the truth about electric cars

[J.R.]

Please stick by your words this time, it was only a few days ago you said you were stopping, not sure if it was this thread or not but it was the same nonsence, I don't think you even stopped for breath.

[SteveTheElder]

‘Fraid I’m getting bored now…

 

Please can the interminable of who said what or who meant what about diesel and/or Li-ion get its own thread.

[J.R.]

3 hours ago, @Lee said:

I think we need to explore the possibility that the Range Rover was equipped with an experimental warp core and what happened was a small warp core breach.

 

I have an open mind, I'm not ruling it out, I will now immerse myself in Youtube warp core conspiracy videos to link to on here 😀

[Graham Butcher]

9 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Please stick by your words this time, it was only a few days ago you said you were stopping, not sure if it was this thread or not but it was the same nonsence, I don't think you even stopped for breath.

Oh trust me I tried, but it's difficult when somebody is hell-bent on pushing the buttons all the time while have dual standards.

[lol-lol]

I have learnt a couple of things.

 

Big multistorey car parks are really biult and fitted out to a really low standard and that all cars are dangerous when burning as they store huge amounts of energy.

 

Is it better to park at as low a parking space as possible as heat rises ?

 

[Graham Butcher]

Very true and as that report I posted pointed out, most don't have a sprinkler system and are built to a very low standard, bays too narrow, no fire breaks and all the support structure is not protected in the event of a fire, the heat is directly absorbed by the metal structure and with the amount of energy stored in cars in the form of fuel and even more with electric cars, especially if the batteries are pretty full, is it any wonder that fires spread quickly and are difficult to put out as access is restricted in the case of multi story ones.

[wyx087]

11 hours ago, lol-lol said:

Is it better to park at as low a parking space as possible as heat rises ?

Liquid fuel flows downwards, all whilst on fire and spreading fire! 

 

The Liverpool report says: 

https://www.merseyfire.gov.uk/media/1592/kings-dock-car-park-fire-sir.pdf

Quote

BA teams reported numerous loud bangs with the structure physically shaking, significant amounts of running fuel on fire and ignited fuel running down from Level 4 close to columns

 

Batteries only vent in a very small localised area. 

[lol-lol]

5 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

Liquid fuel flows downwards, all whilst on fire and spreading fire! 

 

The Liverpool report says: 

https://www.merseyfire.gov.uk/media/1592/kings-dock-car-park-fire-sir.pdf

 

Batteries only vent in a very small localised area. 

 

Up or down one is probably done for.  I usually like to go up one more level above where most people are parking thinking it is a good idea.  It usually fills up a bit more and I go back and the car I am using that day is surrounded.  How about going up to the roof level, if there is one, good idea ?

 

I usually shy away from those car parks on dis-used land and have no actually multi-store, perhaps they are the safest places ?

 

NCP actually made their billions clearing bomb sites after WW2 and then charging people to park their new fangled cars.  Ironic that car parks are now a place where tens of millions of pounds of cars can be destroyed in a few hours by fire.

 

[Ootohere]

I knew 3 young men that went to Uni , studied law and then when they started working as solicitors bought land & as much as they could afford.

It just happened to be near the airport and that is now where long term parking is and warehousing and much more.

That was 40 years ago.   No idea at which point they sold or if they did sell parts parts of their land.

I suspect they did sell by now.   These parking areas were not that large or some that close to the airport and cars were jammed in back 40 years ago.

[wyx087]

21 minutes ago, lol-lol said:

How about going up to the roof level, if there is one, good idea ?

Weeeelllllll, recovery of vehicle seems to be low priority (as in scrapping all the cars in that car park): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-67117301

Quote

Luton Airport says it is "unlikely" any vehicles will be salvageable following a massive fire that caused one of its car parks to collapse.

 

It makes financial sense, assume average car cost 15k for insurance to pay out. That would be "only" 18mil, not paid by Luton airport. Building the car park costed £20 mil (sorry, only source I can find from quick google) , never mind lost revenue during downtime. For the airport, getting it back and running is more important.

 

Doesn't make sense from every other perspective though. Especially unfair to those people who would loose their car that is otherwise recoverable.

 

Flat ground long-stay might be better option. Try to park up wind and towards top of the hill from other cars.

[Gaz]

13 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

Oh trust me I tried, ...

 

 

G

 

 

 

 

[fabdavrav]

Here's a good one from Tesla to some owners in Edinburgh ......rough quote:- "Scotland had a yellow weather warning so we're not replacing your battery pack which failed due to water ingress"...

 

Couple furious as they're handed £17k bill for 'driving Tesla in the rain' (msn.com)

[wyx087]

That's bad customer service from Tesla was my first reaction. 

At the same time, there were some serious flooding from other news I've seen. 

But regardless of weather, batteries should not suffer from water ingress unless properly flooded for a long time. Given the owner's recount in the article, I'd expect it to be covered under warranty. 

 

I wonder if there's anything like early iPhones, where there is a submerged marker to invalidate warranties. 

[J.R.]

The key word is "submerged" and not water ingress.

 

Owner drives through flood and vehicle stops, breakdown services called out, large repair bill, "how can the weather be my fault?" 🤔

 

You could get the same abdication of responsibility for their own acts from a driver of a diesel vehicle that had hydro-locked but it would not be seized on by the media.

 

Reports breakdown at 10pm, vehicle collected within 3 hours and the owner made more than one complaint about lack of service the following day. not the best way to get good service but indicative of the aggressive behaviour of someone hiding the facts.

 

He evens says that he expected to get a bill of £500 to £1000 so knows he is responsable for the damage.

[Graham Butcher]

12 minutes ago, J.R. said:

The key word is "submerged" and not water ingress.

 

Owner drives through flood and vehicle stops, breakdown services called out, large repair bill, "how can the weather be my fault?" 🤔

 

You could get the same abdication of responsibility for their own acts from a driver of a diesel vehicle that had hydro-locked but it would not be seized on by the media.

 

Reports breakdown at 10pm, vehicle collected within 3 hours and the owner made more than one complaint about lack of service the following day. not the best way to get good service but indicative of the aggressive behaviour of someone hiding the facts.

 

He evens says that he expected to get a bill of £500 to £1000 so knows he is responsable for the damage.

Interesting, how did you arrive at your conclusion that the owner knew that he was responsible for the damage? He says that he can't remember any deep puddles on the way there, but even if there was a few deep puddles, the car should be more than capable of handling such water depth anyway when being driven. If the car was left standing in water and the battery was submerged for an extended period then I could accept it, but then, the car itself should be wet inside as well?

 

Maybe he was thinking, when he said that was expecting a bill was because the car's warranty had expired and something had become broken?

 

I don't know for sure, as indeed, none of us do, that the battery had been submerged, but even then, I would think that it's not unreasonable to expect that the battery should be properly sealed to prevent water ingress anyway?

 

Seeing as the batteries are mounted low down, that surely is a negative for electric propulsion if the weather starts to rain like we get from time to time, really heavy, that you will have to seek out high ground and sit it out or even stay overnight etc, in case there are deep puddles on your route? 

 

How are the emergency services also going to cope responding to 999 calls in the future if puddles that are currently OK with ICE vehicles to drive through in perfect safety, without hydro-locking their engines?

 

It sounds more like Tesla, are doing what many companies do, and that is trying to see how much they can get away with, which seems to be  a common theme today.

[fabdavrav]

1 hour ago, wyx087 said:

That's bad customer service from Tesla was my first reaction. 

At the same time, there were some serious flooding from other news I've seen. 

But regardless of weather, batteries should not suffer from water ingress unless properly flooded for a long time. Given the owner's recount in the article, I'd expect it to be covered under warranty. 

 

I wonder if there's anything like early iPhones, where there is a submerged marker to invalidate warranties. 

 

30 minutes ago, J.R. said:

The key word is "submerged" and not water ingress.

 

Owner drives through flood and vehicle stops, breakdown services called out, large repair bill, "how can the weather be my fault?" 🤔

 

You could get the same abdication of responsibility for their own acts from a driver of a diesel vehicle that had hydro-locked but it would not be seized on by the media.

 

Reports breakdown at 10pm, vehicle collected within 3 hours and the owner made more than one complaint about lack of service the following day. not the best way to get good service but indicative of the aggressive behaviour of someone hiding the facts.

 

He evens says that he expected to get a bill of £500 to £1000 so knows he is responsable for the damage.

 

they probably do have them, but those markers can give false readings & lets say that water did get in, yet the battery pack was never submerged??..

 

Lets say that what the customer states is true, as there is no other evidence to prove otherwise that we can see ATM....So basically puddles & wet roads, in heavy rain, no "fording", & the water depth was never more than a couple of inches at the deepest....then the battery pack has had a manufacturer failure on its waterproofing.

 

Yes the customer "could" be lying, & you should be able to pull the drive data logs for the car in the previous 24hrs &  overlay the route onto the google maps with known flooding on it, then you can tell "if" the car "forded".

 

The fact that the dealer is basically saying "yellow weather warning was given your tough ****"....thats really bad & means the car is not fit for purpose!...I wonder how many other times when the car has actually failed & that same excuse will be used!!....I see court cases & the consumer act being invoked!...I've driven my petrol car down roads with a yellow weather warning & never had any problems..& that includes flooded roads..the most I did was get water in the low level front fog lights!...

[J.R.]

12 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

Interesting, how did you arrive at your conclusion that the owner knew that he was responsible for the damage?

 

By the words directly preceeding my conclusion. I'm surprised you should need to ask the question, try reading more carefully.

10 minutes ago, fabdavrav said:

The fact that the dealer is basically saying "yellow weather warning was given your tough ****"....thats really bad & means the car is not fit for purpose!.

 

We have no idea of what the dealer said or is saying, only what the driver claims.

 

Unfortunately or perhaps fortunately I have had many experiences going back decades of peoples behaviour when they are hiding the facts and the signs they give off.

 

Had there not been flooding on that evening I would not have commented but equally the subject would never have been raised.

Edited 17 October, 2023 by J.R.

[J.R.]

14 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

I don't know for sure, as indeed, none of us do, that the battery had been submerged, but even then, I would think that it's not unreasonable to expect that the battery should be properly sealed to prevent water ingress anyway?

 

Nothing on a vehicle is IP65 sealed, a vehicle is not designed to operate underwater.

[Graham Butcher]

6 minutes ago, J.R. said:

 

By the words directly preceeding my conclusion. I'm surprised you should need to ask the question, try reading more carefully.

 

But you are making assumptions based on what? Owner does not say he drove through floods that were deep, but even if they were deep, he was able to drive onto his destination OK, so is it not reasonable to think that everything was OK and that something happened while he was enjoying his meal. ICE vehicles frequently fail while they are not being driven, and as I said, assuming the car's normal warranty had expired (not actually knowing the age of the car) that the owner would therefore automatically expect some form of a bill, depending on which part has failed. Tesla warranties are also very complicated and differant aspects of the car attract different warranty periods. This is especially true if the car was second-hand when purchased, when most parts like drive train and battery are 4 years or 50,000 miles and the touch screen controls and media, covered for 2 years or 25,000 miles.

 

Vehicle Warranty | Tesla Support

2 minutes ago, J.R. said:

 

Nothing on a vehicle is IP65 sealed, a vehicle is not designed to operate underwater.

Again, the battery certainly should be, if not then we are sleepwalking into some pretty murky waters indeed and will cause major problems then if when it rains that people will be unable to drive their electric vehicles for fear of getting water in the batteries and then facing major expensive repair bills, and as mentioned earlier, how about the emergency services also not being able to respond for fear of getting stranded and or massive repairs costs. Insurance premiums will skyrocket as a result.

[Graham Butcher]

On 15/10/2023 at 21:26, lol-lol said:

I have learnt a couple of things.

 

Big multistorey car parks are really biult and fitted out to a really low standard and that all cars are dangerous when burning as they store huge amounts of energy.

 

Is it better to park at as low a parking space as possible as heat rises ?

 

Also don't forget that burning liquid fuel on the ground will flow downwards and if the fire brigade are using water that the burning fuel will also float on that water and will also then spread that fire even further and make a bad situation even worse. If fuel is thought to leaking etc, foam is the correct tool.

Edited 17 October, 2023 by Graham Butcher

[Ootohere]

Before the road closed sign went up on Monday i drove though the 1 meter high at the deepest point 20 foot long flooded bit at Queenswell Road Forfar in the MINI electric.

(Next to Fiskens Kia Garage and the park.)

The Posty in the Van coming the other way watched and decided no. 

Usually i am in a lifted 4x4 when doing this.

It was a few minutes later that i noticed the speedo was not working and i though WTF, must of soaked a sensor or dislodged a plug.

Parked for 15 minutes and restarted and it was working.

 

I have waded lots of flooded bit of roads in the Corsa Electric as i got caught on Perthshire roads where a diversion can be quite long, 

also i have been through a few fords. (crossing not cars.)

 

Not big or clever, but just being honest,

[Graham Butcher]

Wow, that was brave, I would not dream of trying that in my diesel as I'm sure water would get into the engine at that depth, but I do take your point, that an electric car should be capable of going through floodwater up to at least the bottom of the doors, anything higher, no.

Edited 17 October, 2023 by Graham Butcher

[wyx087]

EV are supposed to be able to drive through deeper water due to not needing to "breath"

 

I think it's a manufacturing fault with the battery weather proofing. Tesla are trying to get away with it by blaming weather warning, perhaps due to no other water ingress faults been reported on that batch, so they decided it was user fault.

 

They make extensive use of AI to spot patterns on their back-end. For example, up coming car software update will use previous data to predict supercharger availability and wait times: https://www.notateslaapp.com/news/1645/tesla-update-2023-38-will-predict-supercharger-availability-and-wait-times

[Graham Butcher]

3 hours ago, J.R. said:

Had there not been flooding on that evening I would not have commented but equally the subject would never have been raised.

Hmm, that is not a good comment to make is it, just because there was flooding in Scotland, does not mean that all of Scotland had floods neither does it automatically mean that the car was driven in floods. In my opinion, that statement was even worse than mine re the Luton fire, at least I was commenting on an actual video of the car that was on fire, not widely speculating.🙄

[J.R.]

Your opinion has been progressively devalued by your legion rambling postings to the point that for me at least it is worthless.

 

You asked me what I based my opinion on despite the fact it could not have been more clear, nonetheless la politesse required me to explain once again.

 

I really am not in the slightest bit interested in your resultant rambling pontifications like:

 

2 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

But you are making assumptions based on what? Owner does not say he drove through floods that were deep, but even if they were deep, he was able to drive onto his destination OK, so is it not reasonable to think that everything was OK and that something happened while he was enjoying his meal. ICE vehicles frequently fail while they are not being driven, and as I said, assuming the car's normal warranty had expired (not actually knowing the age of the car) that the owner would therefore automatically expect some form of a bill, depending on which part has failed. Tesla warranties are also very complicated and differant aspects of the car attract different warranty periods. This is especially true if the car was second-hand when purchased, when most parts like drive train and battery are 4 years or 50,000 miles and the touch screen controls and media, covered for 2 years or 25,000 miles.

 

Vehicle Warranty | Tesla Support

3 hours ago, J.R. said:

 

Nothing on a vehicle is IP65 sealed, a vehicle is not designed to operate underwater.

Again, the battery certainly should be, if not then we are sleepwalking into some pretty murky waters indeed and will cause major problems then if when it rains that people will be unable to drive their electric vehicles for fear of getting water in the batteries and then facing major expensive repair bills, and as mentioned earlier, how about the emergency services also not being able to respond for fear of getting stranded and or massive repairs costs. Insurance premiums will skyrocket as a result.

and

 

13 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

Hmm, that is not a good comment to make is it, just because there was flooding in Scotland, does not mean that all of Scotland had floods neither does it automatically mean that the car was driven in floods. In my opinion, that statement was even worse than mine re the Luton fire, at least I was commenting on an actual video of the car that was on fire, not widely speculating.🙄

 

I will ignore your further questions of me.