The Fire: Tesla and the Model S

On Tuesday, the most valuable electric car company in the world is answering for a fire, and the answer is the most interesting part of the story. A Tesla Model S caught fire last week in Washington state after hitting a large metal object on the road, and the video of the burning car spread around the world within hours. The company responded with a blog post that turned the crisis into a lesson in transparency. The fire is the October 2013 story, and the story is the lesson: the way a leader answers a crisis is the crisis.

The Fire is the subject of this article: what happened on the highway, how the car's design contained the damage, how Tesla's chief executive responded, and what the response says about the difference between hiding a problem and owning it. The fire happened on October 1, and the company's response came on October 4. This is the story of the fire, and the story is about the moment the electric car was tested by flame and by reputation.

1. The Fire

The fire happened on a Tuesday on a highway in Washington state, and it happened the way every nightmare starts: suddenly and on camera. The driver of a Model S hit a large metal object lying in the road, and the impact damaged the underside of the car, where the battery pack sits. The battery was punctured, and the damage triggered a fire that consumed the rear of the car. The driver pulled over safely, alerted by the car's systems, and walked away without injury.

The video was the difference between a local incident and a global story. Someone filmed the burning Tesla, and the footage spread across the internet within hours, and the image of the burning electric car became the story of the week for the industry's skeptics. The fire was the first in a Model S, and the first was the one that everyone would see. The fire was the test, and the test was the car's first real crisis.

2. The Design

The design of the Model S was the reason the fire was contained, and the containment was the engineering story. The battery pack runs along the floor of the car, and the pack is divided into sections, and the sections are separated by firewalls of metal that contain a fire in one area. When the battery was punctured, the fire was limited to the affected section, and the rest of the pack did not ignite. The fire burned the back of the car, and the fire did not reach the cabin.

The design also included the warning systems that saved the driver. The car alerted the driver to pull over, and the driver had time to exit safely, and the car did not explode or trap its occupant. The engineering that had been designed for safety was working as intended, even in the worst case. The design was the story that Tesla wanted to tell, and the story was supported by the facts of the fire itself.

3. The Panic

The panic was the market's reaction, and the panic was the context of the response. The video of the burning car hit the news on Wednesday, and Tesla's shares fell about seven percent the next day. The skeptics who had always said electric cars were dangerous had their image, and the image was everywhere. The short sellers and the critics repeated the same question: what happens when an electric car catches fire? The panic was the story, and the story was the threat.

The panic was also the opportunity, and the opportunity was the response. Tesla could have hidden, could have waited, could have let the lawyers write a statement, and the company chose the opposite. The chief executive of the company, Elon Musk, wrote a blog post on Friday that addressed the fire directly, with data, with confidence, and with the voice of an engineer. The panic was the setup, and the setup made the response more powerful.

4. The Post

The post was titled "The Tesla Team," and the tone was the message. Musk wrote that the fire was caused by a high speed impact with a metal object, that the battery pack's internal firewalls had contained the fire, and that the driver had walked away. He compared the fire risk of the Model S with the fire risk of gasoline cars, and the comparison was the point: about one in every twenty million miles driven, a gasoline car catches fire in the United States, and the Model S had driven more than one hundred million miles with one fire.

The post was the opposite of the usual corporate crisis response. There was no hedging, no blame, no silence, no apology for the sake of apology. There were facts, numbers, and confidence, and the confidence was backed by the engineering. Musk did not say the fire was acceptable, and he said it was contained, and the containment was the story. The post was the response, and the response was the strategy.

5. The Comparison

The comparison was the most effective part of the post, and the comparison was a masterclass in reframing. The critics had presented the fire as proof that electric cars were unsafe, and Musk presented the data that showed the opposite: fires were rarer in the Model S than in gasoline cars, and the consequences were different. A gasoline car with a fuel leak could be consumed entirely, and a Model S fire was contained to a section of the battery.

The comparison worked because it was true, and the truth was the power. Musk did not need to spin the story because the facts supported the company, and the facts were the story. The comparison also educated the public about the difference between the risks: the electric car's battery was dangerous in a different way than the gasoline tank, and the different way was safer. The comparison was the argument, and the argument was the win.

6. The Lesson

The lesson of the fire was about the power of transparency in a crisis, and the power was demonstrated in real time. The company could have gone quiet, and the quiet would have let the video tell the story. Instead, the company spoke first, spoke clearly, and spoke with data, and the data became the story. The lesson was that the truth is the best public relations, and the truth was the response.

The lesson was also about the relationship between the leader and the crisis. The chief executive who wrote the post was the same man who had bet his fortune on the company, and the personal stake made the response more credible. The leader who owns the problem, who answers the questions, who faces the camera and the data, is the leader who keeps the trust. The lesson was the transparency, and the transparency was the leadership.

7. The Skeptics

The skeptics were not silenced, and the silence was not the goal. The analysts questioned the comparison, the regulators said they would look into the fire, and the short sellers kept their positions. The fire did not disappear, and the questions did not disappear, and the company did not pretend that they had. The skepticism was the honest part of the story, and the honest part was the health of the market.

The skeptics also did the company a service, and the service was the scrutiny. The questions forced Tesla to defend its engineering, and the defense produced the facts that the public needed. The regulators' interest meant the fire would be investigated, and the investigation was the process that every car company faces. The skeptics were the counterweight, and the counterweight was the system working.

8. The Future

The future of the story would be written in the months ahead, and the future was the test of the response. The regulators would investigate, the analysts would watch the numbers, and the public would watch the next headline. The company that had answered the fire with transparency had bought itself something valuable: the benefit of the doubt. The benefit was the currency of trust, and the trust was the company's most valuable asset.

The future was also the lesson in the making. The electric car had been tested by fire, and the company had been tested by the fire's aftermath, and both had survived. The fire was the first, and the first was the hardest, and the handling of the first would set the pattern for everything that followed. The fire is the October 2013 story, and the story is the lesson: the way a leader answers a crisis is the crisis. The fire was contained, and the truth was the containment. The story will be retold every time a company faces its first crisis, and the retelling will be the lesson in the measurement: the company did not hide, did not spin, and did not blame, and the not doing was the doing. The leader who speaks first is the leader who sets the frame, and the frame was set on Friday. The regulators will do their work, and the analysts will do theirs, and the company will keep building the cars that the world is watching. The fire did not end the story of the electric car, and the response made the story stronger, and the strengthening was the point. The company that answers with data is the company that earns the doubt, and the doubt was the beginning of the trust.

Tags

#engineering #leadership