Forums

Join The Community
RegisterLogin

From BI: "Another Tesla Caught On Fire While Sitting In A Toronto Garage This Month"

Anyone have more info on this? Two interesting items from the article:

"Earlier this month, a Tesla Model S sitting in a Toronto garage ignited and caught on fire. The car was about four months old and was not plugged in to an electric socket, says a source."

"Shortly after the fire, seven Tesla employees visited the owner of the vehicle. The company also offered to take care of the damages and inconvenience caused by the fire, but the owner declined."

Full article: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/another-tesla-caught-fire-while-231107420.....

Just heard from the Toronto team. The story is factual, but not concerning to them. I'll post his actual response once I get his permission.

Personally, I'm not concerned and still consider my car the best vehicle on the market.

jvs11560, the way the article is written and your remark about "5 fires in a Tesla" implies that there is an inherent problem with the car's electrical system.

Lets just say for the sake of discussion, this fire in Toronto was caused by the car and that makes a total of "5" fires. 3 of these 5 fires were related to significant accidents which would have undoubtedly killed/seriously injured the passengers of the cars if it were a gasoline car. That leaves 2 fires presumably related to an inherent wiring issue. The first one was found to be the fault of the wiring in HPWC/adapters. The fact that the car was plugged in, doesn't make it the car's fault. It was just drawing the current it needed. That leaves this Toronto fire. Since we don't have the details of this particular incident, I can't comment but as someone mentioned the picture of the fires leaves a lot to question. No matter what type of car it is, if there is a fire in the front end, the firemen rip open the "hood" to help douse the fire. Look at the picture, there is no evidence that they even touched the nose. They also appear to be looking at the ground in front of the car.

Left a burning cigar in the car?

@brian, having a lighted cigar in such a fine vehicle should be a crime all by itself!

@slipdrive
To answer your question, it would be a crime to plant a false press story and then trade on it. Although the person planting the story is not a company insider, he or she does have material nonpublic information, namely that the story is false. It is also illegal to manipulate markets, although that one is harder to prove.

Indeed, this is all very curious. I too fail to see any sign of fire on the car itself in those pictures, but they're not the most clear shots. I eagerly await the official word.

A brake fault, pad heating from continuous light pressure on the rotor? That's in the right 'region', and unrelated to the electrical system. And with aftermarket wheels, possibly wrong-sized ...

@jordanrichard - The Model S and the Volt have about the same sales. We all know that the press loves a negative story where Hybrids and Electric vehicles are concerned. The Volt has had (1) fire which we all know about. The engineers changed the design and there have been no more fires. There have been plenty of volts in accidents since the crash test fire and not one has had a fire. I know the volt and the model S are not the same car but it is a good gauge. If this article was a fraud, Mr Musk would be all over it. There have been no Nissan Leaf fires either. (There was one leaf that caught fire, but was part of a larger fire)

Since Tesla sent a team to Canada, it is a mystery as to why they have not informed us of what the problem was/is?

Although they eliminated a lot of the components, the press has reported that the inverter/drive motor was the probable cause of the fire. I guess we'll just have to wait and see...

I think the wheels are after market because of the intense winters in Canada. Why ruin a good set of wheels?

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/02/15/will-tesla-motors-be-fo...

According to the above article, the Toronto Fire Department has identified that the fire started "in the engine area". I'm presuming that to mean the frunk area. This appears to be quite real.

@jordanrichard, you decry bad information, then spread some: "3 of these 5 fires were related to significant accidents which would have undoubtedly killed/seriously injured the passengers of the cars if it were a gasoline..." There is no such evidence, certainly not to the level of "undoubtedly". I have read all available reports on the others, and only one was a high speed accident into immoveable objects. Two of the "accidents" had arguably contributory elements unique to the Model S - its low undercarriage and soft metal protecting the battery, as well as the battery construction and chemistry, which caused a spontaneous reaction that took a few minutes to flourish into a full fire.

We can make valid observations about gasoline having higher flammability, and that there are many auto fires every day in ICE vehicles that go unreported, but the fact is that the Model S fires would likely not have occurred in an ICE, and there would likely have been no injury or death to occupants, as there was hardly any visible damage to the cars where an object struck the bottom. Is there a chance the objects would have hit and even perforated a gas tank? Yes, but a steel underbody would likely not have been so easily perforated, and if it was, the object would not have been so likely to strike something critical inside the car. With the Model S, anything perforating the bottom is guaranteed to strike something critical. In the case of the battery, we have learned that anything striking and perforating the bottom is likely to cause rapid loss of critical flammable coolant, without which that part of the battery struggles to maintain its balance, and can self-immolate. The risk of a self-starting fire is much less in an ICE, as a perforated fuel tank fire requires an external ignition source, so usually they simply leak fuel and cleanup is required.

There is a legitimate media focus on fire potential in EV's, especially the Model S. Tesla recognizes this fact and has amended its warranty coverage and the car's software accordingly. Some may disagree with that reaction, but TM knows a lot more than we do about the hundreds of accidents that Tesla's have had so far. We only see the ones in the media. There are many more - just check eBay for the large number of parts currently for sale, removed from Tesla's that are apparently being parted out. We need to be aware of the risk and deal with minimizing it to the extent reasonable. I still think my car is the safest on the road, but do know that it has at least one risk that my ICE cars and trucks don't have - potential spontaneous battery combustion after and accident. Does anyone seriously not believe it is very important to move away from a Model S after an accident, until it is established that the battery is intact? Let's love our cars, but not be blind about it.

"the press has reported that the inverter/drive motor was the probable cause of the fire."

jvs11560 it's becoming pretty clear that the press are complete morons.

The fire was in the front of the car. The inverter/drive motor is in the BACK! It is very clear there was no fire in the back.

It's the 12 volt battery or A/C if anything at all to do with the Tesla. It could have been an insurance job because the guy couldn't afford his toy. We just don't know.

I still find it extremely strange that someones car caught fire and they did not take pictures of the burnt area of the car. That is the first thing I would have done for insurance purposes. Could be the owner is protecting Tesla for now by not releasing his pictures.

This story reminds me of a bigfoot sighting.

Here is a recent garage fire in Toronto: (Feb. 2011) http://www.tfspics.com/Toronto-Fire-Incidents/Toronto-Fire-Incidents-201...

It was a car (ICE) fire that required well over a million$ and several years to repair.

And another example of how indirect events can end up with a car starting a major garage fire is illustrated by this Toronto incident from September 2010: http://www.postcity.com/North-Toronto-Post/September-2010/Kurt-Browning-...

These two incidents are just two that are recent Toronto car-related garage fires within walking distance from my home, so I am forced to conclude that this type of thing is quite a common occurrence.

If only we can get past incidents - here you can see current:

http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=38b3e5e1b4c62410...

If that does not work click "Active Incidents" at:

http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=7d173497436e1410...

I live in the Toronto area and heard nothing about this until after 4pm (coincidentaly AFTER the closing bell) on Friday, February, 14th, 2 weeks after the incident actually occurred and just days before earnings report. (fishy) No local news outlet reported on it either. There are thousands of Model S' built alike and already on the road in many different countries, and the only times the Model S has ignited was because of road debris striking the battery (which has been addressed with the ride height update) and the charger overheating (which also has been addressed and corrected through a sofware update and new charger). If there was or is a problem with the Model S, wouldn't more of them have already gone up in flames like the Toronto Model S? I could be wrong, but it sounds like a very strange occurrence and a possible assault on the company and it's stock price. After all, a pair of Model S' just drive across the country in every weather condition possible and neither went up in flames "just sitting there"
I hope this is fully investigated and arson is NOT ruled out to quickly.

So tiring. But it's rather hilarious it has come to this. The car is so incredible and loved by owners. The FUDsters and SHorTS are desperate, and must create something to cling to. The market has digested all this"news" and has processed it's result.

Tesla is getting ahead of this and is being a responsible corporate citizen in its response.
Origin of the fire really not clear. More wall insulation and rafters charred than any visible part of car.
Owner declined Tesla compensation which could be telling in itself. Has there been an insurance adjuster or investigation performed?
I agree with prior comment from admjr:
"A garage in Toronto caught on fire with a Tesla in it"

Another thing to think about is if you installed your own fog lights, tailor plug kit or front view camera (incorrectly) and the car caught fire the insurance company would most likely still cover the loss and the shady news would cover the burning Tesla.

+1000 Sudre_

Tesla has been clear about modifications being done at one's own risk.

Modifications need to be done by Tesla. The owner is opting to assume all risk if they choose to do otherwise.

This is one reason I do not have a sound system that is modified.

Apple aquisition rumor might be the trump card here...

"Apple acquisition rumor" is based on rumor that Elon met with Apple in Spring 2013. One might compare Tesla stock then and now and draw conclusions for himself.

rubs;
Terminology is important here. A new charger was NOT sent out. It was an adapter with a new thermal fuse, and the accompanying s/w knocks down the current draw if instability or fluctuations are detected.

The TM charger is a rectifier built into the car, or two of them. Other EVs have external chargers.


X Deutschland Site Besuchen