Chevy Volt catches on fire.

Yea, they had time to develop a new protocol since June (when the fire took place). This fire is unique to the Volt because it uses coolant to cool the battery. The up comng Ford Focus EV would use it too.

They must make sure the coolant doesn't leak into the battery after the crash. Either that or use the coolant that doesn't crystallize after it dries.

 

(Whoops! Didn't realize that the MSNBC article already mentioned this, but in a different manner...)
About Those Chevy Volt Safety Protocols… | The Truth About Cars claims

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...ess-to-handle-volt-batteries-after-crash.html reports largely the same thing as the above Automotive News article.

 

Pardon my language, but screw that!
While I find that very disturbing, I find this information from your second link even more so:

I soooo wish Toyota had come up with a solution that would have allowed me to drive 1000 miles on three gallons of gas, and the rest electricity.

 

The latest on the NC fire.
NC Chevy Volt fire likely not caused by plug-in car

 

What's more disturbing is the fire took place at NHTSA back in May. Volts continued to sell and the current owners were kept in the dark.

Volt was rushed into market and we are seeing now patch works trying to fix it. 30 mph impact should not damage the battery pack that would result in a fire later down the road. The nature of coolant leaking into battery cell and shorting out once crystalized creates a sort of time bomb. If you are mixing liquid and battery, you better make sure it doesn't leak. Both Nissan and Toyota are using air to cool the battery.

Receding tide lowers all boats. I hope this does not ruin all other plugins that did all homeworks before bringing to the market.

 

I'm curious if you have ever calculated total emissions output between a non- plugin vs. your Volt considering your state obtains most of its energy from coal. I don't know how old your plants are and that can make a big difference.

 

Please don't go there, it has been hashed and rehashed. Yes I did, installed the solar to compensate and if you wih go off the topic of this thread let's go to another thread so Aston not derail this one

 

And I hope Toyota doesn't have problems due to locating the Lithium-ion battery pack immediately next to the rear bumper.

BTW, here's an interesting document I hadn't stumbled upon until just now. It's the deconstruction guide for the prototype plug-in and not the final production car.

https://techinfo.toyota.com/techInf...echinfo/html/prelogin/docs/priusphvdisman.pdf

 

Very detailed and plenty of safety tips.

 

I think I must be missing something since people are much more upset than my understanding.

In crash testing they hit the volt on the side, then spun it to simulate a roll over. It did well enough to get 5 stars on the safety rating. They then let the damaged car sit around and the damage started a fire. I would say stupid NHTSA. If you had a slow gasoline leak, you would not just let the leaking car sit in a warehouse. Now we find out GM didn't have a manual for draining the battery pack and making it safe. Bad on GM, but hardly anything a first responder would need to know about. Definitely garages repairing the cars and NHTSA need to have the instructions, but hardly anything that would make driving a non-crashed volt or other plug-in deadly.

Bad GM for not having instructions, Bad NHTSA for not reporting things sooner, Bad press for making it sound like something its not. But not much dangerous here.

 

I thought that was just thoruogh way of testing for leaks, or did the article have that wrong?
Was it still leaking fluid when they parked it? Do they know if the fluid that lead to the fire got there do to the spinning or not?

 

Article said to check for leaks, I assume the only reason to check to see if something is leaking when upside down, is if you think the car might go upside down. Otherwise they would just need to tilt test it. I don't know but don't think this is a normal situation.

I don't know if the spinning or the impact caused the fire, but it sounded like a combination of both. When I compared it to a leaky gas tank, I meant that if a gas tank was leaking you would drain it, if a battery is damaged you should discharge it then replace/repair it. GM and NHTSA should have noticed the missing procedure pretty fast. If there are better details let me know.

 

You would think they would use some pretty stout piping inside the battery pack itself... Due to HAZMAT regulations the car would have absolutely been drained of all fluids. Those $75,000 fines are extremely steep, and government agencies are not exempt from complying. So the car would of absolutely needed to be drained of all fluids that were leaking out of the car as that would have put them not in compliance..

It is absolutely stupid that they did not put procedures in place for discharging the battery in events the car was crashed badly enough. Shame on me for assuming that stuff like that had been put in to place before they went on sale. Is part of being on the front edge I guess though... Daniel you know of any instances like this in the Tesla's? I know they have liquid cooling systems, but I do not think it runs through the pack itself.. In fact come to think of it really have not heard of any major issues out of the Tesla's. Hopefully they get to the bottom of whatever happened with the Volt though. Inquiring minds certaintly want to know.

 

I'm sure GM did have procedures, they just didn't tell anyone. I was surprised that the NHTSA didn't ask before they crashed the cars. It sounds like they are asking now.

NHTSA Investigating Electric Vehicle Batteries Following Chevy Volt Fire - The Consumerist

So bad on GM and NHTSA, but this doesn't mean the cars are not safe.

NHTSA did not perform the same tests on the Tesla. The problem as I understand it was not the crash, but not handling the battery properly after the crash. I think Tesla would get notified if there was a crash, since a normal garage won't be able to repair it, so less of a problem even if nothing is published than a mass produced car. I'm sure the Tesla S will have a published procedure.

 

Did NHTSA or IIHS, perform any testing on the Roadster? Cars.com listed unavailable for test results.

 

I think Tesla performed the NHTSA testing itself, but I am not sure. They did destroy cars in the testing. The test reportedly causing the volt problem was a 2010 test, that would not have been required for the tesla roadster until 2012 my.

 

Only reason I was asking about Tesla is cause I know they have a liquid cooling system, but I am unsure if it is used to cool the batteries or anything. Is the only reason I asked. Cause maybe it is just something with Dexcool getting in to the battery of the Volt that is causing the fires, and not necessarily the fact you have leaking coolant in general.

 

tesla does cool the batteries. The problem is not having a coolant system, its the lack of proper procedure once things are damaged.

Chevrolet Volt Battery Fire: A Common-Sense Response - Fire Engineering

 

The CEO, D Akerman, did say in an interview last week that GM did have protocols for Volts that might end up in accidents. The only problem is that as of last week they hadn't provided these protocols to anyone outside of GM. This he admitted was an oversight on GM's part.

 

I wonder if the GM protocol was: "bury and supppress"