Chevy expands Bolt recall, instructs owners not to charge overnight indoors

[Jimmy2x]

A hot potato: Chevrolet has expanded the existing recall of Bolt electric vehicles (EVs) and electric utility vehicles (EUVs) to include the remainder of the 2019 Bolt lineup as well as all 2020 through 2022 models. A manufacturing defect discovered in specific battery cells prompted the recall, which have since been determined to be a cause of charging-related fires.

Chevy Bolt owners from 2017 to present day have been instructed to take several steps to ensure minimal risk of charging-related fire by an ongoing General Motors recall. According to the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the current recall affects an estimated 77,842 Bolt vehicles.

GM is replacing the potentially defective lithium-ion batteries in the recalled models at no charge to vehicle owners. Chevrolet also recommends that affected Bolt owners take the following steps until any recall remediation can be performed:

• Set your vehicle to a 90 percent state of charge limitation using Hilltop Reserve mode (for 2017-2018 model years) or Target Charge Level (for 2019-2022 model year) mode. If you are unable to successfully make these changes, or do not feel comfortable making these changes, GM is asking you to visit your dealer to have these adjustments completed.
• Charge your vehicle more frequently and avoid depleting your battery below approximately 70 miles (113 kilometers) of remaining range, where possible.
• Park your vehicle outside immediately after charging and do not leave your vehicle charging indoors overnight.

Chevy Bolt EVs and EUVs rely on power provided by lithium-ion batteries rather than traditional internal combustion engines. These batteries, which are different from traditional lead-acid auto batteries, utilize the same technology employed by other EV manufacturers including Toyota and Tesla.

These other EV manufacturers have experienced their own electrical issues resulting in potential fire risks and bad press. In 2018 Toyota recalled more than a million EVs due to fire risks related to the wiring harness and power control unit in certain Prius models. Last month, a 3-day old Tesla Model S Plaid spontaneously combusted while the owner was driving. The cause of the fire remains unknown or has not been disclosed at this time.

Any Bolt owners requiring more information are encouraged to contact Chevrolet’s customer support team or their local Chevrolet EV dealer. A video providing instructions on adjusting the Bolt’s charge level can also be found on the Chevrolet’s Bolt recall page.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/90891-chevy-expands-bolt-recall-instructs-owners-not-charge.html

 

[QuantumPhysics]

I was in an argument with my uncle about houses that have garages built into the main house.

As we've seen, just accidentally leaving the car running has killed many people from CO2 CO and SO2 poisoning.

Because of the recent Tesla fires, it became apparent to me that when I do get a personal EV (either the Charger EV or the EQS) that I want to keep it outside and away from the house (and my neighbors) just in case...

I am not surprised an announcement like this is being made - finally.

Lithium ion is a really funny thing and all it takes is a very hot summer day and a high-energy recharge for disaster to happen.

 

[paul1122]

The modern day filling the gas tank with a Marlboro lit.

 

[Vanderlinde]

I was in an argument with my uncle about houses that have garages built into the main house.

As we've seen, just accidentally leaving the car running has killed many people from CO2 CO and SO2 poisoning.

Because of the recent Tesla fires, it became apparent to me that when I do get a personal EV (either the Charger EV or the EQS) that I want to keep it outside and away from the house (and my neighbors) just in case...

I am not surprised an announcement like this is being made - finally.

Lithium ion is a really funny thing and all it takes is a very hot summer day and a high-energy recharge for disaster to happen.

Exactly. Imagine the damage done in a parking lot once such things start to catch fire. You cant kill the fire with just water or powder. The fire is a chemical fire and it's completely different to a fuel based fire.

Imagine ending up in a chrash and your Lithium battery pack underneath your car goes into thermal runaway.

And yet with all the risks people still decide that EV with Lithium is appearantly the future.

 

[Plutoisaplanet]

I was in an argument with my uncle about houses that have garages built into the main house.

As we've seen, just accidentally leaving the car running has killed many people from CO2 CO and SO2 poisoning.

Because of the recent Tesla fires, it became apparent to me that when I do get a personal EV (either the Charger EV or the EQS) that I want to keep it outside and away from the house (and my neighbors) just in case...

I am not surprised an announcement like this is being made - finally.

Lithium ion is a really funny thing and all it takes is a very hot summer day and a high-energy recharge for disaster to happen.

Considering there are over a million Tesla vehicles on the road, any number of fires are minuscule compared to that… And that’s not all it takes; I’ve supercharged with my 2015 Model S deep in the desert at 111 F multiple times in a row after over 5 hours of driving in only 100+ F weather through Death Valley and Phoenix.

If what you’re saying is the case, then why don’t we ever hear about fires at the following superchargers? Barstow, Yermo, Baker, Mojave, Needles, Twentynine Palms, Indio, Ehrenberg, Quartzsite, and Buckeye. Some of these have been there over 5 years, and hundreds or more people charge at these each week without issue. They’re all in or near the hottest desert in the world.

What really happens and has been acknowledged is when there’s an impact that affects the battery, there’s now a risk. And even so, the risk of injury is pretty small as the vehicle never suddenly bursts into flames. It starts with one cell of thousands so the vehicle is able to give advanced warning before there’s a fire or even the popping sounds from individual cells, along with other measures.

You can buy whatever EV or car you want, but I just don’t see how fires are a serious concern with Teslas. Even with the Bolt, Chevy is taking measures because they agree this isn’t what they expect from their vehicles (unless a government agency intervened).

 

[QuantumPhysics]

Considering there are over a million Tesla vehicles on the road, any number of fires are minuscule compared to that… And that’s not all it takes; I’ve supercharged with my 2015 Model S deep in the desert at 111 F multiple times in a row after over 5 hours of driving in only 100+ F weather through Death Valley and Phoenix.

If what you’re saying is the case, then why don’t we ever hear about fires at the following superchargers? Barstow, Yermo, Baker, Mojave, Needles, Twentynine Palms, Indio, Ehrenberg, Quartzsite, and Buckeye. Some of these have been there over 5 years, and hundreds or more people charge at these each week without issue. They’re all in or near the hottest desert in the world.

What really happens and has been acknowledged is when there’s an impact that affects the battery, there’s now a risk. And even so, the risk of injury is pretty small as the vehicle never suddenly bursts into flames. It starts with one cell of thousands so the vehicle is able to give advanced warning before there’s a fire or even the popping sounds from individual cells, along with other measures.

You can buy whatever EV or car you want, but I just don’t see how fires are a serious concern with Teslas. Even with the Bolt, Chevy is taking measures because they agree this isn’t what they expect from their vehicles (unless a government agency intervened).

Are you saying that I'm wrong because "your" Model S just hasn't exploded - yet?

 

[QuantumPhysics]

Exactly. Imagine the damage done in a parking lot once such things start to catch fire. You cant kill the fire with just water or powder. The fire is a chemical fire and it's completely different to a fuel based fire.

Imagine ending up in a chrash and your Lithium battery pack underneath your car goes into thermal runaway.

And yet with all the risks people still decide that EV with Lithium is appearantly the future.

It's easier to generate electricity than to create "fuel"/ "oil" and all the logistics surrounding them. EV is the future even if LiION batteries aren't.

 

[seeprime]

Considering there are over a million Tesla vehicles on the road, any number of fires are minuscule compared to that… And that’s not all it takes; I’ve supercharged with my 2015 Model S deep in the desert at 111 F multiple times in a row after over 5 hours of driving in only 100+ F weather through Death Valley and Phoenix.

If what you’re saying is the case, then why don’t we ever hear about fires at the following superchargers? Barstow, Yermo, Baker, Mojave, Needles, Twentynine Palms, Indio, Ehrenberg, Quartzsite, and Buckeye. Some of these have been there over 5 years, and hundreds or more people charge at these each week without issue. They’re all in or near the hottest desert in the world.

What really happens and has been acknowledged is when there’s an impact that affects the battery, there’s now a risk. And even so, the risk of injury is pretty small as the vehicle never suddenly bursts into flames. It starts with one cell of thousands so the vehicle is able to give advanced warning before there’s a fire or even the popping sounds from individual cells, along with other measures.

You can buy whatever EV or car you want, but I just don’t see how fires are a serious concern with Teslas. Even with the Bolt, Chevy is taking measures because they agree this isn’t what they expect from their vehicles (unless a government agency intervened).

Tesla software prevents 100% charging, to extend battery life and prevent fires caused by the battery overheating. Only in extreme emergency instances does Tesla send out code to extend mileage, in order to let people evacuate areas and not run out of juice. https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/10/...scape the,of just above 200 miles on a charge.

 

[Irata]

Considering there are over a million Tesla vehicles on the road, any number of fires are minuscule compared to that… And that’s not all it takes; I’ve supercharged with my 2015 Model S deep in the desert at 111 F multiple times in a row after over 5 hours of driving in only 100+ F weather through Death Valley and Phoenix.

Afaik, Tesla has an excellent thermal and power management for their batteries.

The exact opposite of that would be a Nissan Leaf, at least the first models.

 

[Plutoisaplanet]

Are you saying that I'm wrong because "your" Model S just hasn't exploded - yet?

Again, batteries don’t explode lol. They catch fire after slowly heating up. And second, Teslas catch fire less frequently than gas cars of the same age…

The only reason I mentioned my Tesla is because you literally said “all it takes is a very hot summer day and a high-energy recharge for disaster to happen.” If I can charge my vehicle at 110+ F weather at a 100+ kW rate, then that’s clearly not all that is required.

If you want to talk data, you can see the following (unless you claim Tesla is committing fraud): https://www.greencarreports.com/new...quent-in-teslas-and-other-evs-vs-gas-vehicles

Tesla software prevents 100% charging, to extend battery life and prevent fires caused by the battery overheating. Only in extreme emergency instances does Tesla send out code to extend mileage, in order to let people evacuate areas and not run out of juice. https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/10/...scape the,of just above 200 miles on a charge.

The range does go below 0 as well (typically something like 15 miles below) but I’m sure it’s not good for battery longevity.

 

[Rvnwlf]

I drive a lot... As in 5,500-6,000 miles a month, most of which is mostly freeway driving. I find it interesting on how many (news venues) will pick up on a EV related fire. I say interesting because during the month I see no fewer than 2 Non-EV Car/Truck/SUV fires on the freeways and have yet to see an article (for lack of a better way to put it) go viral talking about those. My record so far has been 3 vehicle fires in one week. I guess people accept it will happen to a gas vehicle and not think much of it.

 

[hahahanoobs]

Exactly. Imagine the damage done in a parking lot once such things start to catch fire. You cant kill the fire with just water or powder. The fire is a chemical fire and it's completely different to a fuel based fire.

Imagine ending up in a chrash and your Lithium battery pack underneath your car goes into thermal runaway.

And yet with all the risks people still decide that EV with Lithium is appearantly the future.

Relax. The tech and safety measures will and have gotten better. And you def shouldn't be using a GM EV as a scapegoat for all EV's. That's just crazy talk.

This is NO different than batteries in cellphones.
There have been recalls, fires, exploding in pockets, and we still use them. We're even charging them faster and faster.

 

[kiwigraeme]

The traditional ICE has had humongous amount of R&D and subsidies ( well except 2 strokes and 1 strokes etc - hate them with a passion ( well 2 stroke ) - yeah can run on oil , start after 20 years - but polluting and loud AF - often driven by *****s ).
The amount of R&D that will go into batteries and maybe hydrogen etc will dwarf this .
They can already make batteries in the lab 1000 less times to explode .
You will have batteries of a wide type - including huge massive ones , with say 80% of the power - with very low chance to explode.
Incredibly efficient ones, very powerful ones , medium and high density ones.

Unless we get THE ONE - they will all have a place in the market - from solar power holders to running cars & phones .
We already have a wide range from capacitors to lead/acid batteries in car

oh a word that means a silly person is bad - interesting

 

[QuantumPhysics]

The traditional ICE has had humongous amount of R&D and subsidies ( well except 2 strokes and 1 strokes etc - hate them with a passion ( well 2 stroke ) - yeah can run on oil , start after 20 years - but polluting and loud AF - often driven by *****s ).
The amount of R&D that will go into batteries and maybe hydrogen etc will dwarf this .
They can already make batteries in the lab 1000 less times to explode .
You will have batteries of a wide type - including huge massive ones , with say 80% of the power - with very low chance to explode.
Incredibly efficient ones, very powerful ones , medium and high density ones.

Unless we get THE ONE - they will all have a place in the market - from solar power holders to running cars & phones .
We already have a wide range from capacitors to lead/acid batteries in car

oh a word that means a silly person is bad - interesting

Ironically, the EV predates the I.C.E driven car.
Around 1832, Robert Anderson develops the first crude electric vehicle, but it isn't until the 1870s or later that electric cars become practical. On January 29, 1886, Carl Benz applied for a patent for his “vehicle powered by a gas engine.” The patent – number 37435 – may be regarded as the birth certificate of the automobile.

 

[scavengerspc]

Again, batteries don’t explode lol. They catch fire after slowly heating up. And second, Teslas catch fire less frequently than gas cars of the same age…

Wow. That sounded weird to me, so I checked it out, and it's true. In fact, on a percentage basis, there seems to be more fossil cars catching fire by accident at gas stations alone than the number of EV battery fires in total.

 

[cliffordcooley]

there seems to be more fossil cars catching fire by accident at gas stations alone than the number of EV battery fires in total.

Which is how many EVs burning in comparison to the total EVs. And how many ICEs burning in comparison to the total ICEs. Those are the two values that need to be compared. Is it still more ICEs over EVs? Or is it only because there are more ICEs on the road?

 

[QuantumPhysics]

Wow. That sounded weird to me, so I checked it out, and it's true. In fact, on a percentage basis, there seems to be more fossil cars catching fire by accident at gas stations alone than the number of EV battery fires in total.

"Catch fire"
"explode"
"burst into flames"

FIRE IS FIRE to me...

 

[scavengerspc]

Which is how many EVs burning in comparison to the total EVs. And how many ICEs burning in comparison to the total ICEs. Those are the two values that need to be compared. Is it still more ICEs over EVs? Or is it only because there are more ICEs on the road?

Like I said "on a percentage basis."

 

[scavengerspc]

"Catch fire"
"explode"
"burst into flames"

FIRE IS FIRE to me...

And most people tend to go where there is LESS fire. Don't they? And keep in mind the figures I found ONLY include smokers that caught fire at a gas station and no mention of fuel, electrical and 12 volt batteries.

It didn't take me long to find. Just find out how many reported gas station fires involving motor vehicles and how many EV batteries have caught fire compared to the total number of EVs on the road.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Maybe you should have included the part where I said "on a percentage basis."
But of course then you wouldn't have been able to be so deceptive.

Thanks for clarifying that is what you were saying.

 

[scavengerspc]

Thanks for clarifying that is what you were saying.

Hey you know me, always on the ready to WAY overreact. I edited my post and I apologize for just skimming your response and then commenting. Definitely my bad.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Hey you know me, always on the ready to WAY overreact.

You and me both.

 

[Markoni35]

So, the technology developed to reduce CO2 emissions can greatly increase CO2 emissions by burning down houses?

Can't they install some sensors to detect overheating and cut off the power? They should introduce a sticker for cars that have anti-spontanous-combustion technology.

"100% illegal meth lab friendly" or something like that.