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.