Free Tesla supercharger update from MG dealerships

(I thought I would post this on this thread as well)

Please bear with me on this one, I want to get my facts straight. I am just getting the information together about the Tesla software fix before I contact the dealership.

From the MG Europe website;

https://cdn.mgmotor.eu/files/MG-Warranty-Statement_ENG_2022-11-14-091431_mhle.pdf

it states:

Guarantees repair, replacement or adjustment, free of charge, by an Authorized Repairer, of any part which
fails during the warranty period, as a result of a manufacturing or material defect.


I would say that not being able to rapid charge at a CCS charger, regardless of network provider is a fault or at the very least, in need of adjustment.

My argument will be that the Battery Management System, which controls the DC rapid charging has failed to operate, as the software is not able to negotiate with the EVSE. The software is an integral part of the BMS, as it cannot function without it and is not therefore seperate from it.

My vehicle meets all the following conditions, stipulated by MG Europe:

MG Warranty conditions require that:
• All claims are notified, diagnosed and repairs completed by an Authorized MG Repairer within the Warranty
period.
• When a defect becomes apparent, the customer must report it to an Authorized MG Repairer as soon as
possible. The warranty may be invalidated if the customer continues to drive with a defect.
• In the case of MG Electric & Hybrid Vehicles, Claims will not be accepted if the high voltage battery has been
opened or removed from the customer’s MG vehicle by anyone other than an MG Authorized Repairer.
• All repairs, damage rectification or fitting of replacement parts and accessories are carried out by an
Authorized MG Repairer and in accordance with MG instructions.
• The vehicle has not been altered from its original specifications, where said alterations maybe found to be
the cause of any subsequent component failure.
2/6
• The vehicle has not suffered from neglect, improper repair, or improper use, and has been properly cleaned,
maintained and serviced in accordance with MG’s recommendations.
• Each main service is carried out within 1500 kilometers or 28 days of the recommended mileage interval or
service anniversary date as shown on the Service Interval Plan (within the service portfolio). Whilst the
warranty will not be invalidated if a non-authorized repairer carries out this work, Warranty faults resulting
from work carried out by a non-authorized repairer may not be covered under the MG Warranty. An
itemized service invoice must be obtained in the case of maintenance by a non-authorized repair shop
detailing the work done during maintenance
Note: To qualify for the MG warranty, the vehicle must have a full and accurate service history, in line with
MG recommended servicing plan, using Original Equipment Specification (OE) parts and fluids.
• If a defect arises from non-compliance of Manufacturer recommended service intervals and or
Manufacturer recommendations for care and maintenance, the Authorized MG Repairer reserves the right to reject any subsequent claims.
• The vehicle is not used for rallying, racing or competition purposes of any kind.
• The vehicle is not subjected to any load heavier than the maximum recommended by the manufacturer.
• The owner’s protection under the terms of the MG Warranty does not affect their statutory rights in law.

So, there we have it, MG are contractually obliged to fix the problem.

A warranty is a contractual assurance from a seller to a buyer. It is a subsidiary or collateral provision to the main purpose of the agreement: the sale itself. A breach of warranty claim is an action for breach of contract and is subject to the normal legal requirements of proving loss.




Warranties and indemnities: what’s the difference? – The In-House Lawyer





I'll post back how I get on.
 
It strikes me there is a need (if it doesn't already exist) for some kind of certification scheme for both cars and chargers to verify that they meet the CCS protocol requirements. Otherwise these kind of arguments will go on forever.
 
Guarantees repair, replacement or adjustment, free of charge, by an Authorized Repairer, of any part which
fails during the warranty period, as a result of a manufacturing or material defect.


I would say that not being able to rapid charge at a CCS charger, regardless of network provider is a fault or at the very least, in need of adjustment.

My argument will be that the Battery Management System, which controls the DC rapid charging has failed to operate, as the software is not able to negotiate with the EVSE. The software is an integral part of the BMS, as it cannot function without it and is not therefore seperate from it.
You might want to correct this as it is the EVCC that controls the charging process but requires information from the BMS. It has not failed to operate, it is working and it is communicating with the EVSE. However it fails to charge successfully. You then have to prove it is a defect that MG knew at the design and build time that this was a problem.

Devil's advocate: I suspect this how MG would respond.

"Which chargers are these? How many have you tried? What car model do you have?

Yes there is an option but it might involve hardware replacement because the Tesla implementation of the CCS standard came after your car was designed and built. While MG continually look forward, we cannot predict the future. While it might be deemed as a defect, case law does not support this.

The big issue is proving that it is a fault with MG. MG will say it works with many CCS chargers and that it did with Tesla open chargers before Tesla updated their units. They cannot be held liable for a "defect" that was caused by a third party as stated in their warranty.

As the car is known to work with other chargers, and it is also known that chargers can fail, it is likely that the problem is due to a failure on the third party EVSE and not a defect caused by MG."
 
You might want to correct this as it is the EVCC that controls the charging process but requires information from the BMS. It has not failed to operate, it is working and it is communicating with the EVSE. However it fails to charge successfully. You then have to prove it is a defect that MG knew at the design and build time that this was a problem.

Devil's advocate: I suspect this how MG would respond.

"Which chargers are these? How many have you tried? What car model do you have?

Yes there is an option but it might involve hardware replacement because the Tesla implementation of the CCS standard came after your car was designed and built. While MG continually look forward, we cannot predict the future. While it might be deemed as a defect, case law does not support this.

The big issue is proving that it is a fault with MG. MG will say it works with many CCS chargers and that it did with Tesla open chargers before Tesla updated their units. They cannot be held liable for a "defect" that was caused by a third party as stated in their warranty.

As the car is known to work with other chargers, and it is also known that chargers can fail, it is likely that the problem is due to a failure on the third party EVSE and not a defect caused by MG."
I was under the impression that the EVCC controlled the AC charging and that the DC bypassed that and was under the control of the BMS.
 
I was under the impression that the EVCC controlled the AC charging and that the DC bypassed that and was under the control of the BMS.
I think that the BMS decides the charging current based on the voltage, temperature etc of the many cells, but the EVCC does the actual CAN bus over power lines thing and various handshaking protocols with the DC rapid charger. As the name suggests, the EVCC is the Communications Controller.

I notice that the latest Rivian reduced the number of ECUs from 17 to about 7. My MG ZS EV has well over 20 ECUs. Perhaps there is room for consolidation.
 
I was under the impression that the EVCC controlled the AC charging and that the DC bypassed that and was under the control of the BMS.
Both require comms to the BMS, the BMS is monitoring the individual cell voltage and temperature of modules. In turn it will initiate cooling / heating as required and slow the charge rate down as it nears the target %.
 
I think that the BMS decides the charging current based on the voltage, temperature etc of the many cells, but the EVCC does the actual CAN bus over power lines thing and various handshaking protocols with the DC rapid charger. As the name suggests, the EVCC is the Communications Controller.
Yes but it actually takes all the decisions. Nothing is delegated. The CCS comms use the AC comms lines as well as powerline comms over the same lines. The BMS simply reports the battery cell status and it is the EVCC that talks to the EVSE, the AC charger and everything else including the isolation relays. It also does all the stuff for AC chargers. It is the only point in the system that sees all the data and can thus make the right decisions concerning current voltage handshaking and so on.
 
You might want to correct this as it is the EVCC that controls the charging process but requires information from the BMS. It has not failed to operate, it is working and it is communicating with the EVSE. However it fails to charge successfully. You then have to prove it is a defect that MG knew at the design and build time that this was a problem.

Devil's advocate: I suspect this how MG would respond.

"Which chargers are these? How many have you tried? What car model do you have?

Yes there is an option but it might involve hardware replacement because the Tesla implementation of the CCS standard came after your car was designed and built. While MG continually look forward, we cannot predict the future. While it might be deemed as a defect, case law does not support this.

The big issue is proving that it is a fault with MG. MG will say it works with many CCS chargers and that it did with Tesla open chargers before Tesla updated their units. They cannot be held liable for a "defect" that was caused by a third party as stated in their warranty.

As the car is known to work with other chargers, and it is also known that chargers can fail, it is likely that the problem is due to a failure on the third party EVSE and not a defect caused by MG."
I don't buy the Tesla "updated their units" line.

They've done nothing that had broken the protocol compatibility with any other manufacturers other than MG with their ZS and 5. The question then has to be asked, what are MG doing differently, as everyone else seems to be fine...
 
I don't buy the Tesla "updated their units" line.

They've done nothing that had broken the protocol compatibility with any other manufacturers other than MG with their ZS and 5. The question then has to be asked, what are MG doing differently, as everyone else seems to be fine...
Fine don't buy it but the evidence does not seem to agree with you. I would be interested if you have any info on why Tesla are unapproachable and MG are the villains.

CCS has plenty of holes which can lead to issues and difficulties. I have a 124 page document that describes CCS compatibility and what that means and how manufacturers have fallen foul of it. If you study that the conclusion would be that the complexity is such that it is a miracle of works at all!

There are no compatibility tests for compliance. They may come but generally it is market forces....

If you look at the various changes that Tesla have done including additional service messages which had not even put into the standards and using pins in ways that are not in the standard and you start questioning their whole attitude to meeting standards. As for no other cars...go do some research and you will find that Ford GM and rivian all needed updates and hardware changes. RIVIAN AT THE TIME WERE SUPPOSED TO BE A TESLA PARTNER! I posted one email about this earlier today as it was very similar to the MG situation.

TESLA Have broken compatibility many times in the past including using the ac pins on a type 2 connector to supply dc.

You also seem to forget that mgs worked before but only started to fail after tesla updated their chargers. Please explain that. That is a major smoking gun. As for what MG did differently a better question would be ask Tesla what they did differently and caused all this agro.
 
As for what MG did differently a better question would be ask Tesla what they did differently and caused all this agro.
Tesla designed, installed and operate a charging network for Tesla cars. They opened up some of the network so that it can be used by other cars. If the other cars don't conform to the protocols of the Tesla network and therefore cant use it, it's not really Tesla's problem, it's for the car manufacturers to adjust their charging system to meet the requirements of the Tesla system IF they want their cars to be able to use it.
Its not really a benefit for Tesla to supply energy at a much lower cost than on the open market to competing vehicles, in fact, I feel they'd be better off closing the network down again for Tesla vehicles only.
 
It seems to me that there are regs to say that all rapid chargers installed must comply with the CCS charging standard yet there's no compulsory certification scheme to ensure they do, and ditto for the cars.
Even if the CCS standard as written is perfect (which is unlikely) this is a recipe for trouble (e.g. one party continually blaming the other for incompatibility problems while the consumer is stuck in the middle of it).

Apparently there are certification schemes for chargers but they aren't compulsory as far as I can see.
 
Tesla designed, installed and operate a charging network for Tesla cars. They opened up some of the network so that it can be used by other cars. If the other cars don't conform to the protocols of the Tesla network and therefore cant use it, it's not really Tesla's problem, it's for the car manufacturers to adjust their charging system to meet the requirements of the Tesla system IF they want their cars to be able to use it.
Its not really a benefit for Tesla to supply energy at a much lower cost than on the open market to competing vehicles, in fact, I feel they'd be better off closing the network down again for Tesla vehicles only.
Good points.

The reasons why Tesla opened their network are the incentive from the US government of reportedly 7.5 billion$ to do so and Tesla's push to have their version of the CCS standards and their network adopted as the next North American standard - called NACS.

Tesla got this because they "claimed CCS capability" even though it required in the US the Magic Dock to make the compatibility happen. We support CCS which everyone knows is a worldwide standard and anyone with a CCS car will be able to use it. No need for anyone to have to modify or update their cars. Thanks Elon - you are wonderful! Biden bought into that but the reality was far from it.

That has started the long standardisation process but expect it to be yet another "world wide" standard for North America. If it was CCS it has already been standardised so why repeat that work. The reason is that Tesla departs from it.

It doesn't support V2G or V2L but I suspect they may come into play through the standardisation process. Whether it will prove to be the right decision or even get adopted in Europe - I doubt it TBH - who knows.
 
It seems to me that there are regs to say that all rapid chargers installed must comply with the CCS charging standard yet there's no compulsory certification scheme to ensure they do, and ditto for the cars.
Even if the CCS standard as written is perfect (which is unlikely) this is a recipe for trouble (e.g. one party continually blaming the other for incompatibility problems while the consumer is stuck in the middle of it).

Apparently there are certification schemes for chargers but they aren't compulsory as far as I can see.
Like this...

They are certification is a loose sense in that they will test the car/charger and say we have certified that it works. There are other companies that do the similar work. Is their certification the same as another? Who knows? The market leader will establish a "de facto" standard which will be good but there is no legal backing behind it.

Also remember that the emissions scandal was backed by legal requirements and certification procedures but the likes of VW and others worked out how to get round it. The current Toyota safety certification scandal is another.

Let's put this in perspective. At the end of the day it is not as if our cars cannot use any CCS charger. There is a software only solution for many of them and a relatively low cost hardware and software solution for the others. MG could certainly handled the customer service side better and hopefully they are learning.
 
It seems to me that there are regs to say that all rapid chargers installed must comply with the CCS charging standard
Clearly that isnt the case, how could Tesla lock the charging network down which they have?

yet there's no compulsory certification scheme to ensure they do, and ditto for the cars.
I think there are many similar things around that a standard is published but no independent compliance testing.

Even if the CCS standard as written is perfect (which is unlikely) this is a recipe for trouble (e.g. one party continually blaming the other for incompatibility problems while the consumer is stuck in the middle of it).
Agreed

Apparently there are certification schemes for chargers but they aren't compulsory as far as I can see.
There may well be health and safety implications and testing that is mandatory.
 
Didn't they do all that before those regs came in though?
I dont know, it was certainly locked to Tesla cars from day 1. I just dont see how they can be forced to comply with any regulations, if they want to provide a charging network for their make of vehicles only, what right do any of us have to say they must comply with EVSE standards and function with all makes of car?
 
I dont know, it was certainly locked to Tesla cars from day 1. I just dont see how they can be forced to comply with any regulations, if they want to provide a charging network for their make of vehicles only, what right do any of us have to say they must comply with EVSE standards and function with all makes of car?
Doesn't the EU/any government make all sorts of rules that everybody has to comply with ?
 
I dont know, it was certainly locked to Tesla cars from day 1. I just dont see how they can be forced to comply with any regulations, if they want to provide a charging network for their make of vehicles only, what right do any of us have to say they must comply with EVSE standards and function with all makes of car?

The problem is that if legislation doesn't force them (and other manufacturers) to do it, then EV charging will become like the wild west and that situation will slow down adoption.
 
Support us by becoming a Premium Member

Latest MG EVs video

MG Hybrid+ EVs OVER-REVVING & more owner feedback
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom