fbitz777
Member
Yes except Etron has a buffer at the TOP so 100 percent is probably 90-95 percent in reality.Battery care is the same no matter which car company. Repeated 100% full charges shortens battery life. Etron, Tesla, cell phones, etc.
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes except Etron has a buffer at the TOP so 100 percent is probably 90-95 percent in reality.Battery care is the same no matter which car company. Repeated 100% full charges shortens battery life. Etron, Tesla, cell phones, etc.
Interestingly I received a response from Tesla indicating that only hardware faults in battery packs are covered under warranty.
Battery care is the same no matter which car company. Repeated 100% full charges shortens battery life. Etron, Tesla, cell phones, etc.
I've looked at some charging times and estimate it now takes up to 25% longer to charge. For my use case I'd much rather live with this than reduced capacity/range, especially if it protects the battery.
Thanks for the info David. I wish Tesla would have given the same advice throughout these years. Remember "A Plugged in Tesla is a Happy Tesla"? That's what I was told and did. On top of that, there was no recommendation against charging to 90%. Well, too late now.
According to your logic, a brand new 85kwh battery software limited to 70kwh is degraded. [snippiness removed]
Oh man. I can just imagine the roof raising that would go on, were Tesla to offer this. It would be treated by the media as an admission of failure and the negative spin would be horrible.
......
All Tesla needed to do is give us batteries with 5kwh more of cells. ..............
Battery care is the same no matter which car company. Repeated 100% full charges shortens battery life. Etron, Tesla, cell phones, etc.
Interestingly I received a response from Tesla indicating that only hardware faults in battery packs are covered under warranty.
Cells (that may be weaker) and liable to combust seems like a hardware fault to me... even if Tesla mitigates the risk by reducing Vmax and supercharger speeds.
Of course the issue of whether Tesla has the right to remove battery capacity overnight that was paid for and which may not be allowed under consumer protection legislation is a separate issue.
Looking forward to seeing what comes out in discovery during the class action.
And, Tesla has not been helping in their communication and/or lack of.
If a pack has 10% degradation, and Tesla caps the voltage from 4.2V to 4V, thus reducing it another 10%, is the pack 20% degraded? Of course not. Just like a new software capped 85kwh pack, that is voltage limited to 70kwh is not degraded.Please expand, since I was unable to connect the dots in my own thinking to support your rephrasing. That's probably because I'm allegedly unable to think, so I fear I am unable to follow your advice.
If Tesla would software limit a brand new battery to a lower voltage than that used when they did the EPA certification, then their EPA ratings would be false and the class action suit would have merit (and even the EPA would have skin in the game, cfr. the links posted some pages ago).
I haven't seen evidence that a brand new 85 kWh battery is being software limited in a way that makes the EPA rating invalid (other than perhaps the odd service error in failing to reset some failure conditions when a battery is swapped, IIRC). What they do to batteries that are not brand new is quite different, and apparently they range reductions don't happen to all older batteries either.
Those older batteries are, because they are not new, always "degraded" with respect to newer batteries, at least until someone invents new battery chemistry; that was the only claim I was making (and I fail to see how to use logic to go from there to your supposed conclusion). The question is simply by how much, and how the BMS is programmed to cope with it.
That the BMS before a certain update was more aggressive at charging older battery packs doesn't mean it was the correct thing to do from a safety point of view or for the longer term mitigation of degradation. Neither does it mean the current firmware's behaviour is optimal, but I am not surprised that the BMS is being conservative until enough data is gathered as to how aggressive is not too aggressive.
Indeed. But lots of Ifs and maybes there so we are drifting into statistics, statistics and damned statistics. But there appears to be a reasonably creditable window of 0.5%-3%? It is still small fry, and makes a bit of a mockery of Tesla's claim that it is normal degradation. I don’t think it is degradation at all, but even if it were, it is certainly abnormal degradation, both in the number of instances and the amount.@Ferrycraigs I think it would be fairer to look at the proportion of S 70 & 85 cars that are affected.
In the UK I get a total UK fleet figure of ~2650 (Model S + S 70 + S 85 variants from here: Search results for 'tesla model s' - How Many Left?)
I've no idea what proportion of UK owners are on the owner's forum - let's say 1/3, so then you're looking at 20/(2650/3) = 2.25%
But if, say, only 1/4 of members are active enough to respond to the relevant polls, that could be 9% of "eligible" owners affected.
I think it is generally accepted that frequent charging to 100% shortens battery life. But I really don’t think that is the issue, or the trigger, here. If it were, a much higher percentage of the fleet would have been affected by batterygate. They weren’t. Only a very small percentage has been affected. And there are known instances of owners with high frequency of charging to 100% that are not affected, and vice versa. So I think type of charging, high SoC, etc whilst best avoided for their own sake, are not the reasons for this capping issue. So a good (better) question is why them, and not others.Yes except Etron has a buffer at the TOP so 100 percent is probably 90-95 percent in reality.
For what purpose?Software limits don't equal degradation, but they can be a rational response of a BMS system to detected degradation.
How is the state of charge with corresponding voltage a proprietary secret? LOLNow that there's a class action suit and legal gets involved it's not going to get any better. Yes, some information will be extracted (by pulling teeth) in discovery, but since it involves trade secrets not all of it will actually be publicly disclosed, I guess.
This is pretty compelling stuff. But again, whilst it is correct as a general rule, I can’t see how it can be attributed to the very few cars that are affected by the battery capping. If the trigger were DC Charging or high SoC Charging, then surely those affected would be in the tens of thousands, not hundreds. The reason surely has to be something, or some behaviour, that is peculiar to the very small number of people affected. And a reason that stands up to, why not the majority as well?Here is the part where Dahn explains that the time of exposure is really the key factor in terms of degradation. Here he is specifically talking about temperature but since the so called 'parasitic reactions' are also aggravated at higher state of charge, it equally applies to how long a cell is exposed to a high state of charge. I think that's why I have a reasonable overall degradation despite having the other factors against me (mileage, temperature, fast charging).
Time spent at high temperature is bad
Time spent at high voltage (high state of charge) is bad