Slashdot Mirror


Fisker Hybrids Get Bad Karma From Superstorm Sandy

New submitter slas6654 writes with this excerpt from Jalopnik: "Approximately 16 of the $100,000+ Fisker Karma extended-range luxury hybrids were parked in Port Newark, New Jersey last night when water from Hurricane Sandy's storm surge apparently breached the port and submerged the vehicles. As Jalopnik has exclusively learned, the cars then caught fire and burned to the ground.' Apparently Fiskar super-duty lithium ion batteries are neither water-proof or water soluble."

414 comments

  1. Someone forgot to test by fredrated · · Score: 5, Funny

    the 'submerged in water' use case?

    1. Re:Someone forgot to test by HexaByte · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, I guess if you have a hybrid SUV, you better think twice before you use it to back your boat into the lake!

      --
      HexaByte - he's a square and a half!
    2. Re:Someone forgot to test by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On the upside, switching to EV's will seriously reduce the frequency of flood damaged cars being sold as 'working perfectly'

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    3. Re:Someone forgot to test by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Funny

      I always thought that Fiskar looked like the hottest EV there was...

      And I was RIGHT! :-)

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    4. Re:Someone forgot to test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "submerged in salt water" is a whole other beast. A nasty one.

    5. Re:Someone forgot to test by SuperTechnoNerd · · Score: 1

      Salt water no less. Great for electronics!

    6. Re:Someone forgot to test by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Funny

      "When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a Fisker in a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them. It sank into the swamp. So I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up. And that's what you're going to get, Lad, the strongest Fisker in all of England."

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    7. Re:Someone forgot to test by TWX · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised if automakers actually test for it. Mainly because of things like we're seeing in this story.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    8. Re:Someone forgot to test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When you're dealing with Lithium Ion batteries, this is actually a sensible test, considering these cars will be driven in rain, and could get stuck in a puddle, even if it's not likely they'll be "completely submerged in a hurricane."

      Why? Because Lithium is actually highly, and energetically, reactive to water: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ypUVpwgcAA

      If your battery pack contains a whole lot of lithium, and isn't well-sealed to make sure water can't get inside... it'd be trivially easy to imagine the engine would heat up and catch fire.

    9. Re:Someone forgot to test by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 3, Informative

      If these batteries are partially exposed from below, they won't do too well in northern states in spring. Melting snow and ice combined with leftover salt used to try to melt winter snow and ice could easily splash up onto the batteries, and if it's been a heavy precipitation winter that could do a number on the batteries.

      http://www.dmv.org/how-to-guides/road-salt.php

    10. Re:Someone forgot to test by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 2, Funny

      Switching to EV's might also reduce hurricanes which flood EV's in New Jersey. Just sayin'.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    11. Re:Someone forgot to test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Only if you're not burning coal or oil to generate the electricity to charge that EV... Just sayin'.

    12. Re:Someone forgot to test by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 0

      EV's aren't meant to be used by themselves. It's part of a larger goal to get us off coal and other fossil fuels.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    13. Re:Someone forgot to test by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Until we have reliable alternatives, coal and Oil will be used until they disappear completely.

      BTW
      Can't have Nuclear ... obvious reasons.
      Can't use Hydro Electric ... damn rivers
      Can't use windmills ... kills birds
      Can't use Solar Voltaic ... Rare Earth Mineral Mining not allowed

      Let me know when we have viable alternatives that won't be outsourced to China or other third world nation.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    14. Re:Someone forgot to test by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      It's a conspiracy by Big Oil. They bribed the weather into carefully wrecking a bunch of EVs, to make them look unsafe.

      Of course, your average car will not be fine after being submerged in water, either. It'll just be less spectacular. Note that a Toyota Hilux is not your average car, since it'd take a nuke to kill one.

    15. Re:Someone forgot to test by suso · · Score: 1

      Can't use Hydro Electric ... damn rivers

      Yeah, those DAMN rivers, always getting in the way. We should use a DAM on them to keep them from getting out of control.

      (I'm one to talk, we all make mistakes in spelling/grammar like this too from time to time)

    16. Re:Someone forgot to test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I realize you're just being funny, but in all reality, dams can cause absolutely catastrophic damage over time. Take a look at the problems happening with Lake Winnipeg... currently one of the most algae-bloom filled freshwater lakes on earth. Various naturalists such as David Suzuki have figured that the hydroelectric dams have had a large amount to do with this. The tons of fertilizer and farming runoff obviously don't help, but the dam is also a massive contributing factor.

    17. Re:Someone forgot to test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go a bit further north into Manitoba. During flood season, it's not uncommon to have an underpass or some other section of road that, while not closed, requires driving through about a foot or so of water, completely bathing the underside of the car. If you ever wondered if you have any holes in your floorboard, you'll quickly find out.

    18. Re:Someone forgot to test by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hydro works just fine, some mitigation needs to be done but otherwise they work.
      - the problem is that there simply aren't enough suitable locations to make it grid scale nationwide.

      Nuclear
      - No argument, but for the next 100 years or so it will be necessary.

      Windmills don't kill birds hardly at all. The newer models are geared to be much slower and still provide the same power. Bats however are still at risk due to the pressure changes at the edges.

      Solar - uh, who said we can't mine stuff? China just shut down it's production so US production can at least for a bit start back up (obviously not immediately)

      And of course, coal has it's own numerous problems, not the least of which is global warming. Nothing's perfect but we should try to find things that don't have the long term side effects that fossil fuels do.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    19. Re:Someone forgot to test by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 3, Informative

      He was correct in his usage. He was saying the 'damn rivers' meaning we can't build DAMS because of the DAMNED rivers; i.e. DAMS hurt the ecosystem of the DAMN rivers ;-)

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    20. Re:Someone forgot to test by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Until we have reliable alternatives, coal and Oil will be used until they disappear completely.

      Let me know when we have viable alternatives that won't be outsourced to China or other third world nation.

      We have natural gas (methane), of which we have so much we literally burn it off because we don't use it up fast enough. And China, etc. haven't developed their natural gas wells yet (we export natural gas to Asia).

      In fact, I'm guessing that once oil gets hard enough, we'll see a rise in natural gas vehicles as part of the mix. We can either burn it directly in an ICE, or use a fuel cell. Not as green since we still have CO2 emissions but it seems like a reasonable stopgap.

    21. Re:Someone forgot to test by rs79 · · Score: 1

      Is the amount of rare earths that great? It sure is for magnets but solar panels are silicon. Sand.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    22. Re:Someone forgot to test by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Submerged in sea water case. I suspect the extra corrosive effect may have contributed.

    23. Re:Someone forgot to test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if you're not burning coal or oil to generate the electricity to charge that EV...

      Something like 60% efficiency at the powerplant, 50% after power transmission, and 40% after losses in the battery. Versus 15% efficiency in an internal combustion engine. Using an EV doesn't reduce your emissions to "no car at all", but it gets rid of most of them.

    24. Re:Someone forgot to test by yurtinus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well just like everything else in life - there is no silver bullet. Everything has pros and cons. The best course of action is to diversify. Use an option with a smaller impact in the area you're trying to build it. Build out each as a piece of the pie to reduce the negative impact any one method will have.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    25. Re:Someone forgot to test by yurtinus · · Score: 4, Informative

      One more addendum - if all you want is power, you can do it without making a massive reservoir behind a dam. By far dams are built for irrigation and flood control, hydroelectric power is a side effect.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    26. Re:Someone forgot to test by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Didn't one survive being eaten by Nefarion? Four Wheels of Fury!!!

      --
      +1 Disagree
    27. Re:Someone forgot to test by compro01 · · Score: 2

      I dunno about Fisker, but Saskpower has had a Mitsubishi i-MiEV driving around for over a year now for promotional purposes. AFAIK, there have been no problems with snow, salt, water on roads, etc., or at least no more than any other car has.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    28. Re:Someone forgot to test by compro01 · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's pure lithium. Li-ion batteries use Lithium cobalt oxide or similar salts, which don't react with water like that.

      This is likely just a case of the water shorting the battery, causing it to overheat, and ignite something flammable (e.g. upholstery).

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    29. Re:Someone forgot to test by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The average efficiency of power plants is nowhere near 60%. 60% is best case, gas fired combined cycle. They don't achieve 60% unless up the heat recovery steam generators are up to temperature. Obviously some plant, somewhere has to ramp. Most of those are simple inefficient gas turbines.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    30. Re:Someone forgot to test by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Just from memory (having RTFMSDS) about 5% of people are highly reactive to cobalt. If even a little gets into their lungs they die a slow painful death. It's always very bad for your lungs. Apparently there isn't an easy way to find out if you are one of the luck few. Don't grind tooling containing cobalt (Carbide tools, typically in cobalt matrix) without a good respirator, exhaust fan, appropriate wheels and lots of time.

      Li-ion battery fires? I haven't RTFMSDS. Sounds ugly.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    31. Re:Someone forgot to test by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

      Even if you are, the emission-per-kW rates of large fossil fuel stations are still substantially smaller than an internal combustion engine. Charge them from nuclear and it's far lower.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    32. Re:Someone forgot to test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Okay but if the dam was not there, that large body of water would not be there. Without that large body of water, there would not be a large quantity of aquatic life. You solution to the algae bloomed water is to...get rid of the dam, its water, and its aquatic life. Is that a net gain or loss? I'm confused.

    33. Re:Someone forgot to test by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 2

      Not forgetting hydro-storage of course, which lets you even out the peaks and troughs of demand with the peaks and troughs of wind generation - it's a popular combination here in Scotland, where we're producing around 30% of the energy we use through wind (although we essentially subsidise the UK's renewable targets as a whole, we've got a low population and a huge amount of open space).

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    34. Re:Someone forgot to test by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      Last estimates I heard for net gain from fusion were 2018-2020. That's not very far away now.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    35. Re:Someone forgot to test by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "Can't have Nuclear ... obvious reasons.'
      Such as?

      "Can't use Hydro Electric ... damn rivers"
      we do, do that, so I'm not sure what that's even about.

      "Can't use windmills ... kills birds"
      barely.

      "Can't use Solar Voltaic ... Rare Earth Mineral Mining not allowed"
      yes it is.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    36. Re:Someone forgot to test by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Google for "indium" and "solar cells". There are some other promising technologies to get away from indium, but right now that's the standard.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    37. Re:Someone forgot to test by geekoid · · Score: 1

      becasue it rains so much salt water that cars are submerged?

      I would be shocked if the batteryi's are exposed from below.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    38. Re:Someone forgot to test by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Coal? Sure. Oil? Where do you live where a significant amount of electricity comes from oil?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    39. Re:Someone forgot to test by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "about 5% of people are highly reactive to cobalt"
      sigh. That's a meaningless statement with dose and time. It's like me saying "Drinking water will kill 100% of the people." A true statement, but useless without does over time.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    40. Re:Someone forgot to test by capedgirardeau · · Score: 1

      While renewables could certainly provide a fair portion of the power for EVs, even if you are burning coal or oil to power your EV, you are much better off having only one source point of pollution instead of 10's of millions of little source points (tail pipes)

      If you have one source point for the pollution it is much easier to upgrade to cleaner technologies as they become available and make sure the very best pollution control devices are installed and working properly.

      --
      Wax on, wax off baby!
    41. Re:Someone forgot to test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why can't we have Nuclear? Here in Canada, we have extremely safe reactors, called CANDU, that do not even require enrichment of the uranium, just pull it straight out of the ground. Also, they can run on MOX/POX and a few other fuels. A CANDU reactor can run off the waste of a typical American reactor, extracting more energy from it while at the same time making it safer to store

    42. Re:Someone forgot to test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hydroelectric does kill rivers, but there are no large rivers left to kill in the US so it's a non-issue.

      Bird conservation groups, funded by the coal industry, insist that wind farms kill birds.

      Solar causes silent and invisible displacement of coal industry jobs, and is evil because solar panels used to be made from rare earths and toxic metals, but much much less than contained by nah-nah-not-listening left over fly ash from coal.

      Grid storage batteries will never work. Pumped heat storage will never work.

      Coal creates jobs, protects american families, and in the future will provide greatly extended summers. We all love summer right?

    43. Re:Someone forgot to test by sourcerror · · Score: 2

      Solar panels are silicon plus rare earths, not just silicon.

    44. Re:Someone forgot to test by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Plenty of REE mining going on. Right now, MolyCorp has a new process that is VERY environmentally clean (and this time, they do not care if another fucking neo-con president asks them to share it with China, they are NOT going to do it; GD reagan was as short-sighted as W).
      Wind mills might kill birder. BUT Wind generators do not kill so many. That is why they are going up.
      We currently have 7 of our electricity from Hydro and it is RISING (due to NEW small and micro hydro generators going up on new dams).
      Nuclear is about to make a real come back. The reason is that it is MUCH cheaper AND safer to burn the 'waste' that we have then to bury it. That will leave us with about 5% of our waste and safe withing 200 years. And with a Thorium reactor, we can have safe, cheap, and clean.

      Direct burning of coal is DYING. Thank God. It is INSANE to try and grab the pollution post burning. Instead, once Natural Gas rises to its normal price (above $5/MMBTU), then we will see Coal converted to methane at a total cost of $4.5/MMBTU. Right now, Electricity from Coal is at 36% in USA. Over the next 5 years, it will DROP to below 25% based on the plants that are scheduled to be closed.

      Oil Imports are trivial to kill off. We need to get Commercial vehicles and large passenger vehicles moved to Natural Gas. The dems put forward a bill designed to push Natural Gas usage for Commercial vehicle. Sadly, the republicans killed it because the large oil companies make a lot more money importing oil than they will with NG. But, the cool thing is that Colorado's gov. hickenlooper got together with other govs. and are now telling the car companies that they will ONLY buy NG vehicles. Now, if the feds would do the same, then it would force all of the manufacturers to provide plenty of NG vehicles as well. And apparently, if O makes president, he is looking to do just that.


      So, all of your arguments are pretty well dead.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    45. Re:Someone forgot to test by norpy · · Score: 2

      I would be shocked if the batteryi's are exposed from below.

      Pun intended?

    46. Re:Someone forgot to test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sandy was a sub-tropical-super-Franken-storm, not a hurricane.

    47. Re:Someone forgot to test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One more addendum - if all you want is power, you can do it without making a massive reservoir behind a dam. By far dams are built for irrigation and flood control, hydroelectric power is a side effect.

      Dams for flood control - LOL
      The logic in this thread is going in a circle.

    48. Re:Someone forgot to test by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Even burning coal and oil, an EV is better for the environment than a gas-powered car.

    49. Re:Someone forgot to test by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Last estimates I heard for net gain from fusion were 2018-2020. That's not very far away now.

      Of course, seeing a net gain in a prototype reactor and commercializing the technology are two very different things. For example, had net gain from photovoltaics in the 70's, but it hasn't been until recently that PV has become economical for everyday use.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    50. Re:Someone forgot to test by sir-gold · · Score: 2

      after driving my car though an average minnesota/wisconsin winter, the entire engine, including the top, is covered in a thin layer of salt. all it takes is some water spray (from a car wash or something) to get up there and make salt water on top of the batteries (assuming they are in a open engine bay and not in a sealed trunk)

    51. Re:Someone forgot to test by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I wonder how much energy is bound up in mis-used apostrophes? If they can be cleanly burned, we're all set.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    52. Re:Someone forgot to test by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Use solar thermal instead.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    53. Re:Someone forgot to test by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      In most EVs the battery packs are sealed and have automatic cut-outs for safety. If the car is in a crash you don't want the body to become live and electrocute the occupants or emergency services.

      It seems like you would need full submersion for an extended period of time to cause this. Note that other identical cars in the same lot didn't catch fire, so it seems like more of a design/quality issue than an inherent problem with battery packs.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    54. Re:Someone forgot to test by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

      No argument friend... your points are well taken... but you must realize that at some point,

      Nuclear // No argument, but for the next 100 years or so it will be necessary.

      respectfully, this should should be translated as

      Nuclear! Lots of it, and let the armchair energy hog-luddites muse about ye olde renaissance fairs and how fun life was in the pre-industrial age as we over-rule and walk around them! Quick! Before the Last Winter sets in or the Oil War to end all Oil Wars and the lights go out and our children freeze to death!!!

      It is about survival. It's just that, all this hoo-hah about options other than a massive investment (in as you say, short term) nuclear energy are wasted time and wasted breath. And time is SHORT. It is all technical issues to solve. If we approached space travel the same way we are agonizing over nuclear energy there would be no footsteps on the moon.

      There is no time left to remain uncommitted.

      --
      <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
    55. Re:Someone forgot to test by rapiddescent · · Score: 1

      The modern RAST tests for Cobalt allergy using patches that are (usually) stuck to the patients back for a period of 96 hours.

    56. Re:Someone forgot to test by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Coal? Sure. Oil? Where do you live where a significant amount of electricity comes from oil?

      Islands are the usual case. They tend to have bigass diesel generators. Supposedly the one on Isla Bastimentos was specifically made out of a train's engine. It's a good idea, since they're designed to run a genset and they are also built with separate cylinders for ease of maintenance.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    57. Re:Someone forgot to test by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      For example, had net gain from photovoltaics in the 70's, but it hasn't been until recently that PV has become economical for everyday use.

      It's not until recently that PV has become economical to buy and put on your house, but PV has been able to repay the energy cost of its production in under seven years since the 1970s, which means that it would have been economical for energy companies to put it up for everyday use back then, and it would have been paid for and produced net energy long since.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    58. Re:Someone forgot to test by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      What's the battery voltage? Would the water really short the batteries this spectactularly? Or is it possible that water affected the control circuits and caused this spectacular failure? Odds are, of course, it's impossible to tell now.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    59. Re:Someone forgot to test by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

      Fusion is already running at a net gain, it's just not economical and doesn't produce a lot of power. The first on-grid fusion station is planned for around 2035, it will actually generate electricity and feed it into the grid, but the cost-per-MW is going to be silly, it's a proof of concept plan. After that the cost should drop as economies of scale kick in - bigger fusion plants are easier and more economical than small ones. I'd estimate we've got about 100 years before fusion is providing most of our energy, so in the meantime we need fission for the big drains (cities, large industrial complexes) and wind/tide/solar to fill in the gaps and reduce the need for fission as much as possible.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    60. Re:Someone forgot to test by dywolf · · Score: 1

      I believe his point was that no matter what idea you come up with, somewhere someone somehow will bitch about it, and say NIMBY or SAVE THE CRITTERS or something.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    61. Re:Someone forgot to test by MarkGriz · · Score: 1

      Must have been gremlins in the system.

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    62. Re:Someone forgot to test by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Right - but hydro storage systems aren't for power generation, and their reservoirs pale in comparison to those used to manage the water supply

      --
      +1 Disagree
    63. Re:Someone forgot to test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Solar collection dishes are just mirrors (expensive to move vs make local) and car parts (engine block, radiator). Those going up in SW US are also labor-intensive & unlikely to be affected by outsourcing. Ref: Maricopa Solar project by Sterling Energy Systems.

    64. Re:Someone forgot to test by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Correction : Fisker apparently uses lithium iron phosphate-based batteries, not lithium cobalt oxide ones.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    65. Re:Someone forgot to test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comment to self. Last year they went bankrupt because China's PV costs were too cheap. If that changes, this is a good route, until then, why not put up cheap panels?

    66. Re:Someone forgot to test by pweidema · · Score: 1

      mod up -- funny!

  2. FiskEr, not FiskAr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Come on, editors, get your act together already.

    1. Re:FiskEr, not FiskAr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Thanks. I was wondering how a pair of scissors caught on fire.

    2. Re:FiskEr, not FiskAr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Thanks. I was wondering how a pair of scissors caught on fire.

      You can't run well with these.

    3. Re:FiskEr, not FiskAr by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      If a watch company can make a car, then a scissor company should be allowed to also.

    4. Re:FiskEr, not FiskAr by mcgrew · · Score: 1, Funny

      I was amused at he headline, either Earl Hickey or a Hindu must have written it.

      I guess it will be a while before Fisker gets mod points! So what got Fisker downmodded enough to hurt its karma? Too much flamebait!

    5. Re:FiskEr, not FiskAr by Tukz · · Score: 1

      I've got an Fiskars UPS, they've made a lot more than just scissors and common house hold items.

      --
      - Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
    6. Re:FiskEr, not FiskAr by operagost · · Score: 1

      Smart: the car so small, school girls can wear two on each wrist.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    7. Re:FiskEr, not FiskAr by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I bought a house so figured I'd need a lawn mower. That's my only experience with Fiskars.

    8. Re:FiskEr, not FiskAr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, both Fisker and Fiskars are made in Finland.

    9. Re:FiskEr, not FiskAr by SpzToid · · Score: 1

      Oh man! I had no idea how much I needed one of these until you linked to it. I had no idea Fiskar made these.

      --
      You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
    10. Re:FiskEr, not FiskAr by init100 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, you are correct. Because otherwise, I could have made a bad joke about "fiskar" meaning plural of "fish" in Swedish, which certainly relates to submersion in water.

    11. Re:FiskEr, not FiskAr by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      And Finland's chock full of water. How has this not happened before?

    12. Re:FiskEr, not FiskAr by future+assassin · · Score: 1

      Well if they were trimming scissors you could smoke the resin off.

      --
      by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    13. Re:FiskEr, not FiskAr by rs79 · · Score: 2

      Sure, just don't feed it after midnight and DON'T GET THEM WET.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    14. Re:FiskEr, not FiskAr by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Lack of QA testing son, lack of QA testing!

    15. Re:FiskEr, not FiskAr by Snodgrass · · Score: 2

      While we're at it, it's "neither water-proof nor water soluble."

    16. Re:FiskEr, not FiskAr by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The Fins make inside jokes in Swedish? Must have been very drunk when they named the company.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    17. Re:FiskEr, not FiskAr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought $100,000 scissors where expense too, but then I saw the pictures, they're pretty big.

    18. Re:FiskEr, not FiskAr by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you need that you probably need some of their compound loppers, too. Best ever. And when mine failed cutting a branch they said it would cut they sent me a new blade without argument.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:FiskEr, not FiskAr by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I have like a 10 foot x 12 foot patch of grass out front, I didn't want a gas mower and I have no garage so I have to bring the mower inside the house after using it. o.x

    20. Re:FiskEr, not FiskAr by init100 · · Score: 1

      I'm Swedish, not Finnish, but Finland do have Swedish as an official second language, due to the fact that Finland was part of Sweden for hundreds of years.

  3. Why does this matter? by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The cars were totalled the minute they were submerged. If they were destroyed later, why does that matter?

    1. Re:Why does this matter? by HexaByte · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. Many cars are flooded and restored.

      --
      HexaByte - he's a square and a half!
    2. Re:Why does this matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Because each vehicle could have had a bankster CEO at the wheel as they burned down, doing us all a favor.

      Instead, we just got a waste of some nice cars.

      Hopefully the next hurricane will do a better job of cleaning up the criminal capital of the US.

    3. Re:Why does this matter? by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can drive them if you want, I will not be.

      A flooded car is a totaled car. No cars on the market are built for that.

      I am not going to be buying a flooded car or any other R title.

    4. Re:Why does this matter? by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      With a salvage title, sure. Otherwise it's fraud IMHO.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    5. Re:Why does this matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah! And why does it matter that it was destroyed by a storm surge!?

      You're on to something, man!

      Mod parent up!!!!

    6. Re:Why does this matter? by trooper9 · · Score: 1

      If someone gets into high water? The water sucks enough, but then you catch on fire...

      --
      blah
    7. Re:Why does this matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And more interestingly, an entire other row of them is sitting across from the ones that burned, which indicates it could either have been a fault in one specific vehicle, leading to cobustion of the whole group (they appear quite closely packed), or perhaps in a specific run of them. This is of course assuming the batteries on all models were equally charged, and that submersion happened to both rows of vehicles (rather than a wave or something washing over the one row but dissipating before the full brunt of it washed over the adjacent row.

    8. Re:Why does this matter? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      The cars were totalled the minute they were submerged. If they were destroyed later, why does that matter?

      It's still a safety issue. I didn't RTFA, but I'd rather not be in a car that catches fire when submerged in water. Granted, I have no plans of driving a car into such conditions. But I'd guess that most people who have ended up submerged in a car didn't either. Depending on the situation, you may need to wait until the interior of the car fills up with water to equalize the pressure before you can open your door, it would rather suck to be cooked to death first wouldn't it?

    9. Re:Why does this matter? by PPH · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because they could have been parked in someone's garage and gotten flooded. And that would be the difference between some clean up work and a house burned to the ground (or water line).

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    10. Re:Why does this matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A friend's SUV was trashed a few years ago when the parking lot flooded. It didn't 'catch fire and burn to the ground' afterwards, it just sat there smelling like sewage.

    11. Re:Why does this matter? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      The point being, you can't look at a car and tell with confidence it's been in a flood. You can hide the damage and commit fraud by selling one.

      How do you 'hide' the damage these cars have? ;-)

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    12. Re:Why does this matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It matters if you were unexpectedly stuck in your vehicle while it became submerged.. unless of course you don't value your livelihood/safety.

    13. Re:Why does this matter? by sunderland56 · · Score: 1

      It matters a whole lot if you're in the car when it submerges and catches fire. It also matters a whole lot if it's parked in your garage. Try calling your insurance agent and explaining how your house burned down because of the flood.

      Anyone remember high-school chemistry, where the teacher put some sodium in a bowl of water? Lithium is similar - although the reaction is nowhere near as intense, I still don't want to be sitting right on top of a huge stack of lithium batteries when they get submerged.

    14. Re:Why does this matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You's dumb.

    15. Re:Why does this matter? by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Or something else all together could have started the fire. Like say a hoodlum with a some gasoline.

    16. Re:Why does this matter? by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually lots of houses burn down due to floods. A gas line ruptures or electric power issues light the house up and then the fire Dept can't make it there due to the water.

    17. Re:Why does this matter? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      That happens to regular cars as well in flood. It is more rare though.

      Years ago my grandfather had a car burn down in the driveway. It had been driven home and a few hours later it went up in flames for no apparent reason.

    18. Re:Why does this matter? by sunking2 · · Score: 1

      Because 70% of the Earth is covered with salt water? However, on a half serious note it could raise the question of whether living near the beach could be an issue with sea spray accumulation over time.

    19. Re:Why does this matter? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'd be less worried about the lithium-water reaction(Li-ion batteries tend to be sealed, if only so the internals don't degrade even faster than usual, they are touchy things) and more worried about a short circuit anywhere near a battery pack punchy enough to run a car. At 330 volts, you don't need an ultra-low resistance path to get some serious current flowing, and serious current is something that large battery packs are more than happy to supply.

      Now, once the electrical heating breaches the seals and touches off a merry metal fire, you have additional problems...

    20. Re:Why does this matter? by Ariven · · Score: 1

      I'd have to say their apparent tendency to burst into flames when they get wet would kinda move them from the "nice car" category...

    21. Re:Why does this matter? by mariasama16 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually lots of houses burn down due to floods. A gas line ruptures or electric power issues light the house up and then the fire Dept can't make it there due to the water.

      Exactly. The houses in Breezy Point are a good example of this.

    22. Re:Why does this matter? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey, large swaths of New York City are without power. That means no heat either, and it's pretty cold - so a nice car fire might be welcomed!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    23. Re:Why does this matter? by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How about building burns down because water main break cased water to pour into the underground parking garage and onto an electric car that burst into flames?

      Or how about Man burns to death as firefighters point out there isn't much point putting water on a car which is on fire because it slid into a pond, became submerged and is burning.

      Or maybe, Two first responders were injured after a car erupted in fire because it started raining while they were tending to an accident.

      I know a parked car without anyone around doesn't pose much of a threat. But I think in reality, that situation happens as much as or less then when it could be a threat to human life or property. So finding out why is somewhat of a concern I would think.

    24. Re:Why does this matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently someone modded you -1 Troll for disagreeing. But you made a valid point that warrants discussion.

    25. Re:Why does this matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they spontaneously exploded, 16 of them!

    26. Re:Why does this matter? by atheos · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "How do you 'hide' the damage these cars have? ;-)" Easy, pop a kick panel and inspect any ground cables, and exposed metal above the floor level. These cars start rusting within days of exposure, and you can usually see a waterline once the carpet and/or kick panels have been exposed. I've had the not-so-pleasure of informing numerous people that their cars were submersed at some point in their history, and not a single person has responded with anything similar to "oh yea, I already know that".

    27. Re:Why does this matter? by plover · · Score: 1

      How do you 'hide' the damage these cars have? ;-)

      A salvage title, and a LOT of work. A friend of mine just sold a flood-damaged Harley Davidson he rebuilt from the frame up. You can tell from the paperwork that it was destroyed in a flood, but you can no longer tell just from looking at the bike.

      And he was committing no fraud: he was very proud of the whole summer's worth of work he put into that bike.

      --
      John
    28. Re:Why does this matter? by Tailhook · · Score: 4, Insightful

      why does that matter?

      There is an important difference between "totalled" and "erupt into a 1350 deg. C toxic lithium fire." Traditional gas/diesel cars don't usually do that when flooded, so a new and dramatic failure mode has been revealed. Something to note if you live in New Orleans or parts of Texas that see frequent flash floods and perhaps not the best thing to park in your integral garage.

      You didn't really fail to understand this did you? You'd just rather people not discuss concerns that emerge with the things you prefer.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    29. Re:Why does this matter? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      And what exactly is the fire department going to do? Get out the hoses and put more water on it possibly causing it to ignite in more areas?

      As for getting into high water, imagine someone going left of center, you swerve to avoid a head on collision but end up in the drainage ditch alongside the road. It's raining and your car starts to damn it up. Or debris and sediment end up blocking the storm drains on a road causing water to back up instead of entering the drain and flowing away. It's not all that difficult to get into high water.

    30. Re:Why does this matter? by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 2

      Bondo. Lots of Bondo.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    31. Re:Why does this matter? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Try calling your insurance agent and explaining how your house burned down because of the flood.

      Did you miss the story about the 6-alarm fire in Queens that burned down 80+ houses? Another newscaster in Jersey saw at least 26 individual fires during a helicopter flyover of the coast. Water is great for putting out fires, sure, but when it ruptures gas lines and creates electrical shorts it turns out that things burn down. There's also a video of a certain Con-Edison substation in lower Manhattan that had a less-than-optimal reaction to being submerged in water.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    32. Re:Why does this matter? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      I meant how do you hide the 'damage' sustained to the Fisker Karma's, which mostly were melted blobs of metal...

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    33. Re:Why does this matter? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Apparently I wasn't clear. I meant how do you hide the damage sustained by the Karma's

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    34. Re:Why does this matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try calling your insurance agent and explaining how your house burned down because of the flood.

      Did you miss the story about the 6-alarm fire in Queens that burned down 80+ houses? Another newscaster in Jersey saw at least 26 individual fires during a helicopter flyover of the coast. Water is great for putting out fires, sure, but when it ruptures gas lines and creates electrical shorts it turns out that things burn down. There's also a video of a certain Con-Edison substation in lower Manhattan that had a less-than-optimal reaction to being submerged in water.

      I'm genuinely curious, how come power isn't shut off during these sorts of events?

      I live in South Florida so I'm no stranger to wind storms, but it's inevitable that people are going to lose power. So inevitable, that I think we might be better off shutting things off instead of risking downed electrified power lines and such.

    35. Re:Why does this matter? by thebigmacd · · Score: 1

      There is no automated method of shutting off power at the local level. All disconnects and reconnects are done manually at the pole. Sad, but true. If they shut down the whole power system beforehand, everyone would run out of generator fuel before the disaster even happened. It's cheaper and easier to leave everything live and fix stuff that breaks. They are going to have to go out to site to fix the wires anyway, why waste time going around ahead of time? Also, if you shut everything off, how do you know where the problems are? You can't just turn the whole grid on and off either, the generating stations would go bonkers, especially nuclear. It takes days to shut them down and turn them on again.

    36. Re:Why does this matter? by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 2

      That's a feature: quick self-drying.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    37. Re:Why does this matter? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You would probably pass out from chocking on the fumes created by the burning materials before burning to death. Depending on what was burning and what the water was bringing to the party, you might even be dead before the fire even makes you hot.

      Just this week on the news, a woman hydroplaned off the road and ended up in a pond. A storm drain got blocked by plastic bags and I guess left standing water on the road about half way into a curve on the road. Several witnesses went into the pond to open the doors and get her out but said it was like it was locked even though it wasn't and this was confirmed when they finally recovered the car and the now deceased woman. One of the attempted rescuers ended up needing treatment for hypothermia due to being in the water for so long trying to get her out.

      Things happen. It wouldn't be out of the expected that something like this could happen. I'm betting that the number of cars the get submerged or partially submerged due to accidents and unintended situations might outnumber the amount of people who win significant amounts of money in the lotteries across the country.

    38. Re:Why does this matter? by s.petry · · Score: 2

      Comparing apples to chimps again are we? You can take a shower and live, but what happens if we submerge you under water for 5-10 minutes? These cars were not made wet, they were drowned. See the difference? If not, don't bother to reply.. you are intentionally not looking.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    39. Re:Why does this matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good! Please don't buy any flood cars and tell your friends to do the same. Thats what keeps these cars dirt cheap.

      Years ago I bought a flood car from a small dealership a few miles from home. The car looked great. At first I was skeptical so I took it to a mechanic, gave him the history, and he gave the car a thumbs up. I got it around $1500 under loan value and sold it a few years later for the same money. (of course I told the new owner the whole story)

      The only evidence I ever found that the car had been submerged was a water line in the ashtray. I'm not saying every flood car is rebuilt so well, so critique your prospect carefully.

    40. Re:Why does this matter? by idontgno · · Score: 1

      You know what? Whether "slightly moistened" or "submerged in high-concentration saline until dead, dead, dead"... under no circumstance does "burst into flame" enter the roster of "acceptable failure modes".

      Sorry. Yeah, the cause of the failure was extraordinary, but how these cars failed went waaaay beyond that.

      Seriously. "Halt and catch fire" is a joke. Doing it in real life is the exact diametric opposite.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    41. Re:Why does this matter? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Plenty, but "totalled" means "restoration cost greater than the cost of the vehicle", which is often true for submerged vehicles, even if they are restored anyway.

    42. Re:Why does this matter? by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      But regular cars do burst into flames for less. We just don't care because they are so common (the cars, not the fires) that we've accepted all the risks. I'd be surprised if a large city like LA didn't have at least one car fire a week on the freeways. I watched a car pull into a gas station and burst into flames (well, partially, it was extinguished before anything too interesting happened). Brake fluid is flammable, and used in the system with some very high temperatures. How hot do brakes need to be to boil the brake fluid and have it burst into flames when the burst line sprays the rotor? More than one time, I've seen brake discs glowing bright red. Even vented ones. Even drilled and vented ones. Vents keep down temperatures, drilled reduced brake fade, but doesn't affect temperature as much.

    43. Re:Why does this matter? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      And what exactly is the fire department going to do? Get out the hoses and put more water on it possibly causing it to ignite in more areas?

      Depending on the fire, yes. Spreading the fire reduces the total heat and can protect nearby areas. Though nearly all fire trucks (I would say *all* in a port area) carry a foaming agent that combines with the water to form an aerated-gel-like spray that would cool and smother without spreading.

    44. Re:Why does this matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming the driver was still conscious why didn't she open the window?

    45. Re:Why does this matter? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Assuming the driver was still conscious why didn't she open the window?

      Perhaps they were electric.

    46. Re:Why does this matter? by plover · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Apparently I wasn't clear. I meant how do you hide the damage sustained by the Karma's

      This is like any other car-totaling event. You can either sell the scorched bits to a scrap dealer, or perform a complete rebuild.

      The friend who got the salvage title on his bike was telling me another tale (FOAFOAF, I know) about a guy who bought a Ferrari that was completely destroyed in a garage fire. There was nothing left of the original car but some seriously fire-damaged frame parts. He paid some large amount ($2000 or so) for the remainders of the frame in order to get the serial number. He then incorporated those damaged bits into a complete rebuild of the car from parts. Because of the serial number and the original frame parts, he was able to sell it as a repaired genuine Ferrari instead of as a kit car, and he got a much higher price for it.

      The reason it was notable is that he was investigated by the police when he paid for the salvage title. According to FOAF, the primary buyers of salvage titles on totaled out high-end car frames are chop shops, as they can somehow swap out the serial numbers for those on stolen vehicles to make them appear legitimate. Apparently it's common enough that the insurance agent gave the police photographs of the twisted metal, who also didn't believe that he was actually planning to restore the car.

      So in 50 years, if and when (but mostly if) these become "classic" cars, there could be a market for a rebuilt '12. Owning the twisted remains of one of these would allow you to legitimately restore one. But that's assuming there's a future market for rebuilt Karmas, of course, and that's a really big assumption. I suspect all of these will end up going for scrap.

      --
      John
    47. Re:Why does this matter? by slas6654 · · Score: 1

      Ha ha. I used to own a Volkswagen Beetle - the kind with the battery under the back seat. In the days before the plastic insulation clip for the nodes, this was a real fire hazard because there was a metal bench-seat frame resting over the battery. A friend of mine, a somewhat heavy-set girl, was riding home from college with me. She sat on the exact spot needed to short the battery. By the time we got home, flames were shooting out from under the rear bench seat. I don't think I have laughed as hard since that time.

    48. Re:Why does this matter? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Several witnesses went into the pond to open the doors and get her out but said it was like it was locked even though it wasn't and this was confirmed when they finally recovered the car and the now deceased woman.

      That's why everyone should get trained in common sense. The doors were being held shut with water pressure. You have to pry them open or break a window. Waiting until the pressure equalized also works, but then it's a recovery, not rescue. And don't break a window unless you also have a knife, as you'll end up trying to pull a belted person out a window, and that doesn't work so well, but the air bubble could last another 30 seconds, and the professionals should be not too far away, so long as the rescuers called 911 before diving in.

    49. Re:Why does this matter? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      My analogy was spot on, you are just plain old wrong. You should have paid attention to If not, don't bother to reply.. you are intentionally not looking.. Go read a dictionary and compare "Submerged" to "Wet/Damp/Moist" and learn that there is a difference. If you fail and remain ignorant, fine.. but don't try spreading your ignorance.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    50. Re:Why does this matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully you will have a long time to rethink those opinions when you're in prison for attempting on of those "non crimes"

    51. Re:Why does this matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ferrari does that regularly on crashed higher end cars. Remember that red Enzo the guy fro Gizmondo crashed a few years ago? It was literally torn in half, and these days that very same car is on the road again, or at least a car with the same VIN. Granted, Ferrari just builds a new car from the ground up using a spare chassis and shell, and then stamps a new VIN/chassis number plate with the old number and is done with it. It's a completely new car using the old VIN, that's why there is today exactly the same number of Enzos on the road as there were when they were built, despite over a dozen having been totalled by now. Actually, I think there's is 402 Enzos these days (only 401 were built originally), as one (a black car) was built a couple years ago on a spare chassis that was intended for a race car, for some uber rich guy.

    52. Re:Why does this matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didn't really fail to understand this did you? You'd just rather people not discuss concerns that emerge with the things you prefer.

      Yawn, this is new to you? It's not new to anybody else who has any experience with batteries. We've seen them before, even with the one in YOUR CAR RIGHT NOW

      You better get it out, it's the only way to be sure.

      Seriously, have you looked into how many fires and deaths result from Internal combustion engines each year? Yet you'd rather have us wax histrionic over this instead.

      See, it's not that we're not interested in discussing anything, it's that we recognize that you're intent on nothing more than a hysterical reaction that ignores reality and distorts risks.

      Stop being a scare-monger.

    53. Re:Why does this matter? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Well, lets hope people are not in the car when this happens. The foam you are talking about will suffocate them too.

      However, would they think of using the foam on a car that is on fire. Maybe..

    54. Re:Why does this matter? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      As AK said, 'Halt and catch fire' happens fairly frequently with gasoline cars. After all, you're running around with 5-20 gallons of highly flammable fuel in them.

      I'm another one who's seen a car engine catch fire - the latest was on the side of the highway as I was driving into town. Saw another incident in a gas station.

      Of course, the stupidest was internet video of the woman who, when her engine caught fire pulled in to a gas station(not bad yet...) then STOPPED BY A PUMP!!!

      Pulling into a gas station parking lot isn't a bad idea - they 'should' have a fire extinguisher. But don't stop by even more flammables! Though I'm willing to bet that the pumps are mostly explosion proof/armored against letting loose below 'hit by a bomb big enough that the gasoline doesn't really matter'.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    55. Re:Why does this matter? by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Which is why we really need to wait and see what caused the fires. Everybody's assuming the batteries are at fault - which isn't a bat assumption - but at the moment we simply don't know. There's another group of the same cars right next to the group that burned which aren't melted gobs of goo. So, it could be a design flaw in all the battery packs, or it could be a defect in a single car. Fact is we dimply don't know right now.

      Though I am just as curious as you guys are...

      --
      +1 Disagree
    56. Re:Why does this matter? by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      God I hope your sig was up before this article came out....

      --
      +1 Disagree
    57. Re:Why does this matter? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      How about building burns down because water main break cased water to pour into the underground parking garage and onto an electric car that burst into flames?

      How about the building that burns down because he gasoline floats and it was the gasoline cars leaked when submerged and an electric fire triggered by the water ignighted the fuel and burnt down the building? The floods started multiple building fires, whether the water moved a gas appliance or extinguished a pilot light and sparked electric or just started an electrical fire.

      The risks aren't new. The risks aren't high. The cars are new, so the same risk seems new. We have as much or more risk now with lots of liquid energy, putting it in plastic blocks doesn't make it worse.

      Or maybe, Two first responders were injured after a car erupted in fire because it started raining while they were tending to an accident.

      As oppposed to the number of first responders injured or killed by airbags?

    58. Re:Why does this matter? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Come on, if it was common sense, people would have already known and not required training. It's nothing like every other of the hundreds of times a year you open a car door.

      While what you say is true, many people don't even think about it let alone think about it in an emergency situation. I knew about it from training years ago when I was a search and rescue but I wasn't there. I doubt the people trying to help were bumbling idiots either.

    59. Re:Why does this matter? by Incadenza · · Score: 1

      And then there's this story of a Dutch guy that bought a totaled Ferrari, spent five years to rebuild it, and then had it crashed again when he rented it out! http://www.rtvutrecht.nl/nieuws/369456/ferraririt-lage-weide-eindigt-in-crash

    60. Re:Why does this matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, they can't just spray water on it, but do you think the fire department has never had to deal with a chemical fire before?

    61. Re:Why does this matter? by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      Lots of people don't have flood insurance. They 'light it up' as they leave.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    62. Re:Why does this matter? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      You know, it used to be that a fully submerged vehicle would be fully servicable again after a little TLC - pressure wash the inside and detail it, check or redo major electrical connections, and replace the radio - good to go. Modern vehicles have so many different failure modes compared to functionally comparable vehicles from 15-25 years ago, it's not even funny.

      Hell, even a minor fender bender will functionally total most modern vehicles. Something which something from even 10-15 years ago could take and not be damaged outside cosmetics (functions 100%) will put something in the scrap heap. This is, in my observation, significantly more true for hybrids and EVs, some of which have the batteries IN the body (what were they thinking?!).

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    63. Re:Why does this matter? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Why are you sitting in a burning car?

    64. Re:Why does this matter? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      How about the building that burns down because he gasoline floats and it was the gasoline cars leaked when submerged and an electric fire triggered by the water ignighted the fuel and burnt down the building? The floods started multiple building fires, whether the water moved a gas appliance or extinguished a pilot light and sparked electric or just started an electrical fire.

      A lot of the gasoline will be diluted and washed down a drain. However, those risks are there but I'm finding it hard to figure out what it has to do with a car that has a problem with combustion with water alone. Why is it that you seem to think it is not important to know this just because we know there are other risks?

      The risks aren't new. The risks aren't high. The cars are new, so the same risk seems new. We have as much or more risk now with lots of liquid energy, putting it in plastic blocks doesn't make it worse.

      Actually, these cars contained gasoline too so the risks were the same and then some with the things burning up submerged in water. The matter of " If they were destroyed later, why does that matter?" is important because steps can be taken to mitigate the threat. Something like simple polymers can line a vent tube to the batteries (which I suspect is the cause of the fire, lithium and want is a well understood reaction) that swells into a closed cell foam when wet can slow or even stop the problem. In case it is the batteries shorting, then . breakers can be used to completely shut the electricity down. But if we do not consider how they were destroyed later to matter, then we would never know or understand why and what in order to make it safer.

      As oppposed to the number of first responders injured or killed by airbags?

      Again, I'm not finding the relevance here. Are you suggesting that because something else is not entirely safe or dangerous, that we should ignore all other dangers? That doesn't sound like you even when you are trolling. Ask yourself, would you like to be limited to being injured or killed by airbags going off or would it be appropriate to unnecessarily throw fire into the mix too? I'm betting there is a reason why they don't throw a road flare into the back seat of a car when they are attempting to stabilize someone for transport to a medical facility after an accident.

      In case you are missing it, the point is because it could endanger someone else and knowing what caused it can lead to steps to prevent it from happening in the future. I'm not sure why that is a difficult concept.

    65. Re:Why does this matter? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Because the door won't open after the accident, because you are injured and cannot get out under your own power without assistance, because something got pinned and you cannot get released.

      Let's not pretend that everyone gets out of a car on their own directly after an accident.

    66. Re:Why does this matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we don't know the whole story and from the looks of it, not all those submerged caught fire. Yes the story says that all the damaged cars caught fire after being submerged but consider this: how do you burn things like the interior and plastic panels if submerged? How come not all the cars caught fire. Once the water subsided, could one car have caught fire and caused a chain reaction fire which took out the other 15 which were parked very close together?

      I'm just saying that jumping to the conclusion that all 16 cars caught fire the same way and that was caused by being submerged might not be true. And I wonder why the article didn't mention how many total cars were there. The pictures sure show other cars there and they were not burned out.

    67. Re:Why does this matter? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Do you think a fire department responding to a motor vehicle accident that doesn't involve placarded vehicles is going to instinctively jump to a chemical fire? Or that any means of fighting a chemical fire is capable of allowing any trapped victims to survive?

    68. Re:Why does this matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's not been revealed, just implied. as close as they were parked, it seems one car fire could have caused the other 15 to burn. Jumping to the conclusion that just submerging these cars causes them to explode is, well, jumping to conclusions without any facts.

    69. Re:Why does this matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bought a 1995 flood car in 1999. It had a regular title and I did not notice until a few years after I bought it when I was putting a stereo in it and noticed sand and dirt under the carpet and behind just about every panel. Carfax showed it was sold in the midwest somewhere as a new car then an auction in MD one month later as a used car with 1000 miles. Who would by a new car and sell it a month later at an auction? A crooked dealer trying to pawn off a flood car.
      Paid $3000 for it and drove it 10 years and put 100K miles on it myself until transmission went out at 150K. A replacement transmission was only $500 but I did not feel like replacing it. I got my moneys worth. It was a complete no option everything manually operated car so there really wasn't much to break.

    70. Re:Why does this matter? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Totaled refers to the insurances determination of the vehicle. So if the insurances company feels it is repairable, not totaled. Of course it's value becomes so low it's not even listed in the Blue Book.

      SO if you have a bunch of expensive cars, and you want them totaled, be sure something heavy falls on them as well...or that they catch on fire.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    71. Re:Why does this matter? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Then you are asserting that the crash is exactly sufficient to cause a battery problem, but wouldn't have caused an issue with the gasoline tank. I reject such selective attacks as irrational and there's nothing that could be said to counter an irrational argument.

    72. Re:Why does this matter? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Pull the car fax.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    73. Re:Why does this matter? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Every summer it's "Count the number of VW Busses on fire."

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    74. Re:Why does this matter? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      That's why SAR should teach you to slow down and think before acting. If time is of the essence, then it's generally more important to do the right thing the first time, so take 10 seconds to make sure the first thing is the right thing.

    75. Re:Why does this matter? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Then you are an idiot. It's not a problem because it uses batteries. It's a problem because the batteries explode into a fiery inferno when exposed to water. You claiming it is not a problem will not get it fixed. Other cars have batteries that do not share this feature so it is likely fixable or able to be made safer.

      Gas tanks are located in different places then batteries for electric vehicles are. Ford was sued and lost big time because of their Pinto line where they weighed the cost of making them safer with the actual lives lost and decided it wasn't worth it. Gas tanks are fairly safe in vehicle collisions. You should really pick your battles when you go trolling like this.

    76. Re:Why does this matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cars were totalled the minute they were submerged. If they were destroyed later, why does that matter?

      * Buy car
      * Park in your garage
      * Experience flood
      * Car *and* house destroyed by fire

    77. Re:Why does this matter? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Actually, these cars contained gasoline too so the risks were the same and then some with the things burning up submerged in water. The matter of " If they were destroyed later, why does that matter?"

      So most of the destruction, and even the source of ignition, could have come from something unrelated to the battery packs? Oooh, lets get all over this before anyone actually knows anything, just in case the truth doesn't match my per-conceived opinion.

    78. Re:Why does this matter? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Then you are an idiot. It's not a problem because it uses batteries. It's a problem because the batteries explode into a fiery inferno when exposed to water.

      There were "hundreds" (technically 101 is "hundreds") of houses set on fire from the floods as well. But no call for the same attention as these cars with unknown ignition, and no evidience that it was the water that caused the fire other than some dumbass's assertions.

    79. Re:Why does this matter? by Ariven · · Score: 1

      I don't see how the cars taking a shower is relevant... my point stands.. if their FAILURE is bursting into flames, rather than merely receiving water damage... then they don't qualify as a "nice car" in my opinion..

    80. Re:Why does this matter? by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      At first I was skeptical so I took it to a mechanic, gave him the history, and he gave the car a thumbs up

      Also, the barber says you need a haircut.

    81. Re:Why does this matter? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It was nothing but good Samaritans trying to help..lol People who though it was reasonable to risk their life or perhaps they didn't even consider any risks to their life in order to save someone else. As I said, I wasn't there. I watched this on a News Report.

    82. Re:Why does this matter? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      That's because it is well understood that there is a possibility of the houses to go up in flames. It happens in floods when the foundation shifts and creates leaks in the gas lines. Vented into the atmosphere, it poses little risk unless you light a match right beside the leak. It is well understood and happens.

      What isn't well understood is why a battery pack would explode when it got wet. Other vehicles do not have that problem and there is likely a fix to make it a lot safer.

      I really do not understand why you are crying "but other things happen so we should ignore this". It makes no sense. Once it is understood what happened, it can be fixed and most likely be safe in future events. This is no different the GM when they fix the Volt's battery catching fire problems.

    83. Re:Why does this matter? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Yeah, lets _do_ get all over this so someone doesn't get maimed or killed because they purchased what they thought was a safe product- even if that does screw with your preconceived notions.

      I understand that you are a big green "fan". But you are on the wrong side on this. A dangerous and potentially lethal situation has been discovered and it does matter quite a bit. IF we have to accept the dangers of Green products to make you happy, prepare to be saddened quite a bit. Now go troll somewhere else.

    84. Re:Why does this matter? by swalve · · Score: 1

      I saw the photo of all the submerged Crown Vic taxis, and noted to myself that Chicago will soon be getting a new batch of "new" livery vehicles.

    85. Re:Why does this matter? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      What isn't well understood is why a battery pack would explode when it got wet.

      There is no evidence the battery pack exploded, or that the fire started in the battery pack. I'm crying "why are you saying things that aren't true in order to complain about these hybrids." But you don't like that, so you keep changing the subject.

    86. Re:Why does this matter? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I understand that you are a big green "fan".

      Like everything else, you understand wrongly.

      But you are on the wrong side on this.

      I'm advocating not taking a side until after an investigation has at least begun, even if you are too impatient to wait for it to conclude.

      A dangerous and potentially lethal situation has been discovered and it does matter quite a bit.

      I have said nothing that disagrees with that. I've only disagreed with people who asserted the problem was [enter something specific], as they are all, by definition, wrong until a cause is identified.

      Now go troll somewhere else.

      Take your own advice. If you see a troll in your monitor, it's your reflection.

    87. Re:Why does this matter? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      lol.. no ones complaining about the hybrids. I'm saying it matters which the parent also said to the GP who asked why does it matter how they were destroyed.

      Listen, just because something isn't a bed of roses and frothing in love with your pet cause does not in any way mean it is being trashed. A serious issue happened and it needs to be investigated and determined if it is a threat to safety and/or if anything can be done to ensure it doesn't harm a human life. You can get as butthurt as you want over that, but it will not make you right.

    88. Re:Why does this matter? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Like everything else, you understand wrongly.

      No, I understand correctly. Generally when you troll me it has to do with you being butt hurt over something "green" that I posted something you think is negative about it.

      I'm advocating not taking a side until after an investigation has at least begun, even if you are too impatient to wait for it to conclude.

      Sure as hell as doesn't look like it. And BTW, I was saying the exact same thing, an investigation needs to be done. I was also saying why it was important for an investigation to be done and you got all butt hurt over it.

      I have said nothing that disagrees with that. I've only disagreed with people who asserted the problem was [enter something specific], as they are all, by definition, wrong until a cause is identified.

      lol.. You have consistently in this thread and others (that you decided to troll), compared the burning to the ground under water issue to gasoline in a car and the natural gas fires saying it didn't matter because there are dangers in other cars and dangerous stuff already exists.

      Take your own advice. If you see a troll in your monitor, it's your reflection.

      I think if we looked up the definition of troll, it might contain your picture as an illustration. You chimed in crying about how other things are dangerous and therefor this doesn't matter and now you are trying to assert my own position and attempting to call me the troll. Your a real winner there buddy.

    89. Re:Why does this matter? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Sure as hell as doesn't look like it.

      Yes, it does. That you are so caught up in pushing your agenda at any cost that you refuse to read doesn't change reality.

    90. Re:Why does this matter? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      A serious issue happened and it needs to be investigated and determined if it is a threat to safety and/or if anything can be done to ensure it doesn't harm a human life.

      The one car fire or the hundreds of house fires? Oh, you want to focus on the one car fire because it matches your personal agenda best. Got it.

    91. Re:Why does this matter? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Of course I focused on the car fires. Cars are not supposed to burn up because they got wet. It happens all the time to homes in floods, it is a well known and well understood process. We have been though this already. On one hand, we have something that is normal and expected, on the other we have something completely abnormal and not expected. And you seem to be faulting me for talking about the seriousness of why it matters because the normal and well known situations exist. It's simply baffling to anyone with the slightest ability to think.

      Why you think that homes bursting into flames from known processes somehow negates the seriousness of cars exploding because they got wet is beyond me. Why don't you try to explain that a bit.

    92. Re:Why does this matter? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      whatever. Now go troll somewhere else.

    93. Re:Why does this matter? by LizardKing · · Score: 1

      A colleague at work is building a Ford GT-40, a combination of a kit, parts also used on other models of cars and some parts he's had to fabricate himself. Once completed, he can call the car a Ford GT-40 rather than a replica as long as he meets some (very stringent) criteria. I wasn't aware you could do this before, but he explained that to qualify, his car had to be virtually indistinguishable from the real thing (unlike a Lamborghini replica I once saw that had the egine block from a family saloon car).

    94. Re:Why does this matter? by adolf · · Score: 1

      Whatever you say, Champ.

      My 1996 Firebird was exposed to a flood, with water more than half-way up the doors. The interior was a mess, and it was expensive to fix it (once to get it almost there, and again to make it actually right), but the rest of the car was fine.

      Water didn't invade the engine or transmission at all: The oil, coolant, and fluid were clear. Water may have affected some bearings in some of the engine-powered accessories, wheels, differential, and driveshaft, but: I drove that car for nearly another half-decade before a deer did it in ("totaled" is a monetary construct), and it never experienced any issues before that.

      I'm a picky bastard when it comes to such things. If the transmission shifts funny, or the engine is a little off, or the suspension seems wonky somehow, however slightly: I notice. This car was -fine-, indifferent from how it was before the flood.

      Title issues? Meh: It was repaired by the insurance company, not totaled. There was no salvage involved.

      Other than the engine and transmission, much of this stuff is exposed to water on a regular basis by simple driving through rain or snow...and while it'd all certainly be happier without that exposure, it really didn't seem to mind it a bit.

    95. Re:Why does this matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It should be common sense for adults because they should have been taught about water pressure in their high school science classes. That it apparently isn't common sense says something about your education system. I remember my teacher actually covering this scenario as part of a lesson.

    96. Re:Why does this matter? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Depends on the car, I've had my Samurai nearly windshield-deep in water a few times with no problems :D

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    97. Re:Why does this matter? by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      Because if I'm in my car and comes into contact with salt water (after, say, a winter's worth of salting roads), I don't want it to fucking explode.

      That's why it matters.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    98. Re:Why does this matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hell you ranting about??

  4. haha by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

    We already knew it was a piece of shit.

  5. Why pick on EVs? by slacka · · Score: 0

    Electric, gas or hybrid, any car fully submerged in salt water is heading to the scrap yard. Why pick on Fiskar because it's a hybrid?

    1. Re:Why pick on EVs? by mgscheue · · Score: 2

      Because they caught on fire?

    2. Re:Why pick on EVs? by Darth+Hubris · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because most cars don't burst into flame when submerged.

      --
      The party's over ... the drink ... and the luck ... ran out
    3. Re:Why pick on EVs? by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let me explain it simply. On Earth, water falls from the sky, very frequently, sometimes with great force. Having a consumer level bomb that is activated by water is a bad idea whilst operating on Earth. It is a very volatile condition. These cars BURNED by being put in water and you dont think that is cause for alarm? Not one or two but over a DOZEN.

      --
      Good-bye
    4. Re:Why pick on EVs? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Because most cars don't burst into flame when submerged.

      Wasn't that a problem with the Canyonero?

      Oh wait, never mind.

    5. Re:Why pick on EVs? by operagost · · Score: 1

      But at least it smelled like steak. This probably smells like burnt plastic and despair.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    6. Re:Why pick on EVs? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Because no other car is going to burst into flames as a result of this.

      Being wrecked beyond repaid, sure, but catching fire is a whole different animal.

      Anybody who lives in places which get any significant amount of rain is eventually going to drive through a puddle .. if that leads to a smoking lithium flame, well, that's a horrible design flaw.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:Why pick on EVs? by Bodhammer · · Score: 0

      https://lpo.energy.gov/?projects=fisker-automotive
      http://nlpc.org/stories/2012/02/08/many-unanswered-questions-surround-fisker-layoffs
      http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/09/25/obamacar-bad-karma-for-taxpayers/

      I'm conservative and I didn't mod you down.

      I just provided facts about what a totally corrupt, clusterfuck Obama's green energy programs are and I didn't even do it tangentially. Biden was the Senator from Delaware before he was VP, what a coincidence! The cars catching fire just prove what a ill-designed piece of shit they are. We should be grateful that there are not many of them actually on the road.

      --
      "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
    8. Re:Why pick on EVs? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Actually regular cars do occasionally catch fire from flooding. Plastic dashboards and damaged wiring are a bad mix.

    9. Re:Why pick on EVs? by Americano · · Score: 1

      Slashdot's conservative base

      Sorry, are you really that new here? Or just having an aphasia?

      Complaining about slashdot's "conservative base" is sort of like complaining about Facebooks "tireless devotion to user privacy."

    10. Re:Why pick on EVs? by Cinder6 · · Score: 1

      As a conservative, I look forward to the day we have affordable EVs that are not bad for the environment. With that said, the Fisker was a bad investment that now looks to be even worse.

      --
      If you can't convince them, convict them.
    11. Re:Why pick on EVs? by Applekid · · Score: 0

      ^^ This.

      Whether you agree or disagree on the government's role in funding alternative energy sources and alternative power vehicles, you can't deny Obama's green energy programs failed in every way possible other than making their cronies more wealthy on the taxpayers' dime.

      Ultimately it's pervasive corruption that ruins all good intentions.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    12. Re:Why pick on EVs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Over a dozen parked next to each other. Plenty of others nearby did not suffer the same fate. Which seems more likely: One car caught the rest on fire or a dozen next to each other all caught fire simultaneous and the rest nearby did not?

    13. Re:Why pick on EVs? by slas6654 · · Score: 0

      I'll go one step further - BECAUSE THEY MELTED INTO THE GROUND. Never mind the toxic waste that was an EV.

    14. Re:Why pick on EVs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A dozen next to each all caught fire simultaneously, precisely because the rest nearby did not. The fire did not spread to the other vehicles that were parked nearby. That itself is cause to believe that these cars each independently burst into flames. The alternative is that the cars are highly flammable compared to other vehicles.

    15. Re:Why pick on EVs? by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      Electric, gas or hybrid, any car fully submerged in salt water is heading to the scrap yard.

      Unless movies have lied to me, not the Lotus Turbo Esprit!

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    16. Re:Why pick on EVs? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      Slashdot's conservative base

      Sorry, are you really that new here?

      Your account is marginally older than this one.

      Complaining about slashdot's "conservative base" is sort of like complaining about Facebooks "tireless devotion to user privacy."

      Only if you never read the front page here. At least once a week there is a story on the front page that pushes the conservative agenda - just a week or two ago a front page article even cited breitbart as a source. I challenge you to find a front page story here on slashdot that has a liberal agenda instead.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    17. Re:Why pick on EVs? by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      And as long as we keep deluding ourselves by thinking it's the *other* guy who is funneling taxpayer money into the hands of his buddies, we'll never change a damn thing. They each have their pet projects they're spending our money on, and they get away with it by getting us all up in arms about what the other guy is doing - blinding us to the fact that they are doing the same damn thing.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    18. Re:Why pick on EVs? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      All we know at this point is that a dozen or so were burned. The cause is unknown. Also the statement of over a DOZEN is stupid. That's like implying that a campfire can burn 10,000 trees at the same time, from campfires that went wild and set off large forest fires. One burns the next and so on, and you don't get them all igniting at the same time or from the same cause.

      Water also caused a number of building fires. Should we condemn all buildings until we have fully investigated this alarming situation?

    19. Re:Why pick on EVs? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Slashdot is very conservative. Libertarians are the slashdot version of liberals, but are still conservative on a wider scale.

    20. Re:Why pick on EVs? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      We don't have a counter-example of FRESH water dunked Fiskars.

      Salt water is a great conductor. Fresh water, not so much.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    21. Re:Why pick on EVs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably only one of them actually caught fire, which then spread to the others.

    22. Re:Why pick on EVs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      typical Republican slant on anything new. they like their woman obedient, children quiet, business free to do anything they want and their Bible near by at all times. old school

    23. Re:Why pick on EVs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why did they catch fire? did you notice in later pictures that not all of them caught fire?

    24. Re:Why pick on EVs? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      slashdot's conservative base

      I don't think that phrase means what you think it means.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    25. Re:Why pick on EVs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using whilst does not make you sound smart, you fucking idiot.

    26. Re:Why pick on EVs? by Americano · · Score: 1

      Your account is marginally older than this one.

      So then, you're not new here; are we to assume that you're having an aphasia, instead?

      Only if you never read the front page here. At least once a week there is a story on the front page that pushes the conservative agenda.

      Please cite just 3 examples for us, will you? If it's at least once a week, you should be able to trivially find 3 articles that are "pushing a conservative agenda," to support your assertion.

    27. Re:Why pick on EVs? by Americano · · Score: 1

      Same challenge I just offered to damn-registrars: cite 3 examples of articles posted in the past few weeks that push some sort of "conservative agenda" to support your point.

    28. Re:Why pick on EVs? by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      These cars BURNED by being put in water and you dont think that is cause for alarm? Not one or two but over a DOZEN.

      I'm curious, how often do you put your car in water? And I mean IN water, not just let some of the water falling from the sky hit it?

    29. Re:Why pick on EVs? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Ah, it's not necessarily the choice of articles, but the comments. But the one on the Obama-funded hybrids that burned, and the comments on how hybrids are an unsafe waste of money and bashing Obama's actions and such are very conservative. Read some comments, look for "fiat", "gold", "supply side" or other trigger words.

    30. Re:Why pick on EVs? by olden · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Not even EVs from other manufacturers, as demonstrated last year in Japan:
      http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/business/tsunami-reveals-durability-of-nissans-leaf.html

    31. Re:Why pick on EVs? by Americano · · Score: 1

      So on a site with thousands of active users... a few of them are libertarian? Next time a post comes up where they're likely to post, also look for the literally hundreds of attendant "lol Randroid libertarian faget loser stupid asshole" comments that greet them.

      I'm not sure how, exactly, you get from "a handful libertarians post on Slashdot, and are roundly and derisively dismissed every time they do," to "Slashdot is very conservative," to be honest. And as far as "libertarians being conservative," if you know pretty much anything about their *actual* viewpoints, you'd know that libertarian thought is a mix of "socially liberal" and "fiscally conservative," so calling them "conservatives" as if they share a monolithic platform with other so-called "conservative" parties like Republicans is both disingenuous, and stupid. Might as well start calling members of the Socialist party "stupid liberal Demoncrats" too, because they happen to share some policy goals with the mainstream "liberal" party.

      I have to admit, this sounds less and less like "Slashdot is part of some vast right wing conspiracy," and more and more like, "I'm horribly offended that a small minority of people who have beliefs different than I do are able to post their opinions on a site like Slashdot. I wish they'd just shut up and just accept that anything I believe is the absolute truth, instead of challenging me and making me defend my positions using facts and logic, rather than twitter-style bumper sticker slogans."

      If your ideology can't stand up to the very small minority of libertarian criticism present on /., then your ideology is reflexive, uncritical, and unthinkingly held - the problem isn't libertarians on Slashdot, it's your inability to deal with any criticism of your views.

    32. Re:Why pick on EVs? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
      Maybe the libertarians are brain damaged. If every time they post they are insulted and attacked, why do they keep posting?

      If your ideology can't stand up to the very small minority of libertarian criticism present on /., then your ideology is reflexive, uncritical, and unthinkingly held - the problem isn't libertarians on Slashdot, it's your inability to deal with any criticism of your views.

      My ideology holds up just fine. What if the real problem was that brain damage causes the libertarian thinking, but also causes damage to logic? Then anyone who argues with the libertardians will "lose" the argument, as the libertardians define a "win" as posting indefinitely when the other person eventually gives up. I've never seen a libertardian deal in logic or criticism. All I have to do to get the insults coming and "that old tired argument" and such is to mention abortion or toll sidewalks. The logic circuits in the libertardian explode, and they'll never post coherently again on that thread. It's like playing with a pet. It's just a laser pointer. You know that, but the cat thinks it's a deadly insect that must be killed at all costs. Everyone laughs at cats chasing laser pointers, like everyone laughs at the large number of libertardians that gravitate to slashdot. Probably because slashdot doesn't delete posts or ban users, and this is the last place on the Internet they haven't been banned from.

    33. Re:Why pick on EVs? by Americano · · Score: 1

      I've never seen a libertardian deal in logic or criticism.

      I can see why you've never seen it, just from reading that single sentence - you don't deal in ideas and rational thought - you deal in snarky sloganeering, and use language explicitly designed to END any chance at rational discussion, and instead provoke an argument. If your stated premise at the start of any "conversation" is "I'm going to insult you, demean you, and call you names," don't be surprised when nobody bothers to try and engage you in anything resembling a rational discussion.

      I'm sure behaving like this helps you sleep soundly at night, somehow. But you should also know that it makes you look like a shallow, pseudo-intellectual fraud of the first order, as well.

    34. Re:Why pick on EVs? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      But you should also know that it makes you look like a shallow, pseudo-intellectual fraud of the first order, as well.

      Looks like you are seeing your reflection in your monitor.

      I don't suffer fools, so yeah, when someone comes out being a jackass, I don't back down. Especially when the sophomoric punk is wrong.

    35. Re:Why pick on EVs? by Americano · · Score: 1

      So you let your time be wasted by trolls who you gleefully feed, all in the service of making sure "someone on the Internet knows they're wrong?"

      I say again - you seem to approach any discussion where there is an attempt at rationality with bumper sticker slogans and tweet-length "zingers," which are specifically designed to shut down a conversation and turn it into a confrontation. If the other person refuses to be rational, why waste an instant of your time on them? It's clear you get some sort of thrill out of wasting your time on being trolled, but I can't fathom what it is.

      It's much healthier and more constructive to simply walk away from the fool who is more interested in wasting your time than he is in discussing anything substantive. Here, I'll demonstrate the technique for you: in this case, you're the idiot wasting my time. Now, this is me, walking away from wasting my time trying to discuss anything with you. See how easy it is?

    36. Re:Why pick on EVs? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      . Now, this is me, walking away from wasting my time trying to discuss anything with you. See how easy it is

      No, that's you continuing to argue with what you assert to be a troll, once again contradicting yourself and proving yourself to be the lying troll.

  6. Lithium + Water = Fire by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 4, Informative

    Pretty basic chemistry going on here....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxhW7TtXIAM

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    1. Re:Lithium + Water = Fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will my laptop or cell phone burst in flames if I throw it in the pool?

    2. Re:Lithium + Water = Fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why don't you try it and find out ;^)

    3. Re:Lithium + Water = Fire by Cinder6 · · Score: 1

      It's well-known, so you would think that Fisker would have taken steps to make sure that simple reaction wouldn't have happened...

      --
      If you can't convince them, convict them.
    4. Re:Lithium + Water = Fire by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Nope, doesn't catch fire. Just turn it off first and let it dry before you turn it back on. These cars were off.

    5. Re:Lithium + Water = Fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is also the other issue of salt-water being a conductor and what happens when you short-circuit a battery.

    6. Re:Lithium + Water = Fire by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that's what probably caused the battery to vent, exposing the lithium to the water...

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  7. Misleading? by Sez+Zero · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It looks like several were close together, while others parked a little bit away were unscathed. Perhaps one caught fire and that burnt adjacent cars? They were parked pretty close, and there's a Karma in one of the photos that didn't suffer the same fate.

    1. Re:Misleading? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      They could have moved cars around after the fire, or even pulled cars that weren't submerged into the area. The picture doesn't tell us the difference between the 'good' cars and the movie quality special effects paper weights.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    2. Re:Misleading? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Building the cars' frames out of phosphorus didn't exactly help matters...

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:Misleading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Had a dead battery

    4. Re:Misleading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The magnesium trim wasn't such a bright idea either.

    5. Re:Misleading? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Funny

      And using a Thermite lining for the battery compartment was just nuts.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    6. Re:Misleading? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      It looks like several were close together, while others parked a little bit away were unscathed. Perhaps one caught fire and that burnt adjacent cars?

      Still, it's a previously unknown (or undisclosed) failure mode, and even if it's just one - it's too many. Various parts of the US do flood from time to time, and hybrids become common then fires like this could become common as well.

    7. Re:Misleading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does this mean they have Karma to burn?

  8. Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the road by Andy+Prough · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We have flash floods every summer in Texas. Most cars that run into a few feet of water simply stall. If instead, your car explodes and kills all the occupants, then you've got a potential death trap.

  9. water...causes fire? by DSS11Q13 · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's a witch!

    1. Re:water...causes fire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OH CRAP, how are we gonna deal with that if we can't just drown them in the lake? Or is that just for regular people who are accused of being witches?

    2. Re:water...causes fire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a witch!

      BURN THE WI- oh wait.

    3. Re:water...causes fire? by Flere+Imsaho · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's a witch!

      Karma's a witch? Nasty lisp you have there.

      --
      It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
    4. Re:water...causes fire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pour water on it ... oh wait!

    5. Re:water...causes fire? by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

      (witch (a (it's)))

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    6. Re:water...causes fire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wicked! She's from the west, right?

  10. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

    Generally speaking if you're driving through FEET of water, perhaps you shouldn't do that?

    Yes I know flash floods happen, but the vast bulk of cars submerged aren't being driven at the time.

    --
    People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
  11. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

    If you are driving your car during a flash flood you are none too bright. Lots of ways to die in a conventional car that way.

    Most cars that ingest water don't just stall. They also manage to ruin the engine.

  12. What if you drove into a flooded area? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Something that happens in flooded streets are people driving in a foot or two of water (which the car can handle) suddenly entering a much deeper area because they cannot see the road lowering with the water above it.

    With a normal car, you then sputter to a halt, get out and or wait there for help.

    Or an alternate case, less likely but it does happen, is that an accident throws your car into a lake. It sucks, but you make your way out.

    Now enter a car that catches fire as soon as it's in deep water. Now you have a WAY more serious problem, and cannot see or even breathe. This is a really bad problem to have and is something that could result in some deaths. They need more safegaurds to prevent mere immersion from destroying the car if nothing else so occupants can get out.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:What if you drove into a flooded area? by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Informative

      DO NOT DRIVE in a foot of water.

      A single foot of water moving sideways is more than enough to take your car off the road. If you cannot see the bottom do not drive through it.

    2. Re:What if you drove into a flooded area? by lbenes · · Score: 0

      Now enter a car that catches fire as soon as it's in deep water. Now you have a WAY more serious problem, and cannot see or even breathe. This is a really bad problem to have and is something that could result in some deaths. They need more safegaurds to prevent mere immersion from destroying the car if nothing else so occupants can get out.

      Wow, talk about FUD! First of all the occupants could of got out, because if you red the article, you'd know it happened AFTER the car was submerged. Secondly, SALT water is much worse for engines and batteries than fresh water.

      I welcome any safety improvements that result from this, but when I buy a car, I don't expect it to perform like a submarine.

    3. Re:What if you drove into a flooded area? by OffaMyLawn · · Score: 1

      There's a huge difference between expecting to perform like a submarine and ending up in a situation that you may have little to no control over. I have been in situations with deep water that I certainly did not go looking for.

    4. Re:What if you drove into a flooded area? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of car can handle a foot of water? There's not many cars out there that would handle that graciously. 1 foot of water is already past halfway up the rims on most cars. You're seriously risking hydrolock, nevermind possibly filling anything not perfectly sealed with water (differentials, transmissions, crankcase, etc).

      At 2 feet you are now have water higher than the tires of all factory civilian SUVs and trucks. That means for sure you will trash the differential and probably hydrolock the engine without modifications (snorkel, breather tubes that go to the roof, etc).

      On any vehicle, never drive it in water past halfway up the tires unless it has been specially modified. Even then, drive VERY slowly and VERY carefully and just get out of it.

    5. Re:What if you drove into a flooded area? by AaronW · · Score: 1

      My dad did that to one of his cars. After a really heavy rain he tried to cross an intersection that dipped in the middle and the engine sucked water. He had to have the engine replaced. He now drives a Fisker. The car is gorgeous but not at all reliable. It's been in the shop numerous times due to serious issues, not the least of which is a battery recall on them after a couple of them spontaneously caught fire. The software in the car has also been extremely buggy and the touch screen is so bad as to be almost unusable.

      I looked at Tesla's battery design and it is a very safe design. Each of the 9000 cells has individual protection circuits to cut out in the case of shorts as well as prevent under and over voltage, plus if things do go wrong it is designed to direct the hot gases away from the car so as to not cause damage or injure someone.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    6. Re:What if you drove into a flooded area? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      And you expect your Pontiac trans am to drive right out of the lake? Expect not to get wet with the T-Tops off? Come on now, at least make some real expectations. They make buildings earthquake resistant, but if a big ass hole opens up and a building falls in.. it's it the architect's fault? Wholly shit people have crappy logic. Either that or you failed read and comprehend the conditions in which this occurred.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    7. Re:What if you drove into a flooded area? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I've driven in water high enough it was coming in over the door sills (not very water-tight). I also know someone who splashed water into his air filter in about 3 inches of water and totaled his car.

    8. Re:What if you drove into a flooded area? by cvtan · · Score: 1

      1ft water is trivial for nearly any car. Some have the engine air intake low so you do have to be careful.

      --
      Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    9. Re:What if you drove into a flooded area? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You can buy trucks with better then 24 inch tires.

      32s are fairly common on trucks with real front axles. Granted you have to be in a 3/4 ton to get a good 4x4 from the stealership these days. All the half tons are mall utility vehicles.

      On the plus side the junk yards are overflowing with Dana axles. The new car morons where buying 4x4s they were never going to use 20 years ago. Many parts are clean and barely used.

      Talk to 4x4ers. They know exactly how deep a river they can forge and what grease points should be hit after.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    10. Re:What if you drove into a flooded area? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      It entirely depends on the vehicle, how fast the water is moving, soil type, and how long the roadway has been flooded (flooding and cross currents can destroy the road bedding before the road surface, which is dangerous, as it can result in the road actually 'falling' while you drive on it).

      When I was 16, I was driving to state karate qualifications 2 hours away. It was in Spring, after a recent heavy rain. I'd been driving for an hour and a half when I came across a flooded road - about 100 yards worth. I was in an early 1990s Plymouth Voyager (Dodge Caravan). I took my shoes off, hiked up my pants, and walked across - it came up just about a foot, and there wasn't much of a current at all. So I crossed, slowly.

      As long as your exhaust and air intake aren't impeded and the undercarriage doesn't (significantly) touch the water, you'll be fine. (It's funny watching lowered cars drive through a dip in the road and lose contact with said road during rainy season...)

      Would I have been sound/sane to do so in a sedan or something else lower slung? No, it'd have been a fool's errand.

      Now I've got a 4wd full size Blazer, with over 16" of under carriage clearance and a hood-level snorkel and top ported exhaust. If I wanted to (I don't) I could (hyperbolically) ford rivers in the thing.

      That said... most people should probably just never drive, for lack of proper judgement. ;)

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    11. Re:What if you drove into a flooded area? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, "moving sideways". Not all flood areas are like that; there's a county road a couple miles from here that goes through a dip; once or twice a year a good rainstorm fills it with standing water for a few days. I've driven through it numerous times anywhere from six to eighteen inches deep, but I wouldn't think of it if it were connected to any sort of flow, or if I weren't familiar enough with that spot to know there's no flow and no deep spots.

    12. Re:What if you drove into a flooded area? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a car that catches fire ***as soon as*** it's in deep water.

      False assumption.

    13. Re:What if you drove into a flooded area? by OffaMyLawn · · Score: 1

      It's not the conditions in which this occurred that needs to be taken into account. Your same example of a Trans Am driving out of a lake, would you expect to be able to get out of said Trans Am?

      Now what if that Trans Am burst into flames, simply because it got wet? Now do you expect to be able to get out of it? Yes, this one scenario, with no one in the cars, is going to be a "you're screwed" moment for any vehicle. I'm not talking about this one scenario, I'm thinking about all the scenarios where a vehicle could end up even partially submerged in water. Flash flood? Get hit while crossing a bridge that doesn't rise that far over a waterway? Sure, you might survive the car being swamped, but would you then survive the resulting fire?

      Was it just sea water that would cause the ignition into flames? Would fresh water have the same effect, despite not being as corrosive? Was it even the submersion that caused the fire, or was it something else? This raises concerns outside of this single scenario.

    14. Re:What if you drove into a flooded area? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      These cars sat for more than a few minutes completely submerged prior to the batteries igniting. If you were not out before the fire, you would have drown anyway. See where the logic is off?

      Look, I get that it should be investigated to see if it can be made better, but the issue being used as FUD is a non-issue. It's not a safety issue as much as an environmental issue, and even then what's worse? A car leaking gas and oil after being submerged or a car burning up lithium? I'd say it's a toss up myself without seeing true test results on what's happening.

      I'd be willing to bet that Fiskar cars are tested in "normal" conditions. I have never heard of one catching fire in the rain, or while getting washed. It rains pretty heavily at times in silicon valley, and gets pretty damp every morning, and generally a very high humidity area. A dealer is less than 2 miles from my house, and has yet to have a car just catch fire from being wet. Lots of people drive them around, and none of them are filthy or suffering from a lack of wash and wax.

      To imply that making sure cars behave like submarines and are immune to damage after submersion, especially with critical electronics gear is not a reasonable expectation. Would it be nice if they investigated? Yeah, but it's not a safety issue unless they made the car to function as a submarine, and sold it as a submarine.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  13. Neither are 100+ fancy homes by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 0

    Those caught on fire too.

    Gas mains erupting everywhere plus high winds equals crispy critters no matter what form your battery or gas tank is.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Neither are 100+ fancy homes by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      You don't have flood insurance. You do have fire insurance. A flood is coming. You own a lighter. The flood will surely wipe out any evidence of arson.

      What do you do, what do you do?

      What do you think sparked this fire? Remember; power lines are fused/breakered.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  14. Fiskar means "fishes" in Swedish. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It also means "is fishing". I found the headline hilarious.

    1. Re:Fiskar means "fishes" in Swedish. by Buchenskjoll · · Score: 1

      The name is Fisker. Henrik Fisker is Danish. In Danish it means Fisherman and "is fishing",

      --
      -- Make America hate again!
  15. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by whoever57 · · Score: 1

    Generally speaking if you're driving through FEET of water, perhaps you shouldn't do that?

    1. Idiots

    2. Since the water is usually not as clear as a swimming pool, it may not be obvious how deep the water actually is.

    MIX 1 and 2! Result: car driven into flood waters.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  16. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    "if you're driving through FEET of water, perhaps you shouldn't do that?"

    He said he was from Texas.

  17. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

    Why did you write Idiots twice?

    Driving through water is dumb, driving through water that you do not know the depth of is suicidal.

  18. Re:Your Tax Dollars at Work... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    Why are we spending tax dollars making scissors?

  19. Come on by Stargoat · · Score: 0

    In a story like this, pics or it didn't happen. This is difficult to believe but easily verified.

    --
    Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    1. Re:Come on by captaindomon · · Score: 3, Informative

      The article has four pictures.

      --
      Just because I can hook a shark from a boat, I do no offer to wrestle it in the water.
    2. Re:Come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pwn3d.

    3. Re:Come on by raddan · · Score: 1

      But clicking is such hard work!

  20. Re:LOL by jellomizer · · Score: 2

    So you want to kill people who have a different viewpoint than you. Dude you need help.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  21. Top Gear says your wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Top Gear says you're wrong, and at least as far as the Toyota Hilux is concerned, 5 hours submerged in salt water: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnWKz7Cthkk

    1. Re:Top Gear says your wrong by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Totaled does not mean not working. It means worthless.

      That Hilux was rendered worthless. I would not want to drive it nor would Toyota suggest anyone drive it after that treatment.

    2. Re:Top Gear says your wrong by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      Here's the 2010 Australian Hilux TV commercial; looks more like a major selling point than a suggestion to me.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    3. Re:Top Gear says your wrong by couchslug · · Score: 2

      "Totaled does not mean not working. It means worthless."

      No.
      "Totalled" means "beyond what the insurance company considers a cost-effective repair". It is possible to "total" many vehicles with damage which is EASY to repair if you have access to parts.

      For example, you can have a car with fired airbags, cracked windshield, and enough damage to easily-removed front end parts such as hood, fenders, bumper cover, etc that the company cuts the owner a check for its value. That car goes to auction, and a buyer with a similar car with REAR end damage picks it up to make one sound car of two. It's even easier with pickup trucks. Been there, done the work, driven the results. No problem.

      That said, a SALT WATER bath (think "storm surge") is a death sentence due to corrosion. A scrap car like that would go to the shredder for a few hundred bucks.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    4. Re:Top Gear says your wrong by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      Totaled does not mean not working. It means worthless

      No it doesn't. A totaled car can still have value. Shoot it can still be driveable. It just means the cost to repair the damage is more than the cost to replace the car.

    5. Re:Top Gear says your wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That said, a SALT WATER bath (think "storm surge") is a death sentence due to corrosion. A scrap car like that would go to the shredder for a few hundred bucks.

      Fuck no, I would not want to own a restored, soaked car. Salt water in every wire-harness connection? Every ground-point? You're asking for a fucking nightmare of intermittent electrical glitches for the rest of the life of that car - until you get frustrated and push it off a cliff.

      For something like a (real) SUV, where the wiring is better protected, sealed-connectors, and epoxied grounds. . . maybe. For something like a dune-buggy, where the entire harness is dead-simple, and easy to re-route and replace, no problem. For any other modern car, no fucking way. Some (*British*!!!) cars are bad enough in a dry climate.

  22. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The point of "flash" in flash flood is that it happens extremely rapidly - one doesn't exactly plan ahead for it.

  23. Somewhat Expected by Revotron · · Score: 1

    An understanding of somewhat basic chemistry makes this a "duh" moment. Lithium + water = everyone's favorite science class demonstration.

    Wouldn't be the first government stimulus project to go up in flames. Hopefully it'll be the last.

    1. Re:Somewhat Expected by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      An understanding of somewhat basic chemistry makes this a "duh" moment. Lithium + water = everyone's favorite science class demonstration.

      Third, maybe even fourth favorite;
      1) making hydrogen with soapy water (and subsequently starting a flash fire!)
      2) non-dairy, powdered creamer cannons (more fire!)
      3/4) toss up between lithium + water and potassium + water; of course, both lose out to "pound of potassium tossed into a hotel swimming pool..."

      If you can't already tell, my freshman science teacher was awesome.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  24. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

    If it's up to your hood, it's at least multiple FEET deep.

    As I said there would be instances where it's unavoidable but the VAST VAST majority are.

    --
    People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
  25. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by Andy+Prough · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That's the point of "flash" flooding. It's unexpected. Perfectly good drivers turn a bend in the road on a rainy night and run straight into a gulley with 4 feet of water. We've got a lot of country roads with no lighting and poor visibility. Happens every summer around here - except deaths are extremely rare. But - if your car exploded before you could get out? Very bad.

  26. Superstorm? by dbialac · · Score: 0

    Why is a category 1 hurricane being called a superstorm? I live in Florida and we get these frequently. They aren't a big deal if you're properly prepared for them. Hell, we got the same winds level of winds from Sandy that NY/NJ got when it was a much stronger C2 (nearly a 3), though the C2 part was off shore. Perhaps a better name for this is a super failure to be properly prepared?

    1. Re:Superstorm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is a category 1 hurricane being called a superstorm? I live in Florida and we get these frequently. They aren't a big deal if you're properly prepared for them. Hell, we got the same winds level of winds from Sandy that NY/NJ got when it was a much stronger C2 (nearly a 3), though the C2 part was off shore. Perhaps a better name for this is a super failure to be properly prepared?

      The trees and structures are different.
      Drop the building codes in Florida and replace the Palm trees with large leafy trees and even a category one would be a problem.

    2. Re:Superstorm? by Ambassador+Kosh · · Score: 2

      Because it had higher storm surge than most category 5 hurricanes do. It also covered a much wider area than any normal hurricane does. The problem was that it was really 3 storms and some very strange weather conditions including the placement of the jet stream and some cold air moving into the area.

      You can't rate this just on a simple hurricane scale just like not all magnitude X earthquakes do the same damage. You could have a 6 that does almost no damage and a x that does staggering damage just based on the type of quake and duration the result is the same for storms.

      --
      Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD! :)
    3. Re:Superstorm? by tylikcat · · Score: 1

      Because it's not just the windspeed, it's the size of the storm and the size and intensity of storm surge. Far and away more damage is done from flooding than from the wind.

    4. Re:Superstorm? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1
      Because the area covered by tropical storm force winds was 943 miles in diameter. This is close to twice that of other major hurricanes to make landfall in the U.S.
      • Isaac (2012)---450 miles
      • Ike (2008)---485 miles
      • Katrina (2005)---435 miles
      • Isabel (2003)---575 miles

      What makes Hurricane Sandy a superstorm is the amount of area that was covered by damaging winds.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    5. Re:Superstorm? by Quince+alPillan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As someone who also lives in Florida, I can explain.

      1. Very little preparation for the type of weather that a hurricane can cause. In Florida, we have storm drains that take away most of the water that a hurricane causes. Add in building codes that require buildings to be designed for hurricanes (typically category 3) and utilities that are designed specifically for hurricanes, and you'll find that down here, things are pretty robust by design. New Jersey and New York didn't have that type of preparation and you had buildings collapse.

      2. Record storm surges. In some places, the storm surge was over 13 feet where the harbor was only designed to handle the (then historic record) 12 feet, causing massive flooding.

      3. Fires. Gas lines caught fire, causing over 100 homes to burn to the ground.

      4. In New Jersey specifically, they had a berm go under water due to the storm surges, causing even more damage.

      Ultimately, take a look at the damage predictions and you'll see why its called a superstorm. Wind was only part of the issue.

    6. Re:Superstorm? by Holi · · Score: 1

      Because it wasn't just a Cat 1 Hurricane it merged with a developing Nor'Easter.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    7. Re:Superstorm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is a category 1 hurricane being called a superstorm?

      Because it's not a category 1 hurricane. It's the merger of three major storm systems, one of which happens to have been a category 1 hurricane. The results are well beyond what you'd expect from a hurricane:

      * A storm surge higher than any on record.
      * Tropical-storm level winds covering three times the area of the largest hurricanes -- at the time it made landfall, these winds stretched from Maine to South Carolina.
      * Heavy rainfall, with most of the northeast states receiving several inches of rain at the same time, causing every major river and most of the minor ones to flood.

    8. Re:Superstorm? by Noughmad · · Score: 1

      It's the merger of three major storm systems, one of which happens to have been a category 1 hurricane.

      Let me guess, George Clooney and his boat were caught in the middle?

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    9. Re:Superstorm? by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      How many storms do you know that are 1000 miles across? Irene was considered one of the biggest storms in ages, and was half the size.
      But really the problem was that the storm hit AT high tide, with a full moon. Yes there was some wind damage, but MOST of the damage (that I see anyways) was caused by the surge, and flooding.

    10. Re:Superstorm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't technically a "hurricane" when it hit the northeast.

      This article explains: http://www.roanoke.com/weather/wb/316027

  27. Lithium + Water? by underling · · Score: 1

    Lithium is an alkali metal, and therefore highly reactive when introduced to water, quickly turning into hydrogen gas and lithium hydroxide. If the barrier between battery and the outside failed, fire is a likely outcome.

  28. CO2? by bendytendril · · Score: 2

    I wonder how much CO2 a burning hybrid produces?

    --
    sig: pv qid
    1. Re:CO2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even better would be to ask what pollutants it emits upon burning that are not some innocuous chemical used by fear mongers but is actually a genuine harmful substance. Wouldn't that make for a great PR nightmare.

    2. Re:CO2? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      How is a lithium fire going to produce CO2?

    3. Re:CO2? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Hybrids are 100% lithium? No wonder they catch fire so quickly when exposed to water! You'd think they'd use plastics and carbon fiber frames and have something like leather for the seats.

    4. Re:CO2? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      You'd think they'd use plastics and carbon fiber frames and have something like leather for the seats.

      Nope. It's batteries all the way down.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    5. Re:CO2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was thinking about the carpeting, insulation, foam seat padding, etc. Those cars were burned to a crisp!

    6. Re:CO2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is a lithium fire going to produce CO2?

      Every part of the car that wasn't metal. The burning plastic, upholstery, tires, and gasoline produce CO2. It was a hybrid electric, there was a fuel tank.

  29. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by operagost · · Score: 1

    It's stupid for people to let their kids play with executive toys made of rare-earth magnets, too. But that didn't stop the government from shutting down Buckyballs.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  30. Water proof, water soluble... by damn_registrars · · Score: 0

    ... I don't think you can be both.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  31. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by oodaloop · · Score: 1

    You NEVER know the depth of water. If you've ever driven through a puddle, count yourself as an idiot. That could have been much deeper, and you wouldn't have known. See point 2 above.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  32. Fisker? by Darth+Snowshoe · · Score: 1

    I hardly know her!

    1. Re:Fisker? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1
      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  33. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by oodaloop · · Score: 1

    How the fuck do you plan to avoid a FLASH flood, there genius?

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  34. Re:Your Tax Dollars at Work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fiskar got stimulus money.

    ...your point being?

    Please, PLEASE tell me it's more than "oooooooooo, scary scary government spending money, must find some OBAMAAAAAA way to make the concept scary scary and OBAAAAAAAMA evil and stuff, and by the way OBAAAAAAAAAMAAAAAAAAAA doesn't that name scare you? Scary scary". Seriously, I want to keep SOME faith in Slashdot.

  35. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

    If you are driving your car during a flash flood you are none too bright. Lots of ways to die in a conventional car that way.

    I'm going to assume that where you live, flash flooding is rather uncommon.

    One cannot predict when or where a flash flood will occur - hence the 'flash' in the name. So, to say that people who drive "during a flash flood" are "none to bright" only serves to prove your ignorance on the topic.

    Were we discussing regular, predictable flooding, I would wholeheartedly agree.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  36. Fisker Karma has always been Second Rate by moniker127 · · Score: 2

    Fisker does not represent what electric vehicles are capable of- they represent what you get when you combine lots of money with shotty engineering. So who does it better? Well, if you haven't heard of them- Tesla motors is making a lot of headway.

    1. Re:Fisker Karma has always been Second Rate by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Well, you may be right. But if someone gave me a Fisker's for Christmas (hint) I wouldn't say no.

    2. Re:Fisker Karma has always been Second Rate by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Once I sold it and bought an Ariel Atom I'd have a good car and money left over.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  37. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've got bigger problem driving an electric vehicle in texas.

  38. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NO.. I want Republicans to be killed by their own avarice and stupidity. They've screwed us over long enough and bad enough that they surely deserve a taste of their own medicine.

    It's like with very loud motorcycles. Sure, I look forward to the day that the bike crashes, and the biker is either severely injured or killed.

    But that doesn't mean I want to kill him. I just want to take pleasure in his death or injury.

    Remember how Dick Cheney left office in a wheel chair?

    That.

  39. Salt water vs fresh water by wcrowe · · Score: 1

    Does it make a difference whether they are inundated with any kind of water, or salt water?

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
    1. Re:Salt water vs fresh water by djlemma · · Score: 1

      Salt water conducts electricity a lot better than fresh water. So, yes.

  40. INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING SUMMARY!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Despite the car's apparent history with fires, it doesn't seem plausible that this is a wide-spread, common issue, considering the fact that, in 3 of the 4 pictures from the article, there are a few dozen more of the car in plain view, less than 10 feet from the destroyed set.

    Nor does it appear (based on the rear ends of the less damaged cars) to be battery related. I'd suspect an electrical short igniting insulation and such.

    1. Re:INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING SUMMARY!!!! by djlemma · · Score: 1

      The battery is along the middle of the car, between the left and right side seats. The electric motor is in the front. So it could be a short making the battery overheat and catch fire, or a short making something else in the front catch fire, either way it's a problem that would be tough to solve when you have a 20kWh 330V battery pack completely submerged in salt water..

  41. Re:Your Tax Dollars at Work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, they are pretty good scissors.

  42. apparently? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    water from Hurricane Sandy's storm surge apparently breached the port and submerged the vehicles

    apparently?

    "We're not exactly sure what submerged these 16 cars Tom, but our best guess is that it was was from that ocean just over there."

  43. Think Green by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So how much did these zero emission EVs pollute the environment when they burned?

  44. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How the fuck do you plan to avoid a FLASH flood, there genius?

    Listen to the weather warnings (there always are) and avoid low water crossings when it's raining hard. I live in Texas and I've driving in flash floods. It's not hard to avoid the trouble spots if you know what's going on. I just moved recently and I explained to my fiancee which street to take to and from our house in flooding and which to avoid.

    It's fuck common sense, not genius level thinking. So there's no call to be rude, you total moron.

  45. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    No matter how deep 1 wheel getting into water is not an issue. The suspension will bottom and car will continue to move.

    I do not drive through standing water on the road if that is what you meant.

  46. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    So flash flooding occurs on top of hills or like all flooding in low lying areas?

    Because if the latter is the case, do not drive in bad weather in low lying areas.

  47. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They also manage to ruin the engine

    Just to elaborate for those that don't understand this. Water does not compress. When you have a piston slamming into water with the valves closed, the forged connecting rods bend. This causes all sorts of physical damage and warping to the block, valves, camshaft, and crankshaft.

    It's not worth rebuilding. You crush the engine and sell of the metal as scrap.

  48. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by oodaloop · · Score: 1

    Deep water looks like shallow water. So when you see a puddle, it could be much deeper. When you drive through water that is more than 2" deep, it could have been much deeper. Most people who drive through deep water thought it much more shallow. Because deep water looks like shallow water. I can't make this any more simple.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  49. Re:Your Tax Dollars at Work... by ilikenwf · · Score: 1

    I shouldn't have my taxes go to produce cars that only people like Justin Bieber and Ashton Kutcher can afford. It doesn't benefit me or the economy in the least.

  50. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by Andy+Prough · · Score: 1

    Hahaha - in the countryside south and east of Austin, Texas, everything is "low lying". The problem with the flash floods is they can occur just from a normal rain storm. A few years ago, a colleague of mine left work late one night, rounded a corner in an industrial complex and ran straight into several feet of water in a dip in the road with no warning. Her car stalled, and the mud and water killed the engine and ruined the car. But at least she was able to get out and walk away.

  51. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by Buminatrain · · Score: 1

    Personally I would just pull the plugs and evacuate the cylinders, but hey I guess to each their own.

  52. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by Andy+Prough · · Score: 1

    I don't drive an electric vehicle -- I've got a pick-up truck. Where the hell would I put my semi-automatic assault rifle gun rack in a Prius??? Where would I throw the carcasses of the wild boars? This is Texas we're talking about - got to have room for stuff.

  53. Seawater + battery = Not Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Seawater conducts electricity - if any part of the battery terminals were exposed for extended periods (which, presumably, they were when submerged) then the connection was complete and the batteries discharged through the path of least resistance. This wasn't just rain submerging these cars, but flooding salt water. Very conductive.

    Just ask the Navy submariners who survived the USS Bonefish disaster.

    1. Re:Seawater + battery = Not Good by AaronW · · Score: 4, Informative

      The batteries used in the Tesla don't suffer from this problem. Each individual battery has independent internal circuitry to disconnect the battery if a short is detected or if the voltage goes too high or too low. Additionally, the battery carrier is designed to direct the gases safely away from the car in the event that runaway battery failure does occur to protect the vehicle and any occupants.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    2. Re:Seawater + battery = Not Good by EmagGeek · · Score: 2

      Sea water is not likely going to look like a short, but rather some impedance.

      What's worse, that conduction is going to electrolyze the water into its component H2 and O2 gases.

      What do we know easily happens to a mixture of H2 and O2? Nice source of fuel for a fire (and/or explosion).

  54. Re:LOL by Applekid · · Score: 1

    They've screwed us over long enough and bad enough that they surely deserve a taste of their own medicine.

    It's like with very loud motorcycles. Sure, I look forward to the day that the bike crashes, and the biker is either severely injured or killed.

    Dude, you're fucked up. Please seek help.

    --
    More Twoson than Cupertino
  55. it's FACT-CHECK TIME!!! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    I think you mean Reginald Denny.

    The gang beating Rodney King with clubs were by definition "The Man".

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  56. Re:Your Tax Dollars at Work... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    Seriously, I want to keep SOME faith in Slashdot.

    Then you shouldn't be posting political bullshit as AC.

    Posts like yours are part of the fucking problem.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  57. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by houghi · · Score: 1

    Explodes? This is not a movie. It caught on fire. Normal cars also catch fire. What people generally do is get out of the car the moment that happens.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  58. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pudÂdle (pdl) n. 1. a. A small pool of water, especially rainwater. b. A small pool of a liquid.
    This word does not mean what you think it means.
    see also: https://www.google.com/search?q=puddle&hl=en&rlz=1C1ASUM_enUS448US448&prmd=imvnsa&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=YuGSUNbSIMKDjAL1moG4Dw&ved=0CEwQsAQ&biw=979&bih=691&sei=heGSUJGSIK_tiQKR24DQAg.

  59. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by Applekid · · Score: 1

    It's stupid for people to let their kids play with executive toys made of rare-earth magnets, too. But that didn't stop the government from shutting down Buckyballs.

    The government didn't shut them down. Maxfield and Oberton was sued by the CPSC but the suit hasn't been settled AFAIK. They made a decision to stop selling them.

    I think it's a completely prudent move, in my opinion. Not because they're unsafe, but because
    A) better to exit the market and clear out the warehouse on their own terms
    B) there are far too many companies producing small spherical neodymium magnets right now so they can't command a premium
    C) the costs of rare earths is skyrocketing and the situation isn't likely to get any better so long as China continues to restrict output and other nation's stockpiles remain untapped
    D) they don't have to roll the dice on the actual findings of the court, and continue to pay lawyers to work hard on that suit.

    --
    More Twoson than Cupertino
  60. Intelligence at work by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
    Let's see, superstorm coming along, high probability of surges, maybe some flying debris. Hey, let's take a couple of million dollars of product and just leave it unprotected where it's likely to get damaged.

    Either someone is really dumb and getting fired, or is getting a raise for figuring out a way to dispose of troubled units while getting insurance money.

    --
    Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    1. Re:Intelligence at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either someone is really dumb and getting fired, or is getting a raise for figuring out a way to dispose of troubled units while getting insurance money.

      Oooooh! Zing! (+1 Sharp as a Tack.)

  61. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by Sez+Zero · · Score: 1

    We have flash floods every summer in Texas. Most cars that run into a few feet of water simply stall. If instead, your car explodes and kills all the occupants, then you've got a potential death trap.

    I now see why they keep playing those flash flood PSAs down here. "Turn around, don't drown. The life you save may be your own." Clearly the message hasn't reached Kyle, TX yet.

  62. Any car underwater by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Is pretty much screwed. So these went out a with a bit more pizazz... Instead of quietly and prematurely dissolving into a pile of rust and seized parts.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Any car underwater by xlsior · · Score: 1

      Most 'normal' cars have little potential take out your house right along with it when they get ruined while parked in an attached garage during moderate flooding.

  63. Re:Your Tax Dollars at Work... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    I shouldn't have my taxes go to produce cars that only people like Justin Bieber and Ashton Kutcher can afford. It doesn't benefit me or the economy in the least.

    Even exploding cars? That could benefit everyone (but only if people like Justin Bieber and Ashton Kutcher drive them).

  64. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    So flash flooding occurs on top of hills or like all flooding in low lying areas?

    Because if the latter is the case, do not drive in bad weather in low lying areas.

    You've... never been to Texas, have you?

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  65. I guess the QA team need to add a new test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Test #1 - throw a lot of water on car

    expected result:
                          Clean car

                          if car caught fires - immediate file a fail bug.

               

  66. The car that could have by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    killed James Bond?

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  67. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    In Texas you're not allowed to tell anyone "don't do that".

  68. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by Bobfrankly1 · · Score: 1

    You NEVER know the depth of water.

    If you are a local and you know the road, you do know the depth of the water. Not down to the measurements, but well enough to judge for safety's sake.

    If you've ever driven through a puddle, count yourself as an idiot. That could have been much deeper, and you wouldn't have known.

    That statement should be measured in perspective. Driving a slammed-to-the-ground vehicle through puddles on unknown roads is just asking for a wreck, and yes, idiotic. Driving a vehicle that has good road clearance and is equipped for inclement weather and/or off-road conditions through puddles, while being foolish, can also quite fun. Of course these statements can be further adjusted by the traffic and surroundings of the situation.

  69. Insurance job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These probably aren't selling very well because of the numerous problems that have been reported, so the owner got Guido to make sure that they burned to a crisp. The hurricane is just a convenient cover story.

    1. Re:Insurance job by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Same as jack ass with the Veron and the salt marsh then. That car was rebuilt.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  70. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First rule of driving is always to be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear ahead.

  71. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by oodaloop · · Score: 1

    Oh, so you know every gradual dip on every road in vicinity of your house? Doubt it. In many cases, what appears to be a puddle can be several more inches deep. And unless you brake quickly (as in slam on the brakes; not a good idea in rainy or wet conditions), hitting even 6 inches of water quickly will splash up enough water to stall the engine. Or, hey, maybe everyone else is just stupid.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  72. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by TheSync · · Score: 1
  73. Totalling by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    Yes, 'totaled' means the cost to restore the vehicle to the state or better that it was in before the incident exceeds the value of the vehicle. Still, as you mention, that doesn't mean that partial restorations aren't possible. Full restorations are as well, they just require some sort of attachment to the vehicle to justify the expense. Or access to below market rate repair - free labor from doing it yourself, for example.

    A submerged car can be fixed 'pretty well', the problem is that it's really tough to fix all the electrical and corrosion problems completely, so the car may no longer be reliable.

    Now, because the car at least currently operates and looks like it hasn't been flooded, you get people selling them as plain old used cars. Same as with cars that have been in serious accidents and have hidden structural damage/problems. Which is generally fraud.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  74. Many cars can handle a foot, SUV's more by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    What kind of car can handle a foot of water?

    Any Jeep or equivalent. Your estimates are way too conservative.

    But even a MINI Countryman can handle a foot of water... it's in the manual. It's not exactly a high-clearance vehicle.

    A lot of modern cars can handle much deeper water than you would think, the tire height alone is not a good indication.

    All of the things you mention have to be pretty well sealed anyway to keep various fluids within from getting out... It's all about keeping water out of any air intakes, but those are always at the top of the engine. Modern passenger compartments are usually quite well sealed as long as you are not submerged too deep for too long.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Many cars can handle a foot, SUV's more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However - your car ingests water, your engine is dead. Majority of cases. You get hydrolock, which is the result of water not being compressible, (where, air is, and the pistons are designed to compress air). Hydrolock in a running engine will destroy valve-train, and connecting rods. Now - if you're fortunate to avoid serious damage from hydrolock, and you only get stalled-out, and if you don't run the engine for say, a day or so, after that, the water inside the cylinders is going to rust, and seize the whole thing. So, you'd have a fighting chance if, say, you popped-out your spark plugs, got a compressor air-hose down in the cylinders, and blew all the water out. You might even get the motor restarted.

      Most modern cars have a pretty decent sealed air intake system (thanks to modern engine-control systems, and their need to monitor airflow: past the sensor, you can't have any leaks letting air into the system, or the sensor cant measure intake flow properly - hence, most air intakes are sealed pretty good. If you keep the intake above water, and if your spark distributor doesn't get soaked and short, the engine will probably keep running, and yes, some of those SUV's you see with the snorkel that runs up to the roofline can run that deep. (good luck getting traction to MOVE).

      But a lot of older cars will have intake leaks, or the intake is closer to the ground, and if that goes under, you better hope the engine stalls before water makes it down to the cylinders.

    2. Re:Many cars can handle a foot, SUV's more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nearly right... but dangerously wrong.

      Many air intakes are high up, but if you're unlucky it could be under the front bumper. Quite a few cars died here (the UK) recently because of that.

      And while many cars can drive through a foot or more of water, that's stationary water. Try it in a foot of 30 mph flood water and you'll be downriver before you know it.

  75. so how do you back your boat into the lake? by Chirs · · Score: 1

    Alternately, what about driving back-country? Sure, an electric sedan probably wouldn't be used for this, but a hybrid SUV might.

  76. I've driven through water that deep by Chirs · · Score: 1

    It was in africa, on a backcountry "road", and it came up to the base of the windshield. The vehicle had a snorkel for exactly this purpose.

  77. Electric windows and submersion by Firethorn · · Score: 2

    I've seen testing - the electronics system will work for at least a few minutes, long enough to get the window down even when fully submerged. Your mileage may vary depending on details of the accident that results in submersion as well as age and make of the car and battery.

    But unconscious AND the windows up is a bad way. I carry a spring punch - a hammer won't work as well under water. Useful not only for me, but if I have to be a rescuer.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  78. Bullshit, Slashdot heavily liberal by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Only if you never read the front page here. At least once a week there is a story on the front page that pushes the conservative agenda

    Total bullshit.

    You would have to be ignoring the countless articles on global warming, or promoting the federal controlled internet takeover that is Network Neutrality in order to make any kind of claim there is no liberal bias to Slashdot.

    Just because someone managed to post a breitbart link once does not a conservative site make, I would bet that the article summary in that case made fun of what was on breitbart.

    Slashdot used to be more Libertarian, but those days are long gone.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Bullshit, Slashdot heavily liberal by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      Total bullshit.

      Wow, how very courteous you are to start your post that way.

      You would have to be ignoring the countless articles on global warming

      Global warming is not liberal, it is scientific fact. Global temperature is on the rise. The truth has no political persuasion.

      promoting the federal controlled internet takeover that is Network Neutrality

      How is network neutrality a "federal controlled internet takeover"? That statement makes no sense.

      Just because someone managed to post a breitbart link once does not a conservative site make

      Nor did I claim that to be the only reason why slashdot is conservative. Read the front page regularly and you'll find articles pushing conservative agendas on a regular basis - it is rare to see less than 2 in a week.

      I would bet that the article summary in that case made fun of what was on breitbart.

      And you would lose that bet, badly. It used breitbart as an actual news source, even though there were plenty of others available.

      Slashdot used to be more Libertarian, but those days are long gone.

      If by libertarian you mean echoing everything that comes from Ron Paul, those days are not nearly gone, they are just not quite as loud since his campaign is over. Plenty of attention on slashdot still goes to his son and his party's nominee of Gary Johnson.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  79. Working != worthless? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    Generally speaking, I'd say that a still working vehicle isn't worthless. Totaled doesn't mean that the vehicle isn't worth anything any more - you have scrap metal if nothing else! It's just that the repair costs exceed the value of the resulting car, so in theory it's cheaper for you to just go out and buy another vehicle of the same general value and condition as the vehicle was before the accident.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  80. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by SternisheFan · · Score: 1

    I'm guilty of driving through a flooded road I knew well, and I knew the car would make if I went really slowly. 3/4 of the way through, a high riding pickup approached from the other direction. The driver slowed before realizing, "My truck can do this!" and guns it, causing a big wake. I mouthed, "No!" at him, but too late, the engine's air intake sucked the water right in (I should've turned off the engine before the wake hit), and it took a new set of spark plugs to finally got the engine going again (the next day). And about 6 months later the engine seized up, That taught me but good to never drive through flooded roadways again.

  81. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by Bobfrankly1 · · Score: 1

    Oh, so you know every gradual dip on every road in vicinity of your house? Doubt it. In many cases, what appears to be a puddle can be several more inches deep. And unless you brake quickly (as in slam on the brakes; not a good idea in rainy or wet conditions), hitting even 6 inches of water quickly will splash up enough water to stall the engine. Or, hey, maybe everyone else is just stupid.

    Nice leap there. I didn't say "every" road, but in my case there are particular paths that I take multiple times every day, and yes, I do know there the dips are, gradual or sudden. I also know where the water builds during the rain, and which corners to take wider in such situations. It's called learning and it's something "everyone else" is quite capable of.

    These are also short paths as well so memorizing them isn't the arduous task you make them out to be. You however, did use the term "NEVER", so don't be upset when I poke at the obvious holes in your statement. If you meant to state that it's good practice to act like you never know the depth of the water, then you should say so, as that distinction can be appreciated. But taking your personal experience and saying that it's the exact same for everyone else, bar none, is quite foolish to say the least.

  82. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Why else do you think that Texas leads in deaths at railroad crossings and in flash floods. "Oooh, lets try it and see if I can make it."

  83. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

    A few years ago my mom was picking me up during a heavy rainstorm at the local college. She was parked with the engine running as I was running to the car. Suddenly there was a wave of water that must have come over some hill over towards her passenger side. In the minute it took me to run to the car, the road went from 1-2 inches of water to 2-3 feet of water.

    Needless to say I would not have been happy if the car exploded at that point.

    --
    Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
  84. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by Andy+Prough · · Score: 2

    Hasn't happened to me - don't know why you're busting my balls. I drive carefully in the rain, and I know where the water builds up and I avoid it. However, there's no denying that a lot of cars do get caught out here. We simply have a lot more country roads with water crossings where the county or the state hasn't built a bridge.

  85. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    I've driven through water more than 2" deep that I knew the depth of. I could see the road beneath it, and perspective is different, but that doesn't mean it is unknowable. Local knowledge of the area also helps.

  86. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

    BTW, this was in one of the boroughs of New York and it was about 20 years ago, during just a really bad storm. No where near a river or the coast or even in a flood plain.

    ie: It could not have been planned for by the driver of the car. (Whether the area should have been developed better is another story.)

    --
    Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
  87. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Texas leads in flash flood deaths and railroad crossing deaths. They are the same. You can just not travel when a flash flood is predicted, or you can go out and try your luck and see what happens. Also, most of the reports I heard about weren't a person on a dry road being swept away by a sudden wave tsunami style, but most were people crossing washed out bridges and such thinking they could make it, but didn't. Like trying to beat a train and not making it is "unavoidable".

  88. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If your car isn't a potential death trap already, I'd be much surprised. Not just during a flash flood, but other accidents, including more than a few incidents at Gas Stations.

    http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/OS.ServiceStations.pdf

    Says the US has about 5,000 a year in fires at service and gas stations.

    If you feel safe around your death trap already, that's on you.

  89. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    I'm from Texas, where the OP mentioned the flash floods. I've also been in regular floods. Regular floods are like the Mississippi rising 2" per hour for 24 hours. Flash floods are http://www.srh.noaa.gov/mrx/hydro/flooddef.php floods under 6 hours. So, not just the tsunami-wave style, but rains that bring a 5 hour "regular" flood is still a flash flood. Ever go camping in a flash flood area? I have. You set up camp on a ridge. The flash flood could kill you in your sleep, it's happened before.

    Texas leads in deaths at train crossings and flash floods. They are the same. It's usually a case of someone doing something extraordinarily stupid (crossing in front of a train, crossing a flooded road and being swept off the road).

  90. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    I had a friend hydro-lock his engine. He had to replace all the con rods and the crank. After labor, the work exceeded the cost of the car. Less than one cup of water through the air filter will total a running car.

  91. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Dude me and my friends made the mud hole with our trucks. Getting stuck is half the fun. It doesn't even count as mud unless it's a foot deep.

    It's raining in the Sierra right now. WTF am I doing posting on /.? There's mud and snow in them thar hills. I wish it were Friday already.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  92. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Just hold his beer and watch. People like you ruin all the fun.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  93. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Have you ever put your hands on a motor that hydro locked? The parts are cool in a pyromaniac kind of way.

    In my experience the GP is wrong. The rods might bend but mostly the head leaves the block violently.

    NHRA hydrolocks are something else again. Spontaneous thermal self disassembly.

    Your thinking of an engine that flooded while off.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  94. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    If it's semi-automatic it's not an assault rifle. Assault rifles are rock and roll select fire by definition.

    Your thinking of 'assault weapon' which is meaningless political drep.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  95. Radioactive wastewater... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Solar - uh, who said we can't mine stuff? China just shut down it's production so US production can at least for a bit start back up (obviously not immediately)

    Mining those materials releases lots of radioactive (yes, radioactive) waste. Molycorp's US rare earth mine (which was recently reopened, I think) was actually shut down for this.

    Sources:

    * Molycorp
    * Molycorp's Mountain Pass mine (This doesn't appear to be linked to Molycorp's article right now, oddly enough...)
    * Ars article on the restart of US rare earth mining

    I'm sure they'll try to do better this time and I hope they are better.

  96. Simple solution by Skapare · · Score: 1

    Don't let cars like these anywhere near the ocean or at low elevations. Problem solved.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  97. Did the batteries cause it? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Just because their is a fire to cars from a company that is having LOADS of fiscal issues, does NOT mean that it was the batteries.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  98. current energy usage / sources flowchart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These are pretty interesting and informative (to me at least) wrt where current energy resources come from and where they go.

    https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/

  99. Oh Canada by mevets · · Score: 1

    What a noble role in the world, to run off Americaâ(TM)s waste...

  100. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by Jeremi · · Score: 1

    What people generally do is get out of the car the moment that happens.

    Of course, if the fire is caused by sea water entering the battery and creating an electrical short, getting out of the car (and thereby touching the electrified sea water) might not be such a good idea either.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  101. Karma Smoke... by jimmydigital · · Score: 1

    ... don't breathe this!

    --
    Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. -HLM
  102. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

    That's why you have to go REALLY fast.

  103. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by chrismcb · · Score: 1

    Listen to the weather warnings (there always are) and avoid low water crossings when it's raining hard.

    Yep, prudent words. Of course flash floods can come from pretty far away. It doesn't have to be raining where you are for you to run into a flash flood.

  104. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by chrismcb · · Score: 1

    Because if the latter is the case, do not drive in bad weather in low lying areas.

    So what about the people who are driving in normal, sunny weather, and get hit by a flash flood? It happens. It doesn't have to be raining where you are currently standing.

  105. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A bit like this you mean?

  106. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by adolf · · Score: 1

    That's not a stall. That's hydrolock, wherein one or more cylinders fill with water. Pistons are ruined, rods turn to mush, cranks bend, and blocks turn to scrap: It's fucked.

    The difference between "stall" and "fucked" is the same as the difference between the nonchalant "Oh, I just rebooted it and it's been fine" and the much more serious "The fucker is seriously bricked" or "There were visible flames coming from that equipment."

  107. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    The people who are none too bright are the ones who made the roads. The roads should have been elevated. In some places this has been done to good effect. In other places, not so much. Nobody should live on a flood plain any more, there's no need, because you no longer have to carry water from a river. It makes more sense to live in the hills, and use those flood plains for agriculture. Unfortunately, that's not the way things are done in a modern mercantilism.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  108. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    If enough cylinders take in water at the "same time" (close enough anyhow) and RPMs are not high, then it's quite possible to hydrolock without damaging the engine.

    On the other hand, if you've got the revs up because you're trying to get through some mud or gravel, and you suck up water, you're gonna have a bad time.

    And of course, if you've got a diesel, and you suck up water, just call it a day and start crying. They've got nearly twice the compression.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  109. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    Actually I go there every year. Into what they call hill country.

  110. Re:Your Tax Dollars at Work... by rwise2112 · · Score: 1

    If I remember right, Justin Bieber was given his as a gift. Wait.... now I know why!

    --

    "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
  111. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by Bobfrankly1 · · Score: 1

    Dude me and my friends made the mud hole with our trucks. Getting stuck is half the fun. It doesn't even count as mud unless it's a foot deep.

    It's raining in the Sierra right now. WTF am I doing posting on /.? There's mud and snow in them thar hills. I wish it were Friday already.

    And me still saving money for my future jeep...the shame...

  112. and on a related note... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    none of the nuclear power plants in Sandy's path had a major incident. Tell me again how nuclear is not safe enough to be considered "green" energy?

  113. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep... I was thinking about that too. I used to live in Fort Worth and I remember that flash floods were not unusual.

  114. Insurance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After reading all of the comments Slashdot showed me the first time around, no one asked the following question, "were the cars put there intentionally?" I know its a bit of a stretch, but what if the company realized it couldn't sell any of the cars and decided that if a natural disaster took them out it may not be the worst thing that could happen.

  115. Re:Huge problem in Texas - flash floods on the roa by operagost · · Score: 1

    I dare say that they wouldn't have to stop making the product and take the losses (some of which we'll pay for, as they write them off on their taxes) if the CPSC hadn't SUED them. Is that fair? The US government is playing the same role a patent troll or the RIAA does here.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.