Jump to content
Server Move In Progress - Read More ×
Create New...
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    GM May Redesign The Volt's Battery *UPDATED*

    William Maley

    Editor/Reporter - CheersandGears.com

    December 1, 2011

    In a interview today with Reuters, GM CEO Dan Akerson said the company may redesign the Volt's battery in response to a NHTSA investigation.

    "We want to assure the safety of our customers, of our buyers, and so we're just going to take a time out, if you will, in terms of redesigning the battery possibly," Dan Akerson told Reuters.

    Back on Monday, GM announced they would offer loaner vehicles to 5,500 Volt owners after NHTSA opened a investigation into Volt's batteries last Friday.

    In addition, Akerson said the Opel Ampera would not go on sale until engineers and safety regulators had worked out how to deal with the 400-pound battery pack after any accident.

    Akerson also reiterated that the Volt is a safe car, pointing to the safety ratings the car has received.

    Source: Reuters

    UPDATE: Dan Akerson told the AP today that the company would be willing to buy Volts back from their owners. Akerson also said that if necessary, GM will recall more than 6,000 Volts on the road in the U.S. and repair them once the company and safety regulators figure out what caused the fires.

    "I think in the interest of General Motors, the industry, the electrification of the car, it's best to get it right now than when you have - instead of 6,000 - 60,000 or 600,000 cars on the road," said Akerson.

    Source: The Associated Press

    Further Reading:

    NHTSA Opens Investigation Into Volt Batteries

    GM Offering Free Loaner Cars to Volt Owners During Battery Investigation

    Chevy Volt Tops Consumer Reports Owner Satisfaction Survey

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    This tells me that GM's secret safety procedures are insufficient so far... and yeah, this is really not the time GM needs to give ammunition to the anti-GM press and enthusiasts.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    What I am more interested in is how many people take GM up on these offers. The buyback offer could be a really big PR coup for GM. Consumer reports says that 93% of Volt owners would buy another one.. That makes them rather unlikely to want to give their current Volt back to GM. That leaves only 503 out of 6,300 Volt owners as even remotely likely to be interested in a buyback. How many of those are going to want a buyback.... 1%?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    better to be proactive than reactive.... always.

    I mean.... it's better than being hauled in front of a Congressional Inquiry about "what you knew, when, and what are you going to do about it?" like Ford and Firestone.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I think I see where Camino is coming here from. As a skeptic of anything GM does, asking for a buy back after quick succession of concessions shows that GM does not have faith in Volt, despite of the so called proactive steps. Here the intentions may have been right, but the move may be wrong.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Not so much wrong, as too early - and possibly unecessary.

    The loaner option was just announced, and well received, they should have waited a bit for things to clarify before saying anything about a buyback.

    The press will spin this into an ugly thing that could damage the Volt (and GM) needlessly.

    Reactions to things like this require proper timing, that's all.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I agree the buy back should have come if there people coming back and just do it on a case by case base. I really don't think many will take up on this as I have seen most defend the car. They are a very loyal group.

    As for the battery update it is just one of many running changes we will see. Things are going to happen that no matter how much testing you do, the real world is the real test.

    If it was easy to build a car like this everyone would have one.

    The key is for GM and those like us here to keep this in perspective and not over react like the press. GM needs to prevent the media from doing a 60 min hack job on this. GM handled the Truck fuel tank issue the one network was setting them up with. Remember they were using toy rocket engines because they could not get a truck to go up in flames as claimed.

    GM I think will let them investigate and will publish the facts on this and that will keep them in the clear. It is not like these things are just going off driving down the road.

    Like I have stated this car has enemies out there and there are other MFG's and media people who would love to make sure it fails. Some other MFG's know this car could kill their investments into their own EV programs they alread have started. It could make them change direction and cost them millions. That is on top of those who would love to see GM fail anyways.

    Edited by hyperv6
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Im thinking their going to put something in it as a safety to de-power it upon an accident.

    wasn't the first volt that burned found next to a significantly more burned home built electric suzuki car?

    Disconnecting the Volt power supply in an accident is not real difficult. It has the MSD... manual service disconnect. I suppose it could be modified to automagically disconnect service if, say, the air bags were triggered... but the problems with fires will not be solved by this problem because the battery pack is still live.

    Removing this charge from inside the battery pack is not a trivial task. You can't just short the battery... and whatever you use to provide a load needs to discharge the battery at a rate which does not overheat the battery... and the load itself needs to be robust enough to dissipate the energy that is in the battery, which is quite a lot in a fully charged Volt battery pack. I imagine building something like this into the battery pack would easily add a hundred pounds of weight and would eat more space in the battery pack that would do better with more lithium cells.

    Many forget that in order to fit the energy in Li Ion cells that would fit in a traditional gasoline tank, you are starting to play with chemistry that is highly reactive. The lithium metal is reactive to water, so the electrolyte or coolant cannot be water based... and you can't even let the lithium metal be exposed to air, as there is water vapor in it. Not only is the lithium dangerous, but the electrolyte is highly reactive... and in the case of the Volt, very flammable. If it wasn't flammable, it would still be nasty stuff.

    It all suddenly makes gasoline look quite safe.

    And while many people think that batteries will get safer and more powerful, I see this as a inverse relationship. More powerful batteries will use more reactive chemistry and will be nastier when damaged... and will have higher electrocution risks due to the massive energy stored and the rate at which it can be discharged. The batteries in your cell phone, laptop and car will be rated as munitions. Luckily, we never had to figure out how to power cars with C4. ;-)

    That said, I still look forward to new battery technology... as I want an all electric '68 Bonneville that can do the 1/4 in 9 flat and a Droid that can remote control it all day while streaming Slacker radio without dropping into the yellow battery zone.

    Edited by SAmadei
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    what i think would be an good way to go with batteries, is if all cars used a universal battery. Say you pull up to a gas station, old battery slides out- new one slides in, you pay for the electricity in the battery and there you go.

    While i think this could work, i don't think it is practical in the real world, as batteries are very expensive, while the electricity in them is cheap.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    what i think would be an good way to go with batteries, is if all cars used a universal battery. Say you pull up to a gas station, old battery slides out- new one slides in, you pay for the electricity in the battery and there you go.

    While i think this could work, i don't think it is practical in the real world, as batteries are very expensive, while the electricity in them is cheap.

    There has been talk of systems like this... but I doubt the manufacturers would ever agree on a standard... even if they could, considering that different cars may have different battery needs. Lets say was use the sizes analogous to common alkaline batteries... A Smart might need 2 AAAs, whereas the Volt uses 2 AA... maybe the Volt CUV 3 AA... but a fullsize SUV needs a C and a tractor trailer gets a monster load of 8 Ds. ;-)

    That said, its true the electric is cheap... but the lithium is not. Even a dead battery pack has a lot of value... so either the price of eventual recycling is built into the electric refill cost, or the manufacturers get involve to eat some recycling cost in order to build more electric cars... in which case the cost is piggybacked onto the vehicle cost.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Noting is cheap at this point but the more they make and advance these systems the price will drop.

    As for the problem with the battery we need to know more about what happened and what they are doing to change it. Also was the onstar hooked up and did GM even know these cars were sitting crashed?

    Was it the NHTSA not letting GM dischage the batteries or did GM not respond or did they even know?

    There are many unanswered questions and from what has been stated GM seems to have a way to deal with the batteries if they know or respond. The question is why was it not discharged?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Noting is cheap at this point but the more they make and advance these systems the price will drop.

    No it WON'T. Unless their is a MAJOR development which reduces the need for lithium, or we discover Greenland is a huge lithium deposit, lithium will remain expensive.

    We only recently learned of a large deposit, and its in Afghanistan... so we're going to be making a new group of tin-pot dictators into a major player and battery prices will fluctuate depending on their mood.

    Saying that advances will make the batteries cheaper is like saying in 1974 that advances will make catalytic converters cheaper. Well, aside from one advancement (going from pellet to mesh), cats have gotten more expensive... because platinum is still very rare.

    Luckily, lithium is not nearly as rare as platinum... but it also has more competition for its use. Only 23% becomes batteries. Plus there is mounting evidence that increasing lithium production is not ecologically sound.

    Granted, this chart does not cover 2009-2011, but I assure you, the prices have not plummeted.

    lithium-price.gif

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Noting is cheap at this point but the more they make and advance these systems the price will drop.

    No it WON'T. Unless their is a MAJOR development which reduces the need for lithium, or we discover Greenland is a huge lithium deposit, lithium will remain expensive.

    We only recently learned of a large deposit, and its in Afghanistan... so we're going to be making a new group of tin-pot dictators into a major player and battery prices will fluctuate depending on their mood.

    Saying that advances will make the batteries cheaper is like saying in 1974 that advances will make catalytic converters cheaper. Well, aside from one advancement (going from pellet to mesh), cats have gotten more expensive... because platinum is still very rare.

    Luckily, lithium is not nearly as rare as platinum... but it also has more competition for its use. Only 23% becomes batteries. Plus there is mounting evidence that increasing lithium production is not ecologically sound.

    Granted, this chart does not cover 2009-2011, but I assure you, the prices have not plummeted.

    lithium-price.gif

    My statment was not just batteries but motors and all other parts in the system that are expensive today due to start up cost and low volume. With higher volumes the price will drop on these parts with compitition and voulume.; Yes the Battery is the most expensive part and who's is to say future power will be Lithium 10 years from now?

    Demand is high for a cheaper more efficent power system and not just in the auto segment. This means a lot of investment is being made here and someone will find other options in time. There is a lot of interesting work going on right now in this area and many are showing great promise.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Noting is cheap at this point but the more they make and advance these systems the price will drop.

    No it WON'T. Unless their is a MAJOR development which reduces the need for lithium, or we discover Greenland is a huge lithium deposit, lithium will remain expensive.

    We only recently learned of a large deposit, and its in Afghanistan... so we're going to be making a new group of tin-pot dictators into a major player and battery prices will fluctuate depending on their mood.

    Saying that advances will make the batteries cheaper is like saying in 1974 that advances will make catalytic converters cheaper. Well, aside from one advancement (going from pellet to mesh), cats have gotten more expensive... because platinum is still very rare.

    Luckily, lithium is not nearly as rare as platinum... but it also has more competition for its use. Only 23% becomes batteries. Plus there is mounting evidence that increasing lithium production is not ecologically sound.

    Granted, this chart does not cover 2009-2011, but I assure you, the prices have not plummeted.

    lithium-price.gif

    My statment was not just batteries but motors and all other parts in the system that are expensive today due to start up cost and low volume. With higher volumes the price will drop on these parts with compitition and voulume.; Yes the Battery is the most expensive part and who's is to say future power will be Lithium 10 years from now?

    The motors are relatively cheap, already... However, they also depend on a fairly expensive metal... copper. Not long ago, I was reading how the copper supply was scheduled to run out in 5 years... which has had the result of convincing people to start removing long abandoned (for fiber) wiring and upgrade plumbing to PEX/CPVC and selling their old pipes as if it was jewelry.

    I still maintain that generator/motor tech is nothing radically new... and either is the controller systems. In general these are similar to forklifts... but the motors are somewhat repackaged.

    The only thing 'new' to this stuff are the fact that they have GM part numbers... and need to go through the typical GM part inverted bell curve for pricing.

    Who says the future is Lithium? Well, most electric engineers would. It took Li Ion cells from 1979 to 1996 to come to market... and until 2003 to become mainstream... over 20 years. If you read about tech on a regular basis, you will see techs in the news for years before they are ready for the consumer. Where are the flexible solar panels? Foldable/rollable LCD screens? Flying cars? These have been around for roughly 10, 6 and 35 years, respectfully... and are still not here. There is nothing on the horizon that appears to be supplanting Li Ion in the next decade. Even if we invent Mr. Fusion TOMORROW, it would take 10 years of testing and fireproofing before the lawyers let it hit the streets.

    Demand is high for a cheaper more efficent power system and not just in the auto segment. This means a lot of investment is being made here and someone will find other options in time. There is a lot of interesting work going on right now in this area and many are showing great promise.

    Demand is high for gold, as well. But you still can't turn lead into gold, regardless of the alchemists that claim that "there is a lot of interesting work going on right now in this area and many are showing great promise."

    Companies developing any new technology are out to claim being first (to get patents) and to draw in additional investment... and love to spout off lots of promises that don't really pan out. Sure, advances are coming... the laws of physics are putting a brake on the rate of advancements... regardless of demand.

    I'm not discounting the possibility that something earth-shattering will develop tomorrow (like Mr. Fusion)... but when you pinpoint the most earth-shattering developments, most occurred long ago... and we live in a time of slower incremental improvement. The only exception to this is Moore's law... but even that is coming apart. Battery development severely trails even the currently busted Moore's law.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Noting is cheap at this point but the more they make and advance these systems the price will drop.

    No it WON'T. Unless their is a MAJOR development which reduces the need for lithium, or we discover Greenland is a huge lithium deposit, lithium will remain expensive.

    We only recently learned of a large deposit, and its in Afghanistan... so we're going to be making a new group of tin-pot dictators into a major player and battery prices will fluctuate depending on their mood.

    Saying that advances will make the batteries cheaper is like saying in 1974 that advances will make catalytic converters cheaper. Well, aside from one advancement (going from pellet to mesh), cats have gotten more expensive... because platinum is still very rare.

    Luckily, lithium is not nearly as rare as platinum... but it also has more competition for its use. Only 23% becomes batteries. Plus there is mounting evidence that increasing lithium production is not ecologically sound.

    Granted, this chart does not cover 2009-2011, but I assure you, the prices have not plummeted.

    lithium-price.gif

    My statment was not just batteries but motors and all other parts in the system that are expensive today due to start up cost and low volume. With higher volumes the price will drop on these parts with compitition and voulume.; Yes the Battery is the most expensive part and who's is to say future power will be Lithium 10 years from now?

    The motors are relatively cheap, already... However, they also depend on a fairly expensive metal... copper. Not long ago, I was reading how the copper supply was scheduled to run out in 5 years... which has had the result of convincing people to start removing long abandoned (for fiber) wiring and upgrade plumbing to PEX/CPVC and selling their old pipes as if it was jewelry.

    I still maintain that generator/motor tech is nothing radically new... and either is the controller systems. In general these are similar to forklifts... but the motors are somewhat repackaged.

    The only thing 'new' to this stuff are the fact that they have GM part numbers... and need to go through the typical GM part inverted bell curve for pricing.

    Who says the future is Lithium? Well, most electric engineers would. It took Li Ion cells from 1979 to 1996 to come to market... and until 2003 to become mainstream... over 20 years. If you read about tech on a regular basis, you will see techs in the news for years before they are ready for the consumer. Where are the flexible solar panels? Foldable/rollable LCD screens? Flying cars? These have been around for roughly 10, 6 and 35 years, respectfully... and are still not here. There is nothing on the horizon that appears to be supplanting Li Ion in the next decade. Even if we invent Mr. Fusion TOMORROW, it would take 10 years of testing and fireproofing before the lawyers let it hit the streets.

    Demand is high for a cheaper more efficent power system and not just in the auto segment. This means a lot of investment is being made here and someone will find other options in time. There is a lot of interesting work going on right now in this area and many are showing great promise.

    Demand is high for gold, as well. But you still can't turn lead into gold, regardless of the alchemists that claim that "there is a lot of interesting work going on right now in this area and many are showing great promise."

    Companies developing any new technology are out to claim being first (to get patents) and to draw in additional investment... and love to spout off lots of promises that don't really pan out. Sure, advances are coming... the laws of physics are putting a brake on the rate of advancements... regardless of demand.

    I'm not discounting the possibility that something earth-shattering will develop tomorrow (like Mr. Fusion)... but when you pinpoint the most earth-shattering developments, most occurred long ago... and we live in a time of slower incremental improvement. The only exception to this is Moore's law... but even that is coming apart. Battery development severely trails even the currently busted Moore's law.

    With such high demand for better battery power in many products today there is more development money being spent now than ever. It is just a matter of time before someone will find a much better, efficent and cheaper power cell. The Prize for the winner or rights holder in this case will be high.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    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



  • Community Hive Community Hive

    Community Hive allows you to follow your favorite communities all in one place.

    Follow on Community Hive
  • 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

    • I don't plan on gardening anytime soon. We need to finish other things before I'd have a permanent spot for a garden, but I would like a small garden in the future. We consume enough various peppers, onions, and zucchinis that I think it would be pretty cool to grow them myself. 
    • If you do tomatoes or any water hungry container veggies, Pittmoss is the GOAT and will save you a ton of headache with watering.
    • Thanks! Yeah, from what I've read it needs a lot of water but also media that drains well so the roots can dry out between waterings. I've now looked into this Pittmoss stuff, and it sounds pretty dang good. I think I'll order some and mix it with planter soil, as well. 
    • All done with the detail inside and out of the SS for the spring/summer season.
    • I had never driven an Infiniti Q50 before, let alone ever really looked at them.  I also didn’t know much about these cars. I was supposed to be assigned a medium sized SUV, but remarked I wanted the luggage area to be hidden.  The rental agent told me they could not guarantee the presence of a retractable cover. (Why would they order a car without one or why would someone take one?  eBay?)  They didn’t have any SUVs anyway, and I got put into an Infiniti Q50.  I checked my phone to verify the cost would be covered by my insurance and the credit card parameters.  It came in at around $43,000.  That’s if new.  That said: “no worries.”  However, this unit would be a much-depreciated 3+ year model with 57,000 miles.  I relaxed.  At any rate, I put less than 500 miles on it over a week.  As one walks up to it, you can tell its heritage … and rather quickly.  You can instantly see similarities to the Nissan Altima in the instrument panel’s main cluster and in the switches much the same way that a CT6 by Cadillac and a Cruze by Chevrolet share dials and such.  However, the assembly and detailing are nicer in the Q50.  It had leather seating, which I don’t care for in a warm weather location, that was comfortably contoured and nicely finished.  The same could be said for the doors and other trim and fittings.  Inside, I liked the way that the dash, center stack, and console flowed together.  The scalloped tops of the dash hearken to those of the very last Impala, which had an attractive dashboard on various levels. The center stack is slightly like that of an Olds Aurora.  These comments go along with the often-cited commentary that this car is traditional and old school in a lot of ways, thus not breaking any new ground. The least favorable aspect of the interior is operating the various touch screen and stalk functions.  Some are redundant and confusing.  However, for one, it is possible to pull up a clock that resembles old school chronometer and have it sitting at the top of the center stack. On the interior's plus side, there are perfectly contoured and angled slots to store water bottles at the base of the front doors.  On the minus side, there is a remote latch release for the trunk, but not one for the fuel cap door.  (The fuel cap door remains closed if the car is locked.) I figured that this Infiniti would have a V6.  It was no ordinary V6, but 3.7 liters worth of V6 with twin turbochargers.  Rarely does one need this much power and, in one week, I got aggressive with the throttle in one merging situation and one passing situation.  It is up to the task and kicks out a little torque steer.  Its hum is a rather muted purr.  As would be expected in what is supposed to be a premium car, the automatic transmission is a geared unit.  It has 7 speeds.  The first 2 shifts can be felt while the remaining shifts are not.  However, if in stop and go traffic, and alternating speed, those early shifts can be a little less smooth as the transmission seems to hunt.  (It could also be how many miles were on the unit.) Why 7 speeds?  How about 6 … or 8?  I’m talking even numbers! With the powertrain comes the requirement for premium fuel.  Also, compared to many full-size Japanese cars working with 4 cylinders and turning in commendable gas mileage, this car with its V6 is a little thirsty. Ride, handling, and noise are related, but different enough.  The ride was supple and controlled, but not much more so than that of an uplevel 4-cylinder sedan.  Handling was better and this Infiniti tracked accurately and nimbly.  Also, the Q50 was fairly hushed, but I might have expected a little more isolation and a higher premium "feel" for the price jump from a Nissan to an Infiniti. Its exterior features that extra chrome and trim to make it uplevel within the Nissan family tree, yet the greenhouse is an almost familiar one.  This car delivered on one greenhouse dimension I’m fussy about - rearward vision from the driver’s vantage point is very good. I don’t know how the order sheet was configured when this car was purchased. There was an indicator for forward alerts, but I never got to experience it in action.  Also, whether on the rearview mirrors or inside of the front pillars, there was nothing to warn of side traffic and there weren’t parking assists that kicked in.  Perhaps they were there, but the car was not put in a situation where they’d engage.  On another rental car of a lower price point, those were always at work and perhaps a little too eager.  I almost prefer the latter. I didn’t read any reviews about this car before beginning the rental or during the rental.  I echo what they have to say.  For its niche, it doesn’t drum up much enthusiasm.  The best point is its more premium handling while the negatives are some difficulties in setting it up when first getting in and its slight thirstiness. If something about this overall package is appealing and a person connects with the Q50, then the consumer will probably go for it.  I don’t know how it will hold up and how much it will cost to service over the long haul.  While there are no Toyota and Nissan dealerships in Beverly Hills, California, as an example, there is a Lexus agency there while the Infiniti dealership seems to have closed.  Infiniti seems to want to ride the same wave that Lexus is riding, though I’d think piggybacking onto Toyota might be a more lauded genealogy. This is very much a personal decision and you’re on your own.  I was going to turn in the Q50 after a day to see if I could get something more familiar to me but decided to keep it.  Exchanging cars is a hassle.  Once past the learning curve and adjustments, it’s fairly easy to live with, but it’s neither a remarkable nor compelling vehicle. - - - - - PHOTOS FORTHCOMING
  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

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

Change privacy settings