The modules contain 444 cells that are arranged in a 6S configuration whereby each of the 6 bricks have there voltages added to a range of 18 to 24V. A brick is a group of 18650 cells that share the same collective voltage of 3 to 4.2 V.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
2014 85 HV Battery BMS_u029 error 1 month out of warranty and after a recent OTA update, Who else?
- Thread starter MrTKO
- Start date
If it‘s a 100 pack minus two modules then it’s still a 6S configuration @ 516 cells per module.
Tesla 6.2kWh Modules | 24V | 270Ah - Tested Used EV Modules
Tesla 6.3kWh P100D Modules
www.secondlife-evbatteries.com
Same thing happened to me last week. After the eMMc replacement. What was the rsolution on this? Did yoiu get your battery replaced ???
@everyone If you have experienced the BMW_029 error code, you can join a class-action lawsuit here: Tesla Model S & Model X Software Update Battery Drain | Hagens Berman
(BMW_029.... hmmm 
)
Considering the updates actually have nothing whatsoever to do with the cause of the issue (as I've said many times before), it'll be interesting to see what kind of angles the lawyers come up with.
There's only two possible states with regard to this:
Either way, you've got a battery issue. The software updates don't cause battery issues. All that's been done in the updates in this case is a more focused mitigation for certain battery issues. Instead of just shutting down, the BMS is able to differentiate certain types of problems from one another and get you more usability than you would have had in older versions.
But sure, let's sue Tesla for their good engineering and development efforts.
I'm sure Tesla will present this argument in court if need be, and in a sane world that dismiss the case... but, who knows.
---
Edit: Skimmed through the complaint linked... absolutely amazing how little these attorneys actually understand about how this stuff works.
)Considering the updates actually have nothing whatsoever to do with the cause of the issue (as I've said many times before), it'll be interesting to see what kind of angles the lawyers come up with.
There's only two possible states with regard to this:
- You have a vehicle which has no cell-level battery issues.
- You have a vehicle which has one or more cell-level battery issues.
- You have a modern firmware version, in which case the specific issue is detected and flagged. A safe charge level is determined, locked, and you get BMS_u029 (charge limited). Your vehicle still functions sufficiently to get it to service, or at least on to a hauler under its own power. Or...
- You have an older firmware version, in which case this issue is still detected, but the vehicle shuts down the HV battery entirely for safety. It knows there's an issue, but doesn't know the severity so it has to assume the worst. The vehicle isn't drivable at all, and must be towed.
Either way, you've got a battery issue. The software updates don't cause battery issues. All that's been done in the updates in this case is a more focused mitigation for certain battery issues. Instead of just shutting down, the BMS is able to differentiate certain types of problems from one another and get you more usability than you would have had in older versions.
But sure, let's sue Tesla for their good engineering and development efforts.
I'm sure Tesla will present this argument in court if need be, and in a sane world that dismiss the case... but, who knows.
---
Edit: Skimmed through the complaint linked... absolutely amazing how little these attorneys actually understand about how this stuff works.
Last edited:
NewbyMaybe
Newby1Kenowby
Anyone in Florida area you recommend that can go through my 14, 85 battery and check it out, rehab it? How is your turn around time?(BMW_029.... hmmm
Considering the updates actually have nothing whatsoever to do with the cause of the issue (as I've said many times before), it'll be interesting to see what kind of angles the lawyers come up with.
There's only two possible states with regard to this:
If you're in the latter group, there's two possibilities:
- You have a vehicle which has no cell-level battery issues.
- You have a vehicle which has one or more cell-level battery issues.
- You have a modern firmware version, in which case the specific issue is detected and flagged. A safe charge level is determined, locked, and you get BMS_u029 (charge limited). Your vehicle still functions sufficiently to get it to service, or at least on to a hauler under its own power. Or...
- You have an older firmware version, in which case this issue is still detected, but the vehicle shuts down the HV battery entirely for safety. It knows there's an issue, but doesn't know the severity so it has to assume the worst. The vehicle isn't drivable at all, and must be towed.
Either way, you've got a battery issue. The software updates don't cause battery issues. All that's been done in the updates in this case is a more focused mitigation for certain battery issues. Instead of just shutting down, the BMS is able to differentiate certain types of problems from one another and get you more usability than you would have had in older versions.
But sure, let's sue Tesla for their good engineering and development efforts.
I'm sure Tesla will present this argument in court if need be, and in a sane world that dismiss the case... but, who knows.
---
Edit: Skimmed through the complaint linked... absolutely amazing how little these attorneys actually understand about how this stuff works.
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
It’s unfortunate that knowing what you’re talking about is 100% not a prerequisite to success in our legal system.
Bloodthirsty lawyers looking exclusively for their own fat payday + some contingent of people that feel wronged by something no matter the facts + some reasonable possibility of an equally ignorant jury being sympathetic or a giant company willing to settle = American “justice”.
And throw in the fact that Tesla generates immediate headlines and press, and attracts other bloodsucking "clients" .... it's a win-win for the lawyers, even if the case gets tossed. They Saul up the airwaves.
(BMW_029.... hmmm
Considering the updates actually have nothing whatsoever to do with the cause of the issue (as I've said many times before), it'll be interesting to see what kind of angles the lawyers come up with.
There's only two possible states with regard to this:
If you're in the latter group, there's two possibilities:
- You have a vehicle which has no cell-level battery issues.
- You have a vehicle which has one or more cell-level battery issues.
- You have a modern firmware version, in which case the specific issue is detected and flagged. A safe charge level is determined, locked, and you get BMS_u029 (charge limited). Your vehicle still functions sufficiently to get it to service, or at least on to a hauler under its own power. Or...
- You have an older firmware version, in which case this issue is still detected, but the vehicle shuts down the HV battery entirely for safety. It knows there's an issue, but doesn't know the severity so it has to assume the worst. The vehicle isn't drivable at all, and must be towed.
Either way, you've got a battery issue. The software updates don't cause battery issues. All that's been done in the updates in this case is a more focused mitigation for certain battery issues. Instead of just shutting down, the BMS is able to differentiate certain types of problems from one another and get you more usability than you would have had in older versions.
But sure, let's sue Tesla for their good engineering and development efforts.
I'm sure Tesla will present this argument in court if need be, and in a sane world that dismiss the case... but, who knows.
---
Edit: Skimmed through the complaint linked... absolutely amazing how little these attorneys actually understand about how this stuff works.
frankly we've been surprised there hasn't been more light shone on the potential for selective use of the Brick 6 software workaround while under warranty/not under warranty. to us, that seems the more fruitful line.
Explaining Changes post-firmware 2019.16 Regarding Range Loss | wk057's SkieNET
wk057 project site
aside from small bits at the margins - like the isolation tolerance of various adhesive tapes and where to find the best Southern BBQ
- not sure @wk057 and ourselves end up disagreeing on much. data-driven, fact-based conversations have a tendency of being that way. 
Hey @wk057,
Really like your work, regarding all the info you provided over the years.
Last year you mentioned,
Would you be able to elaborate? What are the initial 6? What carries over to Q2 14 - Q1 15? What makes Q2 15 and later super solid? I apologize if this has been outlined elsewhere. I ask as I am currently looking into a used AP1 Model S. One that I have found was built in November 2015 and is around 119000 VIN with the original battery, so your "super solid beyond Q2 15" is encouraging. I am aware of the below.
Really like your work, regarding all the info you provided over the years.
Last year you mentioned,
Would you be able to elaborate? What are the initial 6? What carries over to Q2 14 - Q1 15? What makes Q2 15 and later super solid? I apologize if this has been outlined elsewhere. I ask as I am currently looking into a used AP1 Model S. One that I have found was built in November 2015 and is around 119000 VIN with the original battery, so your "super solid beyond Q2 15" is encouraging. I am aware of the below.
- Side umbrella vents
- AC condensate line
- Pyro Fuse Cover
