Battle is Born

[David Mack]

3 hours ago, IanD said:

Or use batteries from established suppliers who are less likely to make mistakes like Battleborn by having an experienced engineering team and a robust design/qualification/QA process... 😉 

My understanding is that Battleborn is a long established US brand, that has for some years supplied batteries to a number of US RV manufacturers, as well as selling to other sectors and to individual customers. They claim their batteries are tested to US standards (although copies of actual certifications seem to be elusive), but with numerous cheaper competitors having entered the market in recent years, their products are increasingly seen as overpriced.

Given their history and (now) premium pricing, it is easy to see why some customers thought they were doing the right thing by buying American 'quality', rather than cheap Chinese imports.

And Will's videos have shown those customers are getting nothing of the sort.

[MtB]

6 minutes ago, David Mack said:

And Will's videos have shown those customers are getting nothing of the sort.

 

The later ones do. But ISTR in the early days when Will first started videos about LFPs, he spoke very highly of BB batteries. Only latterly has he been finding problems with them. 

[robtheplod]

5 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

The later ones do. But ISTR in the early days when Will first started videos about LFPs, he spoke very highly of BB batteries. Only latterly has he been finding problems with them. 

I suspect they changed manufacturer etc?  People did get premium to start with, but as Will points out, even cheapy ones often are better quality these days...

[IanD]

18 minutes ago, David Mack said:

My understanding is that Battleborn is a long established US brand, that has for some years supplied batteries to a number of US RV manufacturers, as well as selling to other sectors and to individual customers. They claim their batteries are tested to US standards (although copies of actual certifications seem to be elusive), but with numerous cheaper competitors having entered the market in recent years, their products are increasingly seen as overpriced.

Given their history and (now) premium pricing, it is easy to see why some customers thought they were doing the right thing by buying American 'quality', rather than cheap Chinese imports.

And Will's videos have shown those customers are getting nothing of the sort.

When Battleborn emerged they were one of the first non-"cheap Chinese" drop-in LFP suppliers, there was an *awful* lot of complete crap around in those days, and they were rather better (and priced accordingly) -- and Will Prowse acknowledges this and promoted them as a high-quality product worth buying. Since then -- as Will Prowse acknowledges -- the "cheap Chinese" LFP batteries have got a lot better, but Battleborn haven't, they're still selling pretty much the same products now as then.

 

And there are clearly some significant design/safety problems with them which have emerged over time -- the idea of using a meltable plastic tab in the terminal connector stack to act as a "safety feature" (which is supposed to disconnect the battery if there is overheating) is clearly ludicrous, what it does do is subsequently *guarantee* a loose joint with high resistance and sporadic disconnects which gets even hotter and can easily arc/spark, as a moment's thought shows and Will describes clearly.

 

Every attempt BB make to try and push this as an intentional "safety" feature just makes their case even less credible, since it's clearly nothing of the sort, and any competent power electronics engineer could shoot their argument down in flames. The reason they're doing this is that they're now exposed to a massive and potentially extremely expensive product liability claim precisely because they have so many batteries out there built like this -- if these are found to be unsafe (which they should be...) and they have to replace them or pay compensation, the liability could well sink the company.

 

Even if this doesn't happen their reputation is shot and sales are likely to fall off a cliff -- it's a Gerald Ratner moment for them... 😞 

Edited June 4 by IanD

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

Even if this doesn't happen their reputation is shot and sales are likely to fall off a cliff -- it's a Gerald Ratner moment for them... 😞 

 

AND there is a similar problem emerging now, with stupid legal action being taken over Fender copies...

 

How to alienate every single future potential customer!

 

https://www.lawcommentary.com/articles/fenders-cease-and-desist-campaign-over-stratocaster-style-guitars-raises-new-ip-questions-for-guitar-makers

 

 

[David Mack]

32 minutes ago, IanD said:

Even if this doesn't happen their reputation is shot and sales are likely to fall off a cliff -- it's a Gerald Ratner moment for them... 😞 

The Dragonfly (BB's parent company) stock price has been in trouble since well before Will Prowse started finding faults with their batteries.

 

 

[IanD]

13 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

AND there is a similar problem emerging now, with stupid legal action being taken over Fender copies...

 

How to alienate every single future potential customer!

 

https://www.lawcommentary.com/articles/fenders-cease-and-desist-campaign-over-stratocaster-style-guitars-raises-new-ip-questions-for-guitar-makers

 

 

But it's not really similar at all -- one is a company accused of selling stuff with an inherent and dangerous design fault, one is a company trying to stop other companies copying their "iconic" design, a bit like Apple trying to stop other companies selling smartphones with a touch screen and rounded corners. Which IIRC they seriously tried to do, and failed on the grounds that this is the obvious way to build a smartphone.

 

Fender might have it a bit easier if not for the fact that they've let so many companies get away with selling clones/copies for so long, and many of these aren't even exact copies/fakes since they're clearly identified as from another maker -- they're basically trying to enforce the "Strat shape" as copyright on the grounds that there are plenty of other different shapes which could be used to make an equally useful guitar.

 

It might p*ss off Fender customers, but TBH anyone buying a "genuine" Fender today is doing it because they want to brag about "owning a Fender" not because they want the best guitar for the price, there are many much better alternatives, so anything Fender does is unlikely to put them off. As for the price of "antique" Strats, don't get me started -- the guitar player in our band has an early 60's Strat which was a birthday present 40 years ago, and he doesn't even want to think about what it's "worth"... 😉 

[David Mack]

 

Discussion on Will's own forum:

https://diysolarforum.com/threads/battleborn-batteries-is-suing-will-prowse.125758/

38 minutes ago, IanD said:

it's a Gerald Ratner moment for them... 😞 

I've seen a few references online to the Streisand-Battleborn effect.

[MtB]

8 minutes ago, IanD said:

As for the price of "antique" Strats, don't get me started -- the guitar player in our band has an early 60's Strat which was a birthday present 40 years ago, and he doesn't even want to think about what it's "worth"... 😉 

 

I sometimes think of the guitarist in my first band who was a right little spoiled brat. His parents bought him a brand new sunburst strat in the late 60s, but he was resentful because they wouldn't shell out the extra money for a vintage one, even then. 

 

It too must be worth a mint now, but I doubt he kept it. It meant nothing to him.

[Gybe Ho]

36 minutes ago, IanD said:

When Battleborn emerged they were one of the first non-"cheap Chinese" drop-in LFP suppliers, there was an *awful* lot of complete crap around in those days, and they were rather better (and priced accordingly) -- and Will Prowse acknowledges this and promoted them as a high-quality product worth buying. Since then -- as Will Prowse acknowledges -- the "cheap Chinese" LFP batteries have got a lot better, but Battleborn haven't, they're still selling pretty much the same products now as then.

 

I doubt this. How could they have sustained their initial high quality status for years with such an inherant design flaw as the overheating plastic in the "connector stack". At some point they must have adopted a lower quality design and this has now been called out through the investigatory powers and social media reach of Will Prowse.

 

40 minutes ago, IanD said:

Even if this doesn't happen their reputation is shot and sales are likely to fall off a cliff -- it's a Gerald Ratner moment for them... 😞 

 

An excellent analogy, Battle Born are commercialy toast. One distinction between Battle Born and Ratners is that Gerald Ratner did not claim crappiness was a safety cutout feature.

[Gybe Ho]

35 minutes ago, David Mack said:

The Dragonfly (BB's parent company) stock price has been in trouble since well before Will Prowse started finding faults with their batteries.

 

A fall in share price of $1000 to $2 in three years without a newsworthy business event! Nothing more aparently than wreckless issuing of new shares causing dilution. I doubt they can afford high quality legal advice.

 

How did a business that established a premium domestic US brand name in a growth market and that could charge double for its products, end up in such a mess both in terms of engineering and equity structure. Sounds like a future book waiting to be written along the lines of Bad Blood the story on the fall of Theanos the hi-tech blood testing company.

 

Edited June 4 by Gybe Ho

[IanD]

44 minutes ago, Gybe Ho said:

 

I doubt this. How could they have sustained their initial high quality status for years with such an inherant design flaw as the overheating plastic in the "connector stack". At some point they must have adopted a lower quality design and this has now been called out through the investigatory powers and social media reach of Will Prowse.

 

An excellent analogy, Battle Born are commercialy toast. One distinction between Battle Born and Ratners is that Gerald Ratner did not claim crappiness was a safety cutout feature.

Except BB themselves have said that they've been selling the same design for many years (since 2015?) and that there are tens of thousands of them out there (oh dear...) and that the plastic interposer is an intentional safety feature.

 

That's why they've got their backs to the wall and are suing Will, they've now shot themselves in both feet by admitting that the plastic is there -- as Will said -- and that this was intentional and is out there in massive numbers. Their only option to avoid bankruptcy is to try and prove that their "safety feature" is just that (as BB claim) and not a hazard (as Will claims), and that's going to be pretty much impossible since it flies in the face of the facts, not just Will's opinions... 😞 

[robtheplod]

34 minutes ago, IanD said:

Except BB themselves have said that they've been selling the same design for many years (since 2015?) and that there are tens of thousands of them out there (oh dear...) and that the plastic interposer is an intentional safety feature.

 

That's why they've got their backs to the wall and are suing Will, they've now shot themselves in both feet by admitting that the plastic is there -- as Will said -- and that this was intentional and is out there in massive numbers. Their only option to avoid bankruptcy is to try and prove that their "safety feature" is just that (as BB claim) and not a hazard (as Will claims), and that's going to be pretty much impossible since it flies in the face of the facts, not just Will's opinions... 😞 

i may be imagining this, but i thought Will had shown that the design had changed from the earlier days?  I'm sure he would have commented on the plastic issue years ago had it been there?

[IanD]

17 minutes ago, robtheplod said:

i may be imagining this, but i thought Will had shown that the design had changed from the earlier days?  I'm sure he would have commented on the plastic issue years ago had it been there?

Not as far as I'm aware -- the "plastic problem" was spotted after multiple BB users reported overheating/disconnect failures to him, then he went looking for the problem (with a failed battery someone sent to him) and realised what was going wrong. I don't think he ever said that this was a new "feature" that BB had introduced since he first looked at/recommended them, but I could be wrong here... 😉 

[Gybe Ho]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

Except BB themselves have said that they've been selling the same design for many years (since 2015?) and that there are tens of thousands of them out there (oh dear...) and that the plastic interposer is an intentional safety feature.

 

The "safety feature" ploy is a desperate gambit that has emerged in the past few months. This explanation defies commonsense to such a degree that any statement from BB is now best ignored. It is difficult to comprehend how a latent design flaw prevalent in a 10 year production run took 7 years to emerge. If we were talking about aircraft jet engine fan blades then 7 years is credible but the plastic shim/interposer in a high torque bolted terminal connection has rapid failure designed in.

 

The financial downfall of BB (Dragonfly) started 3 years ago and has got worse this year with the mangement wrangling a postponement of a pending debt maturity payment, their consumer BB sales are collapsing and their new OEM initiative is not growing enough to avoid an £11 million operating loss in the last quarter.

 

My guess is that the financial woes that showed up in the 2023 share price collapse also undermined the engineering culture at BB and the consequences soon became aparent. I cannot see them getting to calendar year-end without a chapter 11 filing. According to Google AI they had $18 million cash in the bank, the rolled over debt now matures in 2027 and they avoided a NASDAQ delisting with some share amalgamation trick.

 

Last month in another thread you predicted that sealed LFP batteries would get a default passing assessment in any new BSS regulations. I hope the Battleborn debacle has now exposed the truth that first generation sealed LFP batteries should be viewed with suspicion whereas DIY lithium batteries that expose their wiring guts to the world and any visiting BSS examiner, are inherantly honest.

Edited June 4 by Gybe Ho

[IanD]

34 minutes ago, Gybe Ho said:

 

The "safety feature" ploy is a desperate gambit that has emerged in the past few months. This explanation defies commonsense to such a degree that any statement from BB is now best ignored. It is difficult to comprehend how a latent design flaw prevalent in a 10 year production run took 7 years to emerge. If we were talking about aircraft jet engine fan blades then 7 years is credible but the plastic shim/interposer in a high torque bolted terminal connection has rapid failure designed in.

 

The financial downfall of BB (Dragonfly) started 3 years ago and has got worse this year with the mangement wrangling a postponement of a pending debt maturity payment, their consumer BB sales are collapsing and their new OEM initiative is not growing enough to avoid an £11 million operating loss in the last quarter.

 

My guess is that the financial woes that showed up in the 2023 share price collapse also undermined the engineering culture at BB and the consequences soon became aparent. I cannot see them getting to calendar year-end without a chapter 11 filing. According to Google AI they had $18 million cash in the bank, the rolled over debt now matures in 2027 and they avoided a NASDAQ delisting with some share amalgamation trick.

 

Last month in another thread you predicted that sealed LFP batteries would get a default passing assessment in any new BSS regulations. I hope the Battleborn debacle has now exposed the truth that first generation sealed LFP batteries should be viewed with suspicion whereas DIY lithium batteries that expose their wiring guts to the world and any visiting BSS examiner, are inherantly honest.

 

They might be inherently honest, but they're also capable of having being designed/built/connected up/programmed by someone far less competent than even a BB engineer... 😞 

 

If you think that a BSS examiner is going to go over and check every single cell connection, safety device, BMS component, and system setup/programming/failsafes in a DIY installation together with QA documentation about the components used, I have a bridge you might like to buy... 😉 

 

P.S. I didn't say that "sealed LFP batteries would get a default passing assessment...", in fact for standalone drop-in LFP batteries with no external control/comms/alarms -- the most common type used today -- I said exactly the opposite. I said that a properly designed LFP *system* (including charging) configured by the manufacturer with robust safety precautions would pass, as would a system properly designed and signed off by a competent professional, and that this was likely to cause problems for DIY LFP-builders. You cannot sign off an LFP battery on its own as safe, you have to also include the charging/control system, and very likely in future any required construction precautions like battery boxes/venting... 😞 

Edited June 4 by IanD

[Gybe Ho]

21 hours ago, IanD said:

If you think that a BSS examiner is going to go over and check every single cell connection, safety device, BMS component, and system setup/programming/failsafes in a DIY installation together with QA documentation about the components used, I have a bridge you might like to buy

 

Surely the Battle Born saga indicates this is neccessary for all sealed drop-in LFP batteries not assembled by Victron in addition to DIYlithium builds?

 

In the case of my boat the assessment would be much simpler, a BSS examiner could ask me to introduce a 2.5kW load on my batteries and after 5 minutes whip out an infrared camara and scan for a hot connection. In practical terms this is not possible for sealed LFP batteries, so what is the CRT's plan?

 

21 hours ago, IanD said:

They might be inherently honest, but they're also capable of having being designed/built/connected up/programmed by someone far less competent than even a BB engineer... 😞 

 

Unfortunately this is true, I recall reading a post on this forum where a DIY lithium build implementation hinged on just a pair of 10mm2 cables carrying the boat's total load. Aparently fitting 16mm2 cables was too problematic in the confined space. By contrast I specfied 6 x 16mm2 cables to carry my boat's total load.

Edited June 5 by Gybe Ho

[Gybe Ho]

3 hours ago, IanD said:

I said that a properly designed LFP *system* (including charging) configured by the manufacturer with robust safety precautions would pass, as would a system properly designed and signed off by a competent professional, and that this was likely to cause problems for DIY LFP-builders.

 

How many LFP main battery installs on CRT waters today would pass this new regulatory regime without a £1000 custom assessment? Your boat and probably the all Victron NG install on @PeterF's boat.

 

That leaves about 4,998 CRT license holders in fear of being ordered off CRT waters as their BSS certificates lapse.

 

Where are the competent persons go to come from to conduct these detailed LFP installation assessments? The BSS training scheme for plain old BSS inspectors has lapsed into disrepute, they have not managed to schedule a training course for 3 years to create new BSS examiners. The existing BSS inspectors are notorious for signing off horendous rats-nest regular electrics on narrowboat and according to the BSS HQ the mark of suitble BSS inspector is someone who knows what a dual return fuel pipe does on a diesel engine. Such people have the wrong technical background for LFP assessments.

 

It would take a 1 year university level training course to create LFP install inspectors competent enough to conduct the multi dimention asessments you alluded to above. The BSS cannot find people prepared to undertake the £7k trainining course for ordinary examiners, the new LFP inspectors will require a training course that will cost 2 or 3 times that. 

[Russ T]

https://consumerrights.wiki/w/User:Louis/Dragonfly_Energy_trade_libel_suit_Will_Prowse

[MtB]

Well it seems to me that there is no doubt the polymer washer softens and melts if it gets to 85C. The question is WHY it ever gets to 85C. 

 

For heat to be generated raising the terminal temperature there needs to be a degree of resistance in the terminal area causing a voltage drop, and the heating power will be the current flowing multiplied by the voltage drop. Prowse's assertion AIUI is broadly that the resistance causing the voltage drop and hence the power dissipation is within the structure of the BB battery terminal and caused by the soft polymer washer preventing a high degree of clamping force when the internal nut is tightened. 

 

OTOH Dragonfly will assert the users' imperfect connections onto the battery output terminals are the location of the high-resistance and hence the source of the volt drop and the heat generation. I fear the court might find this a credible argument and allow the claim unless Prowse can produce evidence identifying which junction is the high resistance during his own tests, showing without doubt it is the internal junction within the battery and not his own cable connection(s) onto the battery output terminals. I'm not sure he actually did that in any of his videos testing the BB batteries although I admit I haven't seen all of them. 

 

 

 

[IanD]

17 minutes ago, MtB said:

Well it seems to me that there is no doubt the polymer washer softens and melts if it gets to 85C. The question is WHY it ever gets to 85C. 

 

For heat to be generated raising the terminal temperature there needs to be a degree of resistance in the terminal area causing a voltage drop, and the heating power will be the current flowing multiplied by the voltage drop. Prowse's assertion AIUI is broadly that the resistance causing the voltage drop and hence the power dissipation is within the structure of the BB battery terminal and caused by the soft polymer washer preventing a high degree of clamping force when the internal nut is tightened. 

 

OTOH Dragonfly will assert the users' imperfect connections onto the battery output terminals are the location of the high-resistance and hence the source of the volt drop and the heat generation. I fear the court might find this a credible argument and allow the claim unless Prowse can produce evidence identifying which junction is the high resistance during his own tests, showing without doubt it is the internal junction within the battery and not his own cable connection(s) onto the battery output terminals. I'm not sure he actually did that in any of his videos testing the BB batteries although I admit I haven't seen all of them. 

 

But surely what matters is that whatever the source of the heat, if the polymer washer softens and the joint goes loose it does *not* disconnect the battery, it just gives a very poor contact with extra heating and possible sparking, which makes the problem worse?

 

The right solution to a "hot terminal" (high resistance connection) would be what some other suppliers do, a thermal sensor on the terminal which triggers a BMS disconnect when it gets hot.

 

What BB do is not a solution to the problem at all... 😞

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

But surely what matters is that whatever the source of the heat, if the polymer washer softens and the joint goes loose it does *not* disconnect the battery, it just gives a very poor contact with extra heating and possible sparking, which makes the problem worse?

 

The right solution to a "hot terminal" (high resistance connection) would be what some other suppliers do, a thermal sensor on the terminal which triggers a BMS disconnect when it gets hot.

 

What BB do is not a solution to the problem at all... 😞

 

I was putting forward the way lawyers think, not engineers. 

 

 

 

 

I think there is every chance that Will will lose this one. 

 

 

[David Mack]

2 hours ago, MtB said:

OTOH Dragonfly will assert the users' imperfect connections onto the battery output terminals are the location of the high-resistance and hence the source of the volt drop and the heat generation.

In an ideal world, the user's external connections to the battery terminal would be sound, and low resistance. However the battery design is poor in that there is a heat sensitive component on the inside end of the terminal, which is hidden from the user inside the sealed case. One could argue that the battery which is so sensitive to the quality of the external connection is not fit for purpose, especially if the need for a good external connection is not emphasised in the user instructions.

[Russ T]

 

Edited June 8 by Russ T

[IanD]

12 hours ago, MtB said:

 

I was putting forward the way lawyers think, not engineers. 

 

I think there is every chance that Will will lose this one. 

 

 

Even lawyers' thinking cannot fly in the the face of factual evidence; the problem Will might have is assembling this evidence (from "experts"? -- which many people would say he is as far as LFP batteries are concerned, almost certainly more so than many electrical engineers, but the judge may be less willing to believe this...), finding a lawyer who can support his case without bankrupting him, and persuading the judge that he is right and an "expert" battery manufacturer is wrong... 😞 

 

Given the level of support that he seems to have on the internet, I suspect that a crowdfunding campaign could very easily deal with the financial side -- it might even give him deep enough pockets that BB can't use legal costs as a way to win... 😉 

 

Without this -- yes, he's in trouble... 😞