Flawed argument!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.