Chevy Bolt EV Forum banner
41 - 60 of 85 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
523 Posts
The issue is that if a non-OEM charging station damages the car, then the fault lies with the charging station and you can't expect GM to foot the bill to fix it.

If you use the OEM EVSE and it damages the car, then GM is on the hook for it because they're the ones who sold it to you.
Especially an EVSE that is KNOWN to cause this problem.
 

·
Registered
2022 Bolt EUV Premier NOV22Batch
Joined
·
141 Posts
Let's follow the train of thought here.

OP makes a fuss with the dealership that GM should repair damage under warranty. GM refuses. What then?
OP files a complaint the the EV concierge. GM still refuses. What then?
OP files a complaint with BBB or the state attorney general. They send a letter to GM, and GM says the Bolt didn't cause the damage, the EVSE did. GM still refuses to cover the repair. What then?

Does OP file a civil lawsuit or seek arbitration? GM can simply just keep saying "no, the EVSE caused the damage" and the burden is on OP to keep escalating and to prove otherwise.

The whole point is that if push comes to shove, OP will have to show somehow that the Bolt caused the damage, not the EVSE. If OP has to admit that he is aware of the lack of UL listing and the complaints regarding Mustart chargers, he's not going to win that argument.

All of that being said, I still think it's more likely that the EVSE caused the damage in fact. If so, GM shouldn't be expected to cover the repair under warranty, even if it's possible that the OP can argue his way into getting GM to cover it.
The car software monitors and detects all types of charge amperage, voltage, heat and safety issues. If the EVSE connection with the car was not within specs, the car should have stopped charging and thrown an error. If no error, then customer not at fault and warranty should pay.

If error condition was generated, ignored or bypassed, and customer continued to charge, the customer is at fault.

So.....which is it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,025 Posts
Let's follow the train of thought here.

OP makes a fuss with the dealership that GM should repair damage under warranty. GM refuses. What then?
OP files a complaint the the EV concierge. GM still refuses. What then?
OP files a complaint with BBB or the state attorney general. They send a letter to GM, and GM says the Bolt didn't cause the damage, the EVSE did. GM still refuses to cover the repair. What then?

Does OP file a civil lawsuit or seek arbitration? GM can simply just keep saying "no, the EVSE caused the damage" and the burden is on OP to keep escalating and to prove otherwise.

The whole point is that if push comes to shove, OP will have to show somehow that the Bolt caused the damage, not the EVSE. If OP has to admit that he is aware of the lack of UL listing and the complaints regarding Mustart chargers, he's not going to win that argument.

All of that being said, I still think it's more likely that the EVSE caused the damage in fact. If so, GM shouldn't be expected to cover the repair under warranty, even if it's possible that the OP can argue his way into getting GM to cover it.
Until I read EVGeek's post I was with you for the most part.

The part that initially pissed me off and made me want the OP to go after the dealership was them handing him a line of Bull $hit that you are only allowed to use the EVSE that comes with the car, or an L2 purchased from Chevrolet. This is a bald faced lie, and in my mind justifies going to extreme measures to make them repair it under warranty. If they had just said "It looks like the EVSE caused the damage, so it is not covered" rather than giving a line of BS I would have been accepting of the situation.

The car software monitors and detects all types of charge amperage, voltage, heat and safety issues. If the EVSE connection with the car was not within specs, the car should have stopped charging and thrown an error. If no error, then customer not at fault and warranty should pay.

If error condition was generated, ignored or bypassed, and customer continued to charge, the customer is at fault.

So.....which is it?
After looking at EVGeek's post I have to wonder about our charging port design... as cars and EVSE's age are we going to see a rash of garage fires from old worn out EVSE's because the car doesn't stop charging when the charging port heats up?

Keith
 

·
Registered
Premier, Yo, with every goodie!
Joined
·
1,862 Posts
Oh man... tell me you didn't just say : "The socket has to have a minimum grip strength to hold the pin".
OK, I'll repeat that: The socket has an engineering spec on minimum 'Pin Grip'.
That is where the connection takes place between the two.
Sorry if you were trying to make a joke....:rolleyes:



The car software monitors and detects all types of charge amperage, voltage, heat and safety issues. If the EVSE connection with the car was not within specs, the car should have stopped charging and thrown an error. ....
Nice idea!
Only I doubt the charge port has a temp sensor near the HV AC and DC pins.
I see an Opportunity for Improvement !(y) But it's not in the J1772 spec, is it? Can it be added?
Some L1 EVSE's have a temp sensor in the 120V wall connector!

...The part that initially pissed me off and made me want the OP to go after the dealership was them handing him a line of Bull $hit that you are only allowed to use the EVSE that comes with the car, or an L2 purchased from Chevrolet. This is a bald faced lie, ....
Yep, sometimes I think Dealerships have BS training courses....
Can this dealer show anything stating "Only one L2 is approved for use with the Bolt"?
And you should never charge at public L2's?

.... If OP has to admit that he is aware of the lack of UL listing and the complaints regarding Mustart chargers, he's not going to win that argument.
:mad:All of that being said, I still think it's more likely that the EVSE caused the damage ....
Does he really 'have to admit' to all of that?;) He could go the way of the GOP....
Is there proof that not a single 'UL approved' EVSE has ever had this exact problem?
Of course the EVSE socket is where the heat damage came from.

I say get in there with scotch brite and Popsicle sticks and clean off that one pin and press on.
We still haven't heard what Mustart is going to do for this guy. I think that's the brand that has paid for repairs in the past.
 

·
Super Moderator
2020 Chevrolet Bolt
Joined
·
3,537 Posts
The part that initially pissed me off and made me want the OP to go after the dealership was them handing him a line of Bull $hit that you are only allowed to use the EVSE that comes with the car, or an L2 purchased from Chevrolet...
I read that as only the EVSE that comes with the car or purchased from Chevrolet would cover the damage under warranty. That's because the equipment is provided by the company providing the warranty - it's not a 3rd party item.
The car software monitors and detects all types of charge amperage, voltage, heat and safety issues...
But the car software (nor the J1772 spec) does not detect for high temperature failure at the charge port, and does not guarantee that a high temperature failure at the charge port will be prevented. The OEM EVSE does detect for high temperature failure at the outlet. So the car's warranty doesn't cover what the car's design does not guarantee. Funny how that works...
 

·
Registered
2022 Bolt EUV Premier NOV22Batch
Joined
·
141 Posts
But the car software (nor the J1772 spec) does not detect for high temperature failure at the charge port, and does not guarantee that a high temperature failure at the charge port will be prevented. The OEM EVSE does detect for high temperature failure at the outlet. So the car's warranty doesn't cover what the car's design does not guarantee. Funny how that works...
MichBolt, as always, is right on point. Here is a detailed point of view which might be interesting to some here:

From a pure product liability standpoint, without mandating certain charger use vs. others that void the warranty - Chevy should repair all the issues. The manual says J1772 is acceptable. It is silent on UL listing, or thermal issues. It does, in fact address worn connectors, but I will get to that. Here goes...

I think negligence is defined as, what a reasonable person or entity "knew or should have known" about some thing or some issue. It is safe to assume that if the 120V wall chargers are monitored for over temp at the wall socket, then 240V units should be heat monitored as well. Not only at the wall, but even more so at the EVSE receptable due to the current and amperage present there. There really would be no question about this. Since the charge port can be used in the rain, I have to also assume there are several things being monitored that could warn/indicate heat buildup using basic physics equations. (Current, Amperage, Time and Delta of these.)

Please consider it a different way if you do not like the above logic. Since DC fast chargers take total control of the charging session, they are the liable party for damage. They need to monitor everything to NOT injure the car. However, the Bolt's on-board charger is in complete control of the charging session for 120V and 240V AC. Therefore, all safety protocols that need to exist to protect the car and its components are car specifically on GM (until such a time that there is a federal law that amends the J1772 spec for heat monitoring in the J1772 unit). I maintain that Chevy could have easily detected a faulty connector pin and out of spec high resistance (and therefore heating) and shut the system off using the most basic understanding of Joule's Law of Heating. Measuring ohms as a 240V circuit that is pulling hard across the taper curve would be one of the first things to build into the car's firmware.

Lastly, let's examine the Consumer side of the concept of "care, custody and control". Yes, the consumer does have the full care, custody and control of the vehicle at this time, but the consumer is specifically being told that a CHARGE LIGHT INDICATOR on the dash that is performing a proper sequence, means, in essence, everything is OK. When, the bad pin, still works in the J1772, but causes heat and melting, even though the car indicated OK charging, it could be argued that the consumer has released "care, custody and control" of the vehicle to the on-board systems designed for that purpose (read that as GM). The consumer takes back the responsibility upon disconnecting the charge cord. Since there is no way for a consumer to actually comply with what Chevy adds as a warning in the manual regarding worn charge cords, it cannot be reasonably inferred that the consumer has a warranty responsibility here. Meaning, there is no "charge cord pin tightness gauge" that comes with the vehicle or is commercially available.

The car's on-board charger pulling more and more through ever increasing resistance in bad pin connections is a recipe for heat - and the car knows it is doing that. It should shut down or throw and error because there is no way a consumer can be "assigned" the responsibility to monitor heat and ohms during charging while the dash light merrily indicates "ALL'S WELL!".
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
3,704 Posts
Since DC fast chargers take total control of the charging session, they are the liable party for damage
A couple of points that I differ on. J1772 and DCFC charging both use the Control Pilot pin on the J1772 portion of the plug and port to establish communication between EVSE and EV (BMS). The protocols differ (analog PWM for L2, digital PLC for CCS), but in both cases, the BMS informs the EVSE how much voltage and current it can handle. In L2, this negotiation primarily happens at the onset, with perhaps some minor adjustments to current near the end of the session, or when running maintenance (preconditioning, TBMS). For CCS, this adjustment happens more often, thus the charging curve. But in both cases, the BMS is responsible for monitoring the EV's internal systems and informing the EVSE what to send.

As for monitoring heat, the physical components on the EV are rated for 150A (CCS) or 32A (J1772). Properly designed and manufactured accessories that follow these tolerances should never cause issues. When issues do occur, it would therefor be correct to assume that some component in the mix was defective. The J1772 port heat tolerances are probably greater than the inverter's capacity since J1772 standard calls for up to 80A of current. My assumption is, the charging port on most EVs is a third party manufactured generic (or to spec) component that is capable of the 80A the standard calls for. The car's bottleneck therefor is going to be the on-board inverter and internal wiring harness.

All of the legal theories are reasonably sound, but I would add that there is another, perhaps overarching theory of Proximate Cause, or often referred to as the "but for" clause. This theory states that "but for" the use of a defective third party accessory, no damage would have occurred. Therefore, the defense GM would use is that anecdotal evidence that most J1772 equipped EVSEs have no ill effects on the systems, however this particular brand is known to have had QA issues or defects and ultimately was the cause of the damage. Without a forensic analysis of the equipment, the EVSE maker would have the burden of proof to demonstrate there were no defects that influenced the incident.

With such small amounts in question, the chances of extended legal battles would be unlikely. GM has considerably more sway in these matters, so they would lean on the EVSE vendor. But, they would (rightly) expect the vehicle owner to initiate the dialog with the EVSE vendor as we have seen in several other Mustart incidents on this, and other forums.
 

·
Registered
2022 Bolt EUV Premier NOV22Batch
Joined
·
141 Posts
All of the legal theories are reasonably sound, but I would add that there is another, perhaps overarching theory of Proximate Cause, or often referred to as the "but for" clause. This theory states that "but for" the use of a defective third party accessory, no damage would have occurred. Therefore, the defense GM would use is that anecdotal evidence that most J1772 equipped EVSEs have no ill effects on the systems, however this particular brand is known to have had QA issues or defects and ultimately was the cause of the damage. Without a forensic analysis of the equipment, the EVSE maker would have the burden of proof to demonstrate there were no defects that influenced the incident.

With such small amounts in question, the chances of extended legal battles would be unlikely. GM has considerably more sway in these matters, so they would lean on the EVSE vendor. But, they would (rightly) expect the vehicle owner to initiate the dialog with the EVSE vendor as we have seen in several other Mustart incidents on this, and other forums.
Thanks for the well reasoned response. The proximate cause may in fact be the use of ANY charger. The distal cause is lack of firmware that monitors resistance parameters to trip errors. Further, if GM knows certain chargers are historically injurious, then NOT stating specific charger use and exclusion policy regarding warranty coverage may make them more culpable, not less. Fun debate. Thanks.
 

·
Super Moderator
2020 Chevrolet Bolt
Joined
·
3,537 Posts
Thanks for the well reasoned response. The proximate cause may in fact be the use of ANY charger. The distal cause is lack of firmware that monitors resistance parameters to trip errors. Further, if GM knows certain chargers are historically injurious, then NOT stating specific charger use and exclusion policy regarding warranty coverage may make them more culpable, not less. Fun debate. Thanks.
Or GM could take the position that warranty coverage only applies to GM-supplied EVSEs, thus excluding all other 3rd party EVSEs that may or may not have a history of injury.

I still think that the owner should get relief against the EVSE manufacturer rather than against GM in this case. GM can point to a preponderance of evidence that their charging port functions correctly, while Mustart would have a problem when a discovery process reveals that they acknowledged a fault with some versions of their EVSE.

Putting a question to a jury (or an arbitrator) about what they think the preponderance of the evidence indicates - if you used a different EVSE with that specific Bolt, would the damage have occurred? If you used that specific Mustart EVSE with a different car, would the damage have occurred? I still think the case would go against Mustart, not GM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,355 Posts
The car software monitors and detects all types of charge amperage, voltage, heat and safety issues. If the EVSE connection with the car was not within specs, the car should have stopped charging and thrown an error. If no error, then customer not at fault and warranty should pay.

If error condition was generated, ignored or bypassed, and customer continued to charge, the customer is at fault.

So.....which is it?
How/what is it supposed to monitor? If there's no temperature sensor at the inlet (it seems the Bolt doesn't have one and the gen 2 Rav4 EV doesn't have one), then how can monitor? The Fit EV (lease only, all cars taken back by Honda years ago), apparently had a temp sensor at the inlet: http://www.myhondafitev.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=68 and Blink / Rav4 Blows Out a Contactor Pin (with gory pics) - Page 6 - My Nissan Leaf Forum.

I don't have a list of vehicles that monitor J1772 inlet temp. I've seen complaints on Plugshare about a few stations that caused melting of their SAE J1772 Charging Adapter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
821 Posts
I can't really see the extent of the damage to the car's pin but you might be OK charging with the 120V included charger until you can get it fixed. That's if the damaged pin is mostly just discolored and not loose or eaten away in diameter.

Mike
I disagree here, or at least I disagree without a thorough cleaning of the pins on the vehicle inlet. 8 amps is less than 32, but if it's dirty and damaged, you can expect abnormal (but possibly acceptable) heating.

The dark color could be soot or more likely, oxidation.. and soot. Neither conduct electricity well.

If you can't get a new port and decide to clean it, I would suggest an abrasive impregnated nylon brush, sized appropriately, if you can find one. It might be a jewelers sort of thing. Or a wire brush, just recognize that it's poor form to leave broken brass bristles behind.

Good luck. Sorry for your misfortune.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
821 Posts
Just replace the parts that are bad. You don't need a whole new EVSE, just the J1772 handle. One with good quality pin grip.


I already replaced the handle on my Mustart 32A EVSE for this exact problem- excessive heat on the pins in the charge port.
Would someone with a blown Mustart charger be willing to do a tear-down and have a look at the insides, and break the relays / contactor apart and see how their contacts and insides look? And send pics?

If the OP Finklefan13 is willing to do this or send it to me, I'll be happy to publish a full report.
 

·
Registered
Premier, Yo, with every goodie!
Joined
·
1,862 Posts
The car software monitors and detects all types of charge amperage, voltage, heat and safety issues. If the EVSE connection with the car was not within specs, the car should have stopped charging and thrown an error. ....
In this case where one of the two pins passing the 240V (two 180° out of phase 120V lines), was getting hot due to a loose connection somewhere related to that one socket in charge handle. Be it loose socket (Pin Grip) or a loose crimp where the wire meets the socket.
It would seem there had to be a voltage drop across that heat making area.
How much heat wattage was used to melt the plastic around that one socket?
How much of voltage drop did that create on that one phase of the 240V?
Could/should the OBC see that the two phases are not coming in at the exact same voltage and stop the charging and display an easy to understand fault?
I don't know. Is Home 240V always 'exactly the same on both phases'?

It seems that some manufacturers incorporated temp sensors in the charge port on some EV's without altering the SAE standard for J1772.
Why not have this heat sensing system standard on all EV's?
(this won't do any good for the tesla J1772 adaptor.)

Side note: I'm attempting to get some of the high voltage AC pins used in car ports.
I want to use one as a 'Pin Grip' to test my EVSE's and any public EVSE's I might use.
I can see a market for such a tool. It will need an insulated handle for peace of mind.
I wonder if the maintenance techs that work on public L2's test for Pin Grip when performing repairs.
But it's not easy tracking down where I can buy just the bare pins. Can you guys help?!
Just like EVSE manufacturers tracking down sockets. There could be dozen of pin/socket makers.
And obviously some of them are junk,, or the young ladies in china crimping the wires to the sockets make mistakes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: neutrondrip

·
Registered
Joined
·
523 Posts
The part that initially pissed me off and made me want the OP to go after the dealership was them handing him a line of Bull $hit that you are only allowed to use the EVSE that comes with the car, or an L2 purchased from Chevrolet. This is a bald faced lie, and in my mind justifies going to extreme measures to make them repair it under warranty. If they had just said "It looks like the EVSE caused the damage, so it is not covered" rather than giving a line of BS I would have been accepting of the situation.
The OP said the dealership stated that GM "will not warranty the port because it was an aftermarket charger." That seems reasonable to me, and seems to be about the same as what you're saying -- The EVSE caused the damage... the EVSE is not the one that GM provided... so it is not covered.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
721 Posts
after seeing all these posts I have turned my primetech EVSE from 30 to 24amps. I have no reason to run it a 30. Even if most issues are with the Mustart
I think the battery is "happiest" charging at or around 32 A (someone can link to supporting information). I used to dial my EVSE down to 20 - 24 A to be kinder to my electrical facilities but I raised it to 32 to make the battery happier. As with everything in life, it's a trade-off. Nowadays, I'll probably only dial down the current when I'm charging on really hot days.
 

·
Registered
Premier, Yo, with every goodie!
Joined
·
1,862 Posts
Seems Unreasonable to me....:mad:

... the dealership stated that GM "will not warranty the port because it was an aftermarket charger." That seems reasonable to me, ... The EVSE caused the damage... the EVSE is not the one that GM provided... so it is not covered.
How could this possibly work in new world of EV's?
You're proposing:
Chevy's only use Chevy EVSE. (the one 'gm provided' is a 120V/12A EVSE)
Ford only uses Ford EVSE's?
Etc, etc...
NO Public L2's or DCFC are allowed?

Yes, a bad connection in the EVSE handle caused the high heat damage.
 

·
Registered
Premier, Yo, with every goodie!
Joined
·
1,862 Posts
OK Gang,

I got a reply on trying to find bare J1172 pins to use as 'Pin Grip' testers.

Rectangle Font Parallel Cross Slope

____

The Ground Pin is smaller diameter than the power handling L1 and L2 pins.
An owner would only need one of the power pins to use as a tester.
These pins are available in different amperage, but I believe that is only due to the size of the wire to be crimped to the pin.

I'm not making this purchase from china.
I'll keep searching electrical supply sources.

The actual Pin diameter is probably a common size. If I can find the spec for that dia. a drill bit size might be the same. You'd want to angle the end similar to the actual pins, tape up the cutting end of the bit and ,,, you have a Pin Grip tester!

But then any EVSE can have a bad crimp at the wire/pin connection.
That can only be tested with an IR Temp Reader after charging for a while at full current.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
341 Posts
OK Gang,

I got a reply on trying to find bare J1172 pins to use as 'Pin Grip' testers.

View attachment 42494
____

The Ground Pin is smaller diameter than the power handling L1 and L2 pins.
An owner would only need one of the power pins to use as a tester.
These pins are available in different amperage, but I believe that is only due to the size of the wire to be crimped to the pin.

I'm not making this purchase from china.
I'll keep searching electrical supply sources.

The actual Pin diameter is probably a common size. If I can find the spec for that dia. a drill bit size might be the same. You'd want to angle the end similar to the actual pins, tape up the cutting end of the bit and ,,, you have a Pin Grip tester!

But then any EVSE can have a bad crimp at the wire/pin connection.
That can only be tested with an IR Temp Reader after charging for a while at full current.
Have you considered just purchasing a complete J1772 inlet assembly? Most seem to come disassembled and could be much less expensive than that quote.
 
41 - 60 of 85 Posts
Top