0
comments
1. Lincoln Town Car, 90%
2. Buick Lucerne, 87%
3. Cadillac DTS, 85%
4. Cadillac CTS, 74%
5. Cadillac STS, 71%
6. Hyundai Azera, 25%
7. Chevrolet Impala, 51%
8. Buick LaCrosse, 59%
9. Lincoln MKZ, 54%
10. Toyota Avalon, 54%
In an effort to recreate the May test, NHTSA conducted three tests last week on the Volt's lithium-ion battery packs that intentionally damaged the battery compartment and ruptured the vehicle's coolant line. Following a test on November 16 that did not result in a fire, a temporary increase in temperature was recorded in a test on November 17. During the test conducted on November 18 using similar protocols, the battery pack was rotated within hours after it was impacted and began to smoke and emit sparks shortly after rotation to 180 degrees. NHTSA's forensic analysis of the November 18 fire incident is continuing this week. Yesterday, the battery pack that was tested on November 17 and that had been continually monitored since the test caught fire at the testing facility. The agency is currently working with DOE, DOD, and GM to assess the cause and implications of yesterday's fire. In each of the battery tests conducted in the past two weeks, the Volt's battery was impacted and rotated to simulate a real-world, side-impact collision into a narrow object such as a tree or a pole followed by a rollover.
So in short, NHTSA is crashing Volts with very specific protocol--a narrow pole, which will cause severe deformation/penetration of the body structure, followed by a rotation to simulate a rollover.
The batteries aren't catching on fire right away, rather they seem to take some time to build up heat.
I don't think there is anything to worry about, yet. First, this is a very specific and severe type of crash, and second, it takes hours or days before the battery self-heats to the point of fire. As NHTSA and GM both point out, no on-the-road accidents are known to have caused battery fires.
However, GM apparently was late to the game, by not developing beforehand a procedure to discharge (and render safer) the Volt battery. They are now rolling this procedure out to first responders, who need to know how to neutralize a charged lithium ion battery after a severe accident.
To the extent that City law prohibits the erection of structures, the use of gas or other
combustible materials, and the accumulation of garbage and human waste in public places,
enforcement of the law and the owner's rules appears reasonable to permit the owner to maintain its
space in a hygienic, safe, and lawful condition, and to prevent it from being liable by the City or others
for violations of law, or in tort. It also permits public access by those who live and work in the area
who are the intended beneficiaries of this zoning bonus.
The movants have not demonst rated that they have a First Amendment right to remain in
Zuccotti Park, along with their tents, structures, generators, and other installations to the exclusion
of the owner's reasonable rights and duties to maintain Zuccotti Park, or to the rights to public access
of others who might wish to use the space safely. Neither have the applicants shown a right to a
temporary restraining order that would restrict the City's enforcement of law so as to promote public
health and safety.
At $20/pair plus shipping, it isn't cheap, but isn't outrageously expensive either. It should outlast your vehicle.
"To my surprise, I found the In cord had a squeeze-handle like the safety grip on a Model 1911 A1 .45 pistol"
Goodyear's Air Maintenance Technology (AMT) will enable tires to remain inflated at the optimum pressure without the need for any external pumps or electronics. All components of the AMT system, including the miniaturized pump, will be fully contained within the tire.
The case is made of brushed aluminum, and is designed to look like an engine block, with cut0uts reminiscent of cylinder bores and cooling passages. In addition to the aluminum shell, the case comes with two clear protectors, for the back and for the front screen. The aluminum shell has a suede inner lining to cushion the phone.
In all, survey respondents left 100 pages worth of comments.
"Consumers don't understand what this will cost, and environmental groups don't care," is a typical comment.
"Aerodynamic blobs on the way," another quips.
1) 60MPG will increase jobs and profitability of the Big 3. Apparently, Citibank looked into a crystal ball and decided that the Big 3 market share and margins would increase with higher fuel economy vehicles. But the Big 3 rely on large vehicles, even today, for a lot of their profits. And jobs? That depends. If free trade with China continues, I see batteries and other components coming from China, which is a powerhouse in rare earth mining and raw materials processing. Look at it this way--in the rise of Li-Ion batteries for tools and laptop computers, where are all the parts coming from? China and Korea.2) 60MPG will not cost much, and will pay for itself. True, at $4/gal, a 60MPG car will pay back a sizeable premium in 3-4 years. However, the cost estimates of some the technology are pie-in-the-sky. What happens to li-ion battery costs if we start making millions of relatively huge car batteries? Are the greens ready to strip-mine China for lithium? What about the supply of rare earth metals for the powerful magnets needed by the motor/generators?3) Americans want 60MPG cars. Sure they do--but they don't want to pay much for them. As many surveys have shown, when you attach costs to highly efficient cars, interest drops off rapidly. Today, there are numerous highly efficient small and medium cars available. However, trucks and SUVs are still hot sellers. What Americans really want is free efficiency. They want large cars and cheap gas. They want fat free french fries.4) 60MPG is within easy reach, with off the shelf tech. Sure, for small and mid-sized cars. Give me a B/C platform and let me add a couple of thousand dollars in engine upgrades, more transmission gears, aluminum and high strength steel components. You'll have a 60MPG small car that costs $25,000. Great. Now, how do you do it for a mid-sized SUV or minivan? Or the Texas workhorse, the 1-ton pickup? Not so easy.
So what is the answer?A) Reducing vehicle weight will reduce overall safety, or add cost due to expensive countermeasures like additional airbags. It's physics. In a two car crash, the heavier car does better. Until all the old heavy vehicles are off of the road, about 10 years after the lightweight ones are introduced, the new vehicles will be at a disadvantage.B) High CAFE standards will increase up-front costs, and reduce sales. Suppose CAFE adds $4,000 in today's money to a typical family vehicle. Some people will respond by buying used, some will buy smaller or cheaper, and some will defer their purchase. Yes, you will save money down the road. But you have to pay the down payment and the taxes now. I agree with the AAM that sales volumes will be decreased. Fewer new car sales means fewer jobs in sales and manufacturing. However, there may be a renaissance in the old car repair industry, as people keep their old beaters longer.C) High CAFE standards will reduce consumer choice. How do you make a pickup truck which can pull a 10,000lb trailer, or haul 2,000lbs of bricks in its bed, which gets close to 60MPG? I don't think it is possible. Batteries are heavy and reduce payload. Beefy suspensions and large engines all work against efficiency. Even with efficiency improvements, in order to be able to sell pickup trucks, the automakers will have to get people to buy smaller cars to offset them. That's how CAFE works. The only way to do this is through price manipulation--either lose money on small cars, or jack up margins in large trucks. Since method one nearly killed the Big 3 once already, I suspect the answer is going to be method two. People who want muscle cars or pickup trucks will have to pay a lot more for them or do without. Instead, there will be strong pressure on consumers to pick small cars and range limited EVs. Products like high-performance sports cars may be very different under a 60MPG regime--slower, more expensive.
One of their misions was propoganda. The would drive around in a truck with a huge amplifier to broadcast German language de-motivation. This was dangerous work, as the Germans would often shoot towards the sound, and they eventually learned to run wires to the speaker some distance away, to draw the fire from the truck.
My favorite part of the exhibit... they should have had more guns. They should have had a Colt 1911 and a Garand, at least.
The Auto Prophet Copyright © 2012 Fast Loading -- Powered by Blogger
