Another Tesla fire, this time while supercharging - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 01, 2016, 04:11:10 pm
content: Hm, 120kW of charging can go bad I guess. Really worrying that this happened with no apparent external cause like road debris. Just...happened. And a $100k car burns straight to the ground into a puddle of molten aluminium.http://www.fvn.no/lokalt/aust_agder/Tesla-tok-fyr-og-brant-helt-ut-2945743.htmlAt least, it doesn't look like the battery was involved as the lower portion of the car where the battery is located is not as badly damaged.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 01, 2016, 04:18:17 pm
content: If it caught fire while charging, especially at high current, then the battery is absolutely at the very top of the list of suspects. That the battery pack is at the bottom is irrelevant; li-ion batteries are known for catching fire, and fire goes up more than down.

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 01, 2016, 07:48:27 pm
content: Yeah, but then the bottom of the car would have been more destroyed than it is - lithium fire is pretty energetic. My bet is more on a charging circuit failure/short circuit, especially seeing that (likely salted) snow around.

author: mk_
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 01, 2016, 07:59:35 pm
content: Quote from: janoc on January 01, 2016, 07:48:27 pmthats foam not snow...

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 01, 2016, 07:59:55 pm
content: Real quality

author: Warhawk
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 01, 2016, 08:02:09 pm
content: Quote from: mk_ on January 01, 2016, 07:59:35 pmThere is snow as well. Look to the back.

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 01, 2016, 09:01:35 pm
content: There probably was a bad connection, since bad connections always start fires.Could happen in your house right now.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 01, 2016, 09:07:28 pm
content: Quote from: Jeroen3 on January 01, 2016, 09:01:35 pmThere is supposed to be protection against pushing high currents through high impedance connections. That's a key part of any of the high power charging schemes, because in the big wide grubby world dirty or damaged contacts are going to be a major issue. If a bad connection caused this, the protection systems would be at fault.

author: calexanian
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 01, 2016, 09:19:19 pm
content: There is one thing of which we can be certain. Tesla will fix it. too much is on the line, especially in the shadow of the VW catastrophe.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 01, 2016, 09:23:27 pm
content: My first thought was the cold weather had something to do with it...

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 01, 2016, 09:36:17 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on January 01, 2016, 09:07:28 pmIt's known for certain that Tesla sense the temperature of the connector at the car and will reduce power if the connector is loose (although it does not forbid charging IIRC.) But it's impractical to sense the temperature at all connector points, such as inside the car.For example, given the 300A+ charging current just one loose bolt on a bus bar, perhaps not fitted correct after a service, or one which worked itself loose over time could be a source of overheating. Only a couple of volts need be dropped to produce a massive amount of power dissipation which could start a fire in adjacent materials.It actually doesn't look like a battery fire because the car normally vents under the front wheel wells when the battery fails.http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2013/10/tesla-model-s-fire.jpghttp://gas2.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/third-tesla-fire.jpgIt will be interesting to see what, if anything, Tesla say about this.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 02, 2016, 05:46:16 am
content: What happened to the roof? Blasted away by a giant furnace caused by the batteries? Asearch for images of burned carsshows that the bodywork mostly stays intact.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 02, 2016, 07:34:14 am
content: My money is on a bad connection overheating and catching on fire. The battery system and charge system all have temp sensors and would shutdown if they detected an issue.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 02, 2016, 09:06:43 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 01, 2016, 09:36:17 pmTesting temperatures is nice, but its impractical to test at every point down the line. I believe they test the impedance of the wiring, which will detect a poor connection at any point it might occur.

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 02, 2016, 09:52:56 am
content: Quote from: mk_ on January 01, 2016, 07:59:35 pmLook farther in the image - there is a lot of white even far away from the car. I don't think the firemen would spray a block around a car with foam, would they?

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 02, 2016, 10:31:45 am
content: Also - since the car is still well and truly alight, wouldn't there still be foam being sprayed onto it? I can't imagine any fire department leaving the scene with any risk of such a flame-up.

author: Warhawk
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 02, 2016, 11:20:31 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on January 02, 2016, 10:31:45 amI am also wondering how (if) lithium in the cells reacts with the foam ?

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 02, 2016, 11:50:24 am
content: If you do not have the right waterless foam you do not want to put out an alkali metal fire using water, or for that any light metal ( magnesium, aluminium or any metal in period I or II) in any case. Water plus hot alkali metal is a massive hydrogen fire, with hot pieces flying everywhere. I remember many years ago a warehouse with magnesium catching fire. The fire department just let it burn, only cooling down the surrounding buildings to keep them intact. Took around a day till it finally finished burning out, leaving very little behind of the building.

author: gore
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 02, 2016, 02:50:50 pm
content: Quote from: amyk on January 02, 2016, 05:46:16 amThe upper structure of the car could be aluminium, which has a relatively low melting point, as opposed to steel. Just a guess.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 02, 2016, 03:17:28 pm
content: Quote from: amyk on January 02, 2016, 05:46:16 amAn option is the all-glass panoramic roof which means there wouldn't be any metal in most of the roof, except for a chassis cross-member to reduce body roll.

author: MrSlack
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 02, 2016, 03:22:33 pm
content: Doesn't surprise me. It's a big UPS on wheels. I've had two large APC UPS's blow up spectacularly over the last few years, one entirely destroying two racks of equipment and making the rest of it smell terrible. Weak point there is the connectors and distribution board (415v)

author: Warhawk
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 02, 2016, 03:34:02 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on January 02, 2016, 11:50:24 amThat makes me even more curious if firemen worldwide are being instructed to use different strategy for EV/HEV in fire ?From my R/C models I know that lithium based cells can be pretty wild.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 02, 2016, 03:38:26 pm
content: Fire began at the rear of the vehicle. So not the battery as that vents out the front wheel wells.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 02, 2016, 04:27:39 pm
content: At least it's not a Hollywood car, that would have detonated and taken out the surrounding two blocks with it.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 02, 2016, 05:47:40 pm
content: Looks to me like it is trying to copy the normal operation of Italian supercars.

author: Towger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 02, 2016, 09:09:29 pm
content: Same thing can happen to German cars. Neighbours 1 week old merc spontaneously self combusted while parked outside their house a few years ago.They never found the cause. Needless to say he got a free replacement, so no hit on the insurance.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 02, 2016, 10:05:09 pm
content: The fire is right around the charging port area.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 02, 2016, 10:13:41 pm
content: Quote from: Psi on January 02, 2016, 10:05:09 pmIt's also around the area where there are a lot of high-voltage cables and switchgear (contactors), as well as bus-bars and bolts to secure connections. The charge point and connector are temperature monitored, so it seems less likely that they are directly at fault, unless both sensors failed.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 03, 2016, 01:00:08 am
content: The picture from when it still had a roof shows some rather intense flames... it makes me wonder what's actually burning, since it looks like a petrol fire. The battery electrolyte?

author: kuromaku
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: January 03, 2016, 04:36:28 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 02, 2016, 03:38:26 pmWonder what's fueling the fire, then? Did the owner fill the car full of lumber?

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 03, 2016, 04:49:36 am
content: I'd start with trim, upholstery, cover panels ...

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 03, 2016, 05:48:12 am
content: Quote from: SeanB on January 02, 2016, 11:50:24 amBut there is no lithium metal in lithium ion batteries, so I do not think this consideration applies here. The two issues with lithium ion cells are the flammable organic electrolyte and the stored energy that will accelerate burning by vaporizing the combustible material.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 03, 2016, 11:16:58 am
content: Quote from: ErikTheNorwegian on January 02, 2016, 12:53:58 pmBoy, they make those things close to the ground these days!

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 03, 2016, 04:21:02 pm
content: Quote from: kuromaku on January 03, 2016, 04:36:28 amMore likely if was full of hot air and self righteousness.

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 03, 2016, 06:50:31 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on January 03, 2016, 04:21:02 pmhttp://youtu.be/AnFAAdOBB1cThough I've got to admit I haven't personally come across people like that about Tesla's offerings, the most I've come across is typical "executive car" wankerness re golf clubs and the lack of noise in the car when cruising at 120mph, I have over horrid EVs like say the Nissan Leaf.

author: stmdude
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 03, 2016, 08:24:46 pm
content: Quote from: 3roomlab on January 03, 2016, 07:18:02 pmThis happened two days ago, so I doubt anything like that has happened yet.Original story (in Norwegian):http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/elbil/aust-agder-tesla-tok-fyr-under-lading/a/23588772/It has a lovely picture and video of firefighters dousing it with water, so I guess at least the norwegian fire departments haven't gotten any hints about putting out EV fires..A Swedish newspaper got in touch with a Tesla spokesperson, who said the following (probably been translated twice now):"We are conducting a complete investigation and will share our results as soon as possible"

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 03, 2016, 09:05:25 pm
content: Quote from: stmdude on January 03, 2016, 08:24:46 pmI seem to recall reading somewhere that water is fine for putting out such fires. There is no gasoline or oil present and there are no substances that react badly to water.

author: stmdude
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 03, 2016, 09:16:08 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on January 03, 2016, 09:05:25 pmAs far as I know (but this varies from country to country), water is only OK to use on fires after the electricity has been cut, something that'll be hard to accomplish on an EV. In my mind, pouring massive amounts of water on an EV with god-knows-what exposed due to an ongoing fire could dramatically compound the problem by adding more heat (shorts) and/or fuel (the lithium in the batteries react badly to oxygen, which there is plenty of in H20).But, I'm far from an expert in the setting-stuff-on-fire department. I only occasionally dabble with magic smoke and smoldering wires/traces.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 03, 2016, 09:30:25 pm
content: Have to ask Keith next time I see him, seeing as he is a fireman. There are waterless foams for class F fires, which work on things like fuels, flammable liquids and high voltage areas that do not conduct and which do not decompose easily.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 03, 2016, 09:37:53 pm
content: Quote from: stmdude on January 03, 2016, 09:16:08 pmThere is no lithium in the batteries, and nothing in the batteries that will respond badly to water.You can see the advice from Tesla motors here:https://www.teslamotors.com/firstrespondersThey advise putting out small vehicle fires with CO2 or ABC extinguishers (probably similar to other vehicles). If the battery is damaged or involved in the fire they advise flooding it with large amounts of water for a long time to cool it down.Quote from: stmdude on January 03, 2016, 09:16:08 pmThe Tesla is designed with specific "cut loops" for firefighters to sever, which will cut off the power from the high voltage battery and shut it down.

author: rs20
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 03, 2016, 09:55:41 pm
content: Quote from: stmdude on January 03, 2016, 09:16:08 pmI can think of two reasons not to use water on live electrical circuits, both seemingly irrelevant to EVs:1. If the voltage is earth-referenced, the water could contact the hot wire and you can start imagining circuits being completed with firefighters being a part of that circuit. Given that the power source is the battery itself, it seems extremely unlikely that a firefighter standing 20 metres away is going to end up as a part of this circuit, so not relevant.2. The short-circuit caused by the water can cause the energy stored in the battery to be released as heat. Given that that same energy is currently being released in the fire itself anyway, which is probably short-circuited by molten aluminium or something anyway, this seems unlikely to significantly worsen the situation. The heat removed by the water seems like a much bigger win.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 03, 2016, 10:10:34 pm
content: Note as well they have a separate warning not to use water if the vehicle is being charged, as then the car can be live with a ground reference to the local water piping ( from the distribution system neutral protective earth bonding) which can cause current flow that can result in a lethal shock to the firefighters. There they suggest CO2 only or dry powder until the power is disconnected. Then you can drop a small lake on it.

author: ruffy91
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 03, 2016, 10:36:11 pm
content: As a firefighter in switzerland you're allowed to go up close to 1m to voltages less than 1000V. Water or foam just won't close any circuit at these voltages. Especially as the water won't be a continuous jet but all droplets after it exits the nozzle (better cooling of the source of fire). Powder will put out a small fire under the hood but if you use a big powder extinguisher like this (http://www.feuerwehr-boedeli.ch/p250.html) you can scrap all metallic parts in a radius of 100m because of corrosion.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 03, 2016, 11:33:42 pm
content: The battery itself has a pair of individual contactors which will isolate the pack output if a fault occurs. Isolation, overcurrent and temperature faults amongst others will trip both contactors. They will directly isolate both battery poles.Additionally the top surface of the pack has a layer of high-temperature insulation plus a thick sheet of steel, which will protect the cabin for some time should a fire occur, and should also stop a cabin fire from becoming a battery fire.There should have been no issue with just using water to extinguish this fire - it should have been treated like an ordinary car fire and is actually less hazardous due to the lack of extremely flammable petrol.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 04, 2016, 12:05:43 am
content: Petrol in a tank doesn't burn because there is no oxygen. Exploding cars in movies are just an urban myth because such a massive combustion would need to have oxygen mixed with fuel very quick.Back to the Tesla: note how the aluminium parts of the Tesla have been melted by the fire. I find it hard to believe that this is caused by just the carpet, lining and chairs being on fire. Besides that you really should look at how well lithium batteries burn. I have some involvement in lithium battery packs and the test house where these are safety tested have banned the tests to seperate outside office units because of a very destructive fire in a relatively small battery pack. The fire department had trouble with putting the fire out because they didn't really know what to do with these kind of fires (BTW: sand is the best means to extuingish a lithium pack on fire).

author: ajb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 04, 2016, 01:46:19 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on January 04, 2016, 12:05:43 amWell, lets see. Polymers have heats of combustion ranging from ~6.7 (PTFE) to ~47.7 (Polyethylene) kJ/g according tothis paper. So if the car's interior comprises 50kg of plastics with an aggregate Qc of 30kJ/g (I think a reasonable WAG from the table), then you've got on the order of 50,000g * 30,000J/g = 1.5x10^9 J of combustion heat available.Starting from 20°C, in order to heat up and melt aluminum (elemental, since we don't know the alloy) you'd need to apply: ( 640°C * 0.9J/g°C ) + 398J/g = 974J/g.1.5x10^9 J / 974J/g = 1.54*10^6 gSo burning 50kg of plastic potentially yields enough heat to melt 1,540kg of 20°C aluminum. Yes, a metric ton and a half!Of course combustion won't necessarily be optimal in a car fire, and not all of the heat released will be absorbed by the metal body, but we're at least in the right ballpark.EDIT: I found some breakdowns suggesting that cars tend to be about 9% plastic by weight, in which case a ~4700lb Model S includes more like 200kg of plastic, assuming it has a similar breakdown, in which case we're looking at about 6GJ of combustion energy which would be enough to melt around six metric tons of aluminum.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 04, 2016, 03:11:05 am
content: Quote from: ajb on January 04, 2016, 01:46:19 amDon't you need to consider also the temperature of burning plastic, not just the released energy?

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 04, 2016, 04:48:36 am
content: I suppose if the body was made of steel, it would've mostly survived?

author: ajb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 04, 2016, 05:41:21 am
content: Quote from: zapta on January 04, 2016, 03:11:05 amWell, if you wanted to do a real analysis, you'd need to consider lots of things that I neglected. I just wanted to get a ballpark sense of the energy available from the burning plastics.But once the material starts burning, the temperature will be dependent on the rate of heat release and the thermal pathways available for that heat to leave the burning vehicle--not unlike calculating the operating temperature of an electronic device, except the temperatures are a lot higher and presumably there's a hell of a lot more convection. Presumably if you've got an entire car alight, the stuff at the center will be pretty hot, considering that it's producing heat and the only place for that heat to go is into other hot things around it. Heck, according to the internet, a campfire can hit something like 850°C, and that's burning wood, which has a Qc of something like 9 to 16 kJ/g, in a relatively small, non-enclosed pile (so presumably a high rate of heat loss compared to a larger and more enclosed car, but maybe with a more optimal inflow of oxygen).

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 04, 2016, 05:46:30 am
content: Quote from: 3roomlab on January 04, 2016, 04:07:15 amTrust me it is corrosive.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_dry_chemicalhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple-K

author: MrSlack
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 04, 2016, 08:00:04 am
content: Yep Potassium Oxide. Seen first hand what a mess that makes of stuff. Not pretty.

author: aargee
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 04, 2016, 06:37:20 pm
content: IIRC the Brits stopped building warships out of aluminium after the Faulkland conflict due to the tendancyfor it to burn (self sustained) given the right circumstances.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 04, 2016, 07:32:03 pm
content: It may look rather bad, but it is not a total lost. I distinctly see two used alloy wheels in good condition that could be cleaned and redeployed...Back to the serious side. Not having done an actual count, Tesla fireseemto be occurring at about one per 3 to 6 months.I wonder how is the rate of total-destruction-by-fire per year per 1000 cars as compared to natural gas vehicle and as compare to gasoline vehicle's rate.My gut feel is that because of it being new and expensive, the destruction of Telsa is fully reported worldwide, whereas gasoline cars burning off the far corners are likely ignored in the world stage. So probability of fire is highly exaggerated. Anyone know of hard-data out there?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 04, 2016, 09:01:15 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on January 04, 2016, 07:32:03 pmThis doesn't follow.AFAIK there have been seven Model S fires, but it's been released for just over three years now1. road debris #12. mexico incident (very high speed collision through wall), fire occurred about 30 minutes afterwards3. road debris #24. charging fire #1 (house wiring appeared to be cause - car was badly damaged but not source of fire)5. fire after car split in half (thief stole car from LA service centre, crashed it 100+mph into traffic light pole, survived accident after flying out of car without a seatbelt, and died a week later in hospital)6. fire after car went off the road and fell 500ft down (driver died - suspected suicide)7. this incident (charging fire #2)#1 and #3 were fixed by Tesla applying shield to car#4 was fixed by software update adding arcfault and volt drop detection#2, #5 and #6 are reasonable occurrences given the circumstances#7 is the unknown as it appears spontaneous and while supercharging; IMO this is the most concerning one7 fires / 117,000 cars is pretty low, especially when you consider that most appear to have been from "blunt-force" trauma to the battery pack. Only two spontaneous fires, there are nearly 170,000 car fires a year and 253 million cars on US roads; that's a rate of 1.5 in every 1,000 *every year the car is on the road*, but Tesla's at 0.06 in 1,000 or25 times less likely for the whole three year period. Even better when you consider that the majority of Teslas are exported.:http://www.nfpa.org/research/reports-and-statistics/vehicle-fires/highway-vehicle-fires:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 04, 2016, 09:13:07 pm
content: Quote from: ErikTheNorwegian on January 04, 2016, 08:25:57 pmErik, your other reply with the data (on vehicle fire stats) is interesting.This particular article you cited, I was reading it with interest until I conclude it is probably not "balanced" reporting/writing. It seem to be excuse making to pacify fear of fire rather than real reporting. The passage that particular strikes me as it being anopinion piecerather than atechnology reportis:"In two cases, the cars ran over large metal objects at highway speed; the third car hit a concrete wall. No one was hurt: a warning system allowed the drivers to pull the car over and get out before smoke started coming from the battery pack, and the design of the battery pack slowed the spread of the fire, which never made it into the passenger compartments..."If after hitting a concrete wall and the people in the car can just "pull over and get out". To me, it is not a credit but an indictment that the car caught fire in a minor accident.I click the author's name, and I see his phrasing in his mini-biography. He is not hiding his bias."Growing up, I lived for a time in the Philippines, where I knew people who lit their tiny homes with single lantern batteries or struggled to breathe through the dense diesel fumes of Manila, so I have a feel for the pressing need around the world for both cheap energy and clean energy."Quote:"Lit their tiny homes with single lantern battery" - battery? You have to be kidding me. This is like saying the poor folks have low quality silk shirts which already lost it's sheen. Don't tell me, instead of buying their "single battery", they troll the garbage for used battery? This guy have not seen how really poor people live.Of all the needs of people in places like Philippines and other poor areas, light is about the last thing the "bottom-of-the-economy" people needs. From food to clothing to just a shelter from the elements. Those needs he didn't see. He saw the needs of providing clean energy for the lantern that most of those couldn't afford, clean or otherwise.Probably another too-well-to-do son of an ex-pat...Clean energy has its place and has a role to play in this world, but poor areas an't it. For those on the edge of existence, when making to tomorrow is already questionable, giving them a cleaner future is meaningless.

author: AlxDroidDev
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 04, 2016, 09:21:41 pm
content: Looking at the bright side, this driver won't have to plow snow from his driveway.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 04, 2016, 09:23:07 pm
content: Regarding the Mexico incident.It's a testament to the car's design that you can walk away from this:Notice, the passenger cell is intact. The rest of the car is seriously damaged but the crumple zones did their job.A fire began approximately 15 minutes after this incident, probably due to damaged coolant lines and hot parts, or small amount of damage to the battery which the coolant system could not recover from. Incidentally, in the case of a serious battery malfunction (overtemperature) the coolant system goes into over-drive, and will completely drain the HV pack trying to cool it. Tesla has a patent on some software algorithms for this system.Incidentally, the video of the fire shows that while the whole front end of the car is on fire, the battery is still functioning (locking/unlocking can be heard, charge port light is lit up and a high-voltage circuit fails. (At least for a few minutes.)In the case of the LA crash, the dashboard still worked & was flashing up error messages about the car needing service. Well, it wasn't wrong.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 04, 2016, 09:26:30 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 04, 2016, 09:01:15 pmWhat "doesn't follow"? (Not being argumentative, a real question)I put "seem" in bold, it seems to be 3 to 6 month each. I am recalling the frequency I read about such fire. But my recollection matches the 7 in 3 years you cited. (36/7 = 5.8 months) rounds to one every 6 months.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 04, 2016, 09:33:00 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 04, 2016, 09:23:07 pmIt is not survival of the driver that I drew the conclusion of the other article decsribed a minor accident. While this car caught fire like the Telsa the author described, this accident may not be comparable. I don't think this driver"pull to the side"after "a warning system" alerted him/her.To be able to "pull to the side" implies control of the car, and the car being movable. The picture you inserted shows a car that can no longer be controlled nor "pull to the side".

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 04, 2016, 09:51:50 pm
content: Quote from: ErikTheNorwegian on January 04, 2016, 08:34:28 pmThis then in all likelihood is the same physiologic issue of comparing danger of "driving to the airport" vs "airplane accident".Take your numbers at face value, it is similar to "airplane accident" is significantly less likely to occur then the "drive to the airport." The "airplane accident" appears far more threatening and far less survivable over "accident on the way to the airport".

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 04, 2016, 09:58:56 pm
content: Quote from: ErikTheNorwegian on January 04, 2016, 07:51:07 pmNope! You should only report the same accident situation.This car was brand new powered down standing still on the parkinglot.So lookup how many NEW petrol fueled cars burned down from spontaneous selfcombustion. That is the case here, stick to the facts.Then for proper statitics calculate the percentage on the total population of new fuel cars.

author: station240
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 04, 2016, 10:05:39 pm
content: http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/24797-BEHIND-THE-BUILD-Project-LBR-Tesla-Model-S-Bespoke-Make-OverPhoto #5 in this thread shows the back of the charger port (orange thing), and the red cables that feed back to the electronics under the floor/back seat. Fire started in the rear (see photo on page 2 of this thread). Only possible causes are the charger port itself, or the electronics.As for the melted car and the fire itself, alloy wheels (aluminium) commonly melt during fires. Also I expect the rear tires caught alight.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 04, 2016, 10:55:11 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on January 04, 2016, 09:33:00 pmYou're confusing the road debris incidents. In the road debris incidents objects struck the underside of the battery pack and punctured the sheet steel metal protecting the modules. A short circuit or fire occurred due to damaged cells and/or ruptured coolant systems.In both cases, as has been documented on the internet, the car continued operation after the incident and had a graceful failure. The system first noticed the isolation fault, so the message: "Car May Not Restart" appeared, indicating the car would continue operating but would not restart as the isolation fault needs to be resolved. This is probably caused by leaky adjacent cell bank readings - possibly due to leaking coolant. Next, "Battery Coolant System Fault" (or similar) appeared with power being limited to roughly 50kW (sufficient for highway cruise but makes the car slow to accelerate.) After some time, temperature sensors began reporting anomalous readings and the car finally clicked the pack contactors over to OFF (with message "Pull Over Safely"), which would give the driver sufficient time to coast the car in neutral and stop the car.After the car shut down and the drivers exited the vehicle, a fire occurred in the pack. As the coolant system was damaged, the car could not cool the battery, and the fire spread amongst modules. The battery vents through the front wheel wells; eventually, the fire and heat causes the rest of the car to burn. The car is wrecked, but the firewalls keep the cabin away from the fire for as long as possible. In fact, in the Tennessee case the fire was contained well enough that the car would still lock and unlock properly, and reportedly "the interior was untouched" (https://www.teslamotors.com/en_GB/customer-stories/model-s-owner-tennessee) Would you believe this car has functioning electrical systems?http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/files/2013/11/Tesla-model-s-fire-front.jpghttp://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/177c43cbf58e55f4d2dfb1862bd86afc2af6dfb9/c=0-345-1628-1571&r=x408&c=540x405/local/-/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2013/11/07/1383850858000-AP-TESLA-FIRE-59680562.JPGQuoteThat shows that the firewalling between pack and vehicle systems was so good that the intense fire didn't even disrupt the standard 12V automotive functions of the car, including the battery which is adjacent to the right hand wheel well.As for the Mexico case I'm not sure it really matters if the car tells you to pull over safely after it's essentially destroyed. You can make that decision yourself. And it doesn't matter too much if the car burns 15 minutes after the accident occurs. For what it's worth that car went through a concrete wall, over a roundabout hump and into the crash barrier before coming to a stop. The battery fire is the least of the concerns.I think you really need to look at the different types of incidents that occur. If a petrol car gets into a serious accident, it's actually quite possible you'll get an explosion, though not in the Hollywood style:Whereas such an explosion is impossible with a li-ion electric car because there is no highly volatile fluids and hot engine parts to mix. If you rupture the pack, the worst you'll get is a slow burning fire that takes over an hour to reach the passenger compartment and is relatively safely contained in the front of the car. It would be possible to get out of the car in time, or for emergency services to respond and rescue trapped occupants. Obviously, no one wants a fire, but when you're carrying around megajoules of energy in a small package, fire is a possible outcome after serious trauma to such an energy storage device. The engineering challenge then becomes limiting the rate at which the fire will spread within the battery pack and keeping the fire away from the rest of the car for as long as practically possible.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 04, 2016, 11:45:16 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 04, 2016, 10:55:11 pmIf there was a confusion, it was introduced by the article's author. The question perhaps is whether such confusion was by intend (pushing an opinion) or not. My original quote from his article was:"In two cases, the cars ran over large metal objects at highway speed;the third car hit a concrete wall. No one was hurt:a warning system allowed the drivers to pull the car over and get out before smoke started coming from the battery pack, and the design of the battery pack slowed the spread of the fire, which never made it into the passenger compartments..."I quoted that verbatim.Note his use of semi-colon and colon right there.That the "pull the car over" applies to the car that hits the concrete wall is exactly what he said. With the semi-colon, it is arguable whether it applies to the first two car that hit the large metal objects, but that two car is not what is in discussion here.The significant words were: "Third car hit a concrete wall....a warning system allow the driver to pull the car over..." Those are his words. So clearly after the accident the driver still can control the car and the car was mobile.The car you show was in a significantly worst accident. The car in your picture is without a front wheels and with at least another wheel dislodged; and the car was sitting on a road divider. Clearly the car in your picture is no longer mobile nor was the driver able to exert any further control of the car after the accident. Sowhile your pictured car also caught fire, it was not a comparable accident-- at least not comparable to the accident this author described in his article.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2016, 12:20:08 am
content: The car in the picture is the car that was involved in the fire in Mexico. That was the second Model S fire occurring only weeks after the first fire. That car slammed through a concrete barrier, shot across a roundabout/traffic island and collided into a crash barrier. Reportedly, according to police, the driver was drunk and travelling in excess of 100mph for some time (though probably not at the collision point.)You will hear no argument from me that the car is no longer drivable! I think the author had meant to refer to the two cars that were victims of road debris as both of those vehicles were still drivable for some time after the incident (several minutes) and so the "limp mode" gave them sufficient time to pull over safely and exit the vehicle. The car in Mexico caught fire only after the collision.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2016, 12:53:38 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 05, 2016, 12:20:08 amThen we are in not in disagreement.The author did not describe the situation clearly. He described an accident where the driver had control after the accident and can "pull over". Your picture clearly show a car that isn't able to go anywhere.While the confusing passage is by intend or not really doesn't matter. Readers form opinion about about him either way. In my view, it was because he was pushing an opinion. Inferring such, I click the link for his mini-biography and from that, drew my own conclusion.Lets get back to the main topic... Tesla, a good place to BBQ or good transportation.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 05, 2016, 01:11:15 am
content: Quote from: Kjelt on January 04, 2016, 09:58:56 pmErr, no, the Tesla was charging at the time was it not?If so, then it's fair to compare fire when the Tesla is charging, and when petrol cars are being filled at the service station.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2016, 01:44:06 am
content: Amphiboly is a common symptom of an invalid conclusion being pushed, so it's no surprise that it shows up in that article.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2016, 09:00:12 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 05, 2016, 01:11:15 amUh I guess analogies between electrical and fuel cars are not easy to make in this case, since their individual offroad weak spots seem to differ too much.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2016, 10:26:40 am
content: An EV charges for longer than a petrol vehicle, but a petrol vehicle has higher volatility during the refuel time. An EV can catch fire due to battery fault, overheating components etc. A petrol vehicle can catch fire if there is a spark or hot components near fumes.

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2016, 02:01:08 pm
content: Quote from: ErikTheNorwegian on January 04, 2016, 08:34:28 pmI suggest you learn something about statistics first if you want to make such comparison.Hint - how many are there electric plug-in cars vs gasoline cars using those gas stations that catch fire? Likely few orders of magnitude.So it is quite obvious that you will have more accidents at gas stations and fires (electric car won't catch fire because of a moron checking the amount of gas in the tank with a lighter ...), simply because of their much larger numbers.It is a completely meaningless comparison.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2016, 05:44:53 pm
content: Well, the comparison was phrased as a rate, so the impression is that it already accounts for popularity. But the bigger problem is that many of the gas station fires are from predictable causes like people smoking or collisions with the pump; the Tesla fires being discussed weren't predicted and their cause is uncertain.To expand that point a bit, when we can predict a base rate of accidents at gasoline pumps, we can reason about how much damage they cause and whether things need to be changed to reduce the damage. If an EV catches fire for unknown reasons, we can't reason about how big a problem it is: simply counting the rate of accidents is no good for extrapolation; what if it was caused by software? If the cause is an unknown software fault they could ALL catch fire tomorrow.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2016, 06:16:34 pm
content: yeah and what about 10yrs and older cars where the deteriorating petrol-tubing might be the cause of fire or to mention the enormous amounts of cars that are set at fire at newyears night at purpose or through fireworks, etc. etc.?

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2016, 06:58:42 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on January 05, 2016, 06:16:34 pm

author: KJDS
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2016, 07:20:04 pm
content: Quote from: Mechanical Menace on January 05, 2016, 06:58:42 pm

author: ajb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2016, 07:49:52 pm
content: Quote from: Mechanical Menace on January 05, 2016, 06:58:42 pmIn my state, any car that is not new from the manufacturer must pass a comprehensive safety/road-worthiness inspection before it can be registered. After that, though, as long as you maintain the registration and pass emissions checks every couple of years, it never has to be inspected again. You could literally drive your car into the ground if you wanted (although you might get into trouble if it starts shedding bits along the highway), so the principle effect is to just make buying a used car from a private party a bigger headache.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2016, 10:06:23 pm
content: Yes we have annual and bi-annual inspections in the netherlands but the statistical numbers Were from the US and although i do not know exactly how the rules are over there but I have seen a lot of barrels on the road there esp in the countryside. Some from the 60s 70s that would not pass our road worthyness.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2016, 01:22:03 am
content: Most states no longer do safety inspections. They were quite common in the US until about the 1970s when emission testing came along. There was a lot of whining about the cost of doing both a safety inspection and an emission test, and the political solution was to drop the safety tests. Now the only defense against cars without brakes, lights, etc., etc. is the occasional stop by a public safety officer and the general tendency of cars to eventually die completely. Well those and the diligence of the owners, which obviously varies wildly.One remnant of the safety inspection that survives - the gas cap is inspected to verify that it properly seals as part of an emissions inspection. Still done implicitly by the OBD II electronic inspection which is usually all that is required now.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2016, 04:38:05 am
content: I too think the safety inspection is a giant waste of money.While I don't have hard stats, again, base on the frequency of news reports, driver-malfunction far exceeds car-malfunction. Last time I recalled a news story on "killed because of brake failure" was too far back to recall. Where as, last news story I recall of "kill because of driving under influence" was less than two weeks old just about 20 miles east of me.Resource is not a limitless commodity. Spending the same $ on higher return stuff like DUI, Texting while driving, and others would likely be far more effective than catching the brake-less car.Besides, you can probably find the brake-less car at the emission station, pressed against the not-yet-open entry gate, with a somewhat compressed front end. Oh, the finger on the green "press to open gate and take your numbered ticket", that finger, and the ring on it, I think belongs to the driver. Tax payers need to pay nothing. The drivers insurance will cover it. (NJ has mandatory insurance). And everyone in the waiting line has a story to tell when they got home.

author: timb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2016, 09:11:11 am
content: Well, modern cars, by that I mean anything mid-90's and later, which is the majority of what's on the road today in the US has a lot of built-in safety diagnostics. If the the tires are low, the brakes are faulty, the fuel system isn't sealed, etc. then the car either won't start, only run in limp mode or throw errors.That said, my state (VA) still has yearly state safety inspections. They check tire wear, bulbs, brake pad wear, horn, wipers and so on. They even check headlight alignment! In the last few years, they've started actively failing people that put those fucking aftermarket HID headlights on their cars, unless they have provisions for automatic or manual leveling. Light color as well.There's a special place in hell for anyone with a jacked up pickup truck running god damn unleveled purple HID lamps. I swear to god, next time I get blinded by one of these bastards, I'm turning around, following him home and burning his truck to the ground. Ugh.Phew! Feels good to get that off my chest.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2016, 11:52:21 am
content: Brake failure. I travel on this hill regularly.Please note, graphic content, consider skipping before pressing play.Final warning.

author: Delta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2016, 12:18:17 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on January 06, 2016, 04:38:05 amWow. I'm staggered by that statement, and I'm quite right wing & libertarian in my views...You think that checking that vehicles have tread on their tyres and brakes that work (paid for by the owner, once a year, at less than the cost of a tank of fuel) is a massive waste? Crikey!There must be some absolute deathtrap shitbuckets on the road near you!

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2016, 02:17:13 pm
content: Quote from: Delta on January 06, 2016, 12:18:17 pmI live in a state with no forced government safety tests and the sky is blue and the birds are chirping.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2016, 02:17:27 pm
content: At least those "deathtraps" drive on the right side of the road

author: Delta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2016, 03:16:14 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on January 06, 2016, 02:17:27 pmThe right side of the road is the left side! 😀

author: Delta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2016, 03:21:01 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on January 06, 2016, 02:17:13 pmWell I'm very pleased for you, although I don't see how our annual Ministry Of Transport test can be blamed for our grey skies...Seriously, here in the UK, the MOT test is the ONLY reason some people get ANY maintenance done to their cars at all. There are people who would literally run their tyres until they blew out, and drive with brakes down to metal on metal. As for changing bulbs on the rear? Pah!

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2016, 03:47:03 pm
content: Quote from: Delta on January 06, 2016, 03:21:01 pmDelta, you sound like one of them. Any problem with body snatchers?

author: Delta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2016, 04:25:29 pm
content: Now you've lost me completely, but thanks for the insult!

author: MrSlack
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2016, 05:15:18 pm
content: Quote from: Delta on January 06, 2016, 03:21:01 pmTHIS 100%. The amount of shitty half falling to bits death traps that are condemned by an MOT is amazingly high.

author: Tomorokoshi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2016, 05:28:27 pm
content: A few comments:1. Many states in freezing climates dump tons of salt on the roads during winter. This causes a lot of structural corrosion.2. How many decades did it take for the automotive industry to design in proper brakes? Seat belts? Catalytic converters? Safety cages? Air bags? Corrosion protection? All were initially opposed by the industry overall.3. If you look at an electrical code like the NEC, the way I think about it is that every section is there because something caught on fire, something exploded, or someone got hurt. It's also taken decades for that to get where it is now.It's impressive how quickly Tesla is working to address these problems.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2016, 05:33:31 pm
content: Here only commercial vehicles ( trucks, buses, taxis) need to have an annual certification of roadworthiness. Non commercial vehicles only need it on change of owner. There have been a lot of testing stations which have either had an examiner ( that is the tester, not the station) doing 200 plus vehicles a day, or where a vehicle failed at one station then passed at another 400km away, within an hour. Some did tests without the vehicle actually being present.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2016, 05:35:43 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on January 06, 2016, 04:38:05 amI agree that resources are limited, and that mechanical failure is not in the top of the list of accident causes. One of my other hobbies is r/c aircraft. I wish the FAA had your attitude. But by law, the FAA is required to pursue zero accident rate. After application of much resources that is nearly true, and interaction with my toys is now on the FAAs hit list.By the way, most people who fly are happy with the FAA mandate.

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2016, 06:26:29 pm
content: Quote from: helius on January 05, 2016, 05:44:53 pmNo, it doesn't. The problem is that you (or the original author of that article) are comparing incomparable things.Comparing the chance of (which is what your ratio essentially are) of an electric car fire vs. chance of a gas station fire is meaningless, because those two sets (populations) aren't comparable. We are talking about a tiny, relatively high-tech electric car population vs. a much larger number of gas stations, filled with volatile propellants and often people doing stupid stuff there - like smoking.Your data doesn't make any accounting for whether the gas station caught fire because of a refueling problem (that would be comparable to EV charging incidents), because of moron doing something dumb, because of an electrical fault or because of "force majeure" - like an airplane crashing into a station or a lightning strike.If these things aren't accounted for ("controlled for") then all you can conclude from such comparison is that you are more likely to get near a fire at a gas station than around an EV. Nothing more. Hardly an Earth shattering result, considering the heavily flammable stuff there and the sheer number of them (if an event has a certain probability, then the chance that you will encounter it at least once at some point grows asymptotically towards certainty with the increasing number of trials).A similar conclusion would be saying that you are more likely to get eaten by a lion when you meet one than your EV catching fire. True statement, but not something you can draw any meaningful conclusions from re safety (or lack thereof) of electric vehicles.Quote from: helius on January 05, 2016, 05:44:53 pmWell, I am not sure what you mean by "predicted". Did you mean unexpected? How? Nobody said that a Tesla is 100% safe, fire- and idiot-proof. Some fires will always happen. The key is to achieve that their incidence is comparable or lower than for any other car, electric or not. The 7 (or so) publicized fires in the recent years are not enough to draw any conclusions about the safety of the car or what could be a problem - whether the battery, software or what not. Only after e.g. 10 years, after there have been at least 100-1000 fires one could actually look whether there are any common issues and draw some sort of meaningful conclusion. 7 incidents where many were results of crashes and things shorting out due to mangled wiring or flammable pieces touching something hot (same like with a gasoline car, btw) is just too little data to work from.

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2016, 10:50:29 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on January 06, 2016, 04:38:05 amBelieve me, you don't want to let the situation worsen to the point where the equation is reversed. Similarly as to others have said, in my home country there are so many lemons driving around that should be "car crushed" on the spot by the police. These cause accidents and huge traffic jams.Quote from: SeanB on January 06, 2016, 05:33:31 pmSeanB, people surely drive fast in ZA.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 12:10:46 am
content: Quote from: Delta on January 06, 2016, 12:18:17 pmYou quoted me out of context. I was saying the same money can achieve a lot more controlling drunk driving (DUI), texting during driving, etc. and you did not quote that part.The number of drivers killed by failed brake is a far smaller number than those killed by DUI or distracted driving (texting, phone, etc.).Money is a limited resource, spend it where you get the most bang for the buck. Spending money on the less effective method is wasteful.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 12:20:34 am
content: Quote from: Delta on January 06, 2016, 03:16:14 pmNo, they drive on the right side of the road. We drive on thecorrectside of the road.

author: Delta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 12:21:10 am
content: Sorry Rick, I quoted for brevity, rather than to be deliberately out of context.However, I don't follow; the resources to catch drunk drivers or twats on the phones etc come from the taxpayer - ie the police budget.Safety inspections are paid for by the owner of the vehicle. Using resources on the latter doesn't take them away from the former.(showing my ignorance) or do some state charge to register a vehicle annually and put that money towards traffic policing?

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 01:31:28 am
content: Quote from: Delta on January 07, 2016, 12:21:10 amI understand, no apology necessary.All money spend by the government are taken from the people. People don't have unlimited resources, so I do not agree with your premise: "Using resources on the latter doesn't take them away from the former." Those dollars taken from the driver's pocketmaymean the guy having to skipped a few morning coffee and pancake at the local shop.Directly charging the car owner is indeed superior to a general tax. Better would be by dollars from issuing summons (speeding penalty, parking penalty, etc.). If they are caught drunk driving, let them pay a hefty penalty.Common assumption in the USA: for many small towns, speeding ticket is a significant source of police budget. I am not sure if that is true or not. But when I drive cross country, I certainly am extra careful when I am off the highway. Every little town has their own norm and I wont know if I am breaking a norm. Besides, who wants to drive 500 miles just to get back to that little town to fight a $100 fine.Given resources is always limited, regardless of source, it is best to spend it where it get the biggest bang.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 05:50:08 am
content: The only issue I have is that the source is a very relevant part of the equation in terms of getting the funding out of the source in the first place.In N.S.W. the owner of a vehicle is required to have an inspection done at their own expense. Any safety related faults must be repaired before the vehicle's registration will be renewed. The obvious connection between safety and the vehicle owner's responsibility to maintain a roadworthy vehicle means that parting with this money is done with the attitude of it being part of the cost of owning a motor vehicle.If such inspections were discontinued, I daresay those same owners would not be as obliging handing over a similar sum of money for some indirect benefit - and when I say 'indirect' I mean any situation where that benefit is notimmediatelyvisible, such as walking out with an inspection certificate with 'Pass' on it.Besides, with the electronic registration process we now have, the inspection process requires no human intervention on the part of the government body. Also, inspections are a source of revenue for authorised mechanics, most of which are typical small business.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 06:28:40 am
content: Quote from: Delta on January 06, 2016, 04:25:29 pmNo insult intended.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 06:41:14 am
content: Quote from: Tomorokoshi on January 06, 2016, 05:28:27 pmThe evolution of a technology is just that - an evolution. As new bits are created or old bits applied in new ways, we will discover things we did not think about or even expect - and we will then take steps to address these shortcomings. The advantage we have today over the automobile industry (or any industry, really) of 50 years ago is that we have a much broader knowledge base and our ability to find solutions is vastly improved.The fact that Tesla are encountering issues indicates they are pushing the envelope. That they are dealing with them attests to their ability.

author: timb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 07:09:00 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on January 07, 2016, 05:50:08 amPretty much this. I've been in states without inspections here in the US and seen some pretty bad stuff. Cars with literally no tread on the tires. Cars with not a single functioning lamp on them. Cars without working windshield wipers...In 15 years driving here in VA, which does have inspections, I've never seen anything that bad. In fact, a few years ago I owned a MK5 GTI. I bought a set of high performance racing tires for it. They turned out to wear really fast and after four months there were bald patches. Money was really tight at the time and, had I not known it was going to fail the upcoming inspection I would have put it off. Instead I was late with rent that month, but who knows, it might have saved my life?

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 07:23:04 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on January 07, 2016, 05:50:08 amThe rational approach would be a data driven cost/benefit analysis. On one hand saved property and/or injuries and/or life and on the other the cost and inconvenience of having all those mandated tests and the bureaucracy around them.Quote from: Brumby on January 07, 2016, 05:50:08 amI don't see how this fact justifies the mandated tests in any way. The government forcing citizen A to give a sum of money to citizen B (or his small business) is just another tax.

author: bookaboo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 07:47:08 am
content: In Northern Ireland the MOT is different from the UK MOT, it's not done by independent mechanics but at dedicated semi-automated test centres, The cost is ~£30 (~$45) and the test takes about 20 minutes. Yearly test for vehicles over 4 years. I have to say it's a very well organised test and while I'm not mechanically minded it's very thorough, brakes and suspension are all tested on rolling roods and vibration analysis machines. The person testing has little room for "opinion" although it has been said that some test centres are "easier" than others. They only look for faults relating to the safety of the vehicle, nothing to do with routine service or reliability.The MOT centre doesn't carry out any repairs at all, if you fail on anything you go and get it fixed privately then go back for a retest.Republic of Irelands NCT (national car test) now seems to be along similar lines though I haven't been through that personally. In the republic there used to be no mandatory testing, 15 years ago you would see some shocking examples of vehicles on the road.I find it hard to believe that the UK leaves the MOT to independent garages, who could be open to being either slack (going easy on customers) or being dishonest as they can essentially force the customer into having work done. I find it harder to believe other states are happy for people to drive around 2 tonne machines without any sort of regulation at all!

author: KJDS
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 09:55:40 am
content: I've had hundreds of cars put through an MOT in the UK over the years.Most MOT testers are honest, and most work for honest garages. They are all aware that if they fail a car then the owner can drive to a VOSA depot and get the failure checked. If it is obvious that something that has been recorded as a failure should have been a clear pass both the garage and the tester will be reprimanded. If it happens too often then the tester loses his testing license and the garage will lose theirs too.Most testers I know will allow common sense to prevail on marginal wear items. If a bush is showing signs of wear on a heavily used van then it's more likely to be failed than a similar level of wear on a car that's only lightly used.Most towns also have a council owned testing station for testing taxis and sometimes buses. These are usually open to the public and also don't do repairs, however every one I've been to carries a stock of bulbs and windscreen wipers and will fit these for a nominal charge. The system mostly works, the majority of cars on the road are a reasonable standard, I think the last really bad car I drove was owned by an MOT tester.It's probably worth adding that UK roads are very congested. England is now more densely populated than any other European country and car ownership is widespread. It's common on motorways to have long lines of cars about 10m apart travelling at 70mph. I'm glad people have to get their brakes tested regularly. I'd be less concerned if it wasn't for the traffic density. I too am more concerned with those that drive aggressively or distractedly.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 11:50:47 am
content: Quote from: zapta on January 07, 2016, 07:23:04 amI'm not seeing how there is any interdependence between these. A 'rational approach' would also include a funding rationale of how the costs will be sourced on both sides of the analysis and HOW you could trade one off against the other.Forget apples and oranges - this is like comparing squirrels and knitting needles.Also, compared to other governmental overheads, the bureaucracy involved in the testing is inconsequential.QuoteI get it - you don't like taxes and if that's how you want to look at it, then all I can say is that you are entitled to your opinion.My opinion differs.The 'mandated test' is no different than going to your mechanic for a safety check - something which we have seen as an advertised service from some of the larger chains/franchises. A mechanic is far more 'qualified' than a car owner to check a vehicle for safety issues for two fundamental reasons:1. They are likely to have seen several vehicles of any given make/model and will have gained knowledge about particular weaknesses which an owner is less likely to know about. They will have other professional sources to augment their knowledge, such as peer networks and industry publications.2. They will have specific knowledge of not only what faults may exist - but alsowhythey are problems. For example, a leaky exhaust is not just a noise issue or a pollution issue.I'm quite comfortable with the idea that all the other cars around me on the roads have a high probability that a mechanic has looked at them some time in the last year.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 03:33:32 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on January 07, 2016, 11:50:47 amThis is an arbitrary feel-good approach, not enough to justify government enforced tests. It requires at least an objective evidence of a significant benefit/cost ratio.(I live in a state with no government mandated safety tests)

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 03:49:29 pm
content: Of all the things I said, that one line gets cited.Seriously?I ask again, just this specific question: What are the cost elements in this cost/benefit analysis? From where are they funded?

author: Delta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 03:55:03 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on January 07, 2016, 03:33:32 pmAs I said, I am quite libertarian - I think the government should stay out of individuals' (and private companies') affairs as much as possible; let people do whatever they wantas long as it does cannot harm anyone else.Driving a car with bald tyres and shit brakes clearlycanharm others,and that IS where the state should "interfere" and mandate safety inspections.The cost of your annual inspection is just part of owning a car, the same as fuel and insurance (do all US states require drivers be insured?). And no government is forcing you to get an inspection, as no government is forcing you to have a car!

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 03:57:59 pm
content: +1

author: Poe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 04:01:59 pm
content: Safety inspections a waste of money? For those that don't do their own car work, don't you pay someone check your brakes, fluids etc yearly anyways? The additional cost is literally the cost of a sticker to make enforcement extremely effective.Although this thread lacks data, I'm sure it depends on the people and failure mode as well.Fat cats with luxury cars like a Tesla are not driving on bald tires, but I'm certainpoorpeople 'push it'. Considering that over a third of HOUSEHOLDs in the USA make less than $40k... maybe enough people 'push it' to cause concern?The failure mode is probably relevant too. Brakes don't generate enough pressure to fail quickly and you have two backups.Although, with tires there was enough death and injury to mandate tire pressure monitors. The very fact they are now mandated is frequently cited as one of the main reasons states repeal safety inspections. ...although I feel this is a mistake because by the time the car is purchased by someone who can't afford to properly maintain it, the tire pressure monitors will be defective and ignored anyways....I think some states simply have a large poor population and/or also influenced by the indirect costs incurred by their dense cities. Traffic jams and many secondary accidents happen while removing cars. Either from people rubber-necking or due to the stop-go wave.Dunno. The additional cost over my annual checkup is nothing to me compared to the tens of thousands of dollars I'm forced to spend on ridiculously overpriced health insurance and military. I think people also forget that driving on the road is a privilege, not a right.Personally I can't wait until these Teslas start to filter down to the poor like me. I'm curious what their resale value will look like as the original batteries age to twenty years. Honest topic because historically luxury cars experience a massive devaluation with age due to the high cost of repairs.

author: Delta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 04:13:20 pm
content: Quote from: Poe on January 07, 2016, 04:01:59 pmAin't that the truth!I drive an immaculate top-of-the-range Lexus, that was bought new for £49,000 in 1998. I bought it four years ago for £1500 (full service history, and had just had its cam belt changed for the second time).

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 04:13:44 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on January 07, 2016, 03:49:29 pmWell, for start, it's the cost of having all those building, equipment and people doing the tests and the bureaucrats that overseeing them and it comes from the citizenry that is forced to pay it.Government and engineers should be more rational than just it-feel-good.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 04:21:32 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on January 07, 2016, 04:13:44 pmIn my state, that's our mechanics who are authorised. You know - the small business people I mentioned before that more often than not get to make the repairs.As for the bureaucracy involved - there's only a small team of inspectors who review the mechanics' records on a random basis. No major infrastructure to support that.Sorry - fail.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 04:38:46 pm
content: As for:Quote from: zapta on January 07, 2016, 04:13:44 pm... quite aside from the fact that they are not paying a government bureaucracy, but are paying a private business for a service performed, there is one aspect of the current arrangement that I have seen on more than one occasion (I could cite names here) and that is:becausethese inspections are required, a number of vehicle owners make use of this fact and rely on this inspection as the basis of their safety and maintenance protocol. The philosophy: If they're going to spend the money anyway, then make full use of the exercise!Is the citizenry 'forced' to pay a registration fee and road taxes?Is the citizenry 'forced' to have a roadworthy vehicle on public roads?Is the citizenry 'forced' to have it insured (for personal injury, in Australia)?Is the citizenry 'forced' to obey the road rules?The citizenry is not forced to do any of these things. They are responsibilities which the citizenry accepts when they choose to take up private vehicle ownership for the purpose of using the said vehicle on public roads.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 06:19:16 pm
content: Quote from: Delta on January 07, 2016, 03:55:03 pmCan't argue with a word you said there. In fact, I quite agree.But in response to "do all US states require drivers be insured?" I lived in a mid-western state Illinois > 20 years ago, they don't. They require proof of ability to pay for liability. For most mortals, insurance is the proof. For someone like Bill Gates, I am sure he can prove it another way. (To give a frame of reference for those without a map handy, Chicago is in Illinois.)(Hidden agenda) Being an Illinois resident once, it would be interesting to know if they do require auto insurance now, and how many Governors are still in jail. (3 past governors went to jail. Most recent last governor is still in jail for trying to sell a senate seat in 2008.)

author: suicidaleggroll
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 06:36:25 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on January 07, 2016, 06:19:16 pmThat's still a thing. The term is "proof of financial responsibility", which most of the time means insurance, but there are other options too in many states (I know it was an option in Texas when I got my license in '00):http://www.dmv.org/insurance/proof-of-financial-responsibility.php

author: KJDS
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 07:04:18 pm
content: It's an option in the UK too, though unless you're running a fleet of trucks it makes more sense just to insure a car. In the UK, you're required to purchase a government bond. The last time I checked it was £500k but that might have changed as it was a long time ago. If you've got 1000 trucks to insure then the bond is the cheapest way of doing it. If you're rich and had twenty trucks to insure then you're still better off with the bond.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 08:22:53 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on January 07, 2016, 04:38:46 pmArguments such as we already have other taxes, the forced expense benefits small private businesses, I feel good about others having the test, you have the option of not owning a car are not very convincing for justifying mandating additional cost and inconvenience on the citizenry.I would expect more rational and benefit/cost based arguments in an engineering forum.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 08:33:06 pm
content: Quote from: Poe on January 07, 2016, 04:01:59 pmThere's a guy on one of the forums who got away with a 60kWh Tesla (about 40k miles, 2.5 years old) for £35,000. Originally a £60k+ car. Still pretty high - but nearly the same price as a Leaf but much nicer to drive.

author: rrinker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 08:34:59 pm
content: The real problem, at least in the US? Too many people treat driving as a right and not a privilege, and do everything EXCEPT pay attention when they are driving. Even if they aren't trying to text while driving, they are oblivious to what is going on around them. This is why there are so many wrecks. And the solution is always to mandate more nanny devices. First it was the tire pressure monitors, now it's the backup cameras. Neither is really necessary if people pay attention to their surroundings and realize that as a mechanical device, the car needs periodic maintenance - and not just when some light comes on telling you this. Nope, now you can get in the car and pretty much do nothing but occasionally steer - there are lights to warn you when to change the oil, there are lights to warn you that someone is in the lane next to you - someone you could see if you adjusted your mirrors properly, there are automatic stopping devices in case the car in front of you stops or slows - every device they add to automate the driving process just makes people MORE lax because, heck, the car will tell me if I need to do something.I personally refuse to drive an automatic transmission car unless my left leg stops working. It's my position that if more people were forced to drive manual, they would be forced to be more involved in the driving process and more attentive to what's going on. ALl this automated warning stuff is making people more and more complacent and not proactively checking their environment because they now rely on the automated warning instead of seeing for themselves.

author: timb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 08:36:48 pm
content: Here in VA it costs $20 to get your car inspected. A year. If you can't afford that, you can't afford a car or gas.People forget that driving is a privilege, not a right. Part of that is keeping your car roadworthy, period. If safety inspections help keep them that why, what is the downside?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 08:38:04 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on January 07, 2016, 08:22:53 pmPremise:Cars driven on public roads must be of a reasonably safe standard. Functional brakes, tyres, suspension, steering and lights.Costs (to Joe Driver):Maintenance costs, test fee (as applicable) - less than two tanks of petrol for a well maintained carCosts (to Jane Public):Bureaucracy costs (managing test centres, etc.) likely negligible (VOSA cost £200m/year, which does more than just MOT centres... gov't budget is £743bn)Risks:People die when cars don't have functional brakes, tyres, suspension, steering and lights.Therefore:<£50/year test fee & negligible tax increase seems reasonable to stop people from dying from lack of functional brakes, tyres, suspension, steering and lights.

author: Tandy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 08:49:02 pm
content: Could even have been something totally unrelated like a laptop in the boot/trunk with a faulty battery that caught fire. Or one of those damn hover boards!

author: Poe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 09:11:12 pm
content: Quote from: Delta on January 07, 2016, 04:13:20 pmQuote from: tom66 on January 07, 2016, 08:33:06 pmUnfortunately it looks like the 2012 model S (>70kWh) is still fetching ~$50k.Apparently no one wants the <=60kWh. They're going for dirt.... hmm.What kind of cost is it to replace the battery for someone other than the original owner?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 09:29:44 pm
content: Quote from: Poe on January 07, 2016, 09:11:12 pmTesla charges 24kEuro for the 85kWh battery pack, which is roughly £18k or $26k. The battery has an 8-year warranty, though. You could likely buy a replacement 8-year old Tesla for the cost of the battery by then.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 09:33:37 pm
content: Quote from: timb on January 07, 2016, 08:36:48 pmThat's 'if' is still open. ;-)Do states like mine without mandatory safety tests really have a significantly higher number accidents?

author: Cubdriver
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 09:56:13 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on January 07, 2016, 09:33:37 pmI added the part in bold as I think it's relevant. Just saying 'accidents' leaves things too wide open. And I agree with you - if it makes no difference in the accident rate, it's mandating that people waste money for little or no return on that outlay.-Pat

author: timb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 09:58:59 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on January 07, 2016, 09:33:37 pmIt's really hard to say due to a large number of other factors like traffic laws, average speed, traffic, etc. that vary state to state.For example, the state below me, NC doesn't have inspections but mine (VA) does. The number of motorcycle fatalities per capita is higher in NC than VA. Is this due to mandatory safety inspections? Most likely not. Why? Because NC doesn't have a helmet law and VA does.That said, my gut, personal experience and anecdotal evidence all tell me that safety inspections *do* save lives. I know it's not hard data, so it's not worth much, but there you go.Look at it from another angle: Why should we have seatbelt laws? If someone is too stupid to buckle up, they deserve to die, right? Here's the thing, seatbelts don't just help you survive a crash, they help prevent them. How? By holding you firmly in place behind the wheel.Say you're going 60MPH and suddenly see something in the road and swerve to avoid it; without the seatbelt locking and keeping you in place, you'd be pulled to the other side of the car. Now, you're halfway out of your seat, frantically trying to correct the swerve and *BAM* you run off the road plowing through an orphanage full of kittens and puppies.So, if a seatbelt prevents someone from losing control of their car and hitting me, it's worth it. Same with safety inspections. If it prevents someone from rear ending me because their brakes don't work, or their windshield wipers don't function or they had a blowout, it's worth it.

author: apelly
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 10:17:44 pm
content: Quote from: rrinker on January 07, 2016, 08:34:59 pmSteer the vehicle while eating a pie, drinking a coffee, smoking a cigarette, picking your nose, txting the missusandchange gears? Are youcrazy?

author: rrinker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 10:40:23 pm
content: Quote from: apelly on January 07, 2016, 10:17:44 pmThat's the point - they wouldn't be able to do it. Not and get very far.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 11:27:24 pm
content: Quote from: rrinker on January 07, 2016, 10:40:23 pmMotorway driving is easy hands off. I've seen someone texting going 75mph in the right-hand lane of the M1. They were in a newish BMW, maybe it had lane assist, but it seems stupidly reckless to me.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2016, 06:37:21 am
content: Quote from: timb on January 07, 2016, 09:58:59 pmYou might want to look at the academic research on that topic, a lot of it (most of the recent and high quality work?) comes to the conclusion that seat belt laws may save some lives of people inside cars but the overall safety of the population has been reduced. The short explanation is with expanded safety for the occupants, risk compensation applies and exposes everyone else to more danger while the occupants remain roughly as safe as they had before. Other safety "improvements" such as reinforced pillars and side airbags have reduced the visibility of the occupants, plus all the distractions of a modern vehicle.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2016, 10:07:18 am
content: Quote from: Monkeh on January 07, 2016, 12:20:34 amI dare you to try this in any other country in the world except some former slavecolony of the "great" british empire,and while at it forget about the miles/h to km/h conversion

author: KJDS
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2016, 10:24:38 am
content: Quote from: Kjelt on January 08, 2016, 10:07:18 amWhen was Japan a former slavecolony?

author: rrinker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2016, 12:44:01 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 07, 2016, 11:27:24 pmI drive a newish BMW, but it doesn't have any sort of lane control. On a reasonably maintained road, it tends to keep going straight with no hands on the wheel, even at speed - that's not what concerns me, it's having to look down at the phone to compose the text that scares me. Even at a rather sedate 55 mph, things happen fast. You may be seemingly alone on the road, no cars near you in any direction, and seconds later you come up on a pack of slower moving cars, or faster drivers catch up to you from behind. It's as much the not paying attention as it is the sudden (over)reaction when you are startled because you weren't paying attention that gets you. People are morons - sad that it is requiring laws being passed in most US states to have even the slightest impact on getting people to stop doing stupid things like this.

author: Poe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2016, 03:21:15 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 07, 2016, 09:29:44 pmOuch.Is that brand new or reconditioned?Do battery manufacturers or Tesla have massive >100% margins or is Elon's dream about an affordable electric car dependent on a new battery technology?

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2016, 04:09:45 pm
content: QuoteUnfortunately, that happens to be the core competency of governments and politicians.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2016, 04:40:24 pm
content: Quote from: KJDS on January 08, 2016, 10:24:38 amHe must be referring to the great British invasion of Japan:

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2016, 05:23:35 pm
content: Quote from: rrinker on January 08, 2016, 12:44:01 pmExactly. Recently while on holiday in a sunny west coast location I saw two serious accidents. In the first a car sailed past me rather rapidly. Looked over and saw the driver was reading a book propped on the steering wheel. A few seconds later a multi car pileup involving that car. A couple of days later another car sails past with the driver on a smart phone. Couldn't say whether he was Google mapping, texting, or checking his stock portfolio, they all have the same effect on driving. About a half mile later traffic ahead came to a sudden stop. Unfortunately the driver on the cell phone didn't come to a sudden stop until he hit the car in front.Both those accidents involved illegal activity, and unfortunately it wasn't just the moron who was impacted.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2016, 05:57:14 pm
content: Quote from: KJDSStill the british faultQuote

author: KJDS
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2016, 06:24:03 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on January 08, 2016, 05:57:14 pmBut the right side of the road is the wrong side to drive on, the right side to drive on is the left.

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2016, 06:46:23 pm
content: Quote from: KJDS on January 08, 2016, 06:24:03 pmAlso the safer side of the road to drive on if crash stats are anything to go by. But meh, that might not be because most people are right eye dominant so their dominant eye is covering oncoming traffic, it may be more due to the cultures of those few countries that drive on the left.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2016, 07:25:49 pm
content: Quote from: timb on January 07, 2016, 09:58:59 pmI don't think any reasonable person would say safety inspection will not save life. The point is that it save less live than had the money been spend on something more efficient in life-saving.For example, the Seat belt laws you cited is one such more efficient life saving method.Some article cites distracted driving and drunk driving is the biggest killer. Young (<25 year old) drivers also tend to encounter more accidents. Use the money to target that and likely more life would be saved.Short of Bill Gates, most of us have pay-cheques with specific numbers printed and only issued during specific times. Resource is a limited commodity. You take more from this end and you have less on the other end. It is only sensible to spend it where it has the biggest bang for the buck.As other higher-frequency killers are targeted and when their frequencies are reduced, other "frequent causes" will take over. Some point in time, safety inspection may well be the most efficient. We are not at that point in time.

author: bitseeker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2016, 07:58:59 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on January 08, 2016, 05:57:14 pmThanks, Kjelt. I always wondered about the origins of driving on the left over there.

author: bitseeker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2016, 08:01:05 pm
content: Quote from: KJDS on January 08, 2016, 06:24:03 pmThe right side to drive on is the one where headlights are not oncoming.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2016, 09:32:39 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on January 08, 2016, 05:57:14 pmAre you mixing cars or trains?

author: timb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2016, 09:33:59 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on January 08, 2016, 07:25:49 pmExactly. Inspections cost $10/yr in my state. If you can't afford that, then odds are you're not putting the appropriate money into your car to keep it road worthy and thus shouldn't be driving in the first place.I've been there myself when I was younger. I bought a really nice sporty car and put summer tires on it and a few months later ran into finance problems. I had run parts of the tread completely smooth, to the point I knew it was unsafe. If it wasn't for my inspection being due, I would have put it off. Instead, I was late with rent that month.Anecdotal, I know.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2016, 11:10:59 pm
content: Quote from: timb on January 08, 2016, 09:33:59 pmYup, that is the trouble with anecdotal. It is true, but you cannot plan with it.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2016, 12:50:23 am
content: Quote from: timb on January 08, 2016, 09:33:59 pmIf time and inconvenience are free and the enforcement doesn't cause you to fix stuff with insignificant safety return, than, maybe it's just $10, but then, if it's not justified, why to force free people to waste $10 in the first place?Back to square 1, it needs to have a significant return.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2016, 05:52:52 am
content: You know, I don't know if there is a fundamental advantage to driving on one side of the road or the other. It is too bad that the whole world didn't pick the same answer. Same thing is true about mains voltages and frequencies. At least in the latter case there are some arguments to support one answer or the other, but unfortunately, the best answer locally isn't necessarily the best answer elsewhere. I am personally sure that any one of the choices in the world would have been "good enough" the world over.At this point there is too much capital investment in the choices made to make world normalization practical for either of these systems, so people will be arguing about and lamenting these things for a long, long time.

author: gore
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2016, 11:30:41 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on January 09, 2016, 05:52:52 amNot sure about driving, but with right side driver's seat at least you get to step out of the vehicle on a sidewalk instead of a highway.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 09, 2016, 01:53:28 pm
content: Quote from: gore on January 09, 2016, 11:30:41 amIf you're serious about that statement, you should think on it a bit longer...

author: gore
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2016, 02:12:53 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on January 09, 2016, 01:53:28 pmNot really. I know there are good reasons behind certain driving conventions. How you exit the vehicle is hardly the main concern.

author: suicidaleggroll
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2016, 04:41:23 pm
content: Quote from: gore on January 09, 2016, 02:12:53 pmThere is no difference in how you exit the vehicle, whether you drive on the left side of the car and the right side of the road or the right side of the car and the left side of the road.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2016, 05:07:52 pm
content: Quote from: suicidaleggroll on January 09, 2016, 04:41:23 pmThe driver uses a different hand to open the door.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 10, 2016, 12:27:32 am
content: My point was, in the normal situation of a driver getting out of the driver's door will ALWAYS be stepping out into traffic.Assumptions:1. Not parking on the 'opposite' side on a one-way street.2. Not driving a vehicle with the driver position on the opposite side to the norm (eg an unconverted import)

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2016, 04:33:58 am
content: Or to say it another way: There is a good reason for putting the driver nearer the center of the road, whichever side of the road is driven on. It gives better judgement on clearances for the more critical near head on approach to opposing traffic. So assuming the car is parked so that it enters traffic from the side it will be driving on, the driver will always get out into traffic.But it still seems to be almost a coin flip which side to drive on. Driving on the left gives the right eye dominant majority a couple of inches (a few centimeters) more advantage in judging those near head on approaches, but the angles are small enough that that difference is a near wash. You might be able to squeeze a small advantage for driving on the right side based on cable routing for the throttle pedal, but again it is a near wash. Driving on the right gives the one person who will always be entering a vehicle the opportunity to use the more common dominant right side to open that oh so heavy door. Sounds like a wash to me.Lets move on to driverless cars that are sufficiently networked to not car which side of the road they are on.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2016, 08:23:37 am
content: As I understand (from some TV documentary), that English driver sit on the right hand side is from horse days. The right hand is the dominant hand so the jousting lance or the sword are therefore on the right. Now you can attack or guard against the potential enemy coming the other way.This part is not from the documentary.If that is true, we could assume that we Americans are more polite or more friendly to our fellow Americans. We put our weapon-holding hand on the other side, so we are signaling the on-coming guy that: see, we are friendly - like [from the documentary] firing off all the cannons before coming into port to show that the cannons are empty and we come in peace; which of course morphed into 21-gun-salutes or however many the other guy deserves.Credit: Ithinkthe TV documentary I was referring to was "Mail Call" by R. Lee Ermey. The U.S. Marine who also star as the Marine drill sergeant in the movie "Full Metal Jacket".

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2016, 09:32:33 am
content: Quote from: Rick Law on January 10, 2016, 08:23:37 amI wonder where that idea came from? The strong need to drive on a particular side of the road came in the 18th and 19th century, with the increasing horse drawn carriage traffic on the streets of the affluent parts of cities. There was also a growing problem of carriage drivers hitting pedestrians with their whips. The safer option was to have the whip used near the middle of the road, rather than near the kerb. With the majority of people being right handed, this lead to regulations requiring carriages drive on the left hand side, especially for the purposes of passing. What puzzles me is why other countries which had similar levels of wealthy people, and therefore carriage issues, didn't come to the same regulations.

author: discomike
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2016, 09:53:31 am
content: To add some curiosity to the side-of-road discussion I can add that in Sweden we used to drive on the left side of the road with the steering wheel on the left hand side as well - so you could step out of the car onto the sidewalk =).In 1967 we switched to driving on the right side (which luckily didn't require us to rebuild the cars other then adjusting headlights), a few years prior to that there was a national vote where 89% voted to keep driving on the left hand side - but the government decided against it anyways (which i guess was good).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagen_HIt seems that most of the countries that are still driving on the left side today are islands where they didn't have much road traffic from neighboring countries..

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 10, 2016, 12:21:17 pm
content: Yep. Australia is an island. (almost as big as mainland USA)

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2016, 12:32:39 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on January 10, 2016, 09:32:33 amIt has actually evolved over time - e.g. former Czechoslovakia where I am from used to drive on the left until the German occupation in 1939. Then the Germans ordered it changed to drive on the right, the same as in the Reich, and it has remained that way after the war.Oh and there are apparently also countries where some parts drive on the left and some on the right (e.g. China vs former British colonies Hong Kong and Macau) or US Virgin Islands.There is some good analysis here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-_and_left-hand_traffic

author: timb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2016, 10:27:56 pm
content: What I want to know is, say you're driving in a right-lane country, you get to the border of a left-lane country, how do you switch sides?

author: MrSlack
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2016, 10:58:15 pm
content: Quote from: timb on January 10, 2016, 10:27:56 pm

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2016, 11:00:03 pm
content: Quote from: timb on January 10, 2016, 10:27:56 pmLike this for example:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Lotus-bridge-macau.jpgWhen it is from a ferry, it is even simpler:https://www.google.fr/maps/place/Calais/@51.1241346,1.3312887,412m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x47dc3f75d7f1e363:0xacbed9e08cd279f4!6m1!1e1?hl=en

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2016, 11:11:12 pm
content: Quote from: janoc on January 10, 2016, 11:00:03 pmErrr, that's entirely one way, coming off two decks.

author: Delta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2016, 05:11:31 pm
content: Quote from: MrSlack on January 10, 2016, 10:58:15 pmDid a certain Mr. MJ design that road system?

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2016, 06:29:23 pm
content: Quote from: janoc on January 10, 2016, 11:00:03 pmThe arrangements at the end of the bridge across Shenzhen Bay, from Hong Kong to Shenzhen, are much simpler. These bridges are elevated dual carriageways. You just need to make one side cross above the other. Those big loops are unnecessary.Its interesting that Macau traffic is right hand drive. Macau was a Portuguese colony, and they are left hand drive country. China is their only neighbour with direct road links (at least until the new bridge across the Pearl Delta is finished), and they are a left hand drive country. Was Hong Kong such a big influence that Macau chose to drive on the right?

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2016, 07:34:15 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on January 11, 2016, 06:29:23 pmAt some point in the political history barriers to crossing borders may have been desired. I know that railroad gauges have been selected to impede trans border movement. Just as for a while, China set unique electronics standards as a way to protect their domestic market. Others have done similar things.

author: WN1X
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 11, 2016, 07:53:31 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 02, 2016, 03:38:26 pmAnd interestingly, the car is not connected to the chargers. You can see it is parked away from them.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2016, 08:28:40 pm
content: It was connected to a set of temporary chargers that Tesla installed to cope with the holiday traffic. The chargers come on a pallet and only require connection to 3ph 400V service (~150kVA) so they are much easier and cheaper to install.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2016, 10:50:10 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on January 10, 2016, 09:32:33 amBecause in places where there were more industrial carts, being much heavier than carriages, the teamster had to sit on one of the horses. If you are right-handed, your whip is held in your right hand, and you must sit on the left rear horse in order not to use the whip across your own face. Sitting on the left, you need to drive on the right to see the road.