[HN Gopher] Tesla Model S garage fire follows pattern prompting ...
___________________________________________________________________
Tesla Model S garage fire follows pattern prompting warnings
Author : joering2
Score : 59 points
Date : 2021-08-04 19:36 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.washingtonpost.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.washingtonpost.com)
| millerm wrote:
| Again, people go for the Tesla story. What about this list?
|
| https://allev.info/2021/07/list-of-known-chevy-bolt-fires/
|
| Edit: It get it, here come the hate replies and down votes.
|
| Yes I know the article "mentions" others, but the title is again
| about Tesla and not EVs.
|
| I get it. The Tesla articles always get the talk though. I
| honestly hear "Oh, Teslas light on fire. Electric vehicles are
| bad." Ask about the Bolt "Those are electric? I thought they used
| gas."
|
| Let's see how many comments this article gets about this fire
| compared to the Bolt. The original Bolt talk here from 9 months
| ago had 106 comments. Heck even the latest post where GM had to
| recall the Bolt, again, had like 2 comments. Let's see how fast
| this one grows due to branding.
|
| It's so rare, but they (Tesla) get the real headlines.
| dralley wrote:
| You do realize there were articles about those as well, right?
| Articles specifically from WaPo.
| olivermarks wrote:
| Generally parked automotive fires are started by a 12 volt
| electrical fault that progresses to fuel lines and interior
| plastics and upholstery. This is not optimal but a lot easier
| to contain than parked lithium battery powered car fires which
| require 20 tons of water and several hours to extinguish,
| followed by removal to a safe place in case of reignition.
|
| Accident impact damaged battery gang fires are a lot more
| difficult to control due to unstable stored energy
| novok wrote:
| If you read the article, it also mentions the bolt.
| mdoms wrote:
| I searched for your username in the Bolt fire comments and
| didn't see it. So your big problem is that that article got
| fewer comments than this one, while you comment on this article
| and not that one?
| cblconfederate wrote:
| Rudolf Diesel is referenced about all that is bad about his
| engine, similary Tesla will naturally receive most of the
| exposure. In addition WSJ is a finance paper, and tesla is by
| far the highest value EV manufacturer
| gamblor956 wrote:
| Tesla is the market leader. More people have heard of Tesla.
| Tesla makes a lot of promises about safety.
|
| For all these reasons, something involving a Tesla is news in a
| ways that something involving a rare car like the Bolt is not
| (but note that the article also mentions Bolt and Kona fires as
| well).
|
| If Tesla can't take the heat, then maybe they should cut back
| on the self-congratulatory marketing.
| jnwatson wrote:
| I don't mean to be a Tesla apologist, but what's the rate of cars
| with ICE engines catching on fire in garages?
|
| I only ask because (n=1) I recall a major house fire across the
| street from me that started in the attached garage when the car
| caught fire.
|
| The ultimate problem is the same: it takes a lot of stored energy
| to propel a car 300 miles, regardless of that energy source.
| Controlling that energy will be challenge regardless.
| [deleted]
| heavyset_go wrote:
| According to the IIHS[1], the S burns more often than than the
| average vehice, and as does the X.
|
| [1]
| https://www.iihs.org/media/c93b98d8-6a7d-44a1-810e-4468ec539...
| lucb1e wrote:
| From tables 1 and 2, about noncrash fire losses / insurance
| claims from cars built in 2016-2018 if I'm skimming this
| right: IVY RFC Make and series
| 36k 192 Tesla Model X 4dr electric 4WD 43k 140
| Tesla Model S 4dr electric 4WD 50k 288 Dodge
| Charger HEMI 508k 101 Ford Fusion 151k 49
| Honda Fit 21k 0 Chevrolet Sonic
|
| RFC = Relative claim frequency which has an asterisk in the
| document saying "100 = all-passenger-vehicle result". If 100
| is all passenger vehicles... result? I can't parse this
| sentence, but I take it to mean that 100 is the average of
| all cars.
|
| IVY = Insured Vehicle Years, basically sample size
|
| Given that a car with 21k exposure years can have 0 claims,
| and there are also combustion vehicles with higher values,
| I'm not sure how statistically significant it is that these
| Tesla values are >100.
| throwanem wrote:
| It sounds like "relative claim frequency" is a weirdly
| expressed ratio, ie Charger owners make fire claims at a
| rate 2.88x that of the average across all passenger
| vehicles.
| [deleted]
| mdoms wrote:
| I have had one ICE car catch fire (in the driveway, not garage,
| thankfully) but it was caused by the electrical system (looks
| like the alternator spontaneously shorted somehow). No fuel
| caught fire despite the fire burning for upwards of 15 minutes
| before the fire crew arrives.
| thrwyoilarticle wrote:
| So if you're supervising your vehicle being charged and it
| catches fire, what do you do? Are you stuck waiting for the fire
| brigade anyway?
| admax88q wrote:
| Yep but you can call them early rather than finding your whole
| house in fire and then calling them.
| olivermarks wrote:
| Two recent major battery fires.
|
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-02/a-tesla-b...
|
| https://insideevs.com/news/373722/truck-trailer-five-teslas-...
|
| We need to start addressing the reality of gang fires from
| charged lithium batteries a lot more seriously.
| 908087 wrote:
| "Autopilot was not engaged during this fire, and the user was not
| supervising the vehicle in order to extinguish it. We've
| determined this fire to be the result of user error." - Tesla
| rasz wrote:
| Tesla detected charging problem and send a message, but a battery
| pack crammed with temperature sensors didnt notice being on fire?
| trjordan wrote:
| This is terrible, obviously. Where possible, all EV makers should
| protect against this.
|
| Gas cars may not catch fire when they sit in a garage, but
| they're not perfectly safe. My parents' friend left the car on
| one night, by accident. The carbon monoxide killed half the
| family.
|
| There's low-probability tragedies around us, each a little
| different. There's no silver bullet.
| kjksf wrote:
| This is a fine hit piece coming from Jeff "can't compete with
| SpaceX" Bezos' WaPo.
|
| It starts with the headline:
|
| > It's a risk many automakers are taking seriously.
|
| Implying Tesla doesn't take this seriously. And the argument:
| other car makers recalled cars for fire risk.
|
| What if the reason is that Tesla didn't find a defect that
| warrants a recall?
|
| If we assume that regulatory bodies are not somehow favoring
| Tesla, more recalls by other car makers show that Tesla cars are
| safer in that regard.
|
| It would also imply that Tesla took this issue seriously before
| they released the cars, not after.
|
| And also this gem:
|
| > Tesla in the past has argued that its cars are a tenth as
| likely to catch fire as gas-powered vehicles, drawing on data
| from the National Fire Protection Association and U.S. Federal
| Highway Administration. > Still, safety experts note that the
| fires can burn more intensely and last much longer.
|
| So, the government data show that Tesla cars are safer than gas
| cars wrt. fires. WaPo doesn't dispute that.
|
| Still, they manage to spin that superior safety of Tesla with
| some shade.
|
| > The Washington Post has documented at least five fires
|
| You don't say. Five out 1.5 million cars.
|
| > Tesla had come under scrutiny over concerns it allegedly
| manipulated battery software in older vehicles to lessen the risk
| of fire.
|
| So when Tesla releases a software update to lessen the
| probability of fire (something GM also did recently after many
| Bolt fires), WaPo says it's "manipulating battery software".
|
| This whole article is just trying to make people think that Tesla
| is uniquely bad at fires when the reality is that not only
| electric cars are safer than gas cars AND Tesla cars are safer
| than other electric cars.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| Note: this fire was actually last year when there was a spate of
| EV fires, but was not reported publicly until today.
|
| The big takeaway from these fires is that proper safety for EVs
| might soon mean not leaving them in garages, especially those
| attached/part of residential structures. Expect insurance
| companies to adjust home insurance policies accordingly to
| account for EV fire risks.
| ghaff wrote:
| Having to run a charging cable to your car parked away from the
| house/garage seems like a non-starter especially in areas of
| the country where it snows.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > The big takeaway from these fires is that proper safety for
| EVs might soon mean not leaving them in garages
|
| Just add a fire suppressant system to the Powerwall it's hooked
| on.
| tonyhb wrote:
| Not sure it's as easy as adding a fire suppressant system to
| a garage.
|
| In many tesla crash reports firefighters leave the batteries
| to burn for hours, as there's no nice way to extinguish
| lithium fires.
| aequitas wrote:
| Standard procedure nowadays seems to be to dump the car in
| a container filled with water:
| https://www.autoevolution.com/news/bmw-i8-catches-fire-in-
| th...
| tonyhb wrote:
| This is absolutely insane and all I can think of is a
| total wipeout style dunk tank under our garages in case
| of fires.
| TimSchumann wrote:
| Uh, someone correct me if I'm wrong on this... but aren't
| most Lithium Ion battery chemistries self oxidizing?
|
| If that's the case, I don't think a fire suppression system
| would help.
| i_am_proteus wrote:
| It's possible to put the fire out by cooling the battery
| below ignition temperature, and depriving the fire of
| atmospheric oxygen certainly _reduces_ the combustion rate,
| but the result for firefighters is that an enormous amount
| of water is required.
|
| Typical petroleum fires (gasoline, diesel) can be smothered
| with foam to put them out. No amount of heat will ignite
| these fuels without oxygen.
|
| Smother a self-oxidizing fire does not extinguish the fire.
| To remove heat, firefighters spray cold water on the fire,
| which is incompatible with smothering it (the water and
| steam push foam away), so the fire has atmospheric oxygen
| as well as oxidant from the fuel. Dropping the car into a
| tank of water accomplishes both - the water tank is a heat
| sink, cooling the car, and it also smothers the fire and
| removes atmospheric oxygen.
| lb1lf wrote:
| -I recall having read of at least two incidents where
| Norwegian firefighters simply dumped a truckload of sand
| over the burning vehicle.
|
| This happened in places where simply leaving it to burn out
| wasn't an option.
|
| Crude, but effective, apparently. Massive
| heatsink+depriving the fire of any oxygen not supplied by
| the decomposing battery.
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| You're correct. They are. That's why you can't put them out
| unless you drop the whole thing in a giant container of
| water.
| mgarfias wrote:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20210804203108if_/https://www.wa...
| thekalki wrote:
| I wish they provided more information on what caused the fire
| since this happened last year. Remember there is at least 250
| gasoline car fires a day in comparison
|
| here is the source https://cleantechnica.com/2019/06/03/500-gas-
| car-fires-per-d...
| lucb1e wrote:
| I have literally never heard of a gasoline car fire, or at
| least not spontaneously in a garage (in response to an
| accident, sure). Source for 250 a day?
| Arrath wrote:
| https://www.autosafety.org/nhtsa-consumer-advisory-ford-
| crui...
|
| >Failure to have the switch disconnected could lead to a
| vehicle fire at any time, whether or not the key is in the
| ignition, and whether or not owners use the cruise control
| system. The safety agency said the fire danger is present
| regardless of the age of the vehicle, and could even occur
| while the vehicle is parked and unattended. Several dwelling
| fires have been attributed to the problem.
|
| It can happen. That one was particularly bone headed design,
| but yeah. (I am in no way arguing that an old recall could
| have been responsible for the GP's claim of 250/day, just
| that spontaneous ICE vehicle fires have and do happen)
| lucb1e wrote:
| Not saying it could never possibly happen, just the
| particular claim of "this happens to hundreds of people
| _daily_ " when I have not heard of this across, um, I've
| been a driver for more than a few hundred days, made me
| doubt that it was that common even if it's a worldwide
| stat.
| rs999gti wrote:
| > Remember there is at least 250 gasoline car fires a day in
| comparison
|
| Citation please
| asix66 wrote:
| One quick google search [0]. There are more.
|
| [0] https://www.abcactionnews.com/money/consumer/taking-
| action-f...
| guerby wrote:
| Quick search gives a study on a subset of car fires:
|
| https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/v19i2.pdf
|
| "Each year, from 2014 to 2016, an estimated 171,500 highway
| vehicle fires occurred in the United States, resulting in an
| annual average of 345 deaths; 1,300 injuries; and $1.1
| billion in property loss"
|
| That's 469 per day just on highway, given the date range
| probably 99% of them on fossil fuel cars.
| tempfs wrote:
| Gasoline cars probably, rarely or never, literally
| spontaneously combust while sitting parked in a garage. This is
| a serious problem and I am not sure what citing that fact adds
| to the discussion.
| teleclimber wrote:
| Bmw has had a bunch of them:
|
| https://abcnews.go.com/US/mysterious-bmw-fires-continue-
| call...
| foepys wrote:
| This is throwing a big wrench into the idea that EVs could help
| stabilize the grid in the era of relatively unreliable renewable
| energy sources.
|
| At least for now until better battery tech will emerge. Hopefully
| insurance will keep track of this and update their policies
| regularly.
| qweqwweqwe-90i wrote:
| I wouldn't go that far, I'm going to guess that charging to 80%
| will be enough to reduce the risk.
| yawaworht1978 wrote:
| Dread to think of a Tesla battery fire in a garage with poor
| access for the fireworks.
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| > The issue is causing mounting concern as a number of electric-
| vehicle makers have warned owners not to leave the cars charging
| unattended in certain circumstances, or sitting fully charged in
| garages.
|
| Wow.
|
| * Don't leave your car fully charged? Stop and think about the UX
| there. That's a completely new paradigm: don't completely fill
| you car with energy? Why not just stop the charging at 90% and
| call that 100%? What should you leave it at? (Drone batteries
| should be left at 50% if not going to be used soon.)
|
| * Don't leave your car unattended while charging? So I'm supposed
| to sit there and watch it charge?
|
| That's sort of an unacceptable usage model, IMHO.
| space_rock wrote:
| The UI is already there. Tesla doesn't charge to 100% unless
| you configure it for a road trip
| ProfessorLayton wrote:
| I believe OP is saying that 80/90% or whatever should be
| displayed as 100% to the user, the same way fuel gauges in
| ICE vehicles typically leave a large amount of fuel in the
| tank while displaying as "empty".
|
| This is mainly a U.S. practice, as many European countries
| like their gauges to be as accurate as possible.
| magicalhippo wrote:
| > I believe OP is saying that 80/90% or whatever should be
| displayed as 100% to the user
|
| My BMW i3 does that. When my car is fully charged, it's
| almost exactly 80% of the actual full battery capacity.
| When it says it's empty it's about 20%.
|
| I verified this using some REST API calls someone had
| figured out reported capacity (actual and available) in kWh
| and correlated with the 94Ah specification.
| lb1lf wrote:
| > This is mainly a U.S. practice, as many European
| countries like their gauges to be as accurate as possible.
|
| -Add the Japanese to that list. My Land Cruiser's low fuel
| lamp comes on when there's 22L/5.75 US gallons left.
| [deleted]
| benjohnson wrote:
| That is low for an off-road vehicle where civilisation
| could be quite far away. My Suzuki and Chevy off-road
| vehicles are calibrated the same. My Buick thinks low is
| 24 miles of range.
| lb1lf wrote:
| While that's undeniably true, if venturing off-road, I'd
| expect the driver to plan better than simply heading back
| when the light comes on.
|
| (I'm probably - make that 'almost certainly' erring on
| the side of caution - having fitted a 90L/24USg auxiliary
| tank and also often carrying a jerry can or two when
| heading off into the boonies - heck, even my field
| kitchen runs on diesel!)
| mdoms wrote:
| Then something presumably isn't working right, because cars
| are still burning.
| space_rock wrote:
| I would like to know the extent of these problem and if
| there are other solutions. Seems this person did charge to
| 100%. Maybe this should be disabled for garages
| pests wrote:
| Tesla suggests only 80/%90% anyways as complete fill/drain
| cycles degrades the battery faster.
| 3pt14159 wrote:
| I'm sort of perplexed that this is even a problem? Surely it's
| possible to dynamically disengage the charging mechanism once
| full?
| r1ch wrote:
| The problem is that batteries themselves don't have a concept
| of "full". Measuring the state of charge in Li-ion cells is
| not easy as the voltage curve can be quite flat, so you have
| to use all kinds of heuristics to determine what a safe
| charge level is.
| 3pt14159 wrote:
| I see. Thanks. I take it thermal differential between
| battery and outdoor air won't work for some reason?
| r1ch wrote:
| Batteries heat up depending on the rate of charge and
| while it is easy to measure and control to avoid damage
| from overheating, I don't believe it can be used to
| measure the state of charge. Charging at home in a garage
| would likely be using a much slower (and thus cooler)
| charging method than a commercial charger, so I don't
| think the fires are caused by the rate of charge, but
| perhaps by over-charging potentially worn or damaged /
| defective cells.
| turtlebits wrote:
| Are you sure that's correct? The BMS should have a high
| voltage disconnect and not allow further charging.
| r1ch wrote:
| I'm sure it does - the problem is that the disconnect
| trigger voltage could be a normal state of charge for one
| cell but a high / dangerous state of charge for another.
| pwthornton wrote:
| In the short-term this is partly addressable by not parking EVs
| in garages, and perhaps long-term by new safety measures on both
| EVs and on garages to contain potential fires.
|
| But I have a related question: Are power walls also dangerous
| like this? They are also large lithium ion batteries.
| X6S1x6Okd1st wrote:
| > and on garages to contain potential fires.
|
| I really hope this isn't the way this is solved.
| Arrath wrote:
| Building code already mandated the garage being in a
| different/delayed 'fire envelope' than the habituated portion
| of my home when it was built, so at least in some
| jurisdictions we're already there.
|
| Thicker, fire resistant drywall. Spring-loaded fire doors to
| the main house that default to closed. No air vent
| passthrough from the garage to the house, and so on.
| handrous wrote:
| Construction fire code changes all the time. The ones around
| here _specifically_ for attached garages have added more
| requirements within the last decade or so, for instance.
| turtlebits wrote:
| Yes, anything with the same chemistry is also dangerous. I
| would hope Powerwalls would have better cell isolation as they
| aren't as constrained by weight and size as in a vehicle.
|
| That said, it looks like Tesla is going with LiFePo for
| powerwalls which is a much safer chemistry.
| fy20 wrote:
| Supposedly Tesla uses NCA for its cars and NMC for
| Powerwalls. Most other electric car manufacturers use NMC.
| However the properties of a battery vary greatly depending on
| the structure of the cell, and even more so on the cooling of
| the battery, so you should not compare them on chemistry
| alone.
|
| The reason why LiFePo4 (LFP) is safer is because it doesn't
| exhibit thermal runaway and is less energy dense.
|
| https://www.powertechsystems.eu/home/tech-corner/safety-
| of-l...
| nathanaldensr wrote:
| Change _garages_ to suit a defective, dangerous piece of
| equipment? You 've got to be kidding.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| I believe Tesla pitches the Powerwall as being suitable for
| indoor and outdoor installation, but I was speaking recently
| with a solar professional who expressed horror at huge banks of
| batteries being installed anywhere other than the exterior of
| houses.
| Arrath wrote:
| I wouldn't be against treating a powerwall install like
| ammunition storage in an armored vehicle. Firewalled from the
| house with fire suppression installed, blowout panels to the
| outside, the whole shebang.
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| Lithium Ion batteries are dangerous in general. I think they
| are more dangerous than gasoline: if I puncture my gas tank
| with an awl it doesn't explode in a 2000degC fire for 4 hours.
| It is scary, but necessary to adopt new tech IMHO, kinda like
| how the first Model T's could break your arm when you started
| them (by turning the crank).
| Nasrudith wrote:
| I would disagree about lithium ion batteries being more
| dangerous - gasoline is far more energy dense for one. A
| slower release is actually a good thing for safety compared
| to the alternative, a very fast intense one. Besides, just a
| single mode of failure is not an apt comparison.
|
| - You cannot create a fuel air bomb by throwing lithium ion
| batteries into your basement and igniting it when the
| concentration is correct. - You cannot suffer carbon monoxide
| poisoning from lithium ion batteries.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-04 23:02 UTC)