Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[jaitch]

Maybe Tesla are delaying the inevitable expensive battery replacements until they have made a fortune from the Model 3, Roadster, truck et al.

 

[electronblue]

Maybe Tesla are delaying the inevitable expensive battery replacements until they have made a fortune from the Model 3, Roadster, truck et al.

Avoiding and/or delaying warranty claims would fit with the precedent of limiting Performance launches and DC charging speed via firmware.

 

[⚡️ELECTROMAN⚡️]

At least they made the MS capable of quickly swapping batteries. Looks to me like they are going to be replacing a lot of them under warranty. If this happens to the M3 they will be screwed. Have you seen an M3 battery removal video yet? I wonder how easy it is to replace an MX battery.

 

[Chaserr]

@electronblue You can add P85D horsepower to that list, Tesla lied and is still not delivering what they sold. I think they did the same thing to P90D owners.

 

[Big Earl]

At least they made the MS capable of quickly swapping batteries. Looks to me like they are going to be replacing a lot of them under warranty. If this happens to the M3 they will be screwed. Have you seen an M3 battery removal video yet? I wonder how easy it is to replace an MX battery.

Model X is just like the Model S.

 

[Big Earl]

I wonder what you disagreed with me @Zhelko Dimic here?

Even without considering other types of precedents, there are at least two very clear cases like this kWh/performance limiting in Tesla’s past.

Limiting number of full performance launches on Tesla Performance models via firmware:

Pack Performance and Launch Mode Limits

Limiting DC charging speed based on DC charging counters via firmware:

If you fast charge, Tesla will permanently throttle charging

Both were done silently and only came to light through customer research such as this thread.

What makes you think this is not normal for Tesla?

From what I can tell, the difference here is a potential safety issue (thermal event - fire - due to short circuits from lithium plating). Launch mode limitations, in my opinion, were corporate gaffs attempting to mitigate driveline wear (half shafts, etc.). The P85D was borderline false advertising -- I say borderline because they did a straight kW to HP conversion at the pack level, similar to advertising engine crank horsepower instead of wheel horsepower. I'm not also fully-informed on the details of the P85D horsepower issue, so I might be misunderstanding something.

 

[Droschke]

You can add P85D horsepower to that list,

This is the list.

 

[jaitch]

@electronblue You can add P85D horsepower to that list, Tesla lied and is still not delivering what they sold. I think they did the same thing to P90D owners.

As a recent P90DL owner (not appreciating what difference versions of battery make to performance) I feed that Teslia misled me somewhat - so yes.

 

[DJRas]

What is your battery part number? Is it the same as your friend's?
The number is on a sticker on the front right side of the battery.

Both mine and my friend's are D

 

[⚡️ELECTROMAN⚡️]

Isn’t this completely ”on character” for Tesla the company, though?

This is not the first time something like this has happened. Not even the second time.

People generally have woken up to this fact at their own pace but I think a lot of folks would agree by now this is simply the way Tesla operates and has done for years now.

This is the Tesla normal — and it is not new.

Reminds me of Apple, except the device is 100 times more expensive.

 

[tga]

Both mine and my friend's are D

FYI, "D" is no longer a sufficient answer - once they rev the part number, the number and letter suffix revert to "00-A"

In the early days, there was one main part number, so the letter was sufficient to identify a pack version. If you look at the degradation spreadsheet, we now have "1014114", "1074978", "1031043", "1088815", "1071941", "1107172", and who knows what else.

Your picture shows you have "1014114-00-D". You know that your battery is earlier than my "1014114-00-E", but you can't infer anything about ours in relation to another part number ("1074978-xx-y", for example).

 

[electronblue]

@electronblue You can add P85D horsepower to that list, Tesla lied and is still not delivering what they sold. I think they did the same thing to P90D owners.

As a recent P90DL owner (not appreciating what difference versions of battery make to performance) I feed that Teslia misled me somewhat - so yes.

All true of course. I was just trying to keep my precedent list closely aligned to the case at hand — ie degrading features through ”hidden” firmware changes apparently to avoid warranty claims... in that sense the Launch and DC charging counters/limiters are closest to the current case I think.

 

[sorka]

I wonder what you disagreed with me @Zhelko Dimic here?

Same here. I replied to someone asking about if 100% charged meant 100% charged and stated the known fact that 100% in the cases effected by this update meant that 100% is not really 100%.

Clearly someone with an agenda.

....and now I get it. Just do a search on his postings. This sort of behavior should get you banned from the forum.

 

[sorka]

I think Tesla has discovered lithium plating in some battery packs. The reduction in max voltage is an attempt to prevent further lithium plating (which could ultimately result in failure or fire).

This should just be a temporary measure until they can get the car in to replace the battery under warranty. If they're derating the battery under conditions that they consider unsafe, then that is not normal degradation. A battery that has normally degraded a lot can still be safely charged to full.

 

[sorka]

From what I can tell, the difference here is a potential safety issue (thermal event - fire - due to short circuits from lithium plating). Launch mode limitations, in my opinion, were corporate gaffs attempting to mitigate driveline wear (half shafts, etc.). The P85D was borderline false advertising -- I say borderline because they did a straight kW to HP conversion at the pack level, similar to advertising engine crank horsepower instead of wheel horsepower. I'm not also fully-informed on the details of the P85D horsepower issue, so I might be misunderstanding something.

Actually it was way worse than that. They advertised 691 hp but even if you do straight hp at the battery before inverter and mechanical losses to the get the motor shaft, the P85D Insane still only made 555 hp 100% charged at max battery ready and far less than that on a not too cold or not too warm battery at 80%.

 

[sorka]

I posted my P85DL+ for sale in the market place forum.....still on v8

I'm never buying a car again that has over the air updates. Not because I don't think it is a really awesome capability but because you'd have to trust the company behind the updates which in this case I do not.

 

[electronblue]

Actually it was way worse than that. They advertised 691 hp but even if you do straight hp at the battery before inverter and mechanical losses to the get the motor shaft, the P85D Insane still only made 555 hp 100% charged at max battery ready and far less than that on a not too cold or not too warm battery at 80%.

The 691 hp case was sort of reverse of this range loss though.

In that case Tesla shipped a car with less than advertised performance and made vague promises of future firmware updates making it all right. (Never happened of course.)

The case at hand is the reverse of that: removal of shipped features via firmware.

Although I agree both cases are related to the same ethics issues at Tesla.

 

[sorka]

The 691 hp case was sort of reverse of this range loss though.

In that case Tesla shipped a car with less than advertised performance and made vague promises of future firmware updates making it all right. (Never happened of course.)

The case at hand is the reverse of that: removal of shipped features via firmware.

Although I agree both cases are related to the same ethics issues at Tesla.

I don't know about reversal given that Tesla never increased power with a firmware update. They did decrease 0-60 from 3.2 to 3.1 but that was through power curve management(not peak power) pushing power on the low end to closer to the traction limits.

The only real power increase we got was a heavily discounted Ludicrous upgrade. I truly believe this is what prevented a class action although I'm personally aware of 7 cases of members in this forum that settled (under NDA) many of them getting the entire $20K Insane option fee back.

 

[electronblue]

@sorka I merely suggested that in the P85D case Tesla made comments to the effect that a future software update would help the performance reach the advertised figures, sort of reverse what happened here. In that case the motivation seems to have been to help P85D sales. The firmware update to fix it all never materialized of course and at least in Norway Tesla lost a court case about it too.

In the case at hand now, the motivation seems to be to avoid or lessen warranty costs?

 

[IngTH]

According to the various battery longevity studies I've been reading the past couple of days, lithium plating is most likely in all-graphite anode batteries (like the 85 kWh and other earlier packs). I've seen nothing that specifically references NCA chemistry compared to others.

Li-plating happens mostly at the anode this true, but it reduces the amount of cycle-able Li which is affecting cathode stability at higher SOCs. From the comparison table in my former post you may estimate the hidden reserve of NCM over NCA!

Second: When structural changes of the cathode are going to happen because exessive delithiation, NCM transforms to a spinell, NCA to a rock-salt structure. Latter behaves as an electric isolator (ohmic impedance rises as a second side effect besides capacity loss)!