Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[jkennebeck]

The other mystery is the Tesloop X90's which have done nothing but supercharging in warm environments and have gone 200-300K+ miles on original packs.

source please?

everything I have read about the tesloop cars said they had pack replacements done and not infrequently

 

[JRP3]

Yes, and if this happened over the expected life of the tire, you would shrug and call Tire Rack. If someone snuck into your garage overnight and shaved your tires down to slicks, you might be a little bit annoyed.

Of course, and I've never suggested that people shouldn't be annoyed by what has happened.

 

[jkennebeck]

Tesloop’s Tesla Model S Surpasses 400,000 miles (643,737 kM) — Tesloop

194

324-194= 130

neither case of replacement did it make it over 200
and neither case did it get anywhere CLOSE to 300k

fake news

 

[JRP3]

source please?

everything I have read about the tesloop cars said they had pack replacements done and not infrequently

Last I knew their Model S was the only one with a pack replacement, the X90's were still running original.
Model X 90D “Deuxy” Achieves 300,000 Miles In Less Than Two Years — Tesloop
Tesloop's High Mileage Teslas — Tesloop

 

[Chaserr]

In AAPL's case, they were sued dozens of times and lost all of them. They're still losing class actions over their capping, and that was never associated to any public safety risks either. The $20 battery replacement settlements definitely went a long way towards keeping repeat buyers, it was a smart move.

Tesloop lost its license to operate for a couple years, they should resume chewing through batteries soon. I think they got those legal issues sorted out again didn't they?

 

[fbitz777]

In my case the Sudden REGEN limitations and constant battery warming are a bigger killer on my car's range than the loss of range due to capping. That includes the constant battery warming even in in a mild 55F day. It is also quite "dangerous" as the car has zero rolling friction and is heavy.

Moreover I am now realizing that battery warming (while driving) is NOT included in the displayed Wh/mi or KWh on the display or the car. Why is Tesla so afraid to hide Vampire Drain and Battery warming (or cooling) from the user. Both Bold and Ford Ev clearly display the total energy used.

 

[bhzmark]

Perhaps in a lab, but in order to do it on the street you have to break the law and intentionally put lives in jeopardy.

False. It is very common. . US20170203667A1 - Charging strategies to mitigate lithium plating in electrified vehicle battery - Google Patents

Li plating is probably the most dangerous accusation I've seen anyone accuse Tesla of covering up,

That's like saying "Tire tread wear is probably the most dangerous accusation I've seen anyone accuse Goodyear of covering up."

Lithium plating is a common to be expected artifact of lithium battery wear.

Some will have more plating than others. Some plating will be reversible and some will be irreversible. Of the reversible plating, some might be reversed, if subjected to the right conditions and some will not.

 

[mjmiron]

i wish you all luck in getting your batteries replaced i had enough and sold my S while market is hot. Will go back to Tesla in a few years if they can come around and start taking better care of their early adopters.

 

[Droschke]

i wish you all luck in getting your batteries replaced i had enough and sold my S while market is hot. Will go back to Tesla in a few years if they can come around and start taking better care of their early adopters.

I do not blame you. Good decision.

 

[cpa]

So, to continue our inexorable degradation of this thread:

The battery warranty back in the day was worded so that a reasonable soul would assume that Tesla would stand behind its battery and its BMS regulatory software no matter what. Drive your car, they said. Supercharge all you need, they said. Today, Tesla has beefed up its battery warranty to exclude loss of range (assuming cell voltage here) that is foisted upon the batteries and only will honor the warranty if there is physical (not artificial) loss exceeding 30%. Why the sudden change?

Condition Z or no condition Z, Tesla has learned something over the past six years. Exactly what they have learned is their closely-guarded secret, and it has likely precipitated this updated battery warranty. Tesla knows that they might have to cap new S and X vehicles in the future if certain conditions express themselves over time.

To my view, Tesla has placed itself in an untenable position: They are tacitly admitting that these batteries might be subject to non-warrantable reductions in range if Tesla detects certain conditions developing in the cells. Yet they still boast of rapid Supercharging speeds with no caveats about frequency of usage or charge levels. Moreover, Tesla does not provide its customers with best care battery practices, gauges, and other data for us to see for ourselves just what is happening when we drive, when we charge, and when our cars are parked.

I conclude that the original battery warranty was to promote the brand, period. We were hoodwinked into falling for the hype and hoopla surrounding this innovative automobile so that Tesla could grow market share and eventually release the Model 3 and Model Y. Tesla intentionally worded its original battery warranty as a marketing ploy to induce us to buy their vehicles, knowing full well that a handful of vehicles would wind up needing replacement batteries. Tesla did not expect the vast numbers of us who have driven 50-150K miles in 5-7 years and/or have Supercharged a lot of those miles. Tesla did not anticipate that some of the cars for whatever reason would spontaneously combust, either.

While I am not a lawyer, it is pretty much settled law that a contract (a warranty is a contract) dispute is generally settled against the party that wrote the contract. Tesla wrote the warranty contract. If the voltage capping software update revealed actual usage degradation that was masked by the previous iterations of its software, then we are not entitled to any redress. Yes, it was sudden. But had this software been installed from day one, the degradation would not have been sudden, so we are SOL. I can live with this.

Instead, Tesla has limited the voltage maximum artificially. Tesla changed the terms or has seized upon the ambiguity of its original warranty to tell us to pound sand. Then they exacerbate the situation with deceit, dissembling, and other canards to tell us everything is just hunky dory.

 

[bhzmark]

tacitly admitting that these batteries might be subject to non-warrantable reductions in range

Huh? The battery warranty says reductions in range are not warrant able. They put it in black white.

Tesla does not provide its customers with best care battery practices, gauges, and other data for us to see for ourselves just what is happening when we drive, when we charge, and when our cars are parked.

Agreed they should.

it is pretty much settled law that a contract (a warranty is a contract) dispute is generally settled against the party that wrote the contract.

It matters what the contract actually says much more than who drafted it.

 

[qwk]

If you had a definitive answer you could end the discussion immediately. Not sure why you wouldn't provide it if you had it.

I agree that is a likely trigger. High current charging can cause increased undesirable side reactions and, I'm sorry to say, cause accelerated "bad things". Especially in packs which may have compromised chemistry. Back when Tesla introduced Supercharging I was surprised since it's no secret that higher C rate charging accelerates wear. I figured they had found a solution to mitigate the problem.


Maybe, maybe not. As I've mentioned Tesla gave up some capacity gain in the Model 3 cells for a reason, that reason may be faster charge rates and longer cycle life. But it is possible the 3 will have similar issues.
I'm expecting the million mile pack to be NMC based chemistry which has an inherently higher cycle life, it's what they use in their stationary products. Million miles from a 400 mile pack is 2,500 cycles, NMC can easily do that. I do have a Cybertruck reservation so I am watching how this all plays out.

What difference would it make if I told you? You don’t believe any facts people have pointed out in this very thread anyway.

It would be different if you had actual experience with these cars, instead of being a lifetime reservation holder.

Tesla doesn’t have any special battery chemistry that makes magical batteries. They used the most energy dense, and volatile chemistry around, threw an unlimited mile warranty at them, and pushed them to the limit. That’s why this thread exists.

There should be no doubt that the Model 3 will have the same bad ending. The difference will be that the batteries will die after their warranty is up, and you get to buy a new car. The newer software voltage limits them gradually, so that this sudden range drop they have on their hands with the Model S won’t happen again.

 

[glhs272]

So I finally got around to using Scan My Tesla on my car. Here are some of my observations.

I found that my car will only achieve a voltage of about 4.150 at full charge (at rest). But it won't actually fully charge to 100%. During charging (starting from 90%) it will see about 4.195 volts on some cells. Other cells are still in the 4.150 range. so about a 45mV imbalance when charging (AC charging ~7kw). At rest after charge complete, the cells that were about 4.195 go back to about 4.150. The cells that were always at 4.150 during charging don't drop much when the charging stops. So the imbalance at rest is only 6mV. So I am not sure if there is any voltage capping going on or if this is just the result of a couple weak modules limiting my max charge due to imbalance during charging. Oddly, 2 complete modules exhibited this behavior. All the cells in both those modules were balanced well between themselves, but those 2 modules were considerably off from the rest of the pack.

I re-reviewed the first page of this thread and it's a good write-up of the situation. But I didn't find out much about what to expect for voltages during different situations. For example, Charging vs. at rest. What to expect during supercharging....

So anyway, just posting my observations. Anyone here have thoughts on this?

 

[omarsultan]

Huh? The battery warranty says reductions in range are not warrant able. They put it in black white.

Why does everyone that takes this line of reasoning always neglect to mention that it also says "gradual" in the relevant paragraph. It gets tedious. Here it is, in context, in back and white with some red thrown in for good measure, or are we now going to have 40 post pedantic discussion of what "gradual" means?

 

[Chaserr]

So, to continue our inexorable degradation of this thread:

The battery warranty back in the day was worded so that a reasonable soul would assume that Tesla would stand behind its battery and its BMS regulatory software no matter what. Drive your car, they said. Supercharge all you need, they said. Today, Tesla has beefed up its battery warranty to exclude loss of range (assuming cell voltage here) that is foisted upon the batteries and only will honor the warranty if there is physical (not artificial) loss exceeding 30%. Why the sudden change?

Condition Z or no condition Z, Tesla has learned something over the past six years. Exactly what they have learned is their closely-guarded secret, and it has likely precipitated this updated battery warranty. Tesla knows that they might have to cap new S and X vehicles in the future if certain conditions express themselves over time.

To my view, Tesla has placed itself in an untenable position: They are tacitly admitting that these batteries might be subject to non-warrantable reductions in range if Tesla detects certain conditions developing in the cells. Yet they still boast of rapid Supercharging speeds with no caveats about frequency of usage or charge levels. Moreover, Tesla does not provide its customers with best care battery practices, gauges, and other data for us to see for ourselves just what is happening when we drive, when we charge, and when our cars are parked.

I conclude that the original battery warranty was to promote the brand, period. We were hoodwinked into falling for the hype and hoopla surrounding this innovative automobile so that Tesla could grow market share and eventually release the Model 3 and Model Y. Tesla intentionally worded its original battery warranty as a marketing ploy to induce us to buy their vehicles, knowing full well that a handful of vehicles would wind up needing replacement batteries. Tesla did not expect the vast numbers of us who have driven 50-150K miles in 5-7 years and/or have Supercharged a lot of those miles. Tesla did not anticipate that some of the cars for whatever reason would spontaneously combust, either.

While I am not a lawyer, it is pretty much settled law that a contract (a warranty is a contract) dispute is generally settled against the party that wrote the contract. Tesla wrote the warranty contract. If the voltage capping software update revealed actual usage degradation that was masked by the previous iterations of its software, then we are not entitled to any redress. Yes, it was sudden. But had this software been installed from day one, the degradation would not have been sudden, so we are SOL. I can live with this.

Instead, Tesla has limited the voltage maximum artificially. Tesla changed the terms or has seized upon the ambiguity of its original warranty to tell us to pound sand. Then they exacerbate the situation with deceit, dissembling, and other canards to tell us everything is just hunky dory.

Creating the World’s Best Service and Warranty Program

Just drive. If they screw up charge or thermal settings it's their fault not yours. This was my cars enticement. It was a lie But it's still legally binding.

 

[PhReAkShO]

Why does everyone that takes this line of reasoning always neglect to mention that it also says "gradual" in the relevant paragraph. It gets tedious. Here it is, in context, in back and white with some red thrown in for good measure, or are we now going to have 40 post pedantic discussion of what "gradual" means?

View attachment 509035

Maybe we can put the whole degradation argument to bed from the standpoint that even if you can determine it is degradation, and I am of the opinion it is NOT, the qualifier in the warranty says GRADUAL. We can all agree that the loss was not Gradual in any way but instantaneous after a SW update. So even if it could be proven as degradation it should still be warrantable as it was definitely not gradual.

 

[Chaserr]

Ceding even that little bit just opens the door to reducing volts over a longer period of time. Whether you steal a million dollars at once or fractions of a penny at a time you've still stolen the same amount. Degradation is a natural and unavoidable process, theft is an avoidable decision.

 

[mymagiccarpet]

Does anyone have any update on NHTSA investigation or the lawsuit?

Re latest degradation discussion, which makes zero sense, if my battery was degraded, how was I able to charge with indicated range 240 miles (car's max range) on May 14th, but on May 15th after SW update, it would only go to 190?
They can claim that, sensors and software may have not recognized existing degraded condition, etc...
But the proof is in the pudding:
Whr/mi number has not changed after May15th. Prior to May 15th, fully charged, my car showed 240 miles b/c it charged to battery's max level of voltage - supporting that claim is the fact that it did drive for 240 miles prior to May 15th proving no REAL degradation existed. End of story.

Limitation was put in by SW, not degradation. Since that SW was installed by Tesla, regardless of the reason (remember, they got paid for this already) then Id' suggest one of 3 things:
1. remove limitation (though this may bring other consequences)
2. replace packs with equal or larger capacity with promises in writing that packs won't be limited by SW in the future below it's target capacity
3. compensation for car value lost (not my favorite), eg 70s turning into 60s, 85s turning into 75s, etc...whatever the case is.

 

[mymagiccarpet]

Maybe we can put the whole degradation argument to bed from the standpoint that even if you can determine it is degradation, and I am of the opinion it is NOT, the qualifier in the warranty says GRADUAL. We can all agree that the loss was not Gradual in any way but instantaneous after a SW update. So even if it could be proven as degradation it should still be warrantable as it was definitely not gradual.

exactly. For something that is supposed to last for years, there is nothing gradual about 50mins SW update.
On the same note, there is plenty of charts out there showing how slowly Tesla's batteries degrade (seems to be around 1%/year). So it can be shown what gradual degradation looks like, and compared that with duration of SW update

 

[Droschke]

If the voltage capping software update revealed actual usage degradation that was masked by the previous iterations of its software, then we are not entitled to any redress. Yes, it was sudden. But had this software been installed from day one, the degradation would not have been sudden, so we are SOL. I can live with this.

@cpa, Great post as always. One question if I may:

Wouldn't it be a fraudulent scheme if they have been masking it?