Chapter 1645 Chain Collapse, Supply Crisis

The fire accidents of Tesla Model 2015 series vehicles were like a drop of water thrown into boiling oil, instantly igniting global public opinion.

Initially, Tesla's crisis communications team issued a carefully worded statement that tried to point the finger at the charging infrastructure.

The statement hinted that the accident may be related to "third-party charging equipment not certified by Tesla" or "charging environment that does not meet the new battery standards", and emphasized that "safety is always Tesla's top priority."

However, this excuse pales in the face of the irrefutable evidence that follows.

Complete backend data from Toronto accident vehicles has been made public by anonymous technical experts.

Data shows that the charging that caused the failure was completed at Tesla's own Supercharging Station V3, and the current and voltage were fully in line with the standard protocol.

Shortly thereafter, garage surveillance footage of the Seattle accident was leaked, clearly showing that the vehicle was not charging before the fire, but was parked quietly.

On social media, more car owners uploaded screenshots of the "Battery failure, stop immediately and safely" alert that popped up on the vehicle's central control screen. The time points were different and there was no strong correlation with charging behavior.

What’s even worse is that the car that first caught fire was using a Tesla brand charging station…

Faced with overwhelming doubts and falling stock prices, Elon Musk had to step in personally.

In a hastily arranged online live broadcast, he admitted solemnly: "The thermal runaway incident that occurred in some Model 2015 vehicles exposed a potential boundary problem in the management of our new and revolutionary LMFP-NMC hybrid battery system under extreme operating conditions."

The speech cleverly avoided the word "defect" and instead emphasized the "cutting-edge" and "complexity" of the technology.

"This new type of battery uses electrode materials and packaging technology that are completely different from lithium iron phosphate or traditional ternary lithium."

Musk explained, still trying to put some of the blame on user habits:

"Its extremely high energy density requires an unprecedented level of precision in managing the charging and discharging processes. Initial analysis suggests that in rare cases, the use of charging devices that do not meet our latest stringent standards may have triggered an unintended response in the battery management system."

However, he also immediately proposed a solution:

"We have found a software optimization path and will push a major battery management system (BMS) update to all vehicles equipped with the new battery as quickly as possible. This upgrade will significantly enhance the system's monitoring accuracy and response speed of the battery's internal status, fundamentally preventing similar thermal runaway situations from occurring..."

"..."

"Please trust Tesla's engineering team. We have the ability to protect the safety of every car owner through the power of software."

Musk has a very distinctive personality and has gained a large number of fans through the success of SpaceX.

Therefore, his statement was effective to a large extent.

And Tesla did what it said.

Seventy-two hours later, an update package labeled "BatteryGuardian v2.0" was pushed to relevant vehicles around the world as scheduled.

The update process was smooth, the interface was completely revamped, and a more detailed battery health reporting option was added.

But users soon noticed something was wrong.

"It takes almost half an hour longer to fully charge the battery than before!"

"The acceleration feels slower, and the accelerator doesn't feel as aggressive when you step on it."

"When the battery level drops below 30%, the power limit becomes even more severe, making it difficult to even climb hills!"

"..."

Complaints quickly spread on forums and social media.

Some tech-savvy "folk experts" immediately took action and used cracking tools to deeply unpack and analyze the updated BMS firmware.

The results were shocking. The so-called "BatteryGuardian v2.0" didn't optimize the algorithm or improve diagnostic accuracy, but rather simply lowered the battery's input and output power limit thresholds.

The unpacking report clearly shows:

The peak power of DC fast charging is forcibly limited to less than 70% of the original design maximum, and the maximum instantaneous discharge current that the motor can call upon is cut by nearly 40%.

Even in daily use, the battery's available energy window (SOC range) is subtly narrowed, and the system will enter the "protective power limit" state earlier to prevent the battery cell from operating on the edge of the voltage platform that is prone to cause consistency degradation.

"This isn't an upgrade, it's a downgrade! It's performance neutering!" a tech blogger angrily pointed out in the video. "They haven't solved the fundamental problem of the battery's internal consistency degradation at all. They're just using software to put even thicker shackles on the battery, forcing it to operate in a 'safe' range with significantly reduced performance!"

This detailed unpacking report was like a bomb, completely destroying the last line of defense that the two companies tried to build.

The focus of market attention instantly shifted to LG Chem's battery quality issues.

"Hard Flaw!" The financial media's front-page headlines were merciless. "LG Chem's new battery has 'innate defects', Tesla's software patch is just a 'painkiller'!"

"Disorganization Out of Control: LG Battery Packs Operate Independently, Posing Safety Risks!"

"Supply chain nightmare: LG Chem battery reliability faces fatal doubts!"

Panic quickly spread to the entire consumer electronics industry chain.

LG Chem is not only a supplier to Tesla, but also one of the core battery cell suppliers for the world's top consumer electronics giants such as Apple, Samsung, Dell, HP, and Sony, providing high-performance lithium batteries for their flagship mobile phones, laptops, and tablets.

And the result...

"In light of the recent significant uncertainties in the supply chain and to ensure product quality and user safety, the company has decided to suspend the use of battery solutions provided by LG Chem in its next-generation products and immediately initiate the certification process for alternative suppliers."

"Our partnership with LG Chem will enter a re-evaluation phase. Current products on sale will not be affected, but future new product plans will be adjusted depending on the situation."

"User safety is our top priority. We have suspended acceptance of specific batches of battery cells from LG Chem and are strengthening internal testing."

"..."

Similar statements are pouring out of the investor relations departments of major consumer electronics giants.

Although the wording was cautious, avoiding directly pointing out the "defects", the intention to cut was obvious.

The capital market reacted extremely violently. LG Chem's stock price suffered a cliff-like drop even more severe than Tesla's in just a few trading days, with its market value evaporating by nearly one-third.

In sharp contrast, the stock prices of several leading battery manufacturers in China have soared, and orders have poured in.

In order to find reliable and high-performance alternative battery suppliers, global consumer electronics manufacturers have almost filled the production capacity schedule of the Chinese battery giant for the next two years.

However, another ruthless boomerang appeared -

Apple and Samsung, as important customers of LG Chem, were also the first companies to be included in China's control list...

According to regulations, Chinese battery suppliers can only supply to the two companies' production lines located in China.

Now it's March 2015, and manufacturers are at the peak of delivering their new generation flagship devices. Even temporarily reducing the specifications is not an option...

Engineers from both companies discovered in despair that they could not obtain batteries of equivalent performance from any non-Huaxia supply chain.

Other suppliers in Japan and South Korea either have substandard technology or limited production capacity and are also restricted by key materials (such as regulated rare earths).

Thus, "reverse parallel imports" came into being.

Driven by huge demand and profits, a secret chain began to operate: the domestic version of mobile phones sold in China and equipped with high-performance batteries were "exported" to overseas markets through special channels.

These products can be sold overseas at prices far higher than those sold in China, and have become the darlings of the gray market for a time.

The headline of the technology section of the Wall Street Journal was extremely sharp: "A Spectacle Under the Ban: Are Chinese-made iPhones 'Saving' Apple Fans Around the World?"

A well-known technology blogger commented helplessly in the video:

"Guys, this is magical realism! Want to be the first to get a new iPhone? Maybe you should book a flight to China, or... look for 'special channels'."

But parallel imports are ultimately niche and high-cost, and cannot meet the huge global market demand.

The delivery volume of new products of both companies has shown a visible decline, user waiting time has been extended, and complaints are everywhere.

Ironically, the Ju factory, which was initially at the center of this storm, appears to have relatively stable and sufficient supply worldwide.

Although its top-level models are also affected by the difficulty in obtaining advanced process chips, its production capacity has been ramped up more slowly.

But after all, it did not encounter a hard supply chain disruption like its two competitors.

In short, a series of dramatic chain reactions ultimately caused the United States to taste the bitter fruit of supply cuts earlier and more directly than China.