Another Tesla fire, this time while supercharging

[Poe]

I drive an immaculate top-of-the-range Lexus, that was bought new for £49,000 in 1998.  I bought it four years ago for £1500 (full service history, and had just had its cam belt changed for the second time). 

There's a guy on one of the forums who got away with a 60kWh Tesla (about 40k miles, 2.5 years old) for £35,000. Originally a £60k+ car. Still pretty high - but nearly the same price as a Leaf but much nicer to drive.

Unfortunately it looks like the 2012 model S (>70kWh) is still fetching ~$50k.   

Apparently no one wants the <=60kWh.  They're going for dirt.... hmm.

What kind of cost is it to replace the battery for someone other than the original owner?

[tom66]

I drive an immaculate top-of-the-range Lexus, that was bought new for £49,000 in 1998.  I bought it four years ago for £1500 (full service history, and had just had its cam belt changed for the second time). 

There's a guy on one of the forums who got away with a 60kWh Tesla (about 40k miles, 2.5 years old) for £35,000. Originally a £60k+ car. Still pretty high - but nearly the same price as a Leaf but much nicer to drive.

Unfortunately it looks like the 2012 model S (>70kWh) is still fetching ~$50k.   

Apparently no one wants the <=60kWh.  They're going for dirt.... hmm.

What kind of cost is it to replace the battery for someone other than the original owner?

Tesla charges 24kEuro for the 85kWh battery pack, which is roughly £18k or $26k. The battery has an 8-year warranty, though. You could likely buy a replacement 8-year old Tesla for the cost of the battery by then.

[zapta]

If safety inspections help keep them that why, what is the downside?

That's 'if' is still open. ;-)   

Do states like mine without mandatory safety tests really have a significantly higher number accidents?

[Cubdriver]

If safety inspections help keep them that why, what is the downside?

That's 'if' is still open. ;-)   

Do states like mine without mandatory safety tests really have a significantly higher number accidents that are caused by equipment failure that the safety inspections would otherwise catch prior to it happening?

I added the part in bold as I think it's relevant.  Just saying 'accidents' leaves things too wide open.  And I agree with you - if it makes no difference in the accident rate, it's mandating that people waste money for little or no return on that outlay.

-Pat

[timb]

If safety inspections help keep them that why, what is the downside?

That's 'if' is still open. ;-)   

Do states like mine without mandatory safety tests really have a significantly higher number accidents?

It's really hard to say due to a large number of other factors like traffic laws, average speed, traffic, etc. that vary state to state.

For example, the state below me, NC doesn't have inspections but mine (VA) does. The number of motorcycle fatalities per capita is higher in NC than VA. Is this due to mandatory safety inspections? Most likely not. Why? Because NC doesn't have a helmet law and VA does.

That said, my gut, personal experience and anecdotal evidence all tell me that safety inspections *do* save lives. I know it's not hard data, so it's not worth much, but there you go.

Look at it from another angle: Why should we have seatbelt laws? If someone is too stupid to buckle up, they deserve to die, right? Here's the thing, seatbelts don't just help you survive a crash, they help prevent them. How? By holding you firmly in place behind the wheel.

Say you're going 60MPH and suddenly see something in the road and swerve to avoid it; without the seatbelt locking and keeping you in place, you'd be pulled to the other side of the car. Now, you're halfway out of your seat, frantically trying to correct the swerve and *BAM* you run off the road plowing through an orphanage full of kittens and puppies.

So, if a seatbelt prevents someone from losing control of their car and hitting me, it's worth it. Same with safety inspections. If it prevents someone from rear ending me because their brakes don't work, or their windshield wipers don't function or they had a blowout, it's worth it.

[apelly]

It's my position that if more people were forced to drive manual, they would be forced to be more involved in the driving process and more attentive to what's going on.

Steer the vehicle while eating a pie, drinking a coffee, smoking a cigarette, picking your nose, txting the missus and change gears? Are you crazy?

[rrinker]

It's my position that if more people were forced to drive manual, they would be forced to be more involved in the driving process and more attentive to what's going on.

Steer the vehicle while eating a pie, drinking a coffee, smoking a cigarette, picking your nose, txting the missus and change gears? Are you crazy?

That's the point - they wouldn't be able to do it. Not and get very far.

[tom66]

It's my position that if more people were forced to drive manual, they would be forced to be more involved in the driving process and more attentive to what's going on.

Steer the vehicle while eating a pie, drinking a coffee, smoking a cigarette, picking your nose, txting the missus and change gears? Are you crazy?

That's the point - they wouldn't be able to do it. Not and get very far.

Motorway driving is easy hands off. I've seen someone texting going 75mph in the right-hand lane of the M1. They were in a newish BMW, maybe it had lane assist, but it seems stupidly reckless to me.

[Someone]

Look at it from another angle: Why should we have seatbelt laws? If someone is too stupid to buckle up, they deserve to die, right? Here's the thing, seatbelts don't just help you survive a crash, they help prevent them. How? By holding you firmly in place behind the wheel.

You might want to look at the academic research on that topic, a lot of it (most of the recent and high quality work?) comes to the conclusion that seat belt laws may save some lives of people inside cars but the overall safety of the population has been reduced. The short explanation is with expanded safety for the occupants, risk compensation applies and exposes everyone else to more danger while the occupants remain roughly as safe as they had before. Other safety "improvements" such as reinforced pillars and side airbags have reduced the visibility of the occupants, plus all the distractions of a modern vehicle.

[Kjelt]

No, they drive on the right side of the road. We drive on the correct side of the road.

I dare you to try this in any other country in the world except some former slavecolony of the "great" british empire,
and while at it forget about the miles/h to km/h conversion

[KJDS]

No, they drive on the right side of the road. We drive on the correct side of the road.

I dare you to try this in any other country in the world except some former slavecolony of the "great" british empire,
and while at it forget about the miles/h to km/h conversion

When was Japan a former slavecolony?

[rrinker]

It's my position that if more people were forced to drive manual, they would be forced to be more involved in the driving process and more attentive to what's going on.

Steer the vehicle while eating a pie, drinking a coffee, smoking a cigarette, picking your nose, txting the missus and change gears? Are you crazy?

That's the point - they wouldn't be able to do it. Not and get very far.

Motorway driving is easy hands off. I've seen someone texting going 75mph in the right-hand lane of the M1. They were in a newish BMW, maybe it had lane assist, but it seems stupidly reckless to me.

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

[Poe]

What kind of cost is it to replace the battery for someone other than the original owner?

Tesla charges 24kEuro for the 85kWh battery pack, which is roughly £18k or $26k. The battery has an 8-year warranty, though. You could likely buy a replacement 8-year old Tesla for the cost of the battery by then.

Ouch.

Is that brand new or reconditioned? 

Do battery manufacturers or Tesla have massive >100% margins or is Elon's dream about an affordable electric car dependent on a new battery technology?

[dannyf]

if it makes no difference in the accident rate, it's mandating that people waste money for little or no return on that outlay.

Unfortunately, that happens to be the core competency of governments and politicians.

[zapta]

When was Japan a former slavecolony?

He must be referring to the great British invasion of Japan:

[CatalinaWOW]

It's my position that if more people were forced to drive manual, they would be forced to be more involved in the driving process and more attentive to what's going on.

Steer the vehicle while eating a pie, drinking a coffee, smoking a cigarette, picking your nose, txting the missus and change gears? Are you crazy?

That's the point - they wouldn't be able to do it. Not and get very far.

Motorway driving is easy hands off. I've seen someone texting going 75mph in the right-hand lane of the M1. They were in a newish BMW, maybe it had lane assist, but it seems stupidly reckless to me.

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

Exactly.  Recently while on holiday in a sunny west coast location I saw two serious accidents.  In the first a car sailed past me rather rapidly.  Looked over and saw the driver was reading a book propped on the steering wheel.  A few seconds later a multi car pileup involving that car.    A couple of days later another car sails past with the driver on a smart phone.  Couldn't say whether he was Google mapping, texting, or checking his stock portfolio, they all have the same effect on driving.    About a half mile later traffic ahead came to a sudden stop.  Unfortunately the driver on the cell phone didn't come to a sudden stop until he hit the car in front. 

Both those accidents involved illegal activity, and unfortunately it wasn't just the moron who was impacted.

[Kjelt]

When was Japan a former slavecolony?

Still the british fault 

Japanese_railwayAlthough Japan was never part of the British Empire, its traffic also keeps to the left. This practice goes back all the way to the Edo period (1603-1867) when Samurai ruled the country (same sword and scabbard deal as before), but it wasn’t until 1872 that this unwritten rule became official. That was the year when Japan’s first railway was introduced.

Three countries approached the Japanese government to help them build a railway system. These three countries were America, France, and Britain. In the end, Britain won out. In 1872 the first Japanese railway was up and running thanks to the British. A massive network of railways spread out from there, all of which were left-side running. And as we all know, Japan loves their trains. If American or French railways had been built instead, Japan would probably be driving on the right side of the road today.

[KJDS]

When was Japan a former slavecolony?

Still the british fault 

Japanese_railwayAlthough Japan was never part of the British Empire, its traffic also keeps to the left. This practice goes back all the way to the Edo period (1603-1867) when Samurai ruled the country (same sword and scabbard deal as before), but it wasn’t until 1872 that this unwritten rule became official. That was the year when Japan’s first railway was introduced.

Three countries approached the Japanese government to help them build a railway system. These three countries were America, France, and Britain. In the end, Britain won out. In 1872 the first Japanese railway was up and running thanks to the British. A massive network of railways spread out from there, all of which were left-side running. And as we all know, Japan loves their trains. If American or French railways had been built instead, Japan would probably be driving on the right side of the road today.

But the right side of the road is the wrong side to drive on, the right side to drive on is the left.

[Mechanical Menace]

But the right side of the road is the wrong side to drive on, the right side to drive on is the left.

Also the safer side of the road to drive on if crash stats are anything to go by. But meh, that might not be because most people are right eye dominant so their dominant eye is covering oncoming traffic, it may be more due to the cultures of those few countries that drive on the left.

[Rick Law]

...
...
That said, my gut, personal experience and anecdotal evidence all tell me that safety inspections *do* save lives. I know it's not hard data, so it's not worth much, but there you go.

Look at it from another angle: Why should we have seatbelt laws? If someone is too stupid to buckle up, they deserve to die, right? Here's the thing, seatbelts don't just help you survive a crash, they help prevent them. How? By holding you firmly in place behind the wheel.
...
...

I don't think any reasonable person would say safety inspection will not save life.  The point is that it save less live than had the money been spend on something more efficient in life-saving.

For example, the Seat belt laws you cited is one such more efficient life saving method.

Some article cites distracted driving and drunk driving is the biggest killer.  Young (<25 year old) drivers also tend to encounter more accidents.  Use the money to target that and likely more life would be saved. 

Short of Bill Gates, most of us have pay-cheques with specific numbers printed and only issued during specific times.  Resource is a limited commodity.  You take more from this end and you have less on the other end.  It is only sensible to spend it where it has the biggest bang for the buck.

As other higher-frequency killers are targeted and when their frequencies are reduced, other "frequent causes" will take over.  Some point in time, safety inspection may well be the most efficient.  We are not at that point in time.

[bitseeker]

Still the british fault 

In 1872 the first Japanese railway was up and running thanks to the British. A massive network of railways spread out from there, all of which were left-side running. And as we all know, Japan loves their trains. If American or French railways had been built instead, Japan would probably be driving on the right side of the road today.

Thanks, Kjelt. I always wondered about the origins of driving on the left over there.

[bitseeker]

But the right side of the road is the wrong side to drive on, the right side to drive on is the left.

The right side to drive on is the one where headlights are not oncoming. 

[zapta]

...If American or French railways had been built instead, Japan would probably be driving on the right side of the road today.

Are you mixing cars or trains?

[timb]

...
...
That said, my gut, personal experience and anecdotal evidence all tell me that safety inspections *do* save lives. I know it's not hard data, so it's not worth much, but there you go.

Look at it from another angle: Why should we have seatbelt laws? If someone is too stupid to buckle up, they deserve to die, right? Here's the thing, seatbelts don't just help you survive a crash, they help prevent them. How? By holding you firmly in place behind the wheel.
...
...

Short of Bill Gates, most of us have pay-cheques with specific numbers printed and only issued during specific times.  Resource is a limited commodity.  You take more from this end and you have less on the other end.  It is only sensible to spend it where it has the biggest bang for the buck.

Exactly. Inspections cost $10/yr in my state. If you can't afford that, then odds are you're not putting the appropriate money into your car to keep it road worthy and thus shouldn't be driving in the first place.

I've been there myself when I was younger. I bought a really nice sporty car and put summer tires on it and a few months later ran into finance problems. I had run parts of the tread completely smooth, to the point I knew it was unsafe. If it wasn't for my inspection being due, I would have put it off. Instead, I was late with rent that month.

Anecdotal, I know.

[Rick Law]

...
...
That said, my gut, personal experience and anecdotal evidence all tell me that safety inspections *do* save lives. I know it's not hard data, so it's not worth much, but there you go.

Look at it from another angle: Why should we have seatbelt laws? If someone is too stupid to buckle up, they deserve to die, right? Here's the thing, seatbelts don't just help you survive a crash, they help prevent them. How? By holding you firmly in place behind the wheel.
...
...

Short of Bill Gates, most of us have pay-cheques with specific numbers printed and only issued during specific times.  Resource is a limited commodity.  You take more from this end and you have less on the other end.  It is only sensible to spend it where it has the biggest bang for the buck.

Exactly. Inspections cost $10/yr in my state. If you can't afford that, then odds are you're not putting the appropriate money into your car to keep it road worthy and thus shouldn't be driving in the first place.
...
...
Anecdotal, I know.

Yup, that is the trouble with anecdotal.  It is true, but you cannot plan with it.