Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[Gixx1300R]

Are those for degradation over time, like a laptop or phone (or car) battery ?

Or are those for simply not publishing accurate initial EPA methodology MPG numbers in the first place?

Not publishing the accurate MPG numbers, Tesla is does the same with their CPO car sales knowing the batteries have been degraded and the car no longer gets the range as advertised

 

[Chaserr]

To the new folks here that think this topic is about degradation: It isn't and you're mistaken. It has been conclusively shown that Tesla imposed a maximum voltage limit of the pack. Reduced voltage isn't degradation (degraded batteries always charge to full voltage, even massively degraded Leafs have no problem doing this) but voltage clipping does cause the appearance of lowered voltage and lowered performance by reducing the % the battery can actually be charged before it stops.

We also know that the limit is not imposed by the BMS. People are getting replacement batteries and the new one still has the limit applied, because like with factory-limited batteries the voltage limit is applied in the main computer, and not the battery. The only difference between factory limited batteries and this malware update is Tesla hides the faked "100%" so we don't know it has been clipped, since they can't sell it back to us like they do on a factory-limited 60kwh car.

 

[GeorgeSymonds]

Not publishing the accurate MPG numbers, Tesla is does the same with their CPO car sales knowing the batteries have been degraded and the car no longer gets the range as advertised

To me the current CPO adverts are even worse than doing nothing, they now state the car has 85kwh even though they never have

 

[Chaserr]

It just needs an asterisk *65kwh usable, 10 kwh software locked, 10 kwh never existed

 

[Droschke]

Though it apparently is not original per se, but translated from english.

Additionally, I'm have no idea as to the authenticity of that hand written memo in German. Not that I agree or disagree with the content but it's not something I would take seriously or draw any conclusion from.

 

[fbitz777]

It just needs an asterisk *65kwh usable, 10 kwh software locked, 10 kwh never existed

Out of curiosity what is the highest KWH anyone has even gotten out of the 85kwh battery? (I got 68kwh at best out of 75kwh on my X)

We all know there is a "bottom" buffer even when new.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

That's what you say, but the fact the BMS suddenly made new decisions does not mean that the underlying changes in the battery weren't gradual and are that these are "not degradation". I see it repeated time and again as a mantra on this thread, but I hope (for their sake) that the people involved in the class action don't try to make this argument, because it's a losing one.

I would say there is a link to degradation. In my opinion, the reduction in battery capacity is not a result of degradation, but it is an attempt to slow down degradation at a later time. They have identified weaker cells that are likely to fail earlier than normal unless they are treated more gently in the future. If the reduction in capacity had been as a result of degradation, the cell voltage would have remained unaltered.

So if they have identified weaker cells that require a bit of special handling, that seems to be a sensible thing to do, and can easily be described as looking after the battery better, and putting it into a more healthy position. But I think the key question is why have they had to do this? They haven’t had to do it across the fleet, just on a very small number of vehicles. And even though 'the letter' says it is due to DC charging and multiple charging cycles, that doesn’t explain why some cars have been affected yet others, with worse histories of DC charging or multiple cycles (taxis DC charging to 100% twice per day) have not. It still brings me back to the suspicion that some early batteries had cells that were slightly below par, and liable to wear out sooner than the rest.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

Thanks for posting. What's missing in this memo is that this a response to the fire incidences and it's their search for the fire prone batteries.

I am beginning to wonder if it is linked to the fires. Proposition. They went looking for Dendrites (or some other fire starting Condition) found none, but in the process of checking the cells for such evidence, stumbled across some readings that indicated a bunch of cells were weaker than normal, and that would be liable to fail earlier than expected. We could call this scenario something like, oh I don’t know, let’s say Condition Z. ??

 

[Ferrycraigs]

Though it apparently is not original per se, but translated from english.

I absolutely agree with that. I would be astounded if any German speaking person would write it like that, or use some of the words (eg Gebührenlimits meaning an EV charge rather than a financial charge)

 

[GeorgeSymonds]

Out of curiosity what is the highest KWH anyone has even gotten out of the 85kwh battery? (I got 68kwh at best out of 75kwh on my X)

We all know there is a "bottom" buffer even when new.

I believe the theoretical max was 81.5 kWh total capacity and 77.5 kWh usable

 

[Ferrycraigs]

Out of curiosity what is the highest KWH anyone has even gotten out of the 85kwh battery? (I got 68kwh at best out of 75kwh on my X)

We all know there is a "bottom" buffer even when new.

This is info that appeared on Electrek some time ago. I can’t vouch for its accuracy.

 

[cezdoc]

[0.5% based on 20 cars out of 5000 in the main UK Owners forum, so not a conclusive figure, but at least it’s based on some known numbers]

@Ferrycraigs I think it would be fairer to look at the proportion of S 70 & 85 cars that are affected.
In the UK I get a total UK fleet figure of ~2650 (Model S + S 70 + S 85 variants from here: Search results for 'tesla model s' - How Many Left?)

I've no idea what proportion of UK owners are on the owner's forum - let's say 1/3, so then you're looking at 20/(2650/3) = 2.25%
But if, say, only 1/4 of members are active enough to respond to the relevant polls, that could be 9% of "eligible" owners affected.

 

[cezdoc]

@Ferrycraigs I think it would be fairer to look at the proportion of S 70 & 85 cars that are affected.
In the UK I get a total UK fleet figure of ~2650 (Model S + S 70 + S 85 variants from here: Search results for 'tesla model s' - How Many Left?)

I've no idea what proportion of UK owners are on the owner's forum - let's say 1/3, so then you're looking at 20/(2650/3) = 2.25%
But if, say, only 1/4 of members are active enough to respond to the relevant polls, that could be 9% of "eligible" owners affected.

Or looking at it another way - current Tesla UK registrations total ~12,700 of which ~2650 are 70's & 85's = about 20% of the fleet.
20% of 5000 members = 1000 of which 20 report range loss = 2% - similar to the 2.25% figure above. Then multiply up to account for inactive/non-responsive members...

 

[cezdoc]

I have one of the last 85Ds before it was phased out. Mine was built in February of 2016. I only lost a mile or two in the last month or two, since the update, but I have not done a range charge in a while. Most days I only charge to 50% because that is all I need and I have only done about 4 range charges in the life of the car, which has just over 61,000 miles.

I took a recent trip and charged to 90%. All seemed normal, minus a mile or so on the charge. What I did notice was at the one supercharger stop, the taper seemed to happen much faster. I got in with about a 15% SOC and only saw 114kWs for a minute or so. By the time the car hit 30%, it was down to 85kWs. I was not paired with anyone. I used to see full power till about 40% and then a lot more gradual decline. It took about 25 minutes to charge from 15% to 50%, and the cooling system ran, but not at full throttle (I have had supercharging sessions where the car sounded like a plane doing a runup).

My point in all of this is that the DC charge line in the German letter seems to be the culprit, and they have throttled the charging speeds. I wonder if the people who saw the biggest range drop did a lot of supercharging.

Reduced Supercharger rates have been reported much more widely, if not universally, for 70's and 85's.
Following software updates in July My S70 showed the same kind of behaviour: lower peak rates and not once running fans at full throttle, but no impact on 100% range / battery capacity.
I speculate Supercharging rates have been reduced to prevent the battery getting so hot / increase its longevity.

I've looked at some charging times and estimate it now takes up to 25% longer to charge. For my use case I'd much rather live with this than reduced capacity/range, especially if it protects the battery.

 

[jkennebeck]

Why do you think anyone answering the phone would know anything about the lawsuit? At this point I would think that mainly lawyers, would be involved with maybe some executives, managers, and possibly engineers. Front level staff are unlikely to ever know anything about it.

I guarantee you the minute that class action suit was filed the tesla legal team sent a worldwide memo reiterating that front line employees do NOT discuss pending litigation with anyone, customer or otherwise.

 

[jkennebeck]

I know some folks have gotten two to three miles back with the update but it’s no
guarantee we will see restoration back prior to the software update.

I think its kind of funny that if Tesla truly did this out of fear of battery fires, what's the end game?

Oh no, car fires!!!
Turn the knob down to 90.
Ok, not as many fires.
Turn it up a little.
Still good?
Ok a little more?
Cool.
Juuust a bit more?
Oooops 6 more fires!!! Turn it back down!!! Quick!!!!

I guess the sweet spot will be just figuring out the payout in wrongful death suits versus class action payouts.

Can't believe the deafening roar of silence after more than 170 pages of discussion from their community. Sad.

 

[Kim.T]

I'm really glad to know that slow supercharging might harm the battery.....
Here is my "original" charging curve for my 70D (sep. 2015 - more info in earlier post), the new, and to compare the charging curve for a TM3 on a 350kW Ionity charger (Tesla Bjørn).
The data for the New charging curve has been collect during serveral charging sessions on our holiday during the last month, and the last data from this morning where I charged from SoC 4%-60%. FW 2019.20.4.2 - 2019.28.2

Old And New Charging Curve + 3

• Kim.T
• Aug 13, 2019
• 1

 

[Droschke]

I am beginning to wonder if it is linked to the fires. Proposition. They went looking for Dendrites (or some other fire starting Condition) found none, but in the process of checking the cells for such evidence, stumbled across some readings that indicated a bunch of cells were weaker than normal, and that would be liable to fail earlier than expected. We could call this scenario something like, oh I don’t know, let’s say Condition Z. ??

Condition Z revealed. That's it. Now I can go and enjoy driving my S with the remaining kWh while it's still there.

 

[benfrank3]

Battery care is the same no matter which car company. Repeated 100% full charges shortens battery life. Etron, Tesla, cell phones, etc.

Yes, they can. An etron owner can fully charge their battery. Set the dial to maximum, and charge. Done.

 

[boywonder]

Interestingly I received a response from Tesla indicating that only hardware faults in battery packs are covered under warranty.

Cells (that may be weaker) and liable to combust seems like a hardware fault to me... even if Tesla mitigates the risk by reducing Vmax and supercharger speeds.

Of course the issue of whether Tesla has the right to remove battery capacity overnight that was paid for and which may not be allowed under consumer protection legislation is a separate issue.

Looking forward to seeing what comes out in discovery during the class action.