Battleborn - hazard by design -

[Whales]

If these batteries have undergone third party testing by accredited test labs, it will be hard to prove the batteries are no good.

A third party report being presented is the opposite of immunity, it's an invitation to ask that third party some very important questions.  Their accreditation is on the line if things look amiss.

Even just showing the lab some internal photos might yield some interesting responses.  Also you can ask them if they think their report is sufficient to prove the product as completely safe and reliable (they will probably answer "no" for most product test reports, it is good to have this on the record for layman audiences).

In Australia at least many products must pass "all relevant standards" to be considered a safe for sale.  Would a product like this meet insulation, fastening and fusing standards?

[nctnico]

If these batteries have undergone third party testing by accredited test labs, it will be hard to prove the batteries are no good.

A third party report being presented isn't a brick wall, it's an invitation to ask that third party some very important questions.  Their accreditation is on the line if things look amiss.

Even just showing the lab some internal photos might yield some interesting responses.  Also you can ask them if they think their report is sufficient to prove the product as completely safe and reliable (they will probably answer "no" for most product test reports, it is good to have this on the record for layman audiences).

Then find relevant standards that you think the product might violate, eg for insulation & fastening.  Passing one report/standard and failing another isn't good enough, for example in Australia you must pass "all relevant standards".

Doesn't matter. If a product passes all tests set by relevant standards, then that product is to be considered safe and suitable to use according to those standards. And no, an accredited lab is not going to comment or change their conclusions on tests they have done. They are an accredited lab for a reason (including being audited regulary). They apply the tests the government deems necessary by legally requiring certain standards and that is the end of the story.

[Whales]

If a product passes all tests set by relevant standards, then that product is to be considered safe and suitable to use according to those standards.

A single report that covers all relevant standards?  That would be quite the report. 

And no, an accredited lab is not going to comment or change their conclusions on tests they have done.

I never said they would.   EDIT: To be clear I expect they could clarify what a report covers and does not, this is very useful when talking to layman audiences.

[Kleinstein]

Just because a product passed the UL test it does not mean that the product is good. The standards they test against are not perfect and may miss issues, like effects of aging, as they naturally have to test a new product. There can also be variations between units / minute unintended changes in the production. A product with 90% good units and 10% dagerous ones is still a very bad one and still has a good chance to pass the certification tests.
It is not a new thing that flaws come up and products are recalled even after they initially passed the tests.

A question for the batteries would be if they were tested as a closed box or if the testing lab also looked at the internals and did an extra evaluation of the claimed "safte feature by melting the plastics". In the general tests with a good (low contact resistance) sample they may well miss the issue.

[thm_w]

As was the case with DCS, I don't think the issue here is winning the lawsuit for testing/reviewing within advertised specs. The issue is going to be collecting layers fees after the fact.

Doesn't matter. If a product passes all tests set by relevant standards, then that product is to be considered safe and suitable to use according to those standards. And no, an accredited lab is not going to comment or change their conclusions on tests they have done. They are an accredited lab for a reason (including being audited regulary). They apply the tests the government deems necessary by legally requiring certain standards and that is the end of the story.

They advertise 80C ambient use, UL doesn't test active use outside of -5 to 60C.
Unless they specifically paid for higher temp testing (as Donut did), the testing isn't relevant to their product claims.

Products do get recalled that have passed standards testing (CSA, UL, etc.), for issues that weren't caught.

[mtwieg]

Doesn't matter. If a product passes all tests set by relevant standards, then that product is to be considered safe and suitable to use according to those standards.

IMO a consumer is entitled to assume this is true. Though as engineers, we should know better...

And no, an accredited lab is not going to comment or change their conclusions on tests they have done. They are an accredited lab for a reason (including being audited regulary). They apply the tests the government deems necessary by legally requiring certain standards and that is the end of the story.

I don't think anyone has suggested that any of the test labs/notified bodies make any mistakes here?

[nctnico]

Doesn't matter. If a product passes all tests set by relevant standards, then that product is to be considered safe and suitable to use according to those standards.

IMO a consumer is entitled to assume this is true. Though as engineers, we should know better...

This is not an engineering problem. It is a legal problem so apply a legal framing, not an engineering framing.

[thm_w]

This is not an engineering problem. It is a legal problem so apply a legal framing, not an engineering framing.

Feel free to cite a legal reference showing that companies only have to get their products certified and not do anything outside of that.

"Unfortunately, the law is clear that strict liability does not apply to UL and establishing negligent inspections or procedures where these inspections take place halfway around the world is a formidable task."

https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/suing-underwriters-laboratories-in-a-products-liability-case.html
https://www.reddit.com/r/ebikes/comments/1j8zz6m/ul_certification_once_again/
https://incompliancemag.com/product-liability-law-and-its-effect-on-product-safety/

[uer166]

This is not an engineering problem. It is a legal problem so apply a legal framing, not an engineering framing.

Feel free to cite a legal reference showing that companies only have to get their products certified and not do anything outside of that.

"Unfortunately, the law is clear that strict liability does not apply to UL and establishing negligent inspections or procedures where these inspections take place halfway around the world is a formidable task."

https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/suing-underwriters-laboratories-in-a-products-liability-case.html
https://www.reddit.com/r/ebikes/comments/1j8zz6m/ul_certification_once_again/
https://incompliancemag.com/product-liability-law-and-its-effect-on-product-safety/

The only thing that an NRTL can "guarantee" is that particular example tested passed whatever the standard calls for regarding construction and test requirements. Not all standard have many construction requirements to go with the tests either, you have to read the whole thing and understand it.

Moreover, not all NRTLs are made the same: people talk about UL here but Intertek was the one used by the battery company, not UL. They're widely known to have creative interpretations of the standard and their testing is nothing like going to UL proper, generally it's the most clown-car type of NRTL you can choose for your product.

People that see the "UL" standard logo on a device think somehow that it's safe, while in reality it simply means that a lab tested one sample, using their interpretations of tests and construction requirements, and has then washed their hands of liability of any production units that come after it. The OEM is in the end wholly liable like they should be, even though a 3rd party listing provides some protective evidence for due diligence.

[uer166]

Doesn't matter. If a product passes all tests set by relevant standards, then that product is to be considered safe and suitable to use according to those standards. And no, an accredited lab is not going to comment or change their conclusions on tests they have done. They are an accredited lab for a reason (including being audited regulary).

Have you certified products at UL proper? Or are you just making stuff up as it goes.

[nctnico]

This is not an engineering problem. It is a legal problem so apply a legal framing, not an engineering framing.

Feel free to cite a legal reference showing that companies only have to get their products certified and not do anything outside of that.

"Unfortunately, the law is clear that strict liability does not apply to UL and establishing negligent inspections or procedures where these inspections take place halfway around the world is a formidable task."

https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/suing-underwriters-laboratories-in-a-products-liability-case.html
https://www.reddit.com/r/ebikes/comments/1j8zz6m/ul_certification_once_again/
https://incompliancemag.com/product-liability-law-and-its-effect-on-product-safety/

All these links actually make my point. Quote from the last one: Having the opportunity to say that the company was very aware of the law and believes it complied could be extremely helpful in defending itself in a lawsuit. In other words: when a product complies with applicable, industry standard / regulatory tests, it will be very hard to prove a product is bad. In such a case you will have to prove legally that the tests used by the standards are incomplete / faulty. That is not an easy thing to do as the law doesn't know about physics and engineering!

For example: I'm currently preparing a lawsuit regarding a manufacturing defect in a car a family member bought. Anyone with a little understanding of engineering can see the fault. However, from a legal perspective the easiest way forward is to argue the car is not safe to use in traffic.

[thm_w]

For example: I'm currently preparing a lawsuit regarding a manufacturing defect in a car a family member bought. Anyone with a little understanding of engineering can see the fault. However, from a legal perspective the easiest way forward is to argue the car is not safe to use in traffic.

Well yeah, you sue based off of the damages that resulted, not the flaw itself. And you sue the manufacturer of the vehicle.
What you were seemingly implying above is the car company can just throw up their hands and say "too bad, RDW/NCAP tested it and they said it was ok". Which is not possible without further evidence:

Here, the appellate court stated that the trial court erred in permitting the jury to consider the evidence of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards related to the strict products liability claim. The rule is that evidence of a product’s compliance with government standards is irrelevant, so it is not admissible in an strict products liability action.

"a manufacturer cannot defend a product liability action with evidence it met its industry’s customs or standards on safety,” by stating that this language only precluded a complete defense based on such evidence and did not preclude considering such evidence in risk-benefit balancing.

https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2016/b247672.html

Anyway the case here is not quite the same, its the manufacturer suing Will for "false and misleading claims" about their product.
He tested the battery within spec. If he had pumped 10kV into it and then said "dont buy this junk" as it catches on fire, it would be a different story.

[EEVblog]

https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2016/b247672.html

Anyway the case here is not quite the same, its the manufacturer suing Will for "false and misleading claims" about their product.
He tested the battery within spec. If he had pumped 10kV into it and then said "dont buy this junk" as it catches on fire, it would be a different story.

Will has a copy of the datasheet that says the spec, and he tested within that spec, and it's obvious to any casual observer that he was genuine in his testing and wanted the best for customers. I can't see any way he can lose here.
But of course, the process is the punishment even if he "wins".
If the spec was wrong and they have since fixed it, as BB are claiming, then that's not Will's problem, that's BB's problem.
What a dumb arse move to try and sue him.
A simple "sorry, we goofed up the spec in the datasheet and it's now corrected" likely would have caused most of this bad publicity to go away.

[Brumby]

A simple "sorry, we goofed up the spec in the datasheet and it's now corrected" likely would have caused most of this bad publicity to go away.

It would also have given them a bit more credibility as a supplier and, with the appropriate action, could have potentially turned into a positive event.

But, no.  They just push for a classic example of the Streisand Effect.

Good job 

[Freesurfer]

I have been following Will's videos regarding these batteries, as well as from others that post videos on the matter. Mostly just for the entertainment value, so I haven't dug much into any technical details, nor am I a battery expert.

But what is so sad to see about these batteries is that the issues they have, seem so avoidable, and these batteries could have been great batteries. In most crappy batteries, the batteries are crap because the cells are crap and don't deliver on their promises. The raw materials used, simply are not there. But in these batteries, the cells actually seem to be of good quality, delivering their claimed capacity, which can be seen on the initial discharge tests that Will did up until the point where batteries started melting. So it's not the fault of the cells. I am sure they did not cheap out on the cells.

Also looking at the sheer amount of metal used in the wiring, busbars and various cell bonding inside, it seems like they didn't cheap out on raw materials either. With the abundance of raw metal, good cells and a seemingly okay BMS, all the raw materials should be there in sheer weight to construct a good battery.

It all just comes down to poor design, where nothing is properly torqued, nothing is properly secured from loosening over time, cell packs are just resting on top of busbars relying on gravity or the plastic case to make a good connection, rather than boding it properly... All of which could have been avoided.

For example the double nuts used to secure the terminals to the busbar. It is basic mechanics 101 that two nuts torqued against each other, does not secure the bolt connection any more than a single nut does. The outer nut will only release the tension on the threads of the inner nut that should be holding the connection, sandwiching it loosely between the busbar and the outer nut, and make the connection less secure overall. And that's before we address the elephant in the room of having plastic in between the different metallic components.

[Kleinstein]

In the case with the plastics in between the doubled nuts make some sense. The fist nut can not be torqued down fully and the part locking the nuts is the torque between the nuts. It is however rather tricky to torque correctly - want 3 hands for this.

[EEVblog]

Will tested the thermal failsafe system:

[Freesurfer]

In the case with the plastics in between the doubled nuts make some sense. The fist nut can not be torqued down fully and the part locking the nuts is the torque between the nuts. It is however rather tricky to torque correctly - want 3 hands for this.

I agree, but only because the plastic doesn't make for a reliable connection in the first place. So adding a nut doesn't change it very much.
With a design like this, the Australian DCS batteries actually look great in comparison. At least those batteries seem to deliver on their current delivery capabilities.

[oPossum]

Commentary on the mechanical design by a mechanical engineer.

The use of plastic between the copper bus bars is a problem even if the battery is used well below it's ratings. Environmental temperature changes will deform the plastic and loosen the electrical connections.

[mtwieg]

Will went and executed a single-fault short-circuit test on one of the batteries (a test which BB explicitly claims was done as part of UL2054 certification) and they burst into flames, failing the test spectacularly:



Looking forward to Battleborn responding to this, but if they had any common sense they would keep their mouths shut and focus on their own engineers.

[madires]

Streisand effect plus a likely class action lawsuit. Will Battleborn survive?

[EEVblog]

Will went and executed a single-fault short-circuit test on one of the batteries (a test which BB explicitly claims was done as part of UL2054 certification) and they burst into flames, failing the test spectacularly:
Looking forward to Battleborn responding to this, but if they had any common sense they would keep their mouths shut and focus on their own engineers.

They will be able to easily claim that he damaged the unit by cutting it open and bypassing the BMS
It's bullshit of course, we can all see how dodgy this thing is, but I suspect that argument would hold some weight in court.
It would be need another independent person to repeat the test.
It would be interesting to see the actual test report, it should have photos in it to show exactly what they tested.
How would another battery without all this plastic thermal fuse wankery have prevented this? Do they have a regular internal fail-safe fuse?

[Freesurfer]

I have been trying to find out (assuming the whole "thermal failsafe" thing is made up) if there is any reason at all they would use plastic in between the terminals and busbars inside the batteries.
As mentioned before, I am not expert in battery design. But I do occasionally run into some mechanical work where different types of metals need to be bolted together. And depending on different materials, you may need to use specific types of metals or alloys for the bolts, or use insulating pads and plastic washers between the metals so they are not in direct contact with each other to avoid corrosion.

I have attached a screenshot of a galvanic series table that I refer to when performing such work, where I added English translations for relevant metals. The further apart the metals are in the table, the worse the corrosion. This table is generally for metals installed outdoors in marine environment which may get in contact with (salt) water, and is also for non-electric connections, so I do not know if this table is appropriate for electric, dry connections. So "take what I say with a grain of salt" (hehe)

Either way, I thought maybe the plastic had something to do with preventing corrosion. But if you look at the terminal assembly (which I also added a screenshot of), you will see that they are using an aluminium bolt, in contact with the brass terminal and copper busbar inside. As far as I can tell from the galvanic series table, brass and copper are 2 metals that should in theory interconnect with each other just fine as they are not very far apart in the galvanic series. Aluminium on the other hand, is worse in contact with any of the 2, than just having the brass and copper touch directly.

Edit: I made a translation mistake here. Brass and Bronze are not the same thing, and is mistranslated. But looking at brass in another table, my point still stays true

It is also a well known topic among electricians that if you have an aluminium cable and want to splice it with a copper cable, or connect it to a terminal that's primarily intended for copper cables, you need to use Al/Cu bimetallic adapters to ensure that the connection doesn't corrode, oxidise or loosens over time, which could cause arcing and overheating. In my country there have been house fires because of improperly installed aluminium mains cables without such adapters. In these batteries, they seem to have introduced a new problem that wasn't there to begin with, by mixing plastic and aluminium in where they could just have used brass bolts to bolt the brass and copper together.

These are just my findings, but as mentioned my findings may be flawed or based on wrong assumptions about bimetallic connections. It would be interesting if others with a deeper knowledge about different metals could add their thoughts to the matter

Here is another good video on the topic, from somebody who claims to engineer various products, who talks about thermal expansion between the materials.

[Kilrah]

How would another battery without all this plastic thermal fuse wankery have prevented this?

That just came out



And yes, the right thing, an actual fuse

They will be able to easily claim that he damaged the unit by cutting it open and bypassing the BMS

Yeah, "Lid was opened, so of course the heat that was supposed to trip the "fuse" could escape, test invalid" 

[mtwieg]

They will be able to easily claim that he damaged the unit by cutting it open and bypassing the BMS
It's bullshit of course, we can all see how dodgy this thing is, but I suspect that argument would hold some weight in court.
It would be need another independent person to repeat the test.

I doubt the court is going to be interested in the technical details of the testing. The more important matter is likely whether Will's statements were made in good faith or not (at least that's how libel cases usually turn out in the US, not sure what jurisdiction this trial will happen in). That's why it's so bizarre for Battleborn to be posting technical responses to Will's videos. It does nothing for their legal case, just make them look more incompetent to actual engineers, and gives others like Will more ammunition to fire back at them.

How would another battery without all this plastic thermal fuse wankery have prevented this? Do they have a regular internal fail-safe fuse?

I believe most large batteries will have a basic fuse in addition to the BMS protection. The fuse would not be bypassed during the test, and should interrupt current almost instantly.

Will already put out a followup video where he looks at a couple other exmple batteries with fuses (and one which does not have a fuse, which he states would fail the test):