Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[sixela]

That "an issue" is the issue. The degradation is not, hasn't been part of this topic except when is brought up to distract from the issue

If you can prove that the current BMS makes it impossible for a car with a new battery to reach its EPA rated range using an EPA cycle, then it would indeed certainly not be an issue of degradation. I haven't seen anyone prove that yet, though.

I'll repeat it once more: it is not because the changes appeared suddenly with a certain firmware that range reductions are not the response of the BMS to something the BMS (rightly or wrongly) detects as degradation.

Since we're all armchair specialists here who haven't designed the BMS, I find the assertion that this is certainly not what is happening rather bold. I make no claims that *is* what is happening, by the way, but I find the fervent denials that it is a possibility irrational.

And yes, Tesla could make it unnecessary to emit hypotheses by being more communicative, but there are conflicting interests in revealing proprietary information. I think they’re pissing off too many customers with the choice they do make, but it's not my call to make.

 

[Chaserr]

It's ridiculously easy to prove that. measure volts. If it doesn't reach 4.2v it's 100% impossible that car is running the same software that the EPA rated for that capacity, because it's 100% impossible for that battery to have the same capacity the EPA used in its testing protocols.

This is remarkably close to how the dieselgate convictions were achieved.

 

[sixela]

They've tried to weasel out of warranty service

I hate to belabour that point once more, but there _are_ no guarantees on those models with respect to the longer term capacity of the batteries remaining at the end of the warranty period.

 

[Chaserr]

Completely off topic again, none of that has anything to do with this thread or the post you're quoting. If you genuinely hate to be off topic so often you can stop any time.

If you are off topic out of a lack of scientific comprehension of how volts and batteries are related, there is simple math here that never needs to use the word "degradation" or the misdirection of that topic. Tesla's original EPA rated range on a RWD 85 badged car was 265 miles. That was achieved under official EPA testing conditions by charging to 4.2v and reducing the charge instantly reduces the maximum range - by actually reducing 100% to something less than 100%. When tesla does this they recalibrate the displayed 100% to something that would have previously been less than 100. It is impossible by natural physical law for Tesla to charge a battery under 100% of its original and still allow the EPA to reach its 100% tested numbers on an otherwise identical vehicle. Voltage is how the car measures what 100% actually is so we know this wasn't accidental - they had to recalibrate a false new 100% as part of the reduction.

 

[sixela]

It's ridiculously easy to prove that. measure volts. If it doesn't reach 4.2v it's 100% impossible that car is running the same software that the EPA rated for that capacity, because it's 100% impossible for that battery to have the same capacity the EPA used in its testing protocols.

Correct, but I have yet to see anyone show that a new battery isn't charged to a cell Vmax of 4.2V with this newer firmware. Heck, I haven't seen anyone covincingly estimate what fraction of cars with an older battery would be charging to a significantly lower Vmax.

The software can change all it wants; it could even lower Vmax on a new battery as long as you could still reach the EPA range with it when driving the EPA cycle test. Only when *that* would be impossible would Tesla indeed have similar problems that other manufacturers already bumped into.

 

[Chaserr]

New or old, 4.2v is the only way to reach the rated range on an 85 pack. Software limited packs like on an S40 (60kwh) or a 2016 S60 (75kwh) were limited the same way, by capping volts below the actual 100% value of 4.2v

On a brand new Model 3 SR, the lower range than an SR+ with the same physical battery is again set by a voltage cap. it's how tesla intentionally reduces range every.single.time they've ever done it, including this time.

it could even lower Vmax on a new battery as long as you could still reach the EPA range with it when driving the EPA cycle test

Impossible. Volts determine how much of your physical cells you are actually charging. Lower volts means lower range for the same kWh capacity because it physically makes a portion of those kWh unusable. The only possible way to achieve the same range with lower volts is to completely replace hardware.

This is why I keep pointing you to the factory voltage-capped batteries that Tesla sells. It makes it easier to understand that there is a real world difference that Tesla sells as a product. This downgrade isn't imaginary or hypothetical, it isn't degradation, and it isn't difficult to grasp.

In a very simplified explanation to try and make you see what is happening, batteries don't even measure their charge in percent - they measure charge in volts. Percent is a computerized reinterpretation of volts and nothing more. If you charge to 100%, the BMS knows it because the cells all reach 4.2v. Its job is to keep them from going over and causing damage. If you tell it to charge to 90% and stop, it des this by setting the target voltage lower than 4.2v.

 

[sixela]

New or old, 4.2v is the only way to reach the rated range on an 85 pack.

First of all, I have not seen a shred of evidence that a car with a new 85 pack doesn't charge to that cell Vmax yet. Indeed, there is evidence that even some older batteries still charge to essentially the same capacity with the newer firmware, albeit at least sometimes with a reduced charging rate.

Secondly, suppose that the newer software would drive the car more efficiently during an EPA cycle test, that assertion would also be false — then they could charge even a car with a new 85 pack to a lower cell Vmax and still be compliant with the published EPA range.

Your assertion that they intentionally reduce range (and not as an unfortunate side effect of some other decision) is totally unsupported for the moment, unless I missed something.

What's your hypothesis? They just thought they’d irritate their customers? They're trying to make you all buy Ravens (doesn't seem to be working)? They thought life was too boring without an extra class action suit?

 

[Zextraterrestrial]

First of all, I have not seen a shred of evidence that a car with a new 85 pack doesn't charge to that cell Vmax yet.

Secondly, suppose that the newer software would drive the car more efficiently during an EPA cycle test, that assertion would also be false — then they could charge even a car with a new 85 pack to a lower cell Vmax and still be compliant with the published EPA range.

really>?
come on yer just trolling now.

we are/were? talking about existing cars that one day were capped from 4.2 to 4.1 V
among other stuff

 

[sixela]

really>?
come on yer just trolling now.

we are/were? talking about existing cars that one day were capped from 4.2 to 4.1 V
among other stuff

Yes. And the cars that I've seen affected do not have new batteries, which means that there is some degradation with respect to the packs in new cars.

 

[Chaserr]

Where did that come from? You're apparently the only person that thought otherwise - is this another attempt to make voltage and degradation sound related in any way? Are you trying to influence the courts or google searches?

Degraded batteries charge to 4.2v. Intentionally software limited batteries do not.

You can measure software limited range by measuring voltage, you can't measure degradation with voltage.

 

[Zextraterrestrial]

Yes. And the cars that I've seen affected do not have new batteries, which means that there is some degradation with respect to the packs in new cars.

???

 

[Zextraterrestrial]

ya ok.
so my car has a capacity of 73.4 kW
charges to 4.2000 V per cell

some degradation

others have cap of 68? kW charge to 4.1 V
some degradation too.

same story?

 

[Chaserr]

It is not your decision to make with respect to what Vmax to charge the cells to on a battery that isn't new. As said before, it's not even your call to make that the Vmax for a new battery should be with the newer firmware, unless it would make a car with a new battery incapable of reaching the EPA range on an EPA cycle.

Denying science isn't supposed to be a decision. We have lots of people doing it politically and her ein this thread, but if you can back up your anti-science claims I'd love to see the math. How can you charge a battery under 100% and still achieve 100% of the rated kwh capacity under the same conditions and using the same hardware? Please be specific and clear in your math, if your answer isn't garbage excuses I intend to become a trillionaire tomorrow patenting what you say because it's a revolutionary world changing claim you're making.

I'm not being sarcastic. I want your serious answer in complete detail. It's worth more than you imagine.

 

[sixela]

our anti-science claims

Would you care to say which "claims"?

Also, "anti-science", gimme a break. I used to be a scientific researcher at university, I know what it would take to be "anti-science", and it's certainly not be trying to poke holes in someone else's argument through reasoned debate (and I'm not "gish-gallopping" either since I make the same points ad nauseam).

How can you charge a battery under 100% and still achieve 100% of the rated kwh capacity

One thing: the manufacturer of the car gets to decide what 100% is, not you (as you would undoubtedly know if you'd own an e-tron).

Also, you're dancing around the issue, since I have still not seen anyone claim that a new battery's cell Vmax would not be 4.2V (and I'l gladly accept pointers, since such evidence could well be hidden in this humongous thread).

I was just claiming that they could limit it to less as long as they would still be able to reach the EPA range under the EPA test conditions using a car with a new battery, and I stand by that assertion (there are quite a number of e-trons driving around here since the European factory is in Belgium -- nary a pitchfork to be seen despite the fact those cells are not charged to their nominal max voltage at all, never ever).

Reading this thread, you'd almost think that Tesla should have capped Vmax at 4.10V all the time i.e. "should have done an Audi". Then whatever battery degradation you had the first few years would have stayed invisible, and you would have had a reduced range all the time. Of course the EPA range would have been smaller, but they had no competition anyway.

 

[sixela]

Also, you're dancing around the issue, since I have still not seen anyone claim that a new battery's cell Vmax would not be 4.2V (and I'l gladly accept pointers, since such evidence could well be hidden in this humongous thread).

In the interest of saying what we do probably agree on, if the people affected now would also have had a lower Vmax with this firmware when their batteries were new, significantly lower than the Vmax of others with the same firmware, then I would indeed consider such batteries defective (although I'm not sure about what tolerances there are with respect to EPA ranges and what makes a difference "significant").

Unfortunately, it's awfully hard to prove what your battery would have done in the past with the recent firmware, and you'd be at a disadvantage to Tesla given they would have much more data to support whatever assertion they would make about what they detected over the years. Since everyone seems to have an old battery, they could argue "the BMS should have gradually lowered the range over the years but didn't, and we're now simply making it 'more correct'".

The BMS may in the past not even have recorded the data that makes the current BMS decide to lower Vmax, and then it would be hard to make the case even if the BMS algorithm and the logs were revealed to an expert in discovery in a class action lawsuit. Tesla could argue that they now detect something that they associate with degradation of the battery, and you'd have a hard time proving that the battery was already in that state when new...

Unfortunately, since this appears to affect only older chemistry 85 packs, you're not going to find someone who had his Vmax capped just after installing 2019.16.x when car was new and the battery was still 'fresh', which would make the case stronger.

 

[Chaserr]

You avoided answering me. Please answer the question. You've established your own appeals to your authority, back them up with answers. I say anti science because your claims go against basic physical law. You know that because you've established your authority, remember? You're proving you don't understand and appealing to fallacious authority that doesn't exist. Recover from that error by answering me.

I'm not asking you to prove anything in the past present or future, just the math behind what you claim. If a battery is charged under its 100% voltage, it is not charged to 100% and thus can't deliver 100% of the energy it does when it is charged to 100%. That's all a volt cap is, setting a battery to not be charged to 100%. Tesla claimed 100% is 4.2v and you have repeatedly claimed they can deliver 100% of the energy without a 100% charge. Show your work. The manufacturer in question has already established that 100% is measured at 4.2v as a matter of public record - this is what the government officially tested, and if they change the numbers there are legal problems. VW's Dieselgate crimes recently established legal precedent for how these kinds of deceptions are punished.

If you have some evidence of that (the newer firmware makes it impossible for a car with a new 85 pack to do what it should according to the published EPA ranges), I'm interested (genuinely). And so would you be, because you'd have a cast iron case for a class action suit.

And that is the basis of the cast iron class action suits Tesla is now facing. If you believe it is somehow possible to -purely in software and no hardware changes - achieve the same amount of energy as a 100% charge when not charging to 100%, show your math. It breaks fundamental physical law, which is why I call this anti-science nonsense what it is.

You are an authority, if I am to believe you. Don't avoid answering me again. Answer: How is this possible? If you don't understand the question, avoid answering me again. Appealing to your authority fallaciously when you don't even understand the topic we're discussing doesn't work, so if your appeal to your own authority has any merit beyond embarrassed avoidance of answering my direct request for an answer, just apologize.

Answer if you can. Dodge if you have another purpose in trying to misdirect attention away from the topic of what you've already admitted is a cast iron legal case.

There is no *if* - Vmax is reduced. Intentionally by 2019.16, and slightly raised above the previous low point - but never to the original 4.2v - in recent updates after tesla admitted to their crimes and said they would return what you still mistakenly think is "degradation." Vmax reduction is proven and not in question, so there is no reason to keep acting like there is any other topic. Tesla's admission came within 24 hours of the first Class Action suit's filing, so they're keen to avoid discovery on this problem. That's another tangent, but unlike degradation which is still off topic, it's relevant to ask why they reduced voltage (and thus range and horsepower) now that they've admitted to the how.

 

[sixela]

All that being said, I still hope that the BMS is currently being overly aggressive at capping Vmax out of an abundance of caution and will in due course decide to be less aggressive at capping Vmax for as many batteries as possible. It's not like I enjoy the fact that real range has been very visibly reduced for the affected users.

 

[sixela]

Tesla claimed 100% is 4.2v

Forgive me, but I fail to see in the marketing literature where Tesla tells me that Vmax for the cells in my battery when charging is complete is 4.2V, and that it's going to remain that way for the life of the car, regardless of what the BMS measures.

Apart from that, we do agree: if you reduce Vmax, you reduce the capacity that is stored in the battery when "full", and I can't see where I claimed otherwise.

You are an authority, if I am to believe you

Hah! Where did I make that claim? It's likely much smarter people than me are going to put forward similar arguments during the class action suit, I think.

And that is the basis of the cast iron class action suits Tesla is now facing.

I'm still unconvinced it's cast iron. That is for the courts to decide, I think.

Vmax reduction is proven and not in question

No argument from me. My argument is that asserting that Tesla should charge the cells to a Vmax of 4.2V even on older batteries and regardless of what the BMS measures is bold at best. "Just because it used to and I still want that capacity" is not a sufficient reason.

it's relevant to ask why they reduced voltage

I think that's what we all want to know, no? And we also want to know what makes it decide to do so only on some batteries and not on others.

And once we know that, the second question is whether Tesla should be allowed to reduce the voltage or whether it falls outside of their remit (if you'll excuse the British English for a second).

It's your battery but it is still their job to manage it as it's also their responsibility if the BMS makes an awful mistake. All they would need to show is that there is a rational basis for the choices of the BMS, and you'd basically have to show a fraudulent intent (or at least crass incompetence), and I'm still puzzled as to what intent that would be (in the case of Apple, make people buy newer phones, but in Tesla's case?)

If they had a rational reason and they could tie it to something measurable that they can argue shows (probable) degradation, then the onus would be on you to prove that the battery was also "degraded" like that when new for the battery to be proven "defective", which would be a tall thing to prove even if it's true (see above). And to prove it for one battery (which would make it eligible for warranty service) is different from proving it for all the batteries in the class, when you have a class action suit.

 

[Droschke]

... I'll repeat it once more: it is not because the changes appeared suddenly with a certain firmware that range reductions are not the response of the BMS to something the BMS (rightly or wrongly) detects as degradation...

Comically incorrect articulation of the problem and deflects from what has happened with the sudden capacity loss.

Since we're all armchair specialists here who haven't designed the BMS, I find the assertion that this is certainly not what is happening rather bold. I make no claims that *is* what is happening, by the way, but I find the fervent denials that it is a possibility irrational.

After once calling us we live in Lake Wobegon area, now you are calling the impacted owners' point of views "irrational". Enough please.

 

[lightningltd]

Guys. Can we end this argument and agree to disagree? Those of us that are AFFECTED need to be able to chime in. I have been mostly silent because of all the trolling going on here.
Valid ON TOPIC posts are getting lost in all the poop.
Thanks