-
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
Occasionally the pumps have detectable issues. That's partly why there are multiple, for redundancy (the car has at least 3, and can run fine on 1 if needed). Nothing special or related there.
--
Not even going to bother quoting the other replies above.
As I said, feel free to swing by and try to make some Tesla coolant catch fire. I've got loads of it.
Seems actual logic here is as absent as ever. Instead, just keep throwing out pages of irrelevant and unrelated data/posts and hope it drowns out the actual sense. Seems to be a common tactic of people with nothing to actual back up their claims.
If this were actually something Tesla screwed up on, I'd be all over it. It's not.
I used to check in on this thread in hopes of actual news or information about this suit but apparently it turned into gossip and scandals, tabloid magazine of non credible internet links.
lightningltd
Member
I have used it in a 50/50 mix for years to quench blades with absolutely NO issue or worry about fire. Does a great job and also lightly etches the blade during quenching.
Yes, and once again those scientific meanings haven't changed.
Hypothesis change as they must to fit the data. Do you disagree with this? There is no ambiguity in repeated explanations of my use of hypothesis. NONE.
Hypothesis change as they must to fit the data. Do you disagree with this? There is no ambiguity in repeated explanations of my use of hypothesis. NONE.
This is probably why Tesla thought it was OK to hide the recall from NHTSA. It probably takes many years and an unusual set of circumstances to boil away enough water to bring the flash point down low enough to make international news. It's so unusual it has probably only happened to "a small number of vehicles"
Can you explain the etching that occurs? Is it possible this process of etching you've experienced might lead to exposed copper in a battery cell's cathode? Is this an additive or subtractive reaction?
Last edited:
Your theories are getting more and more wild.
Of course there was no recall, so nothing was hidden.
Everyone here wants you to back up the claims you made!
It's hard to read your sudden and cryptic return, but if we take it at face value you vehemently disagree that coolant leaking is the cause of these fires based on everything you know. We can also take an interested guess that your instant input on this but no similar reaction to lithium plating is as close as you might be to supporting that hypothesis. Lithium plating fits the available evidence better overall, but we aren't rejecting this new data either. Will you back up your earlier claims and help us help Tesla finally settle the matter?
Last edited:
jpvdheijn
Active Member
I have posted my experiences last weekend in the topic of after 7 year 85 capacity. My session hit 130kw at 10%
What?? I don't have time to go back into the thread and see who claims that the coolant will catch fire, but you seem to be claiming that it can't cause fires, which is just nuts. Coolant pooling in the battery pack will damage batteries and cause them to fail, potentially leaking electrolyte. From there it's a very simple path to a battery fire. Are you claiming this can't happen with the coolant leaks that have been reported recently?
Also, Chaserr's point that Tesla asked some for victims if they were parked on a hill seems extremely obvious to anyone paying attention. It's called deductive reasoning.
As in the coolant issue or the gate issue? Because I do remember you wishing Tesla would make right to owners and come out and say what conditions led to this theft if battery capacity.
You realize I literally work with these battery packed every... single... day...... right? I've put plenty of information backing up what I've posted. You've posted absolute nonsense in response.
As for why I came back to this thread? Someone emailed me asking about this based on a mention someone put above. I had a few minutes, so responded. This is pretty normal, no?
Was completely off topic to this thread, was just answering a question about pumps. Has nothing to do with batteries.
---
As for the coolant leak stuff, these are the facts:
Coolant leaking into and even pooling inside the battery pack doesn't cause fires. I've had multiple battery packs that I've opened that have had modules drenched in coolant from impact-caused damage to the cooling system. These modules would have bathed for months in this coolant, too. Did they burst into flames? Of course they didn't. Why? Oh, maybe because that's not how things actually work. Do you really think Tesla is going to run a flammable coolant through the battery modules? I mean seriously, what the heck kind of garbage is that.
Some of the packs mentioned above were even at very high SoC at the time of the accident (ie: the most energy was available to cause problems, if there were a way to do so). Still nothing. I even bought a car that had a side impact that didnt break the seals of the pack, but broke the coolant lines on 4 modules on the driver side. Those modules sat in coolant that evaporated, condensed, dripped on top of the modules, etc. The modules were totally corroded from top to bottom from the coolant contact. Obviously nearly every part of these modules had been exposed to the coolant. Oh, and this car sat out in the sun in a salvage yard in Texas for nearly a year from the time it was in an accident to the time I got it. If a coolant leak had a chance to cause a fire, this would have been the car. But since coolant doesn't cause fires in the battery packs, this didn't happen.
I've had another car where a freak impact completely destroyed the back right corner of the battery pack, releasing coolant into multiple module chambers AND the rear power electronics area. Nothing.
I've personally dealt with many many many of these battery modules to-date (like, literally thousands at this point). The reported issue of coolant leaks happening at the junction between the coolant ribbon and the end piece is not actually an issue. I've seen zero of these having any indication of a leak. In fact, I've never seen any coolant leakage or even evidence of leakage inside any of the hundreds of Tesla battery packs I've worked on (that hadn't been physically compromised by an accident, of course).
And i'll just reiterate my fun fact from earlier: Similar coolant to that used in the Model S is used in fire sprinkler systems around the world that are installed in areas that can get below freezing. I've worked in this field in the past, and know quite a bit about it. When a fire sprinkler on one of these wet subzero systems goes off due to a fire popping the fuse in the sprinkler head, the first thing dousing the fire? Coolant. Hundreds of gallons of it can rain down on the fire as a spray/mist before water follows it. If this stuff could actually cause or worsen a fire... um, well, it wouldn't be used in actual fire protection systems like this. Common sense? It doesn't catch on fire. It doesn't cause fires.
---
The issue related the the range and charging speed losses (you know, the actual topic of this thread?)... I'm still sitting on those particulars for the time being. Has nothing whatsoever to do with this coolant leak bogus nonsense either, and also I've on good authority that Tesla is dealing with it appropriately and will be leaving it at that.
---
I'll be back to not bothering much at all with TMC. Sorry to say, but unfortunately this forum seems to have just gone to crap over the years.
I'll be back to not bothering much at all with TMC. Sorry to say, but unfortunately this forum seems to have just gone to crap over the years.
@wk057 I'm sorry to hear that as you have always been a good source of valuable information. Thanks for all of your contributions!
Hopefully you will occasionally get a few spare minutes and come back to share more information in the future.
There are a lot of unsubstantiated claims here that we would all love for you to back up! You repeatedly imply are *dangerous* and need to be recalled. You have made some outlandish claims of knowing things that can help save lives... but refuse to back them up. If your claims aren't baseless, back them up and maybe help save lives? Wikileaks release them if you're afraid for your life, but please back up your claims.
Since you are allowed to come back for the mysterious clues, if not actually back up your claims directly, here's a hypothesis based on public knowledge and your own unbacked claims. It would be great if you could weigh in with with confirmation or refutation, and back your response please.
Hypothesis:
Tesla knew about leaking coolant in 2012 and didn't correct it for many years. That is your "X" - they went looking for it because they already knew it was there. As you said originally, it's possible there was never a fire from X. Cars parked at an incline with enough coolant to cover the leads and boil away water from the propylene glycol over a long enough time to reduce water content and decrease flash point to temperatures the battery regularly experiences, or experiences in conjunction with other conditions like unexpected microscopic short circuit electrical arcs might catch fire. There are a lot of variables that need to line up for that to happen. Tesla asked about this a year ago, when batterygate volt reductions were the only response. It's likely they thought impacted batteries might be detected via their voltage or thermal sensors, and reduced volts to lower the chances of an electrolysis reaction turning the water in their propylene glycol coolant into hydrogen gas and oxygen gas.
They discovered it wasn't X but your Condition Z (back that claim if you can please!) - a condition that could also be mitigated by lowered voltages, but also needed constant cooling running all of the time, reductions in supercharging speeds (and the temperatures that came with faster charging), and "improved diagnostics" that could detect things like individual cell groups under an inexplicable load when the rest of the pack was supposed to be dormant. Something like this could be accurately explained by lithium dendrites. They can be created in a lab by subjecting cells to high temperature high C charging in batteries that use the chemical composition Tesla selected. Condition Z is much more dangerous than condition X if this is the case. The only variables needed to cause a fire is time. Batteries with existing problems probably won't even stop getting worse. The decay can be slowed by batterygate's later reductions but fires will continue to happen as those existing short circuits continue to happen.
Interestingly, condition Z would contribute to condition X as well. Dendrite formations would be constantly short circuiting, their electrical arcing would constantly be removing the water content of any coolant they come into contact with and creating flammable and explosive oxygen and hydrogen gases. An arc would easily ignite those gases, and once the water content of coolant leaked into a battery casing was low enough to be ignited by the 4000F (hydrogen) and 6000F (oxygen) burn, you would have a coolant fire. It would take a significant amount of gas to sustain those temperatures long enough to ignite a sustainable fire in that environment, unless the process had been going on for years and there was a greatly reduced amount of water in the coolant. In order for that to happen, Tesla would have to ignore the problem for like 6 or 7 years, and we would expect to mostly see the fires in care that were very old - newer cars with the same problem wouldn't have developed the right conditions yet.
The end result is all the same of course. Any safety questions like these have to be reported to the NHTSA and they would be recalled. The only possible way they would be ignored is if the manufacturer broke the law and intentionally placed peoples' lives in danger. And intentionally placing people in danger solely for the good of the one that benefits from not saying anything is irresponsible and horrible, a behavior that needs to be directly confronted to hopefully correct that dangerous and self centered decision.
Great to hear! We're on the cusp of an involuntary recall and a class action suit going to discovery that will spill a lot of secrets, as well as the brink of Battery Day, so maybe Tesla managed to come up with a recall replacement a year late that they can afford, just in time to avoid the bulk of the legal problems they created. That would be best for all of us. They clearly never intended to deal with safety appropriately, but it sounds like external pressure helped them realize the error of their ways. They would have to give this impression to the Mediation participants with enough integrity to convince them it was worth mediation, otherwise we would already be moving to trial. Lets all hope they aren't deceiving you, just this once.
Last edited:
For the last time, packs are not leaking coolant, period. There is an internal issue in some cell(s), which causes problems because the packs are/were ran to/past their limit, depending on the software tesla used at the time.
Tesla has tried replacing the bad sheet(s) in the Roadster, back in the day. It didn’t work great, so they don’t replace bad modules in the S , like some would like them to.
Other than complete cell replacement, Or a new pack, there is no other choice but to cap packs.
Tesla has tried replacing the bad sheet(s) in the Roadster, back in the day. It didn’t work great, so they don’t replace bad modules in the S , like some would like them to.
Other than complete cell replacement, Or a new pack, there is no other choice but to cap packs.
I wanted to highlight this separately. A cell that is short circuiting from lithium formations will be under a constant load. This short is why they are a risk of fire, but that constant load would make the cell degrade much faster than the rest of the pack. It would be in use 24 hours a day 365 days a year at higher states of charge, so natural degradation of that cell at an accelerated rate (compared to cells without dendrites shorting) would be a side effect. There was even someone posting in this thread earlier that was adamantly arguing batterygate was "degradation" while simultaneously claiming dendrites are perfectly safe and normal, and that person made passing mention to having some kind of insider resources at Tesla that the rest of us don't have. If they heard something about this from Tesla employees, it wouldn't surprise me if Tesla was considering the "dendrites are safe" and "short circuits causing a constant load is still normal degradation" angles.
Tesla battery cooling system is subject of federal safety probe
The NHTSA declined to say whether the cooling tube leak allegations are part of the fire investigation or are being looked at separately but it acknowledges both.
If you had a cell with high internal leakage, the pack would quickly go out of balance and you'd end up with a pack replacement. This does not appear to be happening. Any packs that have been replaced due to pack imbalance appear to have done so very gradually, which is expected as packs reach end of life.
Does it really matter whether #batterygate and #chargegate were implemented to stop potential coolant leaks or address a problem inside the cell? The actual cause is irrelevant in my mind. I don't care.
Please forgive me, but why does any of this matter? Whether it's coolant or not coolant, who cares? The bottom line is that NHTSA is investigating the battery packs for defects and there is a chance some of us may get new packs out of this investigation. Can we not celebrate some victory here, or at least the possibility of resolution to our issues, without tearing each other apart?
As far as I'm concerned, @wk057 has always been an excellent and reliable source of information and has made significant contributions to this thread. This bickering is very unbecoming.
Similar threads
