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

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

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]

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
14 of 82 comments
  • Brandloyalty 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.

    • See 11 previous
    • OldManPants OldManPants on Apr 25, 2017

      @28-Cars-Later Лайма ауруы.

  • Brandloyalty 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.

  • W Conrad I'm not afraid of them, but they aren't needed for everyone or everywhere. Long haul and highway driving sure, but in the city, nope.
  • Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
  • B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
  • Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
  • Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
Next