GM : LG cells were safer in crash test than A123 cells

[HyperMiler]

http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/s...7201033&pgno=1

That is a fairly detailed article.

- Volt battery spec requires 4,000 charge cycle lifespan. LG's cell meets it. You may also recall the Korean electric car converter named Leo Motors also using LG cell claiming 4,000 charge cycle lifespan as well.

- Cells account for 70% of battery pack's cost. Meaning the pack may cost in excess of $10,000, even if LG sells the battery cells for $7,000 per car. A typical GM inefficiency.

- LG's cell was safer in crash test and structurally stronger than A123's.

n January 2009, GM selected the design from the team of LG Chem and Compact Power as the one that would best fit the Voltec platform from a structural standpoint. The cells in the LG Chem battery were deemed the most appropriate in structural integrity testing, and the cell size was the best fit with the cooling system that GM had designed for the Volt. The LG Chem battery provided the best results in rear-impact and side-impact crash tests. Most important to GM, which would be footing most of the manufacturing cost, was its confidence in the battery's ease of manufacturability and LG Chem's established track record in Li-ion manufacturing (A123 Systems was essentially a startup). The battery would be manufactured in Michigan in a facility that would be the first lithium-ion battery plant in the United States to be operated by a major automaker.

[DaV8or]

- Cells account for 70% of battery pack's cost. Meaning the pack may cost in excess of $10,000, even if LG sells the battery cells for $7,000 per car. A typical GM inefficiency.

What are you talking about? The article doesn't even mention cost other than the battery cells constitute about 70% of the pack's cost. How is this a "typical GM inefficiency"? Where do you get your dollar figures from? You do realize that the battery pack is more than just a bunch of batteries wired and taped together, right?

[HyperMiler]

What are you talking about? The article doesn't even mention cost other than the battery cells constitute about 70% of the pack's cost. How is this a "typical GM inefficiency"? Where do you get your dollar figures from? You do realize that the battery pack is more than just a bunch of batteries wired and taped together, right?

[Texas]

[QUOTE=HyperMiler;25712
- LG's cell was safer in crash test...[/QUOTE]


There you go pulling things out of your butt. They did not say it was safer. To do so would imply that A123's design was more dangerous. They said:

"GM selected the design from the team of LG Chem and Compact Power as the one that would best fit the Voltec platform from a structural standpoint. The cells in the LG Chem battery were deemed the most appropriate in structural integrity testing, and the cell size was the best fit with the cooling system that GM had designed for the Volt. The LG Chem battery provided the best results in rear-impact and side-impact crash tests"


This was about structural integrity. You implied they were safer. You drew your own butt-pulled conclusion once again.

[HyperMiler]

This was about structural integrity. You implied they were safer. You drew your own butt-pulled conclusion once again.

And the title of this thread is "GM : LG cells were safer in crash test than A123 cells". What GM stated was "The LG Chem battery provided the best results in rear-impact and side-impact crash tests"

Look who's the fool here now..

[DaV8or]

??? We all saw the illustration and know where you got the 70% bit, but what about my other questions?

[Texas]

And the title of this thread is "GM : LG cells were safer in crash test than A123 cells". What GM stated was "The LG Chem battery provided the best results in rear-impact and side-impact crash tests"

Look who's the fool here now..

As usual, you still are. The test for the structural integrity of the battery cells had better results (they might not have had as many wires coming loose or something - there are no details). It does not have anything to do with safety or they would have said so directly. They did not.

You simply pull things out of your butt and your pride prevents you from admitting it. Your title is just wrong. It's that simple. Sorry you don't understand.

[HyperMiler]

As usual, you still are. The test for the structural integrity of the battery cells had better results.

Well, this demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt to all here of your reading comprehension problem.

In January 2009, GM selected the design from the team of LG Chem and Compact Power as the one that would best fit the Voltec platform from a structural standpoint. The cells in the LG Chem battery were deemed the most appropriate in structural integrity testing, and the cell size was the best fit with the cooling system that GM had designed for the Volt. The LG Chem battery provided the best results in rear-impact and side-impact crash tests. Most important to GM, which would be footing most of the manufacturing cost, was its confidence in the battery's ease of manufacturability and LG Chem's established track record in Li-ion manufacturing (A123 Systems was essentially a startup). The battery would be manufactured in Michigan in a facility that would be the first lithium-ion battery plant in the United States to be operated by a major automaker.

1. "The cells in the LG Chem battery were deemed the most appropriate in structural integrity testing" <= Ok, this says LG cell was most appropriate in structural integrity.

2. "the cell size was the best fit with the cooling system that GM had designed for the Volt." <= This clearly has nothing to do with structural integrity.

3. "The LG Chem battery provided the best results in rear-impact and side-impact crash tests." <= This is debatable, but what does it mean when somthing is proved to deliver best result in crash tests? Safety, of course!!!

4. "Most important to GM, which would be footing most of the manufacturing cost, was its confidence in the battery's ease of manufacturability and LG Chem's established track record in Li-ion manufacturing" <= This has nothing to do with structural integrity.

That GM statement was about merits of LG cells that led them to choose it over A123's, in terms of 1. structural integrity, 2. cooling 3. crash test performance(Crash tests are conducted to measure safety, not how well the car/object stays in one piece) and 4. manufacturing cost. Structural integrity covers just no. 1 and a portion of no. 3.

[Texas]

Well, this demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt to all here of your reading comprehension problem.



1. "The cells in the LG Chem battery were deemed the most appropriate in structural integrity testing" <= Ok, this says LG cell was most appropriate in structural integrity.

2. "the cell size was the best fit with the cooling system that GM had designed for the Volt." <= This clearly has nothing to do with structural integrity.

3. "The LG Chem battery provided the best results in rear-impact and side-impact crash tests." <= This is debatable, but what does it mean when somthing is proved to deliver best result in crash tests? Safety, of course!!!

4. "Most important to GM, which would be footing most of the manufacturing cost, was its confidence in the battery's ease of manufacturability and LG Chem's established track record in Li-ion manufacturing" <= This has nothing to do with structural integrity.

That GM statement was about merits of LG cells that led them to choose it over A123's, in terms of 1. structural integrity, 2. cooling 3. crash test performance(Crash tests are conducted to measure safety, not how well the car/object stays in one piece) and 4. manufacturing cost. Structural integrity covers just no. 1 and a portion of no. 3.

Thank you for proving my point! It says nothing about safety. Might be better for this or that but A123 cells are not more dangerous (from what they said). Just admit it now! Come on, it won't hurt. You are often wrong so people around here are use to it. You are like the fat guy in the room that thinks everyone in the room is oblivious to your obesity. We know!

[HyperMiler]

It says nothing about safety.

So that the object that performs the best in crash test is not safe??? Exactly what do you think a crash test is measuring?

Might be better for this or that but A123 cells are not more dangerous (from what they said).

Well, GM did say A123's cells produced "worse" crash test result.

You are often wrong so people around here are use to it.

We too are used to laughing at your ramblings too.