
Model S Fire - shakes
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/model-s-fire
======
gkoberger
I agree this isn't as big of a deal as the stockmarket may imply, but this
line bothers me:

"That equates to 1 vehicle fire for every 20 million miles driven, compared to
1 fire in over 100 million miles for Tesla. This means you are 5 times more
likely to experience a fire in a conventional gasoline car than a Tesla!"

Americans drive an aggregate of 3 _trillion_ miles every year, while Tesla
drivers have done 100 million (and they don't cite this number; are they
including test drives?). That's well over an order of magnitude difference.
Plus, the average Tesla driver is currently probably a superior driver (if for
no other reason than they have a brand new expensive car) and has taken better
care of their car (since it's within 2-3 years old, tops). In theory, Teslas
will eventually become more mainstream over the years -- resold, price drops,
lower-end models, etc.

Again, I don't think their conclusion about Teslas being safer overall is
wrong. However, their conclusion of the likelihood of a Tesla catching on fire
seems off, and the exclamation mark makes this press release seem glib.

~~~
eridius
> _Plus, the average Tesla driver is currently probably a superior driver_

I can play the conjecture game too.

The average Tesla driver is probably a worse driver than the average gas-
powered car driver. Why? Because they have the disposable income to purchase a
Tesla, which means they're probably less careful with their possessions (as
they can presumably afford to replace them), plus the Model S is a sports car
so they're probably driving faster and more carefree than your average person.

Not that I really believe this, but come on, your argument is completely made
up.

~~~
SEJeff
I would counter with, "How dare you assume that all Tesla drivers have
disposable income to throw around". I happen to be close to buying one and
know a few other owners who are average middleish class people who normally
would have bought a porsche or a tesla. I work in tech and as a result am paid
pretty decent. Do I have disposable money (or my friends) to buy a Tesla Model
S? No! However, given where I live and where I want to drive + the recharging
stations, Tesla is a good option for me.

Do not assume just because someone is able to get enough money to buy
something expensive,that they have tons of money. By that same logic, anyone
who is able to buy a home is clearly flush with cash and able to throw it all
around. Completely ridiculous.

~~~
ruswick
The average yearly income in the US is $43,000. The base price of a Model S is
$63,000. There is simply no way to afford a Tesla as an average, middle-class
laborer without making massive tradeoffs in quality of life elsewhere. If you
can afford a car that costs such an absurd amount of money, you are either
living in squalor to afford it or you are not middle class. It's tiring to see
people who are obviously the beneficiaries of economic privilege pretend as
though they are "average." You are not, and to assert that you are
demonstrates a fundamental ignorance about the difficulties that "average"
people face.

As for the house argument, you and I both know that the two are totally
incomparable. Putting a roof on your head is a much bigger priority than
buying an electric supercar. People need to pay for shelter. They generally
can't afford to pay a lot for luxury cars. If you argument is true, why isn't
everyone buying $63,000 cars? (Not to mention the millions of people who can't
even afford homes.)

Your posts demonstrates everything that is wrong with class stratification in
America. I don't think you or your friends who elected to choose Teslas over
Porches know what it means to be "average."

~~~
declan
I know a local gardener/landscaper laborer in the SF bay area who makes $25 an
hour in cash by working after hours. If a Tesla lease is $600 a month (the
website says that, but it's based on some assumptions including where you
live), he would have to work about five hours a week extra to afford a Model
S.

That means this SF bay area laborer must give up a Saturday or Sunday
afternoon every week, but it's hardly impossible "to afford" or a "massive
tradeoff in quality of life." On the other hand, it's challenging to haul a
few thousand pounds of mulch in a Tesla, I expect.

~~~
encoderer
Ok, so if you commit tax evasion in an all-cash business, you too can work
just an extra 1/2 week every month to lease a tesla, after factoring in the
tax breaks EXCEPT... from my 5 minutes of research, the $7500 tax credit is
not a refundable credit so in his all cash business if he's not at least
paying $7500 a year in federal income taxes, he won't get the full benefit of
that credit.

Oh, and the $600/mo assumes a $7100 down payment, which needless to say is far
more than the average down payment on a car and is really more like what the
average american puts down on a HOUSE. In other words: c'mon.

Not to mention the opportunity cost of that money. If you're making $25/hr in
SF you do not have a high standard of living, especially when compared to your
neighbors which, studies have shown, is exactly how we measure our own
financial happiness.

~~~
declan
In this case, the SF bay area fellow I know works five days a week for a
landscape/gardening company and pays taxes on that income. ($25/hour cash is
additional off-the-books income.) And, contrary to your research, California
has a $10,000 incentive.

Though you're right about the down payment, so let's assume it will be a used
Tesla and therefore cheaper. And you're right about the relative comparison
point. But these were rough numbers, remember, and not intended to be a
detailed argument as much as a refutation of the impossible "to afford" claim
above.

------
mixmax
My boat's hull happens to be made of 1/4 inch metal plate (6mm) which is
apparently the same as the protected underside of a Tesla. I've hit a concrete
block, gone aground a few times and generally have a bit of excperiencing with
impacting hard immovable objects with a vehicle protected by a 1/4 inch metal
plate.

It takes a LOT of force to pierce 1/4 inch plate. My boat weighs 12 tons, and
it hardly has a dent from the collissions I and previous owners have been in.

~~~
nubela
your point being?

~~~
mixmax
that if a tesla has a 1/4 inch protective plate seperating the batteries from
the road it's a safe vehicle indeed.

I was simply sharing my personal experience with ramming 1/4 inch plated
vehicles into hard immovable objects to give some perspective as to what kind
of strength we're talking about.

------
EStudley
Tesla's write-ups on their blog are the most informative reports I've seen
written by a company about their own product. It's awesome to see this kind of
transparency as opposed just a copy-paste statement like "Tesla is
investigating the event."

------
patrickg_zill
I think the write-up is pretty good.

I would only point that 25 tons of force, isn't really a lot - I mean, the
small jack that you use to lift your car can be a 5 or 6 ton device.

You have a vehicle traveling a decent rate of speed, for it to strike or run
over anything at all will involve tons of force.

Neat explanation of the sort of math involved, with both SI and US units
[http://hyperphysics.phy-
astr.gsu.edu/hbase/carcr.html](http://hyperphysics.phy-
astr.gsu.edu/hbase/carcr.html) . In the example, a car going 30 mph (50km/h)
striking a tree will hit with about 48 tons of force.

~~~
justin66
> I would only point that 25 tons of force, isn't really a lot - I mean, the
> small jack that you use to lift your car can be a 5 or 6 ton device.

It's not clear to me why you'd say it's not a lot of force while making the
comparison to a jack. Take a jack and use it under the wrong spot on a vehicle
and you might get a pretty painful display of vehicle penetration, which is
what we're really talking about here.

~~~
marcamillion
....yet the jack produces 1/5th the amount of force.

Just to put it into explicit perspective.

------
codex
It looks like they're backing off the claim that the fire was contained to
only one cell. It's unclear, but if the fire were contained to only one cell,
it's likely they would mention it:

"A fire caused by the impact began in the front battery module – the battery
pack has a total of 16 modules – but was contained to the front _section_ of
the car by internal firewalls within the pack."

If the fire was able to jump cells, does this make the battery pack
"fundamentally unsound", as Elon has described the Boeing battery? Not
necessarily. However, merely puncturing the gas tank of a ICE car in this way
is not guaranteed to set the gasoline on fire. The ignition temperature of
gasoline is over 500 F and the gas tank itself is plastic, most likely.
Gasoline vapor is explosive, but the car was traveling fairly rapidly and a
there's a fair amount of wind to dispel vapor. The ignition source would have
to be heat from the metal of the debris self-striking metal of the debris, or
though both layers of plastic to the auto frame itself, and that spark would
have to find some gasoline, which is pooled at the bottom of the tank and not
near the top. I suppose it's possible. Car crashes do produce burning
gasoline, though usually it's a very severe crash that mixes gas vapor with
the heat of the engine.

~~~
001sky
_within the pac_

This is worth noting. The fire did not stop and kept reignighting. The FD had
to flip the car on its side and physically gain access by cutting the car up,
to put the fire out. Under this scenario, it seems dubious that
compartmentalization would be sufficient. Thermal conductivity at some stage
would overcome the situation.

Also, you are right to highlight that petrol fuel systems are a cause only on
a tiny minority of real-life auto accident related fires (~2%). The safety of
petrol engines is actually quite high in this regards (counter-intuitive,
perhaps). Plastic has the ability to deform rather than crack (flexibil vs
brittle) and also the position of the fuel cells is much more protected. Think
about the debris from front-tires -- much more likely to hit the undercarriage
(where the Tesla battery is) than behind the rear axel (where many tanks are).
Debris hit by the rear tires of course exits behidnd the car in either
scenario. This setup is obviously not by chance. The Li Ion battery is
probably low for COG reasons and fore-aft weight distribution. Li ION is much
heavier than petrol.

------
abalone
Question: Is it really that unusual to have 25 tons of force applied to a
point of the underside of the car in an accident? Does anyone know?

My conjecture: The Model S is a heavy car. Hit something pokey at speed and
you've got an awful lot of forces channeled to a point.

I also thought it a bit much that Musk tried to compare this to severing "fuel
supply lines" in a gas car. The likelihood of a 3 inch puncture severing a
fuel line or entering the gas tank is _vastly_ lower than compromising a
battery pack that runs the length of the underside of the car.

The Tesla's underbelly vulnerability zone is vastly larger than fuel tanks and
lines.. and a punctured battery doesn't need an ignition source to start a
fire, either.

~~~
chroem
Looking At some pictures and diagrams of the Model S battery pack, yes, it
does look to be about twice as large as the average fuel tank. HOWEVER, that
leaves out some really interesting things to note.

First of all, most automotive gas tanks are made out of ~1/8" HDPE. While it
has decent cut and abrasion resistance, it's of virtually no use when trying
to combat punctures and is also pretty flimsy, leading to deformation and
possible cracking during an accident.

While, yes, a punctured battery pack is guaranteed to ignite while a gas tank
is not, that is also the _only_ way for the pack to ignite. An object has to
physically pass through the battery pack, while a gas tank could potentially
start a fire if it cracks and starts leaking. There's a reason why you're
supposed to try to get out your car as quickly as possible in case of a crash:
fuel leaks very easily. In comparison, batteries are much more impact
resistant due to their more solid state nature.

Also, it seems that whatever struck the car seemed to hit under or very close
to where the front passengers sit. Had that armored battery pack not been
there, there's a very real possibility that the driver would have been
impaled. With that in mind, it should be pretty clear that this was a freak
accident and not really representative of the average car crash.

------
devy
Is Elon's claim, "the effective combustion potential is only about 1% that of
the fuel in a comparable gasoline sedan", accurate?

AFAIK, all the Lithium Ion Battery electrolytes are flammable (they are
pressurized in the battery container too). Depending on the chemistry of the
Lithium-ion battery that Model S uses, some (I.E. LFP) are safer than the
others, but still, 1% potential?

EVs like Chevy Volt, Fisker Karma and even Boeing 787 Dreamliner and UPS/FedEx
freight flights had been caught Lithium fires in air before.

~~~
Someone
It's a 85kWh battery
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_S#Specifications](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_S#Specifications)).

Gasoline is about 12kWh/kg or 9kWh/l
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline#Energy_content](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline#Energy_content))

So, that 85kWh battery, when driving an engine, is equivalent to about 10
liters of gasoline. I guess that's more or less what could get released in a
fire (corrections welcome; I don't know what kind of factor that 'effective'
could introduce)

If that logic stands, to get at 1%, the typical car would have to have 1000
liters of gasoline on board (for the metric impaired: that's over 250 US
gallons/over 200 imperial gallons). That, clearly, is unrealistic.

Elon may have knowledge of the loading state of the battery, but if so, I
think he should have mentioned that. Gasoline tanks aren't 100% full all the
time, either.

~~~
leokun
> Gasoline tanks aren't 100% full all the time, either.

The less gas a tank has, the more dangerous it could be. It's a common mistake
to think a close to empty tank of gasoline is safer than a full one when the
reverse may be true because of the fumes.

For example:

[http://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/worksafe/content/safety_topics...](http://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/worksafe/content/safety_topics/hazardous_substances/Additional_resources/Empty_drums_-
_potential_bombs.html)

~~~
jlgreco
I'm not convinced of that. If you are worried about the tank going "pop", then
a mostly empty gas tank would indeed be more dangerous. _However_ I think the
more typical concern is the tank being punctured, leaking, then the leaking
gas burning rather than exploding.

So basically if you want it to explode hollywood style, then you need gas
vapors, but if you want a very bad car fire, then you need lots of gas.

~~~
lostlogin
it isn't much of a data point, but when the fire brigade turn up to a car fire
they first thing they ask is about how much fuel is in the tank. The less
there is the more worried they are. I've been in the situation twice.
Presumably an explosion is more worrying than big flames.

~~~
jlgreco
Ehh, I mean, they already know there is a fire and that fire getting bigger is
something they anticipate one way or the other, but an explosion could take
them by surprise.

I _suspect_ that more people are killed by big flames than explosions, but
more _fire fighers_ are killed by explosions than big flames.

------
ebiester
Two things.

1\. I have had my gasoline car catch on fire in my lifetime. (That was the end
of the car.) However, it was having a lot of trouble at the time and we had
just taken it to the mechanic. (That's right, it caught on fire at the
mechanic's shop. We were still waiting to talk to the mechanic before going
back home when it caught on fire.) This was not the only on-fire incident
among our friends. One had his minivan catch on fire in a gas station.

But both of them were old cars. What is to say that most of the cars that
catch on fire aren't much older than the Tesla? What is to say that the Tesla
won't have more trouble as it gets older?

Oh yeah. The batteries will have to be replaced before the car is run down as
much as our old beaters were. And Tesla owners will have the money to maintain
their cars better than we did as teenagers.

So, what I'm saying is that the real test will be in a decade. More fires will
probably happen, just like regular cars do.

Either way, it's probably not dangerous enough to be worth avoiding buying a
new one.

~~~
reportingsjr
Curious as to your reasoning on saying that the batteries will have to be
replaced before the car is as run down as your old cars. So far evidence is
pointing towards batteries lasting much longer than originally thought. How
old were your cars?

~~~
hayksaakian
They still HAVE to be replace whereas a 30 year old car can continue to run a
Teenagers budget

------
Shivetya
I really don't care about "it would be worse if it were a gasoline powered
vehicle". That statement is simply trying to redirect attention. Leave
statements like that out of the problem diagnoses and simply concentrate on
what went right.

Otherwise it looks like making excuses and that is bad.

~~~
Jtsummers
To some extent the comparison needed to be made based on the media reports
calling into question the overall safety of EVs based on this incident. The
closest equivalent for conventional vehicles is a gas fire so pointing out the
(apparent) greater danger makes sense here.

------
001sky
_Initial attempts to douse the fire were unsuccessful. “The fire appeared to
be extinguished, then reignited underneath the vehicle,” the report said.
Firefighters had to use a jack to turn the Model S on its side, and then cut a
hole in the car to apply water to the burning battery._

He seemed to skip that last bit. (?)

~~~
baddox
I have seen videos of normal gasoline car fires that behave the same way.

~~~
001sky
What did they use to cut the hole in the gas tank with? Just curious.

------
001sky
A little closer reading of the report[1,2], shows that only 26,000 automobile
fires occur on public highways. That makes Tesla's single datapoint worse than
a conventional Auto.

All cars: 1 fire per 116 million vehicle miles/year

Tesla: 1 fire per 113 m vehicle miles/since inception

Obviously, the Model (s) being a newer Tesla model does not have the full
historical amount of "Tesla" Miles as the denominator.

[1]
[http://www.nfpa.org/~/media/files/research/nfpa%20reports/ve...](http://www.nfpa.org/~/media/files/research/nfpa%20reports/vehicles/osautomobilefires.pdf)

[2] Furthermore, only 2% of non-deliberate fires start in the fuel line or
fuel tank of a normal vehicle

------
lafar6502
Wow, first serious Tesla road accident and all they can say is how unlikely it
was. It was impossible before, now it's only extremely unlikely. Until next
time? There are probably many other ways to destroy the battery in a
collision, how likely is it to ignite when damaged?

~~~
dangrossman
It was never "impossible before". Just two months ago when writing about Model
S's safety rating, they stated that it was unlikely to remain the case forever
that a Tesla car has never caught fire or caused an occupant fatality.

They've always published First Responder fact sheets for their cars which talk
about how firefighters should handle a battery on fire.

[http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/downloads/201...](http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/downloads/20130214_ModelS_Emergency_Response_Guide.pdf)

------
anoother
As much as I admire the work Tesla and Elon Musk are doing, I can't help but
feel that the press releases issued by the company are at times overly
defensive.

We all know there is negative rhetoric bouncing around about this incident. It
seems to me that, _precisely because of this_ , there really isn't a need to
write in such a manner—trying to block all possible avenues of attack as if
one is a afraid of what will be written in response.

The tone, to me, betrays insecurity, and this seems something at odds with the
bullish, innovative nature of the non-PR aspects of the business.

------
tn13
The following statement is wrong at many levels.

"That equates to 1 vehicle fire for every 20 million miles driven, compared to
1 fire in over 100 million miles for Tesla. This means you are 5 times more
likely to experience a fire in a conventional gasoline car than a Tesla!"

\- All Tesla cars are new and almost all of them have superior drivers.

\- They drive their cars only on certain roads where as Gasoline cars are
almost everywhere.

\- You can not compare 100m sample set with 2 trillion size sample set.

~~~
zalew
And he forgot to mention many gasoline car fires aren't due to gasoline
ignition, but electrical failures or material melting (plastic/glue), etc. The
only common case of gas ignition is static electricity while filling up, f.ex.
re-entering the car while wearing a sweater (you can even smoke a cigarette
while filling up, it's the spark that's dangerous). Closed gasoline tanks have
been safe for decades and contrary to what we see in movies it's close to
impossible to fire them up even in serious car crashes, especially when
they're full. There is even a method for extreme freezes (-30-40'c) to light a
small fire under the tank to help the fuel flow to start the engine
(especially needed for diesels and low quality gasoline) and the only fires
due to that are when the stupid owner didn't realize his tank or other parts
around are plastic (which's quite a modern day problem).

------
smoyer
Excellent post-mortem!

And who would have thought a side-effect of disrupting the automotive industry
would be training fire-fighters on the correct techniques for battling a
lithium fueled fire?

------
RyJones
I wonder what he means by 1/4" armor plate - AR500? Is it actually rated for
armor plating, or just built with material from which you could also build
rated plates?

------
Kiro
Why are people on HN so keen on defending Tesla at all cost?

------
uladzislau
The title is missing word "incident". My first thought was that Tesla has a
new model "S Fire".

~~~
kintamanimatt
A car called Model S Fire would be like a software package called Microsoft
Crash.

------
rdl
So a truck driver who couldn't be bothered to secure his fucking load just
cost Tesla shareholders $1b+?

~~~
ianstallings
I haven't seen the debris but it could have been part of the trailer itself.
Not that it makes it any better. Things should _not_ be falling off of trucks.
Just saying that it might have been a maintenance issue or some kind of freak
accident.

That being said, If that part had punctured a gas tank of a petrol vehicle the
damage could've been _explosive_ or caused a fire also.

I like how they have calculated how this happened because that most likely
means in the next revision they may improve the skid plate or the battery wall
to protect it from such things. Or recall them and retrofit, if needed. They
aren't being mysterious like I've seen from other auto manufacturers. But then
again, not every company dives in $1B in worth after a car has an accident.

~~~
maxerickson
In liquid form, gasoline isn't all that excited about exploding.

Mythbusters did it:

[http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/mythbusters-
da...](http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/mythbusters-
database/shooting-gas-tank.htm)

~~~
stcredzero
Yes, but a car/truck/van will turn into a ferocious little bonfire given the
right kind of damage, an ignition source, and time.

~~~
001sky
IRL less than 2% of auto fires involve fuel lines/tanks etc. Your scenario
tends to play out better for intentional fires, tho. So, yeah if you molotov
cocktail a car it will ignite...but it does not do so under typical use hardly
ever.

source: the same one Musk quoted.

------
sgustard
If Toyota owners got one of these emails every time one of them caught on fire
it would be sort of a downer, so I guess you only have a few chances to make
it a PR event.

------
jmount
I've blogged a fun writeup of the math in the (unimportant and actually
against Tesla) formal bias in evaluating a failure rate right after the first
failure: [http://www.win-vector.com/blog/2013/10/estimating-rates-
from...](http://www.win-vector.com/blog/2013/10/estimating-rates-from-a-
single-occurrence-of-a-rare-event/)

------
fus
"Had a conventional gasoline car encountered the same object on the highway,
the result could have been far worse."

Diesel-powered car would be much safer, since oil requires something like a
wick in it to burn. It's hard to argue with Tesla's statement, since argument
is true; but it doesn't include this issue in electric vs ICE vehicle
competition.

------
robomartin
> This means you are 5 times more likely to experience a fire in a
> conventional gasoline car than a Tesla!

I LOVE THE COMPANY. I DON'T ENJOY OR APPRECIATE THE LAME MARKETING ATTEMPTS
THEY SOMETIMES MAKE. Just like that whole business of jumping through hoops to
make it seem like there was some new magical way to finance a Tesla, this is
wrong.

Trying to create a safety metric by comparing the number of fires to the
number of miles driven per vehicle type is pure nonsense. You have to look at
the causes and mechanisms of the fires and dig a lot deeper than that in order
to even hope to generate a meaningful metric.

Here's an imperfect analogy (numbers made-up): One million people run
marathons every year world wide. 1000 have heart attacks and die. Ten thousand
people have run marathons with our shoes and only one had a heart attack and
didn't die. You are far less likely to have a heart attack and die if you run
marathons with our shoes.

Nonsense. Right?

RIGHT.

Almost anyone would look at that and recognize it as a poor attempt to create
a nexus where one does not exist. I think it's bad marketing.

Now, if we started to dive into the statistics and identified location,
weather conditions, age, physical conditioning, pre-existing conditions (heart
problem they did not know about), etc. we might actually be able to attempt a
comparison between people wearing the new shoes vs. the other brands. Even
then, the nexus would be tenuous at best.

A similar exercise would be needed to compare car fires between brands and
types with any degree of validity. I don't have the time to dive into the
stats. It was easy enough to Google [0][1][2][3] and do a quick scan:

It is easy to see that young males are more likely to be involved in a car
fire.

There are statistics about different brands having different fatality rates
(not necessarily related).

Lots of fires are caused by running equipment. Lots of fires originate in the
engine compartment. Mechanical and electrical failures seem to account for
over 60% of fires.

The point is simple: Far more extensive and detailed statistical work needs to
be undertaken before anyone can conclude absolutely anything on the merits of
any particular car or design as it pertains to potential to cause fires.

Elon and his team are very smart. They know this. And this is why some of
their marketing of late feels really dirty and beneath them. This is Tesla
reacting to news that affected their stock price and, potentially, buyer
sentiment, with marketing rather than the truth.

Are Tesla's safer than all gasoline cars? That question is probably not an
easy one to answer at all.

There's the potential for a theoretical sort of an answer based on design. For
example, there are no fuel lines to rupture. Does that mean it is safer? Hard
to say. What do you compare that to? Perhaps you can list all the potential
sources of ignition and sort them by probability and MTBF? Not sure.

Of course, then you have the real-life probability. Once you get a million
cars on the road with all kinds of people, driving in all conditions, roads
and levels of maintenance and neglect things can change dramatically. If I
remember correctly Tesla has somewhere in the order of twenty thousand.
There's a reason we see major car companies recall hundreds of thousands of
cars every so often. Shit happens. Design error are made. And it can take time
and a massive installed base to discover them.

THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER is these are the kinds of tests electric cars will
have to endure over a period of time in order to reach wide adoption. Despite
what's been said here a full tank of gasoline is far safer than a fully
charged battery pack with enough energy to go 300 miles.

Before anyone mauls me, consider how many gasoline cars have been driven and,
yes, crashed, world-wide since gasoline cars came into mass production. Not
last year. Since forever.

There have probably been millions of accidents without fires, even with fuel
leaks. There's probably no imaginable way to compare the two at this time. We
simply don't have enough data. And, no, linking to a horrible crash video on
youtube involving gasoline igniting does absolutley nothing to support
arguments on either side.

The one issue with electrics that is not spoken of is the fact that you have a
several hundred volt high energy system that could very well electrocute
passengers. I fully expect that to happen one day (in general, not necessarily
Tesla). If and when that happens you can bet it will set the breaks on
electrics for a while and relevant stocks will plummet.

I still believe electric cars are the future. We simply need to go though the
evolutionary process that will make them really safe for hundreds of millions
of electrics to share the road. What happens when you have a pile-up of ten or
twenty electric cars on a fogg-covered highway? A pile of mangled wrecks with
400 Volt high energy systems is unimaginably dangerous. I can think of a few
horrific scenarios under those conditions.

At some level part of me thinks that fuel cells are the future, not batteries.
Having something relatively benign that can leak out would be a good thing.

A few months ago there was a horrific crash in my neighborhood. This 18 year
old kid decided it was OK to go 100 miles per hour on this avenue. He lost
control and plowed into a bunch of cars parked by the side of the road. He
absolutely destroyed seven of them before coming to a stop. Most of the cars
were mangled beyond recognition. He was driving an SUV with a lot of mass. His
SUV was nearly cut in half and impaled into one of the cars to a degree that
made it difficult to see where one car started and the other ended. Almost
like taking two lumps of play-doh and mixing them together.

No fire. Gasoline all over the place but no ignition at all. He hit the first
car, fused into it and the "ball" formed by the two cars proceeded to destroy
the other six. Absolutely amazing display of how much kinetic energy was
dissipated.

Had this been eight fully-charged electric cars I am almost certain there
would have been a horrific fire as well as the potential for absolutely
impossible to describe electrocution of some of the passengers. And, to make
matters worst, it would have taken the rescue crew far longer to remove the
victims as they would have to be worries about electrocuting themselves and
the victims (at the very least).

Until there are enough electric cars on the road to have a massive pile-up
accident [4] where most cars are electric we will not really understand the
practical reality of a world where every car on the road is electric. Imagine
having to walk out of a one hundred mangled car pile-up where every car has a
battery pack storing enough energy to drive 300 to 400 miles and they are
wired to produce hundreds of volts. I can't imagine anyone who understands
electronics and electricity that would tell me all would be well after looking
at the pictures from this accident [4] if all cars were electric. Look at
pictures 1, 8 and 11. No fires. Gasoline isn't all that bad in this regard.

[0]
[http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/v13i11.pdf](http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/v13i11.pdf)

[1]
[http://www.usfa.fema.gov/statistics/reports/vehicles.shtm](http://www.usfa.fema.gov/statistics/reports/vehicles.shtm)

[2] [http://www.chandlerlawgroup.com/library/national-vehicle-
fir...](http://www.chandlerlawgroup.com/library/national-vehicle-fire-
statistics.cfm)

[3] [http://www.statisticbrain.com/driver-fatality-stats-by-
auto-...](http://www.statisticbrain.com/driver-fatality-stats-by-auto-make/)

[4] [http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/05/world/europe/uk-huge-chain-
rea...](http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/05/world/europe/uk-huge-chain-reaction-
crash/index.html)

~~~
001sky
_No fire. Gasoline all over the place but no ignition at all. He hit the first
car, fused into it and the "ball" formed by the two cars proceeded to destroy
the other six. Absolutely amazing display of how much kinetic energy was
dissipated._

Fuel tanks/lines and related systems cause only ~2% of Automotive fires in the
US (excluding intentional ones).

------
nodesocket
I wrote a blog post on this last night (Tesla model S and the three laws of
robotics).

[http://justink.svbtle.com/tesla-model-s-and-the-three-
laws-o...](http://justink.svbtle.com/tesla-model-s-and-the-three-laws-of-
robotics)

------
senthilnayagam
Stakes are high, for sure

Elon Musk & Tesla would review its design, would possibly add protection for
these type of accidents.

Will any other gasoline car manufacturer be willing to participate in such
crash test what model S encountered, I doubt anyone will.

------
hipaulshi
wow. reading their report always inspires me to be a better engineer

------
hkmurakami
Totally thought this was a name for a new model S model, a la kindle fire.

------
zw123456
Tesla, recall is coming, that is obvious. You will be forced to put in
stronger armor underneath. So drop the price by $10K, or do the recall sooner.
Either way that is the reason for the stock hit, people know one or the other
or both are coming.

------
indus
> "highway speed"

crafty writing. read it as "high speed"

~~~
jlgreco
"highway speed" is a fairly common term for the general 55-70mph range. For
example, apparently the instructions to have the emissions testing system on
my car become "ready" after a battery disconnect involve "at highway speed"
for a half an hour or so _(I learned that one last week. Fun times.)_

------
oddshocks
He is just great

~~~
oddshocks
Downvote me for my opinion you HN haters bring it on

------
bsullivan01
Fire happens. Maybe Tesla performs better, maybe not but cars do catch fire.
I, however, will not be buying Elon's explanations simply because he seems
like a cheesy salesman and a media whore.
[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-02/tesla-to-begin-
mode...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-02/tesla-to-begin-model-s-
financing-with-u-s-bancorp-wells-fargo.html)

(Knowing the Elon is the Sun God among many here, I want to say this: I do not
particularly care about karma, I'm saying 100% of what I am thinking.)

