Tesla autopilot burns passenger to death!

[Siwastaja]

Yes this is a bit confusing and badly explained by the website. The equivalent lithium content is just a measure of how safe the battery is supposed to be for transport purposes.

Indeed confusing. "Equivalent lithium content" - btw., the Battery University site is the first time I hear about this term, and I have been reading through transportation safety regulations, never seeing it; they always use the Wh capacity rating which makes more sense - , makes an abysmally poor indicator of the transportation safety, because, well, the lithium itself has absolutely nothing to do with the safety. Hence, it's just a completely arbitrary parameter which happens to correlate with the battery size and hence, its destructive power. The confusion now ensues, because for some other battery types, lithium content is relevant, not arbitrary.

Copper content, aluminium content, or graphite content could be used as well - or even easier, just the full battery weight, which would be trivially easy to measure (at least when the cell-to-case ratio is high). The Wh capacity rating works at least equally well, if not better, and creates much less confusion.

Of course, once someone figures out how to make the chemistry itself considerably safer (so that the only remaining risk is external electrical short, which is trivial to protect against with internal fuses), then the Wh rating stops being relevant as well.

If regulation based on "Equivalent Lithium Content" is really a thing, then this is a textbook example of people who have no freaking clue what they are dealing with coming up with regulations that, for a layman, externally look very scientific and well-based due to the usage of nice abbreviations, made-up tech terms, and worst, concepts that require special measurements and specific math to be applied. A classical example of pseudoscience.

[Rerouter]

To my knowledge, the Wh rating restrictions, are less to do with the amount of lithium contained, and much more to do with how much energy can be released if it fails catastrophically, equally about how easy it can be smothered (have to be in carry on), yes smothering it doesnt stop it, but if you can contain it, then the cabin doesnt get as much smoke. and you can begin flooding it, (There is a decent amount of water carried on all flights that the crew serving area can draw from)

This is why the restrictions tend to be per battery up to a much higher total limit for most airlines, e.g. I can only carry a certain size drill battery to be under the 50Wh per battery limit of my local airline, but I can carry 5 of them in the same bag without issue.

Same for drone flying, I've seem people explaining how to prepare there batteries to bring 50+ 4S 3600mAh packs on an internation flight, most of it was fitting battery plug caps, zip tying the caps on, and storing the batteries in a partitioned flameproof bag, that they then put in a normal backpack.

[Siwastaja]

In carry-on luggage, it makes sense that separate batteries are allowed - after all, people are around to react and physically separate them before the fire spreads (minutes of time). Within one big battery pack, this is impossible.

The electrical Wh rating (not including all potential chemical energy which will be additionally released in an accident) doesn't directly tell us how much energy can be released, in what time, and in which way (e.g., how far the flames shoot), but since at this point, all consumer li-ion batteries are kinda close enough in the terms of safety, the correlation to the electrical Wh rating is enough to be the basis for the regulations. Lithium content could be, indeed, used as a similar correlative parameter, it's just... stupid and misleading, but it would work similarly. But note how extra stupid that battery university methodology is: their "lithium content" even hasn't anything to do with lithium content, it's just the Ah capacity (which is a completely wrong parameter, but I'm sure they add a correction term for voltage somewhere else, to make it as hard to follow as possible) pseudoscientifically renamed into "equivalent lithium content".

Once there are batteries with better safety, this safety<->electrical Wh rating  correlation breaks down, and they need to come up with something else.

[Halcyon]

Gasoline is highly flammable too though and I've personally witnessed at least three conventional cars fully engulfed in flames on the side of the road. It stands to reason that the incidents I've been in the right place at the right time to witness are a very small portion of the actual number that occur. Dozens of people die every single day in car accidents.

That is another myth. It is not the gasoline which is burning but the interior of the car. The gasoline is stored outside the passenger compartment.

Fire often starts at engine, and it's gasoline that burns.

The small amount of petrol (or gasoline) left in the engine/lines is negligible compared to all the other combustible plastics, oils and metals present. The moment the fuel pump stops, the fuel flow stops. Car crashes involving rupturing of the fuel tanks are actually uncommon. Fuel tanks (both metal and plastic) are designed specifically to distort but not rupture during an impact. In most crashes, the fluids you see spilled on the roadway are oil, brake fluid and coolant.

[Mr. Scram]

The small amount of petrol (or gasoline) left in the engine/lines is negligible compared to all the other combustible plastics, oils and metals present. The moment the fuel pump stops, the fuel flow stops. Car crashes involving rupturing of the fuel tanks are actually uncommon. Fuel tanks (both metal and plastic) are designed specifically to distort but not rupture during an impact. In most crashes, the fluids you see spilled on the roadway are oil, brake fluid and coolant.

It's not that rare for oil or fuel spilled to ignite, which then easily ignites the other flammables around. Petrol is the most likely suspect, and you only need a tiny bit in a hot place to get things going.

[Rick Law]

The small amount of petrol (or gasoline) left in the engine/lines is negligible compared to all the other combustible plastics, oils and metals present. The moment the fuel pump stops, the fuel flow stops. Car crashes involving rupturing of the fuel tanks are actually uncommon. Fuel tanks (both metal and plastic) are designed specifically to distort but not rupture during an impact. In most crashes, the fluids you see spilled on the roadway are oil, brake fluid and coolant.

It's not that rare for oil or fuel spilled to ignite, which then easily ignites the other flammables around. Petrol is the most likely suspect, and you only need a tiny bit in a hot place to get things going.

Actually, I understand that the car's hydraulic fluid is easier to catch fire than gasoline - but then of course that would depend on what kind/brand of hydraulic fluid is in question.  The not-yet-discussed issue is flash point.  Basing on visual appearance (from youtube videos), the battery fire appears to get you to the car's flashpoint a lot quicker than gasoline fire of similar flame-size.  So I would assume the temperature of the flame is likely higher.  Appearance can be misleading, so hard data there may be useful.

As to WH or lithium-equivalence as a gauge to measure transport-safety:  Energy content alone is not a meaningful measurement for safety decisions in this context.  It should be paired with Power.  Even an extremely high WH but with a very low power (low current) capability should present very low risk.  Of course we all want the battery to have as much energy as possible, but we surely should not need Kilo-Watt-hour equivalent of energy delivered in nano-seconds.  Yeah, acceleration is fun, but perhaps battery packs should also consider "what is the most power it should deliver at a given moment" and bake that into the battery design - or the design of the battery pack/assembly.

If we can jiggle the chemistry, we may be able to get the battery to deliver as much as possible but below a point where it can get the car to flash point quickly in event of fire.  The term "quickly" is subjective, what may be enough for a young healthy person to escape may not give adequate time for a 70 year old with bad knee to get away.  No need for perfection here, just need to get to the point where it is not like hand a grenade with the pin pulled (with the accident being the pin-pulling).

[wraper]

the battery fire appears to get you to the car's flashpoint a lot quicker than gasoline fire of similar flame-size.  So I would assume the temperature of the flame is likely higher.  Appearance can be misleading, so hard data there may be useful.

It's completely not true. Battery does not ignite immediately. Nearby cells need to be heated first before they ignite. When tesla fires happened, people had quiet some time to exit the car. Also battery is made in a way that fire is blown to the sides, instead of igniting the cabin. When ICE car catches fire, often there is less than a minute before cabin is in fire.

[wraper]

[Halcyon]

The small amount of petrol (or gasoline) left in the engine/lines is negligible compared to all the other combustible plastics, oils and metals present. The moment the fuel pump stops, the fuel flow stops. Car crashes involving rupturing of the fuel tanks are actually uncommon. Fuel tanks (both metal and plastic) are designed specifically to distort but not rupture during an impact. In most crashes, the fluids you see spilled on the roadway are oil, brake fluid and coolant.

It's not that rare for oil or fuel spilled to ignite, which then easily ignites the other flammables around. Petrol is the most likely suspect, and you only need a tiny bit in a hot place to get things going.

I didn't say it was rare, I said it was uncommon. In 5+ years in the Fire Brigade and 10+ years in the Police, I could probably count on two hands the number of crashes I've attended which have involved fuel spills and/or fire, out of many hundreds. Diesel is especially difficult to ignite. Car fires resulting from collisions (even serious ones involving deaths) are not common. For decades, cars have been designed and engineered to not kill their occupants in an inferno upon impact (Ford vehicles excepted).

[Mr. Scram]

I didn't say it was rare, I said it was uncommon. In 5+ years in the Fire Brigade and 10+ years in the Police, I could probably count on two hands the number of crashes I've attended which have involved fuel spills and/or fire, out of many hundreds. Car fires resulting from collisions (even serious ones involving deaths) are not common. For decades, cars have been designed and engineered to not kill their occupants in an inferno upon impact (Ford vehicles excepted).

A quick check shows that fluids in the engine compartment are the second most common item first ignited, with 18 percent after 29 percent for wiring. Sixty percent of fatal fires were the result of a collision.

"Approximately one in eight fires responded to by fire departments across the nation is a highway vehicle fire. This does not include the tens of thousands of fire department responses to highway vehicle accident sites.
Unintentional action (38 percent) was the leading cause of highway vehicle fires.
Eighty-three percent of highway vehicle fires occurred in passenger vehicles.
Sixty-two percent of highway vehicle fires and 36 percent of fatal highway vehicle fires originated in the engine, running gear or wheel area of the vehicle.
Mechanical failure was the leading factor contributing to the ignition of highway vehicle fires (45 percent).
Insulation around electrical wiring (29 percent) and flammable liquids in the engine area (18 percent) were the most common items first ignited in highway vehicle fires.
Sixty percent of fatal vehicle fires were the result of a collision."

There's apparently an average of 171500 highway fires, which is close to 500 each day. The total road vehicle fires is apparently around 225000 each year, although those numbers are a little older. That's over 600 fires each year. It surprises me how large the highway portion is. I'd think parked vehicles would represent a much larger portion, but it does seem smashed up cars cause the vast majority of the fires and fatal fires.

https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/v19i2.pdf
https://www.nfpa.org/-/media/Files/News-and-Research/Fire-statistics-and-reports/US-Fire-Problem/ostypeofvehicle.ashx

[Halcyon]

You'll probably find a large portion of vehicle fires are not due to collisions, rather faults with the vehicle or old/unmaintained vehicles. Ford Rangers for example have a design flaw where vehicles used off-road tend to accumulate grass and other combustibles around the DPF. The dry grass and very hot operating temperatures cause a number of fires in those vehicles. Electrical problems are another common cause.

My points in this thread were specifically about vehicle fires and/or fuel tank ruptures during collisions and impacts. Instances of those are not as common as you would think.

However your stats concern me. That is A LOT of fatalities on the road over there.

[Mr. Scram]

You'll probably find a large portion of vehicle fires are not due to collisions, rather faults with the vehicle or old/unmaintained vehicles. Ford Rangers for example have a design flaw where vehicles used off-road tend to accumulate grass and other combustibles around the DPF. The dry grass and very hot operating temperatures cause a number of fires in those vehicles. Electrical problems are another common cause.

My points in this thread were specifically about vehicle fires and/or fuel tank ruptures during collisions and impacts. Instances of those are not as common as you would think.

However your stats concern me. That is A LOT of fatalities on the road over there.

The quoted link above tells us "Sixty percent of fatal vehicle fires were the result of a collision." Those are numbers coming from the US Fire Administration, so I have little reason to doubt them. They seemed to have looked into the way cars catch fire somewhat comprehensively. They're impressive numbers and give pause, indeed.

[james_s]

Well this is purely anecdotal but thinking about it there are two friends of mine I can think who have had car fires. One was a fuel leak at the carburetor that dripped on the exhaust manifold and caught fire, he was very lucky and caught that in time to save the car. The next was an idiot and forgot to put the oil fill cap on, oil splattered out onto the exhaust while he was driving and eventually caught fire, these cars were both in motion on the road when the fires started. I myself had a very close call I mentioned earlier with the wrong washer on the banjo bolt.

Speaking from experience with various flammable fluids I'm quite convinced that gasoline is the most easily ignited of any fluid used in a typical car. Squirt a few cc's on a piece of nearly red hot metal and it *will* burst into flames. Engine oil will catch fire eventually but it has to get really hot and it tends to make a ton of smoke first. Brake fluid is apparently flammable to some degree but I've never seen it burn.

I think people underestimate the amount of stored energy in fuels. Pour a teaspoon of gasoline on the ground and light it, it's quite impressive how easy it is to light off and how long it will burn for. Diesel has more energy per volume but it's far harder to get it burning in the first place. Lots of other materials will burn well once they get going but they don't burst into flame almost explosively on contact with a hot surface the way gasoline does. I still remember splashing it on the lawnmower muffler like it was yesterday, instant fireball.

[johnwa]

(Ford vehicles excepted).

No kidding. Here is a rather unlikely source of ignition that I have personally seen of two separate occasions: Imagine you are an engineer tasked with designing the speed control for the heater/AC fan. You could use some sort of active device, but that costs money, it is cheaper to just put a resistor in series with the fan motor. And the cheapest resistor is just a bit of resistance wire. Of course it will still get hot, but you can make the wire shorter (saving even more money) by using forced air cooling. And it so happens that, whenever the resistor is in circuit, there will be a nice draught of air from the fan. So, you put the coil of resistance wire in the air intake duct to the fan.

Now, in Australia, we have gum trees. Lots of gum trees. And people park their cars under the gum trees. And the gum trees have leaves, full of highly flammable eucalyptus oil. And the leaves fall off the trees, into the air intake port below the windscreen, and right down onto the resistance wire.

So, the unsuspecting driver decides to turn the fan on. But the airflow is blocked by all the leaves, so the resistance wire overheats, and the leaves start to smoulder. And as the blockage burns away, the fan starts moving air again, which of course causes the leaves to flare up, and fills the cabin with smoke in the process. Hopefully, the driver has the presence of mind to turn the fan off, and the fire dies down...

[Rerouter]

I would also add greatwall utes to the list of vehicles in that exception group,

they use an extremely flammable foam to coat all there wiring, including right to the underside of the cigarette lighter socket which has slots at the bottom to reduce dust, and guess what, if some crud starts to smoulder on the lighter part and drops through a slot, you have about 1 minute before the fire has spread a full meter on the wiring harness, reached the foam underlay and started true horror.

I've had to fit ratio boxes to correct the reads 100kmph at 85kmph road speed crap they have been pulling, and now I will not approach one without a fire extinguisher in hand after a spark during an idiot moment had me running the fastest 100m dash in my life when i watched it burning down like a theatrical explosive fuse.

[TheNewLab]

Another link. Orlando Sdentinel.
Appears speeding they estimate 90mph on city road did not help, Plus two teenagers several years ago, 115mph
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/fl-ne-davie-tesla-crash-fole-20190225-story.html


Me? why would anyone want self-driving. that is the best part!

[Rerouter]

Self driving would be good if your driving literally hundreds of kilometers of highway, But its just like the self parking features most cars have these days, people get lazier, and while dangerous, we would rather spend our time thinking about other things than constantly focused on the road.

I've got about 14 hours of driving these next few days, just highway to linking road to highway, If the car could be trusted to handle that, then there are many more things I would want to do than what I can shuffle with the 1 - 2 free though threads I have to work with while driving.

[maginnovision]

I don't think stress testing poorly maintained and poorly built vehicles give you a good indication of how things typically go.

As to the batteries need to be hot... They were already getting a 2 ton vehicle to run at ~100MPH, they were hot. It's a reason these aren't great track cars, they can't sustain the performance.

[eugenenine]

You focus way too much on the gasoline. Once the ignition is off (and I assume people do that when leaving a car or when a car is parked) the fuel is no longer under pressure. Even if a fire is started by a fuel leak, the majority of the stuff that burns are the interior and other liquid like brake fluid and maybe some engine oil but not the fuel. It is not like fuel is spread everywhere!

Actually fuel is still under pressure with the car off.  There is a one way valve in the fuel tank which prevents it from flowing back and when you first start a car that has been sitting for a while the pump will turn on to 'prime' the pressure in case of leak down.  If you have a modern car which starts to crank longer than normal one test is to check the fuel pressure while running and again after its sat for a while to see if the pressure has leaked down too much.
If you have ever changed a fuel filter you can see that there is enough pressure and volume in the lines to spray fuel for several seconds when you disconnect it.

Also gasoline in it liquid form is had to ignite, its the vapors that ignite, which is why the carburetor or fuel injectors spray a fine mist to atomize the liquid into a vapor to mix with air to burn the vapor.  What happens typically in a car fire is you get a tiny pinhole in a fuel line due to a bend or pinch or cut by some other part of the vehicle and the line pressure causes a fine mist to spray.  if the conditions are just right you can get a similar mixture as needed to ignite and burn easily and that few seconds is enough to get other stuff burning.

[eugenenine]

You'll probably find a large portion of vehicle fires are not due to collisions, rather faults with the vehicle or old/unmaintained vehicles. Ford Rangers for example have a design flaw where vehicles used off-road tend to accumulate grass and other combustibles around the DPF. The dry grass and very hot operating temperatures cause a number of fires in those vehicles. Electrical problems are another common cause.

Thats not a ranger specific issue, most any vehicle driven in tall grass has the potential to gather grass and such.  Its usually the Cat which causes the fire to start as they are usually the hottest part under the vehicle.

ATF is another, moving slow you don't get into torque convertor lock and that generates a lot of heat.  too much heat the ATF can boil up the check/fill tube and spray on the hot engine and catch fire.

[Gyro]

Oops, somebody drop a spanner?

A fire at a Tesla car service centre has damaged at least half of the site.

The "significant fire" broke out in the workshop area at the premises in County Oak Way in Crawley, West Sussex, just before 10:30 GMT. No-one was injured.

Thick black smoke could be seen over the building, with one eyewitness reporting "many small explosions".

More than 50 firefighters and eight fire engines were sent to tackle the blaze, which was brought under control three hours later.

A spokeswoman for the fire service said about 50% of the single storey building had been damaged by fire and heat.

She added: "Four appliances are still at the scene with an aerial platform and an incident command unit.

"The incident is now being scaled down... they are now just locating any hotspots in the property to make sure it is extinguished and we will return later to ensure the fire is out."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-47427311

[MT]

Tesla car mysteriously speeds into a house garage and reignites 3 times, sets house on fire, firemen dont know what to do, calls Tesla product support to get directives. Its saaad Covfefe!

[madires]

One of the issues with Tesla is:
Tesla's promise of 'full-self-driving' angers autonomous vehicle experts
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/02/tech/tesla-full-self-driving/index.html

[wraper]

One of the issues with Tesla is:
Tesla's promise of 'full-self-driving' angers autonomous vehicle experts
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/02/tech/tesla-full-self-driving/index.html

This article clearly shows those 'experts' have no idea what Tesla offers and claims.

Experts say Tesla's "full self-driving" feature is really a partial self-driving feature that handles minor driving tasks such as keeping pace with other cars on a highway and still requires diligent human oversight. To most autonomous vehicle experts, "full self-driving" means a car in which a person could safely fall asleep behind the wheel, and the steering wheel and pedals aren't even needed.

Tesla doesn't claim what's currently available being self driving to begin with. You can buy "self driving" hardware. Feature itself will be available in the furure.

[Mr. Scram]

Tesla car mysteriously speeds into a house garage and reignites 3 times, sets house on fire, firemen dont know what to do, calls Tesla product support to get directives. Its saaad Covfefe!

Considering you started this thread and have been consistently posting anti Tesla messages,  this would be a good time to disclose any interests you may have in the matter. Is there anything we should know about?

Firefighters not knowing what to do seems mostly a new technology being introduced which they don't know how to handle yet. Electrics cars will be here for a while to come, so it's in everyone's best interest they figure it out quickly.