During a recent service battery swap received an A pack???

[JakeP]

Is range (either rated or ideal) really a reliable indicator of battery health? I'm pretty sure at 80% is not. Maybe at 100%, but I'm not sure about that.

I sure don't know the answer to that, but I can tell you that at the 80% Charge Setting tick mark, the A-Pack they gave me would charge to 200 miles. The B-pack they replaced it with now charges to 210 miles, same tick mark setting. From this I would surmise that the B-pack has better capacity than the A-pack did. This says nothing about A or B packs in general, but it does provide a very real comparison of two specific packs on the same car.

 

[markb1]

I sure don't know the answer to that, but I can tell you that at the 80% Charge Setting tick mark, the A-Pack they gave me would charge to 200 miles. The B-pack they replaced it with now charges to 210 miles, same tick mark setting. From this I would surmise that the B-pack has better capacity than the A-pack did. This says nothing about A or B packs in general, but it does provide a very real comparison of two specific packs on the same car.

I don't think it does even that. The range calculation requires some calibration, which is done automatically when the car charges (per my understanding), but it can drift, especially if the pack isn't often fully cycled. So those numbers may be more due to imprecise calibration than battery health. I suspect the calibration data is stored in the battery pack.

 

[JakeP]

I don't think it does even that. The range calculation requires some calibration, which is done automatically when the car charges (per my understanding), but it can drift, especially if the pack isn't often fully cycled. So those numbers may be more due to imprecise calibration than battery health. I suspect the calibration data is stored in the battery pack.

That makes sense, I was not aware of any such pack-specific calibration impact. I was just going by what is displayed to the end user. It sounds like there is basically no way, then, to discern the health or capacity of your battery without Tesla diagnostic computer assistance.

 

[Zextraterrestrial]

I went from 200mi @ 80% on my 15month, 22k mi A battery - to 212 @ 80% on a new refurb B

seems like reasonable degradation for > 1 year of fun. If my car was gas powered I think the engine would be toast by now.


5.9 vs 5.9
and the A pack was 100% charged 3 times recently - so reasonably balanced

 

[FlasherZ]

I think it is reasonable to expect that the algorithm will "reseat" itself based on the full use of the battery and can be compared on the same revision of software. On my original pack on 5.9, my max charge was ~257 after ~18k miles and ~15 months. On my refurbished pack, the max charge is now ~267-268.

It's only where you try to compare your original pack's mileage on 5.8 at <x> months vs. your new pack's mileage on 5.9 at <x+6> months. Too many variables.

 

[aviators99]

Perhaps Tesla finds out that the no-model-year element fails in the marketplace because consumers have issues with it, and they'd have to return to the "hardware improvements only come once a year" model. I'm watching it myself, because issues like the 90/120 kW are beginning to show consumer behavior that will drive manufacturers' future approaches. It may be the only way to deal with a stream of consumers who have the usual technology lifecycle concerns.

I wonder if anyone went to Tesla and demanded a free suspension upgrade - along the lines of my paid service to put the current production spec P85 parts on the car? In a "model year" arrangement, you wouldn't have that type of customer. But I wouldn't want to hold Tesla back to making product improvements only once per year (or perhaps twice, or some other type of 'release' model). That model is wasteful, because supply chain logistics never end up being perfect, and you end up with inefficiencies in the sourcing process as a result -- and impact to the price/margins result.

I'm a supporter of Tesla's continuous development model... it would be a shame to have to revert because consumers just can't handle it.

I agree that there is incredible efficiency in the non-model-year model, but I wouldn't blame it on the consumers' ability to "handle" it. There are real practicality issues for producing a motor vehicle in this way. Probably the most important problem is the secondary market. How in the world do you know what you are getting when you buy a used Tesla? Take the 90/120kW issue as an example. This is an important issue to me, but not the most important. Clearly there is some value to having the quicker charging. There is *still* no official Tesla-sanctioned way to tell if a given car has this ability. We think we know on this message board, due to various people's sleuthing, but Tesla has not even even used the term "A" battery. You can't tell by the VIN number. Again, this is one example of why it may not be practical to continue this model.

 

[ckessel]

I'm fine with Tesla's continuous development model, but it needs distinct markers for each iteration. Just like software has unique versions, the car should too and Tesla should guarantee:
a) (repair) You always get the same part version (or newer) that came with your car's version. E.g. no slipping in an A battery when I had a B before.
b) (new car)You always get the current version of the car. E.g. if B batteries have started shipping, no giving me an A because Tesla happened to get a lost shipment of A's 3 months late (save those for repairs or update them).

 

[Vger]

I'm fine with Tesla's continuous development model, but it needs distinct markers for each iteration. Just like software has unique versions, the car should too and Tesla should guarantee:
a) (repair) You always get the same part version that came with your car's version. E.g. no slipping in an A battery when I had a B before.
b) (new car)You always get the current version of the car. E.g. if B batteries have started shipping, no giving me an A because Tesla happened to get a lost shipment of A's 3 months late (save those for repairs or update them).

Very sound thinking.

I can't help noticing that there were many that called us A-pack owners whiners when the issue first surfaced, but now that a B-pack owner got downgraded– horrors! :wink:

 

[tomas]

I'm fine with Tesla's continuous development model, but it needs distinct markers for each iteration. Just like software has unique versions, the car should too and Tesla should guarantee:
a) (repair) You always get the same part version that came with your car's version. E.g. no slipping in an A battery when I had a B before.
b) (new car)You always get the current version of the car. E.g. if B batteries have started shipping, no giving me an A because Tesla happened to get a lost shipment of A's 3 months late (save those for repairs or update them).

I'm fine with B, but not A as written.

A (repair) You should get same or newer. I've already had several parts replaced with improved parts due to TSB or other evolution. I also would not want Tesla keeping generations of parts around just to replace original with original.
B (new car) You should always get current version. Agree.

Perhaps that's what you meant?

Also, as we think about evolution of cars with no model year from the parts perspective, we also have to think from the economic perspective. Tesla has also announced price increases with no specified "new model" relationship - just "all orders after this date". Not sure that's right either, though at least it is clearly communicated.

About the only way I manage my blood pressure over the A battery issue is to go onto Tesla site and re-price my car. $20k more. I know the two were not tied together, and I'm still jealous of all those cars that shipped same week as mine with "B" batteries at my same price and spec. But it helps a little.

- - - Updated - - -

Very sound thinking.

I can't help noticing that there were many that called us A-pack owners whiners when the issue first surfaced, but now that a B-pack owner got downgraded– horrors! :wink:

Hmmm... yes I noticed that

 

[ckessel]

A (repair) You should get same or newer.

Yea caught that too on a reread, but not before you and Vger had already quoted

 

[FlasherZ]

Very sound thinking.

I can't help noticing that there were many that called us A-pack owners whiners when the issue first surfaced, but now that a B-pack owner got downgraded– horrors! :wink:

Not going to repeat my arguments here, they're in the other thread. There's a big difference between having a capability and it being reduced, and never having a capability that was introduced later and never promised to all cars.

I agree with ckessel's point a). Point b) is going to be more contentious - I would agree @ 3 months after the full production line change to the new part that it's inappropriate. But there will be cases when test production runs are done for QA with newer parts (a/k/a "pilot"), and that doesn't automatically entitle those who got the standard supply chain parts that week to automatic upgrades. So the question then becomes, how do you define "started shipping" in your case? A test run? What if the initial "-B" production runs uncover a manufacturing process (not product) defect and it takes 3 months to get them resolved?

In theory, very sound thinking and I agree with you. In the details? More complicated.

If Tesla suddenly found a box of batteries 3 months later? Bad on them. But there are lots of other reasons you may find later revisions shipped well before a full line switchover. Maybe Tesla felt you shouldn't be a guinea pig.

 

[ckessel]

But there will be cases when test production runs are done for QA with newer parts (a/k/a "pilot"), and that doesn't automatically entitle those who got the standard supply chain parts that week to automatic upgrades. So the question then becomes, how do you define "started shipping" in your case? A test run? What if the initial "-B" production runs uncover a manufacturing process (not product) defect and it takes 3 months to get them resolved?

In theory, very sound thinking and I agree with you. In the details? More complicated.

Very true, plus complications on what's considered an item important enough to consider it a value add that impacts the customer (e.g. a different washer from a new supplier probably doesn't count).

But if Tesla is going to use this sort of model as part of their disruptive strategy, the burden is on Tesla to put processes into place to address the problem when new and old parts ship out of sequence. If a customer sits in a Version 3.5 car and orders one, it's not ok to get a Version 3.4 a month later when your car is delivered (something that definitely could have happened with A/B batteries).

It's a difficult problem which is probably why vendors/sellers of physical goods roll versions relatively infrequently and usually very visibly with things like model years.

 

[walla2]

In my refurbished pack, the max charge is now ~267-268.

I wish my refurb A would do even remotely close to 267. It doesn't. It never will. Is it my fault my pack failed and the available A battery for the swap has lower range than my old pack did.

People saying that SOC in a refurb pack isn't a real concern are welcome to trade higher range packs for mine. I'll even pay for the swap costs and then we can both be 100% happy since my problem is just in my head and your "problem" is that you have a better SOC in your pack.

 

[apacheguy]

Tesla's communication on this issue has been and continues to be extremely poor. That is evidenced by the fact that most service centers have no idea that A/B/C, etc. packs exist, let alone 90/120 kW supercharging. If TM wants to seriously pursue their innovative business model then they'll really have to get a handle on communication issues.

The issue extends beyond just battery packs. Take drive unit replacements. For all we know, there may as well be just as many hardware revisions of the drive unit, but because it's not in plain sight we have no idea whether an inferior drive unit was installed in place of our previous one.

 

[gimp_dad]

I couldn't agree more, Apache. This continues to be my only (at least justifiable) beef. A concise email to affected car owners and all service personnel would have changed the course of history for the better on this one topic.

Tesla's communication on this issue has been and continues to be extremely poor. That is evidenced by the fact that most service centers have no idea that A/B/C, etc. packs exist, let alone 90/120 kW supercharging. If TM wants to seriously pursue their innovative business model then they'll really have to get a handle on communication issues.

The issue extends beyond just battery packs. Take drive unit replacements. For all we know, there may as well be just as many hardware revisions of the drive unit, but because it's not in plain sight we have no idea whether an inferior drive unit was installed in place of our previous one.

 

[redline0316]

Got my car back a couple weeks ago with the correct battery...looks like it has no problems reach 120kw now. It feels much faster than 90kw, especially if you are only planning to stop <15 minutes.

 

[GoBlue88]

so if the part number has a -A at the end, it's the older A pack? not capable of 120 charging?

Mine has a "D" at the end. Is that some fabled "D" pack?

 

[WarpedOne]

Pics please!

 

[jerry33]

Mine has a "D" at the end. Is that some fabled "D" pack?

Yes. There is a D pack that others have posted pictures of (have a B pack myself). No pictures have been posted of a C pack. Presumably an E pack is in the works.

 

[GoBlue88]

Yes. There is a D pack that others have posted pictures of (have a B pack myself). No pictures have been posted of a C pack. Presumably an E pack is in the works.

What is the difference between a B pack and a D pack?