The Mission of Tesla
teslamotors.com
teslamotors.com
Vehicle fire now completely covered under warranty, even when caused by operator error.
"Third, to reinforce how strongly we feel about the low risk of fire in our cars, we will be amending our warranty policy to cover damage due to a fire, even if due to driver error. Unless a Model S owner actively tries to destroy the car, they are covered. Our goal here is to eliminate any concern about the cost of such an event and ensure that over time the Model S has the lowest insurance cost of any car at our price point. Either our belief in the safety of our car is correct and this is a minor cost or we are wrong, in which case the right thing is for Tesla to bear the cost rather than the car buyer."
Could the surge in prices after a recent hurricane be the insurance company 'cashing in on'/exploiting the irrational reaction of the public, rather than the insurance company itself having an irrational reaction?
Insurance companies can only survive long term if they are data-driven, so it seems likely to me that they are reacting rationally (although perhaps coldly) to an irrational market reaction.
You have to admit, Elon stands behind his vehicles, literally with his personal wealth. Compare that to other luxury brands. It's brilliant.
Have you considered that the reason they are doing this is that insurance companies may look at the fires and begin to increase premiums on the Tesla cars, or refuse fire coverage altogether?
This isn't altruism; it's damage control (literally).
To put it differently, if it were entirely random, the premiums would not change, but if there were a systemic problem (which appears to be the case here) the premiums should change to reflect the risk
Who cares if it's altruism? It clearly benefits consumers, so why should anyone care if it also benefits the company?
A few sentences later, though -- "Another software update expected in January will give the driver direct control of the air suspension ride height transitions." -- concerns me. Tesla's car computer is becoming increasingly complex, and the fact that the infotainment system will have such complete control over the car -- and will still accept data from outside sources -- is very concerning. I hope that at some point soon Tesla will begin talking about the security methodology that they use for the firmware running on the car, and how they prevent unauthorized code from running.
Yet more movement of freedom and power from individuals to corporations.
With OTA updates you can at least fix it with a rollback, quickly, before more people die.
I fail to see this as a move of power from individuals to corporations.
Something that happens once in a million will happen on an iPhone, not on a Tesla.
If / When they produce a mainstream car that will be another story.
All cars in Tesla premium category have quirks that require trip to the dealer. I have had colleague with bricked Series 5 BMW that requires full rewiring, ... Except for Tesla being overhyped with people that will not buy it, the actual clients of that kind of car seems generally happy to go through the "pain". (see, not an opinion I share, but then I don't buy 85K car either)
The concerning issue here is someone hacking this vehicle's OTA software update and causing accidents. Or even tapping into the vehicle control system(s) and causing havoc.
Unlikely, but possible vs. current vehicle technology requiring a trip to a dealer by an authorized and authenticated trained tech to make these changes.
I imagine every critical system on the Model S is accessible wirelessly.
This actually bring me back to Michael Hastings accident where theories are floating around that steering, breaking and acceleration systems might have been compromised wirelessly causing the accident.
The bottom line is that there's simply way too much convenience technology in cars today and that might not be such great thing. It's a tough call as safety technology is important and the more the better. However, certain things such as OTA suspension and other critical system updates need to pushed and completed intelligently. I want to assume that any updates to these vehicles are done when they are off (overnight) and redundantly checked for integrity to ensure the update was successful.
So the protocol the car uses to receive commands and firmware is likely different.
Obviously that doesn't mean it's inherently secure or anything but maybe hint that it might be using some more standard security practices than a crazy custom Tesla invented magic box.
You don't need anything approaching realtime for controlling an air-based suspension. If we were talking about the magneto-hydraulic suspensions that adjust constantly to road conditions like potholes and corners, then I would agree 100%. But the response rate of the pneumatic system will be far slower than the computer.
BTW, there is no evidence, at least none you have cited or even referred to, that the Tesla computer is "becoming increasingly complex". All we see in this article is that they are changing one variable in their existing system. That's not increased complexity.
All of the cars I've driven have been accessible by ODB2 or something similar, which is a physical connection under the hood and/or steering column.
http://telematicsnews.info/2010/08/31/onstar-supports-over-t...
Since 2010, OnStar has offered OTA updates.
What may be unique about Tesla is the explicit provision for over-the-air software updates. But anyone with sufficient technical knowledge and physical access to a conventional car can do very nasty things to the electronics (i.e., deadly to the occupants).
Don't know when Wikipedia became the bearer of all truths ...
There's just starting to be real external research into the current state of the automotive world: http://www.autosec.org/pubs/cars-usenixsec2011.pdf
Even the proposed new standards are busted: http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/143639....
I for one, am going to have a hard time buying any car made after 2006.
Note I wrote most. I am aware that some organizations like Toyota engage in poor practices, but there's more the exception than the rule.
Needs high resolution radars with good range (very expensive on its own) and good software in order to detect something and then find an evasive action.
As these events are already unlikely (i assume), doing something about it seem unnecessary. Even this OTA update seem like it is more for the press rather than protecting the driver.
All I remember while trying to do this is that high sensitivity is expensive..
Model S is only 1 year old and it's a premium vehicle. So the fire rate should be compared to those of premium vehicles about the same age.
The fire rate should be compared to those of premium electric vehicles about the same age... which don't exist. Not even Fisker or i3 would qualify if you restrict the criteria far enough. I think they should limit it to the same colour only as well.
I do think the Tesla's fires have been blown way out of proportion by the media. And it's odd too; gasoline fires are much more impressive and descriptions of burning children and suchlike will create much more impressive headlines than "electrical car on fire". It's a desensitisation thing though, I think; dozens of cars (rough guess based on nothing) go up in flames every day, which is maybe noted in a local newspaper. Rare high-tech car has a fire and it's world news.
For example, if you want to move past generalizations (such as the author of the blog post made) you would also have to consider things such as the type of people using the cars vs other premium vehicles. Likely Tesla users are going to be more apt to try more things, which in turn makes them at a higher risk to drive erratically or at higher speeds (even perhaps higher than other premium vehicle users).
Further, I would suspect premium vehicles have a higher rate of deaths due to accident than the average population of car. However, that data might not be available to him.
So in that sense, the Model S is a baby in terms of maturity of the vehicle platform.
I'd love to know which cars you're referring to. I've been a huge BMW guy for years and they generally go on 5 year cycle with their engines and drivetrains.
For instance, on the M5 the E60 M5 used the same drivetrain and engine (with minor tweaks) from 2005-2010. Whereas the new F10 M5 engine and drivetrain was redesigned in 2011 and has yet to see any major changes in its current iteration.
On the Japanese side, Nissan/Infiniti abused the hell out of their 3.5L V6 in every car they made for more than a decade.
Regarding the BMW M5, the F10 is actually very similar to the F01 which came on the previous 7 series in 2008. Even the E60 was considered an upsized 3 series engine.[1]
Regardless, the point I'm trying to make is that Tesla is really trying to break new ground and needs about a decade for their vehicle platforms to mature before comparisons can be made with any of the current luxury brand. The other brands have a pedigree which goes back multiple decades so even their newer vehicles have a few decades of maturity baked into them.
Right now your link goes to someone else making that claim with no source and no work shown.
If you want more fun, run the traffic fatality rates since June 22, 2012. Tesla is currently sitting at zero (it would be highly unrealistic to expect that to last).
That said, he had to say something. The press was enjoying the chance to bash 'the safest car ever tested' and the stock price was falling from unsustainable highs.
While it's fair to want to compare the Tesla to good cars, rather than average ones, arbitrarily selecting criteria like that creates statistical fallacies rather than eliminating them. If we care about safety, we should compare each car's safety to an average replacement, rather than trying to sculpt a population with an ill-defined criterion like 'premium'. So far Tesla has presented the data necessary to compare them to an average car, so all you have to do to see where it stacks up is to find similar data for any particular car you think is comparable.
It seems to have worked well for him. Maybe I should pick it up.
The absolute odds of me dying from falling from the top of a building are pretty darn small too, but they go up quite significantly when I am walking near the edge of the building's roof without a harness.
Obviously your risk of being in a Tesla that is on fire is much greater than being struck by lightning when you are a Tesla driver!
I believe that electric cars are safer than gasoline cars,but the sample size for Tesla is way to small to draw such conclusions yet.
[1] Eric Schlosser, "Command And Control"
I remember reading about it here, don't have the article in hand. I'm sure you can find it.
It would have detonated, except that the "fire-safe" switch in the cockpit was not switch to "fire". That switch was just two very low voltage wires running close together, and it was found later that pretty much anything in that bomber could have triggered it. It was extremely lucky that that bomb has not detonated that day.
There were also a few bombs which were lost in fire on the ground, couple of those had their high explosives ignite without producing a nuclear yield but spreading plutonium around, contaminating ground.
There were bombers which fell apart in the air, which crashed, most of the time the nuclear bombs they were carrying survived intact,but a few times those crashes resulted in a widespread contamination with plutonium - a famous one in Spain and another near an American Polar station that the bomber was monitoring from Soviet attack - that one is particularly interesting,because had the bombs aboard that bomber detonated and destroyed that station, it would be extremely likely that the US government would assume that it was destroyed by a Soviet nuclear strike,and not by their own machinery - and that would probably cause them to retaliate starting a nuclear war.
Full disclosure: I'm an electric car owner (leaf) and I want to see tesla succeed, but Elon can be a rather poor spokesman at times.
Compare to the Tesla fires: still no fire suppression baked in; deliberate effort in containing and directing the fire away from passengers; ample notice (so far) to drivers that something is wrong! and that they should pull over.
Also, I'd take a fire in a car over a fire on a plane any day. The car is: cheaper to repair/replace; already on the ground. If a plane has a fire, sure it'll end up on the ground, but depending on where on the aircraft and the effectiveness of detection and suppression systems it may not be a state where people can simply walk away from it.
Musk and Tesla are given far more benefit of the doubt than any one else. Criticism is jumped on and scorned very quickly, and is a karma massacre. As such, I normally do not comment on Tesla threads at all. There seems to be little reason applied, its like saying some one's baby is ugly.
If it were a Microsoft car catching fire, or over stating benefits and what not, I suspect the reaction would be very, very different. Im beginning to see Tesla as the automotive Linux. Wont be long until we have people claiming Tesla cars cure cancer.
This fawning attitude, and unwillingness to allow debate and criticism seriously puts me off Tesla. I mean, even you have tried to suggest that any criticism is not reasoned debate, but oil and automotive negative PR. The criticism cant possibly be reasonable, it simply must be a conspiracy of the oil industry. You even say that the opinion should not be written at all. So much for open society.
All this, IMHO, is a big problem for Tesla. When people are being unrealistically positive and rejecting criticism like its some sort of heresy, Tesla becomes an easy target to shoot at. Especially for its enemies.
Too much "one of us" vibe here as far a Musk is concerned. He is a great bloke, and Im am very much in the positive camp, I've been advocating and keenly following electric cars for years before Musk ever got involved and I am 100% glad that a man like Musk has invested loads of his own money and time in to it, but fans need to be realistic and not so silly about criticism.
Tesla and Musk are not the problem, the fans however are.
It's arguable that Apple doesn't deserve some of the loyalty that it has obtained, but that rabid fanbase is good for the bottom line. I'm high on Tesla until there is a real quality control crisis or the competitors catch up.
Seriously, this is what baffles me most about Tesla hate. Did everyone forget that our world has had a massive, unsustainable energy crisis for 50 years? Forget climate change for a second, our entire foreign policy since 1973 has been based around securing cheap oil. Every person in our country should be unified in heaping as much praise as humanly possible on Musk because Tesla is literally saving the goddamn world.
Oil is exclusive in that regard.
It's good, but it's not that good.
I don't think it's a misuse of the word.
:-/
Well, yes. Microsoft is one of the largest companies in the world, whereas Tesla is a startup.
And so I question Musk's motives when he acts so aggressively against anyone who claims otherwise.
It's not, is the answer. Not at all aggressive.
To me it isn't so much about wanting to see them fail, it's bringing expectations in line. I don't see many articles around here about the work the other car companies are doing in the space.
And if you're upset because the cars are government subsidized, I'd like to point out that the conventional auto industries and oil industries have received more than their fair share of subsidies as well over the years.
Not really. I take everything that Musk says with a grain of salt.
Tesla's goal of making a mass-market car is all well and good, but they are a long way from that. They can't seem to make money on high-margin luxury vehicles, so obtaining the scale to build a lower-margin vehicle isn't exactly a cake-walk. I'd like to see them do it, but how does it happen, financially? I'm not sure.
Again, my point is that this is always framed as Tesla v. the Auto Industry, when in fact the auto industry is also trying to accomplish the same things that Tesla is. And, at least in my opinion, they have a better chance of actually doing it; they have the scale and profits. Yet places like HN (see some other comments) can't imagine these large companies pulling it off. It's absurd.
>I'd like to point out that the conventional auto industries and oil industries have received more than their fair share of subsidies as well over the years.
I don't necessarily agree with those subsidies either. But if you think those subsidies and bailouts are equivalent to giving extremely wealthy people a discount on a luxury vehicle, then I guess we have different ideas about what's "fair".
You, sir, are grossly misinformed.
This is incorrect. They've been profitable since Q1 of this year and their profit margins are continuing to rise, even discounting the ZEV regulatory credits (which have been steadily decreasing for a number of quarters now).
in fact the auto industry is also trying to accomplish the same things that Tesla is
This is debatable. Mainstream auto manufacturers have released plenty of electric cars, but they're all "compromise cars" that seem to shy away from cannibalizing their mainstream car sales. None of them come close to having the range, comfort, or storage space of the Model S.
This is a huge deal. Some people might be happy buying a Nissan Leaf as a secondary commuter car, and they might be willing to put up with the ugly styling, small size, low range, and poor performance. But, unless someone is making a compelling electric car that's actually better than a gasoline car, EVs aren't really going to take off. Right now, Tesla is the only manufacturer that seems to be even trying to pursue this goal, and that's what makes them so unique, interesting, and important.
But if you think those subsidies and bailouts are equivalent to giving extremely wealthy people a discount on a luxury vehicle...
The existing tax credits apply equally to all electric cars, not just luxury vehicles. You get $7,500 back from the federal government regardless of whether you buy a Tesla Model S for 70k or a GM Spark EV for 27k. As a percentage of purchase price, cheaper cars are actually being subsidized more than expensive luxury cars.
I don't understand your "cannibalizing their mainstream car" argument. Either way they are selling a car.. what's being cannibalized?
Car companies make a lot of their profits off of spare part sales for maintenance and repairs. Electric cars have far fewer moving parts, and are generally more reliable, so the traditional profit model breaks down somewhat.
Some have also speculated that the auto companies have historically resisted electric cars because they're in bed with the oil industry, but it's hard to really verify how true that is.
Finally, any corporation with a long established history will generally be resistant to big changes. See, for example, Kodak: it was obvious that the world was going digital, but we had this big established business that was good at making conventional film, and they didn't want to shift away from their strength. They dabbled in digital technologies, but never truly accepted the shift in technology. Of course, years later they went bankrupt, but it took a long time to reach that point, and meanwhile all the executives left with golden parachutes.
Would you call a BMW 335i hardtop convertible a compromise car because it's not suited to snowy conditions? Cars that are aren't as much fun to drive, are they compromises?
Electric cars normally comprise range for running costs, the Model S's only real compromise is the high cost.
This has all accelerated since 9/11.
How many CEO's have that level of confidence in their product? Can you imagine Honda, Audi, BMW or any of the others reacting that way to something like this? And they've been around for much longer.
Yes, I can.
Do you really think he's doing this out of the goodness of his heart?
These fires are both a legal and PR nightmare. Nobody, at this point, knows how big of a problem this is. Despite the yarn that Musk is spinning, ICE cars don't combust when they hit road debris. Personally, I think the problem is exaggerated, but let's not dismiss the fact that there's a battery across the whole bottom of these cars. Go to the Tesla forums; there are owners there that are legitimately concerned for their safety.
Lots of other rare automobile faults have made big headlines, because the press likes drama. See: uncontrolled acceleration problems in Audi and Toyota vehicles.
I think a lot of Tesla fans are getting into the conspiracy theory zone with this and they are starting to sound fairly cult-like. HN and the Tesla users forums had quite a few people seriously suggesting that some agent of 'big auto' was out on the highway looking for teslas to throw debris under (no doubt the 'big auto' spies inside Tesla had alerted them to the vulnerability of the underside of the battery pack).
The personality cult surrounding Musk turns a lot of people off. Also the Boeing incident is coming back to bite him now, and rightly so.
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=TSLA+Interactive#symbol=T...
Tesla went out of their way to flaunt the safety features of the car, alleging a 5.4 NHTSA score when the agency explicitly said that they don't issue scores that high. Tesla said they had the safest cars on the road, and this is the eventual result (people actually expect it to be safer).
IMHO the reaction is entirely appropriate given Musk's and Tesla's behavior up to this point. If Musk and Tesla weren't flaunting their safety claims, this wouldn't be a significant issue
CHALLENGE ACCEPTED.
http://www.terminalcornucopia.com/
Check out the "fraggucino", which combines a lithium battery, water, a condom, and a coffee flask to make a big bang.
I should shut up now. I'm probably already on an NSA watchlist for the search term I used to find that site.
Actually, the Data do not support Him. He is starting to tread on shallow ground, and perhaps should re-evaluate and stratify his data analysis to fires 'on public highways'.[1,2] That is where all of the Tesla Fires are happening. Unfortunately, those data do not support him.
By this metric, you are more than four and a half times more likely to experience a fire in a gasoline car than a Model S! Considering the odds in the absolute, you are more likely to be struck by lightning in your lifetime than experience even a non-injurious fire in a Tesla.
And, Bayesian statistics might give you a different analysis.
From a PR perspective, I wonder if this is really doing him any favours? The note he wrote after the october crash was flawed, but perhaps excusable. This is too pre-meditated and now must just be considered somewhere on the spectrum of 'wrong' to 'misguided' to 'misleading'.
[1] In data terms, it excludes intentional fires like vandalism, and parked cars being struck, and accidents in motor repair facilities, etc.
[2] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Public+highway
I've had a look and entirely failed to find any evidence supporting your claim that 80% of car fires occur while the car is not being driven on roads.
It does appear that most car fires are not the result of crashes or collisions. I don't see that that's relevant. If I were deciding between two cars on the basis of fire risk, the question I'd care about is "how likely is this car to catch fire and injure me?", not "how likely is this car to catch fire and injure me as a result of a collision?".
What does look fishy to me about Musk's argument here is that most vehicle fires seem to be the result of mechanical or electrical faults, which become more likely with age as things wear out and break and corrode. All Tesla cars currently on the roads are rather new, so comparing them against the population of cars at large could be quite misleading.
[EDITED to add: aha, following a longer chain of links from your earlier comment I found some statistics. The terms used in the NFPA report in question are ambiguous, but what's clear is that the statistics you yourself cited plainly refute your 80% figure. Here are the figures: 22% "residential street, road, or residential driveway"; 18% "vehicle parking area"; 17% "highway or divided highway"; 8% "unclassified street"; 6% "street or road in commercial area"; 5% "mercantile or office"; 4% "open land, beach or campsite". So, at a bare minimum, the lowest fraction of fires that could be on roads would be 17% + 8% +% 6% = 31%, and that assumes that none of the "residential street, road, or residential highway" and "mercantile or office" figures are for cars being driven on the road -- which seems monstrously improbable.]
Where do automobile fires occur? Roughly three-quarters (71%) of automobile fires and associated deaths (76%) occurred on highways, streets or parking areas. While only 17% of the fires occurred on highways or divided highways...
So, taken strictly the analyis seems apples to apples. In any event there is clearly some adjustment that needs to occur rather than a blind-usage, IMHO. Whether the haircut is 33% at a minimum or a higher amount.
[PS I prvly addressed the :Edit: points in another comment below> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6760562]
Look, they made a compromise on pack layout to facilitate swappable packs.
Lastly, Must should not be comparing his car to gasoline only cars, how many Leaf or Volts have caught fire after a collision? I do recall a Volt doing it once, days after in a junk yard. So Elon, why doesn't the Volt or Leaf have this issue? Is there battery chemistry less volatile? How about their pack designs?
I don't understand why people can be so hypocritical and do the electric car cause a huge disservice by this blind fanaticism. Gasoline cars have had decades of experience with countless recalls to perfect certain processes and implementations. Why are people expecting electric cars to not go through the same ? Are people really expecting Tesla to be the pinnacle of perfection on their first few tries ?
People are far more accommodating when you say "hey we aren't perfect but it IS safer than gasoline cars" rather than this "we are perfect and if you disagree with us you are wrong" attitude.
These would be the changes vs how they appeared in October after the first PR:
Observed Events (1)/Index Population%(100)
October 1/100=1x Baseline
November 3/100=3x
Nov Min corrected data 3/67=4.5x
Nov Med corrected data 3/59=5.1x
Nov comps only 3/17=17.6x
If you compare (Fires caused by collision)/Vehicles on the road, then I agree Tesla does not compare favorably. In principle, you should compare Fires/collision in case Tesla drivers have an abnormally high collision rate. And statistically speaking, it's pretty hard to draw a conclusion when your sample size is 3 fires.
But the fact is there are still no fires attributed to electrical or mechanical problems.
And the points on both sides about injuries/deaths from fires are pretty much red herrings since the numbers are already extremely low. There are only 2 deaths per 100 fires caused by collisions.
So in fact this could include electric cars as well.
Also, when have safety issues not been a part of disruptive transport technology? For example:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/news/vintage-speed/13-m...
We need to be less influenced by this sort of FUD if we are going to have a company that can actually compete with big auto and big oil. If Musk gave my family 4 Model S's, I'd feel safe letting each of my family members drive them, once a few were old enough.
Wow. Now I live in the future.
I still believe Tesla will be safer then gasoline cars, but gap definitely would not be orders of magnitude.
This is the Elon Musk I want to see, not the harried auto executive making PR stunts.
> Based on the Model S track record so far, you have a zero percent chance of being hurt in an accident resulting in a battery fire
This is right up there with Bush's "Mission Accomplished", his Dad's "Read my lips. No new taxes.", Obama's red line and "You can keep your plan. Period".
It's not true. Or put in better terms, the data is not statistically significant. And he knows it.
These are the kinds of statements you really regret making when reality catches up with you.
> There are now substantially more than the 19,000 Model S vehicles on the road that were reported in our Q3 shareholder letter for an average of one fire per at least 6,333 cars, compared to the rate for gasoline vehicles of one fire per 1,350 cars. By this metric, you are more than four and a half times more likely to experience a fire in a gasoline car than a Model S!
Again, he knows this math is wrong. To make this comparison stick you'd have to aggregate data going back to the very introduction of gasoline powered vehicles. You'd also have to include every kind of vehicle --trucks, vans, busses, not just cars. And then you'd have to remove the percentage of fires that were caused intentionally which, from what I was able to garner, could represent a massive 20% to 30% of fires. Fires due to collisions represent a smaller fraction of all automobile fires.
Further to that, you'd have to also consider vehicle age, maintenance and environment. Is it fair to compare a fire on a a 15 year old truck in a rural setting on substandard roads against a brand new Tesla in the city on great roads? How are Tesla's going to perform (in terms of safety) when they are five, ten, fifteen or twenty years old?
Perhaps the comparison should be restricted to fires caused by collisions (not intentional or other non-collision causes) on new cars operating in the same urban centers where Tesla's are found.
In other words, he is grabbing numbers without any though given to applicability.
Again, these are statements that obviously come from anger and frustration and you could end-up regretting them.
> you are more likely to be struck by lightning in your lifetime than experience even a non-injurious fire in a Tesla.
From [1]:
"The odds of becoming a lightning victim in the U.S. in any one year is 1 in 700,000. The odds of being struck in your lifetime is 1 in 3,000."
So we are comparing the odds of something happening over someone's lifetime (50 to 90 years?) with a fire in a car that's been in the market for ONE YEAR? Really? How about we compare it to the 1 in 700,000 yearly case? It's still a bullshit comparison. But, hey, since we are slinging bullshit.
Again. Please. Think before saying such things. All you need is one fire where someone gets hurt or killed and this statement could be thrown back as an utter joke. With only 20,000 cars on the road every incident has the potential to change numbers in a radical way. If that happens you now have a 1 in 20,000 chance of being killed in a Tesla in any one year. See how stupid it is to make such statements?
> The far more deadly nature of a gasoline car fire deserves to be re-emphasized.
Who do you think you are talking to? Who's your audience? Children? There are a BILLION cars in the world[0]. A BILLION. That number might not include motorcycles, trucks and other variants. I would suggest gasoline powered vehicles are pretty damn safe, particularly when you consider markets where they might not have pristine roads, regular maintenance and where cars are used for ten, twenty and thirty years rather than flipping them every few years as is often the case in affluent communities in the US and elsewhere.
Anyhow, the point is that sometimes you have to lead by not reacting to things with emotion and by not saying things you know you will have to regret. The strongest statement he could make right now is to crash several Model-S's (as painful as that might be) into concrete walls, into each other and into gasoline cars and show --in a very public way-- just how safe they might be. If they are not. Fix it and then show the public. Release the videos and let people sort it out.
[0] http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/08/23/car-population_n_934...
[1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0623_040623_...
For marketing purposes, Teslas must be perceived to as safe, if not safer in every respect than gasoline cars. So if they're more likely to catch fire when they hit road debris, that's a problem.
We should discuss whether the situation changes over time. As gasoline cars age, their likelihood of catching fire increases. As electric cars age, does their chance also increase?
The flammable elements of a gas-powered car also have wear and tear issues, and poor service risks. A do-it-yourself mechanic replacing a fuel filter is a worry, for example.
Or, an old engine with a compromised head gasket, coated in leaked oil and then overheating.
No time to do the analysis myself, but I am guessing that the failure modes of a gas car that cause fire are many and the failure modes of a Tesla are few. Moreover, the likelihood of a particular failure mode in a Tesla may not increase at the same rate as gas as the cars age.
The real test for electrics will come when one or two million electric vehicles of all types are sharing the road. That's when this issue of battery and power system safety will be hugely important. I can imagine semi's with a million Wh battery systems rolling down the highway. What I cannot imagine are chain reaction collisions involving a variety of electric and liquid fuel vehicles.
Tesla is at the forefront of this movement, which means all eyes are on them, the arrows are on their backs and they have the burden of proof.
One of the most expensive types of businesses to get into are those where you have to educate your customer base before a sales pitch can even begin. Having to educating the market before you can sell to them can seriously derail one's focus and cost bundles of money that could be put to better use elsewhere. I've been in markets like that. It's a horrible slog.
Up until now, for the most part, electrics have avoided this territory. I fear that period is ending. Up until now the conversations about electrics were about range and relative cost when compared to gasoline vehicles. It feels like we are now entering the domain of having to potentially prove to the market that the technology is safe as well as to remove (or stop the potential of the development of) fears of fire and electrocution.
Tesla, due to their position in the market, has the honor of having all microscopes aimed at everything they do. Every mishap is amplified. Now that the NTSB has officially opened an investigation every afternoon news show is jumping on the issues. It will soon be everywhere. And Tesla now has to defend, educate and prove to the market that what they are doing is safe.
Competitors are now going to pull back and let Tesla take the hits. In markets where a huge investment is required in order to educate the customer base it is often a good idea to not be a pioneer. They will let Tesla burn reputation, bleed cash and resources to deal with the challenge of getting people to be comfortable with the technology. In these markets letting someone else slot through this phase is often the most intelligent strategy.
Once things settle, competitors will come in and enjoy a market segment that has been paved flat by the pioneer/s. It is far less costly --at all levels-- to enter at that point. The mentality of a typical potential customer --after massive investments in educating them-- is now very different. Now customers look at the available products and think about which one to buy rather than whether or not to take a risk with this new technology. That's a massively different mind-set. That's a mind set primed for well executed product, marketing and sales strategies with wide distribution, solid sales channels and a solid post-sales support infrastructure --all of which the established players either know how to do or already have in place.
Manufacturers entering the market after the education phase can focus on pricing, marketing and, in general, execution rather than educating or evangelizing the audience. There's a huge difference in cost of sales in "nicely paved markets".
When that happens, when the market is "flat" and competitors enter in force, they could run right over Tesla, push them right off the edge of the market or they could be swallowed-up by a larger organization. Let's not forget Tesla sold somewhere in the order of twenty thousand cars --total. There are companies that probably sell that many cars per day. The difference in scale is huge.
It is possible that Tesla is at the start of an existential threat. It is hard to predict which way this will go. It's all on them now and they are all-in. They can't afford many more fires. And they certainly can't afford to have the market turn on them. They need to be way ahead of this and spend lots of money to show people this technology is safe. And, if it isn't, they need to move quickly to make it safe and then show the market. Quickly.
Volvo used to run commercials featuring cars being rolled and crashed in order to show how well they protected occupants. Tesla might have to crash a few cars into concrete walls or into each other to demonstrate how survivable their high voltage and high current systems might be. If they don't get ahead of this and more accidents are reported the cost to regain market trust will grow exponentially. And that could be very difficult to survive.