[AbhiJ]

Originally Posted by greenhorn

Does the Manufactured define flood quantitatively? is there a specific water level beyond which you should not drive?

I agree. It is nearly impossible to get an accurate estimate of the water ahead when you face a flooded street. Is it 200 mm, is it 300 mm? There are too many variables - The gradient of road, potholes, and the dreaded oncoming wave with the truck coming your way.

But it would be good to know if car A is more resistant to hydro-static lock as compared to car B.

[rselva]

If only all cars were built like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WYD...=youtu.be&t=88

[SR-71]

Originally Posted by smartcat

This video of Tesla wading into a flooded tunnel made it to CNBC and elicited a tweet from Elon Musk too.

I guess EVs should be able handle flooded waters better than cars powered by traditional engines (no air intake, no hydrolock)

Originally Posted by Reinhard

Don't be sure!
Electric components, power units & battery packs are generally the easiest when it comes to water-proofing.

The packaging is generally compact, less on hoses, pipes and ducts & hot metals compared to internal combustion engines. So its not that big a deal. I have seen the Tesla S & X both wade easily through bumper high water (over bottom door sills) without issues in the EU. So certainly doable. Hopefully at costs lower than Tesla cars.

Interesting video Smartcat, thanks for sharing. I understand an EV does not suffer the same travesties of an traditional IC engine. So my worry is not about a hydrolock per say, but as I mentioned in the earlier post, its about electrical malfunction. I am not an expert, but I do know that dirty water is a decent conductor of electricity and if you have more than a couple of EV's in a pool of water wading close by with engines on, can something happen ? Am sure the designers will take care of emergency cut off and the like, but I cant help but wonder about corner cases, say a faulty battery -or- a faulty connection.

Perhaps we are still a decade away from EVs being the mainstay in Indian roads, maybe our government will also start focusing on better infrastructure by then ! So in the meantime my apologies, once again for these off-topic curiosities

[Reinhard]

Originally Posted by GTO

I am not an expert, but I do know that dirty water is a decent conductor of electricity and if you have more than a couple of EV's in a pool of water wading close by with engines on, can something happen ? Am sure the designers will take care of emergency cut off and the like, but I cant help but wonder about corner cases, say a faulty battery -or- a faulty connection.

You won't get an electric shock if thats what you are referring to. First of all, the normal use cars are around 48 to 72 Volt. Only high performance cars are in 300V bracket. a 72V shock is not that big a threat even if you get exposed to it.

And then most importantly - a car that is water-wading is inherently "grounded". The current will just go to mother earth & not try to pass through you in most cases.

[VKumar]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Is there not simple stuff like air-inlet position where manufacturers could make the car more resilient?

Can you imagine a hatchback with a snorkel like on a Force Gurkha?

I agree that some manufacturers like Honda made some idiotic designs (their diesel engine seizure stories anyone?), but I don't think hatchbacks like Alto etc are any ways designed to be driven through even 18 inches deep water.

I take the side of Maruti Suzuki here, the customer was technically doing what he wasn't supposed to do. I got to know that it was his new car and maybe he was being a bit too gentle to his new car in a place where he was supposed not to be.

Situations like hydrolock by driving into water or oil chamber rupture by going off road in hatchbacks; they are better kept out of warranty, and remain into the scope of insurance, else if such rulings get common and increase the warranty costs for the manufacturers; it is only the new customers who will end up paying for the same.

And is it just my impression, or is this increasingly a problem of modern cars? Or is it just a case of me seeing more internet these days?

Second one, social media and internet have shrinked the world.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by VKumar

Can you imagine a hatchback with a snorkel like on a Force Gurkha? ...

Yes, indeed that image crossed my mind as I posted, as an example of what we should not expect manufacturers to do, with either air intake or exhaust.

The exhaust pipe is probably the lowest thing we want to keep the water out of. But at least it is not scooping it up.

[fighterace]

Hydrostatic lock is not explicitly mentioned in the warranty as it is covered by the word misuse. The manual says that the car should not be driven through deep water. I think that the higher courts will reverse the judgement. If not, then the Germans (BMW, Mercedes and Audi) are about to go bankrupt.

Having said that, we do need good wading depths for Indian cars. Anyone remembers where the intake of the carburetted M800 was? Never felt scared to take it through flooded streets.

[norhog]

Just my take on this subject, none of the Indian manufacturers state the water wading depth of their vehicles.
There is even a thread on this very topic in 4x4 section. Even the so called all terrain SUVs do not have this data mentioned.

So it serves the manufacturers right to be slapped with such a fine. At least they must specify some water wading depth and design their sensors and intakes accordingly.

And also on an different angle to this very subject, the government body, because of whose failure there was a water logging, must be made to pay. This is really wishful thinking being an Indian where municipalities are well above the law and yet to hear a case where they have paid to citizens. I would be happy to be enlightened though about such a case.
So until that time private entities like car manufacturers will have to bear the brunt and design and specify their respective vehicles water wading depth, just like the ground clearance is needed to be declared in laden condition, which is mandated by regulation.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by norhog

Just my take on this subject, none of the Indian manufacturers state the water wading depth of their vehicles. ... ... ...

If I remember correctly, the Ecosport does, or did. I may be wrong, but I seem to recall seeing it post chennai flood. I bought another Polo

[2000rpm]

Well! This reminds me of the Paresh Rawal movie. God Tussi Great Ho.

Apparently, the owners losing their vehicles in the flood, may have to sue the creator of the calamity itself

[ssambyal1980]

This decision by the consumer court appears to be somewhat biased against the manufacturer. The damage due to hydro static locking is normally not covered by most of the insurance companies owing to the fact that it is difficult to prove whether this happened due to negligence/ignorance or natural causes. It also happens that at times the parking area gets inundated, a natural occurrence due to unprecedented heavy rainfall and the customer due to negligence/ignorance attempts to start the car resulting in hydro static lock situation.

Therefore it is most likely assumed that the resultant damage caused due to wading through water logged area or attempting to start the engine in such a scenario is customers fault. Hence the insurance companies put this under the consequential damage clause i.e shifting the entire onus on the customer.

Nonetheless to be on the safer side a rider called 'Engine Protection Cover' should added to the insurance policy and it should cover hydro static lock caused either by natural causes or by negligence. It would be needless to reiterate again that wading through water logged areas should be avoided at all costs as apart from the risk of hydro static locking, there's also an ever present danger of vehicle getting stuck in some ditch and worst still overturning. Better to be safe than sorry.

[VineetG]

Hi,
From a vehicle specific perspective, Civic is very very susceptible to deep water. It supposedly has a low air intake/Resonator through which water can enter. I was told about this from the HASS workshop manager who became friendly to me over a period of time.

Anyway, Civic is already a vehicle which rides very low.

So take care.

Rgds

[gkveda]

Originally Posted by zhopudey

This is just excellent news. Finally the consumer court has ruled against the big corporations. Hope this is my just the start.

I see there are multiple and mixed views on the decision made by court. But, all of us should understand one thing very clearly. The court just verifies all the data, document, records, witnesses and then, goes by data. There is absolutely no room for assumptions and emotions(PS: I am not talking about judges, lawyers. The point is about the court. There are chances that Judges and lawyers make mistakes)

The points that I could note from the link shared are as below from a layman perspective. I am 100% sure court would have checked several more facts before coming to current judgement.

Points
1. The incident happened almost 2 years back in Delhi(Not in Mumbai due to recent floods). None of us know what was the intensity of rains, water logs etc. So, we cannot comment on whether it is owner's fault to drive in such rains. In my opinion,(Just an opinion), owner of new car (Since it is in warranty, i assume it was new) will see the condition of road and immediately back out if it is too risky.
2. There is NO WORD called FLOOD in the entire thread in the link. So, the condition of natural calamity or accident is ruled out. So, there cannot be an insurance claim
3. The warranty card clearly states what is included in warranty and what is NOT. If the said part is NOT mentioned in the EXCLUSION list, then, the car manufacturer is liable to cover it under warranty.

So, I think maruti is expected to pay the amount in my opinion

[humyum]

Originally Posted by VKumar

Can you imagine a hatchback with a snorkel like on a Force Gurkha?

I agree that some manufacturers like Honda made some idiotic designs (their diesel engine seizure stories anyone?), but I don't think hatchbacks like Alto etc are any ways designed to be driven through even 18 inches deep water.

I take the side of Maruti Suzuki here, the customer was technically doing what he wasn't supposed to do. I got to know that it was his new car and maybe he was being a bit too gentle to his new car in a place where he was supposed not to be.

Situations like hydrolock by driving into water or oil chamber rupture by going off road in hatchbacks; they are better kept out of warranty, and remain into the scope of insurance, else if such rulings get common and increase the warranty costs for the manufacturers; it is only the new customers who will end up paying for the same.


Second one, social media and internet have shrinked the world.

Not really, you won't need a Snorkel like a Gurkha in a hatchback or any vehicle for that matter. I had submitted my design to Mahindra during my first interview with them many years back which was something which could be implemented in a hatchback specifically, it was amazing but if you can think and use your head, you won't get a job in Mahindra for sure, so unfortunately they neither accepted it nor gave me a job but it can be done and it can be revolution on the automotive side if implemented, cars will never drown in Mumbai or anywhere because of water unless of course you went scuba diving in them.

[luvtandon]

The court observed that the manufacturer had not mentioned in its list of conditions terms and conditions that the vehicle should not be driven in waterlogged areas.

Though this seems to be a good news but what this means within the lines is that the manufacturers will now expressly mention this in the terms and conditions and the consumer will still be left in lurch.