Just keep in mind there are many others effected by batterygate who's batteries were doing just as well as mine is now before they got hammered by 16.2.
-
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
Just keep in mind there are many others effected by batterygate who's batteries were doing just as well as mine is now before they got hammered by 16.2.
Ferrycraigs
Member
Last edited:
Condition Z is still, and will remain, a juicy gossip mystery. Some peoplke seem to think it's lithium plating - but they also seemingly try to use that excuse as a reason for why its' benign. Li plating is IMMENSELY hazardous. It causes fires, so those people are probably right about why so manty teslas caught fire. But they are wrong - dangerously, negligently wrong - to insist it's not a massive threat to life and public safety.
73. LITHIUM PLATING IS IMMENSELY HAZARDOUS - Qnovo
This has pictures that may help more than words for anyone that might not fully comprehend the meaning of "immensely hazardous. It's an old and simply written plain-English explanation of why li plating causes fires and explosions in batteries.
I truly hope Tesla isn't intentionally concealing anything as hazardous as li plating. That would mean they have no respect for any of our lives, and that's why we know Z isn't li plating - and why gossiping about such things only levies accusations against Tesla like "it's li plating" that they simply wouldn't survive if true. There is no way Tesla is that homicidal. There are a lot of hints that it MIGHT have been li plating (lower charge volts, more cooling all of the time, slowed supercharging) but while those would reduce the risks of anyone being killed by thermal runaway conditions they can't eliminate it in affected packs. The only possible fix is replacing impacted packs, and since tesla is leaving them on the road and in garages, and even worse hasn't reported the hazard in the first place we know there is no li plating. If it was li plating, Tesla is guilty of trying to kill owners. The fact that we have to ask if they are trying to kill everyone that hasn't updated is proof that is isn't something like li plating. They would have to report a threat that monumental, it's a crime too big for Tesla to commit.
Investigation into the Fire Hazards of Lithium-Ion Batteries under Overcharging (PDF warning)
An Experimental Study on the Thermal Failure Propagation in Lithium-Ion Battery Pack
Safety Concerns with Li-ion Batteries – Battery University
Clearly, a little light reading shows volt capping can greatly reduce (but not fully eliminate) li plating's tendency to produce thermal runaway leading to fires and explosions. Most of the evidence we do know corroborates the possibility that they might want to hide something taht behaves very similar to li plating, but obviously whatever that is it lacks the hazards that are inherent to li plating. We don't want to hope Tesla is covering up a li plating flaw in our batteries, because their decisions to avoid repairing any of the impacted batteries has greater implications on the company's longevity than just us affected owners. Everyone unaffected can lose their warranties too, if Tesla concealed crimes this big we could all be harmed by their bankruptcy. So, they didn't. They aren't concealing li plating, they aren't trying to kill any of us, and they aren't employing thousands of people that would go along with a criminal conspiracy of that magnitude.
And that is why we know it was never lithium plating. Knowingly hiding the risk from just Sorka would mean Tesla is still, after all these months, putting the lives of Sorka and anyone that could be harmed by his car burning in mortal danger. Tesla is not that homicidally stupid.
73. LITHIUM PLATING IS IMMENSELY HAZARDOUS - Qnovo
This has pictures that may help more than words for anyone that might not fully comprehend the meaning of "immensely hazardous. It's an old and simply written plain-English explanation of why li plating causes fires and explosions in batteries.
One of the serious consequences of fast charging lithium-ion batteries is the formation of lithium metal on the surface of the anode (the negative electrode when the battery is being charged). While the battery industry has invested significant effort to ensure the mechanical integrity of the battery and avoid unintended fires in case of mechanical damage, the formation of lithium plating during fast charging is a new challenge to battery vendors. Some battery manufacturers take it very seriously, whereas others tend to me more lax if not somewhat cavalier about its risks.
Let’s be clear about…Lithium metal plating inside the battery creates extremely hazardous conditions that may lead to fires or even exploding batteries. Lithium plating leads to the formation of lithium metal deposits on the surface of the graphite (carbon) anode. These islands tend to grow over tend, both across the surface area and in the thickness forming dendritic-like structures. If they pierce (and they can) the separator — the porous plastic layer between the two electrodes — then an electrical short-circuit occurs leading to excessive heating and potential fires (in battery parlance, it is politely known as thermal runaway).
For the most part of the history of the lithium-ion battery, lithium plating was not a major concern. Well designed batteries ensured that they stayed away from the precursor conditions to lithium plating. Some battery manufacturers implemented additional safety measures — such as special surface coatings — that are intended to reduce the risk of a dendritic short-circuit. But with advent of high energy density cells and the rapid deployment of fast charging, the batteries are often operating near dangerous conditions. And some battery manufacturers seem to intentionally skirt the problem as it is not visible during daily operation — that is until a fire occurs and the damage is done.
The next photograph shows the anode surface of a dissected polymer lithium-ion cell — in fact, two identical cells, one charged at a slow charge rate (left side), and at a higher charge rate (right side). The cells were cycled 100 times before cut open and observed.
On the left side, the surface of the graphite anode is pristine. On the right side, bright stripes of lithium metal are apparent on the edges. That’s where lithium metal tends to start forming — the current density on the edges tend to be higher (concentrated electric field lines) thus presenting favorable conditions for the formation of lithium metal. Additionally, manufacturing defects are more likely to be present on the edges, also presenting “seeds” for plating. As the cell is further cycled (and aged), the lithium plating propagates and covers more of the anode surface, creating increased risks of a catastrophic failure.
I truly hope Tesla isn't intentionally concealing anything as hazardous as li plating. That would mean they have no respect for any of our lives, and that's why we know Z isn't li plating - and why gossiping about such things only levies accusations against Tesla like "it's li plating" that they simply wouldn't survive if true. There is no way Tesla is that homicidal. There are a lot of hints that it MIGHT have been li plating (lower charge volts, more cooling all of the time, slowed supercharging) but while those would reduce the risks of anyone being killed by thermal runaway conditions they can't eliminate it in affected packs. The only possible fix is replacing impacted packs, and since tesla is leaving them on the road and in garages, and even worse hasn't reported the hazard in the first place we know there is no li plating. If it was li plating, Tesla is guilty of trying to kill owners. The fact that we have to ask if they are trying to kill everyone that hasn't updated is proof that is isn't something like li plating. They would have to report a threat that monumental, it's a crime too big for Tesla to commit.
Investigation into the Fire Hazards of Lithium-Ion Batteries under Overcharging (PDF warning)
An Experimental Study on the Thermal Failure Propagation in Lithium-Ion Battery Pack
Safety Concerns with Li-ion Batteries – Battery University
Clearly, a little light reading shows volt capping can greatly reduce (but not fully eliminate) li plating's tendency to produce thermal runaway leading to fires and explosions. Most of the evidence we do know corroborates the possibility that they might want to hide something taht behaves very similar to li plating, but obviously whatever that is it lacks the hazards that are inherent to li plating. We don't want to hope Tesla is covering up a li plating flaw in our batteries, because their decisions to avoid repairing any of the impacted batteries has greater implications on the company's longevity than just us affected owners. Everyone unaffected can lose their warranties too, if Tesla concealed crimes this big we could all be harmed by their bankruptcy. So, they didn't. They aren't concealing li plating, they aren't trying to kill any of us, and they aren't employing thousands of people that would go along with a criminal conspiracy of that magnitude.
And that is why we know it was never lithium plating. Knowingly hiding the risk from just Sorka would mean Tesla is still, after all these months, putting the lives of Sorka and anyone that could be harmed by his car burning in mortal danger. Tesla is not that homicidally stupid.
Last edited:
If modules can't be matched and they did give him a battery with about 10 percent degradation, that would leave few options then: Tesla gave him a pack from slightly used car they might have taken in as a trade-in/lemon or from a salvaged car. Does NOT seem like that they would have too many of these to address everyone on this forum.
They would need to produce new packs to address everyone on the forum and presumably the untold thousands not on the forum. And they wouldn't just need new packs, they would need new packs that do not have the same defect as the ones they are replacing, especially if it is safety related and there is no expiration date to how long they are at fault for not fixing it.
We've seen a new pack recently. Just the one, I think, but an entirely new pack with 89kWh capacity, labeled "85kwh" despite being larger than the 90kWh pack. A perfect replacement - it has enough capacity to cap off the additional kWh if mitigation becomes necessary, without capping off what we had at original delivery - or even what we thought we were paying for when the Monroney sticker showed "85kWh" rather than the 81kWh we were actually delivered.
I really hope this is something that Tesla is NOT doing since it violates the warranty agreement that states "remanufactured" battery pack. By definition to remanufacture is "to refurbish (a used product) by renovating and reassembling its components"
All you are going to get is conjecture on condition Z--the only ones who know for sure aren't talking. As for loss, my pack was 55 kWh before it was replaced. If you go by Jason's figures, (77.5 kWh useable) that's a 29% loss. If you go by the official math (265 miles * 300 Wh/mi = 79.5 kWh useable) then that is a 31% loss.
As I have mentioned before, part of a long-term fix is scaling supply chain. Assuming Tesla is getting serious about addressing the problem, I fully expect that those of you who get fixes later on will have a better solution that I got, maybe the mystery pack that the one dude got. My pack was failing at an accelerated rate, so I think I got whatever was handy to fix the problem. I am grateful for this, but I also don't thing this is a scalable approach. If you go back the the resolution process I suggested way back then, the diags both allow a triage process to prioritize failing packs while the supply chain ramps up fixes and also gives Tesla an indication of how many sick packs they need to worry about.
And again I would be really surprised if Tesla cannot build new (reman) packs from old packs. I would imagine this happens now with new packs--if a new pack fails QA, I am guessing the don't toss the whole pack, but recover what they an and feed it back into the supply chain.
Ok but your battery replaced with a ~30% loss. The question is what is the percentage loss for those affected batteries that are not getting replaced?
Still no answer to the question What do you think condition Z is?
and how many people have > 30% loss and not getting their batteries replaced?
What is the average loss after the partially restorative update?
tinm
2020 Model S LR+ Owner
Perhaps if I simply ask the question w/o an accompanying wall of text...
QUESTION:
How is batterygate/chargegate impacting residual value of old Teslas? I hope to trade in my S for a new Tesla this year but am very concerned the chargegate factor is killing my car’s resale value.
QUESTION:
How is batterygate/chargegate impacting residual value of old Teslas? I hope to trade in my S for a new Tesla this year but am very concerned the chargegate factor is killing my car’s resale value.
It must have had some impact to any prospective buyer in the know. Anyone who isn’t aware will probably still decide based on range, price, mileage, options etc
Prices in the UK don’t appear to be hugely affected yet based on what I’ve seen for sale but that doesn’t necessarily reflect prices that buyers are willing to pay.
Once we know if/how Tesla will remedy capped batteries then that could also move prices up or down depending on the outcome of the class action.
I was massively worried before but I’ve still got 4 years warranty on my battery which will probably fail at some point and be replaced anyway.
My capped 85D still has 234 miles range at 100% and SC speeds in excess of 100kwh for a few seconds at least under the right conditions.
Prices in the UK don’t appear to be hugely affected yet based on what I’ve seen for sale but that doesn’t necessarily reflect prices that buyers are willing to pay.
Once we know if/how Tesla will remedy capped batteries then that could also move prices up or down depending on the outcome of the class action.
I was massively worried before but I’ve still got 4 years warranty on my battery which will probably fail at some point and be replaced anyway.
My capped 85D still has 234 miles range at 100% and SC speeds in excess of 100kwh for a few seconds at least under the right conditions.
Assuming they test whole batteries, refurbishing can be simply passing along lightly used product. In my high school days I worked in computer hardware manufacture and we would get returned open-box product that couldn't be sold as new, but could be tested to verify as functional and that was used for RMA returns when something needed warranty. In theory, that's fine even for car batteries. In practice, Tesla doesn't test a lot of things they should be testing.
I'll answer your question with a question:
Would you have purchased your car if you had known Tesla was going to suddenly "expire" the 85 battery capacity upgrade and horsepower without warning? When you sell your car, potential buyers know that is a possibility and many will avoid buying that problem... and fewer potential buyers means lower potential sales price.
It's stopping me from buying another new Tesla. They amended the warranty terms to allow themselves to software cap a new "373 mile" long range Model S to 261 miles for any reason at any time, and I can't get over the fact that it means they probably still haven't fixed batterygate.
i totally agree. Maybe I misstated earlier when responding to the post. My point was that if there was no reduction in max charge level or range, there could be no significant degradation at the time, so capacity change (and consequently the reduction of range) was the result of SW capping the battery, and not some previous undetectable degradation.
Totally agree. This is why this issue is not just about inconvenience of reduction in range. That said, if it was for safety, I still thank Tesla for taking actions to ensure safety of everyone. However, it still needs to be fixed.
@tinm: seems that if you are trading in with Tesla, there should be no reduction in trade in value? It would seem ridiculous that they take away something from your car and then charge you for it, the 2nd time, I might add
or in your case, if i understood correctly, charge you for something they haven't taken away (yet)
if if was for safety Tesla took no action and should be condemned for intentionally making sure not everyone is safe. They didn't take action to address safety, and won't start until everyone that is still unsafe is notified of their peril.
Whatever it is still needs to be fixed, and if it was for "safety" Tesla needs to do something about it because people will refuse to update knowing the consequences are all negative and no positive. There isn't even a safety positive to point at, and safety isn't a secret.
I think resale values end up being a trailing indicator--so resale is not impacted yet because the full scope of battery/charger-gate is not known and it has not broached the public consciousness yet.
It would be interesting to see if there has been a dip in trade-in offers from Tesla in the last few months as they factor refurb costs into their trade-in offers.
Similar threads
