Charge limits imposed on Bluelink

  • Thread starter Thread starter NRH
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 100
  • Views Views 16K
srkz said:
So BlueLink set my charge limit to 80% just like everyone else's, and I set it back to 90% on the car screen shortly after, a couple days ago. This morning my car was only charged up to 80% though, and the setting was back to 80% again, so it seems they're going to keep reducing it to 80% remotely as long as your BlueLink is active. Not sure how many times they'll push the setting, but I can confirm that it's more than just once.

At least I still have the option of charging it to 90 or 100% immediately before a trip, but I am not pleased by the development...
Click to expand...
I set it up to 90% just when I'm charging past 80% and then back to 80% when I'm done.. Had no issue charging to 90%...
 
Here's a weird one....I just looked at my Charge Limit Settings on BlueLink and both were set to 100%. The other day when I was in the vehicle and checked them they were set for 80% DC and 90% AC - my usual settings when not road-tripping. Note that my car is outside of the recall window....

[UPDATE] It's now reverted back to 80DC/90AC -- I think the app just had a moment. This app is so annoyingly quirky.....
 
Last edited:
MSimpsonNJ said:
Here's a weird one....I just looked at my Charge Limit Settings on BlueLink and both were set to 100%. The other day when I was in the vehicle and checked them they were set for 80% DC and 90% AC - my usual settings when not road-tripping. Note that my car is outside of the recall window....

[UPDATE] It's now reverted back to 80DC/90AC -- I think the app just had a moment. This app is so annoyingly quirky.....
Click to expand...

80 DC and 90 AC has always been my choice too.
The reset has happened to me several times but both AC/DC (no pun) to 50% not 100%. Funny
 
BlueKonaEV said:
I set it up to 90% just when I'm charging past 80% and then back to 80% when I'm done.. Had no issue charging to 90%...
Click to expand...

I charge up to 90% every weeknight and run it down to about 35% every day with just my daily commute. I would rather the car burn to the ground and let my insurance company sue Hyundai for it rather than live with 80% for the next year until they replace the battery. I was hoping I could just set it back to 90% once and be done with this but apparently not. Obviously setting it to 90% every single day after they set it to 80% remotely is not going to leave me a satisfied customer...
 
Ours was pushed down to 80% once (on Saturday), and after setting it back at 100% it has stayed there. (We've charged beyond 80% multiple times, both AC and DC in the 3 days since, including to 100% on L2 this morning.)
 
ttsherpa said:
I saw that the hidden menu of the infotainment system has options mentioning explicitly wifi, 4G and OTA. I don't know if they're fully ready for them to use.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure there's anything ominous indicated by mentions of wifi, 4G and OTA in the car's menus. The car uses a cell connection (and possibly wifi?) to communicate with the BlueLink app, and the car health updates, etc.
 
I just read this thread and, frankly, am a little amazed at how many people want to maximize their risk of fire contrary to specific and deliberate instructions and actions by Hyundai, the manufacturer. They are required by US laws to issue recall campaigns, as they have done. I wonder if you all realize that if you do not follow the instructions and actions provided, you may void your warranty and may not be able to file any claim if your house should burn to the ground after you have changed factory altered settings. Why are you all risking that outcome?

And, to put an even sharper point on this, several of you have publicly posted on an open forum that you are negating Hyundai's attempts to prevent potential catastrophic damage to your car, your property, and your person. All of you who have done so are possibly also negating any chance you have to hold Hyundai accountable for any damage if a fire should occur in your car. Is all that really worth having an extra 20 to 40 miles of range between charges? You might want to consider more legal ramifications!!! And, some of you have actually advocated to others to violate their warranty and the legal requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act! Are you insane? Probably not, just ignorant or shortsighted. Sorry if I am coming across harshly, but you really must consider this far more than just a complaint about Blue Link settings... I strongly urge all who read this to ignore the earlier posts and follow the Hyundai instructions exactly to protect your rights, warranty, and families.
 
Last edited:
engnrng said:
I just read this thread and, frankly, am a little amazed at how many people want to maximize their risk of fire contrary to specific and deliberate instructions and actions by Hyundai, the manufacturer. They are required by US laws to issue recall campaigns, as they have done. I wonder if you all realize that if you do not follow the instructions and actions provided, you may void your warranty and may not be able to file any claim if your house should burn to the ground after you have changed factory altered settings. Why are you all risking that outcome?
Click to expand...

While I am generally only charging above 80 when driving long distance, given that only 12 vehicles out of 80000 have caught fire I myself am not overly concerned about charging above 80 as needed. Note that this recall was voluntary by Hyundai, it was not "required by US law." I agree that there is some risk for those in the recall window for (a) a fire and (b) having some issues in defending themselves if that fire occurs, but car fires happen in ICE vehicles every day and we continue to drive them. Deadly accidents happen in vehicles every day and we continue to drive them. So I think what you are seeing here is people assessing the relative risk and deciding the risk is minimal. I don't find that surprising at all. Would I use caution and take steps to minimize the risk? Absolutely. Would I follow the recommendations of Hyundai when I can? Yup. Would I charge to 100 every day just because I can? Absolutely not. But I'm not at all surprised that people who purchased a $40,000 (plus or minus) car that was touted as having a certain range want to take advantage of that range. We assess and take risks every day, so this one is not surprising to me at all.
 
Last edited:
engnrng said:
I just read this thread and, frankly, am a little amazed at how many people want to maximize their risk of fire contrary to specific and deliberate instructions and actions by Hyundai, the manufacturer. They are required by US laws to issue recall campaigns, as they have done. I wonder if you all realize that if you do not follow the instructions and actions provided, you may void your warranty and may not be able to file any claim if your house should burn to the ground after you have changed factory altered settings. Why are you all risking that outcome?
Click to expand...

Exactly. This RECALL & their NOTICE sent to those of us affected is a CYA for THEM. If we ignore their warning/advice or override the 80% threshold, any damages will be on yourself. PS _ I received both email (week ago), Bluelink Msg (week ago), and an actual MAILING from them just yesterday. I guess the silver lining in this is that we will be getting (hopefully) NEW Batteries and thus a 'fresh restart' of those batteries.
 
engnrng said:
And, to put an even sharper point on this, several of you have publicly posted on an open forum that you are negating Hyundai's attempts to prevent potential catastrophic damage to your car, your property, and your person. All of you who have done so are possibly also negating any chance you have to hold Hyundai accountable for any damage if a fire should occur in your car. Is all that really worth having an extra 20 to 40 miles of range between charges? You might want to consider more legal ramifications!!! And, some of you have actually advocated to others to violate their warranty and the legal requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act! Are you insane? Probably not, just ignorant or shortsighted. Sorry if I am coming across harshly, but you really must consider this far more than just a complaint about Blue Link settings... I strongly urge all who read this to ignore the earlier posts and follow the Hyundai instructions exactly to protect your rights, warranty, and families.
Click to expand...

upload_2021-4-13_10-42-58.webp
 
MSimpsonNJ said:
While I am generally only charging above 80 when driving long distance, given that only 12 vehicles out of 80000 have caught fire I myself am not overly concerned about charging above 80 as needed. Note that this recall was voluntary by Hyundai, it was not "required by US law." I agree that there is some risk for those in the recall window for (a) a fire and (b) having some issues in defending themselves if that fire occurs, but car fires happen in ICE vehicles every day and we continue to drive them. Deadly accidents happen in vehicles every day and we continue to drive them. So I think what you are seeing here is people assessing the relative risk and deciding the risk is minimal. I don't find that surprising at all. Would I use caution and take steps to minimize the risk? Absolutely. Would I follow the recommendations of Hyundai when I can? Yup. Would I charge to 100 every day just because I can? Absolutely not. But I'm not at all surprised that people who purchased a $40,000 (plus or minus) car that was touted as having a certain range want to take advantage of that range. We assess and take risks every day, so this one is not surprising to me at all.
Click to expand...
You have a point, I should not be surprised at people's priorities... However, the counterpoint is that if there is 1 person in the US who ends up with a fire after reading your risk assessment and making the same decision you made, how would you feel if that person then mentions that, "well, there was this guy in NJ who posted on the forum that the risk was not "overly concerning", so I believed him and changed back to 100%"? I agree that the risk you mention is very small, but it is not zero. Hopefully it will never happen in the US, or elsewhere in the world now that Hyundai has dialed back the charge %. I will stop my ranting now.
 
engnrng said:
I just read this thread and, frankly, am a little amazed at how many people want to maximize their risk of fire contrary to specific and deliberate instructions and actions by Hyundai, the manufacturer. They are required by US laws to issue recall campaigns, as they have done. I wonder if you all realize that if you do not follow the instructions and actions provided, you may void your warranty and may not be able to file any claim if your house should burn to the ground after you have changed factory altered settings. Why are you all risking that outcome?

And, to put an even sharper point on this, several of you have publicly posted on an open forum that you are negating Hyundai's attempts to prevent potential catastrophic damage to your car, your property, and your person. All of you who have done so are possibly also negating any chance you have to hold Hyundai accountable for any damage if a fire should occur in your car. Is all that really worth having an extra 20 to 40 miles of range between charges? You might want to consider more legal ramifications!!! And, some of you have actually advocated to others to violate their warranty and the legal requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act! Are you insane? Probably not, just ignorant or shortsighted. Sorry if I am coming across harshly, but you really must consider this far more than just a complaint about Blue Link settings... I strongly urge all who read this to ignore the earlier posts and follow the Hyundai instructions exactly to protect your rights, warranty, and families.
Click to expand...
We all make individual risk assessments (in fact, teaching risk assessment and management is a major part of my profession) so I'm not going to talk anyone out of making these choices the way that they feel comfortable. However, I'd point out that there are limitless ways that all of us could very slightly lower our risk of various low probability outcomes. I could always wear nomex clothing to decrease the chance of burns if I happened to find myself trapped in a house fire. That may make me safer, but is the vanishingly small increase in safety worth the cost and inconvenience? Clearly we all think not, since there isn't a whole lot of Nomex onesies being sold on Amazon.

To me, the car fire is a low-probability, medium-low consequence event. The related reward to accepting that low-prob/low-consq. event is moderate (not spending time worrying, not taking having to make more frequent charging stops.)

As for Warranty and Insurance problems, Hyundai's explicit instructions to me say that if I don't lower the max charge limit, that I should park my car outside. I do park outside, so I'm perfectly in compliance with what the company is telling me. I'd be amazed if anything I've done here had any bearing on insurance or warranty claims. If I put my grill too close to my house, and burn my house down, my homeowners insurance still pays. It's a prepaid disaster mitigation product, not some kind of good-behavior reward system.
 
Last edited:
Engnrng, I understand and appreciate your point of view as well. And you will see that I carefully worded my response. I am not advocating a position at all and in fact think it is smart to use care and comply. The fact that I am not overly worried is my viewpoint and not advocating in any way. My main point is that it's not surprising and I don't think those choosing to do their own thing are ignorant or shortsighted - they make their own choices, as we all do. I don't fault Hyundai for taking mitigating steps either. They have to and they should. They are stuck in the middle on this one and are trying to do what they can in a really lousy situation.
 
Last edited:
The premise that someone on this forum should fee responsible if another forum member's car catches fire is ridiculous. We are all responsible for our own decisions and actions. And I would add that Hyundai's "fix" of the battery problem is not a fix at all. If the car's back seat was not structurally sound to protect passengers in an accident, would it be an appropriate recall to have the dealer remove the back seat? I don't think so. Until my battery is fixed or replaced, Hyundai is responsible for the defective battery, not me. In the meantime, I'll make my adult decision on how to charge my car, regardless of what anyone else here decides.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top