Crank up the Press - Another Tesla Fire

Nope, he simply had bad data, it was not off the same amount for tesla or "average car", can't you do the math? If A > B, then simply dividing A over average age, A suddenly becomes less than B. The question is why in the world would you divide by average age? There is simply no acceptable statistical reason. Hemp clearly can not do high school story problems.

Now there is a legitimate point that newer cars may be less likely to catch on fire than older cars. Part of the explanation given by that nat geo article may be that newer cars have electronic nannies that may prevent roll overs, a condition that is correlated with fires in cars. We just don't have the figures. hemp seems to not even have the ability to construct a proper equation from a story problem.

Then the question is, if a car company warrents your car against fire, how often does it need to occur for you to be worried. If it catches on fire less often than an average car, but less often than say sir fireproof volvo, would you buy it? The prius has lower fatalities than your average car, but it is not in the same class as some others designed more for safety than efficiency.

What about risk of injury. Here we really have low numbers. O on the tesla, but many cars would also be at 0 if less than 50,000 were on the road.

Finally we have the pinto problem. The pinto really was not more prone to fire than the average small car, but there was a known design flaw, that if corrected may have prevented some of the fires. Ofcourse dateline NBC did not really need the car to actually catch fires easily, they rigged it to do that on tv. Now I expect if there is a real issue Tesla will correct it in a timely manner, unlike ford with the pinto. But even if Tesla does everthing right, I would expect your friend hemp, or is it Bill Hamp, to make stuff up like the incredibly bizzar math he or maybe she was quoting. I mean I don't expect that anyone was that stupid, so they made it up and probably their name.

We should know in 5 or 6 years, enough to prove the tesla S is safer than the top gasoline powered cars, or maybe in one year if fires start coming up more and more often. The statistics clearly are too small to indicate tesla has a problem.

 

Since the Tesla S has only been out for a year, Hamp was spared from making the multi-year error. So his 0.00024 for the Tesla could be compared directly to the yearly rate for vehicles of 0.0006. That number includes old, new, and average age vehicles along with trucks and RVs. The S is less likely to have a fire from the data, which is admittedly a small sample size. Most likely hood, the S might be as prone to fires as any other vehicle on the road. We'll just have to wait and see in that regard.

If you believe the vehicle fire rate is being skewed by a higher number of fires among older vehicles, then prove it.

 

If you are ignorant enough of reality to believe is isn't, feel free to proceed.

 

Or equally, to proclaim it doesn't. Even if you are Elon Musk.

 

It was posted, not "sent". Your over-sensitivity is showing.

 

So Air Boss, you have no evidence to support your claim?

 

It's you hypothesis. It's your job to prove it right or wrong.

It should easy to prove. If the Tesla S is more likely to catch fire than any other car, then the fire rate should be lower during the first year or two for the majority of other models.

 

I guess with that reasoning everything new must be suceptable to have a problem. but this is the case of every car that is appreciably different than cars 20 years ago. Certainly it is too early to say after only 14 months of a radically different car that it won't have problems. A tesla is less likely to have a fire caused by door lock, heated seats, gasoline, or mufflers I would never have guessed porche was going to have a fire problem, that statistically is much worse, and initial investigations came back with some possible design problems. Tesla isn't likely to have these things.

Whatever air Boss. You included my comment, then said something that had nothing to address it. If you don't like the term replied fine. If you think its over senitive to expect you actually look at the statement you are replying to in your comment, well I can't help you there. I was not insulted, just pointing out that I may not be the best person to reply to your blathering on, since you don't seem to really understand statistics or the problem with reposting trollish math multiple times (defending hamp, when any idiot if they thought about it would see hamp can't even do middle school story problems correctly).
What we can say is if NHTSA or tesla engineers to find problems, the media will report on it in a very loud way. Given Musk's track record tesla will likely respond more like mercedes and not like toyota and ford and audi. They will get things fixed in a timely manner. We also know that statistically you aren't very likely to die from a tesla fire. Most people

 

You seem to be missing the point. I own a Prius v, and like it a lot, for its functionality, practicality and efficiency. Put 800 miles on it over the past three days and went through 18 gallons of gas in two easy fill-ups adding a whole 8-9 minutes of elapsed time to the journey.

By contrast, Tesla is an over-hyped joke of a niche product touted by fanbois who can barely contain their range anxiety, and who must put together a logistics effort worthy of the D-Day invasion just to get a couple of dozen of them to DC on the same weekend. And they even advertise this, which makes it all the more a case of the joke being on them.

Worse still is the albatross circling overhead. It may ultimately turn out that the present incidence of battery/charger fires is only the tip of the iceberg. As a niche product that could take significantly more time in service to confirm or deny, or DOT could cut that short with a recall that the tout-in-chief has all but guaranteed won't occur. The Boeing 787 battery safety guarantees and FAA grounding debacle comes to mind.

 

Very true Hill.
Although in this particular case I am very proud of the forum members as they have been responding without yelling.
We have been digging for data to test AB's hypothesis.

What data and studies we have does not support AB's contention. So we ask AB what evidence he has.
His silence on that question has been saying a lot.

 

You don't self-identify as trollbait for nothing, it seems.

 

I will gladly let the evidence sift in over time. Put this thread in the parking lot and come back in a year. Or when DOT issues the recall.

 

Porsche GT3's recalled in the UK due to fire danger.

Porsche calls on owners of GT3 to take them off road after engine fires | Mail Online

So what is to be made of this? Should Tesla recall or are fires just part of the risk of owning a vehicle?

 

The difference is Porsche is not worried about fluffing a hyper-inflated stock price.

 

Another assumption with no factual basis?

You are great at throwing around accusations and insults, not so good at the data driven conclusions.

Did Elon kick sand on you at a beach or something?

 

Hint: have you looked at their stock price? Current P/E 3, forward P/E 7, and a 19% relative P/E multiple to the DAX. Now compare to TSLA at a 120x forward P/E. QED

Are you drinking Musk's sand infused KoolAid?

 

I'm not saying the stock price is valid, or not.
You attributing motivation without basis is simply unfounded.
How do you know he is worried about it, or concerned in the least.

That aside though, and back to facts. Do you have any?

 

It is still possible that your prediction could come true. Jean Dixon was right, occasionally.

But you keep missing the point. So far, you have only an ice cube. You keep portraying it as an iceberg already, but show us only an illusion, and point only to a post that merely demonstrates innumeracy.

There are zillions of ice cubes out there, and some of them are attached to full icebergs. But most are not.

 

It sounds like Porsche doesn't know what is causing the fires. Just a vague engine damage then fire in the report, with out mention of what caused the engine damage in the first place. The article said no accidents were involved, so it looks like a flaw within the engine itself.

With multiple incidences, and not knowing what the cause is, or simply not having a fix, asking owners to park the cars is the best move Porsche can do.

With the Teslas, the three fires that happened on the road were from collisions. One was severe. The car, at high speed collided with multiple objects, including going through a brick wall. The other two involved running over metal debris on the road at highway speeds. The first driver might have suffered minor injuries, but he was still able to get out of the car before the fire. No injuries with the others.

The first case is an extreme one, and likely any car that went through it would have a good chance of igniting. After the other two Tesla updated the software on all the cars so that they didn't ride as low at highway speeds, and maybe let the driver turn the lowering system completely off.

With this current fire report of the Tesla in the garage, I'm not 100% it started with the Tesla. Too few details available to us to say. We do know the car was charging or plugged in, and it doesn't appear as if the traction pack burned in the photo. So it likely wasn't anything to do with the charger or the car's drive train. The 12 volt battery might be suspected here, but it could also have been something in the car's frunk as far as we know. Without other incidents under the same circumstances, this could be an isolated case of someone leaving a battery cable loose. Tesla did send out a team to investigate it, and aren't acting like nothing is wrong.