Here’s an interesting BBC story about the safety hazards associated with the Chevy Volt — specifically, the risk that its battery pack could catch fire after even a minor impact.
But the real problem may no longer be a technical one, but one of dented consumer confidence. Customers are handing back the keys in droves.
At first, when the problem first came to light, chief executive Dan Akerson offered to buy back Volt models from any concerned customers.
Then, when dozens of customers came forward wanting to hand back the keys to their cars, the company changed tack.
Rather than automatically buying back the Volts, and thus losing its as yet tiny army of early adopters of electric motoring technology, GM started offering them some 6,000 free loan cars while awaiting the outcome of an investigation into the fires.
And here’s why:
It now appears the fire hazard was first discovered back in June, when GM first heard about a fire in a Volt that occurred some three weeks after the vehicle had been crash tested.
Yet, almost five months went by before either GM or the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) told dealers and customers about the potential risks and urged them to drain the battery pack as soon as possible after an accident.
Part of the reason for delaying the disclosure was the “fragility of Volt sales” up until that point, according to Joan Claybrook, a former administrator at NHTSA.
“NHTSA could have put out a consumer alert,” he said, according to industry website Autoguide.com.
“Not to tell [customers] for six months makes no sense to me. They have a duty to inform people when they’ve rated a vehicle as ‘top rated’ and make it clear there’s a problem.”
While it isn’t surprising that GM was reluctant to announce product safety bulletins that would dampen early sales of its much touted hybrid, according to the linked story the NHTSA was an accessory to this as well, and for the same reason:
“Part of the reason for delaying the disclosure was the ‘fragility of Volt sales’ up until that point, according to Joan Claybrook, a former administrator at NHTSA.”
At Autoguide.com, there’s a story saying that Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood responded today saying the accusations were “absolutely not true.”
“We have opened an investigation into battery-related fires that may occur some time after a severe crash,” LaHood said. “Chevy Volt owners can be confident that their cars are safe to drive.”
Meanwhile, the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) filed a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for any and all communications with General Motors (GM).
“Chevy Volt owners can be confident that their cars are safe to drive.”
“Porcine species can be confident that flight is possible despite design shortcomings”
The 40 mile range 16kWh lithium-ion battery pack in the Volt weighs around 400 pounds (181kg), one wonders how spectacular the sudden discharge of the 300 mile range 85 kWh 1050 pound (500kg) pack proposed for the Tesla Sedan might be?
I’m also impressed with advising the average consumer to discharge a battery pack following an accident!, consumer lawyers must be rubbing their hands in anticipation
Reminds me of the story of the man’s house burning down from his Volt catching fire while plugged into the charger, or the story of an air freight shipment of batteries (FedEx or UPS) catching fire and bringing down the plane. The batteries are safe, except when they’re not.
Meanwhile, GM-H (Australian subsidiary) has announced the Holden Volt and is bombarding the local media with press releases and video footage.
http://www.motortrend.com/oftheyear/car/1101_2011_motor_trend_car_of_the_year_chevrolet_volt/
Motor Trend Car of the Year, before any had sold yet?
An upcoming paper will address increased susceptibility of Chevy Volts to fires with increased temperatures due to global warming.
(…due to increased accidents resulting from global warming)
The beautiful new Chevy Solyndra! Drive one for Obama.
Wasn’t there a film made about a Auto firms legal case in the US (70’s?), where there was known danger of fuel tank fires in the event of a rear end accident, if they were signalling to turn at the time of the impact? Wasn’t there a record payout in compensation because of the cover-up?
La Hood? sounds like a second hand car dealer from Sherwood Forest, cept this one is obviously not in it for the poor!
I’m a Aussie, bugger if we’ll cop this. I’m going to tell me mate, Andrew Bolt. Its just not right that Dan Akerson can offer to buy back the ones that might catch on fire. The point is **They might catch on FIRE**. They are trying to get rid of them Downunder because you guys have caught onto it already and aren’t buying them. Wouldn’t hold stocks in GM right now, with all the tooling write-offs on this one.
And besides, it gets recharged from its Fossil Fuel back up engine, costs a lot of coffees to recharge, gets used up in a traffic jam, probably caused by a broken down Volt up front, uncool car for the masses, problematic disposal when redundant, short durable life, ungracious, performance of a golf cart, a total loss really. Except if ya drive around film studios.
And to be really (sarc), could have built a micro desal unit for placement in a third world village for the difference in cost to a good old combustion engine.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/crash-test-jolt-for-electric-holden/story-fn7x8me2-1226212590491
It is indeed true that electric cars have the energy of their travel stored in their batteries, and would be dangerous if that energy were suddenly released.
Just as true as the consequences of a petrol tank catching on fire in a conventional car.
I had a black ice accident nearly forty years ago which burnt out a car simply by crushing its hood to its 12V battery terminals. Conventional cars have MORE danger sources than electric cars.
There appears to be failure to recognize the similarity here, or to look ahead beyond present difficulties.
“We have opened an investigation into battery-related fires that may occur some time after a severe crash,” LaHood said. “Chevy Volt owners can be confident that their cars are safe to drive.”
Safe to drive, maybe not safe to crash. Now they will investigate the safety, meanwhile they are safe.
I drive in the real world, where random road debris can include sharp-edged medium-large rocks as well as other things hazardous to the underside of a vehicle. Where is this battery pack on the vehicle, how protected is it, and what warning systems will warn me if it gets punctured or otherwise damaged, which would include a warning to quickly do a “battery drain down” procedure? After what sort of accident would I have to do it? If I’m involved in a “fender bender” where there’s some damage but the vehicle is still drivable, do I just go through the normal “estimates, insurance adjuster, take it in for work” cycle, or must I immediately have it towed away to an authorized hazmat-capable shop for inspection (hopefully they’re open 24/7)?
Do they mention the “drain down” procedure in the showroom? Such vital information should be shared without asking, before the potential buyer signs anything. A large window sticker is warranted, right next to the price and mileage stickers. Or would informing the consumer up-front yield addition suffering for the “fragility of Volt sales”?
The Chevy Volt looks good actually but it is quite worrying to read the article here about the safety issues. It is quite dangerous if the car’s battery catches fire. I think the Chevy car makers should solve this problem. So that the car owners will feel safe to drive. The blog was really very informative and I really have to appreciate you for posting this lovely blog.
JazzRoc, get real! This lemon the Volt has been sold to the American public as the ultimate green car. For GM and the Obama administration to be as deceptive-by-silence about its shortcomings is nothing less than ridiculous. No ordinary car currently has a problem with the petrol tank catching on fire. The car you may be thinking about is the Pinto – and that car’s dangers to its fuel tank, once exposed, were publicized immediately and ultimately ruined the Pinto’s sales. No government agency delayed publicizing its faults for six months. So the Volt should be exempt from such scrutiny?
The Volt performs like crap, because it gets only 40 miles to the charge, takes at least four hours or more to recharge, and requires premium unleaded fuel for its small auxiliary gas tank. That makes it totally useless to me (and most other reasonable human beings) given its expensive price. The fact that you can find similarities between electric cars and gasoline cars is meaningless, considering the relative usefulness and performance abilities of each vehicle.
I have a Ford Fusion hybrid, so I know about the comparative value of most cars over the Volt, trust me.
Is this not a case of old fashioned commercial awareness? Sell as many as possible depsite the know teething troubles in the hope that the manufacturing process & the boys (& girls) in the design office will solve the problem in transit! Unfortunately this seems to be a potentially fatal problem that has not yet been addressed, other than to withdraw the model! Now my suggestion is this, I’ve heard about some stuff that comes out of the ground, all black & guey, but it can be refined to produced an inflamable liquid! Now, if somebody could design some kind mechanical device, a machine that could burn this flamable liquid, it could produce power, well don’t you people see? If we could just find some way of harnessing that power to a drive train of some kind, attached to a set of wheels, it would mean independent movement, free of restrictions, the end of horse drawn transport! It would be a kind of, “horseless carriage”!!!! Perhaps I should read less Jules Verne & H.G. Wells, & stick to engineering!
From JazzRoc on December 9, 2011 at 1:27 am:
But the Volt runs on both gasoline and battery charge. Thus you still have the dangers of a conventional car with a gas tank, with the additional dangers of a much more powerful battery. Thus the Volt is a combination of the danger sources of a conventional car PLUS those of an electric car.
Also, after a crash where the battery does not immediately initiate a problem as with your wreck, the potential danger from a charged normal battery can be quickly dealt with by cutting a battery cable. How do you do that on a Volt, or a Prius, or any electric car?
JazzRoc says:
December 9, 2011 at 1:27 am
“Conventional cars have MORE danger sources than electric cars.
There appears to be failure to recognize the similarity here, or to look ahead beyond present difficulties.”
Even if I would rather fry in a pony rather than a volt, its not electric vehicles per se that are a problem, it is that this particular electric vehicle is a dud, and not able to be properly used for which it was bought, unless it was bought to drive around movie studios.
Most applications suitable for electric vehicles don’t include transporting humans to cultural, religious, recreational, educational or scenic destinations of varying distances and scheduled time frames. Owning one of these things will lead you to become isolated in your social engagement and you wont get to visit family who live out of town.
Kinda reminds me of the Lithium Polymer (Li-Po) batteries my brother uses in in his model planes and helicopters.
Theyre quite susceptible to bursting into flames at the smallest impact that pierces the outer skin thereby allowing air and its oxygen content into contact with the lithium contents.
I suspect a similar thing is happening here.
Burned to death by a petrol tank going up or a Li-po fire….hard choice., still, if it “saves the planet” im all for choice number deux.
Lithium-ion batteries have always been susceptible to “internal runaway”. Remember the occasional flambo Sony laptops when the batteries first came on the scene? The problem is overcome in smaller batteries designed for electronic applications by applying very stringent manufacturing quality controls. Larger batteries require more exotic measures to solve the problem. Telsa Motors spent a fortune developing a very sophisticated ibattery control system for their lithium-ion batteries that supposedly prevents internal runaway. I suspect that whatever General Motors is using doesn’t always work as advertized after a crash. The relatively long delay between the actual crash and the flaming battery points toward that “internal runaway” for which lithium-ion batteries are prone.
Does anyone remember scandals “in the old days” in Pharmaceuticals? Pills that Kill not Cure.
Keep quiet about the risks whilst we run more trials and sort out the bugs.
There is a saying in the UK “they all pee in the same pot”, same in USA?
Thiis is what happens with Government businesses.
Sydney Morning Herald:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/charge-this-car-for-price-of-a-coffee-20111209-1ommo.html
By this currency converter that’d be US$51,345 to 71,883. Wow, they really expect you guys to bend over and take it, mate.
But do the Aussies get to deduct a AU$7300 (US$7500) federal tax credit?
And for the spin:
“Completely” damaged? Well then, when is it less-than-completely damaged and still completely safe?
And a funny bit:
It’s buying an over-priced under-performing faux-Green car and not noticing you didn’t do one dang thing to really lower personal carbon emissions or to help the environment.
The Volt sounds to me like a bad risk. I have not yet seen anyone ask this question: When you “drain down” the Volt, what exactly comes out? Can you catch it to reload it into the car when the risk is over? If not, do you have to buy new batteries? At what cost? Do you have to be in a special place to unload it, such as a decontamination facility? It sounds like a big operation, with likely hazardous materials. I shall not buy a Volt.
JazzRoc
“… and would be dangerous if that energy were suddenly released.”
There’s no “energy” stored in batteries nor. Charging and discharging is a chemical reaction uptaking or releasing electrons which can’t burst out at once like with fuel. The real danger with lithium energy storage devices is the inflamability of lithium. Like potassium and sodium it will incinerate if getting in contact with water or even air. You cannot extinguish a light metal fire easily. At least, you shouldn’t use water but CO2 as an agent …
Oh no, that ugly poisonous dangerous CO2 … /sarc
Imagine an accident which brakes the battery whilst rain is coming down in torrents. That might extinguish ordinary fires but inevitably inflame or even cause a lithium fire.
The good news is, you have lithium handy to treat your depression while looking at your burning car. /sarc
I’d never by me a car which carries so much highly inflamable light metal in an easily to break box.
What else would one expect from a Govt. owned car company — effectively collusion. Imagine if GM had been a really private company (or if the Govt. had not stepped a subsidiary of some other private car company). Need a separation of business and state clause.
So, the risk with a 31 mph side crash test was a couple of broken ribs? To me, it looked like a broken neck for the dummy could have trumped that.
Geoff Alder