As GM continues to manage public relations implications from a federal battery investigation, its executives say that while the Volt’s battery is safe already, minor redesign may be necessary and more thorough post-crash protocols are being formulated.
“We want to assure the safety of our customers, of our buyers, and so we’re just going to take a time out, if you will, in terms of redesigning the battery possibly,” said GM Chainman and CEO Dan Akerson to Reuters.
Akerson also said GM would hold off on delivering Opel Amperas in Europe until safety regulators and engineers have finalized how to handle the Volt/Ampera’s battery after a crash.
As previously reported, GM has gone above the call of duty to offer loaner cars to customers if they want them, while the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration works on issues surrounding the Volt and other electric vehicles’ batteries.
Regarding this, GM has clarified reports by saying there are no specific plans to “buy back” Volts from concerned owners. What was meant, it has since explained, is if a customer complaint escalated up the ladder, it would consider buy backs on a case by case basis.
All this said, it should be understood that no Volts have caught fire in any accidents. The perception in the public’s eye has been driven by extensive reporting of the Volt’s new technology which when put through extreme testing has been shown it can ignite.
Since the Volt’s battery pack is an energy source, GM has long said post-crash Volts need to be “depowered.” NHTSA has crashed stand-alone batteries then left them charged, even rotating one, to see what would happen.
To help balance the perspective, consider that conventional cars also represent a fire hazard, and 215,500 in the U.S. were involved in fires last year. Because thousands of ordinary cars catch fire and never get the level of media attention the Volt received due to lab tests, it’s believed that excessive scrutiny is driven by concerns for the relatively unknown.
NHTSA and GM both have qualified recent events by saying the Volt continues to be viable transportation, but it has not prevented GM’s top brass from hopping in response to put out public relations fires, even if no Volt fires have ever happened for any drivers.
On Friday, Mary Barra GM’s global product development chief, followed up on statements by Akerson that the company would consider tweaking the Volt’s battery.
“We are looking to say, ‘Are there some design changes we can make, something even more robust in this location or that location or with this component,’” Barra said at an Automotive Press Association event. “If we have to do something, we will.
“The one thing you don’t want to do is jump to conclusions,” she added.
The way GM Spokesman Rob Peterson characterized it is GM is an engineering company, and the Volt is an engineered solution. If you give engineers a task to fulfill, they will. But whether this will be required has yet to be determined.
Barra said there are a “few avenues that we think could increase the robustness for this specific condition,” but added NHTSA’s probe was still in early stages, while declining to say how long she thought it would go.
Notwithstanding new hoops GM is being made to jump through, preparing emergency service personnel to tackle the Volt is not unfamiliar territory as evidenced by this January 19 photo. This crash-tested Volt was used to train 400 Detroit-area first responders in how to deal with emergency situations involving electric vehicles. The training was part of a joint program sponsored by Chevrolet, OnStar and the National Fire Protection Association. Detroit was the final stop on a nationwide tour where more than 1,600 fire and emergency service leaders had been trained.
GM has said issues experienced are not the fault of the LG Chem battery cells in the Volt’s 400-pound T-shaped battery pack.
Barra assured those present that what ever might be done will not compromise the Volt’s present efficiency.
“We understand one of the very important premises of the Volt is the EV (driving) range and we plan to protect that,” she said.
She also said NHTSA’s investigation has not affected the planned roll out of any electrified vehicles GM has announced, particularly the Spark EV and Voltec-based Cadillac ELR.
———————————————————————————————————————————————————
Dear GM-Volt Readers: We value everyone’s feedback on our daily stories, but – please – don’t post breaking news or other stories that we could be working on as a post here. Doing this will help ensure fresh daily discussions, and will be better for everyone. If you would instead, please e-mail story ideas to jcobb@verticalscope.com Thank you!
———————————————————————————————————————————————————
This entry was posted on Monday, December 5th, 2011 at 5:55 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+30
Dec 5th, 2011 (6:11 am)General Motors is handling this circumstance very well, and as a customer I appreciate it.
GM’s conduct is in marked contrast to Toyota’s bungling during its sticking accelerator pedal problems.
James McQuaid
+12
Dec 5th, 2011 (6:56 am)The safety systems and various agency testing protocols are just part and parcel of introducing new technologies. GM is really being up front and on top of these normal processes to exactly the extent that they should.
This is a far better process than something like a Pinto rear gas tank explosion upon being rear ended, or a Crown Vic police interceptor gas tank exploding upon being impacted by some drunk driver when it is parked on the shoulder of a road while it is in service.
No currently-owned Volts will come onto the market suddenly, solely just because of these tests where the pole impact test also had the vehicle rotated around the pole 360 degrees. Might that happen in an F5 tornado? Who knows, but it’s reassuring that these tests are going on.
And, they just add to the proof of robustness after all.
+13
Dec 5th, 2011 (7:54 am)I think that GM is waiting until the final report is written, which makes sense.
Why spend time working on a solution, until you know exactly what the NHTSA says they think should be corrected?
So for now, we are just in “wait and see” mode…………..
At least I have not seen any more “Volt on Fire” stories on TV over the last few days!
C-5277 – Proudly Purchased on 10-04-2011 In Youngstown, OH
+1
Dec 5th, 2011 (8:00 am)Does ‘take a time out’ mean they shut down production?
Can you clarify Jeff?
+15
Dec 5th, 2011 (8:06 am)Let us not forget any motivation by those that have their wealth tied up in alternative fuels (fossil fuels) to encourage any fear about electric cars. Remember that even Edison stooped to that level when Tesla’s AC system looked to threaten the DC paradigm. Edison even went so far as to create an electric chair that ran on AC power to execute people!
So, will there be accidents? Were astronauts killed in the race to the moon? Yes. Can humans afford to stay on fossil fuels for all of their transportation needs? No.
Electrification is one of few viable ways forward and there is much learning to be done. No time to quit now.
+7
Dec 5th, 2011 (8:13 am)“We want to assure the safety of our customers, of our buyers, and so we’re just going to take a time out, if you will, in terms of redesigning the battery possibly,” said GM Chainman and CEO Dan Akerson to Reuters……
“NHTSA has crashed stand-alone batteries then left them charged, even rotating one, to see what would happen.”
“Reductio ad absurdum”
Just one more reason I’m glad I bought my Volt when I did. Every day that goes by is another day I don’t use or buy gas.
Looking at the bright side a Volt buyer could possibly use the “battery crash test” results to negotiate a better dealer price.
NPNS!
Volt#671
+2
Dec 5th, 2011 (8:57 am)Did anyone else cringe when they saw the leather in the crash test vehicle? What a waste!
+2
Dec 5th, 2011 (9:18 am)gwmort,
Remember how many people that worked on this crash car, looked at it and said how nice it would be new with that leather… and maybe went out to buy one.
Dec 5th, 2011 (9:24 am)GM needs to post the number of ICE powered cars that burn after a crash. And post the number side by side with the volt. Most people would be amazed at the number of regular ICE cars bursting into flames during and after a crash.Im sure a tank full of gas is every bit and more flammable than a large battery.
+13
Dec 5th, 2011 (9:25 am)Note to self: buy a Volt now, and possible get a free new battery in the future.
+2
Dec 5th, 2011 (9:31 am)I posted this before, but I think a possible battery redesign would be to break the parallel connections between the cells to reduce the power available at any point. So instead of having a possible 16KWh at any point, you break it apart into 288 cells that only have .055KWh. This would happen instantaneously in the event of a crash. The problem I have with something that auto drains the battery is that I dont know of a safe way to drain the battery right after a crash. You could trickle discharge in a few hours, but that defeats some of the purpose. Plus, if GM has to add this to all the cars, you don’t have the real estate and the cost will go up.
-21
Dec 5th, 2011 (9:33 am)(click to show comment)
+3
Dec 5th, 2011 (9:42 am)=================================
That will NEVER happen.
GM sold 6000 EREV Volts and over two million gasoline powered vehicles. Those ICE based vehicles pay all the bills!
Now which do you think that GM would sacrifice, if push came to shove????
I value my Volt as much as anyone else on this site, but GM has stockholders to report to…..
JMHO
C-5277
Dec 5th, 2011 (9:43 am)I have the same question.
or at least stop shipping to dealers.
Jeff??
+5
Dec 5th, 2011 (9:49 am)The sampling we have so far cannot provide a valid statistic about Volt fires. So let’s remain cautious before drawing any conclusion.
+13
Dec 5th, 2011 (9:52 am)Crash testing a ‘stand alone’ battery? Hmmm. I wonder how heavy & expensive a gas tank would have to be to survive such ‘stand alone’ testing. Is the common man really that clueless as to not see the lunacy of such over reaction?
+23
Dec 5th, 2011 (9:57 am)As far as I know, the rate is 0. Do you know of a fire incident that was caused by the Volt?
+1
Dec 5th, 2011 (10:02 am)My interpretation is GM is going to invest engineering time to look at a battery redesign.
Either that or he is sending the media to their room as punishment.
Dec 5th, 2011 (10:21 am)The Volt also has a gas tank. No one is blaming the gas tank in these crashes. That part of the car seems to be well designed.
+12
Dec 5th, 2011 (10:23 am)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qou8CjqMCr0 check this video to see how a car that runs on gasoline catches fire after it crashes.
i dont know why the heck is everyone making a big issue of this battery catching fire weeks after the crash.
+1
Dec 5th, 2011 (10:35 am)From previous battery discussions, they already have multiple battery generations in testing. Including a solid-state type.
A latent battery issue is one of the higher risks identified by the CEO. This is one reason they are doing a very slow roll.
Dec 5th, 2011 (11:10 am)Charlie H,
Putting it in context was covereed a couple days ago..
http://gm-volt.com/2011/12/01/evaluating-the-risk-of-fire-in-a-chevy-volt/
Dec 5th, 2011 (11:12 am)http://www.designnews.com/document.asp?doc_id=236362
Great article on the engineering that is in the design of the Volt battery. The battery is certainly safe for daily use, but what’s the best way to address the safety concerns after a crash? A good read!
Volt 63
+2
Dec 5th, 2011 (11:14 am)Exactly.
This “if we puncture the battery with a big spike, roll the car, then stick it in storage for 3 weeks, look, a fire” is nonsense.
Google “car on fire” – images.
65.9 million images of accepted risk.
Did people complain about SUV safety after this ?
http://crazycrashes.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/burning-suv.jpg
http://tinyurl.com/6j6jta6
http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/news2011/car-fire-osceola-parkway-3-0117.jpg
Dec 5th, 2011 (11:51 am)I drove past a 3-day accident this morning. Was on a 55mph stretch of divided hwy near Trenton, NJ. Everyone ok, no car fires in the all ICE accident. Foggy mornings and wet roadways have a tendency to lead to some accidents. There was a 100-car pile up in Tennesee last week due to fog, with fire(s) and one fatality.
Let’s see what this “take a break” means. Maybe someone watching VIN numbers could see if things have slowed down at the plant?
+5
Dec 5th, 2011 (12:00 pm)My read on it is Dham is still fully operational and still shipping, but I’m double checking. If I learn more, I’ll update this.
+2
Dec 5th, 2011 (12:18 pm)Crash testing stand alone batteries to see what happens? OK. I can understand wanting to quantify what happens to the component. Seems like the objective was how much has to go wrong before the battery becomes a danger. One of the first questions that comes to mind is how severe does a full vehicle crash have to be to damage the battery to the same extent? We need a rational perspective on what these tests mean to the real world operation of the car.
+18
Dec 5th, 2011 (12:28 pm)It is just this kind of poor logic that allows news media to get away with its bad reporting. THERE HAVE BEEN NO VOLT FIRE INCIDENTS to date. The two fires where Volts were in the vicinity, but not the cause of fire, most certainly do not count. In the latest event, Duke Power rescinded its suggestion to stop using Volt chargers after the fire marshal ascertained that the Volt was not involved. Too bad national news outlets found this too mundane to report after fanning the flames with innuendo in their sensationalist stories about Volts causing the fire (with no actual proof). Fear of the unknown can be healthy, but GM and the EVSE providers have done more than enough testing to satisfy me (my Dad drives a Volt, I’ve got a LEAF).
There was a fire in a neighbor’s garage down the street from my house this weekend, but for some reason CNN and FOX didn’t find it worth reporting nationally that there was a BMW in the garage. Funny thing huh?
+5
Dec 5th, 2011 (12:36 pm)There are too many gas fires every year! Ask the families of the victims.
The Volt gas tank is very small, and it is up below the rear seats, behind the battery, and protected by the tires and wheels on both sides. This is the most protected area of any passenger vehicle. Only a colossal compaction of the Volt will get at that tank. Maybe smashing the Volt between two Diesel trains head-on will eventually get the tank to burst.
BTW, you do not drive a Volt. Am I right?
If you were around a hundred years ago, you would had said the same thing about gasoline fires in the new but noisy and dangerous automobiles, and you will be still riding a horse.
Raymond
-13
Dec 5th, 2011 (12:44 pm)(click to show comment)
+2
Dec 5th, 2011 (12:48 pm)I spoke with “Volt advisor team” Friday night and was satisfied with their responses to my concerns.
I think some serious safety analysis needs to be applied with credible statistics and engineering…
How do you compare the Volt to a conventional ICE vehicle since the Volt weighs more? The law of mass action with the weight of the Volt inherently changes the physics of any crash (center of gravity, kinematics of the crash, geometries…). So… you start with different variables.
You have to consider blunt trauma, penetrating trauma, different heat and cold conditions. Materials design for a container to keep the battery pack protected under variable conditions…
Then you have a circulatory cooling system with damaged, maybe limited function and capability after a crash. Not unlike hydralics in a military airplane (designed with rendundancy and contingency in mind).
The battery cells themselves may be partially discharged, partially severed and/or disconnected from one another etc. Or, completely intact as one piece, nearly fully charged.
Then you have any post-crash manipulations to extract any passengers possibly trapped in the vehicle, other liquid flammables originating from the Volt or other vehicle(s)…
Seems like a wonderful super-computer simulation model to simulate both the most common types of crashes (configurations and scenarios – derived from real-world data) as well as the ones most likely to maximize the most hazard to both passengers and rescuers.
When asked who would pay for a battery replacement in the event of mild to moderate damage to the battery, the “Volt advisor team” suggested more likely than not, “the insurance company” should have underwritten the replacement of the battery… It seems straightforward but what if a Volt is in a minor crash, the battery and coolant systems are deemed to be functional, whose to say there could not be malfunctions months or years later as a result of minor cracks formed in this or that, allowing moisture to make its way in, with freezing and thawing it could present as a problem years later? If the car is totalled, that is a much easier scenario to manage. Safely discharge the battery and disassamble the car into recyclable parts… But, when there is ambiguity as to structural integrity after a minor crash, that is when I develop concerns. Does the dealer have sufficient knowledge and training to deem a partially damaged Volt, fully operational and safe now and forever more (or at least, “as good as new”)?
I like my Volt a lot. I hope GM, the dealer and the insurance companies think reasonablly about this vehicle as a transportation solution rather than as just another car – both “in sickness and in health”…
+4
Dec 5th, 2011 (12:59 pm)I wonder what the headline was for the very first “horseless carriage” fire…? !!!
+2
Dec 5th, 2011 (1:27 pm)Charlie H,
Charlie,
Sorry to be picky but his last name is Destler.
+2
Dec 5th, 2011 (2:28 pm)#3
Ah, the news cycle is a fickle mistress, LOL. On to the next “If it bleeds, it leads” story. +1
+1
Dec 5th, 2011 (2:43 pm)#4
I dunno, I took it to mean that they were no going to take any concrete steps to redesign the battery until they got some kind of definitive answers from NHTSA.
This would seem in line with the quote from Mary Barra later in the article:
“The one thing you don’t want to do is jump to conclusions.”
I think it’s a leap from there to stopping production or shipping of Volts. I think that, at this stage of the Volt’s production, most buyers can see this “tempest in a tea pot” for what it is.
-16
Dec 5th, 2011 (2:48 pm)(click to show comment)
-13
Dec 5th, 2011 (3:00 pm)(click to show comment)
+7
Dec 5th, 2011 (3:06 pm)Currently, Dham is operating as normal…in fact there is a whack of new transfers coming into the plant today (although to be fair, that was part of a plan/offer from a month ago). Also of interest (if there is any Euro-folk around), I was told right hand drive Ampera production is currently slated to start the first monday in February.
-18
Dec 5th, 2011 (3:15 pm)(click to show comment)
+7
Dec 5th, 2011 (3:18 pm)ChavinMiNuttz,
yes it sounds very similar to other idiots that troll here…well done and thanks for pointing out the similarities…
-16
Dec 5th, 2011 (3:28 pm)(click to show comment)
-16
Dec 5th, 2011 (3:38 pm)(click to show comment)
+4
Dec 5th, 2011 (3:55 pm)Charlie and the other lil bozos are back. But what ever happened to EricLeGay?
+6
Dec 5th, 2011 (3:56 pm)Someone forgot to lock the door of the TROLL cage. One got away.
-11
Dec 5th, 2011 (4:01 pm)(click to show comment)
+3
Dec 5th, 2011 (4:13 pm)ChavinMiNuttz,
Actually, if you ever studied combustion, you cannot burn a liquid, it must be converted to a vapour state. as for 1 GALLON, i WOULD RATHER HAVE THE SMALL TANK IN A VOLT THAT THAT MONSTER IN A FJ CRUISER, especially if the odds are better that it is FULL, less vapour for boom…
you keep going there grog…
+6
Dec 5th, 2011 (4:16 pm)Chavinmynutts is a drunken sailor,
doing the job with a rusty razor,
can be ignored just see him later,
its early in the morning…
Good ole drinkin song….beware I think his tetanus shots are not up to date…
+4
Dec 5th, 2011 (4:57 pm)Back then, there was no Fox News, no GM haters, no Internet…
These were the good days
+2
Dec 5th, 2011 (5:00 pm)Please do not wish for their return. I don’t mind people having an opinion. I mind for people having an agenda.
-16
Dec 5th, 2011 (5:06 pm)(click to show comment)
Dec 5th, 2011 (5:09 pm)Well it was probably similiar to the ones today. A Democratic president (Grover Cleveland) was just elected, replacing a Republican president (Benjamin Harrison). The media probably blamed Cleveland for allowing such death traps on the roads. LOL
The Horseless Carraige History (225ft on the first day.. LOL, 40 miles of AER doesnt seem so bad)
http://www.pdvirtualgallery.com/baumanntext/horseless_carriage.htm
Also kind of interesting how politics back then parallels the Bush/Obama situation:
“His (Benjamin Harrison’s) administration is most remembered for economic legislation, including the McKinley Tariff and the Sherman Antitrust Act, and for annual federal spending that reached one billion dollars for the first time. Democrats attacked the “Billion Dollar Congress”, and used the issue, along with the growing unpopularity of the high tariff, to defeat the Republicans, both in the 1890 mid-term elections and in Harrison’s bid for re-election in 1892.”
+5
Dec 5th, 2011 (5:13 pm)1) GM wasn’t around yet.
2) I dont know of any slides that go uphill?
-15
Dec 5th, 2011 (5:20 pm)(click to show comment)
-18
Dec 5th, 2011 (5:26 pm)(click to show comment)
+5
Dec 5th, 2011 (5:36 pm)Very first “horseless carriage” fire in 2008 ? Strange attempt to link together events that took place in two different centuries. At least take the time to read before writing.
Did I mention GM haters earlier ?
Dec 5th, 2011 (5:48 pm)OT: Can you imagine if this happened when the Volts were travelling in packs for testing?
Luxury car pile up in Japan
http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2011/12/05/ferrari-graveyard-video-of-14-luxury-car-crack-up-in-japan/
-11
Dec 5th, 2011 (6:33 pm)(click to show comment)
+1
Dec 5th, 2011 (7:13 pm)Please learn to speak (write) English when posting on this forum.
+3
Dec 5th, 2011 (7:27 pm)hmm I was right on these trolls. Do not give them the time of the day. Ignore them. Do not educate them they are beyond that. Fix (Fox) news is the place for them to be. To be brainwashed and given the daily bs to run with.
Not one Volt in a regular crash caught fire. That is a fact. Volt is the right car at the right time in US. Unfortunately folks are hurting in this economy and cars above 20k to 25k is beyond their budgets. Go Volt.
-11
Dec 5th, 2011 (7:44 pm)(click to show comment)
-9
Dec 5th, 2011 (7:55 pm)That’s right… what this country needs is a good $40K compact car.
At the PHV Prius press conference, Toyota said something, along the lines of “no green car matters if it won’t sell.”
GM has been in the “hybrid” business for about 7 years, now. It’s a legacy of vehicles that did not sell. The Volt is merely the latest overpriced effort from GM. You’d think they would learn.
-5
Dec 5th, 2011 (9:03 pm)Reality is, that goal of “nicely under $30,000” continues to be wisdom from an unexpected source. Unfortunately, the advice wasn’t taken seriously. Perhaps this redesign time-out will provide an opportunity for change.
-5
Dec 5th, 2011 (9:58 pm)Yes, both of which were complete and total BS. Toyota was unfairly crucified by the media, and now it’s apparently the Volt’s turn.
+3
Dec 5th, 2011 (10:26 pm)Excuse me ? People died as a result of faulty brakes in Toyota cars. NO ONE has been injured in a Volt. This is quite different.
-12
Dec 5th, 2011 (10:26 pm)(click to show comment)
+4
Dec 6th, 2011 (12:07 am)zero!
+2
Dec 6th, 2011 (12:20 am)Do you remember how news stories about exploding batteries killed the sales of lithium ion powered laptops? Me neither.
+1
Dec 6th, 2011 (5:29 am)I do… They were Sony manufactured batteries in several brands of laptops (Dell, Toshiba, etc.). Sony took a major financial hit as a result.
I’ve heard more concern about the battery casing and cooling as the prime suspects for the problems.
Dec 6th, 2011 (7:33 am)Very doubtful. I’m sure the “time-out” is just to fix the problem as speedily (and, maybe, minimally) as possible and get the car moving out of showrooms again.
Dec 6th, 2011 (11:19 am)ChavinMiNuttz,
I get it all, you however..not so much..
(This is great..I know I know…PDNFTT, but its fun sometimes…)
Dec 6th, 2011 (3:41 pm)Ive followed this site and the car from before this site was born. got on the list and all that. the price point took me right out of the running for one of these cars. Although its a huge technological leap, it is not for the masses, and will fail. A product needs a market, there isnt one for the volt. Add in the slamming the car is about to take from the media, I would bet good money that internally GM has already sunset this experiment. you heard it here first. mark the date.
Dec 7th, 2011 (9:04 pm)Loboc,
I assume that they are taking a break from their decision making, and a decision on weather a change will be made is being put on hold for the time being.