Kevin Sharpe's decreased Roadster range

[Kevin Sharpe]

You are stating this as fact now. How was this confirmed?

It's an opinion based on the work being undertaken behind the scenes. Clearly some people on TMC have also raised questions about the battery as delivered. Here's are a couple of the most recent;

Kevin Sharpe's decreased Roadster range - Page 37

Kevin Sharpe's decreased Roadster range - Page 38

 

[scaesare]

My guess is something like 30 times on my regular trip, and maybe 20 more times if you include the trips to events like Tesla To Geneva, WAVE, and LEJOG.

So... in the 52 months of ownership, you mentioned two storage periods in the area of 3 months each, that leaves ~46 months of active driving. You only made your "twice monthly" trip less than 1/3rd of the time in your Roadster?

 

[Kevin Sharpe]

You only made your "twice monthly" trip less than 1/3rd of the time in your Roadster?

No, as I said before, I had 32A charging at the original destination and could charge there during my visit. This negated the need for range mode charging unless I was unable to spend enough time at the destination.

You really are focusing at the wrong period... look at the state of my battery on day one and the Tesla repair in 2011... that's the route cause of today's issues.

Remember that Brick #8 first appeared in the logs on the 18th June 2010 (two weeks before I purchased the car).

 

[Kevin Sharpe]

The pack imbalance is what everyone else here fails to account for. One bad brick will pull everything else down, and keep on pulling the pack down until it's unusable.

Yeh, many here seem to have a blind spot to what's really impacting the cars range.

That's what's puzzling about this case. Why would Tesla go through the trouble of pissing off a customer, when the pack will have to be at least worked on in the immediate future? Makes very little sense.

I agree, this makes no sense... we do know that all important decisions are taken at Tesla HQ in the US not in the UK, and I guess it's possible that my battery issues just fell through the cracks. Indeed I have no hard evidence that the battery logs were even examined by the US until August 2014 despite four years of effort on my part.

I do know from personal experience installing HPC's and the LEJOG drive, that Tesla UK could never get any real attention from Tesla HQ. Indeed the UK HPC network would not exist today without some extraordinary efforts by the then UK country director to work around the Tesla system.

 

[stopcrazypp]

There are two factors which limit pack capacity: Differing brick capacity, and differing balance. You are observing that brick 29 is the limiting factor due to imbalance. Balance, of course, can easily be corrected.
It's reasonable to use the SOC delta as a proxy for inverse brick capacity. The brick with the greatest delta is the limiting factor, when perfectly balanced. The delta of brick 8 is 74.10, the next smallest delta is brick 98 of 70.24. If brick 8 were performing as well as brick 98 (or better), then the available pack capacity would be 74.1 / 70.24 = 5.5% more.

However, the numbers seem obviously wrong to me because the OP's Ah measurements show the best possible case is 4.2% (#8 vs average) improvement. Your numbers put it at over 5% even at the next better brick, which is impossible given the previous log numbers. So obviously the model is wrong somewhere.

The number that should be arrived at should be somewhere between 0-4.2% improvement.

It'll take some time to figure out, but the logs so far should be matched up with the Ah/CAC equivalents.

 

[DieAbetic]

Well, that's the fundamental problem and one that will need challenging in court I suspect.

After 400+ posts, I think this is what it boils down to. Issues:
1) Was battery defective on delivery?
2) Was repair in 2011 defective/made the situation worse to a level where a remedy is required?
3) What is the degradation linked to, and does it rise to a level (read: meet the burden of proof) for some sort of product liability suit/manufacturer's defect/etc where a remedy would be available?

I think we can all agree that if an expert witness can show #1 or #2 are absolutely true with objective evidence, there should be some type of remedy (replacement, fix, etc). It's #3 we keep running in circles about, and it ties in with the questions #1 and #2.

In #3 Mr. Sharpe is going to have some significant legal hurdles to jump if he can't prove #1/#2, as there are *possible* multiple factors that could be effecting the range drop. Mr. Sharpe would need to show that Tesla's product/actions were a substantial factor in causing the problem. I'm assuming here he is not going after strict liability case, although I don't know all the facts. Likewise for an implied warranty claim (as I don't see an argument for an express warranty) - he'd have to prove certain standards which may be difficult considering Tesla's released data on degradation. Once you get through all that, Mr. Sharpe needs to argue the damages are foreseeable for recovery.

There are a LOT of facts here, but also some missing. Unfortunately without a lawsuit and a subpoena of more data (or full release of all data from Tesla/Mr. Sharpe), I doubt we are ever going to get the whole picture. Many of you are very smart and know a lot about these batteries, but I highly doubt your credentials would stand up in court as an expert. It's pointless to keep arguing about things where we don't have all the info, nor all the knowledge. Hell, Mr. Sharpe doesn't even have all the info yet - I'm not sure why he keeps asking people for their opinion on whether the battery was defective other than to just keep stirring the pot.

Please, just stop everyone. Mr. Sharpe is making this worse by starting a PR campaign without all the data/experts, and we are all making it worse by arguing with him and giving all the blogs/news sites potential inaccurate and non-expert opinions on the issues as they call us heated fanboys. No one looks good here arguing back and forth. If we want to move on with this, we just need to accept it is going to take some time.

Mr. Sharpe, I'm sure you are spending quite a chunk of money on your lawyer(s) and expert(s) to get this figured out. I ask that you wait until you have all the data and an opinion from an actual expert before continuing to argue with everyone. To be honest I'm not quite sure why you started a PR campaign without all that info and at least 1 expert opinion (ie written report on how/why this is related to #1/#2, or #3 under some warranty). I understand you are having some issues getting additional data, which you may or may not have a right to obtain without a subpoena. Either way, I think that data should have been obtained (by subpoena, if needed) prior to running to the press shouting foul play.

If you are all the Tesla supporters you claim to be, I think you will agree this needs to stop.

As a final note, if Mr. Sharpe or anyone here actually has a written, credential-supported expert opinion on #1/#2/#3 - please post it immediately. Thanks

/endrant

 

[Chickenlittle]

After 400+ posts, I think this is what it boils down to. Issues:
1) Was battery defective on delivery?
2) Was repair in 2011 defective/made the situation worse to a level where a remedy is required?
3) What is the degradation linked to, and does it rise to a level (read: meet the burden of proof) for some sort of product liability suit/manufacturer's defect/etc where a remedy would be available?

I think we can all agree that if an expert witness can show #1 or #2 are absolutely true with objective evidence, there should be some type of remedy (replacement, fix, etc). It's #3 we keep running in circles about, and it ties in with the questions #1 and #2.

In #3 Mr. Sharpe is going to have some significant legal hurdles to jump if he can't prove #1/#2, as there are *possible* multiple factors that could be effecting the range drop. Mr. Sharpe would need to show that Tesla's product/actions were a substantial factor in causing the problem. I'm assuming here he is not going after strict liability case, although I don't know all the facts. Likewise for an implied warranty claim (as I don't see an argument for an express warranty) - he'd have to prove certain standards which may be difficult considering Tesla's released data on degradation. Once you get through all that, Mr. Sharpe needs to argue the damages are foreseeable for recovery.

There are a LOT of facts here, but also some missing. Unfortunately without a lawsuit and a subpoena of more data (or full release of all data from Tesla/Mr. Sharpe), I doubt we are ever going to get the whole picture. Many of you are very smart and know a lot about these batteries, but I highly doubt your credentials would stand up in court as an expert. It's pointless to keep arguing about things where we don't have all the info, nor all the knowledge. Hell, Mr. Sharpe doesn't even have all the info yet - I'm not sure why he keeps asking people for their opinion on whether the battery was defective other than to just keep stirring the pot.

Please, just stop everyone. Mr. Sharpe is making this worse by starting a PR campaign without all the data/experts, and we are all making it worse by arguing with him and giving all the blogs/news sites potential inaccurate and non-expert opinions on the issues as they call us heated fanboys. No one looks good here arguing back and forth. If we want to move on with this, we just need to accept it is going to take some time.

Mr. Sharpe, I'm sure you are spending quite a chunk of money on your lawyer(s) and expert(s) to get this figured out. I ask that you wait until you have all the data and an opinion from an actual expert before continuing to argue with everyone. To be honest I'm not quite sure why you started a PR campaign without all that info and at least 1 expert opinion (ie written report on how/why this is related to #1/#2, or #3 under some warranty). I understand you are having some issues getting additional data, which you may or may not have a right to obtain without a subpoena. Either way, I think that data should have been obtained (by subpoena, if needed) prior to running to the press shouting foul play.

If you are all the Tesla supporters you claim to be, I think you will agree this needs to stop.

As a final note, if Mr. Sharpe or anyone here actually has a written, credential-supported expert opinion on #1/#2/#3 - please post it immediately. Thanks

/endrant

I believe we are just feeding the troll

 

[Kevin Sharpe]

DieAbetic remember my relationship is with Tesla UK and therefore any legal proceedings will be conducted under UK (EU) law. Personally I think it's critical that we discuss these issues as Roadster owners because we are the ones who can't get the spare parts and ultimately everyone will face the same problems as myself. I assume from your comments that you're not a Roadster owner.

I would strongly suggest you read this thread to understand the wider warranty issues;

Tesla Motors current and future battery degradation warranty...

For what it's worth, I recently turned down an interview with a major US TV network because I don't like their politics. The issue of battery degradation and warranties (or lack thereof) is well and truly out of the bag and you can hide your head in the sand if you wish. Personally, I think Nissan and BMW have the correct warranty approach and they clearly listened to owners concerns...

 

[DieAbetic]

DieAbetic remember my relationship is with Tesla UK and therefore any legal proceedings will be conducted under UK (EU) law. Personally I think it's critical that we discuss these issues as Roadster owners because we are the ones who can't get the spare parts and ultimately everyone will face the same problems as myself.

I understand, which is why I put some qualifying language in there. The laws are different, but not all that different (at least, through my limited knowledge of California/US law/International Law). I do have a JD/Esq. after my name, and I do have a legal certificate with my degree for International Business Law/Transactions/Liability (that was my concentration).

"can't get the spare parts and ultimately everyone will face the same problems as myself". I understand there are part issues, and that is a whole other problem where I think there should be some access somewhere to those parts. Whether that is Tesla's responsibility is another legal question as well. However, you don't actually know that everyone will face the same problems. It's all speculation at this point. You have some data showing some other Roadster owners are having similar problems. You also have data showing some are not having similar problems. You do not have the facts or expert opinion to support that at this point in time. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying you don't have a concrete answer, and no one else does as far as I've seen.

Without that, we are all just spinning our wheels and looking like idiots. A rational discussion of the data and issues would be reasonable, but that is not what I've seen here (in my opinion).

 

[rolosrevenge]

Funny but not really relevant... do you accept that my battery was faulty when delivered in 2010?

View attachment 59441

No. Because those graphs are for 3 Roadsters out of 2500. I'd need to see a reliable sample size to see if yours is actually significantly different than the others.

 

[Kevin Sharpe]

No. Because those graphs are for 3 Roadsters out of 2500. I'd need to see a reliable sample size to see if yours is actually significantly different than the others.

OK, can you provide logs for more Roadsters with 50K miles? Or would you be happy with logs for cars with less miles?

How many cars would be a reliable sample size in your opinion? The 154 in the PiA study?

 

[rolosrevenge]

OK, can you provide logs for more Roadsters with 50K miles? Or would you be happy with logs for cars with less miles?

How many cars would be a reliable sample size in your opinion? The 154 in the PiA study?

50K miles is irrelavent if you want to show it was defective since 2010. Plot all 154 points in the PiA study and let's see what that looks like.

 

[Kevin Sharpe]

Plot all 154 points in the PiA study and let's see what that looks like.

ok, I'll ask Tom Saxton what data is available in the public domain. If we can't get the PiA data then maybe everyone here would provide their logs for analysis.

 

[stopcrazypp]

There are a LOT of facts here, but also some missing. Unfortunately without a lawsuit and a subpoena of more data (or full release of all data from Tesla/Mr. Sharpe), I doubt we are ever going to get the whole picture. Many of you are very smart and know a lot about these batteries, but I highly doubt your credentials would stand up in court as an expert...As a final note, if Mr. Sharpe or anyone here actually has a written, credential-supported expert opinion on #1/#2/#3 - please post it immediately.

The thing is, this is not a court, this is a forum. If all forums were held to the criteria of only posting court admissible expert opinions a lot of forums would be dead.

Mr. Sharpe, I'm sure you are spending quite a chunk of money on your lawyer(s) and expert(s) to get this figured out. I ask that you wait until you have all the data and an opinion from an actual expert before continuing to argue with everyone.

This is the only point I somewhat agree with, but only because it probably doesn't help Kevin's legal case if he posts too much information and statements here before the trial (I can see his lawyer not being happy with this). The people responding don't really "lose" anything other than spending time to post.

 

[brianman]

ok, I'll ask Tom Saxton what data is available in the public domain. If we can't get the PiA data then maybe everyone here would provide their logs for analysis.

Maybe ask him to plot it for you. That way he doesn't have to release the data, but rather just the anonymized graphs.

 

[rolosrevenge]

If the pack truly is faulty, we should see its initial range clearly below every other pack's initial range, if not ...

 

[Lloyd]

To get an 80% probability that your conclusion will be accurate with a 2500 population, your sample size would have to be at least 155. To have a 95% confidence level your sample size would have to be 334.

x = Z(c/100)2r(100-r)
n = N x/((N-1)E2 + x)
E = Sqrt[(N - n)x/n(N-1)]

N is the population size
r is the fraction of responses
Z is the critic value for confidence level c

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/015505113X/raosinc05-20

 

[Kevin Sharpe]

To get an 80% probability that your conclusion will be accurate with a 2500 population, your sample size would have to be at least 155. To have a 95% confidence level your sample size would have to be 334.

We'll also need to factor in the 20% pack replacement somehow... hopefully everyone here has contributed data to the PiA study :smile:

Anyway that will have to wait until next week... three electric car events this weekend

 

[rolosrevenge]

To get an 80% probability that your conclusion will be accurate with a 2500 population, your sample size would have to be at least 155. To have a 95% confidence level your sample size would have to be 334.

x = Z(c/100)2r(100-r)
n = N x/((N-1)E2 + x)
E = Sqrt[(N - n)x/n(N-1)]

N is the population size
r is the fraction of responses
Z is the critic value for confidence level c

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/015505113X/raosinc05-20

Which is why I didn't believe his initial graph but the whole PiA study of 154 would start to show something. I still hate everything that Kevin has done with regards to this, but as an engineer I will accept he has a case if a proper data set reveals it.

 

[Lloyd]

Which is why I didn't believe his initial graph but the whole PiA study of 154 would start to show something. I still hate everything that Kevin has done with regards to this, but as an engineer I will accept he has a case if a proper data set reveals it.

Agreed, but I doubt that a 4% variance will even be one standard deviation from norm.