Today is Tuesday, October 13, 2020, and I've been reading on-line national news (ABC is one example) about Bolts catching fire while parked or stored. The fires apparently have all occurred in the lithium battery pack below the seats. The articles say GM is investigating the three incidents and will have a report soon. Out of the 87,000 Bolts sold from 2016 through 2020, three fires is pretty low. Battery fires have also occurred in Teslas. To be safe, we installed a new smoke/fire alarm in our garage today.
News about Bolt Battery Fires
- Thread starter tdjgordon
- Start date
Help Support Chevy Bolt EV Forum:
ChevyCustomerCare
Well-known member
Hi everyone,
General Motors has decided to voluntarily recall select 2017-2019 model-year Chevrolet Bolt EVs with high voltage batteries produced at LG Chem’s Ochang, Korea facility that may pose a risk of fire when charged to full, or very close to full, capacity. While our investigation into this condition continues, GM has developed software that will limit vehicle charging to 90% of full capacity to mitigate this risk. Dealerships will update the vehicle’s battery software beginning on November 17 the to limit the maximum state of charge to 90 percent. Our analysis indicates that this action will reduce the risk of a battery fire. We are working around the clock on our continued investigation and intend to deploy a final remedy to remove the 90% limitation as quickly as possible after the first of the year, 2021. Until customers receive the dealer software update, we are asking them to change the charge settings on their vehicle to enable either “Hilltop Reserve” (for 2017-18 model year vehicles) or “Target Charge Level” (for 2019 model year vehicles) using their vehicle’s infotainment center. Changing these settings will temporarily limit the vehicle’s state of charge to 90%. If customers are unable to successfully make these changes, or do not feel comfortable making these changes, we are asking them to not park their car in their garage or carport until after they have visited their dealer. The safety of our products is the highest priority for the entire GM team. Customers are encouraged to make an appointment at their preferred dealer for this software update. For more information, customers can visit www.chevy.com/boltevrecall or contact the Chevrolet EV Concierge 1-833-EVCHEVY or their preferred dealer.
Dani C.
General Motors has decided to voluntarily recall select 2017-2019 model-year Chevrolet Bolt EVs with high voltage batteries produced at LG Chem’s Ochang, Korea facility that may pose a risk of fire when charged to full, or very close to full, capacity. While our investigation into this condition continues, GM has developed software that will limit vehicle charging to 90% of full capacity to mitigate this risk. Dealerships will update the vehicle’s battery software beginning on November 17 the to limit the maximum state of charge to 90 percent. Our analysis indicates that this action will reduce the risk of a battery fire. We are working around the clock on our continued investigation and intend to deploy a final remedy to remove the 90% limitation as quickly as possible after the first of the year, 2021. Until customers receive the dealer software update, we are asking them to change the charge settings on their vehicle to enable either “Hilltop Reserve” (for 2017-18 model year vehicles) or “Target Charge Level” (for 2019 model year vehicles) using their vehicle’s infotainment center. Changing these settings will temporarily limit the vehicle’s state of charge to 90%. If customers are unable to successfully make these changes, or do not feel comfortable making these changes, we are asking them to not park their car in their garage or carport until after they have visited their dealer. The safety of our products is the highest priority for the entire GM team. Customers are encouraged to make an appointment at their preferred dealer for this software update. For more information, customers can visit www.chevy.com/boltevrecall or contact the Chevrolet EV Concierge 1-833-EVCHEVY or their preferred dealer.
Dani C.
GM may need to pay owners Cash$$ if the 90% charge rule sticks around quite a while. It would actually be cheaper than replacing all those tens of thousands of massive batteries! ........ assuming the battery problem can't be solved with a better cell balancing/management software algorithm & requires a new battery.
Precedent, assuming it counts, can be found with the first 2013 model year of the Ford C-Max Hybrid, where the "range" in service was found to be less than the advertised window sticker MPG said.
In that case, Ford was not even technically at fault!! They used aero drag physics from the Ford Fusion Hybrid for the C-Max Hybrid's EPA MPG numbers, which was allowed by EPA rules since both had indentical weight & powertrain systems. Yet, Ford's exploitation of the rules loophole was deceptive, and they knew it, which increased sales of their new C-Max when people saw 47 MPG on the window sticker, when in reality, with CORRECT drag coefficients used, the real EPA MPG was about 43 MPG. (I had a '15 C-max & got 44 mpg average.)
Ford made good and gave about $500 bucks to buyers of the 2013 model as compensation for them getting lied to.
Precedent, assuming it counts, can be found with the first 2013 model year of the Ford C-Max Hybrid, where the "range" in service was found to be less than the advertised window sticker MPG said.
In that case, Ford was not even technically at fault!! They used aero drag physics from the Ford Fusion Hybrid for the C-Max Hybrid's EPA MPG numbers, which was allowed by EPA rules since both had indentical weight & powertrain systems. Yet, Ford's exploitation of the rules loophole was deceptive, and they knew it, which increased sales of their new C-Max when people saw 47 MPG on the window sticker, when in reality, with CORRECT drag coefficients used, the real EPA MPG was about 43 MPG. (I had a '15 C-max & got 44 mpg average.)
Ford made good and gave about $500 bucks to buyers of the 2013 model as compensation for them getting lied to.
Both the Bolt's problem and the old C-Max problem was an EPA estimate issue. Both GM & Ford are guilty of not delivering on the EPA estimate, hence the similarity. Remember the consumer sees the Range Estimate for an EV on the Monroney the same as they do MPG on a hybrid.
The Bolt promised 238 miles range (EPA standard test), and now it can actually only get 90% of that (214), less than what the buyer thought. C-max promised 47 MPG (important for a hybrid buyer), but really got 43 MPG when not "borrowing" Fusion drag numbers, less than what the buyer thought.
Only charging to 90% or 95% probably reduces the odds of a fire from 1-in-10,000 down to 1-in-100,000, acceptable risk, meaning it does solve the problem to just cheat the owner out of some range & move on.
Could be this range problem will persist for some time. Battery issues can be hard to resolve, especially since new packs cost $18,000 (part+labor). I could see GM taking the Ford route & just throwing some rebate, maybe $1,000 here, to keep consumers from feeling cheated while their batteries can't be charged up all the way, likely a 10-year problem.
Example: Mustang Mach-E Monroney range part:
The Bolt promised 238 miles range (EPA standard test), and now it can actually only get 90% of that (214), less than what the buyer thought. C-max promised 47 MPG (important for a hybrid buyer), but really got 43 MPG when not "borrowing" Fusion drag numbers, less than what the buyer thought.
Only charging to 90% or 95% probably reduces the odds of a fire from 1-in-10,000 down to 1-in-100,000, acceptable risk, meaning it does solve the problem to just cheat the owner out of some range & move on.
Could be this range problem will persist for some time. Battery issues can be hard to resolve, especially since new packs cost $18,000 (part+labor). I could see GM taking the Ford route & just throwing some rebate, maybe $1,000 here, to keep consumers from feeling cheated while their batteries can't be charged up all the way, likely a 10-year problem.
Example: Mustang Mach-E Monroney range part:
SparkE
Well-known member
And the lawyers get fat and happy. F'king lawyers.
ChevyCustomerCare
Well-known member
Hi all,
While we definitely understand that the interim repair and 90% charge limitation is not ideal, we assure you that our engineers are working around the clock to identify a permanent remedy and we expect to have the permanent remedy available after the first of the year, 2021, as mentioned above. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this recall in the meantime, you are also welcome to reach out to our Customer Care Team by emailing [email protected].
Elizabeth W.
While we definitely understand that the interim repair and 90% charge limitation is not ideal, we assure you that our engineers are working around the clock to identify a permanent remedy and we expect to have the permanent remedy available after the first of the year, 2021, as mentioned above. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this recall in the meantime, you are also welcome to reach out to our Customer Care Team by emailing [email protected].
Elizabeth W.
ChevyCustomerCare said:
Thanks for the official Chevy public response. Glad Chevy is at least saying something. Scheduling a breakthrough to solve a mystery makes it very tough on engineers, as I know from experience.
Your response makes it sound like Battery Cell/Bank Management software algorithms can be tweaked to maybe solve this. If it's a software algorithm solution, can it be trusted in the long term to actually solve it? Tapering off the input current flow near full charge "should" help thermal runaway, among many other possible solutions, yet I wouldn't bet on it.
Safer to just keep the 90% solution, reduced range, and cut a check to all the owners with an apology, keeping the fire chance down at 1 in 100,000 instead of the current 1 in 10,000 odds. ......... Interestingly, the odds of a newer IC engined vehicle getting a car fire in 1 year is about 1 in 10,000 from figures I found. (Old cars of course higher!) Par for the course.
I would be surprised if the solution is battery pack replacement with a revised anode/cathode design or electrochemistry changes, in that short amount of time. As I said above, it would be expensive. Assuming GM can replace the batteries at dealerships for the cost of around $10,000 wholesale ($18,000 if retail, for comparison), that would mean $500 million bucks, and that's on a vehicle that never made a profit in the first place.
Next time one of your neighbors, gets rear-ended by a drunk driver, be sure to convince them that they needn't hire one of those "f'king lawyers!"SparkE said:
They will be much better off to negotiate directly with the insurance company!
BTW: What do YOU do for a living?
It's great to see you guys here on this forum!ChevyCustomerCare said:
I'd give the engineers a break. Do you really need a 3rd shift of "engineers working around the clock"? :lol:
They work better in groups, exchanging ideas and data.
I had interaction with your team when I was asking if the 'DCFC Robustness' service bulletin was free and if it can be included in the current Fire Recall?
I now realize there is one SW level that can be loaded.
This is what I posted on the other forum on this subject:
The question is what are the DCFC parameters within the Fire Recall SW?
Legacy or the new DCFC update?
It would save time for everyone if the Chevy EV Concierge/Tech Support staff had a script explaining that,
"The DCFC Parameters are the latest available with the Fire Recall".
This is just for folks like me that call up asking for Both Updates.
TheLondonBroiler
Active member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2019
- Messages
- 30
Norton said:
I second this. It would probably go a long way with owners like me, who at the moment aren't likely to purchase their next EV from GM. Goodwill actions speak louder than words.
ChevyCustomerCare said:
I just found out about Tesla's "90% Range Solution". Didn't know about this:
"The owners believe the software update was a way for Tesla to avoid a recall, since it may take care of the potential battery fire issue. However, they believe it's unfair that their Teslas' range was reduced. "
https://insideevs.com/news/454662/tesla-model-s-x-nhtsa-battery-invetigation/
https://insideevs.com/news/364266/tesla-owner-lawsuit-restricting-update/
GM is taking the high road here with admitting a problem may exist & doing a recall. The 90% range limitation looks similar to what Tesla is doing, but not admitting to. Tesla just updates the car's software over the internet (telematics) without admitting why they just cut the range down to 90%. As I said in previous posts, its unfair when a person pays X dollars for an EV with Y range claims, and the company reduces it down to 90%. Apparently, many Tesla owners & consumer advocates agree. Again, like pointed out earlier, Ford gave owners $550 for a minor EPA MPG disappointment, and I predict GM will end up doing that (maybe $1k though here) for reduced range.
I have rarely disabled "hilltop reserve" in the past, hoping that this feature also extends battery life. After receiving word of the fire risk and recall, I of course leave this 90% limit enabled.
While waiting for a better fix than limiting charge to 90%, why bother getting Chevy's "temporary" preventive software change? Why not just leave "hilltop reserve"enabled until any actual fix becomes available?
While waiting for a better fix than limiting charge to 90%, why bother getting Chevy's "temporary" preventive software change? Why not just leave "hilltop reserve"enabled until any actual fix becomes available?
GM does not want to be liable if you choose to turn hilltop reserve off.
So if you purposely do not get the recall update and your Bolt EV bursts into flames and causes property damage and forbid injuries or death, you assumed that risk and you are liable.
There foregoing is my informational opinion for discussion purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice which should only be dispensed by your attorney.
So if you purposely do not get the recall update and your Bolt EV bursts into flames and causes property damage and forbid injuries or death, you assumed that risk and you are liable.
There foregoing is my informational opinion for discussion purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice which should only be dispensed by your attorney.
Thanks for the advice (with disclaimer), BoltEV. I'm the foolish ex-lawyer who has himself as a client, but I consider litigation unlikely.
Assumption of risk? GM's doubtless-top-notch lawyers would have a tough row to hoe if I do manually what they would've done with software. I suppose there's a bit of risk in skipping their CYA software fix. But my sense is that the physical and legal risk only becomes substantial if I turn off "hilltop reserve" and charge above 90%. Given the fire risk, I have no plan to do so; and it's basically impossible to do it accidentally.
However, I appreciate your words of caution. you #$%^ lawyer, you
I may knuckle under yet.
Assumption of risk? GM's doubtless-top-notch lawyers would have a tough row to hoe if I do manually what they would've done with software. I suppose there's a bit of risk in skipping their CYA software fix. But my sense is that the physical and legal risk only becomes substantial if I turn off "hilltop reserve" and charge above 90%. Given the fire risk, I have no plan to do so; and it's basically impossible to do it accidentally.
However, I appreciate your words of caution. you #$%^ lawyer, you
I may knuckle under yet.Or the risk that the software somehow resets itself back to 100% and you’re forced to prove otherwise with evidence reduced to ashes! :roll:sibelman said:
But that is easy for me to say with my battery manufactured in Michigan.
I will say, however, that I never used hilltop reserve in my leased 2017 Bolt EV, but turn it down to 93% (better control in the 2019 I purchased) so as to have immediate regenerative braking when I was driving Uber full time before the pandemic.
BoltEV said:
There, indeed, is the rub. That risk vs. the inconvenience of doing the recall (and losing, maybe permanently, the option to take the risk of 100% charging if I have an unexpected crisis).
fwiw, I've looked under the rear seat and seen no charring or other wackiness -- I (mis?)understand that's where the fires are thought to start.
Similar threads
