I
Originally Posted by Anonymouse
Originally Posted by Luddite
…Porsche had issued an official statement on issues relative to a seemingly critical issue affecting one model in their range of electrically propelled vehicles and a chap who received the official communication shared it`s [sic] contents while displaying the document as proof,

Yes but his headlines are still gross clickbait. He is monetising excessive griping, which the platforms happily disseminate at speed. Posting stuff that angers readers generates more traffic and therefore more revenue.
And he makes no attempt at balance (the second video above is better).

Here’s what has happened in the Porsche world:

- many owners got a letter WRS0 which says they will be putting on some monitoring software and will let us know in the future if any battery anomaly is detected. That letter basically means nothing. Lots of battery systems have monitoring - I expect Tesla has had it since the beginning - but the German approach to privacy requires a lengthy letter to tell owners they will do so, and to allow them to opt out if for some peculiar reason they want to do so

- a few owners got a letter ARB6/7 which says that as no data on their battery is available, a precaution is required (charge to 80% and don’t park adjacent to house) until they push out some monitoring software. This is irritating for those concerned but smells strongly of lawyers rather than practical experience. No cases of actual problems have been reported as far as I know. And the letter is saying “we don’t have enough data (yet)” and NOT “your battery will catch fire” as reported by some YouTubers.

So all a bit ho-hum really, and not worthy of the coverage it is getting.

There is a further problem in the modern car world: things that are fixed by a software update end up being classified (especially in the US) as a “recall”. This drives headlines like “Tesla recalls 1.3 million vehicles” when in reality all that’s happened is they have pushed out a software update, like the security updates you get on an iPhone. (Porsche seem to actually recall vehicles to the workshops because they can’t get over-the-air updates to work reliably, but that’s another story…)

Look out for the next episode, “SHOCKING evidence that Morgans FALL APART in use and MAY KILL YOU if crashed!!!”.


I care not a jot for the personalities involved in the world of YT or indeed how much they might earn by stretching a point to maximise their income generation.

For me, in this instance it was the point that Porsche had taken steps to protect themselves to some degree lest anything unfortunate might arise, while exposing their customers to possible refusal of insurance for not only their customers car, but also their home... Which of course may be down to the way the customer reacts to the letter from Porsche.

Whether or not the insurance industry might lock on to this situation, I have no idea, though it does seem that EV`s even prior to this latest event may be costly to insure relative to their ICE alternatives, which seems worth noting for anyone likely to contemplate purchase of an EV.

Perhaps also worthy of note in terms of the costs in running an EV, I picked this up on an msn.com news feed :-

Electric car owners have been warned they will see parking permit charges more than double while fees for high-emission vehicles are set to decrease, following a controversial decision by Dover District Council.


Finally, and not quite quoting the English bard.... To Click or not to click, that is the question....?