
Tesla: Third Model S fire in past two months - geerlingguy
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57611321-76/tesla-third-model-s-fire-in-past-two-months/
======
natural219
Regardless of how you feel about Tesla, or whether you believe these articles
are PR pieces written by oil shills, this is just bad journalism.

Good journalism would give us _any piece_ of the following information:

    
    
      - The number of fires in Tesla vehicles compared to:
        - other gas-powered cars in the same vehicle class
        - other electric cars in the same vehicle class
        - overall vehicle fire statistics in the country
      - A possible explanation as to what mechanism in Tesla vehicles causes fires like 
      this.
      - Some brief exploration of how concerns about Tesla's safety standards might affect 
      its broader offering, brand, and stock price.
    

Instead, we get:

 _Whether the latest news will have any lasting effect on public perceptions
is doubtful. But it offered more fodder for bears who have been dumping Tesla
shares since the company reported third-quarter earnings earlier this week.
Tesla 's stock has been on a tear most of the year but in the last month has
lost more than 20 percent of its value._

Wait, sorry, was I trying to be impartial at the beginning of this comment?
This is pure shill journalism. The big three are scared. Ignore them.

~~~
001sky
If you do the math you suggest, it looks like this:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6499111](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6499111)

Musk argued that TSLA was 5x less likely than a petrol car to catch fire on
the freeway. That math does not hold up. At the time, TSLA was approximately
equally (1x) likely to catch fire under these circumstances. Given two more
datapoints, that data is now TSLA is 3x more likely to catch fire, not 5x less
likely than a standard car in a fwy accident.

That actually seems like news.

~~~
001sky
Wow, thought police flagged this off the front page?

________

82\. Tesla: Third Model S fire ...(cnet.com)

32 points by .... 1 hour ago | flag | 68 comments

~~~
nonchalance
Criticisms of Tesla are quickly flagged off the front page

~~~
deletes
The real reason for flagging is not the supposed criticism, but the level of
bias and falsehood in the article.

~~~
001sky
_The real reason for flagging is not the supposed criticism, but the level of
bias and falsehood in the article._

^^^That has to be a joke.

__________

 _" For consumers concerned about fire risk, there should be absolutely zero
doubt that it is safer to power a car with a battery than a large tank of
highly flammable liquid," Tesla CEO Elon Musk wrote on a company blog in early
October._

The greates example of "the level of bias and falsehood in the article" seems
to be this gem. The rest of the posted article is just a news report on the
existence of a fire with a link to a picture.[1]

[1] compare: [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-28/tesla-says-
model-s-...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-28/tesla-says-model-s-
driver-unhurt-in-mexico-crash.html) The CNET guy is not guilty of selectively
reading safety reports and pushing misleading stats to the public. That
language was a quote from Tesla...

~~~
deletes
^^^That has to be a joke.

Ditto.

I was not talking about this particulate article( i should have added suffix s
to article ), but just my opinion why some articles are quickly flagged of the
site.

While I may be wrong on this one, it is still my honest opinion, and I would
prefer less aggressive approach in my replyers.

~~~
001sky
Just to point out, the analysis I did above is the same anlaysis the Elon Musk
did. It is using the same data. I just read his data source slightly more
carefully. Then, the next step was just to reflect the news in this article.
Nothing in what i just described contradicts your "opinion why some articles
are quickly flagged of the site." The issue at hand is your premise is false.
The article is a simple news story with a singular data point: what was (1) is
now (3). We don't need to do any hand-wavy analysis. We just stick in these
numbers and we have a pretty glaring inconsistency. Its not "a bias and
falshood" because it uses the same framework (so no bias is added) with a
single observed data point that nobody is debating (so no falshood).

------
jcampbell1
There are about 150,000 car fires in the US per year [1]. Tesla is on pace for
about 12 fires per year (1 per month, as one of these three fires happened in
Mexico). There are probably ~15,000 total Teslas on the Road in the US, out of
about 200 million cars.

On the surface, Tesla has .8 fires per 1000 vehicles, where as .75 fires per
1000 vehicles is the US average.

[1] [http://www.nfpa.org/safety-information/for-
consumers/vehicle...](http://www.nfpa.org/safety-information/for-
consumers/vehicles)

~~~
dkokelley
Great link. I was looking for some actual figures, but hadn't found anything
yet.

The best measure of fire 'likelihood' is probably the incidence per vehicle
mile driven, because it captures actual utilization. Right now, the total
number for 2003-2007 was 90 highway vehicle fires per billion miles driven.
([http://www.nfpa.org/research/statistical-
reports/vehicles/ve...](http://www.nfpa.org/research/statistical-
reports/vehicles/vehicle-fire-trends-and-patterns))

The question remains: what is that number for the Tesla Model S? So far we
know of 3 fires. The last piece of the puzzle is how many miles have the Model
S cars driven?

The average annual miles driven for all vehicles is about 13,000
([http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm](http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm)).
Assuming driving habits are identical between Tesla owners and non-Tesla
owners, we can get a rough upper limit of 195 million miles driven (the actual
number is less because most model S owners have had their vehicle for less
than one year). Back of the envelope calculations show that comes out to 65
million miles per fire (rough upper limit), without additional fires. Given
the above data on all vehicles, similar reporting shows that the average
vehicle goes about 11.1 million miles per fire.

Assumptions and research issues:

Vehicle fire data for 2003-2007 has not significantly changed

There are 15,000 Model S's on the road
([http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/20/teslamotors-
result...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/20/teslamotors-results-
idUSL4N0BK65V20130220))

Tesla owners drive the national average of 13,000 miles per year in their
Model S's, and have had their cars for an average of one year.

If the fire issue is systemic, the rate of fires will go up, and that is not
captured here.

------
tanglesome
I wonder how many gas-fueled car fires have there been in the last two
months... just asking.

~~~
jggonz
It appears that in two months, you can expect:

(152,300 fires per year) / (6 months) = 25,383 automobile fires based on data
from 2006-2010

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.

Facts and Figures

\- Automobile fires were involved in 10% of reported U.S. fires, 6% of U.S.
fire deaths.

\- On average, 17 automobile fires were reported per hour. These fires killed
an average of four people every week.

\- Mechanical or electrical failures or malfunctions were factors in roughly
two-thirds of the automobile fires.

\- Collisions and overturns were factors in only 4% of highway vehicle fires,
but these incidents accounted for three of every five (60%) automobile fire
deaths.

\- Only 2% of automobile fires began in fuel tanks or fuel lines, but these
incidents caused 15% of the automobile fire deaths.

Source: [http://www.nfpa.org/safety-information/for-
consumers/vehicle...](http://www.nfpa.org/safety-information/for-
consumers/vehicles)

~~~
001sky
about 80% involve cars in parking lots, at rest, in repair shops, etc. So, you
need to adjust the data. of the 152k, only a subset [~26k] were on public
highways. Once you do this, a tsla now has 3x (300%) the chance of a normal
car in catching fire in a highway accident, when corrected for miles driven,
etc.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6499111](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6499111)

~~~
rattray
Care to share your calculations? They're quite the reverse of my back-of-the-
envelope, which rounds to an egregious degree, and doesn't take into account
the subset on public highways or not:

150,000 fires / 250mm total cars in america: ~ .0006

3 fires / 20,000 Teslas (their expectation for this year: ~.00015 (4x fewer
fires)

I'm not sure whether we should care that gas cars catch fire in parking lots
rather than highways... it seems like a huge concern regardless.

~~~
001sky
You need to adjust your data down to 26k hwy fires and correct for milage
driven. For a comparison even to how tesla cites the data, see:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6499111](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6499111)

 _I 'm not sure whether we should care that gas cars catch fire in parking
lots rather than highways..._

These vehicles are typically not occupied. So from a driver and passenger
safety perspective...you really should care.

~~~
rattray
Gotcha. Thanks!

------
wil421
Why does the media have a frenzy when something bad happens to Tesla?

It seems like the media is trying to find anything to publicly put them down.

~~~
nonchalance
Far from it: Tesla was the one that came out and said they had the safest car
on the road. Even when NHTSA said it wasn't appropriate, Tesla flaunted a 5.4
star rating. Tesla supporters came out and said the first fire was a fluke.
They came out and said the second is a fluke. Now the third time is a
conspiracy?

It's possible that there's an engineering flaw or issue with new components
that underlies the problem. That is a possibility. To deny it is to be
delusional. We don't know what's wrong yet, and denying the problem exists
prolongs the discovery process

~~~
mvkel
I think it's more like a case of selection bias, like after a plane crash when
suddenly there seem to be a few more in quick succession.

In the time between these three Tesla fires, there have been hundreds of
conventional car fires.

Even per capita, conventional vehicle fires are much higher.

The difference here is every single Tesla fire is newsworthy.

------
cromwellian
Sometimes I get a nagging suspicion that there's a secret cabal of short-
investors hyping and egging on these stories through PR chains in the media.
On the plus side, I missed out on buying TSLA when it was cheap, maybe I'll
get the chance again!

------
nicholassmith
Just to put in perspective, Ferrari had 10 458's set on fire randomly in 3
months.

~~~
eli
Uh, and didn't that lead to a global recall?

My point is that I don't think it's anti-electric bias that is causing to
people to take their vehicle catching on fire pretty seriously.

~~~
nicholassmith
It did indeed! But they recalled them as they were dangerous at fault, it was
to do with some of the glue if I remember rightly.

It should definitely be taken seriously, but Tesla have put their cars through
the NCAP testing which does check to see if they set on fire after an
accident. I'd wager there's a specific defect that effects a number, but a lot
of the articles have made it out as if you're driving a ticking time bomb.

------
scragg
Pic of 3rd fire:
[http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3...](http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=34908&d=1383786543)

CNet is showing the first fire. Keep in mind the model s has a 12 volt battery
right behind the nose. It is in a much more vulnerable spot then the main
battery pack.

------
acgourley
Could you make money but lighting teslas on fire and shorting the stock?

~~~
jggonz
That's probably what the fire department decided was the cause of fire #2 and
fire #3.

------
lxmorj
150,000 gasoline car fires per year / three trillion miles driven per year =
one fire per 20 million miles driven for ICEs.

three Model S car fires / 100 million miles of Model S driving = one fire per
33 million miles driven for the Model S.

I'm assuming someone was injured in a car fire last year, and so far no one
has been injured in a Tesla fire. So far, then, Tesla Model S fires occur on
average 50% less, and are some non-zero amount safer when they do occur.

Sounds pretty OK to me...

~~~
makomk
What's the age breakdown on those fires? That is, if you just look at cars of
a similar age to the Model S, how does that affect the number of car fires? I
wouldn't be surprised if most of those fires are in cars far older than any
currently-existing Model S.

~~~
lxmorj
Fair, but lots of fires are from internal issues. I think only 60% of car
fires are due to collisions. All three Tesla fires were from collisions. You'd
have to have more data than my attention span will allow to calculate whether
the collision-to-fire ratio is higher in a Tesla than a ICE vehicle.

You'd need the total number of collisions, and the percentage of those that
resulted in a fire.

You'd likely have to do some analysis about driving habits too. Perhaps limit
the data to comparable luxury cars. People bombing around in a luxury car
likely have different collision rates than the average Joe. More because the
car is faster? Fewer because the care more about the vehicle? I don't know...

------
shmerl
Right now they sell very expensive, exclusive cars. Are they going to sell
more commonly accessible models or production of such cars is prohibitively
costly?

~~~
blah32497
They have plans for a cheaper vehicle
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_BlueStar](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_BlueStar)

But they'd be competing against the Nissan Leaf (The Model S costs about as
much as two Leafs). I think the way car manufacturers see it, it's a little
early for electric cars. The Leaf has the market more or less saturated (and
they're not selling _that_ many cars). I'm sure Toyota and Honda had electric
cars in the pipeline and will flood the market once it becomes viable (ie.
when a good battery/range becomes affordable).

What Tesla has that the others don't (at the moment!) are the charging
stations. That may make them more competitive.

~~~
thrillgore
I expect in the time between now and the BlueStar, Nissan will have a PHV
priced in the same range as a subcompact. The Leaf is very cost-effective
given its current charge range.

~~~
blah32497
Plug in Hybrids? My gues is that they will not be around for long. The beauty
of the Leaf is that it's so fundamentally simple. A battery, some electronics
and an electric motor. It's fundamentally so much more reliable and simple
than a combustion engine vehicle.

By the time the BlueStar will come out, Nissan will have better prices and
ranges available.

~~~
thrillgore
Full-electric might have an audience, but I make regular road trips to
Chattanooga and Birmingham. The charger station infrastructure is simply not
there yet for 100+ mile commutes on the interstates. By the time the BlueStar
comes out, I could be totally wrong. I'm completely expecting to be.

------
gte910h
With this small number of fires, you can't get meaningful comparative
statistics between Tesla's and Petrol powered cars yet. Variance is too high
with this small number of incidents/cars on the road.

------
redthrowaway
Between their earnings report and this, TSLA's down 20% from a couple days
ago. Great time to buy if you're bullish on them in the long run.

------
jamra
I wonder if auto manufacturers are starting fires as a sort of false flag
operation against the good name of Tesla. It absolutely makes no sense that a
fender bender would engulf the car in flames.

The driver safely pulled over to the side of the road and yet the car is in
the middle of an intersection with the hood engulfed in flames. Check for
accelerant.

~~~
josefresco
If you believe this, you might also believe the republicans are DDOSing the
new gov health care website.

~~~
mkramlich
They just DoS'ed the entire Federal government and put the full faith and
credit of the government in doubt by risking default.

It's not exactly a stretch of imagination that the same kinds of people or
organizations might _also_ have the motivation, means and willingness to try
it against one particular website: the website associated with the very same
law, the ACA, which was their ostensible reason for DoS-ing the US government
itself.

And note for those who can't make distinctions. There's a difference between
whether parties were attempting to DoS the website, versus whether it was
successful. Also it's entirely possible and reasonable that a DoS attack could
result in being a partial contributor, though obviously not the sole cause of
its woes. Distinctions. Shades of gray. Life. It's subtle that way.

~~~
EpicEng
The conspiracy theorist's typical argument; a lot of "well it makes sense,
right?!" With absolutely no facts to back up the story.

