So, being an S2000 site, I know people generally aren't excited in cars like the Chevy Volt. I'm not really, either, but it has provided some interesting reading lately. But what irritates me is how the press has jumped all over the recent battery fire stories like flies on a cow patty.

For those who didn't follow along, the NHTSA did a side-impact pole test on a Chevy Volt back in May. This simulates the car sliding sideways into a phone pole or tree. They then simulated a rollover accident by actually rolling the car. They then dragged the smashed car out back, where, after sitting for 3 weeks, it caught fire in June. GM was notified, and they did their own testing to attempt to simulate it. They weren't able to. The NHTSA then tested 2 more Volts with the same crash tests - one made sparks, but no fire... the other finally caught fire 1 week after testing.
The culprit is that the batteries are liquid cooled, and when punctured, can loose their coolant. If steel (from the smashed car) punctures the battery, it can potentially heat up from chemical reaction over time, and eventually catch fire. But the quickest this happened was 1 week.

Anyways, this wasn't made public 'til November - some people are claiming cover-up, or conspiracy to "withhold evidence" or other such juicy headlines. For PR control, GM actually first offered loaners to Volt owners, and now even offer to buy the car back if the owners are concerned.

The Chevy Volt is, of course, a political attention getter as well as a headline maker on its own, but I'm generally irritated at the media for stirring the pot. People seem to think this is a big safety risk, and I just don't see it. I think the investigation is definitely worthwhile, but if I were a Volt owner, I wouldn't be even the slightest bit concerned.

Moreover, people seem to forget that regular cars aren't the safest things when it comes to fire, either. It's just that we're all used to them. GM recommends discharging the batteries of wrecked cars, just like gas tanks are drained from conventional cars. They have a procedure, and have done the work themselves on the few Volts that have been wrecked by the public, and they're training repair facilities to do the same.

So what do people think? Is it worth the hype? Is it irresponsible to trash a car that people don't really understand just to jump on the headline bandwagon and get attention?

Even though I'm not really interested, I guess I'm just disappointed to see decent technology get killed by an ignorant lynch mob of scare-tactic journalists.

So what do car people think? Even if you're not interested in the Volt, is this overhyped? Justified? Other?

 

I have to whole heartedly disagree with you.

I think this is an unacceptable for a car to randomly catch fire after an accident. I think the fact that it happens a week later is more dangerous!

Take this scenario into account. Car gets into a car accident and metal punctures the battery. Car is towed to a body shop, or back to the owners house. The car gets stored inside the owners garage, or inside the body shop facility. While the insurance is taking care of business and getting their paperwork, the car catches fire. The fire engulfs the whole building, and potentially kills the inhabitants of the home or building during the night.

Thats not even a very far fetched scenario.

 

I'd have to agree, this is dangerous. Someone expecting that they're safe ending up in a horrific accident after already being involved in an accident.

 

Well, that's part of the problem - in both of your scenarios, a gas-powered car would be drained of gas and have its battery disconnected. Gas cars can (and do) catch fire all the time. But procedures are followed to keep that from happening later on.

For Volts owned by the public, GM sent out their "SWAT" team to any place that the Volt was crashed. It knows because OnStar reports it to them. The team arrives and discharges the battery. They also train people to do the same. The only reason the NHTSA's cars caught fire is because GM wasn't able to send someone there, and the NHTSA didn't discharge the battery themselves.

The problem is following procedure. Gas cars catch fire the time - there are nearly 800 car fires a day in the US, killing an average of 1.3 people per day - do you consider that acceptable? Because that's the current level of acceptability for car safety. (Although 75% of car fires happen without a crash, due to mechanical or electrical malfunction). But still, every day, 20 or more cars catch fire after a crash, usually within a minute or two, and sometimes with people still inside.

In order to puncture the battery, the car has to be seriously damaged - beyond the point of towing it back to someone's house, so that's an unlikely scenario. It'd likely go straight to a junkyard. Would you tow a crashed car with gas in it and let it sit in your garage, leaking gas or other fluids?

I'm not saying the fire risk is perfectly safe - I'm saying it's no worse than any other car out there. And the fact that it's predictable and easily mitigated makes it even better.

Obviously it's a problem that can and should be fixed. But again, if I had a Volt, I wouldn't be worried about it any more than I am with my own cars catching fire in my garage.

 

I believe what we have here is a paradigm shift.
A Volt is a different sort of car.
The public will need to learn different behavior patterns when dealing with it.

if they can, it can be adopted and become popular.
If not the Naderites will come out of the woodwork and kill it becuase "it is different."

Remember " I shouldn't have to think to use something, that's not my job."