2GSDs

Also, “As closely as possible to the original specification” tells me the replacement car might not be exactly what was originally ordered and built.

detansinn

That’s their out if there are any supply chain issues. Not a big deal.

CodyBigdog

https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/...inerised-cargo

Cargo Insurance -

“Whilst loss or damage to cargo caused by fire is covered by most marine insurance policies, the Institute Cargo Clauses (the terms on which almost all marine cargo is insured) excludes insurers’ liability due to the wilful misconduct of the insured; inherent vice; insufficient, unsuitable or defective packing or the unseaworthiness of the ship or container. In the case of the unseaworthiness of the ship, the cargo insurers’ liability is only excluded where the cargo owner was aware of the unseaworthiness of the ship before the commencement of the voyage (which would be unusual).


“Conclusion -

Fires at sea continue to pose a significant risk to container shipping and often give rise to long-winded and complex claims between all affected parties. In the event that a shipowner can rely on a “fire defence”, the cargo owner (or their insurers) may be left with a recovery action against the shipper of the misdeclared cargo. However, this often involves expensive litigation in a foreign jurisdiction where the “guilty” shipper may be a brass plate company without any assets to satisfy many millions of dollars’ worth of damage to the ship and her cargo.”

{So, if it is determined that the fire started from one of Porsche’s Taycan, ie from it’s Li battery, who is responsible for actually disconnecting and packaging these batteries from possible discharge that could start a fire? I can’t see anyone from the ships’ crew being responsible for this? Don’t know? But interesting and potentially complicated legal issue}

cmjohnson

They don't have to add a shift or extend worker hours or anything. We're talking about replacing LESS than a week's production of vehicles.

For Porsche, this isn't a big deal. So they'll intersperse replacement builds into the production stream as they can, slightly delaying existing new orders, but none by more than a week, it would seem.

Ultimately it just means the year's production line will run a few days longer than originally scheduled. Not even a week.

apias

That was my impression from the photos I've seen; that the ship will be scrapped along with the cargo.

William Smith

I suspect that's what is happening - according to the TYD app, my Taycan was supposed to go into production on Friday 2/18 and now got pushed back 2 weeks. I'm guessing it's so Porsche can move the lost vehicles into production to be rebuilt quickly. I have no problem with that - really good to see Porsche stepping in so quickly and hopefully only a little extra delay for anyone that lost a car.

cmjohnson

I can imagine what Porsche is going through right now. Pull all the records for every car on that ship. Sort out the dealer stock orders (low priority) from customer ordered cars. Presumably, prioritize the customer ordered cars to the highest rank, and then take each one of them, review the build specs, and place the internal orders to get those parts through production, expedited where necessary. Every fabrication shop within the factory and external vendors both then get their orders to expedite produciton and delivery of those parts. It has to be as busy as a beehive, but every bit as purposeful and orderly.

It'll be very interesting to see how quickly they will complete the rebuild of the most highly customized cars in that lot.

2GSDs

Thank goodness it’s the Germans 😃

2GSDs

I did a little research, and it works out to a week and a half.
They already pushed back production 2 weeks, according to @William Smith. It’s really nice to see that they are handling everything so well.
It certainly makes a prospective customer like me, who is patiently awaiting an allocation, more confident that ordering from them is the right choice.

pfelsen

As an insurance broker for 50 years, let me contribute that damage to the vehicles will be covered under the shippers (Porsche or whatever name the vehicles are owned in) insurance. There is no “willful misconduct” “inherent vice” “insufficient, unsuitable or defective packing” as defined under a typical ocean cargo contract.

Porsche insures their cargo and the vessel itself is covered by the owner.

it’s an impossible stretch to conclude the presence of lithium batteries would void either parties insurance coverage.

malba2366

First official source saying that Lithium ion batteries are contributing to the severity of the fire...I think there will be extended delays for Taycan and E-tron until this is all sorted out and the ships can be outfitted with appropriate equipment to extinguish these fires. Another article which I linked below explains in an unbiased manner explain the risks of shipping EVs...including the fact that if there is any mechanical damage to the battery thermal runaway can occur. This can be from something as simple as an improperly secured car which becomes damaged due to motion of the ship.


LISBON, Feb 20 (Reuters) - Firefighters are struggling to put out a fire that broke out on Wednesday on a vessel carrying thousands of luxury cars, which is adrift off the coast of Portugal's Azores islands, a port official said, adding it was unclear when they would succeed.

The Felicity Ace ship, carrying around 4,000 vehicles including Porsches, Audis and Bentleys, some electric with lithium-ion batteries, caught fire in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean on Wednesday. The 22 crew members on board were evacuated on the same day.

"The intervention (to put out the blaze) has to be done very slowly," João Mendes Cabeças, captain of the nearest port in the Azorean island of Faial, told Reuters late on Saturday. "It will take a while."

Lithium-ion batteries in the electric vehicles on board are "keeping the fire alive", Cabeças said, adding that specialist equipment to extinguish it was on the way.


https://gcaptain.com/electric-vehicl...ds-identified/

detansinn

EVs burning doesn’t mean that they were the source of the fire. There are EVs and PHEVs on boats, going across the ocean, literally every day.

There was literally another VW/Porsche carrier ship fire just three years ago, in 2019. No EVs on board. Still a total loss.

Muckesäckele

Whoever posted the link to the Wired article about the salvage of the Cougar Ace, THANK YOU!

To wit, after the ship sat at a 60 degree angle in the ocean for about a week, Mazda did the following:
"For more than a year, the 4,703 Cougar Ace Mazdas sit in a huge parking lot in Portland, Oregon. Then, in February 2008, the cars are loaded one by one onto an 8-foot-wide conveyor belt. It lifts them 40 feet and drops them inside a Texas Shredder, a 50-foot-tall, hulking blue-and-yellow machine that sits on a 2.5-acre concrete pad. Inside the machine, 26 hammers — weighing 1,000 pounds each — smash each car into fist-sized pieces in two seconds. The chunks are then spit out the back side. Though most of the cars appeared to be unharmed, they had spent two weeks at a 60-degree angle. Mazda can't be sure that something isn't wrong with them. Will the air bags function properly? Will the engines work flawlessly throughout the warranty period? Rather than risk lawsuits down the line, Mazda has decided to scrap the entire shipment."

These cars just sat at an angle on a cargo ship for a short time period, and the ENTIRE collection was reduced to scrap metal. Porsche will not salvage a single key fob!

It's an awesome read:
https://www.wired.com/2008/02/ff-seacowboys/

doug_999

Let's remember that one of the VW boats is no more. So even if they are able to re-make all these cars tomorrow, we have one less boat.

cmjohnson

What are the chances that at some point in the future the decision will be made that EVs can't share the same cargo ship with gas and diesel powered vehicles?

I think we've already found out that the realistic fire hazards are greater for EVs than fossil fueled vehicles. And as energy density get higher in future battery designs, I don't expect that trend to reverse.

EVs have a long way to go to be truly competitive with the internal combustion engine anyway. Quick, what is the volume and mass of an EV vehicle battery that gives 300 miles range in a specific vehicle,
as compared to the size and weight of a full tank of gas that will give you the same range? Well, a Taycan battery is close to 1400 pounds. And that's taken it as far as 280 miles in testing.

Battery energy density has a LONG way to go before it becomes pound-for-pound comparable to fossil fuels. Plus gas tanks don't self ignite just because someone poked a hole in them.

And, a discharged Li-Ion battery is still flammable. It just won't self-ignite if damaged while fully discharged. It's the heat generated in the short circuit in a charged battery that starts the electrolyte on fire.

I honestly think these factors are going to ensure that the internal combustion engine will be around for a long time to come. Trying to make an energy storage system truly SAFE when its very design is intrinsically
prone to self-ignition when damaged is a very tough problem to solve.