×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Tesla Model S Caught Fire While Parked and Unplugged

Soulskill posted about 2 months ago | from the hot-topic dept.

Transportation 329

cartechboy writes "The safety headlines involving the Tesla Model S were a mixed bag last year. The good news was the Model S received a top safety rating, but the bad news came with three of those electric cars catching fire after receiving damage to the battery packs. (Though coverage of the latter was disproportionate to the coverage of fires in other types of vehicle.) Now another Tesla Model S has caught fire, but this time the car was parked and unplugged. The fire happened earlier this morning in the owner's garage in Toronto, Ontario. At this time no one knows what sparked the fire, but we do know the vehicle was only about four months old. Again, it wasn't plugged into a charging station, and it wasn't turned on. With no one near it. Interestingly, the battery on this particular Model S was unscathed by the fire. In fact, the Toronto fire department says the fire didn't originate in the battery, the charging system, the adapter or electrical receptacle since all of those components weren't touched by the fire. So, how did this Tesla fire happen, and will this blow up into a larger issue for the new automaker?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

329 comments

g0at pen1s (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46249423)

You’ve got to be kidding me. I’ve been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It’s just common sense.

Re:g0at pen1s (2)

easyTree (1042254) | about 2 months ago | (#46249657)

My brain is melting trying to read what you wrote - stop sniffing gas/petrol - start licking electricity, it's the vehicle-fuel of the future :P

Re:g0at pen1s (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46249981)

Google it. There's more to it....

Flame on (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46249441)

Flame on

Re:Flame on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46249715)

Not really. Spontaneous combustion is a pretty shitty feature in a car if you ask me.

Re:Flame on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46249895)

Maybe the car just started a small fire just to keep warm (it's been pretty freaking cold up here, lately) and things got a little out of hand. If I was stuck in an un-heated garage at these temperatures, I'd probably do the same...

voidwhereprohibitedbylaw (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46249923)

Canyonero anyone? Or skip fictional vehicles and look at any north american suv series...

Not from the car? (5, Insightful)

Dthief (1700318) | about 2 months ago | (#46249447)

Why are they assuming it was started by the car?

"In fact, the Toronto fire department says the fire didn't originate in the battery, the charging system, the adapter or electrical receptacle since all of those components weren't touched by the fire"

maybe the fire was cause by something in the garage adjacent to the car?

Re:Not from the car? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46249525)

Arson?

Tesla not involved [Re:Not from the car?] (5, Insightful)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | about 2 months ago | (#46249611)

If the fire "didn't originate in the battery, the charging system, the adapter or electrical receptacle," then the fact that the car was a Tesla is pretty much irrelevant, since those are the things that make a Tesla distinct from any other kind of car. So, this seems to have been a fire in which the car parked in the garage happened to be a Tesla, rather than something specifically Tesla related.

Re:Tesla not involved [Re:Not from the car?] (2)

tompaulco (629533) | about 2 months ago | (#46249749)

If the fire "didn't originate in the battery, the charging system, the adapter or electrical receptacle," then the fact that the car was a Tesla is pretty much irrelevant, since those are the things that make a Tesla distinct from any other kind of car.

Well, that is not the only thing that makes Tesla different. There are a lot more electrical components only present in electric vehicles but which are not related to the charging, battery and electrical receptacle. There is the propulsion system, electrical convertors, motors at (I assume) all four wheels, then there is all kinds of geeky, energy wasting electronic gadgetry to display to the user how much energy they are saving.

Re:Tesla not involved [Re:Not from the car?] (1)

almitydave (2452422) | about 2 months ago | (#46249947)

Exactly, it was probably a loose oil line seeping into Mr. Fusion...

Seriously, there could be a short in any one of the many electrical things downstream from the battery. The things are always "on" so there are many wires that have live current at all times.

Re:Tesla not involved [Re:Not from the car?] (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46250105)

The tesla has one electric motor. It is between the rear wheels.

Re:Tesla not involved [Re:Not from the car?] (3, Insightful)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 2 months ago | (#46250117)

There's one motor, a direct drive linkage (no transmission), and differentials. Hub motors require all kinds of computer control, with associated high chances of fault that could much more easily lead to loss of control or efficiency. Hub motor efficiency is kind of like video poker: perfect play for 3 years straight will net you a profit, absolutely, no question you will beat the casino; the profit is small, and a single small mistake will set you back about 85 years. It only makes sense in a motorcycle, where you have one rear wheel hub motor.

Re:Tesla not involved [Re:Not from the car?] (2)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 2 months ago | (#46249759)

It seems silly for you to draw this conclusion when the source of the fire hasn't yet been identified.

Re:Tesla not involved [Re:Not from the car?] (2)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 2 months ago | (#46249941)

The rush to draw conclusions seems to be from those who are pointing the finger at the Tesla. They are the ones not waiting for the investigation. The GP was only responding to those original assumptions.

Re:Not from the car? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46249951)

Carson

Re:Not from the car? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46249541)

Why are they assuming it was started by the car?

"In fact, the Toronto fire department says the fire didn't originate in the battery, the charging system, the adapter or electrical receptacle since all of those components weren't touched by the fire"

maybe the fire was cause by something in the garage adjacent to the car?

A short circuit in the radio for instance can cause a fire that's independent of the battery or charger.

Re:Not from the car? (1)

Dthief (1700318) | about 2 months ago | (#46249635)

yes, i guess other things could cause it besides what was ruled out. but there seems to be no supporting evidence (i didnt RTFA to be fair, just the summary) that it WAS from the car is my point.

And I would assume the car would need to be on for the radio to short circuit?

Re:Not from the car? (1)

tompaulco (629533) | about 2 months ago | (#46249781)

It happened in a PRIVATE garage, shortly after the owner had come back from a drive. It points pretty strongly to SOMETHING to do with the car, but they were unable to pinpoint the cause, other than it was not the charging system, battery and electric receptacle. It could have been a short in the radio for all we know, but that is still an issue with the car.

Re:Not from the car? (2)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 2 months ago | (#46249991)

And it could have been a short in the garage lighting circuit or electric garage door. Fires from those causes would also be likely to happen when the car and owner arrives or leaves.

Re: Not from the car? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46249791)

Apparently not. A friend's VW went in a for a service and the dash caught fire.

Re:Not from the car? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46249985)

A car like a Tesla can never be turned off. Everything is still powered. My point even without a fire starting in battery or charging systems, doesn't rule out an electrical fire.

Re:Not from the car? (2)

icebike (68054) | about 2 months ago | (#46249903)

A short circuit in the radio for instance can cause a fire that's independent of the battery or charger.

No evidence the car was actually involved at all. The car roof isn't even burned. They haven't even bothered to open the car door.
They yanked down a ton of sheet rock looking for fire. The firemen are looking at the wall and floor.

If anything, its probably the home handyman wiring installed (unprofessionally) to handle the Tesla charging.

Re:Not from the car? (1)

JustNiz (692889) | about 2 months ago | (#46250027)

>> No evidence the car was actually involved at all.

You obviously didn't bother to read the original article.

Re:Not from the car? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46250111)

how about Tesla's own statement:
“Dealing with occasional fires is something that every car company has to do, as no vehicle is completely fireproof under all circumstances."

-and the fact they offered to pay damages?

Re:Not from the car? (4, Informative)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 2 months ago | (#46250119)

They yanked down a ton of sheet rock looking for fire. The firemen are looking at the wall and floor.

That's because when a structure becomes involved in a fire, even if it didn't start there, they need to make sure the fire isn't still active in the walls of the structure. It's really embarrassing for firemen to pack up after thinking they've put a fire out, only to get called back a couple of hours later because some two-by-four in the wall wasn't fully extinguished. Also dangerous for the structure owner.

Re:Not from the car? (2, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 2 months ago | (#46249563)

Clearly GM set the fire intentionally and then paid off the fire department to say it was the Tesla, but the fire department failed to make it convincing! WAKE UP SHEEPLE! There's a vast incompetent conspiracy going on!

Re:Not from the car? (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 2 months ago | (#46249625)

From TFA:

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

This sounds comically similar to a villain trying to conceal the remains of a failed plan to frame someone.

Re:Not from the car? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46249699)

I'm inclined to agree with your conclusion, but really, "seven Tesla employees"? (emphasis added).

Maybe their offer to "take care" of the damages was a little intimidating. ;)

Re:Not from the car? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46249835)

I think pretty much everyone knows Musk's ego by now, and how childishly he tries to taint the image of those who criticise his products. If this sort of thing had happened to me, I would definitely want the fire department to inspect the vehicle, as well as my insurer, but I'd be mighty suspicious about the manufacturer immediately offering to "take care of" things - the sort of offer which almost always comes with strings attached.

Note in particular that the "fire's not cause by the battery etc." lines are from TESLA, not the fire dept. - the summary is misleading. They have been carelessly quick ("it didn't look like that bit was on fire, so that didn't cause it...") to dismissively rule out a list of causes which might make them look bad.

Re:Not from the car? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46250059)

If you follow the trail to original article which has photos, you can see the car isn't even burned at all (or not visibly anyway). So I think Tesla's claims are appropriate.

Re:Not from the car? (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 2 months ago | (#46249889)

Odd that the owner refused. Presumably he was covered by insurance. But it's going to cost him in excess and/or higher premiums.

Re:Not from the car? (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 months ago | (#46249677)

Or the fire was caused by a cigarette left burning on the seat, or some other owner-caused action that would have happened in any car.

Re:Not from the car? (1)

icebike (68054) | about 2 months ago | (#46249961)

Or the fire was caused by a cigarette left burning on the seat, or some other owner-caused action that would have happened in any car.

The fire didn't engulf the car. The top of the car is unburned. If the fire started inside the car the roof would be devoid of paint, and all windows
would be gone.

The wall in front of the car and the overhead ceiling of the garage was extensively damaged. Just look at the pictures in the linked article.

Why I hate Tesla cars. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46249745)

Tesla was started by a self-promoting narcissist by the name of Elon Musk.

Elon Musk was a co-founder of "PayPal" that was just another online epayment service until they hooked up with eBay. BFD. And we all know what an "honest" and "ethical" business PayPal is ! *PUKE*

Therefore, by the laws of 'guilty by association', Tesla cars are shit and I'll buy an electric from a reputable car company that steals ideas fair and square and lobbies politicians fair and square. .

Flame away you Tesla fanbois, but I'll just throw you your K-Y and just say, "Go to your boy and bend over!"

Has he ever had an original idea? Hmmmm, let me think - NO!

Re:Not from the car? (2)

TWX (665546) | about 2 months ago | (#46249811)

A friend of mine had a house fire whose origin could not be reliably determined. It's not all that uncommon for the source of a fire to be unresolved. That's almost worse for Tesla as it plants the seed of doubt in a way that can't be readily defended against. Even a citing of some feature of the car could be better as that feature or aspect could be changed, but if the cause isn't determined then there's nothing to do to fix it.

Re:Not from the car? (2)

icebike (68054) | about 2 months ago | (#46249871)

Why are they assuming it was started by the car?

"In fact, the Toronto fire department says the fire didn't originate in the battery, the charging system, the adapter or electrical receptacle since all of those components weren't touched by the fire"

maybe the fire was cause by something in the garage adjacent to the car?

Looking at the pictures, you see that from all appearances, the car itself wasn't even involved. It simply happened to be there.

The fire department has torn down large amounts of sheet rock, trying to get at the fire, which says they thought it it was in the walls, or
the ceiling. This sounds like an electrical fire, or something hot enough to possibly have ignited the studs behind the sheet rock, so they
have to tear it down to make sure.
The firemen are paying no attention to the car, they are looking as something on the wall or floor in front of the car.

I'm thinking arson or a can of lawn mower gas leaked.

Another instance of there being a fire on the same city block as a Tesla and the press rushing to report it.

Re:Not from the car? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46250031)

The best speculation I've read is that it could have been some loose/faulty wiring in the house. We won't know until the findings are released, but that would be my guess.

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/27472-Another-Tesla-fire-in-a-garage-this-time-in-Toronto/page17

Re:Not from the car? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46250035)

Tesla offered to pay for damages...

could be that's just good PR - or could be that's accepting responsibility...

looking at the pics, you can't rule out the fire being caused by the car - it seems to have started around the front wheels (motors?) and a short in the electrical system somewhere in the front of the car is not inconsistent with it having nothing to do with "the battery, the charging system, the adapter or electrical receptacle" - while still being an electrical fire caused by the car...

Let me be the first to blame: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46249463)

aliens

Re:Let me be the first to blame: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46249865)

Nope, Chuck Testa

Arson? (1)

idontgno (624372) | about 2 months ago | (#46249491)

Maybe by someone looking to short the stock?

Maybe a "hit" taken out by disgruntled Ohio auto dealers?

As others have pointed out, garages are full of flammable stuff. Fire could have originated anywhere.

Re:Arson? (1)

tompaulco (629533) | about 2 months ago | (#46249817)

As others have pointed out, garages are full of flammable stuff. Fire could have originated anywhere.

The picture in TFA sure does make it look like it originated somewhere in the front hood area of the Tesla. If it was a regular car, I could believe that he might have parked a hot engine above an oily rag, but i don't think Teslas are supposed to get hot under the hood.

I'm expecting the following... (4, Interesting)

Mashiki (184564) | about 2 months ago | (#46249495)

That it'll be attributed to a improper maintenance/improper sealing of some kind against corrosion. It's that's the second on the list with cars up here when gasoline leaks aren't the cause. The first is of course gasoline leak related, the third is usually modifications to the exhaust system which cause body frame fires. We use *a lot* of salt on the roads here in the winter, and I mean a lot. It's just so damn cheap since we have mines for it all over the place between Ottawa and Windsor(Windsor Salt for example), and man places are in a locked in 100 year contract.

Re:I'm expecting the following... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46249567)

That it'll be attributed to a improper maintenance/improper sealing of some kind against corrosion.

Except people on slashdot have cried to high heaven that electric cars require no maintenance what so ever.

-_- (0)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about 2 months ago | (#46249499)

"Though coverage of the latter was disproportionate to the coverage of fires in other types of vehicle.)"

Because the number of fires was disproportionate to the number of accidents and vehicle miles driven, and last I checked, by over an order of magnitude.

But don't let that stop fanbois from spinning irrelevant statistics to try to show otherwise.

Re:-_- (3, Informative)

Reilaos (1544173) | about 2 months ago | (#46249595)

A entire car line was recalled for catching fire for no reason earlier last year. People got in hi-speed wrecks and caused fires, happening to be in a Tesla. The latter gets coverage, the former gets hardly any. No spin from what I can see here, just a disproportionate coverage on a car that's already in the spotlight.

Re:-_- (1, Informative)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 months ago | (#46249725)

A entire car line was recalled for catching fire for no reason earlier last year.

Not quite - Ford recalled a large number of Focus models because of the potential for fires, not because an inordinate amount of them actually caught fire.

VW did the same thing with their diesel models a few years ago, again not because of actual events but because of the potential for them.

And, for the record, there are hundreds of thousands of Ford Focus' on the roads today, compared to... how many Tesla Model S?

Re:-_- (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 2 months ago | (#46250061)

Because the number of fires was disproportionate to the number of accidents and vehicle miles driven, and last I checked, by over an order of magnitude.

You didn't ever check.

But don't let that stop fanbois from spinning irrelevant statistics to try to show otherwise.

I think you've set your own bias out quite clearly there.

Didn't like the Lexus? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46249507)

Reading the article: "They also had to remove the other car in the garage, a Lexus, which was parked next to the Tesla." ...

KING OF THE GARAGE, MUAHAHAHA. My kingdom's on fire you say? Minor Detail.

In other news... (1)

Waffle Iron (339739) | about 2 months ago | (#46249511)

One of the most common causes of house fires has always been parked cars, regardless of propulsion technology.

Re:In other news... (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 months ago | (#46249741)

One of the most common causes of house fires has always been parked cars, regardless of propulsion technology.

Never heard that one before; I always heard it was a mix between irresponsible smokers and improperly used space heaters (with the majority).

Re:In other news... (1)

Waffle Iron (339739) | about 2 months ago | (#46249897)

Those are probably more common (and I said one of the most common), but modern building codes require fire-resistant construction (like thicker drywall and heavy doors) between the garage and the main house for a good reason.

Re:In other news... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46249755)

Cite or you're a moron and a liar.

seriously? (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 2 months ago | (#46249529)

let's obsess over the cause of a fire that has nothing to do with the battery... and only happened once and probably has absolutely nothing to do with the car's engineering?

and let's ignore the thousands of accidents with gasoline every year that kill or maim?

you're doing exxon mobile proud, slashdot editors. thanks for featuring this "story" so prominently

Re:seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46249593)

let's obsess over the cause of a fire that has nothing to do with the battery.

There are more things that can start a fire in that car than just the battery.

Re:seriously? (1)

chispito (1870390) | about 2 months ago | (#46249623)

If it was an electrical fire, it's still big news.

Re:seriously? (1)

icebike (68054) | about 2 months ago | (#46250033)

Why?
Electrical fires are rather common. Especially when homeowner decides to put in his own tesla charging circuit and couldn't tell an electrical code from a line of python.

Re:seriously? (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 months ago | (#46249767)

let's obsess over the cause of a fire that has nothing to do with the battery... and only happened once and probably has absolutely nothing to do with the car's engineering?

It's worth looking into, especially because the cause is non-obvious.

But to say it "probably" had nothing to do with the engineering? Yea, I'll trust the determination of that one to the professional fire investigators, rather than some random internet user.

Re:seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46249899)

Sorry, it's a new technology and it's going to be under a microscope for sometime to come. If you can't accept that maybe you should avoid the news because all kinds of stuff is reported on that aren't the biggest problems in the world.
 
I'm willing to bet that more people are injured/die from electric accidents than gasoline accidents per year.
 
As for the "just happened once." Um, no, there have been other fires around Tesla cars and given the smallish sample size it's worth taking a look into.
 
And you know it has "nothing to do with the car's engineering"? I call bullshit on your claim.
 
As for the rest of your post? Why don't you just take off the tinfoil hat. Slashdot covers more stories in a day that have less to do with anything than the total number of negative Tesla stories combined.
 
Oh, and maybe you can make a movie about electric zombies. That would be great.

Any witnesses? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46249545)

Perhaps the guy in the hoodie with the GM logo seen running away from the site could have some information...

I could not find your quote (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46249557)

"In fact, the Toronto fire department says the fire didn't originate in the battery, the charging system, the adapter or electrical receptacle since all of those components weren't touched by the fire"

in the BI article, the only one that was similar

"In this particular case, we don’t yet know the precise cause, but have definitively determined that it did not originate in the battery, the charging system, the adapter or the electrical receptacle, as these components were untouched by the fire."

was a statement from Tesla to BI.

Same way as other cars (4, Insightful)

Michalson (638911) | about 2 months ago | (#46249575)

Normal gas cars catch fire every day just sitting in peoples driveways or driving along. It's usually a short in the 12V (regular car battery) system related to one of the electronic accessories. It can happen because water gets in and corrodes a contact (like the electric windows) or heat from a nearby item like a headlamp wears down the insulation or other wear and tear that cars are subjected too. In some cases it is identified as an engineering fault rather then a unique occurance in which case a recall occurs. If you go back 3 years you can probably find at least one recall for each of the major manufacturers to fix an electrical fault that 'could lead to a fire'.

Having some basic knowledge [slashdot.org] about car fires makes it clear just how much Tesla fires are about media hype.

Re:Same way as other cars (0)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 months ago | (#46249857)

Having some basic knowledge [slashdot.org] about car fires makes it clear just how much Tesla fires are about media hype.

Having some basic knowledge of probability is also quite handy.

How many gasoline cars are there on the road today, and what percentage of them catch fire?

Ask the same question again, but replace "gasoline cars" with "Tesla Model S"

If, say, a GM model that's only existed for 3-4 years had the percentage of models catch fire that the Model S has, do you think GM would/should issue a recall, or would/should they bandy about accusations of 'media hype?'

Re:Same way as other cars (1)

jo_ham (604554) | about 2 months ago | (#46249979)

Are you basing this percentage on the number of sensational reports in the media, or from actual stats?

This "story" already screams click bait. "Tesla catches fire and zomg it wasn't plugged and and no one was near it! - Ignore the fact that the fire department has said that there is no fire damage anywhere on the electrical components or battery, just keep clicking on 'tesla' 'fire' 'zomg!' links guys".

If this turns out to be something related to the Model S then *maybe* it is news, but right now it looks like a fire in a garage (that was also housing a Lexus) that didn't originate from the supposedly pyrophoric Model S battery/charge system, which was completely untouched.

The story seems to be "Tesla Model S near a fire". If you're going to lump fires that are nearby to the Tesla into the stats about them catching fire then the stats are going to be really skewed by that professional fire eater who just bought one.

Re:Same way as other cars (3, Insightful)

Todd Knarr (15451) | about 2 months ago | (#46250145)

Well, if I look at the number of cars in the US (254 million or so) vs. number of car fires per year (152 thousand or so on average), and then look at the number of Telsas sold vs. number of Teslas involved in car fires, the rate for Teslas is a third to a quarter that of gasoline-powered cars. So yes, if a gasoline-powered model had the same fire rates as Teslas and there was detailed coverage of every single fire it was involved in I'd make an accusation of media hype, how else would you explain that focus accompanied by a lack of coverage of models that catch fire 3-4x as often?

So it's not related to the other fires. (1)

egoebelbecker (3470505) | about 2 months ago | (#46249609)

If it didn't originate in the battery, charging system, or outlet, that it's not related to the other threee fires, right? For all we know it was a cigarette....

Re:So it's not related to the other fires. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46249667)

If it didn't originate in the battery, charging system, or outlet, that it's not related to the other threee fires, right? For all we know it was a cigarette....

It's probably a short circuit in the electrical system.

Re:So it's not related to the other fires. (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 months ago | (#46249787)

Yes, the headline should have read "Telsa damaged in garage fire", but that's not sensational enough. Both linked articles state the car "caused" the fire (one more indirectly regarding what "ignited"), but neither indicate that any official or anyone but a reporter's guess confirms it. For all we know, the meth lab in the basement caught fire and burned a garage with a Tesla in it.

Re:So it's not related to the other fires. (0)

tompaulco (629533) | about 2 months ago | (#46249949)

Yes, the headline should have read "Telsa damaged in garage fire", but that's not sensational enough. Both linked articles state the car "caused" the fire (one more indirectly regarding what "ignited"), but neither indicate that any official or anyone but a reporter's guess confirms it. For all we know, the meth lab in the basement caught fire and burned a garage with a Tesla in it.

Anyone who looks at the picture would have chosen the title "garage damaged in Tesla fire", as it is pretty clear that the front hood area of the vehicle is where the fire started.

Re:So it's not related to the other fires. (1)

JustNiz (692889) | about 2 months ago | (#46249967)

>> the headline should have read "Telsa damaged in garage fire",

Not at all. It wasn't the garage that ignited first, it was the car. Read the original article:
Earlier this month, a Tesla Model S sitting in a Toronto garage ignited and caught on fire.

Someone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46249639)

set it on fire. Seems a likely explanation.

How come? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46249723)

How come you guys are so emotional about the Tesla?

Spontaneous Human Combustion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46249729)

It was the body in the trunk

Beta fucking sucks (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46249757)

FUCK BETA, that's all I can say.

Was it the car at all? (1)

carlhaagen (1021273) | about 2 months ago | (#46249789)

With the fire not originating in anything connected to its electrical system, why are they assuming that the fire originated in/from the car at all? It sounds highly unlikely, and more like vacuous sensationalism.

Re:Was it the car at all? (1)

JustNiz (692889) | about 2 months ago | (#46249881)

Read the original article:
Earlier this month, a Tesla Model S sitting in a Toronto garage ignited and caught on fire.

Re:Was it the car at all? (1)

tompaulco (629533) | about 2 months ago | (#46249915)

With the fire not originating in anything connected to its electrical system, why are they assuming that the fire originated in/from the car at all? It sounds highly unlikely, and more like vacuous sensationalism.

Look at the picture in TFA. It is pretty clear that the front trunk area was the most damaged area.

Tesla may have to update that "0 emissions" claim (1, Troll)

Powercntrl (458442) | about 2 months ago | (#46249837)

So, it's an "external combustion" car? I see what you did there, Mr. Musk.

The gist of what I get from Slashdot lately is that if you made a fortune on Bitcoin before MtGox crashed, don't spend it on a Model S because your earnings will burn like your eyes when you look at the beta.

Interesting (1)

NapalmV (1934294) | about 2 months ago | (#46249905)

I find it interesting that the owner of the car had a smoke alarm installed in his garage, especially since he also had a gasoline car parked there. That would lead to a pretty high number of nuisance alarms. In fact, even the fire depts themselves suggest that you should not install one:

http://www.windsorfire.com/eco... [windsorfire.com]

(search for the word "garage" in the page).

So, what else was the owner doing in that garage that required the installation of the smoke detector, nuisance alarms be damned?
.

Re:Interesting (1)

tompaulco (629533) | about 2 months ago | (#46250071)

Does the article say he had a smoke alarm in the garage? I assumed it was the smoke alarm in house house going off due to smoke from the garage getting into the house.

Re:Interesting (1)

NapalmV (1934294) | about 2 months ago | (#46250125)

Yes it does say so, quote: "A few minutes later, fire alarms in the garage went off, and firemen arrived to put out the blaze, which was described as "intense"."

Ford, GM and Chrysler put out a bounty. (1)

gurps_npc (621217) | about 2 months ago | (#46249921)

$100 if you pour gasoline on a Tesla, light it and run away.

But be warned, if you ask for the bounty, they just give your name to the police.

Re:Ford, GM and Chrysler put out a bounty. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46250155)

>But be warned, if you ask for the bounty, they just give your name to the police.

In Canada, that's actually required by law. It's an offense to offer a reward to a criminal if you also offer immunity. ccc 143. Although it is geared towards lost property, LOL.

My Advice to Tesla (0)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 months ago | (#46249931)

Do a thorough investigation; hire independent, third-party investigators to double-check the results. Do the whole thing again, just to double-double-check. If it turns out that your car had absolutely nothing to do with the fire, publish the shit out of the results. otherwise, try and sweep it under the rug and quietly issue a recall*.

And for the love of all that's holy, keep that loudmouth investor out of the media; fanboys might love him, but he doesn't do you any favors regarding your image with the public-at-large.

* Hey, if it works for the other manufacturers....

More Important than the Fire (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46249971)

Tesla sent a team right away and offered to cover all of the costs associated. Future iterations of the Model S will likely be safer, and just how many car companies will cover all of the expenses of a car fire?

Home owner declines Tesla assitance? (1)

Identita (1256932) | about 2 months ago | (#46250007)

http://business.financialpost.... [financialpost.com] When Tesla offers to pay the owner of the car for the damages to his home, the guy declines. Now, call me stupid, but that's a little weird no?

Re:Home owner declines Tesla assitance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46250133)

This is strange... my guess is that the money came with a requirement to keep it out of the news. Maybe the owner has enough money, or maybe they are motivated to get it on the news for some reason?

Be careful! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46250083)

When 3D printing a fully functional full-size car, I always 3D print the battery separately just in case it catches fire while printing. It takes a bit longer, but it's safer.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...