Tesla autopilot burns passenger to death!  - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 04:14:10 pm
content: According to various media previous crash who killed the driver and its investigation showed Autopilot was cause of death some say the autopilot was the cause for this one to. S3 model for sale in Europe is not fitted with autopilot. Media continues to label the function autopilot instead of driver assistance etc. But the odd thing is why didnt the firemen knock in the door glas'es and filled the car with water/foam and that way try to save the dude?

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 05:24:55 pm
content: Well lithium battery fires can be risky to go against even with foam as the foam has water in it that can make the lithium burn even faster and produce hydrogen gas. Tho im sure if the window was broken and the driver doused with enugh water to make his clothes wet that would help significantly.Also what sort of excuse is that the door does not open? This happens all the time in car crashes if the bodywork bends in a way that the door gets wedged in the cars frame. For this very reason firefighters are equipped with big ass angle grinders to cut the hinges of doors and hydraulic jaws that can pry a door open of be used to cut the pillars in seconds to remove the entire roof if needed. Its a standard procedure for dealing with a serious crash.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 05:30:06 pm
content: It's a widespread myth that Lithium-Ion battery fires involve burning lithium. They do not contain any metallic lithium at all, the whole point is that they use lithiumions. What is burning is the electrolyte. One common electrolyte used,DEC, has a flash point of33 °C, which explains its tendency to burn in accidents.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 05:32:09 pm
content: That was apparently hopeless. A bit more details here:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6744013/Tesla-burst-flames-fatal-Florida-crash-catches-fire-THREE-TIMES-tow-yard.html"An officer was nearby and tried to break the car’s window, but because of the intensity of the flames could not save Awan, who was burned beyond recognition and was pronounced dead at the scene."

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 05:38:59 pm
content: Quote from: Berni on February 26, 2019, 05:24:55 pmNooooo!The only way to fight lithium ion battery fire is by using water, and lots of it. Only water is capable of providing sufficient cooling. Nothing else works as the heat comes internally (by having internal oxidizer in the NCA (LiNiCoAlO2) cathode; secondarily, the electrolyte is also flammable), so the only way is to cool it down, and for that you need the physical heat transfer properties of water. OTOH, realistically, I guess the Tesla battery does not have water inlet ports for the firefighters (to pump water through the battery), so the chances you could stop the chain reaction internally are slim. So just cool it externally to keep it from spreading, and let it burn.Lithium ion chemistry does not have lithium metal*, and does not react with water violently. Keep cooling it. Don't spread stupid myths. These myths can be dangerous. Spread the information. You or someone else may need it some day!(*) Old or abused cells may have tiny amounts, but it's almost meaningless in the big picture.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 05:51:42 pm
content: For once I think that news story is concentrating far too much on the "Autopilot" and too little on the fire that results from relatively minor distortion or damage to a high energy Lithium battery pack (note the bit about where the car kept re-combusting as it was being removed).We all know it is a problem. Yes, I know the story of how much potential energy there is in a petrol (gas) tank but in reality, if the tough plastic fuel tank does get compromised, most of that potential energy flows onto the road and down the nearest flood drain, or stays in the tank. It's relatively hard to ignite petrol - I remember seeing a demonstration where petrol was sprayed onto a hot exhaust manifold - it hissed and smoked but didn't burn, it needs a naked flame. Brake fluid in the same test however, spontaneously combusted and burned freely. I don't remember how diesel fared.I don't know how we are going to better protect and build Lithium battery packs, but in a world where everything is supposed to be going electric, we desperately need to!

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 05:58:29 pm
content: Quote from: helius on February 26, 2019, 05:30:06 pmQuote from: Siwastaja on February 26, 2019, 05:38:59 pmSpot on! BTW there is an instruction video somewhere which shows how to deal with a burning laptop in an airplane: keep pouring water over it is the only solution to stop the chain reaction.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 06:02:17 pm
content: QuoteQuoteWhat a surprise that driver is dead. In any car you have barely any chance to survive at this speed even if there was no fire.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 06:03:31 pm
content: Quote from: helius on February 26, 2019, 05:30:06 pmMore so than the low flash point is the large amount of stored energy. If a lithium battery is damaged and becomes shorted, that energy is going to very quickly turn into a great deal of heat.Gasoline is highly flammable too though and I've personally witnessed at least three conventional cars fully engulfed in flames on the side of the road. It stands to reason that the incidents I've been in the right place at the right time to witness are a very small portion of the actual number that occur. Dozens of people die every single day in car accidents.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 06:07:44 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on February 26, 2019, 06:03:31 pmThat is another myth. It is not the gasoline which is burning but the interior of the car. The gasoline is stored outside the passenger compartment.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 06:09:33 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on February 26, 2019, 06:07:44 pmFire often starts at engine, and it's gasoline that burns.

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 06:16:46 pm
content: Ah alright, i seen non rechargeable lithium cells taken apart to extract a sizable piece of lithium, didn't realize the lithium ion ones are that different.For diesel id imagine its that much harder to ignite. Its almost impossible to set fire to diesel using a regular cigarette lighter, you tend to need to take a blow torch to it or ignite a small wood splinter soaked in diesel to start it directly. A squirt bottle full of diesel is often found near wood furnaces as a fire starter, you tend to light a ball of paper on fire and then squirt it on the already hot burning paper. Because of how hard it is to get it to burn the fire will never follow the liquid back to the bottle or the squirt turning into a huge ball of fire, doing the same thing with a bottle of gasoline however is a bad idea, since exactly that can happen. Farms often have barrels of diesel around for fueling tractors and machinery so diesel has found a lot of other uses other than putting it into a fuel tank just because its always at hand.But yeah it is quite scary how quickly a lithium ion battery can turn into a massive fire. It only takes one cell to go and start the chain reaction. Hopefully we invent a better and safer battery technology sometime soon before electric cars take over. Tho a higher energy capacity battery inherently has more oomph ready to go boom when things go wrong.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 06:16:57 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on February 26, 2019, 06:07:44 pmPerhaps you overlooked the fact that the gasoline is pumped to the engine under pressure, passing over many potential ignition sources? The fuel tank in most modern cars is also made of plastic, so it lights off eventually. I had a very near disaster once where a fuel leak caused by someone fitting the wrong copper washer to a banjo bolt resulted in a stream of high pressure gasoline spraying inches away from a hot exhaust manifold and turbocharger. A friend of mine in the 80s had an engine fire caused by fuel leaking from the carburetor, fortunately he saw the smoke and had the sense to grab the fire extinguisher he had in the car and immediately got out and caught it just in time. Many car fires start with a fuel leak which then quickly spreads to other flammable materials and if not put out very quickly the fuel in the tank burns too.https://www.cincinnati.com/story/money/2018/06/27/lexus-recalls-cars-fix-fuel-leaks-can-cause-fires/737316002/https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local-news/i-team-investigates/some-kia-car-fires-may-be-caused-by-work-done-during-engine-recall-replacementshttps://gazette.com/business/mazda-issues-car-recall-fuel-leaks-may-cause-fire/article_17421ca9-a780-542a-9989-fd3a15e1b270.htmlhttps://www.mlive.com/news/2019/02/honda-recalls-106k-trucks-due-to-risk-car-wash-soap-could-cause-fuel-leak-fire.htmlhttps://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-driving-safety/accidents-hazardous-conditions/10-causes-of-car-fires10.htmSo you're saying these are all caused by the interior burning and have nothing to do with the fact that fuel is flammable?

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 06:21:12 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on February 26, 2019, 06:09:33 pmOr quite likely triggered by the contents of the brake fluid reservoir, as I mentioned above.... and plastic/rubber engine compartment components. Fuel pump cut-off will activate immediately on impact leaving very little fuel in the engine bay.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 06:28:17 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on February 26, 2019, 06:16:57 pmElectrical wiring burning in the passenger compartment often causes interior fires - see the spate of Vauxhall heater fan triggered ones.https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/motoring/motoring-news/vauxhall-zafira-fire-risk-everything-11570497The difference with these sort of fuel leak and electrical fires is that the occupants are awake and alert. They can normally safely bring the car to a halt and get the hell out. Spontaneous ignition on impact is an entirely different matter!

author: m98
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 06:46:21 pm
content: If that guy really crashed at over 80 mph, there wouldn't be much to help anyways

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 06:49:29 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on February 26, 2019, 06:16:57 pmYou focus way too much on the gasoline. Once the ignition is off (and I assume people do that when leaving a car or when a car is parked) the fuel is no longer under pressure. Even if a fire is started by a fuel leak, the majority of the stuff that burns are the interior and other liquid like brake fluid and maybe some engine oil but not the fuel. It is not like fuel is spread everywhere!

author: ajb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 07:11:51 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on February 26, 2019, 06:49:29 pmThis came up in another thread, where people were gawping at pictures of an electrical car that had burned to the ground andover burning batteries. If you actually do the math on the available energy in all of the plastics, synthetic fabrics, and plastic foams in a modern car interior of any drivetrain type, that's a LOT of energy in a relatively small space. Whatever the initial cause of the fire, the fuel or battery becomes largely moot once the interior catches.

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 07:19:57 pm
content: Well some of it indeed is fuel but modern cars have so many other flammable things under the hood. Not only are there plenty of flammable liquids such as engine oil and brake fluid but there is plenty of plastic parts everywhere that will eventually burn just fine when hot enough. Then there is also fabric like filters inside those plastic parts and sometimes there is fabric on the underside of the for sound dampening. Lots of rubber hoses will eventually burn too. Once a fire is going the plastic bumper is sure to join in as are the front tires.Plastic parts are cheaper to make so manufacturers will replace a metal part with plastic whenever possible.Tho what is worrying is that door locking systems on car doors are becoming too electronic. Cars used to always have a physical thing on the inside of the door that is mechanically connected to the locking mechanism, that way any electrical failure would still let you unlock the door and open it. Now its becoming popular to have a little push button for locking. Not even a mechanical switch that directly switches power to the door lock solenoid, but actually putting a little computer between your button and the solenoid.

author: Gary350z
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 08:02:10 pm
content: Quote from: helius on February 26, 2019, 05:30:06 pmI tend to agree with you.Do lithium-ion batteries contain lithium metal? I am not an expert, so I do not know the correct answer. I fly quadcopters which use lithium-ion batteries, so I am interested and have researched this subject extensively, and have not found a definitive answer.Here is an example of conflicting information from Battery University:BU-704: How to Transport Batteries (https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/how_to_transport_batteries)"Transported lithium-based batteries are divided into two types: The rechargeable lithium-ion is primarily found in mobile phones and laptops; the non-rechargeable lithium-metal with added restrictions because of its high lithium content is used in sensing devices as well as in some consumer grade AA, AAA and 9V formats. Airlines allow both types as carry-on, either installed in devices or carried as spare packs as long as they don’t exceed the following limitation of lithium or equivalent content:2 grams per battery for non-rechargeable lithium batteries, also known as lithium-metal.8 grams per battery for a rechargeable lithium-ion. This amounts to a 100Wh battery.25 grams total per passenger for all Li-ion combined, amounting to 300Wh.The lithium content of a lithium-metal battery is printed on the label.Li-ion, on the other hand, uses equivalent lithium content (ELC) that is calculated by multiplying the rated capacity (Ah) times 0.3. For example, a 1Ah cell has 0.3 grams of lithium. A modern 18650 cell with a capacity of 3.3Ah contains about 1 gram.The 8-gram limit permits a 26Ah battery, or 95Wh (Ah multiplied by the Li-ion cell voltage of 3.6V equals Wh). The 18650 is a standardized Li-ion cell of 18mm in diameter and 65mm in length, and is used in laptops, power tools and other devices. Most laptop batteries are in the 60Wh range."This says an 18650 cell with a capacity of 3.3Ah contains about 1 gram.I would really like to know the correct answer to this question from someone who knows what their talking about, such as a lithium-ion battery design engineer.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 08:03:58 pm
content: i like the doors in humvees you can pick them up and throw em out of the car if you want.diesel is very hard to ignite by comparison to gasoline.

author: BFX
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 08:17:43 pm
content: First of all should by said that much more cars was burned with passengers, but nobody cares about that only tesla is interestingAnd of course Rusia TodayOnly in my city was 30 accidents last week and one death and six seriously injured, nobody cares about that but when tesla crashed it's worst car in the worldBy whom, we know.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 08:19:34 pm
content: Id like to mentionAutopilotagain as the cause of the crash, in this video one can se that a barrier gap seams to causeAutopilotsoftware to malfunction at the very same place an previousAutopiloteddeath crash happen.Arent the software supposed to detect varying barrier distances?

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 08:39:26 pm
content: With anything regarding Tesla, we should be aware that a lot of people have huge amounts of money invested in Tesla either succeeding or failing. Combined with the propensity of many news agencies to bring factoids in the most dramatic fashion they can to stir interest it means we should be very wary of these kinds of stories. There are a lot of people and groups out there who stand to gain literal billions if Tesla sinks, and there's a strong incentive for them to help this happening in any way they can.When you peel back the layers of nonsense it seems there's a couple of things going on. There's the so called autopilot feature, which is experimental and imperfect. It's inevitable preventable accidents will happen due to it as it's still under development, but it's also likely it will at least eventually help prevent accidents few human drivers would have avoided. The unfortunate truth seems that even if these cars are already safer than any more traditional counterpart, every accident attracts a lot of attention and reignites the discussion whether these cars are actually safe. The public at large and statistics aren't a great match. People seem to resist change quite vehemently, even when statistics are favourable. We've had the handful of Tesla crashes covered in incredible detail, while many more people die in horrific ways daily without anyone but their personal social circle batting an eye. Tesla having their own interests on the other end is obviously not helping either.A completely separate issue is the way batteries in electric cars behave after a crash. They do seem to have a propensity to sometimes keep burning, although it's entirely unclear whether this is more likely to happen than it is with conventional ICE cars. A bad wreck will create a huge mess regardless of whether a vehicle is battery or fuel powered. Whatever the case, it's obvious battery powered vehicles will be on our roads for a while to come so instead of plain reactive fear and outrage, we'd better figure out how to deal with the situation more effectively.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 08:44:06 pm
content: Quote from: MT on February 26, 2019, 08:19:34 pmRegular drivers don't seem to have much issue with the situation so it seems unfair to blame the accident on the road marking and maintenance level, but it does seem the road there isn't marked or maintained very appropriately. It'd be interesting to see whether these kinds of accident happen more in certain countries, with a potential correlation to maintenance levels.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 09:21:59 pm
content: Quote from: Gyro on February 26, 2019, 05:51:42 pmA fair point, but quite understandable because we tend to compare things to existing tech. Autopilots that automagically crash are a new and scary thing, while cars going up in flames - sometimes for no apparent reason, sometimes in seconds, sometimes killing people - has been everyday business for a century, to the extent thatalmost everybodyhas seen a car in massive flames at least once - and people who drive a lot are not even surprised anymore.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 09:28:54 pm
content: Quote from: Gyro on February 26, 2019, 05:51:42 pmWow. Driving into a tree at 75 to 90mph is 'a minor distortion'. Thicker tree palm tree is broken in half and car is on top of smaller tree. The question is, was there even an autopilot?https://twitter.com/i/status/1099809313659518976

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 09:29:10 pm
content: Quote from: Gary350z on February 26, 2019, 08:02:10 pmThe information is available, but as you have found out, it takes time and resources to find, and to form a coherent (and factual) picture in your head. Your mistake was trusting a site called "Battery University" -theabsolute classic fake info site on the battery field!Once you figure everything out, the pieces start fitting together. Question everything... (Except this statement.)(While that particular article doesn't necessarily have anything massively wrong, it's misleading as hell.)The difference is exactly the same when you talk about sodium metal (highly flammable, dangerous metal), and sodium chloride (table salt). While youcanexpress the amount of sodium in your food in grams, it would be utterly misleading to talk about your sodium intake and your body sodium levels in the same sentence with regulations of handling the sodium metal. It's chemically different, one form is inherently unstable, and the another is inherently stable, exactlybecausethe other is inherently unstable - it goes to one direction, releasing a lot of energy, but to make it the other way, you need to put in a lot of energy! (Very simply put, but you get the point.)So the volatility of lithium ion batteries has nothing to do with lithium, but everything to do with the oxides they use in the cathode material. Oxides can be very reactive because well, as you should know, burning is all about reacting with oxygen, and when you have the source internally, it's hard to put out; you don't need two of the classical three elements (fuel,oxygen, heat) supplied externally because it's internally there.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 09:34:19 pm
content: Quote from: Gary350z on February 26, 2019, 08:02:10 pmThey obviously do contain lithium atoms. But for an atom to bemetallicit must be in a particular state (for alkali elements, that is an oxidation state of 0) and arrangement (a crystalline lattice made of metal atoms). I am not a battery engineer, but my understanding is that the lithium atoms in a Li-ion cell are never in a 0 oxidation state when they are together. They must intercalate into a non-metal crystal to enter the 0 state, which means that they are not metallic. As another post says,Quote from: Siwastaja on February 26, 2019, 05:38:59 pmAs Li-ion cells age, they may form deposits in the SEI (the boundary between solid and liquid) that reduce into small metallic grains.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780444595133000182This is a small fraction of the lithium atoms.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 09:39:18 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on February 26, 2019, 09:28:54 pmPeople often seem to underestimate the forces involved in these accidents. This was going to be a huge mess, regardless of make and model and underlying technology. It's essentially expected to be non-survivable.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 09:40:41 pm
content: Quote from: Gyro on February 26, 2019, 06:21:12 pmI've never seen a fire caused by burning brake fluid, is that stuff even flammable?Ok I looked it up "Brake fluid does burn. DOT3, DOT4, and DOT5 all burn, and all about the same. It's not an explosive fast burn like gasoline, but a slower burn like vegetable oil, or a bit faster than candle wax." So it can burn, but like diesel fuel I think it's relatively unlikely to start a fire.Ever spilled gasoline on a hot muffler while refilling a lawnmower? I have, yeah, I know, that's why they tell you to let it cool off first but I was in a hurry. WHOOSH! Just a little slop splashed on the muffler and it erupted into a fireball immediately which I was fortunately able to extinguish by throwing dirt on it before the fuel in the tank caught. Quite a few fuel fires occur not from accidents but from slow to moderate leaks under the hood, fuel starts leaking, puddles on the engine and drips on the exhaust manifold, by the time the driver notices anything is wrong it's only seconds before the interior catches.I'm not going to spend a great deal of time searching for official data but fuel leaks come up often as the #1 cause with electrical wiring appearing to be second. According to the wikipedia article there are around 280,000 car fires each year in the USA alone which is quite a substantial number.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_fireNow I've also noticed that like clockwork the resident pathological EV haters have shown up in this thread so any data suggesting that large batteries are really no more dangerous than tanks full of highly flammable fuel will be ignored and the usual ignore/deflect cycle will ensue and any debate is largely pointless.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 09:49:36 pm
content: I think batteries are way more dangerous than a tank of fuel. Fuel just stays in the tank or leaks away when the tank is punctured. Liquid fuel is rarely the sole source of fuel of a car fire. Remember the fuel tank sits outside the passenger compartment in a relatively safe place. Batteries OTOH contain a lot of energy and even especially when a battery pack is damaged it can catch fire for a number of reasons.In the Netherlands fire brigades are developing a special vehicle with a water tank so they can put an EV/hybrid in there to keep the batteries from catching after an accident. Other recommendations for scrap yards are to park damaged EVs outside an 15 meter from other cars. Mitsubishi recommends to place their Outlander model in 50cm of water to drown the batteries. Ofcourse the vehicle will be total-loss (being economic repair) after such a treatment. Whether such a treatment is always a good idea is debatable. I know of an incident with a small vehicle where the batteries caught fire because they where partly submerged in water.Also the fire fighters are complaining batteries in cars have no port flush water through them to put a fire out. Due to the density and inaccessibility a battery fire is very hard to put out.The primary problem is that you can't switch a battery (=collection of cells) off. If you empty the fuel tank of a car and disconnect/remove the battery you are left with a device which is pretty much inert.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 09:50:30 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on February 26, 2019, 09:40:41 pmDon't worry, we sensible people do understand that both are flammable and pose similar risks, and while there are small differences in details in both the risk percentage, and the consequences (energy released, how fast it spreads, etc.), the order of magnitude is approximately similar. By selectively choosing right data, you can turn it either way, which is why I don't like to form a strong opinion about it. In any case, the problem is not new. It's of course a bit sad that the electric car couldn't fix the fire problem (at least yet, at least completely), but it didn't make it worse either, so maybe we can live with this, and continue developing something better.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 09:51:09 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on February 26, 2019, 09:21:59 pmThis is a natural consequence of the way the human brain is wired, which I suppose must have had some evolutionary advantage at some point. People most fear the things that happen very infrequently but tune out things that happen all the time. There are endless examples out there, people worry about shark attacks, plane crashes, terrorist attacks, natural disasters, etc while many think nothing of playing with their mobile phone or being drunk while blasting down the highway in a car, working in high places without a safety harness, abusing drugs or any number of other things that kill more people than the scary stuff by a HUGE number.I've seriously met people who were afraid to fly because the plane might crash but they'd not think twice about getting into a car. The car is hugely more likely to crash and kill you than an airliner. People don't vaccinate their kids because they're worried about the tiny number that have a bad reaction to the vaccine and ignore the fact that the diseases we vaccinate against formerly killed many thousands, the fear is completely irrational.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 10:04:02 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on February 26, 2019, 09:51:09 pmThe bottom line is that when our lizard brain and statistics and reason collide, the former typically wins. That "gut feeling" is essentially impossible to fight and even science has built in numerous measures into its process to reduce its impact as much as possible.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 10:14:06 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on February 26, 2019, 10:04:02 pmI think perhaps one of the biggest challenges I've had in social situations all my life is that "gut feeling" seems to be either missing or greatly diminished in me. I look at everything in terms of facts and data, things a lot of people worry about a great deal don't bother me in the least and I have a difficult time understanding what I view as utterly irrational fears.

author: Gary350z
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 10:55:46 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on February 26, 2019, 09:29:10 pmYes I was wondering about the credibility of Battery University. I did not believe them 100%, I was just giving them as an example.My motto is the same as yours; Question everything. Investigate what you are being told.Thanks for the info.

author: 3roomlab
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 11:41:57 pm
content: I think the battery compartment needs some "starlite" wrappingan advance fireproof "cake" of battery !https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/diy-starlite-like-supermaterial-can-melt-coins-in-your-palm-with-no-burns/

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 11:58:25 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on February 26, 2019, 08:44:06 pmThe points you miss is prior,(same spot) Tesla crash caused by Autopilot,and that this time another Tesla car does the same at the same spot, turns left way ahead of the road split barrier and if had continued car would hit the barrier split, which has nothing to do with unfairness of road condition which could be an excuse for a malfunctioning software i argue , not to mention the rear ended truck debated prior and other frontal autopilot crashes. So how do the software measure distances to avoid obstacles under all road circumstances i wonder? Surely the ADA people knows? Surely not by sensing white lines? Here we dont have much, most is white rectangulars with space in-between, many times nothing at all.Since Uber Lidar couldn't avoid drunk object, can Tesla?Here, another video of Tesla slamin into a concrete barrier, was the autopilot on or off? or driver just watching porn on display because if the driver had kept attention he would have seen the car in front turn right, yes we could find other excuses but thats not the point, point is if autopilot on why didnt it brake or turn right? The video recording guy is ofcourse to close so he almost slams in to but the car in front of Tesla is sufficiently ahead.

author: sleemanj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 27, 2019, 12:04:28 am
content: Usually seatbelts save lives. Sometimes, seatbelts cost lives.Tesla driver assistance is no different.It doesn't have to be perfect.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 27, 2019, 12:48:08 am
content: Quote from: MT on February 26, 2019, 11:58:25 pmI didn't miss that, but it seems logical the same input results in the same issue. I don't quite understand why people would expect anything else. Computer systems are generally more repeatable than humans. Same input, same output. It also doesn't change the fact that the road signage looks terrible. I don't think it's a very good argument for the autopilot as human drivers seem to be able to navigate the location without much problems, but it's definitely bad maintenance. The second clip shows some rather shoddy signage too. It wouldn't surprise me if human drivers too get caught out by that. Even the temporary line is going right into the barrier. The autopilot should probably be able to deal with that, but the road design is not very good.However, it somehow feels I'm getting dragged into a pro versus against Tesla discussion and I have zero interest in that.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 27, 2019, 12:49:43 am
content: Quote from: sleemanj on February 27, 2019, 12:04:28 amThe problems seems to be that people have an unrealistic expectancy of perfection for newer technologies, which hampers acceptance of technology which would improve things. Especially considering most new technology will go through a development phase with less than optimal results.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 27, 2019, 01:21:43 am
content: Technologies are not safe or unsafe. What safety depends on is systems.The system that is relevant to the "autopilot" issue is made up of millions of miles of roads, millions of people employed in road engineering, construction, and maintenance, and millions of non-autonomous vehicles, and their drivers. The autonomous vehicle is a very small part of the system, perhaps the smallest part. As a tiny part of a very large system, it must yield to the larger system's demands, not the other way around.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 27, 2019, 01:27:33 am
content: Quote from: helius on February 27, 2019, 01:21:43 amI think I emphasized a couple of times that the autopilot should be able to deal with bad markings. I'm not arguing that's the source of the issue. I do think they're both badly maintained and set up bits of road and wouldn't be surprised if human drivers too get into trouble because of it. Having temporary markings straight into a barrier or the barrier angle into to road fairly dramatically just doesn't seem good practice.

author: shakalnokturn
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 27, 2019, 01:28:05 am
content: For the battery curious people:https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/pics-info-inside-the-battery-pack.34934/

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 27, 2019, 02:27:14 am
content: Quote from: Berni on February 26, 2019, 07:19:57 pmIMHO a mechanical override should be mandated by law. Imagine a situation where something short-circuits and now you're locked inside a car that's just decided to ignite itself...Not happy with the trend of flammable materials in the interior either --- what might've been a few burnt wires and some wisps of smoke in the days of mostly-metal parts now turns into an inextinguishable inferno. Then again, probably a lot more people would oppose using asbestos instead...

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 27, 2019, 06:28:58 am
content: Let's face it, Teslas "autopilot" is a complete and utter joke, and a dangerous joke for that matter (this being said, I'm not too emotionally uncomfortable of stupid people killing themselves and others. There are too many of us on this planet. But let's pretend for a while that lives matter...)The main point: people have an impression that this is an actual autonomous vehicle, or some kind of semi-autonomous beta. It's neither. It's not even close to the definition of an autonomous vehicle (we have those being developed and tested as well, and they seem to be already quite safe. Tesla's just getting a free marketing ride.)Looking at many accident videos, it's a bog standard lane guidance systemnot coupled with working obstacle detection, very primitive, nothing new; it's only looking at lane markings, and is completely unsuitable to see even massive, clearly marked obstacles such as well marked construction roadblocks. We have had similar systems for years. Many new cars have emergency braking systems which clearlydo better job than Tesla's on detecting massive obstacles, even pedestrians.Well where the difference comes in, then? It's how Tesla and Musk cons people into thinking they have somethingmuch, muchmore. These are all lies:* Using a term such as "autopilot". This is such a roof term that is completely different from anyone else; giving the impression they have something completely different.* Claiming it's some industry-first novelty tech* Claiming they are going to update their cars to be fully autonomous later; claiming this is kind of a precursory beta version step; claiming this is already like "half autonomous".Teslagives the impressionthat this is the prototype of their autonomous cars, and hence, it would be able to do what autonomous cars do, like, see obstacles and avoid them. Tesla-believersthinkthat the reason for the fine print ("keep hands on the wheel") is just for beta version bugs; in reality, the technology Tesla has is completely unsuitable for what they are doing, and no amount of fine tuning will change it to something it isn't.Musk actively gives an impression that keeping hands on the wheel is just some kind of extra "safety layer" in case "things go wrong". This is complete bullshit, given the level of their tech - even a small inattentive fraction of time has high chances of leading to an accident, becausethis car cannot drive autonomously, even in good conditions, it doesn't have the technology. So the driver's driving it, and the car is just assisting a little bit. And you know what happens in traffic if you stop actively driving and let the car go on cruise control? It crashes - and so does Tesla, because it doesn't have any technology of autonomous vehicles in it. But the marketing, and the actual level of assistance in the car can lure the drive into thinking it can actually do it!It's really a kind of emperor's new clothes thing. Except that quite many people do see the lack of clothes. But not everyone. A certain group of stupid Tesla owners are a textbook example of "useful idiots" for Musk.

author: Daixiwen
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 27, 2019, 08:34:02 am
content: Quote from: Gary350z on February 26, 2019, 08:02:10 pmThe lithium in Li-Ion batteries is always in its ion state, and never as a metal. This is different from other battery technologies like lead acid or NiCd/NiMH that use reduction–oxidation reactions, shifting from metal to ion, to charge and discharge. In a Li-Ion battery the Lithium ions are just moved from one electrode to another. Technically when misusing the battery you can start to have metallic lithium deposits on the electrodes, causing capacity loss, but it's not enough to be any safety hazard.The non rechargeable lithium cells, on the other hand, do use metallic lithium.Quote from: Gary350z on February 26, 2019, 08:02:10 pmYes this is a bit confusing and badly explained by the website. The equivalent lithium content is just a measure of how safe the battery is supposed to be for transport purposes. It is a calculation done to know if you can send your battery using a transporter or if it goes into the hazardous goods category. What this means for the 18650 cell is that for transport purposes, it is about as dangerous as a non rechargeable lithium metal cell with 1g of lithium, not that it actually contains 1g of metallic lithium.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 27, 2019, 08:41:18 am
content: I really doubt Autopilot was active. It's limited to 45 mph on surface streets and won't let you go more than 5-10 mph above a given speed limit. It seems simple. 75-90mph driver is recklessly driving, gets into accident that probably knocked him out or otherwise incapacitated him and he burned to death. It's a very sad story, but if you drive at 90 mph on roads like this, then you take the risk of being in a serious accident. Chances are that guy was only coming out on a stretcher.

author: Rerouter
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 27, 2019, 09:11:23 am
content: 3roomlab, that starlite material is not much different to bread in function, its endothermic, reacting and soaking up heat during its chemical reaction, generally ablating a little when the heat source is extreme, but when its runs out of material to undergo this reaction, its not going to help anything,The issue remains that you need to cool it down and keep it cool, most of the commercial 18650 cells have pressure caps to disconnect them if they get to hot, however if the heat keeps on building, they will reach a rupture temperature, and that chains off a detonation of the rest of the cells, the raise in temperature starts forming more interesting gases (reminder that large battery fires get hot enough to start splitting other chemicals into things that can burn what hasn't so farAtleast I really hope telsa have the pressure caps in there cells, and they are not removed to save weight or cost.As to the actual crash, if the investigation finds that the person died not from the crash, but the fire, then 14/10 for Tesla's safety rating, that should have broken bones and done serious damage even with a seat belt and airbag,For the fire, Its understandable from the severity that the battery would suffer some damage, however I would still like to know if the pressure caps are omitted, as they should reduce the severity of these fires (things get hot, but hopefully limited rupturing), Equally the though of having a flood inlet if not for the internals of the battery, then atleast the battery compartment seems a fair compromise for these kind of things, (keep it flooded and as cool as possible)For the autopilot, not touching that, That is a road of off topic madness,

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 27, 2019, 09:19:22 am
content: Quote from: Daixiwen on February 27, 2019, 08:34:02 amIndeed confusing. "Equivalent lithium content" - btw., the Battery University site is the first time I hear about this term, and I have been reading through transportation safety regulations, never seeing it; they always use the Wh capacity rating which makes more sense - , makes an abysmally poor indicator of the transportation safety, because, well, the lithium itself has absolutely nothing to do with the safety. Hence, it's just acompletely arbitraryparameter which happens to correlate with the batterysizeand hence, its destructive power. The confusion now ensues, because for some other battery types, lithium contentisrelevant, not arbitrary.Copper content, aluminium content, or graphite content could be used as well - or even easier, just the full battery weight, which would be trivially easy to measure (at least when the cell-to-case ratio is high). The Wh capacity rating works at least equally well, if not better, and creates much less confusion.Of course, once someone figures out how to make the chemistry itself considerably safer (so that the only remaining risk is external electrical short, which is trivial to protect against with internal fuses), then the Wh rating stops being relevant as well.If regulation based on "Equivalent Lithium Content" is really a thing, then this is a textbook example of people who have no freaking clue what they are dealing with coming up with regulations that, for a layman, externally look very scientific and well-based due to the usage of nice abbreviations, made-up tech terms, and worst, concepts that require special measurements and specific math to be applied. A classical example of pseudoscience.

author: Rerouter
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 27, 2019, 09:27:50 am
content: To my knowledge, the Wh rating restrictions, are less to do with the amount of lithium contained, and much more to do with how much energy can be released if it fails catastrophically, equally about how easy it can be smothered (have to be in carry on), yes smothering it doesnt stop it, but if you can contain it, then the cabin doesnt get as much smoke. and you can begin flooding it, (There is a decent amount of water carried on all flights that the crew serving area can draw from)This is why the restrictions tend to be per battery up to a much higher total limit for most airlines, e.g. I can only carry a certain size drill battery to be under the 50Wh per battery limit of my local airline, but I can carry 5 of them in the same bag without issue.Same for drone flying, I've seem people explaining how to prepare there batteries to bring 50+ 4S 3600mAh packs on an internation flight, most of it was fitting battery plug caps, zip tying the caps on, and storing the batteries in a partitioned flameproof bag, that they then put in a normal backpack.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 27, 2019, 09:36:08 am
content: In carry-on luggage, it makes sense that separate batteries are allowed - after all, people are around to react and physically separate them before the fire spreads (minutes of time). Within one big battery pack, this is impossible.The electrical Wh rating (not including all potential chemical energy which will be additionally released in an accident) doesn't directly tell us how much energy can be released, in what time, and in which way (e.g., how far the flames shoot), but since at this point, all consumer li-ion batteries are kinda close enough in the terms of safety, thecorrelationto the electrical Wh rating is enough to be the basis for the regulations. Lithium content could be, indeed, used as a similar correlative parameter, it's just... stupid and misleading, but it would work similarly. But note how extra stupid that battery university methodology is: their "lithium content" even hasn'tanythingto do with lithium content, it's just the Ah capacity (which is a completely wrong parameter, but I'm sure they add a correction term for voltagesomewhere else, to make it as hard to follow as possible) pseudoscientifically renamed into "equivalent lithium content".Once there are batteries with better safety, this safety<->electrical Wh rating correlation breaks down, and they need to come up with something else.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 27, 2019, 10:25:26 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on February 26, 2019, 06:09:33 pmThe small amount of petrol (or gasoline) left in the engine/lines is negligible compared to all the other combustible plastics, oils and metals present. The moment the fuel pump stops, the fuel flow stops. Car crashes involving rupturing of the fuel tanks are actually uncommon. Fuel tanks (both metal and plastic) are designed specifically to distort but not rupture during an impact. In most crashes, the fluids you see spilled on the roadway are oil, brake fluid and coolant.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 27, 2019, 10:58:18 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on February 27, 2019, 10:25:26 pmIt's not that rare for oil or fuel spilled to ignite, which then easily ignites the other flammables around. Petrol is the most likely suspect, and you only need a tiny bit in a hot place to get things going.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 27, 2019, 11:55:12 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on February 27, 2019, 10:58:18 pmActually, I understand that the car's hydraulic fluid is easier to catch fire than gasoline - but then of course that would depend on what kind/brand of hydraulic fluid is in question. The not-yet-discussed issue is flash point. Basing onvisual appearance(from youtube videos), the battery fire appears to get you to the car's flashpoint a lot quicker than gasoline fire of similar flame-size. So I would assume the temperature of the flame is likely higher. Appearance can be misleading, so hard data there may be useful.As to WH or lithium-equivalence as a gauge to measure transport-safety: Energy content alone is not a meaningful measurement for safety decisions in this context. It should be paired with Power. Even an extremely high WHbutwith a very low power (low current) capability should present very low risk. Of course we all want the battery to have as much energy as possible, but we surely should not need Kilo-Watt-hour equivalent of energy delivered in nano-seconds. Yeah, acceleration is fun, but perhaps battery packs should also consider "what is the most power it should deliver at a given moment" and bake that into the battery design - or the design of the battery pack/assembly.If we can jiggle the chemistry, we may be able to get the battery to deliver as much as possible but below a point where it can get the car to flash point quickly in event of fire. The term "quickly" is subjective, what may be enough for a young healthy person to escape may not give adequate time for a 70 year old with bad knee to get away. No need for perfection here, just need to get to the point where it is not like hand a grenade with the pin pulled (with the accident being the pin-pulling).

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 28, 2019, 12:16:31 am
content: Quote from: Rick Law on February 27, 2019, 11:55:12 pmIt's completely not true. Battery does not ignite immediately. Nearby cells need to be heated first before they ignite. When tesla fires happened, people had quiet some time to exit the car. Also battery is made in a way that fire is blown to the sides, instead of igniting the cabin. When ICE car catches fire, often there is less than a minute before cabin is in fire.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 28, 2019, 12:50:19 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on February 27, 2019, 10:58:18 pmI didn't say it was rare, I said it was uncommon. In 5+ years in the Fire Brigade and 10+ years in the Police, I could probably count on two hands the number of crashes I've attended which have involved fuel spills and/or fire, out of many hundreds. Diesel is especially difficult to ignite. Car fires resulting from collisions (even serious ones involving deaths) are not common. For decades, cars have been designed and engineered to not kill their occupants in an inferno upon impact (Ford vehicles excepted).

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2019, 12:55:56 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on February 28, 2019, 12:47:18 amA quick check shows that fluids in the engine compartment are the second most common item first ignited, with 18 percent after 29 percent for wiring. Sixty percent of fatal fires were the result of a collision."Approximately one in eight fires responded to by fire departments across the nation is a highway vehicle fire. This does not include the tens of thousands of fire department responses to highway vehicle accident sites.Unintentional action (38 percent) was the leading cause of highway vehicle fires.Eighty-three percent of highway vehicle fires occurred in passenger vehicles.Sixty-two percent of highway vehicle fires and 36 percent of fatal highway vehicle fires originated in the engine, running gear or wheel area of the vehicle.Mechanical failure was the leading factor contributing to the ignition of highway vehicle fires (45 percent).Insulation around electrical wiring (29 percent) and flammable liquids in the engine area (18 percent) were the most common items first ignited in highway vehicle fires.Sixty percent of fatal vehicle fires were the result of a collision."There's apparently an average of 171500 highway fires, which is close to 500 each day. The total road vehicle fires is apparently around 225000 each year, although those numbers are a little older. That's over 600 fires each year. It surprises me how large the highway portion is. I'd think parked vehicles would represent a much larger portion, but it does seem smashed up cars cause the vast majority of the fires and fatal fires.https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/v19i2.pdfhttps://www.nfpa.org/-/media/Files/News-and-Research/Fire-statistics-and-reports/US-Fire-Problem/ostypeofvehicle.ashx

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 28, 2019, 01:34:58 am
content: You'll probably find a large portion of vehicle fires are not due to collisions, rather faults with the vehicle or old/unmaintained vehicles. Ford Rangers for example have a design flaw where vehicles used off-road tend to accumulate grass and other combustibles around the DPF. The dry grass and very hot operating temperatures cause a number of fires in those vehicles. Electrical problems are another common cause.My points in this thread were specifically about vehicle fires and/or fuel tank ruptures during collisions and impacts. Instances of those are not as common as you would think.However your stats concern me. That is A LOT of fatalities on the road over there.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2019, 01:38:56 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on February 28, 2019, 01:34:58 amThe quoted link above tells us "Sixty percent of fatal vehicle fires were the result of a collision." Those are numbers coming from the US Fire Administration, so I have little reason to doubt them. They seemed to have looked into the way cars catch fire somewhat comprehensively. They're impressive numbers and give pause, indeed.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2019, 05:24:06 am
content: Well this is purely anecdotal but thinking about it there are two friends of mine I can think who have had car fires. One was a fuel leak at the carburetor that dripped on the exhaust manifold and caught fire, he was very lucky and caught that in time to save the car. The next was an idiot and forgot to put the oil fill cap on, oil splattered out onto the exhaust while he was driving and eventually caught fire, these cars were both in motion on the road when the fires started. I myself had a very close call I mentioned earlier with the wrong washer on the banjo bolt.Speaking from experience with various flammable fluids I'm quite convinced that gasoline is the most easily ignited of any fluid used in a typical car. Squirt a few cc's on a piece of nearly red hot metal and it *will* burst into flames. Engine oil will catch fire eventually but it has to get really hot and it tends to make a ton of smoke first. Brake fluid is apparently flammable to some degree but I've never seen it burn.I think people underestimate the amount of stored energy in fuels. Pour a teaspoon of gasoline on the ground and light it, it's quite impressive how easy it is to light off and how long it will burn for. Diesel has more energy per volume but it's far harder to get it burning in the first place. Lots of other materials will burn well once they get going but they don't burst into flame almost explosively on contact with a hot surface the way gasoline does. I still remember splashing it on the lawnmower muffler like it was yesterday, instant fireball.

author: johnwa
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2019, 07:36:40 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on February 28, 2019, 12:50:19 amNo kidding. Here is a rather unlikely source of ignition that I have personally seen of two separate occasions: Imagine you are an engineer tasked with designing the speed control for the heater/AC fan. You could use some sort of active device, but that costs money, it is cheaper to just put a resistor in series with the fan motor. And the cheapest resistor is just a bit of resistance wire. Of course it will still get hot, but you can make the wire shorter (saving even more money) by using forced air cooling. And it so happens that, whenever the resistor is in circuit, there will be a nice draught of air from the fan. So, you put the coil of resistance wire in the air intake duct to the fan.Now, in Australia, we have gum trees. Lots of gum trees. And people park their cars under the gum trees. And the gum trees have leaves, full of highly flammable eucalyptus oil. And the leaves fall off the trees, into the air intake port below the windscreen, andright down onto the resistance wire.So, the unsuspecting driver decides to turn the fan on. But the airflow is blocked by all the leaves, so the resistance wire overheats, and the leaves start to smoulder. And as the blockage burns away, the fan starts moving air again, which of course causes the leaves to flare up, and fills the cabin with smoke in the process. Hopefully, the driver has the presence of mind to turn the fan off, and the fire dies down...

author: Rerouter
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2019, 08:09:24 am
content: I would also add greatwall utes to the list of vehicles in that exception group,they use an extremely flammable foam to coat all there wiring, including right to the underside of the cigarette lighter socket which has slots at the bottom to reduce dust, and guess what, if some crud starts to smoulder on the lighter part and drops through a slot, you have about 1 minute before the fire has spread a full meter on the wiring harness, reached the foam underlay and started true horror.I've had to fit ratio boxes to correct the reads 100kmph at 85kmph road speed crap they have been pulling, and now I will not approach one without a fire extinguisher in hand after a spark during an idiot moment had me running the fastest 100m dash in my life when i watched it burning down like a theatrical explosive fuse.

author: TheNewLab
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2019, 08:47:37 am
content: Another link. Orlando Sdentinel.Appears speeding they estimate 90mph on city road did not help, Plus two teenagers several years ago, 115mphhttps://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/fl-ne-davie-tesla-crash-fole-20190225-story.htmlMe? why would anyone want self-driving. that is the best part!

author: Rerouter
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2019, 09:02:00 am
content: Self driving would be good if your driving literally hundreds of kilometers of highway, But its just like the self parking features most cars have these days, people get lazier, and while dangerous, we would rather spend our time thinking about other things than constantly focused on the road.I've got about 14 hours of driving these next few days, just highway to linking road to highway, If the car could be trusted to handle that, then there are many more things I would want to do than what I can shuffle with the 1 - 2 free though threads I have to work with while driving.

author: maginnovision
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2019, 09:04:10 am
content: Quote from: wraper on February 28, 2019, 12:21:22 amI don't think stress testing poorly maintained and poorly built vehicles give you a good indication of how things typically go.As to the batteries need to be hot... They were already getting a 2 ton vehicle to run at ~100MPH, they were hot. It's a reason these aren't great track cars, they can't sustain the performance.

author: eugenenine
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2019, 05:11:30 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on February 26, 2019, 06:49:29 pmActually fuel is still under pressure with the car off. There is a one way valve in the fuel tank which prevents it from flowing back and when you first start a car that has been sitting for a while the pump will turn on to 'prime' the pressure in case of leak down. If you have a modern car which starts to crank longer than normal one test is to check the fuel pressure while running and again after its sat for a while to see if the pressure has leaked down too much.If you have ever changed a fuel filter you can see that there is enough pressure and volume in the lines to spray fuel for several seconds when you disconnect it.Also gasoline in it liquid form is had to ignite, its the vapors that ignite, which is why the carburetor or fuel injectors spray a fine mist to atomize the liquid into a vapor to mix with air to burn the vapor. What happens typically in a car fire is you get a tiny pinhole in a fuel line due to a bend or pinch or cut by some other part of the vehicle and the line pressure causes a fine mist to spray. if the conditions are just right you can get a similar mixture as needed to ignite and burn easily and that few seconds is enough to get other stuff burning.

author: eugenenine
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2019, 05:19:04 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on February 28, 2019, 01:34:58 amThats not a ranger specific issue, most any vehicle driven in tall grass has the potential to gather grass and such. Its usually the Cat which causes the fire to start as they are usually the hottest part under the vehicle.ATF is another, moving slow you don't get into torque convertor lock and that generates a lot of heat. too much heat the ATF can boil up the check/fill tube and spray on the hot engine and catch fire.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2019, 07:24:30 pm
content: Oops, somebody drop a spanner?Quotehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-47427311

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 03, 2019, 11:00:42 am
content: Tesla car mysteriously speeds into a house garage and reignites 3 times, sets house on fire, firemen dont know what to do, calls Tesla product support to get directives. Its saaad Covfefe!

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 03, 2019, 01:13:27 pm
content: One of the issues with Tesla is:Tesla's promise of 'full-self-driving' angers autonomous vehicle expertshttps://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/02/tech/tesla-full-self-driving/index.html

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 03, 2019, 02:15:21 pm
content: Quote from: madires on March 03, 2019, 01:13:27 pmThis article clearly shows those 'experts' have no idea what Tesla offers and claims.QuoteTesla doesn't claim what's currently available being self driving to begin with. You can buy "self driving"hardware. Feature itself will be available in the furure.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 03, 2019, 06:28:28 pm
content: Quote from: MT on March 03, 2019, 11:00:42 amConsidering you started this thread and have been consistently posting anti Tesla messages, this would be a good time to disclose any interests you may have in the matter. Is there anything we should know about?Firefighters not knowing what to do seems mostly a new technology being introduced which they don't know how to handle yet. Electrics cars will be here for a while to come, so it's in everyone's best interest they figure it out quickly.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 03, 2019, 07:33:19 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on March 03, 2019, 06:28:28 pmAgreed. This is an issue that really does need to be sorted out, and given the number of cars coming to market, very quickly.Without getting into the petrol vs battery debate...The problem as I see it, is that these battery packs, with their multiple re-ignitions etc. take an awful lot more of the fire service's time than a conventional vehicle fire. With these, they can simply water / foam or whatever extinguish, do a safety / anti pollution mop-up if needed, and then be ready for the next call.With battery fires it seems to be taking them at least 4 hours or so to make them safe. Now as electric vehicles become the majority, we're either going to have to intelligently fix the problem or hire a hell of a lot more fire crews.Every day, more vehicles (with what? 10 years average life?) are rolling off the production lines, none of them with any special features to help the fire services. We need some practical solutions. It's simply not practical to drag around vehicle sized tanks of water for each one, especially in confined areas. You need to be able to safely deal with the battery pack alone, then it becomes feasible to dunk it in a 'bucket' of water and take the still dangerous battery pack away from the scene, rendering it safe without continued attendance.A few ideas:- Make the battery packs 'breakaway', something with a hook eye that the fire service can use a winch to forcibly yank out!- Dropable battery packs - something 'hanging' from the chassis on four mounts that can be released in somesafesecure but fireman accessible way.- A battery pack that automatically gets dropped in the case of serious collision - ie. make it possible to roll the car away from the battery.- ? ? ?In all cases there needs to be some sort of universal pick-up point so that the fire service can handle them remotely and safely.I've seen comments in this thread about 'flood' inlets for the battery or whatever. As far as I can see, this would require continued attendance of the fire service so that they can keep to flooding going. If just filled, then I would expect the water to be boiled off by the hotspots until all of the energy is dissipated.Whatever the solution, it needs to happen now.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 03, 2019, 07:43:23 pm
content: It seems battery pack can occasionally demand more time from the firemen extinguishing them, but it makes sense that the process for putting out a fire in century old technology has been perfected. When petrol started coming on the scene fires were fought mainly using water, which is obviously a terrible idea when you're extinguishing a liquid fuel fire. They would have had to adapt in the same ways they do now.I can imagine some technology which allows some neutralizing agent to be effectively pumped into the battery or battery compartment. Maybe something jaws of life like, but with a piercing head.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 03, 2019, 07:48:17 pm
content: That still doesn't solve the primary problem: you can't take the energy out of a battery. With liquid or gas fuel you can empty the tank and you'll have an inert vehicle. Batteries (especially when damaged) won't allow that.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 03, 2019, 08:13:30 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on March 03, 2019, 07:48:17 pmDoes the Fire Department regularly do that with ICE vehicles? Regardless, it is what it is. This is probably the next 100 years of motor vehicles, so we'd best figure something out.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 03, 2019, 09:04:33 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on March 03, 2019, 08:13:30 pmIf the fire department are happy that it's not leaking and doesn't pose a further threat, then that's probably down to the vehicle recovery people. They will probably have already chopped the (starter) battery leads.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 03, 2019, 10:01:52 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on February 28, 2019, 12:16:31 amI think we may be talking different scenarios. I was referring to cases the battery/gasoline itself being the starting point of the fire, as oppose to cases where other things are burning first and then heating/igniting the battery/gasoline into flames. (Well, in the case of gasoline, a spark has to do the job since spill gas really doesn't self-ignite).If say it is shorting (or other faults) caused by an accident, there is no fire until the battery reach thermo runaway and start burning. In such cases, first, you don't have a fire until the battery ignites. And once it does, itappearsthat the flame brings the car's interior environment to flash point quicker.Again, appearance can be misleading. I do not rule out that I could be entirely wrong and that the gasoline source flame may actually starts a burn and brings the burn to flash point quicker.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2019, 01:09:28 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on March 03, 2019, 07:43:23 pmAFAIK, there is no such "neutralizing agent" in existence. Water works by removing the heat required to keep the runaway going, but you need a lot, with a good contact to each cell, bypassing external thermal resistances such as any casing. I really think the flooding ports for water would probably work quite well. Sure, they are not automatic, but with those well designed, it would be a 5-minute job to stabilize the fire, then keep eye on it to see if it was effective; instead of first fighting the fire for 1.5 hours, then still being unsure whether it worked or not. With the battery flood ports, it would be a standardized procedure.High voltage safety would be improved by adding a few more isolation contactors. The Kilovac HVDC contactors Tesla is using cost them probably around $20 each. AFAIK, they use two now(?). Put a few more, and it's down to Extra Low Voltage levels, automatically disconnected when an actively generated 12V pilot supply stops.Anyfire requires attention after it's been put out. Looking after an extinguished house fire for up to 48 hours is not untypical at all.Now as we are speculating without all necessary facts and access to Tesla's design, let me speculate a bit more: I think the best improvement they could make would be to reinforce the thermal insulation and possible accident cooling systems on their battery submodules - I mean the 14 or 15 or whatever modules they alreadydohave "firewalls" inbetween, to limit the runaway within one single compartment. It seems clear to me these submodule firewalls are not working. But this is not an easy task - you have a long sustaining (tens of minutes), hot (say 1500 deg C?) fire, and the next compartment needs to be kept fully below 150 degC, which is the thermal runaway limit. Not an easy task to insulate for such high differential. But theyhavethis designed, so the question is, how close it is of actually working, and can it be improved?All of this isolation reduces usable cell area, and if you extend the battery pack dimensions while adding firewalls, the full system level risk goes up again as there is less crumble zone before something hits the battery. An ideal battery would be small, and in the middle.Quite oddly, increasing energy density of the cells,even if it's done by slightly compromising cell-level safety, might result in better system-level safety as there would be more room for external protection, and/or a smaller battery, better protected against crashes.In any case, battery safety is getting better all the time, albeit slowly. Massive players with big, "dangerous" packs are required for the process to go on. There are almost always casualties with new technology. People are fairly OK with it because the existing technology it's replacing is equally* dangerous.(* Or a bit more, or a bit less, give or take, we can argue about the exact danger quantity and quality until the cows come home, but it doesn't matter too much. We are replacing a slightly dangerous thing with another slightly dangerous thing, and the dominating dangers are elsewhere, and shared with both technologies.)

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2019, 01:33:05 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on March 03, 2019, 10:01:52 pmIndeed you are.Note thatmostgasoline fires are not extremely explosive.Mostgasoline fires don't spread in 10 seconds. However,sometimesthey do, when the conditions are right.OTOH, AFAIK, there has not been a single battery fire to date which would have spread at a similarly high rate, compared to thoseextremelyquick gasoline fires (colloquially "explosions"). This is kind of an apples to oranges comparison, but I wanted to point it out.Itseemsto me that battery fires are more similar to each other; hence easier to profile. Their profile is quite slow and flat: after the actual failure, the fire starts in about 2-5 minutes, starts to spread, and it gets really dangerous in about 10-30 minutes, then burn for a long time. In a really big, uniform pack without firewalls, the spread is not linear, but quadratic, but still not extremely fast.With gasoline cars, you sometimes have similar "flat" scenarios, but you also have "explosive" scenarios (fairly rare), and, you also have quite benign, even slower scenarios because often the fuel is safe in the tank in the rear, and it's only sprayed slowly and only the front of the car is burning, supplied with a small fraction of the total fuel - and mostly with other burning substances (plastics, etc.) This is the case nctnico is making every time, and I tend to agree it's probably themost common one.I'm sure that amediangasoline car fire is less dangerous than a median EV fire - OTOH, "median gasoline car fires" are extremely commonplace. So you can't compare battery vs. gasoline using "lumped" median cases, either.EVs are still not common enough, so that the number of fires is still way too low to start doing high quality statistics about it (including proper classification of the cases). This tells us something about how low the risk actually is.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2019, 01:34:30 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on March 03, 2019, 06:28:28 pm... I started this thread your absolutely right and you enjoying participating in it, so what? I have not posted any anti Tesla messages, how dare you insinuating such terrible accusations!? Im actually the most pro Tesla there is, i'm just anti Musk! Alright since you asked i will here now disclose that i have shares in the Tesla company but also in Russian Lada.QuoteThats kind a serious fail on the fire department education. In this banana country we have something called fire engineers who's part of the fire departments/brigades these folks are continually educated in chemistry so they know what battery fires are and what to do and dont have to call up some customer support Lady at Tesla.Im bit surprised to theirs/yours sorta lame excuse to an answer considering the firemen in this garage fire and their non action claiming they where educated but didnt know what to do, highly contradictionary i argue. I bet there are Californian firemen that owns Tesla cars, dont they know what they own and drive you say?Here another crazy dude breaking the laws knowing Autopilot not an autopilot knowing its even a beta version.Quote from: Mr. Scram on March 03, 2019, 07:43:23 pmSeriously or occasionally trolling? Firemen who needs to take out batpack fires 3 times a row, not to mention this and other Tesla burns they waited 6 hours then the batpack started to burn again.

author: Beamin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2019, 06:58:10 pm
content: How can speed "play a factor" if the auto pilot was on? The way they describe it sounds like the driver wasn't paying attention and the autopilot went crazy at the same time. Why would the speed matter if the auto pilot is on? Its not like the autopilot stops working correctly over a certain speed.I think people just crash from bad driving or poor attention to the road and need to blame something else, as we always do in this country.At least the auto industry doesn't offer "thoughts and prayers" every time there is a death like the gun industry. These people should do more praying before they get behind the wheel, that will fix it.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 04, 2019, 07:02:53 pm
content: Quote from: Beamin on March 04, 2019, 06:58:10 pmAutosteer won't do more than 55 mph. So there is 99% chance autopilot was off. I find the name of this thread completely misleading. Even news don't claim it was on.

author: Bratster
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2019, 07:20:31 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on March 04, 2019, 07:02:53 pmThat speed limit is not true, autopilot will happily do 72mph on the freeway.There are some roads that it's not happy about and will limit itself to 55 or 45.Source: my boss has a Tesla and I've driven with him with autopilot on multiple times. On freeways no issues at high speed.Sent from my Fi Moto x4 using Tapatalk

author: electromotive
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2019, 09:23:29 pm
content: Never trust your life to a self driving car. It seems like this would be common sense by now.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 07, 2019, 01:44:50 am
content: Quote from: electromotive on March 06, 2019, 09:23:29 pmBy such 'common sense' you should never ride a car to begin with.

author: Andrew McNamara
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 07, 2019, 03:17:39 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on March 03, 2019, 07:43:23 pmWater is still used by firefighters when fighting liquid fuels fires/vehicle fires although, as you note, techniques have been refined - foaming agents might be added, or very fine mists used.In this case, the superior armouring of the Tesla battery, and the density of the pack are a clear impediment to firefighting: dousing in water would work, IF you could actually get enough in there.It makes me wonder if the integral cooling system of the battery could have a mode where it forces all the coolant into the pack under pressure...

author: Rerouter
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 07, 2019, 08:14:39 am
content: More like a burst disk and a coolant fill inlet, give them a way to hook up a hose to the inlet, and then have the fire engine pop a burst disk for an outlet by the pump pressure, so water is being forced through the piping that would normally have the coolant. battery is a write off anyway, just about forced cooling, later on they can probably switch to something closer to a house tap hose to keep running for a few more hours after the initial fire,

author: Beamin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 08, 2019, 02:07:34 pm
content: Quote from: Rerouter on March 07, 2019, 08:14:39 amProblem is that would cost lots of money and the company will fight anything that costs money. Be good idea if there was a fire hose quick connect like under a gas tank door. Of course someone brave has to walk right up to the car to connect it. What about a pressurized system that had a SCRAM mode where it detects fire and shoots some fluid into the battery from a dedicated tank?

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 27, 2019, 11:39:02 pm
content: Here is a result of Tesla model 3 and Nissan Sentra crash. Tesla mostly fine and repairable, Nissan in flames.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2019, 02:05:06 am
content: Quote from: wraper on March 27, 2019, 11:39:02 pmSo that you mean is significant prof of what precisely?Here is picture of a burning Volvo, is that a proof of Volvos unsafe?

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 28, 2019, 02:17:17 am
content: Quote from: MT on March 28, 2019, 02:05:06 amIt's a proof that this thread is stupid.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 28, 2019, 03:57:50 am
content: Quote from: wraper on March 28, 2019, 02:17:17 amAlso that photo appears to have been taken in the midst of a riot or similar disturbance. I'd say the fire was deliberately lit.In the case of Lithium battery fires, could they just not encase the batteries in a fire-proof/airtight container? Even if the batteries do fail catastrophically, it would be contained.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2019, 07:17:14 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on March 28, 2019, 03:57:50 amAmount of energy released is high enough to burn through most materials. A thick ceramic brick wall would work, but would be too heavy and expensive.Water flooding inlet port is the closest you can get. Cool with external supply (by the firefighters).

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 28, 2019, 02:34:54 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on March 28, 2019, 03:57:50 amIt was an effing crash. Battery is already in thick metal container.

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 22, 2019, 10:59:11 am
content: Parked Tesla going up in flameshttps://interestingengineering.com/tesla-model-s-appears-to-catch-fire-spontaneously-in-chinahttps://twitter.com/shanghaijayin/status/1119997229530406913?s=21Would have been fairly exciting to be sitting in the car during this. About 6 sec from the time it starts smoking to full on fire.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2019, 03:08:40 pm
content: Quote from: orion242 on April 22, 2019, 10:59:11 amThe internal compartment doesn't appear to be on fire at the end of the video. Petrol cars share the unfortunate tendency to catch fire in sometimes sudden ways.

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 22, 2019, 03:31:34 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on April 22, 2019, 03:08:40 pmLook at the followup video below the security cam footage. The tesla and the two cars next to it are a total loss. Guessing you would be lucky to escape that with minor burns, assuming you got out pretty damn fast.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2019, 03:44:16 pm
content: Quote from: orion242 on April 22, 2019, 03:31:34 pmThe aftermath of most car fires looks atrocious, especially in car parks. The passenger compartment looks untouched in the first video, judging from the video you'd be able to exit the vehicle without too much trouble.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2019, 04:20:57 pm
content: Seems there is not much point to electric cars as they are no better for the enviroment than any other car, in fact they can be worse,producing more CO2 than a Mercedes Diesel car according to a German study.http://www.brusselstimes.com/business/technology/15050/electric-vehicles-emit-more-co2-than-diesel-ones,-german-study-shows?fbclid=IwAR2PEv64YhUfg9DoAymM5XHDfRBWH9_LjktN4ZrQv0HUPe0MptCthU9ps5g

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2019, 04:24:23 pm
content: Quote from: G7PSK on April 22, 2019, 04:20:57 pmRegardless of whether that's accurate we'll still run out of oil eventually. We can generate electricity pretty much indefinitely. Does that study take into account that recycling materials doesn't have the same impact as initially mining them and that a first generation of a new material will therefore be relatively polluting?

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2019, 07:48:54 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on April 22, 2019, 04:24:23 pmAt Present it costs about five times as much to recycle lithum as to mine it fresh so it is hardly likely to be recycled, at least for now.https://waste-management-world.com/a/1-the-lithium-battery-recycling-challenge

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2019, 08:40:34 pm
content: That article is from 2011 so I wouldn't call it 'at present'.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 24, 2019, 01:55:11 am
content: Quote from: wraper on March 28, 2019, 02:17:17 amYet you cant resist participate, how stupid of you!Anyhow seams a conflict between Panasonic and Tesla is on the horizon!

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 24, 2019, 10:48:07 am
content: Quote from: MT on April 24, 2019, 01:55:11 amYou can not withhold from writing something stupid again. What I meant is that FUD in this thread does not represent actual situation. ICE cars are worse than electric cars in this regard, yet this thread spread fears that electric cars try to burn us to death. Not to say that claims about autopilot seem to be completely false and not supported by any mass media.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 24, 2019, 11:53:23 am
content: Quote from: 3roomlab on April 23, 2019, 11:23:40 pmThat article I refer to is about recycling.I don't know whether Musk or Panasonic is right. Usually the problem is the customer doesn't want to pay the amount the manufacturer wants to receive. On top of that: Panasonic likely has other customers as well for their batteries and doesn't want to depend just on Tesla. IIRC BMW has reduced the production rate of their electric cars due to battery shortage.