With Burning Teslas In the News Ford Recalls Almost 140,000 Escapes 293
An anonymous reader writes "Tesla received a lot of attention over the Model S fires recently, but they're not the only car company having issues with spontaneous combustion. Ford has issued a recall on almost 140,000 Ford Escapes for potential engine fires. With little media attention on the recall, Musk might have a point about the unfair treatment Tesla gets in the news."
"Spontaneous"? (Score:4, Insightful)
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re:"Spontaneous"? (Score:5, Interesting)
I had a colleague once whose Ford truck was happily parked at work, until it suddenly combusted for no apparent reason. Building evacuted, fire trucks galore, clouds of toxic smoke. Thank you Ford.
In all the cases I read of with Tesla, some outside event caused damage before the fire ensued. They are being targeted by the incumbents.
Re:"Spontaneous"? (Score:4, Funny)
The Ford was smoking crack.
APPROPRIATELY NAMED "ESCAPE"! (Score:3)
Maybe they can successfully rebrand this as a challenge!
Re:Happily parked? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, it was happily parked, until I walked past, and laid a thermite grenade on the hood.
Your credibility (wait, AC and credibility?) takes a hit, when you claim that a parked vehicle burst into flames. I have seen a lot of vehicles on fire, but never a parked vehicle that just suddenly decided to warm itself up. I'll bet you didn't see the fire marshall's report, which probably made mention of an electronic device that was left turned on, or some other logical explanation.
I know you are bashing just for the sake of it, but here is how the last Ford recall went:
The cruise control deactivation switch was live, even when the vehicle was off. It mounts on the master cylinder. If there is a leak, which the master cylinder was prone to, then the switch would short and ignite the brake fluid, which it was prone to. This mostly happened when the vehicle was left alone, as while they were in motion the fluid could not collect.
This is a very well known thing from more than six years ago. It would behoove you to relax, think, and leave the petulant teenage angst in the past where it belongs.
Re:Happily parked? (Score:4, Funny)
Damn those Pesky Facts!
Re:Happily parked? (Score:4, Insightful)
Thats very interesting since brake fluid is specifically designed to have a high flashpoint and deal with lots of heat. It sounds almost as if ford never heard of a fuse either.
But even if this is 100% true and accurate, it doesn't relate to the tesla because someone actually investigated tje problem and ford actually did something about it (recall) other than complain about bad press and pointing to other car fires to justify it qs common or not as bad or something.
Re:Happily parked? (Score:5, Informative)
But even if this is 100% true and accurate, it doesn't relate to the tesla because someone actually investigated tje problem and ford actually did something about it (recall) other than complain about bad press and pointing to other car fires to justify it qs common or not as bad or something
Unfortunately, your comment is not 100% true and accurate. Tesla issued a firmware update that stops the vehicle from squatting automatically at high speeds, because drivers have demonstrated that they can't handle the responsibility of not driving over things. That's not doing nothing. That's seeing what they can do about the problem, discovering they can do something about it in software, and issuing a patch.
Further, so far the statistics bear out the assertion that it is not a life-threatening problem, so it's hard to determine what you're complaining about in the Tesla response. While I hesitate to draw conclusions from such a small data set, the statistics suggest that he's correct.
Re:Happily parked? (Score:5, Informative)
Happened when I was at primary school. Something shorted out and started a fire and burnt several cars.
IIRC E36 BMW coupes caught fire occasionally because the cabling into the boot(trunk) lid would get brittle over time and split when it was flexed. In mine it manifested itself as the central locking failing because some wires shorted out. I'd imagine there's a sensor for the alarm, or supply for the central locking that's live even with the ignition off, so it's not a big leap of faith to see that a parked car could catch fire due to something shorting out.
Cars have quite a lot of 'live' when off electrical equipment - cooling fans for example - that can be on at any time, so faulty or ill designed wiring could cause problems in stationary cars.
Re: (Score:3)
Your credibility (wait, AC and credibility?) takes a hit, when you claim that a parked vehicle burst into flames. I have seen a lot of vehicles on fire, but never a parked vehicle that just suddenly decided to warm itself up.
And because you've never seen it, it never happened. But my dad's Toronado did the same thing in our driveway. He hadn't touched it for hours. It was probably his fault, because he was an alky, but that doesn't alter the point — we don't need any owner incompetence for such a story, because Ford does things completely ass-backwards. For instance, power is always in the door, and the switch grounds, rather than the opposite. Does that sound like a good idea to you? Doesn't sound good to anyone but Ford
Re: (Score:2)
the thing is I have seen a vehicle burst into flames for no "apparent" reason.
a faulty voltage regulator can burst into flames even when the vehicle is off. Now it has to be faulty in just the right way but it can happen.
I also started a car fire once. a guy needed a jump so I hooked up the cables he turned over his truck just as the engine caught the voltage regulator melted it's plastic housing and then started burning the oil and grease on the case.
So far tesla's have to have physical damage to the bat
Re:"Spontaneous"? (Score:5, Insightful)
If a car catches fire when it's not in an accident, and it wasn't intentionally set ablaze - I would call that spontaneous.
Re:"Spontaneous"? (Score:4, Informative)
Right, and the Tesla fires have resulted from impacts (accidents) with large metal objects that punctures the battery pack from below.
Well, when you're in the news... (Score:5, Insightful)
You can always tell a pioneer by the arrows in his back.
Re:Well, when you're in the news... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure the headline will be reprinted as "In the news: 140,000 Escape Burning Teslas, Ford Recalls". And I hear those SpaceX rockets catch fire every time they're launched!
Re: (Score:2)
So all those guys who create perpetual motion machines are pioneers?
Being crucified doesn't make you a saint or right, the opposite in fact. Only occasionally do we get it wrong and crucify the innocent.
Which makes your statement pretty much entirely the most ass-backwards way of evaluating a situation.
The term we use for people who think like you is:
Gullible.
Re: (Score:2)
The peril of new technology (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course Tesla is getting lots of press, it's because electric cars are new. People (especially Americans) do not like change, they assume that the old way is the best way. With every new technology, you'll have those old bastards still crying about how their gas engines never did this (Even though they do, and on a much larger scale).
The same press will plague the driverless car. Once one or two accidents happen the media will be in an uproar and so will the populace.
Re:The peril of new technology (Score:5, Interesting)
Electric cars are new AGAIN and they are very much the "old way"
Re:The peril of new technology (Score:5, Interesting)
My favorite exhibit at the Vienna Museum of Technology always was the Porsche-Lohner Wagen [technischesmuseum.at]. It's an all electric car built in 1900.
Re:The peril of new technology (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course Tesla is getting lots of press,
Tesla's failures are getting a lot of press because Musk wanted Tesla's successes to get a lot of press.
Musk cant have it both ways, Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Ford on the other hand, well we almost expect recalls from them.
Re: (Score:3)
Tesla's failures are getting a lot of press because Musk wanted Tesla's successes to get a lot of press.
Musk cant have it both ways, Live by the sword, die by the sword.
This is a Tesla success. Their cars catch fire much less often than similar cars from other manufacturers.
The most likely reason that Ford's car hasn't had the same issues when involved in serious accidents is that being an SUV the floor is that might further from the ground and less prone to being hit. Tesla have no introduced a firmware update that raises the suspension when travelling at speed to lessen this risk.
Re:The peril of new technology (Score:5, Insightful)
This is something I truly do not understand. Americans should be extremely proud of Tesla Motors! An american company launches their first fully in-house developed electric car, almost out of nothing, and completely blows away anything that is available anywhere in the world. Including decades old multi-billion dollar companies in Europe and Japan. This car is not cheap, but it is exclusive, well built, comfortable, reliable, has good range, incredible performance, is innovative and almost legacy-free. And very importantly (and surprisingly for an american car if I may say so) actually looks very good! Furthermore, the company takes initiative to create a very useful charging network, and has amazing customer service.
Americans, embrace Tesla Motors please!!
Re: (Score:2)
well, they look good in part because they poached about half of Lotus' design team, but thanks for the compliment?
Re: (Score:2)
Or, looked at without the marketroid glasses, it's an expensive Lotus with shittier range and longer refill time which sometimes bursts into flames during minor collisions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because nine out of ten rednecks prefer loud machines that billow toxic smoke over electrickery. It reminds them of grandpa's still.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Back then, even though many homes did not have electricity or a method to charge a battery, even less people had cheap easy access to gasoline. Electric and steam driven cars were never seen to have an advantage over gasoline cars other than the lack of access to gasoline. Once gasoline became popular, the battery driven cars were wiped out very quickly. Now, 100+ years later everyone has electricity and easy access to gasoline. It's hard to get people to switch over naturally, even with tax incentives
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
hough I would suspect that salty roads and freezing temperatures sure reduces the life of automobiles for many.
Which explains perfectly well how finland has europes oldest cars... at around 11 years average age for a vehicle on the road - not the average age of how long a car stays on the road but the average age for cars that are on the road!
uhh wait a fucking bit no it doesn't. what explains it is that finland has europes highest car taxes on new cars! and harshest environments.
what explains the "average age working age of 5 to 10 years" perception is just the american junking culture and the very low taxing of ne
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but older cars can be maintained by anyone with the mechanical expertise.
Newer cars have computars 'n' shit which claim to make driving more efficient but cost me more in the end because not just anyone can fix them when they go wrong.
A few years ago my family retired a 1980 Datsun, which still had an excellent engine but was finally succumbing to rust, being situated fairly close to the sea. Engine problems have rendered every newer car uneconomic to maintain within 20 years.
Re:The peril of new technology (Score:5, Informative)
You have your numbers wrong. There have been zero spontaneous Tesla fires. All three Tesla fires were a result of a crash. Musk is denying the issue exists because there is no issue. When you impale a car, things like fires are going to happen. That's not a defect that warrants a recall.
This Ford issue though, is a defect. Cars may catch fire spontaneously during normal operation without any accident having occurred. That's a defect that warrants a recall.
Re: (Score:3)
You're right, they shouldn't. And no Tesla has caught fire as a result of a minor collision. All the Tesla fires have been the result of major collisions that would catastrophically damage any car.
Yes, and it appears Tesla have very much succeeded in these aims. In all three major accident
Re: (Score:2)
The reason the fires started is that the "fuel tank" is sitting right underneath your ass
Same as petrol/diesel cars.
Re:The peril of new technology (Score:5, Informative)
no car should catch fire as a result of running over debris in the road as happened wih the Teslas in question
Yeah. That's a good point. That should be fixed in the majority of dino-burning cars. e.g. Buses should not catch fire after running over mattresses [abc.net.au], Ambulances should not catch fire while sitting in the station house [ems1.com] (most Ambulances are Fords, BTW) and trucks which run over tree branches [artsa.com.au] should also not catch fire.
not putting your fuel tank under your ass would be a good step towards minimisation of consequences like, say, fires, don't you think?
The fuel tank is under the ass of the people in the back seat in any car designed worth a fuck. Or at least, right behind their ass, and below it.
What sort of mental fault causes a person to argue that a fire which could have been avoided is okay because, well, at least nobody got hurt?
What sort of mental fault causes a person to assume that a fire which was caused in spite of a big metal plate was avoidable, and would have been avoided in some other car?
In the two cases where the cars weren't damaged by crashing into a wall and tree, the drivers were able to safely pull over.
Eh, which stats are we looking at? You're implying at least 4 accidents...
Uh, no. When someone says "two cases" they're not implying four accidents. And they only even mentioned three in the comment. What are you on about?
the Ford problem is likely to happen when nobody is in the car (if the engine overheating which eventually leads to the problem occurs during driving, the owner will be warned to pull over and/or seek service, at least for current models); the Tesla problem is likely to happen during driving and without warning. So, the Tesla problem is more dangerous.
You are being a disingenuous asshole specifically because the Tesla problem did not happen without warning. A major collision is in fact warning. Also, so far there has been warning. In the last case, there were even alert messages. If that's not warning, then fuck you. Also, the Ford problem is equally likely to happen any time the brakes are not depressed. It is probably more likely to happen while the vehicle is running, because of heat and vibration, and infinitesimally more likely to happen also because of the increased voltage output from the alternator while the vehicle is in operation (charging voltage.)
"Oh but what I meant is that the Tesla problem only happens after an accident!!!" So what? Accidents happen. Your distinction artificially created to confirm your bias doesn't actually help anyone.
Your comment is full of misleading bullshit artificially created to confirm your bias. You don't get to complain about the same without being the hypocrite that you are.
Re: (Score:3)
I am suggesting that there is something unusually wrong with Teslas in that their "fuel tank" can be easily pierced to start a fire, because of how it is mounted.
Right, I got that. The problem is that your suggestion is false. It's not easy. It actually takes major impact.
If you don't see how "bus picking up big spongy thing" is a less likely scenario than "bottom of car being pierced by random debris", please think a bit.
Well actually, I don't see how. I assume you have some statistics which show that?
You don't get to absolve yourself from safety problems because, "Well the driver wasn't behaving responsibly."
Yes, yes you do. Cars are expected not to behave nicely if you abuse them. They are only expected to function if you do not run them into anything, or over anything inappropriate.
But what causes the problem in the first place? An engine repeatedly overheating, followed by a leak, followed by a pooling. And what happens at the first overheat? An instrument panel warning. The timescales involved are nothing like the collide-warn-and-catch-fire Tesla sequence
The two situations are not directly comparable, I'll give you that.
Still DEFINITELY a recall issue, and Ford's not getting any brownie points from me for it - I just wish Tesla would make the same admission.
Tesla has issued a firmware update [teslamotorsclub.com] which mitigates the issue, stopping th
Re:The peril of new technology (Score:5, Informative)
I am not sure why you're fighting the evidence in front of you. It clearly doesn't take major impact,
Wait. That's totally wrong. I am not sure why you're fighting the evidence in front of you. It clearly does take major impact. A major impact was involved in all three Tesla fires. A major impact to the undercarriage is still a major impact. This is not fucking rocket science; it is, in fact, elementary school English.
To be clear: mounting a fuel tank with large surface area flush against the road is a generic road vehicle manufacturing fubar. Protecting the fuel tank, and protecting the humans from the fuel tank, are (obviously) old problems.
And yet, it is utterly wrong in the majority of gasoline cars, which also mount the fuel tank near the road, and which have less protection for energy storage than does the Tesla. You're holding Tesla to a higher standard than other automakers while claiming that you're holding them to the same standard. You're either hypocritical or ignorant here.
Modern cars are expected to fail gracefully during an accident, whether that's with seat belts, air bags, crumple zones, side impact panels, whatever. They may no longer "function" AFTER the accident, but their final duty is to behave as nicely as possible in preventing people from being seriously injured/killed.
The Tesla does all of this to a greater degree than the gasoline vehicles, according to the available statistics.
it is the driver's responsibility to drive the car.
What does that last sentence mean?
Your inability to understand it means I want you nowhere near me on the roads. Please don't drive in NoCal.
I don't think we have enough evidence that a Tesla is safer than a comparably built ICE car with similar usage profiles.
Right, I don't either. I think that so far the statistics suggest that a Tesla is safer, but they are inadequate in number to make declarative statements based on them. We have however seen that even when a Tesla is damaged to the point that it catches fire, the occupants have so far been safe.
Re:The peril of new technology (Score:4, Informative)
"Running over debris" is not an adequate description of the events. In the first case, the debris impaled the car with a 25 tonne force. In the second case, the car drove through a roundabout, through a wall, and crashed into a tree. In the third case, the car hit a trailer hitch that was sticking up with enough force to lift the car and gouge the tarmac.
Any similar car is going to be catastrophically damaged by events like this, including significant risk of catching fire. It is not reasonable to consider a car catching fire as a result of events like that as defective.
Nobody has said that. It's not reasonable to describe these fires as avoidable. You can't make massive, portable energy storage systems that are immune to fire in the event of severe damage, whether those energy storage systems are batteries or petrol.
I'm not, you just don't know what you are talking about. The second accident involved a car driving through a roundabout, through a wall, and into a tree. You are counting that as two accidents because you aren't informed about the accidents you are talking about.
You require evidence that a traditional car impaled with a 25 tonne force is a fire risk, or that a car that crashes through a wall and into a tree is a fire risk? You think that a traditional car would have remained controllable after being impaled? You think that a traditional car would have stopped the fire from reaching the cabin?
Of course it wasn't. But that's not what the NHTSA said. They said that the fire wasn't a result of a defect in the car. Of course they didn't say that it wasn't the car's fault it encountered debris. You are just saying that to deflect away from the fact that they said the fire wasn't the car's fault.
No, you still aren't comparing like for like. You are comparing two mutually exclusive things. You are comparing the likelihood of a major accident causing a fire with a Tesla to the likelihood of a design/construction fault causing a fire with a Ford. These are dissimilar, mutually exclusive scenarios. What you are failing to take into account are the similar scenarios on each side. The proper thing to compare the Ford problem with is the design/construction faults that cause spontaneous fires in Tesla cars. This number is zero. The proper thing to compare the Tesla problem with is the likelihood that a Ford car will catch fire after a major accident. This number is non-zero.
If you want to conflate the two dissimilar issues, you need to take into account the likelihood that a Ford car will catch fire after a major accident. This is not being accounted for in the fires associated with the recall. The reason for this being that nobody considers it to be a design fault if a traditional car catches fire after a major accident. The same should apply to Tesla cars.
Re: (Score:3)
And if a Tesla car can have its battery impaled with a massive force at highway speeds, remain controllable, warn its driver to pull over, and prevent any flames from entering the cabin, then I would say that is beyond reasonable.
If only there were some o
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with your idea is that gas tanks are not protected better. When there even IS a plate to protect them, which is NOT always, it is NOT as thick as the one on the Tesla. And they are OFTEN on the bottom of the vehicle where they can easily be damaged. Further, they are almost never entirely encapsulated, and there's usually bare gas tank exposed to the elements underneath the vehicle where any bouncing piece of debris can hole it.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, on your scale of minor to major, something which punctures part of the bottom of a car but not so severely as to result in loss of control... is "major". I only wish every "major" accident I witnessed was this minor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And Ford is actually addressing the issue. Musk is denying the issue exists.
Tesla have upgraded the underside armour, raised the suspension when travelling at speed and made the warning messages a bit more urgent. That doesn't sound like denial to me.
The numbers show Tesla in a pretty shitty light compared to the competition.
The numbers show that Teslas catch fire much less often than most of the competition.
Comparing to the Ford Escape isn't a like-for-like comparison because the Escape is an SUV, and thus designed to ride a lot higher. The Model S is a sporty saloon. All the fires so far have been people damaging the undersides of their cars by hitting l
Re: (Score:3)
The common thread in all those changes is cost. Digital tuning and volume control is cheaper than analog. A single touch panel replaces a bunch of separate controls. They don't have to change back even when it is unsafe because all of the manufacturers do the same thing so it is "industry standard practice".
Fire vs. Potential Fire (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe the media scrutiny is that Tesla's actually caught fire, and Ford is proactively recalling because there is a potential fire?
Re:Fire vs. Potential Fire (Score:5, Informative)
A quarter-million ICE vehicles catch fire every year in America alone so Ford and the rest need to be a LOT more proactive.
Re: (Score:2)
most collisions go without fires...
I still think the tesla pack is situated poorly.
of course the fords have a wholly another reason for combusting(failed quality assurance/production, which is something you can "fix" by recall maintenance, so there is something to be proactive about).
Re: (Score:2)
Guess what, in reality instead of euphemism fantasy land, Tesla Model S's collision fire risk based on the data is ten times more than 10 year old gas cars. Deal with it.
In reality instead of hand-waving dick-pulling fantasy land, we don't have enough data to make any such argument. Deal with it.
Re:Fire vs. Potential Fire (Score:5, Informative)
Ford is retro-actively recalling their cars after a few dozen caught fire spontaneously. Spontaneous combustion has yet to be achieved by a Tesla.
Re: (Score:2)
"Yet to be achieved"?
I don't even think it's a goal.
Re:Fire vs. Potential Fire (Score:5, Funny)
It isn't? Tesla needs to get their priorities straight!
Re:Fire vs. Potential Fire (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry, but no. Car companies don't just do recalls. Like all other companies, they first calculate the cost of potential lawsuits vs. the cost of a recall. Then if the cost of the potential lawsuits outweigh the cost of a recall, they'll do the recall.
The only way to calculate potential cost of a lawsuit is to firstly experience the event out in the field. Then, the only the lawsuit is more expensive than the recall is if the event is linked to a characteristic of the product's design or construction. Then it becomes recall-able. If a fire happens one or a few times due to the car meeting a very specific, user-created condition, then it's not worth a recall. If it has a chance of happening under normal operating circumstances (fender benders and other common accidents are considered normal), it's more likely worth a recall.
There is no "proactive" recall. Proactive means the action is taken prior to any event, as a preventative measure. Recalls only happen after an event has occurred, prior to it becoming widespread (for full disclosure, I could have worded that last bit differently to de-emphasize the event having happened sporadically already and emphasize the prior-ness, but I wanted to make a point).
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but no. Car companies don't just do recalls. Like all other companies, they first calculate the cost of potential lawsuits vs. the cost of a recall. Then if the cost of the potential lawsuits outweigh the cost of a recall, they'll do the recall.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration can force a recall.
Their record of forcing recalls is *spotty, but it happens every once in a while.
*Spotty because first they ask a company to recall the vehicle(s) and sometimes the company says "no," then the NTSA doesn't make them.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but no. Car companies don't just do recalls. Like all other companies, they first calculate the cost of potential lawsuits vs. the cost of a recall. Then if the cost of the potential lawsuits outweigh the cost of a recall, they'll do the recall.
Or the bad press causes them lost sales, Or the NTSB tells them too, or they do it pre-emptively because they know the NTSB is going to. Actually now days, rarely does it get to the stage where its a question of how many lawsuits are they going to get. Taking preemptive action regularly makes it easier for them to get lower settlements should they actually get sued.
If a fire happens one or a few times due to the car meeting a very specific, user-created condition, then it's not worth a recall.
Perhaps you should go get the facts about the Ford Pinto. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto [wikipedia.org] Recalled BY THE NTSB ... even though they
Re:Fire vs. Potential Fire (Score:4, Insightful)
The article points out that there have actually been 12 fires in the Ford Escapes being recalled
Re:Fire vs. Potential Fire (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe the media scrutiny is that Tesla's actually caught fire, and Ford is proactively recalling because there is a potential fire?
Actually, if you read the article, you will see that both sets of vehicles are having approximately one fire per 10,000...
"There have been 12 reported fires but no injuries in the bigger recall of 139,917 Ford Escape vehicles."
Re:Fire vs. Potential Fire (Score:5, Informative)
You seem to be lacking in the ability to make distinction. So I'll break it down. Real. Simple.
Ford. Whole car burn for no reason.
Tesla. Front trunk burn after high speed collision.
Ford. Bad safety.
Tesla. Good safety.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be lacking the ability to make distinction. So I'll break it down. Real. Simple.
Ford: Car burns when driver causes conditions for the engine to excessively overheat, until the ENGINE HEAD CRACKS AND STARTS LEAKING OIL. Cracking the engine head is not NORMAL OPERATIONS. When the head cracks, you are SO FAR beyond normal operations that the engine was never going to run again anyway, well before the fire started. Its not just sitting there and bursting into flames. Its catching fire AFTER i
not "over road debris" (Score:5, Informative)
The things that the two Teslas that burned out hit would have totaled any comparable sized gasoline car, likely causing hurt to the people in the car and very likely created hazardous oil spills. The people inside the car would not have had the chance to drive the car to a safe location to get out safely, but would have had to leave the car in the middle of a busy road, if they would have been able to get out at all. The chance that more vehicles would have been crashed, possibly hitting the original vehicle is quite real in such a scenario. Maybe there wouldn't have been a fire with the gasoline cars in these situation, but in terms of hazard or financial damage, the gasoline cars would most likely have been less safe and more expensive in a similar situation. Cleanup of oil spills is a lot more expensive than just putting out a fire, even if it was an electric car fire.
The third Tesla was crashed by a drunk guy and almost the entire undercarriage was knocked off. That may have not caused a fire if it had been a gasoline car, but it most certainly was not road debris.
Telsa did a remote recall (Score:4)
Ford will recall and repair 139,917 cars because of 12 fires. Tesla downplays battery fires.
Ford has to physically implement a fix for the cars in question.
Telsa, in theory, has reduced the risk via software patch that makes the car rider higher at speed (to the annoyance of some owners).
Personally I think Telsa should also probably figure out some kind of better under-armor, but it's not like they have done nothing at all.
I think they *should* have done nothing (Score:2)
The patch to make the car ride higher is going to mess with the handling and is probably mostly just a publicity stunt. I'd be happier if they hadn't done anything at all and just continued saying 'the car is safe, only the engine bay was damaged by the fire'.
better under-armor? (Score:4, Insightful)
Tesla's under armor is quarter inch aluminum plating. The only way to seriously improve on that would be to put something engine sized, shaped and weighed in the front trunk to take the blow. There are a large number of disadvantages to do so, both in daily usage and in safety. The car would be way heavier and you'd have a large lump of metal causing all sorts fo hurt and damage in case of a frontal crash. You can armor a car against all sorts of conceivable harm, but there's a practical limit. I think that Tesla thought of these scenarios and weighed out all options and scenarios and came to this compromise for a reason.
So far, the Tesla cars have worked as designed. Flames coming out may seem scary, but in reality, nobody got hurt and costs haven't been that different when compared to a similarly sized and priced gasoline car in the same situation. These cars have some rather fundamental differences to gasoline cars and we have yet to come to terms with that. If you look at statistics for gasoline cars, which have rather low standard deviations, you'd see that they aren't exactly safe in comparable crashes, nor in fire hazard safety. Because of the low number of Teslas and the short time they are around, it's extremely hard to say something statistically about them yet. All we get to read about are three crashes where they caught fire due to the battery compartment getting pierced. We have no idea how they are going to hold in the first 100000 crashes they will have, ranging from fender benders to getting squashed between two large trailers or falling off a cliff. I'm sure we'll see some things where a Tesla will do worse than the average gasoline car in those circumstances, but we'll also be seeing situations where they will be doing better. Tesla have but a lot of thought to the design of their car and they have used the possibilities of rearranging the complete propulsion to improve on safety in a lot of cases. Their simulations and internal testing have proven their choices to be the safest compromise they could come up with. So far, real world crashes have not significantly changed their safety model. There probably will be incidents in the future where they can only say "we didn't think of that", but these fires aren't one of them.
Keep in mind, cars aren't designed to be safe, they are designed to be affordable, attractive, profitable and pass mandatory safety tests. Ralph Nadar changed that perspective momentarily, but we've only been going through small iterations in safety regulations since that. Car companies mostly have been improving as a reaction to those iterations. Only a few car companies have actively been improving their designs without the pressure of regulations or comparative crash tests. Most companies will only test cars to give good results in common tests that they know their vehicle will be rated on. Once they receive a good or excellent grade in those tests, they're done. They know how to improve safety on their vehicles, but they can't justify the cost of that because they won't be able to recuperate those in a higher sales price. A good example of this is Saab. They lost, because they couldn't make their cars competitively priced, even though they were safer in a lot of circumstances. People just aren't aware, or not prepared to pay for the extra safety. Maybe it's time another Ralph Nader would submit the 50 most popular cars on the road this day to a 55mph rear impact, or a t-bone. Even the regular sized dummies have a very low survival rate in such crashes. Car companies know how to make those crashes survivable, they prepare their race cars in such a way that almost always, inhabitants of those can just walk away from such crashes. Maybe they should start testing with real world testing dolls. Use the extremes of the human physique to test with so you can assume that anybody in between those extremes will be safe. A non-overweight 5.5-6ft doll might not get hurt in a crash, but over 50% of inhabitants of vehicles are so far from that, that they will get hurt in a sim
Re:Fire vs. Potential Fire (Score:4, Insightful)
Not quite. From the quoted article, "There have been 12 reported fires but no injuries in the bigger recall of 139,917 Ford Escape vehicles."
But it does show a huge difference between Tesla and the management of a car company that's been in the business a long time. Ford will recall and repair 139,917 cars because of 12 fires. Tesla downplays battery fires.
Elon Musk should be looking at Ford management and asking himself what they know about making and selling cars that he doesn't.
Correct. Ford will sell 12 more cars and Telsa only three.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps it's because the Teslas were in accidents before they caught fire but the Fords caught fire during normal operating conditions.
Re:Fire vs. Potential Fire (Score:5, Insightful)
Elon Musk should be looking at Ford management and asking himself what they know about making and selling cars that he doesn't.
Translation: why isn't he burning gas like every other god fearin' 'Murican?
Re: (Score:3)
Why does everyone thing Tesla's done nothing about this? Because they released an OTA workaround patch to their software to allow the cars to avoid the issue, instead of a massively expensive and publicized recall, while they're looking for a better solution? Instead of finding out about a problem, keeping it quiet while they look to fix the problem, finding the problem, finding a fix, then announcing a recall publicly?
I hate when people assume nothing is being done when things are. It makes the people wh
Re: (Score:2)
Elon Musk should be looking at Ford management and asking himself what they know about making and selling cars that he doesn't.
That's a brilliant Idea! They could introduce a "Tesla Pinto", and have the cars actually explode and kill people, just like Ford: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Fuel_tank_defect [wikipedia.org]
And then they could ask for a bailout from the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) like Ford Credit did (and on which they still owe money to the Fed): http://useconomy.about.com/od/criticalssues/a/auto_bailout.htm [about.com] ...on second thought, perhaps Ford is not the best role model after all.
Better Outcome (Score:5, Funny)
With little media attention on the recall, Musk might have a point about the unfair treatment Tesla gets in the news.
Well you haven't factored in that with a name like "Escape", you know the outcome of any fires will be fine. No such assurance strapping yourself into something named after a guy who lit 200 lightbulbs from a power source 26 miles away [badassoftheweek.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, the name is just w pun. What they've meant is "once your car is on fire, there's no Escape"
Re: (Score:2)
The Tesla is named Tesla because you'll feel like you're throwing fucking lightning bolts. The Ford is named Ford because you'll always feel like you've just run the Rubicon Trail when you successfully reach your destination. The Escape is named Escape because that's what you'll need to do when it lights afire.
Only Ford? (Score:5, Informative)
-November 26: 139,917 Ford Escape vehicles from 2013, Recalled for potential oil leaks that may cause an engine fire.
-November 18: 707,176 Chrysler vehicles from 2003-2008, including RAM 2500 4X4 and RAM 1500 Mega Cab 4X4 models, Recalled for the left tie rod assembly, which may break, causing a loss of steering.
-November 18: 265,044 Chrysler RAM 2500 4X4 and 3500 4X4 vehicles from 2008-2012, Recalled for the left tie rod assembly, which may break, causing a loss of steering.
-November 4: 344,187 Honda Odysseys from 2007-2008, Recalled for software that may cause the sudden application of the brakes without the brake lights going on, increasing the risk of a crash.
Not all are due to fire, but all are potentially fatal, and much higher number of cars recalled.
Re:Only Ford? (Score:5, Interesting)
I like this one better
November 25: 14,909 Chevrolet Malibu vehicles from 2013, Recalled for the wiring harness under the front seats which may short circuit, potentially starting a fire.
Who cares if the engine catches fire, these ones catch the driver on fire.
Re: (Score:2)
these ones catch the driver on fire.
That's a feature. It makes for a more personal driving experience.
Re:Only Ford? (Score:4, Interesting)
My personal favourite was the recall of 3.4 million airbags last year in Toyota and Nissan vehicles because the ones in the seats may catch fire in the event of an accident:
"In an accident, the airbag for the front passenger seat may not inflate correctly because of a manufacturing defect in the propellant used in the airbag inflator, the companies said. As a result, there is a risk of fires starting or of passengers being injured."
You survive the accident, but then your seat catches on fire...and your door won't open... Just imagine. Good thing the media is informing us all about how dangerous a Tesla is.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. (Score:2, Insightful)
I am no fan of Musk or current electric cars but the fire/safety issue has been seriously overblown. More likely to catch fire in a 10 year old car by far, and as we have seen by the number of recalls posted above, many NEW vehicles have far more severe issues.
While I would not buy a current Tesla, it may be possible in the next few years to buy a hybrid that meets my needs and costs less than 25k.
And like it or not, EVERY manufacturer that is actually selling product in the electric or hybrid niches is hel
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While I would not buy a current Tesla, it may be possible in the next few years to buy a hybrid that meets my needs and costs less than 25k.
You could do it back in 2005, and you certainly can do it today. That's what I did. No need to wait.
Spontaneous combustion (Score:5, Funny)
Yes I want a car with a spontaneous combustion engine! It might not take me to my destination when I want it to, but it will be very exciting to drive.
Am I the only one who misread the headline as... (Score:2)
And, here we go again? (Score:2)
I'm not sure. I don't quite bite. I've only seen most of the Tesla fire stories here...and most of them in defense of Tesla. However, I've seen plenty of stories about other car companies having plenty of problems everywhere. I don't think Tesla is being unfairly criticized, but I think the community that has arisen to defend them is extremely vocal...to the point that they actually make the stories about the fires more prevalent. Hell, one story here talked about how common car fires are in general, so why
Re: (Score:2)
From my point of view: the people making the biggest fuss are the people who are decrying the "big fuss" around the fires. There's probably a term for this - feels, Streisandish...
The people making the biggest fuss are drawing attention to the big fuss, which is bullshit. Shining a light on bullshit causes it to be revealed as bullshit.
I don't know that a Tesla is actually safer than a gasoline car. I suspect strongly that it's less safe than a diesel. But I do know that a lot of bullshit arguments have been used to try to claim that these incidents prove that these vehicles are unsafe, and I have an allergic reaction to bullshit arguments. It makes my back itch.
Top of the line in utility sports (Score:2)
Model Ssss- I mean Canyonero.
Ford Recalls 140,000 Escapes (Score:2)
Ford recalls 140,000 escapes
Conveniently forgets about the 200,000 that didn't escape...
.
Percentages (Score:2)
Nothing is perfect. Percent of bad products is the key, not pure quantity. ( and how its taken care of afterward )
Re:Thin-skinned whiner (Score:5, Insightful)
One would almost think Musk had poured every dime he owned into Tesla and was in a bitter battle against an entrenched and corrupt industry. ... oh wait.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You mean the one he repaid, early? Nice try. Shill.
Re:Thin-skinned whiner (Score:5, Informative)
Actually at one point he did:
"Musk said he put everything he had left into the company, even borrowing money from friends. Tesla went on to close the investment round on the last hour of the last possible day. If the fundraise hadn’t come through, the company would have gone bankrupt a few days later."
http://thenextweb.com/entrepreneur/2013/10/31/elon-musk-failure-fear/ [thenextweb.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Since when is paying off your government loan 9 years early a bad thing?
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/early-repayment-tesla%E2%80%99s-atvm-loan [teslamotors.com]
Re:Thin-skinned whiner (Score:4, Insightful)
When institutions no less esteemed than the BBC and the New York Times have done "reviews" of Tesla that were somewhere between contrived and falsified (Depending on how polite you care to be.) to make the cars look as bad as possible, I think one can forgive Musk for getting a bit defensive and even coming out swinging when under attack.
Yes, they *are* out to get him (Or at least TSLA.).
Re: (Score:2)
More like, "A neanderthal ICE lover gets angry at progress."
Re: (Score:3)
A messiah? Hardly. Just a hard working guy who shuttles cargo and satellites to space and is revolutionizing transportation.
What did you do today?
Re: (Score:2)
I think if you look at what Space X has done it is fairly revolutionary, such as the rocket hovering and landing vertically. As for the model S, it has zero in common with the Lotus. Even the Roadster only shares around 12% of its parts with the Lotus and the chassis was heavily modified. Later Lotus adopted many of the changes that Tesla had made.
As for a longer fill-up, every morning I get up to a full tank. I don't have to stand outside filling my car up. For most of my driving I spend less time filling
Re:Unfair treatment? (Score:5, Informative)
The Ford's being recalled catch fire while stationary after normal use.
The Tesla's catch fire after a high speed incident. Two hit big chunks of metal, the other was crashed.
Intro to statistics (Score:5, Insightful)
In addition, there's a difference between a sample size of 150k and 20k. 12 out of 150k is a much more meaningful number than 3 out of 20k. In addition, Ford has developed a physical fix, while Tesla was able to impliment a fix via software update. If they chose to follow that up with a hardware fix, that has to be designed and implimented.
Given that the incidents in question were all after collisions that probably would have totaled most vehicle anyways, and were nice enough to wait long enough for the people to evacuate the car, I'm not sure it's as serious of an issue as 'spontaneously combusts while parked'.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah, and I'm reminded of 'Never buy the first year of a new/significantly revised model' my family taught me. I wish the best of luck to Tesla, but it's not only a new car, it's a new car by a new car company, using new technology. I'm shocked they're having as few problems as they are.
Other than it being out of my price range period, give me the model after the model X(the SUV/minivan crossover that's coming out next), after it's been out a couple years.
Re: (Score:2)
When you buy a Tesla for enough money to purchase a small house you expect a luxury car that is infinitely reliable, perfectly supported, and flawlessly serviced. When you buy a Ford you only expect to get a Ford. Even if both vehicles are comparable in reliability, one expects much more from Tesla.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, it's 30 fires in under 150,000 vehicles - the 12 you're talking about are 12 that made it to consumer's hands. There were a total of 30 that caught fire due to this defect, but a lot of them were still owned by dealerships when it happened.
Re: (Score:2)
And the numbers of failure for Tesla are even much worse than Ford: "There have been 12 reported fires but no injuries in the bigger recall of 139,917 Ford Escape vehicles." - so one in 11659 cars.
Tesla has sold an estimated 18,200 units through September 2013 (according to wikipedia) with 3 fires - so one in 6066 cars.
Neglecting or minimising this problem is a bad thing for everybody.
Re:The difference (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Ford fires happen during normal operation of a brand new 2013 vehicle.
Tesla fires happen after a severe impact able to punch a hole through a 1/4" plate and not all punctures have resulted in fires after warning the driver and giving plenty of time to pull over and escape the vehicle with the passenger compartment completely intact.
There have likely been a lot more fires to the Ford Escapes though they are likely due to other causes not deemed to be design defects.