Biggest Risk from Chevy Volt Fire: Undermining Consumer Confidence

By Brad Berman · December 05, 2011

Volt Side Impact Crash Test

In its handling of the Chevy Volt fire story, General Motors risked transforming a minor and fixable concern into a public perception that electric cars have hidden dangers.

What’s the biggest fear held by electric carmakers and advocates? That an isolated incident of an individual EV mysteriously catching fire would tarnish the image of all electric cars—and put the brakes on the emerging market for battery-powered cars.  Unfortunately, those fears are starting to become too real—as details emerge about the case of Chevy Volt batteries catching fire after a severe crash continue to emerge.

Automotive News reports today that GM learned six months ago from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that a Chevrolet Volt caught fire three weeks after a test crash.  Yet, the company said nothing until NHTSA did additional testing on Volt batteries in November.  Only then did the company tell owners, dealers and the public that it is critical to drain power from the battery pack immediately after a crash. NHTSA also sat on the information.

 

It’s never easy to do damage control, and it’s understandable that GM didn’t want to tell the public just as the company was ramping up production. But by keeping quiet about the problem until there were thousands of Volts on the road, the carmaker risked transforming a minor and fixable concern into a public perception that electric cars have hidden dangers.

It doesn’t matter that the risk to public safety is nearly or completely non-existent, or that the dangers of gasoline tanks in internal combustion cars represent a much bigger and persistent threat.  The damage to public perception of electric cars may already be done.

Chevy Volt Fire

Get the Message Straight

The Volt is completely safe, yet General Motors chief executive officer Dan Akerson said the company is “going to take time out,” to decide if the liquid-cooled T-shaped lithium-ion battery pack should be redesigned.  GM announced that it could buy back Volts from any owner concerned that the vehicle is a fire risk. GM spokesman Selim Bingol said not a single owner has requested to turn in a Chevy Volt.

Meanwhile, a group of 25 prominent Chevy Volt owners issued an open letter, entitled “Why Are Chevy Volt Owners Keeping Their Keys?” in support of the Volt.  “We are keeping the keys to our Volt. We love our Volt and we feel safe driving our Volt,” the letter states.

The letter is signed by Volt owners such as former Michigan Governor Jennifer M. Granholm; actress Alexandra Paul; Felix Kramer, founder of CalCars; and Lyle Dennis, founder of GM-Volt.com. “Volt owners are glad that the NHTSA, GM, and other manufacturers have now implemented protocols for electric cars in a variety of circumstances,” states the group.  “Just as it is necessary to empty a gas tank after a major impact, it is necessary to discharge a battery pack after a major impact. This is a simple and straightforward process.”  That message, however, was muddled because Nissan says depowering the battery is not necessary to prevent fires.

Yesterday, I received an email from an inside source who says that battery experts are pointing to the flat-pack style of battery cells—like the ones that LG sells to GM and Ford—as the possible culprit.  Others are looking at the coolant in the system—widely considered to be an advantage in maintaining the ideal temperature of a pack and thus ensuring adequate range—as a problem. Nissan’s Mark Perry told me last week that Nissan has no plans to add liquid cooling to its electric cars—a step Perry says is not necessary.

Defensive statements from Mary Barra, GM senior vice-president, global product development, aren’t helping.  Speaking at a meeting of the Automotive Press Association, Barra said this is only an “after-the-fact” incident that occurred weeks after the crash.  She tried to put a positive spin on the controversy. “It’s just going to benefit the industry,” said Barra. “It’s going to benefit, really, the whole electrification and how significant it is around the globe.”

I was of the mind that the entire incident will be lost on the general public, until I passed through U.S. Customs yesterday upon returning from my trip to the Tokyo Motor Show.  When the Customs officer asked why I traveled to Japan, I told him that I was there to write about the motor show.  “You see anything good?” he asked.  I told him about the electric cars on display.  He shook his head and said, “What about those Chevy Volt fires? I was just about to buy one, and now I’m going to wait at least a couple of years before buying an electric car.  I don’t think they’re ready.”

This exchange made it absolutely clear to me that the Volt fire incident has the potential to do damage to not only Volt sales, but the entire EV market.  I’m not sure where we go from here, but the quicker GM and NHTSA can say they identified a very specific and real problem—technical or otherwise—and that the issue is completely unique to the Volt, the sooner we can put the issue to rest.  Is the Volt’s problem overblown? Maybe. Regardless, the incident looks like the biggest challenge to the future of electric cars that we’ve experienced since the Volt and LEAF went on the market nearly a year ago.

About the author

Bradley Berman is the editor of PluginCars.com. Brad writes about alternative energy cars for The New York Times, Detroit Free Press, Reuters and other publications. He is quoted in national media outlets, such as CBS News, ABC News, CNBC, CBC, and MarketWatch. Mr. Berman is a tireless researcher of the green car market. He is the transportation editor at Home Power magazine.

Full bio · 938 posts

Comments

· Brett Owen (not verified) · 23 weeks ago

I don't think it'll be a problem. Not to be too biased, but the people buying these cars now are smart enough to know the significance of generation #1 of a car. Plus, if fires were a big deal, gas would never have replaced electric in the first place. My family owned two Fords and both had engine fires. We're not driving Fords anymore, but we're still filling up.

· Felix Kramer · 23 weeks ago

Brad -- Some of the implications from this post feel over-the-top to me. Maybe because you were in Japan last week, you missed a bit of the buzz (and lack thereof) about this whole story.

Yes, we've been worried about fires -- but not in cars parked unattended for weeks after crashes. Journalists are famous for quoting tax-drivers as the representatives of the views of John Q. Public. I wonder how typical your customs inspector's views are? I've talked to people who came to the same conclusion as our friend: "If you totally destroy your Volt, please discharge the battery before parking it in the garage for 10 days."

We have emphatically NOT just experienced the electric car fire we feared. That event would be in a car on the road. It could still happen, but we can't conclude anything from the results of these test crashes. Yes, GM could have acted sooner--but to suggest that GM did nothing for months ignores its national program training 1600 first-responders that ENDED 10 months ago! (See the second photo caption at http://gm-volt.com/2011/12/05/gm-takes-time-out-deciding-whether-to-rede... ).

For readers who haven't seen a roundup of news or our analysis, I'd point you to CalCars' postings, "Volt Battery Fires: Potential Crisis Defused?" http://www.calcars.org/calcars-news/1147.html and "Volt Owners Say, 'We're Keeping Our Keys' http://www.calcars.org/calcars-news/1148.html both of which link to the Facebook letter.

Also see a report today quoting Gov. Granholm and others, http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1070180_volt-owners-speak-up-say-its...

-- Felix Kramer, Founder, CalCars.org

· darelldd · 23 weeks ago

I just hope this doesn't overshadow how dangerous those scary Priuses are! :sigh:

(The last time I used sarcasm, I got an earful. Please note: Sarcasm above).

· EVNow · 23 weeks ago

'He shook his head and said, “What about those Chevy Volt fires? I was just about to buy one, and now I’m going to wait at least a couple of years before buying an electric car. I don’t think they’re ready.”'

I'd generally take such comments with a pinch of salt. Anyone serious will check more carefully. Ofcourse one place where it can really make a difference is in spousal approval. The same people driving on the highway while speaking on the cellphone & applying makeup can be extremely risk-averse when it comes to very rare threats like this fire or a terrorist attack.

· Volt 974 (not verified) · 23 weeks ago

I have been very happy with GM keeping Volt owners informed.

Matt Volt 974

· ClarksonCote (not verified) · 23 weeks ago

That customs officer may have said that, but I read a post recently where someone new to the Volt was so impressed with the response of GM in recent weeks, that he has decided to purchase one, and is very confident that the batter is as safe or safer than a typical gasoline tank in the case of a crash. It's too has that stories like this try to cast a negative light right out of the gate (the title of this proclaims GM has botched their response).

It's also easy to forget that over 200,000 gasoline powered cars burned last year in traffic accidents, and zero Volts to date despite at least three having been totaled. But I digress...

· EVNow · 23 weeks ago

@Felix Kramer · "We have emphatically NOT just experienced ..."

I agree. But GM has botched the response.

First there was the loaner (why ? To say gas cars are safer ?). Then worse, there was the "buy back" - which was later clarified as not really there.

Now comes this news that GM knew about this 6 months back - why didn't they try to reproduce the problem on their own and issue a fix. Why wait for NHTSA to do more tests and publish the results ?

· alt-e · 23 weeks ago

I am afraid that I have to agree with Brad. I have talked to a lot of people out there in the "public" these last couple of weeks about the Volt fire. Not EV supporters like everyone who reads this blog, but "regular" people. And the media attention on this story has pentitrated pretty far and wide. And most media outlets carry just a quick blurb that makes people fear the Volt in specific and, to a lessor degree, EVs in general.

We may not like the fact that this has happened, but it has happened. So now there is a need for damage control on this issue. But it is hard to even begin to do this until there is a clear cause to these fires stated by GM and by the government. The nature of that PR repair will depend on the particulars of that stated cause.

· Londo Bell (not verified) · 23 weeks ago

"GM spokesman Selim Bingol said not a single owner has requested to turn in a Chevy Volt."

Not so sure. Report from another source has pointed to at least a couple of "dozens" returning their Volts (buy-back).

http://www.mlive.com/auto/index.ssf/2011/12/gm_couple_dozen_chevy_volt_o...

This is from GM's spokeman Greg Martin. What I've observed (strange, and frankly, what the heck!) is that different people @ GM talks differently toward the same issue. It's like as if the company hasn't thought about what to say before saying it to the public.

· Brad Berman · 23 weeks ago

Thanks for all these thoughtful responses. But I believe that alt-e hit the nail on the head: We can't expect the people who don't put nearly as much thought/research into this issue as the current owners (and others who visit EV enthusiast sites). Frankly, I dismissed the issue as pretty insignificant, until I had that conversation with the US Customs guy. Sure, it's just one person, but if he was being honest, he was going to buy a Volt and then bailed out due to the fire. Who cares if his fears are unfounded? We can't afford to lose any potential buyers, if this movement is going to take hold. GM already fell short of its first year's sales targets. The early adopter slice of the market is getting burned off. We're facing a time in the next year or two, when more everyday folks need to put their money down on a plug-in. Anything that puts doubt into people's minds--not based on the crap anti-ev bias that's usually out there, but based on a potential real problem--is not good.

My main purpose in writing this post was for our community to have a real discussion of the consequences of the matter, rather than making simple knee-jerk defensive statements. Am I worried about a fire breaking out in my LEAF or in Felix's Volt? Absolutely NOT. I'm worried about how the message is being handled, and the impact on future adoption. All the Customs guy knew is that there was a fire somewhere somehow--and that there's a shadow of doubt about safety, so he's not buying.

· indyflick · 23 weeks ago

"The Volt is completely safe, yet he said the company is “going to take time out,” to decide if the liquid-cooled T-shaped lithium-ion battery pack should be redesigned."

I've always thought the Volt pack design was interesting in that the main portion was inboard. But I've never been a fan of liquid thermal management and have said that many many times on this board previously. The "T" configuration itself may be the culprit here. The "T" configuration could make the pack susceptible to damage at the cross point of the "T". In a variety of side and rear quarter collisions there would be enormous torque on that portion of the pack which could result in a rupture.

· Paul Scott (not verified) · 23 weeks ago

The number one reason people are avoiding the purchase of a plug-in car is the lack of fair pricing of oil-based fuels. Forget the safety, forget the higher initial cost, forget all the negative things you're ever read about plug-in cars from the EV haters in the world. EV Now made a good point about how these risk-averse purchasers drive dangerously once they get the car. They don't care about safety or they wouldn't drive like that. Also, if they cared about the cost of the car, they would drive efficiently so they wouldn't have to spend so much on gas.

All of this is just noise. We're up against the wall with oil. It's bankrupting our country, we're killing thousands of civilians in the middle east and propping up horrible dictatorships so we can buy their oil.

This fire, while problematic in the short run, will be completely forgotten in short order. Let's keep our eyes on the big issues and slam the detractors with the negatives of oil. When they cite the fire that happened three weeks after the crash, counter with the Gulf oil spill. When they complain the the Volt or LEAF costs too much, counter with the $1.5 trillion cost of the Iraq war.

Don't let them slow this transition down. Keep the pressure on to rid ourselves of oil in our cars.

· Londo Bell (not verified) · 23 weeks ago

Actually, to be the devil's advocate here for a brief moment, it's actually smart for current Volt's owners to sell all of their Volt's back to GM (and possibly buy a new Volt in 2012). Selfish move from an individual prospective, of course. Milking the system some may even say, but this will be 1 great personal financial move, for quite a # of reasons.

(1) You already have all the rebates from the 1st purchase. You may be able to keep all or some of them by selling the vehicle back to GM. For those that get the $7500 tax credit, that's already yours to keep.
(2) You can get a new round of rebates for purchasing a "newer" Volt.
(3) Because of this issue, and the fact that there're abundant supplied on Volt with many dealerships offering discounts, or GM's current incentives on the demo Volts, chances are, there will be significant price "drop" due to manufacturer's incentives and dealerships trying to move their inventories.
(4) If you wait until 2012 to get the Volt, that will be a even cleaner Volt - better emission system, and HOV lane access.
(5) Better warranty on battery (10 years instead of 8, as required by CA state due to HOV access).
(6) What beats a newer vehicle?
(7) Use the rebate to upgrade to a Tesla S or try out other BEV (which in my opinion, is even better)!

Thus, a better Volt, a new Volt, a "cheaper" Volt, and more money in your pocket. Still help the environment, still help the fight against big oil, so really, nothing's to lose, and everything to gain.

· indyflick · 23 weeks ago

@Paul Scott (not verified), "The number one reason people are avoiding the purchase of a plug-in car is the lack of fair pricing of oil-based fuels."

As much as I wish this were true, history shows it's not. After any initial shock of higher gasoline prices, demand eventually always returns.The actual reason people avoid the purchase of a plug-in cars has to do with their mental models of what a car is. You hear it from them all the time. "How long does it take to charge"? Who cares, it charges over night. You aren't standing next to it while it charges like you do when you fill your gasoline tank. "Can it go 300 miles"? Well since 75% of commuters travel less than 40 miles per day, not many folks actually need 300+ mile range. Who needs 300+ miles range? Those whose mental models says cars MUST have 300+ mile range because they always have had. And on and on and on.......

· Brad Berman · 23 weeks ago

@Paul - If somebody says that he's not going to buy an EV now because of the fire--or other concerns about the functionality or safety of an EV--I don't think we can shift the conversation to oil issues. That would seem strange or disingenuous. Each issue has to be addresses for what it is. I hope the Volt fire incident blows over fast, but I'm guessing that it's going to creep up over and over again. If GM can issue a mea culpa with a clear explanation and a clear solution that isolates the problem, then we can respond and say: That happened only on that model year of the Volt during X period, and it only happens under X extreme conditions with no bearing on the car's 5-star safety rating, and besides, the problem was corrected by switching the design of the system in these 1, 2, 3 ways...then we can get back to the bigger and more important issue of oil, climate, etc, and to the superior way an EV drives.

· EVNow · 23 weeks ago

@indyflick · "As much as I wish this were true, history shows it's not. After any initial shock of higher gasoline prices, demand eventually always returns."

I think Paul is talking about the fact that costs of oil are externalized on society (wars, health issues etc etc) - so that makes oil very cheap compared to what it actually costs. Afterall it costs less than bottled water.

If gas were $10/gallon today, there would be major structural and attitude changes.

· jim1961 (not verified) · 23 weeks ago

Do you remember how news stories about exploding batteries killed the sales of lithium ion powered laptops? Me neither.

· Jose G · 23 weeks ago

+1 for EVNow,

In addition to the externalities, there are subsidies both direct and indirect. For example, if oil companies defended their own oil fields, they could then pass that cost along to consumers. I've always thought tax only what you wish to discourage (pollution not income) it's a way to account for externalities in a free(er) market.

@indyflick
"After any initial shock of higher gasoline prices, demand eventually always returns."

This has been primarily true due to lack of alternatives. Now that we have alternatives more readily available, we'll see how well that holds the next time. While short-term demand is inelastic, each shock lowers long-term demand as some people switch to plug-ins and some others to more fuel-efficient cars. Nevertheless, global demand continues to rise primarily due to growth in developing countries. Hopefully, we can get some people in those countries interested in (and able to afford) EVs too.

· indyflick · 23 weeks ago

@Jose G, "This has been primarily true due to lack of alternatives. Now that we have alternatives more readily available, we'll see how well that holds the next time."

For years hybrids have been available and yet they are only 2% of the U.S. market. Presently V8 pickup trucks dominate vehicle sales. Hmmmm.

· Ken Fry · 23 weeks ago

Brad has a very solid point that the public at large understands this in a much different way than we do. They think: "First, Sony laptops burst into flames and now Chevy EVs do. It's lithium again."

GM has done some good things and some bad things in handling this. There have been so many demonstrations of how to handle these issues (Tylenol: good. Bridgestone/Firestone/Ford: bad.) that they have little excuse for handling it badly. This is biz school grist. Yet again, the corporation knows something, but (like Bridgestone/Ford) they do nothing or cover it up. Had they come out immediately with the discharge procedure and its necessity back 6 moths ago, this would have all gone away.

Instead this gives the appearance of a cover up.

I disagree with EVNow. I think Chevy's buy back offer says that the are confident with the car. Likewise with the loaner program. This shows concern for the customer, who I hope will see this as an indication that one Chevy model might have a problem, but that another model will not, rather than EV's have a problem.

Better to offer first than be forced into it. Otherwise, you have a few customers thinking "GM sold me this unsafe thing, and they expect me to just keep driving it???!!! Have they no care for human life?? " A couple of those customers can do a great deal of damage.

I think that Brad is right -- this is the fire that we feared. Any EV fire that starts in the battery pack is that fire. We know that this is an unusual situation, but the public does not. They are perfectly happy to "wait a few years until the bugs are worked out." Now is not the time when we want people to be waiting, right when so many manufacturers are gearing up.

I'm hoping that they can trace it to coolant. Otherwise, the other manufacturers will be on the defensive: "Oh, our batteries are not like that." When all the public knows is "Lithium" vs "something else", all the EVs appear to have the same kind of batteries. They should be smashing 100 or 200 battery packs if necessary to be certain they know the cause.

· Jose G · 23 weeks ago

@indyflick "Presently V8 pickup trucks dominate vehicle sales"

Largely to blame: Government, again! This is largely an effect of the tax deduction business owners get when they purchase trucks and SUVs. What a brilliant idea!. Most of these trucks are not even used for tasks that require a truck.

· tterbo · 23 weeks ago

I think it would be scarier if Nissan, Tesla, and Mitsubishi (and technically every hybrid manufacturer in history) were explaining away battery fires. For now though, it just looks like GM doesn't know how to store lithium batteries + it's year one for GM's Volt + it happened in a junk yard. Additionally, if you go to CNN, Fox, or NBC's webpage, they word 'Volt' isn't on the page. Hehe, maybe that's a bad thing. The only thing America cares about right now is the election, the economy, and the Kardashians. Sorry, I can't spell that. hehe :)

· Brad Berman · 23 weeks ago

After all this excellent feedback, and some reflection, I adjusted the title of this article to more accurately capture the main point: that the Volt fires themselves are a non-issue, but the way the story is handled is the real risk.

· regman · 23 weeks ago

This is what I don't understand about this issue.
Everyone is talking about the post-crash procedure to drain the battery. What about the pre-crash procedure? There is a reason that you don't here about fires from crash testing gas cars. They don't have gas in them. When they crash test a gas car, I believe they replace the gas (and maybe other flammable liquids) with a non-flammable liquid. After the test, they check for leaks but if there is one, there is no chance of a fire since the liquid is non-flammable. I believe they also disconnect the 12 V battery. If I am wrong about this, someone please correct me since I am not an expert in this area.
So if they remove the major energy source in a gas car prior to crash testing, why don't they remove the major source of energy in an electric vehicle, i.e. drain the battery prior to crash testing.

· EVNow · 23 weeks ago

@Ken "I disagree with EVNow. I think Chevy's buy back offer says that the are confident with the car."

Noway. Buyback is the ultimate acceptance of guilt.

Scan the news and see which places portray buy back as being "confident in the car".

· Yegor · 23 weeks ago

"After Fire, N.H.T.S.A. to Inspect Jeep Grand Cherokee Involved in Deadly Crash"
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/after-fire-n-h-t-s-a-to-inspe...

I do not see this news on the from page of any major news websites! In comparison Volt fire (which is far less harmful) was on the front page of all major news websites. :(

· Yegor · 23 weeks ago

Chevy Volt keeps IIHS top safety rating, despite fires:
http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111206/OEM05/312069...

"The safety group found no evidence of damage to the Volt's battery packs in its tests.
"If we had found that the battery pack had been damaged or certainly if we had subsequent concerns about fire risk -- that would have raised red flags," IIHS spokesman Russ Rader told Reuters.
Rader said IIHS would not repeat tests in this case because its role "is not to investigate potential defects."
n the IIHS side test -- the one most similar to NHTSA's "pole test" -- the Volt was rammed with a frame designed to mimic an accident with a pickup or SUV. Unlike the NHTSA test, Rader said the impact did not intrude into the battery area.
The group contacted GM following the tests. IIHS crews deactivated the Volt's electrical system, while a team dispatched by GM drained the batteries."

· Brett Owen (not verified) · 23 weeks ago

Maybe would Volt can do better than just escape the fire drama. Maybe they can give the red Volt a sun roof, a Steven Speilberg film contract for a time travel movie and an Eric Carmen theme song for its commercials. Something gooshy and over the top like "Make Me Lose Control". :D

· oldshuz (not verified) · 23 weeks ago

Brad has a great point here and one that is even more maddening if we (and we will) find out that, in fact, the potential for fire is extremely remote (non-existent with de-powering) and that when NHTSA did their second round of testing to prove they could cause a fire the simulation of a crash on the battery pack alone did not match what would actually occur in a side impact roll-over crash. Unfortunately, I think GM cannot directly or aggressively attack NHTSA for fear of future reprisal and must wait and hope for the truth to come out. But to Brad's point the damage has been done.

· Ken Fry · 23 weeks ago

Hi EVNow,
You wrote: "Scan the news and see which places portray buy back as being "confident in the car". "
I scanned the news:

Tony Faria, biz prof said this:
"That certainly may be something that will hurt GM more than anything else because it makes it sound as if GM very confidently went forward and said, 'we're so confident in this vehicle and all the satisfaction of the owners of this vehicle and we'll buy it back if anyone is concerned.'

Now they are reneging on that, apparently, meaning they are no longer confident in the vehicle. (We'll give you a loaner, but we won't pay you good money for that death trap!"

Offering to buy back is like saying "100% satisfaction, money back guarantee". When people manufacturers say that, they mean that they are confident in the product. Otherwise, they're risking a major financial debacle.

Read more: http://www.windsorstar.com/cars/clarifies+Volt+buyback/5813959/story.htm...
<

· Anonymous (not verified) · 23 weeks ago

Ken, Sears revolutionized retailing with their policy, "We guarantee your satisfaction, or your money back". When a company says they'll take their product back if the the customer isn't satisfied it, means they stand behind their product. Every first year business student knows that.

· darelldd · 23 weeks ago

So Sears is responsible for the nonsense that followed? What you wrote makes some sense. How it is presented all over the world these days is: A product is "guaranteed, or your money back."

I'll take the product, and my money back, please!

· Londo Bell (not verified) · 23 weeks ago

Then I guess that the Impala isn't a GM product:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/19/gm-impala-lawsuit-idUSN1E77I0Z...

Or a new definition on "they stand behind their product?"

· tterbo · 23 weeks ago

In Sear's defense, it's better than standing in front of the product.

· Former caddy owner (not verified) · 21 weeks ago

My 11 year old grandson cracked me up.  He said that 3 weeks after an accident was sufficient time to press the OnStar button.  Otherwise, we would be dead and it wouldn't matter.  This came out of him 2 seconds after he saw the segment on the news!

Once again, junk yard owners (often thought of as rubes by uppities) drain all gas tanks and remove batteries from crashed cars that are brought to their facilities.  Imagine if 1,000 wrecked vehicles with full gas tanks and fully charged batteries were sitting around?  Hello fire hazard!  Come on, 3 weeks?  They didn't discharge the battery?  Even "Rubes" know better!

GM is doing it right.  They offered buy backs and .004% have sold back. Of those (24 Volt owners), how many sold the car back because they were irresponsible with their money in the first place and they suddenly had a way out from under their debt?  

The very group that crashed the car that caught fire 3 WEEKS LATER gave the Volt its' highest rating possible.

If you really want to feel unsafe, get in one of these super small cars like the Fiat 500 or the Smart FourTwo, amongst others.

The Fiat received a poor rating from the NHTSA for rear end collisions.  Something that is much more common than 1 Volt fire (after 3 weeks!).  Fiat fixed the problem and is rated higher now.  Where were the headlines?  I would be wiling to bet that people who bought the Fiat prior to the fix aren't worried, though they should be.  Rear end collisions happen all the time!

· Brian Schwerdt · 21 weeks ago

As always, FOX News is on the scene to "fan the flames" (pun intended). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQkeUFG9pz8
WARNING: if you like the Volt, you will find the above highly offensive, and probably want to reach through your screen to smack someone due to the glaring inaccuracies!

My favorite part is when Tina Korbe pops on and says what will kill the Volt is "demand - what consumers want to buy is what they should buy, and like Matt said, nobody is buying the Volt". If she is so strongly in favor of personal choice, why is she go against the Volt? It doesn't offend me that minivans are available for sale even though I will never buy one!

· Former caddy owner (not verified) · 21 weeks ago

Volt haters use the 6,000 Volts sold as "proof" the Volt isn't selling.  They ignore the waiting list.  World wide, there are more than 54,000 on GM's list.  Almost 21,000 have put down deposits in the U.S.A.  Fox "News" is "owned" by Exxon Mobil and a Soudi prince up to his neck in oil.  Their "reporters" have standing orders to poo poo anything green.

They will look like fools in a few years.  Researchers at M.I.T. have developed an L.I. Battery that can be fully charged in 10 seconds and has 10 times the capacity of todays' batteries.  Wireless underground charging for EV's is in the making.  

The future is EV's with a 500 mile+ range that pulls into a hotel, motel, charging station with underground charging pads, and a couple minutes later, they have another 500 miles driving range.

GM Waiting list
http://gm-volt.com/wait-list-data/

M.I.T.Battery
http://www.gizmag.com/lithium-ion-battery-breakthrough-mit/11244/

Underground EV Charging
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oilg2AC2Kns&feature=youtube_gdata_player

· Miles Harding (not verified) · 21 weeks ago

This is a problem with these flat pack style cells.
It takes very little impact to set off a runaway event.

Recently, a colleague dropped some of these off his workbench. There was no sign of damage, so he thought nothing of it. The next day, those cells had failed and puffed up into a round shape. Fortunately, these were sitting on a workbench and not installed in a battery pack.
He doesn't believe that they got really hot, as the enclosure wasn't scorched, but it was loose on a bench top.

The hard case prismatic types seem to be a lot more robust.

Fully discharging the battery would reduce the severity of such a reaction, as would be less energy involved.

The warning with these cells is clear; that *any* mechanical damage can trigger a runaway thermal event some time after the event.

Add comment

·

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.

All Discussions

Does EV Quick-Charging By the Minute Make Sense?

Nissan LEAF Article · 1 comment

Brad Berman says:
When drivers of gas-powered cars fill up at the gas station, they know they are paying a certain price for a clear and...

In Veiled Sales Pitch, A123 Warns about Dangers of EV Quick Charging

Article · 14 comments

Brad Berman says:
Last week, battery manufacturer A123 Systems explained in its corporate blog that some lithium-ion batteries are not...

The Race to Lock Down Electric Car Charging Real Estate

Article · 15 comments

Brad Berman says:
How do you know that electric car charging is hitting the mainstream? Because high-profile places like Walgreens and...

Chasing an Elusive Next Generation Battery to Rival Gasoline in Energy Density

Blog Post · 13 comments

Nick Chambers says:
According to a researcher working on I.B.M.'s Battery 500 project, lithium-ion technology has been stagnant since 2003...

Real Electric Car Battery Costs Remain Elusive

Article · 24 comments

Brad Berman says:
Recent reports about the declining cost of electric car batteries raise as many questions as they answer. I suspect...

Cars.com Lists Chevy Volt as One of "Top 10 Under-Appreciated Cars and Trucks"

Chevy Volt Article · 11 comments

Eric Loveday says:
Though the Chevy Volt is no stranger to awards and accolades, this latest honor seems fitting, if a bit unexpected....

Toyota Prius Plug-In Hybrid is Third Quickest Selling Vehicle in US

Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid Article · 6 comments

Eric Loveday says:
April's third quickest selling vehicle in the US was the 2012 Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid. The Prius with a plug spent...

Ford Focus Electric Rollout Continues to Crawl

Ford Focus Electric Article · 16 comments

Brad Berman says:
I ran into a friend in Los Angeles this week who called Ford’s dealership in Santa Monica—a red hot hotspot for EV...

What is the True Range of an Electric Car? The Mini E Experience Leaves Many Questions

Mini E Blog Post · 32 comments

Nick Chambers says:
Current electric car range estimates in the U.S. are based on an EPA test cycle that doesn't truly reflect real-world...

Tesla Model S Range Exceeds Even Tesla's Expecations

Tesla Model S Article · 6 comments

Eric Loveday says:
According to Tesla Motors, the 85-kWh version of the Model S is expected to achieve 250-350 miles of range during...