Slashdot Mirror


Tesla Says Garage Fire Not Charger's Fault; Firemen Less Sure

cartechboy writes "It looks like Elon Musk and Tesla Motors find themselves in another PR war over the cause of a fire involving a Tesla Model S. Authorities in Irvine, CA are currently investigating the reason for a fire in a garage that, yes, contained a Tesla Model S. While the actual cause of the fire remains unknown, Tesla Motors and the Orange County Fire Authority are already publicly disputing possible causes, thought to center around the Tesla charging system. Tesla says the fire was not caused by any part of the car nor its charging system, reports Reuters. For what its worth — we've seen a version of this movie before. In 2011, investigators determined that a garage fire that destroyed a Chevrolet Volt had started away from the car, later spreading to engulf and destroy the car."

253 comments

  1. Musk's Hubris... by mythosaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is where Musk's Hubris is going to be a problem.

    There's no way that he can know for sure what happened in the fire, and he's going to risk having to eat crow -- lots and lots of crow -- if he's proven wrong.

    I love the guy, but hubris is clearly among his worst qualities.

    1. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is where Musk's Hubris is going to be a problem.

      There's no way that he can know for sure what happened in the fire, and he's going to risk having to eat crow -- lots and lots of crow -- if he's proven wrong.

      I love the guy, but hubris is clearly among his worst qualities.

      You're charging it wrong.

    2. Re:Musk's Hubris... by hsmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More annoying is anything having to do with Tesla is apparently news. Car crashes? Front page news!

    3. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When it's a fledgling industry who successes or failures could have ramifications for years to come, and who has people actively trying to discredit, because it's success will damage their outdated business model, than yes, it's news.

    4. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      other than most houses are not wired upto code and people come in hook fancy power draining things like this and the existing wiring is not capable of handling it.

    5. Re:Musk's Hubris... by hawguy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Musk's Hubris? Is that some new cologne?

    6. Re:Musk's Hubris... by icebike · · Score: 1

      This is where Musk's Hubris is going to be a problem.

      There's no way that he can know for sure what happened in the fire, and he's going to risk having to eat crow -- lots and lots of crow -- if he's proven wrong.

      Ah, the car wasn't damaged: From the Link:
       

      The incident caused up to $25,000 of damage, though the Model S itself sustained only light smoke damage. Nobody in the house was injured.

      So if the car started the fire it must have been playing with matches and went running to its owner when its pile of legos actually caught fire.

      Faulty house wiring is the source.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    7. Re:Musk's Hubris... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Whatever.

      If, in 2007, Ford suddenly started having Mustangs catching fire, it would have been front page news to.

      Tends to happen with new stuff - anything that happens is considered "news-worthy."

      Considering some of the other offal they put on the front page these days, I wouldn't be too butthurt about it.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    8. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's Hubris eau Musk. Completely different.

    9. Re:Musk's Hubris... by tippe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, I've heard that Musk's hubris is very large (heh, heh, heh), but perhaps he does have a point. According to the article, all the damage was done at the wall connection (not the car connection), and a review of the car logs indicated that charging was proceeding normally at the time the fire started.

      I'm going to make an assumption here that the tesla charger was probably safety tested[1] and approved for sale by UL, but what about the installation itself? Maybe California is different than the rest of North America, but most garages aren't natively wired with 240V sockets (quit laughing, you Europeans). So who did the 240V installation? The home owner or a certified electrician? Was it inspected? The article certainly doesn't say. Knowing how previous Tesla fire stories have been pounced on by the media, I'd probably do the same if I were in Elon's shoes and say the problem had nothing to do with the charger, and would change my tune later on if it turned out to be true. It wouldn't be the first time that crappy wiring has caused a house fire, and I don't think it's necessarily wrong for him to point this out.

      [1] Not that safety testing means that a unit failure can't happen, but they do check (or should check, if they are doing their jobs right) that the design is robust to various abnormal conditions, and that fail-safes are built into the product to prevent fires or other dangerous conditions in the event of a malfunction. However, all the safety testing on earth won't save you from a shitty installation...

    10. Re:Musk's Hubris... by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      This is where Musk's Hubris is going to be a problem.

      There's no way that he can know for sure what happened in the fire, and he's going to risk having to eat crow -- lots and lots of crow -- if he's proven wrong.

      I love the guy, but hubris is clearly among his worst qualities.

      He has the power of the Force.

      He just knows things.

      Don't let him find your lack of faith disturbing...

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    11. Re:Musk's Hubris... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      I'm normally one of the first people to bust his balls, but this time around I'll give Elon a little credit: Denying any wrongdoing right out of the gate is SOP with American corporations.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    12. Re:Musk's Hubris... by jandrese · · Score: 2

      I guarantee you that at least one modern generation Mustang has been destroyed in a garage fire. Heck, it might have even caused it (there are certainly ways for gasoline engines to catch on fire after they are parked), but it's not really news. You wouldn't have heard about it except maybe on page 37 of section D of the local paper where it goes "home damaged by fire" in the police report section.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    13. Re:Musk's Hubris... by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is where Musk's Hubris is going to be a problem.

      There's no way that he can know for sure what happened in the fire, and he's going to risk having to eat crow -- lots and lots of crow -- if he's proven wrong.

      I love the guy, but hubris is clearly among his worst qualities.

      You're charging it wrong.

      What I find completely unbelievable in this story is that someone in California actually has their car in a garage.

      Your garage is where you keep all the stuff you can't fit into the house.

      The street is where you keep your car.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    14. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 1

      I guarantee you that at least one modern generation Mustang has been destroyed in a garage fire.

      Wow, that's not science.

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    15. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 1

      Musk's Hubris? Is that some new cologne?

      Smells like the stench of desperation.

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    16. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Wookact · · Score: 1
      Date of article: 08/04/2007 http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/08/ford_massive_recall.html

      Ford Motor Co. is recalling as many as 3.6 million cars, truck, and vans because a switch that deactivates the speed control can overheat and catch fire according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The agency warns in its recall notice that the switch problem can cause a fire under the hood. The latest recall covers 16 brands of cars, sport utility vehicles and trucks from model years 1992 to 2004. The models include the Ford Ranger, Ford Crown Victoria, Mercury Grand Marquis, Lincoln Town Car, Lincoln Mark VIII, Ford Taurus SHO, Mercury Capri, Ford Explorer, Mercury Mountaineer, Ford Explorer Sport and Explorer Sport Trac, Ford E-150-350, Ford E-450, Ford Bronco, Ford F-150 Lightning, some models of F-Series trucks and Ford F53 Motor Home chassis.

      Well sir I expect you to eat some crow. You may proceed immediately.

    17. Re:Musk's Hubris... by JoeyRox · · Score: 0

      Or, because any discontinuity in Tesla's success will damage Tesla shareholders, for which there appears to be a large contingent here on /.

    18. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 4, Informative

      The fire authority didn't blame the car. Here's the quote from the article:

      The Fire Authority, however, released a report stating that the fire occurred "as a result of an electrical failure in the charging system for an electric vehicle".

      Fire broke out in the garage on the campus of the University of California-Irvine on November 15. The blaze was noted by the car's owner just before 3 am, and it was promptly extinguished by fire crews.

      The incident caused up to $25,000 of damage, though the Model S itself sustained only light smoke damage. Nobody in the house was injured.

      While the Fire Authority's report stated the most likely cause was a "high resistance connection at the wall socket or the Universal Mobile Connector from the Tesla charging system", Tesla says its own data shows the car was charging normally, with no fluctuations in the temperature and no malfunctions capable of causing a fire.

      Tesla also notes that the car's charging cable was fine where it was connected to the car, and was damaged only on the wall side. This could suggest issues with the building's electrical supply, rather than with the vehicle.

      This doesn't completely rule out the charging system. The fire was started between the wall socket and the charger.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    19. Re:Musk's Hubris... by jandrese · · Score: 2

      It's statistics. Garage fires are not uncommon, and Ford has manufactured a lot of Mustangs since 2007. The two are pretty much guaranteed to meet at some point.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    20. Re:Musk's Hubris... by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      Guess which of those locations is more likely to house fires?

      That should sum up the potential of whether it's likely the Tesla was faulted or not. Whether that's idle speculation or not at this point, the fact that the county appears ready to speculate with no confirmed facts is actually very concerning.

    21. Re:Musk's Hubris... by NovaSupreme · · Score: 1

      Agree that there are lots of unknown. However, Musk has not given me a reason in past to believe that he talks out of his rear end.
      Between the fire department and Musk proposing conflict theories, I'll take Musk's side.

    22. Re:Musk's Hubris... by abigsmurf · · Score: 1

      So... there was a recall and it was big enough news to be reported on. That is kinda proving his point...

    23. Re:Musk's Hubris... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Electric car owners clear a space in the garage, for charging without neighbors stealing their power.

    24. Re:Musk's Hubris... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      I guarantee you that at least one modern generation Mustang has been destroyed in a garage fire.

      Sure, but was it one of the first 20,000 units out the door, and less than 2 years old when that happened? Because those are important factors to consider.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    25. Re:Musk's Hubris... by icebike · · Score: 2

      The fire was started between the wall socket and the charger.

      It says no such thing. You seem to practice selective reading.

      This could suggest issues with the building's electrical supply, rather than with the vehicle.

      The high resistance connection was most likely inside the wall socket, usually bad connections of the house wiring, or undersized wiring.
      This is very typical of aluminum wiring. Although the mainstream press won't report that even if it is discovered to be such.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    26. Re:Musk's Hubris... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      It's statistics. Garage fires are not uncommon, and Ford has manufactured a lot of Mustangs since 2007.

      Whereas Tesla has only sold about 20,000 Model S'. Since 2012.

      Which is why the Model S fires are considered newsworthy, and Mustang fires are not.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    27. Re:Musk's Hubris... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Date of article: 08/04/2007

      http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/08/ford_massive_recall.html

      Ford Motor Co. is recalling as many as 3.6 million cars, truck, and vans because a switch that deactivates the speed control can overheat and catch fire according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

      The agency warns in its recall notice that the switch problem can cause a fire under the hood.

      The latest recall covers 16 brands of cars, sport utility vehicles and trucks from model years 1992 to 2004.

      The models include the Ford Ranger, Ford Crown Victoria, Mercury Grand Marquis, Lincoln Town Car, Lincoln Mark VIII, Ford Taurus SHO, Mercury Capri, Ford Explorer, Mercury Mountaineer, Ford Explorer Sport and Explorer Sport Trac, Ford E-150-350, Ford E-450, Ford Bronco, Ford F-150 Lightning, some models of F-Series trucks and Ford F53 Motor Home chassis.

      Well sir I expect you to eat some crow. You may proceed immediately.

      Why? That doesn't disprove my contention, you know.

      "Might catch fire" != "caught fire"

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    28. Re:Musk's Hubris... by mythosaz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The conspiracy of the mainstream media to hide the dangers of aluminum wiring from us?

      Sounds like the sort of thing I might have in my house that could kill my children... ...tonight at 11.

    29. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really. You'd trust a businessman who apparently makes cars that readily catch on fire and is in denial over a trained fire investigator. When someone dies of lung cancer, do you trust the cigarette companies, or the pathologist?

    30. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Along with Musk's Prescience and Musk's Ambition

    31. Re:Musk's Hubris... by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 1

      As will I, since he has logs in-hand that demonstrate that the charger was working normally. A poorly wired outlet is a much more likely culprit.

      When a smart person believes something because it's supported by the data, a less-informed bystander might mistake their competence for arrogance or hubris.

    32. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, UL is just a baseline safety test done against test units. It doesn't mean it's a robust design or that the particular unit you have is not defective. I have had a UL rated power strip explode and burn a hole in the floor for no reason. A UL rated PC power supply blew up and caught fire in an office I worked at. I had a brand new UL rated drill that burned right in my hand.

    33. Re:Musk's Hubris... by icebike · · Score: 1

      Its killed a lot of children already.
      But that isn't why they would hide it, they would hide it because its not sensational and leaves no avenue to envy attacks on people who own tesla cars.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    34. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Selective? Try "high resistance connection at the wall socket or the Universal Mobile Connector from the Tesla charging system", I don't recall having a Universal Mobile Connector inside my wall outlet.

    35. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Wookact · · Score: 2

      They would not have recalled 3.4 million vehicles if none of them caught fire. Your contention is wrong. Teslas are receiving a disproportionate amount of coverage over this. This may be because they are electric, but claiming the coverage is not disproportionate is silly. We did not see weekly articles concerning every ford fire in 2007 but we get them for the Teslas.

    36. Re:Musk's Hubris... by weilawei · · Score: 1
      Where in the article did it say the car caught on fire? It sustained light smoke damage, and it appears that the fire happened at the wall, not at the Tesla side of things, indicating faulty house wiring to be highly likely. Also, take your FUD somewhere else, you shill. Gasoline cars have a worse record for fires per miles driven.

      He cited figures from the National Fire Protection Association that 150,000 gasoline car fires occur per year. With 3 trillion miles driven per year, that works out to 1 vehicle fire for every 20 million miles driven. The record for the Tesla Model S so far is 1 vehicle fire per 100 million miles driven. This means gasoline car drivers are at five times greater risk to car fires than are Model S drivers.

    37. Re:Musk's Hubris... by dugancent · · Score: 2

      Aluminum wire, before it was phased out, was front page news on every newspaper on the country and the first story the nightly news. It was, and is, a well known problem.

      --
      SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
    38. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Wookact · · Score: 1

      Not really, That is one article, did you see weekly articles about burning fords in 2007. I did not. I see weekly articles about Teslas, and there are way fewer then 3.4 million of them.

    39. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      So you are quoting Musk? Unlike Musk, the fire authority have no vested interest in the product and only want to describe what caused the fire. Musk is only looking at a log file while the fire authority were at the scene.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    40. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he's going to risk having to eat crow -- lots and lots of crow -- if he's proven wrong.

      Musk is not an honorable person.

      He will pay someone else to eat the crow.

      Frankly, anyone who is stupid enough to trust Musk and
      Musk's many scam operations pretty much deserves to
      be screwed at this point, because the handwriting has been
      on the wall for a long while.

      ____

    41. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Smauler · · Score: 1

      I personally believe that new electric cars are safer than petrol cars generally... they've got less to go wrong badly, and they've been proven.

      However, a Nissan leaf gets 40mpg equivalent or so in the US (in terms of carbon emissions), according to here (see Emissions equivalent petrol car). A Tesla will get a lot worse.

      That's shit. My parent's car will get almost 50mpg. It's a diesel. My car will get more than 30mpg, and it'll do 0-60 in 6.

    42. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have an obvious axe to grind. Did your grandma get run over by an electric car or something?

    43. Re:Musk's Hubris... by icebike · · Score: 1

      Try looking up the word OR.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    44. Re:Musk's Hubris... by lkernan · · Score: 1

      Your garage is where you keep all the stuff you can't fit into the house.

      You must be related to my neighbour, the one that blocks my garage entry with her car since her garage is loaded up to the ceiling with boxes of who knows what.....

    45. Re:Musk's Hubris... by peragrin · · Score: 1

      It should be noted that aluminum wire is used constantly in homes in the USA right now. It is just limited to systems above 50A draw.

      So your electric or induction stove. yea that is probably wired with aluminum. Your clothes dryer most likely not. The main supply lines for your home yep aluminum too. You have a sub panel, that is most likely being feed with aluminum. it wouldn't be hard to guess that the installer used aluminum even if the instructions say not to feed it with aluminum as I have seen that far to often. The scariest was stand by generators that say must use copper wiring, have copper hooked up for the last couple of feet but that junctions into a box with you guessed it aluminum

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    46. Re:Musk's Hubris... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Looking at the scene after the fact really only tells you that there was a fire at the interface between the building and the car.

      The wall outlet doesn't have sensor logs to show it was or was not hot, the Tesla charger apparently does.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    47. Re:Musk's Hubris... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 0

      They would not have recalled 3.4 million vehicles if none of them caught fire. Your contention is wrong.

      No, you just don't understand how automotive recalls work.

      In this example, once Ford found out about the problem (I won't speculate as to how, because it doesn't matter), they called in the lawyers and had a little pow-wow:

      "Which is going to be cheaper for us: recalling 3.4 million vehicles and fixing them, or paying out settlements to the handful of people who will be injured AND sue?"

      Obviously in this case, the lawyers recommended a recall.

      Inhuman? Hell yea, but nobody ever accused a corporation of having human qualities, amirite?

      Teslas are receiving a disproportionate amount of coverage over this. This may be because they are electric, but claiming the coverage is not disproportionate is silly. We did not see weekly articles concerning every ford fire in 2007 but we get them for the Teslas.

      Two words: Ford. Pinto.

      You damn near couldn't turn on a news report in the 1980's without hearing about Ford's Amazing, Flaming Pinto-mobile. Plus, that's not the first, nor only time an auto manufacturer has been run through the ringer for selling (or potentially selling) fucked-up cars. You are letting your Musk-rat love blind you to reality.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    48. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      here's no way that he can know for sure what happened in the fire

      Apparently, he might have a way to know. FTFA...

      Tesla says its own data shows the car was charging normally, with no fluctuations in the temperature and no malfunctions capable of causing a fire....Tesla also notes that the car's charging cable was fine where it was connected to the car, and was damaged only on the wall side. This could suggest issues with the building's electrical supply, rather than with the vehicle.

    49. Re:Musk's Hubris... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Once again we have RANDOM_DUMBASS attempting to claim Teslas are akin to flashpaper and explode if you look at the wrong, in spite of strong empirical evidence of just the opposite.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    50. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was, and is, a well known problem.

      By whom? Building inspectors? Electricians? This is the first I've heard of it.

    51. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      The article only reads that the log file on the Tesla S itself was read and showed the car charging normally. It does not mention any log data from the charger itself. The car could charge normally up to the point where the charger caught fire.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    52. Re:Musk's Hubris... by icebike · · Score: 1

      Logs tell a lot more than some volunteer fireman. Especially a fireman who can't determine
      which melted first, the connector or the wall outlet.
      (Not surprising since the field of fire investigation is full of voodo and disprove pseudo science.)

      All that is know is where the fire started at the outlet.
      We know it wasn't a short circuit. Breakers would have tripped.
      We know it wasn't an arc, AFCI (required in garages) would have tripped.

      Most likely cause is shade tree electrician swapping in a bigger breaker to compensate
      for the fact that the original one kept tripping, without considering the heating
      effect that might have on the wire gauge used. That heating could occur anywhere
      along the circuit, but it most likely will occur where the wiring is attached to the
      outlet receptacle.
      If simple spade connectors (push in) were used, (instead of screws), since they have a very small
      contact point on the wire, that's where the heating will occur. A loose screw would act
      similarly. T

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    53. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your point? The "or" means there are two possible points of ignition. The parent is looking at the socket and not at the UMC and he is the one making the accusation of being "selective".

    54. Re:Musk's Hubris... by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      No wonder the econauts are all over this: "shareholders" - A more free-loving hippie term I've never seen.

    55. Re:Musk's Hubris... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      UL certs basically mean you paid UL.

      There are requirements, but nothing beyond good engineering. Strain relief your wires etc.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    56. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If, in 2007, Ford suddenly started having Mustangs catching fire, it would have been front page news to.

      The Ford Escape has already had SEVEN recalls, the most recent being because of FIRE. (There's a problem with how the fuel line was installed at the factory, it can split and spill gas all over the engine.)
      It has barely even been mentioned in the news.

      And yes, this has caused several somewhat spontaneous fires already. Meanwhile, the Tesla has so far had NO proven spontaneous fires, all the ones so far have been the result of a collision.
      So a better comparison would be to look at how often a Ford Mustang catches fire after colliding with something at high speed. And while it might get a little bit of local media attention, unless there's a celebrity at the wheel it simply won't make national.

    57. Re:Musk's Hubris... by MobyDisk · · Score: 2

      ...UL is just a baseline safety test done against test units. It doesn't mean it's a robust design...

      I work for a company that got UL approval for a device.

      For our product, UL did look over our designs. They have some rules, for example, about how safety interlocks should be designed. You have to either use previously UL approved switches and sensors, or submit your sensors for approval. You cannot have software in the safety loop. Ex: You can't have software that monitors the voltage then sends a shut-off command to a relay. The sensor must be electronically connected to the shut-off. FPGAs are okay sometimes - they don't call that software.

      I'm not sure what classes of devices this applies to though.

    58. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct, along with Realtors and anyone that has anything to do with building, buying or selling a home.

    59. Re:Musk's Hubris... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      I personally believe that new electric cars are safer than petrol cars generally... they've got less to go wrong badly, and they've been proven.

      Well, they may have the potential to be. I would have to see some statistics. I found an equal number of stories of electrical car fires in houses as ICE car fires in houses, and we certainly have more ICE cars than electric cars.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    60. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... there was a recall and it was big enough news to be reported on. That is kinda proving his point...

      The link is to consumer reports, they always list any publicly announced recalls because that's what they do.
      The point is that when three Tesla's end up on fire after high speed collisions, it makes national headlines. When a large number of Ford models catch fire without warning, it receives no media attention, and even once it gets to the point of the manufacturer issuing a recall it still doesn't make national headlines. Find me a link to a national news story about the Ford recall, preferably find me a national headline about one of the fires which happened prior to the recall.

    61. Re:Musk's Hubris... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      True, but if the charger was overheating, you would expect the performance characteristics to change.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    62. Re:Musk's Hubris... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Hmm, no articles about Fords catching fire, but they issued a recall just in case because the switches got hot.
      Tesla ACTUALLY CATCHES FIRE, with no recall notice.
      Elsewhere, a Fisher Karma ACTUALLY CATCHES FIRE, with no recall notice.
      Sounds like the crow's on the other plate.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    63. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Khyber · · Score: 2

      "It is just limited to systems above 50A draw."

      If it's not safe for 20A house circuits (I know of many Aluminum Romex cables that have fried in-wall,) why in the world would it be considered safe for 50A or higher, unless the wire was incredibly thick?

      "So your electric or induction stove. yea that is probably wired with aluminum."

      Brand-new model. 100% copper wiring excepting the heating elements and brass connections for the wiring/plug, internal and external.

      "The main supply lines for your home yep aluminum too."

      Of such an incredibly heavy gauge for the relatively little amperage being fed to my place.

      " You have a sub panel, that is most likely being feed with aluminum."

      Brand-new panel, pure copper buses, including the Main. GE 150A panel, GE 40A sub.

      " it wouldn't be hard to guess that the installer used aluminum even if the instructions say not to feed it with aluminum as I have seen that far to often"

      That would not pass an inspection if it's labeled as such - which means it wasn't properly inspected in the first place and the person doing it was an idiot. I hope you aren't trusting these people. You know why we don't mix copper and aluminum? Risk of fire from high resistance junctions. NEC only allows anything like this for service entrance runs or short-distance subpanel connection, and only if two conditions are met:

      A. Mechanical termination (No wire nuts, no soldering, no clips. It must be screwed in place.)
      B. The panel bolts and lugs are rated for aluminum wire.

      Some jurisdictions go even further and require anti-oxidation paste be applied to the lug and wire at the terminal.

      We've got a Master Electrician that handles the repairs and changeouts on the chargers for our forklifts at work. You know what his rule is for using Aluminum? Use Copper Instead.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    64. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Spoke · · Score: 1

      While the Fire Authority's report stated the most likely cause was a "high resistance connection at the wall socket or the Universal Mobile Connector from the Tesla charging system", Tesla says its own data shows the car was charging normally, with no fluctuations in the temperature and no malfunctions capable of causing a fire.

      This is key and it is important to determine exactly where this fire occurred.

      The Tesla supplied UMC is designed to adapt to multiple plug types with an adapter so one can plug into a NEMA 14-50 (typical stove outlet), 5-15 (standard 120V outlet) or others.

      It is well documented that these adapters can melt - it appears that in some conditions the adapter's PINs do not establish a good connection leading to overheating. Here are three examples:

      http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/15304-Plug-Adapter-on-my-Universal-Mobile-Connector-has-melted
      http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/18092-Schmelted-UMC-NEMA-14-50
      http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/23212-Scary-issue-with-Nema-14-50-adapter-melting

      Now that doesn't mean that's what happened here. Faulty 14-50 outlets (no fault of Tesla) have also caused similar issues. There are two examples in this thread:

      http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/19576-Burned-220V-Adapter

      If it were me, I would not be using the Tesla UMC (Universal Mobile Connector) for daily charging - these plugs/outlets are not designed for daily plugging/unplugging. I would use the Tesla HPWC (High Power Wall Connector) instead and save the UMC for actual mobile use.

      I am also not crazy about the design of the adapter plugs on the UMC. Not only do the pins appear not to necessarily mate very well (compare these pins to the connector that actually plugs into the car!), but the extra length of the adapter exerts extra leverage on the outlet/adapter which makes it easier to end up with a poor connection unless you support the UMC well.

    65. Re:Musk's Hubris... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Yes it is. A hypothesis is the basis of science. A quick test of the hypothesis (google search) supports the hypothesis. How is stating a hypothesis, then testing it *not* science?

    66. Re:Musk's Hubris... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "the fact that the county appears ready to speculate with no confirmed facts is actually very concerning."

      That's human nature, in every country. It takes energy to think critically, and most people don't.
      Everywhere.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    67. Re:Musk's Hubris... by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

      We know it wasn't an arc, AFCI (required in garages) would have tripped.

      I don't think large appliances and car chargers are required to be on AFCI. The regs appear to be aimed at 120V outlets.

    68. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Jimbob+The+Mighty · · Score: 1

      What I find completely unbelievable in this story is that someone in California actually has their car in a garage.

      Your garage is where you keep all the stuff you can't fit into the house.

      The street is where you keep your car.

      Maybe for non-electric cars... maybe the owner for whatever reason didn't want to run a power cord out to an unsecure area used as a thoroughfare.

    69. Re:Musk's Hubris... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      He was confused becasue it's called 'news'. How the hell is he supposed to know the 'NEWs' will be about new things

      You know, it's not nice of you to pick on the simple minded.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    70. Re: Musk's Hubris... by Eskarel · · Score: 2

      It's because Musk is a massive publicity whore with a tremendously thin skin. Anything happens with a Tesla anywhere in the world that isn't perfectly positive he has to comment.

    71. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smells like someone's jelly. Maybe you, hmmm? You jelly? You sound jelly.

      It's bad to be jelly, mmmkay? You must have done *something* to be proud of in your life. Don't be jelly.

    72. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      (I won't speculate as to how, because it doesn't matter)

      I will! They caught fire.

      nobody ever accused a corporation of having human qualities, amirite

      Corporate Personhood. NEXT!

      Two words: Ford. Pinto.

      This one is in your favor. You can add it to your cut-n-pasta docs you must have since you repeat the same arguments every Tesla post:
      Two words: Ford Explorer. Seems to me Ford just might make some shitty cars. It's not like GM is any better though so don't read too far in to it.

    73. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Zynder · · Score: 1
      Your Google-fu is weak. Here's the first result:

      The agency issued a consumer advisory in February 2008 because vehicles were continuing to catch fire and in some cases were burning down garages.

    74. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference everyone seems to miss...

      Ford isn't selling their cars as an ultra expensive high end toy for rich folks using unproven in the real world tech, while telling everyone how perfect and great their cars are.

      Tesla is. They WILL be held to a higher standard.

      And as you noted. Ford has no problem recalling cars. Tesla on the otherhand refuses to even admit there might be any problems.

      and THAT is where tesla is fucking up bigtime.

      They should come right out and say "oh fuck! you had a problem with one of our cars? Let us take your old one for study. heres a new one! and a big pile of money to replace anything damaged by it, we care about our customers!"

      They keep missing that chance.. Too many times and the public will say "fuck tesla, they catch fire and the company denys it"

    75. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Zynder · · Score: 1

      Oh and here is one in 2007 that was about a 1997 Lincoln with evidently the same bad cruise control switch.

    76. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Zynder · · Score: 1

      If he's jelly then for gods' sake keep him away from the peanut butter. We all know what time it'll be then....

    77. Re:Musk's Hubris... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      We know it wasn't an arc, AFCI (required in garages) would have tripped.

      This must be a requirement for some new installations in special cases only. I have no AFCIs or special circuit interruptors on any circuit or any wall outlet.

    78. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Zynder · · Score: 1

      Well that's some damning with praise if I've ever heard any.

    79. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stories? Where? Did you conduct a comprehensive study? Can we see your data?

    80. Re:Musk's Hubris... by FunkDup · · Score: 1

      The street is where you keep your car.

      Yeh, it's so convenient to keep your Tesla charging apparatus on the street.

      --
      Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds -- Albert Einstein
    81. Re:Musk's Hubris... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If it's not safe for 20A house circuits (I know of many Aluminum Romex cables that have fried in-wall,) why in the world would it be considered safe for 50A or higher, unless the wire was incredibly thick?

      Because for 60A they use different types. The gauges used at 20A and lower are more prone to failure. So getting a 60A wire and running 20A over it would be safer than getting an appropriately sized wire. Copper doesn't have that problem, and you always use the smallest wire for the job.

    82. Re:Musk's Hubris... by EdwinFreed · · Score: 1

      Actually, it does rule out the actual charging system, since that's entirely inside the car. What isn't ruled out is the universal mobile connector, although I'd say a problem there is much less likely than the house outlet.

      The Model S arrives with two connectors that fit into the connector on the car.. One is an adaptor for a standard SAE J1772 EV charger cable, which makes it possible to charge the Tesla at any Level 1 or Level 2 charging station. You can install one of these in your home if you want, although they aren't cheap. The J1772 plug includes interlocking circuitry that among other things prevents arcing when you disconnect.

      The second connector is the so-called universal mobile connector. This is a cable with a plug for the car at one end and a plug that fits various adaptors. A bunch of adaptors are available but the car ships with a NEMA 14-50 (commonly used for RVs) and a standard 3-prong adapter. This thing is quite well made, but there's no way for it to interlock in such a way as to prevent arcing.

      There's also a high power wall mount unit available from Tesla. It also has an interlocking scheme.

      What a lot of people do - and what Tesla actually recommends - is to install a NEMA 14-50 outlet. They're quite cheap, as in less than $10, and any jackass can install one - or at least thinks they can.

      Having spent many years dealing with a wide variety of theatrical lighting equipment that used various NEMA connectors, I'm not a fan of the NEMA 14-50 approach. All it takes is one or two disconnects while the power is flowing to pit both the plug and the socket pretty badly. And that's all it takes to start a fire. This cannot happen with either a J1772 or Tesla charging station.

      And even if the outlet is the cause, IMO Tesla does have some responsibility here, because NEMA 14-50 is the approach they recommend.

    83. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "So getting a 60A wire and running 20A over it would be safer than getting an appropriately sized wire."

      Yea, you go ahead and find me wall outlets that accept 4 gauge wiring. I'll be here, don't worry, I have time.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    84. Re:Musk's Hubris... by icebike · · Score: 1

      Because for 60A they use different types. The gauges used at 20A and lower are more prone to failure. So getting a 60A wire and running 20A over it would be safer than getting an appropriately sized wire. Copper doesn't have that problem, and you always use the smallest wire for the job.

      The problem with aluminum wiring was not that it couldn't handle the load. While a continuous run of aluminum wire does not present a problem, when that wire is connected to outlets and light switches the connection can deteriorate and become a fire hazard.

      The problem was that it "flows" under the pressure of the connecting screws AND it oxidizes when exposed to air. Its a double whammy waiting to happen in every outlet or junction box.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/realestate/19home.html
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23683-2004Jul2.html

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    85. Re:Musk's Hubris... by icebike · · Score: 1

      Old house.
      Wait till you try to sell it.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    86. Re:Musk's Hubris... by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      If, in 2007, Ford suddenly started having Mustangs catching fire, it would have been front page news to.

      There are 17 vehicle fires every hour. Or 150,000/yr. There aren't enough front pages.

      [Ford did have fires from their overheating cruise-control, which caused actual deaths.]

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    87. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aluminum wiring IS safe for 20A, 15A and what-have-you amp circuits. It's a matter of correct termination. When aluminum wire is thinner, it's more difficult to terminate without damage. Thus wiring for a 50A circuit is no sweat, but for a wall socket it takes more skill. Most electricians clearly lack the skill necessary.

      Journeyman electricians only get inspected occasionally. It's too expensive to inspect every job they do. Aluminum wiring is a rare job for them to do, thus the inspections are rare. At least in Canada, the permit forms never ask what TYPE of wire will be used, thus no alarm bells ring for an inspector to come take a look.

      Aluminum wiring is allowed in both our code books. Yes, it must be terminated properly. But if you want to build a house entirely with aluminum wiring, you can do it, legally. Heck, at least in Canada, you can still legally build a brand new house with knob and tube wiring, so long as you terminate it correctly.

      Your master electrician doesn't use aluminum because it doesn't provide value in your situation. For smaller work the correct outlets/switches cost a lot more, and it's more difficult to work with, so he might have to run new wire after screwing up for the umpteenth time. However, if he was, say, running hundreds of feet of bus bar, he might sing a different tune after he tells you about the savings and the fact that it's basically impossible for him to fuck it up.

      Feel free to verify anything I've said with him.

    88. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      As a former electrician, I am not sure your argument makes much sense, the same rules you seam to condone aluminum with are true for copper as well. All the wire to my house, and garage, both are new, are all Aluminum, 200Amp service to the house, 150Amp to the garage. Of course it is of correct gauge, of course the high amperage connections are not wire nuts, that is no different for copper high amperage. About the only thing that sucks for Al is that you cant have wire nut, twist together connections, that is only allowed for copper in lower than 20 amp connections, so yeah don't use AL for wiring a string of 20amp outlets. Al or CU has nothing to do with why a 50 amp connection would have issues, using CU or AL you need to use 6G wire or better, you need to screw lug, absolutely no reason to differentiate the 2, the specs are nearly identical for NEC at amperage above 20Amp for both. So your right, no one uses AL for 20 amp, but that has no bearing that single point to single point connection. Your electrician may not trust AL wiring, but it is either irrational or he is just misinformed. My grandpa was the same way, because when copper got really expensive, idiots did wrongly wire things like they used to get away with on copper. Just because it can be done wrong, doesn't make it unsafe for all uses.

    89. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Damning with faint praise" is the phrase.

      Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer,
        And without sneering, teach the rest to sneer;
          Willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike,
            Just hint a fault, and hesitate dislike. - Pope.

    90. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      Good information, thanks.
      This does seam like a real concern that would be nice for Musk to have taken on more as another challenge to electric car adoption that he could be producing a solution to. Rather than a "not a problem with our cars so STFU." or at least that is how I read the Tesla response. The typical Tesla luxury car purchaser probably can (and would) just pay up for a high dollar J1772 EV station. But this car owner likely had a existing outlet not in his direct control to update, so used that. But if Elon is truly planning to push electric cars out to us unwashed masses we may need a little more detection of a high impedance point, and more dummy proof adapters, that would distinguish things like a 50 amp RV connection, with the power to start a AC, but maybe we shouldn't trust a string of adapters connected to that to provide the highest charge rate, even if the circuit should be capable. Or at least not for a indoor garage I am walking away for the night charge occurring.

    91. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      A Tesla will get a lot worse.

      Let's check:
      Nissan Leaf: 34 kwh per 100 miles per the EPA.
      Tesla Model S:: 38 kwh per 100 miles.
      12% Difference. Let's recheck:

      Leaf: 109 miles NEDC range, 24 kwh battery. .22 kwh per mile
      Model S: 310 NEDC, 85 kwh; 233 for the 60 kwh one. .27 kwhm, .26 kwhm (lighter battery = more efficient).
      18-23% higher by NEDC measurements.
      If the Leaf is 40mpg, the Model S is 34 mpg. Still not bad when you figure the range advantage.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    92. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      If it's not safe for 20A house circuits (I know of many Aluminum Romex cables that have fried in-wall,) why in the world would it be considered safe for 50A or higher, unless the wire was incredibly thick?

      Fried in the wall? Interesting. Mostly it happens at the connection points - outlets, switches. The problem with Aluminum is that it isn't as conductive as copper so you have to use heavier cable, it's not as ductile(more prone to cracking), and actually expands more than copper. It is cheaper though, even at said heavier gauge. The larger the gauge though, the less problem this presents.

      At small gauges connectors are normally simply held in with a set screw. What happens is that over time the aluminum expands and contracts as the load causes the wires to heat and cool, eventually working themselves out.

      With circuits about 50A though, you shift from solid wire to stranded, connections can get more fancy(involving springs and actual clamps), connection pressure becomes higher, and the cycle rate drops.

      Brand-new panel, pure copper buses, including the Main. GE 150A panel, GE 40A sub.

      Not surprising in that case, seeing as how he said that the circuits are limited to 'above 50 amp'. so a 40A sub would need to be copper.

      That would not pass an inspection if it's labeled as such - which means it wasn't properly inspected in the first place and the person doing it was an idiot.

      Would not surprise me if the fire in this case was caused by an electrician not doing a proper job, backed up by either an inspector not doing his or not being inspected at all.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    93. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Sure, why not?.

      *snerk*. It's still an outlet. /You didn't specify NEMA-5

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    94. Re:Musk's Hubris... by TClevenger · · Score: 1

      That's shit. My parent's car will get almost 50mpg. It's a diesel. My car will get more than 30mpg, and it'll do 0-60 in 6.

      From your own link, that 40 mpg includes the carbon involved in manufacturing the vehicle and well-to-wheels comparison, so emissions-wise, it depends on the power mix. From that same page, the Nissan Leaf in California puts out emissions equivalent to a 70 mpg petrol car.

    95. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Whether that's idle speculation or not at this point, the fact that the county appears ready to speculate with no confirmed facts is actually very concerning.

      Somebody is obviously paying for this. The country is run by oil barons.

      2+2=

      --
      No sig today...
    96. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      its probably the best place to put the power cable to charge the car. I wouldn;t want to leave power cables outside.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    97. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is where Musk's Hubris is going to be a problem.

      That's why I wear Eau My by George.

    98. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not without fault of the car's charging system - something that pulls tens of amps should have no problem ascertaining wiring resistance, and especially, an increase of wiring resistance as a result of heating.

      So basically, yes, likely it's a fault in the wall or the AC socket, but this is probably something the car charger should detect.

    99. Re:Musk's Hubris... by kimvette · · Score: 1

      You're charging it wrong.

      It's not an Apple product!

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    100. Re:Musk's Hubris... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      I calls em like I sees em.

      And what I see is an American corporation doing what American corporations do: denying fault.

      Me, I'm gonna wait till all the cards hit the table before I start placing bets on who or what is to blame.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    101. Re:Musk's Hubris... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      There are 17 vehicle fires every hour. Or 150,000/yr. There aren't enough front pages.

      Yup, which is why the only ones that are considered newsworthy by the MSM are the oddball ones. Like when 5 or 6 models of a brand new type of car that's only existed for 2 years mysteriously (or less-than-mysteriously) burst into flames in the course of 12 months.

      But that's not to say that "normal" car fires, and even the potential for car fires, doesn't make national news on a regular basis.

      Here is an article from just last year, about how Ford Explorers are infamous for catching fire.

      Is this enough to get the Tesla fanboys to shut the fuck up and stop acting like some sort of singled-out pariahs? How about this? Are six hundred ninety six million hits good enough for them? Probably not.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    102. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aluminum is nasty stuff when mixed with the wrong connectors. My friend's place, built in the 70's, had aluminum wiring in it. When the kitchen was upgraded copper was used. The terminals on the outlets and the aluminum wiring are corroding and causing resistance. If you are just running a few lights it is OK but high current devices like a kettle, microwave or toaster oven have melted the outlet. Always over build!

    103. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, the problem is that he's under the delusion that he inherited Jobs' reality distortion field upon Jobs' death. Unfortunately for him it apparently evaporated into nothingness instead...

      Giving FD 1, Musk -5 (or so ATM, but I'm sure that this number will be "growing")

    104. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is where Musk's Hubris is going to be a problem.

      There's no way that he can know for sure what happened in the fire, and he's going to risk having to eat crow -- lots and lots of crow -- if he's proven wrong.

      I love the guy, but hubris is clearly among his worst qualities.

      Sounds like a sabotage job to me.

    105. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Heck, at least in Canada, you can still legally build a brand new house with knob and tube wiring, so long as you terminate it correctly."

      It's still allowed in certain agricultural uses in the USA, but not for houses.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    106. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      " Al or CU has nothing to do with why a 50 amp connection would have issues,"

      Electrical conductivity has plenty to do with it.

      I don't trust AL wire because aluminum forms a highly resistive oxidative layer, which is why AL wire MUST be thicker to safely handle the same amperage of a thinner copper wire.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    107. Re:Musk's Hubris... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Well, you can always look at the Ford Escape, where the 2013 redesign ended up having a few issues with fires which I remember making the news. At time I think there was only a few thousand out there.

    108. Re:Musk's Hubris... by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      I said county, not country. Reading fail.

    109. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Smauler · · Score: 1

      From that same page, the Nissan Leaf in California puts out emissions equivalent to a 70 mpg petrol car.

      So it should probably be taxed at about half the rate of a 35mpg car. But... it uses the same roads at the same rate, so that probably has to be taken into account too.

      Imagine a world in which every car was electric, with our current subsidies. Where does the money come from?

    110. Re:Musk's Hubris... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your electrician is incompetent; AL wiring is the standard for 50A and up, and it simply is not a problem when installed correctly.

      And no, not *some* jurisdictions require paste, using paste is also the standard.

      If you're using copper for the runs and loads AL is as a standard used for, you are paying a remarkable amount of money for copper that makes absolutely zero sense.

      Anyone that works for a utility company reading these idiotic remarks about AL wiring laughs at you. Because you're SO misinformed.

    111. Re:Musk's Hubris... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      My point exactly - it was a new model, using new technology, and thus the fire was considered newsworthy.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    112. Re:Musk's Hubris... by EdwinFreed · · Score: 1

      It seems the folks at Tesla had the detection idea too. A software update to the car arrived last night. It contained a single new feature: The car now actively monitors the incoming voltage, and if it starts to fluctuate it lowers the current draw accordingly.

      I should also note that the various different adapters have some interlock that informs the car how much current can be drawn. And of course the J1772 standard has a facility for this. Additionally, you can force the car to charge at a lower rate by dialing the current down manually.

      There also was a report on one of the Tesla forums that a NEMA 14-50 adapter melted while charging at 40A. From the picture it's not clear if it was a fault in the adapter or because it wasn't plugged in properly.

  2. Oily rags by neo-mkrey · · Score: 1

    My educated guess is oily or gas soaked rags that were not disposed of or stored properly.

    1. Re:Oily rags by D1G1T · · Score: 2

      While this is usually the cause of garage fires, I'll bet it is less likely in garages that store vehicles that use neither oil nor gasoline.

    2. Re:Oily rags by Russ1642 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I always keep my linseed oil soaked rags piled up together in a nice dry place covered in sawdust.

    3. Re:Oily rags by weilawei · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not a bad guess (still, I'll wait for the official report) in a garage, since most people don't seem to realize that an oily rag will if left for a few hours. You can try it yourself.

    4. Re:Oily rags by weilawei · · Score: 4, Informative

      Whoops, butchered that comment. Meant to say an oily rag will spontaneously ignite if left for a few hours. You can try it yourself.

    5. Re:Oily rags by Anrego · · Score: 1

      Well, assuming they don't have other gas powered equipment (lawn mower, snow blower, etc).

      Actually I imagine those probably result in more minor gas/oil spills and oil/gas soaked rags than a car.

    6. Re:Oily rags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blame anything but what we know was there... sign of a raving fanboy.

    7. Re:Oily rags by swb · · Score: 1

      I always burn any rags that I get soaked with oil or gasoline immediately. I keep a large metal can for this purpose. Take it out in the driveway well away from any structure and let them burn.

    8. Re:Oily rags by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      A point the OP failed to grasp. The only oils that spontaneously burst into flame are natural oils that decompose. Motor oils certainly wont. The majority of first are caused by either space heaters or older electrical wiring with too high of a fuse/breaker on it. Who installed this guys charger? Himself? I can't imagine finding a breaker big enough for that charger is easy.

    9. Re:Oily rags by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Teslas don't use oil? I didn't know that, I assume there had to be at least a little metal on metal somewhere on the drive train.

    10. Re:Oily rags by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      Is the oil used in cars usually involved in those kinds of fires? I thought those were usually more caused by things like linseed oil: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linseed_oil#Spontaneous_combustion

      Never heard of anyone using linseed oil in their crank case.

      Normally improper disposal of motor oil may make a fire situation worst, but doesn't, as far as I know, tend to cause them. Whereas, improper disposal of rags soaked in linseed oil (normally used in paints) has been the primary cause of a few fires.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    11. Re:Oily rags by icebike · · Score: 1

      Whoops, butchered that comment. Meant to say an oily rag will spontaneously ignite if left for a few hours. You can try it yourself.

      Not likely if its just motor oil.

      You have to watch the video you posted almost half way through before he reveals its Rosewood Oil, a natural oil used for furniture finishing.

      Further, the pile has been manipulated during the video, the most obvious time is just before he says "About a half hour later".

      Be that as it may, there was no oily rags involved in this garage fire. A faulty outlet, with cardboard boxes stacked nearby.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    12. Re:Oily rags by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      Remember to keep that 50' 18 gauge extension cord running, that you're using to charge your new Tesla, under it. It helps keep the garage smelling nice. :)

       

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    13. Re:Oily rags by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      I really hate how my sister insists on keeping the wrapping paper, cardboard puzzles, and stock of TP directly over her clothes dryer.

    14. Re:Oily rags by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      An oily rag, left outside, in the sun, on hot asphalt.

      Garage conditions are usually the exact opposite.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    15. Re:Oily rags by weilawei · · Score: 2

      Nope, they're printed using PLA on giant RepRaps. ;)

    16. Re:Oily rags by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      In the electrical outlet's enclosure? That's an odd place to put them...

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    17. Re:Oily rags by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      That video isn't a very good example. He keeps moving the camera around, and it seems whenever it moves back out so you can see the whole rag pile, it appears to have been disturbed while it was not visible.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    18. Re:Oily rags by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Not just this.
      1) The rag was left out in the sun.
      2) There's no temperature gauge, so you can't tell if it's 0F or 110F.
      3) There's some kind of unnatural glare going on. It could just be the rag is soaked with so much oil that it's outright reflecting the sunlight, but not knowing how the rag was prepared, I wonder if there's something say, concentrating the sunlight.

      While spontaneous combustion is pretty cool to see, the reliabilty of this video is questionable.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    19. Re:Oily rags by fisted · · Score: 1

      No, dude, it's all electricity and stuff

    20. Re:Oily rags by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 0

      Teslas don't use oil? I didn't know that, I assume there had to be at least a little metal on metal somewhere on the drive train.

      What drive train? It's an electric car - battery, wires from battery to electric motor, that's it.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    21. Re:Oily rags by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

      Make sure that you keep that cord coiled up into a nice tight ball, too...

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    22. Re:Oily rags by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      One wonders if the Green Californian followed all inspection requirements and other government mandates so thoroughly entertained in polite dinner conversation.. For example, did the union electricion he would obviously only hire get the necessary permits?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    23. Re:Oily rags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What drive train? It's an electric car - battery, wires from battery to electric motor, that's it.

      That electric motor along with the transmission, differential, axel, wheel bearings, etc... all require lubrication.

    24. Re:Oily rags by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I put them on the steel scrap pile, because I have one. I have never ever EVER had one ignite in those conditions, and I've had them soaked with gasoline, diesel fuel, biodiesel, carb cleaner, brake cleaner, clean motor oil, dirty motor oil, diesel kleen diesel additive, QD electronics cleaner, and probably lots of other things. Some of these are solvents that flash off rapidly. Some of them take a lot longer and leave something behind. None of them have burst into flame. The spontaneous combustion thing is restricted to exceptional circumstances, like fumes building up in an enclosed area with a spark, or broken glass which acts as a lens concentrating the rays of the sun. Of course, garage fires would be rarer if the former of those were a more exceptional circumstance. I don't put the oily rags back into the hamper. That would be a Bad Idea(tm). Into the trash can, likewise. But only if it's in the sun.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    25. Re:Oily rags by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      I've had great success nicking the plastic on the cord every couple of feet, it really lets the aroma get out.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    26. Re:Oily rags by vux984 · · Score: 2

      When was the last time you changed the oil in your ceiling fan? Your blender? CD player?

      Hell, when was the last time you "changed the oil" in the wheel bearings of your car?

      Yes, all these things require lubricant, but they are not things we associate with having substantial oil reservoirs.

      As for the the Tesla, yes it'll have wheel bearings and axels, so it'll probably have a bit of grease somewhere... but I don't believe it has a transmission. So there probably isn't anything that's we'd recognize as "oil" in the car.

    27. Re:Oily rags by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      It's an electric car - battery, wires from battery to electric motor

      Nope, not it. You haven't gotten the power to the wheels yet(the Tesla doesn't use hub motors). So you still have the single-speed transmission, differential, and driveshafts to the individual wheels. All of which, including the shaft in the electric motor, need lubrication and therefore oil.

      Changing it out might be a 100k mile job, but it's there. That being said - small engine tools are much more likely to be a source of dirty rags in the garage of somebody who owns a Tesla.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    28. Re:Oily rags by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      When was the last time you changed the oil in your ceiling fan? Your blender? CD player?

      What's the expected life and duty cycle of those devices? Heck, power level makes a difference. Most of the fans I remember are oil filled.

      but I don't believe it has a transmission.

      It does have a very simple one: 1-speed fixed gear (9.73:1)

      Mostly because the Roadster that the S shares many aspects with kept blowing up the 2 speed they tried to have in there.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    29. Re:Oily rags by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I can't imagine finding a breaker big enough for that charger is easy.

      Why not? Visit your average 'big box' home supply store such as Home Depot, Lowes, or Menards and you'll find the 50A breakers just down the row from the 15 and 20A ones. Past the 30 and 40A ones. Maybe a shelf down (240V vs 120V). The NEMA 14-50 plug for the Tesla should be within the isle somewhere.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    30. Re:Oily rags by vux984 · · Score: 1

      The Wikipedia link you provided actually says:

      The vehicle does not have a transmission, only a single speed fixed gear with a 9.73:1 reduction ratio.

      Not sure where that leaves us exactly; I guess it depends on your definition of transmission. :)

    31. Re:Oily rags by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      The Wikipedia link you provided actually says:

      And on the right sidebar under 'powertrain' it calls it a transmission.

      So I looked up Transmission and got:
      In British English, the term transmission refers to the whole drive train, including clutch, gearbox, prop shaft (for rear-wheel drive), differential, and final drive shafts. In American English, however, a gearbox is any device that converts speed and torque, whereas a transmission is a type of gearbox that can be "shifted" to dynamically change the speed-torque ratio such as in a vehicle.

      So I suppose it's better to call it a Gearbox in American terminology because it can't be 'shifted'.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  3. On the other hand by suso · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Garage fires aren't a very common topic on Slashdot.

    1. Re:On the other hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Garage fires aren't a very common topic on Slashdot.

      I need a car analogy

    2. Re:On the other hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Car Garage fires aren't a very common topic on Slashdot.

      I need a car analogy

      Oh sorry, there fixed that up for you....

    3. Re:On the other hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps, but we know more about basement fires than most...some of that expertise probably translates.

    4. Re:On the other hand by Sez+Zero · · Score: 1

      Garage fires aren't a very common topic on Slashdot.

      But we do talk about a lot of dumpster fires.

  4. yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cool

  5. Probably faulty Wiring. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Am going to guess it was faulting wire of the building that caused the fire. Not Tesla fault but the electrician or possible old wiring.

    Or someone realized they couldn't make their car payments.

  6. New tech -- of course that's the cause! by tekrat · · Score: 1

    Ah, the old "Hey, I don't know what this is, so it must be the cause of the fire" argument.

    Of course fire investigators will point to a piece of new technology as the cause of the fire. It's easy and they are lazy. Just like videogames are the cause of all school shootings.

    And before that, it was cell phones causing brain cancer,
    And before that it was rock and roll music causing children to misbehave.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:New tech -- of course that's the cause! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What part of 'possible' do you not understand?

      Are you sure the Tesla didn't cause the fire? If not that what the fuck is your point?

    2. Re:New tech -- of course that's the cause! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Of course fire investigators will point to a piece of new technology as the cause of the fire. It's easy and they are lazy. Just like videogames are the cause of all school shootings.

      And before that, it was cell phones causing brain cancer,
      And before that it was rock and roll music causing children to misbehave.

      How, considering the complete lack of evidence at this point, is that any different than Musk claiming that it had to have been anything but his products?

      The correct answer, BTW, is that it's not different at all.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:New tech -- of course that's the cause! by icebike · · Score: 1

      The tesla wasn't damaged.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    4. Re:New tech -- of course that's the cause! by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      If I plug my iron into the wall, and then the wall socket shorts out and causes a fire in the wall, the iron might still be to blame.

      Sure, it's more likely the wiring, but you can't rule out the iron.

      ...even if the iron isn't damaged in the wall fire.

    5. Re:New tech -- of course that's the cause! by PIBM · · Score: 1

      If there had been no tesla, would there have been a fire ? The Tesla might have caused the failed electrical installation to burn by taking more current than it was able to provide for a longer time than anything else in that garage, if it wasn't wired correctly.. So yeah, the Tesla showed the failure point, but I wouldn't beat tesla for it :)

    6. Re:New tech -- of course that's the cause! by icebike · · Score: 1

      If your circuit breaker didn't blow first, then it is definitely a problem with the building wiring, and not the fault of the iron.

      It will probably be found that the guy put in a bigger breaker because the small one kept tripping off, but the wiring
      couldn't handle that much draw.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    7. Re:New tech -- of course that's the cause! by icebike · · Score: 1

      Any load could have caused that. But I'm betting a faulty or oversized breaker was to blame.
      Probably switched out the breaker for a larger one, because the original smaller one kept tripping.

      I'm guessing it was an older structure, because a newer one would have GFIC and/or AFIC on that circuit.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    8. Re:New tech -- of course that's the cause! by Hidyman · · Score: 1

      Actually, Musk has the charging logs from the car, showing that it was charging normally when the fire started.
      (That would be evidence.)

      --
      You can't take the sky from me ...
    9. Re:New tech -- of course that's the cause! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Actually, Musk has the charging logs from the car, showing that it was charging normally when the fire started.
      (That would be evidence.)

      That would be a piece of evidence, not the whole body of it.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    10. Re:New tech -- of course that's the cause! by FunkDup · · Score: 1

      Of course fire investigators will point to a piece of new technology as the cause of the fire

      Bullshit. My uneducated guess is that they will instead use the analisys techniques outlined here

      --
      Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds -- Albert Einstein
    11. Re:New tech -- of course that's the cause! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While that is generally true, breakers even when they are technically good may not trip and that is why you have GFCI breakers.

    12. Re:New tech -- of course that's the cause! by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      That would be a piece of evidence, not the whole body of it.

      How do we know that Musk(and his failure-analysis team) didn't review more evidence than just the logs?

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    13. Re:New tech -- of course that's the cause! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "considering the complete lack of evidence at this point"

      Your words. Eat them.

    14. Re:New tech -- of course that's the cause! by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      You mean the part that says this?

      Fire scene investigators, on the other hand, require an understanding of fire chemistry and fire dynamics, but unfortunately many field investigators do not possess such knowledge. In fact, many field investigators possess no formal education beyond high school. While there exist other forensic disciplines where technical skills learned through apprenticeship may provide adequate training (e.g., fingerprints, firearms identification, and handwriting comparison), it is difficult to argue that individuals who have a limited understanding of the chemistry and physics of fire development can draw reasonable conclusions about fires.

      I especially like the ATF Test where they asked a group of 53 investigators to determine what quadrant the fire started in in two test bedrooms they set on fire. Only 3 got it right in each test, and the 3 were different in both tests. Remember that this was the equivalent of a 4 choice multiple-guess test, blind choice/rolling dice would get you higher accuracy.

      This becomes really concerning when you have these people testifying that they believe the fire was caused by arson in a capital murder trial. The most famous Texas innocent execution case depends on the fire investigator giving false testimony. It's horrifying in a way when you read that various witnesses changed their view of the suspect from 'loving father' when they believed the fire to be accidental to 'Monster' when they heard the officials thought it was arson.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    15. Re:New tech -- of course that's the cause! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While that is generally true, I'm a retard and shouldn't be allowed within 30' of any electrical installation.

      FTFY

    16. Re:New tech -- of course that's the cause! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... neither of which would trip for undersized wiring until things are WAY too late.

    17. Re:New tech -- of course that's the cause! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      That would be a piece of evidence, not the whole body of it.

      How do we know that Musk(and his failure-analysis team) didn't review more evidence than just the logs?

      Because his personality type doesn't allow for not talking about himself at every given opportunity?

      Are you really trying to suppose that Tesla is not only withholding evidence, but they're withholding evidence that would prove their product innocent?

      As much as I obviously do not care for the man, I'm pretty sure neither he, nor the people that run his company, are that stupid.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    18. Re:New tech -- of course that's the cause! by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Are you really trying to suppose that Tesla is not only withholding evidence, but they're withholding evidence that would prove their product innocent?

      No, I figure that the evidence is either not really decisive(at least not as much as the logs), irrelevant, or not listed because, well, these things get edited for length and article writers tend to drop stuff.

      Musk probably figures what he's released is good enough - faulty socket, not faulty Tesla Product.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    19. Re:New tech -- of course that's the cause! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Are you really trying to suppose that Tesla is not only withholding evidence, but they're withholding evidence that would prove their product innocent?

      No, I figure that the evidence is either not really decisive(at least not as much as the logs), irrelevant, or not listed because, well, these things get edited for length and article writers tend to drop stuff.

      Musk probably figures what he's released is good enough - faulty socket, not faulty Tesla Product.

      Yea, well, Elon Musk isn't a trained fire investigator, so please excuse me for not taking him at his word.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    20. Re:New tech -- of course that's the cause! by icebike · · Score: 1

      Nonsense.
      These things are designed to be almost instantaneous.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    21. Re:New tech -- of course that's the cause! by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Yea, well, Elon Musk isn't a trained fire investigator, so please excuse me for not taking him at his word.

      That's why I originally mentioned his failure analysis team. As for the fire investigators, read this. They're not actually very reliable.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    22. Re:New tech -- of course that's the cause! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Yea, well, Elon Musk isn't a trained fire investigator, so please excuse me for not taking him at his word.

      That's why I originally mentioned his failure analysis team. As for the fire investigators, read this. They're not actually very reliable.

      According to the notoriously unreliable source you quoted, official fire investigators are trained in no less than 13 different aspects of fire investigation, not to mention the requirement to be accredited by several different organizations.

      What sort of special training does this "failure analysis team" have, that professional fire investigators do not?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    23. Re:New tech -- of course that's the cause! by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      According to the notoriously unreliable source you quoted, official fire investigators are trained in no less than 13 different aspects of fire investigation, not to mention the requirement to be accredited by several different organizations.

      You miss the part about them messing up which quadrant test fires start in over what they'd get with random guessing? Heck, they only reached parity with their choices with the last testing 5 years ago(and I don't expect all investigators to even be that competent).

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  7. Sometimes its the wiring not the device ... by perpenso · · Score: 4, Funny

    Even if it is the charger it may be the wiring not the device itself. A friend had an attic fire that was caused by a hallway smoke detector (AC powered) of all things. The fire investigator determined the smoke detector was wired incorrectly.

    1. Re:Sometimes its the wiring not the device ... by Carnivore · · Score: 2

      It may be terminology missing; In actual fact all the charging equipment is onboard the car, but the fire officials may be referring the the exterior power cable as "the charger" especially if it's Tesla's High Power Wall Connector. The abbreviation for that, HPWC, could reasonably be assumed to mean High Power Wall Charger.

  8. clickbait headline by Chalex · · Score: 5, Informative

    "garage fire started by improperly installed electrical outlet" just doesn't get you as many clicks.

    The garage fire was Nov 15, the Tesla S did not sustain any damage. The damage was all on the wall socket side.

  9. Confirmation Bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cars that contain tanks full of highly flammable liquid fuel with explosive vapors catch on fire all the fucking time and nobody blinks an eye.

    Ever instance of a brush fire near an EV and suddenly it's national news.

    1. Re:Confirmation Bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vapors in a fuel tank are not explosive because it is a low/no oxygen environment. In fact the interior of fuel tanks on vehicles is considered Class 1 Div 2 since it is unlikely or rare that flammable mixtures will exist under normal operating conditions.

    2. Re:Confirmation Bias by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      About 8 fires per day in the US occur in vehicle fuel tanks or fuel lines (excluding after crashes), and are responsible for about 1/6th of all vehicle-fire deaths.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  10. As the old expression goes... by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

    Where there's smoke there's (Tesla) fires.

  11. The linked article is crap, anyone got the report? by weilawei · · Score: 2

    "The fire occurred as a result of an electrical failure in the charging system for an electric vehicle," said a report by the fire authority, a copy of which was obtained by Reuters.

    The report also emphasizes that the cause of the fire is unclear.

  12. uh thtats suposed to b news ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    No. Them (Tesla company) stating/admitting that the fire COULD have been caused by the Battery Charger would have been actual news.

    Them blanket declaring it wasnt is standard Lawyers/Management Told Us To stuff.

    I talked to a fireman years ago about these issues with electric cars and he said they all were worried about various aspects they would have to deal with when they became more common - electric shock potential, energy density (the stuff is like an explosive), new toxic chemicals in large amounts, etc..

    Not to worry Im sure insurance companies will love putting up their rates for these vehicles as their problems become more commonly understood (yet another thing the advocates wont be telling you).

    1. Re:uh thtats suposed to b news ? by weilawei · · Score: 1

      The energy density of gasoline is higher. Additionally, though it's gasoline vapor that burns, any process producing a large volume of gas in a confined space can be considered explosive. The electric shock potential and dealing with lithium specifically seem to be more relevant concerns.

    2. Re:uh thtats suposed to b news ? by weilawei · · Score: 1

      I should say "potentially explosive" because it's not actually exploding until the confinement ruptures--explosively.

  13. You are right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My educated guess is oily or gas soaked rags that were not disposed of or stored properly.

    You could very well be right. After all, the Orange county fire investigators probably never have seen a garage fire before and being amateurs, just blamed the new fangled ee-leck-trick car thingy.

  14. Gas vs Electric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While filling up your car with gasoline you *can* just let it fill and walk away to do something else. Most people I see hang around or go sit in their car. If something maybe might go wrong there's plenty of people and support to see it, report it and deal with it.

    With an electric car, well there's a bunch of power transfer going on which takes a long time and no one is going to sit around watching and waiting. Extra stress to your house's electrical system,s no one around to keep an eye on it because it's not practical, what could go wrong?

    1. Re:Gas vs Electric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      While filling up your car with gasoline you *can* just let it fill and walk away to do something else. Most people I see hang around or go sit in their car.

      Do not get in your car while fueling. It's a great way to generate a static shock and unlike cell phones, really does start fires.

    2. Re:Gas vs Electric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While filling up your car with gasoline you *can* just let it fill and walk away to do something else. Most people I see hang around or go sit in their car. If something maybe might go wrong there's plenty of people and support to see it, report it and deal with it.

      With an electric car, well there's a bunch of power transfer going on which takes a long time and no one is going to sit around watching and waiting. Extra stress to your house's electrical system,s no one around to keep an eye on it because it's not practical, what could go wrong?

      No kidding. Next thing you know, those electrons will be spilling out all over the pavement.

    3. Re:Gas vs Electric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Personally I never let electricity be used unless it is under my direct supervision. Whenever I run the A/C, I go outside and watch the compressor unit until it has cooled the house down. Likewise, whenever I need hot water I go out in the garage, manually turn the water heater on, and wait until the water is completely heated. I throw the main breaker and remove the power meter from the side of the house every time before going to work, the store, etc.

      You just can't be too safe nowadays.

    4. Re:Gas vs Electric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whenever I run the A/C, I go outside and watch

      You're SPYING on me???

    5. Re:Gas vs Electric by weilawei · · Score: 1

      Try that in Mass and you might wind up getting arrested. By law, you have to stand there, holding the pump handle, and can't stuff something in there to keep it pumping. A small minority of gas stations still have those metal clips to let you do it, and some people stuff other things in there anyway, but it is in violation of the law to do it that way.

    6. Re:Gas vs Electric by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Same deal in florida. The sad thing? I've seen more pumps overflow in locations like that because the people are actually more fallible than the little metal latch.

      Same deal with the new 'anti-spill' gasoline cans. Many of them are so hard to use and pour irregularly(due to not having a proper vent) that you end up spilling more gasoline, defeating the purpose behind mandating them in the first place.

      Plus, again because they suck, I've seen a lot more people using non-gasoline containers to store gasoline. How's that increasing safety?

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  15. Bad Wall Sockets, Wiring & Circuit Breakers by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

    These cause more fires than anything elseExcept gasoline powered vehicles.

    Several hundred thousand car fires occur per year, but they don't make the news.

  16. Re:The linked article is crap, anyone got the repo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My car my car my car is on fire,
    My car my car my car is on fire,
    We don't need no water let the motherfucker burn,
    Burn motherfucker, burn.

  17. Damage on the wall side by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If the cable was damaged at the wall side but not the car side, my immediate thought is a problem in the wall socket or wiring. I've run into that with regular outlets, old hardware causes high resistance and a very hot outlet and plug (thermal conduction through the metal parts). The most common cause is age causing corrosion of the connection plates inside the socket or looseness of the plates so the prongs of the plug don't make good tight contact with them. Either way it raises the resistance of the connection inside the socket and creates a lot of heat (it's doing exactly what the heating elements on an electric stove do). My fix is to open up the outlet and replace the socket with a new one, cleaning up and tightening the wires in the process.

    The #2 problem is the actual in-wall wiring being old and just not up to gauge for the current draw of modern electronics. In 1970 we didn't have home computers and Xboxes and the like, 14-gauge wiring was common and hooking up a modern home-entertainment center and computer would have the wiring in the wall hot to the touch. Plug a Tesla into older wiring like that and you've got a fire waiting to happen.

    1. Re:Damage on the wall side by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Circuit breakers on 14 AWG are supposed to throw at 15A. 12AWG for 20A, 10AWG for 30A. Drawing 15A continuously over 14AWG is fine.

    2. Re:Damage on the wall side by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      Our house was built in the 1940's, and we'll have to make a decision, refit everything plumbing and electrical, tearing open every wall; of tear the whole thing down and start fresh.

      It'll probably depend more on the legal bullshit (remodel permit vs. new building...)

    3. Re:Damage on the wall side by weilawei · · Score: 1
      That's in open air, where each strand of conductor has proper cooling. Wiring for power transmission, you only want to shove around 5.9A through 14AWG. For 15A, you'd want at least 10AWG and more likely 9AWG to give you a safety factor. Yes, this is by rule of thumb, and doesn't take into account the length (increasing length increases resistance) , type of insulation, etc., but do you really want to take the cheapest possible approach when it can potentially burn your house down?

      The Maximum Amps for Power Transmission uses the 700 circular mils per amp rule, which is very very conservative. The Maximum Amps for Chassis Wiring is also a conservative rating, but is meant for wiring in air, and not in a bundle.

    4. Re:Damage on the wall side by AndyMoney · · Score: 1

      Circuit breakers on 14 AWG are supposed to throw at 15A. 12AWG for 20A, 10AWG for 30A. Drawing 15A continuously over 14AWG is fine.

      12AWG is not always connected to a 15 amp breaker, however. In my house, some idiot used 14AWG wiring for several "20 amp" circuits. The breaker happily allowed 20 amps of current in those 14AWG wires, which could have been a big problem. I promptly swapped those with 15amp breakers until I get around to rewiring...

    5. Re:Damage on the wall side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wrong! The NEC states the maximum continuous amp draw is 80% of the circuit breaker rating. For 15A you must derate to 12 amps.

    6. Re:Damage on the wall side by Spoke · · Score: 1

      NEC says that for continuous loads, you can pull up to 80% of the circuit's rating. Charging an EV qualifies as a continuous load. Below is a list of common copper wire sizes found in your typical home and it's 100% / 80% ampacity (assuming 60C rated insulation which is most common):

      14AWG: 15/12A
      12AWG: 20/16A
      10AWG: 30/24A
      8AWG: 40/32A
      6AWG: 55/44A
      1AWG: 110/88A

      Note that for the last two, you typically would be using that wire on a 50A or 100A circuit, the max continuous loads on those would be 40A or 80A respectively.

      Your typical plug for charging a Tesla Model S would be a NEMA 14-50 outlet rated at 50A. You might be able to find 75C rated outlets/wire, in which case one can use 8AWG wire for a 50A circuit instead of 6AWG.

    7. Re:Damage on the wall side by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      That's in open air [powerstream.com], where each strand of conductor has proper cooling. Wiring for power transmission, you only want to shove around 5.9A through 14AWG.

      I think you're getting your definitions mixed up, and 'powerstream' isn't helping. Power transmission is generally in the open air, on power cables. Behind drywall is still 'open air' enough for NEC requirements. Heck, it's still true in shielded conduit. The reason why you can only push 5.9A through a 14 gauge cable in that situation is because it's intended for long distances and you need to limit voltage drop.

      Inside a house is between it and chassis wiring, which allows 32A for 14 gauge wire.

      Also, the thing to realize with Spoke's chart is that the first number is the breaker, the second is the maximum load you're to plan for the circuit. IE if your proposed circuit is going to use 14A, you don't use 14 gauge wiring, you use 12 gauge, and a 20A breaker rather than a 15. This way you avoid nuisance trips.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    8. Re:Damage on the wall side by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      12AWG is not always connected to a 15 amp breaker, however. In my house, some idiot used 14AWG wiring for several "20 amp" circuits.

      As you say, idiot, improper installation, all that stuff.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    9. Re:Damage on the wall side by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      That's retarded. Safety device on a circuit that stops it if continuous load will cause fire, but a continuous load that high will cause fire? What's continuous load in this definition? 5 seconds? 5 minutes? 5 days?

    10. Re: Damage on the wall side by Spoke · · Score: 1

      NEC defines a continuous load as one that can run for 3+ hours.

      The reason you are supposed to derate continuous loads is because the circuit breaker is likely to trip under those conditions. Not necessarily that it would be likely to cause a fire.

    11. Re:Damage on the wall side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All it takes to render a circuit breaker or outlet a fire hazard is a little water. That's all. Just once.

      It can take months for the damaged outlet or circuit breaker and the surrounding box/area to reach combustible temperature under load. YEARS can actually pass if a particular outlet or breaker is not under much or any load, before the damage manifests itself. Homeowners beware, I've seen this happen MANY times.

      Garages are notorious for having water damage at some point, I wouldn't be surprised that this was the case. And it is often not at all obvious.

      People should invest in handheld IR thermal meters. You just take one and go around and point it at your outlets when they're under load, and see how hot they're getting.

      Check your circuit breakers in the box, too. They can get wet. Once they do, they can get hot. Once this process starts, they do not always fail, often they'll just keep getting hot and degenerate until they're a combustion hazard. All it takes is some water getting into them, ONCE; months can pass before it's a problem. Once compromised, the circuit breakers do not always trip under rated load. They are no longer safe, and must be replaced. Often the entire backplane of the circuit breaker box will need to be replaces as well.

      And never, ever ignore strange smells in your house/garage. If it smells like fish or a dead animal, it could very well be an electrical failure of an outlet or a circuit breaker or both. Strange smells that you can't identify that are intermittent must NEVER, EVER be ignored.

      If you've ever had water damage in your home/garage/business, even if you've had professionals come and repair it, do not assume they've checked everything. It only takes a single exposure of water to make your electrical outlets and breakers a fire hazard, and it can take several months for the damage to degenerate to the point of combustion.

    12. Re: Damage on the wall side by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      OK so essentially the safety device is too sensitive. Fail-safe, that's acceptable. They could build them to not throw under constant load, but they'd risk not throwing under constant fire-causing load.

  18. Fireproof the garage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just in case, garages can be made fireproof. Encase the garage interior by screwing on 'Durock' type cement board to the walls. A decent DYI project. Tape the seams with special tape and a cement paste, just like is done with wooden chimney chases. Cars, electric and gas, have ignited in the garage then the house goes. A sizable extra expense, worth the peace of mind.

    1. Re:Fireproof the garage by weilawei · · Score: 1

      This doesn't make them fireproof, it makes them fire resistant, due to the high water content contained. This is the same concept as a "fireproof" safe, which is really only fire resistant. Once that water's gone, the temperature spikes rapidly by thermal conduction, even if the fire-resisting material itself doesn't burn directly.

  19. Just like an IPhone by MobSwatter · · Score: 2

    This is why you don't use an aftermarket charger!

  20. Just some advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Better not bring a Tesla along when you retire on Mars, you ridiculous buffoon. Oh wait, there's no air on Mars to feed a fire anyways. Hm.

  21. yes but it's good strategy by schlachter · · Score: 1

    It's a win-win strategy.

    1. Deny it all before the crazies run amok with unchallenged media coverage of the fire.
    2. If wrong, eh, it happens. Apologize, deliver an update, and good will. No one will hate him for it. Just business as usual.
    3. If he's right, or it's ambiguous as to what happened, he wins.

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    1. Re:yes but it's good strategy by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      dunno about that.

      I wouldn't have known about the fire if they had not denied that it was a fault of theirs pre-emptively.

      and really it's fault of the wiring in the house.. but what good are electric cars if they make your house go up in a smoke.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  22. "Firemen less sure" by moronikos · · Score: 1

    Down in Texas, they put a man to death (Cameron Todd Willingham) because they were sure he committed arson and killed his kids. Forensic scientists later showed the fire marshal to be wrong using....science. I'd rather trust scientists to tell me what happened than some firefighter that just lasted on the job long enough to be the investigator or kissed enough butt.

    1. Re:"Firemen less sure" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the scientists have never been wrong, right? What an ass you are.

    2. Re:"Firemen less sure" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the scientists have never been wrong, right?

      Of course scientists have never been wrong. Clearly this garage fire was merely the result of a phlostigen buildup incurred by the currents of luminous aether as they were disrupted by the active charger.

  23. Tesla is fighting a war by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A war over public opinion. I don't know why the struggling U.S. automakers have not embraced electric vehicles. They will make a "zombie" truck which everyone thinks is funny, but nobody actually wants. But tend to be disposed to doing everything in their power to resist that which is (probably) better for the environment and more efficient for a good portion of the population commuting just a few miles every day. Did they learn nothing from the Nissan Leaf sales?

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    1. Re:Tesla is fighting a war by mojo-raisin · · Score: 1

      Indeed, Tesla is fighting a war. That is when an obvious FUD attack is launched causing the stock to drop, I buy a few shares of TSLA. It's not a lot, but I'm helping screw over the shorters and the ICE/oil cartels.

    2. Re:Tesla is fighting a war by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      That... is a nice idea in general, not just one that makes good business sense. Despite all the times it's been shorted and the number of negative news articles, the price generally bounces back pretty well. If you want to buy TSLA, that's the time to do it!

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    3. Re:Tesla is fighting a war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that what he said? He buys when the price drops after a bullshit story.

      "causing the stock to drop, I buy a few shares"

  24. Bring on TeslaGate! by SirSpammenot · · Score: 1

    Thank Goodness Tesla is distracting Fox News. We Volt owners thought their nonsense barrage would never let up. At least Tesla has Musk to fire back pithy retorts.

    --
    1 Dachshund + 1 Dachshunds = A Paradox.
  25. The real pity? by ApplePy · · Score: 1

    We don't have Jerry Reed to make a new song for all these fancy new eee-lectric autymobiles.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jOMcAlO7rQ

    --
    That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
    1. Re:The real pity? by sabinelr · · Score: 1

      Lord, Mister Ford, it would be a real event if Jerry Reed could do a song about the Tesla. Now let me go back to my lair for another puff.

  26. I feel sorry for Tesla by bugg_tb · · Score: 1

    Its not like they had a famous actor die in one of their cars recently.... or anyone

  27. Is Tesla a Continuous Load? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    NEC requires derating circuits with continuous loads to 80% of their breaker value, so a 15A circuit can only provide 12A on a continuous basis (which by NEC definition is more than 3 hours).

    If Tesla takes more than 12A for more than 3 hours, then by law it cannot be charged from a standard home wall socket, which is a 14AWG branch circuit rated for 15A at the breaker.

    If Tesla overlooked this requirement and put a 15A plug on their charging cable, then they are liable for any damage caused by their improper cable plug selection and lack of warnings.

    1. Re:Is Tesla a Continuous Load? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      If Tesla overlooked this requirement and put a 15A plug on their charging cable, then they are liable for any damage caused by their improper cable plug selection and lack of warnings.

      You think they're that dumb?

      Right from Tesla's site:
      NEMA 5-15: Standard Outlet 100V/12A 1.4kW 5km/hour
      NEMA 14-50: RV'S And Campsites*, 240V/40A 10kW 46km/hour
      NEMA 6-50: Welding Equipment 240V/40A 10kW 46km/hour
      NEMA 10-30: Older Dryers 240V/24A 5.8kW 27km/hour
      NEMA 14-30: Newer Dryers 240V/24A 5.8kW 27km/hour

      Note that the number after the dash for NEMA designations is the max amps. Generally speaking when somebody says '15A connection' or some such, they're talking about the NEMA 5-15 connector, not the amps the car's pulling.

      *Interesting:Hit up a RV park or camp site, set up a tent for the night and have a fully charged Tesla in the morning.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    2. Re:Is Tesla a Continuous Load? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Tesla can charge at any rate you want. In fact, it could probably get around this problem you're describing by pulling at full load for just under three hours, lowering below the threshold you're describing for a few minutes, and then ramping back up :-)

  28. A Whole Nother Bunch Of Points by sabinelr · · Score: 2

    FTA, the car owner said she set "the timer" to start charging at midnight. Where is this timer, in the car or on the charger connection? Maybe she is using one of those $4 light timers. Does anyone know if the Tesla can turn on its own charging system at some designated time? For that matter, how does the Tesla know what time it is? The fire department might be familiar with historic causes of fires, but (1) hardly any fireman knows anything about electricity as such, and (2) they could scarcely know anything about garage fires associated with electric cars, since so far we only know of somewhere in the vicinity of one happening.

    1. Re:A Whole Nother Bunch Of Points by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 1

      FTA, the car owner said she set "the timer" to start charging at midnight. Where is this timer, in the car or on the charger connection? Maybe she is using one of those $4 light timers. Does anyone know if the Tesla can turn on its own charging system at some designated time? For that matter, how does the Tesla know what time it is? The fire department might be familiar with historic causes of fires, but (1) hardly any fireman knows anything about electricity as such, and (2) they could scarcely know anything about garage fires associated with electric cars, since so far we only know of somewhere in the vicinity of one happening.

      My Ford PHEV does this, one presumes the Tesla can as well. Rates are cheaper at midnight, so it's a common feature in PHEVs and EVs.

      Cars have relatively advanced computers these days, and one of the things those computers contain is a clock.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    2. Re:A Whole Nother Bunch Of Points by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      It looks like they added the ability to tell the car to start charging at a certain time around march of this year, so it may not have been a separate plugin timer.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    3. Re:A Whole Nother Bunch Of Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can set the Tesla to charge at a specific time through the cars software

  29. This made news more quickly than Ford truck fires. by couchslug · · Score: 1

    If it's Tesla, it's news.

    Those who followed the MANY years of Ford ignition system and later cruise control switch fires might notice a double standard.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/27/automobiles/27FORD.html?_r=0&gwh=376B79D2A392CB21E4879B859797FE30&gwt=pay

    "Fordâ(TM)s response to the fires â" first refusing to acknowledge that the switches posed a fire hazard, then conducting four recalls over seven years â" angered fire victims and consumer advocates. It does not hurt their cases that Ford was accused of dragging its feet in other high-profile recalls.

    âoeItâ(TM)s a cultural issue within Ford Motor Company,â said Rob Ammons, a Houston lawyer who is suing Ford on behalf of an Iowa man, Earl Mohlis, whose wife, Dolly, died after their home caught fire. The lawsuit claims the manâ(TM)s 1996 Ford F-150 pickup caught fire in the garage. The blaze spread to the house, killing Mrs. Mohlis. âoeItâ(TM)s the same exact pattern,â Mr. Ammons said. âoeYou saw it with the Pinto. You saw it with the ignition fires a decade ago. You saw it with Firestone. And you see it here.â

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  30. Genius! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh man, that's a brilliant idea. Who's with me on this? Let's take out loans. Buy some Teslas, short some stocks, and set our garages on fire!!

  31. cruise control element fires in garages by clay_shooter · · Score: 2

    Pickup trucks did catch fire in the garages. The cruise control stayed live when the car was off. Some rubber part could get a hole in it. Gas would leak through onto the live circuit causing a fire. There were sever pretty burned out garage pictures during that time. It didn't make a big splash because no one got hurt.

  32. Correction by clay_shooter · · Score: 1

    Ugh. People did die in the house fires. Sorry for the error.

  33. only wood finishing oils, not lubrication oils by Chirs · · Score: 1

    You want one like linseed oil that will heat up via chemical reaction.

  34. Physics isn't magic anymore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not just this.
    1) The rag was left out in the sun.
    2) There's no temperature gauge, so you can't tell if it's 0F or 110F.
    3) There's some kind of unnatural glare going on. It could just be the rag is soaked with so much oil that it's outright reflecting the sunlight, but not knowing how the rag was prepared, I wonder if there's something say, concentrating the sunlight.

    While spontaneous combustion is pretty cool to see, the reliabilty of this video is questionable.

    The flash point of rosewood oil according to MSDS is 184F, so clearly the rag must have reached that temperature one way or another.

  35. Google says hi. by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

    U.S. fire departments responded to an estimated average of 152,300 automobile fires per year in 2006-2010. These fires caused an average of 209 civilian deaths, 764 civilian injuries, and $536 million in direct property damage. [...] On average, 17 automobile fires were reported per hour. These fires killed an average of four people every week.

    http://www.nfpa.org/safety-information/for-consumers/vehicles

    U.S. Vehicle Fire Trends and Patterns (pdf)

    --
    Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  36. Agreed - now BASEMENT fires... by turrican · · Score: 1

    You think we'd hear about more of those...

  37. Projecting much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He will pay someone else

    Just as your employers did you?

  38. Observation bias by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    You have to remember that the news likes to report 'news', IE unusual events. If car fires are frequent enough to not be news, but aren't so high as to trigger a 'trend' type news program, then you don't see them.

    Tesla vehicles are distinctive, new, unusual, and thus more newsworthy. We hear pretty much every event with one.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  39. automatic fire extinguisher by thygate · · Score: 1

    why don't they just install an automatic fire extinguisher. problem solved, and bonus points for being innovative.

  40. Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The incident caused up to $25,000 of damage, though the Model S itself sustained only light smoke damage. Nobody in the house was injured."

    How could the fire start in the car and yet cause "only light smoke damage" to the car but $25,000 of other damage?

    I'm not a fire expert, but I play one on the intertubes.

    If the source of the fire was the car, it should be first thing consumed by the fire.

    I say "No lock Shershit"

    I ain't no rocket surgeon, but this smells of BS bigtime.

    The wall socket was NOT sufficiently wired for 240 volts and overheated, igniting the cardboard boxes stored nearby, Put a big load on an electric sircuit with small wires, and guess what, it overheats!! That's why we have electric codes to specify the wire composition and size!

    I've seen the real wiring goofup on a real U.S., GM car, 71 Chevelle or something like that, that caught fire just parked and turned off. The guy used doorbell wire on his alternater that should have been at least 1/4 inch thick copper, (maybe not properly grounded, I don't know, I only play an electrical engineeer on the Intertubes). The wire just went over and barely touched the radiater hose because it had to snake through. Its the big one that comes off your battery and goes to the alternater, the one thats normally a quarter inch thick. It melted through the radiator hose, letting the water drain out, and then ignited the rubber of the radiater hose. Bet you never saw that in the news. Somebody had walked by and hollered "Your car's on fire!" and we ran over and sure enough, the smoke was pouring out.

  41. Learn statistics, kid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One data point is valueless on constituting risk.

    But this makes a bogeyman of those hippie green cars, so you'll just blather ahead with paranoid delusion.

  42. Aluminum Use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aluminum is fine to use where:

    1. There is not much flex -- this is why Generators disallow it, vibration can crack it - spiking resistance -- adding heat and causing a fire hazard.

    2. There is plenty of room for the wires to be connected and have a galvanic corrosion protection measure --- most often a protective grease. Failure to use proper protection against galvanic corrosion between copper and aluminum can cause corrosion, increased resistance, and -- you guessed it, a fire hazard.

    They got crazy with using aluminum everywhere without proper protection, and created fire hazards galore, but Aluminum wiring, used properly, and with the right protections can be perfectly safe. Is copper simpler? - Yes -- but people will generally size copper closer to the minimum required size than aluminum. So it's possible for a run to a shed someone would use copper with a 3% drop and expected maximum load, but if you run aluminum, size up enough to have a 1% drop at max load and pay approximately the same amount, or still pay less. Your master electrician may be a great guy, but sometimes you can do a safer run with aluminum if you have to meet a budget.

  43. Garage Smoke Detectors by jelwell · · Score: 1

    I'm wiring up a smoke detector in my garage. Smoke detectors aren't often found in garages due to the false positives they sound off on - because of car exhausts. I have an Plug in Electric Hybrid, and this guy has a Tesla. Perfect for a Nest Protect. No exhaust to trigger false positives.
    Joseph Elwell.

  44. Tesla has poorly designed charge connections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tesla has poorly designed charge connections that are known for over heating, causing fires and causing injuries. A firefighter was injured responding to the Tesla related garage fire. Allegedly a Tesla owner was burned on the hand and arm pulling off overheated and burning charge connector. Many of these poorly designed Tesla connections have overheated and failed. They are known for melting. Greedy people are covering up these problems.

    The way Tesla has designed its charge connectors, is likely to put undue stress and possibly cause wall outlets to fail. Their adapter acts as a lever to increase the force on an outlet, so someone pulling on the cord, the weight of the module, and anyone tripping or tuging on the cord, the force is multiplied. The typical configuration as many connections close together which concentrates the heat and increases the odds of a bad connection and increases the odds of a fire.

    The Tesla software update is just a Band-Aid. There still is an underlying issue of bad Tesla hardware/electrical connections. All electric automotive manufactures need to be more careful about engineering designs, manufacturing and addressing safety complaints/criticisms of batteries and charging systems. These problems need to be nipped in the bud now, before the potential safety hazards can multiply.

    There is no shortage of greedy people that want to pretend there is no safety hazard in Tesla automobiles. It is unwise to place a lightly armored automotive battery so close to the road. It is unwise to run so many amps through such light and poorly designed charger connections. Tesla cars are on video burning and exploding. Many Tesla charger connection problems have been documented.

    http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/15304-Plug-Adapter-on-my-Universal-Mobile-Connector-has-melted

    http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/18092-Schmelted-UMC-NEMA-14-50

    http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/23212-Scary-issue-with-Nema-14-50-adapter-melting

    http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/25444-Melted-Charging-Adapter-Cord

    http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/15304-Plug-Adapter-on-my-Universal-Mobile-Connector-has-melted?p=316665&viewfull=1#post316665

    http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/15304-Plug-Adapter-on-my-Universal-Mobile-Connector-has-melted/page7

    http://insideevs.com/tesla-mode-s-garage-fire-official-incident-report/