I could feel the heat coming off it when I stood next to the repaved section. They didn't repave the parking area at the edge. Opened to traffic again, seems firm enough to drive on at 160⁰F.
this post was submitted on 06 May 2026
366 points (98.7% liked)
Mildly Interesting
26413 readers
900 users here now
This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.
This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?
Just post some stuff and don't spam.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
What temperatures? The 71°C of the pavement? As I said, there's air and physical barriers that keep that temperature from reaching the battery.
Yeah. That's the whole point. It moves the heat from the battery to the outside air, keeping the battery from reaching that 70°C number you're worried about. Which, while I'm at it, is a change from the earlier 40°C number you claimed is a problem.
Are you fucking serious? Think for a moment. Do you really think that the cooling system, by drawing power from the battery, heats the battery up more than it cools it? That's ridiculous.
Oh, I should also add, that I have real world experience working with hot asphalt. That shit indeed will melt your tires and other plastic parts on your vehicle, such as mirror shells, and also burn the paint off your vehicle.
Yes, I have experience. Yes, I know what the fuck I'm talking about.
Also, look up Peltier cooling, even those generate heat from the power source. So even then, the battery is using energy to cool itself, thereby using more energy and warming itself while delivering energy to cool itself. Catch 22, at those temps, the battery is fighting itself.
A quick lesson on logical reasoning:
If you want to show that a piece of technology A is inefficient and you know that another piece of tech B is more efficient, then you can use the inefficiency of B as evidence for the inefficiencies of A. Basically, for some inefficiency threshold T where any value above T is poor efficiency, then A>B and B>T means that A>T.
Here, we're comparing vapour-compression (A) and solid state (B) heat pumps. Solid states are much more inefficient. So you have AT. You can't use this to make any claims about the relationship between A and T.
We're talking about an edge case here, there should never be a vehicle driving over roads that fucking hot. The road crew should have never opened the road for driving until it cooled down closer to 120⁰F or so, 160⁰F is still too fucking hot.
Which is a fair claim to make. I don't know why you went with "EV batteries aren’t safe over 40⁰C", which is clearly False based on the source you cited, then went on a whole roundabout talking about how it's not safe at 45C, then 70C, then how active cooling is inefficient while citing the efficiency of Peltier devices. Your top-level comment was fine. Nothing else you said after that made any sense.
My bad, I meant 50⁰C, when it starts to become a concern. My bad, typo, road trip be bumpy yo.
Air only flows significantly when you're driving. Have you ever heard of stop signs, red lights, traffic, and trains? You assume the vehicle is always in motion, which isn't always the case.
The better option would have been if the road crew didn't open the road to traffic until the asphalt cooled closer to regular road temperatures.
By your logic, home air conditioning can't work because the condenser is stationary.
If the ambient temperature is 71⁰C, then no, air conditioning will not work, at least not sufficiently to sustain life or protect batteries.
Fuck, you do realize that 71⁰C is enough to melt your shoes to the pavement right?