Chevy Bolt EV Forum banner
1 - 20 of 54 Posts

·
Super Moderator
2020 Chevrolet Bolt
Joined
·
1,814 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Edit: This may not be new - there's a Sept. 9 date mentioned in the transcript as a future date. Nevertheless, I hadn't seen some of this information before.

Edit 2: Apparently, this communication took place on Sept. 1. There was another communication that took place recently, but we do not have a transcript or any other information about it yet.

A comment by @EV Fan that there was a new communication from GM to dealers reminded me that @cwerdna would often find these communications on NHTSA's website, so I went to look.

There's a transcript of a communication to dealers (attached) that includes information I haven't seen before, so I believe it's new. Specifically:
...we will only begin replacing battery modules when we’re confident in the safety of LG’s product and the repair process. So, we need to finish testing and validating before we can move to the next step with LG.
That implies a fixed process exists, and GM / LG are in a testing / validation phase.
...our engineering teams are working on potential software solutions that may relieve some of the pain points – mainly the need to park outside after charging. This would be an interim software solution to give customers a bit more freedom, while they wait for final battery module replacement.
This would address one of the biggest complaints, the requirement to park outside after charging. It wouldn't change the decrease in range, but it would make the limitations more palatable for some owners. Having said that, it's yet another software interim fix, FWIW...
Now, we know it may be tough for you to provide courtesy transportation or rental vehicles to Bolt EV owners impacted by this recall. That’s why we are finalizing an agreement with a national supplier.
This sounds like they're scaling up the loaner / rental arrangement. That still points to an eventual fix (providing rentals for up to 150,000 Bolt owners isn't cheap) rather than a mass buyback approach.

What are your thoughts to this bit of information?
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,465 Posts
The reduced range issue vs rental, in my case and I believe many others, can easily be solved with occasional rental with free fuel. When I want to take a long distance trip, let me rent a similarly equipped hatchback/crossover and I would be fine waiting a year or two for battery replacement.

Alternatively, GM can talk to Nissan to provide us free use of the 2022 Leafs. Doubt demand will be high due to CHAdeMO getting dropped.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
2,651 Posts
And today, we’re launching a new Chevy Bolt EV Recall website that includes frequently asked questions ... that will be updated as new information becomes available
Hopefully it will provide useful details!

Curious about another SW update, maybe some more aggressive thermal management? Could be interesting. That would also seem to have an impact on utility costs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,459 Posts
Hopefully it will provide useful details!

Curious about another SW update, maybe some more aggressive thermal management? Could be interesting. That would also seem to have an impact on utility costs.
But the last time we collectively were assured that SW updates would keep us safe, more Bolts burned. I don't know, I'm becoming more jaded as the days go by...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
797 Posts
But the last time we collectively were assured that SW updates would keep us safe, more Bolts burned. I don't know, I'm becoming more jaded as the days go by...
At least this time they aren't billing it a fix, but another temporary measure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,885 Posts
Alternatively, GM can talk to Nissan to provide us free use of the 2022 Leafs. Doubt demand will be high due to CHAdeMO getting dropped.
LOL! When I checked a few days back via inventory search, the Bay Area inventory of '21 and '22 Leafs per NIssanUSA.com was very low. I just checked now for within 50 miles of my zip code. There are "10" w/2 of them "in transit". A few are at or "at" crap dealers who I'd rather not do business with (longer story).

All US-market Leafs are assembled in the US in Smyrna, TN. If you Google for stuff like smyrna production paused nissan, you'll see they have also had production pauses and IIRC, awhile back, Leaf production was suspended in favor of other vehicles presumably w/more demand like Rogues. Example was Nissan Continues To Idle Leaf, Maxima And Murano Production Due To Global Chip Shortage: News - The Fast Lane Car from June.

If I decide to pursue buyback (may initiate convo w/EV concierge today or this weekend (I've been really busy), there is a possibility I may lease (another) Leaf as a temp car. But, if inventory is low and there aren't good/decent deals to be had, that's a problem.

My other top choice is buying a Kona EV but there's the worry that I'll be going from one potential fire risk into another... It is not clear that '22 US-market Kona EVs have moved away from LG Chem. Some have made such claims but nobody seems to be able to provide me any proof or definitive news of that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
797 Posts
Actually, as I look at this, I think it is not the newest communication. This one refers to the Sept 9th in future tense. I think there was ANOTHER communication yesterday. I'll bet a new document shows up in the next few days.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Edit: This may not be new - there's a Sept. 9 date mentioned in the transcript as a future date. Nevertheless, I hadn't seen some of this information before.

A comment by @EV Fan that there was a new communication from GM to dealers reminded me that @cwerdna would often find these communications on NHTSA's website, so I went to look.

There's a transcript of a communication to dealers (attached) that includes information I haven't seen before, so I believe it's new. Specifically:

That implies a fixed process exists, and GM / LG are in a testing / validation phase.

This would address one of the biggest complaints, the requirement to park outside after charging. It wouldn't change the decrease in range, but it would make the limitations more palatable for some owners. Having said that, it's yet another software interim fix, FWIW...

This sounds like they're scaling up the loaner / rental arrangement. That still points to an eventual fix (providing rentals for up to 150,000 Bolt owners isn't cheap) rather than a mass buyback approach.

What are your thoughts to this bit of information?
News from "The Road to **** is Paved with Good Intentions Department". Undated, unsigned and unattributed documents are floating around all over the internet and we are speculating based on what this "sounds like". We are not dealing with a little kitchen appliance here, this is an expensive, complicated and potentially hazardous piece of equipment here. Sure, post-it but drawing conclusions from transcript of a purported phone call to dealers with no supporting documentation is not always useful.

As a minimum transcripts of calls may or may not be accurate and should always be clearly identified with dates, times, names of individuals on calls and who said what. Further, legal review should be included and signed off by responsible parties.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
440 Posts
But the last time we collectively were assured that SW updates would keep us safe, more Bolts burned. I don't know, I'm becoming more jaded as the days go by...
Operating under the premise that they aren't able to detect the failure before it starts heading towards thermal runaway, I would personally be investigating if there was a way to stop it from reaching the point of no-return.

Keep the coolant loop running, detect a sudden increase above average pack temperature and above ambient temperature. If that's detected, turn the A/C chiller on at 100% and continue to cycle, hoping you can pull enough heat out of the runaway cell to prevent propagation. Would it be enough?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,885 Posts
News from "The Road to **** is Paved with Good Intentions Department". Undated, unsigned and unattributed documents are floating around all over the internet and we are speculating based on what this "sounds like". We are not dealing with a little kitchen appliance here, this is an expensive, complicated and potentially hazardous piece of equipment here. Sure, post-it but drawing conclusions from transcript of a purported phone call to dealers with no supporting documentation is not always useful.
The document is at https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2021/RMISC-21V650-9822.pdf, presumably uploaded by GM. See post #8 on one path to finding it.

I'd imagine that GM's lawyers and PR department went over the content of the call/transcript before it happened.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
The document is at https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2021/RMISC-21V650-9822.pdf, presumably uploaded by GM. See post #8 on one path to finding it.

I'd imagine that GM's lawyers and PR department went over the content of the call/transcript before it happened.
I found the document online. Imagining the document was reviewed by GM is pure speculation. This could also have been typed up by someone on the call with no reviews at all and posted by an NHTSA staffer. Four pages of notes from a phone call, in my opinion, do not constitute actionable information. Until we get to the source it has no basis in fact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,885 Posts
^^^
Hilarious. Here's an older dealer message doc/transcript: https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2021/RCMN-21V650-7169.pdf.

You really think that documents posted on NHTSA's site under the recalls section for a given NHTSA campaign could come from such sketchy sources instead of direct from the automaker in question? How about the rest of the documents there?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
797 Posts
I found the document online. Imagining the document was reviewed by GM is pure speculation. This could also have been typed up by someone on the call with no reviews at all and posted by an NHTSA staffer. Four pages of notes from a phone call, in my opinion, do not constitute actionable information. Until we get to the source it has no basis in fact.
Alrighty, did some research for you. The transcript that was found is NOT the newest communication. The document posted on this thread is from Sept 1st. The speaker on the video call was Steve Hill, Chevy VP.

There was indeed another video call yesterday(Sept 9th) that expands upon this document. The call yesterday was combined with several other topics, so I am not sure if the transcript will ever end up on the NHTSA site.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
325 Posts
As we enter the colder months in the north my larger issue is range. As it stands currently I charge at work (outdoors) and not at home (as it would require overnight charging as I drive more than a L1 can recharge in the 10+ hours I'm home).

Once temps drop I don't wont make it back and forth to work - home - work. Today I charge to 90% and I arrive back to work with 60-70 miles of range, cold temps and snow (with snow tires) means I won't make it. This is why I've been pushing for a rental w/ gas coverage. I also have a buyback option in, but if they'd figure out a rental I'd hold tight.

Thanks for posting. My dealership made me aware of the call "last Friday" which was cancelled as they are working on trying to figure out a long term rental.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,459 Posts
Operating under the premise that they aren't able to detect the failure before it starts heading towards thermal runaway, I would personally be investigating if there was a way to stop it from reaching the point of no-return.

Keep the coolant loop running, detect a sudden increase above average pack temperature and above ambient temperature. If that's detected, turn the A/C chiller on at 100% and continue to cycle, hoping you can pull enough heat out of the runaway cell to prevent propagation. Would it be enough?
Not holding my breath on that one, even if they can implement it to go exactly as you stated. That in itself is a big IF.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,459 Posts
At least this time they aren't billing it a fix, but another temporary measure.
I guess I'm still critical of whether this "measure" is actually effective in keeping us safe in the same way they assured us that the prior SW patches were supposed to do the same.
 
1 - 20 of 54 Posts
Top