PSA: Battleborn

[dLj]

Here are a few points I've been making that I'd like to understand if people contest them:

In the spirit of information exchange - not hyperbole - I'll provide my answers to your questions below.

1. There are a couple of poor design decisions made with these batteries that should be considered design flaws.

I consider the exposed issue to be a design deficiency.

2. These failures are not just in one or two batteries. Last I looked, Prowse had 20 of them, another guy 6 of them, another person 12 of them, and the comments on all of these videos contain many, many others with failed batteries. It appears that failures are occurring in all models that share these design "features".

So here we have 38 - if your numbers are correct - known failures due to the design deficiency.

3. All of the failed batteries shown in videos have failed specifically due to the couple of design flaws. No other batteries have failed for different or undetermined reasons.

I don't know what you are referring to when you say "No other batteries"...

4. All batteries that have not fully failed, including new batteries, have not been able to pass BB's specs of 0.5C charge and 1C discharge. Most of them are shutting down at a fraction of these specs.

You state "All batteries" - Well all four of my batteries have passed the BB specs of 0.5C charge. I don't discharge at high rates so can't speak to that.

Your opening premise on this point is simply wrong.

5. AFAIK, every failure example of these batteries has occurred in a battery that was in service for years, then suddenly failed. There were no other warnings. On a few of them, the failure wasn't catastrophic enough to burn or vent, but the epoxy around the terminals charred. I suppose that could be an early warning, but it seems like not much earlier. Also on a few, they were shutting down during normal charging and discharging at low C rates. They showed no obvious outside damage, but when cut open, they were found to have loose connections and the start of melting plastic due to the design "features". I consider this a sudden failure without prior warning.

There is no reliable data to support:

"AFAIK, every failure example of these batteries has occurred in a battery that was in service for years, then suddenly failed. There were no other warnings."

There is no data regarding monitoring terminal temperatures over time to determine if indeed there are early signs for a potential failure. There is not data regarding measuring charging profiles that existed prior to the identified problem.

We don't know if there are early warning signs that a particular battery will have this issue. Certainly monitoring terminal temperatures would be a very good step forward to see if there are early warning signs or not.

I also go back to the issue that we have no information about the potential failure rate. We can dwell in the quagmire of hyperbole but I personally don't find it useful. I can say I personally know of several boats running these batteries that have had them running flawlessly for over 10 years. So the full picture is at this point clearly not known.

There are known methods of approximating failure rates that incorporate adjustments for the problem of "under-reporting". so in fact, if someone was being objective and wanted to report reliable data, those could be implemented. It does take serious work though and clearly there is little appetite for that here...

dj

 

[colemj]

This post is also hyperbole and your - essentially accusations - of who I am and what I'm doing are based solely on your person opinion and have nothing to do with reality or who you are throwing those accusations towards.

nuf said...

dj

Please enlighten me on which parts of my posts are hyperbole as opposed to fact or at least reasoned opinions that could be debated.

On several posts, you have focused on minor affectations like humorously tossing back your own accusation as a sign off, and have not address any of the actual reasoning or facts presented.

But it is your issue to deal with, not mine, so I wish you well with them. I've mentioned several times that removing a potential problem like this from my boat is my personal opinion only. I've done it in the past with other things that had potential failure inherent in the design. Wasn't happy about the financial and time hit, but the peace of mind was certainly worth it.

Mark

 

[colemj]

I don't know what you are referring to when you say "No other batteries"...

I wasn't clear. I was talking about none of the batteries under testing have failed for other reasons than the design flaws discussed.

You state "All batteries" - Well all four of my batteries have passed the BB specs of 0.5C charge. I don't discharge at high rates so can't speak to that.

Your opening premise on this point is simply wrong.

Again, I wasn't clear. I am only discussing those batteries publicly undergoing tests by the several people who have been doing them. I have no knowledge of any batteries not publicly discussed.

There is no reliable data to support:

"AFAIK, every failure example of these batteries has occurred in a battery that was in service for years, then suddenly failed. There were no other warnings."

There is no data regarding monitoring terminal temperatures over time to determine if indeed there are early signs for a potential failure. There is not data regarding measuring charging profiles that existed prior to the identified problem.

We don't know if there are early warning signs that a particular battery will have this issue. Certainly monitoring terminal temperatures would be a very good step forward to see if there are early warning signs or not.

I also go back to the issue that we have no information about the potential failure rate. We can dwell in the quagmire of hyperbole but I personally don't find it useful. I can say I personally know of several boats running these batteries that have had them running flawlessly for over 10 years. So the full picture is at this point clearly not known.

There are known methods of approximating failure rates that incorporate adjustments for the problem of "under-reporting". so in fact, if someone was being objective and wanted to report reliable data, those could be implemented. It does take serious work though and clearly there is little appetite for that here...

dj

Battleborn's installation specs do not require, or even mention, installing external terminal temperature sensors, nor any other failure warning or usage monitoring devices (pressure sensors, voltage/current monitors, etc).

You and some others seem to accept that doing this is a valid reason to stay with those batteries, and hope that they will point to an impending issue well ahead of the time it fails. I personally don't accept that as valid. Batteries should be installed to manufacturer spec with the expectation they will work to their performance specs without failure.

Keep in mind that BB itself has temperature, voltage, and current sensors inside the batteries, and these are not catching the problem.

I also disagree that not knowing the failure rate is relevant. If one looks at the design and agrees that the design is inherently flawed and could present a problem in the future, then one has all the information they need.

Do you look at your 19-strand rigging with a broken strand and demand to know the failure rate of 18-strand rigging to determine if it should be replaced? If you bought shackles rated for 6 ton working loads, and find many examples of them breaking at 2 tons, do you demand to know the failure rate to determine if it should stay in use on your boat?

Nobody has the financial or manpower resources or time to be "objective" enough to gather enough information to approximate rates and adjust for under-reporting. Maybe the manufacturer, but they will never go public. To state otherwise, or saying there is no appetite for it, is being disingenuous because I know you understand this point.

Mark

 

[dLj]

Please enlighten me on which parts of my posts are hyperbole as opposed to fact or at least reasoned opinions that could be debated.

On several posts, you have focused on minor affectations like humorously tossing back your own accusation as a sign off, and have not address any of the actual reasoning or facts presented.

But it is your issue to deal with, not mine, so I wish you well with them. I've mentioned several times that removing a potential problem like this from my boat is my personal opinion only. I've done it in the past with other things that had potential failure inherent in the design. Wasn't happy about the financial and time hit, but the peace of mind was certainly worth it.

Mark

Seriously? OK, here you go....

"The youtube videos are not click bait. Holding on to that belief is just whistling past the graveyard and unexamined hope. "

This is actually an insult to me personally. Frankly there are a number of responses I'd like to make but I'll refrain.

"Yes, the failure rate is unknown, and will remain that way for obvious reasons. Getting failure rates on anything as a consumer is pretty much impossible because nobody buys 10,000 units of something and follows them over their lifespans for many years. I doubt manufacturers of many things know their actual failure rates because many failures go unreported to them. Yes, there are industry standards to determine mean time to failure and the like, but this is not the same as failure rates in use."

The parts of this statement highlighted in bold are not correct. I did address why to some of that in the post I did above addressing your individual questions. Perhaps you don't know how to do this kind of research but there are folks that actually do this all the time.

"However, this reinforces my opinion about replacing because every single failure uncovered so far has been due to those specific design flaws. That in itself is statistically relevant, as otherwise the failures would be spread around multiple possible causes, including unknown causes. And it isn't one or two batteries. It started out as one battery failure, then when the attention was brought, battery failures are now coming out of the woodwork in large numbers. Before this attention, batteries that failed were just disposed of and new ones bought or replaced under warranty. People probably thought they had a one-off failure and moved on."

This entire paragraph is your personal opinion with the exception of the identification of design deficiency. However, here's the definition of the difference between a design flaw and a design deficiency:

• Definition: A design flaw is an inherent, fundamental imperfection in the blueprint or plan itself. A design deficiency is a gap, omission, or error in technical specifications, plans, or calculations, often related to construction or engineering, that results in a failure to perform.
• Scope & Impact: Design flaws typically affect 100% of the products produced because the issue exists in the initial design. Design deficiencies might be more specific to a particular subsystem or a failure to meet a specific functional requirement, leading to a component that does not work as intended, such as a roof leak or a weak structural support.

Since the issue observed does not affect 100% of the product, I would call it a design deficiency.

I don't consider the comparison between the Lagoon bulkhead issues and the BB issues as a fair comparison. In the Lagoon issue - you can sink your boat. In the BB issue, you can loose the capacity of a battery. Pretty big difference in harm. which brings up another point that is not talked about, the relationship between risk and harm... That's a long one...Falling directly into the realm of hyperbole...

Given the fact all the YouTube videos do not address these kinds of issues in a manor that I consider robust - I consider them primarily click bait. Now, have they exposed some relevant and useful information? Sure. But they remain, in my opinion, in the realm of "click bait"....

dj

 

[colemj]

OK. I won't debate parsing definitions, examples, and comparisons as justification to stay with something.

For a battery, I'd consider a design deficiency that has many known failures in the field to be indistinguishable from a design flaw with regards to whether I wanted it to continue as part of one of the most critical systems on my boat.

Some of these failures have resulted in red hot terminals (visually red hot), burnt insulation and plastic, smoke, and at least in one case they battery swelled up, vented, blew a hole through the case and spilled the electrolyte.

In my world, there is no risk-reward relationship or dignity level that would allow for this.

No catamaran will sink because its main bulkhead broke. Many boats sink every year because their batteries unexpectedly failed and stopped powering crucial gear. Or caused something to catch fire.

Mark

 

[dLj]

Battleborn's installation specs do not require, or even mention, installing external terminal temperature sensors, nor any other failure warning or usage monitoring devices (pressure sensors, voltage/current monitors, etc).

Of course not. this idea is not even related to the BB problem per se - it only related to what may be best practices if someone has these batteries and if it's a viable pathway to minimizing the risk of sudden failure. It's not even known if it works or not. Might, might not...

You and some others seem to accept that doing this is a valid reason to stay with those batteries, and hope that they will point to an impending issue well ahead of the time it fails. I personally don't accept that as valid. Batteries should be installed to manufacturer spec with the expectation they will work to their performance specs without failure.

You live in your own little world don't you? Seems you don't have any comprehension of what the conversations have been. Nobody is saying "Oh just stick with these batteries" as you state above. The question is how serious of a problem is this across the whole spectrum of installations and how best to deal with it. We now clearly know it can be a problem. But as some of us know that these batteries have worked flawlessly over a number of years with 0 problems in a number of boats - in fact more have worked than what have not worked. There now has been the identification of a design deficiency in some of these batteries, and likely all have the same design feature, what's the best way to move forward? Of course, according to Mark, if anyone does not agree with Mark - they have their head in the sand or whatever insult you may wish to spew....

Keep in mind that BB itself has temperature, voltage, and current sensors inside the batteries, and these are not catching the problem.

Of course not - they aren't positioned to measure the point of failure. duh....

I also disagree that not knowing the failure rate is relevant. If one looks at the design and agrees that the design is inherently flawed and could present a problem in the future, then one has all the information they need.

Best we can do here is agree to disagree I guess ...

Do you look at your 19-strand rigging with a broken strand and demand to know the failure rate of 18-strand rigging to determine if it should be replaced? If you bought shackles rated for 6 ton working loads, and find many examples of them breaking at 2 tons, do you demand to know the failure rate to determine if it should stay in use on your boat?

This is rich... Comparing broken strand to the BB issue???? Hahahahaha Hyperbole here we ride!

As far as the 6 ton breaking at 2 tons - I'm the guy people ask why on that one and I give the correct answer. If it were my boat, I'd examine the failure and determine the why and move forward appropriately. Again, more hyperbole - hey at least you're consistent...

Nobody has the financial or manpower resources or time to be "objective" enough to gather enough information to approximate rates and adjust for under-reporting. Maybe the manufacturer, but they will never go public. To state otherwise, or saying there is no appetite for it, is being disingenuous because I know you understand this point.

Yeah, hyperbole again, blanket over-statements with no basis... Good job... Hey, consistency is a good thing..

dj

 

[High Current]

Here are a few points I've been making that I'd like to understand if people contest them:

1. There are a couple of poor design decisions made with these batteries that should be considered design flaws.
2. These failures are not just in one or two batteries. Last I looked, Prowse had 20 of them, another guy 6 of them, another person 12 of them, and the comments on all of these videos contain many, many others with failed batteries. It appears that failures are occurring in all models that share these design "features".
3. All of the failed batteries shown in videos have failed specifically due to the couple of design flaws. No other batteries have failed for different or undetermined reasons.
4. All batteries that have not fully failed, including new batteries, have not been able to pass BB's specs of 0.5C charge and 1C discharge. Most of them are shutting down at a fraction of these specs.
5. AFAIK, every failure example of these batteries has occurred in a battery that was in service for years, then suddenly failed. There were no other warnings. On a few of them, the failure wasn't catastrophic enough to burn or vent, but the epoxy around the terminals charred. I suppose that could be an early warning, but it seems like not much earlier. Also on a few, they were shutting down during normal charging and discharging at low C rates. They showed no obvious outside damage, but when cut open, they were found to have loose connections and the start of melting plastic due to the design "features". I consider this a sudden failure without prior warning.

Mark

100% agree. It's why I started this thread

However, I still think there's some nuance in how one interprets the findings, especially #4. Is it acceptable that Battleborn batteries are incapable of meeting their advertised specs without melting? Unequivocally no. Does that fact mean everyone who already has Battleborn installed must throw them out immediately? Not necessarily. Derating devices that don't meet advertised specs is a time-honored engineering tradition (even if it isn't best practice). The failure likely starts with heat and is predominantly a thermal issue once it occurs (loose connections are predominantly dangerous because they generate heat). Therefore, steps that can be taken to reduce and/or detect overheating are risk mitigations that reduce the probability of a hazard becoming a harm.

At the end of the day, it comes down to personal risk tolerance. If the mitigations reduce fire risk to within someone's personal comfort level AND the boat's electrical system is fault-tolerant to the loss of a single battery, then the resulting risk may be acceptable for some. The safest solution - and the one I would pursue personally - is to wholesale replace the batteries, but it is not necessarily the only solution.

 

[Dave]

Gentlemen, let's try and turn down the heat in this discussion before we demonstrate Godwin's Law, a situation I think we can all agree would be unfortunate. Several reasonable and defensible points have been made and I think it is clear those points aren't moving anyone off their positions. Let's just take a few deep breaths and get a good night's sleep. Thank you.

 

[marcham]

I am saying, show me one credible source. The only in-depth source I am finding is Will Prowse, and there are some real problems with his evaluation.

On the other hand, Battle Born has UL 2054 certification, and I know the lab (LabTest) that (I believe) performed the certification. (They are just down the road, actually.) I consider LabTest more credible than some random YouTube people. People say and do all sorts of things online. Popularity doesn't make it true.

Yes, standards are based on known failure modes and specific test scenarios. So theoretically, a design with a novel flaw that doesn't manifest under those specific test conditions could pass. But, that is not what is supposedly being shown in these videos. They are showing supposed failures on known and tested failure modes. So, if I had to bet, I would put my money on the issues being overstated, and I think that is being generous.

I have to say, the position that YouTube is not a reliable source of objective facts - that shouldn't be controversial.

Lots of people with high load devices (ie: inverter) reported Battleborn failures and challenges with warranty .... After spending premium $$$ and having to change the batteries after 3 yeas, plus no support from the factory (you have to pay to return them to them for them to evaluate for warranty repair, but it's illegal to ship damaged lithium batteries.... so everyone gives up and buys new packs).

 

[dLj]

Lots of people with high load devices (ie: inverter) reported Battleborn failures and challenges with warranty .... After spending premium $$$ and having to change the batteries after 3 yeas, plus no support from the factory (you have to pay to return them to them for them to evaluate for warranty repair, but it's illegal to ship damaged lithium batteries.... so everyone gives up and buys new packs).

Maybe these lots of people should speak up and file a class action lawsuit.

dj

 

[colemj]

Maybe these lots of people should speak up and file a class action lawsuit.

dj

As I mentioned earlier, lawsuits have begun.

Mark

 

[colemj]

I had missed this video. A brand new BB battery:

Maybe one way to test batteries to find any internal problems before they manifest externally would be to measure their internal resistance between the positive and negative posts. This requires a special meter and not just an ohmmeter, but they aren't expensive. My guess would be a measurement greater than 10mOhm would point to an internal problem. This would also allow one to monitor the battery over time.

It would be a much better heads up than temperature monitoring, as it would catch problems before they caused a temperature rise.

Mark

 

[dlochner]

Just saw this on Battle Born' FB page. Posted on Feb 12.

 

[Stu Jackson]

Thx, Dave, good link. Seems that CF had a loong discussion about this. Perhaps with the same Will video, but different "takes" from experienced cruisers, i.e., just as valid sailors as all of us here, and so more input for those who like to read.

Interestingly enough, dave's link is the last one one this link, #178.

Great minds...

Warning about Battleborn batteries (merged threads) - Cruisers & Sailing Forums

According to Will Prowse, there is a serious safety concern with some Battleborn batteries (specifically the 100 Ahr model) involving the positive terminal becoming loose and overheating in some

www.cruisersforum.com

 

[Maine Sail]

Just saw this on Battle Born' FB page. Posted on Feb 12.

View attachment 236574

That's funny!I have been talking with two customers who I tried to talk out of BB batts. They chose to buy them anyway, now they both have failed batts and BB is not honoring their warranty in a satisfactory way...

 

[Stu Jackson]

That's funny!I have been talking with two customers who I tried to talk out of BB batts. They chose to buy them anyway, now they both have failed batts and BB is not honoring their warranty.

Can you fire those customers?!?!?!?

 

[Davidasailor26]

That's funny!I have been talking with two customers who I tried to talk out of BB batts. They chose to buy them anyway, now they both have failed batts and BB is not honoring their warranty.

BB engineers talking to BB lawyers: “Yep, our designs are great. We do lots of data driven engineering, and all the data we have is that there are no accepted warranty claims for defects.”

 

[colemj]

Their response isn't surprising. I mean, what else could they say? They can't recall all batteries sold, and they can't admit to a design flaw because that would require recalling all batteries. They have probably seen potential customers drop off and are trying to stem that. Although with so many choices, and good ones that are priced better than BB, it is hard to understand how they will get new customers going forward. I think their potential customer base was shrinking for these reasons before all of this came to light.

They are disingenuous in saying that all the failures shown are batteries intentionally operated outside of parameters or actual customer installations. Prowse bought a brand new BB battery, charged and discharged it to BB's specs (actually a bit below them), and it failed. Cutting it open revealed all the connections were loose and plastic beginning to melt. Other failed batteries were in actual customer installations when they failed, with the cause being found only after an autopsy. BB has no evidence these were operated outside of parameters, and to make such a blanket statement is desperate.

Mark

 

[High Current]

BB engineers talking to BB lawyers: “Yep, our designs are great. We do lots of data driven engineering, and all the data we have is that there are no accepted warranty claims for defects.”

Maybe I am biased because I am one, but I think its much more likely the engineers are pooping their pants and looking for new jobs while the executives and lawyers coach them on what they can and can’t put in writing. Some of them probably bashed their heads against the wall for years because they saw this coming and nobody was willing to do anything about it. Meanwhile the executives know a recall would both bankrupt the company and be tantamount to an admission of guilt, with all the legal jeopardy that entails. In other words, they backed themselves into a corner.

But hey, it’s 2026, and doubling down instead of backing down is the order of the day! I guess we’ll see how that works out for them.

 

[dlochner]

Maybe I am biased because I am one, but I think its much more likely the engineers are pooping their pants and looking for new jobs while the executives and lawyers coach them on what they can and can’t put in writing. Some of them probably bashed their heads against the wall for years because they saw this coming and nobody was willing to do anything about it. Meanwhile the executives know a recall would both bankrupt the company and be tantamount to an admission of guilt, with all the legal jeopardy that entails. In other words, they backed themselves into a corner.

But hey, it’s 2026, and doubling down instead of backing down is the order of the day! I guess we’ll see how that works out for them.

They have indeed backed themselves into a corner. If you are into such things, selling their stock short might well be a winning move.