Earlier quoted context omitted.
"As a side note, Tesla claims to have put quite a bit of care into designing the floor pan and battery such that in cases like this, a fire shouldn't breach into the cabin for a while. In theory, even after the fire is well underway, the design of the car should give passengers plenty of time to get out." That's not particularly (or at all) unique to Tesla. Safety regulations and laws require all new cars to be desig…
That's kind of odd considering that the failure mode of shock absorbers that are overheated is to pop their seals and lose pressure. I'm sure with a pile of them to set on fire you could figure out a way to make them go boom. Sounds like a "it happened once therefore policy change kind of thing", but I'm not qualified to judge firefighting techniques. The thing about bumpers just sounds plain dated. Nothing's had bum…
In some ways it works. It doesn't noticeably change your efforts or effectiveness, just your tactics, and now you don't need to question "is this a feature of this car?". Just like "what cars use extensive magnesium in the engine block?" or "does this vehicle have airbags? did they deploy? how about side airbags?" Just assume they do, and use a commonality of technique.
There's definitely a challenge between reconciling techniques that work in the field and textbook operations, and then keeping both up to date with the latest 'discoveries' - for instance forty years ago many fires were contained by a lack of fuel, nowadays it's a lack of oxygen (better sealing, even with ventilation systems) and higher fuel loads (petrochemicals in homes and furniture) mean that oftentimes by the time we get on scene you can have this home that is a darkened down box, thick black smoke with little or no visible flame, hotter than anything, and as soon as you open a door, you have about 90 seconds to get some cooling applied, or you're going to have flash over by virtue of all the oxygen you just supplied to this nascent fire.