Jump to content
Create New...
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    NHTSA Opens Investigation Into Volt Batteries


    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said today it's opening a formal safety investigation into the Chevrolet Volt after further tests sparked fires and raised more questions about the safety of the Volt's lithium ion battery packs.

    Back on May 12th, NHTSA performed a side pole impact test, on a Chevrolet Volt at a testing facility in Wisconsin. Three weeks after, the Volt caught on fire with the battery being the cause of the fire.

    On November 14th, NHTSA performed three follow-up battery-level tests to simulate the incident. Two out the of three tests produced thermal events, including fire. Because of the results, NHTSA has opened an investigation.

    GM said they've learned about the NHTSA investigation today and supports the ongoing testing.

    "The move to take this formal, procedural step is not unexpected as GM has worked closely and cooperatively with NHTSA over the last six months on a part of a broader program designed to induce battery failure after extreme situations. The Volt is safe and does not present undue risk as part of normal operation or immediately after a severe crash," said GM spokesman Greg Martin.

    Martin went onto to say "there have been no reports of comparable incidences in the field. With Onstar, GM knows real time about any crash significant enough to potentially compromise battery integrity."

    At the time of May crash test, GM had no crash protocol for dealing with a battery that may have been damaged in a crash. Since July, GM has implemented a post crash protocol that includes the depowering of the battery after a severe crash, returning the battery to a safe and low power state.

    So far, no fires among consumer-owned Volts have been reported and no complaints of fires have been made. Also, NHTSA hasn't asked GM to put a stop on selling the Volt while the investigation is ongoing.

    gallery_10485_267_846364.png

    Source: The Detroit News

    Press Release from GM & NHTSA, and the Investigation Resume is on Page 2


    GM Supports Ongoing Testing With NHTSA

    Statement attributable to Jim Federico, General Motors chief engineer for electric vehicles

    2011-11-25 - The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) informed GM today that it will begin a preliminary evaluation of Chevrolet Volt battery assemblies. The move to take this formal, procedural step is not unexpected as GM has worked closely and cooperatively with NHTSA over the last six months on a part of a broader program designed to induce battery failure after extreme situations.

    The Volt is safe and does not present undue risk as part of normal operation or immediately after a severe crash. GM and the agency's focus and research continues to be on battery performance, handling, storage and disposal after a crash or other significant event, like a fire, to better serve first and secondary responders. There have been no reports of comparable incidents in the field.

    With Onstar, GM knows real time about any crash significant enough to potentially compromise battery integrity. Since July, GM has implemented a post crash protocol that includes the depowering of the battery after a severe crash, returning the battery to a safe and low-powered state. That is why the ongoing collaboration between GM and NHTSA is so important and stands to benefit the industry.

    As leaders in bringing electric vehicles and advanced technology to market, GM's aggressive testing with NHTSA to determine the operating limits of this technology under extreme conditions can help set battery performance standards for the industry going forward.

    Statement of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration On Formal Safety Defect Investigation of Post-Crash Fire Risk in Chevy Volts

    For Immediate Release

    Friday, November 25, 2011

    WASHINGTON, DC — The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued the following statement today announcing the agency will be opening a formal safety defect investigation to assess the risk of fire in Chevy Volts that have been involved in a serious crash:

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is deeply committed to improving safety on our nation's roadways. As part of our core mission to reduce traffic injuries and fatalities, NHTSA is continually working to ensure automakers are in compliance with federal motor vehicle safety standards, culling information to identify safety defects, and ensuring manufacturers conduct any necessary safety recalls. The agency has also developed a robust New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) to test the majority of the vehicle models introduced to consumers each year.

    This past May, NHTSA crashed a Chevy Volt in an NCAP test designed to measure the vehicle's ability to protect occupants from injury in a side collision. During that test, the vehicle's battery was damaged and the coolant line was ruptured. When a fire involving the test vehicle occurred more than three weeks after it was crashed, the agency concluded that the damage to the vehicle's lithium-ion battery during the crash test led to the fire. Since that fire incident, NHTSA has taken a number of steps to gather additional information about the potential for fire in electric vehicles involved in a crash, including working with the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense — in close coordination with experts from General Motors — to complete rigorous tests of the Volt's lithium-ion batteries.

    In an effort to recreate the May test, NHTSA conducted three tests last week on the Volt's lithium-ion battery packs that intentionally damaged the battery compartment and ruptured the vehicle's coolant line. Following a test on November 16 that did not result in a fire, a temporary increase in temperature was recorded in a test on November 17. During the test conducted on November 18 using similar protocols, the battery pack was rotated within hours after it was impacted and began to smoke and emit sparks shortly after rotation to 180 degrees. NHTSA's forensic analysis of the November 18 fire incident is continuing this week. Yesterday, the battery pack that was tested on November 17 and that had been continually monitored since the test caught fire at the testing facility. The agency is currently working with DOE, DOD, and GM to assess the cause and implications of yesterday's fire. In each of the battery tests conducted in the past two weeks, the Volt's battery was impacted and rotated to simulate a real-world, side-impact collision into a narrow object such as a tree or a pole followed by a rollover.

    NHTSA is not aware of any roadway crashes that have resulted in battery-related fires in Chevy Volts or other vehicles powered by lithium-ion batteries. However, the agency is concerned that damage to the Volt's batteries as part of three tests that are explicitly designed to replicate real-world crash scenarios have resulted in fire. NHTSA is therefore opening a safety defect investigation of Chevy Volts, which could experience a battery-related fire following a crash. Chevy Volt owners whose vehicles have not been in a serious crash do not have reason for concern.

    While it is too soon to tell whether the investigation will lead to a recall of any vehicles or parts, if NHTSA identifies an unreasonable risk to safety, the agency will take immediate action to notify consumers and ensure that GM communicates with current vehicle owners.

    In the meantime, the agency is continuing to work with all vehicle manufacturers to ensure they have appropriate post-crash protocols; asking automakers who currently have electric vehicles on the market or plan to introduce electric vehicles in the near future to provide guidance for discharging and handling their batteries along with any information they have for managing fire risks; and engaging the Department of Energy and the National Fire Protection Association to help inform the emergency response community of the potential for post-crash fires in electric vehicles.

    NHTSA continues to believe that electric vehicles have incredible potential to save consumers money at the pump, help protect the environment, create jobs, and strengthen national security by reducing our dependence on oil. In fact, NHTSA testing on electric vehicles to date has not raised safety concerns about vehicles other than the Chevy Volt.

    NHTSA's current guidance for responding to electric vehicles that have been in a crash remains the same. The agency continues to urge consumers, emergency responders, and the operators of tow trucks and storage facilities to take the following precautions in the event of a crash involving any electric vehicle:

    • Consumers are advised to take the same actions they would in a crash involving a gasoline-powered vehicle — exit the vehicle safely or await the assistance of an emergency responder if they are unable to get out on their own, move a safe distance away from the vehicle, and notify the authorities of the crash.
    • Emergency responders should check a vehicle for markings or other indications that it is electric-powered. If it is, they should exercise caution, per published guidelines, to avoid any possible electrical shock and should disconnect the battery from the vehicle circuits if possible.
    • Emergency responders should also use copious amounts of water if fire is present or suspected and, keeping in mind that fire can occur for a considerable period after a crash, should proceed accordingly.
    • Operators of tow trucks and vehicle storage facilities should ensure the damaged vehicle is kept in an open area instead of inside a garage or other enclosed building.
    • Rather than attempt to discharge a propulsion battery, an emergency responder, tow truck operator, or storage facility manager should contact experts at the vehicle's manufacturer on that subject.
    • Vehicle owners should not store a severely damaged vehicle in a garage or near other vehicles.
    • Consumers with questions about their electric vehicles should contact their local dealers.

    For future updates, visit www.SaferCar.gov.

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • google-news-icon.png



  • google-news-icon.png

  • Subscribe to Cheers & Gears

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001 we've brought you real content and honest opinions, not AI-generated stuff with no feeling or opinions influenced by the manufacturers.

    Please consider subscribing. Subscriptions can be as little as $1.75 a month, and a paid subscription drops most ads.*
     

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Posts

    • @ccap41 Finally got a response from their press group. Hey David, Happy to see you're helping to share our progress! So sorry this response is coming after such a long delay, I unfortunately missed this email. We are currently aiming to deliver our first production vehicles in late 2025. A more detailed production schedule will be released as we get a better production of production capacity over the next few months.   The MT1 has been designed from the ground up with serviceability in mind. Most of the parts on the MT1 are pulled directly from Subaru and other popular auto manufacturers. We plan on partnering with and providing resources to third party service vendors to make service extremely accessible around the world. We don't intend to limit service to proprietary options or make our trucks difficult to service by designing numerous proprietary parts.   We have actually had people as tall as 6'10" sit comfortably in the driver seat of the MT1! The glass roof and minimized seat tracks allow us to fit a lot more than one might expect in such a compact space.   Thank you Shaan
    • I was upgraded in a rental contract and, while going up by one category is not a big deal, getting to try out the new hybrid Camry was somewhat of a big deal.  The latest and current Camry only features hybrid powertrains.  The base 2.5 liter 4-cylinder engine, which was previously naturally aspirated, continues forward, but is assisted by an electric motor.  To make the powering on and off work, a CVT is now the standard transmission, when Camry had an excellent 8-speed automatic transmission for many years.  This vehicle had front wheel drive, but AWD is also available.  The V6 engine and ICEs are no longer available. Getting used to this car doesn’t take much time.  Having already driven another rented hybrid – a Honda Accord – all I needed to know is that turning the key does not fire up an engine, but makes the car ready to move in EV mode, at least initially. With 2.5 liters, the Camry pulls away nimbly and with agility, even with a minimally feathered pedal.  It doesn’t take much.  It’s fun to watch the centered power display setting move between eco and power modes.  If stomped on, the engine responds very quickly.  Surprisingly, stomping on it produces a more notable than expected engine hum.  The cabin remains mostly quiet and handling is predictable, neither firm nor vague, with some rougher pavement making it less quiet.  The transmission feels very much like a CVT, but a well behaved one.  Still, drivers with old school tastes can lament the absence of the very last slick shifting 8-speed automatic that came standard in the Camry.  I know I do.  However, the current CVT behaves well because it doesn’t have that “stuck” feeling when pushed, but the spool is more of an exhaust node than the winding out and high rpm droning caused by the variable gearing. The Camry’s exterior was freshened up and they worked off the last model.  It’s a compendium of small changes that, together, amount to a lot.  The front lights are narrower and cleaner.  The “appliance” grille is more understated than it once was.  (Sadly, it’s the more expensive versions where the grille is more flared, and even overworked.)  The rear lights are thinned out, complete with a boomerang effect, as they wrap around the rear fender edge and add to the horizontal look of the rear lip and the monolithic bumper panel.  Also, the almost retro, and not too effective, sweep of the rear pillar (think ‘72 Caprice coupe) is gone and the side profile of the windows is cleaner, perhaps a larger rendition of what was done with the Corolla.  Most of the vantage points look better than those of the previous Camry. Inside, the Camry is also much improved.  The dashboard is organized in cleaner volumes.  The dash has a simple main instrument pod.  In its center is a round dial, whereby the upper part displays the speed and eco/power, and the lower part, through toggling, provides other information – direction, tire pressure, trip information and mileage, or even graphics of the flow of energy involving the engine and the battery.  There is no dedicated tachometer; however, the temperature and fuel gauges remain.  Around the main circle are small digital readouts for the exterior temperature, the time, the odometer, and the remaining range.  Filling up this hybrid showed close to 500 miles of range.  Not only that, the fuel cap is on the driver’s side and, like the trunk, they can be remotely opened by buttons in the interior. That said, there is none of that capless fuel filler stuff! Being a Camry LE meant the lower grade fixtures inside.  Sadly, this meant a urethane steering wheel.  Sometimes, a mere leather steering wheel imparts the feeling of better handling and a smoother ride.  It’s that equipment choices and groupings seem to work together to give a vehicle its feel. The LE seats are nicely upholstered in a tougher, durable fabric with slightly contrasting parts.  The front headrests can scoot all the way down and they actually point forward so the driver and passenger can use them without having to lean their heads all the way back.  Headrests for rear seat passengers are integrated into the seating and do not have features to adjust them. The infotainment system is on its screen which is engaged to the dash, but moved slightly forward, and creates a cleaner look because it does not go up over the top of the cowl.  Fortunately, it remains a touch screen.  The functions are easy to work with, but I had a little bit of finicky interactions with Bluetooth and Android Auto.  Climate control has toggles instead of dials and they are easy to work with.  I will only say that the center vents of the climate control system do not work that quickly and powerfully.  Beneath this small panel are the cubby, a charging pod for a phone, and the flat console surface for the shift lever.  I found the console a little high for my taste.  Possibly to accommodate the new mechanical set-up, there is no storage cubby underneath the console as one sees on larger GM products, for example – both SUVs and even the last-gen Buick LaCrosse.  However, the console box is amply sized. In addition to being able to look over the hood, visibility is commendable all the way around.  Except for being a little shoehorned into the Camry’s cockpit, the front of the cabin feels spacious and the legroom is also good.  (I had to push the lever to get the seats to move upward, which provided a view over the top of the hood, as evidenced by seeing the paint color, and which I prefer.)  They have retained good cabin space in the rear of the cabin.  Also, the trunk has a decent amount of usable capacity for this genre and for having kept this sweeping roofline.  I again want to state how pleasing it was to control the trunk, in addition to the fuel door, from a bar of buttons on a panel at the lower left part of the dashboard rather than on the floor near the door.  There are 5 functions and they were thoughtful about putting the (auto) lights control onto this bar, and all the way to the left, such that it can easily be noticed from behind the steering wheel.  The new Camry shows a lot of thought as to how the driver connects to the car through its controls and functions, and this is one of the areas where this Camry shines. While I didn’t calculate fuel mileage, I know that I added only 3.5 gallons of regular unleaded fuel to cover one jaunt of about 160 miles of mixed driving.  This seems close to the EPA estimate. The little green EV icon shone quite a bit. I imagine that this is a very easy car to live with over the long haul.  For Camry, this powertrain is obviously a new combination, but it’s technology that Toyota and other Asian marques have worked with for quite a while.  I mostly took note that, apart from the major powertrain change, there is the evident synergy of the many small changes that make this a more nicely packaged vehicle than the last Camry. - - - - - PHOTOS FORTHCOMING
    • The BYD Han interior does look really good.  Shame the outside looks like a 2-generations-ago Civic.
    • No one cares about that amount of horsepower in this class. These are chauffeur driven vehicles. Up until electrics came around, most were trundling around with 2.0T 4-cylinders or diesels.  While Genesis is still relatively new to us in the the U.S., they've made such strides on interior quality that I'd put them up against MB dollar for dollar. The nicest of the Chinese EVs sedans, the NIO ET7 is a pretty good looking car though I kinda think it looks like a Model-3 had it's way with a Buick Envista. It would do really well in the US up against the Teslas, but it is still not playing in the luxury ballpark with Genesis (or Benz or Audi) when it comes to design and materials.  Low end EQE Sedan rival? Sure. G90 rival? No.
    • Well 25% tariff added to it, which makes a G90 like $125,000, and probably dead in the water in the US.  The Chinese have luxury cars with over 1,000 hp for less than the price of a G90.  I don't know that they are really going to compete there either.  Unless they come up with some  next gen EV tech and have full self driving and impeccable build quality or something.
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...
This Article

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search