Yeah… that’s the one part you need to waterproof, more even than the passenger cabin. Everything else except the ECU is water-agnostic. Those battery cells will discharge and die if you leave them submerged. The pack itself is fine for short spells under water if it is properly made.

I’ve recovered Teslas that have “failed” in the rain. It means a moisture sensor has triggered. The car tells you they it can get to where you need to go but then will need to be serviced. It’s a “first” generation problem rather than anything inherently wrong with electric cars.

The issue is the statement by the Tesla rep that bad weather was the cause. Now we don’t have any confirmation they said that, but it would take nothing for Tesla to categorically deny that that is an acceptable reason to deny warranty, and state that any rep saying that was at fault. There. Done. Non-story.

If they can’t categorically deny that then that implies they actually are employing this excuse for their shoddy workmanship. It certainly wouldn’t be the scummiest thing the company has done.

I know someone who had to get their Tesla repaired after driving in a puddle. I don’t know the size or depth of the puddle though.

I looked it up, it was the truck and the model S, he’s said it multiple times, because the man cannot understand when to stfu: https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/hybrid-electric/a21421/elon-musk-model-s-boat/

You’re correct, it was the truck

Except most BEVs absolutely can ford shallow rivers. They’re better at it than ICE cars because of the intake issue.

And the electronics on any vehicle needs to be water proof too. Although I’ve seen an iffroad tesla mod where they actually said that opening holes in the bottom of the ECU waterproofing was essential to allow water to flow out, rather than sealing it up completely like Tesla had done. That was the problem that killed their first motherboard in that project.

Also note there’s a difference between electronics and electrics. The electric motors dgaf about water, they work flooded or dry. The logic circuits are the really vulnerable part.

Yesterday I saw comment: imagine that the typical home printer was your car. That’s the experience of typical Tesla owner.

Can you expand? I live in a wealthy liberal area, the cross section of people who want to show their wealth with fancy cars and also want to virtue signal that they care about the environment, so there are a bunch of Teslas around here. I also have a few close friends and family that have them. I’ve heard overwhelmingly good things about the cars from these people. All of the complaints have been minor quibbles.

The battery pack is supposed to be watertight because that is an expected hazard for an outdoor vehicle. It absolutely can come in contact with water, which apart from some minor corrosion and discharge over time due to electrolysis, should not in the short term damage it. The ability to ford shallow rivers is absolutely normal in most BEVs.

And the readers can do the proof reading for us.

Fair point. Why do they get posted though is the real question.

Hell son, any car will break down when submerged. ICE cars don’t like inhaling water either.

Yes. It is not about Elon. It’s about the doomed nature of BEVs. Any technology that can give you a £17,000 repair bill just because it is wet means it is not a viable technology. Though it’s sad that people have been fooled by Elon’s bullshit about his companies. Which is why stories like this come up. Ultimately, BEVs are dead-end and this cannot be changed. It will be a matter of when BEVs are abandoned in the marketplace, not if.

EDIT: Again, no amount of lying to yourself will change reality. BEVs are a dead-end and always will be.

Last I checked, a lot of countries are planning to ban all competing technologies, or subsidizing BEVs to an insane amount. If you realize that this is basically a doomed strategy, then your next act is pretty obvious.

In the end, our motivation is about solving climate change. And we see a lot of brainwashed fools wasting their time and money on a dead-end idea that won’t work. It’s pretty much impossible not to bring up the alternative. Not doing so would be a major moral failure on our own part. So it has to be brought up. Guys like you are just annoyed that someone is telling you something you don’t want to hear.

Once these BEVs get older and more corroded, we will see a lot of issues.

FCEVs have massive advantages over BEVs. They are just some years away from mass production and adoption.

Most arguments against them are years or even decades out of date. There isn’t anything holding back green hydrogen anymore. It will be both widespread and cheap pretty soon. It is basically following the same cost curve as wind, solar, even batteries themselves.

That’s a motivation for building them out as quickly as possible. Saying that it is an excuse to not doing anything really reveals that you’re not being serious about stopping climate change.

After all, millions of people will need some kind of public charging/refuel system anyways. So it’s not like this problem can be ignored.

Actually yes. Cars are for special purposes. They should not be driven that much.

Go back to the year 2015 when you actually sound original.

Agreed. BEVs make sense as short-ranged urban commuter cars. You don’t want a car with a giant, expensive battery. But this is a niche, so you quickly realize that something else must be the answer.

For a lot of cases, it is either mass transit or e-bikes. But if you must have a car, it must be something that matches the functionality of ICE cars while being zero emissions.

Because in reality, this thread is filled with brainwashed BEV fanatics. Either they have been fooled by Musk, or they are investors in some BEV company.

A real problem, if you believe that is going to be a massive distraction to solving climate change.

Ultimately, if you were in my shoes, you do the same thing. You have to. It is the only morally acceptable thing to do if you believe what I believe.

Because millions of people cannot change at home. They don’t have a garage to charge in.

Not to mention you will need a “gas station” for long distance driving anyways. Might as well have one infrastructure that serves both purposes.

In fact, this is how the ICE car won over BEVs in the first place. ICE cars were invented before the gas station, but the gas station allows ICE cars to be ubiquitous and available for everyone. As a result, BEVs died out in the early 1900s.

You do realize hydrogen technology can also evolve? FCEVs of the future will be better than FCEVs of today. Furthermore, fuel cells are basically batteries anyways. The moment you start talking about metal-air batteries is the moment you admit defeat, because hydrogen fuel cells are basically hydrogen-air batteries.

On a good day… Electrolysis alone is often <60% efficient, but as someone else pointed out, you do have the advantage of ToU flexibility for minimizing costs.

Round trip, although you can make and store it with excess solar you were just gonna throw away

Not really, because fuel cells are electrochemical systems just like batteries. In the long-run, it will be the same level of efficiency as batteries.

What you mean to say is that at a certain level of technology, it is 50% efficient. But even that is meaningless, because hydrogen’s ability to capture excess wind and solar energy let’s it be extremely cheap energy. It is the same story as photovoltaic cells. Photovoltaic cells are very inefficient, but it is irrelevant because it captures such a cheap energy source. So solar power is very cheap. Likewise, green hydrogen, made from water and extremely cheap renewable energy, will also be extremely cheap. Efficiency isn’t that big of a deal here either.

Ultimately, the people who criticize hydrogen are doing the same thing as those that attacked solar power. It is just missing the forest for the trees, and they are basically guaranteed to be wrong.

He’s actually right about this one despite the down votes. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are electric vehicles that use elective motors not engines so there are no oil changes.

The difference is that a fuel cell vehicle captures electrons during the reaction that takes place when hydrogen is exposed to oxygen (they bond to from H2O) rather than storing energy in batteries.

So battery electric vehicles store their energy in a battery while fuel cell electric vehicles store it in the form of hydrogen but ultimately electricity is was powers both of them.

A fuel cell will never need an oil change. Your friend must be talking about hydrogen combustion engines. Another possibility, but probably something of a niche product.

Sodium-ion batteries haven’t been invented yet. Just a lot of PR but no products yet. And it will have lower energy density than li-ion batteries, so it won’t be a particularly desirable product anyways.