Model S catches on fire - Page 2 - Chevy Bolt EV Forum
User Tag List

 3Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #11 of 22 (permalink) Old 04-23-2019, 03:59 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 70
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
It makes no **** difference how many fires are caused by ICE cars. This is a red herring always thrown in by people who are on the defensive. Same as "but daddy, she hit me first!"
This is a new technology and we get to start over and make the world a better and safer place. Not be smug and in contempt because we are not quite as bad as the other guy. If Tesla and any other car manufacturer are trading off safety for range than this is just wrong and has nothing to do with statistics of gas powered cars.
If I'm walking down the street and there is a drive by shooting and the bullet just misses me I don't get to go home and say guns in the hands of gangsters is ok cause look, I'm still alive.

I'm am totally open to hearing that in China they ran over a chunk of road debris and that is what caused the S to burn. Still makes me wonder about shielding though.

And yes, it should make the news and be in the headlines just like the BMW's and Mini Coopers that spontaneously combusted were. Fair is fair and people need to know what they are getting into. How safe do you feel tonight parking your Tesla S in your garage with all your other toys and your loved ones sleeping feet away? How safe is the Bolt really? No one really knows but to hide behind statistics to say "not that bad really, just look at ICE cars".

Oh I almost forgot, the Boeing Max 8 crashes are not that big a deal because statiscally, airplane travel is getting safer every year. We all accept a certain amount of risk in our lives, and car driving is dangerous enough without car companies spiking the punch. Thinking Ford Pinto here. I truly, truly hope this is not the case with Tesla. Keeping an open mind.
RichardC is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #12 of 22 (permalink) Old 04-23-2019, 04:45 PM
Senior Member
 
Mister Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Illinois
Posts: 150
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardC View Post
It makes no **** difference how many fires are caused by ICE cars.
That's right. I doesn't matter that Teslas are more likely to catch fire than Chevys either. California is more likely to catch fire than Montana. I don't own a Tesla or live in California, but for the most part I don't think anyone should be overly worried about either unless you actually smell smoke.

It's a car fire. Watch it burn, say "wow" and move on. If it's your car, then my condolences to you.
Mister Dave is offline  
post #13 of 22 (permalink) Old 04-23-2019, 06:53 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 2,002
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 708 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardC View Post
I'm am totally open to hearing that in China they ran over a chunk of road debris and that is what caused the S to burn. Still makes me wonder about shielding though.
This is the typical scenario, where someone runs over debris that penetrates the shield on the battery pack. Can't imagine that one wouldn't hear the impact. If you run over something, don't go parking any EV in your garage until you're satisfied that it didn't do more damage than you think. Same goes with a gas car, you penetrate the fuel tank, don't park in your garage either. Maybe an improvement to EV's is an odorant that stinks so bad, you'll know that you've damaged the battery.
XJ12 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #14 of 22 (permalink) Old 04-23-2019, 07:50 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Berkeley Springs WV
Posts: 114
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Has a Bolt ever caught on fire? I don't recall ever reading about one.
wvblt is offline  
post #15 of 22 (permalink) Old 04-23-2019, 08:08 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 2,002
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 708 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wvblt View Post
Has a Bolt ever caught on fire? I don't recall ever reading about one.
Hopefully lessons learned from the Volt have made their way over to the Bolt design.

https://www.autotrader.com/car-recal...t-fires-144124

interesting that watching coolant level is one preventable measure. puncture of the battery pack will most likely hit the cooling plate and the car senses the loss of coolant. pretty slick.
XJ12 is offline  
post #16 of 22 (permalink) Old 04-23-2019, 08:46 PM
Senior Member
 
TimBolt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 1,365
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 816 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardC View Post
It makes no **** difference how many fires are caused by ICE cars. This is a red herring always thrown in by people who are on the defensive. Same as "but daddy, she hit me first!"
This is a new technology and we get to start over and make the world a better and safer place. Not be smug and in contempt because we are not quite as bad as the other guy. If Tesla and any other car manufacturer are trading off safety for range than this is just wrong and has nothing to do with statistics of gas powered cars.
If I'm walking down the street and there is a drive by shooting and the bullet just misses me I don't get to go home and say guns in the hands of gangsters is ok cause look, I'm still alive.

I'm am totally open to hearing that in China they ran over a chunk of road debris and that is what caused the S to burn. Still makes me wonder about shielding though.

And yes, it should make the news and be in the headlines just like the BMW's and Mini Coopers that spontaneously combusted were. Fair is fair and people need to know what they are getting into. How safe do you feel tonight parking your Tesla S in your garage with all your other toys and your loved ones sleeping feet away? How safe is the Bolt really? No one really knows but to hide behind statistics to say "not that bad really, just look at ICE cars".

Oh I almost forgot, the Boeing Max 8 crashes are not that big a deal because statiscally, airplane travel is getting safer every year. We all accept a certain amount of risk in our lives, and car driving is dangerous enough without car companies spiking the punch. Thinking Ford Pinto here. I truly, truly hope this is not the case with Tesla. Keeping an open mind.
Iíd be interested in how many EV fires there are as a percentage of EVs on the road, versus the same statistic for ICE vehicles.

No technology is perfect, especially a new technology with new risks. However, it appears that EV fires are rare, there is no epidemic of EVs catching fire. It is perhaps this rarity and novelty thatís driving the headlines when an EV does catch fire.

The two Boeing crashes killed hundreds of people, certainly a cause for alarm.

Nobody has died as a result of an EV car fire.

According to Tesla, an ICE vehicle is about 11 times more likely to catch fire than a Tesla. Now, you can take that statistic with a grain of salt, but how safe do you feel with your ICE vehicle in the garage and loved ones sleeping feet away?

2017 Kinetic Blue LT, 1998 Merckx Ti
TimBolt is offline  
post #17 of 22 (permalink) Old 04-23-2019, 09:04 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 70
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
I feel concerned enough that I am researching a fire suppression system in my garage. I don't see any that will put out a 60kWh Li battery fire yet. The point I am trying to make is that it would be a shame if Tesla pulled a Boeing and took risks to achieve great numbers. I sincerely hope not, I have zero malice towards Tesla and am not shorting their stock. Musk plays a little to fast and loose for my likings but I respect the vision.
When autos started to replace horses people were concerned that lots of people would die from those new fangled contraptions. They were right.
RichardC is offline  
post #18 of 22 (permalink) Old 04-24-2019, 02:02 AM
Senior Member
 
Sean Nelson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Vancouver, BC Canada
Posts: 3,422
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1582 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardC View Post
It makes no **** difference how many fires are caused by ICE cars.
It does make a difference, at least to the extent that it sets a bar showing how many vehicle fires the public is willing to accept as being a necessary evil in order to get the benefits of car ownership. As long as EVs don't result in any more fires (by some criteria, per vehicle or per vehicle-year or per vehicle-mile, for example, and sure to be argued over) then the EV industry can point to ICE fires as being worse.

It's rather like fully autonomous cars. Any accident involving death or injury is big news despite the fact that conventional cars kill tens of thousands every year. In my opinion self-driving cars don't have to be perfect, they just have to cause less carnage than the humans do.
Sean Nelson is offline  
post #19 of 22 (permalink) Old 04-24-2019, 02:24 AM
Senior Member
 
redpoint5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,182
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1525 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardC View Post
If Tesla and any other car manufacturer are trading off safety for range than this is just wrong and has nothing to do with statistics of gas powered cars.
Safety vs performance is always a compromise, 100% of the time, in every single design. The notion of zero compromises in safety is a fantasy, and we wouldn't want it anyhow.

What if I limit the vehicle's speed to just 5 miles per hour for increased safety? Well, we could lower that to 2 MPH so that we have no compromises in safety... but wait, what if we limit it to zero miles per hour to have no compromises in safety? Heck, it won't even have a battery that could catch fire, or a metal body that can cut you. Just send me a check, and I'll send you nothing; the safest option.

So, every decision weighs risk with reward and attempts a best compromise. Sometimes the risk and reward, or both, are poorly estimated. Back to re-evaluating the assumptions and tweaking design.

The red herring is to imagine a uncompromising safety design and expect anything useful to come of it.

...see my signature.

Give me absolute safety, or give me death!

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by redpoint5; 04-24-2019 at 02:27 AM.
redpoint5 is online now  
post #20 of 22 (permalink) Old 04-24-2019, 12:59 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 70
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Redpoint5, I respectfully disagree. Safety can be engineered in from he beginning with little or no decrease in performance. Say I build a kayak with positive flotation built in to the bow and stern. The kayak flips over and the person can easily right the boat, climb back in and bail out the water. Where is the performance lost? Maybe a few cubic feet of storage? I'm sure as your boat is sinking you would have been glad to give that up. You are confusing issues here, Capitalism, performance and safety, Capitalism says make the product so we can get great return for our investors. Make the product just safe enough to pass some regulations and so too many people won't die. Performance I have found is to be largely ego driven and would not have to be a compromise with safety if our expectations matched our supposed wisdom. Do we really need a motorcycle capable of 200 mph delivered to an 18 year old who just got their drivers license? You get your performance sure, but how hard would it be to have a factory rev-limiter that clocks miles and shuts off after 5000 miles of "training time". Might cost $5 worth of a chip or two. Well that's not American I here you cry. Don't tell me how to drive my bike! Ego. No, performance at least regarding motor vehicles, is mostly ego. And your argument about a zero miles per hour car is absurd. It would be unusable and therefore irrelevant. Safety, lastly is the most elusive. There is your own personal safety but how fair is it to take other people out with you because of your need to please Wall Street or because your bike or car is faster than your brain? Life isn't 100% safe for sure, but we seem to make the same mistakes over and over again because we make assumptions like "Safety and performance are always a compromise" which gives us the permission to cut corners when we know better.
The whole problem with the Boeing Max 8 could have been avoided by simply limiting the up travel of the stabilizer or elevator to avoid a stall. But greed, not performance gets in the way and says the plane must get to flight level 350 as quick as possible so our planes looks as good as Airbus's. Performance, I guess I'm saying, is a state of mind that is easily adjusted or modified by careful reasoning of what do you REALLY need here to accomplish the job. Is ten miles more range on paper for an EV worth a battery fire? Safety or lack of it is lights out, game over.
Except in a few rare instances, safety and performance do not belong in the same equation. It is only us stupid humans who are taught that to provide ego rushes or more money.
RichardC is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome