Jan 15, 2016
scaesare Given their propensity to occur in space, maybe the SpaceX boys have some suggestions to share...
�
Jan 15, 2016
brantse According to supercharge.info the Sundebru charger is back up today.�
Jan 15, 2016
tom66 I haven't heard of any stationary "hoverboards" catching fire. Plenty while charging or while in use though.
The problem is that they don't have any battery balancing yet they have something like 200Wh battery at ~40VDC. I've seen one taken apart. The battery had a Samsung SDI sticker on it, but peeled it off and the cells inside were marked Sanyo so who knows who made the battery, it's probably some clone or really old battery cells.�
Jan 15, 2016
bonnie Not saying that a hoverboard caused the fire, but I am saying it is possible that the source of the fire was something that was in the car. Smoldering cigarette, hoverboard (and yes, Auzie, I do understand how fire happens
Here's your stationary hoverboard catching fire story - but yes, it was charging at the time of the fire (plenty out there):
Hoverboard catches fire in Fox River Grove home | abc7chicago.com
------
So many possible scenarios, but just beating this one into the ground for a bit. A hoverboard could be charged off a vehicle's USB port, which could lead to problems. http://www.laglyders.com/blog/2015/12/8/hoverboard-battery-safety-how-to-use-hoverboards-safely-to-limit-risk-prevent-fire
And thanks for this discussion. I learned a few things this morning.�
Jan 15, 2016
stopcrazypp It is very common for Chinese battery suppliers to use old battery cells and put a wrapper around it and sell as a new battery cell (with ridiculously high mAh claims). It becomes very obvious without even opening the wrapper when the cells turn out slightly larger or smaller even though it is supposed to be the "same" cell.�
Jan 15, 2016
Max* �
Jan 15, 2016
bonnie Really, Max? That confused you?
I'm not saying it was specifically a hoverboard. I am saying it is very likely an outside source, such as a hoverboard, that is the cause of the fire. "Hoverboard" is an example of an outside source.
And please quote me in context. Editing my post the way you did makes it look like I was contradicting myself. I wasn't.
But the whole sentence makes it clear that it was an example. Fair?
�
Jan 15, 2016
Max* FTR: I was half instigating, half seriously confused.�
Jan 15, 2016
bonnie I'm laughing at 'half-instigating'.�
Jan 15, 2016
JER Half-investigating? Have you considered writing for Slate? :wink:�
Jan 15, 2016
wdolson We don't know what was in the car. There is a possibility that the driver was smoking and an ember fell into something flammable in the back when he opened the hatch to get something. It's also possible the driver decided to charge something he had in the car via the USB port while the car was charging on the supercharger and that battery overheated and caught fire.
It could still be something in the car's electrics that caught fire. The charging hardware is under the back seat and it's been determined the car caught fire somewhere in the back of the car.
At the moment, there is nothing we know one way or the other. The insurance investigators and Tesla may never tell the public, so we may never know. In any case it is a fluke fire.�
Jan 15, 2016
WMAC
They likely won't know either. There's not much to pull evidence from.�
Jan 15, 2016
Auzie
That is the most efficient and elegant recycling process that I've heard of, pity the product quality sucks
A cigarette ember on its own might not be sufficient to start a fire, it would need to fall on something more flammable than car components. Perhaps some clothing. Not impossible but unlikely imho.�
Jan 15, 2016
EarlyAdopter If only they weren't under the mistaken belief you shouldn't extinguish an EV fire with water...�
Jan 15, 2016
wdolson Yes, nothing in the car itself would be that flammable. Maybe he had some fireworks in the back or a can of gasoline?�
Jan 16, 2016
Model 3 One member of the Norwegian forum said that he had tried to buy this car from Tesla just before Christmas, but it was sold by the time he got to the shop. So according to this forum post it was a CPO sold by Tesla (not a privately sold car), and then probably had "some sort of servicing" by Tesla prior to the sale.�
Jan 16, 2016
lolachampcar Tesla does some sort of servicing thousands of times a week and their cars are not lighting up super chargers......... I'm hopeful we see the report soon as speculation is useless here.
Sorry for the harsh opinion but I keep visiting this thread hoping a native had posted the official inquiry results.�
Jan 16, 2016
JRP3 I'm thinking meth lab in the trunk...�
Jan 16, 2016
smac I was going to post the same thing
All the clues are there. It wasn't the drivers car, a known associate was borrowing it, the scene was cordoned off by police and the car even had "rims"
I believe it was Walthais Whitenson's car! It all makes perfect sense. Call off the official investigation TMC has solved the case�
Jan 16, 2016
ohmman I was thinking grandmother's 102nd birthday. Carrying cake with lit candles to her house.�
Jan 16, 2016
tezzla I was thinking gas fumes while filling up�
Jan 16, 2016
Yggdrasill I'm thinking the Tesla coil malfunctioned.�
Jan 16, 2016
tinm This place is turning into Reddit�
Jan 16, 2016
Johan Dank memes to follow...�
Jan 16, 2016
Johan 
�
Jan 16, 2016
jgs Seems legit. On my wife's grandmother's 80th we made the mistake of putting 80 candles on the cake. The convective draw had flames shooting a foot high and set off all the smoke alarms.�
Jan 17, 2016
smac Tesla are obviously monitoring this thread I just got a beta copy of 7.2 and had this strange disclaimer appear:
�
Jan 17, 2016
Sogorman Fantastic, just fantastic
�
Jan 17, 2016
thegruf brilliant�
Jan 17, 2016
Auzie 
�
Jan 17, 2016
swegman Someone mentioned to me that this was actually the second Tesla to have a problem in Norway in the last three months. The first Tesla car produced smoke that died out when the supercharger was disconnected from the car. This occurred while charging the car during cold conditions. Does anyone know anything about this?�
Jan 17, 2016
Model 3 It's in this thread.�
Jan 18, 2016
swegman Over time i've read all 50 pages of this thread, but don't recall reading about the "smoking" Tesla. Would you please be so kind as to refer me to the post number that discusses it. Thanks.�
Jan 18, 2016
Model 3 You did click on the link I provided? That thread is only 2 pages long...�
Jan 18, 2016
swegman Thank you. I did not see the very slight color change of the word "this" to indicate it linked to the requested info. Maybe thats because I have had 4 retina detachments and thus require larger than normal color contrast differences. Same reason it is difficult to see the "ticks" on the speedometer of the Tesla since upgrading to V7.1. Thanks again.�
Jan 18, 2016
redi TMC has long needed a VIN validation process in order to post.�
Jan 18, 2016
JER Non-owners are unwelcome? Well, that will certainly thin out the Model 3 subsection.�
Jan 18, 2016
dsm363 That's basically impossible to implement. Only Tesla could do something like this on their forum.�
Jan 18, 2016
Zythryn No, they aren't unwelcome.
Posts made by someone with a VIN are labeled as such.
It is a nice system, I like it, although the rest of their forum is awful :crying:�
Jan 18, 2016
thegruf
Why dont you suggest a high contrast display mode to Tesla. This would be pretty easy to implement and could be of benefit to those with certain vision impairments not serious enough to prevent driving.�
Jan 18, 2016
int32_t
No kidding. No thanks! :scared:�
Jan 18, 2016
brucet999 I have neither detached retinas nor color vision deficit, but I could see no difference in either darkness or color of the word "this" until I accidentally scrolled over it and turned it red.�
Jan 18, 2016
redi As such you might be able to filter based on owner posts and qualified information, or "full reddit mode".�
Jan 18, 2016
bonnie No, TMC clearly has made it clear that enthusiasts are welcome here.
Let's not make people feel unwelcome when it simply isn't true.�
Jan 19, 2016
int32_t Bonnie saves the day and rescues sanity!
Back on topic: do any Norwegian folks have some new news? I was seriously expecting a media frenzy, but oddly that never happened. (If a frenzy did occur, it would have died out by now anyway, having fulfilled its purpose of preventing further public charger installations and would provide no further useful information.)
I'm hoping this is a 100% one-off unique event hopefully started and fueled by some type of cargo rather than the car itself.�
Jan 19, 2016
3mp_kwh This thread has been Off Topic almost all year.�
Jan 19, 2016
int32_t
Since it's only January 19th, that's not saying much.�
Jan 20, 2016
DNAinaGoodWay Not SC's fault.
Tesla Model S fire not caused by Supercharger, investigators say - Autoblog
Tesla Model S fire not caused by Supercharger, investigators say�
Jan 21, 2016
fredag Tesla was supposed to investigate the wreck further together with the insurance company, but Tesla did a deal with the car owner and now the insurance company doesn't own the wreck anymore. Tesla is now shipping the wreck to California.
http://www.aftenbladet.no/nyheter/lokalt/agder/Sender-utbrent-Tesla-til-California-3853532.html
I asked the local police a week or two ago whether there had been a thermal runaway in the batteries. They wouldn't comment, but adviced me and other EV owners to be attentive when connecting charge cables and starting charging. Sound advice, I guess. Like a quick visual check of the integrity of the supercharger plug before use. Do not use cracked or damaged plugs, and call Tesla if you see damaged SC plugs.�
Jan 21, 2016
dsm363 So safe to change the title? It had nothing to do with Supercharging.�
Jan 21, 2016
apacheguy Thanks for the update. Anyone know if the Model S will be replaced by Tesla due to the fire clause in the warranty?�
Jan 21, 2016
jerry33 I'd guess it would depend on the actual cause of the fire. Fireworks in the back catching fire wouldn't be covered. Undetermined probably would.�
Jan 21, 2016
nienco2 "It appears that the reason may lie in a technical fault in the car, but we have not concluded yet, said sheriff Odd Holum in Risor, who has entrusted the matter to the insurance company Gjensidige and Tesla".
I think by now a rational person could deduce if any evidence indicated fire was started by; fireworks, cigarette or hoverboard, Tesla would not have seen it necessary to make an "arrangement" with the owner/insurance company and ship the car back to US. Let's hope it's a 1 in million one off, but also hope it's treated with transparency, for everyone's sake.�
Jan 21, 2016
JohnSnowNW Tesla can't control the quality of every component. If it was the fault of a component inside the car it could very well happen again, that's just reality.�
Jan 21, 2016
stopcrazypp If it was caused by cargo, I don't think it's possible to determine anyways given the fire department let the car burn to the ground. Tesla may have interest in the car regardless, given this is the only example of a Model S that has completely burned. In the previous examples, the fire department always extinguished the fire before it got to that point.
So I don't agree you can necessarily deduce they have ruled out cargo being the cause in this case.�
Jan 21, 2016
jgs Have they ruled out a crowbar dropped from orbit?�
Jan 21, 2016
scaesare While it may not have been the fault of the Supercharger, that doesn't mean it didn't involve Supercharging.
�
Jan 21, 2016
dhanson865 I'd assume the deal that changed the ownership so that Tesla owns the husk instead of the insurance company means that tesla bought the husk. Presumably that means the prior owner now has funds to buy another CPO as good or better than the one he sold.
I doubt Tesla bothered to provide a car when they can provide funds and let the owner make a new selection.
But you could say it meets the intent of the fire clause in the warranty. I haven't looked in that clause to see if it specifies a replacement car specifically or just the funds to offset the loss.�
Jan 21, 2016
brucet999 The fact (if it is a fact) of Tesla buying the hulk from the insurer does not mean that the owner has been made whole. He gets whatever value the insurance company agrees to pay, which should be close to the CPO price he paid, but might not be.
Isn't the fire warranty a battery fire warranty? If the fire were determined to have resulted from Bonnie having left her overcharged hover board in the trunk,�
Jan 21, 2016
Caligula So what you're saying is that I shouldn't leave my no name Chinese hover board and e-cigarette batteries Daisy chained into my Tesla's USB ports for overnight charging?�
Jan 21, 2016
lolachampcar Very likely Tesla bought the car to get it out of the wild as well as for the other reasons mentioned.�
Jan 22, 2016
Auzie Accelerants can be detected with combustible vapour detectors at the fire scene. The combustible gas indicator is designed to indicate vapours of aromatic hydrocarbons in the flammable and toxic ranges. These devices are quite sensitive.
Gas Liquid Chromatography can detect even trace amounts of accelerants in fire debris.
I doubt that Tesla will go that far to test the fire debris. It might be easier to examine the circumstances surrounding the event, such as driver's story and his credibility. Car interference history and/or service records might also give clues.
One possibility is that the fire started by overheated bad connection in car circuitry whilst charging. I hope that Tesla does a thermal scan of plugged cars as part of regular service, especially after the service.�
Jan 22, 2016
bonnie No, I think he's saying not to loan me YOUR S, because I'll undoubtedly leave an overcharged hoverboard plugged in & walk away. It's what I do.
�
Jan 22, 2016
Lessmog I seem to recall that TM (Elon?) promised the guarantee to cover any and all Model S fires, even if the cause had nothing to do with the car itself. That would be maybe a couple of years back, when the wiring in a garage started a fire.
Sorry, not gonna search for the facts myself, just going by memory. So I could be wrong.�
Jan 22, 2016
DFibRL8R From Blog post by Elon Nov 2013 in response to fires:
"Third, to reinforce how strongly we feel about the low risk of fire in our cars, we will be amending our warranty policy to cover damage due to a fire, even if due to driver error. Unless a Model S owner actively tries to destroy the car, they are covered. Our goal here is to eliminate any concern about the cost of such an event and ensure that over time the Model S has the lowest insurance cost of any car at our price point. Either our belief in the safety of our car is correct and this is a minor cost or we are wrong, in which case the right thing is for Tesla to bear the cost rather than the car buyer."
https://www.teslamotors.com/blog/mission-tesla�
Jan 22, 2016
Lessmog Perfect! Thank you!
/Lazy moog :tongue:�
Jan 22, 2016
Max* So you are saying that a hoverboard caused the fire?
Now I'm really confused.
.
.
.
.
Goes hides that way ---->�
Jan 22, 2016
bonnie No, I'm saying that I cannot be trusted with your vehicle.�
Jan 22, 2016
scaesare Correct. I outlined several such scenarios earlier.
So while it's good news that the supercharger cabinet/stall itself didn't appear to be at fault, we still don't know what in-car components involved in a supercharging session may have been involved, if any.
Even if they do identify an in-car fault, that's not indicative of an overall faulty design. Out of 10's of thousands of cars manufactured, there are going to be faults in components, assembly, damage during assembly, etc...
I'd rather know it was an isolated incident of a bad connection in the car than not know at all.. at least that way Tesla has data to make an informed decision. If the seat latch and seat-belt voluntary recalls are any indication, they'll go above and beyond to make sure we are well protected.�
Jan 22, 2016
dhanson865 The story says that tesla made a deal with the owner not the insurance company. I'm assuming that means Tesla paid him better than insurance would have.
Once they did that the insurance company is no longer involved. It was sold and the claim canceled.�
Jan 22, 2016
stopcrazypp This has me wondering, if Tesla finds the issue was with the cargo, will Tesla announce that? Seems like it would conflict with goodwill with the owner (edit: actually as noted below, I remember the owner wasn't the one driving it at the time, so I guess this would be less of an issue).
- - - Updated - - -
This would presumably have to happen in the scene shortly after the fire, right? It's been so long afterwards, would something like that still be possible now?
I don't think the indirect method would be as useful in this case. The car was a used car and the one driving it wasn't the owner.�
Jan 22, 2016
3mp_kwh Glad it wasn't the super-charger.�
Jan 22, 2016
dsm363 So if it wasn't the Supercharger and charging wasn't the issue and the car itself didn't initially catch on fire but contents inside the car did the title as it stands now seems to indicate it was the act of Supercharging that caused the fire.�
Jan 22, 2016
ohmman It's possible to come to that conclusion, but by that logic (ok, stretching it a bit), Norway could be just as responsible as it is also in the title.�
Jan 22, 2016
bonnie
*cough cough troublemaker cough cough cough*�
Jan 22, 2016
Model 3 Sold or replaced on warranty. We just don't know what "deal" they made...�
Jan 22, 2016
smac I was in Norway summer last year, and stayed for a night in a small Bed + Breakfast in a rural part of the country (near the Trollstigen). I wasn't in the Tesla, but conversation somehow strayed onto EV's. I was surprised how not everyone is particularly happy with the skewing of benefits for EV's
So let's just stretch things a little further and say it was Norwegian Luddites setting fire to Teslas in revenge attacks�
Jan 22, 2016
Model 3 Yes, I think so. What better announcement can Tesla possible be making then "The fire was not caused by either the car or the supercharger, it was completely an error of the owner/driver with some dangerous cargo. But we still replaced it on warranty!" (or bought it back for a reasonable price). Neither the owner or the driver has been exposed in the media, and will feel that they are given the blame in public, and the car was after all replaced or sold for an acceptable price. So I can't see that it will be any conflict with the goodwill.
- - - Updated - - -
The police have concluded that it was no reason to believe any crime have been committed. So no, this is not what happened. (But yes, more then one have thought about this possibility.)�
Jan 22, 2016
scaesare Wait, how do we know this? Did I miss something? (entirely possible)�
Jan 22, 2016
thegruf wow that seems a bit mean, how much extra do you have to pay to get a full size bed?�
Jan 22, 2016
pgiralt My thought as well. I don't think anything has ruled out charging not being the issue. The only thing that has been said is that the supercharger itself was not a problem. Everything from the charge port to the battery is still suspect AFAIK.�
Jan 22, 2016
smac lol, well I have to say I would have paid a little more for a slightly wider path to the front door of the house
�
Jan 22, 2016
fredag All you non-Norwegians here on TMC seem so hung up in all these wild conspiracy theories (or hoverboard-theories), compared to the discussion on the Norwegian EV forum by Norwegian owners. Maybe because we're such calm, rational people :biggrin:, or maybe because many of you Americans have financial investements in TSLA, which makes it much more prudent for you to blame external factors.
But you're right, EVs are hated by many Norwegians who feel rich EV owners leech on society with all the incentives and don't pay their fair share of car- and road taxes. EV rapid chargers are sometimes vandalized, which could, of course, be dangerous. Though I haven't heard about systematic vandalization by EV-haters, just random vandalization.
I doubt this fire was caused by a vandalized or accidentally damaged SC plug, where missing isolation between pins in the plug created a spark, since the fire was internal to the car and the driver was able to retract the SC plug from the charge port after the fire had started.
My personal theory is that this fire was caused by sloppy service of the car's internal charging cabling or junction box at one of Tesla's overstretched Norwegian service centres. Maybe a big fat wire wasn't fastened properly, or some screws weren't tightened properly.
The timing indicates it had something to do with supercharging. This fire started right after charging started, which probably isn't a coincidence. Hoverboards aren't that useful in Norway in the middle of winter anyway, so that's fairly unlikely. Any baggage/christmas presents/leftover fireworks which could have ignited in the trunk, could have ignited at any time on the 2hr journey from Oslo to the Brokelandsheia supercharger, or indeed even before that.
Now the wreck is owned by Tesla, so I doubt we'll ever know what really happened.
Anyhow: Norwegian statistics show that ICE cars have much, much greater risk of fire than EVs. And Norway has the highest percentage of EVs in the world. Until these statistics change, I'm not worried. But just in case, since the normal interior back door handles won't work if the 12V is cut by a fire, I have showed my kids how to use the emergency back door openers under the back seats.�
Jan 22, 2016
smac Oi... I'm not from 'Murica, I'm Limey and proud of the fact
P.S. I agree with the rest of your appraisal of the situation. Most likely a fault in a Tesla supplied item, but still a very rare occurrence compared to an ICE.�
Jan 22, 2016
fredag Yeah, sorry, I wasn't really referring to you, just happened to hit reply to your post... :biggrin:�
Jan 22, 2016
Johann Koeber I reported a damaged SC cable on Jan 8. Have not been back to Feuchtwangen to check if it has been repaired.
�
Jan 22, 2016
Model 3 Careful! I tried to hint on something like this earlier and was told that speculation was useless here...�
Jan 22, 2016
smac It could also be a poor contact on the HV contactor, the only moving part in the charging chain, and something that might have not been called into action for months.�
Jan 22, 2016
Auzie Debris chromatography might be too late unless proper samples were taken at the scene of the fire (in metal cans, sealed). If there was accelerant present, it evaporated by now.
Norwegian reports do not mention any sniffers (dogs, people or instruments) being involved in the investigation.
If both the owner and the driver claim they had no cargo in the car at the time of the incident and they both check as credible people then the forensic tests may be redundant. The car was 2 days into new ownership, not enough time to stuff it up with clutter. It is also easy to establish if the driver is a smoker.
If the driver is a non-smoker (or did not smoke in the car) and cargo caught on fire, then it must have been a case of spontaneous combustion. Not impossible but highly unlikely.
The car circuitry arcing could have caused the fire. The fire is likely to cause arcing. Thus, even if evidence of arcing is found on copper wires in debris (if they haven't melted), it proves nothing as it is impossible to say which came first. However if we assume that arcing came first, it might be a useful data point.
The best bet in this investigation is to collect circumstantial evidence - owner and driver stories, car interference history and to put the pieces of the puzzle in the most logical and likely way.
Whatever the truth is I am pretty sure we will never know.
I agree with scaesare on this issue. I have thermography done regularly on thousands of electrical connections that have no good reason to go bad. There is never a report that does not show dozens of bad connections. They go bad due to wear, tear, vibration, age, dirt, poor workmanship, etc.
The reason often stays unknown. Often, dealing with the consequences and trying to figure out a root cause of one bad connection is more difficult and more expensive that preventative scanning of thousands of connections. Scanning is likely to catch bad connections early before they cause trouble.�
Jan 22, 2016
dsm363 Ok?�
Jan 22, 2016
Todd Burch I also agree with the theory that there was some sort of loose or incorrect connection somewhere just inside the supercharger connection area (junction box perhaps?)--probably something that was modified or replaced by the service center--and wasn't replaced or assembled correctly, or was defective.
Either way, given the extreme rarity of this event it seems clear to me that it's not an inherent design flaw.�
Jan 23, 2016
AmpedRealtor Looks like Tesla has taken the "no comment" route as I had predicted. If they haven't commented by now, I doubt they ever will. I believe this is the correct approach.�
Jan 23, 2016
ohmman I agree. Even if they determine it's the obvious birthday cake in the trunk, there's no benefit in returning the words "fire" and "Tesla" to the headlines.�
Jan 23, 2016
Model 3 Isn't this a bit to early to make that conclusion? The car is on the way to - or just arrived at - Tesla in the US, and they can start to investigate. Yes I am, just like you, impatiently waiting for an answer...�
Jan 23, 2016
AlMc I agree that we never hear about this again...unless an analyst asks about it at the Q4ER CC....And, I doubt they will as it seems like a very isolated case.�
Jan 23, 2016
smac Whilst part of me for pure geeky interest would like an answer, I think we are beyond it now. This is a good thing. If it were a Ford or GM, we'd never know (and frankly never care)
The only reason this was even in the press at all was because it was a Tesla. They get the benefits of click through and social media, but unfortunately that comes with the flip side of negative issues being magnified. IOW don't hate the player, hate the game
I'm with AlMc here it's likely to be completely forgotten about by Q1-16�
Jan 23, 2016
Model 3 Quite possible that you are right, I just thought it was too early to conclude jet. If nothing is heard by then end of February I will agree that we will not hear anything more...�
Feb 9, 2016
twestberg I hope they find something and if it's possible correct it. (Even better would be the outside cause, of course.)
I've taken a couple of cross-country trips with my dogs and left them in the car while supercharging. With this possibility out there I'm much less comfortable with that. (I regularly ping my app to make sure the a/c is on, but a fire is something much worse.)
ICE vehicles do catch fire, but they don't tend to do it if you've left them alone for 20 or 30 minutes while "refueling". Attempts to say "it could happen to anyone" don't really persuade me.�
Feb 9, 2016
ohmman It's hard to put numerical values on the risk, since Tesla doesn't publish Supercharging information on a regular basis. I wish they would, so that the risk metrics could be lined up against other things that we consider "unlikely" - a death on your cross-country drive, for instance - or being struck by lightning. And we have to remember that the fire may not be attributable to charging anyway. Without that information, any decisions we make relating to this are emotional, not rational.�
Feb 9, 2016
twestberg I agree entirely; it is unclear how to judge risk. It's also true that many of us go nonlinear thinking of the possibility that we would be putting our pets at risk.
My main point is that I hope Ampedrealtor is incorrect that Tesla will just go quiet on this. It is possible, of course, that the fire made it practically impossible to determine root cause and they will have no choice.�
Feb 9, 2016
WMAC Likelihood * Impact = Risk.�
Feb 9, 2016
Auzie Risk can only go up as the fleet ages and more and more people interfere with the aging cars�
Feb 10, 2016
FlasherZ static electricity gas pump fire - Google Search�
Feb 10, 2016
AWDtsla Cars do catch of fire after being parked. Sometimes in garages.�
Feb 10, 2016
AmpedRealtor It looks like I was right when I said the best thing for Tesla would be NO COMMENT. It appears that is their position. Good for them!�
Feb 10, 2016
kennybobby Yeah that Ostrich defense is always the best play. That really helps provide answers to all who were concerned about why it happened--oh yeah that's just great news!�
Feb 10, 2016
AlMc Yes. It is nice to get some more information about this. Agree with AR that this is unlikely to happen. I believe if TM felt it was a design issue with the car or the charger that they would notify owners...or if a problem with service..the service personnel. EX: They were quick to respond to undercarriage damage to the battery packs by road debris when it appeared it was not a single isolated case.�
Feb 10, 2016
bridaus Everyone who thinks Tesla should comment on this has never worked with or against a high powered lawyer. Try it sometime, it's eye opening.�
Feb 10, 2016
jerry33 Right. I recall a lawyer who argued that tires were prone to tear themselves apart because the top of the tire was going twice as fast at the bottom. The rationale was that the bottom of the tire was static in relation to the pavement so the top had to be going at double the speed.�
Feb 10, 2016
JohnSnowNW Don't forget about the seat-belt recall.�
Feb 11, 2016
AmpedRealtor I understand that a core group of folks want to know what happened, but from Tesla's perspective it obviously makes little sense to dredge up this incident to satisfy a tiny, fractional minority of people. The fire didn't impact the stock price, it had no material impact on Tesla's operations and it barely stayed in the news cycle for more than a day or two. The only place I continue to read about it is here.�
Feb 11, 2016
EdA That seems weird, when one unsecured seatbelt caused a global recall.�
Feb 11, 2016
JRP3 The seat belt was a manufacturing defect. The SC incident was not, or, whatever it was, cannot be determined. If they don't know what happened they can't apply a "fix".�
Feb 11, 2016
McRat Tesla is wise to "put out the fire" quietly (har).
There is a public perception that EV's are fire hazards, largely due to the huge press the 2 Chevrolet Volt fires received.
So far, only the 2 NHTSA test cars have been proven to be caused by the cars, none have occurred in the wild, that were not arson, structure fire, or poor charging wiring.
All makes of cars suffer from arson fires, but especially newer cars that the owners cannot afford.�
Feb 14, 2016
AmpedRealtor Well, if the fire had nothing to do with a fleet-wide issue, why would Tesla need to do anything? And bottom line is this: Tesla has said nothing. I think that's all the proof we need.�
Feb 14, 2016
EdA They wouldn't NEED to do anything but they have a history of doing things (blog posts, recalls, etc).�
Feb 14, 2016
JRP3 Yes, when there was an actual issue to be fixed. There quite likely is none here.�
Feb 16, 2016
AmpedRealtor Yes, when there is an issue. There is no issue here.�
Mar 17, 2016
Model 3 Tesla has (almost) found the reason for the fire:
Google Oversetter
�
Mar 17, 2016
Yggdrasill Yes, as hypothesised and discussed here in length, the fault turned out to be in the HVJB. I would have liked for them to say if the fire consumed the battery, but sadly that wasn't mentioned.
Or like was discussed here, at least: Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2016�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét