Skip to comments.Federal testers may have caused Chevy Volt fire, GM says (Federal testers finds safety flaw)
Posted on 11/13/2011 9:40:49 AM PST by tobyhill
The spotlight is on the Chevrolet Volt following word that one of the plug-in hybrids caught fire while being tested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. But TheDetroitBureau.com has learned that the fire was readily preventable had a few simple steps been taken after a Volt was put through a series of tests three weeks earlier.
Federal regulators have promised a full investigation of the spring incident in which the Volt caught fire and burned several nearby vehicles. That has raised serious questions about the safety of its batteries, though GM officials say it may instead require adapting federal crash tests - as well as what happens in the field in the event of a real collision.
The fire occurred at a private facility in Wisconsin where NHTSA conducts crash tests on new vehicles. On May 12, the battery car was subject to a so-called pole test, where it was rammed into a barrier at 20 mph to simulate a side impact. The vehicle was then subject to what is known informally as the rotisserie test, where it is rolled over into various positions to test for leaks that might have occurred during the crash.
Ironically, the Volt did well enough to earn a five-star rating, the best possible.
(Excerpt) Read more at bottomline.msnbc.msn.com ...
Volt = Dolt
Was NBC involved?
This should help their anemic sales. Get ‘em while they’re hot!
Government Motors and Government Agencies fighting each other.
Heh Heh Heh.
The comments made by CR do not jive with the high ratings in their review. I imagine this is the same: one group of union thugs threatening another.
If I owned one I’d burn it too.
Even though one of the test articles caught on fire will being tested.
The super-smart media types who work at MSNBC are so attuned to the ironies of life in Our Modern World.
"Ironically, Mr. Sandusky also runs a number of charitable organizations designed to reach out to young boys."
And that was all merit, nonpolitical, and legit.
These are 2 vastly different safety issues,...one which even most building codes fail to adequately address.
Disconnecting the power source from the electrical circuit is a common safety policy codified throughout design. De-energizing a stored energy device is not so well codified.
The IBC, NFPA and NEC provide guidance on isolating power sources in the event of a fire. For a Data Center, they mandate shunt trips, even for large Uninterrupted Power Supplies, they still generally promote fully sprinkled facilities. An UPS for a Data Center can be daunting,...say several 5000lb racks of sealed lead-acid batteries, which are then isolated, but still have a large DC power source.
Large DC power sources do not mix well with water shorting their contacts.
A first responder might isolate the power source, but how do you ensure the environment is not only electrically insulated, but the positive side of the stored energy source doesn't short to ground.
Similar safety concerns for capacitor banks and now stored momentum devices.
I'm glad these issues first arise in testing, even if not intentional.
But...but...won't that make ones necessarily skyrocketing electric bills skyrocket even more?
Ironically? Apparently, this Eisenstein guy is no Einstein.
By early next year, said Peterson, the maker expects to distribute a special device specifically designed to de-energize the battery after a collision.
This is great. A new vehicle has been developed, but crash responders need special training in the protocols and will be provided a special device to make the vehicle safe after a collision.
I'm glad we have engineering standards. /sarc