Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
The problem with selling defective cells is they would risk further degradation or fire.

Do you feel that even if these packs are limited they still pose a risk, and do you feel they are more likely to degrade even beyond their "artificially" reduced capacity. Honest questions.

I would assume Tesla feels they have covered their a@# in terms of the liability associated with these packs. It would be kind of dumb of them to piss off customers and still have liability...lose lose.
 
IMG_0171.PNG IMG_0177.PNG

Follow-up: stayed unplugged all week and ran the battery down--here is the battery at 50% and 10% - the same two clusters of modules are problematic. I think I will finally charge tonight and see what happens--I have only gone below 10% a couple of times ever and I don't want to go any lower now lest the battery heater decide to kick on and leave stuck somewhere.
 
You're assuming the majority of the cells in a bad pack are bad...
Ok the way I see it

85 pack are made of 96 groups each group made of 74 cells wired in parallel

A SINGLE defective cell (out of 7104) that is detected and put out of service (fuse link?) will create a 1.3 percent reduction in capacity.
However 96 cells could be defective assuming they are all in different groups and degradation would not be worse.

To get the 10 percent and higher sudden capping there's got to be a group that has 7 or 8 bad cells.

Hence the difficulty in refurbishing battery packs (at a module level)
 
From the class action complaint, case no. 5:19-cv-4596, Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 55-62:

D. Tesla Throttles Battery Charging Speeds and Manipulates Range Calculations

55. Upon information and belief, and by and through the further investigation of Plaintiff and counsel for Plaintiff, Tesla uses various formulas to determine what the rated mileage range for its vehicles should be. Upon information and belief, Tesla has used a calculation of 295 watt-hours/mile for all Model S 85 RWD vehicles, multiplied by the total amount of usable battery capacity to determine what the total number of rated miles are.

56. The relationship between rated range and battery capacity in kWh is well known in the community to be a fixed constant multiplier of 295wh/mi (for Model S 85 kWh RWD cars) and is not related in any way to how the car is driven or the environment. Upon information and belief, this fixed constant multiplier is what Tesla used or uses to determine the estimated mileage ratings for its vehicles. This fixed constant variable is relied upon when calculating the EPA range estimates that Tesla prominently advertises, represents, and displays to consumers, and can be seen as displayed on the “Moroney Label” that is displayed on new vehicles for sale.

57. Upon information and belief, Tesla has lowered the number for the fixed constant variable, which has the practical effect of giving the illusion that more miles are available. Customers like Plaintiff and the other putative class members relied upon the number of miles that Tesla represented to them. However, what they didn’t know after purchasing the Class Vehicles is that Tesla has the ability to manipulate the number that was used to calculate mileage in order to avoid having to provide warranty battery replacements.

58. Upon further information and belief, Tesla fraudulently and unlawfully manipulated and pushed out a software update prior to February 2019 (actual update date is unknown at this time), which contained changes to the battery management system software, by replacing the variable previously used for energy consumption, or, 295 Wh/mi. Upon further information and belief, the energy consumption constant was reduced to 276 Wh/mi, for subject vehicles which in effect, would artificially increase the number of rated miles displayed for Plaintiff’s car.

59. Upon information and belief, and by and through the further investigation by Plaintiff and counsel for Plaintiff, Tesla has used this 295Wh/mi constant to determine the numbers it provides to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and has also used this variable to calculate the fleet-wide average of maximum rated mileage. This fixed constant variable was also used to determine the EPA’s estimated mileage rating of 265 miles of rated range. The Tesla Model S 85 is advertised as an “85 battery”, however, it is widely and publicly known that the Model S 85 consists of a battery pack that contains approximately 81 kWh, with only 78.1 kWh available and usable for powering the vehicle.

60. Upon investigation of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel it has become apparent that Tesla has fraudulently and/or deceptively lowered the fixed constant variable and now uses a lower watt-hour/mi variable rate a lower watt-hour/mi variable rate. The practical effect of doing so means that the total number of miles in terms of maximum range for Plaintiff’s car will display a higher number. If Tesla had used the same fixed variable rate of 295 Wh/mi, then Plaintiff’s car would then be calculated as having approximately 204 rated miles. Instead, Tesla fraudulently and unlawfully lowered this fixed variable number in order to give the illusion that Plaintiff’s car had more miles at maximum range. Doing so gives Tesla the excuse to avoid its duty and legal obligations to replace the battery of Plaintiff’s vehicle, as well as other members of the putative classes.

61. Tesla attempts to further escape from its legal obligations by using confusing terms and relies on terms such as “Rated Miles” or “Rated Range”, when the actual term that Tesla should be using is Battery Capacity calculated by the kilowatt-hour (kWh). Tesla does not display the amount of battery capacity kWh on any user information display available on the vehicle. Owners are only given access to the displayed percentage and rated range as displayed on the vehicle display.

62. Using this data obtained from multiple Tesla Model S 85 vehicles it is clear that the battery in Plaintiff’s vehicle and Class Vehicles display their rated Range based on the BMS reporting the Nominal Remaining kWh minus the Battery Brick Buffer (4 kWh) divided by the discovered constant of 276 Wh/mile. This calculation has proved consistent with multiple vehicles.

giphy.gif
Time out, is this description actually in litigation right now? Because it correctly and succinctly describes the problem to a T (pun intended). Nice work whomever researched this and wrote it. Tesla is screwed trying to defend this.
 
View attachment 501022 View attachment 501023

Follow-up: stayed unplugged all week and ran the battery down--here is the battery at 50% and 10% - the same two clusters of modules are problematic. I think I will finally charge tonight and see what happens--I have only gone below 10% a couple of times ever and I don't want to go any lower now lest the battery heater decide to kick on and leave stuck somewhere.

What app is this or how are you getting these graphs?

Thanks in advance
 
Time out, is this description actually in litigation right now? Because it correctly and succinctly describes the problem to a T (pun intended). Nice work whomever researched this and wrote it. Tesla is screwed trying to defend this.

Have you read the Post#1?

The pdf link under "CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT" is the lawsuit associated with this thread. What @thesnooch posted, the "Nice work" as you have described it, is part of that pdf.

Looks like lots of new posters to this thread have not read the Post#1 and are not familiar with what the lawsuit is all about :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: gmo43
Have you read the Post#1?

The pdf link under "CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT" is the lawsuit associated with this thread. What @thesnooch posted, the "Nice work" as you have described it, is part of that pdf.

Looks like lots of new posters to this thread have not read the Post#1 and are not familiar with what the lawsuit is all about :rolleyes:
I don't even remember, it's been.... 494 PAGES AGO.
 
I'll put out the idea that Tesla could give battery/charge gate owners a new battery, sell the original battery for stationary storage, and make $$$ and happy customers all at the same time.

Bad idea. Powerwalls use NMC cell chemistry which is designed for more frequent and deeper cycling. You could use NCA cells as a stand by pack with shallow cycles but I think you're just asking for trouble. More likely Tesla takes the old packs and uses the housing with new modules for replacement packs for vehicles, which obviously they will need.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Droschke
Bad idea. Powerwalls use NMC cell chemistry which is designed for more frequent and deeper cycling. You could use NCA cells as a stand by pack with shallow cycles but I think you're just asking for trouble. More likely Tesla takes the old packs and uses the housing with new modules for replacement packs for vehicles, which obviously they will need.

@wk057 Doesn't seem to have any problem using Tesla Model S battery modules to keep his house mostly off-grid.
 
Time out, is this description actually in litigation right now? Because it correctly and succinctly describes the problem to a T (pun intended). Nice work whomever researched this and wrote it. Tesla is screwed trying to defend this.
David's legal team did a fantastic job. The whole thing is linked on post #1 and worth reading in its entirety.
 
View attachment 501022 View attachment 501023

Follow-up: stayed unplugged all week and ran the battery down--here is the battery at 50% and 10% - the same two clusters of modules are problematic. I think I will finally charge tonight and see what happens--I have only gone below 10% a couple of times ever and I don't want to go any lower now lest the battery heater decide to kick on and leave stuck somewhere.
What hardware and software got you that information? I'm impressed.
 
Those modules came from low milage salvage vehicle packs. The batteries coming out of these defective cars aren’t low milage. And the draw wear coming from +100k miles on defective cells will put excessive wear on the cathodes of the adjacent cells because they have to overcome there unbalanced voltage gap. Take the individual cells out of these modules means welding an assload of batteries.


@wk057 Doesn't seem to have any problem using Tesla Model S battery modules to keep his house mostly off-grid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JRP3
I don't even remember, it's been.... 494 PAGES AGO.

494 pages ago (in lower case), the post#1 was only 4 lines on June 4 when this thread started and quickly started to grow.

The wiki part of post#1, which includes tons of relevant information, was added to it only recently on November 1. One important goal behind the addition of the wiki was to give the new posters answers to their questions without reading all these pages.

Lots of posters, the new ones particularly, are not aware of the wiki portion of the first post and have not (had the chance to) read it. That was my point.
 
Bad idea. Powerwalls use NMC cell chemistry which is designed for more frequent and deeper cycling. You could use NCA cells as a stand by pack with shallow cycles but I think you're just asking for trouble. More likely Tesla takes the old packs and uses the housing with new modules for replacement packs for vehicles, which obviously they will need.

Actually, good idea. Say you make an 85 a 60, then put a 15kwh buffer on the top and bottom. That gives you 30kwh and something like 3 times the usable capacity of a Powerwall 2.0 (13kwh minus a buffer.) Three times the capacity should mean 1/3rd the cycling and really no depth of discharge, because you'd always have 15kwh bottom end buffer, plus the original buffer in the pack, plus half of the artificial buffer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Guy V and UrsS