Tesla Model S Catches Fire While Parked At A Supercharger

9 months ago by Eric Loveday 120

Tesla logo

Details are limited, but it appears that a Tesla Model S at a Supercharger in Shanghai, China caught fire. Reports suggest the vehicle wasn’t charging when the fire occurred, but we haven’t been able to confirm or deny this aspect of the incident. Tesla has already launched a “full investigation” into the matter.

 

The automaker released this initial statement:

“No one was harmed in this incident. We’re undergoing a full investigation and we’ll share our findings as soon as possible.”

It appears as though the fire starting somewhere on the passenger side of the affected Tesla Model S P85. A nearby Tesla was damaged too.

Source: Reddit

Tags: , , ,

120 responses to "Tesla Model S Catches Fire While Parked At A Supercharger"

  1. jelloslug says:

    That’s an odd spot for a car to catch fire…

    1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

      It appears as though the fire was shooting out from the battery pack under the car directly below the front passenger-side door. It also must have been an very intense (hot) fire to shoot over the four-foot gap between the cars and melt a big honkin’ hole in the passenger-side rear door of the adjacent Model S.

      1. MrEnergyCzar says:

        Which car in the photo caught fire?

        1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

          Based on the extent of damage and the pattern damage, it appears to be the car in the first link below with the hole in the front door.

          1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

            Err. . . my comment was edited. The car that caught fire first is the one in the second link (Twitter pic) in the comment above.

          2. ffbj says:

            Super-hot too. 1200F*+ Maybe a bad cell overheated, also the white stuff is probably foam, residue.

            1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

              You can see the fire extinguishers in this pic.

              https://i.imgur.com/Uw1jAoy.jpg

              1. Nix says:

                If this was a battery fire, and it was put out by those fire extinguishers, that would be a miracle.

                It would be crazy for those extinguishers to be able to put out 85 kWh’s worth of battery fire.

                If this is a battery fire, it would actually be the first electric car I know of that didn’t burn completely to the ground once the battery caught on fire. I don’t know of any other proven battery fire that was put out with fire extinguishers.

          3. ffbj says:

            The photo you linked is of a different car at another location. Notice different damage location.
            http://linkis.com/m.yicaiglobal.com/ne/IS0ZJ

            1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

              Both photos are linked in the story and my comment. I thought one Model S caught fire at the front door and melted the rear door on the Model S parked next to it. I assumed the photo of the car with the hole in the rear door was taken after it was moved to the auto collision repair shop. In the other photo,the Model S with a hole in the front door is parked nose/frunk first, and the other car is parked tail/trunk first. With the two cars parked this way, the two holes/damaged areas would line up right next to each other. Coincidence? Maybe.

              1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

                And the Model S with the hole in the rear door is black, the same color as the Model S parked next to (to the right of) the one with the hole in the front door.

                1. James says:

                  (o)

                  Hey Sven,

                  [MODERATED FOR RUDENESS] stop jumping to conclusions without a reasonable amount of facts?!

                  I’m pretty sick of you on the Tesla Attack road every day – spewing garbage seemingly winging it as you go!

                  Naturally, this is a developing story – all will be revealed in short time when many more facts will become public.

                  Tell me you are a fire marshall, an accident investigator, or that you did any more than Google images of the incident from which to base your uneducated, uber-biased and sincerely stupid commentary from.

                  1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

                    Jimmy said:
                    “Why don’t you stop being a BOOB and stop jumping to conclusions without a reasonable amount of facts?!”

                    Reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Read the freakin’ article again you BOOB. The news story above clearly said the following:

                    “It appears as though the fire starting somewhere on the passenger side of the affected Tesla Model S P85. A nearby Tesla was damaged too.

                    The news story also has two links to pictures that show two different black Teslas, one with damage to the front passenger-side door, the other with damage to the back passenger-side door.

                    In one picture two black Teslas are parked side-by-side, one with a hole in its front passenger-side door from a fire, which is parked frunk/nose first, while the adjacent black Tesla is parked trunk/tail first. The rear passenger-side door on the adjacent Tesla would line up directly next to the hole in the front door of the Tesla that started the fire. The second picture shows a black Tesla with a hole in its rear passenger-side door from fire damage. Do you understand now?

                    I did not jump to conclusions without a reasonable amount of facts. You were the one who jumped to conclusions and attacked me without first reading the news article and/or clicking on the links in the the news article. You sir, owe me an apology. 🙁

                    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                      “Reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Read the freakin’ article again you BOOB.”

                      There’s nothing at all wrong with his reading comprehension. You very clearly jumped to conclusions, in several places, in your rush to find or invent more of the anti-Tesla FUD you’re so obsessed with.

                      “You sir, owe me an apology.”

                      Nope, it’s you who owes everyone reading this discussion an apology for your troll comments and your gratuitous insults of someone pointing out just some of the many fallacies in your posts.

                      Your objective here isn’t a search for Truth. Your objective is to disrupt meaningful discussion of any and all Tesla related subjects. That’s almost painfully obvious.

                    2. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

                      [MODERATED FOR RUDENESS] I didn’t make any anti-Tesla comments in my post, and JimBOOB didn’t point out any fallacies in my post.

                      JimBOOB said “or that you did any more than Google images of the incident from which to base your . . . commentary from.” That’s wrong. I didn’t Google any images. The images are from links in the InsideEVs article, which link to the source article on the YiCai Global website and a pic on YiCai Global’s Twitter feed. YiCai Global reported that these are pics of the Tesla that caught on fire and a nearby Tesla that was damaged by the fire.

                      JimBOOB said: “stop jumping to conclusions without a reasonable amount of facts.” What conclusions did I jump too exactly? That the Tesla that caught on fire damaged the adjacent Tesla, melting a hole in its rear door? The InsideEVs article said that “a nearby Tesla was damaged” by the fire, and the source YiCai Global article said “The blaze spread quickly, destroying another Tesla car nearby,” and showed a pic of a black Tesla with the a hole melted out of its rear door.

                      So yes, JimBOOB’s reading comprehension SUCKS. It’s as if he didn’t even bother to read the article above or click on any of the links in that article. He just went on a rant and made baseless accusations.

                      Pu-Pu, why don’t you go back to jerking off to Elon’s picture and rub one out, like you do every night. Troll.

                    3. Bill Howland says:

                      Haha, only thing I see SVEN is IDIOCY is all relative. PUSHI is a genius compared to motor-mouth Nix.

            2. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

              @ffbj:
              Here is another pic of the two Teslas from a different angle, showing the damage to the second car (not the one that apparently started the fire). The damage on the “different car at another location” appears to match the damage on the car on the right in this pic.

              https://i.imgur.com/vFBw0mv.jpg

              And here’s another pic from a different angle that shows the rear suspension sagging all the way to the ground on the second Tesla which apparently is the result of the fire damage. Air suspension completely deflated? I dunno.

              https://i.imgur.com/rPTnA7g.jpg

              1. Will Davis says:

                Just give it up, Sven. Everyone – EVERYONE here knows you’re an anti-Tesla troll.

  2. SparkEV says:

    Did someone leave behind a Samsung phone on passenger seat?

    1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

      No silly, it was a hoverboard.

      http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/12/10/hoverboard-fire-newday-vo.cnn

    2. bogdan says:

      The owner forgot his Note 7 on the passenger seat!

    1. ijonjack says:

      A serious Tailgate party ..Not Good….However., You never hear about it when an “ICE” car Gets CarB-Qued..

      1. bogdan says:

        That happends several thousend times every day. Bringing every such case in the news is not very practical!

  3. taser54 says:

    George, tell us it wasn’t you.

    1. taser54 says:

      LOL. Didn’t see the China Reference first

  4. Bill Howland says:

    If it was charging, it shows that an emergency shut off is a real necessity for safety, besides being legally required in the states.

    1. Nix says:

      Bill, we’ve been through this before, and you failed to provide a single shred of evidence that superchargers don’t have Service Disconnects where required by law.

      Stop the FUD. If you believe there is a supercharger that is in violation of code, you better provide the following:

      1) Permits for the site that specify that a Service Disconnect is required for that site, and where that Service Disconnect is located.

      2) Photographs from that site where any required Service Disconnect is not where the permit requires it to be.

      Until then, stop your false accusations. No, the Service Disconnect is NOT on each white charger stand. Enough of these false libelous accusations.

      1. Taser54 says:

        It seems pretty clear that he said it was legally required in the states.

        1. Nix says:

          Taser54 — There is no such thing as one universal electrical code for all of the United States that automatically applies everywhere. All code is adopted locally, based upon local code authorities.

          Each code authority may choose to adopt all, part, or none of each section of the NFPA 70 code that is produced by a private trade association called the “National Fire Protection Association”. NFPA is not a government organization, and their proposed code is not legally binding until a local code authority votes to make it binding in their region. The code authority may also choose to amend or write their own section of code that may completely contradict NFPA 70. They can also waive code requirements on a site-by-site basis.

          Furthermore, the section of NFPA code that deals with chargers has changed a number of times through the years, and the section on Service Disconnects itself has changed. So you have to know what year the permit was approved, and what the local code was AT THAT TIME.

          So the only way to know what was legally required at any specific site is to pull the site permit and find out what exactly was approved by the code authority.

          1. Bill Howland says:

            Name ONE supercharger installation in the states where the NFPA requirements do not have the force of law – as insisted upon by the local government and/or state government. In my locale, the MINIMUM requirements must adhere to minimum STATE requirements which ALSO require adherence to the NFPA as a MINIMUM. Localities my make MORE stringent requirements but never less stringent.

            You are just talking your constant baloney and you have not the slightest familiarity with any of this stuff beyond what you find in Wikipedia.Org – where anyone can type anything – I know, since I’m a Wikipedia Author myself.

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              You “know” it’s true because the voices in your head told you that Tesla is getting away with violating safety codes and/or State laws by putting the emergency cutoff switch in a locked area at each Supercharger station, instead of having an cutoff switch on every individual Supercharger. Right? The voices tell you that Tesla should make those open and accessible to the general public, unlike what every other company does with its high-voltage equipment.

              Just like the voices in your head told you that the “chemtrails” conspiracy theory is true, plus whatever conspiracy theory happens to attract your attention this week.

              A hardcore conspiracy theorist likes you never lets actual facts get in the way of what he believes.

              1. Nix says:

                It is way worse than that. The code he is quoting has changed a number of times over the years. For example, in 2011 (the year the initial superchargers would have gotten site plan approvals) the code simply specified that there must be a:

                “Switch or circuit breaker used as the disconnecting means”

                He is claiming they don’t have a circuit breaker. It is utter foolishness, and he can’t come up with an ounce of evidence.

                1. Bill Howland says:

                  As I mention down below, that is simply false.

                  1. Nix says:

                    Straight out of the 2011-2014 code that would have applied at the time that the vast majority of the early superchargers would have been approved:

                    “…at the switch or circuit breaker used as the diconnecting means and shall be in place with or without the lock installed.”

                    Do you have the evidence or not? Every post you continue to make simply serves to show that you have zero evidence of anything being done wrong anywhere and that you are simply using this site to unlawfully spread libel and slander of Tesla violating the law when you don’t have a single ounce of proof to back your libel.

              2. Bill Howland says:

                Pushi, its a waste of time being nice to you or giving you the benefit of the doubt as I did above.

                How about quoting a “FACT” yourself. I’ve quoted plenty in this thread.

                There is no point in discussing even a simple issue with Silly people. And make it germaine to the subject at hand – of course you and others of your ilk here, cannot do so since you lack any expertise.

          2. Bill Howland says:

            Hogwash… The 150 volt/60 ampere requirement has been in effect continuously from 1999 to the present.

            1. Nix says:

              Bill, more idiocy because you can’t come up with:

              1) Permits for the site that specify that a Service Disconnect is required for that site, and where that Service Disconnect is located.

              2) Photographs from that site where any required Service Disconnect is not where the permit requires it to be.

              1. Bill Howland says:

                [MODERATED FOR RUDENESS] I have never talked about Service Disconnects.

                I talked about “Disconnecting Means”. Now for the last time let someone intelligent comment.

                1. Nix says:

                  Fine, pedantic fool:

                  1) Permits for the site that specify that a Disconnecting Means is required for that site, and where that Disconnecting Means is located.

                  2) Photographs from that site where any required Disconnecting Means is not where the permit requires it to be.

                2. Bill Howland says:

                  I’m not going to speak on this subject anymore since I hate being edited.

                  Sometimes blunt talk is necessary since the sillyness of the commenters needs to be showcased.

      2. Bill Howland says:

        As I’ve previously stated, the ‘shread’ of evidence is that it has been CONTINUOUSLY required between 1999 and the latest NFPA #70 – which has jurisdiction in over 98% of the United States and also most of Mexico. CSA in Canada is also trying to voluntarily harmonize their electric codes with it also, as is the province of Ontario.

        Due to the fact that you feign familiarity and expertise with electric systems, you cannot answer simple questions to your previous comments – I’m still waiting for your answer of what “HIGHER VOLTAGE TRANSFORMER” may be used at a fixed location, and precisely how it differs from the existing facility.

        My statement here is an easily understood concept, that only a bufoon wouldn’t understand. You’ve proven yourself to be such an flake that I’ll discuss this issue with anyone but you. Now be a good clown and go away since you just keep repeating the same pages and pages of drivel.

        In case anyone else is unfamiliar with the concept, the law is, any facility having more than 150 volts to ground and/or more than 60 amps requires a READILY ACCESSIBLE disconnect while performing its function. Superchargers are both over 150 volts to ground and over 60 amperes. Each of the above words has technically very PRECISE definitions which I won’t get into here, but they ARE what they sound like they are – the idiot NIX thought it wasn’t a continuous requirement since the paragraph numbering and location was moved during various years, but the requirement was always there – irrespective of the paragraph numbering change. If a system isn’t referenced to earth, then the EXACT definition requires the law to be the maximum voltage between conductors – which I think we can agree for an S or X is above 150 volts, and over 60 amperes usually.

        All the pictures NIX has shown in the past have been portable, mobile, and/or temporary supercharger facilities – those all have readily accessible disconnects by the public, PROVING THAT TESLA SOMETIMES COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENT. I have yet to see a PERMANENT supercharger facility with one, however. Hiding a disconnect behind a locked CORRAL makes it inaccessible as far as the requirement is concerned. It would be ok if the CORRAL was manned by a Tesla Employee 24/7/365, but I dare say few are.

        If you want an analogous comparison with a gasoline vending station, it is interesting that ALL the power supply energy of consequence MUST have a single disconnection point located on the OUTSIDE of a building so that the customer can push the button (a disconnect in this case is not required) – but the button is required to shut down a multitude of ALL reasonably low powered circuits of consequence – UNLESS the station is manned 24/7/365 – in which case it has to be readily accessible to the attendant, which then is located behind the counter.

        1. Nix says:

          Bill, as explained to you previously, NFPA does NOT decide what the legally binding code is ANYWHERE in the United States.

          They provide a SUGGESTED set of standards that every single local code authority MAY OR MAY NOT choose to adopt. And which they may choose to allow a waiver on a site-by-site basis.

          Funny enough, you have STILL never even provided a shred of evidence that any single Tesla supercharging station violates ANY version of code anywhere. If you think Tesla has violated the law, either put up or shut up. You are making libelous, unlawful false accusations of violations of the law unless you provide:

          1) Permits for the site that specify that a Service Disconnect is required for that site, and where that Service Disconnect is located.

          2) Photographs from that site where any required Service Disconnect is not where the permit requires it to be.

          Now you’ve had more than a month to produce the evidence. Do you have it or not? I’m sure insideev’s has better things to do than host your unlawful and defamatory libel.

          1. Bill Howland says:

            [MODERATED FOR RUDENESS]. You have no idea what a “Service Disconnect” is –

            The National Fire Protection Association does not make its findings law – over 98% of the municipalities in the United States MAKE it BINDING LAW. The “Authority having Jurisdiction” REQUIRES COMPLIANCE WITH THE NFPA.

            GO to your town and see if your town doesn’t require strict compliance with it.

            Now GO AWAY and let someone who is intelligent bring up a comment.

            1. Nix says:

              Bill, do you have the proof or not?

              1) Permits for the site that specify that a Service Disconnect is required for that site, and where that Service Disconnect is located.

              2) Photographs from that site where any required Service Disconnect is not where the permit requires it to be.

              Man up or shut up.

      3. Bill Howland says:

        Hehe, go away….. You have idea what a “Service Disconnect” is, and I have never said a “SERVICE DISCONNECT” is required – an SD is a very specific piece of equipment, and even a large Supercharger installation may LEGALLY have anywhere from ONE to SIX of them, besides others for a few specialized functions. But I’m not talking about that. But then as I say, you feign knowledge about what that is so you can ‘sound important’.

        It would be helpful if the self-appointed big experts knew what the words meant.

        1. Nix says:

          Bill, do you have the proof or not?

          1) Permits for the site that specify that a Service Disconnect is required for that site, and where that Service Disconnect is located.

          2) Photographs from that site where any required Service Disconnect is not where the permit requires it to be.

          1. Bill Howland says:

            Nope, I have never talked about Service Disconnects as it is not in the least Germaine to points I’ve made.

            If you were smart enough to understand what you are describing, you would be deflecting the subject to try to hide your ignorance.

            But you are not bright enough for such a stunt. Now go away. You can make a response to this, but I think anyone with half-a brain can see what you are doing. There is no response to be given to a court jester.

            1. Nix says:

              Wow, you really will post any crap you can in order to avoid and evade actually providing any proof of your false libels.

              Do you have the following or not, pedantic fool?

              1) Permits for the site that specify that a Disconnecting Means is required for that site, and where that Disconnecting Means is located.

              2) Photographs from that site where any required Disconnecting Means is not where the permit requires it to be.

              1. Bill Howland says:

                YOU are THE SILLIEST PERSON HERE. You don’t understand common words. When I say I’m not talking about something I mean it. Service Disconnects have nothing to do with the requirement I’m talking about. Its rather like constantly talking about plumbing requirements when I am talking about an electrical safety requirement continuously in force since 1999.

                I ask you repeatedly to answer a simple question to comments you made in the past which you ignore. You stated in the past that larger power to an existing supercharger installation may be accomplished with a “Higher Voltage Transformer”.

                I’ve asked SIX TIMES for you to mention the characteristics of this supposed “Higher Voltage Transformer” and how it differs from the existing one. No response ever, other than a deflection from you.

                You are the type of spooky person that normal people shy away from and won’t buy EV’s because they run into loud-mouth brain dead politically correct types spouting irrelevant nonsense all the time because you have nothing else to practice your mental masturbation on since you can’t afford your viagara tablets this month.

                I’ve quoted in the past the numbers of the ‘old paragraph’ where the requirement is as well as the ‘new paragraph’.

                Even a child has the innate ability to see the reasonableness of this requirement.

                You clown! I can’t show a photograph of something which is not there.

                I’m tired of spending 50,000 words on a TRULY BASIC kindergarten subject – which I initially only made one small sentence toward. I’d have other comments to make but I’m stuck here responding to a junk yard dog.

                What, of course, you are HOPING for, is that others reading this are unfamiliar with the requirement. If you talked to any group of professional electricians, of which I am one, you’d be laughed out of existence here. There is no grey area here. It is a requirement.

                One thing of which there is no disagreement: I’m on my 5th EV, and I have absolutely nothing in common with YOU, Thank GOD.

                1. Nix says:

                  Bill, you simply don’t know what you are talking about. What is required changed in different version. For example, in the 2011 regs, it clearly states that “Disconnecting Means” is nothing more than:

                  “Switch or CIRCUIT BREAKER used as the disconnecting means”

                  All they needed was a CIRCUIT BREAKER for any install where the 2011 code was in force!!!!!!!

                  Every time you post without providing this information, you simply prove you have zero evidence of anything being wrong with any install:

                  1) Permits for the site that specify that a Disconnecting Means is required for that site, and where that Disconnecting Means is located.

                  2) Photographs from that site where any required Disconnecting Means is not where the permit requires it to be.

                  Now, do you have it or not?

                  All your ranting and raving over whether or not Superchargers have a simple CIRCUIT BREAKER for the disconnecting means.

                  1. Bill Howland says:

                    You and Pushi are simpletons – go ask an Electrical Inspector what this means, starting with the 1999 NFPA #70 (National Electrical Code) – having the force of LAW in over 98% of the USA:

                    “…625-23. DISCONNECTING MEANS.

                    For electric vehicle supply equipment rated more than 60 amnperes or more than 150 volts to ground, the disconnecting means shall be provided and installed in a readily accesssible location. The disconnecting means shall be capable of being locked in the open position.”

                    Then, ask the inspector what this means in the CURRENT code. You will notice that the requirement has essentially no changes in the intervening 18 years.

                    2017 NFPA #70. “625.43 DISCONNECTING MEANS.
                    For equipment rated more than 60 amperes or more than 150 volts to ground, the disconnecting means shall be provided and installed in a readily accessible location. The disconnecting means shall be lockable open in accordance with 110.25.”

                    1. Nix says:

                      You continue to quote just the first lines of the 1999 and 2017 versions, while remaining intentionally blind to the 2011-2014 version, where the text continues on to say:

                      “…at the switch or circuit breaker used as the diconnecting means and shall be in place with or without the lock installed.”

                      What part “switch or circuit breaker used as the diconnecting means” that is unique to the 2011-2014 code do you not understand.

                      Now stop the endless blathering. Either you have the proof or you don’t. Provide it or end your ranting. Each post you make without this proves you have nothing:

                      1) Permits for the site that specify that a Disconnecting Means is required for that site, and where that Disconnecting Means is located.

                      2) Photographs from that site where any required Disconnecting Means is not where the permit requires it to be.

                    2. Bill Howland says:

                      Nix and Pushi are just flexing their keyboard muscles. Here’s the 2011 NFPA #70, article 625 – ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING SYSTEM, 2011 EDITION, PAGE #548.
                      And I quote:

                      “…625.23 Disconnecting Means.

                      For electric vehicle supply equipment rated more than 60 amperes or more than 150 volts to ground, the disconnecting means shall be provided and installed in a readily accessible location. The disconnecting means shall be capable of being locked in the open position. The provision for locking or adding a lock to the disconnecting means shall be installed on or at the switch or circuit breaker used as the disconnecting means and shall remain in place with or without the lock installed. Portable means for adding a lock to the switch or circuit breaker shall not be permitted…”.

                      Now, you’ll probably argue “What does “SHALL BE PROVIDED” , and what does “READILY ACCESSIBLE” mean?

                      You can send me $100 for the time and effort it has taken for me to research, and legally disprove your silly afformations.

                      Or you will just go dumb silent as Pushi always does when his gasbag deflates.

                    3. Nix says:

                      Bill,

                      ““What does “SHALL BE PROVIDED” , and what does “READILY ACCESSIBLE” mean?”

                      How each local code authority interprets how these definitions translate into actual hardware is 100% the decision of each local code authority, and whether each site plan conforms or not is determined on a case by case basis.

                      That is why you need to pull the APPROVED site plan in order to know exactly how each code authority translated those phrases into actually approving actual hardware on the ground.

                      They make that determination, not you.
                      They approve individual plans, not you.

                      That is why YOU need to provide the following if you want to claim Tesla violated the approved site plans and are in violation of code:

                      1) Permits for the site that specify that a Disconnecting Means is required for that site, and where that Disconnecting Means is located.

                      2) Photographs from that site where any required Disconnecting Means is not where the permit requires it to be.

                      Now, do you have it or not?

                    4. Nix says:

                      The site plan will also show whether or not the local code authority approved a WAIVER for any variances to the code, which all code authorities can approve.

                      There are no shortcuts for this. Inspectors don’t just show up without an approved site plan and inspect. They go off of the site plan, and what was approved.

                      Oh, and 2 months ago I provided YOU the link to where you could get a free account and read the 2011 code when I posted this link: You owe me $2,280 dollars plus statutory interest. I bill on my standard rate, 1 day minimum.

                      http://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-standards/list-of-codes-and-standards?mode=code&code=70&tab=editions

                      Now, do you actually have the required proof, or not? Each post you go without it, simply proves yet again that you don’t have it.

                    5. Bill Howland says:

                      I’ve answered all the objections to your 50 paragraphs both here and elsewhere about the 2011 code. I quoted verbatum from it. You owe me $100. Now go away.

                    6. Bill Howland says:

                      I don’t claim anything and I don’t care. I was assuming you did. Call up your local electrical inspector and ask him what he thinks.

                    7. Nix says:

                      You have now proven with 15 posts that you simply have zero proof of any code violations. 15 posts where you failed to provide proof.

                      And I’m not asking for anything unusual to the industry. This is EXACTLY what an inspector would do, and the photos they would submit if a site failed inspection.

                      Go ahead, post a 16th time, and prove for the 16th time that you don’t have any facts to back up your claims that Tesla isn’t up to code.

                      I’m not going to go away. I’m not going anywhere. If you don’t want to make a fool of yourself, don’t post foolish nutter anti-Tesla BS that you make up.

                2. Bill Howland says:

                  With pleasure…..

  5. Mike says:

    I wonder how many gas cars caught on fire last week ? Several.

    1. Chris O says:

      Watch a Porsche instantly incinerating 4 people:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVsouCrIxc0

    2. Four Electrics says:

      I’d like to see a parked ICE spontaneously catch fire.

      1. Nix says:

        Thanks for not even putting a single ounce of effort into your own

        Goto youtube and search: car fire parked

        Go through the “About 328,000 results”. Plenty of parked cars on fire. Plenty of different ages of cars.

        1. M Hovis says:

          +1

        2. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

          I posted 3 links to examples but it went into moderation then suddenly oblivion…..lol

          1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

            Two links per comment is the limit, any more and it’s moderation. Spread them out with a second “comment to yourself” with up to two links.

      2. jelloslug says:

        Ford recalled hundreds of thousands of cars and truck for master cylinders that would leak on wiring and would cause fires. They also had issues with melted ignition switches to the point that you can buy replacement ignition switch plug kits from Ford to replace the melted on that you have to cut off to replace the melted ignition switch.

      3. Bill Howland says:

        Four Electrics: “…I’d like to see a parked ICE spontaneously catch fire…”.

        The only car that comes to mind which did that is the Fisker Karma.

        Sounds like one of the big experts here was a consultant on the job.

  6. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

    This news story inspired the idea for my commercial that I will submit to the Project Loveday contest.

    /s

    1. Nix says:

      In that case, they already made your video for your H2 fuel cells, fuel cell fanboy:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jH-mhZLuGRk

      /sarc

      ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

      1. Nick says:

        I agree that H2 is very unlikely to be a reasonable transportation fuel in the medium to long term.

        Having said that, the fabric on the Hindenburg was doped with rocket fuel, which likey played a bigger role in its rapid burning than its H2 lifting gas.

      2. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

        Nix, you silly goose, I’m ZEV agnostic.

        I was thinking about doing a Tesla commercial from the point of view of a Model S charging at a Supercharger. As background music for the commercial, I’d use Blue Oyster Cult’s “I’m Burning For You.” 😀

        /s

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTvbXMRMnHo

    2. ffbj says:

      I doubt if it will even get past the screening desk.

  7. Nix says:

    Apparently the penalty for parking in at a supercharger while not charging is more draconian than in the United States….

    /sarc

    1. TNT says:

      Nix, that is funny! Going to suck for those involved but you gotta laugh at times like these. This is Tesla failing forward again.

    2. vdiv says:

      Brilliant! Made my day! 🙂

  8. Dav8or says:

    It’s going to happen with all electric cars. The good news is, the fires seem to never hurt anyone. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of fires related to crashes and that’s real good.

    On the other hand, having your expensive car spontaneously burn up is a bitch and doesn’t inspire confidence. The vast majority of ICE cars that burn up by the side of the road are old, poorly maintained cars under duress, not nearly new ones sitting idle. How good is the warranty? How much does it cover? I bet it’s a real pain in the ass.

    1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

      Warranty?

      Maybe Insurance.

      1. Dav8or says:

        Yeah, I would think that car that is only two years old spontaneously burning up while parked should be covered by a warranty. Tesla owes that guy another new car.

        1. Nix says:

          So if somebody tries to throw a lit cigarette out the window, and blows back in and lands between the seat and burns the car down, it should be covered under warranty? Actual example of this:

          http://www.myrecordjournal.com/news/state/9644636-154/man-injured-after-lit-cigarette-causes-car-fire-in-meriden.html

          I think you are very premature in saying it is an automatic warranty claim without a cause of fire.

    2. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

      Dav8or said:
      “The good news is, the fires seem to never hurt anyone.”

      At least one of the two occupants of the Tesla that crashed in Indianapolis a couple of months ago burned to death after the Tesla “exploded into ‘a big ball of fire”. If a crash breaches the Tesla’s battery pack, there will be an intense fire since Tesla uses a volatile battery chemistry.

      “Witnesses said the car ‘bounced around’ after crashing into the tree before it exploded. Al Finnell, who was driving near the Tesla, said he had to speed up to avoid debris and flames. ‘It hit that tree and it bounced around and all of a sudden it just exploded,’ Finnell told WTHR. ‘I had to accelerate my vehicle, because all the car parts went up in the air and I had to accelerate just to get away from it.’ He went on to say the car exploded into a ‘big ball of fire.'”

      “The lithium ion batteries in the Tesla broke apart and burned in sparking, violent flames. Some firefighters compared the scene to fireworks.”

      “‘Crews were preparing to make the rescue effort,’ Indianapolis Fire Department Battalion Chief Kevin Jones said. ‘At the same time, some of those smaller (battery) cells that had broken apart were firing off almost like projectiles around the rescuers.'”

      “Firefighters were able to free McCarthy from the vehicle about 20 minutes after they arrived on the scene. Speckman died in the crash. Her body remained in the vehicle for more than an hour while police investigated, Jones said.”

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3908700/Two-people-killed-Tesla-crash-Indianapolis.html

      http://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2016/11/03/2-killed-fiery-tesla-crash-near-downtown/93227456/

      1. Dav8or says:

        Brutal! Something strange about that crash. Car malfunction and out of control, or driver out of control? I’m pretty sure a crash of that magnitude would have killed the people in an ICE car as well. However, because the Tesla does is so computer controlled because of the autopilot feature, it does raise questions.

        What safeguards are in place should it run amok? Is there a way to quickly switch it off? Can it be put in neutral while under power? Can the hydraulic brakes over power the electric motor? I don’t know these answers. I suppose those here do.

        1. Nix says:

          There is nothing strange about the accident once you get the WHOLE story, something trolls like Sven will never give you.

          Driver and passenger were drunk, at DOUBLE the legal limit, with BAC’s of .21 and .17 when they wrecked at 1 AM in the morning in a 35 mph zone. They crashed going so fast that it left pieces for 150 yards, way too fast for autopilot to be engaged in a 35 mph zone.

          http://fox59.com/2017/02/08/crash-report-driver-of-tesla-involved-in-fiery-crash-had-bac-nearly-twice-the-legal-limit/

          The trolls want to leave that out, specifically to make you think there might be something wrong with the car, and not something wrong with speeding around at outrageous speeds while totally hammered with somebody else’s fiance at 1 AM on a week-night.

          Sounds a lot less strange when given all the facts, eh?

          1. Dav8or says:

            Yes, it’s good to have all the facts and in this case, I thought there was something fishy going on. Still, I do wonder what one can do in a Tesla (or any computer automated car) should it go rogue on you. Is there anything in the manual about this?

            1. Nix says:

              Yes, you can deactivate it if it goes rogue. The process is detailed in the Tesla owner’s manual.

              First you remove the cover to the Logical Memory Center. You will see a panel of brightly lit Memory Modules. Using the key, eject and disable Memory Modules until you can regain control of your rogue Tesla.

              Once the process is successful, your Tesla will play the song “Daisy Bell” to indicate you have regained full control.

              Here is Tesla’s video of the process, in case the Tesla user’s manual is not clear:

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8N72t7aScY

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          “I’m pretty sure a crash of that magnitude would have killed the people in an ICE car as well.”

          Probably true, but Sven never lets facts get in the way of his anti-Tesla troll posts. Sven also gleefully and repeatedly spread the outright smear campaign that claimed Tesla was hiding a safety problem with its suspension; Sven kept repeating that Big Lie even after it was made quite clear it was based on falsified evidence from someone who appears to be mentally unstable.

          1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

            You should pull your llama heads out of your arse. I never said Tesla was hiding a safety problem with its suspension, but I did repeatedly say that the nondisclousure agreements that they forced customers to sign served to deter customers from reporting safety defects to NHTSA for fear of violating the nondisclosure agreement. Troll.

            1. Bill Howland says:

              The Indianapolis deaths are sobering indeed. Witnesses said the car exploded and parts were projected 100 yards. I don’t care what the big clowns here say.

              What would the sychophants say if a Chevy door melted?

              1. Bill Howland says:

                One point needs clarification. Apparently some think the ‘100 yard parts trail’ was due to the collision impact.

                That is not what the witness said; he said the car bounced around, and THEN exploded, and THAT is when the parts flew 100 yards.

            2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              sven said, contrary to fact:

              “I never said Tesla was hiding a safety problem with its suspension…”

              And if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes true, hmmm?

              You repeatedly quoted, at length, and made repeated comments in support of, the smear campaign that Edward Niedermeyer spread in his Daily Kanban anti-Tesla hit piece. You continued this even after it was repeatedly pointed out to you that the whole thing was based on falsified evidence from a nutjob who has a personal grudge against Elon Musk; a nutjob who also claims the videos of SpaceX rockets landing tail-first are faked.

              Once again we see that FUDsters are compulsive liars who, for some reason, can’t bring themselves to stick to actual facts and Truth even when it would help their arguments to do so.

              Sven, I guess you’ve completely lost the ability to understand why the difference between truth and lies is important.

              1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

                * an, not and

      2. Get Real says:

        While sven keeps up his anti-Tesla trolling like a vulture, he neglects to mention that gas cars involved in high speed accidents can and do burst into flames as Paul Walker unfortunately found out:

        https://www.google.com/search?q=fast+and+furious+star+dies+video&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:ie-searchbox&ie=&oe=&gws_rd=ssl&safe=active&

        1. Dav8or says:

          In all fairness to Sven, he was just responding to my comment that it seems nobody ever gets hurt in EV fires, so he pointed out one where people did. He made no claims that Teslas were less safe than other cars, or that ICE cars never burst into flames.

          1. James says:

            Dav8or, you must be living in a fantasy world, or subscribe to the politically correct ideals that re corroding our society’s brain cells.

            Although I see you here daily, I’ll pretend you’re a newcomer who is unfamiliar with Sven’s daily anti-Tesla drivel and hateful bantor.

            He’s a hack – and a bad one at that. Just today, he’s trolled this site and others all day in a strangely aggressive attempt to smear Tesla without any real facts or good logic.

            1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

              I like you better when you’re not off your meds.

  9. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    Glad no one was hurt, but then injuries related to EV battery pack fires are almost nonexistent, unlike gasmobile fires.

    But since the Model S apparently wasn’t hooked up to the Supercharger at the time, can we be sure this wasn’t another case of some Chinese owner trying to charge his car in the manner shown in the photo linked below? 😉

    http://www.carnewschina.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/tesla-charging-china-2.jpg

  10. DJ says:

    Hmm, you’d think Elon could make something that is a child’s toy that wouldn’t burn up your car…

    I really do wonder how much faster they can make fast charging go knowing the amount of heat and stress on the batteries it already generates. Here’s to hoping a lot more but for now I’ll just stick with my AC charging although to be fair that is all I can do 😀

    1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

      “I’ll just stick with my AC charging”

      For many many others, that’s more than enough.

    2. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

      DJ said:
      “Hmm, you’d think Elon could make something that is a child’s toy that wouldn’t burn up your car…”

      Elon should put Tesla’s Supercharger technology to good use for children, and make a Supercharger-EZ-Bake-Oven. It would win Toy Of The Year! 😀

  11. ffbj says:

    I hope they bought the Tesla backed insurance.

  12. zzzzzzzzzz says:

    It looks like it is on street, no charger??
    http://www.kankanews.com/a/2017-03-06/0037905105.shtml?appid=148566

  13. James says:

    Any electric car using today’s tech will be vulnerable due to their use of liquid electrolytes in the battery cells. This is another reason I believe the solid state batteries that seem on the horizon will improve upon the already tiny percentage of electric cars that do combust.

    I agree totally with everyone here who is pointing out that thousands of ICE automobiles catch fire – sometimes spontaneously, each day. In fact, I can Google only my city – a moderately-sized large city in America, and find several car fires each day.

    It is very interesting how our society still has this inherent distrust of electricity and electric cars – even as they freely fill up their own cars with highly volatile fuel which could burn them up should they cause a spark around gas vapors that they can readily smell as they pump the liquid fuel!

    EVs are still “new”. Thus, the fear of them is a ploy the Sven’s of this world can manipulate, as surely oil companies and the Auto Alliance will for years to come.

  14. Hart Ed says:

    Maybe this is the new Tesla “move-your-car-from-the-Supercharger-when-finished-charging” response for non-compliance?

  15. Mike I says:

    Get used to this. Tezla is a mess and Mod 3 is delayed because of things like these. I mean, that’s before you figure out Musk is sexually confused.

  16. Steven says:

    tl;dr…
    Any possibility that there was a flammable activity going on inside the cabin? Perhaps a forgotten cigarette?

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Well of course it’s possible.

      The number of posts in this discussion thread that simply assume the cause of the fire is one thing or another, despite a total absence of reported pertinent facts, is a sad commentary on the unfortunate rarity of critical thinking.

      *Sigh*

    2. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

      That’s doubtful, this appears to be a battery fire since it was hot enough to burn a hole in door of the adjacent Tesla, parked about 4 feet away.

      1. Bill Howland says:

        So is the picture of the S with the melted door the car NEXT to one that already has been towed away? And we haven’t seen what the car that had the problem looks like?

  17. Bill Howland says:

    The question to be asked of course, is why do people who have no skin in the game are allowed to pollute this website? Nix and Pushi in my opinion have nothing to offer.

  18. MTN Ranger says:

    Wow, the fiery emotional outbursts in this thread is intense from both camps!

    1. Bill Howland says:

      mtn ranger: This falls under the category of Mark Twain’s quip:

      “Never argue with stupid people: they will drag you down to their level and beat you.”.

      In my discussion with Nix, he uses a calculated approach – when his statement is proven wrong, like

      saying 50 times “What about 2011?” and then I quote from 2011 code – then he moves to, well no one pays attention to it – then when I say almost 100% DO, he says ‘provide photographs’ of something not there, and some other ridiculous crap.

      His game plan of course, is hoping no one is paying attention. He provides 500 words of intervening drivel to muddy up (intentionally) the game plan. But that kind of thing never fooled Mark Twain.

      Meanwhile Pushi just has his finger up to see which way the wind is blowing.

      But both are illustrative and for this reason only, its worthwhile to view.

      1. Nix says:

        Bill, you have now proven for the 17th time that you have no proof to back your claim.

        Let me feed this to you like feeding a baby.

        1) Nothing in the code you quote is binding to any individual site if Tesla is given a waiver by the local code authority, or if the local code authority decides not to adopt any section of the code, or chooses to substitute their own standards. Nobody (including you) can tell those code authorities what they have to do.

        That means the ONLY authoritative source of what is required at ANY site is the approved site plan. The site plan is what the inspector uses to inspect if the site conforms with the site plan.

        2) The 2011-14 code says “CIRCUIT BREAKER” is required. Not an emergency shutoff button like at a gas station. Just an circuit breaker, and they certainly have a circuit breaker. So when you claim otherwise, you are simply wrong about the code, regardless whether the local code authority adopts that section or not. Dead wrong.

        3) You keep claiming that various things are wrong somewhere at some nebulous site. Yet even after 2 months, you have yet to provide a single ounce of evidence of any of your claims.

        So yet again you childish oaf, either put up or shut up and stop your libelous lies:

        A) Permits for the site that specify that a Disconnecting Means is required for that site, and where that Disconnecting Means is located.

        B) Photographs from that site where any required Disconnecting Means is not where the permit requires it to be.

        1. Bill Howland says:

          Proof:

          From 2011 NEC :
          “…625.23 Disconnecting Means.

          For electric vehicle supply equipment rated more than 60 amperes or more than 150 volts to ground, the disconnecting means shall be provided and installed in a readily accessible location. The disconnecting means shall be capable of being locked in the open position. The provision for locking or adding a lock to the disconnecting means shall be installed on or at the switch or circuit breaker used as the disconnecting means and shall remain in place with or without the lock installed. Portable means for adding a lock to the switch or circuit breaker shall not be permitted…”.

          1. Nix says:

            19 posts just in this story where you have utterly failed to show that Tesla has violated any code anywhere.

            Here is what ANY inspector would do to determine if ANY electrical site were in compliance with what was approved for their site:

            A) Permits for the site that specify that a Disconnecting Means is required for that site, and where that Disconnecting Means is located.

            B) Photographs from that site where any required Disconnecting Means is not where the permit requires it to be.

            There are no shortcuts just because you are too lazy and ignorant to understand how code and inspections work. If you have it, post it. Idiotic fool.

  19. Bill Howland says:

    Go ask an Electrical Inspector what the above paragraph means.

    Tell me if you convince him.

    Of course, that requires getting out of mommy’s basement and actually making a phone call.

    1. Nix says:

      An inspector would ask you for the approved site plan and a copy of the approved permit before doing an inspection. Because inspectors don’t actually make the decisions. The folks in the back office that approve site plans make the decisions.

      The inspector would tell you to reschedule the inspection when you have your sh!+ together, and have the proper paperwork, including the site plan which would show exactly what was approved, what exceptions may have been approved, and what year the install was done, and what version of the code was in effect, and what variances the local code authority had in place at that time.

      What a sad, sad day that you don’t even understand the basic function of how approvals or inspections work.

      1. Bill Howland says:

        I’ve repeatedly said I don’t care. This is obviously a very big issue for you however…

        Why don’t you have your mommy do it if you’re too lazy or incompetant on the telephone?

        Where is the PROOF? You’re supposed to find out what the inspector SAID, not what you, in your most enchanted moments, THINK he would say – you who know nothing about this stuff, since you won’t answer my other reasonable questions.

        But once your self-excitement has died down, take 5 minutes and have an Inspector explain it to you. After all, he’s the only one whose opinion matters.

        In any case, I’m not the one to argue the point with. Your mommy might care, but I don’t.

  20. Bill Howland says:

    Pushi: I missed the comment where you said it was “Voices in my Head.”

    It wasn’t. It was from NFPA #70, in effect in 2011.

    Proof:

    From 2011 NEC :
    “…625.23 Disconnecting Means.

    For electric vehicle supply equipment rated more than 60 amperes or more than 150 volts to ground, the disconnecting means shall be provided and installed in a readily accessible location. The disconnecting means shall be capable of being locked in the open position. The provision for locking or adding a lock to the disconnecting means shall be installed on or at the switch or circuit breaker used as the disconnecting means and shall remain in place with or without the lock installed. Portable means for adding a lock to the switch or circuit breaker shall not be permitted…”.

    It is right there in black and white on page number 548. NFPA offers incidental ‘free access’ to all their codes, so verify it if you still doubt its veracity.

    After you do so, I expect an apology – not that it means much from you.

    Maybe it would be good to have an Electrical Inspector also weigh in on this –

    Try the “Its voices in your head” with him, after he reads the above requirements.

    Maybe if Nix or his mommy won’t bother asking officials who matter, perhaps your Mommy will do it for you. Of course, she’d be in her late 80’s by now, but I’m sure she is certainly as lucid atill as you are.