Tesla Fires and Firestorms: Let's Breathe and Review Some Car Fire Math 264
cartechboy writes "There are about 150,000 vehicle fires reported every year in the U.S. — about 17 every hour, on average. But when that vehicle fire is a Tesla, the Internet notices. There have now been three fires among roughly 20,000 Tesla Model S electric cars on the road so far. The stock is down, the Feds are asking questions and the Internet is swimming in Tesla news. It may be time to check the facts and review some math (hint: we're looking at roughly one fire for every 33 million miles driven so far) and then breathe. Then look at what we know, what we don't know, and what we should know."
How about just battery fires also? (Score:4, Insightful)
What would be useful would be to also compare the rate of non-Tesla car fires originating from the battery, with that of Teslas.
It would not be advantageous for Teslas to have 'essentially eliminated" the risk of fuel fires, if doing so also include drastically increasing the risk of battery fires.
Re:OK, here is some math. (Score:5, Insightful)
Generally conventional cars burn when they are old. Calculate how many cars up to one year old are burning in comparison to Tesla.
Tesla fire is good news (Score:5, Insightful)
The oil lobby (Score:4, Insightful)
It is no surprise that the oil lobby is jumping on this. Even when in reality it is more dangerous to be in a car that runs on oil or gasoline than lion batteries. While batteries are not risk free, they are considerable lower risk than using oil and gasoline cars.
Ancient safety engineering principles (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Stored energy is a hazard
2. Humans are fragile
3. Therefore create barriers between humans and stored energy.
Any self-powered vehicle with useful range needs a lot of stored energy. This can be in a form that drips and pours out of any opening in can find, like gasoline, or it can be chemical energy in a solid battery.
Tesla engineers implemented point 3 so well that the guy in Auburn opened the door and walked away from the uncontrolled release of energy happening in front of him.
Complete non-story, until they start catching fire spontaneously on the road like my neighbor's New Beetle.
Re:Probably going to clear Tesla (Score:1, Insightful)
In all three cases the fire was caused by an event that rarely causes a fire in a conventionally powered car. That it was an outside source is irrelevant to this, as it's a normal hazard of operating a car over the road - regardless of it's power source.
Quite the contrary. In a conventionally powered car, the fuel tank is located in the rear of the car. In the case of incidents like the Tesla fires, the fuel tank is protected by the entire length of the car , while the Tesla's battery is only minimally protected despite it's more exposed position to such hazards.
No, the people who need to get a grip are people like yourself - those who, whether through ignorance or bias, continue to insist on making apples-to-oranges comparisons, misrepresenting the facts, and blowing smoke in order to exonerate the Tesla.
Re:American cars in general... (Score:5, Insightful)
... catch fire more than Japanese or European cars. Its got nothing to do with fuel type. Its down to poor engineering.
Or simply decades of relentless improvement.
The first automobile patent in the United States was granted to Oliver Evans in 1789. (google search)
The first gas powered car was invented by Karl Friedrich Benz around 1885 to 1886 in Germany....(google search)
Woops before gas power there was steam and electricity.
Still this is interesting and important if you are an engineer but
it is clear the industry is 'after' Tesla. The real threat to the auto industry
is the Tesla distribution model that has all the dealers in the US up in arms.
Re:OK, here is some math. (Score:4, Insightful)
OTOH, you could also limit the comparison to cars costing twice the average price of cars when new - those might be expected to receive better maintenance.
Re:How about just battery fires also? (Score:5, Insightful)
[Assuming that fuel fires and battery fires are equally weighted as far as severity goes, which is obviously some frictionless-perfect-sphere-style handwaving...]
Let's say with gasoline-powered cars, the risk of fuel fire is 1%, and the risk of battery fire is 0.01%. The odds of your car igniting is 1.01%.
And let's say Tesla has effectively eliminated fuel fires, but it's now 50 times more likely that your battery start a fire. That's a 0.50% possibility of your car igniting.
All other things being equal, I'll take the car that is half as likely to catch on fire.
(Yes, the numbers are all made up, but the point is, I don't care WHAT lights my car on fire; I only care how likely it is that my car will light on fire. Therefore, I think it makes sense to look at all vehicle fires.)
Re:How about just battery fires also? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't care WHAT lights my car on fire; I only care how likely it is that my car will light on fire.
Hang on a second. You make it sound like gasoline or batteries set your car on fire, and then your "car" is simply burning. You do realize the gasoline is 99% of what is burning, and not really the "car" itself, right? So there's more to it than the cause or frequency, but the nature of the fire itself. Gasoline is particularly bad because it is a liquid that typically flows all over and around the scene of an accident, then it is the evaporated vapor of the fuel that combusts openly in the air. Essentially, it will spread and consume the entire car and surrounding area because of its liquid nature. Lithium batteries burn in an entirely different manner. It seems likely to me that a Tesla battery fire would be much more contained and thus less dangerous than a gasoline fire.
Your logic is like saying that headaches and strokes are equivalent medical events involving the brain, and you'd rather have strokes since they occur less often. I don't think most people would share that kind of opinion.
Re:OK, here is some math. (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. With a straight face, they cite statistics comparing a new $100,000 Tesla with an old beater that is held together with duct tape and probably worth a few hundred bucks.
Re:Probably going to clear Tesla (Score:2, Insightful)
Man, your breath must really stink cause you're surely talking out your ass.
In all three cases the fire was caused by an event that rarely causes a fire in a conventionally powered car. That it was an outside source is irrelevant to this, as it's a normal hazard of operating a car over the road - regardless of it's power source.
In the first place the second fire involved a high speed collision into several objects. That could definitely has a reasonable chance to cause fire in any vehicle. As to the other 2 fires you seem to have some statistics that prove a similar incident wouldn't cause a fire in a gas car? It certainly seems to me running over something that has enough force to puncture "a 3-inch hole through the 1/4-inch-thick armor plate" would have a enough force to puncture a gas tank.
How about you supply some of this evidence you seem to have to support your fallacious claims.
Quite the contrary. In a conventionally powered car, the fuel tank is located in the rear of the car. In the case of incidents like the Tesla fires, the fuel tank is protected by the entire length of the car , while the Tesla's battery is only minimally protected despite it's more exposed position to such hazards.
So when you run something over the gas tank is protected by the entire length of the car? I really want to see how you're managing to drive your car standing on end.
No, the people who need to get a grip are people like yourself - those who, whether through ignorance or bias, continue to insist on making apples-to-oranges comparisons, misrepresenting the facts, and blowing smoke in order to exonerate the Tesla.
Wow, the level of irony in that statement...
Re:TFA is a Tesla PR piece (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:TFA is a Tesla PR piece (Score:5, Insightful)
Was the author getting any financial supprt from the Tesla car company ?
Really, you're going with that? Who paid you to post that? (So sick of people claiming anyone with a different opinion must be paid to post. I'd be rich if I had a hundred bucks for every time I'm accused of being Paid by X, only to be accused of being paid by X's competitors on the next post, often in the same thread.). You've been around here long enough to know better.
What the fuel source is has nothing to do with the statistics at hand. Fires per mile traveled is as good a measure as any other.
The fact remains that every self automobile has a combustible substance on board. Some burn less than others. Comparing power sources for safety is a perfectly normal thing to do, and when you do it, electricity looks way safer than gasoline.
Why is that so hard for your to see?
Re:American cars in general... (Score:5, Insightful)
The real threat to the auto industry is the Tesla distribution model that has all the dealers in the US up in arms.
Exactly.
Every dealer is gunning for Tesla, even while the big US automakers and the Japan automakers are secretly hoping Tesla can prove
this distribution model works. They would all secretly love to sell direct.
But dealers are going to point out every flaw with Tesla to everyone who will listen.
In the meantime The Volt, Leaf, and Tesla will probably all add Kevlar battery protection, thermal breaks between battery segments and go about their business just as Boeing did.
Re:American cars in general... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not unless the gas tank was moved to the front of the vehicle. And even then, if it didn't catch fire, it likely would have only leaked. The batteries actually create heat and catch fire.
I know people are scared of gas but gas cars actually have a few safety system built into them specifically because there were problems with fire in the past. This is no different so I do not understand why all the fanboyism trying to but but but everything. When gas cars went to electric fuel pumps, the fuel kept pumping with the key on and engine off so they put inertia sensors in them to cut the pumps if an impact was detected. There is also a circuit in most electronic fuel injected cars that will not allow the pump to run unless the motor is running. It measures the spark and if it is not present, outside of energizing when the key is first turned on, it will not pump the fuel. When we went to electronic fuel injection, the head pressure was at one point actually increased so a fuel line leak would cause the car to either stop or run so poorly the driver would pull over. The fuel tanks are designed to contain spillage in the vast majority of collisions and are tucked away so that it takes a serious impact to damage them. There are even anti siphon valves on the fuel line in order to prevent the fuel from flowing if a line is cut and and the car is off.
Most of these safety features were designed and implemented due to the small risk of fires over several dozen years. So we have primarily one manufacturer of EVs and it happens that there are some fires when specific problems happen. The solution is not to say, well, other cars can do it to, but to find a way to prevent it from happening or determine if it is such a rare position that it doesn't happen often. Maybe something as simple as replacing the aluminum shielding with a stronger composite material or perhaps steel and biting the weight disadvantage is the answer. Perhaps using rubber bushings in the plate in order to allow some of the impact energy to be displaced instead of all being absorbed is the answer but we will not know unless we understand the mechanisms causing the fires first.
I will repeat The investigations should not be seen as an attack but rather as a way to improve safety.
Re:Thank you for the submission (Score:4, Insightful)
When a car randomly ignores the driver's controls and accelerates and kills people, that's a design flaw.
When a car is in a major accident, suffers severe damage, and the driver can pull over and get out safely, that's not an obvious design flaw. Any car will fail given sufficient damage, so the question is how the car handled the damage, and how the passengers came out. So far, the Tesla looks pretty good.
Bias, plain and simple (Score:5, Insightful)
When a new expensive electric vehicle catches fire, it is news. Maybe not stop-the-presses news, but news nonetheless.
Yup. Comes down to observer bias, just like nuclear energy. A nuke plant has an accident that results in a tiny leak of radioactive steam (resulting in exactly 0 deaths)? OH NOES!! THE WURST THING EVAR!!!!! But if a coal power plant spits out literally TONS of CO2, ash, soot (and even radioactive isotopes that were in the coal!), and that's a "Meh".