- Joined
- Jun 13, 2011
- Messages
- 3,809
Charles Whalen has been right in so many things. He was familiar with the capacity loss problem Nissan historically had with their packs, among other things. While your posts appear to be well-articulated and well-informed, I have struggled with their content and with your intentions on numerous occasions. The great debate you felt was needed about Nissan's unfortunate use of the term "trickle charging" would be a good example. In my humble opinion, it's not Charles who is asking to be included on an ignore list, if you catch my drift.donald said:I think that's someone rather egging for an argument, such provocative language.
donald said:But, in any case, the statistics do not [yet] suggest Tesla are out of the norm on vehicle fire rates. They can't yet claim to be the least likely to catch fire (!) given recent events, but I've no particular reason to yet presume they are the worst make either.
No, the statistics already points to Tesla's battery technology having a significantly greater risk of fires than what the LEAF or the Volt are using. There is only one Volt fire, which has been reported. In a vehicle that was crash tested and left stored against manufacturer recommendations for three weeks before the fire started. No fires have been reported for the LEAF anywhere. Between these two vehicles, they shipped probably ten times the volume of the Model S and have about ten times more fleet miles with no fire incident.
There have been severe accidents involving LEAFs and Volts. One of the ActiveE drivers was involved in a very serious accident, which left the front battery deformed and with a gaping 8-inch hole from hitting a metallic object. The car did not catch fire.