Kevin Sharpe's decreased Roadster range

[AEdennis]

Tesla battery range degredation forcing return to gas

How do you get this spread sheet and these numbers, Kevin?
What file in the log shows that?

Thanks

Marco, pull logs from the Roadster and parse it with the tools others have written. If you search the forums, there will be instructions on how to format a USB stick to do this.


Fellow Roadster owners, I think the important thing here is the Roadster warranty specifically ignores battery degradation. Nissan did a great job here in defining what constitutes a warranty repair for battery degradation, aside from Kevin's specific issue... It is important for those of us that own Roadsters to know if it indeed is a BINARY case before Tesla will fix our Roadsters... Kevin has made the point (and I agree with his point) that under the current battery warranty, if the car can go 1 mile (or even 1/2 a mile) on the battery (as it is currently warranted) then Tesla has no obligation to repair the battery pack. Whilst I applaud the announcement of the 400 mile battery pack, seeing that Tesla will probably charge us for it, I would like to have the warranty for such a pack defined WITH battery degradation.

I bought a CPO because it was supposed to have a 37 month/37,000 mile warranty. Finding out that the battery portion of this warranty is not as covered as I expect is disappointing, to say the least.

 

[bonnie]

This whole thread is disappointing to me, on a number of levels. When Kevin first told his story, I was surprised that Tesla had not responded in a different way. As the story has unfolded, my reaction has changed.

Kevin, I know you have supported Tesla in a number of ways over the years. But the 'twitter shaming' you've started is just beyond the pale, quite frankly. You stated that you knew this wasn't covered, but it shouldn't matter. Seriously? You want something covered when you knew it wasn't ... and you think shaming the company into doing is the way to go about it? Honestly, if you tried that with me, I might very well respond exactly the same way. You've been doing your best to create drama over on twitter & now you're bringing it here. I wish it were being handled differently. But I'm not surprised. And yeah, I know this will make you angry. Sorry, seriously. But both you and I are known for speaking our mind so hopefully you're not going to fault me for speaking mine.

Then there's the part I was trying to understand last night. You were telling everyone how you now would have to stop and charge for two hours because of this degradation. But here's the reality: If you have lost 40 miles and you need that full extra 40 miles, you only need to stop long enough to add 40 miles. This whole 'I have to stop for two whole hours which makes the trip impossible' drama is just ridiculous. Anyone who stops to think about what you're saying knows that this is just for dramatic effect. You have to stop for maybe 45 minutes, Kevin. Either on the way there or on the way back. But I guess it sounds so much better to claim you need to add two whole hours to the trip. You ONLY have to stop long enough to make up for the gap. Right?

And that was when you lost all credibility with me. You're a smart guy. A really smart guy. So I had to wonder why you're doing this. Why would you spell this out so detailed on this forum, try twitter shaming Tesla ... I think the answer is clear. People can connect the dots for themselves. Some lazy journalist is going to be all over this story. Way to go.

 

[qwk]

While Kevin probably took this situation the wrong route, his ESS isn't functioning properly. While the pack probably has some degredation, it's definately not just degredation that is the problem in this case. Tesla's response makes their battery warranties pretty much worthless, since the most common failures have been problematic battery sheets, which also happen to bring the entire usable capacity of the pack down. The Roadsters battery warranty extension wasn't cheap, so one would expect problems like these should be taken care of.

 

[Dave EV]

A couple thoughts:

1. The fact that one sheet is significantly weaker than the rest, strongly suggests that the sheet is defective. If all sheets had worn evenly, then yeah, you could easily say all is normal.

2. If the ESS can function with one sheet having significantly less capacity than the rest, then it should be possible to function with one sheet having significantly more capacity than the rest, in which case just replace the failing sheet with a sheet using cells with more capacity.

 

[spaceballs]

...
2. If the ESS can function with one sheet having significantly less capacity than the rest, then it should be possible to function with one sheet having significantly more capacity than the rest, in which case just replace the failing sheet with a sheet using cells with more capacity.

From my own BMB testing, it's pretty decent system. The existing ESS and BMB could handle one sheet with newer capacity cells just fine. But that sheet would get out of balanced over time due to the fact the new sheet would have an significant IR difference from the other original sheets. But this could be solved with the addition of a firmware update to balance the pack more often, or just tell the end user to do it manually more often when they start to notice a range decrease (due to out of balance sheets).

 

[Dave EV]

Well, even if you replace the low sheet with a new sheet, the IR is very likely to be significantly different than the others unless you replace the low sheet with one that has been similarly aged as the rest of them.

 

[stopcrazypp]

1. The fact that one sheet is significantly weaker than the rest, strongly suggests that the sheet is defective. If all sheets had worn evenly, then yeah, you could easily say all is normal.

His logs says one sheet is consistently weaker, not that one sheet is significantly weaker. With the data shown so far we don't know if the sheet is 0.1% weaker, 1% weaker, or 10% weaker. He would have to pull the log that shows soc and voltage of all the bricks individually for us to know that. And it's entirely possible that the weakest sheet is still within the range of what's considered "normal" degradation. With the data so far we don't know.

 

[Kevin Sharpe]

How do you get this spread sheet and these numbers, Kevin?

I use Tom Saxton's log parser (here) but other tools are available :smile:

- - - Updated - - -

How much longer is your ESS ESA before it runs out?

October 2016

- - - Updated - - -

When it does expire, and if you still have the low brick present in the roadster. I'm building for myself an BMB add-on attachment that can do active balancing within the sheet. Though it's only limited to 0.5 Amps but it will do it continuously to balance the sheet while the car is idle. It might (that a big if) help your scenario.

Great! Happy to try anything if Tesla haven't fixed the issue and I still have the car.

- - - Updated - - -

It seems odd that if one brick is consistently low that Tesla wouldn't replace it. Must be more to story.

Agreed and wish I knew what it was...

One possibility that a couple of owners have suggested is that a lack of cells is preventing Tesla from making repairs. That might (or might not) be what's alluded to in Tesla's email from 26th July 2014 - “we are waiting on batteries for Roadsters that are ‘off-road’. We are in the midst of sourcing packs for them but currently I have been informed there is an extended lead time.”

- - - Updated - - -

Putting the warranty issue aside for the moment; Have you asked Tesla if they would be willing to replace the one sheet and what they would charge?

Tesla are unwilling to discuss costs for these repairs and just repeat the mantra that the battery is ok. To be honest, I'm also reluctant to pay for a repair given I've reported this problem many times since 2011, and I have already purchased the ESA's for 13,000 GBP (21,000 USD).

- - - Updated - - -

Unfortunate that they left you hanging like this, hopefully they can do something soon.

I hope so but suspect it will take pressure from owners or consumer groups... Tesla have known about the issue for 4 years and have repeatedly said the battery is ok so I'm not holding my breath.

- - - Updated - - -

It's pretty obvious now why they had to announce a 400 mile pack, even if they don't have the details worked out.

I think that's the backstory here... sad thing is that on the day the "400" mile pack was announced by Elon at the London event I told Tesla that I wanted to be first with the new pack.

- - - Updated - - -

If only Tesla could offer some more transparency and less secrecy. Releasing workshop manuals would be a start.

Agreed that would be a great help and open up other options including DIY batteries.

My plan was always to have my first battery for 7 years and then replace it with the latest and greatest technology in 2017. To ensure I could keep driving the car during that time I purchased the 3 year ESA's when my original 4 year warranty ran out. I did not expect the degradation to hit so hard at 55,000 miles and force me to look for other options

- - - Updated - - -

Indeed, they ought to give Kevin and other Roadster owners a cut-rate price on the "400 mile" upgrade.

That would have been an option and given I planned to buy the upgraded battery anyway they would have been an easy sale.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the important thing here is the Roadster warranty specifically ignores battery degradation.

Agreed and for me that's what tips this into a consumer rights issue...

- - - Updated - - -

With the data so far we don't know.

I have shared logs with Tom Saxton and contributed to the Plug In America Roadster Battery Survey. I've asked PiA if they would like to review my logs and publish a report.

- - - Updated - - -

And that was when you lost all credibility with me.

That's fine, I'm not trying to win new friends. I spent 4 years trying to get Tesla to address the problem and only went 'public' when my range loss forced me to use slow and unreliable public charging or return to gas. I see this as a consumer rights issue and that's how it will pan out... I think the UK Roadster owners already understand the implications of this, I hope other owners do as well.

 

[WarpedOne]

If there really is a old cell supply issue then tesla really has limited options:
a) they can tell you "Your roadster is fine" because it still has more than 80% nominal capacity - and they are correct as 80% is a common number for determining EOLed battery, your battery is still "fine" by that common measure.
b) they can tell you "We are sorry, but we cannot repair your car even though you payed for ESA".

First one is hard on you because drop in range has caused you problems.
Second one would be a PR disaster for whole company with pending legal fines.

You would get a better battery if company had surplus of old cells. They've been replacing ESS no question asked when they were still able to.
They obviously do not have old cells anymore so they are working on a replacement packs using newer cells. It will come sometime next year.
Until then your only real option is to hold on. Raising the issue will only cause pain for you and everybody else and burn energy that could be better spent elsewhere.

 

[Kevin Sharpe]

With the data shown so far we don't know if the sheet is 0.1% weaker, 1% weaker, or 10% weaker.

Agreed we need to know a lot more about what's going on... maybe the fact that the last standard mode charge was 161 miles and range mode charge 199 miles helps put this in perspective?

- - - Updated - - -

Until then your only real option is to hold on.

I've worked with Tesla for 4 years on my battery issues including many days in the workshop without the car (requiring a whole day trip in each direction and no loan car). Tesla could have solved this issue many times but decided that was not in their best interests. My interests must now come first because I have to use my personal time waiting for slow charging or use a gas car.

Every single Roadster owner will face battery degradation issues... my suggestion is you put your effort into encouraging Tesla to give you a meaningful Roadster warranty.

 

[djp]

Tesla battery range degredation forcing return to gas

I think this type of failure will become a lot more common as Roadsters age, and is to be expected as the typical failure case.

The bricks will degrade at slightly different rates, so over time one brick will consistently become the lowest brick, bringing down that sheet and bringing down the pack. The pack capacity is limited by the capacity of the lowest brick.

I'm disappointed that Tesla isn't covering it, but not surprised as this would set a precedent for replacement of all packs under warranty as they degrade.

Replacing the sheet should restore capacity - I'd try to find a salvage pack or buy a sheet from Tesla.

 

[WarpedOne]

Replacements will come in due time. Crying about it will not shorten it.
Craying about loud enough might get you a quick fix that will make you worse on the long run.

 

[wycolo]

Maybe the only charging available on his commute is just 30A @220v which at best would be 20 mph. Is UK 220v rather than 240?? If the prognosis on Kevin's battery is 'stable for the forseeable future' then a trade up to a fresher Roaster might be a good idea. Someone else might not need so much range. In my case I require min range of 180 miles on my 2.0 so would hate to be facing a dilemma of this sort.

[Sorry, I missed the latest page]

> the last standard mode charge was 161 miles and range mode charge 199 miles helps put this in perspective? [Kevin Sharpe]

So what does the 161/130 test refer to? That's a whole lot worse!! [confused]
--

 

[Kevin Sharpe]

So what does the 161/130 test refer to?

If I charge in standard mode today the ideal range would be between 159 and 161 miles.

If I charge in range mode today the ideal range would be 199 miles.

- - - Updated - - -

Does anyone remember whether we had a generic battery recall in the fall 2011? It's just been pointed out that my brick 8 issues have been present since Tesla repaired my battery in December 2011.

 

[Kevin Sharpe]

The Plug In America Battery Survey (here) shows a 21 mile decline in range in the last year...

 

[ra-san]

Hate that this is happening to you Kevin, and am really surprised it hasn't been resolved after so long and so many interactions over the last several years. I typically agree with Bonnie (though you couldn't tell, since despite having been around here forever, I rarely post), and would say she made some fair points in her post, but the fundamental thing is that you've tried getting things dealt with for a long time now, and have already expended more than a fair amount of time and effort on it. If I were in your position, I would be pissed and feel disappointed and even a little betrayed by Tesla - which actually speaks to the high regard I have for Tesla and their commitment to, as I see it, "do the right thing".

I can see them today having an issue of sourcing replacement cells, but that can't be the reason you are still in this position over a multiyear course. I suspect differences in local decision making. I know roadster battery replacements have been made in the last year or so at least in the US.

I do wish this hadn't gone public, but that's because I would expect it to have been resolved earlier without involving anyone besides you and Tesla. If it got to this point, I regard it as a service for other owners to know about what has happened and what is currently happening or not. It's too bad that, as Bonnie said, it's possible that it will now get blown up into something less accurate and more sensationalist by media (though since it is about the roadster vs. S or X, probably less exciting for them to pick it up).

If that happens, sure attention will be called, but then people get all defensive and start "circling the wagons" and communication goes down for everyone, even us halfway across the world trying to talk with our own service centers. It seems ludicrous to me that you, and *any* owner, wouldn't have gotten a swapped out pack earlier (and then they'd have rebuilt yours, net being not many defective cells discarded), or a frank and honest private discussion on why not, along with trying their best to find a mutually acceptable resolution.

I hope this works out for you, and for Tesla, without too much collateral damage to you, Tesla, or the rest of us owners. I could see it making it worse, but I can also see Tesla stepping up, working with you, and with your help making this a positive event, even though it comes at the end of a long negative experience.

 

[bonnie]

... or a frank and honest private discussion on why not, along with trying their best to find a mutually acceptable resolution.

Kevin - has Tesla had a private discussion with you? Or have they refused to discuss it?

 

[bonnie]

And that was when you lost all credibility with me.

That's fine, I'm not trying to win new friends. I spent 4 years trying to get Tesla to address the problem and only went 'public' when my range loss forced me to use slow and unreliable public charging or return to gas. I see this as a consumer rights issue and that's how it will pan out... I think the UK Roadster owners already understand the implications of this, I hope other owners do as well.

I think you're fully aware you took my quote out of context. It wasn't about trying to make friends. It was about you purposely creating drama by claiming you had to charge two whole hours because of a loss of 40 miles in range. That was why credibility was lost. Nice sidestep.

Here is what I actually said, before you cherry picked what you decided to respond to:

Then there's the part I was trying to understand last night. You were telling everyone how you now would have to stop and charge for two hours because of this degradation. But here's the reality: If you have lost 40 miles and you need that full extra 40 miles, you only need to stop long enough to add 40 miles. This whole 'I have to stop for two whole hours which makes the trip impossible' drama is just ridiculous. Anyone who stops to think about what you're saying knows that this is just for dramatic effect. You have to stop for maybe 45 minutes, Kevin. Either on the way there or on the way back. But I guess it sounds so much better to claim you need to add two whole hours to the trip. You ONLY have to stop long enough to make up for the gap. Right?

And that was when you lost all credibility with me. You're a smart guy. A really smart guy. So I had to wonder why you're doing this. Why would you spell this out so detailed on this forum, try twitter shaming Tesla ... I think the answer is clear. People can connect the dots for themselves. Some lazy journalist is going to be all over this story. Way to go.

View attachment 58611

 

[apacheguy]

A little late to the game here, but seems to me that a simple solution would be to replace the brick with either new or refurb. Any word from Tesla as to how much that would cost? Sounds like they won't cover it under warranty.

As a Model S owner with 36 K miles, I'm paying attention to the troubles roadster owners experience so I know what to expect a couple years down the line. IMHO, a 40 mile loss in only 55 K miles seems a bit extreme. I wonder what Tesla considers to be an acceptable loss of range rate.

 

[AEdennis]

...I wonder what Tesla considers to be an acceptable loss of range rate.

That's the issue. Apparently all the warranties, including the battery one that Kevin purchased has spelled out and excluded capacity loss as a non-warranted exclusion. So, theoretically, if he can drive a mile or half a mile on the current pack, it's performing.

I'd be happy if Tesla just identified and spelled out an acceptable capacity loss number for miles/time. The lack of such guidance is an issue. Additionally, if something is within this spec, I'd love to have a price list to restore it to its full capacity.