After Fiery China Crash, Model X Rear Doors Are Still Causing Problems for Tesla

by Steph Willems

Published: April 24th, 2017

after fiery china crash model x rear doors are still causing problems for tesla

The fiery aftermath of a crash on a Chinese highway has Tesla on the defensive, rebuffing claims the rear “Falcon Wing” doors of the Model X pose a danger to passengers trying to escape.

Unlike past high-profile crashes, this story doesn’t concern the potential risks of the vehicle’s Autopilot system, as it seems the cause of the accident can be entirely attributed to driver error. The chauffeur-driven Model X reportedly hit cement barriers in Guangzhou, China, while travelling at 47 miles per hour, spinning the vehicle around and sparking a head-on impact from a Ford Focus.

The vehicle’s underfloor battery pack, damaged and exposed to oxygen, erupted in flames. However, it’s what happened next that prompted a $1 million lawsuit against Tesla.

According to the owner’s statement, discovered and posted by Electrek, Lee Tada and her boyfriend were sitting in the second row, and found the electrically actuated doors — apparently drained of even residual power — impossible to open after the impact. Both rear occupants escaped by scrambling over the front seats.

Tada suffered facial injuries in the crash, and claims the driver was left with internal injuries and a long-term hospital stay. Tesla’s Chinese sales division claims to be investigating the crash with the help of local authorities.

The lawsuit stems from the inability of the rear-seat passengers to escape the burning vehicle through the rear doors. Shortly after the Model X entered the market, electrical glitches led some owners to condemn the automaker for its eye-catching but wonky rear doors. Tesla rolled out a software update to smooth out the issue.

While there’s a manual way to open the rear doors — it involves removing the speaker cover in the lower door panel and moving a latch — it’s not likely that every buyer reads through that section of the owner’s manual. Certainly, passengers wouldn’t be aware of its existence.

Tesla China released a garbled statement relating to the lawsuit:

First of all, the lives of the owner and passengers were not threaten. We are working closely with the department concerned. The distribution of the debris at the site and the damage all indicate that this was a high-speed crash – in this case, not just electric cars, but any vehicle can catch on fire. In fact, another car involved in the accident (a fuel-powered vehicle) also caught on fire. Fuel tank fire incidents happen much more often than the electric car fires.

In addition, Tesla has consistently insisted on the disclosure and transparency of information, including other information about the incident, such as the owner is asking us for 8 million yuan, and we will not accept.

Robin Ren, Vice-President of Asia-Pacific at Tesla, told Electrek the owner decided to “blackmail” the company after the insurance company failed to cover the loss, attributing the crash to driver inexperience.

[Image: Tesla Motors]

#China #Crash #Lawsuit #Safety #Tesla #TeslaModelX

Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments

Join the conversation

14 of 82 comments

Brandloyalty on Apr 24, 2017

Why does every Tesla story on TTAC result in an eruption of idiotic comments? It makes the site look like a place where bad mannered children hang out.

Like Reply
- See 11 previous
- Lou_BC on Apr 24, 2017
  
  "eruption of idiotic comments" Can't wait for a story about Tesla making full sized pickups as opposed to small ones with twitterpotus support ;)
  
  Like
- Brandloyalty on Apr 25, 2017
  
  @Lou_BC Like, here's this relatively young person whose accomplishments already and vastly exceed those of probably anyone who comments or writes here, and every article about his activities gets responses that remind me of a pack of chihuahuas yipping and snapping at someone's ankles. It reminds me that the US has no shortage of morons who use the Internet to voice their hatred of experts and intellectuals and scientists. Who do they think invented computers and the Internet and Twitter and Facebook? Cows? Maybe this is how the US replicates the occasional purges of smart people that have set back some communist countries. I guess it should not seem remarkable that it happens on a website with the word "truth" in its name.
  
  Like
- Lou_BC on Apr 25, 2017
  
  @brandloyalty Or maybe it is just a bunch of dudes having a good laugh?
  
  Like
- OldManPants on Apr 25, 2017
  
  @brandloyalty "brandloyalty" Well chosen!
  
  Like
- MartyToo on Apr 25, 2017
  
  Yes, you are correct. Hold your post up to a mirror and decipher...
  
  Like
- OldManPants on Apr 25, 2017
  
  MartyToo, WordPress' commenting system would embarrass Kazahks, elderly Kazahks, so you gotta include a quote from or directly address whomever you're responding to once you're a ways down a thread.
  
  Like
- 28-Cars-Later on Apr 25, 2017
  
  @OldManPants My father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate was an elderly Kazahk.
  
  Like
- OldManPants on Apr 25, 2017
  
  @28-Cars-Later Hi! Қалайсыз? Hi! Қалайсыз?
  
  Like
- 28-Cars-Later on Apr 25, 2017
  
  @28-Cars-Later Жөн, сендер?
  
  Like
- OldManPants on Apr 25, 2017
  
  @28-Cars-Later Put on my distance glasses to gaze out the window.. looked back to the computer and Christ, that first letter.. thought I had a wood tic on the screen.
  
  Like
- 28-Cars-Later on Apr 25, 2017
  
  @28-Cars-Later Those Kazahks are out to get you.
  
  Like
- OldManPants on Apr 25, 2017
  
  @28-Cars-Later Лайма ауруы.
  
  Like
Brandloyalty on Apr 25, 2017

And to comment on the story, I'm no fan of gull-wing doors. People unfortunately do get trapped in crashed and burning cars that have regular doors. It takes a while to sort out whether the car design was negligent.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

Bouzouki Cadillac (aka GM!!) made so many mistakes over the past 40 years, right up to today, one could make a MBA course of it. Others have alluded to them, there is not enough room for me to recite them in a flowing, cohesive manner.Cadillac today is literally a tarted-up Chevrolet. They are nice cars, and the "aura" of the Cadillac name still works on several (mostly female) consumers who are not car enthusiasts.The CT4 and CT5 offer superlative ride and handling, and even performance--but, it is wrapped in sheet metal that (at least I think) looks awful, with (still) sub-par interiors. They are niche cars. They are the last gasp of the Alpha platform--which I have been told by people close to it, was meant to be a Pontiac "BMW 3-series". The bankruptcy killed Pontiac, but the Alpha had been mostly engineered, so it was "Cadillac-ized" with the new "edgy" CTS styling.Most Cadillacs sold are crossovers. The most profitable "Cadillac" is the Escalade (note that GM never jack up the name on THAT!).The question posed here is rather irrelevant. NO ONE has "a blank check", because GM (any company or corporation) does not have bottomless resources.Better styling, and superlative "performance" (by that, I mean being among the best in noise, harshness, handling, performance, reliablity, quality) would cost a lot of money.Post-bankruptcy GM actually tried. No one here mentioned GM's effort to do just that: the "Omega" platform, aka CT6.The (horribly misnamed) CT6 was actually a credible Mercedes/Lexus competitor. I'm sure it cost GM a fortune to develop (the platform was unique, not shared with any other car. The top-of-the-line ORIGINAL Blackwing V8 was also unique, expensive, and ultimately...very few were sold. All of this is a LOT of money).I used to know the sales numbers, and my sense was the CT6 sold about HALF the units GM projected. More importantly, it sold about half to two thirds the volume of the S-Class (which cost a lot more in 201x)Many of your fixed cost are predicated on volume. One way to improve your business case (if the right people want to get the Green Light) is to inflate your projected volumes. This lowers the unit cost for seats, mufflers, control arms, etc, and makes the vehicle more profitable--on paper.Suppliers tool up to make the number of parts the carmaker projects. However, if the volume is less than expected, the automaker has to make up the difference.So, unfortunately, not only was the CT6 an expensive car to build, but Cadillac's weak "brand equity" limited how much GM could charge (and these were still pricey cars in 2016-18, a "base" car was ).Other than the name, the "Omega" could have marked the starting point for Cadillac to once again be the standard of the world. Other than the awful name (Fleetwood, Elegante, Paramount, even ParAMOUR would be better), and offering the basest car with a FOUR cylinder turbo on the base car (incredibly moronic!), it was very good car and a CREDIBLE Mercedes S-Class/Lexus LS400 alternative. While I cannot know if the novel aluminum body was worth the cost (very expensive and complex to build), the bragging rights were legit--a LARGE car that was lighter, but had good body rigidity. No surprise, the interior was not the best, but the gap with the big boys was as close as GM has done in the luxury sphere.Mary Barra decided that profits today and tomorrow were more important than gambling on profits in 2025 and later. Having sunk a TON of money, and even done a mid-cycle enhancement, complete with the new Blackwing engine (which copied BMW with the twin turbos nestled in the "V"!), in fall 2018 GM announced it was discontinuing the car, and closing the assembly plant it was built in. (And so you know, building different platforms on the same line is very challenging and considerably less efficient in terms of capital and labor costs than the same platform, or better yet, the same model).So now, GM is anticipating that, as the car market "goes electric" (if you can call it that--more like the Federal Government and EU and even China PUSHING electric cars), they can make electric Cadillacs that are "prestige". The Cadillac Celestique is the opening salvo--$340,000. We will see how it works out.
Lynn Joiner Lynn JoinerJust put 2,000 miles on a Chevy Malibu rental from Budget, touring around AZ, UT, CO for a month. Ran fine, no problems at all, little 1.7L 4-cylinder just sipped fuel, and the trunk held our large suitcases easily. Yeah, I hated looking up at all the huge FWD trucks blowing by, but the Malibu easily kept up on the 80 mph Interstate in Utah. I expect a new one would be about a third the cost of the big guys. It won't tow your horse trailer, but it'll get you to the store. Why kill it?
Lynn Joiner Just put 2,000 miles on a Chevy Malibu rental from Budget, touring around AZ, UT, CO for a month. Ran fine, no problems at all, little 1.7L 4-cylinder just sipped fuel, and the trunk held our large suitcases easily. Yeah, I hated looking up at all the huge FWD trucks blowing by, but the Malibu easily kept up on the 80 mph Interstate in Utah. I expect a new one would be about a third the cost of the big guys. It won't tow your horse trailer, but it'll get you to the store. Why kill it?
Ollicat I am only speaking from my own perspective so no need to bash me if you disagree. I already know half or more of you will disagree with me. But I think the traditional upscale Cadillac buyer has traditionally been more conservative in their political position. My suggestion is to make Cadillac separate from GM and make them into a COMPANY, not just cars. And made the company different from all other car companies by promoting conservative causes and messaging. They need to build up a whole aura about the company and appeal to a large group of people that are really kind of sick of the left and sending their money that direction. But yes, I also agree about many of your suggestions above about the cars too. No EVs. But at this point, what has Cadillac got to lose by separating from GM completely and appealing to people with money who want to show everyone that they aren't buying the leftist Kook-Aid.
Jkross22 Cadillac's brand is damaged for the mass market. Why would someone pay top dollar for what they know is a tarted up Chevy? That's how non-car people see this.