Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[bhzmark]

Sounds like lithium plating is damage that should have been avoided by properly heating the battery or limiting charge rates.

It seems that some amount of lithium plating is an unavoidable consequence of most EV battery usage which almost always encounter charging under less than ideal conditions. But it can be reduced or minimized or possibly some of it reversed by actions by the BMS. It is likely that the software update is exactly what you are advocating here.

I don't get to pick and choose which sentences are important and which ones are not in a contract. Every sentence, every word matters. Someone is going to get to decide what all those words mean in their totality.

But you do have to actually read and understand the sentences and attribute meaning to them and determine what the precise term of a contract is and whether they create any contractual obligations and if so what exactly is the nature of the contractual obligation. Some sentences in contracts do not create obligations but are merely representations. And then if those representations turn out to be false, that could (in combination with another term of the contract) create an obligation.

In this case the sentence you like is simply a statement of fact. Tesla cannot breach that sentence, and that sentence does not create any duty for Tesla and it doesn't create any remedy for the customers.

The second sentence does specify the duty for Tesla (namely by limiting the duty), and correspondingly limiting the remedy for owners.
Namely, "Loss of Battery energy or power over time or due to or resulting from Battery usage is NOT covered under this Battery and Drive Unit Limited Warranty"

That limit isn't changed by the fact that the declarative sentence is true "The Battery, like all lithium-ion batteries, will experience gradual energy or power loss with time and use." Also not knowing the specific details we don't know that just because the battery charged to 4.2v and the reported range was whatever it was, because of some other battery condition the actual range available could have already degraded, especially when you realize that all performance of the battery is performance within certain limits of the BMS which were in place on day one, and those limits have been continually refined, as they should be.

What is upsetting is that it occurred suddenly without warning or explanation, and it left us skeptical and concerned

I agree, but such is the necessary decision-making balancing the interests of keeping proprietary trade secrets, alleviating the anxiety and concerns of affected customers, and perhaps simply not having sufficient clear technical detail that even could be shared. That's the (to me, small) cost of using new technology that is still being developed, tweaked and understood.

 

[Chaserr]

@DJP31 If you search for the Disagreeable's username in the snippiness thread, you will find your answer.

 

[tomas]

Responding to @cpa


And then in another post


@tomas - Looks to me you have expressed your views as "absolutes" toward @cpa's thoughtful post. That seems annoying.

did I not say “I think?”

 

[DJRas]

The second sentence does specify the duty for Tesla (namely by limiting the duty), and correspondingly limiting the remedy for owners.
Namely, "Loss of Battery energy or power over time or due to or resulting from Battery usage is NOT covered under this Battery and Drive Unit Limited Warranty"

So basically, you believe that Tesla doesn't have to cover any battery because it was used.
If the capacity goes to 10% because you used the battery - this is their escape clause.

I don't think that will fly according to Magnuson Moss Warranty Act

 

[Droschke]

did I not say “I think?”

Yes, you did. But using that phrase only conveys politeness "... when you are explaining or suggesting to someone what you want to do, or when you are accepting or refusing an offer." It does not exclude "absolutes" you were objecting to

I think definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

 

[bijan]

It seems that some amount of lithium plating is an unavoidable consequence of most EV battery usage which almost always encounter charging under less than ideal conditions. But it can be reduced or minimized or possibly some of it reversed by actions by the BMS. It is likely that the software update is exactly what you are advocating here.

Chargegate might be such a change to the BMS to limit supercharging rates, which might help prevent lithium plating. But batterygate is a cap on voltage. If the battery on these cars is damaged such that there is a reason not to charge to 4.2V that is a problem that needs more than a software fix.

The whole issue is whether degradation is something the BMS regulates or whether it is a property of the battery cells. That is if you look at one of many old Nissan Leafs with degraded battery, is the BMS limiting how much charge goes into the battery or are the battery cells limiting it? That is if you switched the BMS or wiped its memory or hacked it could you unsafely recover the degraded range, or is it physically impossible to charge to the original kWh because of chemical changes? The assumption here is that you can't recover it no matter what you do to the BMS and that this is degradation. And any limits on full pack charge by the BMS are not degradation, even if they are there to mitigate damage to the battery. You could call this damage degradation, but that confuses things. Maybe we need two words, one for this gradual chemical change that leads to loss of capacity and one for the various damage conditions such as lithium plating that don't necessarily reduce the capacity but need to be managed.

 

[Chaserr]

The whole issue is whether degradation is something the BMS regulates or whether it is a property of the battery cells.

That's none of the issue. "Degradation" is off topic, a distraction the user you're replying to knows is off topic. Just suggest to them they reread post #1 if they've forgotten again.

Volt capping has nothing to do with degradation. It never has, it never will.

 

[Zextraterrestrial]

That's none of the issue. "Degradation" is off topic, a distraction the user you're replying to knows is off topic. Just suggest to them they reread post #1 if they've forgotten again.

Volt capping has nothing to do with degradation. It never has, it never will.

Volt capping and degradation are not necessarily mutually exclusive
never say never
coins land on the side sometimes..seen it

 

[tomas]

OK, said I'd post my opinion when I had time, so here goes. Probably my last post on this thread (can't promise) because it seems passion and guardianship of a cause has overtaken dialog. Which I understand... impacted people want satisfaction and start to see everything through that lens. Heck, I might find myself impacted any day, as I have a 2012 S. Though not yet.

1) IMO, Tesla has brought forward a lot of innovations beyond the car itself... including delivery model, service model, etc. Innovation is usually messy as it hits the market. How do we handle this paradigm vs. the old one? One of those innovations is use of telematics. I've seen that in auto racing for decades. Not so much in commercial automobiles. Tesla's access to data and software of every car in the fleet has lots of implications. I've had some positive experiences: twice I received proactive calls when Tesla identified issues in my logs and called me in for service before failure. Once I was able to avoid a service call by sending Tesla time/date of specific incidents so they could remotely review logs to diagnose (and fix). Many times, I've received software updates with significant new features and fixes. There are also negative experiences: I've received software updates with features or interfaces I didn't like as much as the predecessor software. I've even received new "bugs". Then there's this case: you could say that a software update limited battery output overnight. Or you could say that batteries were degrading, and a bug in the BMS software failed to properly detect that; then when the BMS bug was fixed, the cumulative gradual degradation became apparent. Or, you could say a lot of other things... this thread is full of them. Is this telematics an intrusion on my rights as a customer? Or is it a wonderful feature? What is the role of hardware vs. software in a software controlled car? How does that affect warranty? I think the conventions and the law need to be sorted out, and will be sorted out over time. I worry that they will be sorted out in a way that discourages innovation.

2) Again IMO, the best path forward here would have been an early dialog between Tesla and affected customers. Then this may not have risen to the point of class action. Ironically, litigiousness and the constant threat of class action is precisely why that dialog did not happen. Having spent many years in corporate exec office dealing with these types of issues, the only responsible corporate response when something like this arises is to take the most cautious route, and disclose nothing until required to. I don't love it, but that's how it works for every public company and most private ones. So, my guess is that Tesla was faced with the "low probability, catastrophic impact" option of leaving BMS as it was, having a fire, and having subsequent investigation determine that they understood the cause and did nothing about it. And, the "high probability, medium impact" option of limiting voltage for a subset of owners while they work to further understand the problem and what can be done to remedy it. And, for those who say this is about money, of course money is a subtext. Tesla worries about what liability costs and what warranties cost. We worry about what our cars cost and what they are worth, plus the cost of charging time, etc. But I believe the root cause of the BMS change was caution. Clearly, we (affected and maybe to be affected) are impatient and want action, or at least disclosure. Unfortunately and ironically, now that it has entered litigation/mediation territory, Tesla will be very cautious about either action or communication. So sit tight and keep cool, because it is unlikely this will be fast unless Tesla discovers a way to address Z that restores most or all of the voltage AND satisfies Tesla that the liability risk of Z is mitigated.

I've personally had 2 run ins with Tesla in my 7 years of ownership over "significant" issues. In both cases, I was able to get satisfactory communications, and in one case I was able to get financial satisfaction. So, they've earned my trust with performance in customer service crises. I believe they will sort this out in a reasonable way.

I bought my first Tesla expecting the journey to have twists and turns. So I watch this with a certain amount of independence and interest in what happens regarding the innovations... because I think the potential of the innovations is bigger than any owner group's specific interests. And, I realize how difficult it really is to change paradigms. But, I also realize that there are many owners who see things differently, and that's fine. I'm sure y'all will slice and dice this couple of paragraphs. But I'm not planning to engage in argument... anyone who really wants to talk in a constructive manner is welcome to PM me.

 

[Chaserr]

@tomas

1) Tesla committed crimes. We handle criminal actions with the criminal justice system. Many have offered excuses for why the crimes were committed - but excuses don't matter. Only the law matters. Tesla broke the law if they reduced volts to avoid warranty problems. They broke some much more serious laws if they did it for safety reasons. At the very minimum they broke the law when they stole upgrades we paid for. The law is being sorted out now; it very clearly and unwaveringly states that if there are warranty or safety concerns, Tesla is not permitted to address those concerns in any way that reduces functionality. They must make sure their actions retain equal or better than original functionality, for both warranty and safety concerns. Their choice to reduce is clearly illegal, regardless of motivation. This will be sorted out as everyone knows it will be, Tesla will either remove the caps with another software update and return us to 4.2v, or they will replace any batteries that cannot be safety returned to original or better specification as the law demands. If innovation is impacted by Tesla's crimes it is an improvement for all owners.

2) Tesla is now incapable of dialog. We are literally begging them to find any other avenue beyond federal investigations and class action lawsuits. Tesla's combativeness is what causes them to have these problems. They see Tesla owners as their enemy, and shut us out. We seek a dialog, and the only way to force them to communicate is with a court order. We've come a long way from the company we bought our cars from, one that used to be able to communicate with us.

because I think the potential of the innovations is bigger than any owner group's specific interests

Tesla ceases to exist if owner interests are allowed to be crushed. There will be no customers left if the company is allowed to steal back anything they try to buy. If the warranty is worthless, nobody wants to buy an unwarranted new vehicle. If they don't value safety and willingly put people in harm's way to avoid the news implications of correcting their problems, nobody want to own that company.

We seek answers, Tesla seeks to avoid answering. The court system is helping us make sure Tesla remains a company people will want to buy, by assuring everyone that the warranty is still al egally binding contract, that safety is still important, and that theft is still illegal.

 

[tga]

Volt capping and degradation are not necessarily mutually exclusive
never say never
coins land on the side sometimes..seen it

I've tried to make this point before, but a handful of self-appointed battery experts/thread police just shout it down without discussion.

Probably my last post on this thread (can't promise) because it seems passion and guardianship of a cause has overtaken dialog.

Amen, brother. I'm giving up on this thread; dialog went out the window weeks ago. I'll check the initial wikipost for updates periodically, but further "discussion" is pointless (see above).

 

[Droschke]

but that confuses things.

You hit the nail on the head. That's exactly this crowd has been trying to do to in this thread from day 1. They have been unmasked for some time now and blocked by other posters. Notice, their malicious posts don't get even many thumps down any more, they used to. Don't waste your time.

 

[Droschke]

OK, said I'd post my opinion when I had time, so here goes. Probably my last post on this thread (can't promise) because it seems passion and guardianship of a cause has overtaken dialog. Which I understand... impacted people want satisfaction and start to see everything through that lens. Heck, I might find myself impacted any day, as I have a 2012 S. Though not yet.

1) IMO, Tesla has brought forward a lot of innovations beyond the car itself... including delivery model, service model, etc. Innovation is usually messy as it hits the market. How do we handle this paradigm vs. the old one? One of those innovations is use of telematics. I've seen that in auto racing for decades. Not so much in commercial automobiles. Tesla's access to data and software of every car in the fleet has lots of implications. I've had some positive experiences: twice I received proactive calls when Tesla identified issues in my logs and called me in for service before failure. Once I was able to avoid a service call by sending Tesla time/date of specific incidents so they could remotely review logs to diagnose (and fix). Many times, I've received software updates with significant new features and fixes. There are also negative experiences: I've received software updates with features or interfaces I didn't like as much as the predecessor software. I've even received new "bugs". Then there's this case: you could say that a software update limited battery output overnight. Or you could say that batteries were degrading, and a bug in the BMS software failed to properly detect that; then when the BMS bug was fixed, the cumulative gradual degradation became apparent. Or, you could say a lot of other things... this thread is full of them. Is this telematics an intrusion on my rights as a customer? Or is it a wonderful feature? What is the role of hardware vs. software in a software controlled car? How does that affect warranty? I think the conventions and the law need to be sorted out, and will be sorted out over time. I worry that they will be sorted out in a way that discourages innovation.

2) Again IMO, the best path forward here would have been an early dialog between Tesla and affected customers. Then this may not have risen to the point of class action. Ironically, litigiousness and the constant threat of class action is precisely why that dialog did not happen. Having spent many years in corporate exec office dealing with these types of issues, the only responsible corporate response when something like this arises is to take the most cautious route, and disclose nothing until required to. I don't love it, but that's how it works for every public company and most private ones. So, my guess is that Tesla was faced with the "low probability, catastrophic impact" option of leaving BMS as it was, having a fire, and having subsequent investigation determine that they understood the cause and did nothing about it. And, the "high probability, medium impact" option of limiting voltage for a subset of owners while they work to further understand the problem and what can be done to remedy it. And, for those who say this is about money, of course money is a subtext. Tesla worries about what liability costs and what warranties cost. We worry about what our cars cost and what they are worth, plus the cost of charging time, etc. But I believe the root cause of the BMS change was caution. Clearly, we (affected and maybe to be affected) are impatient and want action, or at least disclosure. Unfortunately and ironically, now that it has entered litigation/mediation territory, Tesla will be very cautious about either action or communication. So sit tight and keep cool, because it is unlikely this will be fast unless Tesla discovers a way to address Z that restores most or all of the voltage AND satisfies Tesla that the liability risk of Z is mitigated.

I've personally had 2 run ins with Tesla in my 7 years of ownership over "significant" issues. In both cases, I was able to get satisfactory communications, and in one case I was able to get financial satisfaction. So, they've earned my trust with performance in customer service crises. I believe they will sort this out in a reasonable way.

I bought my first Tesla expecting the journey to have twists and turns. So I watch this with a certain amount of independence and interest in what happens regarding the innovations... because I think the potential of the innovations is bigger than any owner group's specific interests. And, I realize how difficult it really is to change paradigms. But, I also realize that there are many owners who see things differently, and that's fine. I'm sure y'all will slice and dice this couple of paragraphs. But I'm not planning to engage in argument... anyone who really wants to talk in a constructive manner is welcome to PM me.

Thanks for recognizing the mere intent of this thread. It started as a common place for the impacted owners to discuss their ordeal and seek solution (the poster#7 is me). It hasn't been easy to deflect the disruptions of the topic at hand, but we have been doing our best to accommodate different opinions, only to face heated exchanges when the impacted owners are belittled or insulted, mildly or strongly. It should not be surprising to anyone that the unfortunate owners who suffer from adverse circumstance of the capping episode undoubtedly and justifiably hold passion and guardianship of the cause, as you have phrased it rightfully.

Thanks again for your contribution.

 

[Chaserr]

I've tried to make this point before, but a handful of self-appointed battery experts/thread police just shout it down without discussion.

It might be possible for a battery to be so extraordinarily degraded it starts to show a slight voltage impact from all the physical damage it has sustained, but that is a small chance of maybe happening. Volts measured by everyone here are not possible to be caused by degradation. They would have 0 miles remaining from the massive damages that a physical imposition causing 4.07v readings.

There is no discussion to be had. We know for a fact this was never degradation. We know it because the volt reading show us that is true. If it was physical damage causing the volt drop, this would be a warranty replacement problem too. Tesla themselves tell us it was never degradation. If the volt caps are caused by damaged cells like degradation is, we have a warranty that isn't being honored.

There are a few people that keep trying to derail the discussion with the same repeating distraction topics. This is one of them. It's a fundamentally flawed misunderstanding of the issue - fortunately one that the NHTSA should be able to end very soon. Tesla's response to their investigation is weeks away at most.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

I've tried to make this point before, but a handful of self-appointed battery experts/thread police just shout it down without discussion.

I agree that opinions on here now appear to be polarised. There is very little middle ground. Many people have put forward the view that there may be a link between degradation and volt capping. It is a reasonable point of view to hold, to make, or question to ask. I certainly asked it. And I can understand if people don’t like it when, having put forward their genuinely held theory, or question, it is then shot down. No one likes to be told they are wrong etc. So why has it become so black and white?

A long time ago, it feels, it was explained that when a battery degrades, and of course they all do, the cell is less able to hold a charge, and depletes faster than normal. We all know that that is the effect of degradation. And we also know that a degraded battery gives fewer miles, ie less range. So there is clearly a direct link is there not? Actually no. Crucially, the cell voltage in a degraded battery does NOT change. It’s a bit like a fingerprint; it doesn’t change. The total range may (will) drop, it will discharge faster, but the voltage remains constant. That is the key point, but is a fact that few people appear to know. That is why the link between degradation and volt capping doesn’t stand up. It is a false link. Of course faster than expected degradation may be the reason Tesla felt the need to change the cell voltage in the first place, and I think it probably is, but that is of course a separate issue.

The first time this suggestion appears, it is explained that actually, the link is false. Not everyone is a battery expert, or indeed sufficiently knowledgable about how batteries work. I didn’t before all of this started. Without saying 'you are wrong because you don’t know what you are talking about' because that would just be rude, it is pointed out that the issue is, unquestionably, not degradation because of the voltage change. It can’t be, as degradation does not alter the cell voltage. Voltage changes are done, can only be done, deliberately via software changes. I don’t believe that is an opinion. I believe that is a scientific fact. It should therefore be a starting point for further discussion. Not something that should be ignored. But putting forward the view that degradation may be relevant, does exactly that; it ignores the science. So it is explained that that theory is wrong.

Then someone else suggests it may be linked to degradation. And so we go round the roundabout one more time. Then again, and again, and again. We are now into over 7000 posts on this thread, and the degradation point comes up regularly. The inevitable conclusion is, if only people would actually read the threads, or even do a search, (researching the science is perhaps too much to hope for, but a lot of it is now in Post 1) all this effort would not be required. So, patience batteries get low. Responses become less understanding, less of a debate. Less patient. It is regrettable that some responses are terser than required, but hopefully people will understand why, and that it is unlikely to be just a slap in their direction.

And in case I didn’t mention it, it can’t be degradation because of the Voltage change.

 

[Droschke]

Can someone free up the man who is stuck sitting in that rocking chair by removing the "Disagree" button from underneath of those rockers?

 

[Chaserr]

Can someone free up the man who is stuck sitting in that rocking chair by removing the "Disagree" button from underneath of those rockers?

If you search for his name in snippiness, people were pointing out his habit years ago. Block and you will auto ignore everything he does, it's always the best way to treat disagreeable people.

 

[tga]

There is no discussion to be had.

Can someone free up the man who is stuck sitting in that rocking chair by removing the "Disagree" button from underneath of those rockers?

Thanks for making my point. It's your way or the highway. No dissent allowed.

 

[Chaserr]

This is a discussion of facts. The facts are what will bring your car back to full functionality, and isn't that why you're reading this thread? The only thing that isn't welcome here is attempts to hide facts with lies and deception - when that happens the incorrect information a few specific people keep repeating will be corrected with scientifically proven facts. We know the facts, read page one for what we know. We believe these facts will soon help you regain what was removed from your car. If your dissent is because you don't want to have what was taken returned to you, don't update when they are ordered to return it and try to refuse the NHTSA's recall notice when it arrives by mail. If your dissent is because you don't want anyone else to regain what was taken from them, you will not be able to succeed. If you are trying to halt conversation here playing victim, you were never going to succeed, you've just called attention to the volt mistakes you've made in the past and helped anyone that hadn't read them learn the difference between volt caps and degradation.

Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software has all the facts and is updated with new information often. This is the post that anyone mentioning "degradation" will be linked to to help bring t hem up to speed and educate them on the topic of discussion without rehashing old misconceptions.

 

[tomas]

I agree that opinions on here now appear to be polarised. There is very little middle ground. Many people have put forward the view that there may be a link between degradation and volt capping. It is a reasonable point of view to hold, to make, or question to ask. I certainly asked it. And I can understand if people don’t like it when, having put forward their genuinely held theory, or question, it is then shot down. No one likes to be told they are wrong etc. So why has it become so black and white?

A long time ago, it feels, it was explained that when a battery degrades, and of course they all do, the cell is less able to hold a charge, and depletes faster than normal. We all know that that is the effect of degradation. And we also know that a degraded battery gives fewer miles, ie less range. So there is clearly a direct link is there not? Actually no. Crucially, the cell voltage in a degraded battery does NOT change. It’s a bit like a fingerprint; it doesn’t change. The total range may (will) drop, it will discharge faster, but the voltage remains constant. That is the key point, but is a fact that few people appear to know. That is why the link between degradation and volt capping doesn’t stand up. It is a false link. Of course faster than expected degradation may be the reason Tesla felt the need to change the cell voltage in the first place, and I think it probably is, but that is of course a separate issue.

The first time this suggestion appears, it is explained that actually, the link is false. Not everyone is a battery expert, or indeed sufficiently knowledgable about how batteries work. I didn’t before all of this started. Without saying 'you are wrong because you don’t know what you are talking about' because that would just be rude, it is pointed out that the issue is, unquestionably, not degradation because of the voltage change. It can’t be, as degradation does not alter the cell voltage. Voltage changes are done, can only be done, deliberately via software changes. I don’t believe that is an opinion. I believe that is a scientific fact. It should therefore be a starting point for further discussion. Not something that should be ignored. But putting forward the view that degradation may be relevant, does exactly that; it ignores the science. So it is explained that that theory is wrong.

Then someone else suggests it may be linked to degradation. And so we go round the roundabout one more time. Then again, and again, and again. We are now into over 7000 posts on this thread, and the degradation point comes up regularly. The inevitable conclusion is, if only people would actually read the threads, or even do a search, (researching the science is perhaps too much to hope for, but a lot of it is now in Post 1) all this effort would not be required. So, patience batteries get low. Responses become less understanding, less of a debate. Less patient. It is regrettable that some responses are terser than required, but hopefully people will understand why, and that it is unlikely to be just a slap in their direction.

And in case I didn’t mention it, it can’t be degradation because of the Voltage change.

Appreciate you taking the time to explain. Please understand that even the most diligent member entering this mid thread cannot be expected to sift through 371 pages and 7 thousand some posts, and then also determine who speaks the truth when many eloquently state opinion as fact.

that’s why the 1st page wiki (thx whom ever crafted) is so useful, but only to the extent it remains concise and factual. I did not recall seeing this technical discussion of the definition of degradation in the wiki. Is it there? If not, plz boil it down and add it. Then when people raise it, you can politely direct them there, and it will improve the level of discourse.