It's easy enough for things not to catch flame when they're being used properly; the real test is how things behave when other things are going wrong.
That's not to say that this means all Tesla cars are fiery death-traps of doom. Just that the sample size really is the number of crashed cars.
That's ridiculous.
The Space Shuttle Challenger exploded shortly after take-off in January
1986. Subsequent investigation determined that the cause was failure of
the O-ring seals used to isolate the fuel supply from burning gases.....
NASA staff had analysed the data on the relation between ambient
temperature and number of O-ring failures (out of 6), but they had
excluded observations where no O-rings failed, believing that they were
uninformative. Unfortunately, those observations had occurred when the
launch temperature was relatively warm (65-80 degF).
Let's look at this question "how bad will that fire be for persons and property involved?"
You look at your 12 crashes where fire occurs, so (e.g.) 6 crashes. Of 6 crashes 3 were accompanied with injuries. All 3 crashes that were accompanied by electrical fires and injuries occurred was when the car's speed was between (e.g.) 40mph and 50mph. Does that mean when the speed is not between 40mph and 50mph, people won't be injured when there's a crash and a fire? It means nothing like that but it's too easy to make a wrong conclusion; you're skipping all the other data where injuries and/or fires happen independently of crashes.
Is this based on any kind of information, or just supposition stemming from the problems Boeing had (where, IIRC, Tesla offered to provide engineering assistance).
I've seen a standard 12v lead acid battery evaporating/boiling hydrochloric acid out of its vent holes, I've also seen one smoking about to explode.
"You said "IMHO ..." and then asserted something with no evidence."
Why would you expect something else when someone starts their post with IMHO?
> If merely listing these things constitutes an ad hominem attack, then it says more about your opinions than it does about me.
Your post had an obvious tone to it.
Have I misrepresented your positions?
If your answer was "no" then why not say that?
My point (addressed incorrectly) stands. It makes less sense for me to answer "no" than for the person I was responding to to answer "no". If I was making a "straw man" then in what way was it straw? If I was misrepresenting his/her opinions, how so? Otherwise, if more-or-less accurately summarizing a person's positions is ad hominem then what does that say of those positions?
Casting aspersions like 'li-ion are notorious' also stinks, much like the smell of gasoline before it (notoriously) explodes.
Ignoring the facts of the particular case whilst hugely generalising about the technology isn't a good foundation of debate.
I assume you have a suggestion as to how this could be remedied? Or, actually, looking at your comment history, I see you are also a climate change denialist.
So, which oil giant do you work for, for whom you are spreading FUD?
First of all, I absolutely agree with what you have to say about the danger of batteries as an energy storage source. Spot on. Good work.
But please, please, please, let's not throw around "paid shill" accusations here. Even if it may be true, it degrades the discourse of conversation for the entire community. Your comment's point was perfectly valid without that.
I agree that we shouldn't be throwing around "paid shill" accusations. Downvoting is better.
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24229744/tesla-says-c...
"But lithium-ion batteries have raised concerns in other vehicles. Two years ago, battery fires broke out in three Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid cars after crash-testing."
"After" being the operative word. They crashed the Volts for testing purposes and then left them sitting outside with a nearly full but damaged battery. THREE WEEKS LATER a fire started.
When testing gasoline powered cars it is standard procedure to empty the tank immediately after crashing it, if they had drained or removed the Volts' batteries in a similar fashion nothing would have happened.
https://publichd.se/index.php?page=torrents&search=&active=0...
Well damn, those sound like verified deathtraps!
Seriously, the fact that she had to reach back two years probably says enough. On the general note of battery safety in crashes, there have been several Tesla Roadster crashes (to be expected with that style of car) (http://www.wreckedexotics.com/tesla/), how many of them resulted in dangerous battery fires? Clearly these batteries do not present a serious safety concern.
Imagine that, structurally compromised systems not disposed of properly are dangerous. That says more about GM than it does the technology.
When I have batteries take damage (falls, shorts, the ever popular screwdriver through them) they are disposed of properly immediately. I also only use proper chargers and don't over charge my batteries. Guess what? I've never had a fire caused by the battery (I've had people plug in components in reverse and blow up the diodes a couple times). I've been working with various battery technologies on a near daily basis for the last 14 years without incident.
Disclaimers: I'm a robotics/electric vehicle enthusiast. I don't do this stuff as my day job any more. I formerly worked in a university research lab building H2 powered race cars.