..yes, I am not capped.
& ya..sorry thought i had a non charging shot/ derp
my bad! hate the no edit rules.
this is the same charge a little after unplugged but stabilized ..decent uncapped pack I believe...
Last edited:
-
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
& ya..sorry thought i had a non charging shot/ derp
my bad! hate the no edit rules.
this is the same charge a little after unplugged but stabilized ..decent uncapped pack I believe...
cpa
Active Member
There might be a glimmer of hope for us peasants:
New 85kWH battery for my 2013 P85+
Tesla dummied two of the modules in a 100 pack to give the replacement around 85kWh. Rated range is greater than the old 85s, (I assume because the availability is greater than the 81 1/2 kWh actually in place.)
What does a reduction in voltage to 350 mean, please?
New 85kWH battery for my 2013 P85+
Tesla dummied two of the modules in a 100 pack to give the replacement around 85kWh. Rated range is greater than the old 85s, (I assume because the availability is greater than the 81 1/2 kWh actually in place.)
What does a reduction in voltage to 350 mean, please?
Horsepower = volts * Amps. Lower volts = less horsepower - that is why your car is slower since it was capped. It can't make as much power at lower volts. The power should be fine on a P85 though. Teslas newer 75D "Uncork" was just adding the P85 performance profile to 350v 75kwh cars so we already know the lower volts aren't a problem on older cars.
I will literally PAY for this upgrade right now Tesla. Offer it to us before you have to do it for recalls anyway!
This is a clever way for Tesla to stop making replacement packs for older cars and just make the one module type! It also probably means P85DL and P90DL cars will be getting 100kwh replacements when these are the only modules they are making - I don't think Ludicrous amps will be safe on a 350v battery.
glhs272
Unnamed plug faced villian
Going to 350Volts vs. 400 volts will mean slightly slower Chademo charging. <who cares>
Honestly, I would have thought that it would also mean lower output on P85 model cars due to the drive unit required to pull more amps vs the 400 volt battery. I would have assumed the drive unit and associated wiring didn't have much more ampacity to give. However, based on the thread you posted, they are already putting these packs in p85s... huh.
Yep, The part number is on Tesla's website now but...… this goes against the battery warranty by going to 350vdc instead is 400vdc. The battery warranty dictates a replacement is equal to or better that the pack that is being replaced. Time will tell if performance is effected, Isn't 350 kw the max for a P85?
Last edited:
S85 will get the same battery. If it can handle P power it will be more reliable with S power. Speculation: P85D and faster cars will get 100 kwh replacements. I don't think the 350v packs will be able to handle enough amps to make dual motor Performance power. The 75D 350v packs that were uncorked run the exact same P85 performance profile as RWD cars, so the amp draw on them was higher but they achieved similar power numbers. I think Tesla figured out a solution finally.
Hurry up and issue the recall Tesla, we know you're going to have to do it and it is better for the company if it isn't an involuntary recall.
My speculation on this is they will wait out the first round for reliability and won't issue recalls until after the Q4 earnings call. Elon is all about his stock price payday bonuses.
I don't think it does. They didn't advertise 400v batteries. They advertised 85kwh, 265 miles range, 120kW charging, and 430 horsepower. This 87kwh battery can deliver all of those things. Better than our original defective 400v batteries can, too. In fact, this is the first time they actually delivered an 85kwh battery with the claimed capacity.
They don't have to make every detail better than original, they have to make the battery at least as good as it was originally per advertised specifications. Every measurement of this 350v pack should be better than original on a P85. These are shrunk down 100 packs and those were designed for 1700 amps so the 1200 amps our P85s need at 350v should be easy.
Last edited:
I wonder if it is possible for Tesla to safely disable a bad module on a 100 pack. If so, they could use the old reman 100's as replacements for the lower-capacity batteries. That's a "win" all around. Customers get non-nerfed replacements and Tesla can use their "returned" batteries.
It doesn't work like that. The modules are 25v each and a "bad" module can actually take voltage from the rest of the pack (they sort of "go negative" in some failure modes)
This new pack is a 100 pack with 2 modules removed (or not installed) so they could reman 100 packs with 2 fewer modules, but that's more in depth than just disabling them.
This new pack is a 100 pack with 2 modules removed (or not installed) so they could reman 100 packs with 2 fewer modules, but that's more in depth than just disabling them.
If he's got a 14 mv difference at 90% without a load, his battery is not healthy. The reading isn't valid while under load but it is value while charging. My 3mv difference at 90% is still 3 mv whether I'm charging or not. If It's instead under discharge, load, it's jumps all over the place.
14 mv does seem a little bit high for a no load condition, but I don't know at what point the difference really starts to have a detrimental effect.
For my car, I usually see around 4-5 mv difference, and it shows that regardless of whether I am at 90% or 25% SOC value.
300, 400, 500v doesn't make any difference as long as the car electronics can deal with it. Lower voltage pushes your current draw much higher to get the same power, but as long as all that sits within what the car can work with, then it's really down to if the battery has same or better stored energy (kwh), sustained / peak power (kW) and charging characteristics.
@omarsultan - yeah, your pack is pretty unbalanced. It gets slightly better at 95% (or 100% since it won't charge any more). What does it look like at low SOC, as low as possible? Be careful at low SOC, though. You might find that the car shuts down early due to how imbalanced the pack is.
I still think you have a defective pack, for some reason a few of your modules are losing charge fast, and this is a hard case for the BMS to balance as it has to discharge all the other cells. Charging to 90% nightly should be plenty to get the BMS to balance the pack.
I still think that a if you perform a number of deep cycles of the pack it is likely to trigger an error which would get Tesla to replace your pack (with perhaps one of those new 350V 85kWh packs). Have you asked Tesla to check out your pack? If the pack balance is a lot worse at low SOC and you take it to the service center, you might want to bring it to them at low SOC so the pack imbalance shows up more.
Ferrycraigs
Member
Currently on 40.2.3 and charged for only the second time since the update.First went to 80% then to 90% - on a SuC. I’m voltage capped to 4.09 at 100% SoC.
Both images taken when AFTER charging finished and let settle for a few minutes. More or less mirror each other, with scale zoomed right in. Have a 10 to 11 mV difference, which normally is about how my battery sits when not under load.
Would you say that kind of mV difference is OK?
On a previous 100% SoC, only had 5mV difference so perhaps better balancing at the top end.
Separately I’ve noticed since 40.2.3 that my vampire drain seems to be a lot more significant at higher SoC, say above 80%. Have 85D without sentry mode, etc so would normally lose around 2% per day. Last night parked up with 84% and woke up to 79% so lost around 5% in about 12hrs, way more than my previous 2% in 24hrs.
Both images taken when AFTER charging finished and let settle for a few minutes. More or less mirror each other, with scale zoomed right in. Have a 10 to 11 mV difference, which normally is about how my battery sits when not under load.
Would you say that kind of mV difference is OK?
On a previous 100% SoC, only had 5mV difference so perhaps better balancing at the top end.
Separately I’ve noticed since 40.2.3 that my vampire drain seems to be a lot more significant at higher SoC, say above 80%. Have 85D without sentry mode, etc so would normally lose around 2% per day. Last night parked up with 84% and woke up to 79% so lost around 5% in about 12hrs, way more than my previous 2% in 24hrs.
A question for someone who knows the design of this pack pretty well: What is the significance of 6? Looking at these graphs, it looks like bricks are most closely balanced in blocks of 6. Same in
@Zextraterrestrial 's post above. https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/members/zextraterrestrial.2769/
Last edited:
