[DATA] - HVBJB Mega Data Aggregation Thread

[DevSecOps]

Someone has cut open many of the failed units and does in-fact know definitively. Additionally contactors aren't new or novel, they've been used for more than 100 years in industrial automation and control. The weak point will always be the mating surfaces. Tesla had a similar problem early on and resolved it. They still have 400v architectures with up to 1000hp and no issues. Contactor failure isn't new, novel, special, nor unique.

This family of contactors at the high end is rated for 500a. From all of the literature I've read on them they tend to want them to be used closer to 350a. I use contactors of this family for isolation of 500v solar arrays and am very familiar with them.

You're right ... someone at Ford knows. I shouldn't have said "no one". But those on this forum just speculate. There's probably 500 pages of speculation here about the HVBJB and Ford hasn't come out and said, not once, what the actual cause is that I have ever seen. So, until they do, it's speculation. Ford has even lied their way through this ordeal, so I wouldn't even trust them if they did.

Sponsored

 

[AKgrampy]

The report states:

Description of the Cause : The design and part-to-part variation of the high voltage battery main contactor is not robust to the heat generated during DC fast charging and multiple wide open pedal events.

I guess after 40 years of design and specifying tolerances it becomes easier to read the engineers F upped.

I guess we will just skip the next few words - part to part variation - but I am fine with your interpretation. My point is I believe it is a bit of both and Ford decided their design was marginal due to part to part variation so they went with a more robust design so part to part variation no longer came into play.

 

[Shayne]

I guess we will just skip the next few words - part to part variation - but I am fine with your interpretation. My point is I believe it is a bit of both and Ford decided their design was marginal due to part to part variation so they went with a more robust design so part to part variation no longer came into play.

If you read above the design sets the specifications for the allowable part to part variations. Those are specified in the design. A design error stipulates that all the parts are not robust enough as it is inherent in the design. The only chance you have is you got one at the upper variance if lucky or you drive it really slow. Most manufactures do not build to the upper end of the allowable variation to meet specifications and sometimes there is just a minimum tolerance to achieve. When there is a design error that is when un-engineered sharpening the pencil comes in to see how tight it is and what the probability of failure will be. Lets say probability says 40% of Job 1 cars fail is that reasonable to Ford? Normal engineering is not a high probability of failure that is a mistake. What we have seen for months and 100's of pages is how Ford determined to deal with their mistake.

 

[Hammered]

If you read above the design sets the specifications for the allowable part to part variations. Those are specified in the design. A design error stipulates that all the parts are not robust enough as it is inherent in the design. The only chance you have is you got one at the upper variance if lucky or you drive it really slow. Most manufactures do not build to the upper end of the allowable variation to meet specifications and sometimes there is just a minimum tolerance to achieve. When there is a design error that is when un-engineered sharpening the pencil comes in to see how tight it is and what the probability of failure will be. Lets say probability says 40% of Job 1 cars fail is that reasonable to Ford? Normal engineering is not a high probability of failure that is a mistake. What we have seen for months and 100's of pages is how Ford determined to deal with their mistake.

Due to TE supplying dozens or more big time manufacturers, they could have been revising the part this entire time. Never assume 2 HVBJBs are alike, they may contain highly revised parts from month to month. JIT manufacturing sees steady supplies of parts continually rolling into the factory as base sub components and finished products out the other. I'd be quite surprised to hear there's even a weeks worth of parts on hand to run production. TE makes the parts failing, not ford.

I also wouldn't be surprised to hear the part has been changed a dozen times already due the number of them they're producing. It's a working design right up until they start failing.

 

[Shayne]

Due to TE supplying dozens or more big time manufacturers, they could have been revising the part this entire time. Never assume 2 HVBJBs are alike, they may contain highly revised parts from month to month. JIT manufacturing sees steady supplies of parts continually rolling into the factory as base sub components and finished products out the other. I'd be quite surprised to hear there's even a weeks worth of parts on hand to run production. TE makes the parts failing, not ford.

I also wouldn't be surprised to hear the part has been changed a dozen times already due the number of them they're producing. It's a working design right up until they start failing.

The Ford engineers are the ones that specify the parts. I would not be surprised if ford specifications on parts have changed dozens of time either. Not the manufactures faulty if Ford specifies a part that is not robust enough.

 

[Hammered]

The Ford engineers are the ones that specify the parts. I would not be surprised if ford specifications on parts have changed dozens of time either. Not the manufactures faulty if Ford specifies a part that is not robust enough.

They're working much more closely than you realize. Such is the case with relationships along these lines. I'm sure without even having first hand knowledge about this that the two have been going back and forth on this issue before it even was one. Both have brand reputation on the line and won't leave this to random chance. The issue is that there's thermal constraints due in part to the design of the HVBJB's size limitations. What I'm most surprised about is that ford didn't redesign the unit to just parallel two of them. I'm sure it was considered but their projections decided that it was more cost effective to replace them for now and use a new design entirely with the in-housing of the parts they're currently undergoing for the 2025 MY vehicles.

 

[Shayne]

They're working much more closely than you realize. Such is the case with relationships along these lines. I'm sure without even having first hand knowledge about this that the two have been going back and forth on this issue before it even was one. Both have brand reputation on the line and won't leave this to random chance. The issue is that there's thermal constraints due in part to the design of the HVBJB's size limitations. What I'm most surprised about is that ford didn't redesign the unit to just parallel two of them. I'm sure it was considered but their projections decided that it was more cost effective to replace them for now and use a new design entirely with the in-housing of the parts they're currently undergoing for the 2025 MY vehicles.

Engineers always work closely with their builders if they are worth their snot. Still does not change the chain of command and how it works, The engineers design and specify; then make sure the builder meet those specifications. If they do there is nothing to complain about and no brand reputation problem for the builder .

Understand that it is hard to get a 4" diameter cylinder into a 2" diameter hole. 12V right there for the contacts. Run a PC fan? Some sort of cooling?

Have no idea what ford thought the best. Leaving EA's holding the bag is what some see so far. Good to know those buying in 2025 will not be treated like that.

 

[Hammered]

Engineers always work closely with their builders if they are worth their snot. Still does not change the chain of command and how it works, The engineers design and specify; then make sure the builder meet those specifications. If they do there is nothing to complain about and no brand reputation problem for the builder .

Understand that it is hard to get a 4" diameter cylinder into a 2" diameter hole. 12V right there for the contacts. Run a PC fan? Some sort of cooling?

Have no idea what ford thought the best. Leaving EA's holding the bag is what some see so far. Good to know those buying in 2025 will not be treated like that.

Ford brought in tesla leadership to completely revamp their parts, in-housing as many as possible. Motors, batteries, control units, etc... I assume there will be some teething issues initially though.

The 2024 F150s for instance have moved from something like 2,000 different wiring configuration choices down to 20. One potential benefit for this will likely be in the lower trims that will end up with harnesses that allow for easier owner-performed upgrades. My 2022 for instance has more options on it than a platinum can currently spec like heated / cooled massage raptor seats (not even an option for raptor), heated steering wheel (may have returned), and bed camera to name a few.

 

[Shayne]

Ford brought in tesla leadership to completely revamp their parts, in-housing as many as possible. Motors, batteries, control units, etc... I assume there will be some teething issues initially though.

The 2024 F150s for instance have moved from something like 2,000 different wiring configuration choices down to 20. One potential benefit for this will likely be in the lower trims that will end up with harnesses that allow for easier owner-performed upgrades. My 2022 for instance has more options on it than a platinum can currently spec like heated / cooled massage raptor seats (not even an option for raptor), heated steering wheel (may have returned), and bed camera to name a few.

Not sure what 2024, 2025 or a F150 has to do with our purchase or the current problems with it. Yours has cooled seats in the 2022 MME or are you referring to a gas F150?

Me I am more a tractor guy with no cab. Just need the basics to work and it not let me down. I would go for a lot less bells and whistles to have an EV that went and charged like snot. But again this is my first with power windows and not V8. Farley is not totally correct and for some it is about the power train tech. One electric motor each wheel (4) with no shafts or CV joints. Ford made one with 7 electric motors that scared the sh!t out of professional drivers. Not sure if the seats were cooled.

An EV has to do the basics like not stranding you by be in the shop. Things like remote preconditioning functioning would also be good as EV remote start would be a bonus. The added tech is nice but the basics are a requirement. If they had dropped some of the bells and whistle (like they did) and made a rag top mustang they would have sold also is my opinion. Fastest at the track and the DCFC's. I think they should have limited the complexity to begin and got the basics right. To much time and money being spent on bell and whistle fixes and not enough on the basics.

Sponsored