

Elon Musk defiant in face of federal investigation of Tesla [video] - codegeek
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101210517

======
codex
Elon repeatedly tries to misdirect from the issue at hand. Teslas do _not_
catch fire more often than the average U.S. car. But that is not in question.
The question is, "after a collision, what happens?" And so far, the answer is,
"the Model S has a 25x increased chance of catching fire." That is the focus
of the investigation. Fires post-collision are a bad thing, even if the never
reach the occupant: they can ignite other cars gas tanks (or other objects),
and impede rescue work.

~~~
adamrneary
It's not reasonable to say that the Model S has a 25x increased change of
catching fire. The sample size is orders of magnitude too small (there were 3
instances so far?).

Put simply, there is no statistically significant difference whatsoever
between the Model S and the broader population in terms of fires post-
collision, and Musk is understandably frustrated about the bogus press
claiming there is.

~~~
sp332
Engineering lets you model things without having to do experiments. It's
possible to know that a car design is more likely to catch fire just by
analyzing it. You don't have to wait for thousands of cars to catch fire.

~~~
shiven
And are you saying then that Tesla has not done the _Engineering_?

~~~
sp332
I'm sure they have. But as codex said, Musk is simply not answering the
question.

------
BHSPitMonkey
Wow. They're making it sound like the investigation is a bad thing and that
Musk is whining about it.

~~~
enraged_camel
Yep. This is a prime example of the massive media bias working against Tesla.
Keep in mind that Tesla doesn't advertise, whereas the incumbent auto
manufacturers do. Therefore the media channels know where their loyalties must
lie.

~~~
ubernostrum
Or the media will pick up and hype pretty much any juicy-looking story.

If I look back through your comment history will I find you suggesting Musk
and the media were involved in a conspiracy to sabotage Boeing (which doesn't
generally advertise on radio/TV) during the 787 issue?

Or are you, like much of HN, having issues with this specific situation
because it involves someone HN practically worships as a god?

~~~
enraged_camel
Boeing doesn't advertise because it doesn't sell to consumers. It sells to
airlines.

I don't "worship" Musk. But I am cognizant of the fact that he is one of a
kind. Do you know of anyone else who simultaneously runs two equally ambitious
tech companies, and, against all odds, does it successfully?

~~~
mytrash
Dean Kamen: DEKA and FIRST Robotics [0]

Ignoring the non medical DEKA products (Segway) I think DEKA and FIRST
(particularly FIRST) should have much more PR. Maybe you could argue ambition,
but I still feel like mentioning these two organizations.

0: [http://www.usfirst.org/](http://www.usfirst.org/)

------
VladRussian2
with all due respect to Musk (kind of hero of mine for fighting the uphill
battle to really advance our civilization), and with Tesla S being an object
of my desire, this sounds like a defect that have to be fixed :

( [http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/19/5121706/tesla-elon-
musk-r...](http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/19/5121706/tesla-elon-musk-
responds-to-model-s-fires-begins-nhtsa-investigation) )

"it was damage to the cars' undercarriage and batteries, caused by striking
metallic objects on the road while at high speeds, that caused both fires."

The software update to increase suspension clearance looks like just a [cheap]
band-aid to me.

The third car fired as result of crash - that seems like a real and hard to
avoid thing for lithium batteries and does seem like Tesla is ok here - the
fire looked to be pretty limited.

~~~
BHSPitMonkey
What exactly do you think _should_ happen when a jagged metal object collides
with your car with enough energy to rip through critical components? Do you
think susceptibility to telephone poles and meteorites is also a defect that
auto makers need to fix?

Short of encasing the car's primary energy store with 6 inches of plated
steel, what are you looking for, exactly? Is your car's gas tank similarly
protected from being physically damaged? If not, does your car let you pull
over and exit safely with voice and text guidance when a fire starts within?

~~~
VladRussian2
>What exactly do you think should happen when a jagged metal object collides
with your car with enough energy to rip through critical components? Do you
think susceptibility to telephone poles and meteorites is also a defect that
auto makers need to fix?

>Short of encasing the car's primary energy store with 6 inches of plated
steel, what are you looking for, exactly?

that is a bunch of 6in fallacies. Car fuel tanks are made of something like
1-2mm steel. As far as i understand Tesla doesn't have a 1mm steel sheet below
the battery. That is the defect made obvious by these 2 accidents.

Btw, modern cars are much better at hitting telephone poles and does tend to
explode less when being hit by "meteorites" (say bullets) than they were say
40 years ago. So, yes bad crash results ("susceptibility to telephone poles")
for example would be a defect.

~~~
demallien
You're right, Tesla doesn't have a 1mm steel sheet beneath the battery - it
has a 5mm thick sheet [1]: "Musk explained that damage to the armor plating on
the bottom of the vehicle was inflicted by contact with debris of a specific
shape that resulted in a lever action, puncturing the bottom of the Model S.
He noted that 25 tons of force would be required to make the three-inch-deep
puncture in the quarter-inch-thick armor plating."

[1][http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1319728](http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1319728)

~~~
tonyplee
Does it need 25 tons of force or 3 inch hole to get the battery to catch fire?

If the battery container is blend out of shape a bit, would it potentially
cause small short in part of the battery somehow? Would that start a fire for
the rest of the battery.

If this is the case, wouldn't the probability of car catch fire might be
higher?

An easy test might be take a few batteries and start shoot them with nail gun
and see it get shorted/heatup/catch fire?

If it does catch fire, put a 5 mm sheet there and see how many nails and how
big nails can get it to heat up / catch fire?

If any of the above tests can get the battery catch fire, I would be very
concern if I am an Tesla owner.

------
avelis
I don't know how they did it but somehow Porche found a way to get their small
plug in a news segment about another car brand.

------
kosei
Doesn't automobile crash data exist somewhere in the public record? Couldn't
someone ostensibly run statistical significance tests to measure the
success/failure rates? I haven't seen any real analysis on the subject based
on available data, but I imagine that with 19K+ cars having driven tens or
hundreds of millions of miles, that we do have a good amount of data to make
it worth it to investigate. Right?

~~~
threeseed
Automobile crash data is irrelevant. What we are talking about is whether the
location of the battery pack on Tesla's cars are uniquely dangerous. Which
requires an investigation. And which has absolutely nothing to do with the
apparent safety of other cars.

We are talking about people's lives here.

~~~
SwellJoe
Safety data _is_ relevant. There are dozens of new car models on the road
right now that are more dangerous to drive than a Tesla. It is demonstrably
true that if you crash one of those cars you are more likely to be killed than
if you were driving a Tesla.

This is a somewhat silly attack on a new technology. Tesla is, and has,
responded appropriately to every one of the safety issues they've encountered.
I'm not necessarily a "let the market decide" kinda guy on this issue, given
the way corporations have behaved in the past and given the nature of the
corporate veil protecting the manufacturers from liability (often even in
cases of gross negligence), but when it's clear the company is doing right on
a scale much larger than most other auto companies (I can't actually think of
any companies that have been more careful about the safety of their cars;
maybe Volvo and Volkswagen).

 _" We are talking about people's lives here."_

This is one of those "Think of the children!" kind of statements. When it
comes to cars, we're always talking about peoples lives. Driving cars is the
most dangerous thing most people do every day, by far. If you want to think of
saving peoples lives, start campaigning for more mass transit and fewer cars.
Campaign for self-driving cars. Campaign for dedicated cycling lanes so that
more people will stop driving and start biking (without the risk of cars
bringing their deadly influence into the picture).

That's not to say Tesla shouldn't always improve the safety of their cars, but
past behavior indicates they have that built into their values as a company.

I'm just saying that if there's going to be investigations, why not start with
the Dodge 1500 pickup truck (one of the longest running, most dangerous,
vehicles on the road)? Or the Cheverolet Colorado pickup? Or the Mazda CX-9 or
Jeep Wrangler? These are all dangerous vehicles to drive; they crash poorly
and are involved in more vehicle accidents where someone is killed or injured
than average (and a helluva a lot more than Tesla).

Statistics give us the ability to make rational choices in the face of
something horrible like car accidents and death. Sure, Tesla should mitigate
or solve the fire problem...but, when there are millions of more dangerous
cars on the road, why pick on Tesla?

~~~
rimantas

      > why not start with the Dodge 1500 pickup truck
    

Why not start with premium cars released at the same time as Tesla?

------
transfire
They will not rest until Musk is destroyed. Oil=>$=>Media. Oil=>$=>Government.
Oil hates Electric. So guess where Government and Media come down? Think
that's crap? They have already outlawed the sale of Teslas in some states.
They're just getting started folks. And then they're going to force Hydrogen
cars down our throats. Talk about your fires! Anyone remember the Hindenburg?

------
jusben1369
It would be interesting to compare this in a fair apples to apples way. You'd
want to take competing cars to the Tesla of the same age. So how many car
fires have their been amongst all the BMW 5/7 series, Mercedes E and S series
that are 3 years or newer etc. Then you'd get a similar looking sample size
for all the critical elements I would think.

------
TheBiv
There is simply not enough time for either NTHSA or Elon Musk's comments to be
true bc there is not enough data to be able to compare him to say GM/Ford/etc
in regards to whether or not Tesla's are the safest cars on the road or wether
the battery pack makes it more/less safe than the gas powered vehicles that
catch fire.

~~~
Shivetya
Quit comparing them to gasoline powered cars. We have a car more than
qualified to compare it to, the Nissan Leaf. So the real question is, in
comparable accidents is the Leaf as prone to a fire that destroys the vehicle?
Was a compromise made in the S with the pack design so as to facilitate pack
swaps that perhaps made it vulnerable when it would not have otherwise been?
Also, is the battery design more susceptible to fires than that employed by
other cars, namely the Leaf?

I am a fan of alternative methods to power car and motorcycles. Yet the
questions for each is the same, what are the safety issues with each and what
compromises end up affecting safety?

~~~
JohnTHaller
> Quit comparing them to gasoline powered cars.

Why? That's what these are being compared to in pretty much every other
situation. It's a car. It's powered by something different, but it's still a
car. Is it more or less safe than other cars?

Are you really saying that if this is less safe than a Nissan Leaf (one
specific car that's not in the same car class) it should be forced to change
its design to raise the batteries higher -- raising the center of gravity and
affecting handling -- even if it is as safe as or more safe than similar
gasoline-powered cars in its class?

If that's the situation, should we force one specific gasoline-powered luxury
sedan to change its design if its less safe than a specific gas car in another
class?

~~~
humanrebar
Do you know what car is least likely to catch fire? A horse.

Honestly, as long as consumers are given accurate statistics regarding how
safe these vehicles are, I think they should be able to buy (and insure) them
even if they are a little less safe.

~~~
mdellabitta
> Do you know what car is least likely to catch fire? A horse.

Actually, their fuel source conveys a significant fire risk:

[http://bchanicker.org/2013/09/27/risk-of-spontaneous-
combust...](http://bchanicker.org/2013/09/27/risk-of-spontaneous-combustion-
of-wet-hay/)

------
notdrunkatall
Keep dropping, TSLA! Another $50 or so and I'll start buying back in...

