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).
What was ‘the Volts’ skid-pad performance?
Unofficial spokes-person Gene hasn’t disclosed any performance figures yet – and I can’t seem to find any online either after a little searching.
Maybe the factory, and management, and government, and ad agencies (where Gene works??) are more concerned with the battery-pack fires than performance numbers right about now?
I’ve got to imagine this is a NIGHTMARE of Biblical proportions in the car business and everyone (including ad agency exec Gene) is sweating bullets.
.
Jim,
I have no idea what the Volt’s “skid pad performance” is. Nor do I care. I don’t plan on buying one.
As for nightmares of biblical proportions, well, let’s just say I generally don’t believe in scary stories and hyperbole, regardless of which side of an argument it is coming from.
Automobiles are the leading cause of death in the US up until you start getting into your 40’s, I believe. In otherwords, just getting in one increases your change of getting killed. Am I going to refuse to get into a Volt because one test vehicle expereinced a fire? I don’t think so. That’s because I don’t need advanced statistical analysis to tell me that the impacts of driver error and alcohol on the odss of being hurt or killed in an auto accident dwarf those resulting from poor or faulty design.
The ONLY reason not to get into a Volt is that it will kill your soul.
Please; very old news. And you are more likely to possibly die in a house fire due to ‘the Volt’ self-igniting its battery pack so it is straw-man argument to say ‘getting into a Volt is assuming risk’; it can be demonstrated that being in proximity to ‘a Volt’ is risky. Parked even.
But on another ‘old note’, on a scale of “Zero to Biblical -proportions” for the car industry, this battery-pack self-ignition and fire event rates up there with the 40 days and 40 nights “flood” event in the OT for which Noah built the ark regarding the public’s image of ‘the Volt’ – the images of these fires could really kill sales, as if the economics of ‘the Volt’ hasn’t already done this.
And we still haven’t heard from Gene yet today. Must only work weekends on this ‘gig’ defending ‘the Volt’. Maybe he threw in the towel, having met the veritable ‘torch and pitchfork’ potato farming crowd and deemed us unredeemable.
Now I’m curious, what was you found so ‘informative’ such that you replied to the ad agency exec in this fashion: “BTW – thanks for the info on the Volt Gene. Very informative.”
Obviously it wasn’t the skid-pad performance information …
.
Funny, it seems none of you people work for a living. It is Monday. You know, the first day of the week for going out and doing something productive? I’m sure you guys have heard of it. Or perhaps you’ll question my integrity and claim it’s not Monday.
Why is $4B annually in oil subsidies a canard? A canard is, by definition, a false story, one not backed by facts. Seems the subsidies are billions: http://www.forbes.com/sites/benzingainsights/2011/02/01/should-the-government-really-end-oil-subsidies/. Even Forbes so indicates.
re: Greed, check out Glass-Steagall.
It seems you guys are hard of reading. I included performance numbers in a post above. Here they are again, since you’re probably incapable of scrolling up to take a look:
1/4 mile: 16.6s at 85.3mph
0-60: 8.6s
Slalom: 61.4mph
But, I should have realized you guys like going in circles and have thus found skid pad numbers, too. Thus, with a quick use of Google — which you all seem incapable of using — I quickly found 0.77 and 0.83 shown as skid pad numbers (Edmunds and Road & Track, respectively). The difference is probably due to the radius of the pad. Plus, those are numbers with low resistance tires. Put on stickier tires and the numbers will improve.
Thus, for those to lazy to add it all into a single list:
1/4 mile: 16.6s at 85.3mph
0-60: 8.6s
Slalom: 61.4mph
Skidpad: 0.77g or 0.83g (Edmunds and Road & Track respectively)
Damn, the Volt, weighing hundreds of pounds more than that VW, has pretty much identical performance. Oh no. Now what…
I know, I know: you guys don’t need no steekin’ facts.
Truth be told, the one thing that you have done is push me more towards the AGW crowd. Congrats on being such a bunch of wankers. I’m sure other patrons of this site are suitably impressed.
Gene says:
“Truth be told, the one thing that you have done is push me more towards the AGW crowd.”
Because of a difference of opinion over a car you’re ready to embrace pseudo-science? C’mon, Gene, isn’t that a titanic overreaction? You were holding your own up to that comment.
Gene says:
December 12, 2011 at 6:14 pm
Why is $4B annually in oil subsidies a canard? A canard is, by definition, a false story, one not backed by facts. Seems the subsidies are billions: http://www.forbes.com/sites/benzingainsights/2011/02/01/should-the-government-really-end-oil-subsidies/. Even Forbes so indicates.
“I understand your frustration with the tax credit, but look at it from my perspective. I’ve paid millions in taxes over the years. – Gene”
————————
Aren’t you the guy that was defending the Volt $7.5K tax credit based on the fact that you and other Volt-philes paid $millions in taxes over the years. The oil industry pays $millions every hour 24/7. It seems a little ridiculous to expect them not to have equivalent tax “breaks” that any other industry has. $4 billion is a product of the sheer volume of gross revenue that comes through the oil industry.
The Glass–Steagall Act was banking reform legislation. It would be quite the stretch to suggest that it was some kind of prohibition on “greed” at least it hasn’t impinged on Barbara Boxer too much.
Smokey,
You have to look at the general flavour of the argument. I didn’t see much support, or perhaps a few happened to just be louder than the silent majority. But, as someone once said, silence speaks volumes.
As a scientist I remain perpetually skeptical about everything. And I don’t find climate science to be “pseudo-science”. It’s not pure science, but it’s not the likes of astrology or other things typically associated with pseudo-science. Climatology uses models and has data from weather stations, satellites, historic records, etc. It may not be as hard as chemistry or physics, but it’s definitely not a pseudo-science.
Justa Joe,
Maybe I’m mistaken but my recollection of Glass-Steagall was to reduce the risk that banks could take. By enforcing a reduction in risky investments it allowed for stable banks. Investment firms are there for those with the money and willingness to invest in something risky. Mortgages, etc. were never supposed to be risky. It was a series of very bad decisions over 20+ years that eroded the controls, allowing risky adventures with various monetary vehicles resulting in bad debt being associated with good debt resulting in the mess we now see. Had Glass-Steagall not been revoked much of the carnage would never have happened since many of those getting mortgages would not have qualified. Here in Canada the risk tolerance banks were allowed by law remained unchanged and it resulted in less insanity than south of the border.
As to the Volt credit my point was that there are bigger amounts that can be reined in. $4+B a year in oil subsidies for a business that is massively profitable and surely does not need any subsidies to go look for more oil for all those cars and trucks on the road. We could also bring up the various bio-fuel subsidies and many other ill-informed subsidies that are much more massive and more harmful than the EV tax credit.
The question though does remain, does the US want to get off a goodly portion of imported oil. If so, it must invest in alternative propulsion systems, such as in the Volt. If you simply want to wait until the price comes down naturally, you will wait a long while. All the tax credit does is try to accelerate the schedule. And the sooner less fuel is used in the US the sooner the cash associated with fuel not purchased remains in the US. It’s a concern of national interest and I’d think that many Americans would see it as such.
Think of it this way, if $100B could be redirected from going to unfriendly overseas regimes and remain in North America how much better off would we all be? And $100B is less than 1/4 of the amount of oil the US imports each year.
Gene says:
December 12, 2011 at 10:33 pm
Think of it this way, if $100B could be redirected from going to unfriendly overseas regimes and remain in North America how much better off would we all be?
—————————————-
Sorry Gene, Coffee comes from Bolivia, Pineapples from Hawaii. Rare Earth Metals from the PRC. We can’t expect to be totally self contained within our borders. Your argument is perhaps an argument against paying “unfriendly overseas regimes” for their oil but not against the efficacy of oil as fuel.
Your definition of greed is very broad to put it mildly. Firstly I reiterate the Glass-Steagall Act is not a prohibition on “greed”. Believe me. In America you are still free to be as “greedy” as you please as long as you don’t actually break any financial laws or regulations and get caught. AlGore, James Cameron, and James Hansen can vouch for this.
Only a portion of Glass Steagal was repealed in 1999. The banking HyJinks was not the cause of the housing bubble. The banking crisis was a subsequent result in part of the housing collapse. The housing mess was initiated by your beloved Ferderal Government’s Community Reinvestment Act.
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/capital-commerce/2009/03/17/yes-the-community-reinvestment-act-really-did-help-cause-the-housing-crisis
The derivative toxic asset trading and other shenanigans were result in part of institutions unloading bad mortgages.
Gene says:
“I don’t find climate science to be ‘pseudo-science’.”
‘Climate science’, as practiced by the ‘Team’, is certainly pseudo-science, because they refuse to follow the scientific method. The scientific method requires full and complete transparency of all data, methodologies, code and metadata, so that other scientists can either replicate their results, or falsify them. They have an obligation under the scientific method to not only cooperate with others, but to exhaust all possibilities that would falsify their own hypothesis. Can you give us examples of where they have done that?
Since the anti-science climate clique refuses to provide transparency, they are practicing pseudo-science. If they provided the necessary transparency – which would take no more than a handful of mouse clicks to publicly archive everything online – their catastrophic AGW claims would be promptly falsified, and their grant gravy train would be derailed. So they’ve made their choice, which was:
a) Follow the scientific method, and provide full transparency
b) Sell their souls
They chose pseudo-science.
The G.M Volt is symbolic of all that is wrong with the Obama Administration. He has tried to jam Green Initiatives thoiugh with junk science and very poor engineering. When the 2012 elections are history and Obama is disgraced leaving the White House, may it be in a Volt.
This is nothing added to obama’s promise to destroy our economy with his promised “fundamental transformation of government” promised to our more verbally adept women, who voted for him! It’s as puzzeling as the story of Eve at the begging of man’s age. isn’t it? Just saying…
I truly believe that this is just another marxist LIE and part of the Marxist New World Order overthrow of our country currently being done by Obama and the 60’s marxist chicago terrorists Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dorhn and company that put obama in power and fecently came back from forming the scriptual Beast caliphate of Islam in Revelation! No? Watch, especially starting September 16, 2012!
Why don’t the government stay out of business that the private interprise should be in. And how come the volt (gm) people get a pass for 6 months pass before releasing the critical information. How many people could have been hurt inthis period of time. I know why,it’s obama green machine!
We live completely off the grid and have battery backup of 28.8kWh. It was drilled into us at the time of installation that discharging more than about 30% of full capacity would significantly shorten the lives of our batteries and that fully discharging them would ruin them.
The reason we are off the grid is not due to our fear of AGW, the decision was completely economic. I felt I had to qualify this as nearly everyone who hears about our off-grid living automatically thinks we dance naked around a statue of Michael Mann giving thanks at each solstice.
Like the wind turbins, when the subsudies from the government run out they are being abandoned, the new sreports that there are 14,000 abandoned wind rubins in the USA. Green energy, yes the green is from the the tax payers in America, many of the companies that are installing the utbins are foriegn.
Justa Joe,
My point re: saving $100B isn’t to be self-sufficient but to not have to purchase goods from those who want to actively harm you. It’s just a bit of common sense. If you can find a way to redirect a goodly chunk of cash to internal endeavours, it would seem to be the logical choice.
Note, your comment re: Hawaii is funny. I could have sworn it was a US State. If it’s up for sale, I’m sure Canada would be happy to take it off your hands.
Smokey,
Tarring an entire science because of the possible misdeeds of some is not right. Much as I truly am not judging the skeptical community based on the commentary of a few, even if they have been insulting at times.
To the many others,
To everyone who keeps blaming Obama for the Volt, please, give it up. The entire Volt project was started in 2006, the concept was shown in 2007, the project was going full tilt in 2008 with the production-intent Volt shown for the first time in January 2008 and “mules” — operational models — running around Detroit for testing in 2007 and 2008. Last time I checked, Obama was not President at that time.
It remains odd to me how Americans have this odd tendency to blame the current person in power for everything they dislike. It’s naive and wrong, to say nothing of juvenile.
As to those who still harp on the notion that somehow GM and the NHTSA didn’t say anything for 6 months, again, go read all the pertinent information. Neither GM nor the NHTSA could replicate the event. The NHTSA even called in the military to try to replicate the event. Ultimately it took removal of the packs from cars and physically abusing them repeatedly and way more than they’d ever get abused in a major car accident for them to start getting results. That took 6 months.
What was the NHTSA going to do 6 months prior? Cry wolf? If the NHTSA issued alerts every time something weird happened we’d have so many we wouldn’t pay attention when they actually released a pertinent alert. Ultimately the NHTSA has to weigh the risks. I’ll await their report instead of freaking out like a bunch of uninformed ninnies.
For a group of people that harp on and on about “government control and nannyism” some of you guys are sure huge hypocrites at times.
[snip. Please, no religious rants. ~dbs, mod.]
From Gene on December 13, 2011 at 7:47 pm:
Strange, the “abuse” doesn’t sound all that extreme. From NHTSA:
http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/defects/results.cfm?action_number=PE11037&SearchType=QuickSearch&summary=true
From Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/26/us-gm-volt-idUSTRE7AO1SH20111126?type=GCA-GreenBusiness&feedType=RSS&feedName=GCA-GreenBusiness&rpc=43
For some strange mysterious reason, you didn’t provide any links to back up these claims of yours. Googling for “chevy volt battery fire military” dredged up an AP piece, the relevant info seemingly saved from editing due to local interest (see URL):
http://hamptonroads.com/2011/11/more-postcrash-battery-fires-involving-chevy-volt
That’s it. That’s all I found about how “…NHTSA even called in the military….” Near as I can see, NHTSA knew it’d be a dangerous test, great possibility of fire, and carried out the tests somewhere better suited for incendiary and even explosive events. And that is all.
BTW, that piece also has confirmation of my suspicions about the GM OnStar onboard spying system:
Wow. So even after the initial “free” OnStar trial subscription has expired, and the owner has not renewed, the Volt will still phone home and notify GM, including the exact location by the built-in GPS? But of course GM won’t be calling for an ambulance or any emergency services as the owner hasn’t paid for that service…
Thanks to the Wikipedia Chevy Volt entry, I can now see where that battery pack is located, running between the seats (pic 1, pic 2). The battery pack itself is seen here, courtesy of the NY Times. From a Bloomberg Businessweek piece I’ve mentioned before comes this, which mentions differences between the Volt and the Nissan Leaf (info from Bob Yakushi, director of product safety for Nissan North America, and Rob Peterson, a GM spokesman):
As you adamantly claimed, “Ultimately it took removal of the packs from cars and physically abusing them repeatedly and way more than they’d ever get abused in a major car accident for them to start getting results.” Well, the first NHTSA fire came from a very real-world accident, side impact from a pole followed by a rollover. Go sideways, slam into a pole, roll down an embankment, which can easily happen here in Pennsylvania any time the roads are slippery, especially in winter. Also the “wings” of that T-shaped pack are close to the outside of the vehicle, and can get smashed from a side impact, which could be at an angle with a corner of the other vehicle hitting the end rather directly.
And beyond that, with the pack located down the center “for safety”, I have seen vehicles torn into two major chunks, at least that many. That sort of accident does happen, and would cause a catastrophic rending of the Volt’s battery pack. Thus your statement is false, the battery packs in the latter batch of testing were not abused way more than they’d be in a major car accident.
Moreover, for comparison, the Nissan Leaf uses an air-cooled Li-ion battery pack, as mentioned in this Fox News piece as well as the Wikipedia Nissan Leaf entry. The Volt’s battery has proven vulnerable to coolant loss, any puncturing leading to coolant loss can lead to a fire. The Leaf’s battery does not use coolant, and does not catch on fire. And the Leaf’s pack is protected against puncturing with a steel case, and does not catch on fire.
And,, from fueleconomy.gov, the 2011 Chevy Volt uses 36kWh per 100 miles, MSRP $40,280, while the 2011 Nissan Leaf uses only 34 kWh per 100 miles, MSRP $32,780. The Leaf is midsize class, has 90ft³ passenger volume, and 23ft³ luggage volume. The Volt is merely compact class, also has 90ft³ passenger volume, but only 19ft³ luggage volume. Also, the EPA has determined the Leaf has “…a driving range of 73 miles, based on the five-cycle tests using varying driving conditions and climate controls.” The EPA only gives the Volt (link to window sticker pic) a 35 mile range on battery only (source of sticker pic). Since the Volt gets 37 miles per gallon of premium gasoline, the Volt’s electric range is less than a single gallon of gasoline.
If you want a vehicle with a very long range and good mileage, there are better and far cheaper all-gasoline cars available. If you want a vehicle with a very long range that has a plug-in electric capability, I think you’re nuts, and the Volt’s electric range is too short to be worthwhile outside of a major metropolitan area, and there are areas like Los Angeles too sprawled out to make even that work well.
If you want a plug-in electric with a decent practical range, the Leaf is cheaper than the Volt, carries more, and goes more than twice as far. Heck, I could consider it for a primary vehicle, with a gasoline-fueled other vehicle for rare long trips. And the Leaf’s battery pack is safer by design and hasn’t been catching fire.
I await your links to substantiate what you said about the 6 month delay.
My understanding is there was only one fire and it happened days after being taken to a storage facility. One of the first things you should do with any car involved in a serious accident is to disconnect the battery. This is standard practice for car accidents to prevent fires or explosions. This was not done! The volt has a sophisticated computerized liquid cooling system that circulates coolant to keep batteries at an optimum temperature to preserve battery life even when it is not running. This is not your grandmothers Chevrolet. Tow truck drivers, fire rescue and others should be familiar with the difference between electric automobiles they may work with and conventional cars. They are not!
Gene says:
December 13, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Note, your comment re: Hawaii is funny. I could have sworn it was a US State…
—————————
Did I suggest that Hawaii wasn’t a state of the USA? Doesn’t Canada import pineapples from Hawaii? Is zenophobia a good thing when it applies to petroleum?
Gene,
You’re being a tad disengenuous regarding the administrations promotion of the Volt. Yes it originated before they came to office, but the current administration has thrown more money at the Volt, EV’s, and Hybrids than any administration in the history of humanity. Also don’t think that GM doesn’t play politics.
Obama & Chu have specifically endorced the Volt. The Obama administration said that the President’s goal is to have1 million electric cars on the road within the next four years. This administration is also responsible for pushing the Tax credit for these vehicles to $7500.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/07/AR2011020705616.html
kadaka,
I posted the link to The Economist article as well as one from Car & Driver earlier. But, since scrolling or searching this page seems unknown to so many here they are again.
http://www.economist.com/node/21541395
http://blog.caranddriver.com/chevy-volt-hysteria-we%E2%80%99re-all-going-to-die-or-an-application-of-facts-and-rationality-to-flaming-batteries-and-melting-chargers/
Note that the Economist actually states what was done:
“[B]oth NHTSA and the carmaker repeated the side-impact and rollover test on at least two other cars, all to no effect. However, in subsequent tests—carried out in November by experts from the energy and defence departments as well as GM—the investigators deliberately damaged the battery packs and ruptured their coolant lines. One battery pack behaved normally. Another emitted smoke and sparks hours after it was flipped on its back. And a third exhibited a temporary increase in temperature, but then burst into flames a week later.”
Again, repeating the crash tests produced no result. Finally, in November — May to November is six months — they were able to get a result by damaging the battery pack itself and severing the coolant lines. Note the reference to the defence department.
And, a car splitting in half is an edge case. No automaker is going to be able to make a car fully safe in that type of event. Remember, 300,000 cars burst into flames upon experiencing an accident. That’s 0.01% of all cars in the US annually. Driving is risky.
Justa Joe,
I mistakenly thought you were talking about Hawaii from your own point of view. Most Canadian don’t get our pineapples from Hawaii. We get them from Costa Rica. I know, I buy them regularly. Never a Hawaiian one around. Even our bananas come from Costa Rica.
As to Obama and the EV credits, the credits were signed into law by Bush:
http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1029800_obamas-stimulus-package-expands-plug-in-hybrid-incentives-but-diesel-fans-unhappy
Obviously, the way the EV credits are structured under Obama’s expansion we can see where the 1+M electric vehicles comes from. However, the first 250,000 — of which we’re not even close to having yet — come from Bush who signed them into law in October 2008. So for now, the expansion is moot as we’re still operating under the original 250,000 credits Bush granted. And it’s further obvious that Obama didn’t come up with the EV tax credits on his own.
And why wouldn’t a US president endorse a US product? Is he supposed to be in the business of denigrating US products?
Justa Joe,
Never said anything about xenophobia (note spelling). I said why would anyone want to provide funding to someone who wants to kill or do harm to you? It’s a valid question. You don’t arm your enemies. It’s just common sense.
If I had any previous doubt that this poor excuse for a blog wasn’t a wholly owned megaphone for the oil companies it has been washed away by the blatant lies spread by this article.
First, there weren’t droves of people just waiting to turn in their volts. In fact, only a handful turned them in. The volt is now the highest ranked car in customer satisfaction.
Second, gasoline automobiles, hundreds of thousands which have burst immediately into fire after a crash, are already more dangerous than a volt which burned after improper procedure and three weeks sitting with a compromised battery.
Third, the real reason for all the stupid, fake noise here and on other ‘news’ sites is that the oil money is desperately afraid these magnificent automobiles will become the new standard and represent a real challenge to the zombie stranglehold on transportation and energy that fossil fuel companies now maintain.