If they had capped from 4.1 at the beginning and advertised stats based on the caps, it would all be OK. They did exactly t hat on the S40, capped S60, some S75 sold with actual BTX85 packs, and the base $35k Model SR. It's legal because the EPA (and global equivalents) tested those configurations and they were sold with the cap in place - buyers weren't duped into false purchases or deprived afterward. Capping adter the fact invalidates the EPA's MPGe rating and is theft of purchased goods because the MVPA every one of us signed was priced based on options that were only achievable when rated with the battery on its original and uncapped value. The cap invalidates factory new specifications.
-
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
faughtz
Model S P85DL
Never paid much attention to individual module temps, but noticing the last few (no idea how far back) charging sessions show one module of what I take to be an inlet temp that is higher than the outlet.
Wondering if a parameter is switched in TM-Spy, or if it is real. Anyone else see this?
Wondering if a parameter is switched in TM-Spy, or if it is real. Anyone else see this?
cpa
Active Member
At the Kettleman City Supercharger earlier today, I parked next to a 100 Model S. The car had manufacturer plates and curiously, RHD.
So, I asked the techs when the 100S will be having cell voltage capped and gimped Supercharging rates. I showed them my 42 kW at 50%.
They mentioned the standard company line about battery degradation. I said that degradation has no affect on the max voltage per cell. I asked them why the batteries were now capped at 4.1 volts.
They decided to walk into the lounge.
So, I asked the techs when the 100S will be having cell voltage capped and gimped Supercharging rates. I showed them my 42 kW at 50%.
They mentioned the standard company line about battery degradation. I said that degradation has no affect on the max voltage per cell. I asked them why the batteries were now capped at 4.1 volts.
They decided to walk into the lounge.
Ferrycraigs
Member
Thanks. Not quite the answer I was hoping for, but I need to know it nonetheless.
I would do that, if I had bought the cable and App before batterygate. But I only bought them after batterygate in order to confirm I had been capped. Classic horse, bolt, stable scenario.
faughtz
Model S P85DL
I had the opposite approach from Alex today at the Manhattan beach mall. He said he was assisting with supercharger traffic and looking for feedback. I gave him feedback, while acknowledging the difficulty of his position. He was very patient, and interested in the saga of my P85DL from horsepower to auptopilot to launch mode to 1ft rollout to loss of cell voltage, performance, capacity and slowed supercharging.
He seemed genuinely interested, and said Musk was to visit his location in Dec, and he expected a lively discussion. I don’t, but I feel better.
jaitch
Member
Back in 2006 Tesla limited the Roadster to 4.15 V according to this Tesla blog by Martin Eberhard .."why we have limited our maximum state of charge to 4.15V/cell instead of 4.2V/cell."
A Bit About Batteries
Ferrycraigs
Member
No I haven’t met with him yet. But in telephone conversations they always emphasise to pre send all relevant documentation for them to pour over before we talk. And it just struck me, we all agree that 4.2V is the default setting, but lawyers (in UK) demand evidence proving everything. Taking a client's word won't cut it, particularly in court. Showing someone else’s data probably won’t cut it either. But if there isn’t any proof, then there isn’t any proof.
OK heres the detail
model P85D
year 2016
range before = 250
range now = 190
range lost on the day software was installed - instantly
They have confirmed the association between the firmware update and loss of range. They have confirmed they will take no further action hence and I repeat ' Tesla clearly hate (premier paying) customers. Why else would you ignore people having caused this massive massive inconveniance? Do you need any more evidence?
Was Tesla not supposed to the NHTSA by today re the safety concerns unless they requested an extension?
Anyone have an update?
Anyone have an update?
BigNick
Infamous Fat Sweaty Guy
It seems like Tesla reversed course on these:
* “Avoiding very high and very low states of charge. Voltages over 4.15V/cell (about 95 percent state of charge [SOC]) and voltages below 3.00V/cell (about 2 percent SOC) cause more stress on the insides of the cell (both physical and electrical).”
* “Avoiding very high charge rates. Charging faster than about C/2 (two hour charge) can reduce the cell's life.”
Perhaps the Panasonic 18650s used in Model S were presumed to be capable of handling a full 100% SOC and faster charging better than the original Roadster cells? There was about six years between the Roadster battery blog and the first Model S deliveries.
Then after a few fire investigations this year, they found they were wrong about the cells in some cars and Batterygate was born. Not everyone was affected, but Chargegate that was implemented soon afterward affected everyone.
In hindsight, how much of the current brouhaha could have been avoided from the start in 2012 by adhering to those guidelines and sacrificing roughly 15 miles of advertised range and adding 15 minutes to Supercharging 0% to 80% sessions, instead of the stealth nerfs that were applied in Spring 2019?
By "current brouhaha", I take that as the 'damaged batteries'. If there is no wound there is no band-aid needed. The wound is caused by over the manufacture's overzealous behavior. The responsibility lies with Tesla.
JTWIRE
Member
My S on a road trip (temps in the low 40s) had some range loss, very disconcerting. Cannot wait for warmer weather to return.
Ferrycraigs
Member
I’m having the same problem also. I’ve had 2 updates and after it was done, the release notes were blank.
So if I follow the reasoning how come the newer X and S cars don't seem to suffer? Did they improve the manufacture of the cells (same cells all along). Any '18 or '19 cars affected?
So I did a 100% at home with range mode on. Surprised at the voltage. Pretty sure I saw 4.2 with the same range and energy available a while ago.
Blimey - you were able to charge to 101% according to battery graph (100.9% on custom screen) ?
Also if I am reading this right and you divide your useable kWh capacity of 68.6 kWh by your rated range shown of 246 miles - that means that your internal fixed algorithm multiplier is 279 watts.
This is close to my 281 watts which according to @wk057 for an 85D used to be 290 watts?
jaitch
Member
After looking at some Tesla patents the closest thing I could find to a reference to 4.2 volts was from US 7782021 (Aug 2010) and US 8063757 (Nov 2011). Extract screen grabs of the relevant bits are shown below (they are basically the same). You can find the full patents on
Google Patents
I didn't check all Tesla Patents so you can have a look if you want!:- Privacy & Legal | Tesla
Attachments
Similar threads
