GM recalling nearly 69,000 Bolt EVs for fire risks
reuters.com
reuters.com
I really, really hope they crank out a few parodies for this recall.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d03svtYlFm8&list=PLoC1ZyvZc4...
Then again I'm just arm-chairing this thing. It's not like I have my own billions to backup my business prowess.
At one point in the game, the developers reduced the power of swords in melee combat.
This resulted in players complaining that it was like they were hitting each other with nerf bats, not swords.
From then on, if ever something gets made less worth while than it had been originally, it is considered 'nerfed'
Isn’t this simple enough and correct enough? I’m tired of their social media native ads. Let’s keep it simple.
It's going to be a while until EVs are mass market, and you seem to be making an implicit assumption that Tesla will be immune to competition in such a market.
Batteries these days are very reliant on their controllers to perform well and be reliable. You couldn't just jam a dumb battery bank into a Tesla and have it work right.
"Well, if you're willing to accept an incompetent result, there's any number of things I could do very badly. If you'd like, you can fire 10 people & I'd happily accept their 10 salaries if I'm allowed to be bad at their jobs. If you insist on competence though, it's going to take more time"
If you wish to be the guy insisting "That's not batteries, that's battery packs!" nobody can stop you.
Not really a good look though.
And Tesla actually has new cell technology and new pack technology that has nothing to do with Panasonic.
You cannot divorce the things that make something function in any practical sense for the concept of that area of technology.
You seem to be taking issue with this topic because some articles imply it's the cell that's been innovated. You have a point: The articles should be clearer. But the failure of those articles to properly make that distinction doesn't mean it's not part of battery technology.
Let's make this simpler: There is battery cell technology and there is battery management technology. Both are part of high tech implementations of battery systems.
Right now you're basically saying that anyone who disagrees with your extremely narrow definition can't just be wrong, but also must be a self-interested shill for Tesla. Sure, there's probably TSLA holders or employees here that talk it up, but your inability to see anyone's comment that reflects well on Tesla as something other than self-interest instead of honest opinion is devolving your comments to the quality of conspiracy theories instead discussion.
If the software & control systems are specific & integral to the hardware they're attached to, it's part of the same package. If we were talking about a CNC laser cutter, the specialized software is also part of the package "CNC technology". You literally cannot have the first without the second. In Tesla's case, theirs seems to be better. Not that they haven't had problems: It's that they've already worked through a bunch of them, and as I understand it have come up with some novel innovations in the process.
But then again, the longer this confusion lasts, the longer before it becomes obvious to everyone that Tesla has a significant in-house lead on this technology, so meh.
It's true that Tesla doesn't manufacture the batteries, but the technology behind the batteries is proprietary and exclusive to Tesla, atleast for the time being.
https://fortune.com/2020/09/21/tesla-battery-day-what-to-exp...
Question is how much of your vehicle software do you expose.
Sound like you get to drive it in to the dealership anyway.
If I remember correctly some of the dealership agreements mandate that the dealer handles software updates preventing some manufacturers from legally being able to OTA without dealer involvement.
If we only had the technology to roll out tamperproof updates, even if it was via a USB stick... /s (At least the map updates happen exactly that way).
Ergo, I'm under the impression they're really just only using this to siphon more money from the customers.
For safety recalls the dealer bills the manufacturer for their time, so as the customer you don't need to pay anything (other than your time to take the car to the dealer).
I have a 3rd hand Toyota, and after I bought it I noticed none of the recalls had been done. I called up my local dealer, they ordered the parts, then two weeks later they replaced airbags, fuel tank lid and updated the ECU without me having to pay anything.
but at the other end of the spectrum, Tesla have had issues with cars running into walls while the driver was enjoying self driving OTA content, or cars catching fire after new fast charging OTA content, in neither of the cases they issued recalls as legally defined.
So I’m not so sure whether manufacturers should be allowed direct OTA updates without recalls or heavy regulatory oversights.
Boeing could have designed MCAS on 737 MAX so that the company can rewrite its behaviors covertly and remotely, except that that isn’t how airplanes work. Why should it be how cars work?
I think there probably should be some oversight, but not all ECU updates are serious enough to warrant an official recall. Sometimes they're just cosmetic changes or improvements to the head unit's user interface. Sometimes they're bug fixes for convenience features that are not a risk to the operation of the vehicle. Sometimes they're compliance related (ex. Volvo updated my headunit so that the 360 surround camera view couldn't be the default view when shifting into reverse (a US law requires that the backup camera is seen when shifting into reverse).
what got annoying was more than once Onstar tried to put some app functionality behind a paywall. This included even the ability to check air pressure (last reading) and then remote start.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halt_and_Catch_Fire_(computing...
A feature is broken? Just update the documentation and say it's broken, problem fixed! No need to fix the actual problem... An even more evil variant: still claim the feature works in the datasheet, but hide the problems in the erratas.
For what it's worth, I popped out to our Bolt this afternoon after getting the email, and tweaked the max charge level to 90% from the panel. Easiy done.
[1] https://www.sae.org/news/2019/12/chevy-tweaks-2020-bolt%E2%8...
> GM said it has developed software that will limit vehicle charging to 90% of full capacity to mitigate the risk while GM works to determine the appropriate final repair.
So a consumer would need to personally ensure they don't charge to 90%, or bring it back to the dealership twice.
I've only charged our 3 to 100% 5 or 10 times over 2.5 years. And I don't leave it sitting that way.
Second, Nissan tried having the Leaf default to 85%. But they got in trouble for claiming more range than they should. The government rates the capacity in the default configuration.
Presumably these "it's a lease" folks are just choosing to set the 'limit' at 100%.
I agree with other comments that I prefer the regen anyway; it's weird to charge to 100% and have to use the brakes to slow the car so much. Your efficiency on that last 10% of charge is lower because of this lack of regen.
It sounds like GM set the level too high, but it could also be something else like a problem in the battery's thermal management that is fixed by limiting the maximum charge level.
Guilty as charged :). We charge our Model 3 to 80%. But my wife's Bolt is a lease, so we just left it at the default so it always has maximum range.
With the Bolt, all you can do is use tricks like scheduling the charging late (so that it might not be fully charged by the time you drive off in the morning).
> In late 2003, General Motors, then led by CEO Rick Wagoner, officially canceled the EV1 program.[11][46] GM stated that it could not sell enough of the cars to make the EV1 profitable.[47] In addition, the cost of maintaining a parts supply and service infrastructure for the 15-year minimum required by the state of California meant that existing leases would not be renewed, and all the cars would have to be returned to GM's possession.
Obviously, market conditions 20 years later are very, very different and with increasing government mandates for zero emissions car sales, maintaining and improving on sales of their EVs is a key component of GM’s future in a way that it couldn’t have been in 2001.
Edit: also, to point out this article is about 69,000 Bolt EVs - only about 1000 EV1s were ever produced. The difference in scale and investment is massive.
I would never buy one of these new botnet cars.
Say, all those cars with defective Takata airbags. I guess you’re arguing that you feel safer that the manufacturer can’t remotely disable the car, but I don’t see how how a cell connection has much to do with a car having a deadly issue or not. It has to get fixed no matter what.
(Also, given how many cars are leased, and the increasingly long time of those leases…lots of people, in fact, do not own their cars.)
Idealistic I suppose, but what power exist on the consumers side? How much of a reach is to say modern design and engineering has turned into a cat a mouse game. One in which we should seriously consider how deeply cancerous the lack of ownership on vehicles is. Before accepting it for common place we should look at the way our incentives have been shaped by the manufacturer.
Now, a vehicle could start on fire somewhere parked without access to the update for N reasons and they just need to prove the update was prevented by the owner and the result is also therefore attributable.
We can't get cell phone companies to update alot of phones past a year or so. How is GM going todo?
Constantly