GM-VOLT : Chevy Volt Electric Car Site

People sometimes speak of a threat to advanced-tech vehicles by “Big Oil” in conspiratorial tones, but the public face of Exxon Mobil Corporation acknowledges they are on their way, as outlined in its study: The Outlook for Energy: A View to 2040.

With a long lens looking 30 years hence, the Outlook envisions a world whose population has swelled to nine billion. As humanity adapts, copes and overcomes, also on this horizon is a projected doubling of global GDP, while global energy demand increases 30 percent above what it was in 2010.

In this brave new world, hybrids and other advanced-tech vehicles will be common place says the voice from America’s energy past which no doubt plans to be part of America’s energy future:

ExxonMobil expects that by 2040, hybrids and other advanced vehicles will account for nearly 50 percent of light duty vehicles on the road, compared to only about 1 percent today. The vast majority will be hybrids that use mainly gasoline plus a small amount of battery power; these will make up more than 40 percent of the global fleet by 2040. Globally, ExxonMobil expects to see growth in plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles, along with compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) powered vehicles. However, these will account for only about 5 percent of the global fleet in 2040, their growth limited by cost and functionality considerations. -Exxon Mobil

Additionally, to achieve proposed fuel-economy targets, personal vehicles will need to be smaller and lighter than they are today, says the Outlook, adding that vehicle downsizing could account for more than one-third of total projected fuel economy improvements through 2040.

Globally, ExxonMobil expects the average new car to get 48 mpg in 2040, compared to 27 mpg in 2010.

Of all advanced-tech vehicles, Exxon Mobil foresees success for vehicle types that will still use its products. Namely, hybrids – which some might say includes Voltec vehicles – will be preeminent say the forecasters.

Class-wide, by 2030, it’s projected hybrids will cost on average $1,500 more than a similar sized internally combusted model.

In contrast, a CNG vehicle will go for $4,000 more on average, and an electric vehicle will be a not-insubstantial $12,000 more than conventional vehicles of similar size.

Keep in mind this is a global forecast, and much growth is expected to come from developing countries including China, India and those in Africa.

Driven particularly by economic growth in nations not affiliated wit the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Outlook says demand for energy for commercial transportation including ships, airplanes, trucks and trains, will rise by 70 percent.

ExxonMobil expects that heavy duty vehicles will grow significantly more fuel-efficient over the next 30 years. However, these improvements will be partially offset by operating factors such as increased road congestion and evolving delivery trends. As a result, by 2030, the world will use more fuel for trucks and other heavy duty vehicles than for all personal vehicles combined. By 2040, heavy duty fuel demand will be up about 60 percent versus 2010. -Exxon Mobil

This shift will be reflected in the market for transportation fuels. Demand for diesel—the most popular fuel for heavy duty vehicles—will rise by 85 percent through 2040, while gasoline demand will fall by about 10 percent.

Demand for petroleum and other liquid fuels – driven by transportation needs – will go up by almost 30 percent. To supply this, the likes of Exxon Mobil and others will scour the ends of the earth, sourcing increasingly from deepwater drilling, oil sands, tight oil, natural gas liquids and biofuels.

At the same time, global demand for electricity will increase as much as 80 percent by 2040, the Outlook says.

Along with growing world economies, standards of living are also projected to improve, and this will see consumers switching to electricity from sources such as oil, coal or biomass. Four out of every 10 units of energy produced in the world by 2040 will be going toward the production of electricity, the Outlook says.

Natural gas is projected to supply 30 percent of the world’s electricity by 2040, and of this, natural gas from shale and similar sources will account for 30 percent of global production.

The Outlook also foresees demand for coal as peaking then experiencing its first long-term decline in modern history.

Findings in this year’s Outlook include:

• While global energy demand is expected to rise by about 30 percent from 2010 to 2040, demand growth would be approximately four times that amount without projected gains in efficiency. Efficiency is the key reason why energy demand will rise by only about 1 percent a year on average even as global GDP rises by nearly 3 percent a year. It also is the reason why OECD energy demand will remain relatively unchanged through 2040 even as its economic output nearly doubles.
• In transportation, the second-fastest growing demand sector behind electricity generation, ExxonMobil sees advanced hybrid vehicles accounting for 50 percent of the cars people will drive in 2040, compared to about 1 percent today. This, plus improved fuel economy in conventional vehicles, will cause demand for energy for personal vehicles to remain essentially flat through 2040 even as the number of personal vehicles in the world doubles.
• However, demand for energy for commercial transportation — trucks, airplanes, ships and trains — will rise by more than 70 percent, driven by economic growth, particularly in Non OECD nations.
• Natural gas will continue to be the fastest-growing major fuel, and demand will increase by about 60 percent from 2010 to 2040. Growth is particularly strong in the Non OECD countries in the Asia Pacific region, where demand for natural gas is expected to triple over the next 30 years.
• While growth in nuclear capacity is expected to slow in the near-term, demand for nuclear power is projected to nearly double over The Outlook for Energy period as nations seek to lower emissions and diversify energy sources.
• Renewable fuels will see strong growth. By 2040, more than 15 percent of the world’s electricity will be generated by renewable fuels – solar, wind, biofuels, biomass, geothermal and hydroelectric power. The fastest-growing of these will be wind, which will increase by about 8 percent per year from 2010 to 2040.

Green Car Congress, Exxon Mobil

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

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!

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

While GM is leading the way with “disruptive” technologies like electric, extended-range electric, and mothballed-but-soon-to-be-revived hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, the company says it will also lead with a more soft sell approach to getting mainstream buyers into electrified vehicles.

According to GM North America President Mark Reuss, mild-hybrid eAssist technology – as found on the 2012 LaCrosse and Regal which went on sale this fall, and pending Chevrolet Malibu – represents a lower barrier to entry for car shoppers to comprehend and purchase.

For example, a Buick Regal costs an additional $2,000 with the eAssist option and GM estimates someone driving 15,000 miles a year will make it up in fuel savings over three-and-a-half years assuming gasoline prices average $4 per gallon.

The 2013 Malibu Eco with eAssist has an MSRP of $25,995, including a $760 destination charge. GM estimates fuel economy of 25 city / 37 highway “for the most fuel-efficient Malibu ever.”

“It’s a little more money, but those are some big fuel economy numbers,” Reuss told Automotive News last week. “I think people are ready for that.”

Compared to the outgoing four-cylinder LaCrosse which got 19/30 mpg, the eAssisted LaCrosse gets 25/36 mpg, and the technology’s 5-6 mpg boost beats the 2 mpg improvement delivered by a version GM offered five years ago.

Back then, the company made similar tech available in two Saturns and the Malibu. The system did not do so well in sales, but now with eAssist promising three times the fuel economy improvement, GM is thinking acceptance for it will be much greater.

As eAssist is an optional expense, it not exactly a no-brainer for customers, but it does require considerably less mental effort before pulling the trigger – in fact it is already being presented as a potential impulse purchase unlike advanced-tech vehicle investments that normally come after much intensive study.

Portraying a supposedly typical scenario, Automotive News described a couple in their 50s who arrive at a dealership and drive out the same day with a new eAssist vehicle.

As the thinking goes, eAssist’s advantages can be immediately grasped by people who don’t know a Leaf from a Volt from a Prius.

No, these first adopters come right out of the mainstream and what’s most important to them is benefits versus cost. They need not be enthralled by cutting edge technology, nor enthusiastic about America’s Energy Future, nor enamored with attempts to save the earth.

Enough for them could be a sales discussion centered on how they will save a buck, and that, GM says, is OK by it if it will sell more cars.

Many of you are already familiar with eAssist, but in brief, it centers around a motor-generator bolted in place of the alternator on the front of the engine. A belt connects the extra 15 horsepower it supplies to the crankshaft for added computer-controlled boost.

A small lithium-ion battery is in the trunk, and the system uses regenerative braking and stop-start technology that shuts off the engine at a complete stop and restarts it when the driver’s foot leaves the brake.

The motor is supplied by Continental AG and the battery cells are supplied by Hitachi and assembled into packs by GM. The automaker also developed the software for the stop-start system, and GM’s engineers said they took pains to make the various hybrid elements as transparent to the driver as possible.

The result is smooth power while reducing fuel consumption and GM executives have said eAssist could see its way into the majority of the automaker’s lineup in coming years.

Right off the bat, GM predicts it will see big volumes, and thus far it has no significant competition. Anticipated market “take rate” for the eAssist versions of the LaCrosse and Malibu is 20-30 percent of their entire sales volume.

A projection by AutoPacific estimates total U.S. sales of about 60,000 LaCrosses and 175,000 Malibus in 2013 – this will be the first full year of sales for the redesigned Malibu. So, as many as 70,000 eAssist vehicles could be sold that year, or so the number crunchers estimate.

Next year GM intends to produce 60,000 Volts for the entire world, with 45,000 earmarked for North America.

Reuss said he is sure GM is onto a winner that will lead toward meeting CAFE standards and said it’s “pretty darn compelling” technology for any mid-sized or larger vehicle, even for pickups.

“I think solutions like that are going to have to become way more mainstream than they are today,” Reuss said. “We are the only ones that have that. That will change.”

As GM takes advantage of being a frontrunner, it’s believed eAssist could lead consumers toward diving into an electric or extended-range vehicle after growing comfortable with having batteries and motors in their ICE vehicles. In other words, eAssist could be a baby step to warm people toward a future Chevy Volt, Spark EV, Cadillac ELR, or what ever else is for sale later this decade.

At least it sounds promising, and you can be sure GM is hoping this scenario will play out as well.

Automotive News

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

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!

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

By Bertel Schmitt

2007 Fuel Cell Volt concept which Lyle wrote about in 2007.

Word has it that GM and BMW will cooperate on development of fuel cell vehicles with the relationship apparently balanced between GM’s technical head start and BMW’s deep pockets and willingness to build on GM’s know how.

This at least true if the German magazine WirtschaftsWoche is correctly informed.

Sources told WirtschaftsWoche that an agreement between BMW and GM is as good as done. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) will be signed with great fanfare at the Detroit motor show in January, says the magazine.

Neither GM nor BMW offered comment, but BMW confirmed that it is in negotiation with GM. BMW is not known for its fuel cell prowess. According to the information given by WirtschaftsWoche, highly profitable BMW will share the cost of fuel cell development with GM, and will be supplied with hydrogen-powered fuel cells by GM.

Thus, the on-again, off-again hydrogen fuel cell is definitely on again.

GM Media posted this video in March 2010 exuberantly describing hydrogen fuel cells for the “future.”

That fuel cell vehicles are on their way was further evidenced by Toyota which showed off a fuel cell vehicle at the recent Tokyo motor show, and announced that it too would work with BMW on development of batteries, diesel engines and possibly more.

In an interview a month ago, Toyota’s chief for new technologies, Satoshi Ogiso, asserted that fuel cell technology is ready for prime time, the only remaining problem is cost. Toyota will launch a mass produced fuel cell car in 2015. Ogiso promised it will be affordable by 2020.

For its part, GM is looking back at a long history of fuel cell development and will also sell a hydrogen-powered car by 2015. So will Hyundai. Nissan (cooperating with hydrogen-pioneer Daimler) likewise signaled that it will not place a single bet on EVs, and that fuel cell cars are in the cards.

BMW once had planned to launch an ICE that runs on hydrogen (see above), but that idea, well, bombed.

Bertel Schmitt is the managing editor for our sister publication The Truth About Cars
———————————————————————————————————————————————————

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

Author’s note: This is a Volt Powertrain 101 article. The following are not official GM numbers and this analysis should be considered approximate only. The numbers used are based on a very long thread in the GM-Volt forum which can be found here.

By George Bower

Remember when GM finally announced that the Volt did transmit power directly from the internal combustion engine (ICE) to the front wheels in extended-range (aka charge-sustaining) mode?

What a furor it caused! Some were outraged …

But GM did it for a reason: fuel efficiency!

How much of the road horsepower actually goes directly from the ICE to the front wheels at 70 mph? All of it, or just part of it?

We sometimes hear people refer to the Volt’s transmission as being a continuously variable transmission (CVT). Is it really a CVT? The answer is yes, it is continuously variable, but not in the same sense as most CVTs which have a continuously variable torque ratio.

The Volt’s transmission does not have a variable torque ratio but instead it has a continuously variable speed ratio. The torque ratio across the planetary gearset (PG) is fixed.

Consider the following schematic of the Volt’s powertrain in extended range (CS) mode:

Power from the ICE goes into the PG through the ring gear. Power also goes into the PG through the sun gear from the main traction motor (MGB). Power comes out of the PG through the carrier and is transmitted to the wheels via a 2.16 gear reduction set in the final drive.

The power coming out is simply equal to the sum of the power going in minus some small gear losses. The torque is split at a constant ratio depending on the tooth counts of the ring, carrier and sun gears within the PG. In the Volt’s case, the torque split is as shown in the following schematic:

This split is based on knowing the ratios between the ring and carrier with the sun gear locked and the ratio of the sun to carrier with the ring gear locked as shown above.

We know the speed and power out of the PG. The power out is simply the road load and the carrier speed is based on the vehicle speed, tire size and the gear reduction set. We can calculate the torque at the output of the PG based on the following equation: HP=torque (ft-lb) X speed (RPM)/5252

Using the 69/31 percent torque split we then have the torques at the input side of the PG. All we need now is the input side speeds in order to calculate the power split.

In order to figure the speed splits at this 70 mph condition we need to pick an ICE speed which feeds into the ring gear of the PG. I picked an ICE speed that results in the best specific fuel consumption (SFC) from the ICE at 27.3 horsepower (20.4 kw) which is the road load for this condition.

The speed that gives the best SFC at 20 kw out of the ICE is 2,300 rpm. That speed was chosen from a plot of horsepower versus engine speed for peak cycle efficiency (I used a Prius engine map).

Using the selected speed of 2,300 rpm for the ICE and 1,930 rpm for the output (carrier) speed we can solve for the sun (MGB) speed from the PG speed equation derived above. We also can split the torque using the 69/31 percent torque split. Using those speeds and torques we can calculate the power split.

The resultant power split is shown below:

As you can see, the resultant power into the PG almost exactly equals the optimum power for best SFC out of the ICE at 27.3 horsepower road load. In this condition in order to get better SFC out of the ICE we need to add another 4.5 horsepower to the ICE.

To do so, we simply add 4.5 horsepower worth of generator load. So here we have a near perfect match between the ICE and the road load – 82 percent of the power generated from the ICE is being transmitted mechanically directly to the wheels. The remaining 18 percent power is being converted into electricity by the generator and then being fed to the main traction motor.

Conclusion

The Volt is very efficient. It has the potential for Prius mpg in CS Mode with power split engaged.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

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!

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

There’s an old adage, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” but reports are that GM is working on a “fix” for the perceived issues that could lead to a Volt battery fire.

These repairs are being researched even as a U.S. House subcommittee intends to launch a probe into why it took several months for the first fire during the summer to be reported.

In other news, the car keeps garnering awards, and most recently, the 2011 Volt was named “Collectible Car of the Future.” On top of this, CNET is running a contest in which Volt enthusiasts will want to vote – we will have more on this below.

Possibly good news

First though, Reuters broke a speculative story this week that GM engineers are working on a procedure that could be a solution for the possibility that a crashed Volt’s battery, if not discharged, could catch fire.

On a phone interview yesterday, GM spokesman Randy Fox said the time frame for more info could indeed be a matter of weeks, but he could not confirm what the fix is because GM does not fully know yet.

The Reuters article said someone at GM said a relatively expedient repair could be done at a Chevy dealership short of a major safety recall and could cost GM about $1,000 per vehicle. This would be less than $9 million to repair all Volts according to the anonymous source.

Reuters said the procedure would involve 1) laminating circuitry internal to the 400-pound lithium-ion battery pack to reduce the likelihood of shorts, and 2) reinforcing the case to make it more impact resistant, thus preventing possible coolant spillage.

Sources also said crystallized coolant from post-mortem Volt batteries has been the means whereby still-charged LG Chem battery cells have shorted and caused sparks, increased temperature, and in a couple cases, caught fire in lab tests.

It was confirmed that GM is looking at this, but Fox said nothing is sure yet.

Fox reiterated to us that GM is working “hand-in-hand” with NHTSA as we speak, and said he wishes he could give more, but fact is, a solution is not in place that GM can announce. He said speculation about crystallized coolant is just one among other possibilities GM and NHTSA are jointly investigating to determine how fires could start.

GM may have more info in “a couple of weeks” or so, but it is too early to say today whether that will mean an engineered procedure is ready to go for Volt drivers to head to their dealer, or GM only has an update to share about a pending fix.

Not so good news

Well we wrote yesterday that allegations were being made as to why the June NHTSA crash test fire was not immediately reported, and sure enough Uncle Sam wants to know about this too.

Specifically, a subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will hold hearings in the third or fourth week of January to find out more.

GM told us there was no intent to suppress the news, but the subcommittee wants to know whether government officials, including those at NHTSA, purposely held back information on the Volt fire for political reasons.

According to the Detroit News yesterday, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told reporters that the Volt is safe to drive and at the same time he denied the government withheld information to protect GM.

Good news

Chalk another honor up for the Volt as it is now officially the 2011 Collectible Car of the Future and could win CNET’s “Tech Car of the Year” award if enough people vote for it.

Only 4,488 Volts for model year 2011 were recorded as having come off the line, and among 23 finalists, the Volt got the vote from the Friends of the National Automotive History Collection.

Last year, the 2010 Camaro was the winner and previous winners include the 2009 Ford Flex, 2008 Dodge Challenger and 2007 Dodge Viper.

Furthermore, the American car is currently being pitted by CNET against three German cars and one Japanese car in a contest to pick the 2011 “Tech Car of the Year.”

Other nominees are the 2012 Audi A7, 2011 BMW X3, 2012 Infiniti M Hybrid, and 2012 Mercedes-Benz CLS550.

As of this writing, the Volt is in second place with 38 percent of votes, following the Audi A7 which has 42 percent.

Click here to see CNET’s contest and vote for the Volt.

Automotive News

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

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!

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

Editor’s note: Today is the 70th anniversary of the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941. Today the Chevy Volt, an American solution to pressing needs, is not being attacked by outsiders, but having to be defended from excessive and critical scrutiny by various interests in its own country that stand most to benefit from what it offers.

General Motors has been taking something of a beating in the public eye lately – not just from the usual politically motivated Volt critics, but even from the mainstream and automotive press.

The degree of attention the Volt has received because of a fire three weeks after a federal crash test in late May, as well as a couple other tests on stand-alone Volt batteries in November, has even those in the business amazed at the intensity of the reaction.

And that is the watchword: “reaction.”

We’d like to mention a few factors to try to put some of the issues in perspective.

First, it bears repeating that not one person has been injured, killed or even threatened by an electric vehicle fire. The same cannot be said following tens of thousands of conventional automotive fires through the years and it’s pretty certain that fear of the unknown is partially driving things now.

Among the latest spin-off stories to an investigation into the Volt’s battery by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are reports that a “few dozen” Volt owners have asked GM to buy back their Volts.

Further, at last report around 50 or more Volt owners have elected to take GM up on its rather liberal offer to borrow another GM vehicle while NHTSA and GM work on details that could lead to a minor battery redesign and refinement of post-crash safety protocols.

GM spokesman Rob Peterson said the company is interviewing these people on a case by case basis. GM does not have an official buy back program, he said, but it is part of GM’s stated policy to satisfy people with a do-what-it-takes attitude.

Peterson said it was his belief that a variety of customer motives could be in play as people take advantage of GM’s offer.

“I think you have people who have had legitimate concerns, some who have not enjoyed the ownership experience, some people whose financial situation has changed and some who are over on their [lease contract] miles,” Peterson said while acknowledging this was his impression. “Regardless, we’re going to try to make them whole.”

In our view at GM-Volt, we would not be surprised to learn that some people have hyped up a fear or an alleged grievance to get out of the car for less than fully honest reasons. Others no doubt are truly concerned.

We’ll note also any perceived black eye GM is receiving for people accepting its offer is unjustifiably ironic and like “letting no good deed go unpunished.” The company was never obligated to offer free cars and refunds just to help people feel better at this point.

In the meantime others including GM execs have talked about re-buying these Volts being ditched for a variety of reasons.

Also, a group of prominent Volt owners has issued an open letter stating they will not be returning the keys to their Volts as a show of public support. GM-Volt founder Dr. Lyle Dennis is one of these ardent supporters.

Capitalizing on the whole situation, the media has been in a feeding frenzy reaching for additional stories to tell.

For example, in an article yesterday titled, “Chevy Volt keeps top safety rating, despite fires,” Automotive News wrote this leading statement:

“An influential insurance group has no plans to strip the Chevrolet Volt of its top crash safety rating or retest the vehicle, bolstering General Motors’ position that its electric car is safe despite a probe of battery fires by federal regulators.”

Excuse us? Talk about a contrived news angle. Who said anything about “plans to strip the Volt?”

Fact: The Volt has received top crash-test ratings not just from the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS), but also NHTSA and the Euro New Car Acceptance Program.

The car was awarded these based on occupant safety during the moment of impact – not specifically fire safety, which has yet to be proven to be a real worry.

So, why would someone who covers these issues frame them with implied expectancy that the private sector IIHS might have stripped the Volt based on a federal agency’s unrelated findings?

Further, as IIHS spokesman Russ Rader pointed out in the story – after its attention-grabbing opening statements – the IIHS tests revealed no evidence of damage to the Volt’s battery.

“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,” Rader said, adding the IIHS has no plans to repeat tests in this case because its role “is not to investigate potential defects.”

And aside from that, NHTSA and GM are already investigating potential defects as we well know.

Speaking of which, in a brief story that got more than usual Web traffic yesterday, AutoGuide reported that Clarence Ditlow, executive director for the Center of Auto Safety in Washington D.C. made an insightful observation.

He said he is “surprised that NHTSA didn’t drain the battery after crash testing as it is standard procedure to empty the fuel tank on conventional gasoline powered vehicles.”

Good question, and good job AutoGuide for reporting it.

Ditlow also said that the NHTSA incident underlines the need for “greater transparency when conducting crash tests,” as well as setting proper industry standards when it comes to new technologies.

And on that topic, other advanced-tech supporters have cued in with deeper criticism.

A recent article by a prominent online advanced-tech auto publication has said that by not announcing NHTSA’s first post crash-test fire in June, GM is “botching” its response and this is undermining consumer confidence thus essentially jeopardizing the whole EV movement.

Of this opinion, it is at least correct that many are concerned and there is PR fallout.

At GM-Volt we have twice mentioned that the June fire story did not come out for months, but other publications have raised suspicions of an alleged cover up.

Yesterday we asked Rob Peterson his views on this, and he said GM did not intend to deviously suppress the story.

“There’s no cover up. It’s really not even worthy of a response,” Peterson said, but GM has since responded anyway.

Initially, Peterson said GM thought it proper to follow up with federal authorities to investigate what was really a first-in-history incident.

Engineers and scientists at NHTSA and GM did not know what the cause of the three-week-delayed fire was, and still do not, Peterson said. As it is, they began trying to replicate it to identify if there is a safety concern.

Fact: GM broke no laws and did what it says was the responsible action at the time.

Equally true is the company no more wants to see a fire risk than anyone and has as much to lose as anyone if it did.

We will note also that if someone wants to blame GM for not reporting the story sooner, they will have to blame the government as well, because NHTSA did not issue a press release either.

Was it a conspiracy? Some may allege it, but let’s remember GM and the Volt ought to at minimum be viewed as innocent until proven guilty. And beyond this, perhaps there are strong reasons to give GM the benefit of the doubt as well.

Unfortunately, some are raising issues in the court of public opinion in which personal views all too often fall short of justice, so let’s take a look at that briefly.

It’s been obvious “the media” has used its right of free speech to the full extent here, but who are “the people” who are reading, watching or listening to these various reports?

Many of them are those who do not know much at all about advanced-tech cars.

As we reported in March, the average consumer would receive a failing grade if quizzed on very elementary aspects of hybrid, electric, and extended-range electric cars.

A statistically significant number of people interpreting the seemingly scary reports do not know a Volt from a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, or a Toyota Prius or a Nissan Leaf, for that matter.

This was shown by a poll a year ago of 1,900 in-the-market car buyers. Findings included:

About one-third answered that battery electric vehicles (BEVs) produce tailpipe emissions.

Just over one half did not know it takes more than 15 minutes to recharge BEVs.

Fully 85-percent confused all-electric BEVs with hybrid vehicles and extended-range electric vehicles like the Volt, and said BEVs are fueled by both gasoline and batteries.

Answering questions about hybrids, 77 percent said these cars are fueled by hydrogen, and 72 percent said they have zero tailpipe emissions.

The only fire needing to be put out

Now, do you want to talk about a combustible mix from a public relations standpoint: Take General Motors still trying to put behind it a legacy of bankruptcy, perceived quality issues, and therefore a measure of public distrust. Throw in a new technology – the Volt – of which the person on the street is often unaware. Then light the PR match by saying the federal government is investigating to make sure the Volt won’t roast these potential consumers alive.

Just like screaming “fire!” in a dark and crowded theater, the results have been predictable.

Another bit of proverbial kindling in this PR tinderbox is society’s all-time-high demand for safety. As we become more and more coddled with conveniences that previously kings could only dream of, we as a society become more and more risk averse.

Further, how the Toyota unintended acceleration issues were handled not long ago caught the government and Toyota some heat, and now is a parallel repeat. GM, unfortunately, is being treated like a similar offender and it is not being let off too easily.

While it is true the media has been only too happy to increase its audience by churning the overblown Volt story onwards, responsibility does not only belong to the media.

Instead, we at GM-Volt think responsibility ought to be spread all around. Put benignly, it is a symptom of our wonderful connected society today and no one party deserves to have an accusing finger pointed at it.

While there are legitimate concerns being hashed through, it’s no help that this is a litigious, fearful and insufficiently informed society we live in.

This last assertion is all the more ironic considering we have more info at our fingertips than any other time in history, isn’t it?

And ultimately, it’s too bad because the Volt is a viable electric car with a clean fire safety record that barely pollutes and can be driven with little or no gasoline consumption.

It is a first step toward energy independence and ultimately cessation of using petroleum as fuel, and this is part of why many have embraced it – and why some entrenched factions have politicized it – and we haven’t even touched on those perpetually biased interests.

Sadly, even without mentioning the known haters, some believe GM’s “halo” has been tarnished.

We think it is clear however that the Volt has been subjected to reactive repercussions while in fact it has not been proven guilty of anything at all.

But since the Volt is well engineered and those who do understand the car know it makes sense, we think these times too shall pass, and hopefully sooner rather than or later it will be vindicated.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

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!

———————————————————————————————————————————————————