Voltage-wise unavailable. That's why the owners started to charge to 100% since it was not really 100%.
What's happening to us, Tesla has practiced it before.
Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
- Thread starter Dutchmeeuw
- Start date
Voltage-wise unavailable. That's why the owners started to charge to 100% since it was not really 100%.
What's happening to us, Tesla has practiced it before.
I believe you are right...how many people actually do a rundown of the battery like I do and realize that they will not get the indicated rated range?
The chart should be based on real KWH battery available ...for example mine is now at 62kwh (on X75D) ...I think it was at best 67kwh when new (which seemed ok to me).
But have our batteries been really degrading this much? I thought we all agree that this is a software mandated capacity cap for the reason(s) we do not understand 100%. After all, the non-impacted owners' degradation are pretty much aligned with the chart. No?
We're talking maximum static voltage if a cell not being charged.
It's not EVERY older supercharger but some of them. Indio is one of them.
Then it would be nice for a non-impacted owner to actually show us the battery capacity they still have (not the rated miles); or show us that they actually were able to get the rated miles on a long trip driving at rated consumption.
FredTMC
Model S VIN #4925
Thanks. Well actually I believe ALL cars 2016 and older are impacted.
I think Tesla has slowed the supercharger charging rates on all these cars.
They did this to reduce the chance of a cell developing short circuit inducing Dendrites.
Furthermore, some percentage of these cars ALSO had their range clipped (reduced) by Tesla. 10-30 miles less range than before by limiting the max charge voltage of the cells from 4.2v max to less. Like 4.07v.
Why did Tesla do this? (Cut the range of some cars.) Well I think it’s a safety call. Tesla thinks that based on the individual charging history of these cars (particularly supercharger usage) these range-limited cars are at higher risk of a cell developing a big enough dentrite that interally short circuits a cell in the pack and leads to destruction.
Finally, I think these range clipped owners deserve some amount of financial compensation as a result.
SmartElectric
Active Member
Our early 2013 Tesla S85 has been limited to 88kW maximum supercharging rate from the beginning as we have the Original A battery spec.
This rate has been sufficient for 80000 km of supercharged driving.
I don’t understand the drama. We love our Tesla and it is clearly superior to the other options available. What other car charges as fast as our old 2013? Very few if any, and none in Canada.
This rate has been sufficient for 80000 km of supercharged driving.
I don’t understand the drama. We love our Tesla and it is clearly superior to the other options available. What other car charges as fast as our old 2013? Very few if any, and none in Canada.
FredTMC
Model S VIN #4925
Yes. The slower supercharger charging rate isn’t the big issue.
It’s for safety so I get it. Oh well.
BUT a small percentage of cars had their actual range clipped by 10-30 miles! That has affected people really upset. I can’t blame them. I have an affected friend too. I think these affected owners deserve some financial compensation
Understand?
Vmax in any context is just the specified maximum voltage a given component is supposed to be capable of taking; anything beyond that risks damaging the component and/or voiding the warranty. In the context of a battery, it is the maximum cell voltage allowed within specification — at which point that cell is 100% charged; in the context of the BMS, it's a software-imposed limitation(/calculation) — above which the BMS will refuse to charge (and at which the BMS declares 100% charge). By default, the BMS will limit the charge voltage to match the cell's specification; under certain circumstances (such as corked battery packs for SKUing purposes and/or "out of an abundance of caution"), the BMS will restrict the voltage to a lower value — but that doesn't change the inherent specification of the cell, it just leaves that portion of the cell unused.
TL;DR: 4.07 V is still an 87% charge at the cell level, but 100% according to the BMS (and would be 115% at 4.2 V if one could manually charge beyond the BMS's self-imposed limit).
SmartElectric
Active Member
If our Tesla has reduced that amount of range I’d be Ok with it. It’s still more range than needed considering the massive supercharger roll out here in Ontario Canada.
Tesla has outstanding experience with managing battery packs.
I drive a Smart ED with only 100km range in perfect conditions. I have somehow been able to drive 50000 km in 6 years. How did I get by with such low range. It’s a mystery. Guess I charged up every night.
I don’t think anyone is contesting Tesla makes great cars. It’s the fact that we paid for a battery and size with the expectation of a gradual degradation. Tesla should have came out and stated why they did this. As well as giving us some options versus stealing range I think that’s the point that makes a lot of folks upset including me.
I think most also believe if it was a battery issue this should have caused a recall for a fix or replacement of the battery. What other car company has had issues due to fires or safety and not did a recall? I appreciate them making changes to keep my car from catching fire but don’t treat me like I am stupid and say it’s for battery longevity.
David99
Active Member
You are mistaken because the battery is not smaller after the software update. The batter y is the exact same size as it was before.
If you used to charge to 90% before and now charge to 100% then that's the exact same thing. The 100% point is artificially set to 90% true capacity, so a 100% charge is now only a 90% charge.
The C-rate when charging has not changed either. As mentioned the battery has the same capacity as before.
You also don't need more battery percentage than before. Again, Tesla just artificially decreased the numbers, the way the battery is charged and used is the exact same as before.
Tesla is locking out the upper charge level of the battery which is known to be the most stressful and damaging one for the battery. They prevent you from subjecting your battery to a state that is bad for it.
CuriousG
Active Member
So after my initial 2019.16.x firmware update and Tesla stealing about 26 miles of range throughout the month and my battery finally settled. Or so I thought. 3 charges ago, I noticed that my 90% now has been reduced another mile so I thought maybe I was in the edge of normal degradation so it took a mile away. Well the next charge I get another mile loss. Great! Here we go again. Today I charge again and this time it's taken another 2 miles.
So less than 2 months ago, I had about 4% degradation and now I'm sitting at 17% and counting with less than 57k miles on a car less than 4yrs old.
So less than 2 months ago, I had about 4% degradation and now I'm sitting at 17% and counting with less than 57k miles on a car less than 4yrs old.
Ferrycraigs
Member
I have to say that’s not my understanding of it. I believe capping involves restricting access to a certain part of the battery. Achieved through software. As was seen when Tesla remotely made the capped portion available during hurricane Florence. Then reversed that again, remotely, afterwards.
On the other hand voltage changes are achieved via the BMS. The coding says something like, ‘once the cell reaches 4.2V, stop and indicate 100%'. Or similar. New BMS coding says 'once the cell reaches 4.0V, stop and indicate 100%’.
So for me capping means all the cells are at 4.2V when full, but some of the cells are made unavailable, all you have to do to use them is gain access to them, again by software.
Cel voltage changes mean all the cells are now at 4.0V (or whatever figure). There are no more cells available. But I accept changing the BMS Coding is a form of capping.
Both obviously exclude the buffer.
Ferrycraigs
Member
OK thank you for explaining. I understand all of that. Does that mean you believe that capping (as in 60 kWh batteries were actually capped 75s) was achieved by changing the cell voltage rather than restricting access to a certain number of cells?
Ferrycraigs
Member
Thanks. I’m always willing, and grateful, to learn new stuff. And batterygate has caused me to research stuff I hadn’t even heard of before, far less understood. I try hard not to say the battery is smaller, only that the capacity has reduced, by which of course I mean usable capacity. And I am reassured to learn that they are only restricting the most vulnerable top level of the cell. Although my research found most experts say that Li Ion cells can withstand and are happy with anything up to and including 4.2V, which is why it is the industry standard. But I guess it’s not a linear thing and that a point (beyond which the potential damage outweighs the benefit of holding a charge) has to be picked. If I use my energy meter to calculate the usable capacity of my battery, then it shows my usable capacity has dropped from 68.5kWh to 58.5kWh. And when my battery icon shows 85%, it is showing 85% of 58kWh, and my % usage reflects a % of 58kWh. Using the same 320 Wh/mi naturally shows a higher % used per mile. In my case 15% for 20 miles whereas it used to be 10% for 20 miles. So I guess the 90%/100% comparison works well if the restriction is 10%. In my battery’s case I think it’s closer to 15%, but I take the point. So I guess the real question is what the damage, or potential damage difference actually is between 4.1V and 4.2V.
Of course, whilst the long term benefits are obvious, it ignores the point that I paid more money for a larger battery because of the benefits a larger battery brought. That extra capacity, which I paid for, has now been denied to me. I think I might be unhappy if I have lost it because using that extra top portion might, perhaps, maybe, cause some damage at some, indeterminate point in the future. Or it might not. I find it hard to conclude there aren't better ways to avoid or restrict Plating (if that is indeed the reason).
Last edited:
Similar threads
