Jan 4, 2016
yobigd20 �
Jan 4, 2016
AmpedRealtor That's hilarious! I moderate the Arizona FB group and as soon as the fire news hit the internet I posted it to the group. The news is out there for anyone to see, not sure what value there is in deleting posts. Weird.�
Jan 4, 2016
AWDtsla There is something to be said about protecting fearful reptilian brained people from things they cannot understand, like statistics. Take the average 24 hour news viewer, for example.�
Jan 4, 2016
jerry33 Aren't you doing a disservice to the average reptile?�
Jan 4, 2016
AudubonB He never claimed he serviced reptiles.:scared:�
Jan 4, 2016
AWDtsla My apologies to the reptiles!�
Jan 4, 2016
LetsGoFast I'm very skeptical of the claim that "almost all" car fires are arson. However, arson investigators look at a car being completely consumed or evidence that the fire was especially hot as suspicious. It's actually more difficult to completely burn down a car than you'd think. The destruction in this case seems much more severe than in other Tesla fire pictures we've seen.�
Jan 4, 2016
AmpedRealtor Because the first responders elected to let it burn out of fear of high voltage danger from Supercharger and car.�
Jan 4, 2016
JohnSnowNW I think he was implying regardless of fire suppression.�
Jan 4, 2016
vgrinshpun Given that in this case MS battery was not involved in the fire, the fact that destruction was much greater than in previous fires might indicate that there was cargo containing some kind of flammable material in the Norwegian MS. This was likely responsible for the level of the destruction, rather than action or absence of it by the firefighters. It seems that this fire started due to a some kind of short circuit in the charging circuit, but was greatly accelerated due to flammable cargo on board.�
Jan 4, 2016
mx_enthusiast Does anyone have more details about the charging station fire in Norway? I am anxious to find out what the heck happened. After reading some articles about how the FWDs won't work if there's a fire and you have to find a secret lever, it sounds like the best thing to do is go for a walk with your kiddos and valuables while the car is DC charging... [cringing]�
Jan 4, 2016
ohmman You'll be more likely to get hit by a car on your walk than be trapped in your vehicle during a fire.�
Jan 4, 2016
bonnie Or be trapped in the backseat of your (former) friend's car while they play the Carpenters singing Beatle's medleys. And the child locks are on and you can't get out. (true story of my private hell on a road trip)�
Jan 4, 2016
mx_enthusiast You're probably right but that's not going to stop me from charging the car with one FWD open if my kid is in the back. I hope the cause was driver error�
Jan 4, 2016
bonnie I assume you don't ever have the child locks set on the back doors of any cars, so your kids can always get out? A lot of people are thinking the whole 'pop a speaker grill for manual release' with the falcon wing doors is just crazy if power is lost, but have no issue with setting the child locks on their current vehicle so that anyone in the back seat of their current vehicles would be trapped, power or not.�
Jan 4, 2016
FredTMC Certainly looking forward to a conclusion to this event. I still feel that the battery was consumed as fuel in the event but may not be the root cause.
Earlier events involved a puncture of the pack near the front of the battery due to road debris. This explained why more venting out the front initially on those prior events.
This is event seemed to start in the drivers side rear (nearest the supercharger pump). Therefore that rear quarter panel area was consumed first.�
Jan 5, 2016
EarlyAdopter Why? If you smelled smoke while charging you'd all get out of the car. The 12v power to the doors comes from a standard automotive battery that's isolated from the high voltage side. And even when severly damaged battery packs don't burst into flames like gas tanks do. They take a while to get going.
The last time we saw any fires on Model S two years ago there was plenty of time to exit the vehicle in every instance. The 12v battery that powers the doors and electronics remained functional, and these were cases where the main traction battery had been impaled, or the car split in two, or driven through a wall at high speed.
If you're really worried about it just teach your kids to climb to the front seat and exit from the front doors if the falcon wing doors are inoperable. Far more likely for doors to get jammed in a collision anyhow than they can't open because 12v power is out.
How much concern do you give to filling up with gasoline with you outside the car and the kids inside? Gas cars spontaneously combust while filing so often it hardly ever makes the news, usually from static electricity. Really. People have no idea how dangerous this is.
Three years, nearly 100,000 Model S on the road, 1 billion miles driven, and this is the first time there's been a fire while charging. And we still don't know it actually had anything to do with charging yet. I'll take those odds over a gas car any day.�
Jan 5, 2016
EarlyAdopter I've been trying to find some statistics on how often gas cars catch fire while filling up. Evidently it's "about 100 times a year." So, yeah, so often it doesn't make the news unless it's particularly noteworthy, like a police car or a Ferrari.
Avoid getting burned at the pump — literally - Business - Autos - ForbesAutos.com | NBC News
�
Jan 5, 2016
lolachampcar EA,
That was a far too reasonable a conclusion to come to based on actual statistical risk. You sir (or Madam) are not a soon to be great again Merican!! Tesla charge fires and terrorists attacks in public places are two of the foremost threats to your very existence.
I REALLY hope those that read the above know what sarcasm is.
I suspect the chances of you dying in your car on the way to the gas station/super charger then refilling as a combined set of actions are much higher in anything other than a Tesla.�
Jan 5, 2016
SebastianR Or more practical, just plain human stupidity:
подожгла на заправке вСургуте - YouTube�
Jan 5, 2016
scaesare Given a few apparent factors[1]:
- The fire appears to not be venting out the front, and thus not originating in the pack
- The car was supercharging
- Fire origination point seems to be rearward and upward
- Perhaps some impact (overload) affecting nearby charger cabinets and/or transformer
I suspect this may be an electrical connection overheating issue. A serious amount of energy (~135KW, >330A) is being conducted in the system.
Some earlier discussion of the HVJB took place, and while there may not be much in that box that's flammable, it's still not outside the realm of possibility. However there are also many other junctions and connection points in the system:
-Supercharger cable termination in the handle
-Car power inlet port/handle interface
-Cable connection to port
-Cable connection to HVJB
-Cable connection to pack connector
-Pack connector/pack interface
Not all of these would need to short out to get very hot. Just loose or dirty connections would suffice. Or damaged/faulty parts. Nor would the fault need to be where the cable insulation itself would fail and trip it's protective shielding.
We have examples of HPWC handles being very hot (130+ degrees if memory serves) as a result of issues either with dirty pins or marginal cable terminations within the handle. Those max out at 20KW of power. This is nearly 7 times that...
I've seen (and heard!) 400A connections cooking in panels... (while drawing far less than max load) as a result of loose connections. There's a tremendous amount of energy flowing there...
[1] Too early to call them facts
(on edit: having seen the longer video, I'm less inclined to think the supercharger/transformer hardware was being overloaded)
�
Jan 5, 2016
ggr The pack is designed to vent out the front, whether it was punctured there or not. The fact that there was no smoke or flame at the front of the car means that the pack had not (yet) caught fire.�
Jan 5, 2016
JRP3 This looks like a new video, or a longer version of one already posted: http://ekstrabladet.dk/112/norsk-tesla-bryder-i-brand-under-opladning/5892116�
Jan 5, 2016
scaesare @1:52 - There goes the front air suspension...�
Jan 5, 2016
Vince Cobelo What is that firefighter squirting at? Is he watering the grass way over yonder? Jeeze.�
Jan 5, 2016
Yggdrasill The police started investigating the fire this morning, according to this article: Skal finne brannrlandet - Lokale nyheter, TV og radio
This is what the lead investigator, Jens Martin Reiers�lmoen, said:
"It will be a challenging job. The car is severly damaged and there is a lot to process."
And:
"A forensic technician will process the car and the charging station and do the necessary investigations. Then we will see if we can arrive at a conclusion eventually."
Let's hope they finish relatively quickly so that Tesla can look at the car.�
Jan 5, 2016
FredTMC thx for this update! Interesting...�
Jan 5, 2016
eloder Yea, people shrug over the much greater risks of being in a gas car all the time. The whole "mechanical release" mechanism is definitely important, but you'd have the same concern if you had kids in any high-end ICE car where a power failure will prevent normal door operation in a similar situation like gas refueling.
You can definitely take steps to make sure you and your family will be safe, and indeed safer than following these same steps in a gas car. It's no different how I'll let people staying at my house know where the fire extinguishers are--I've never needed them, guests probably never will, but it doesn't hurt to know.�
Jan 5, 2016
EarlyAdopter From that article (Google translated to English)
This is completely wrong. I seriously hope someone corrects this misinformation.
Battery electric fires can be extinguished just fine with direct application of lots of water.
Case in point, the severe crash in Mexico in 2013. A single firefighter extinguished the blaze in 21 seconds. At 1:55 he starts direct application of water. At 2:16 the blaze is out.
It's a shame the Norwegian fire fighters are operating on incorrect information, and that information is being perpetuated in the news. If anyone here speaks Norwegian, please comment on that article. Even better, contact that fire department.�
Jan 5, 2016
Ingineer The pack has vents for each section (module), of which there are 15. They run down each side of the car under the rocker area, which the exception of the 2 front modules which are stacked, these vent underneath on the left (driver) side of the car. IIRC, there are 6 circular vents for each section, and each section is it's own sealed compartment. This way if one module failed, it may prevent other modules from becoming involved.
The vents are some sort of elastomer flap valves that allow pressure to escape but not water/aire to come back in. There is a tiny pressure equalizer device that is on the top front, but it has a very small orifice.
It's clear to me there was no mass venting of flammable gases from the pack.�
Jan 5, 2016
Yggdrasill This falsehood has been perpetuated in many articles, but I think the fire department is aware that using water is the correct approach. I think the misinformation comes from one of the first journalists to cover the story. And then all the other journalists used ctrl + c, ctrl + v.�
Jan 5, 2016
EdA Step #1: Review the logs from the Tesla server.
A few years ago my father-in-law's phone number was used to place a call related to a high profile crime.
Coincidentally his phone number ends in 0000. The detectives came to investigate but it was clear that he
wasn't involved (wrong accent, he was on the other coast, etc.) and I said, "perhaps the phone number was spoofed?".
The detectives were at a total loss...�
Jan 5, 2016
green1 People keep saying that the firefighters were wrong, but the idea that you can use water to extinguish these assumes no other electrical input. This car was attached to a supercharger, you never use water to douse a fire where a live high voltage power line is involved.
I'm sure that the fire department would love to be "corrected" by a bunch of amateurs with no experience in emergency services....
Let the professionals do their job. They did it admirably in this situation.�
Jan 5, 2016
Yggdrasill This was discussed on the Nowegian EV forum. There's no issue with using water to extinguish electrical fires up to 500V. Fresh water isn't very conductive, especially when instead of having a solid stream of water you have water mist/droplets. Fire hose documentation even states that using the fire hose to extinguish domestic electrical fires is perfectly fine.
The highest voltage you can see in a supercharger and Model S is around 450V.�
Jan 5, 2016
ohmman To be fair, the firefighters were making a decision in a shorter time period. Also, this may have been one of the first times they've encountered this particular situation (certainly the first time I've seen one reported). Since nobody was at risk, it likely didn't make sense to undergo a procedure which had some uncertainty (to them).
The good news is that without anyone getting hurt, they've learned something, and hopefully a wider firefighting audience has as well.
It makes little sense to second guess their actions at this point.�
Jan 5, 2016
brkaus A Model S just caught fire while supercharging in Norway (link in Norwegian)
As a volunteer firefighter many years ago, one of our training items was using a fire hose sprayed on some sort of "live" device with a meter. I don't recall the details, it was over 20 years ago.
The demo was that the nozzle, when not on direct spray, did such a good job of creating tiny drops of water that there was no conductivity back through the water stream to the firefighter.
The nozzle had a ring of spinning teeth that broke up the water. I believe it was called "fog" setting.
I also recall using full direct stream to flatten a 50gal drum to show potential force/danger from the water.
A bit concerning at the time, but a fun experiment.�
Jan 5, 2016
green1 A supercharger is not a domestic electrical fire. and the stream isn't the problem, it's the run-off, which is a definite hazard. It's simply not worth the risk when there are no lives in any danger, and where all the property is already a right-off.
The firefighters did exactly what they should have done in this situation. And I don't think they'd appreciate a bunch of amateurs telling them how to do their job.�
Jan 5, 2016
Mark Z IMHO, this might be a battery cooling issue if there was too much heat buildup during Supercharging. Could coolant lines or sensors have been affected by cold weather? Just asking - don't read into it. But just as the Space Shuttle problem occurred with cold weather, the engineers and designers will know. Rest assured that Tesla Motors will determine the exact cause.
Back on topic, my detailer did discover the need for more work before clear bra can be applied for his and the customer's maximum satisfaction. I will look forward to the results from others as wax and polish hides a lot of surface specks that exist on the clear coat that did cause a lack of perfect smoothness to the plastic wrap. I was there to see the situation and give the go ahead to spend more for the best results. While the finest grit sanding and compounding of the top of the clear coat is required for my early VIN, improvements at the clear coat application location could eliminate this extra step for those detailers who remove all the wax down to the clear coat. The happy news is that it is correctable for the ultra expert detailer who specializes in Tesla cars and judges the original quality of the protective surfaces based on working with new cars arriving on a weekly basis.
Relax, this is not an issue for 99% of buyers, only those who take their vehicles to the companies who specialize in perfection. Enjoy your Model X Signature!�
Jan 5, 2016
vgrinshpun We know that the battery pack is an integral structurally stressed member of the Model S body assembly. We also know that, based on explanations by Elon, that the reason MS is so good at protecting occupants from the side impacts is due to boron steel reinforced B pillars forming an integral structure with the battery pack and being able to transfer/distribute force of the side impact through the battery pack to the structure of the car.
Looking at the picture of the burned car from the first page of this thread, the B-pillars appear to be perfectly aligned and in symmetrical up-right position, which is impossible unless the battery pack to which they are attached is intact. Also, both front and rear wheels seem to be perfectly aligned as if they are still attached to the battery pack.
So based on the above I believe that the battery pack and battery cells were largely NOT damaged by the fire that originated elsewhere. So I believe that battery cells were protected by the battery pack and were not consumed in the fire. This is absolutely remarkable and is a vivid testament of the robustness of the battery pack design.
Given all of the above and the intensity of the fire, I believe that this particular car had flammable material as a cargo on board.
�
Jan 5, 2016
Yggdrasill No. The runoff is obviously grounded. You need a closed circuit to receive an electrical shock.�
Jan 5, 2016
brandeeno Several have come to the conclusion that the battery pack did not burn for given reasons.... if so, then how do you explain the melted body which would require a lot of energy to melt?�
Jan 5, 2016
green1 look up step and touch potential�
Jan 5, 2016
vgrinshpun This is exactly the question I was pondering as well. My conclusion is that the car had flammable cargo on board.�
Jan 5, 2016
Yggdrasill Neither step potential nor touch potential is worsened by stepping on conductive water on top of the conductive ground. Step potential is also completely irrelevant at such low voltage, and I would think that the fire fighters have enough sense to not go up and lean against the car or supercharger. If they don't, they could be electrocuted with or without the water.�
Jan 5, 2016
green1 You obviously didn't look up step potential. it is exactly about a charge flowing on a grounded surface.
As for the voltage, they have no idea what the voltage is, they know a car attached to a high voltage station is on fire, they don't know why, for all they know something shorted or grounded across the transformer and they have several kv in there.�
Jan 5, 2016
scaesare I suspect that, because the car was already a total loss and would burn out, they were aiming at the on-premise electrical cabinet to try and prevent further spread...�
Jan 5, 2016
Vince Cobelo Here is why you can use water on a electrical fire... Peeing On An Electric Fence - What Happens? - YouTube
And another example... MythBusters- Peeing on Third Rail | MiniMyth - YouTube�
Jan 5, 2016
Yggdrasill Yes, and the surface in question is grounded with or without water. Dry asphalt conducts electricity, wet asphalt conducts electricity.
It's a pretty good hint that the transformer is completely unharmed. With some more training they would be more prepared and know where they could expect what voltages in which circumstances.�
Jan 5, 2016
stopcrazypp While if they extinguished the fire, it would help investigation drastically (and reduce bad press of having the whole car burn down), I think they chose the safe route by letting it burned down. We know more than a vast majority of people about the supercharger cabinet voltages, but at the time they wouldn't have known if the voltage was safe to use water on.
In the US, there are water fog nozzles and separation distance guidelines that allow firefighters to fight electrical fires with water even when they are at the tens of kV levels. Not sure if it is there in Norway. But choosing to let it burn out is a safe route to take when the fire is isolated.�
Jan 5, 2016
efusco Multiple posts regarding the Norwegian Tesla Fire moved here: A Model S just caught fire while supercharging in Norway (link in Norwegian))�
Jan 5, 2016
smac Hear hear!
Best possible outcome = 1 totaled Model S and zero casualties.
Actual result = 1 totaled Model S and zero casualties.
For all those saying yes but water puts it out. I agree, but as soon as a car has a grounding circuit making the body electrically at the same potential as true earth (the water the fire fighters are standing in). i.e. it's plugged in, airing on the side of caution is 100% the best approach. The simple fact the car is plugged in changes things, and is not detailed in the Emergency Responders Guide.
There was brief mention of broken neutral in an earlier post, and this is a genuine hazard, albeit unlikely. (Where the car body becomes live relative to earth, maybe even at mains AC voltage)
There could well be a common grounding scenario where DC ground is tied into the AC protective earth. (common in many switch mode AC to DC designs) TBH I don't know if the Tesla chargers work that way or not, and without detailed charger schematics I couldn't say one way or the other. To be brutally honest nor could the Norwegian Firecrew....
Until Tesla put in place detailed guidance for first responders attending a vehicle fire WHILST IT IS PLUGGED IN, then I honestly don't think the fire fighters put a foot wrong.
Would it have been nice if the photo was less dramatic. Sure.
Will it be better in the future if this scenario is clearly described. Sure.
Could the outcome in terms of the fire crews stated objectives be better: Nope.
Please let's stop the witch hunt guys, these people are only doing their best to keep us all safe!!!�
Jan 5, 2016
fredag Aluminium (which is used in the Model S) has a much lower melting point than steel (which is used in most other cars). 660C vs approx 1350C. Which explains why the result of this fire look much more extreme than maybe it is.
This might just be how any Model S will look after a fire in the interior of the car.�
Jan 5, 2016
Zextraterrestrial I thought it was the jet fuel that melted it?
oh whoops, the steel is still standing�
Jan 5, 2016
brandeeno I was skeptical that things inside the car could burn hot enough to melt even aluminum, and found a great series of progressive pictures of a Ford F-150 (aluminum body) from the start of the fire all the way to end where its just rubble. There is even a picture with "electrical" looking sparks on this ICE car. Ford F-Series Super Duty prototype reduced to smoldering mess of aluminum and steel [UPDATE]�
Jan 5, 2016
EarlyAdopter No, it doesn't. Just look at the results of the fires in 2013 when fire fighters dowsed the car with water. Far more intact.
We need to stop perpetuating this myth that "battery electric car fires can't be put out with water." This is utter nonsense and could cost someone their life some day.�
Jan 5, 2016
smac I've melted aluminium in backyard bonfires. It really isn't hard
To melt steel requires BBQ coals and a leaf blower... don't ask how I know :redface:
- - - Updated - - -
Again show me the documentation that says this is Tesla approved procedure WHILST THE CAR IS PLUGGED IN.
We are all learning, and eventualities not envisaged will come up. It's the nature of early product cycle.
Devils advocate: If your Model S (heaven forbid) was on charge and caught fire, would you personally just spray it with water whilst the power was still on?
I feel fairly educated on this, I don't think EVs are any more dangerous than ICEs, but I wouldn't.
I'd get my family clear and just let it burn.�
Jan 5, 2016
Yggdrasill Yes. I believe the laws of nature don't change overnight.�
Jan 5, 2016
AmpedRealtor +100
Elon once said, you don't see terrorists making bombs out of batteries. Or something to that affect.�
Jan 5, 2016
EarlyAdopter From https://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/downloads/en_EU/model_s_2014_emergency_response_guide.pdf?1505
Tesla says you should _always_ assume the car is energized at high voltage (420V max pack voltage) when fire fighting, plugged in or not, yet recommends dowsing it with high volumes of water. The warnings are against touching the car, not hosing it down. Fresh water is a poor conductor of electricity, and last time I checked firefighters wear rubber boots.�
Jan 5, 2016
smac Indeed, and my experience of anything health and safety regulated is unless you can pass the buck up the line to some one more qualified is you take the path of caution when human life is involved.
Some laws are of nature, but some laws (human made ones) seek blame....�
Jan 5, 2016
Yggdrasill I certainly wouldn't take any meaningful risk, like running into a burning building without the proper equipment. But I would do what I could to avoid my house potentially burning down. A garden hose would likely be sufficient to subdue the flames long enough for the fire department to arrive.�
Jan 5, 2016
smac @EarlyAdopter
Full PPE does not mean full invincibilty suit. It means full protection from the risks likely to be apparent to the individual, under foreseeable circumstances (from a detailed risk assessment) undertaking the task in hand.
Full PPE for a fireman != full PPE for a HV linesman (who don't just wear rubber boots)
Ultimately it's a can carrying culture, and no one wants that can. Rightly or wrongly a connected car was (IMHO) rightly seen as an elevated and unknown risk, and dealt with as such.
I really don't see the problem in this approach, it keeps people safe, and avoids potentially worse outcomes.
So whilst you and I probably agree on the likelihood of risk from different approaches, we have the luxury of time and maybe more importantly lack of any personal repercussions.�
Jan 5, 2016
Shaggy Don't gas up at Citgo? :biggrin:�
Jan 5, 2016
smac Top tip, don't spray the flames, spray the area near the car, especially the walls of your house. Keep the exposures cooled below ignition point, then wait for the fire brigade to turn up....�
Jan 5, 2016
smartypnz This was simply a test of the new policy of dealing with cars that park at a SC more than twenty minutes after charge completion.�
Jan 5, 2016
ohmman Username checks out. :wink:�
Jan 5, 2016
Andyw2100 But unfortunately like Daffy Duck, Tesla can only do it once (per Supercharger.)
�
Jan 5, 2016
brkaus A Model S just caught fire while supercharging in Norway (link in Norwegian)
The fire personal are likely also trained to pull meters, breakers, switches, etc before entering a fire. This was probably their first step. So plugged in or not shouldn't matter.
But yes, as others have pointed out, staying back and watching it burn is a cautious and valid approach. Protect life before property.
What I'm curious about is if there was battery involvement and complete destruction of the batteries? If so, it proves the safety to some extent.�
Jan 5, 2016
wdolson Some battery fires can be put out with water with no risk, but some battery materials become explosive when mixed with water. The amount of lithium in Li-ion cells is low enough Li-ion cell fires can be put out with water safely. However, lithium batteries (non-rechargeable) have enough lithium in them to make them explosive if the lithium got wet.
Additionally, a BEV on fire is in an unknown electrical state. The battery pack is capable of producing 400V and quite a few amps of current. All it takes is about 200mA at 50V to kill a human (some sources draw the line at different values, but that's the ballpark). Even one module of a Model S battery still working that shorts to ground through a stream of water could be potentially fatal to anyone in the circuit.
ICE car batteries can produce a lot of current, but with only 12V, it's unlikely to be fatal. The current going through you is V/R, with R being your body's resistance. If the V is low, the current can't get high enough to kill you, even if the source can produce lethal levels of current. The electrical resistance of a human varies quite a bit (dry skin, sweaty skin, differences from one person to another, etc.), which is probably one reason why the different sources disagree on what is needed to kill someone. In any case, fighting ICE fires with water has few dangers and spraying water on a BEV fire has potential risks.�
Jan 5, 2016
Yggdrasill Police - No specific faults with the charging station
Police have released the charging station on Brokelandsheia after one Tesla Model S burned last week. The charging station is still closed.
Google Oversetter
"We have finished our investigations of the charging station. So far the police haven't uncovered any specific faults with it. Had we found any faults, we wouldn't have released it, says the sheriff in Gjerstad, Odd Holum."
"It's too early to conclude what caused the fire, he says."�
Jan 6, 2016
Auzie Thanks for update Yggdrasill.
My limited understanding after reading the linked info is that the police have not found a fault with the charging station. The charger is still closed for charging.
I have troubles understanding the meaning of 'police released the charging station'. I wonder if that means that they stopped investigating the charging station as a potential cause.
I am also surprised that the local police has the capability to conduct fire investigations. I would expect accredited fire investigators to lead the investigation.
Tesla car fires seem to be troublesome on many levels. Each fire is likely to attract disproportionate attention and to throw doubt at Tesla's technology or service. This places the onus on Tesla to investigate each incident, to find a root cause and address it, unless the finding is that the fire was caused by some external uncontrollable factors.
I hope that Tesla has a capable fire forensic team that can be called to this task at every opportunity.�
Jan 6, 2016
SebastianR So my understanding of this is:
- There is no fault in the Supercharger (i.e. they know the charger didn't cause it, thus they "release" the charger as "being safe")
- There is ongoing investigations on the car: they are not certain yet what has caused the fire: if it was due to a mistake/defect in the car or something with cargo / human interference
- They will only release information if it confirms a part was not the root cause, they will not release information relating to what may have caused the fire until that's confirmed.
I must say I'm very impressed with how this is going: this seems to be the most responsible and sensible way to go about the investigation. I wish criminal cases would be dealt with everywhere in the same sane, thorough, sensible approach - even if that is not satisfying the feeding frenzy of the so called "news" media.�
Jan 6, 2016
Auzie It is sometimes extremely difficult to pinpoint an exact root cause of some incidents. Often the cause can not be positively proven, the possible causes can be speculated in most probable terms.
In some freakish incidents, only people with specific expertise and experience may have a chance to come up with plausible explanations.
This morning, in pouring rain, there was a huge fire in a car auction yard in Sydney. More than 120 cars were destroyed in a few hours it took to put out the fire. I heard over the radio that the car battery is suspected as a cause, but I could not find any write up on the possible cause yet, only tweets.
�
Jan 6, 2016
Yggdrasill My understanding is that they have collected all the data they need to collect, and that they are almost certain the Supercharger isn't to blame. Tesla has probably provided data from the supercharging session, logging current/voltage over time, and any error messages, maybe even they log the temperature at the plug. This data combined with an inspection of the supercharger (sampling for accelerant, etc.) has likely been sufficient to rule out the supercharger.
The entire supercharger station has been off limits, blocked off with crime scene tape. I assume this tape has now been removed, and Tesla can start repairing the supercharger.
A previous article said they had brought in a forensic technician from Oslo. And Tesla has also been involved in the investigation - maybe they have sent a drivetrain expert or something.
I agree they should devote attention to each and every fire. Only by learning from accidents can we avoid them in the future.�
Jan 6, 2016
Auzie Thanks, Yggdrasill, helpful and informative, as usual
�
Jan 6, 2016
vgrinshpun I am, as Auzie, quite surprised with the fact that Police is involved in the fire investigation, unless there is a suspicion of the foul play. I am not, of course, knowledgeable about the procedures that are involved in fire investigations in Norway, perhaps Yggdrasil can elaborate on this point in more detail?�
Jan 6, 2016
Johan According to Norwegian Law this can be said:
(According to an official circular by the Norwegian Attorney General, 1973):
"All fires are to be investigated by the police, regardless of if the fire appears suspicious or not (reference to the prosecution law �65). The main task for the police is to investigate if a criminal offence has been comitted in association with the fire (such as arson, insurance fraud - see the Penal Code �272). The circular states that if the local police does not have the proper resources to investigate the fire in a satisfactory manor they must bring in outside assistance. Such assistance can be brought in from the local electrical supervision authority, the fire deparment or NEMKO (the Norwegian Elecrical Materials Control Association). As a general rule insurance company experts should not be involved, since they will normally represent a party with financial interests in the outcome of the investigation".�
Jan 6, 2016
vgrinshpun Thank you, Johan, for the detailed clarification!�
Jan 6, 2016
trond.strom The Norwegian Accident Investigation board has started an inquiry into the fire.
The report will be published here The Accident Investigation Board Norway�
Jan 6, 2016
Johan
Thanks, interesting.
According to this article: Siste nytt M�re it seems that it's the Norwegian Road Administration that has asked the Accident Investigation Board to due a formal examination.
"The task for the Accident Investigation Board will be to find the root cause of the fire and to evaluate if there is a more general risk with regards to one specific type of fast charging, and if there is a risk of repeated fires from charging".�
Jan 6, 2016
Yggdrasill Looks like the Accident Investigation Board usually takes 3-6 months to investigate. So this incident will be mostly forgotten by the time the report comes out.�
Jan 6, 2016
Model 3 More news:
According to VG it was observed smoke while charging, and then the charging cable was removed (and probably hanged in position as observed on film/photos). Then it devloped into a fire.
http://www.vg.no/forbruker/bil-baat-og-motor/bil-og-trafikk/havarikommisjonen-undersoeker-tesla-brann/a/23591197/
(Google translate)
�
Jan 6, 2016
FredTMC The only person who could've unplugged the supercharger cable is the driver (since he probably locked the car)
I would love to hear his account...�
Jan 6, 2016
Lessmog You would not be alone.
And the driver was not the new owner, according to what I have read somewhere or other.
Ze would thus have some very valuable eyw-witness observations to share with the investigating commission, and other relevant parties.�
Jan 6, 2016
Andyw2100 My take on that is the following:
Others here have suggested that the Supercharger being used was a temporary (movable) SC. That being the case, I would guess "releasing the charging station" could mean allowing Tesla to take it away and start their own investigation of it.
Just a guess.�
Jan 6, 2016
AudubonB Norwegian speakers:
can the word that is being translated as "released" better be translated as "ruled out"?�
Jan 6, 2016
Breezy Unfortunately, that's the same as most any incident. Something happens, there's a lot of speculation, but by the time the investigation is concluded, the world is no longer paying attention.�
Jan 6, 2016
Chris TX I wouldn't be surprised if Tesla is telling the owner to NOT speak about this until the investigation is complete. Very similar to the lightning strike situation. As long as the investigation doesn't point to anything like aftermarket audio equipment (which could have run wires right next to the back of the chargeport) I imagine Tesla will be replacing the entire car, per Elon's "If it burns, we'll replace it" promise of last year or so.�
Jan 6, 2016
JPUConn Can anyone identify the make of the 2nd car in on the bottom in this photo?
�
Jan 6, 2016
JohnSnowNW Looks a lot like a chard Ford Focus, to me.�
Jan 6, 2016
Model 3 No, "released" is the correct translation. And that means probably that they let Tesla - or their electricians - get free access to the charger for their own investigation / tests / repair . Until it was released I think that they was not allowed access without been in company with someone from the police.�
Jan 6, 2016
Cobos I guess you could equate it to "release a crime scene". As in removing the police tape and allowing people access.
Cobos�
Jan 6, 2016
stopcrazypp After Tesla has access, I'm willing to bet they will release some preliminary results quicker than the official investigation. A couple months is long enough for everyone to forget already, but I think Tesla wants to at least have some preliminary information first out there. For example if the supercharger was not responsible for the fire, that is very relevant information to know, even if the actual cause isn't known yet.�
Jan 6, 2016
smac On the flip side they could be better off saying nothing.
Pre-empting the official result would not necessarily be the correct thing to do. It tends to upset people, and certainly won't be seen as impartial.
Let it lie, it will be forgotten about in a week or so time.
Us Tesla fans will no doubt pick over the bones of the official report, but Joe Public will be reading about the XP100D, or some such headline grabbing article, not some boring Norwegian fire report.�
Jan 6, 2016
Yggdrasill I think the preliminary conclusion from the police probably won't take that long to become public. I suspect we will get more information once they are done disassembling the car, so maybe a few days.
After the police announces it's preliminary conclusion, Tesla should release a statement highlighting the relevant facts. Like how no one was hurt, there was ample time after the fire started to exit the vehicle had anyone been inside, the battery pack is fire isulated in many different ways and did not catch fire, this fire can't happen again because of X, Y and Z, etc. Then finish off the statement with a broad statement like "The Tesla Model S is one of the safest cars on the road today, it scored 5 stars in every category in safety testing, and we will always be working on making our vehicles even more safe."�
Jan 6, 2016
smac Replace the red bit with "we are working in close partnership with authorities" and I'd agree�
Jan 6, 2016
Auzie
Perhaps 3-6 months may be required to investigate more complex incidents like crashes, where there are many witnesses and stakeholders that need to be traced and interviewed.
My inclination about this incident is that time does not play much of a role in pinpointing the probable cause. If they can do it, it will be done within weeks.
Accident Investigation Board likely has some capable highly trained people that are experienced in investigation protocols.
In this specific fire, specific expertise may be required to be able to accurately troubleshoot the original cause of the fire.
Currently, such specific expertise only exists within Tesla. I would be surprised if AIB can confidently pinpoint the cause without full understanding of the car and without Tesla's input. That holds if the cause is within the car and not external.
- - - Updated - - -
One more link related to a large car fire, with videos, for the curious ones
Fire started at 6am, was distinguished at 8:30am, in pouring rain
I like this photo, victorious fire fighters with their loot
�
Jan 6, 2016
wk057 I'm thinking the memory containing the vehicle logs probably didn't survive that blaze...�
Jan 6, 2016
green1 Likely not, do you have any insight as to how much data is uploaded "real time" (or some form of "dying gasp" protocol)? it's quite possible that something useful was sent to Tesla before it was destroyed?�
Jan 6, 2016
wk057 Most logging appear to be stored locally in the car, and retrieved by Tesla as needed... not sure if anything useful would be sent in this situation... probably not, but I could be wrong.�
Jan 6, 2016
DougH I already forgot about it.�
Jan 6, 2016
Yggdrasill The supercharger sends real time information about how many cars are charging how much, so Tesla probably has useful information here. Critical error messages (probably airbag deployment, and a few other types of error message) also seem to be sent real time. Most people who have been in an accident almost immediately get a call from Tesla asking if they are okay.�
Jan 7, 2016
Ingineer Tesla has a "Notify" function in the software that immediately reports all alerts to the mothership. So for instance a high-impedance condition on the main contactors would be reported. In Fact, Many things are reported that the owner is never aware of and the car shows no indication of.�
Jan 7, 2016
green1 With the source of the fire near the rear, and the computers and communication near the front, hopefully some useful alert was sent before the sending bits burned up...�
Jan 7, 2016
JonathanD Also depends whether they had good wireless connectivity in this location, which is unclear.�
Jan 7, 2016
Yggdrasill Should be 3G or possibly 4G at this supercharger.�
Jan 7, 2016
AmpedRealtor Not sure Tesla can tell anyone to do anything in a situation like this. If the owner isn't saying anything, it's likely on the advice of his or her attorney - not Tesla.�
Jan 7, 2016
jgs Or maybe he or she just doesn't like publicity. Not everyone does, some people outright hate it.�
Jan 7, 2016
AmpedRealtor ^^ This.
I think it's best for Tesla to stay quiet about this incident unless something came out of the investigation that impacts all Model S owners in terms of a recall or proactive safety campaign like the previous charge adapter replacements, seat belt check, etc. Short of that, I don't believe Tesla should say a word. Why dredge this up at a time when everyone has forgotten about it?
Tesla doesn't address every single Model S fire. I don't believe Tesla addressed the fire in Mexico due to a collision. It also did not address the garage fire in BC, nor the fire caused when a Model S was stolen from a service center and driven 100 MPH through LA before it crashed and split in half.�
Jan 7, 2016
freeewilly Off Topic: I wish Tesla uses these information to update Super Charging Station status, and even show how much energy each car has been charged.�
Jan 7, 2016
AmpedRealtor True. Highly doubt anyone would keep quiet at the request of Tesla, and I doubt even more that Tesla would make such a request because it would make it look like Tesla had something to hide.�
Jan 7, 2016
Yggdrasill Both the driver and the owner have talked to the media, so I doubt they have been asked to keep quiet by anyone.�
Jan 7, 2016
DougH Any word on what the owner is saying?�
Jan 7, 2016
Chris TX Sarah was asked politely to not discuss it while they were fixing her car after the lightning strike. I think she was quiet on the forums for a while, during that time.�
Jan 7, 2016
Yggdrasill I've still just seen this: A Model S just caught fire while supercharging in Norway (link in Norwegian) - Page 20
Also, I was mistaken about the driver - he/she hasn't spoken to the media as far as I can tell. He/she spoke to the police who then relayed some of the story to the media.�
Jan 7, 2016
DougH Yeah I saw that. I guess there is really not much for them to say anyway.�
Jan 7, 2016
green1 Tesla has been known to make exactly that request in the past, and as the "fire warranty" isn't documented anywhere official and is basically just Tesla good-will based on Elon saying something once, it wouldn't be a good idea to piss off Tesla until they've delivered on it...�
Jan 7, 2016
wk057 Interesting. My bench setup doesn't try not notify Tesla of the 50 errors on my bench even after connecting to the VPN. I don't doubt that they get notified of many things, but my experience has been that service needs to pull logs from the vehicle even to see errors I have on-dash. Even the instance where my car shutdown while driving last year they had to manually poll the car to see the error.�
Jan 7, 2016
fredag Tesla PR in Norway just commented the case to state broadcaster NRK:
Google Oversetter�
Jan 7, 2016
Auzie In some previous Tesla car fires (poor driving, crashes, ruptured battery), the cause was obvious, there was no need to explain anything.
Fires that happen to a car whilst charging are likely to cause fear if root cause is not explained.
There are increasing incidents of hoverboards causing fire whilst charging.
Hoverboard plugged in for 10min causes fire that destroyed family home
Incidents like this may lead to a perception 'charging = fire danger', unless car charging fire is explained.�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét