Tesla Patent Shows Solution To Vulnerable Battery Pack Damage

It seems that Tesla Motors [NASDAQ:TSLA] may not have to look too far for a solution if it turns out the Model S has a safety issue with its underbody protection. In a patent filed on 5 December 2011 Tesla themselves laid out plans for a ‘Vehicle battery pack ballistic shield’ which would help with situations where the battery is impacted from below.

Is More Armour Below Needed?

Is More Armour Below Needed?

Over the last month we have seen three separate Model S fires which has caused a bit of a PR storm for Tesla. While Elon Musk, CEO and co-founder of Tesla, has stated that he has no plans for a Model S recall, some people are questioning the safety of the car.

The patent filed by Tesla all those years ago calls for ‘a ballistic shield mounted under the electric vehicle and interposed between the battery pack enclosure and the driving surface, where the ballistic shield is spaced apart from the enclosure bottom panel. A layer of a compressible material may be interposed between the ballistic shield and the battery pack enclosure.’

As two of the three fires were caused by the upward impact of an object that the cars drove over, this patent would seem to provide a possible solution. In both cases the metal debris punched upwards, through the solid underbody of the car and caused one of the battery compartments to catch fire.

Illustrates the Attachment of the Battery Pack (101) to Rocker (401)

Illustrates the Attachment of the Battery Pack (101) to Rocker (401)

All of the fires were confined to one battery compartment only and the cars allowed the drivers to pull over safely and exit the vehicle without problem.

Tesla’s own estimates suggest that the upward force needed to push through metal base of the Model S would be in the region of 25 US tons of force; something that could have been far more devastating for a non-electric car.

But three fires in such quick succession has led some people to wonder if there is a potential safety issue here. If this is the case, the patent would seem to be a potential solution. That is, if it hasn’t been implemented already.

The date on the application is such that, if Tesla had got their skates on, this technology could already be implemented in modern production Model Ss. For various reasons Tesla is very cagey about the exact make up of their battery pack and its containment, so this is just about possible.

At the moment, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has said it is monitoring the performance of Tesla vehicles but has not begun an official investigation. And it should be noted that in their own safety tests the Model S got record scores – making it one of the safest cars ever made.

What do you think? Is this all being blow out of proportion? Let us know below.

Story via John C. Briggs and GreenCarReports.com.


Want to keep up with the latest news in evolving transport? Don’t forget to follow Transport Evolved on Twitter, like us on Facebook and G+, and subscribe to our YouTube channel.

You can also support us directly as a monthly supporting member by visiting Patreon.com.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on LinkedInDigg thisShare on RedditEmail this to someonePin on Pinterest

Related News

  • Kalle Centergren

    Do we know if they dont have this in the battery pack allready? nThis would work against deformation of the under pane, but it wouldent help so much if the force is strong enouge to punkture the pane (the force would then no longer be spread out and the objeckt would pearce in to the pack, as it did in these 3 cases)

    • Mark Chatterley

      We don’t know, no… And it is something I speculated about above. Tesla – as far as I am aware – haven’t really gone that deep into their pack design in public.

      • JP

        I think the 1/4 inch thick aluminum plate they are using would count as a “ballistic shield”. Not sure if they are also using the compressible material or not.

  • jeff

    graphene (laminate) shield = lighter stronger

  • Roberto

    I think that if they use kevlar or graphene to have less weight and placement of the battery is the same, but the negative toward the chassis and the positive up .If the hit is below there won’t be short circuit because the pole will be the same. For graphene http://www.graphenano.com or http://www.graphendis.com

  • j2y

    The public demand ridiculous standard for Model S. This is like to require bullet proof windows on every passenger car.

Content Copyright (c) 2016 Transport Evolved LLC