[Cereal Killer]

Speaking of compensation, looks like GM will be getting most of the money the lost from LG. An agreement has been reached.

Site Maintenance

 

[MisterJJ]

Guessing that 60% of people are going to keep their Bolt.

I'm guessing it's way, way higher than 60%. I highly doubt it would be anywhere near that for forum members and the much larger "general public" population will be close to 99%.

 

[stangoldberg]

I could imagine a dystopian future where corporations leverage our data against us in a situation like this. Let's imagine GM has OnStar data that shows that my driving patterns and access to charging before the recall could be satisfied by using less than 50% of the car's range 98% of the time. Because the recall guidance allows me to use effectively 60% of my range, GM could claim that I didn't lose anything of significant value, and that my specific compensation should only be 2% of what would otherwise be considered reasonable compensation.

So if everybody would normally get $625 for the loss of range (like in the Tesla lawsuit), I would only get $12.50. Or if the total payout was $1.5 million (like the Tesla lawsuit), drivers with my usage pattern would split $30,000, while other drivers would split the other $1.47 million.

Fortunately for us, that's not how class action lawsuits typically work right now. But the data is there, and it's not much of a stretch to imagine corporations seeking to leverage that data in situations like this.

You bring up an important point, whose data is it. I maintain the data belongs to the car owner. What data is OnStar keeping and why am I unable to access my data at anytime? This is a major consumer rights issue.

 

[EV Fan]

You bring up an important point, whose data is it. I maintain the data belongs to the car owner. What data is OnStar keeping and why am I unable to access my data at anytime? This is a major consumer rights issue.

Up until recently, I had not given this topic much thought. I still haven't formed a strong opinion, so I want to play devil's advocate for a minute. GM develops the software, and creates OnStar. OnStar is able to track and collect vehicle data, including charging habits, driving habits, and locational data. You contend that this data, because it is collected FROM you, should belong to you. Or perhaps at least be available to you. Isn't all that information, at least in some form, already available to you? After all, you are the one charging the vehicle, driving the vehicle, and choosing where you go, right?

And how far should this extend? Should grocery stores that track your purchases in order to offer targeted coupons also be required to share their data? And in what form?

I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts on this.

 

[stangoldberg]

Up until recently, I had not given this topic much thought. I still haven't formed a strong opinion, so I want to play devil's advocate for a minute. GM develops the software, and creates OnStar. OnStar is able to track and collect vehicle data, including charging habits, driving habits, and locational data. You contend that this data, because it is collected FROM you, should belong to you. Or perhaps at least be available to you. Isn't all that information, at least in some form, already available to you? After all, you are the one charging the vehicle, driving the vehicle, and choosing where you go, right?

And how far should this extend? Should grocery stores that track your purchases in order to offer targeted coupons also be required to share their data? And in what form?

I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts on this.

You own the car and should control the sharing of the data. You can read your data via and OB2 device but it is not is a clear way to understand. Most owners go into a dealership and pay a fee to have the dealer tell them the issue, that aside, OnStar a 1.5 billion dollars business charges for services off of your data that could have easily had a free alert appear on your car screen. Further GM can use your data to predict parts failure and inventory needs to make profits but you the owner do not even know what they are tracking. Is it to you benefit? Are you able to limit what they see? I have zero idea the data they track. Maybe it is beneficial to me? I want to make those choices. When I bought the car the ownership transferred to me. I did not buy a car to have a corporation spy on me. Because some information can be captured and transmitted doesn't mean it should be. Think of this in the same manner that your health information is now protected, you have the rights of privacy and an entity should not be able to pre-empt your rights.

 

[p7wang]

We are already deep into this with Smart TVs...

 

[EV Fan]

You own the car and should control the sharing of the data. You can read your data via and OB2 device but it is not is a clear way to understand. Most owners go into a dealership and pay a fee to have the dealer tell them the issue, that aside, OnStar a 1.5 billion dollars business charges for services off of your data that could have easily had a free alert appear on your car screen. Further GM can use your data to predict parts failure and inventory needs to make profits but you the owner do not even know what they are tracking. Is it to you benefit? Are you able to limit what they see? I have zero idea the data they track. Maybe it is beneficial to me? I want to make those choices. When I bought the car the ownership transferred to me. I did not buy a car to have a corporation spy on me. Because some information can be captured and transmitted doesn't mean it should be. Think of this in the same manner that your health information is now protected, you have the rights of privacy and an entity should not be able to pre-empt your rights.

So do you think paid "premium" services should be disallowed? There is an expense to GM for the technology to collect, store, and track the data. Is that expected to be written into the cost of the car?
What level of data are you expecting to be shared? And in what form?

The more I consider this, the less clear the argument becomes to me. For either side.

 

[Rikus11]

Has anyone had the repair done yet? I was called by the EV Concierge saying my letter for scheduling my repair would be out in a week. I am not sure I want to be the first repair done at the dealership since I am sure this is not done often if ever before this recall.

 

[EV Fan]

Has anyone had the repair done yet? I was called by the EV Concierge saying my letter for scheduling my repair would be out in a week. I am not sure I want to be the first repair done at the dealership since I am sure this is not done often if ever before this recall.

If you are going to an experienced EV service dealer, I would not be too worried. Most EV service dealers have done at least one or two module replacements (in high volume areas, likely several). The module replacement has all the steps of a full battery replacement, plus quite a bit more. So if the dealer has ever swapped a module out, they have been through this process. And from what I understand, it is actually pretty simple if you have the right equipment. GM pays the dealer 4.5 hours to do the work, and much of that time is going to be allocated for unpacking the new battery, handling, and repacking the old battery.

 

[stangoldberg]

So do you think paid "premium" services should be disallowed? There is an expense to GM for the technology to collect, store, and track the data. Is that expected to be written into the cost of the car?
What level of data are you expecting to be shared? And in what form?

The more I consider this, the less clear the argument becomes to me. For either side.

First there is value to GM to get the data, reduced inventory costs and quicker supplying dealerships that is a benefit they get and the owner deserves some value for supplying it. A premium service is fine if it supplies something new not giving you back your data in a format that should be available on the car system as a matter of course. Giving you a pretty graphic of a battery instead of actual useful information is not what an EV should be about. Not giving the driver the meaning of a fault code to alert for service or danger at once is questionable, having to call and ask what is wrong is dangerous. We are leaving car systems built like windows 95 behind and the pubic will expect the car computer to inform them of issues and contain that private information within the closed environment.

 

[Rikus11]

If you are going to an experienced EV service dealer, I would not be too worried. Most EV service dealers have done at least one or two module replacements (in high volume areas, likely several). The module replacement has all the steps of a full battery replacement, plus quite a bit more. So if the dealer has ever swapped a module out, they have been through this process. And from what I understand, it is actually pretty simple if you have the right equipment. GM pays the dealer 4.5 hours to do the work, and much of that time is going to be allocated for unpacking the new battery, handling, and repacking the old battery.

If anyone knows of any experienced dealerships in the Chicagoland area I would appreciate the information. I will be asking my dealer a lot of questions about the repair but I get the feeling they have not worked on the Bolt very much. I get the same old "need an oil change" joke every time I rotate the tires. But they do not seem too confidant about repairs when I talk with anyone there(however I never talked directly to the EV certified technician.)

 

[EV Fan]

Not giving the driver the meaning of a fault code to alert for service or danger at once is questionable, having to call and ask what is wrong is dangerous.

This is probably the first thing you have said that I outright disagree with. As cars get more complex, the actual code behind a warning light offers less and less value. It is extremely common that people will take a code at face value, when that is not actually the source of the failure. For example, if there is a code for an actuator, and the customer see this code, they can go buy an actuator and replace it. But given the complex electrical nature of these vehicles, it is every bit as likely that the actuator was fine, and that there was a fault in the wiring to the actuator, or the control module that commands the actuator. Perhaps all that was needed was a software flash. A licensed technician will know the proper diagnostic process to check all of these things out, and is a lot more likely to get to the right answer the first time.

And as far as calling and asking what is wrong, if a dealer (or any repair facility) is trying to diagnose a problem over the phone, you should take them off the list of places you trust to fix your car. That's like coughing into the phone and asking your doctor what's wrong with you.

The right to repair battles that are brewing right now (which has become a very hot topic in many places) are interesting to me, as people want more access to work on their cars at the same time that technicians are requiring more and more training in order to be able to do it right.

 

[stangoldberg]

This is probably the first thing you have said that I outright disagree with. As cars get more complex, the actual code behind a warning light offers less and less value. It is extremely common that people will take a code at face value, when that is not actually the source of the failure. For example, if there is a code for an actuator, and the customer see this code, they can go buy an actuator and replace it. But given the complex electrical nature of these vehicles, it is every bit as likely that the actuator was fine, and that there was a fault in the wiring to the actuator, or the control module that commands the actuator. Perhaps all that was needed was a software flash. A licensed technician will know the proper diagnostic process to check all of these things out, and is a lot more likely to get to the right answer the first time.

And as far as calling and asking what is wrong, if a dealer (or any repair facility) is trying to diagnose a problem over the phone, you should take them off the list of places you trust to fix your car. That's like coughing into the phone and asking your doctor what's wrong with you.

The right to repair battles that are brewing right now (which has become a very hot topic in many places) are interesting to me, as people want more access to work on their cars at the same time that technicians are requiring more and more training in order to be able to do it right.

You make a very valid point.

 

[MECBolt]

Has anyone heard if GM will compensate us for damage to our Bolts while parked outdoors? I sustained $2000 of hail damage.

 

[finallygoingev]

Guessing that 60% of people are going to keep their Bolt. That is 140k * 60% = 84000 no change. So 56K cases to deal with across the US. They have been at this at least a month if not more so... If you don't want to you hire out to a data processing firm you can hire a web company to make a webpage for you and the people can enter in the data themselves. The entry points are year of car. MSRP of Miles on car State and what laws apply and mileage depreciation applies. Its not rocket science. You punch it in and the form letter goes out and they will contact you ASAP your number is XXX in the queue. You can check your place in the queue via the web and no time wasting on hold.
That gives you time to work out a dealer or whatever else needs to be done and you can be ready on the day they call.

I think the 140k is total Bolt sales so a buyback may not apply depending on country. There are also people who don't even know of the recall at all so they can't buyback what people don't even know. My guess is far less than 40% is pursuing a buyback. It's probably a very small number in the grand scheme of numbers.

The poll here had I think 70% keeping the Bolt if I remember.

 

[MichBolt]

Has anyone heard if GM will compensate us for damage to our Bolts while parked outdoors? I sustained $2000 of hail damage.

Wouldn't that typically be an insurance claim, and then your insurance company could go after GM (subrogation) if they think there's a case?

 

[p7wang]

Wouldn't that typically be an insurance claim, and then your insurance company could go after GM (subrogation) if they think there's a case?

I doubt insurance would do that as there is no restriction on your car being parked indoor only.
Insurance would have a deductible and you can request GM pay for that.

 

[Cereal Killer]

Wouldn't that typically be an insurance claim, and then your insurance company could go after GM (subrogation) if they think there's a case?

That was my thought as well. Yes, car insurance does cover hail damage although you normally have a deductible. If you have a garage that you normally would have kept the car in, then you could try to make a case to GM to cover that deductible.

 

[dah]

If anyone knows of any experienced dealerships in the Chicagoland area I would appreciate the information

The Bolt tech who posted (facebook bolt group) a lot of good info on the recall is at Castle Chevy North in Elk Grove Village, IL

 

[ChicagoBob123]

The Bolt tech who posted (facebook bolt group) a lot of good info on the recall is at Castle Chevy North in Elk Grove Village, IL

I dont have facebook can you repost or pm me what he said? ElkGrove is cross town from me.