No, people in general would not be happy to have their range reduced by capping the charge voltage rather it was instant or over a few months. However I suspect fewer people would have noticed if it was more gradual. Battery degradation does not reduce the battery charge voltage. A heavily used and highly degraded battery with 60% of its original range would still charge to the same charge voltage as a brand new battery.
-
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
Agreed and its an interesting question for Model 3 owners. I mean gradually applied capping would be hard to distinguish from normal degradation. I mean the only reasons we S & X owners know is because we have 6+ years of longitudinal data and folks that were paying attention.
that is why the discussion is about volts. One of the many effects of reduced volts is range reduction, so gradually reduced volts will look like degradation. It will also look like drive unit failure because the horsepower will also be gradually reduced.
Smarter than me. For the first few years of ownership, I watched degradation like a hawk and fretted over every drop because degradation was the big boogey man. But after about 4 years or so, the drop was so linear and predictable, I stopped worrying about it and watching it so closely. I was lulled into a false sense of security.
Agree, but "volts" is not a very accessible measure for the typical owner. Folks expect the battery gauge to work like the gas gauge in their last car, so it's hard to tell if something is up.
No that isn't the logic. The sentence you quote simply doesn't state the key warranty provision. The sentence I quote does, and it doesn't use the word gradually and it's meaning isn't changed by the prior sentence.
The loss in question is due to Condition Z rising to a level that triggers the BMS to react. There are also dimensions A-Y which are measured and which cause the BMS to react -- how much to charge, discharge, cool and heat. Lots of metrics in the battery affect how fast it can charge and discharge and those change based on the environment and the condition of the battery. It is appropriate that the BMS software measure those and react to them.
Suppose the BMS software had the condition Z trigger back in 2014 or 2015. And then battery usage caused condition Z to pass the triggering point only in 2019 (as it apparently did in a car that already had the updated BMS software but not Condition Z trigger at first). The decline in range could have come about because of the battery usage; and the fact of the software being changed to better detect that doesn't change the fact that condition Z arose from that usage -- if indeed it was usage and not a defect -- that is still an open question and it is odd that you guys don't focus on that.
Last edited:
There's a feeling in this thread that battery degradation is an intrinsic property of the chemicals in the battery and not due to BMS algorithms. So condition z notwithstanding if Tesla fudged the BMS to deal with that it is not degradation by this definition.
That's a really good question--I went looking and I don't see any terms or licensing provisions for the car's SW on the car's support page or the company's legal disclaimer page.
Last edited:
Degradation is physical battery damage. BMS doesn't play a part unless it causes physical damage - it's job is partly to avoid causing degradation damage, if it is accidentally causing damaged batteries that's a warranty covered mistake caused by Tesla.
@omarsultan that's why Tesla is being sued now. After the suit is over they won't dare try this again. It may not even get that far, class action suits take years and the nhtsa will probably stop them much sooner, with much higher penalties for doing it again. We haven't managed to get theEPA to start an investigation yet but their eventual attention will probably be the worst of all considering what they did to VW when they software defrauded their Monroneys like Tesla.
@omarsultan that's why Tesla is being sued now. After the suit is over they won't dare try this again. It may not even get that far, class action suits take years and the nhtsa will probably stop them much sooner, with much higher penalties for doing it again. We haven't managed to get theEPA to start an investigation yet but their eventual attention will probably be the worst of all considering what they did to VW when they software defrauded their Monroneys like Tesla.
Then why the first sentence at all? To me, it clearly they wanted to differentiate between normal, expected gradual loss of capacity from degradation and something unexpected like a module failure. It seems to be that conditions X and Z are similarly unexpected. As @wk057 noted, Tesla went poking around and found something happening that they did not expect and presumably creating a safety issue. Some might call this a defective design.
Well, first of all, if this all happened in 2014 or 2015, Tesla would be a footnote in automotive history right next to Tucker--who wants to buy an EV that loses 10% of range in year?
Can't speak for anyone else, but I have looked at that. I don't think you can tease those two apart the way you do. If using the cars as intended creates an unsafe condition in the battery pack, then I would argue that the pack or BMS are defective in either design or manufacture and Tesla should equitably honor it.
Last edited:
https://echo.epa.gov/report-environmental-violations
Tesla is guilty of Dieselgate fraud so you can report here. Dropping pack ndervoltage under the EPA rated 4.2v makes the EPAs monroney MPGes sticker fraudulently submitted and impossible for any impacted car to achieve, even with a brand new battery.
This is the nuclear option. I haven't asked the EPA to investigate yet.if they do, Tesla may not survive, the punishments to VW when they did it to a smaller fraction of their cars would crush Tesla.
Tesla is guilty of Dieselgate fraud so you can report here. Dropping pack ndervoltage under the EPA rated 4.2v makes the EPAs monroney MPGes sticker fraudulently submitted and impossible for any impacted car to achieve, even with a brand new battery.
This is the nuclear option. I haven't asked the EPA to investigate yet.if they do, Tesla may not survive, the punishments to VW when they did it to a smaller fraction of their cars would crush Tesla.
As far I know Tesla didn't cap voltage on any new cars though, not sure about battery replacement but I would assume same.
Edit: that is to say do any impacted cars have a new battery and yet maintain the cap?
DJRas
Member
You make these statements that all of this is due to condition z like you are certain of that. Nobody (meaning Jason) has said or acknowledged just what condition z is. Tesla is certainly not saying anything about what the trigger is. If fact they say there is nothing wrong at all
All we can focus on is the facts that we can identify (ie rapid change in max voltage) and the timeline of fires, statements, and subsequent capping of voltage, filing the lawsuit, raising the cap to mitigate things, then total silence. They are not saying there will be any further mitigation. In fact, Jason says there will not be.
There was an impacted car that the owner recently purchased from Tesla. He had to push extremely hard but ultimately Tesla installed a new 90kw battery. My understanding is the new battery was not capped.
Seems like Tesla only values new and recent customers. Model 3 owners, I hope this doesn't happen to you in a few years. If it does well enjoy the honey moon while it lasts.
Interesting but was that a new pack or a refurbished pack. The argument made was that this cap is EPA fraud because a new car or car with new pack won't meet EPA numbers.
Very well put, Ferry. I'm pretty sure everybody appreciates your attitude in this thread and is hoping you are taken care of. You live in a beautiful place btw. I spent a number of years in the UK and have very fond memories of the Edinburgh winter festival, various lochs and villages, and especially the Isle of Skye.
Last edited:
Similar threads
