You now can’t use the Smartpass consumer output

[Xrford]

doubt there can be something like "charging logic". It's just basic Ah counting, maybe done in an unfavourable

Why not? A modern ctek trickle charger has different charging logic based on the state of charge and chemistry of the battery being charged. A modern automotive BCM can surely replicate that logic using the alternator voltage and current output. The old school way of an alternator putting out a fixed voltage is a thing of the past. New software controlled charging systems can set the ideal voltage and current output to pulse charge to facilitate desulfation of the battery, or increase current for bulk absorption then slowely declining current to maximize up to 100% charging capacity. All this logic is what I would categorize as “battery conditioning” and is what Ineos is citing as being adversely affected by the consumer output of the ctek 120s.

 

[MrMike]

I'm baffled why they have done the 2 battery set-up this way, from an AU perspective this doesn't make sense as most need the isolation set up the other way around (isolate the auxiliary battery when SOC is low) . It's not as simple as it could/should be be.
So glad I didn't option it.

 

[TD5-90]

Why not? A modern ctek trickle charger has different charging logic based on the state of charge and chemistry of the battery being charged. A modern automotive BCM can surely replicate that logic using the alternator voltage and current output. The old school way of an alternator putting out a fixed voltage is a thing of the past. New software controlled charging systems can set the ideal voltage and current output to pulse charge to facilitate desulfation of the battery, or increase current for bulk absorption then slowely declining current to maximize up to 100% charging capacity. All this logic is what I would categorize as “battery conditioning” and is what Ineos is citing as being adversely affected by the consumer output of the ctek 120s.

Certainly. I'm well aware of charging modes, designed (much higher quality than CTEK...) chargers for different industrial customers and markets.

Simply put: If some alternator in a car (NOT talking about chargers! These have OTHER purposes and work DIFFERENTLY!) puts out absorption voltage for lead acid battery, you never "overcharge" in driving conditions. The battery simply does not accept charge, i.e. charging current decreases to very low level automatically. What a so called "modern" alternator does is interrupt charging when you're accelerating, and charge when coasting. The Gren does exactly that, you can observe that in the offroad menu. If you prefer to call that "charging logic", well, then do so... This is, btw, not in favor of the battery, but serves some other (questionable) purpose...

 

[TD5-90]

...or buy an original CTEK 120, put the Ineos-part to Ebay, switch a CTEK 250 and CTEK battery-monitor to the 120 and every thing ist fine...?!

Who would buy a "castrated" 120, even on Ebay?
And what if you bring your vehicle to your dealer next time for routine inspection? Will they "castrate" your newly bought 120 also?

No. It's simply unacceptable how INEOS "tackles" this "problem".

 

[AnD3rew]

I already said it several times, and I will continue to repeat it, so that the Ineos "lurkers" can hopefully inform their management:

1. Customer Support is crap (but it isn't their fault, they are not "technical"), a waste of time for us!
2. Ineos doesn't treat us - early users (or Guinea Pigs) - as we deserve to be treated
3. Ineos doesn't keep their promises: giving us access to technical and maintenance information

I tell it to everybody interested in the Grenadier: "fantastic car, but Ineos and my dealer are underperforming concerning any question I ask".

Yes your dealer is awful based on your reports. Mine is excellent but, reading between the lines, they would never say so, but they suffer from some of the same communications issues as we do.

 

[AnD3rew]

I know nothing about car electrics. And am therefore totally confused by the forum posts. Isn't the solution the CTEK 250?
Or is there a car electronics expert in the forum who can make clear technical statements? Sorry to say that, but I read a lot of opinions, not much concrete information.

Well the D250S has improved charging management capabilities and ability to accept unregulated solar input and deal with a Lithium auxiliary battery. However without additional information from INEOS about what the actual issue is they are trying to solve by removing the consumer output, and they philosophy and operation if their system, it is impossible to know whether the addition of the D250 helps at all other than adding the solar etc

 

[TheDocAUS]

The CTEK D250SE is the lithium version (and other chemistries) the D250SA is the non lithium version. Only the last letter varies.

EDIT: Full details here. The thread mostly covers the 120S and 250SE.

 

[Jean Mercier]

The CTEK D250SE is the lithium version, the D250SA is the non lithium version. Only the last letter varies.

I disagree, the SE works as well for lithium as for lead/acid batteries.

 

[TD5-90]

I disagree, the SE works as well for lithium as for lead/acid batteries.

I agree with you both ;-)
The 250SA _only_ works_ with lead acid, the 250SE with all.

 

[TheDocAUS]

I disagree, the SE works as well for lithium as for lead/acid batteries.

SE is for the lithium and the other chemistries. I have added a link to the post to the full description.

 

[Kruegerruda]

Who would buy a "castrated" 120, even on Ebay?
And what if you bring your vehicle to your dealer next time for routine inspection? Will they "castrate" your newly bought 120 also?

No. It's simply unacceptable how INEOS "tackles" this "problem".

I have not understand, why Ineos do that...?

 

[TheDocAUS]

I have not understand, why Ineos do that...?

I do not think INEOS knew there was an issue until quite a few cars had been made and the issue arose (it does not affect all cars). The easiest solution was to crimple the accessories outlet on the CTEK120S. And they have poor communications when it comes to such matters (like most car makers).

There are easy work arounds and people need to understand this, it is not the end of the world stuff.

 

[emax]

I have not understand, why Ineos do that...?

Because they screwed up the design and now have no idea how to fix it.

 

[TD5-90]

Because they screwed up the design and now have no idea how to fix it.

Everybody who's doing engineering designs, no matter if electrical, mechanical, software or something else, knows this can happen. Even to the most experienced of us. I know what I'm talking about.
Usually no big deal if you are honest with your customers. However, may become one if you're not...

 

[globalgregors]

Because they screwed up the design and now have no idea how to fix it.

C’mon @emax - you’d be more than familiar with unexpected interactions across an architecture. Some defy preemptive design and don’t reveal themselves in testing.

Clearly they have a fix: it just less elegant than what we hope for/expect.

 

[emax]

I agree with @TD5-90: You don't have to blame anyone for mistakes, they just happen. But for crappy “solutions” and dishonesty.

INEOS' responses to the aforementioned inquiries insult the intelligence of every customer.

 

[emax]

you’d be more than familiar with unexpected interactions across an architecture.

I am. But in my job (at least in our team) we describe our errors in an error reporting system (Jira) and tell publicly (within team and division scope) how we fix it.

It's our strategy to avoid similar errors in the future. And it is a way to get a veto if we have overseen something.

typo​

 

[DenisM]

C’mon @emax - you’d be more than familiar with unexpected interactions across an architecture. Some defy preemptive design and don’t reveal themselves in testing.

Clearly they have a fix: it just less elegant than what we hope for/expect.

Agreed.... however there's possibly a simpler explanation for Ineos's action on this matter: In "complex thinking" methodology, there's an option referred to as "remove the constraint(s)" and reassess your options...
The "constraint" in this case is an issue wherein switching devices attached to the consumer port would appear to negatively impact the operation of the variable charging characteristics of the "smart" alternator, which are critical to the engine achieving Euro 6 emission standards
By removing the option of the consumer port and powering accessories from the second battery directly (which most of us would probably do anyway!) the problem (whatever it is) is resolved.
This is a perfectly acceptable 'work around' as far as I'm concerned.
Another thing:
According to the poll on this forum, 60% of Grenadier owners have owned or currently own a Land Rover.... as the saying goes "Land Rover...making mechanics out of drivers since 1948"... so I have an occasional quiet chuckle thinking that Ineos must wonder at times what hit them, when they are deluged with technical questions from knowledgable owners who, as a customer group, are the very antithesis of the SUV school run /soccer mum customer brigade!

 

[AnD3rew]

Agreed.... however there's possibly a simpler explanation for Ineos's action on this matter: In "complex thinking" methodology, there's an option referred to as "remove the constraint(s)" and reassess your options...
The "constraint" in this case is an issue wherein switching devices attached to the consumer port would appear to negatively impact the operation of the variable charging characteristics of the "smart" alternator, which are critical to the engine achieving Euro 6 emission standards
By removing the option of the consumer port and powering accessories from the second battery directly (which most of us would probably do anyway!) the problem (whatever it is) is resolved.
This is a perfectly acceptable 'work around' as far as I'm concerned.
Another thing:
According to the poll on this forum, 60% of Grenadier owners have owned or currently own a Land Rover.... as the saying goes "Land Rover...making mechanics out of drivers since 1948"... so I have an occasional quiet chuckle thinking that Ineos must wonder at times what hit them, when they are deluged with technical questions from knowledgable owners who, as a customer group, are the very antithesis of the SUV school run /soccer mum customer brigade!

Yes I suspect they underestimate the level of engagement of their owner group and desire to deeply understand and modify vehicles.

 

[globalgregors]

I agree with @TD5-90: You don't have to blame anyone for mistakes, they just happen. But for crappy “solutions” and dishonesty.

INEOS' responses to the aforementioned inquiries insult the intelligence of every customer.

Yes, well I don’t think anyone’s going to leap to the defence of these comms. They are a disaster.

A bunch of middle-aged blokes of mostly professional/technical backgrounds, all enthusiast early adopters.
We must be one of the most demanding customer cohorts ever assembled.