Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wontuan]

both Zero's recent change in charging policy and further confirmed by Farasis.
Regards - Mike

Farasis did not confirm anything. Please don't make those claims. If Farasis is worried about a safety issue they will let their customers know. If you are referring to my comment on your previous thread then I suggest you reread that it cause I clearly said:

The ways to get a battery fire is to put it in a super hot environment, or over discharge the battery then try to charge it back up, or over charge the battery. Leaving the bike on charge can't cause either of those scenarios.

I did go into the chain of events that must happen to even cause over-charging and the likeliness of those all happening is close to  impossible. I also mentioned that there are even more safety systems that most people don't know about in those batteries. I really don't like these kind of conversations but lets address some key points.

You are correct, it isn't good to over charge your cells. This increases the likely hood of a fire but doesn't guaranty it. It does matter who makes the lithium cells because the type of chemistry matters a lot and I can tell you that there are a lot of different types of lithium cells.

Even in the event of a BMS failure it is more likely that the BMS will drain the cells because it left the balancers on, it won't allow for an over charge. Like I said even if the BMS fails there is a many other systems in place to open the contactor and prevent any over charging. The onboard charger won't over charge batteries, it won't go above 116. Trust me, it just won't. It is true that leaving the bike plugged in isn't the best for it's heath (even Zero admits that) but it does not post a fire risk.

You can't compare a Zero to those hover board fires because most those hover boards didn't even have a BMS or any form of safety system. They were made to be cheap unlike a Zero that costs many thousands of dollars.

I understand your worries and I appreciate you expressing your safety concerns. I ask that you trust the engineers to make the best decisions because they do take safety seriously. With that being said I think people are giving you hate because they feel that you are dismissing or misinterpreting Terry and the Zero engineers. I think you have already expressed your views and I don't think there is any need to reiterate it. If you have any concerns or question I would be more then happy to clear things up or ease your worries. PM me.

[Doug S]

...when any of these cells are over-charged it will result in a fire.

Yes, lithium batteries can catch on fire. So can gasoline. So can lubricating oil. So can brake fluid, or organic brake pads. So can human flesh. So can wood, or any organic material. Beyond flammability, electricity itself -- even in its natural form, lightning -- kills many people every year.

What is your point? We shouldn't build our houses out of wood because it can burn? I'd be willing to bet you've seen a LOT more wood fires than lithium battery fires, and I KNOW more people die in house fires every year than lithium battery-caused fires. But no, you've decided that overcharging lithium batteries is worse than any of the other dangers I listed above.

NASCAR requires cars' fuel cells to be dual-walled (steel and a very tough plastic), filled with a foam that reduces sloshing, minimizes the amount of air in the tank and suppresses any possible fires, have check valves to contain the fuel in the event the fuel separates from the car, and rigid bracing to prevent said separation. All these are proven risk minimizers. And yet, no production car offers those safety features. Why? Because they're not warranted. These are extreme-use, very expensive safety measures that are appropriate for race cars, not your daily driver or mine.

Vehicles that use lithium batteries take appropriate safety precautions, and it has to be admitted (the Dreamliner alone proves it), those safety measures are sometimes poorly designed, or just fail outright. But for all your squawking, you can't point to a SINGLE production EV fire caused by overcharging the battery.

You got nothing. You need to shut your mouth and stop proving your ignorance.

[Low On Cash]

LOL you guys really amaze me - you're so afraid to admit when someone is right you would rather twist the facts around to suit your agenda even at the risk of saving someones home or life.  It amazes me a Public Forum would accept the responsibility to mask my thread which will avoid a potential danger!

Just to clear the air here's a quote from Farasis from this very same forum and further backed by Zero's new unattended charging policy:

"In the event of the BMS and the MBB not responding and the contactor is welded and the charger some how outputs more than 117.6V then yes there is a risk of fire. This is probably why Zero ask you to check on it every 72 hours to make sure the bike is still responding and the BMS is still alive."

Be Safe - Mike Mas

[MajorMajor]

Hey Low On Cash,
What would you say is the probability of
1. BMS not responding
AND
2. MBB not responding
AND
3. the contactor is welded
AND
4. the charger some how outputs more than 117.6V
?

[clay.leihy]

Hey Low On Cash,
What would you say is the probability of
1. BMS not responding
AND
2. MBB not responding
AND
3. the contactor is welded
AND
4. the charger some how outputs more than 117.6V
?

About the chance of lightning striking the house? Better build a Faraday cage around it before it's too late!

Sent from my Z981 using Tapatalk

[Low On Cash]

While I appreciate all the "Pointless" comments and questions to otherwise distract from the topic of lithium battery safety . . . .

1) His comments (1&2) of the processors freezing was exactly what I outlined in my article below:

"Voltage Spikes - There is always concern for voltage spikes in the power grid which could damage the charger or BMS. In addition, spikes may cause the processor to freeze with uncertain results causing an overcharge situation.
During a lightning storm, a close proximity strike could easily destroy not only the charging circuit, but also spike the bikes processor and circuitry. Therefore any time a lightning storm is near you’ll want to immediately unplug the 110 v cord, of course this is not possible when if the bike is unattended!

Uninterruptible Power Supply System - If for any reason you have to leave your bike plugged in and unattended, you can provide some additional protection with the use of a uninterruptible power supply system. While the battery back up feature will be minimal, it will still provide momentary inverter power during spikes in voltage as well as “open the circuit” in the event of a strike.  Keep in mind, if a lighting spike gets in your bike, the damage could far exceed the cost of a UPS so its a good investment. I presently use these UPS units on not only my computers but also on all my TV’s, security camera, Wi-Fi System, alarm and even for my RV power."

2)  His comments (3&4) was assuming a direct hit. I never insinuated a direct lighting strike which would of course raise the voltage above 117 volts and of course weld the contacts. My comments were directed towards a strike from a remote location even miles from the bike which would elevate the line voltage momentarily and destroy the processor.  Have you guys never heard of a lighting power surge or surge protection? 

Regards - Mike Mas

[wontuan]

LOL you guys really amaze me - you're so afraid to admit when someone is right you would rather twist the facts around to suit your agenda even at the risk of saving someones home or life.  It amazes me a Public Forum would accept the responsibility to mask my thread which will avoid a potential danger!

Just to clear the air here's a quote from Farasis from this very same forum and further backed by Zero's new unattended charging policy:

"In the event of the BMS and the MBB not responding and the contactor is welded and the charger some how outputs more than 117.6V then yes there is a risk of fire. This is probably why Zero ask you to check on it every 72 hours to make sure the bike is still responding and the BMS is still alive."

Be Safe - Mike Mas

Ok so you are quoting me.
Here is the post he is referring to:
http://electricmotorcycleforum.com/boards/index.php?topic=6583.45

I don't care for arguing how people interpret things but I do care about people using the Farasis name. What I said in the post were my words as an individual sharing my limited knowledge. I don't represent Farasis and no one on this forum represents Farasis.

About the lighting thing. If your house has a big enough surge from lighting it could destroy the on board charger, but it shouldn't do anything to the BMS. The charger is an isolated power supply with suppressors on the input so if the surge if big enough the suppressors will fail short.  Then your breaker should fail after that. The BMS and the rest of the bike is completely isolated from the charger so I don't see a current path there. This is why some people on this forum reports their charger is dead but the bike is fine and there wasn't any fire and most of the time Zero replaces the onboard charger for them. I can't think of any technical way the BMS would be affected. Let me know if someone has an answer to that.

[Low On Cash]

LOL you guys really amaze me - you're so afraid to admit when someone is right you would rather twist the facts around to suit your agenda even at the risk of saving someones home or life.  It amazes me a Public Forum would accept the responsibility to mask my thread which will avoid a potential danger!

Just to clear the air here's a quote from Farasis from this very same forum and further backed by Zero's new unattended charging policy:

"In the event of the BMS and the MBB not responding and the contactor is welded and the charger some how outputs more than 117.6V then yes there is a risk of fire. This is probably why Zero ask you to check on it every 72 hours to make sure the bike is still responding and the BMS is still alive."

Be Safe - Mike Mas

Ok so you are quoting me.
Here is the post he is referring to:
http://electricmotorcycleforum.com/boards/index.php?topic=6583.45

I don't care for arguing how people interpret things but I do care about people using the Farasis name. What I said in the post were my words as an individual sharing my limited knowledge. I don't represent Farasis and no one on this forum represents Farasis.

About the lighting thing. If your house has a big enough surge from lighting it could destroy the on board charger, but it shouldn't do anything to the BMS. The charger is an isolated power supply with suppressors on the input so if the surge if big enough the suppressors will fail short.  Then your breaker should fail after that. The BMS and the rest of the bike is completely isolated from the charger so I don't see a current path there. This is why some people on this forum reports their charger is dead but the bike is fine and there wasn't any fire and most of the time Zero replaces the onboard charger for them. I can't think of any technical way the BMS would be affected. Let me know if someone has an answer to that.

Wontuan - thanks for your reply - sorry you got dragged into this but a user quoted your reply, so I responded, however you might want to clarify your last post on your position with Farasis and Zero because when Brian asked you; " Not to pry, but how do you know Farasis' practices and accident statistics?" 

Your reply was:

"I guess I should have mentioned that I work for Farasis designing BMS and a bunch of the Zero engineers are my good friends."


I really don't see what is left to debate here or why there is so much aggression towards me. I'm just a rider like you guys who discovered an error in unattended charging and put up a post with my safety concerns then followed it up with a report to Zero. Evidently my concerns were valid since Zero's reply was:

"For planned long-term storage (more than 30 days), we recommend draining the power pack to a 60% state of charge, and leaving the charger unplugged. The key change is we are dropping the guideline/requirement that you must or should keep it plugged in all the time." 



Zero's revised procedure is the same I outlined in my now "Closed Thread" so why do a select group of guys find fault with the issue and continue attacking me.  I am publicly asking the administrators to "Re-open" my Safety thread to avoid it from disappearing from the view of newcomers who visit the forum who are not aware of this potential dangerous charging procedure. Why would this forum want to mask something that can be an dangerous to riders? There is nothing in the thread that violates Forum rules so please re-open my thread!

Mike Mas

[wontuan]

LOL you guys really amaze me - you're so afraid to admit when someone is right you would rather twist the facts around to suit your agenda even at the risk of saving someones home or life.  It amazes me a Public Forum would accept the responsibility to mask my thread which will avoid a potential danger!

Just to clear the air here's a quote from Farasis from this very same forum and further backed by Zero's new unattended charging policy:

"In the event of the BMS and the MBB not responding and the contactor is welded and the charger some how outputs more than 117.6V then yes there is a risk of fire. This is probably why Zero ask you to check on it every 72 hours to make sure the bike is still responding and the BMS is still alive."

Be Safe - Mike Mas

Ok so you are quoting me.
Here is the post he is referring to:
http://electricmotorcycleforum.com/boards/index.php?topic=6583.45

I don't care for arguing how people interpret things but I do care about people using the Farasis name. What I said in the post were my words as an individual sharing my limited knowledge. I don't represent Farasis and no one on this forum represents Farasis.

About the lighting thing. If your house has a big enough surge from lighting it could destroy the on board charger, but it shouldn't do anything to the BMS. The charger is an isolated power supply with suppressors on the input so if the surge if big enough the suppressors will fail short.  Then your breaker should fail after that. The BMS and the rest of the bike is completely isolated from the charger so I don't see a current path there. This is why some people on this forum reports their charger is dead but the bike is fine and there wasn't any fire and most of the time Zero replaces the onboard charger for them. I can't think of any technical way the BMS would be affected. Let me know if someone has an answer to that.

Wontuan - thanks for your reply - sorry you got dragged into this but a user quoted your reply, so I responded, however you might want to clarify your last post on your position with Farasis and Zero because when Brian asked you; " Not to pry, but how do you know Farasis' practices and accident statistics?" 

Your reply was:

"I guess I should have mentioned that I work for Farasis designing BMS and a bunch of the Zero engineers are my good friends."


I really don't see what is left to debate here or why there is so much aggression towards me. I'm just a rider like you guys who discovered an error in unattended charging and put up a post with my safety concerns then followed it up with a report to Zero. Evidently my concerns were valid since Zero's reply was:

"For planned long-term storage (more than 30 days), we recommend draining the power pack to a 60% state of charge, and leaving the charger unplugged. The key change is we are dropping the guideline/requirement that you must or should keep it plugged in all the time." 



Zero's revised procedure is the same I outlined in my now "Closed Thread" so why do a select group of guys find fault with the issue and continue attacking me.  I am publicly asking the administrators to "Re-open" my Safety thread to avoid it from disappearing from the view of newcomers who visit the forum who are not aware of this potential dangerous charging procedure. Why would this forum want to mask something that can be an dangerous to riders? There is nothing in the thread that violates Forum rules so please re-open my thread!

Mike Mas

Mike,

I am ok with people quoting me, even saying "an employee of Farasis said ..", but the things I comment on are from my knowledge and perspective. I do not represent Farasis what so ever. Just like everyone else I could be wrong. You are more then welcome to quote me, just don't say it was Farasis that confirmed anything. This goes for everyone on this forum, do not quote me or anyone else and say that Farasis said it. If Farasis has something to say they will inform their customers.

You are correct that Zero did revised their recommendation. This is to help users increase their battery life cycles. I do see that there has been some aggression going on and I think it is because you insist that there is a risk of fire. Which people view as a false claim. I believe that people do agree with you that leaving the bike plugged in isn't great for the battery cycle life, they just don't agree that there is any fire risk and that Zero changed the recommendation due to a risk of fire. If you truly believe there is a fire risk then try to form a compelling argument with information to back it up. For example if you think a lighting surge can cause damage to the BMS then ask others if they know what kind of surge suppression Zero has on the bike or if the bike is complete isolated from the AC outlet. I encourage you and everyone else to express concerns but also try formulate technical reasons to backup your concerns. Having a good discussion is what forums are about.

With that being said let me provide some information on some assumptions that have been made.
1. BMS not responding
If the BMS doesn't response the contactor will open because they are normally open contactors. While failed BMS have been reported, it is more likely the AFE chips drained some cells or won't close the contactors. The BMS was design to fail in a safe state.

2. MBB not responding
I have never heard of this happening, but who knows.

3. the contactor is welded
Contactor doesn't just weld when they are closed, they weld during closing event. The common way for a contactor to weld is if there is no pre-charging systems and the contactor closes and there is an arc across the contactors and it melts the copper and welds it shut. This happens on high voltage closing events, not opening or already closed.
https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/document/22979862/reasons-for-contact-welding-in-contactors?dti=0&lc=en-WW

4. the charger some how outputs more than 117.6V
I have no idea how this will happen. The charger is an isolated AC to DC charger with surge protection on the AC input and DC output. The BMS can tolerate high voltage so even a high spike the BMS won't care at all. Each cell has voltage clamps across them to limit the voltage on each cell.  Also each cell can tolerate a spike on them, its sustained over-voltage that is bad.

If I have provide any incorrect information please let me know.
Again, I think conversations like this should be welcomed but lets keep it a conversation instead of a back and forth name calling thread.

[Low On Cash]

wontuan

Thanks for your reply - however I’m sure you’ll understand that after you publicly stated on this same forum you worked for Farisis, designed the BMS and knew the folks at Zero, others (myself included) would just assume that your speak on some authority for the company.

While I appreciate your explanation of your comments, since I work on high-level lithium powered military drone aircraft, the system that Zero uses and its cell management is very basic to the equipment that we design, fly and maintain.

What is important out of all this is; the fact that my disclosure here and in writing was instrumental in Zero’s decision to revise their recommendations of the bike being plugged in and unattended for long periods of time. While I’m certainly not in the position to comment on behalf of Zero’s motivations, It’s my humble opinion is it was revised to protect the users and certainly to protect Zero from any liability for their incorrect recommendations. I also feel the health of the battery is of minimal important since its small losses would not be an issue during the warranty period.

On a final note, as bike riders we should all be visual to make our sport safer. It is the responsibility of every owner to make sure our bikes are safe. If they have a fault then regardless of loyalty to the manufacture, its up to us to make in public to first spread the word to others and secondly to force the manufactures to accept the responsibility for their mistake and make it right.

While I’m not looking for any credit, it was the efforts of myself and 6 others who spear-headed a two year effort to go against (BRP) Bombardier Recreational Products the manufacture of Can Am Spyder when in 2008 they installed defective dynamic electric power steering units that would suddenly stop from over-load protection while the bike was in use. Making matters worse, as the rider had to turn the wheel harder when it quit, when the unit suddenly became active again, it resulted in over-steering accidents by the hundreds. Our group notified countless clubs, dealers and organizations and media to inform riders of this problem which avoided many accidents.

After almost 2 years and thousands of complaints and documented accidents, BRP still refused to accept responsibility to change out the steering units.  In 2009 the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration stepped in and forced BRP to change the steering unit in over 10,000 Can Am’s. This clearly shows that some manufactures like BRP could care less of their customers safety - we’re simply a VIN number to them.

Regards - Mike Mas