First 100% charge after recall..

Ok i see a pause. Two screenshots from juicebox, both are to a 100% charge. First from back in August before any BMS updates:



This one from just now. Beginning SOC was 70%.


It is a little hard to tell how long the charging rate dropped - just measuring the picture, I would say about 12 minutes or so. But I only see one pause.

 

New battery, maybe needs more cell balancing initially.

 

I don't have any problem with a pause. The extra 5% top end buffer I don't see how it will make a difference on the safety aspect of the recall. It reduces my range. Not charging to 4.2v is very strange for this battery chemistry. They are designed to be charged to this value. I researched countless batteries for sale and in use and with this chemistry they are all charged to 4.2v. This seams like a shot in the dark as to fixing the problem.

 

The farther you stay away from the absolute limits of the chemistry's voltage, the less chance that some anomaly results in cell damage, and thus the less chance that the car will spontaneously combust.

Worth mentioning that the max cell voltage seems to have decreased from 4.185 to 4.16x volts. That's a 0.59% reduction in max voltage, which is the 0.5% above. Yes, this decreases the max range of the vehicle... by about 1.3 miles (w/nominal range of 258mi). I'm willing to bet you lose more range than that due to air temperature variations throughout the day. Heck that amount of range could be the difference between if you used the toilet before driving off or not!

A trivial price to pay for that assurance that the chemistry is kept happy.

 

Well put... but the usable range of the chemistry is between 4.2v and 2.8v for a diff of 1.4v. .04v is 2.8% of the 1.4v difference. 2.8% of 258 is actually 7.3 miles which is a bit more significant. As I also understand more of the energy of the battery is realized at the higher end of the charge cycle. I can accept it for the safety if it is true that it reduces the chance of fire. The same chemistry from the other battery suppliers, I understand, hasn't been spontaneously bursting into flames. This seams like a band aid to not address the actual problem with the manufacturing of the LG-Chem batteries.

 

Do you know something the rest of us don't? Because right now the best evidence leans towards a BMS software cockup, and there have only been allegations (by Hyundai) that the cell manufacture is to blame... and they stopped making those allegations a month ago AFAIK.

 

Noting that all cells in your TP image were displayed as "4.16" and assuming per-cell displayed values are truncated and no other analog measurement errors, the actual cell voltages must all be between 4.160 V and 4.179 V, with the average as you stated. I guess the point is that the pack voltage does not accumulate the truncation issue.

 

As I have read but not verified, only one cell manufacturer, LG Chem's batteries are having the issue. I assume all BMS's are the same as are the charging specs on the same Kona model for 64kwh batteries. If the battery chemistry is suppose to be the same, the BMS's are the same you can see what leads me to the conclusion. Reducing the capacity of all the batteries reduces the range on the batteries that don't have a problem. Is Hyundai applying the fix to all Konas or just those with LG Chem batteries?

 

Except those made in the Czech Republic ...

 

Yes they do.

 

I believe the Czech Konas are only being sold in Europe. So far, at least.