and the rest need to be a LOT more proactive.

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  7. Re:Fire vs. Potential Fire by mojo-raisin · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ford is retro-actively recalling their cars after a few dozen caught fire spontaneously. Spontaneous combustion has yet to be achieved by a Tesla.

  8. Re:Fire vs. Potential Fire by mojo-raisin · · Score: 5, Informative

    You seem to be lacking in the ability to make distinction. So I'll break it down. Real. Simple.

    Ford. Whole car burn for no reason.

    Tesla. Front trunk burn after high speed collision.

    Ford. Bad safety.

    Tesla. Good safety.

  9. Only Ford? by BringsApples · · Score: 4, Informative
    Here's a list of manufacturers that had to do big recalls in 2013, found here:

    -November 26: 139,917 Ford Escape vehicles from 2013, Recalled for potential oil leaks that may cause an engine fire.
    -November 18: 707,176 Chrysler vehicles from 2003-2008, including RAM 2500 4X4 and RAM 1500 Mega Cab 4X4 models, Recalled for the left tie rod assembly, which may break, causing a loss of steering.
    -November 18: 265,044 Chrysler RAM 2500 4X4 and 3500 4X4 vehicles from 2008-2012, Recalled for the left tie rod assembly, which may break, causing a loss of steering.
    -November 4: 344,187 Honda Odysseys from 2007-2008, Recalled for software that may cause the sudden application of the brakes without the brake lights going on, increasing the risk of a crash.

    Not all are due to fire, but all are potentially fatal, and much higher number of cars recalled.

    --
    Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    1. Re:Only Ford? by viperidaenz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I like this one better

      November 25: 14,909 Chevrolet Malibu vehicles from 2013, Recalled for the wiring harness under the front seats which may short circuit, potentially starting a fire.

      Who cares if the engine catches fire, these ones catch the driver on fire.

  10. Re:Unfair treatment? by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Ford's being recalled catch fire while stationary after normal use.
    The Tesla's catch fire after a high speed incident. Two hit big chunks of metal, the other was crashed.

  11. Re:Fire vs. Potential Fire by steelfood · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sorry, but no. Car companies don't just do recalls. Like all other companies, they first calculate the cost of potential lawsuits vs. the cost of a recall. Then if the cost of the potential lawsuits outweigh the cost of a recall, they'll do the recall.

    The only way to calculate potential cost of a lawsuit is to firstly experience the event out in the field. Then, the only the lawsuit is more expensive than the recall is if the event is linked to a characteristic of the product's design or construction. Then it becomes recall-able. If a fire happens one or a few times due to the car meeting a very specific, user-created condition, then it's not worth a recall. If it has a chance of happening under normal operating circumstances (fender benders and other common accidents are considered normal), it's more likely worth a recall.

    There is no "proactive" recall. Proactive means the action is taken prior to any event, as a preventative measure. Recalls only happen after an event has occurred, prior to it becoming widespread (for full disclosure, I could have worded that last bit differently to de-emphasize the event having happened sporadically already and emphasize the prior-ness, but I wanted to make a point).

    --
    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  12. Re:Fire vs. Potential Fire by pitchpipe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Elon Musk should be looking at Ford management and asking himself what they know about making and selling cars that he doesn't.

    Translation: why isn't he burning gas like every other god fearin' 'Murican?

    --
    Look where all this talking got us, baby.
  13. Re:Thin-skinned whiner by AaronW · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually at one point he did:

    "Musk said he put everything he had left into the company, even borrowing money from friends. Tesla went on to close the investment round on the last hour of the last possible day. If the fundraise hadn’t come through, the company would have gone bankrupt a few days later."

    http://thenextweb.com/entrepreneur/2013/10/31/elon-musk-failure-fear/

    --
    This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
  14. Intro to statistics by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In addition, there's a difference between a sample size of 150k and 20k. 12 out of 150k is a much more meaningful number than 3 out of 20k. In addition, Ford has developed a physical fix, while Tesla was able to impliment a fix via software update. If they chose to follow that up with a hardware fix, that has to be designed and implimented.

    Given that the incidents in question were all after collisions that probably would have totaled most vehicle anyways, and were nice enough to wait long enough for the people to evacuate the car, I'm not sure it's as serious of an issue as 'spontaneously combusts while parked'.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  15. Spontaneous combustion by the_arrow · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yes I want a car with a spontaneous combustion engine! It might not take me to my destination when I want it to, but it will be very exciting to drive.

    --
    / The Arrow
    "How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
  16. Re:Fire vs. Potential Fire by lxs · · Score: 4, Funny

    It isn't? Tesla needs to get their priorities straight!

  17. Re:Happily parked? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yeah, it was happily parked, until I walked past, and laid a thermite grenade on the hood.

    Your credibility (wait, AC and credibility?) takes a hit, when you claim that a parked vehicle burst into flames. I have seen a lot of vehicles on fire, but never a parked vehicle that just suddenly decided to warm itself up. I'll bet you didn't see the fire marshall's report, which probably made mention of an electronic device that was left turned on, or some other logical explanation.

    I know you are bashing just for the sake of it, but here is how the last Ford recall went:

    The cruise control deactivation switch was live, even when the vehicle was off. It mounts on the master cylinder. If there is a leak, which the master cylinder was prone to, then the switch would short and ignite the brake fluid, which it was prone to. This mostly happened when the vehicle was left alone, as while they were in motion the fluid could not collect.

    This is a very well known thing from more than six years ago. It would behoove you to relax, think, and leave the petulant teenage angst in the past where it belongs.

  18. not "over road debris" by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 4, Informative

    The things that the two Teslas that burned out hit would have totaled any comparable sized gasoline car, likely causing hurt to the people in the car and very likely created hazardous oil spills. The people inside the car would not have had the chance to drive the car to a safe location to get out safely, but would have had to leave the car in the middle of a busy road, if they would have been able to get out at all. The chance that more vehicles would have been crashed, possibly hitting the original vehicle is quite real in such a scenario. Maybe there wouldn't have been a fire with the gasoline cars in these situation, but in terms of hazard or financial damage, the gasoline cars would most likely have been less safe and more expensive in a similar situation. Cleanup of oil spills is a lot more expensive than just putting out a fire, even if it was an electric car fire.

    The third Tesla was crashed by a drunk guy and almost the entire undercarriage was knocked off. That may have not caused a fire if it had been a gasoline car, but it most certainly was not road debris.

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
  19. Re:Happily parked? by squizzar · · Score: 4, Informative

    Happened when I was at primary school. Something shorted out and started a fire and burnt several cars.

    IIRC E36 BMW coupes caught fire occasionally because the cabling into the boot(trunk) lid would get brittle over time and split when it was flexed. In mine it manifested itself as the central locking failing because some wires shorted out. I'd imagine there's a sensor for the alarm, or supply for the central locking that's live even with the ignition off, so it's not a big leap of faith to see that a parked car could catch fire due to something shorting out.

    Cars have quite a lot of 'live' when off electrical equipment - cooling fans for example - that can be on at any time, so faulty or ill designed wiring could cause problems in stationary cars.

  20. Re:Happily parked? by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Informative

    But even if this is 100% true and accurate, it doesn't relate to the tesla because someone actually investigated tje problem and ford actually did something about it (recall) other than complain about bad press and pointing to other car fires to justify it qs common or not as bad or something

    Unfortunately, your comment is not 100% true and accurate. Tesla issued a firmware update that stops the vehicle from squatting automatically at high speeds, because drivers have demonstrated that they can't handle the responsibility of not driving over things. That's not doing nothing. That's seeing what they can do about the problem, discovering they can do something about it in software, and issuing a patch.

    Further, so far the statistics bear out the assertion that it is not a life-threatening problem, so it's hard to determine what you're complaining about in the Tesla response. While I hesitate to draw conclusions from such a small data set, the statistics suggest that he's correct.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"