Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[MaryAnning3]

Also to me the Tesla communications reflect that they are combatting against lithium plating.

They communicate two key messages;
Revised thermal management
Improved battery longevity

Lithium plating occurs when the battery is charged in cold and with high current (=thermal management)

When battery is prewarmed before supercharging (recent fw update) its less prone to lithium plating

When battery is not charged to 4.2v then its less likely to acquire lithium plating and hence max charge voltage must be reduced (recent fw update)

So the common nominator for reduced capacity could be that those packs commoncly charged in cold are affected ?

Would be interesting to know if affected batteries are often charged in temps <15C (<59F)....

Wow. You have posted 5 times and you post something this detailed and informative? Impressive. I am going to have a look at your other four posts sometime.

 

[sorka]

Here’s the analogy



An Ice vehicle is purchased with a stated rating of 60mpg and top speed of 155mph – as time passes it becomes apparent to the manufacturer that the gearbox depending on how the vehicle has been driven, becomes prone to a catastrophic failure with the added potential of the engine igniting.

Said manufacturer carries out an investigation as to the cause, and proclaims it’s the 6th Gear ( overdrive) that’s at fault.

In order to mitigate the risk they decide to disable the 6th gear by reprograming the control unit .

Customer is now left with a lower MPG and lower top speed - Clearly the vehicles should be recalled and gearbox replaced – This is no different to owners who have had their battery restricted – If there is a fault Tesla should do the right thing and recall these vehicles.

I thought for a second you were describing something that actually happened, then I realized it was an analogy....then I realized that is EXACTLY what Tesla just did...which was the point of your analogy. I still haven't actually had my coffee yet this morning

 

[MaryAnning3]

They're lying about it though. When some batteries here are limited to charging to only 85%, Tesla is displaying 100% when it isn't. They are taking range that exists currently and eliminating it with a software update and claiming that it only effects a very very tiny number of cars(which of course is false). If true, then they should just be honest about the actual SOC and tell the customer to come in for a battery replacement before their car catches fire. They are cutting corners to avoid warranty repairs by stealing range and telling the customer that it is normal degradation when it isn't.

I am not so sure I agree. Maybe they (Telsa) are just doing their best to protect consumers and keep batteries safe in spite of some possible misuse and degradation.

 

[sorka]

I am not so sure I agree. Maybe they (Telsa) are just doing their best to protect consumers and keep batteries safe in spite of some possible misuse and degradation.

Then why are they displaying 100% charge when the battery is not really fully charged?

 

[MaryAnning3]

So the common nominator for reduced capacity could be that those packs commoncly charged in cold are affected ?

Is state of charge (SoC) a compounding factor? Would batteries charged about 90% in cold weather be more subject to Li plating? How would you compare Li plating issues to dendritic growth issues? Under what circumstances does each occur and which tends to be more of an influence on longevity?

 

[Zhelko Dimic]

Then why are they displaying 100% charge when the battery is not really fully charged?

This has always been the case - Tesla is the one determining what is the safe level of voltage that will be allowed. We're dealing with the chemistry here, there is no hard limit that is equal to 100%.
100% that you see in the new car has never been true 100% that you can charge the cell.
Battery Voltage Information – Battery University

 

[Target]

Is state of charge (SoC) a compounding factor? Would batteries charged about 90% in cold weather be more subject to Li plating? How would you compare Li plating issues to dendritic growth issues? Under what circumstances does each occur and which tends to be more of an influence on longevity?

High State of Charge during cool (lower than 50F) battery temperatures while charging encourages Lithium Plating. Lithium dendrites start to form when the Lithium plating condition gets really bad.

 

[Big Earl]

Classic pack degradation doesn't happen overnight.

Was that poster claiming that it happened overnight? Based on the information provided, I was under the impression that he was just piling on to another range-loss thread, not realizing that this issue is different than what most 90s experience.

 

[sorka]

This has always been the case - Tesla is the one determining what is the safe level of voltage that will be allowed. We're dealing with the chemistry here, there is no hard limit that is equal to 100%.
100% that you see in the new car has never been true 100% that you can charge the cell.
Battery Voltage Information – Battery University

That is rubbish. 100% is always 4.2 volts. You're splitting hairs. Not a true 100% still means 99.99% or close to it. The point being that Tesla has always used mapped a fully charged cell at 4.2 volts to 100% and now they're not depending on how much capacity they're stealing from you. In some cases, they still display 100% when it's only really 85%.

If they need to limit the charge on a very few cars for safety reasons, I'm 100% all for that as long as they tell the user that they are being limited so that they can come in and get their battery replaced. Tesla is trying to change the rules after the fact to save money on warranty replacements.

 

[Big Earl]

High State of Charge during cool (lower than 50F) battery temperatures while charging encourages Lithium Plating. Lithium dendrites start to form when the Lithium plating condition gets really bad.

Like setting a charge timer for 2 hours before you leave work on a winter morning because you want a warm battery from charging? If Tesla's battery heating algorithm wasn't aggressive enough, these could be favorable conditions for lithium plating. This is also common practice for quite a few people on these forums.

 

[Matias]

I am not so sure I agree. Maybe they (Telsa) are just doing their best to protect consumers and keep batteries safe in spite of some possible misuse and degradation.

What kind of misuse are you thinking?

 

[jaitch]

I am happy for Tesla to take my V1 90 battery and give me the correct ludicrous V3 one. They can then use mine, and others, as replacements for those suffering the issues detailed in this thread.

 

[electronblue]

Context is wrong. You are showing it as if it's Tesla specific, and unusual - all other auto companies are much worse.

For example, I've had few Porsches, and there is not one that didn't have major issues that company refused to fix (from the exploding engines on 996/997, need to rebuild top end often and early on previous generations, to coolant spilling out on Metzger engines, Turbo/GT3, causing the car behind you to crash if you were on the track, hydraulic pump overheating and causing engine fire (turbo) etc, etc... BMW is much worse story, and Mercedes too...

So your righteousness is misplaced. It's like complaining that life isn't fair - yeah, it isn't...

I feel that Tesla has the right to manage battery based on new info, and if that means you lose some range on 50 or 100Kmiles car, so be it. Especially that it seems to have been the case for ones that used mostly fast charging, which one knew is harder on the battery.
I mean, loss of 10% range isn't equal to your engine exploding rendering your car worthless, is it? Like it would happen with the Porsche...

Why are you talking about other companies when I simply stated that what is happening in this thread is normal for Tesla and there are at least two precedents within Tesla for that? Where was I complaining?

Tesla has limited features after sales through firmware updates as has happened here this time too. This is a historical fact.

Indeed you seem to agree in your text this is normal for Tesla. No?

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.

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?

 

[Zhelko Dimic]

That is rubbish. 100% is always 4.2 volts. You're splitting hairs. Not a true 100% still means 99.99% or close to it. The point being that Tesla has always used mapped a fully charged cell at 4.2 volts to 100% and now they're not depending on how much capacity they're stealing from you. In some cases, they still display 100% when it's only really 85%.

If they need to limit the charge on a very few cars for safety reasons, I'm 100% all for that as long as they tell the user that they are being limited so that they can come in and get their battery replaced. Tesla is trying to change the rules after the fact to save money on warranty replacements.

I'll bet you my S60 was never 4.2V. Ever. The point is that reality of thousands of individual cells in many modules that need to be balanced for longevity and power, is much more complex than your simplistic statements.

When you internalize that 100% is what software says is 100%, you may understand why Tesla thinks they can change this at will.

And I agree with Tesla. Whether range dropped through gradual loss of capacity, or rather suddenly because of safety concerns, it's a real loss of capacity.
It would be silly of Tesla to give a new battery to a 4-5 year old car because it lost 10% range.

Now, is this a problem? Yeah, it is, it's a minus. Should you buy another Tesla? Maybe not... But I'll trust Tesla over bunch of newbies to batteries Germans every day of the week, especially that I'm well accustomed to their definition of 'goodwill'

 

[Skipdd]

Context is wrong. You are showing it as if it's Tesla specific, and unusual - all other auto companies are much worse.

For example, I've had few Porsches, and there is not one that didn't have major issues that company refused to fix (from the exploding engines on 996/997, need to rebuild top end often and early on previous generations, to coolant spilling out on Metzger engines, Turbo/GT3, causing the car behind you to crash if you were on the track, hydraulic pump overheating and causing engine fire (turbo) etc, etc... BMW is much worse story, and Mercedes too...

So your righteousness is misplaced. It's like complaining that life isn't fair - yeah, it isn't...

I feel that Tesla has the right to manage battery based on new info, and if that means you lose some range on 50 or 100Kmiles car, so be it. Especially that it seems to have been the case for ones that used mostly fast charging, which one knew is harder on the battery.
I mean, loss of 10% range isn't equal to your engine exploding rendering your car worthless, is it? Like it would happen with the Porsche...

Glad I opted for Tesla over Porsche. That said, as they say, “two wrongs don’t make a right.” I expect better of Tesla.

 

[sorka]

I'll bet you my S60 was never 4.2V. Ever. The point is that reality of thousands of individual cells in many modules that need to be balanced for longevity and power, is much more complex than your simplistic statements.

When you internalize that 100% is what software says is 100%, you may understand why Tesla thinks they can change this at will.

And I agree with Tesla. Whether range dropped through gradual loss of capacity, or rather suddenly because of safety concerns, it's a real loss of capacity.
It would be silly of Tesla to give a new battery to a 4-5 year old car because it lost 10% range.

Now, is this a problem? Yeah, it is, it's a minus. Should you buy another Tesla? Maybe not... But I'll trust Tesla over bunch of newbies to batteries Germans every day of the week, especially that I'm well accustomed to their definition of 'goodwill'

Your statements are simplistic. The balancing you're talking about is within a few millivolts. Even if you have a blown cell in a string, the over all cell average will be very close to 4.2 volts.

And yes, your S60's average 100% charged cell was very close to 4.2 volts.

And you've missed the entire point. A real 10% degradation isn't covered under warranty as we all agree to when we buy our cars. But 10% taken away via software when it actually still exists is not degradation of any kind.

 

[sorka]

Geesh, it's just like the same crowd that came out of the woodwork back in 2015 that said it was perfectly fine for Tesla to advertise 691 hp when the car could only make 463 hp with the battery supplied

 

[electronblue]

Geesh, it's just like the same crowd that came out of the woodwork back in 2015 that said it was perfectly fine for Tesla to advertise 691 hp when the car could only make 463 hp with the battery supplied

Some of us believed Tesla concerning P90DL performance figures too... and on EAP/FSD announcements in 2016...

So, yes, Tesla firmware updates giveth and taketh, without much resemblance to their product announcements.

 

[sorka]

What kind of misuse are you thinking?

The kind of misuse that comes from charging to 100% or very high too frequently. Tesla is very clear up front that doing this will degrade your battery faster and that it won't be covered under warranty. As a result, I rarely charge to 100% but do so several times a year to make trips that I otherwise wouldn't be able to. I do it infrequently enough that I've only lost 11 miles of range in 93K miles.

That said, if I were to choose to do it more frequently and suffer the consequences, it's my choice to do so and when I bought my car I had that choice. Tesla now wants to take that choice away. For many on this thread, it has literally meant they could no longer use their car to make certain trips when it was likely they'd have been able to continue to do so for years to come even at the cost of more degradation.

But that's their choice. Eventually they'd either need to buy a new battery or a new car to continue to be able make those trips but that's better than not being able traverse them at all.

 

[Muffinman]

Updates just came calling on both our TMS. Installed on our 85D which got a 30-40% drop in supercharger speeds during this mess. New version 2019.20.4.2.66625e9. Will postpone install on our P85 until having checked supercharger speed. Neither car has any top end voltage cap so far.

Anyone seeing this update making any difference?