If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has decided that there's no reason whatsoever to investigate the complete immolation of a Tesla Model S after it hit some road debris   (money.cnn.com) divider line 164
    More: Obvious, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Model S, no reason, spray, flammable liquids, CEO Elon Musk, investigation  
•       •       •

5406 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Oct 2013 at 11:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



164 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-25 11:09:48 AM  
Yeah, the Tesla motor company has had some glitches. Bricked cars, self-immolating cars, insane high prices. I'll admit, hearing about the five or so cars that have been catastrophes has been quite alarming.

I still want one, though.
 
2013-10-25 11:22:49 AM  
If every Tesla Roadster that ever left the factory caught fire, I'd still want one.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-10-25 11:39:20 AM  
I want everybody to buy a Tesla roadster so they all get incinerated and I have the road to my gas-guzzling self.
 
2013-10-25 11:42:19 AM  
THANKS OBAMA
 
2013-10-25 11:43:46 AM  
something tells me if that same hunk of metal had gone into a traditional gas filled tank it would have been a lot worse than a battery fire that never threatened into the passenger compartment
 
2013-10-25 11:43:56 AM  
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-10-25 11:44:17 AM  
Well it IS a pretty hot car..
 
2013-10-25 11:44:50 AM  
Drove past one the other day on the highway.  First time I've seen one on the road.

Nice looking car, I'll give it that.
 
2013-10-25 11:44:52 AM  
Road debris? The driver running over an I-Beam that shot through the floor at I hear over 10 tons of force isn't "Road Debris".
 
2013-10-25 11:45:18 AM  
I'll never understand the hate, I guess
 
2013-10-25 11:45:19 AM  
There should be an investigation, but to the Republicans it doesn't matter, even if the results came out positively for the Tesla company. If it isn't an oil distillate powered vehicle, than it doesn't belong on the road in their opinion, because that would hurt the profits of oil companies that they support over the attempts to investigate alternative, less damaging ways to generate energy.
 
2013-10-25 11:48:01 AM  

libranoelrose: I'll never understand the hate, I guess


People fear change, even if it's a positive change.  At the end of the day, humans are still just dumb animals deep down inside.
 
2013-10-25 11:48:06 AM  

libranoelrose: I'll never understand the hate, I guess


New things are scary.
 
2013-10-25 11:48:13 AM  
Yes. A gas-powered, internal combustion engine has never been know to explode.
 
2013-10-25 11:48:31 AM  

MindStalker: Road debris? The driver running over an I-Beam that shot through the floor at I hear over 10 tons of force isn't "Road Debris".


We're using the Twister definition of "debris".
 
2013-10-25 11:48:33 AM  
And yet I still can't import my 2012 Honda Odyssey into the US.
 
2013-10-25 11:48:49 AM  
"known"
 
2013-10-25 11:50:30 AM  

MindStalker: Road debris? The driver running over an I-Beam that shot through the floor at I hear over 10 tons of force isn't "Road Debris".


Which is why there's no need for an investigation. I've said it before: any vehicle that contains enough potential energy to move itself around for an extended period of time is going to have some risks. Whether it's gasoline, laptop batteries, nuclear power, or whatever, that's going to be some volatility.
 
2013-10-25 11:50:48 AM  

DrZiffle: Yes. A gas-powered, internal combustion engine has never been know to explode.


...You are referring to the fact that it's a series of controlled explosions, or that every now and then those controlled explosions get a bit out of control?
 
2013-10-25 11:51:17 AM  
 
2013-10-25 11:51:37 AM  
The "complete immolation" where the fire was contained in the front bulkhead and spared the complete passenger compartment because of the design of said car?

I think I'll order two.
 
2013-10-25 11:51:55 AM  

DarkSoulNoHope: There should be an investigation, but to the Republicans it doesn't matter, even if the results came out positively for the Tesla company. If it isn't an oil distillate powered vehicle, than it doesn't belong on the road in their opinion, because that would hurt the profits of oil companies that they support over the attempts to investigate alternative, less damaging ways to generate energy.


Does the DNC pay you well? Or is it Soros?
 
2013-10-25 11:53:18 AM  
"Complete immolation," trollmitter? Uh, not so much. TFA said the fire was confined to the battery area and did not endanger the passenger compartment.

/time to buy tesla stocks
//this too shall pass
 
2013-10-25 11:53:30 AM  
Stupid, stubborn corporate suits.
Their stock has been punished by the market due to the PR hit caused by this incident.
For their own sake, they should just come clean, quit stonewalling and launch a very public investigation to DEMONSTRATE they care about their customers.

Are they not aware of the lesson of the exploding Ford Pinto?
 
2013-10-25 11:54:57 AM  
A car priced for the wealthy that promises a trickle down sometime in the future for the less-well-to-do. Yet it's green, so ....
 
2013-10-25 11:55:18 AM  
as usual, subby appears to be an illiterate moron troll. but i suppose that's what gets greenlit headlines these days here on Fark anyway
 
2013-10-25 11:56:07 AM  
These things are dangerous unlike gasoline powered cars which never catch on fire after a crash.
 
2013-10-25 11:56:23 AM  

DrZiffle: Yes. A gas-powered, internal combustion engine has never been know to explode.


No one has ever seen a fire result from an accident involving Real American petroleum cars.  Maybe if two libulardos hit each other and their on-board organic hemp composters ignited.  I'm kidding of course-- libulardos aren't Job Creators and can't afford cars.

jayhawk88: New things are scary.


That's part of it, but also read today's bike thread to see the other half of that.  Bicycles aren't new things, but talk about how you bike to work and the haters come out.

At least part of it is that if you do something unusual (buy an EV, bike everywhere) the first reaction from a thoughtful onlooker is "Oh.  Less air pollution.  Power made domestically.  You're making the country a better place.", but that means the second reaction from a nearby cretin will be "Look at that guy, eating crackers not burning gasoline like he owns the place."
 
2013-10-25 11:58:57 AM  
And if this was any other car it wouldn't even make it to the press.
 
2013-10-25 12:00:10 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: If every Tesla Roadster that ever left the factory caught fire, I'd still want one.


There's one I keep seeing on my commute home, it's really amazing to see. It could leave the factory slightly on fire and I'd still want one.
 
2013-10-25 12:01:55 PM  
Probably not worth the bother...

I mean, what are the odds the same thing would happen to 1 of the other 3?

/If you don't live in California, you have about the same chance of seeing a Tesla Roadster in person as someone visiting the Iowa State Fair has of getting bitten by a shark.
 
2013-10-25 12:02:08 PM  

dfenstrate: DarkSoulNoHope: There should be an investigation, but to the Republicans it doesn't matter, even if the results came out positively for the Tesla company. If it isn't an oil distillate powered vehicle, than it doesn't belong on the road in their opinion, because that would hurt the profits of oil companies that they support over the attempts to investigate alternative, less damaging ways to generate energy.

Does the DNC pay you well? Or is it Soros?


No, just my personal views, but I am curious what your justification is for taking the opposite position? Do you get paid by the American Enterprise Institute, or the RNC, or maybe instead of looking to strawmen positions, how about my original question: "What is your justification for taking the opposite position?"
 
2013-10-25 12:02:42 PM  
Given the agenda I am guessing a little Chicago Politics at work here. Of course if it goes south the NTSB can blame a lack of funding for investigations.
 
2013-10-25 12:02:51 PM  

ggecko: And if this was any other car it wouldn't even make it to the press.


Not until there were at least a couple hundred cases, then they may think about doing a recall. Maybe
 
2013-10-25 12:03:46 PM  

Crass and Jaded Mother Farker: Probably not worth the bother...

I mean, what are the odds the same thing would happen to 1 of the other 3?

/If you don't live in California, you have about the same chance of seeing a Tesla Roadster in person as someone visiting the Iowa State Fair has of getting bitten by a shark.


I know of at least two around here.

/Kansas City
 
2013-10-25 12:04:24 PM  
We don't need no investigate let the motherfu*ker burn

Burn motherfu*ker burn
 
2013-10-25 12:06:08 PM  

kidgenius: The "complete immolation" where the fire was contained in the front bulkhead and spared the complete passenger compartment because of the design of said car?

I think I'll order two.


This.

This incident is an advertisement for Teslas
 
2013-10-25 12:06:15 PM  

barc0001: libranoelrose: I'll never understand the hate, I guess

People fear change, even if it's a positive change.  At the end of the day, humans are still just dumb animals deep down inside.


Electricity flows from negative to positive.  Going from internal combustion (an oxidation reaction, thus creating a more "positive" output - remember, OIL RIG!) to electric (where output is an electron) means that, quite literally, electric cars are a negative change.

just saying.
 
2013-10-25 12:06:26 PM  
I don't think there's anything about that article that I liked. Other than being informed the stocks are still down 10%. Time to buy!

(I've always been a big supporter of electric/hybrid cars. I finally moved to a town that's got a Tesla dealership! Time to start saving money! Granted it'll take a while, but a girl can dream, can't she? :D)
 
2013-10-25 12:07:18 PM  
Yes, a car filled with batteries can probably burn spectacularly.  A car filled with gasoline can also burn spectacularly.  Anything that's carrying around enough energy to propel itself for several hundred miles is also going to have enough energy to do other interesting (probably bad) things too.
 
2013-10-25 12:08:26 PM  
I have had my Model S about ten months now.  Freaking amazing car.
Wish I had bought the stock ten months ago (at $40 or so).
If I hit "road debris" with enough force to puncture through quarter-inch armour plating steel, I would fully expect that to have a detrimental effect to any vehicle.
 
2013-10-25 12:10:09 PM  
Because gas cars NEVER catch on fire. ?

I always don't understand the hate for new technology. People just want to attack things because they are afraid of change.
 
2013-10-25 12:12:37 PM  

Cletus C.: A car priced for the wealthy that promises a trickle down sometime in the future for the less-well-to-do. Yet it's green, so ....


Yes because a first generation tech product marketed to early adopters is entirely analogous to national tax and economic policy.
 
2013-10-25 12:13:40 PM  
I'm all in favor of the investigation of "alternative, less damaging ways to generate energy."  I simply believe that if there is to be a viable alternative to petroleum-based power of any sort, it will come from a free-market implementation of technology developed by privately funded research.  The government throwing money down the rat-hole of research into solar, wind, and other green power options is not going to do it.  If someone comes up with a viable and sustainable solution, there are entrepreneurs and investors who will beat their door down to get involved.

Mandating that the petroleum companies fund the research, that the automakers invest in it before the market is ready, and that taxpayers subsidize the efforts is counter-productive.  It sucks money out of the economy without any assurance of a return.
 
2013-10-25 12:13:48 PM  

Crass and Jaded Mother Farker: Probably not worth the bother...

I mean, what are the odds the same thing would happen to 1 of the other 3?

/If you don't live in California, you have about the same chance of seeing a Tesla Roadster in person as someone visiting the Iowa State Fair has of getting bitten by a shark.


Absolutely not true!
I live in Rural WI and my town has at least three Teslas. Two model s and one roadster.
 
2013-10-25 12:17:09 PM  

DarkSoulNoHope: There should be an investigation, but to the Republicans it doesn't matter, even if the results came out positively for the Tesla company. If it isn't an oil distillate powered vehicle, than it doesn't belong on the road in their opinion, because that would hurt the profits of oil companies that they support over the attempts to investigate alternative, less damaging ways to generate energy.


Your "green" technology only exists on the shoulders of the nuclear defense industry.

Would you like to know where the lithium material in all those batteries came from? Well, you can thank the nuclear weapons industry for creating a massive stockpile of excess lithium.

https://www.osti.gov/opennet/forms.jsp?formurl=document/press/pc23.ht m l


"Q. What are plans for disposition of the lithium hydroxide at Portsmouth and Oak Ridge? Is it waste?

A. The lithium hydroxide at both Portsmouth and Oak Ridge will be disposed of by a negotiated sale to major lithium producers. Lithium hydroxide is not considered a waste by the Department."

All declassified.
 
2013-10-25 12:17:32 PM  
FIX OLD NO NEW
 
2013-10-25 12:17:37 PM  
Low emission vehicle trifecta in progress?
 
2013-10-25 12:18:06 PM  

Crass and Jaded Mother Farker: Probably not worth the bother...

I mean, what are the odds the same thing would happen to 1 of the other 3?

/If you don't live in California, you have about the same chance of seeing a Tesla Roadster in person as someone visiting the Iowa State Fair has of getting bitten by a shark.


I don't know where you live but in Seattle, every day. Look, we've been here before. No one remember the rollout of the prius? We heard much of the same shiat and now it's the #1 selling car in California, where I have heard they have a lot of people.
 
2013-10-25 12:18:24 PM  

DrZiffle: Yes. A gas-powered, internal combustion engine has never been know to explode.


Hint: Gasoline powered vehicles get safety investigations too. "But...but...gas" is not an argument to ignore safety on electric cars.

I agree this particular event does not merit general concern over the safety of the tesla, but the extremely oft repeated finger pointing misdirection, often used even by Musk himself, is entirely and completely beside the point.
 
2013-10-25 12:18:34 PM  

Demetrius: Drove past one the other day on the highway.  First time I've seen one on the road.

Nice looking car, I'll give it that.


Agreed. I don't know much about the benefits/detriments/costs/savings but its a lot better looking than i would've imagined.
 
2013-10-25 12:19:28 PM  
How did Tesla become a Republican vs Democrat thing? Or is that the primary distinction you tards use to classify all things now?
 
2013-10-25 12:19:46 PM  

steve42: I'm all in favor of the investigation of "alternative, less damaging ways to generate energy."  I simply believe that if there is to be a viable alternative to petroleum-based power of any sort, it will come from a free-market implementation of technology developed by privately funded research.  The government throwing money down the rat-hole of research into solar, wind, and other green power options is not going to do it.  If someone comes up with a viable and sustainable solution, there are entrepreneurs and investors who will beat their door down to get involved.

Mandating that the petroleum companies fund the research, that the automakers invest in it before the market is ready, and that taxpayers subsidize the efforts is counter-productive.  It sucks money out of the economy without any assurance of a return.


If all human progress were the result of privately funded research, we'd still be sitting in caves trying to decide if rocks are edible.
 
2013-10-25 12:20:18 PM  

Corvus: I always don't understand the hate for new technology. People just want to attack things because they are afraid of change.


I don't know, but I think some people see the fawning, completely uncritical adoration for a company or technology (think Apple fanboys) and react with visceral disgust.  I can see some of both sides of that coin with regards to Tesla.

Personally, it seems like a neat idea, but I've got a few issues that would prevent me from buying one as-is:

1) they're very expensive
2) if you ran out of "fuel" in an awkward location (yes, yes, this should never happen, I know), there is no way to bring fuel to the car; you'd have to tow it to an outlet
3) I would want to see empirical reliability data on the batteries in extreme cold.  Living in Minnesota, gasoline cars often *barely* start when it's -20 F outside, and battery performance is strongly dependent on temperature.
 
2013-10-25 12:21:09 PM  

Day_Old_Dutchie: Are they not aware of the lesson of the exploding Ford Pinto?


I was gonna say, this is not a repeat from 1976.

www.chevyhardcore.com
 
GBB
2013-10-25 12:21:52 PM  
Just saw my first Tesla S on the road yesterday.  Didn't catch fire even once!
Looks pretty nice.
 
2013-10-25 12:21:56 PM  

libranoelrose: I'll never understand the hate, I guess


To be honest, I don't get the extreme knee-jerk defensiveness. When there is a question about a car's safety it doesn't mean that people "hate" cars.
 
2013-10-25 12:22:43 PM  

itsaidwhat: DarkSoulNoHope: There should be an investigation, but to the Republicans it doesn't matter, even if the results came out positively for the Tesla company. If it isn't an oil distillate powered vehicle, than it doesn't belong on the road in their opinion, because that would hurt the profits of oil companies that they support over the attempts to investigate alternative, less damaging ways to generate energy.

Your "green" technology only exists on the shoulders of the nuclear defense industry.

Would you like to know where the lithium material in all those batteries came from? Well, you can thank the nuclear weapons industry for creating a massive stockpile of excess lithium.

https://www.osti.gov/opennet/forms.jsp?formurl=document/press/pc23.ht m l


"Q. What are plans for disposition of the lithium hydroxide at Portsmouth and Oak Ridge? Is it waste?

A. The lithium hydroxide at both Portsmouth and Oak Ridge will be disposed of by a negotiated sale to major lithium producers. Lithium hydroxide is not considered a waste by the Department."

All declassified.


Progress doesn't mean stopping at one energy source and then sticking with it, besides what would you do with the waste lithium, dump it? I rather it be recycled into batteries.
 
2013-10-25 12:24:46 PM  
Two anti-electric cars threads in a row? Did one of the admins scooters break down in Walmart or sumpin'?
goldenagestrengthclub.com
ZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz-z-z-z-z-

`DAMN YOU, THOMAS EDISON!!'
 
2013-10-25 12:24:48 PM  

mikaloyd: How did Tesla become a Republican vs Democrat thing?


Actively avoiding anything that reduces dependence on fossil fuels is now officially part of the republican platform. They've also come out in favor of destroying the ocean as quickly as possible.
 
2013-10-25 12:26:24 PM  

Crass and Jaded Mother Farker: Probably not worth the bother...

I mean, what are the odds the same thing would happen to 1 of the other 3?

/If you don't live in California, you have about the same chance of seeing a Tesla Roadster in person as someone visiting the Iowa State Fair has of getting bitten by a shark.


I live in the ghetto of Baltimore and I see the (much more expensive) Tesla sedan a couple times a month.
 
2013-10-25 12:26:33 PM  

Crass and Jaded Mother Farker: Probably not worth the bother...

I mean, what are the odds the same thing would happen to 1 of the other 3?

/If you don't live in California, you have about the same chance of seeing a Tesla Roadster in person as someone visiting the Iowa State Fair has of getting bitten by a shark.


I work in SE PA and live in DE. I saw two different Model S's on the same night commuting home on 202 South. They were even the same color. The only reason I knew they were different was because one had PA plate "Tesla 3" and the other was DE plate "NO GAS".

There's also a Roadster scooting about somewhere in the area.
 
2013-10-25 12:28:06 PM  

DarkSoulNoHope: There should be an investigation, but to the Republicans it doesn't matter, even if the results came out positively for the Tesla company. If it isn't an oil distillate powered vehicle, than it doesn't belong on the road in their opinion, because that would hurt the profits of oil companies that they support over the attempts to investigate alternative, less damaging ways to generate energy.


Al Gore still own a piece of Occidental Petroleum?
 
2013-10-25 12:30:12 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: If every Tesla Roadster that ever left the factory caught fire, I'd still want one.


If all Tesla drivers were required to burn to death in their Roadsters, I'd still want one.  As long as it was red.

/cue 'dat ass' face for the 17" screen
 
2013-10-25 12:30:17 PM  

steve42: I'm all in favor of the investigation of "alternative, less damaging ways to generate energy."  I simply believe that if there is to be a viable alternative to petroleum-based power of any sort, it will come from a free-market implementation of technology developed by privately funded research.  The government throwing money down the rat-hole of research into solar, wind, and other green power options is not going to do it.  If someone comes up with a viable and sustainable solution, there are entrepreneurs and investors who will beat their door down to get involved.


You have an oversimplified understanding of the free market. The free market is usually only interested in what's profitable for the next 3 months to a year. Any real change requires looking beyond short term profits, and also what is best outside of industry.

And you need the funding before you come up with the viable and sustainable solution. That's the whole point, R&D is a huge drain on resources. You need someone with deep pockets and long term stability. Which pretty much leaves out any private industry, the only player left if the government.
 
2013-10-25 12:30:41 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: libranoelrose: I'll never understand the hate, I guess

To be honest, I don't get the extreme knee-jerk defensiveness. When there is a question about a car's safety it doesn't mean that people "hate" cars.


I kind of don't count the one from the article. The cars that might meet with a bad fate after hitting a large piece of metal at speed are 'all of them.' Hell, I used to have a Vanagon camper - I lived in fear of fire every day because I frequented a VW forum that had a thread dedicated to all the people whose vans burned up and how to avoid it - there was no shortage of examples. I'd never buy a tesla - not a luxury car guy but I have to say I'm going to need to see a lot more fires before I pronounce it as unreasonably safe.
 
2013-10-25 12:31:33 PM  

EngineerBob: DarkSoulNoHope: There should be an investigation, but to the Republicans it doesn't matter, even if the results came out positively for the Tesla company. If it isn't an oil distillate powered vehicle, than it doesn't belong on the road in their opinion, because that would hurt the profits of oil companies that they support over the attempts to investigate alternative, less damaging ways to generate energy.

Al Gore still own a piece of Occidental Petroleum?


What does Al Gore have to do with this conversation?
 
2013-10-25 12:31:37 PM  

Ned Stark: Cletus C.: A car priced for the wealthy that promises a trickle down sometime in the future for the less-well-to-do. Yet it's green, so ....

Yes because a first generation tech product marketed to early adopters is entirely analogous to national tax and economic policy.


It's priced out of range of most Americans. That's OK in this scenario. Trust us, you'll get yours later, poors.
 
2013-10-25 12:32:01 PM  

anfrind: If all human progress were the result of privately funded research, we'd still be sitting in caves trying to decide if rocks are edible.


I'm all for government funded research, but that is one of the dumbest things I've read all week.
 
2013-10-25 12:32:49 PM  

PanicMan: You have an oversimplified understanding of the free market.


This tends to be the problem with free market absolutists.  In fact, it's the only thing that makes that ideology viable in the first place.
 
2013-10-25 12:35:26 PM  

tricycleracer: MindStalker: Road debris? The driver running over an I-Beam that shot through the floor at I hear over 10 tons of force isn't "Road Debris".

We're using the Twister definition of "debris".


This week's original SCI-FY movie...
 
2013-10-25 12:36:39 PM  
I see a Model S here in western Washington more than once a day it seems.

I haven't seen a Roadster in... over a year I think.

Both are beautiful, and if I had the money I'd consider it.
 
2013-10-25 12:37:19 PM  

jshine: Corvus: I always don't understand the hate for new technology. People just want to attack things because they are afraid of change.
.
.
.
2) if you ran out of "fuel" in an awkward location (yes, yes, this should never happen, I know), there is no way to bring fuel to the car; you'd have to tow it to an outlet

.

"Hello, Triple-A?" I need a battery swap on I70.. "
 
2013-10-25 12:39:07 PM  

Crass and Jaded Mother Farker: Probably not worth the bother...

I mean, what are the odds the same thing would happen to 1 of the other 3?

/If you don't live in California, you have about the same chance of seeing a Tesla Roadster in person as someone visiting the Iowa State Fair has of getting bitten by a shark.


I live in Davenport and saw one just a few days ago on River Drive. I also saw a truckload of them on I-80.
 
2013-10-25 12:39:22 PM  

GoldDude: I have had my Model S about ten months now.  Freaking amazing car.
Wish I had bought the stock ten months ago (at $40 or so).
If I hit "road debris" with enough force to puncture through quarter-inch armour plating steel, I would fully expect that to have a detrimental effect to any vehicle.


I suspect the outcome on a gasoline vehicle would have been much worse.  It might not have punctured the fuel tank, but it might have just punctured right through to the passenger compartment, or depending on where it hit it could have hit brake lines, the transmission or differential, etc, and might have rendered the vehicle immediately inoperable.   The driver of this vehicle was able to safely pull over and exit the vehicle.
 
2013-10-25 12:40:17 PM  
 
2013-10-25 12:40:49 PM  

DarkSoulNoHope: EngineerBob: DarkSoulNoHope: There should be an investigation, but to the Republicans it doesn't matter, even if the results came out positively for the Tesla company. If it isn't an oil distillate powered vehicle, than it doesn't belong on the road in their opinion, because that would hurt the profits of oil companies that they support over the attempts to investigate alternative, less damaging ways to generate energy.

Al Gore still own a piece of Occidental Petroleum?

What does Al Gore have to do with this conversation?


He invented the internet which you are using to post in a green tech discussion thread on a website powered by renewable alcohol.

/carbon footprint
 
2013-10-25 12:41:03 PM  

Squawky: jshine: Corvus: I always don't understand the hate for new technology. People just want to attack things because they are afraid of change.
.
.
.
2) if you ran out of "fuel" in an awkward location (yes, yes, this should never happen, I know), there is no way to bring fuel to the car; you'd have to tow it to an outlet
.

"Hello, Triple-A?" I need a battery swap on I70.. "


Barring that, generators would become standard equipment on tow trucks.  At 240V, you can get about a half-mile a minute into the battery.
 
2013-10-25 12:41:30 PM  

Squawky: jshine: Corvus: I always don't understand the hate for new technology. People just want to attack things because they are afraid of change.
.
.
.
2) if you ran out of "fuel" in an awkward location (yes, yes, this should never happen, I know), there is no way to bring fuel to the car; you'd have to tow it to an outlet
.

"Hello, Triple-A?" I need a battery swap on I70.. "



I'm not entirely familiar with the design of the Tesla S's batteries, but given the capacity of the batteries in question, I doubt that a "swap" is a simple procedure you'd perform on the side of the freeway.  We're probably talking about hundreds of pounds of batteries that are integrated into the car's construction.
 
2013-10-25 12:41:58 PM  

Crass and Jaded Mother Farker: Probably not worth the bother...

I mean, what are the odds the same thing would happen to 1 of the other 3?

/If you don't live in California, you have about the same chance of seeing a Tesla Roadster in person as someone visiting the Iowa State Fair has of getting bitten by a shark.


I see a Tesla on the road pretty much every day and I'm 2500 miles from CA. Hell, there's a dealership 1 mile from my house. Then again, I see Maseratis, Bentleys, Ferarris and Lamborghinis rolling by pretty much daily too...
 
2013-10-25 12:42:30 PM  
In a 'regular' vehicle without the steel plate on the bottom the driver might have been missing a foot or had a steel beam up their butt.
 
2013-10-25 12:42:51 PM  

tricycleracer: Squawky: jshine: Corvus: I always don't understand the hate for new technology. People just want to attack things because they are afraid of change.
.
2) if you ran out of "fuel" in an awkward location (yes, yes, this should never happen, I know), there is no way to bring fuel to the car; you'd have to tow it to an outlet
.
"Hello, Triple-A?" I need a battery swap on I70.. "

Barring that, generators would become standard equipment on tow trucks.  At 240V, you can get about a half-mile a minute into the battery.



Yes, that'd be a much better idea than a swap, I'd think.
 
2013-10-25 12:43:20 PM  

DarkSoulNoHope: itsaidwhat: DarkSoulNoHope: There should be an investigation, but to the Republicans it doesn't matter, even if the results came out positively for the Tesla company. If it isn't an oil distillate powered vehicle, than it doesn't belong on the road in their opinion, because that would hurt the profits of oil companies that they support over the attempts to investigate alternative, less damaging ways to generate energy.

Your "green" technology only exists on the shoulders of the nuclear defense industry.

Would you like to know where the lithium material in all those batteries came from? Well, you can thank the nuclear weapons industry for creating a massive stockpile of excess lithium.

https://www.osti.gov/opennet/forms.jsp?formurl=document/press/pc23.ht m l


"Q. What are plans for disposition of the lithium hydroxide at Portsmouth and Oak Ridge? Is it waste?

A. The lithium hydroxide at both Portsmouth and Oak Ridge will be disposed of by a negotiated sale to major lithium producers. Lithium hydroxide is not considered a waste by the Department."

All declassified.

Progress doesn't mean stopping at one energy source and then sticking with it, besides what would you do with the waste lithium, dump it? I rather it be recycled into batteries.


I'm not disagreeing. I'm only pointing out that electric devices rely on energy that has to be delivered by some natural resource. In this case, lithium (and probably the nickel too) which was a valuable byproduct of the nuclear defense industry history.
 
2013-10-25 12:48:38 PM  

Cletus C.: Ned Stark: Cletus C.: A car priced for the wealthy that promises a trickle down sometime in the future for the less-well-to-do. Yet it's green, so ....

Yes because a first generation tech product marketed to early adopters is entirely analogous to national tax and economic policy.

It's priced out of range of most Americans. That's OK in this scenario. Trust us, you'll get yours later, poors.


Yes, that's literally how it works. Production of early luxury models builds experience and knowledge so that more and more efficient(and therefore cheap) meathods can be found and sale of same at luxury prices finances future production. Then prices fall.

Its one of the few things capitalism is good at.
 
2013-10-25 12:48:43 PM  

itsaidwhat: I'm not disagreeing. I'm only pointing out that electric devices rely on energy that has to be delivered by some natural resource. In this case, lithium (and probably the nickel too) which was a valuable byproduct of the nuclear defense industry history.


I wonder if it's isotopically-enriched lithium then (or depleted)?  ...because if you're building a hydrogen bomb, you could use natural lithium, but the US uses enriched lithium-6 in weapons production.
 
2013-10-25 12:48:44 PM  
That's why I only drive cars that run on Safe, Clean Nuclear Power.

img.pandawhale.com

www.independentaustralia.net

Plus, I've only had to fill it up once in the last 60 years. Those Libyan terrorists were sure upset I shorted them.
 
2013-10-25 12:50:11 PM  

The Irresponsible Captain: That's why I only drive cars that run on Safe, Clean Nuclear Power.

Plus, I've only had to fill it up once in the last 60 years. Those Libyan terrorists were sure upset I shorted them.


Well how else would you generate those 1.21 jiggawatts?
 
2013-10-25 12:51:13 PM  

006deluxe: Crass and Jaded Mother Farker: Probably not worth the bother...

I mean, what are the odds the same thing would happen to 1 of the other 3?

/If you don't live in California, you have about the same chance of seeing a Tesla Roadster in person as someone visiting the Iowa State Fair has of getting bitten by a shark.

I work in SE PA and live in DE. I saw two different Model S's on the same night commuting home on 202 South. They were even the same color. The only reason I knew they were different was because one had PA plate "Tesla 3" and the other was DE plate "NO GAS".

There's also a Roadster scooting about somewhere in the area.


Sorry guys...

I forgot I was on the internet.

I concede, you all have at least 2 Teslas in you garage.

One for daily use and one to use on weekends.
 
2013-10-25 12:51:14 PM  
Wow, people get testy when you question their soulless, overpriced hoverrounds.
 
2013-10-25 12:52:20 PM  
Is the Tesla really a target of Republican rage? I mean it's not surprising if it's coming from the extreme Right and yes the GOP has a serious issue with their more moderate members not saying anything about anything but I would think anyone with conservative free market values wouldn't have a problem with just letting products exist and survive on the market.  I do think that the value of innovation has been downplayed lately for some odd reason.  That's always been America's greatest strength.  American industry essentially invented and created the technology that seems so critical to all first world societies. I don't see the reasoning behind railing against any advancement in technology and I'm a Republican!
 
2013-10-25 12:53:57 PM  
That's why I won't buy one. Gasoline isn't flammable so I know my car will never catch on fire
 
2013-10-25 12:55:16 PM  

The Irresponsible Captain: That's why I only drive cars that run on Safe, Clean Nuclear Power.

[img.pandawhale.com image 568x459]

[www.independentaustralia.net image 512x362]

Plus, I've only had to fill it up once in the last 60 years. Those Libyan terrorists were sure upset I shorted them.


That's always been something I've been curious about.  If we have submarines, albeit enormous pieces of machinery, with their own nuclear reactors, how difficult would it be to create a land vehicle with a nuclear reactor.  My brother is a nuclear engineer and I'm always asking him how small can a nuclear reactor feasibly be?  The answer I get is that even the smallest reactors produce so much energy that it wouldn't be prudent to just power a single vehicle off it.  So I'm thinking, home nuclear reactors to power your electric car, and the rest of the neighborhood.  Sure we'd lose a few souls here and there, but hey, progress!
 
2013-10-25 12:55:50 PM  

Jacobin: That's why I won't buy one. Gasoline isn't flammable so I know my car will never catch on fire


I don't know where you learned that, but it's totally wrong. Gasoline is very flammable.
 
2013-10-25 12:56:32 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Jacobin: That's why I won't buy one. Gasoline isn't flammable so I know my car will never catch on fire

I don't know where you learned that, but it's totally wrong. Gasoline is very flammable.


I thought it was inflammable.
 
2013-10-25 12:59:20 PM  
it's a feature of the car
 
2013-10-25 01:00:22 PM  
Gas cars burn up every single day in America, but by all means let's take a shiat-fit over ONE TESLA that caught fire.

/This message brought to you (repeatedly) by the U.S. petroleum industry
 
2013-10-25 01:00:33 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Jacobin: That's why I won't buy one. Gasoline isn't flammable so I know my car will never catch on fire

I don't know where you learned that, but it's totally wrong. Gasoline is very flammable.


I love you.
 
2013-10-25 01:01:37 PM  

DubtodaIll: AverageAmericanGuy: Jacobin: That's why I won't buy one. Gasoline isn't flammable so I know my car will never catch on fire

I don't know where you learned that, but it's totally wrong. Gasoline is very flammable.

I thought it was inflammable.


Exactly -- in-flammable -- that means more than flammable.  It's not only flammable, it's inflammable.
 
2013-10-25 01:01:49 PM  

Corvus: Because gas cars NEVER catch on fire. ?

I always don't understand the hate for new technology. People just want to attack things because they are afraid of change.


Seems like you understand the hate just fine.
 
2013-10-25 01:03:38 PM  
The funny (sad actually) thing about this is how blatant the spin is and who is driving it. GIS 'car fire' shows you what a gasoline powered car fire looks like.


chimp_ninja:
jayhawk88: New things are scary.

That's part of it, but also read today's bike thread to see the other half of that.  Bicycles aren't new things, but talk about how you bike to work and the haters come out.



Not a good comparison.  People hate cyclists because a lot of them are complete assholes one the road, only applying the laws of the road to cars while flagrantly disregarding them.  The hate for Tesla and the like is a mix of the 'new thing bad trug hate' and carefully and skillfully executed marketing, like a picture of a relatively tame fire (the firefighters are a few feet away) after a catastrophic/freak accident being proof of how dangerous a car is.  It's like posting a picture of the WTC after the first plane struck and saying how dangerous high rises are.
 
2013-10-25 01:05:08 PM  
Could be worse
g-ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2013-10-25 01:11:22 PM  

jshine: Corvus: I always don't understand the hate for new technology. People just want to attack things because they are afraid of change.

I don't know, but I think some people see the fawning, completely uncritical adoration for a company or technology (think Apple fanboys) and react with visceral disgust.  I can see some of both sides of that coin with regards to Tesla.

Personally, it seems like a neat idea, but I've got a few issues that would prevent me from buying one as-is:

1) they're very expensive
2) if you ran out of "fuel" in an awkward location (yes, yes, this should never happen, I know), there is no way to bring fuel to the car; you'd have to tow it to an outlet
3) I would want to see empirical reliability data on the batteries in extreme cold.  Living in Minnesota, gasoline cars often *barely* start when it's -20 F outside, and battery performance is strongly dependent on temperature.


My great-great-grandfather made almost the same arguments about switching from horse-powered vehicles to the newfangled horseless carriage.

The future - she's a comin' round the mountain whether we like it or not.
 
2013-10-25 01:13:49 PM  

Earl of Chives: My great-great-grandfather made almost the same arguments about switching from horse-powered vehicles to the newfangled horseless carriage.

The future - she's a comin' round the mountain whether we like it or not.


Wow, you must be very old.  I never had the opportunity to talk to my great-great-grandfather...

/ also, bear in mind that none of the 3 points I raised are physically impossible to address -- they're just engineering and manufacturing challenges that haven't been addressed yet
 
2013-10-25 01:14:15 PM  

mdeesnuts: anfrind: If all human progress were the result of privately funded research, we'd still be sitting in caves trying to decide if rocks are edible.

I'm all for government funded research, but that is one of the dumbest things I've read all week.


I was trying to explain in terms simple enough that a Libertarian could understand.
 
2013-10-25 01:16:57 PM  

libranoelrose: I'll never understand the hate, I guess


It's mostly from conservatives who have been conditioned to hate anything that deprives Big Oil of record profits. Same for Big Coal. Hence, their irrational loathing of compact fluorescents and wind and solar energy.
 
2013-10-25 01:20:42 PM  

a particular individual: libranoelrose: I'll never understand the hate, I guess

It's mostly from conservatives who have been conditioned to hate anything that deprives Big Oil of record profits. Same for Big Coal. Hence, their irrational loathing of compact fluorescents and wind and solar energy.


I don't consider myself a conservative (voted for Obama), but I'm not a huge fan of compact fluorescents.  Their spectrum is a mess since it's not a blackbody.  Invariably colors look "off" -- not to mention the problems with dimming and cold weather performance (since mercury's vapor pressure is an exponential function of temperature).
 
2013-10-25 01:22:30 PM  

steve42: I'm all in favor of the investigation of "alternative, less damaging ways to generate energy."  I simply believe that if there is to be a viable alternative to petroleum-based power of any sort, it will come from a free-market implementation of technology developed by privately funded research.  The government throwing money down the rat-hole of research into solar, wind, and other green power options is not going to do it.  If someone comes up with a viable and sustainable solution, there are entrepreneurs and investors who will beat their door down to get involved.


This has to be a Poe's Law troll.  Typed without apparent sarcasm at a computer made of microchips (nursed through their first decade of life by government use in missile avionics)... transmitted over the Internet (we all know how IT started)... and sent to a country settled by railroads that were government-subsidized to the tune of mile of land on either side of the tracks granted to the shaky early railroads.    Either you're a troll or you know nothing of the history of science and technology.

Great ideas often do come out of individual garages and workshops.  Great products often do come out of large, well-run corporations.  But in between, there's a long and chancy childhood where there's every reason for society, through the mechanism of representative government, to bet on winners and losers in support of an overall goal.  The goal of silent no-tailpipe vehicles that eventually will run on renewable energy is one such, and it looks like we're making steady progress toward it.
 
2013-10-25 01:23:25 PM  

jshine: tricycleracer: Squawky: jshine: Corvus: I always don't understand the hate for new technology. People just want to attack things because they are afraid of change.
.
2) if you ran out of "fuel" in an awkward location (yes, yes, this should never happen, I know), there is no way to bring fuel to the car; you'd have to tow it to an outlet
.
"Hello, Triple-A?" I need a battery swap on I70.. "

Barring that, generators would become standard equipment on tow trucks.  At 240V, you can get about a half-mile a minute into the battery.


Yes, that'd be a much better idea than a swap, I'd think.


you wouldn't have to tow it to an outlet, just tow it while holding the (regenerative) brake pedal, it will proceed to charge itself ..

/don't really know
 
2013-10-25 01:24:00 PM  

a particular individual: libranoelrose: I'll never understand the hate, I guess

It's mostly from conservatives who have been conditioned to hate anything that deprives Big Oil of record profits. Same for Big Coal. Hence, their irrational loathing of compact fluorescents and wind and solar energy.


Is it possible that some people don't like electric cars for reasons other than American politics?  How about that internal combustion-engined vehicles are my hobby?  That I considered myself an adult the time I smelled like used 10w30 after coming home from my first real job? 
Is it possible that in our North American car culture, we've become emotionally invested in our cars? 

The people who love Teslas strike me as the type of person who sees cars as appliances.  That's fine, but I don't think your opinion is enough to direct the future of a product you seem to be apathetic towards.
 
2013-10-25 01:24:06 PM  
I guess subby's definition of completely immolated is very liberal.
 
2013-10-25 01:24:11 PM  

steve42: I'm all in favor of the investigation of "alternative, less damaging ways to generate energy."  I simply believe that if there is to be a viable alternative to petroleum-based power of any sort, it will come from a free-market implementation of technology developed by privately funded research.  The government throwing money down the rat-hole of research into solar, wind, and other green power options is not going to do it.  If someone comes up with a viable and sustainable solution, there are entrepreneurs and investors who will beat their door down to get involved.

Mandating that the petroleum companies fund the research, that the automakers invest in it before the market is ready, and that taxpayers subsidize the efforts is counter-productive.  It sucks money out of the economy without any assurance of a return.


I simply believe you're an idiot. But the great thing about science is it doesn't matter what you or I "believe." The only thing that matters is what we can prove.

Government research created the atomic bomb (granted, the government did that by importing German scientists, but still), got us to the moon, and continues to fund the seed research that private enterprises then use to make products that ultimately pad their own coffers. Government research also created the internet, so it's not all good news. ;-)
 
2013-10-25 01:35:21 PM  

Cletus C.: t's priced out of range of most Americans. That's OK in this scenario.


It is. If all Americans could afford electric cars, starting tomorrow, the electric grid would take a dump. This needs to be implemented over years.
 
2013-10-25 01:36:51 PM  

itsaidwhat: I'm not disagreeing. I'm only pointing out that electric devices rely on energy that has to be delivered by some natural resource. In this case, lithium (and probably the nickel too) which was a valuable byproduct of the nuclear defense industry history.


Yeah yeah yeah. "Look at all these great thing the government has given us." We get it. You love government.
 
2013-10-25 01:38:52 PM  

Crass and Jaded Mother Farker: Probably not worth the bother...

I mean, what are the odds the same thing would happen to 1 of the other 3?

/If you don't live in California, you have about the same chance of seeing a Tesla Roadster in person as someone visiting the Iowa State Fair has of getting bitten by a shark.


Woman here in Philadelphia, MS has one.
It is awesome.
 
2013-10-25 01:39:23 PM  

petec: jshine: tricycleracer: Squawky: jshine: Corvus: I always don't understand the hate for new technology. People just want to attack things because they are afraid of change.
.
2) if you ran out of "fuel" in an awkward location (yes, yes, this should never happen, I know), there is no way to bring fuel to the car; you'd have to tow it to an outlet
.
"Hello, Triple-A?" I need a battery swap on I70.. "

Barring that, generators would become standard equipment on tow trucks.  At 240V, you can get about a half-mile a minute into the battery.


Yes, that'd be a much better idea than a swap, I'd think.

you wouldn't have to tow it to an outlet, just tow it while holding the (regenerative) brake pedal, it will proceed to charge itself ..

/don't really know


Getting towed all the way to an outlet would probably be cheaper than the wear on the breaks, no?
 
2013-10-25 01:44:48 PM  

MythDragon: Could be worse

[charred-wasteland.jpg]



Looks like the Canadian town that was incinerated by the runaway oil train last year.
 
2013-10-25 01:48:22 PM  

petec: jshine: tricycleracer: Squawky: jshine: Corvus: I always don't understand the hate for new technology. People just want to attack things because they are afraid of change.
.
2) if you ran out of "fuel" in an awkward location (yes, yes, this should never happen, I know), there is no way to bring fuel to the car; you'd have to tow it to an outlet
.
"Hello, Triple-A?" I need a battery swap on I70.. "

Barring that, generators would become standard equipment on tow trucks.  At 240V, you can get about a half-mile a minute into the battery.


Yes, that'd be a much better idea than a swap, I'd think.

you wouldn't have to tow it to an outlet, just tow it while holding the (regenerative) brake pedal, it will proceed to charge itself ..

/don't really know


http://www.teslamotors.com/batteryswap

^Just in case you actually wanted to know how easy a battery swap is.  I would think once you got the car in the sling, it would be more efficient to tow it to one of the almost common charging stations Tesla is investing in all over the country (mostly on the left coast right now of course).
 
2013-10-25 01:50:57 PM  
The other day I was cruising the Golf TDi up I-5 in the Central Valley coming home from SoCal doing "every bit of" the speed limit when a Tesla S passed me like I was tied to a fence post. It's nice that Tesla put charging stations all over Cali (and all the way up I-5, IIRC). If I had a bit more disposable income I'd be all over one of those. I'm ready for a change after 30+ years of driving VW dweezles.
 
2013-10-25 01:53:14 PM  

Ned Stark: petec: jshine: tricycleracer: Squawky: jshine: Corvus: I always don't understand the hate for new technology. People just want to attack things because they are afraid of change.
.
2) if you ran out of "fuel" in an awkward location (yes, yes, this should never happen, I know), there is no way to bring fuel to the car; you'd have to tow it to an outlet
.
"Hello, Triple-A?" I need a battery swap on I70.. "

Barring that, generators would become standard equipment on tow trucks.  At 240V, you can get about a half-mile a minute into the battery.


Yes, that'd be a much better idea than a swap, I'd think.

you wouldn't have to tow it to an outlet, just tow it while holding the (regenerative) brake pedal, it will proceed to charge itself ..

/don't really know

Getting towed all the way to an outlet would probably be cheaper than the wear on the breaks, no?


I think the regenerative braking (running a generator off the wheels) eats up the energy, not brake pads/shoes doing it with friction/heat.
 
2013-10-25 02:00:26 PM  
Living in San Diego, I see at least five of these a day mixed in the other luxury and high-end sports cars.

A high level executive at my company even bought one and had a charging station installed outside his office.

There's a lot of money around here, a LOT, but not much common sense.
 
2013-10-25 02:02:31 PM  

barc0001: libranoelrose: I'll never understand the hate, I guess

People fear change, even if it's a positive change.  At the end of the day, humans are still just dumb animals deep down inside.


I can explain it in like one line:
Stopping the use of one fossil fuel to trade off for another isn't a positive change.

And don't give me this "but now with solar, and wind" shhh, you just sound really really stupid. They make up less than 5% of the electricity on the grid. Plus there is a lot of environmental damage by putting solar and wind farms up, as well as with the infrastructure that brings those forms of energy to your outlet. Also if you want to see people get up in arms, tell them you're putting a giant power line in their backyard to bring clean energy to the city (you'd fight it too). and guess what, those renewables don't work nearly as well wide stretches of the country. And if you live in a place like Southern California, adding more power draining devices to the grid sounds like the recipe for rolling blackouts.

The hate is more from the fact that people are claiming "we have this energy thing all worked out now because...electric cars, windmils, the future, and such" when it's not true.

/I'm still betting on hydrogen fuel cells.
 
2013-10-25 02:02:49 PM  

JohnBigBootay: Crass and Jaded Mother Farker: Probably not worth the bother...

I mean, what are the odds the same thing would happen to 1 of the other 3?

/If you don't live in California, you have about the same chance of seeing a Tesla Roadster in person as someone visiting the Iowa State Fair has of getting bitten by a shark.

I don't know where you live but in Seattle, every day. Look, we've been here before. No one remember the rollout of the prius? We heard much of the same shiat and now it's the #1 selling car in California, where I have heard they have a lot of people.


Here's one thing I don't get; The Prius drivers are uppity hybrid drivers that everyone hates, but not the drivers of a nearly $100k electric car? Wha?
 
2013-10-25 02:06:26 PM  

jshine: DubtodaIll: AverageAmericanGuy: Jacobin: That's why I won't buy one. Gasoline isn't flammable so I know my car will never catch on fire

I don't know where you learned that, but it's totally wrong. Gasoline is very flammable.

I thought it was inflammable.

Exactly -- in-flammable -- that means more than flammable.  It's not only flammable, it's inflammable.


www.csindy.com
 
2013-10-25 02:11:16 PM  

jimpapa: "something tells me if that same hunk of metal had gone into a traditional gas filled tank it would have been a lot worse than a battery fire that never threatened into the passenger compartment"



Yeah -- that "something" is the Tesla PR team. Damn near  verbatim in the company's official blog post, you farking shill: "It is important to note that the fire in the battery was contained to a small section near the front by the internal firewalls built into the pack structure. At no point did fire enter the passenger compartment. Had a conventional gasoline car encountered the same object on the highway, the result could have been far worse."

For my part, if "something" is going to inform me about physical reality, I'd like that something to be facts -- i.e. data that are discovered through an investigation, not opinions and marketing messages that are sold as data when an investigation is suppressed.
 
2013-10-25 02:17:54 PM  

jshine: Corvus: I always don't understand the hate for new technology. People just want to attack things because they are afraid of change.

I don't know, but I think some people see the fawning, completely uncritical adoration for a company or technology (think Apple fanboys) and react with visceral disgust.  I can see some of both sides of that coin with regards to Tesla.

Personally, it seems like a neat idea, but I've got a few issues that would prevent me from buying one as-is:

1) they're very expensive
2) if you ran out of "fuel" in an awkward location (yes, yes, this should never happen, I know), there is no way to bring fuel to the car; you'd have to tow it to an outlet
3) I would want to see empirical reliability data on the batteries in extreme cold.  Living in Minnesota, gasoline cars often *barely* start when it's -20 F outside, and battery performance is strongly dependent on temperature.


The funny thing is that Musk took the Apple/BMW/luxury item approach to building an electric car (and the infrastructure behind it). He didn't build an electric car for everyone; Nissan and GM are trying that approach. He built a car a lot of people WANTED: a luxury performance car that happens to be 100% electric. Personally, I hope both methods succeed, but I don't see gas-powered cars going away in my lifetime.
 
2013-10-25 02:19:33 PM  

pedobearapproved: And don't give me this "but now with solar, and wind" shhh, you just sound really really stupid. They make up less than 5% of the electricity on the grid. Plus there is a lot of environmental damage by putting solar and wind farms up, as well as with the infrastructure that brings those forms of energy to your outlet


You sound really stupid. And ignorant.
 
2013-10-25 02:20:20 PM  

pedobearapproved: The hate is more from the fact that people are claiming "we have this energy thing all worked out now because...electric cars, windmils, the future, and such" when it's not true.


I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that, or even imply that. You sound really stupid.
 
2013-10-25 02:20:43 PM  

pedobearapproved: barc0001: libranoelrose: I'll never understand the hate, I guess

People fear change, even if it's a positive change.  At the end of the day, humans are still just dumb animals deep down inside.

I can explain it in like one line:
Stopping the use of one fossil fuel to trade off for another isn't a positive change.

And don't give me this "but now with solar, and wind" shhh, you just sound really really stupid. They make up less than 5% of the electricity on the grid. Plus there is a lot of environmental damage by putting solar and wind farms up, as well as with the infrastructure that brings those forms of energy to your outlet. Also if you want to see people get up in arms, tell them you're putting a giant power line in their backyard to bring clean energy to the city (you'd fight it too). and guess what, those renewables don't work nearly as well wide stretches of the country. And if you live in a place like Southern California, adding more power draining devices to the grid sounds like the recipe for rolling blackouts.

The hate is more from the fact that people are claiming "we have this energy thing all worked out now because...electric cars, windmils, the future, and such" when it's not true.

/I'm still betting on hydrogen fuel cells.


Solar and wind allow more efficient use of the existing grid, you don't need gigawatt power lines from a central generation plant, as the power generated is much more local.

Gemany has lots more solar installed and has less average solar exposure. Seems to work there.
 
2013-10-25 02:21:54 PM  

pedobearapproved: They make up less than 5% of the electricity on the grid.


10-20% from wind in other countries with awesome weather, like Germany, which is also the leading installer of PV despite being a chilly, hilly forest.  Our political gridlock does not invalidate the technical feasibility of new energy sources.

Plus there is a lot of environmental damage by putting solar and wind farms up, as well as with the infrastructure that brings those forms of energy to your outlet. Also if you want to see people get up in arms, tell them you're putting a giant power line in their backyard to bring clean energy to the city (you'd fight it too). and guess what, those renewables don't work nearly as well wide stretches of the country.

As opposed to what?  Pulling electricity out of the air?  How do you think the electricity generated by fossil fuel consumption gets to your house?  You don't think there's much more environmental damage created by coal mining and fracking?  Shoving oil tankers across oceans?

And PV is one of the only technologies where distributed generation makes sense.  The dreaded giant power line runs from your roof to the rest of your house.

pedobearapproved: /I'm still betting on hydrogen fuel cells.


And hydrogen comes from _________.  Fill in the blank to see how dumb you are to complain about power lines being necessary to support electric charging.  Except electrons ship nearly for free, whereas hydrogen requires dedicated filling stations.
 
2013-10-25 02:21:58 PM  

pedobearapproved: barc0001: libranoelrose: I'll never understand the hate, I guess

People fear change, even if it's a positive change.  At the end of the day, humans are still just dumb animals deep down inside.

I can explain it in like one line:
Stopping the use of one fossil fuel to trade off for another isn't a positive change.

And don't give me this "but now with solar, and wind" shhh, you just sound really really stupid. They make up less than 5% of the electricity on the grid. Plus there is a lot of environmental damage by putting solar and wind farms up, as well as with the infrastructure that brings those forms of energy to your outlet. Also if you want to see people get up in arms, tell them you're putting a giant power line in their backyard to bring clean energy to the city (you'd fight it too). and guess what, those renewables don't work nearly as well wide stretches of the country. And if you live in a place like Southern California, adding more power draining devices to the grid sounds like the recipe for rolling blackouts.

The hate is more from the fact that people are claiming "we have this energy thing all worked out now because...electric cars, windmils, the future, and such" when it's not true.

/I'm still betting on hydrogen fuel cells.


^This is how you spread false ideas efficently.
 
2013-10-25 02:22:49 PM  
efficiently
 
2013-10-25 02:23:16 PM  

pedobearapproved: Stopping the use of one fossil fuel to trade off for another isn't a positive change.


Stopping the use of one fossil fuel to trade off for a hodge podge of renewable energies and other fossil fuels that are more efficiently utilized, is a positive change.
 
2013-10-25 02:28:23 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Jacobin: That's why I won't buy one. Gasoline isn't flammable so I know my car will never catch on fire

I don't know where you learned that, but it's totally wrong. Gasoline is very flammable.


jshine: a particular individual: libranoelrose: I'll never understand the hate, I guess

It's mostly from conservatives who have been conditioned to hate anything that deprives Big Oil of record profits. Same for Big Coal. Hence, their irrational loathing of compact fluorescents and wind and solar energy.

I don't consider myself a conservative (voted for Obama), but I'm not a huge fan of compact fluorescents.  Their spectrum is a mess since it's not a blackbody.  Invariably colors look "off" -- not to mention the problems with dimming and cold weather performance (since mercury's vapor pressure is an exponential function of temperature).


I agree, and will jump on the LED lightbulb train as soon as the 3 spare CFLs I have in the cupboard burn out. By my calculations, that should be about 4-8 years from now.
 
2013-10-25 02:36:42 PM  

Whiskey Dickens: a particular individual: libranoelrose: I'll never understand the hate, I guess

It's mostly from conservatives who have been conditioned to hate anything that deprives Big Oil of record profits. Same for Big Coal. Hence, their irrational loathing of compact fluorescents and wind and solar energy.

Is it possible that some people don't like electric cars for reasons other than American politics?  How about that internal combustion-engined vehicles are my hobby?  That I considered myself an adult the time I smelled like used 10w30 after coming home from my first real job? 
Is it possible that in our North American car culture, we've become emotionally invested in our cars? 

The people who love Teslas strike me as the type of person who sees cars as appliances.  That's fine, but I don't think your opinion is enough to direct the future of a product you seem to be apathetic towards.


http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomassowe163937.html
 
2013-10-25 02:37:22 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: "MindStalker: Road debris? The driver running over an I-Beam that shot through the floor at I hear over 10 tons of force isn't "Road Debris".

Which is why there's no need for an investigation. I've said it before: any vehicle that contains enough potential energy to move itself around for an extended period of time is going to have some risks. Whether it's gasoline, laptop batteries, nuclear power, or whatever, that's going to be some volatility."



Teslas (currently) make up a miniscule percentage of cars on the road. Very few road accidents are unique - i.e. just by sheer numbers, the type of object struck by this Tesla is bound to have been struck by a gasoline-powered car many times.  Your position would make sense only if there was a prevalence of traditional cars that have also caught fire from hitting such an object in the road. But for all the bellyaching I hear about how "this would have been worse if it had been a gasoline-powered car", I haven't seen any evidence that gasoline-powered cars actually do catch fire after hitting a similar object. In contrast, a Tesla did. Why do you believe that doesn't call for an investigation?
 
2013-10-25 02:44:02 PM  

spmkk: jimpapa: "something tells me if that same hunk of metal had gone into a traditional gas filled tank it would have been a lot worse than a battery fire that never threatened into the passenger compartment"


Yeah -- that "something" is the Tesla PR team. Damn near  verbatim in the company's official blog post, you farking shill: "It is important to note that the fire in the battery was contained to a small section near the front by the internal firewalls built into the pack structure. At no point did fire enter the passenger compartment. Had a conventional gasoline car encountered the same object on the highway, the result could have been far worse."

For my part, if "something" is going to inform me about physical reality, I'd like that something to be facts -- i.e. data that are discovered through an investigation, not opinions and marketing messages that are sold as data when an investigation is suppressed.


FTFA: "After reviewing all available data, the NHTSA has not found evidence at this time that would indicate the recent battery fire involving a Tesla Model S was the result of a vehicle safety defect or noncompliance with federal safety standards," the agency said in a statement.

Oh, wait, you don't mean an "investigation," you mean a "witch hunt." Got it.
 
2013-10-25 02:52:02 PM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: Whiskey Dickens:
The people who love Teslas strike me as the type of person who sees cars as appliances.  That's fine, but I don't think your opinion is enough to direct the future of a product you seem to be apathetic towards.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomassowe163937.html



You've got me now, masked linker. 
"I don't feel your opinion is enough to direct the future of a product you seem to be apathetic towards."
Happy?
 
2013-10-25 02:57:00 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Tesla: Model S Fire

Earlier this week, a Model S traveling at highway speed struck a large metal object, causing significant damage to the vehicle. A curved section that fell off a semi-trailer was recovered from the roadway near where the accident occurred and, according to the road crew that was on the scene, appears to be the culprit. The geometry of the object caused a powerful lever action as it went under the car, punching upward and impaling the Model S with a peak force on the order of 25 tons. Only a force of this magnitude would be strong enough to punch a 3 inch diameter hole through the quarter inch armor plate protecting the base of the vehicle.


I think this would pretty much be where normal cars would have their fuel tanks explode. The Tesla warned the user to leave the car and get off the highway, then fire.

That's actually pretty impressive in Tesla's favor, in my opinion.
 
2013-10-25 03:00:39 PM  

jshine: 2) if you ran out of "fuel" in an awkward location (yes, yes, this should never happen, I know), there is no way to bring fuel to the car; you'd have to tow it to an outlet


You could bring a big battery to recharge it. We do it with battery hungry cellphones, why not with cars?
 
2013-10-25 03:07:46 PM  

Pichu0102: Dusk-You-n-Me: Tesla: Model S Fire

Earlier this week, a Model S traveling at highway speed struck a large metal object, causing significant damage to the vehicle. A curved section that fell off a semi-trailer was recovered from the roadway near where the accident occurred and, according to the road crew that was on the scene, appears to be the culprit. The geometry of the object caused a powerful lever action as it went under the car, punching upward and impaling the Model S with a peak force on the order of 25 tons. Only a force of this magnitude would be strong enough to punch a 3 inch diameter hole through the quarter inch armor plate protecting the base of the vehicle.

I think this would pretty much be where normal cars would have their fuel tanks explode. The Tesla warned the user to leave the car and get off the highway, then fire.

That's actually pretty impressive in Tesla's favor, in my opinion.


Just making an intuitive guess, I would expect more frequent but less severe fires from electric cars. A gas tank with a rod through it will probably just leak but if it does ignite you're dying horribly not watching your car go up from the shoulder.

/will be interesting to see if data bears out the guess.
 
2013-10-25 03:22:30 PM  

anfrind: If all human progress were the result of privately funded research, we'd still be sitting in caves trying to decide if rocks are edible.


So the Pliocenian government utilized tax revenue from the cave-dwelling citizenry to discover fire, develop the stone axe and commission the first hunting party?  I guess the ultraconservative professors at my public university hid those facts from the students to make sure we didn't become liberals.
 
2013-10-25 03:23:37 PM  
and on the day that one tesla went up in flames, how many "normal" cars had accidents that resulted in fires and fuel leaks on that same day

it like the Nuclear vs Coal argument, a Nuke plant has one minor leak over a 30 year time span and everyone flips there lid, but ignores that yearly a Coal Plant puts out more rads from there day-to-day operations then the nuke plant ever will from a coolant failure
 
2013-10-25 03:34:36 PM  

Cletus C.: A car priced for the wealthy that promises a trickle down sometime in the future for the less-well-to-do. Yet it's green, so ....


They are quite nicely priced here- we have a 100% tax on regular vehicles. A roadster charges free, is tax free, exempt from tolls and ferry costs, can use bus and taxi lanes, AND costs what a BMW costs. It is all car--- not half car/half tax.


I want one!
 
2013-10-25 04:12:26 PM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: AverageAmericanGuy: Jacobin: That's why I won't buy one. Gasoline isn't flammable so I know my car will never catch on fire

I don't know where you learned that, but it's totally wrong. Gasoline is very flammable.

jshine: a particular individual: libranoelrose: I'll never understand the hate, I guess

It's mostly from conservatives who have been conditioned to hate anything that deprives Big Oil of record profits. Same for Big Coal. Hence, their irrational loathing of compact fluorescents and wind and solar energy.

I don't consider myself a conservative (voted for Obama), but I'm not a huge fan of compact fluorescents.  Their spectrum is a mess since it's not a blackbody.  Invariably colors look "off" -- not to mention the problems with dimming and cold weather performance (since mercury's vapor pressure is an exponential function of temperature).

I agree, and will jump on the LED lightbulb train as soon as the 3 spare CFLs I have in the cupboard burn out. By my calculations, that should be about 4-8 years from now.


I just replaced my first burnt-out CFL blub with an LED bulb about a month ago.  I did notice that the LED bulb has a bit of a bluish tint compared to the CFL, but that hasn't bothered me so far.

I do still have a few spare CFL bulbs lying around, but at this point they're all crappy Ikea CFL's that flicker and take almost a minute to warm up, so I'm only using them in multi-bulb fixtures where the deficiencies of one bulb won't noticeably impact the whole arrangement.

/Ikea has some very nice lamps, but they always come with terrible CFL bulbs
 
2013-10-25 04:13:24 PM  

steve42: anfrind: If all human progress were the result of privately funded research, we'd still be sitting in caves trying to decide if rocks are edible.

So the Pliocenian government utilized tax revenue from the cave-dwelling citizenry to discover fire, develop the stone axe and commission the first hunting party?  I guess the ultraconservative professors at my public university hid those facts from the students to make sure we didn't become liberals.


It's a joke, son.
 
2013-10-25 04:13:57 PM  

spmkk: Why do you believe that doesn't call for an investigation?


This is easy to answer. Please cite which regulations you feel might have been violated in the production and sale of the Model S, warranting said investigation?

You can pull unsupported statistics out of your ass all day long about how no gas-powered cars hit stuff and start fires, but you've cited nothing.
 
2013-10-25 04:22:22 PM  

Corvus: Because gas cars NEVER catch on fire. ?

I always don't understand the hate for new technology. People just want to attack things because they are afraid of change.


While your statement makes it easy to argue Poe's Law I'll respond as if you're foolish rather than malicious.

While I'm a fan of the concept of electric cars, I do think current electric cars are stupid. I'd be surprised if any existing car's charge lasted as long as the 10.8G of gas in my tank, it takes somewhere around 36 times longer to "refuel", and current battery packs wear out rather quickly and are enormously expensive to replace. Even if I could reliably find a charging station when I needed one, the trip to visit my father would take either 64 (slow charge) or 29 (quick charge) hours in a BMW i3 vs 22 hours in a gasoline car. In reality, with one driver, you'd have to sleep sometime and it'd take a rough minimum of 30 hours with gasoline, 37 with quick-charge, or 88 hours with the currently more realistic regular-rate charge (and you could realistically remove 1.5 hours for the quick-charge time and 3 hours from the slow due to charging while you sleep). Electric cars are useful in the same way as small motorcycles - they're good for running around town and making the occasional trip to a neighboring area, but they aren't ever going to be a practical replacement for gasoline cars unless manufacturers can make them competitive and charging stations become common. With quick-charge the i3 is getting close to competitive in the theoretical world, but remember in the real world you still have to be able to recharge when you need to, which just isn't possible at the moment. Hybrids aren't even a discussion because they don't get appreciably better highway mileage than my antique sports car and the difference in purchase price will buy me a whole lot of fuel.

Teslas are cool and everything, but what good is a GT car that can't do a practical grand tour? I'll get excited when an electric car can do 400 real-world miles on a charge and takes 5 minutes to recharge. Hydrogen isn't a bad idea either and has fewer real-world problems to overcome so that's where I'd put my money.

/On the bright side, I saw a Merc SLR the other day.
 
2013-10-25 04:30:30 PM  
I don't know much about the engine setup in a Tesla, but I do know that the engine of a car is a rather large, heavy and strong metal construction.

If such a car had hit that piece of metal on the highway, there's also quite a good chance that the driver would be picking said enging out of his teeth...

/first time I saw a Tesla, I was on my bike. The thing scared the shiat out of me because it's so quiet! Then I watched in awe cause it was looking purty darn nice! I want one!
//and don't worry about me and my bike on your roads... I live in Denmark
///slashies! The rules say I have to make three of them, right?
 
2013-10-25 04:45:30 PM  

Mr. Ekshun: I'd be surprised if any existing car's charge lasted as long as the 10.8G of gas in my tank, it takes somewhere around 36 times longer to "refuel", and current battery packs wear out rather quickly and are enormously expensive to replace.


1) Tesla Model S presently has a 300 mile range, which is pretty comparable to 10.8 gallons of gasoline for the average American vehicle.

2) It adds 58 miles of charge per hour off a 240V circuit with the high power wall connector.  If you can afford a Tesla, you can afford the electrician visit, and they help point you to someone experienced in your area.  These type of charging stations are starting to become fixtures along highways.  Charging off a 120V supply is way too slow for anything but quick errands (3 mi/hr).

3) Tesla's 85 kWh battery comes with an 8-year, unlimited mileage warranty.

The charging rate is the major issue.  The other stuff isn't.  Most families that can afford a Tesla have more than one car, and you'd take the other one for long road trips.  How often do you drive so much that 300 miles is prohibitive?  For me, it's a few times per year.

If it's a sole car for your family and you want an EV, I'd recommend something like the Volt, where it switches to a gasoline engine once the limited (~40 mile) battery range is exhausted.  Most people can handle their daily commute and errands on 40 miles per day.
 
2013-10-25 04:47:52 PM  
Mr. Ekshun:

... (tired bullshiat) ...

Teslas are cool and everything, but what good is a GT car that can't do a practical grand tour? I'll get excited when an electric car can do 400 real-world miles on a charge and takes 5 minutes to recharge. Hydrogen isn't a bad idea either and has fewer real-world problems to overcome so that's where I'd put my money.


And then when they meet that 400 mile mark you'll move the goalposts and be really impressed when they can run 600 miles instead.   Battery swaps on the Tesla S take 2 minutes.  That's faster than filling a gas tank btw.
 
2013-10-25 04:49:33 PM  
There should be an investigation, only because there is so little data on crashes, fires, etc. involving this type of vehicle.  Why pass up the opportunity?  Knowledge gained from this wreck, where some of the parameters are known, could be useful when police have to investigate a Tesla crash scene for which the parameters are not known.
 
2013-10-25 04:58:09 PM  

lewismarktwo: And then when they meet that 400 mile mark you'll move the goalposts and be really impressed when they can run 600 miles instead. Battery swaps on the Tesla S take 2 minutes. That's faster than filling a gas tank btw.


The real trick would be getting the electric car manufacturers to agree on a modular (or "sized") "standard" battery, so that charging stations could easily keep freshly charged batteries in inventory for whatever type of vehicle pulls up.

The problem is that you build your battery very differently when it's the sole power source (Tesla) vs. "Plan A" (Volt).  Plus, everyone considers their battery technology proprietary, and no one has settled on one, obvious best chemistry yet.  There's no equivalent to the Sears Die-Hard lead-acid battery yet.
 
2013-10-25 05:04:41 PM  

Whiskey Dickens: Mitch Taylor's Bro: Whiskey Dickens:
The people who love Teslas strike me as the type of person who sees cars as appliances.  That's fine, but I don't think your opinion is enough to direct the future of a product you seem to be apathetic towards.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomassowe163937.html


You've got me now, masked linker.
"I don't feel your opinion is enough to direct the future of a product you seem to be apathetic towards."
Happy?


No, but the fact that you completely missed the point vindicates my assumption that yours is the opinion that should not direct the future of a product. You claim "North American car culture" is your "hobby" and one in which you've become "emotionally invested." IMO, these are not reasons to dislike electric cars. Electric cars do nothing to interfere with your hobby/passion/culture.

For instance, until a recent crash, my hobby was motorcycles. Sportbikes, specifically. Currently, petroleum products are the best way to power them. But that doesn't mean I'm not excited by advances in electric bikes from companies like Mission, Brammo or even Zero. There's room for both kinds of motorcycles in the world. May the fastest one win.
 
2013-10-25 05:09:10 PM  

anfrind: Mitch Taylor's Bro: AverageAmericanGuy: Jacobin: That's why I won't buy one. Gasoline isn't flammable so I know my car will never catch on fire

I don't know where you learned that, but it's totally wrong. Gasoline is very flammable.

jshine: a particular individual: libranoelrose: I'll never understand the hate, I guess

It's mostly from conservatives who have been conditioned to hate anything that deprives Big Oil of record profits. Same for Big Coal. Hence, their irrational loathing of compact fluorescents and wind and solar energy.

I don't consider myself a conservative (voted for Obama), but I'm not a huge fan of compact fluorescents.  Their spectrum is a mess since it's not a blackbody.  Invariably colors look "off" -- not to mention the problems with dimming and cold weather performance (since mercury's vapor pressure is an exponential function of temperature).

I agree, and will jump on the LED lightbulb train as soon as the 3 spare CFLs I have in the cupboard burn out. By my calculations, that should be about 4-8 years from now.

I just replaced my first burnt-out CFL blub with an LED bulb about a month ago.  I did notice that the LED bulb has a bit of a bluish tint compared to the CFL, but that hasn't bothered me so far.

I do still have a few spare CFL bulbs lying around, but at this point they're all crappy Ikea CFL's that flicker and take almost a minute to warm up, so I'm only using them in multi-bulb fixtures where the deficiencies of one bulb won't noticeably impact the whole arrangement.

/Ikea has some very nice lamps, but they always come with terrible CFL bulbs


I hear ya, but there are LEDs on the market now that don't have the bluish tint. I think CREE makes them. I know Philips does. When I'm finally done with CFLs, they will probably be as cheap as CFLs are now.
 
2013-10-25 05:16:34 PM  

impaler: pedobearapproved: Stopping the use of one fossil fuel to trade off for another isn't a positive change.

Stopping the use of one fossil fuel to trade off for a hodge podge of renewable energies and other fossil fuels that are more efficiently utilized, is a positive change.


even if you where powering an electric car off of pure 100% fossil fuel Grid, it is still a better system

it is all about generator size, a large Coal/Oil/N.Gas Power plant has a much higher efficacy rate then a car can ever dream of. due to the size of there turbines, being non-Mobil, and 100% uptime

Now once we can get over our fear of Micro-Reactors, and move to a decentralized grid, then the fun can happen
 
2013-10-25 05:35:27 PM  

Whiskey Dickens: Is it possible that some people don't like electric cars for reasons other than American politics? How about that internal combustion-engined vehicles are my hobby?


They still exist, you know. But if you think "I like gas guzzlers" is a valid reason to make them a permanent part of our technology, well, too farkin' bad.
 
2013-10-25 05:40:31 PM  

jshine: a particular individual: libranoelrose: I'll never understand the hate, I guess

It's mostly from conservatives who have been conditioned to hate anything that deprives Big Oil of record profits. Same for Big Coal. Hence, their irrational loathing of compact fluorescents and wind and solar energy.

I don't consider myself a conservative (voted for Obama), but I'm not a huge fan of compact fluorescents.  Their spectrum is a mess since it's not a blackbody.  Invariably colors look "off" -- not to mention the problems with dimming and cold weather performance (since mercury's vapor pressure is an exponential function of temperature).


Fine, but I've heard such hatred and vitriol spewed from Limbaugh and his ilk, it's obvious their opposition has nothing to do with the spectrum or consumer choice. The effort is so concerted, it's obviously a point in their marching orders.
 
2013-10-25 07:01:47 PM  

waterrockets: "spmkk: Why do you believe that doesn't call for an investigation?

This is easy to answer. Please cite which regulations you feel might have been violated in the production and sale of the Model S, warranting said investigation?

You can pull unsupported statistics out of your ass all day long about how no gas-powered cars hit stuff and start fires, but you've cited nothing."



First -- investigations aren't only for figuring out if any regulations were violated, but also to determine if any new regulations are needed because existing ones aren't adequately preventing undesirable outcomes. This is particularly relevant in rapidly-evolving spaces like mass marketization of new locomotion technologies (e.g. electric cars).

Second -- telling me to cite statistics about how gas-powered cars haven't caught fire from collisions like this one (a claim that I never made, BTW) is like putting the onus on an atheist to demonstrate the non-existence of God. That's not how burden of proof works.

A bunch of people -- Elon Musk, media pundits, many posters in this thread -- are claiming that a gas-powered car would have fared worse than the Tesla did because it's more susceptible to fire. It's an intuitive claim because we're conditioned to feel endangered by a tank of flammable liquid stored under our seats, but intuitive != true. What I pointed out is that this claim (despite being made repeatedly) hasn't been substantiated, and if we're using it to support the theory that electric cars are safer, then it really should be.  And considering how many years', vehicle-miles' and accidents' worth of data exists on gasoline-powered cars, it shouldn't be difficult to do if the claim holds water.
 
2013-10-25 07:45:05 PM  

flondrix: There should be an investigation, only because there is so little data on crashes, fires, etc. involving this type of vehicle.  Why pass up the opportunity?  Knowledge gained from this wreck, where some of the parameters are known, could be useful when police have to investigate a Tesla crash scene for which the parameters are not known.


I suspect there was no investigation because Tesla probably did a more thorough investigation than the NHTSA would ever do.
 
2013-10-25 11:27:36 PM  
Subby,

You do realize the only reason this story is still a story at all is because of big oil and the entrenched fossil fuel automobile/truck smear campaign, yes?
 
2013-10-26 03:28:25 AM  

mrlewish: I suspect there was no investigation because Tesla probably did a more thorough investigation than the NHTSA would ever do.


My thought as well.  NTSHA isn't going to bother investigating when the manufacturer already has, especially when there weren't any serious injuries, much less fatalities.

A fire after the occupant has had plenty of time to leave the vehicle, especially with the vehicle TELLING them to leave, is a property issue, not a safety one.
 
2013-10-26 03:41:32 AM  
I was at a meeting today across the street from Tesla HQ, and as I left, the Tesla S in front of me on the street had a custom license plate reading "OPEC FTL". I larfed.
 
2013-10-26 06:51:01 AM  

mrlewish: flondrix: There should be an investigation, only because there is so little data on crashes, fires, etc. involving this type of vehicle.  Why pass up the opportunity?  Knowledge gained from this wreck, where some of the parameters are known, could be useful when police have to investigate a Tesla crash scene for which the parameters are not known.

I suspect there was no investigation because Tesla probably did a more thorough investigation than the NHTSA would ever do.


A little known fact (and not in the Dave Barry sense) is that the NHTSA relies on manufacturers to conduct their own safety certification and investigation, just like the EPA relies on them to report their own fuel efficiency. If you lift the covers up, almost every government regulator is just collecting and filing data companies hand them, and only going into derp mode when a meltdown accident occurs. Why do you think the SEC never caught the impending collapse, and even today relies on data from banks and exchanges to analyze the financial system?

The government has been cut to the bone, what do you expect? The funny part is that at least some people vehemently calling for a government-led investigation also routinely post about the incompetence and uselessness of the departments. You'd almost think that politics overruled conviction.
 
2013-10-26 06:53:52 AM  

EddyKilowatt: steve42: I'm all in favor of the investigation of "alternative, less damaging ways to generate energy."  I simply believe that if there is to be a viable alternative to petroleum-based power of any sort, it will come from a free-market implementation of technology developed by privately funded research.  The government throwing money down the rat-hole of research into solar, wind, and other green power options is not going to do it.  If someone comes up with a viable and sustainable solution, there are entrepreneurs and investors who will beat their door down to get involved.

This has to be a Poe's Law troll.


This is a Grade-A example of a Concern Troll. Start with "totally on your side" and then spend the rest of the post concluding that your side is wrong and stupid.
 
Displayed 164 of 164 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report