Why you should not split a Tesla in two......

Cough.... never mind a Tesla, I really don't think it is good to split any car in two.....

that's just me though,

Roland

 

Dramatic!
Any report about speed at time of impact?
I drove a tesla P85 a few weeks ago and rode in the back as another driver hit 75 in a 30 blowing by a bicyclist.
It wasn't pretty. I'm sure the sales person was not amused, neither.

 

Guy was going over 100 MPH and hit three or four cars. Any car would be fubared after that!

 

Like FreeBSD that is " more then fire"
http://www.freebsd.org/logo/postcard1.jpg

 

Damn batteries! Gasoline would never have burnt up like that.

 

wow, legalize marijuana.

 

The really incredible part is that they survived.

 

or the unfortunate part?

 

I thought stuff like that only happens in the movies.

 

But the naysayers are going to ignore that and focus on just the electric car fire.

What is this, #4? Time to re-figure the fires per gazillion miles traveled. It has been quite a while since the arguments following #2 and #3, so the rate ought to be even lower this time.

 

and tesla will have to get back to the drawing board to make the car nut job proof.

 

Where was the film crew when we needed it?

 

union break time most likely

 

I loved watching the lithium react with the fire department water . . . or whatever water was on the streets . . . radiator coolant from one of the crashed cars?

So are we going to see an NHTSA 'alert' about the hazards of . . . <sigh>

Bob Wilson

 

These are early days for EV's, and they're still play-pretties for rich folk.

I don't see the need to flop and twitch every time a Tesla catches fire.
The technology will either catch on (pun almost unintended) or not.
Musk has plans to push this technology down to work-a-day schlubbs like me.
THEN(!) you will have something legitimate to worry about, but by then and due to the scale of its implementation I personally think that EVs will probably mature into something close to a viable alternative to ICE-only cars, and there will be some corresponding maturation on how to deal with "new" things like batteries and electric motors.

The Concorde flew for 35 years without any hull-loss accidents (or fatalities, IIRC) and it was ONE crash on ONE day that effectively killed off the program, but Concords were already in their final days of viability and Flight 4590 merely accelerated a process already well underway.
Interestingly enough?
The only other commercial SST (that nobody has ever heard of: Tupolev Tu-144 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) did die in infancy----but supersonic aircraft have not.
Commercial jets certainly have not....despite similar developmental problems early on.

Teething pains have always plagued new technologies.
Our 24-hour news cycle makes it easy to stamp the Tesla as a latter-day Pinto and go on to the next story, but I'm thinking that if this particular story causes a temporary price or image drop, then it might be a good time to buy a few shares of Tesla stock.

 

Won't any vehicle doing over 100 crash and burn?

People feel too much and don't think enough. Not saying we should be Vulcans, but too many clueless and/or hating people equate lithium batteries with plutonium. It's irrational, but just too much FUD on the airwaves and social media.

 

I'm seeing conflicting reports on the thief driver. Some reports say he had minor injuries, others say he was ejected and critically injured.

But there was another serious Tesla crash this weekend too, though no fire mentioned. A Telsa rear-ended a Corolla, splitting the Corolla and killing three of its occupants. But the Tesla driver had just minor injuries.

USA Today: Split in half: Two Tesla crashes bolster safety claims
LA Times: 3 dead, 2 injured as Tesla rear-ends Toyota on 14 Freeway in Palmdale

 

We did!!