And if we circle back to the hypothesis that the overall purpose is removing energy from the pack, cooling removes kinetic energy while powering the cooling system removes electrical energy.
-
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
The question to ask is why? I think there is agreement that affected pack could charge more, but are being limited by Tesla (i.e. capping), so the loss in capacity is beyond what would occur from normal/expected degradation (i.e. wearing out).
Two options that don't take a lot of imagination:
- Financial motivation--they forecasted a large number of complete pack failures which would cause them immediate financial damage from warranty costs and long-term damage to the brand. The actions taken hopefully push failures out of the warranty window
- Safety issue--data gathered revealed a higher than expected occurrence of dendrites or plating or something similar issue that can lead to pack fires. The actions taken hopefully solve for that issue and, with no more battery fires, hopefully, the whole thing will go away.
If Tesla would stand tall and take care of this issue by replacing the battery packs I would think it would be better for the company in long term. GM still has a bad rep from destroying the EV1 and Volkswagen has diesel gate. The long term damage would be the way they are treating the customers on this issue, What if Tesla is forced to recall every Model S and X that is effected? A voluntary recall is less damaging than a forced one. Deceiving customers is never a good thing.
Last edited:
I agree and it’s hard to believe VW is still in business I will never buy one of those cars because they lied about emissions.
DJRas
Member
I drove after another 4 hours.
The range had dropped to 215.
There was very little regen available (9kW) immediately. After a mile it had gone up to 24kW. Full regen was available after the battery dropped to 85% (60kW).
VW is the second largest auto maker in the world at 10.3 million cars, Toyota is number one at 10.4 million. VW AG has paid more than $7.4 billion to buy back about 350,000 U.S. diesel vehicles. VW has agreed to spend more than $25 billion in the United States for claims from owners so VW can take that kind of hit. This is why it is important to file a claim. Tesla may have to recall every Model S/X until the 18650 battery chemistry was changed. It would be cheaper for Tesla to supply us with new battery packs with the new battery chemistry, take the old packs, recycle the batteries to the new chemistry if that is possible.
Last edited:
That's just frickin' great. Just great! Tesla's goal is to make our packs unusable to the point of needing to buy a new one. After warranty, of course. At least with an ICE I know my gas tank won't shrink mysteriously overnight. I hate to say it, but Tesla is totally ruining the EV experience for tens of thousands of its most ardent customers who have converted tens of thousands of new customers into evangelists for the brand. Yet we sit here getting pissed on with every new software update.
This lawsuit can't get to court fast enough if you ask me.
I've never seen anything higher than 60kw in my 2015 p85d. I've still have 60kwc with V8.
Faulty cells should be replaced under warranty.
A faulty cell means a faulty module and as we know this means a new/refurbished battery pack as discussed a while back.
I agree except that I don't believe they are equally plausible. I believe 1 is a bi-product of 2. Many of the cars suffering from battery gate will be out of warranty soon. Given that Tesla is now trying to avoid warranty on anything less than complete failure, of those cars, how many will actually fail before warranty runs out? I can't see it possibly being enough to open themselves up to lawsuits from all S and Xs for chargegate and batterygate, and the bad publicity that B and C gate bring. I believe they are slowly bringing all S and Xs down and they saw something in the batterygate cars that caused them to drop them much faster. The biggest impediment to selling EVs is range and charging speed, and Elon being Elon, went for the most and the fastest. After the fires they now believe that they pushed the envelope to far and are trying back off of that optimistic view, to safer boundaries. I can't see batteries failing in mass and at the same time. This cost would be spread out over time, so I don't believe Tesla would take this action over warranty cost, which would be impossible to accurately predict anyway.
On the other hand, it would not take a lot of fires to shake peoples confidence in the product, especially if they were parked in home garages, at the time. That is a much greater risk to Tesla's viability than warranty costs covered over time. And they also stated what they did and why.
"The company has revised the charge and thermal management settings on Model S and Model X vehicles via an over-the-air (OTA) software update, to help further protect the battery and improve battery longevity" this statement was made about the fires.
So to me, this action is far to draconian to simply be about some warranty costs that will be absorbed over time.
@Ferrycraigs
If one believes this is simply about avoiding warranty, ask yourself this question. Do you honesty believe Tesla will restore your supercharging speed and original Vmax, after your warranty expires?
If not, then this can't simply be about warranty costs.
Last edited:
Ferrycraigs
Member
Good question. The simple answer is No I don’t.
I have 2 of the 3 problems; batterygate and chargegate. I do think both of those are as a direct result of battery problems. What those problems are? Who knows. Certainly not me. Of all the options, and I find many to be credible, but for me the most credible is Packs which may/may not include some poorer quality cells that Tesla have only recently discovered are wearing out much faster than expected. And I suspect high powered Supercharging has a major role to play in this. Tesla thought pumping 90-110 kWs of power into the battery could be handled. But for some cars, it has been too much. I don’t blame the BMS. The BMS works just fine on what I assume is the majority of cars (ie those not affected by B or C). So if only some cars are affected, the cause must sit with the hardware in those cars rather than the software (the software is the same in all cars). For me, the battery is top of the list of suspects. Their solution to this was to cap the battery by 15% or so. It is widely accepted within the industry that reducing the charge cycles in this way produces a disproportionate increase in battery life.
Chargegate. I think that is FAR more worrying. Batterygate only affects some pre facelift cars with smaller batteries. Chargegate affects a far wider group of cars. Why? It is difficult to discount the idea that the battery problems associated by DCFC aren’t more widespread than just some dodgy cells. Tesla may have thought initially it was down to dodgy cells, but actually it is more fundamental than that. As chargegate becomes more widely applied, I do wonder if DCFC really is damaging to the long term health of batteries. I can’t think of another credible reason why Tesla would impose this cap. Their whole Supercharging template might be a wonderful USP, but if it’s crippling the fleet, it could cripple the company. It’s hard to listen to Tesla bigging up the V3 Superchargers producing ever more amounts of charging power. If these larger powered chargers meant you got full power as number two on a charger, then good. But I don’t think that’s how they are describing them.
So, I do think batterygate is about Warranty saving costs.
I do think chargegate could be a huge problem.
Last edited:
The number on the dash maxes at 60kw, but believe it or not, I've witnessed 100kw going back into my battery in real time while watching CAN bus data streaming from the diagnostic connector. When that was happening, the dash readout was just railed at 60kw.
DJRas
Member
I too have looked at the real time data and have seen moments above the nominal max allowed. But just for a few seconds under heavy breaking.
Kind of like now plugging into a 150 kW SuC and seeing 115 for a few seconds before it stabilizes at 90 (or less).
BigNick
Infamous Fat Sweaty Guy
I have seen a brief high of 128 kW in the summer when charging from <10% SoC. Battery part number is in my sig.
It would be VERY interesting to be privy to Tesla’s fleet battery diagnostic data. Especially in a few years when (now) brand new cars - which have always had the charging limits in place - get some years and mileage on their packs to see if the temperature-based charge/regen restrictions really do benefit pack longevity.
I suspect a new S produced today with the more-limited charge/regen profile in place since new will show a lot less wear/damage then the earliest of the 100 packs that have had three years of the more aggressive charging profiles allowed. And a far lower percentage of them, if any, requiring a voltage cap due to being damaged.
Edit: After NHTSA is involved, some Tesla documentation may be subject to a US FOIA request. Maybe. IANAL.
It would be VERY interesting to be privy to Tesla’s fleet battery diagnostic data. Especially in a few years when (now) brand new cars - which have always had the charging limits in place - get some years and mileage on their packs to see if the temperature-based charge/regen restrictions really do benefit pack longevity.
I suspect a new S produced today with the more-limited charge/regen profile in place since new will show a lot less wear/damage then the earliest of the 100 packs that have had three years of the more aggressive charging profiles allowed. And a far lower percentage of them, if any, requiring a voltage cap due to being damaged.
Edit: After NHTSA is involved, some Tesla documentation may be subject to a US FOIA request. Maybe. IANAL.
Last edited:
I tried that when the update last spring started running the pumps on any charge level 90% or higher and it didn't turn off the pumps. At the time I thought there may have been a stuck relay causing the pumps to run continuously.
eye.surgeon
Active Member
I don't know what you are referring to in regards to newer cars having charging limits in place--they don't. These charging limits are being applied to older packs only. The new cars charge even faster than my older car's original charging limits.
Why would they spend the time and money to restore battery performance after the warranty expires with a ota update? That would simply add to the evidence of warranty dodging. Plus it would cost them time and money to implement. They gain nothing from that.
I feel like these crippling updates are to address both fire and warranty concerns and not just one or the other.
For a company like VW or GM, sure. For Tesla, I think things might be a bit more tenuous. In the coming years, they need to bring the Y, the pickup and the Semi to market, which is all going to take cash. Any kind of public admission of even "just" a warranty issue would be a double hit--they'll be burning cash fixing the older cars instead of being able to invest in the new models which also pushes out their associated future revenue. There would be an inevitable drop in sales of current models as folk re-evaluate the decision to buy Tesla so revenue would take a hit for some amount of time.
