This is where I fall - I’m interested in the modification, but it’s something that I will farm out, as it’s likely beyond my ability to pull off. I have two machines that I may have it done on, depending upon cost.
3 Likes
This. If anyone in the western half of Oregon is willing to do this mod, I’ll transport my machine to and from, and pay a fair price.
2 Likes
Maybe ask Louis Rossmann, he’d be certainly able to do such a job easily (and his soldering quality would look much nicer than the example pictures). He also seems to like the Framework and repairability.
1 Like
Yes this could be an option as well, you could add a small LDO that is rated for 21V input voltage with a diode on the output as shown in step 6 that is tied to the the main battery power rail.
You can attach it on the top side near the right side image shown above of step 6:
Note: I have not tried this, so cannot confirm it will work.
2 Likes
Thanks. 9 months ago I penned a letter with queries but this topic has brought answers to just about all. This extra DC to DC was my suggestion.
Still I’m happy as I use the laptop some 6 hours every day and am not likely to suffer the Intel chip and ML1220 dying soon.
I do like my idea as there is less wiring and hence much easier to DIY. If I ever need to I will post, but I still have 13 months of warranty so it’s all just head plans.
Thank you again for your help.
By the way, did Framework ever complain about the CPU spinning out to Intel 
Oh there was another box inside that one too! 
We’ve reached out to our repair center partner in Germany to understand why this packaging was used. Given the battery’s classification, it might have required meatier packaging for protection during shipment, but I don’t know for sure.
1 Like
I’ve done the same. When I couldn’t be bothered to recycle some bubble wrap I packaged something and posted it
1 Like
It’s not necessarily that easy:
“If you are a retailer, your customers can ask for redress under the legal guarantee provided by EU law - if an item:
[…]
doesn’t show the quality and performance normal in products of the same type”
Thus, it is quite possible for a product to be considered defective even if there was no specific, exact, claim that is found unsatisfied. But, of course, the big and massive “IANAL” in this one would be: how do we define whether this is, or is not, “normal” in products of the same type? I’d personally lean towards this going against the normal for laptops, though.
But the basic idea is: if you purchase a door knob, and it breaks the moment you twist it a bit hard, the fact that the manufacturer didn’t specifically say that it could withstand that torque does not matter if the “normal” on the market is that door knobs are fine with that. Imagine the girth of the spec sheets we’d need for basically everything we ever purchase otherwise… (Obviously, might be different in other jurisdictions.)
Anyway, for this whole part of the discussion, I’m reasonably satisfied now. My own case is definitely proof that Framework does, at least most of the time, not balk at issuing replacements. (Though something seems to have gone wrong in the situation you were responding to, for sure.) And the new procedure with supplying known good and known compatible RTC batteries when this is needed is plenty enough to make myself satisfied that FW is doing what is reasonably achievable to sort things out. It’s not optimal, but I don’t think there can be an optimal in this situation.
3 Likes
Consumer protection rules and regs in the UK are not the same as those in the EU and never were, so I can see how US regs may not be compatible with many EU consumers expectations.
But I digress as this topic is about the viability of the ML1220 not that of the possibly inept procedures of the CPU compounded by Frameworks lack of design in having the ML1220 being charged from the main battery.
So the viability is largely down to Frameworks short-sightedness in design compacted by Intel’s in the CPU cut when there is no CMOS battery.
The title of this topic was when the question was rather new, now the topic could be.
The Problems of not having the rechargeable CMOS/RTC battery being charged from the main battery.
That made me laugh.
That is not relevant though. FW sells to EU customers under EU regulations, to UK customers under UK regulations, etcetera. Setting all of that up properly was part of the reasons for why it takes time to expand availability to more countries.
The alternative would be for customers to be the importer, in which case the customer would be personally liable for import duties and VAT (like would be the case if ordering from System76 in Denver, for example).
2 Likes
Looking through the rules for shipping lithium batteries at IATA, the “inner and outer” box thing is explicitly mentioned as a requirement, actually. It’s classified as a dangerous good, and thus needs to fullfill a bunch of requirements to make sure no careless handler can cause a lithium fire in the cargo/post compartment of an aircraft.
So personal guess: they took the smallest box they have stocked, put the battery in there with some packaging, then took the next box size that could fit the first. (The fines for violating this stuff seem like they can be quite painful.)
1 Like
Really? In the UK I have up to six years from purchase to ask for repairs etc, well outside of the general manufactures warranty offer and further support.
But to demand/expect that from a foreign company is not reasonable, it applies to the seller of the product not the manufacturer.
Confirmed the packaging is a requirement for shipping lithium-ion batteries (considered hazardous materials). While the outer box was a bit too large, the requirement is that there must be a smaller package within an overpack for safety reasons.
Important to note this requirement doesn’t exist everywhere globally, but for this shipment, it was required.
4 Likes
It is perfectly reasonable when said company has taken steps to be able to sell to you as if it were a local retailer. The reason this takes time for companies to do is specifically because it can get complicated, but companies (be they Framework, or Valve, or whoever else) still may consider it worth it because it can boost sales, give more satisfied customers (imagine the fury of someone not understanding that buying a System76 laptop comes with added Duties and VAT messing up their price calc), and so on.
So:
System76 case: unreasonable expectation, because you are importing privately.
Framework case: reasonable, you are technically purchasing within UK/EU/whatever, and should hold them to the same standards you’d hold your local Curry’s.
(And of course, in this case, Framework is both the manufacturer and seller. So that distinction does not matter. And they probably have either own staff, or consultancy firms on retainer, to understand and deal with this stuff and all similar matters, like VAT/import duties/etc etc.)
1 Like
Well clearly you don’t agree, but I expect my purchase from a foreign company to be under their rules and laws not mine, in the UK, that’s for UK sellers.
I can buy from China but they don’t have to abide by UK laws in terms of support etc.
I won’t bother you with legal stuff and leave you here.
I would think Framework expects they’re subject to laws and regulations of the countries in which they’re selling. Was this not part of the reason they’re urging people not to freight forward to unsupported regions? To ensure compliance with laws and regulations in their supported markets?
Laws have to be enforceable. I can’t see me as a UK resident asking Framework to fix my laptop after 4 or 5 years even if UK provides six years to claim against any transaction.
- Some transactions can stipulate a shorter time, which then the buyer is bound to
- Suing a US based outlet (Framework) from the UK would be a waste of resources and likely to fail.
Luckily I don’t really expect years of support