Asus ROG GL702ZC owners lounge

Discussion in 'ASUS Reviews and Owners' Lounges' started by Deks, Oct 16, 2017.

  1. tkalfaoglu

    tkalfaoglu Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    10
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    26
    I seem to remember that battery manufacturers can overclaim by 10% the capacity of their battery. + or - actually.. so the battery might be within that range.

    Sent from my MHA-L29 using Tapatalk
     
    zdroj and hmscott like this.
  2. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    7,081
    Messages:
    20,411
    Likes Received:
    25,194
    Trophy Points:
    931
    The amount in this case is +15% or more under what capacity for what is advertised by the laptop itself, so it's too anomalous, too incorrect to let pass without challenge.
     
    zdroj likes this.
  3. fizikz

    fizikz Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    28
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    41
    That was one of my questions, along with specifically asking what level of wear/discrepancy they would consider defective vs normal. i.e. what is their threshold? I have yet to get an answer, other than the comical ones I posted before.

    10% seems a reasonable variation for electronics. In this case not only is there a ~20% discrepancy, but the values reported by every user so far are extremely consistent. So it does not look like variability.

    Out of curiosity, has anyone taken a look at what is printed on the battery itself? A photo of the label might be useful. Also, did the laptop's box or spec sheet indicate the battery capacity?
     
    zdroj likes this.
  4. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    7,081
    Messages:
    20,411
    Likes Received:
    25,194
    Trophy Points:
    931
    There is an actual statement of warranty for laptop batteries, here is the online version, I was hoping Asus would either confirm this one is the correct one, or provide an updated version:

    ASUS Battery Information Center
    ASUS Battery warranty statement

    https://www.asus.com/us/support/article/604/

    It's too short to be the whole Notebook warranty, for example here is MSI's Notebook battery warranty, which is part of the many sections of coverage:

    MSI General Product Warranty Policy
    *The information provided on this website is for information only. MSI seeks to provide accurate and timely information, nevertheless, there may be inadvertent technical or factual inaccuracies and typographical errors, for which we apologize. We reserve the right to make changes and corrections at any time, without notice.

    Notebook
    https://us.msi.com/page/warranty
    Actually charged capacity is usually very close to advertised capacity, even 5% seems like too much, and that's usually down to chemistry variance in manufacturing.

    15% as in the GL702ZC can be a danger sign for a poor chemistry mix, and in fact might be a real problem. It could also be a simple clerical error in the build request or the specification.

    So it's important to persist in this inquiry to a root cause. :)
    Someone posted earlier that it is indeed labeled at capacity shown in the system, which is 15% under capacity in charged capacity.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018
    zdroj and fizikz like this.
  5. fizikz

    fizikz Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    28
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Good find. This is stunning and confirms what I consider a rather comical response by the agent:

    So it's defective if the system can't power on with the battery?? That is absurd. Even at 5% capacity it should be able to boot... and thus not be considered defective?

    "Normal drop in battery capacity over time due to usage" is an exclusion... without defining what is considered normal. However the GL702ZC issue is not due to usage and happens out of the box.

    Meanwhile a section above says:
    So, it's normal to have 80% capacity after 300 cycles. But apparently that's not part of the warranty terms.

    I forgot. Was an actual label capacity reported? Or just what is shown in the system by software? A picture would clear things up.
     
    zdroj and hmscott like this.
  6. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    7,081
    Messages:
    20,411
    Likes Received:
    25,194
    Trophy Points:
    931
    You actually already replied to that post :)

    http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/asus-rog-gl702zc-owners-lounge.809882/page-55#post-10697652

    "My "74wh" battery never charged past 60wh. Given the popularity of similar reports, combined with the fact that the only battery replacement I could find online for this model is listed as 62wh, I've concluded that Asus has just lied, ahem, I mean made a mistake, about the battery being used here. It really seems like a conscious mistake too because the battery is labeled both physically and electronically as a 74wh battery but in reality it's just... not. I'm not sure why they did that but I also do not believe this is a true 74wh battery at all."

    Maybe someone will take a photo of the battery label and post it?
     
    xsais, zdroj and fizikz like this.
  7. AngieAndretti

    AngieAndretti Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    10
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    26
    I got a final response from Asus today on my demand that they replace my battery due to ~20% wear out-of-the-box. I provided them with both the Windows Battery Report and a screenshot from HwInfo64 and they did not dispute there was an issue but also did not speak to the cause at all. After first instructing me to do some ridiculous troubleshooting procedures like reinstalling the battery device's driver in Windows Device Manager, they ultimately asked me to RMA the machine back to them.

    While I invite any of you who are willing to do this to do so (it might help them notice the problem), I sent them an "are you kidding me" email with proof of my credentials as a certified PC technician, since I was asking that they send me a replacement battery with return label for the original. They gave a blanket quote about company policy: "ASUS does not sell or send out parts directly to end users nor do we have a listing of recommended resellers for part sales. ASUS will not be held liable for any injuries or damages incurred if you attempt to repair your product. What we recommend is that you send in your product to our service center and allow us to service it for you."

    So that's where we stand. I'm not going to RMA my machine and be without it for some unknown tech to go poking around inside it and ultimately install another off-the-shelf battery, likely with the same issue. Also remember that I've had my machine for less than a month and the battery shows only three charge cycles. If you've had your unit longer, there's no guarantee that they'd even be willing to do what they proposed for me. It sounds like a lot of you guys are really getting the run-around from them.

    As for the physical label on the battery, yes, I did take the battery out and flip it over to read the label out of curiosity when I had the machine open to replace SSD's. At this point I'm telling you from memory that it said 74wh. I will pull it out again and post a picture next time I open the unit, as I have some RAM I'd like to try out sometime soon anyway.
     
    fizikz, zdroj and hmscott like this.
  8. fizikz

    fizikz Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    28
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    41
    I got the same response from Asus. They said they use a "battery test program" to determine if a battery needs replacing. Then they asked if I would like to send in my (not yet purchased!) laptop for servicing...

    I had specifically asked for their definition of defective vs normal, i.e. what discrepancy would be considered defective. I also asked if the battery could be replaced without sending the whole unit back to avoid downtime, which would be a huge disruption. No answers.

    Really unimpressed with the run around and lack of direct answers.
     
    zdroj and hmscott like this.
  9. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    7,081
    Messages:
    20,411
    Likes Received:
    25,194
    Trophy Points:
    931
    You want to escalate the issue to the Support Manager, and then ask him to connect you with a Production Engineer or Production Manager, as it appears all of the batteries are mislabeled or there is a manufacturing failure to meet advertised capacity, by 20-25%, very significant given it's at this level right out of the box.

    A design Engineer probably can't help with this, but you could try that path as well. It may end up that someone in Purchasing - an Engineer or Manager may need to be involved as the battery is spec'd by Engineering but ordered by Purchasing.

    The intake QA for the Battery should have noticed it was 20%-25% under capacity, and they should have rejected it back the maker. So Production QA might be involved as well.

    Explain that you want the full capacity advertised within 5% out of the box, and until they can guarantee an RMA will deliver that you won't be satisfied.

    You may end up resolving this with a cash refund of some kind.

    I assume the QA did catch the 20%-25% discrepancy, and management worked out that there wasn't time to wait for a run of replacement batteries to be made and delivered to meet laptop release shipping requirements. And, the cost and loss of time to fix the product labels - sending them back for label "RMA" to the battery vendor, and re-documenting the updated reduction in capacity was all too much to deal with.

    Once you get to this resolution, I'd ask for $250 refund... or more, since this is a critical function - delivering power - and it's a severe reduced run-time on battery so there is no remediation - you'd have to accept the lose of functionality. So it's worth a substantial refund vs everyone returning the laptops.

    At $250 a laptop, it won't take many Open Tickets to get them to re-order updated batteries and send them out instead. Hopefully.

    As soon as someone gets a refund or final resolution, please post it :)
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2018
    zdroj and fizikz like this.
  10. zdroj

    zdroj Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    255
    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    279
    Trophy Points:
    76
    Right...an RMA for this is out of the question for me as well. Asus' classless actions call for class action! I wonder how many other Asus laptop models are experiencing similar issues - and perhaps the owners of those units don't even realize they have an issue?

    Perhaps someone should start a general thread on this issue here and in other forums for all Asus laptops owners, as a first step to making this issue go viral. While I like the ideas put forth by @hmscott, I can't see Asus refunding $250/per voluntarily. However, once an issue impacts the bottom line in bad press and lost sales, then a company is typically incentivized to put forth an amenable resolution - unlike what Asus is currently proposing - think "Apple"...:vbthumbsup:
     
    hmscott likes this.
Loading...

Share This Page