If you fast charge, Tesla will permanently throttle charging

[Ugliest1]

...cells age (a physical reaction) or throttling (software) happens?

I really think some of the details that people are a) asking for, b) highly interested in, c) demanding are those that one would have to be employed by Tesla with an IP NDA in their file to actually get, and understand. Like TexasEV said (#1203), to advance the mission there's a lot of information that the great unwashed buying public just doesn't need to know, doesn't care about, and too many details would scare them away anyway. And we can't have that!

Tesla is juggling all sorts of things with technology that is brand new. Changes are to be expected, really. While I would be worried as well if I got the same message as OP, I still think it's not evil of Tesla to be adjusting things here and there, and yes not necessarily telling customers. And for the record I would rather have a protected battery and a slight delay when supercharging than full speed ahead damn the torpedoes. I see no difference between Tesla not mentioning these adjustment details and the same behaviour by many, many, many (all?) other companies selling products in automotive and non-automotive industries.

What I *do* think is untoward and misguided is posters who quickly, without any proof, either accuse Tesla of being dishonest or who do it in a passive aggressive way. With respect, *YOU* try to change the world and see how that goes. (This last is not specifically directed at AR's post)

This has become a rant. Sorry. And I know it won't change anyone's behaviour. But I had to say it.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

What I *do* think is untoward and misguided is posters who quickly, without any proof, either accuse Tesla of being dishonest or who do it in a passive aggressive way.

IMO you do the same yourself indirectly. Basically what you are saying is that for the sake of the mission Tesla must withhold information that might scare people away. Right? I agree this is the balance Tesla is probably trying to find. I may disagree on the ethics interpretation of it, but I do not disagree that is what is happening here likely.

to advance the mission there's a lot of information that the great unwashed buying public just doesn't need to know, doesn't care about, and too many details would scare them away anyway. And we can't have that!

Tesla is juggling all sorts of things with technology that is brand new. Changes are to be expected, really. While I would be worried as well if I got the same message as OP, I still think it's not evil of Tesla to be adjusting things here and there, and yes not necessarily telling customers.

 

[Ugliest1]

IMO you do the same yourself indirectly. Basically what you are saying is that for the sake of the mission Tesla must withhold information that might scare people away. Right? I agree this is the balance Tesla is probably trying to find. I may disagree on the ethics interpretation of it, but I do not disagree that is what is happening here likely.

Don't misquote me. Not right. I didn't say Tesla must. I meant that Tesla is doing complex and complicated things that have never been done before, pushing the technology, and they are also making decisions and changes as necessary for the greater good. They are not going to be perfect.

I also understand from reading many many of your posts that you seem to like things black and white, 100%. I'm ok with some ambiguity. We can probably just agree to disagree, or at least, I can.

 

[apacheguy]

...cells age (a physical reaction) or throttling (software) happens?

I've always assumed it is due to slight IR increases in the cell and not related to throttling. I've documented this behavior on my car and it goes way back to version 4 or 5.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Don't misquote me. Not right. I didn't say Tesla must. I meant that Tesla is doing complex and complicated things that have never been done before, pushing the technology, and they are also making decisions and changes as necessary for the greater good. They are not going to be perfect.

I also understand from reading many many of your posts that you seem to like things black and white, 100%. I'm ok with some ambiguity. We can probably just agree to disagree, or at least, I can.

Not a black and white thing at all for me, very few things are. And I have no argument with you to settle, none at all. Just an observation.

I got the impression that your opinion actually aligns, underneath it all, quite a bit with those who say Tesla is withholding information. The only difference is that you give them a pass for that, which some others might consider perhaps dishonest (i.e. withholding something that they should not).

But basically to me it seems you are both saying Tesla is withholding information, right? You are just of the opinion that it is OK and some other may attribute dishonesty/bad intent to it.

If I misunderstood, feel free to correct my understanding.

(BTW: Nobody here - I believe - thinks Tesla intentionally made a product that needed after-sale changes. So I don't think that is in any way relevant to this thread. It is all about how Tesla reacted to changes that were later needed and whether we think those are OK or not and whether or not there was intent to do something clandestinely or not - these are certainly debatable things...)

 

[bmah]

when the avalanche starts, the pebble's vote no longer matters, the incipient "meltup" will buy part of my model 3 and i will retain most of my shares

One moment of perfect beauty...

Bruce.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

One moment of perfect beauty...

Bruce.

Who are you?

 

[bmah]

Who are you?

We are all Kosh.

Bruce.

 

[RobertF]

As I recall, I was told to leave the car plugged in even after achieving its power download (I used 80% normally). Was this a mistake that could cause me excessive degradation in the future? Also, as I recall, Tesla use to say that supercharging did not affect degradation. Is my memory failing me or what?

 

[TexasEV]

As I recall, I was told to leave the car plugged in even after achieving its power download (I used 80% normally). Was this a mistake that could cause me excessive degradation in the future? Also, as I recall, Tesla use to say that supercharging did not affect degradation. Is my memory failing me or what?

Yes, leave it plugged in. When it reaches the charge it's set for, it stops charging of course. No this can't possibly cause degradation. Tesla says it helps the battery. And supercharging hasn't caused degradation, if degradation has the usual meaning of loss of capacity (range). The outlier cases of very frequent DC charging has caused some batteries to not be able to take as high a DC charge as before in order to prevent degradation. This has resulted in those cars needing a few extra minutes at the supercharger in certain circumstances. Nothing to worry about.
Remember this:
A connected Model S is a happy Model S

 

[winfield100]

What I *do* think is untoward and misguided is posters who quickly, without any proof, either accuse Tesla of being dishonest or who do it in a passive aggressive way. With respect, *YOU* try to change the world and see how that goes. (This last is not specifically directed at AR's post)

This has become a rant. Sorry. And I know it won't change anyone's behaviour. But I had to say it.

you left out, anonymous trolls from Seeking Alpha and other sites, whom are short long term putz, using these as jump off points to write "hit pieces" that "damn with faint praise" if at all, while collecting fees for their hit pieces

see santimonious poster Montana S's article Short Tesla Takes: Charger Choking, Evercore Confidence, Goldman Sachs Modesty, Conference Call Howlers - Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha, with naonat as the featured lead.

 

[winfield100]

Who are you?

place a coin or similar in the bowl, perhaps a pin, watch B5

 

[apacheguy]

I cringe when I see the "A plugged in Model S is a Happy Model S" thing. The reality is it is much more complicated. To be honest, a car that is charged to 90% and let to sit unplugged for two weeks will fare better than one that is held at 90% by daily top ups. If you leave it plugged in while on a trip, set the slider to 50%. Then you're good to go.

 

[electracity]

As I recall, I was told to leave the car plugged in even after achieving its power download (I used 80% normally). Was this a mistake that could cause me excessive degradation in the future? Also, as I recall, Tesla use to say that supercharging did not affect degradation. Is my memory failing me or what?

80% is fine. If your storing your car for awhile, do what @appacheguy suggests above.

When lithium ion batteries are made the are charged to 40-50% for storage, AFAIK. These batteries don't like to sit for long periods at high voltage, and the don't like to be fully discharged.

Don't worry about it overnight or over a few days.

 

[David99]

There is no reserve. Period. It's been proven over and over again.

The fact that you got to -6% is due to an unbalanced battery pack, since the percentage is an estimate. The estimate was off. Next time your car might run out of juice at 0%. Don't rely on the extra range.

Nonsense. I have been monitoring balance over an entire year and even in my 3 year old battery (115k miles) there is never a significant difference. Not even close to 6%! Even if there was, you would not be able to drive because the lower modules would be empty! So balancing cannot explain this behavior.
There is a 5% buffer to protect the battery. When and how much of that you can use is unknown. Many have been able to drive significantly beyond 0 miles. Some have had the car shut down. We do not know why it works most of the time and not at other times.

Whatever it is, balancing is never so bad that you would even lose 1 rated mile.

 

[apacheguy]

@David99 is correct. Some builds show nominal energy remaining > 0 kWh even at 0 miles. This can be read from the CAN bus or through diagnostic screens.

 

[JRP3]

Nonsense. I have been monitoring balance over an entire year and even in my 3 year old battery (115k miles) there is never a significant difference. Not even close to 6%! Even if there was, you would not be able to drive because the lower modules would be empty! So balancing cannot explain this behavior.
There is a 5% buffer to protect the battery. When and how much of that you can use is unknown. Many have been able to drive significantly beyond 0 miles. Some have had the car shut down. We do not know why it works most of the time and not at other times.

Whatever it is, balancing is never so bad that you would even lose 1 rated mile.

It's likely not balancing but the pack capacity algorithm can get out of whack on some cars. It seems that deep discharges followed by full recharges can reset that.

 

[EvanLin]

Again, it says "actual charge times may vary" under the same statement. Really, I don't think Tesla is that dumb to guarantee a charge rate (neither does other manufacturers as far as I can tell). Too many other variables will open them up to liability regardless of this limiting algorithm.

Variables, understood. I assume most of us who perform charging tests should know about variables. There won't be any problem if the test is done with specific variables.

Dumb to guarantee, a BIG NO. Tesla can easily add a line and set the testing standard on its promise/statement. They just chose not to do it. Why? That's the problem here. No guarantee and no disclosure.

 

[Max*]

Nonsense. I have been monitoring balance over an entire year and even in my 3 year old battery (115k miles) there is never a significant difference. Not even close to 6%! Even if there was, you would not be able to drive because the lower modules would be empty! So balancing cannot explain this behavior.
There is a 5% buffer to protect the battery. When and how much of that you can use is unknown. Many have been able to drive significantly beyond 0 miles. Some have had the car shut down. We do not know why it works most of the time and not at other times.

Whatever it is, balancing is never so bad that you would even lose 1 rated mile.

View attachment 226424

View attachment 226423

I love how you only quoted part of my quote, you missed this part, which you're agreeing with :facepalm:

There is no intentional reserve for driving beyond 0 miles/0%.

I'll repeat, and even add emphasis to it. There is no intentional reserve for driving beyond 0 miles. I never said there is no anti-bricking reserve, or other reserves. My comment was very clear.


Advertising to people that there is a reserve is misleading at best.

There have been enough reports of people running out of juice at 0miles. That coupled with the research that wk057 showed, I'd believe that over your data.

Now with that being said, I will concede to what @apacheguy said, and it's possible that Tesla changed their algorithms over time. There might have been a reserve beyond 0miles, at another point there is no reserve, and then there is one again. How do you know the next change will or wont have it?

Advocating that people can drive their cars 5% below 0% is wreckless at best.

 

[David99]

[QUOTE="Max*, post: 2098291, member: 34461There have been enough reports of people running out of juice at 0miles. That coupled with the research that wk057 showed, I'd believe that over your data.[/QUOTE]

It's not 'my' data, it's data from the car.