So What Caused the Fire(s) in the Prototypes?

M

Mac Attack

Legendary Member
Joined
25 April 2005
Messages
3,069
Location
Western PA
I hate bringing this up because I really like the new car. Everyone involved with it should be proud.

The engineer in me is very curious though. It didn't appear to be puncture or road debris damage, or due to an accident.

Was it a manufacturing/design/installation issue of fuel/oil lines or electrical system?


I never heard anything official on what caused it. It might be common on Italian makes, but not any vehicle I expect to buy or put my family in.

Analysis of the publicized Tesla fires reassured me on the Tesla design, but until I hear a valid excuse I'm still concerned with the NSX 2.0.

"It was a prototype," "racecar," blah blah blah isn't a good excuse. This isn't common on other prototypes.

Does anybody know? I'll be waiting about three years for a targa model, so I guess I'll have plenty of time to observe how the production ones do in the real world....

Thanks.

Dave
 
I'm thinking the battery pack ignited..
 
engineer tried to microwave a sandweech wrapped in foil
 
I operated on an engineer on the project, he was in germany during testing on the ring. Hetold me related to battery wiring.....i have no idea if this was legit
 
Every manufacturer has had cars that catch on fire during testing. The very next month after the NSX caught on fire at Nürburgring the new Ford F150 caught on fire while undergoing testing:

http://stylemagazine.com/news/2014/aug/04/2016-ford-f-series-super-duty-burns-during-testing/

And Ferrari has had far more fire problems than Honda ever was:
http://www.carscoops.com/2010/09/amen-ferrari-finally-admits-458-italia.html

Ferrari-458-Italia-0.jpg
 
Ted Klaus mentioned this at NSXPO 2015. I don't recall exactly what he said or where he said it (i.e. during a formal presentation or in an informal chat), but I know he indicated that they knew what caused it and they changed the design to prevent any recurrence.
 
RYU said:
I can't remember the exact cause to satisfy the forensic engineer in you but to the best of my recollection, it was lack of cooling for the battery. Which makes me wonder.. what if the cooling system fails?
Click to expand...

Lithium ion batteries do not require a cooling system in order to avoid a thermal runway event (which will lead to fire). A cooling system for the batteries is likely used in order to increase battery longevity, not safety.
 
nsxtasy said:
Ted Klaus mentioned this at NSXPO 2015. I don't recall exactly what he said or where he said it (i.e. during a formal presentation or in an informal chat), but I know he indicated that they knew what caused it and they changed the design to prevent any recurrence.
Click to expand...
I was at the event in Ohio in 2014 and standing beside him as we were gathered around the blue mule in the lobby of the R&D center waiting for the photo op, so I quietly asked him about the fire and his reply was basically what NSXTASY reported .. ie. they knew what the problem was and changed the design. Maybe NSXTASY was within ear shot range at the time.
 
In engineering/development land, we test the heck out of pre-production technologies on the bench as well as in entire cars to see if they work or fail (definition of testing), where failures are almost expected and often 10x more valuable than "perfect" test results. :) If paparazzi were embedded within various corporations' internal bench testing & dynamometer areas, the press would fill the nightly news with horrible awful consumer-confidence-wilting videos... Another misconception may be wondering how the heck a redesign could occur in a short period of time resulting in doubts as to whether they could really fix it or not...in actuality usually there are multiple design options on the table at once, each with varying trade-offs (complexities, expected reliability, cost, weight, ease of assembly)...often 2 or 3 alternatives are tested simultaneously to help weed things out, or one is tested and there are better (and usually more expensive) options at the ready in case option #1 fails... My first thought when I saw the photos was that though obviously disappointing, Honda must be pretty thankful for learning something big like that now than after launch, while jalopnik and other enthusiast sites who you'd think would know more about pre-preduction testing kind of sensationalized things.
 
Yinzer:
As a retired engineer (EE) for ~40 years, ~ 30 of which were at a NUKE... all I can say is -> Well stated!
 
so three mile island was a test:eek:
 
Yinzer said:
In engineering/development land, we test the heck out of pre-production technologies on the bench as well as in entire cars to see if they work or fail (definition of testing), where failures are almost expected and often 10x more valuable than "perfect" test results. :) If paparazzi were embedded within various corporations' internal bench testing & dynamometer areas, the press would fill the nightly news with horrible awful consumer-confidence-wilting videos... Another misconception may be wondering how the heck a redesign could occur in a short period of time resulting in doubts as to whether they could really fix it or not...in actuality usually there are multiple design options on the table at once, each with varying trade-offs (complexities, expected reliability, cost, weight, ease of assembly)...often 2 or 3 alternatives are tested simultaneously to help weed things out, or one is tested and there are better (and usually more expensive) options at the ready in case option #1 fails... My first thought when I saw the photos was that though obviously disappointing, Honda must be pretty thankful for learning something big like that now than after launch, while jalopnik and other enthusiast sites who you'd think would know more about pre-preduction testing kind of sensationalized things.
Click to expand...

While at Ford, were you on the Pinto or F-series projects :wink:

- - - Updated - - -

Gadgetman said:
Yinzer:
As a retired engineer (EE) for ~40 years, ~ 30 of which were at a NUKE... all I can say is -> Well stated!
Click to expand...

Being in the nuke industry myself (commercial as well as previous defense contractor), all I can say is that is an apples-oranges comparison. Vehicles are much smaller, simpler beasts and the fire ignition sources and combustibles should be much better controlled.

Heck, I designed/built my own fuel system and dry sump system for my NSX and I put in strategic aluminum spray/heat shields where necessary. The lines are also correctly restrained for stress relief at fittings, and for those areas impractical for shields (mostly the fuel lines), I will put in an aqueous foam system hopefully this Spring.

I'm also aware of the hybrid aspect. As a long-term owner of a hybrid as well as a short-term Tesla owner, adequate precautions can be built in.

The batteries were what I was suspecting. I was just curious if anyone could confirm it. Check out the lightweight battery thread on Prime. I think I'm the only one that has noted concerns on these small, cheap aftermarket Li-based batteries. I only installed one that had appropriate protection such as thermal and over/under-voltage protection. It cost a few $, but I'd rather be safe... especially after living through a fire in a race car. Not fun once you go through it.

It's too bad Honda wouldn't provide more info. None of the Porsche 918's have combusted during testing and on the road.
 
We assume no 918's had similar issues... or was the paparazzi just MIA at the time?
Regardless, I'm glad the NSX fire was caught early on vs in future so they learned what was needed to fix it and did. Another delay in release date is a very small price to pay... for ACURA and prospective owners!

For those who may not know it...
Ford was fully aware of the Pinto tank issue, but business economics of fix vs pay projected claims overruled the fix.
I heard the fix was quite inexpensive ... but multiplied by projected sales vs claims, it went no further.
Very sad that back in the "good ole days" that was even possible to rationalize by big business.
 
Mac Attack said:
While at Ford, were you on the Pinto or F-series projects :wink:
Click to expand...

For F-series, which issue are you referring to, recent transmission problems?

Mac Attack said:
Being in the nuke industry myself (commercial as well as previous defense contractor), all I can say is that is an apples-oranges comparison. Vehicles are much smaller, simpler beasts and the fire ignition sources and combustibles should be much better controlled.

Heck, I designed/built my own fuel system and dry sump system for my NSX and I put in strategic aluminum spray/heat shields where necessary. The lines are also correctly restrained for stress relief at fittings, and for those areas impractical for shields (mostly the fuel lines), I will put in an aqueous foam system hopefully this Spring.
Click to expand...

Nah, I'll still say they're apples of different size & flavors but still apples. :) Vehicles may be smaller beasts but are not at all simple and are one of the most complex things ever produced. They have to transport, be safe, meet a mile-long list of government regulations, entertain, be comfy, accommodate many size people & things, all while looking & feeling good inside & out and then maintain all the above over time while operating in crazily wide ranges of climate, terrain, speeds, grades, storage conditions while constantly moving around and never sitting still, while still being economically feasible for manufacture & eventual purchase and then be serviceable & fixable instead of discardable. I'm sure you designed a fantastic one-off complex system for your car that worked perfectly out of the gate and may last forever but you probably designed it within a timeframe that was acceptable to you (being the only customer) and at a cost and level of robustness and safety and weight and possibly ease of serviceability that could likely never be justified in high-volume production. It's true that automakers are in a conspiracy to design in self-obsolescence instead of designing something that could last forever; it's a result of making something economically justifiable for both manufacturer & customer that doesn't weigh 5000 lb and which gets more than 15 mpg. :)
 
I remember when the RX-7 TT first came out that people where getting their home improvement bills covered by Mazda when after 500 miles of driving the fuel lines would pop off and dump gas right on the red hot exhaust after some spirited driving.

Mazda was so into weight savings that they eliminated clamps for the hoses and vacuum lines - one of the biggest reasons behind their reliability issues.

Once those were addressed the cars (assuming u did proper tuning and parts addition for more HP) were pretty reliable.
 

Similar threads

G
Finally... NSX in the garage :)
Replies
15
Views
589
GM909
G
M
Up on Jackstands this week - things to inspect while she's in the air?
Replies
3
Views
512
MikeNSX92
M
The Kid
Just hit 2k miles in the Type S, my observations and pics
Replies
19
Views
2K
The Kid
The Kid
The Kid
Type S #24 and my visit to PMC, Ohio Part 1
Replies
8
Views
2K
The Kid
The Kid
C
Type S demand (why I'm purchasing)
Replies
18
Views
6K
Ignition_Key
Ignition_Key
Back
Top