[Byte1]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

So, you say a company making a car that is designed to be exposed to the elements, that will drive through flooded roads, and rain storms and one almost daily, where the water is splashed at serious velocities under the car, off the wheels and basically pressure washes the bottom of the car, will have overlooked the possibility that the batteries made of materials that do a bad thing when they get wet would not have taken that into account.

Who is it that sees what they want to see? If you don't like today's EVs (evidenced by numerous posts), is it not possible you are also looking for what you want to see?

EVs get carboned daily on the roads, charging stations get ICEd daily, almost daily, and certainly weekly videos from Teska security shows people keying the cars.

And you lightly dismiss that maybe someone was angry enough to sabotage a Tesla. Much more likely in your mind that a company selling millions of EVs overlooked that they shouldn't get the batteries wet... The liability there is phenomenal; in a litigious society as we live in, that one fire could cost Telsa billions in litigation if it is proven they were negligent.

But the chances of an ICEr getting away with damaging a car left out in a hurricane and almost 100%.

You know what they say about opinions, right? Like I indicated, it seems like someone can also be cynical enough to believe that someone purposely set fire to the vehicle. Biased opinion, perhaps? There IS evidence that lithium mixed with water is volatile. Is there any evidence that someone set the vehicle on fire?
I believe EVs are an excellent IDEA, but not ready to purchase one until I can see the cost advantage (for me) over a fossil fuel vehicle. Maybe once they develop a viable means to power the EV, and it is reasonable in price for the "average" person, I will consider a purchase. Most likely not within my lifetime, considering I just recently purchased a new fossil fuel burner and will probably not be in the market for replacement for a long time....possibly not in my remaining life. Argue all you wish about how great they are, but lithium is a dangerous element. Gasoline is a dangerous element, but folks have been made aware of the dangers of that fuel and vehicles have been made safer over time. If you submerge a fossil fuel burner in water, it destroys it but it doesn't catch fire and explode. Like I said and I reiterate, EVs are a great concept and will probably be worth having once they solidify their experiment into an affordable and sustainable mode of transportation. I still think they should put more effort into hydrogen fuel cell power.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Byte1

There IS evidence that lithium mixed with water is volatile. Is there any evidence that someone set the vehicle on fire?
:

Nope, I said in my post it was cynical, and I guess it would be unfair of me to ask, "Is there evidence the batteries spontaneously burst into flame?

Both are suppositions, both our opinions.

And, if this were on a street in a poor part of Chicago, would you be as hesitant to think it could have been intentional, Just saying we each see what we want to see.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Nope, I said in my post it was cynical, and I guess it would be unfair of me to ask, "Is there evidence the batteries spontaneously burst into flame?

Both are suppositions, both our opinions.

And, if this were on a street in a poor part of Chicago, would you be as hesitant to think it could have been intentional, Just saying we each see what we want to see.

So poor people set fire to EVs? How odd...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

And I am cynical enough not to rule out it was deliberately set on fire. There is a lot of hate around right now.,

Yes, someone, who knew about the Cat 4-5 Hurricane, hatched a plan to use said hurricane to sabotage Tesla...

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

So, you say a company making a car that is designed to be exposed to the elements, that will drive through flooded roads, and rain storms and one almost daily, where the water is splashed at serious velocities under the car, off the wheels and basically pressure washes the bottom of the car, will have overlooked the possibility that the batteries made of materials that do a bad thing when they get wet would not have taken that into account.

Who is it that sees what they want to see? If you don't like today's EVs (evidenced by numerous posts), is it not possible you are also looking for what you want to see?

EVs get carboned daily on the roads, charging stations get ICEd daily, almost daily, and certainly weekly videos from Teska security shows people keying the cars.

And you lightly dismiss that maybe someone was angry enough to sabotage a Tesla. Much more likely in your mind that a company selling millions of EVs overlooked that they shouldn't get the batteries wet... The liability there is phenomenal; in a litigious society as we live in, that one fire could cost Telsa billions in litigation if it is proven they were negligent.

But the chances of an ICEr getting away with damaging a car left out in a hurricane and almost 100%.

Perhaps the anti rust coating only last so long and than water get to places that will cause rust and a fire

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

Perhaps the anti rust coating only last so long and than water get to places that will cause rust and a fire

Good point.

I really wasn't trying to be controversial. Just pointing out that the news coverage left a lot of questions open.

[oldtimes]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Good point.

I really wasn't trying to be controversial. Just pointing out that the news coverage left a lot of questions open.

Perhaps being submerged in salt water

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by oldtimes

Perhaps being submerged in salt water

Good point; I had not thought about it being salt water. Still seems fast to corrode but might be!

[tuccillo]

It is not an experiment. About 5% of new cars sales in the US are EVs and the number is only increasing. By 2030, probably half of all new cars will be EVs. By 2035, many of the major automakers will not be producing gas cars. There is a substantial amount of capital allocated to the construction of new lithium-ion battery factories in the US, and around the world. Regarding affordability, Chevy already announced a $30K Equinox SUV for 2024.

Originally Posted by Byte1

You know what they say about opinions, right? Like I indicated, it seems like someone can also be cynical enough to believe that someone purposely set fire to the vehicle. Biased opinion, perhaps? There IS evidence that lithium mixed with water is volatile. Is there any evidence that someone set the vehicle on fire?
I believe EVs are an excellent IDEA, but not ready to purchase one until I can see the cost advantage (for me) over a fossil fuel vehicle. Maybe once they develop a viable means to power the EV, and it is reasonable in price for the "average" person, I will consider a purchase. Most likely not within my lifetime, considering I just recently purchased a new fossil fuel burner and will probably not be in the market for replacement for a long time....possibly not in my remaining life. Argue all you wish about how great they are, but lithium is a dangerous element. Gasoline is a dangerous element, but folks have been made aware of the dangers of that fuel and vehicles have been made safer over time. If you submerge a fossil fuel burner in water, it destroys it but it doesn't catch fire and explode. Like I said and I reiterate, EVs are a great concept and will probably be worth having once they solidify their experiment into an affordable and sustainable mode of transportation. I still think they should put more effort into hydrogen fuel cell power.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

It is not an experiment. About 5% of new cars sales in the US are EVs and the number is only increasing. By 2030, probably half of all new cars will be EVs. By 2035, many of the major automakers will not be producing gas cars. There is a substantial amount of capital allocated to the construction of new lithium-ion battery factories in the US, and around the world. Regarding affordability, Chevy already announced a $30K Equinox SUV for 2024.

I thought I just read or heard, GM announced the Bolt would be $28K next year. I may be mis-remembering.

[tuccillo]

I believe you are correct. I believe it is a little small for many applications but certainly makes a good case for a commuter car.

Originally Posted by MartinSE

I thought I just read or heard, GM announced the Bolt would be $28K next year. I may be mis-remembering.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

I believe you are correct. I believe it is a little small for many applications but certainly makes a good case for a commuter car.

The longest drive my wife and I make now are to Gainesville. It would handle that for us.

The shortcoming is it is competing with Tesla FSD because my driving is so impaired now it drives my wife crazy. We really would like FSD, but I am sure at that price point, the Bolt might have supercruise, but not FSD.

It's a waiting game to see what we can get and what is the best deal. Tesla already meets our needs, but we would hate to spend more than we need to because we drive so few miles at this point - at most, maybe 8,000 to 10,000 miles a year.

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Nope, I said in my post it was cynical, and I guess it would be unfair of me to ask, "Is there evidence the batteries spontaneously burst into flame?

Both are suppositions, both our opinions.

And, if this were on a street in a poor part of Chicago, would you be as hesitant to think it could have been intentional, Just saying we each see what we want to see.

Yes, there IS evidence that lithium mixed with water is dangerous. If you REALLY wanted evidence, you could Google it like you do with many other subjects of interest to you. I asked if there was any evidence to support what you said and you admitted that it was just a thought that you had that someone might have sabotaged the car. At least I have science support of my guess.

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

The longest drive my wife and I make now are to Gainesville. It would handle that for us.

The shortcoming is it is competing with Tesla FSD because my driving is so impaired now it drives my wife crazy. We really would like FSD, but I am sure at that price point, the Bolt might have supercruise, but not FSD.

It's a waiting game to see what we can get and what is the best deal. Tesla already meets our needs, but we would hate to spend more than we need to because we drive so few miles at this point - at most, maybe 8,000 to 10,000 miles a year.

I drive less than two thousand miles per year right now, but this is not ALL ABOUT ME. Sure an EV might be optimal for me, but those that work for a living might not feel the same way. I have a relative that had to charge his vehicle at work in order to make the trip home, due to the limitation of his EV to make the full round trip on one charge. He swears to this day on the greatness of EVs but no longer owns one. It is not convenient for him now that he travels even further. Like I said earlier, EVs are too limited right now and too expensive for the average worker. It's easy for retirees to sit back and expound on the greatness of new innovations, regardless of cost viability and usefulness in their early development stages. I think that EVs are really interesting, but are not ready yet for the "average" citizen. Just my opinion, of course. I know folks that have hybrids and love them. I have a family member that purchased a hybrid and brags about his mileage. Since I did not want to disenchant him, I did not mention to him that I get the same mileage he claims in the Villages with my fossil fuel burner and better mileage on the highway than he does. Maybe I am a more careful driver? Of course, this is not always the case, but it is just an example of the problem with introducing something new to the "average" citizen possibly before it's ready. I am NOT anti-EV. I am anti- to being pushed/forced into accepting a change in a product that is not an equal or better replacement to a necessity just to please a sector of what I consider to be "elitist thinkers" for lack of a better descriptor. I still consider the EV product to be experimental and would like to see equal research and experimentation on hydrogen power. Of course, hydrogen fuel is likely not as lucrative as manufacturing electrical machinery and battery storage products.

[Bay Kid]

My leaf blower with a lithium battery says do not get wet and to unplug immediately after charging. Also they will be losing charging time the more charged. Scary where to charge and don't forget you plugged it in 4 hours ago. My 4 year old battery blower lost it's use time so it is replaced.