Forums

BMW Spontaneously Catching on Fire

BMW Spontaneously Catching on Fire

Silver2K | 2017年5月12日

there is no proof of defects and not even NHTSA has found anything proving the cars are defective.

you should wait for some type of conclusion before posting this type of article.

Mike83 | 2017年5月12日

Did you read it.?

Mike83 | 2017年5月12日

If it we're a Tesla the major news Network would be all over it

ICE vehicles catch fires 17 times an hour.

Silver2K | 2017年5月13日

Yes I read it

"And BMW isn't the only party that's dumbfounded by the issue. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration hasn't found a "smoking gun" either, but it encourages anyone who experiences unusual auto-related behavior--including but not limited to spontaneous combustion--to report it via the agency's website"

It's natural to report a new company having issues, but Elon is extremely intelligent in squashing the FUD.

Al1 | 2017年5月13日

I'd rather say it's natural for ICE cars to catch fire.

quote ... cars can occasionally catch fire for no immediately obvious cause. Faulty wiring, faulty maintenance work, fuel leaks, rodents, or any number of other issues can lead to a vehicle fire.

Silver2K | 2017年5月13日

never stoop down to their level.

PS: it's not natural for any car to catch fire spontaneously, it that's true then I've had amazing luck for 30 years.

Captain_Zap | 2017年5月13日

The "smoking gun" on my BMW was the fuel line material deteriorating to the point that it became porous. It took us ages and lots of parts replacements to figure out where the fuel leaks were coming from. It is easy to understand why they wouldn't be able to find the culprit in that case or if the evidence was destroyed in a fire.

TeslaTap.com | 2017年5月13日

@Captain - I thought the fastest way to find and resolve ICE fuel leaks is to use a match! Might not be the healthiest way for the car.

Mike83 | 2017年5月13日

Apparently there were settlements with signed non-discloser agreements. The main point is they are catching on fire even if not driven. Don't park one in your garage. Did they notify the owners? Tesla notifies owners like with a seat-belt issue. Quite a different company.

Bighorn | 2017年5月13日

This was a concern when I drove a BMW 15 years ago. Recommendations to not park in an attached garage are nothing new with them.

Mike83 | 2017年5月13日

Do BMW's come equipped with fire extinguishers and breathing masks?
They should also offer a course in fire training like at the local volunteer fire departments.

Silver2K | 2017年5月13日

Mike

Nothing apparent. Owners could be taking advantage of the rare occurrences and doing insurance jobs. In 2001 m3 engines were blowing and BMW figured the non Bosch crankshaft was the issue and admitted to it. By admitting to it, owners decided to blow their engines purposely to get a new engine. Unfortunately for them BMW had the ability to pull the logs and saw the owners were redlining the engine to blow it and did not replace them under warranty. This also went on with Toyota and their unintended acceleration fiasco.

I've had 6 m3s I a row and 7 total BMWs and I've never heard of their fire history. I doubt very much they would outsell Mercedes and Audi till today if that was the case. Defects happen in all cars, BMW and all vehicles are far from perfect.

KP in NPT | 2017年5月13日

We sold our 2002 BMW 325xi to my BIL when we got our Model S. It caught fire while he was driving - originating from the rear defroster even though the defroster was not turned on. Even though he pulled over and turned off the car, they had to disconnect the battery because even with Halon it wasn't going out until the battery was disconnected. Car was a total loss.

Mike83 | 2017年5月13日

This reminds me of the early Ford Explorer Rollovers that the company quieted and changed the design with a wider wheel base. Of course companies want to keep stuff like this quiet. ICE fires are so frequent I doubt if we had EV's all the time the ICE wouldn't ever be approved.

Mike83 | 2017年5月13日

On our last vacation we saw a VW burned to a crisp somewhere off 101

carlk | 2017年5月13日

There is of course a reason. ICE car has so many lines and tubings carrying all kinds of combustable hydrocarbon liquids. That and hot engine and exhaust made every ICE car defective. It's no coincidence that hundreds of thousands car fires happen every year. Funny thing is people keep on questioning whether we could achieve 100% safety of FSD car but this real defect is mostly ignored..

Al1 | 2017年5月13日

@Silver

I was not trying to bad moth ICE cars or something. Yet there are so many ways things could go wrong.

You said, it's not natural for any car to catch fire spontaneously. I agree.

However reality is, we don't often hear about car makers brought to the court because the cars they made caught fire.

SO | 2017年5月13日

Trying to control explosions. What could possibly go wrong?

Mike83 | 2017年5月13日

Wow. New cars with fuel cracks. I have a neighbor who I must inform. Won't be sitting in his car. Thanks carik.
I wonder how they can cover this up?

SamO | 2017年5月13日

Strict liability[edit]
Rather than focus on the behavior of the manufacturer (as in negligence), strict liability claims focus on the product itself. Under strict liability, the manufacturer is liable if the product is defective, even if the manufacturer was not negligent in making that product defective.

The difficulty with negligence is that it still requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant's conduct fell below the relevant standard of care. However, if an entire industry tacitly settles on a somewhat careless standard of conduct (that is, as analyzed from the perspective of a layperson), then the plaintiff may not be able to recover even though he or she is severely injured, because although the defendant's conduct caused his or her injuries, such conduct was not negligent in the legal sense (if everyone within the trade would inevitably testify that the defendant's conduct conformed to that of a reasonable tradeperson in such circumstances). As a practical matter, with the increasing complexity of products, injuries, and medical care (which made many formerly fatal injuries survivable), it is quite a difficult and expensive task to find and retain good expert witnesses who can establish the standard of care, breach, and causation.

Therefore, in the 1940s and 1950s, many American courts departed from the MacPherson standard and decided that it was too harsh to require seriously injured consumer plaintiffs to prove negligence claims against manufacturers or retailers. To avoid having to deny such plaintiffs any relief, these courts began to look for facts in their cases which they could characterize as an express or implied warranty from the manufacturer to the consumer. The res ipsa loquitur doctrine was also stretched to reduce the plaintiff's burden of proof. Over time, the resulting legal fictions became increasingly strained.

Of the various U.S. states, California was the first to throw away the fiction of a warranty and to boldly assert the doctrine of strict liability in tort for defective products, in the Supreme Court of California's decision in Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, 59 Cal. 2d 57 (1963) (in which the majority opinion was authored by then-Associate Justice Roger J. Traynor). The importance of Greenman cannot be overstated: in 1996, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (now known as the American Association of Justice) celebrated its 50th anniversary by polling lawyers and law professors on the top ten developments in tort law during the past half-century, and Greenman topped the list.[5]

In Greenman, Traynor cited to his own earlier concurring opinion in Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 24 Cal. 2d 453, 462 (1944) (Traynor, J., concurring). In Escola, now widely recognized as a landmark case in American law,[6] Justice Traynor laid the foundation for Greenman with these words:

Even if there is no negligence, however, public policy demands that responsibility be fixed wherever it will most effectively reduce the hazards to life and health inherent in defective products that reach the market. It is evident that the manufacturer can anticipate some hazards and guard against the recurrence of others, as the public cannot. Those who suffer injury from defective products are unprepared to meet its consequences. The cost of an injury and the loss of time or health may be an overwhelming misfortune to the person injured, and a needless one, for the risk of injury can be insured by the manufacturer and distributed among the public as a cost of doing business. It is to the public interest to discourage the marketing of products having defects that are a menace to the public. If such products nevertheless find their way into the market it is to the public interest to place the responsibility for whatever injury they may cause upon the manufacturer, who, even if he is not negligent in the manufacture of the product, is responsible for its reaching the market. However intermittently such injuries may occur and however haphazardly they may strike, the risk of their occurrence is a constant risk and a general one. Against such a risk there should be general and constant protection and the manufacturer is best situated to afford such protection.

The year after Greenman, the Supreme Court of California proceeded to extend strict liability to all parties involved in the manufacturing, distribution, and sale of defective products (including retailers)[7] and in 1969 made it clear that such defendants were liable not only to direct customers and users, but also to any innocent bystanders randomly injured by defective products.[8]

Since then, many jurisdictions have been swayed by Justice Traynor's arguments on behalf of the strict liability rule in Escola, Greenman, and subsequent cases. In the 40 years after Greenman, the highest courts of nearly all U.S. states and territories followed California's example in imposing strict liability on manufacturers, distributors, and retailers for defective products. In a landmark 1986 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court embraced strict liability for defective products by adopting it as part of federal admiralty law.[9]

Meanwhile, although the Greenman rule was transmitted to most other states via Section 402A of the Restatement of Torts, Second (published in 1964 after Greenman), the Supreme Court of California refused to adopt Section 402A's "unreasonably dangerous" limitation upon strict liability in 1972.[10] Thus, strict liability in California is truly strict, in that the plaintiff need not show that the defect was unreasonable or dangerous. On the other hand, in California, the defendant is allowed to introduce evidence in a strict products liability action that the plaintiff contributed to his or her own injuries.[11]

Although the Supreme Court of California has since become more conservative, it continues to endorse and expand the doctrine. In 2002 it held that strict liability for defective products even applies to makers of component products that are installed into and sold as part of real property.[12] However, strict liability is not limitless. In 2012, the Court held that manufacturers are liable under strict liability and negligence only for defects in their products, as distinguished from other products that could potentially be used with their products.[13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_liability#Theories_of_liability

Silver2K | 2017年5月13日

Mike83 | May 13, 2017
Wow. New cars with fuel cracks. I have a neighbor who I must inform. Won't be sitting in his car. Thanks carik.
I wonder how they can cover this up?
----------------------------------------

how is this a cover-up? the had a recall in October last year and expanding on it.

"The problem with the Audi and Porsche models is that the fuel pump flange "may" develop small cracks, the automaker said in its report to federal regulators.

The report did not mention any fires or injuries."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

throwing other manufacturers under the bus is childish.
what did you do before tesla? you walked your whole life? if tesla went belly up and no one made electric cars again, you plan on going back to walking everywhere?

this is what the fanbois of other manufacturers do and you make fund on them...

silly rabbit, trix are for kids

Mike83 | 2017年5月13日

Sliver. The more you talk the more you exaggerate as usual.

Mike83 | 2017年5月13日

I think BMW fires hit a nerve with Silver.

SamO | 2017年5月13日

I don't think BMWs are more prone to fires, particularly.

"U.S. fire departments responded to an estimated average of 152,300 automobile fires per year in 2006-2010. These fires caused an average of 209 civilian deaths, 764 civilian injuries, and $536 million in direct property damage."

http://www.nfpa.org/public-education/by-topic/property-type-and-vehicles...

The evidence is clear that GAS CARS are dangerous, as designed. They simply CANNOT BE MADE SAFE.

They contain huge qualities of flammable liquids.

Silver2K | 2017年5月13日

Mike83 | May 13, 2017
I think BMW fires hit a nerve with Silver.
-----------
Really? I'm exaggerating or actually being normal? You actually said you won't get into your friend's car any more and I'm exaggerating?

Didn't you brag about Tesla being a great company that hires Americans in the stock thread?

Maybe you should take your head out of your ass and see how many Americans BMW employs in total compared to Tesla as a whole in the US.

I'm not going to agree with your nonsense, because I own a Tesla. I own a Tesla because it's a great car, not because the others are junk.

You're just mad because I'm right. I'm ok with that weirdo

Mike83 | 2017年5月13日

Flagged

carlk | 2017年5月13日

I wouldn't say others are junk but now there is Tesla there is no reason for those (ICE) cars to exist anymore.

Mike83 | 2017年5月13日

carik. Yes.

Silver2K | 2017年5月13日

carlk

Our economy depends heavily on oil. Gas cars will exist for a long time, but I fully believe electric cars will be at 50% in overall motor vehicle sales by 2030-35.

Mike, I think the pharmacy is still open, go get your meds.

Mike83 | 2017年5月13日

TeslaTap.com
LOL. Slow on this Saturday but got your joke.

Al1 | 2017年5月13日

@Silver

I fully believe electric cars will be at 50% in overall motor vehicle sales by 2030-35.

And I fully believe emissions are responsible for asthma. I also believe we need to thoroughly investigate connection between rising cancer and emissions.

So what should we tell to the ones diagnosed between now and 2035? That our economy needs them to die?

Silver2K | 2017年5月13日

You're right, but I'm just stating the reality of our situation, not backing it at all. We cant just shut things down like a light switch.

If I didn't care, I wouldn't have solar panels on my roof. I'm honest about what's going on and refuse to mindlessly repeat and agree to statements (like this post) like I'm in a cult. The article specifically states they have not found the smoking gun as I stated in post 4

Mike83 | 2017年5月13日

Stranded assets of fossil fuel companies would cause bankruptcies so they want to keep selling these hazardous fuels and try to forget about Climate Disruption or gas fires or health effects, etc.But the world is taking action and progressing ahead and even though the overall US population believes in change those with the most money don't want to change and control the Feds.
So I guess Al1 you tell them take your meds. and make sure you have insurance to cover your cancer treatments but if it is a pre-existing condition I guess it is tough luck. Unbelievable for a civilized nation?

Mike83 | 2017年5月13日

Just found this from another thread. The mainstream news is covering this to my surprise.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/bmw-mystery-fires-abc-news-investigation/...

Silver2K | 2017年5月13日

Wow, this is a huge deal! 40 incidents out of millions sold in 5 years. Sound like an epidemic to me!

Mike83 | 2017年5月13日

Take it easy silver. We get your opinion.

Al1 | 2017年5月13日

@Mike

I am not calling to be a Civilized nation. Just don't believe a lot of us fully understand how quickly disruptions tend to occur. I strongly doubt something that has lost reason to exist today will still retain 50% of sales 12-17 years from now.

It takes much less than losing 50% of your revenue to go out of business altogether. In some cases such a threshold is just 15%.

Tesla is well known for not spending money on marketing, but as a matter of fact their marketing is just brilliant. They take the strongest points of their technology and create context to leverage its advantages at a maximum. Look at the boring company for example. One reason current tunnels are so expensive is car emissions require powerful ventilation. But Tesla built tunnels will not be a good fit for ICE cars. Going forward in addition to all current benefits from electric you'll also have the benefit of bypassing downtown traffic congestion altogether.

A privilege ICE cars won't have.

Mike83 | 2017年5月13日

That's boring. Excellent observations.

Ross1 | 2017年5月14日

Bmw should recall all their cars.
They are really ugly, and they catch fire.
2cents.

Mike83 | 2017年5月14日

The problem has been solved on another thread. Its gasoline.

Al1 | 2017年5月15日

I am curious how the insurance companies will choose to deal with this. And what if anything these will do to car premiums.

Has anybody noticed any change or this remains the insurance companies best kept secret?

TeslaTap.com | 2017年5月15日

I'm no fan of ICE, and clearly they are designed as fire deathtraps, but looking at the reality:
USA has about 250 million cars and trucks. At 150,000 fires a year, that means about 0.06% of vehicles catch on fire each year. Likely the insurance companies consider this in the noise.

Looking at it another way - let's assume every car fire totals the car, although I expect less than half are totaled. Some cars are new and some are old. Let's say the average value is $20,000 per vehicle or a total cost of $3 billion. Road crashes cost the U.S. $230.6 billion per year., so the cost of fires is less than 1.3%.

georgehawley.fl.us | 2017年5月15日

Actually, I think the Musk tunnel concept would work well fir ICEVs. They drive onto a shuttle, turn off the engine, descend into the tunnel and emerge with no emissions.

Mike83 | 2017年5月15日

Although fumes and potential explosions from gas lines and hot exhaust muffflers could be an issue. Scary.

TeslaTap.com | 2017年5月16日

No reason to allow ICE cars in the tunnels. They can retain access to clogged surface streets.

Might allow hybrids in the tunnels if the engine can be locked out (so HVAC can still run).

Al1 | 2017年5月16日

@georgehawley

Technically it could. However more likely tunnels will be part of Tesla ecosystem. At least in the beginning until critical mass is reached.

We don't yet know how Boring is going to generate revenue. I believe it will follow the superchargers model whereas you need to own Tesla in order to use it. I could be wrong though.