Federal Law for Builds Using >60VDC

2161 Views 23 Replies 12 Participants Last post by GrayRaceCat, 2 mo ago

remy_martian

Discussion Starter · 3 mo ago

THIS IS USA FEDERAL LAW

49 CFR § 571.305 - Standard No. 305; Electric-powered vehicles: electrolyte spillage and electrical shock protection.

§ 571.305 Standard No. 305; Electric-powered vehicles: electrolyte spillage and electrical shock protection.

S1. Scope. This standard specifies requirements for limitation of electrolyte spillage and retention of electric energy storage/conversion devices during and after a crash, and protection from harmful electric shock during and after a crash and during normal vehicle operation.

S2. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to reduce deaths and injuries during and after a crash that occur because of electrolyte spillage from electric energy storage devices, intrusion of electric energy storage/conversion devices into the occupant compartment, and electrical shock, and to reduce deaths and injuries during normal vehicle operation that occur because of electric shock or driver error.

S3. Application. This standard applies to passenger cars, and to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or less, that use electrical propulsion components with working voltages more than 60 volts direct current (VDC) or 30 volts alternating current (VAC), and whose speed attainable over a distance of 1.6 km on a paved level surface is more than 40 km/h.

49 CFR § 571.305 - Standard No. 305; Electric-powered vehicles: electrolyte spillage and electrical shock protection.

www.law.cornell.edu

Save

Reactions: 3

1 - 4 of 24 Posts

cricketo

· #3 · 3 mo ago

What if you add a couple of thousand kg's of ballast ?

Save

Reactions: 1

cricketo

· #6 · 3 mo ago

piotrsko said:
When was this made into law? Sounds recent with mandated compliance forward of the published date. I might have to move my main contactor to the bed of the truck.

There was a paragraph stating the EMPTY weight of the vehicle without load or passenger or ballast

It also looks like salvaged packs mostly pass this test providing they are in the original configuration and packaging.

The main thing is that there are likely limits to application of FMVSS. It is obvious that it regulates commercial manufacturers of vehicles and vehicle equipment, but it doesn't regulate all vehicles on the road, otherwise any vehicle that doesn't meet the latest revision of FMVSS would have to be taken out of operation. So when a non-commercial entity puts a vehicle on the road that doesn't meet the standard, I am not sure it has any effect. Perhaps @remy_martian already figured out the scope and has a quick answer to that.

Save

Reactions: 1

cricketo

· #14 · 2 mo ago

remy_martian said:
Kill a first responder with your contraption after a crash, then have the lawyer you've retained for $25k convince a jury that he'll stipulate that you are the builder, you are the designer, you made the decision to ignore the CFR, you are the assembler, but you are not the manufacturer (because you are trying to loophole your way out of the CFR) of said culprit vehicle.

There is NO reasonable (what juries and judges do...they reason on facts) explanation as to why the 60V rule would not apply to a DIY electric vehicle operating on a public road or highway. None. You are all trying to rationalize why it should not and a judge ain't gunna buy your shit to get out of a negligence/manslaughter legal proceeding against you, the manufacturer. The only difference is a manufacturer offers goods for sale. Is that enough to get you out of killing someone? I don't think so.

You also stand a much better chance of getting extracated if you are in the local fire department's records as FMVSS voltages compliant, versus having firefighters stand around, smoking a cigarette (something you can't do around a crashed gasoline car) until they toll the time for your battery to self discharge below 60V. So, just before you pile into that telephone pole, turn on your electric cabin heater..

If that is really a concern, I'd say folks should avoid driving any vehicle altogether - chances of dying in a crash, or killing someone and being prosecuted/sued are much higher than electrocuting a first responder.

Save

Reactions: 1

cricketo

· #16 · 2 mo ago

remy_martian said:
The point is they won't go near a DIY until an expert is on scene.

So, the first responder gets bumped to third responder, and then a fourth responder gets to use the firehose on your total bleedout.

So even better - drive a home-made EV and you're on your own.

Save

1 - 4 of 24 Posts

49 CFR § 571.305 - Standard No. 305; Electric-powered vehicles: electrolyte spillage and electrical shock protection.

Top Contributors this Month