Yes except Etron has a buffer at the TOP so 100 percent is probably 90-95 percent in reality.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
- Thread starter Dutchmeeuw
- Start date
As opposed to software? Hardware is very easily distinguishable from software. You can touch hardware.
The warranty says "battery". It would be hard for a judge to say a battery cell is not part of a warranty that is covering the battery.
Sometimes it doesn't matter what Tesla says after the fact. They don't get to make up the rules as they go on this one.
It depends on what your definition of 100% is, and that's the trap you fall into.
It would be best to wrap your mind around this: a full charge is less than 100% battery capacity.
That's the magic sauce. You literally do not know what the battery pack capacity is. You just get to know how much range you can expect from a fully charged battery. And that should be how the car is sold. Tesla is moving toward this model.
That's my view too, per my use case. The Tesla's limited and vague responses in addition to the timing of the capacity cap update (following the fire incidents) have raised strong suspicions among the impacted owners. Is this a Band-Aid to heal the wound permanently or just temporarily till the 8-year battery replacement expires if these small percentage of packs are defective/damaged and fire prone. That's the central point of the impacted owners' protest here. And, Tesla has not been helping in their communication and/or lack of. Usually in life, and that goes by the human nature, the lack of communication results in suspicions. That's besides the fact that losing 30 miles literally over-night is not neither insignificant nor a "normal degradation" case.
Moderator note: Moved a couple of posts for snippy comments. Authors should feel free to re-post the on-topic portions of those posts, minus the off-topic attacks/responses.
Bruce.
Bruce.
Yup, repeatedly... advice from Elon is to just keep your car plugged in. The effect there is you immediately charge and stay sitting there at that charge until you drive next...
And the indicated range of "daily" charging includes up to 90% on the dial. It would be perfectly reasonable for a person to think setting to 90% is an acceptable every day occurrence thing to do.
In summary, the combined advice from Tesla amounts to "just leave the dial at 90 forever and plugin whenever you can".
If Tesla would software limit charging a brand new battery to a lower max voltage than that used when they did the EPA certification, then their EPA ratings would be false and the class action suit would have merit (and even the EPA would have skin in the game, cfr. the links posted some pages ago).
I haven't seen evidence that a brand new 85 kWh battery is being software limited in a way that makes the EPA rating invalid (other than perhaps the odd service error in failing to reset some failure conditions when a battery is swapped, IIRC). What they do to batteries that are not brand new is quite different, and apparently the range reductions don't happen to all older batteries either.
Those older batteries are, because they are not new, always "degraded" with respect to newer batteries, at least until someone invents new battery chemistry; that was the only claim I was making (and I fail to see how to use logic to go from there to your supposed conclusion). The question is simply by how much, and how the BMS is programmed to cope with it.
That the BMS before a certain update was more aggressive at charging older battery packs doesn't mean it was the correct thing to do from a safety point of view or for the longer term mitigation of degradation. Neither does it mean the current firmware's behaviour is optimal, but I am not surprised that the BMS is being conservative until enough data is gathered as to how aggressive is not too aggressive if data surfaces that says that the BMS appears to have been too aggressive for some batteries in the past.
Tesla made a conscious decision to set "100%" quite aggressively (i.e. in a way that would give you expanded range for the rare trips at the user's discretion) for those packs even though Tesla was on the bleeding edge of development for these (which means that future behaviour was hard to predict). They also told us that charging to 100% all too often wasn't a good idea for the long term capacity of the pack.
Audi took another tack, making sure that customers would never be able to charge the battery as fully (which will also hide differences in individual battery pack degradation over time). If Tesla had done so, then you wouldn't just have less range now, you would have had less range all these years that you drove the car too (granted, you would also have had a lower EPA range rating, but it wouldn't have changed what cars you could have bought and how much they would have cost, especially given the lack ofalternatives to Tesla in the past).
Me? I'm glad to be able to charge the battery more than I would on an e-tron for the six or so longer trips that I do every year. And I bought the car with a battery pack that would not make the car disastrously less useful if I lost 30% over 192000km.
Of course in hindsight Tesla could have done the same as on Model 3: just put a stick in the ground saying that if at the end of the warranty period you have lost more than 30% of range that is not normal.
But I'm not sure how many users here would then still be able to complain (i.e. how many people would indeed not be able to do an EPA test with their car that gave them more than 70% of the EPA rating of a new car at the end of the warranty period, even with the new BMS firmware).
Last edited:
I don't care the spin. I just want an option to buy a pack for a reasonable price when mine wears out, for whatever reason.
Even better, if Tesla retro'd the new model 3 cells into S and X frames as the refurbs. Move the tech forward.
jaitch
Member
I wonder when Tesla will start taking some kWh from the bottom of the pack - assuming they haven't already.
James
Last edited:
I know this is the model S forum but I've seen a downward trend ever since 2019.16.x on my Model 3. Went from 0% degradation (at 21k miles) to 6.8% right now (at 28k miles). I posted to a Canadian Facebook forum and a lot of other are seeing the same thing since around June timeframe.
Now that there's a class action suit and legal gets involved it's not going to get any better. Yes, some information will be extracted (by pulling teeth) in discovery, but since it involves trade secrets not all of it will actually be publicly disclosed, I guess.
If a pack has 10% degradation, and Tesla caps the voltage from 4.2V to 4V, thus reducing it another 10%, is the pack 20% degraded? Of course not. Just like a new software capped 85kwh pack, that is voltage limited to 70kwh is not degraded.
Software limits don’t equal degradation.
Ferrycraigs
Member
Indeed. But lots of Ifs and maybes there so we are drifting into statistics, statistics and damned statistics. But there appears to be a reasonably creditable window of 0.5%-3%? It is still small fry, and makes a bit of a mockery of Tesla's claim that it is normal degradation. I don’t think it is degradation at all, but even if it were, it is certainly abnormal degradation, both in the number of instances and the amount.
Ferrycraigs
Member
I think it is generally accepted that frequent charging to 100% shortens battery life. But I really don’t think that is the issue, or the trigger, here. If it were, a much higher percentage of the fleet would have been affected by batterygate. They weren’t. Only a very small percentage has been affected. And there are known instances of owners with high frequency of charging to 100% that are not affected, and vice versa. So I think type of charging, high SoC, etc whilst best avoided for their own sake, are not the reasons for this capping issue. So a good (better) question is why them, and not others.
How is the state of charge with corresponding voltage a proprietary secret? LOL
Ferrycraigs
Member
This is pretty compelling stuff. But again, whilst it is correct as a general rule, I can’t see how it can be attributed to the very few cars that are affected by the battery capping. If the trigger were DC Charging or high SoC Charging, then surely those affected would be in the tens of thousands, not hundreds. The reason surely has to be something, or some behaviour, that is peculiar to the very small number of people affected. And a reason that stands up to, why not the majority as well?
Similar threads
