Kevin Sharpe's decreased Roadster range

[AEdennis]

Tesla battery range degredation forcing return to gas

...
I think the problem today is that without a degradation warranty some consumers will get caught out. In my case for example, I thought I had adequate cover with a high end EV and 3 years extended warranty (at considerable cost!). I naively thought that I'd be able to purchase a replacement pack before my range degraded to the point at which it became a problem. Indeed, if I was driving any other UK Roadster (and probably almost any car in the world) I'd have been ok because the new pack would have arrived before my range hit the problem zone which I estimated as 2016-2017.

With regards to putting aside money for the replacement I suspect very few people are doing that today. I also don't see any advice from Tesla that we should be doing that.

I suspect the same thing and am guilty of that as well... As much as I'd like to save 1/2 my savings, I find myself using that money for other things.

 

[Matias]

In the long run they are forced to give exact limit, if they want to sell Gen 3 to mass market. People won’t buy it, if Tesla does not tell them, what degradation entitles warranty replacement. I’m positive Tesla will eventually do this, because it is the only way to sell Gen 3 to mass market.

Only question is, will they give exact limits before or after damage to sales is done. Class action jurists would have a ball, if Tesla would try to tell customers “this is normal degradation” without defining what is normal and what is not

 

[djp]

Tesla battery range degredation forcing return to gas

Sorry, I must have missed that request... I'm happy to share any data that I have (with the exception of 'personal' information)... what details do you want from the logs?

The log file has a .tar extension. You can unpack it by double clicking on the file on a Mac, or with a zip/tar utility on Windows. In there is a subdirectory with a file named ahr.log. This contains the details for each brick, and can tell us if 8 is an outlier or not.

 

[JRP3]

That should change as well. Unfortunately, EV owners are driving around on the equivalent of an eighth of a tank of gas...

Rather misleading since an EV is also far more efficient, which is why you can get 260 miles from "an eighth of a tank of gas".

so more accurate numbers are essential since we are operating much closer to the edge. Add in degradation and your slim reserve shrinks even further.

You may have bought the wrong vehicle if you are consistently operating it so close to the edge. The fact that Kevin can no longer use is car for regular trips with less than 80% loss of range is evidence of that. I've seen no one suggest that a warranty should cover less than 20% capacity loss, so an 80% warranty coverage would not help Kevin in this case, which shows what an outlier his specific condition really is. He bought a car without a battery range warranty, he's well educated about battery capacity loss and EV range, yet he expects his extreme case to be covered by a warranty he knew did not exist. I know he thinks Tesla damaged the pack during service somehow but there is no conclusive evidence of that.

Again, I do wish Tesla had given Kevin the repair he wants, and I do agree that Tesla should provide a capacity loss warranty of some kind, but that doesn't change the fact that it was not in effect for Kevin's car, he knew that, and, unless it took effect with less than 20% loss, it would not help him out anyway.

 

[Kevin Sharpe]

The log file has a .tar extension. You can unpack it by double clicking on the file on a Mac, or with a zip/tar utility on Windows. In there is a subdirectory with a file named ahr.log

Many thanks, will upload when I get back to the office.

 

[pharma5]

Parts not available AFAIK. I'm also not sure why you think I should pay if route cause is Tesla repair in 2011.

If root cause is faulty repair, then of course you shouldn't. But you argument appears to be that the sudden drop in range over the past 1 year is the result of an allegedly faulty fix 3 years ago. You have painted all your data since then as abnormal, but from what I can see of your range in 2013 (172-174 ideal miles std at ~46,000 odo) it looks like it was quite normal based on PiA data (see post upthread). Now it is on the lower end of PiA data, but not necessarily abnormal (yet...keep driving).

If I understand your posts correctly it is only in the last year when the range became impractical for your particular intended use (i.e., frequent long trips, no stops desired). A lot of air time is spent on that, but in some ways it is immaterial and undermines your case.

If you car was indeed not fixed correctly (e.g., as might be proven by data close to the date of fix), I think everyone would agree you are entitled to get that remedied at no cost. If however it was fixed correctly, I don't think you have a case that your range loss alone (again, without a faulty fix) entitles you to something here. In places this appears to be your argument - the car should be fixed just because it's lost X amount of range. You also appear to portray this as a group issue affecting other U.K. owners, but really this is just about making sure *your* car was fixed correctly in 2011, right? Unless there are others who feel their car was fixed improperly?

In any event, it's only in the scenario of no-faulty-fix that I suggest you have the option of fixing out-of-pocket, etc. Even in that case you are not optionless, although the options may be imperfect.

What's the price and delivery on that?

Fair questions. I don't claim to have answers to those. The future 400-mile pack was cited in the full context of what someone might do in your situation, 80% original cap at 55k odo (recognizing you originally directed that comment at Model S owners).

Obviously we should push constructively for at least a timetable. I am not convinced that your handling of your issue publicly will help in that respect, and may in fact divert resources from the effort (e.g., to support litigation, if you are seeking legal remedy).

Level 2 charging would add 2 to 4 hours to a journey that I could easily do without charging.

If that's of the 220V 30A variety, you're looking for plus 32 to 64 miles of range over your 159? How much lifetime capacity loss did you anticipate when you bought the car?

As I have said many times we are already working on that as a group in the UK. That said, I'm sure Tesla has some legal obligations to keep these cars on the road.

I may have missed the first part. Don't disagree on the second. Would be interested to know what ongoing support obligations are typical in the U.K. for limited run, out-of-production car.

 

[Kevin Sharpe]

I know he thinks Tesla damaged the pack during service somehow but there is no conclusive evidence of that.

I only have circumstantial evidence today but the range reduction following the repair was enough for me to notify Tesla and for them to analyse logs, visit, and a year later replace the bleed resistors.

To try and get more meaningful data I've requested a full service history and logs from Tesla.

doesn't change the fact that it was not in effect for Kevin's car, he knew that, and, unless it took effect with less than 20% loss, it would not help him out anyway.

You're mistaken if you think this just about me... every Tesla customer needs to understand battery degradation and the lack of a warranty. IMO this is not happening today and is a consumer rights issue.

 

[WarpedOne]

You may have bought the wrong vehicle if you are consistently operating it so close to the edge.

This is the whole point.
On what basis can one scream 19% degradation is too much?
One was informed that 70% is the lower limit on expected degradation, it can be anything above that.
If he still payed 100k for the car, he accepted that bit of info also.
Maximum range must be at least double the usual / expected needs so you are covered for all those little bits that eat into the range.

Some of you are claiming Tesla needs to state the limit. How happy will you be if they said 70%?
Even some of you who already got replacement packs because it acted funny, might be off worse if they started to quote that number into your face - yes, one sheet is down to 75, but the whole is still above 70% so see you later when the whole drops below 70.

To many times people demanded things that made them worse off.

In the long run they are forced to give exact limit, if they want to sell Gen 3 to mass market. People won’t buy it, if Tesla does not tell them, what degradation entitles warranty replacement.

As people are not buying Model S like hotcakes because they don't know the degradation limit?

Fact of life: batteries degrade.
Until your battery is degrading close to average degradation rates, you have no warranty claim. Once your battery starts to degrade MUCH faster than average, you are entitled for a replacement. What an average degradation rate is, is up to time to show.

Tesla can state 80% as lower limit and average degradation happens to be about 1% annually.
With exact lower limit at 80% all outliers with 19% degradation WON'T be getting a replacement.
Without exact limit they would get a replacement because they clearly have a damaged pack.

Roadster replacements will come when 400mile pack is ready to ship.
Until then be happy you are still getting 81% and not 70% as promised.

 

[Kevin Sharpe]

If root cause is faulty repair, then of course you shouldn't. But you argument appears to be that the sudden drop in range over the past 1 year is the result of an allegedly faulty fix 3 years ago.

Please read the OP again. Tesla worked on the car several times following the battery repair and it was the relatively sudden drop in range during the last three months that reduced the range to the point where it became unusable for me.

In the beginning I adjusted my driving style to compensate for the gradual reduction in range always believing that Tesla would find and fix the cause.

- - - Updated - - -

As people are not buying Model S like hotcakes because they don't know the degradation limit?

Do you read what people post on TMC?

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/18915-Decreasing-rated-range/page148?p=754407&viewfull=1#post754407

Thousands of posts exist on the topic of degradation here.

- - - Updated - - -

Until then be happy you are still getting 81% and not 70% as promised.

Where is that 'promise' exactly? It's certainly not in any of my Tesla Roadster documentation and AFAIK not in Model S documents either. Only 'promise' I have is that if the battery fails completely it will be repaired because I purchased the ESA. "70%" and all the other figures you quote are just musings in a blog.

 

[scaesare]

Kevin- It feels a bit like you are changing your story and now claiming that customer education is your goal in this issue. I agree that the more informed a potential customer, the better. And an explicit inclusion of acceptable degradation limits in writing might be a welcome change.

But I must ask, are you simply asking for more information/disclosure, or are you pushing for repair?

I ask because it seems that:

-You bought the vehicle after guidance was published to expect up to 70% degradation for the pack
-You were aware the base vehicle warranty did not cover degradation
-You bought an extended warantee you were aware of which also did not cover degradation

So, based on those factors, it doesn't seem reasonable to claim you were unaware of the risks of buying this particular EV and under no delusion you were covered for "normal" pack degradation. Thus it seems unreasonable to expect repair if the primary issue was being informed... you were informed.

It feels like you took a gamble and got bit, and now you want Tesla to bear the responsibility. This new focus on "making sure potential buyers are aware" seems to undermine your demands for remediation.

Now, if what you are asking for currently is NOT a repair, but simply for additional disclosure for the benefit of future buyers, then I applaud that sentiment, but I still feel like this campaign is going about it the wrong way.

 

[Kevin Sharpe]

Kevin- It feels a bit like you are changing your story and now claiming that customer education is your goal in this issue.

No, the story remains the same... we have two interwoven issues here... first is my battery degradation which may (or may not) be the result of Tesla 'repair' to my battery in 2011... second is the issue of the battery warranty for all electric car owners. The two topics are so closely interwoven that it is difficult in a forum to separate them out.

With regards to the wider issue of battery warranty, you will find that tomorrows BBC piece includes interviews with several UK Tesla owners (I gave them the contact details for six).

I'm aware of another article that is being prepared for a sunday paper and that is also focusing on the consumer rights aspects of battery warranties. I've suggested they include BMW and Nissan in that because those companies have a different approach.

 

[Electroman]

Why is the title of this thread named as, 'Tesla battery degradation....' ? whereas wouldn't the the more apt title have been, 'Roadster battery degradation..." ?

Well I guess it is more dramatic when you just say 'Tesla' instead of being specific as 'Roadster'.

 

[Jackyche]

Because Kevin is dealing with Tesla Motors Inc on the issue and not Tesla Department of Roadster. Unless you're implying other Tesla Models don't have battery degradation issue. Its appropriately titled and appropriately in Roadster forum.

Why is the title of this thread named as, 'Tesla battery degradation....' ? whereas wouldn't the the more apt title have been, 'Roadster battery degradation..." ?

Well I guess it is more dramatic when you just say 'Tesla' instead of being specific as 'Roadster'.

 

[dsm363]

Because Kevin is dealing with Tesla Motors Inc on the issue and not Tesla Department of Roadster. Unless you're implying other Tesla Models don't have battery degradation issue. Its appropriately titled and appropriately in Roadster forum.

Of course all battery cars have degradation but the chemistry used in Roadster cells is not the same in the Model S. Saying Roadster is more accurate. Nothing wrong with being accurate. On that topic being 'forced to return to gas' is overly dramatic. Knowing someone who ran a charging network in the UK might help alleviate that issue though.

 

[Jackyche]

It seems to me, back when the cars were on their normal 3 or 4 year warranty, Tesla was much more ready to "replace the battery". I've read numerous posts here that on a routine annual maintenance, the techs would point out to some issue in the log (where the owner wasn't aware of any battery issues) and had the battery pack replaced. The last time I checked the PIA battery study, there were somewhere around 200 Roadster owners that responded and surprising number who had their battery pack replaced.

I understand now that the cells are in limited supply and there's this unicorn 400 mile pack thing hanging around in the clouds, Tesla may be reluctant to just replace pack at will. If that's the case, better communication would be great.

We don't need to protect Tesla and its image when what we're are discussing are real EV issues. Tesla protected itself just fine when faced with negative publicity (think that journalist idiot, think lemon law idiot, think battery puncture fire).

Now, my car is out of warranty and I didn't purchase the ESA. So really I have very little to gain by arguing for Kevin. But wouldn't it be 'nice' to know what the trigger point would be for degradation on the warranty? Elon had a nice PR moment on that unlimited miles drive train thing, but of course doesn't apply to Roadster (I guess Roadster motor is not quite to snuff for his standards). Someone said, sorry I'm not quoting, would it make you happier to know if the trigger point was 70%? To that, I would say, HELL YEAH. Then I could make an informed decision on whether or not to give them $6000 for the warranty.

 

[scaesare]

first is my battery degradation which may (or may not) be the result of Tesla 'repair' to my battery in 2011...

Tesla has already evaluated your battery post-repair, and not found it to be out of spec (agreeing with published guidance).

You asked, Tesla answered. Your warranty entitles you to nothing more.

Why is this still an issue?

 

[Jackyche]

Because he disagreed with their findings. Now he's on a mission to right a wrong. In his opinion.

He's now waging a PR war because that's what he thinks would best address his issue. Some on the thread disagrees with that tactic. He of course, always has the option of filing a lawsuit, would that make you feel better?

Tesla has already evaluated your battery post-repair, and not found it to be out of spec (agreeing with published guidance).

You asked, Tesla answered. Your warranty entitles you to nothing more.

Why is this still an issue?

 

[neroden]

Tesla's being misleading as usual. At this point, I expect very little in the way of honesty from a company which refuses to comply with very simple legal obligations (I have discussed this elsewhere, and the lawsuit is being pursued by the appropriate people). I like the company, but there is something defective in their marketing.

Kevin is doing the best thing he can think of. It's true Tesla didn't make any legal promises to him, but he effectively got bait-and-switched by Tesla's vagueness. As the warranty is written, Tesla could say "Your car will go 5 miles on a full charge, what are you complaining about?"

For each model of car, Tesla ought to have a specific warranty regarding degradation which sets a specific limit (for the Model S 85kWh, the warranty might say not less than 68 kWh in "range charge" mode after 10 years or 100K miles -- or whatever). More importantly, Tesla ought to advertise the "post-degraded" range, rather than over-advertising the range.

 

[breser]

For each model of car, Tesla ought to have a specific warranty regarding degradation which sets a specific limit (for the Model S 85kWh, the warranty might say not less than 68 kWh in "range charge" mode after 10 years or 100K miles -- or whatever). More importantly, Tesla ought to advertise the "post-degraded" range, rather than over-advertising the range.

If they start describing the warranty in those terms they need to display the battery charge in energy values not just percent and distance like they do on the Model S now.

 

[bonnie]

Because he disagreed with their findings. Now he's on a mission to right a wrong. In his opinion.

He's now waging a PR war because that's what he thinks would best address his issue. Some on the thread disagrees with that tactic. He of course, always has the option of filing a lawsuit, would that make you feel better?

He's also mentioned a lawsuit in his twitter feed, implying that's also happening. And yes, a lawsuit would make me feel better than this one-sided social media blitz. He's given journalists other owners to interview - I'm sure no owners that disagree with him. A lawsuit would ensure both sides could tell their version of the story. The way this current social media thing is playing out, the only way Tesla can tell their side is to get in the mud with him.