GM Tells Bolt Owners to Park 50 Feet Away From Other Cars (bloomberg.com) 138
General Motors urged some owners of Chevrolet Bolt electric cars to park and store the vehicles at least 50 feet away from other cars to reduce the risk that a spontaneous fire could spread. Bloomberg reports: The Detroit automaker has recalled all of the roughly 142,000 Bolts sold since 2016 because the battery can catch on fire. GM has taken a $1.8 billion charge so far for the cost of the recall and has been buying cars back from some disgruntled owners. The company expects to recoup much of the cost from battery supplier LG Corp. The new advice is likely to rankle owners who are already limiting their use of the Bolt to avoid overheating the battery and risking a fire. The parking guidance -- recommending a distance of 50 feet from other parked cars -- is especially difficult for owners in urban areas. GM has confirmed 10 fires. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said the agency has found 13 fires in Bolts, but the company hasn't confirmed the additional three are part of the current recall issue.
The Bolt normally can go 259 miles on a charge, but that has been limited by GM's guidance to avoid a fire. The automaker told Bolt owners to limit the charge to 90%, plug in more frequently and avoid depleting the battery to below about 70 miles of remaining range. They're also advised to park their vehicles outside immediately after charging and not leave them charging indoors overnight. The company will be telling Bolt owners who are concerned about parking in public places that it recommends keeping 50 feet from other cars in garages and lots, spokesman Dan Flores said.
The Bolt normally can go 259 miles on a charge, but that has been limited by GM's guidance to avoid a fire. The automaker told Bolt owners to limit the charge to 90%, plug in more frequently and avoid depleting the battery to below about 70 miles of remaining range. They're also advised to park their vehicles outside immediately after charging and not leave them charging indoors overnight. The company will be telling Bolt owners who are concerned about parking in public places that it recommends keeping 50 feet from other cars in garages and lots, spokesman Dan Flores said.
Issue a fucking recall. (Score:5, Informative)
The only reason NOT to issue a recall is if they don't actually know what the problem is, so they don't know how to fix it.
I'd park the car at the dealership and demand a loaner until they fix the damn thing. If they can't, fuck yeah I expect them to buy it back.
Re: (Score:3)
I mean a "hard recall" where they contact all owners directly -- not a "service bulletin" recall where people get informed the next time they show up for scheduled service, which appears to be what they're doing now.
Re:Issue a fucking recall. (Score:5, Insightful)
The only reason NOT to issue a recall is if they don't actually know what the problem is, so they don't know how to fix it.
There's at least one other reason, which is that they probably don't have the capacity to fix it fast enough. If they are voluntarily buying back cars then that says they are pretty desperate at this point. The majority of people who haven't returned their cars are people who need them each day and will want their cars fixed fast. Lots of problems could cause this: lack of skilled people who can fix safely; lack of replacement batteries and so on.
Given that the accusations against Tesla have almost always been fires in damaged batteries after accidents which aren't much of a worry (situation better than a petrol car - nobody's going to ban you for that) this probably shows that investment in Tesla is less stupid than some people claim. Anyone know if there are battery fires with the Chinese electric car manufacturers? Volkswagen has lots of electric cars on the road and I haven't heard anything about problems with them yet.
Re: Issue a fucking recall. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The HV battery is normally well-protected from casual impact. You need to really punch the car hard in the right spot to get to it. That said, T-boning a Tesla at 80 mph against a concrete barrier is probably going to exert enough force to get to the battery. Or hitting or being hit by another car at speed. And yes, there have been such fires. ICE vehicles commonly catch fire under similar circumstances, and seem to be more exposed to fire when hit from the rear (given the typical positioning of the fuel ta
Re: Lithium is inherently unstable. (Score:2)
Or always park your car where any flameup will have the most spectacular result with a political aftermath-
Re: (Score:2)
Gasoline or electric?
Re: (Score:3)
Chinese electric cars spontaneously catching fire
Gasoline or electric?
*golf clap"
Re:Issue a fucking recall. (Score:5, Funny)
I mean a "hard recall" where they contact all owners directly -- not a "service bulletin" recall where people get informed the next time they show up for scheduled service, which appears to be what they're doing now.
GM should have issued a "Total recall" where Arnold Schwarzenegger comes to your house and blows the car up.
Re: (Score:2)
Why bother, apparently the cars can do that themselves now.
Re: (Score:2)
GM should have issued a "Total recall" where Arnold Schwarzenegger comes to your house and blows the car up.
Get ready for a surprise!
Re: Issue a fucking recall. (Score:2)
Re: Issue a fucking recall. (Score:2)
There was a remake?
Re: (Score:2)
You have what you want General Motors. Give those people air.
General Motors? In Total Recall?
Nah, that was William Shatner in Loaded Weapon 1...
Hard (Score:2)
Hard recall? A recall is a recall and a TSB is a TSB. In a recall they mail stuff out to consumers. That's what GM is doing. It takes some time to get all the notifications out. Hence, the news articles and web page:
https://www.chevrolet.com/elec... [chevrolet.com]
My wife's co-worker has a Bolt, and he got a notification about the recall via the remote-control app for his car on his phone.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I thought that the hard recall meant they had to accept the dangerously defective items back so as to mitigate the hazard to the public. This is the case even if they have insufficient supplies of replacement batteries and have to park them all for a year until they get caught up. That means lots of loaner cars. "But it's expensive!" is not an excuse. "Our upstream supplier fucked up" is an excuse, but it doesn't absolve them of liability. They can try to subrogate and make the battery manufacturer pay
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Vaccinate them with a shot of gasoline at the pump.
Re:Issue a fucking recall. (Score:5, Informative)
The only reason NOT to issue a recall is if they don't actually know what the problem is, so they don't know how to fix it.
I'd park the car at the dealership and demand a loaner until they fix the damn thing. If they can't, fuck yeah I expect them to buy it back.
They did. Our letter arrived yesterday.
It doesn't say anything about parking 50 feet from other cars, but that may be because we have a 2020 model. Others may have received that suggestion.
They don't have parts available to fix it yet, so they just reiterated the suggestions that have already been circulating (charge to 90%, don't discharge below ~70 miles range, don't charge inside overnight, move the car outside after charging).
Re: (Score:2)
Question is, if they offered a buy-back would you want to take it? Those are otherwise great cars, and due to the chip shortage it's hard to get a replacement vehicle right now.
I think if I had one I'd want to hang on to it for now, assuming I could park it safely.
Re: Issue a fucking recall. (Score:2)
They are fugly though.
So a total recall would be a blessing.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet you are wishing you bought a Tesla.
Stay away from emergency vehicles.
Re: (Score:2)
More like keep your hands on the wheel.
Re:Issue a fucking recall. (Score:5, Interesting)
The only reason NOT to issue a recall is if they don't actually know what the problem is, so they don't know how to fix it.
There are 150,000 ICE fires every year, just in the United States. Let me know when we're going to recall gasoline.
This isn't meant to excuse the problems here (a recall is better than trying to follow their nonsense recommendations), but the way in which we look to attack and destroy EV manufacturers when a mere fraction of incidents occur, ICE manufacturers should be in front of a firing squad by now. From an impact perspective, this is like trying to compare caffeine to crystal meth.
Re:Issue a fucking recall. (Score:5, Insightful)
There are 150,000 ICE fires every year, just in the United States.
It's hard to interpret this without more context. What percentage of these 150,000 were vehicles less than 10 years old parked in a garage with the engine off?
I would definitely consider an electric car if I could find a two seater convertible for under $40k, but being told not to park my car in my garage would be a huge deal. If you're claiming that my recent model year ICE vehicle is likely to spontaneously catch fire in my garage while I'm asleep then I would definitely say the manufacturer owes me a full refund.
What percentage of that 150,000 is poorly maintained, ancient vehicles leaking gas and oil that the owner ought to have been able to notice? What percentage is electrical issues while the car was running? Catching fire while out driving is bad, but burning down my house while the car was parked and not in use is much, much worse.
I'm really glad I don't have a Bolt, because I simply don't have anywhere that I could park it while ensuring a 50 foot radius of emptiness.
Re: (Score:2)
What percentage of these 150,000 were vehicles less than 10 years old parked in a garage with the engine off?
That's a very good question, but vehicles absolutely do catch fire while just sitting around. Most of the incidents occur after the vehicle has been recently driven, and involve rubber fuel lines. Sometimes they have nothing to do with the vehicle being driven, and are the result of poor electrical system design.
https://www.consumerreports.or... [consumerreports.org]
https://abc7chicago.com/bmw-ca... [abc7chicago.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm really glad I don't have a Bolt, because I simply don't have anywhere that I could park it while ensuring a 50 foot radius of emptiness.
Park in your neighbor's garage. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Quite a few car fires are started by fossil fuel cars being parked over flammable material like dead leaves. The engine remains hot for some time after being turned off.
Maybe time for fossil manufacturers to sent letters to owners about not parking near flammable material, and doing a recall to fit some kind of heat shield.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm really glad I *do* have a Bolt. I've got 50,000 miles on it, so I was half way through the 8-year 100,000 warranty on the battery pack. Now I'll be getting a new battery pack with a new 8-year 100,000 warranty, and about 8% better range (better it's newer tech). Winner.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about recent models, but there was an electrical issue with 1980s Chevy Cameros where they would catch fire in the middle of the night. It happened to my parents, but thankfully a neighbor noticed the smoke and they just had fire damage to the garage.
There was a Ford issue years ago where I had a coworker whose Ford decided to turn itself on, put itself in gear, and drive through her garage wall into her kitchen in the middle of the night.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Issue a fucking recall. (Score:2)
Add to it that a battery fire is harder to put out.
Re:Issue a fucking recall. (Score:5, Informative)
There are 150,000 ICE fires every year, just in the United States. Let me know when we're going to recall gasoline.
Sure: ... OMG.
BWM recalled 1 million ICE cars due to fire risk: https://www.autosafety.org/bmw... [autosafety.org]
Hyundai recalled 650000 ICE SUVs due to fire risk: https://www.consumerreports.or... [consumerreports.org]
Kia recalled 7million ICE vehicles due to fire risk: https://connecticut.news12.com... [news12.com]
Ford recalled "millions" of ICE cars due to the cruise control... switch causing a fire risk: https://www.carrcarr.com/recal... [carrcarr.com]
Land Rover recalled 112000 SUVs because they are shit. Nah kidding. They were a fire risk: https://www.cars.com/articles/... [cars.com]
Here's VW recalling a bunch https://www.whatcar.com/news/v... [whatcar.com] Mercedes recalling a bunch https://www.carsales.com.au/ed... [carsales.com.au] Jeep recalling a bunch https://www.carsales.com.au/ed... [carsales.com.au] for fire risk and
Like really OMG... Fuck man the Hilux. Toyota Hilux. The most realiable workhorse of a car ever, that could never do any wrong. The car that keeps going after being drowned in the ocean, after a bunch of British media personalities detonate a building from under it. The car that keeps the mining economy of Australia running single handedly. The only car we were allowed to drive in the oil refinery I once worked at.
Recalled
Due to Firerisk https://www.carsales.com.au/ed... [carsales.com.au]
Consider yourself now thoroughly "let known".
Re: Issue a fucking recall. (Score:2)
Of course, you might note that ICE cars are something like 250x the quantity of electrics today, yeah? Note there is NO data comparing NON CRASH vehicle fires between each. Generally it's ev non crash fires vs ice all fires stats.
And that each ev fire takes 100x the water and several hours of fire dept afternoon to put out....
Re: (Score:3)
There are multiple factors here.
Firstly, they do know the exact problem but they don't know exactly how many batteries will definitively catch fire which makes it a probabilistic problem or at worst a time bomb.
Secondly, it's not a an immediately fatal problem which is what hard recalls are for. Hard recalls are extremely costly and hurt their bottom line more than reputational damage which is why they are willing to suffer hundreds of homes burning down rather than do the right thing. The recall means th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
if it's a manufacturing problem where they literally DO NOT KNOW which, or how many batteries will catch fire, what can they do? Replace every one of them? Some?...but then which ones? A lottery?
They'd better figure it out quick-like. This is not confidence-inspiring.
Re: (Score:2)
But if it's a manufacturing problem where they literally DO NOT KNOW which, or how many batteries will catch fire, what can they do? Replace every one of them? Some?...but then which ones? A lottery?
it's called "manufacturing traceability" and is a legal requirement for many production lines in many countries, specially critical ones like e.g. car manufacturing, to address situations like this exactly, where it is critical to pin point out all units affected by a particular batch of a particular part at any point in the process.
Re: (Score:2)
The recall letter I got specified 2 groups of Bolts:
1) 2017 (the beginning) to earlier 2019 (with Korean batteries). Remedy: replacement of all battery modules with new production. The result would be a battery with greater capacity, similar to the newer group of 2019 Bolts with batteries produced in the US.
2) later 2019 through present (with US-assembled batteries). Remedy: test (in some unspecified way) the battery and replace defective cells/modules. For this group, there would be no change to the batter
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, but it's their problem, not ours. They can take their sweet time figuring it out while the cars sit on THEIR lots, fifty feet apart, and the owners drive all the dealer's chase cars. I bet things get moving then!
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the problem is that battery packs can be examined to see if they need replacing for repairing, but for that they need to be removed from the car and partially disassembled. In hindsight I bet they wish they had x-rayed every pack and kept the images before they left the factory.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm betting LG is modifying their battery manufacturing to include more reviews which would include x-raying each if it's really beneficial.
Re: (Score:2)
But hey! Free new battery! In an EV, that's really the only part that will go bad so it should pump a lot of extra life into older cars
Re: (Score:2)
They HAVE issued a recall. What they can't do is fix all 142,000 vehicles simultaneously, so between now and whenever your appointment with the dealer for the fix, you're to follow the instructions.
Re: (Score:2)
When the item in question is a direct physical hazard, their responsibility rises far higher than "we'll fix it eventually, get in line". I understand that there aren't parts available to fix them all at once, even if every service tech in the country could be put to the task, but every owner should have the option of parking the car on the dealer's lot and receiving a loaner or rental reimbursement until it's fixed. It doesn't matter why the supply chain is fucked, the car buyer didn't do it and didn't sig
Re: (Score:2)
GM does have some weasel words in the 50-foot statement (which is just that: confirming to the press what their "concierge" is telling people if they ask what they're supposed to do), but for practical purposes, yes, the cars are now unusable because they're semi-officially (because it's not in writing except to call center people as a script, but *is* confirmed in public) a public fire hazard.
The recall was issued back in August; it took a little while to get letters out to everybody. Actual snail-mail let
Re: (Score:2)
Better idea is to park it in their HQ parking lot, next to the CEO's Toyota Camry.
BS solutions and panic (Score:3, Insightful)
"advised to park their vehicles outside immediately after charging and not leave them charging indoors overnight...owners who are concerned about parking in public places..it recommends keeping 50 feet from other cars in garages and lots"
I'm wondering how the company is going to handle this after some idiot broadcasted this crap as a viable solution. Someone should be bolting for the door before they're fired.
And from what we can tell, there's been less than two dozen fires. 150,000 ICE vehicles catch fire every year, just in the US. Where are all the gasoline consumer warnings again, or did lobbying put that in the STFU round file? Not saying this shouldn't be addressed, but in the big picture should we be addressing far more? Why do we blindly accept 150,000 ICE fires again when a dozen EV fires causes a legal shitstorm?
Re: (Score:3)
Why do we blindly accept 150,000 ICE fires again when a dozen EV fires causes a legal shitstorm?
That "150,000 fires" number needs some more context. Are these vehicles spontaneously catching fire whilst sitting there quietly? Most vehicle fires I've seen involve a car being driven on the road.
The problem with the Bolt battery seems to be a faulty assembly robot [slashdot.org]; given the nature of the huge charge stored in these batteries and the possibility of spontaneous combustion, the legal shitstorm seems more than appropriate. Imagine one of these things catching fire in a building complex: here in New Jerse
Re:BS solutions and panic (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do we blindly accept 150,000 ICE fires again when a dozen EV fires causes a legal shitstorm?
That "150,000 fires" number needs some more context.
OK.
"An estimated 212,500 vehicle fires caused 560 civilian deaths, 1,500 civilian injuries; and $1.9 billion in direct property damage in the US during 2018. In 2018, only fires in one- and two-family homes claimed more lives."
Seems my 150,000 number, was quite low. Not sure we really need to break it down much further when the numbers are that glaring, but I have to answer your question.
Are these vehicles spontaneously catching fire whilst sitting there quietly? Most vehicle fires I've seen involve a car being driven on the road.
It would appear that approximately 17% of car fires reported in 2018, occurred in a "vehicle parking area", which I would assume includes parking garages. Doing the math, that's over 35,000 ICE fires that didn't happen on the freeway. How many did we hear about on the news again? Why is this being ignored by media, and essentially supported by industry? From tesladeaths.com (yes, that salty), it appears there have been a little over 200 deaths, going back almost a decade. ICE deaths are almost triple that for a single year of reporting, and yet...crickets?
The problem with the Bolt battery seems to be a faulty assembly robot [slashdot.org]; given the nature of the huge charge stored in these batteries and the possibility of spontaneous combustion, the legal shitstorm seems more than appropriate. Imagine one of these things catching fire in a building complex: here in New Jersey there was a spate of fires caused by shoddy materials and faulty fire suppression that destroyed several apartment complexes; now (hypothetically) add in a fire or two that standard fire suppression can't put out.
Apart from the legitimate issue of fire suppression (it's rather obvious a new type of fire suppression is required as this is a problem for ALL EV cars), I wonder how many apartment complexes or parking garages have been destroyed by ICE fires. To be clear, I'm not trying to dismiss the significant problem here, or the need for a recall. I merely question why the rest of the ICE industry enjoys the significant luxury of an acceptable death rate with their product by comparison. This is like listening to an executive from a cigarette company yell and scream about the dangers of vaping while their product kills hundreds every day.
ICE whataboutisms (Score:2)
On what planet and in which century has anyone from a cigarette company complained about vaping?
Re: (Score:2)
On what planet and in which century has anyone from a cigarette company complained about vaping?
The same planet that outlawed cannabis simply because it threatened the textile and paper industry.
You can stop pretending that Greed doesn't complain when Competition comes along. Not every cigarette company owns the vaping product too.
Re:ICE whataboutisms (Score:5, Informative)
The same planet that outlawed cannabis simply because it threatened the textile and paper industry.
I cannot speak to the textile industry, but as for paper... I spent five years working the production floor of a paper mill with two paperboard machines and three tissue paper machines. Every time I hear someone lauding the merits of hemp based paper, especially with overtones of industrial conspiracy, I get a fresh palm shamed dent in my forehead.
The paper industry would orgasm if hemp fibers provided a cheaper, easier, better source of fiber. It does not.
Most paper pulp is produced with chemical processes. The chemicals involved, along with some nice bacterial digestion, remove lignin from the wood. These chemicals then go to a boiler where the lignin burns and the chemical is 'refreshed' and is ready to use again. Nice closed loop with the boiler providing the heat, steam and electricity used by the rest of the mill. Many paper mills even send their surplus power to grid through this process. Many pro hemp articles laud the low lignin content of hemp. They don't mention that the lignin to cellulose content of wood is a pretty damn good balance of energy to power the mill versus fiber. Hemp mill will cost more to run.
All the types of paper in the world from copy to tissue to packaging board to cup/plate stock have different requirements for physical characteristics. Brightness, color, tensile strength, compressive strength, foldability, smoothness, stiffness, tear resistance. Our QA lab had dozens of tests for a variety of characteristics with target values all over the place depending on the end use of the paper. With wood fiber those characteristics can be influenced to some degree by how the paper machine is configured, but the biggest factor is the pulp coming in. Was the pulp made from softwood or hardwood? Was it made from sawdust or chips? With hemp, you get hemp fibers. You need a lot more kit in your mill to physically (go go refiners) and chemically manipulate the hemp fibers in order to get the paper characteristics you want. That all costs money to buy and maintain and even more energy to run.
The sawdust and wood chips that get turned into pulp form nice big piles outside the pulp production are of the mill, but generally the inflow matches the outflow. Sawmill waste provides a high percentage of the raw material used in papermaking with the next biggest coming from dedicated tree fiber farms. Both sources provide material year round. Hemp has a growing season and best case scenario in most parts of the country would provide two crops. A paper mill converted to use hemp fiber would need the ability to store six months or more of hemp stalks. Non trivial and even more money. Especially since the part of the hemp stalk that provides usable fiber is only a small percentage of the stalk. Is very bulky.
Short version: pain in the ass and expensive to store, turn into pulp and turn into a variety of paper types. Generally only lauded by those outside the industry with conspiratorial tendencies or those who grow it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's always a commercial conspiracy, now, isn't it? It is the Big Bad Drug Companies blocking usage of Ivermectin against COVID because the drug is cheap and off patent?
Yes, unless you care to provide a viable explanation why seemingly everyone is yelling "HORSE DE-WORMER!" when referring to a drug that has been prescribed to humans for fucking decades. (It's also a slap in the face to every doctor who dares write such a prescription, as doctors are not ignorant uneducated stupid humans.) By comparison, the beauty industry enjoys billions in profits from botox while exactly no one is yelling "DEADLY POISON!" no matter how accurate that is. $10 worth of Ivermectin might
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, unless you care to provide a viable explanation why seemingly everyone is yelling "HORSE DE-WORMER!" when referring to a drug that has been prescribed to humans for fucking decades.
It has been prescribed to humans for decades for the same reason it is given to horses. For worms. Here in the first world worms are uncommon in humans, so it is mostly used for livestock.
The funny part is that a not insignificant number of people are actually taking the horse version. Much like before ivermectin replaced hydroxychloroquine as the quack cure of choice and people were taking the fish version of that. You can't make this stuff up.
Relying on unproven treatments in lieu of demonstrat
Because most gas car fires (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are from crashes and poorly maintained vehicles. The problem with the bolt is that it's catching fire spontaneously while parked and when almost brand new.
An estimated 212,500 vehicle fires caused 560 civilian deaths, 1,500 civilian injuries; and $1.9 billion in direct property damage in the US during 2018. In 2018, only fires in one- and two-family homes claimed more lives.
Out of those 212,500 reported fires, 17% of them occurred in a "vehicle parking area". Doing the math, that's over 35,000 incidents.
No doubt some of those were due to age, but my point stands, because I highly doubt you heard or read about even one of them. There are problems with both I
Re: (Score:2)
An estimated 212,500 vehicle fires caused 560 civilian deaths, 1,500 civilian injuries; and $1.9 billion in direct property damage in the US during 2018. In 2018, only fires in one- and two-family homes claimed more lives.
Out of those 212,500 reported fires, 17% of them occurred in a "vehicle parking area". Doing the math, that's over 35,000 incidents.
For everyone's reference the numbers being quoted are from: https://www.nfpa.org/-/media/F... [nfpa.org]
The 212,500 number counts all vehicles and not just what most readers might be assuming. The number includes aircraft, trains, offroad quads, construction equipment, farming equipment etc.
The 17% which had fires occurring in vehicle parking area pertains only to a subclass of the vehicles category known as highway vehicles -- cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, and recreational vehicles.
Another table in the document
You must be new around here (Score:2)
Your argument is too well reasoned and succinctly expressed.
Re: (Score:2)
Where are all the gasoline consumer warnings again
The warnings are all over the place. ICE cars don't spontaneously combust when completely undisturbed. And those that do, are the [autosafety.org] subject [consumerreports.org] of [news12.com] recalls. [carrcarr.com]
There's no difference in how a ICE or battery powered car is being treated here. Battery powered cars aren't being recalled or parked outside due to catching fire when mishandled or during accidents. The 200000 ICE car fires aren't doing that likewise. GM's specific cars with specific faults that cause them to spontaneously combust are being recalled. Just like
Re: (Score:2)
Lol. Well done.
So. it might turn into a bolt of lightning? (Score:2)
And ignite other things...
Yeah, that's gonna work (Score:2)
After all, we know that Americans are the epitome of consideration for the property and well being of others.
Re: (Score:2)
They're also well-known for the reliability of their automobiles.
Re: (Score:2)
Engineers Greatest Fear (Score:2)
A catastrophic event that destroys evidence and is not easily reproducible.
Been there. Sucks big time.
Re: (Score:2)
A catastrophic event that destroys evidence and is not easily reproducible.
Isn't this the main problem with all cause-of-fire investigations? There could have been an electrical fault. There could have been an accelerant. A cheap toy might have had a wire loose, and shorted out. But the fire destroyed the evidence of how the fire started.
However, all is not lost. What matters about the Grenfell Tower fire, for example, is not how it started, but how it spread, through unsuitable cladding materials. That has been reproduced. There is a lab near Milton Keynes in the UK, that special
Re: (Score:2)
A catastrophic event that destroys evidence and is not easily reproducible.
But well understood. [slashdot.org]
Is battery fire more dangerous than petrol? (Score:3, Interesting)
Every car fuelled by petrol contains an energy dense fuel that will spread over the ground to make a fire hazard over a wide area, if there is any kind of fuel leak. As far as I know, battery fires remain local to the vehicle.
Battery abuse can cause hydrogen production, which is dangerous where there is insufficient ventilation. Hydrogen readily forms an explosive gas atmosphere in air at a wide range of concentrations. I believe many nuclear power accidents were actually hydrogen explosions in containment structures, the hydrogen being produced by overheated steam reacting with metals. Hydrogen is so light that it just floats away in open air. Petrol vapour, being heavy, is far more dangerous in open air.
The advice on caring for your battery is just standard stuff: do not overcharge, and do not discharge the thing to death. I design battery powered powered products, and those rules are built in to the control electronics.
Re: (Score:2)
There are two ways in which a battery fire is more dangerous. One, the fumes are more toxic. This seems insignificant compared to the car itself burning (yum plastic) but I'm not sure whether it is or not. The other is that they have some tendency to reignite for long hours or even days after the fire has been extinguished. This is not a big problem with gasoline vehicles.
Gasoline vehicle fires are probably more dangerous in every other way, though.
Re: (Score:3)
... I've seen a car fire reach a gas tank. The results were
Re: (Score:2)
The big problem with battery fires is that most conventional fire fighting methods don't work. In particular, excluding air does not stop the fire, because a typical battery does not need air to produce power. The internal chemicals supply all the energy that is needed to sustain a reaction, until all the chemicals are consumed.
The toxic fumes problem occurs with petrol fires in car engine compartments. As you say, "yum plastic". In the case of engine compartment fires, a major problem is the prevalence of
Re: (Score:2)
The toxic fumes problem occurs with petrol fires in car engine compartments. As you say, "yum plastic". In the case of engine compartment fires, a major problem is the prevalence of fluorocarbon plastic insulated wiring, which is great for use in a hot environment, because it does not melt, but if you get it hot enough, it produces hydrogen fluoride (HF).
Yeah, and in the cases where it's PVC-insulated it produces dioxin, which is a trait some cars share with almost all homes, which use PVC-jacketed wire by code.
There is another chemistry point that I am not to sure on, which is that you should not irrigate a lithium battery fire, because lithium reacts violently with water. The research I have done says that the type of rechargeable batteries used in electric vehicles do not contain metallic lithium, but compounds such as lithium-cobalt-oxide, that do not react violently with water.
Yep. There's metallic cobalt on some electrodes but no metallic lithium in general. Lots and lots of water on a lithium battery will cool it down, which helps extinguish a fire, so that's how it's done.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the current problem with EV battery safety is the unknown hazards. People can handle known hazards, such as using open gas flames and red-hot electric elements for cooking. Such technology is burn-your-house-down dangerous. I know this because I once put out a chip-pan fire. I had to crawl on the floor, to avoid asphyxiation by smoke, and threw a towel soaked in water over the flames. Bloody stupid, really. I was rather young and adventurous. But nobody died. The kitchen had to be redecorated.
Happy Fun Ball disclaimer (Score:2)
Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete.
Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core, which, if exposed due to rupture, should not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be returned to its special container and kept under refrigeration. Failure to do so relieves the makers of Happy Fun Ball, Wacky Products Incorporated, and its parent company, Global Chemical Unlimited, of any and all liability.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you don't design battery products with the intention on relying on the user to care for it for their own protection. That would make you an incredibly bad designer.
Which incidentally is why these are being recalled. As for petrol is it more dangerous? Petrol doesn't just magically catch fire. Batteries don't magically catch fire. Fires are caused by something, usually a fault, and if that is a design fault then a recall is warranted. It doesn't matter if we're talking about GM, or BWM, Ford, Kia, Lan
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you don't design battery products with the intention on relying on the user to care for it for their own protection. That would make you an incredibly bad designer.
I did not imply that. The advice about battery care appeared to come from GM, which might indicate that their automatic protection circuits or firmware were not doing the job properly. Protecting high capacity lithium batteries from overcharge or excessive discharge is not trivial. You have to account for all the amps going in, and all the amps going out. With lead-acid, by contrast, you can just put the battery on float charge, and it stops drawing charge current on its own, without needing to account for
Re: (Score:2)
The accident issue is completely different. Both ICE and Battery powered vehicles have very different pros and cons. I'd argue neither is safer or worse once severe damage has taken place. Both catch fire. Petrol spills and spreads. Battery fires are more difficult to control and rescue is more difficult, once a fire starts the battery fire is quite a bit more dangerous. Pros and cons to each. Fuel doesn't just spontaneously combust either. Despite what the movies show every car accident doesn't end in some
Re: (Score:2)
Despite what the movies show every car accident doesn't end in some fiery explosion,
I admit to being something of an adventure film enthusiast, and I know the crashed car exploding in a fireball is just a movie cliche. Special effects experts go to considerable efforts to make explosions look like explosions. Actual explosions you see on the news, in war zones, are nothing like what happens in the movies. There is a matter of acoustics here. An explosion is by its nature an impulsive event, and that is practically impossible to record, because the peak sound level overloads the recording m
Re: (Score:2)
At least one of the Bolt fires took out the cars parked on either side of it. One of which was a Maserati (how much property damage insurance to YOU carry?).
Re: (Score:2)
One of which was a Maserati (how much property damage insurance to YOU carry?).
If you park a Maserati on the street, you can expect far more than accidental fire damage. I guess I live in a bad district, where folks don't leave their conspicuously expensive property around for thieves to nick.
Also (Score:3)
Stay away 50 feet away when driving it.
No link direct to GM (Score:2)
I have yet to see an actual service bulletin/safety advisory direct from GM with the "50 ft" wording. Bloomberg is not a reliable source of technology information for the well-known reason, so lets get a link direct to a Chevrolet web site.
Re: No link direct to GM (Score:2)
Indeed. The recall letter I received for my Bolt does not mention this.
Offical recall notice - no mention of 50 feet (Score:2)
Here's the official recall notice. While it advises parking outside, there is no mention to any distance from other vehicles much less 50 feet. Score another technology reporting fail for Bloomberg.
https://www.chevrolet.com/elec... [chevrolet.com]
distancing (Score:2)
Distancing - is really the solution to all our problems. Keep people away from each other, keep autos away from each other.
Moral of the story here is density is bad.
Lol - 50 Feet (Score:2)
Try living in an apartment complex or a townhouse community and parking 50 feet from any other car....Good luck with that.
I guess it works if you live on a farm.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Lol - 50 Feet (Score:2)
The article claims 50ft when parking, not when charging . The article is wrong, though. Recall letter I got for my Bolt does not mention 50ft anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
It's worse than being in your letter. It's in the press. Started in Bloomberg, spread to all the other news services within the day. So you're hosed, whether you know about it "officially" or not. NOW you know about it.
Re: Lol - 50 Feet (Score:2)
About 3 rods, or 3/4 of a chain.
Great Plan to Sell More Cars in this Market (Score:2)
experience extreme shortage of key parts driving up market prices --> force recall for supposed dangerous manufacture error --> dismantle/repair and resell at a higher price --> profit!
No way to detect it? (Score:2)
Since this is supposedly a rare problem, I'm surprised that LG hasn't come up with a way to nondestructively check for the problem. Even if it means trucking a portable X-ray machines to dealers around the country to scan battery packs to look for the problem, that's gotta be cheaper than replacing them all. Though I guess they could use the recovered batteries for grid storage solutions with appropriate fire isolation.
One fire is not like the other (Score:2)
Petrol fires are easier to extinguish and far easier to halt early on with conventional fire extinguishers. Some ICE vehicle fires like the Ford cruise control kickoff switch fires (which were of electrical origin where short circuits in a stupidly chosen hydraulic switch ignited brake fluid then the rest of the vehicle) have spontaneously destroyed vehicles and homes, but they were extinguished using conventional firefighting without the prolonged engagement battery fires require.
Commenters should have kn
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Petrol fires are easier to extinguish and far easier to halt early on with conventional fire extinguishers. Some ICE vehicle fires like the Ford cruise control kickoff switch fires (which were of electrical origin where short circuits in a stupidly chosen hydraulic switch ignited brake fluid then the rest of the vehicle) have spontaneously destroyed vehicles and homes, but they were extinguished using conventional firefighting without the prolonged engagement battery fires require.
Commenters should have known this as it is hardly recent news.
From 2014:
https://forums.firehouse.com/f... [firehouse.com]
"NFPA worked with NHTSA to create the Interim Guidance document and that paper specifically states "NOTE: If the fire involves a lithium-ion battery, it will require large, sustained volumes of water for extinguishment. If there is no immediate threat to life or property, consider defensive tactics and allow fire to burn out." It also goes on to recommend "Consider establishing a water supply to support long-term operation."
The NFPA conducted full-scale xEV battery fire testing in Maryland in 2013 and released a massive report on what they did, how they did it, and what lessons were learned. In that NFPA report, they state "The continuous application of water on a localized area of the battery for a prolonged period of time before moving onto another area of the battery can provide faster total extinguishment."
To emphasize the cooling effect of plain water, they stated "In addition, once the main battery fire has been controlled, continuous application of water to the battery with the nozzle set on fog, as was performed during several of the tests, could further cool the exterior of the battery, thereby helping to reduce the temperatures of the internal cells. This could reduce the likelihood of additional off gassing of electrolyte and reignition of internal battery cells."
If you review that report, you will see that they had one burning HV battery that required 1,060 gallons of water to extinguish only to have it 'rekindle' 22 hours later. They also conducted tests where 1,165 gallons of water or even one test using 2,639 gallons to extinguish the burning battery.
Think about that out on a highway or along a rural roadway. For an xEV vehicle with its high-voltage battery actually burning, that's a tender to support the water needs plus probably an SCBA cylinder change during the HV battery fire.
Check out the 110-page summary report for more details at;
http://www.nfpa.org/~/media/Fi... [nfpa.org] "
One of the Bolt fire stories included a FD comment about needing over 30K gallons of water to finally extinguish it (applied over the course of several hours, but not continuously).
One issue with batteries installed in an actual EV (not just a Bolt) is access to the battery. Those tests numbers appear to be for a battery in the open, not installed in a vehicle that has all sorts of structure around it. Simply getting the water into the battery might be one of the reasons the FD in the reported case decided
You better live on a farm or something. (Score:2)
If you live in a city or a suburb, it's going to be a little difficult to park this disaster wagon more than 50 feet from all other vehicles all the time. Should you stay 50 feet away from all the other vehicles on the highway as well?
You're holding it wrong (Score:2)
I'll see myself out.
Re: (Score:3)
Chevy Bolt parking lot [dronestagr.am]