-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Do you know that you must keep your battery charged?
- Thread starter mpt
- Start date
-
- Tags
- battery replacement brick News
Exactly. If a vehicle needs to be "waked up" by Tesla, many people from the general public will find that very inconvenient - even if the battery pack is *not* bricked and will *not* require a costly replacement not covered by warranty. They will take little comfort in the fact that their vehicle went DEAD in order to prevent it from becoming a BRICK.
Other posts in this thread suggested that the vehicle activates some emergency procedure when running dangerously low on SOC (like SMS alert). They ignore that constant supervision of SOC and active measures when reaching alert condition consume additional energy.
I a perfect world, we'd have a cell that has zero self discharge when disconnected from any parasitic loads and doesn't suffer from extreme temperatures in a low SOC. And the car would predict the point in time when it is re-plugged again, along with the temperatures to endure until then, and manage its pack accordingly. :tongue:
I think the Tesla engineers gave these considerations a fair thought and constantly refined the solution from the first roadster until today.
Edit: what does the general public expect when reading "not covered by warranty"? To me that means, getting involved with my money.
Last edited:
Personally, I would take great comfort in the fact that my vehicle went temporally DEAD in order to prevent it from becoming a BRICK.
Doesn't work like that...when the car becomes dead its a crap shoot with regards to if the car can be revived or if the battery is bricked.
strider
Active Member
Sounds to me that w/ Model S and future that the car will enter a kind of hibernation and while it will need to be "woken up" by Tesla it should take a very long time to brick in this state.
Solar panels on cars are a bit of a gimmick as they don't add meaningful range in any reasonable amount of time.
...But... how many would you need to just maintain pack charge? If your car is parked outside perhaps panels could be added that "trickle charge" the pack to keep it from slowly running down...?
...But... how many would you need to just maintain pack charge? If your car is parked outside perhaps panels could be added that "trickle charge" the pack to keep it from slowly running down...?
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Depending on location and vehicle surface area I think you could put enough solar on a vehicle for between 2-5 miles of range, which really should be plenty to keep your pack healthy, if you are parked outside.
It sounds like some of these cases are people sticking a car in storage somewhere. In those cases at least a solar panel wouldn't help of course but it's an interesting idea for people leaving their cars out in airport parking lots for 2 months on vacation. I'd really love to know what percentage of the population takes two month vacations and leaves their car at the airport at $10+ per day for long term parking though.
roblab
Active Member
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
100 amps at 12V to run a fan? That can't be right. I've got a pretty powerful radiator fan in my EV to cool my controller and it draws about 5 amps at 12V.
In my discussions with Tesla regarding OVMS, one of the concerns they raised was power drain. The actual drain depends on a lot of factors - and in particular the cellular signal level. The figures I gave them (obtained by direct measurement of a running OVMS module in various configurations):
Idle: 40mA @12V
Cellular Network Registration: 100mA @12V
Network activity: 80mA @12V
The vast majority of this is the cellular modem (the PIC we use has minimal power consumption). Worst case we see seems to be 100mA @12volts, or about 1.2watts.
Based on a full 53KWh main battery, that would power the OVMS module (worst case) for about 44,166 hours (>5 years).
My test bench runs off an 8-pack of 1.2volt 1.9Ah batteries (~ 9.6volts 1.9Ah, or 18.24Wh). Theoretically, worst case, that would drain to zero in about 15hours. I get at least that in normal development use.
Anyway, bottom line the OVMS module draws between 40mA and 100mA @12V. Not sure about the Tattler. I guess the CPU will draw more, and the GSM modem less, compared to OVMS.
Has anyone done the calculations for a 5% SOC loss in a week? I really can't believe the VMS is anywhere near that - it must be fans and pumps.
The coolant pump on v2.5 cars turns off after the car is idle (off) for 5 minutes. It seems to wake up once every 24 hours. Is that now the same for the earlier v1.5 cars, or is somewhere in between that and 24 hours-a-day?
That Little Water Pump
The original v1.5 problem was reportedly 24.5kWh a week (46% of SOC @53kWh).
smorgasbord
Active Member
I thought this was a worthwhile, if quick, read.
While I don't agree with all of the article, I do agree that Tesla did not handle this well. Many here have argued that Tesla is in the right. But, Tesla needs to look beyond that, they need to keep in mind the Big Picture. Tesla should always keep in mind that they're trying to lead the wave towards mass market adoption of EVs. That means calming people down with the batteries. The batteries, after all, are really the only thing stopping EVs from taking off: they have limited range and/or high cost. For many people, that a car left alone will destroy its battery over time is simply unacceptable. And, it sounds like Tesla is fixing this for Model S anyway, so it just makes Tesla look immature to not fix this early adopter's car.
The end result here is that Tesla is paying too large a price for their rightous attitude.
While I don't agree with all of the article, I do agree that Tesla did not handle this well. Many here have argued that Tesla is in the right. But, Tesla needs to look beyond that, they need to keep in mind the Big Picture. Tesla should always keep in mind that they're trying to lead the wave towards mass market adoption of EVs. That means calming people down with the batteries. The batteries, after all, are really the only thing stopping EVs from taking off: they have limited range and/or high cost. For many people, that a car left alone will destroy its battery over time is simply unacceptable. And, it sounds like Tesla is fixing this for Model S anyway, so it just makes Tesla look immature to not fix this early adopter's car.
The end result here is that Tesla is paying too large a price for their rightous attitude.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I think the TTAC put it best. If Tesla had known Drucker was going to go to the media in this manner, the best way to deal with the issue would have been to ask him to sign an NDA that makes it clear Tesla doesn't have any legal responsibility for the damage and then provide him with a free replacement battery in good faith.
But after the media coverage, it would be more like admitting fault, and setting a precedence of replacing for free batteries damaged from being overdischarged (something no manufacturer would do, including Nissan with the Leaf). If the same thing happened again (and the Model S is certainly not immune to this, it just takes longer to reach this point), the customer can easily point to this precedence and Tesla would be hard pressed not to replace the battery without another round of bad PR.
After this media coverage, I think standing firm and doing more to inform people of the need to keep the car plugged in and the consequences of not doing so for long periods of time, will do more to prevent this issue from happening to someone else, while also limit liability to Tesla.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I'm not sure which way to think on this one actually, the good PR if Tesla had helped out vs the potential for future claims against them. The one case that really concerns me is the person who actually did as instructed and plugged the car in, albeit using too long and too small a cord to support the pack. A lay person could reasonably not be expected to know the current requirements of the vehicle and the capacity of that cord, unless Tesla also clearly spelled out both in writing. Maybe Tesla could have split the cost of a new pack in a good will gesture, acknowledging that the early vehicles really drew too much power at rest. Especially since they made changes with later models to reduce idle current draw.
dmckinstry
Model X 2019
That's 1.2 kW. Most portable electric space heaters (with blowers) don't draw that much. That 100 A must be a typo.
roblab
Active Member
I hate it when that happens. But I'm used to being wrong. It's 12 volt 100 watts.
I disagree with Tesla eating the cost of giving this guy a new battery.
The money has to come from somewhere.
Do you want every Roadster owner to mail this guy $20 to pay for his new battery?
If Tesla stopped producing new cars after the Roadster and their only business was maintaining Roadsters, they would have to pass the costs on to the Roadster owners or reduce service to the tune of $20 each.
Since they plan to have more customers, they can pass the cost on to all of them at a much smaller amount.
But either way - no thank you.
The money has to come from somewhere.
Do you want every Roadster owner to mail this guy $20 to pay for his new battery?
If Tesla stopped producing new cars after the Roadster and their only business was maintaining Roadsters, they would have to pass the costs on to the Roadster owners or reduce service to the tune of $20 each.
Since they plan to have more customers, they can pass the cost on to all of them at a much smaller amount.
But either way - no thank you.
Last edited:
Norbert
TSLA will win
No, I think this article substantially misses the point of what happened. It says Tesla should have investigated the root cause. But as the letter to the customer with the timeline (of what happened) shows, Tesla investigated the logs and came to the conclusion that the Roadster behaved according to spec. What has happened was exactly what the manual warns about, and within those timelines. The root cause was indeed known, both in this case and in general, and is communicated by the user manual. After reaching SOC 0% after a few weeks, the battery was still holding a voltage for 14 days, if not more (at that point the car stopped logging, until that point it was still able to).
Neither the Leaf nor the Model S completely solve this problem, AFAIK. Nissan said you need to recharge the Leaf 14 days after reaching SOC 0%. The Roadster endured as much, even though Tesla says you need to recharge immediately. The Model S merely improves the timeline of the battery events to the point where it is (even) easier to manage. You still need to know that the battery will discharge over time, and you still need to respond to the warnings.
Something that received little attention here is that some of the discharge is due to the Roadster keeping the battery temperature at a level which is optimal for the lifetime of the battery. In this sense it is not a design error, even though Panasonic+Tesla were able to improve this design for the Model S and the battery chemistry it uses. It is merely that Tesla expects the customer to plug it in (soon enough).
Last edited:
smorgasbord
Active Member
In layman's terms, the spec says just parking your car for a couple of months can destroy your $40K battery. So, now instead of Range Anxiety, we have Storage Anxiety. That is a design error.
In my view, there should be a manufacturer's recall on this. After a few weeks of sitting unplugged and with SOC below a certain level, the battery management system should switch from active management (preserving long term battery life) to passive management that will prevent catastrophic battery failure. Better a battery that gives a few less miles than a battery that gives zero miles. That Tesla improved this for Roadster 2.0 is good. That Tesla improved it even more for Model S is good. So, why can't this be retrofitted to previous models?
Again, the real point here is how Tesla reacted. The author's analogy about suing Top Gear was absolutely right. Yeah, the Top Gear episode was misleading. Taking them to court was not the solution - that strategy backfired when the court ruled against them. The proper solution there was a marketing campaign with cross-country Roadster events, etc. Tesla's long term view solution here should have been to fix this guy's car (and the other bricked cars) for the price of the extended battery warranty plus some years, and most importantly issue a recall to prevent this from happening to any other Tesla vehicle.
Similar threads
- Article
