Finally, it’s being called out:
e.g…be ethical in sales marketing?
1 Like
There is the reality of competition in the marketplace. If literally everyone uses one standard & you choose to hobble yourself instead, you will lose sales. And thus are less able to accomplish your other larger goals. If and when Framework gets large enough, they could consider tackling other issues.
TL;DR
You must pick your battles.
Framework is doing repairability, upgradablity & user freedom. We don’t live in a world where you can have everything all at once.
1 Like
“Up to” means that if you use the same test conditions (e.g. temperature, charging wattage, discharging wattage), the battery will achieve that cycle life. If you deviate from that a lot, you may or may not, because we can’t test every combination.
6 Likes
They’ve removed the “up to …60w boost” wording was used in earlier releases:
Whereas later releases no longer has the “up to” wording:
1 Like
That’s understood. Thinking you/Framework might need to spec out what those conditions were / meant to be. Just like the battery life / runtime test criteria that will be released.
p.s. I appreciate the response given how busy you are. Congrats on the FL13 Pro release.
1 Like
Having a note stating the conditions which should result in that lifespan is reasonable.
I just don’t know if “up to” could be removed, what would you replace it with? And does anything one else use it?
1 Like
My thought too, so that’s why I mentioned “work on” (i.e. I’m not exactly asking for the removal of the “up to” wording…but I believe we can do better). Having transparency on how the “up to” is tested / can be repeated is a step better than just bare “up to”.
2 Likes
The “efficiency improvement trap” at 16:05, the “23% improvement in performance” and “20% improvement in efficiency” are mutually exclusive.
However on the battery longevity things are different. What are the conditions when doing the 1000 charge cycles? 0.2C? 0.5C? to 0.03C cutoff? and discharge rate 0.2C? 0.5C? 1C? each different rate gives a different cycle life. The problem with “up to” on battery, if you understand it the same as other tech marketing lies, is that you cannot get higher than 80% of capacity after 1000 cycles no matter how hard you try, which is false.
Here’s a proof
84.7% after 1344
So the problem with “up to” in battery longevity means either you didn’t get 80% on the lab test or you can’t get better longevity no matter how you try, both of them are probably
incorrect.
However, the up to X GHz are still there
Just also want to add:
I also think it’s partially cultural and / or legal acceptance.
Take Japan for example when it comes to their ‘fruit juice’ criteria, pictures of fruits on soft drinks / juices packaging, pictures of size of snacks on packaging…they are well-controlled to the point of WYSIWYG, with the goal to minimize vagueness, misleading marketing, ambiguity…etc
There might be a bigger thing going on here…and that’s sales / marketing freedom (creativity) being abused.
Like EULA and data privacy policy legalese in the early days being so out of touch with the general population that they were intended for.
It’s about producing contents / wordings with all parties in mind, not just about one party pushing words out there for maximum one-sided benefit / [misleading] understanding.
Over the years, we’ve seen improvement in data privacy policies being re-written to be easier understood by the average joe. We, as consumers, should also expect (demand) to see a similar movement when it comes to sales / marketing materials.
I strongly disagree “up to” means anything from nothing to what is stated.
I have up to 15 bananas in my house.
Me having none makes this statement still true.
1 Like
I don’t disagree with the general sentiment in this thread. However, with something like battery percentage, it can vary so much based on so many things, I think there has to be some kind of “hedging” type wording. And I don’t see “up to” as inherently inappropriate wording. As long as there is some kind of info about what it’s based on, and the battery really can maintain “up to” that amount of capacity after that amount of cycles.
Maybe a footnote could be added that says something like “An average of 80% of original capacity remained after 1,000 80%-20%-80% charge cycles in laboratory conditions. Real-world results may vary.” Or whatever. I’m just throwing out random thoughts. I don’t know the testing process. It may not even be based on 1,000 charge cycles. It may be extrapolated out based on fewer. I’m just rambling. The point is, if the data the “up to” is based on is made available, and it really can be “up to” the stated amount, I don’t see a big issue with it. Unless the data shows that the “up to” wording is ridiculously and unrealistically optimistic and misleading.
I know some people are saying “If I say I have up to x number of something, then 0 of that thing is still technically correct.” I don’t think that is how “up to” is misused most of the time. If there were zero situations where a battery (or whatever spec is listed as “up to”) EVER retained 80% of it’s capacity after 1,000 charge cycles, saying “up to” 80% would simply be a lie, and a bit nonsensical. Because it absolutely doesn’t retain “up to” 80% capacity. I think “up to” is more often used to represent a massive outlier that lets an advertisement use the biggest number they can get. And obviously, saying “up to” and then using an absolutely unlikely outlier of a number is a shady marketing tactic. But I think “up to” can also be used in a legitimate way.
I found a trend that batteries in consumer electronics increase the energy density by increasing the voltage even further, which is not very good as doing so will decrease longevity. Their bandaid solution is to lower the voltage as the battery ages but doing so negates the energy gain from increasing said voltage.
Most manufacturers do that in secret, hoping the consumer doesn’t find out and when they do, claim the battery has aged “naturally”. This, which I call “Batterygate 2.0”, is partially planned obsolescence imho.
Some manufacturers such as Framework and Google disclose that, however most other don’t. This creates an ever increasing discrepancy between the actual battery capacity and available capacity.
To make it clear, this is different than “limit charging to 80%” on setting. The “limit charging to 80%” doesn’t change the 0%-100% battery voltage vs percentage curve and the user can re-set the limit to 100% to get the max available capacity. “Batterygate 2.0” on the other hand, decreases the battery’s available capacity that the user can’t be restored, and the battery percentage will show 100% when a less than 100% of actual capacity is actually being charged.
The current situation is that Framework “only” decreases the capacity for about 4%, from 4.40V/cell to 4.35V/cell, while Google does 12% to 30% capacity reduction by voltage depends on the smartphone model. Other manufacturers such as ASUS decreased the voltage from 4.40V/cell to 4.15V/cell, reducing available capacity by a whopping 20%, causing the battery health reading 72% when the battery is actually 90% healthy. I suspect others like HP and Dell also do that given the similarities of capacity fade over time but I found it rude to borrow laptops from colleagues just to boot Linux and run upower to test voltage so I don’t know the exact voltage drop on these models.
The ever increasing voltage has now reached Framework
The voltage is now 4.51V/cell, so I’m expecting a more than 4% capacity (0.05V/cell voltage reduction) made by BMS as the battery ages. This leads back to the “up to” problem.
Assume two batteries went under very similar conditions and as a result the capacity is more or less at 80% after 1000 cycles. For the lab test one, the battery is charged to 18.04V (well, because it’s a lab test) and the capacity has satisfied the 80% mark. However for the one on the laptop, the available capacity (and battery runtime) is less than 80% because some of the capacity is not charged thanks to a lowered voltage.
It would be very nice for Framework to clarify which condition (before or after BMS voltage reduction) is used to measure the 80% capacity after 1000 cycles.
While it is true that “you will lose sales,” you will also lose goodwill.
I was an enthusiastic supporter of StarLabs and bought one of their StarLite Mk. V LINUX tablets. Their marketing language said “up to 12 hours” of battery life.
The best I have ever gotten in real-world use is 2.75 hours of battery life from day one. I never believed the 12 hours claim, but I (and other StarLabs fans) expected about 6 to 8 hours.
Based on their other “up to” marketing language (such as the speeds for the internal SSD) and real-world observations, I deduced that these “up to” specs could only be reached in the most perfect of laboratory conditions.
I feel cheated and would not buy another StarLabs device, even though I am still supportive of their mission to mainstream a LINUX tablet.
Is Framework the company interested in destroying goodwill in exchange for short-term sales? I hope not. A company focused on upgrading to reduce e-waste should have a longer-term time horizon.
I strongly prefer when companies or reviewers show exactly what we should expect from the battery under specified realistic workloads. So, if Framework put out a timelapsed video showing: “This FW13 Pro achieved 10.3 hours from 100% to automatic shutdown at 4% while running streaming 4K video nonstop and checking and replying to emails and running these exact 12 tabs in XYZ web browser,” I would be much more inclined to trust and buy the FW13 Pro than the current “up to 20 hours running 4K video” claim.
This examination has normally been performed by 3rd party reviewers. If Linus Tech Tips or Gamers Nexus did their battery of tests on the FW13 Pro, I’d trust their numbers 10,000 times more than FW’s claim.
Another approach FW could take is this:
“We tracked all 20 of our alpha testers using their FW13 Pros every day for 60 days before release, and here are their daily power consumption graphs/logs.”
That I would trust completely.
TL;DR:
Educating the consumer about the reality of battery life is the best choice for long-term customer loyalty and repeat sales.
Think we might need at least two graphs to understand what that 18.04v really means; Charging characteristics when new, and aging characteristic over time.
(I know very little about batteries)
From the other perspective, if we treat it like Apple Care, where 80% is the acceptable capacity minimum bound within a warranty period. Then that’s a lot simpler to understand.
Like this:
It means the battery pack has 4 cells connected in series, with a voltage of 4.51V per cell when plugged in at nearly fully charged.
I’ll try to explain it in layman’s term.
Think battery cells pressurized containers, the “pressure” is the voltage. If the “pressure” is too low, the “container” will collapse, hence we have a lowest voltage limit for batteries. Charging the battery at a higher voltage puts more “pressure” on it, which leads to lower longevity, therefore it’s advised to charge only to 80% to 60% if the laptop is plugged in all the time.
I’m not a QA tester so I don’t have comparison graphs between old and new chemistry about aging, but I’ll try to explain it with words…
Older cylindrical battery such as 18650 typically uses lithium cobalt oxide (LCO) chemistry, with 3.7V nominal voltage, 4.1-4.2V limited charging voltage. Due to old technology they last less long, about 300 cycles to 80% capacity, The capacity degradation is linear, if you draw a cycle count vs capacity graph, it’s more or less a straight line. Charging it at a lower voltage i.e. 4.1V gives less wear over time, while a higher voltage i.e. 4.2V wears down the battery more. They are still linear, if you draw both curves in the same graph they are both straight lines. Also, there was no progressive restriction on the BMS, you can charge to 4.1V 999 times and 4.2V the 1000th time and enjoy the longer runtime.
Newer battery cells went two directions, one is nickel-magnesium-cobalt (NMC) and nickel-cobalt-aluminum (NCA) chemistries. These battery cells have slightly lower nominal voltage, about 3.6V and the same limited charging voltage, 4.2V. These types of batteries last much longer than their predecessor and are commonly used on electric vehicles. They are more stable and the shape of the degradation curves are about the same.
The other direction is the higher voltage versions of lithium cobalt oxide (LCO), with newer technology, they can also achieve higher longevity, such as up to 80% after 1000 cycles. The problem is the higher voltage chemistry is less stable, when being charged to above 4.35V, at first the degradation is linear, however, after two to three hundred cycles, the aging will accelerate very quickly. If you draw curves, it’s a straight line at first, then it turns downwards sharply.
This can lead to unethical competition. Charge the battery at higher voltage, you’ll get a better runtime from the get-go but you’ll lose battery health much quicker, or at a lower voltage for longevity but you’ll lose in the device comparisons/reviews, and sales. It also can be used as planned obsolescence. For example, the battery aging won’t accelerate if you reduce the voltage just a little bit, to about 4.35-4.4V, but the manufacturer deliberately lowers it to 4.15V, to even less than older chemistry’s voltage, in order to force the user to replace the battery or the device much earlier.
Apple uses proprietary software so the percentage can be manipulated. Apple is known for lowering the voltage from 4.45V to 4.31V but the detail is hard to find. I have seen the battery health plummeted to 78% after voltage reduction, but users with AppleCare have their batteries stuck at 80% capacity for a long time.
Framework, on the other hand, is more transparent. You can use $ sudo ectool battery to read data from the BMS, they don’t lie.
I wonder if we have some imaginary spec thing going on here. Or maybe “Limited Charging Voltage” means safety cutoff, and not necessarily “charge at”? That’s why I think we need that first graph to show what that “same test conditions” was / needs to be.
Yeah, I want to focus on the language, not so much about how Apple may / may not be manipulating it. I mean, to me (an end-user), I care about the worse acceptable state more so than the best possible outcome when it comes to component longevity. (if that makes sense)
No, safety cutoff is higher (charging) and lower (discharging) than limited voltage. As shown here
In “traditional” batteries, i.e. 3.7V nominal, 4.2V limited charging, 2.75V discharge cut-off. The battery is charged with “constant voltage with limited current” (CC-CV). First, use a constant current to charge it, when the voltage reaches the limited voltage, reduce current while keeping the voltage. The BMS tells the charger to charge at 4.2V, the “limited charging voltage” so it won’t exceed. The safety cutoff voltage is typically at 4.3V (and 2.4V for lowest), this is only for fail-safe should the charger misbehave.
For the battery pack used in Framework laptops, the BMS tells the “desired” voltage and current and the charger delivers that. For the 61Wh battery used in FL13, the desired voltage is 17800mV and the desired current is 3915mA(low charge)/2740mA(mid to high charge). The charger will charge at 3915/2740mA until the battery reaches 17800mV, then continue to charge at 17800mV, until the BMS signals finish (you can use ectool to read that the “desired” voltage and current change to 0). The charger will stop charging and you’ll see the battery is 100% charged on the taskbar. If the battery’s cycle count is high, the “desired” voltage will change to 17600mV, all other charging algorithms remain the same.
If the charger misbehaves, the BMS will cut the battery from the circuit electronically, which occurs at higher than limited charging voltage and below the discharge cutoff voltage so the fail-safe will never trigger during normal operation.
In conclusion, “limited charging voltage” is not the safety cutoff voltage, but the constant voltage near the end of charging for “traditional” batteries and the newer LCO battery types when the cycle counter is low enough
Other types
The 3915/2740mA is actually multi-stage constant current constant voltage (MSCC-CV), which is very common on electric vehicles. For EVs the there are much more “intermediate” stages however at the start of the charge the current is at the C-rate limit (as long as the charger can support it), and at the end of the charge the voltage is at the limited charging voltage.
Some high-rate RC hobbyist chargers have so-called resistance compensation charging. They measure the internal resistance and apply a higher voltage (sometimes higher than limited) to compensate the internal resistance and accelerate charging. When the battery is charged, the current will be turned off abruptly and the voltage will fall below limited charging voltage. This charging algorithm is not for longevity and neither consumer electronics nor EV use it.
I think the “same test condition” is the same condition as the battery’s desired values i.e. charge to 17.8V at first then after some cycles charge at 17.6V for the 61Wh battery. For other batteries use their BMS’ desired values accordingly in the tests.
The discrepancy between test values and actual use is probably due to “rest time”. On battery tests, charging and discharging are often one after the other i.e. charge → rest → discharge → rest → charge and so forth. The rest times after charging and after discharging are typically the same. However for actual use, the majority of the time the battery is resting at a high level since the user usually keeps the battery at higher level more often than lower values, in other words, we are more likely to keep the battery at 100% or 80% rather than 20% when the laptop is plugged in for a long time. Since the battery’s “comfort zone” is 30-40%, keeping the battery at 100% has more wear than 1%, 80% has more wear than 20%. Both the 55Wh and 61Wh have the up to 80% capacity at 1000 cycles, however, since the 61Wh has higher voltage than the 55Wh. During actual use, 61Wh battery is kept at a higher voltage than 55Wh if the charge limit % is set to the same value. That could explain why the 55Wh is less likely to swell than the 61Wh.
I suspect that you will find that voltage is correct when being actively charged and reaching full charge. As soon as you remove the charger the voltage will decrease.
I think you will find that the 80% figure has never been tested on a cross section of Framework devices, but is an expectation of capacity based on many batteries that the battery manufacturer has produced over the years, and this is the capacity they would expect the majority of the batteries using their chemistry would have after the quoted number of cycles.
The 80% figure won’t originate at Framework, but at the battery manufacturer.
1 Like
Correct. I should have written that part more clearly