Connect with us
tesla-model-s-axa-battery-fire-test tesla-model-s-axa-battery-fire-test

News

Watch: Confirmed fake Tesla Model S “battery fire” video from AXA Insurance

Credit: AGVS / UPSA - Auto Gewerbe Verband Schweiz/YouTube

Published

on

There are times when the Tesla news beat comes up with strange stories. Over the years, I’ve covered a number of these, from EV charging stalls being filled with uncooked ground meat to strange attacks on Teslas just because of hatred towards Elon Musk. Even among these, however, the recent “battery fire” demonstration from AXA Insurance is something else — just for how ridiculous it is. 

The premise of AXA Insurance’s test was simple — EV batteries could catch fire in the event of a crash. As noted in my colleague Johnna Crider’s earlier piece, AXA accomplished this by removing the battery in a Tesla Model S sedan and fitting the vehicle with pyrotechnics. This way, the demonstration was “safe” and AXA could be ensured that a “battery fire” would indeed happen. 

The best thing about this whole situation was that AXA flat-out admitted to this. “For safety reasons, it was not possible to ignite a real battery fire at an event with around 500 people, which is why a fire with pyrotechnics was staged,” the insurance provider explained. 

A video of the demonstration has spread online, and without the proper context behind the test, viewers could easily be fooled into thinking that Teslas easily catch fire. In the video, one could see a yellow Model S sedan being launched into a ramp, flipping over, landing on its roof, and bursting into flame. 

Advertisement
https://twitter.com/KiwiEV/status/1564816003611054080?s=20&t=6aW59tRuCaFc16PbvCfn8g

What is interesting in the whole situation was that without the shenanigans pulled by AXA — like removing the battery and loading the car with pyrotechnics — it would have been pretty challenging to demonstrate how a Tesla bursts into flame. Tesla has noted in its 2021 Impact Report that fire incidents are 11x lower for its vehicles than the average in the United States. 

Had AXA actually launched a Tesla Model S with a battery pack, there was a pretty good chance that no fire would have happened. Apart from this, the Model S’ battery pack gives the vehicle a very low center of gravity, so flipping the car would have been a challenge in itself too. Simply put, the Model S sedan could have embarrassed AXA by either refusing to flip or catch fire if it actually had its battery equipped. 

Hence the pyrotechnics. 

One could assume that AXA Insurance knew exactly what it was doing. AXA is a popular insurance provider that covers Teslas, after all, so it seems safe to assume that the company is aware of how rare battery fires really are. AXA claims that it wanted to show how thermal runways can cause fires in an EV, but it ended up demonstrating a fire that is nothing close to a thermal runway in the process. 

Advertisement

This all seems extremely careless for the insurance provider. Tesla, after all, is in the process of forming an assertive legal team designed to protect the company from unfair, damaging efforts. A staged battery fire in a Model S without a battery definitely misrepresents the safety of EVs as a whole, so Tesla may very well have some grounds to file legal action against the insurance provider. And that, in a way, would be just as fun to watch as AXA’s staged Model S “battery fire” video. 

In any case, here is a video of AXA’s “battery fire” demonstration using a Tesla Model S without a battery. 

https://youtu.be/IRc0Hw2S80A

Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.

Advertisement

Simon is an experienced automotive reporter with a passion for electric cars and clean energy. Fascinated by the world envisioned by Elon Musk, he hopes to make it to Mars (at least as a tourist) someday. For stories or tips--or even to just say a simple hello--send a message to his email, simon@teslarati.com or his handle on X, @ResidentSponge.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla Sweden appeals after grid company refuses to restore existing Supercharger due to union strike

The charging site was previously functioning before it was temporarily disconnected in April last year for electrical safety reasons.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla Charging

Tesla Sweden is seeking regulatory intervention after a Swedish power grid company refused to reconnect an already operational Supercharger station in Åre due to ongoing union sympathy actions.

The charging site was previously functioning before it was temporarily disconnected in April last year for electrical safety reasons. A temporary construction power cabinet supplying the station had fallen over, described by Tesla as occurring “under unclear circumstances.” The power was then cut at the request of Tesla’s installation contractor to allow safe repair work.

While the safety issue was resolved, the station has not been brought back online. Stefan Sedin, CEO of Jämtkraft elnät, told Dagens Arbete (DA) that power will not be restored to the existing Supercharger station as long as the electric vehicle maker’s union issues are ongoing. 

“One of our installers noticed that the construction power had been backed up and was on the ground. We asked Tesla to fix the system, and their installation company in turn asked us to cut the power so that they could do the work safely. 

Advertisement

“When everything was restored, the question arose: ‘Wait a minute, can we reconnect the station to the electricity grid? Or what does the notice actually say?’ We consulted with our employer organization, who were clear that as long as sympathy measures are in place, we cannot reconnect this facility,” Sedin said. 

The union’s sympathy actions, which began in March 2024, apply to work involving “planning, preparation, new connections, grid expansion, service, maintenance and repairs” of Tesla’s charging infrastructure in Sweden.

Tesla Sweden has argued that reconnecting an existing facility is not equivalent to establishing a new grid connection. In a filing to the Swedish Energy Market Inspectorate, the company stated that reconnecting the installation “is therefore not covered by the sympathy measures and cannot therefore constitute a reason for not reconnecting the facility to the electricity grid.”

Sedin, for his part, noted that Tesla’s issue with the Supercharger is quite unique. And while Jämtkraft elnät itself has no issue with Tesla, its actions are based on the unions’ sympathy measures against the electric vehicle maker. 

Advertisement

“This is absolutely the first time that I have been involved in matters relating to union conflicts or sympathy measures. That is why we have relied entirely on the assessment of our employer organization. This is not something that we have made any decisions about ourselves at all. 

“It is not that Jämtkraft elnät has a conflict with Tesla, but our actions are based on these sympathy measures. Should it turn out that we have made an incorrect assessment, we will correct ourselves. It is no more difficult than that for us,” the executive said. 

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Music City Loop could highlight The Boring Company’s real disruption

The real story behind the tunneling startup’s Nashville tunnel project is the company’s targeted $25 million per mile construction cost.

Published

on

boring-company-prufrock-1-2
Credit: The Boring Company/X

Recent commentary on social media has highlighted what could very well prove to be The Boring Company’s real disruption.

The analysis was shared by tech watcher Aakash Gupta on social media platform X, where he argued that the real story behind the tunneling startup’s Nashville tunnel project is the company’s targeted $25 million per mile construction cost.

According to Gupta’s breakdown, Nashville’s 2018 light rail proposal was priced at roughly $200 million per mile. New York’s East Side Access project reportedly cost about $3.5 billion per mile, while Los Angeles Metro expansion projects have approached $1 billion per mile.

By comparison, The Boring Company has stated it can construct 13 miles of twin tunnels in the Music City Loop for between $240 million and $300 million total. That implies a cost near $25 million per mile, or roughly a 95% reduction from industry averages cited in the post.

Advertisement

Several technical departures from conventional tunneling allow the Boring Company to lower its costs, from its smaller 12-foot diameter tunnels to its fully electric Prufrock machines that are designed to mine continuously with no personnel inside the tunnel and their capability to “porpoise” for easy launch and retrieval.

Tesla and Space CEO Elon Musk responded to the post on X, stating simply that “Tunnels are so underrated.”

The Boring Company has seen some momentum as of late, with the company recently signing a construction contract in Dubai and the Universal Orlando Loop progressing. Recent reports have also pointed to tunnels potentially being constructed to solve traffic congestion issues near the Giga Nevada area. 

While The Boring Company’s tunnels have so far been used for Loop systems publicly for now, Elon Musk recently noted that the tunneling startup’s underground passages would not be limited only to ride-hailing vehicles. 

Advertisement

In a reply to a post on X which discussed the specifications of the Music City Loop, Musk clarified that “any fully autonomous electric cars can use the tunnels.” This suggests that vehicles potentially running systems like FSD Supervised, even if they are not Teslas, could be used in systems like the Music City Loop in the future.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

SpaceX IPO could push Elon Musk’s net worth past $1 trillion: Polymarket

The estimates were shared by the official Polymarket Money account on social media platform X.

Published

on

Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

Recent projections have outlined how a potential $1.75 trillion SpaceX IPO could generate historic returns for early investors. The projections suggest the offering would not only become the largest IPO in history but could also result in unprecedented windfalls for some of the company’s key investors.

The estimates were shared by the official Polymarket Money account on social media platform X.

As noted in a Polymarket Money analysis, Elon Musk invested $100 million into SpaceX in 2002 and currently owns approximately 42% of the company. At a $1.75 trillion valuation following SpaceX’s potential $1.75 trillion IPO, that stake would be worth roughly $735 billion.

Such a figure would dramatically expand Musk’s net worth. When combined with his holdings in Tesla Inc. and other ventures, a public debut at that level could position him as the world’s first trillionaire, depending on market conditions at the time of listing.

Advertisement

The Bloomberg Billionaires Index currently lists Elon Musk with a net worth of $666 billion, though a notable portion of this is tied to his TSLA stock. Tesla currently holds a market cap of $1.51 trillion, and Elon Musk’s currently holds about 13% to 15% of the company’s outstanding common stock.

Founders Fund, co-founded by Peter Thiel, invested $20 million in SpaceX in 2008. Polymarket Money estimates the firm owns between 1.5% and 3% of the private space company. At a $1.75 trillion valuation, that range would translate to approximately $26.25 billion to $52.5 billion in value.

That return would represent one of the most significant venture capital outcomes in modern Silicon Valley history, with a growth of 131,150% to 262,400%.

Alphabet Inc., Google’s parent company, invested $900 million into SpaceX in 2015 and is estimated to hold between 6% and 7% of the private space firm. At the projected IPO valuation, that stake could be worth between $105 billion and $122.5 billion. That’s a growth of 11,566% to 14,455%.

Advertisement

Other major backers highlighted in the post include Fidelity Investments, Baillie Gifford, Valor Equity Partners, Bank of America, and Andreessen Horowitz, each potentially sitting on multibillion-dollar gains.

Continue Reading