Tesla on Fire

[Scooter]

First off, lets think about what is the proper terminology. Insurance companies do not use the word "crash." They use "collision." I would tend to use the insurance terminology. Here is how Saefco defines an incident:

Collision coverage: Pays to repair damage to your vehicle that is caused by an accident involving other vehicles and objects like guard rails, sign posts, trees and buildings. In other words...stationary objects. (maybe "crash"?)

Comprehensive coverage: Pays to repair or replace your vehicle if it is stolen, vandalized or damaged in some way other than in a collision. Includes loss or damage from fire, flood, falling objects, wind, hail and collision with an animal. In other words...non-stationary objects.

Before you come down too hard on Island, I would look at these definitions. I personally would agree that hitting a metal object in the road would not be a "crash," but would be covered as a comprehensive coverage item, like hitting an animal. To me, the closest definition to crash would be collision.

[jorian]

Originally Posted by GH85Carrera

Gas powered cars catch on fire all the time. Ask any fireman. It is not newsworthy. Like another car crash. If a airplane lands off filed it is headline news.

^This^

If it was any other car co it wouldn't be newsworthy.

Elon Musk is a modern day Henry Ford.

[Jim Richards]

Yep

[legion]

I dislike Tesla because my tax money was given to them without my consent. If they had a product that really could be successful on its own, they wouldn't need to be on the dole from the get-go.

[fast_e_man]

Well, Elon Musk has been masterful at getting gov't support for both of his current ventures; Tesla and SpaceX.

What most the American public thinks is "Commercialization of Space", is heavily subsidized with taxpayer money. Taxpayers are shoveling money into SpaceX and most have no idea.

Regarding Tesla, I'm pretty sure he has now paid back the gov't loans.

[Jim Richards]

Would you rather pay American firms to deliver cargo and eventually astronauts, or pay the Russians? SpaceX is getting paid to develop services. Sounds like capitalism to me.

[red-beard]

There are newer Lithium batteries out there. I had a discussion recently with our in house battery expert (Aurel). LiFePo4 batteries are what should be used from now on.

[GWN7]

Everything burns. The only difference is with a electric car (or hybrid car) that is on fire is you have to worry about getting electrocuted.

When Toyota came out with their first hybrid car they sent out diagrams to all the fire departments (At least in Canada) of the cars electrical system with a "Do Not Cut In This Area" stickers so we wouldn't hit the main power supply lines. We sent a request to GM asking for info on their EV1 and were told it was not available .

[fast_e_man]

Would you rather pay American firms to deliver cargo and eventually astronaughts, or pay the Russians? SpaceX is getting paid to develop services. Sounds like capitalism to me.

That's an easy answer. But you are opening a topic where you are probably not well informed.

When someone who was the largest campaign contributor to the POTUS then receives gov't funding that is not available to other American firms that is not really capitalism. I call it favoritism.

Do you realize that SpaceX has been given an exception from the Gov't shutdown, and they are back at work getting ready for their next launch, while other space launch companies (contractors, not gov't employees) are shutdown. That strikes me as puzzling --- or maybe not. There have been substantial performance issues with SpaceX launches, but they are never disclosed by our gov't, yet if a Boeing or Lockheed Martin rocket had issues, it would be widely known and those contractors would be taking heat. Our gov't isn't really supposed to be picking winners and losers are they? Isn't this supposed to be a free market economy?

Without turning this into a PARF thread, this is one reason why Tesla attacts attention, and why some look at their questionable accounting practices and product issues with a critical eye.

Don't get me wrong, I admire Musk's ingenuity and his business savvy. I also admire Madonna for her business acumen, not her music. You won't find me at a Madonna concert, and you won't find me behind the wheel as Tesla owner. In one case it's because I don't like the product (her music), in the other case I don't support the uneven playing field, even though I admire Musk's ability to manipulate the market segment.

[Jim Richards]

You made a number of interesting claims. Would you mind providing substantiation so that we can be as well informed on the topic as you are. Thanks.

[fast_e_man]

Jim,

If you do some google searches you'll find the information on campaign contributions, the amount of taxpayer money that is subsidizing SpaceX, and the loans made to Tesla. I don't have a set of hot links saved to paste in. I think most of that has been in WSJ articles as well.

The SpaceX launch performance and current events on exceptions to gov't shutdown is not in the public domain, so I can't tell you how I know. You could go to youtube and search for Gwynn Shotwell, she is the pres of Spacex. She did a post launch interview where she alluded to "an issue" and then realized that might not be good to advertise (it was an engine problem). After that SpaceX doesn't say anything. Might be a follow up article by one of the trade pubs.

but, this is a thread on Li+ car batteries

Ed

[Flieger]

Originally Posted by red-beard

There are newer Lithium batteries out there. I had a discussion recently with out in house battery expert (Aurel). LiFePo4 batteries are what should be used from now on.

Lithium Iron Phosphate isn't new. We used them for a couple years in our Formula Electric car. First year we used Zero motorcycle battery packs, which are Lithium Polymer I believe. We switched back to LiPo's this past year but had to get a few hundred pouch cells and put them together into our own pack. We did it because their energy density is greater. But the LiFeP had the great advantage of not needing a temperature monitoring system for each cell- just the state of charge. The LiPo's need to have a thermal monitor for each cell which will warn us of thermal runaway, in which case we park, get out, and watch it burn to the ground.

Originally Posted by fast_e_man

Jim,

If you do some google searches you'll find the information on campaign contributions, the amount of taxpayer money that is subsidizing SpaceX, and the loans made to Tesla. I don't have a set of hot links saved to paste in. I think most of that has been in WSJ articles as well.

The SpaceX launch performance and current events on exceptions to gov't shutdown is not in the public domain, so I can't tell you how I know. You could go to youtube and search for Gwynn Shotwell, she is the pres of Spacex. She did a post launch interview where she alluded to "an issue" and then realized that might not be good to advertise (it was an engine problem). After that SpaceX doesn't say anything. Might be a follow up article by one of the trade pubs.

but, this is a thread on Li+ car batteries

Ed

You realize that a loan means you get interest on that money right?

[fast_e_man]

You realize that a loan means you get interest on that money right?

Yes, the US taxpayers did earn interest on the ~$450M loan. I think we earned 2.6%.

Read this article, then assess if you think, we as taxpayers, earned an appropriate return for the risk of funding a start up.

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/05/tesla_is_worse_than_solyndra_how_the_u_s_governmen t_bungled_its_investment.htm

I'd guess most business savvy taxpayers don't think this was such a good loan. Elon Musk sure thought it was a good loan.

[Flieger]

But people complain about it like the money went down the drain like with Fisker...

[porwolf]

I know this thread is a bout Tesla and lithium batteries. That is a very imperfect technology for automotive use because of the weight of the batteries. Even with improvements, down the line, that will not change dramatically. But what comes after that? Whatever happened to the automotive fuel cell, fed by gasoline. Should not heavy development go in that direction. Seems to me that storing gasoline in a car is a lot simpler than storing equivalent quantities of electricic charges in a battery.

[red-beard]

Por, the problem for a fuel cell to use anything other than hydrogen, is the reformer. GE has been working for almost 20 YEARS through "Plug Power" to make a home fuel cell generator appliance. It was supposed to be available by 1999. Lots of my friends cycled through Plug. Nothing is on the market.

One of my neighbors, a PHD chemist who should know better, was trying to come up with a "Catalyst" which would split Hydrogen and Oxygen for less energy. I tried to explain how it violated the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

[porwolf]

Originally Posted by red-beard

Por, the problem for a fuel cell to use anything other than hydrogen, is the reformer. GE has been working for almost 20 YEARS through "Plug Power" to make a home fuel cell generator appliance. It was supposed to be available by 1999. Lots of my friends cycled through Plug. Nothing is on the market.

One of my neighbors, a PHD chemist who should know better, was trying to come up with a "Catalyst" which would split Hydrogen and Oxygen for less energy. I tried to explain how it violated the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

Yeah, I understand we don't have gasoline driven fuel cells yet. But we do have practical fuel cells that use natural gas, I understand. It should be possible then to develop a gasoline driven fuel cells if enough resources and time is available. Seems to me that that should be the end game in automotive technology for quite some time to come.

[RWebb]

Benz said they would intro in 2014 instead of 2015; Nissan, Hyundai, Honda, GM & Toyota are all demo'ing FC cars, but I dunno if any are CH4 or methanol. I'd bet they are all H.

[Flieger]

Why go through all the trouble to develop a gasoline fuel cell when that is a non-renewable resource that is only going to get harder to extract and pricier to buy? Doesn't make business sense. You would need to use a renewable liquid fuel like methanol. Or hydrogen made from natural gas power, solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, etc.

[BE911SC]

Originally Posted by GH85Carrera

Gas powered cars catch on fire all the time. Ask any fireman. It is not newsworthy.

Exactly.