Ford finally gets it

[JSH]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

It seems there is a fundamental design flaw if safety relies on batteries not containing those 2 flaws. The design should assume those flaws will exist in some amount, and not cause catastrophic fire.

It is the two flaws combined and lined up just right that causes the failure. Anode touches Cathode and short circuits. All 3 major cell designs are fundamentally the same - they are sheets of cathode and anodes layered together with a separator sheet between them. All 3 types of cells have experience fires in cars.

[redpoint5]

I'm not saying the design should protect an individual cell, I'm saying that a single cell failure shouldn't result in failure of all the rest and the car and any structures immediately around it.

A good design would allow for the energy of a single cell failure to be dissipated in a way that doesn't run away. If it doesn't achieve that, it's a bad design.

[Piotrsko]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I'm not saying the design should protect an individual cell, I'm saying that a single cell failure shouldn't result in failure of all the rest and the car and any structures immediately around it.

A good design would allow for the energy of a single cell failure to be dissipated in a way that doesn't run away. If it doesn't achieve that, it's a bad design.

This is the prime issue about cell power density: massive energy transfer across low impedance makes things hot enough that the housing will not stop heat transfer into a very volatile compound.

I agree that if they used non flammable organic compounds there's less fire, but I'm not so sure the solid state batteries won't cause fires either.

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by JSH

That information is readily available in the press but you can't make people read it. Type "What caused Bolt battery fires" and I get:

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/08...battery-fires/

https://www.autoweek.com/news/a38252...vy-bolt-fires/

https://www.consumerreports.org/car-...s-a3566085147/

Even then it will be forgotten in time. Who remembers the 16 million Fords recalled because they could catch on fire due to the cruise control switch?

https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news...ve_recall.html

It never seemed like GM ever acknowledged the reason for the problem. So yes, I could find out reading some magazine or looking it up on some website. By if I were a customer of GM, I'd preffer that GM tells me what's going on. It's the communication problem that I've heard Bolt owners complain about. It took months for GM to admit there was a problem, and never explained what that problem could be. And as far as I know, they still haven't.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

It never seemed like GM ever acknowledged the reason for the problem. So yes, I could find out reading some magazine or looking it up on some website. By if I were a customer of GM, I'd preffer that GM tells me what's going on. It's the communication problem that I've heard Bolt owners complain about. It took months for GM to admit there was a problem, and never explained what that problem could be. And as far as I know, they still haven't.

Chevy has a webpage dedicated to the Bolt Recall:

https://www.chevrolet.com/electric/bolt-recall

That page says:

What is the defect in recalled batteries?
The problem consists of two LG manufacturing defects (a torn anode tab and folded separator) that, in rare circumstances, can simultaneously present in a single battery cell in the LG battery module.

The actual recall notice is also pretty clear.

GM Recall
N212343880

Recall Title:
High Voltage Battery May Melt or Burn

Recall Description:
General Motors has decided that a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety exists in certain 2017-2018 model year Chevrolet Bolt EV vehicles. The high voltage batteries in these vehicles may pose a risk of fire when charged to full, or very close to full, capacity.

Repair Description:
Dealers will replace the lithium ion battery modules with new lithium ion battery modules as parts become available. Until the updated recall remedy is performed, customers should take the following interim steps:

1.Customers should, whether or not they received the current software update, return their vehicle to the 90% state of charge limitation using Hilltop Reserve mode. If customers are unable to successfully make these changes, or do not feel comfortable making these changes, we are asking them to visit their dealer to have these adjustments completed.

2.Additionally, we ask that customers charge their vehicle more frequently and avoid depleting their battery below approximately 70 miles (113km) of remaining range, where possible.

3.Out of an abundance of caution, customers should continue to park their vehicles outside immediately after charging and not leave their vehicles charging indoors overnight.

People are also confused because instead of reading the recall or GM's page (the myChevy app links to both) they read something online that doesn't apply to their VIN and then get frustrated when they call their Chevy dealership.

A good example of that is the new software for 2019 Bolts. It is ONLY for 2019 Bolts. GM's communication is clear about that and says it will roll out other model years at a later date and GM will notify owner when it is available for their car. However, that doesn't keep owners of other model years from calling their dealer, trying to get the new software, getting rejected, and then going online and complaining.

In both cases, the battery replacement and software update GM is clear: Owners will be notified when it is ready for their car. People just don't want to wait.

EDIT: Some people just like to complain. I just read a post on a Bolt forum where someone is complaining their VIN swap is taking too long because GM shut down Bolt production. (GM is swapping this guy's 2019 Bolt for a 2022 Bolt) Other people are complaining GM is making them choose to either take a buyback or get a new battery. They want to GM to swap the battery, let them drive it for awhile and then have GM buy the car back.

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by JSH

Chevy has a webpage dedicated to the Bolt Recall:

https://www.chevrolet.com/electric/bolt-recall

That page says:


The actual recall notice is also pretty clear.




People are also confused because instead of reading the recall or GM's page (the myChevy app links to both) they read something online that doesn't apply to their VIN and then get frustrated when they call their Chevy dealership.

A good example of that is the new software for 2019 Bolts. It is ONLY for 2019 Bolts. GM's communication is clear about that and says it will roll out other model years at a later date and GM will notify owner when it is available for their car. However, that doesn't keep owners of other model years from calling their dealer, trying to get the new software, getting rejected, and then going online and complaining.

In both cases, the battery replacement and software update GM is clear: Owners will be notified when it is ready for their car. People just don't want to wait.

EDIT: Some people just like to complain. I just read a post on a Bolt forum where someone is complaining their VIN swap is taking too long because GM shut down Bolt production. (GM is swapping this guy's 2019 Bolt for a 2022 Bolt) Other people are complaining GM is making them choose to either take a buyback or get a new battery. They want to GM to swap the battery, let them drive it for awhile and then have GM buy the car back.

I saw a 2017 Bolt for $15,000. I'm pretty tempted to get it, but don't really need the car... But ideally, I would replace the Prius with an EV, which would make more sense. Maybe some day I'll get an EV again.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

I saw a 2017 Bolt for $15,000. I'm pretty tempted to get it, but don't really need the car... But ideally, I would replace the Prius with an EV, which would make more sense. Maybe some day I'll get an EV again.

Still too expensive. Wait for the price to fall further... although the future is hazy.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I'm not saying the design should protect an individual cell, I'm saying that a single cell failure shouldn't result in failure of all the rest and the car and any structures immediately around it.

A good design would allow for the energy of a single cell failure to be dissipated in a way that doesn't run away. If it doesn't achieve that, it's a bad design.

The designers may have submitted a proposal for a 'safer' design, only to have it scuttled by bean-counters willing to play quarterly profits against the statistical odds of catastrophic failure, like Morton-Thiokol did with the Challenger disaster.
It's an ultimately-more-expensive way to design. But sometimes it takes the loss of human life and the risk of corporate bankruptcy in order for committees to finally allow for product specifications which include higher-cost fail-safes.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Piotrsko

This is the prime issue about cell power density: massive energy transfer across low impedance makes things hot enough that the housing will not stop heat transfer into a very volatile compound.

I agree that if they used non flammable organic compounds there's less fire, but I'm not so sure the solid state batteries won't cause fires either.

Frank Markus, in his January 2022 MOTOR TREND 'Technologue' article, said that ' The ( physical expansion of the cathode ) expansion problem is shared with today's solid-state battery technologies and seems surmountable.'
Leading me to believe that it is certainly an issue, and the prize of success so great that, they'll continue to pour dollars into R&D, in hopes of overcoming the issue.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

The designers may have submitted a proposal for a 'safer' design, only to have it scuttled by bean-counters willing to play quarterly profits against the statistical odds of catastrophic failure, like Morton-Thiokol did with the Challenger disaster.
It's an ultimately-more-expensive way to design. But sometimes it takes the loss of human life and the risk of corporate bankruptcy in order for committees to finally allow for product specifications which include higher-cost fail-safes.

I'm sure you're right... I've been hearing the Thomas Sowell quote a lot recently; there are no solutions, only trade-offs.

Cost isn't the only possible way to improve safety. Perhaps the pack could have been made safer if it were bigger, which would reduce range since it wouldn't fit as much battery into the same space, for example.

Beans must be counted though; it's not an optional task. At some point everything is deemed "safe enough" even though it could be made safer. We only benefit from hindsight that perhaps the design was flawed, and who knows if it really is considering LG is replacing the batteries with essentially the same design. Safe enough, apparently.

...and just to clarify for others, no people have been harmed from the LG battery fires so far. Fortunately only property loss has occurred. Interesting that despite zero fatalities, it still resulted in a $2B remedy. I suspect the perceived risk is doing greater damage than the actual risk.