Do Teslas catch on fire more often than internal combustion engine cars?

[rgG]

timg wrote:
[quote=pRICE cUBE]
The fires look interesting https://jalopnik.com/tesla-battery-cells...1788573241

You know they use lithium in fireworks, right?
Was that one of the elements we burned in Chemistry to see what color the flame was?
I seem to remember that Strontium was a beautiful purple color, IIRC, but that was many decades ago.

[hal]

Ken Sp. wrote: Tesla (TSLA) is one of the most shorted stocks on Wall Street

there's a reason for that

Ken Sp. wrote: Yes, Elon, and Tesla "shoot themselves in the foot" plenty of times on their own.

there ya go

[ztirffritz]

hal wrote:
[quote=cbelt3]
8/500,000 in 1 year. (article)
171,500 vehicle files per year in the US from 2014 to 2016. Out of 260M vehicles (Many of which are not operated). (FEMA Stats, Statistica stats)
... Math....

Ergo... Teslas are over 40 times less likely to catch fire than any other vehicle on the road.

How old is 'any other vehicle on the road'? This is comparing a group of very new cars to a group of cars of ALL ages. It would be a better comparison to ask how many combustion engines built in the last 3 years have burned.
That is a fair enough statement. However the Tesla Roadster debuted in 2008. Admittedly, they didn't make many, but the point remains that Tesla has been producing and selling electric vehicles for 11 years now. The Model 3 outsold all of their class competitors combined, so it isn't exactly a small sample size. That's a large enough and long enough sample that we can reasonably say that exploding Teslas are not really a pattern. Yes a few have burst into flames, but mostly those were after driving over road debris or impacting concrete barriers at >90mph, one was even shot with a handgun. This level of extrapolation would likely make a statistician quiver with frustration, but I think any reasonable person would say the perception of exploding Tesla vehicles isn't true or valid. It's just sensationalized news to sell page views, papers, magazines, etc.

[Carnos Jax]

hal wrote:
[quote=Ken Sp.]Tesla (TSLA) is one of the most shorted stocks on Wall Street

there's a reason for that

Ken Sp. wrote: Yes, Elon, and Tesla "shoot themselves in the foot" plenty of times on their own.

there ya go
To be fair, these aren't reasons you short a stock. The only reasons you short a stock is either because you don't believe in their fundamentals, or do not wish for them to succeed for strategic reasons.

I think Tesla's fundamentals are sound.

On the other hand, there are a lot of interests that don't want Tesla to succeed. For starters, Tesla doesn't do any advertising. Guess who the biggest source of revenue is for media? That's right, the automotive industry (to the tune of 30% II think). Short of obviously disprovalbe slander, it is not in the media's interest to check all the misinformation about Tesla.

A far bigger motivated group would be oil interests. For example, it was shown that Russia interfered with the U.S. and Brexit elections. Fossil fuels represent an even greater interest to Russia (it is responsible for the majority of their exports as well as the creation of the current power players in Russia...think the oligarchs and Putin). Elon Musk already demonstrated to the Russians that he was capable of doing what he sets out to (the Russian space industry was destroyed by SpaceX after the Russians initially dismissed them as a threat). Do you think the Russians are idly sitting by the second time around?

And it's not just Russian oil interests, it's the global oil interests (including domestic). Together, they represent a lot of finicial power that can be brought to bear against Tesla.

[ztirffritz]

I suspect that the oil industry is lobbing 1% of their annual income at slowing Tesla down. $250million is a drop in the bucket to them but if it slows Tesla by 5 years it’s a wise investment.

[Racer X]

a non-Tesla burning isn't news.

[DeusxMac]

Racer X wrote:
a non-Tesla burning isn't news.

Precisely!

[Bill in NC]

pure EVs are great for a few, but hybrids are the more logical choice for most.

[Zoidberg]

This sums it up:

Grateful11 wrote: They're way more newsworthy is the problem.

It's also a "yeah, see" kind of sarcasm that some curmudgeons enjoy; seeing the newer/other/thing they don't have encounter a problem, especially a spectacular one (such as bursting into flame).

Same kind of backwards mentality that makes some people enjoy hearing stories about how an iPhone will burn/explode (though it always turns out to be user error/aftermarket parts in the food chain) or the hillbillies who coal roll a Prius.

[RAMd®d]

It's also a "yeah, see" kind of sarcasm that some curmudgeons enjoy; seeing the newer/other/thing they don't have encounter a problem, especially a spectacular one (such as bursting into flame).

This is the same kind of idjit playing the 'only in Florida' card.

If I were to by a Tesla, my only real consideration is if an insurance company was to penalize me because of the various fires, compared to another car in the same price range.

I'd think insurance companies would crunch stats better than most magpies, but that doesn't mean I'd benefit if the numbers were/are good.

Out of curiosity, how does the Volt compare to fires? Do we have a number and it's similar, just not news bite worthy?