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  
•       •       •

5386 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Oct 2013 at 11:39 AM (36 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



164 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 14 of 164 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report