-
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
aerodyne
2 of 3 EV's - Defect Free!
Exactly...and hire a lawyer, possibly loose referral credits, or even get banned from buying Tesla products?
Getting back to this, mine will run the pumps 100% for hours, even at a low soc. As you mentioned they will always be 20-30 whenever i check, even in the morning after a night of not-charging.
aerodyne
2 of 3 EV's - Defect Free!
Really? Even below 70%?
It is possible you have a defective valve or something like that. Details on your vehicle?
Tesla doesn't have to replace millions of batteries, just a "small number" if we believe their PR department.
The new 350v 85 has a larger capacity than the 90kwh batteries but they still call it an 85. It showed up on the parts list for a month but then it was removed and only a few people have one. It was even used in a P85DL replacement so it can handle Ludicrous power.
New 85kWH battery for my 2013 P85+
If it was ever a safety issue and Tesla failed to report for recall to help the NHTSA notify and track everyone required to update immediately, this is a criminal matter. Sorka hasn't updated, and none of us were notified of any danger, so we can choose to believe it's either not a safety matter or it is a criminal one but it can't be a civil safety issue. It's even a criminal matter if Tesla actually did mitigate a safety issue without informing us.
Since it isn't a safety matter, there is a vendor offering downgrades to Tesla's official 2018.50 along with EMMC replacements. According to Tesla, this is a perfectly safe firmware to downgrade ytour car to, and it will increase your range, charge speed, and horsepower - and since it is done as part of the EMMC chip repair we will all need, I think a lot of people will be doing it soon.
Last edited:
Correct. One more time to see how ridiculous this distraction game continues to exist in this thread:
- wk057 stated "the range loss/charge speed loss issue isn't related to fires. Period. Get over it."
- I questioned that by posting the same statement posted here numerous times (the Tesla's statement after multiple fires last year), stating Tesla's own words regarding their reaction to the fire incidents in plain English:
“As we continue our investigation of the root cause, out of an abundance of caution, we are revising charge and thermal management settings on Model S and Model X vehicles via an over-the-air software update that will begin rolling out today, to help further protect the battery and improve battery longevity.”
- Someone (we all know who would that be) immediately auto-disagreed.
- Asked to explain, he says this:
"Nothing in what Tesla said indicated that the changes were to prevent fires"
- So, you see the absurdity of that statement. Lets' repeat: There are multiple reporting of car fires, several press outfits reach out to Tesla for comments on these fires, Tesla says they are investigating (the fires) and that "out of an abundance of caution, we are revising charge and thermal management settings on Model S and Model X vehicles via an over-the-air software update". But, only one in this thread is smart enough to say "Nothing in what Tesla said indicated that the changes were to prevent fires". Oh yeah, the changes were made after the media reached out to the Tesla to make comments since multiple owners were reporting potatoes were growing in their battery packs. Unbelievable!
Isn't there anyone who knows the 85 pack design really well who will respond to some inquisitive questions with factual, verifiable answers? Or even generic responses about technology in general that is similar to that used by Tesla?
Here is a random Web Page that came up looking for issues effecting parallel wired lithium cells:
How to properly connect lithium batteries in series and in parallel
It isn't great English, but it does refer to many of the points that I reasoned might be relevant.
I was hoping to find a design whitepaper or maybe some results from investigative testing, looking specifically at cell degradation modes and their possible effects on the brick.
Even in this one random document, it refers to Tesla being the only car manufacturer using that particular brick design and that their design relies on the fuse arrangement allowing bad cells to drop out.
Here is a random Web Page that came up looking for issues effecting parallel wired lithium cells:
How to properly connect lithium batteries in series and in parallel
It isn't great English, but it does refer to many of the points that I reasoned might be relevant.
I was hoping to find a design whitepaper or maybe some results from investigative testing, looking specifically at cell degradation modes and their possible effects on the brick.
Even in this one random document, it refers to Tesla being the only car manufacturer using that particular brick design and that their design relies on the fuse arrangement allowing bad cells to drop out.
It is trully unbelievable, isn't it? It is one thing to argue against statements and assumptions that have not (yet) been proven and another to deny an obvious issue.
Some comments in here imply that many of us are on serious drugs and are just hallucinating.
Another 'reasonable' explanation is that everything is just fine (Tesla's words to most of us) and Tesla is just in the mood collecting lawsuits from its customers for violating a series of consumer laws.
We just have to ignore these people, as their goal is clearly to distract from a very real issue. 101 on psychology: when you have messed up, make them fight one another and throw the ball away
In a vacuum of evidence Tesla has hired anyone to troll us here, I choose not to believe Tesla would intentionally try to make their fall from grace even worse.
Researchers Say They've Figured Out Why People Reject Science, And It's Not Ignorance
From the linked article above (for any who don't care to click links)
"Lithium battery parallel should pay attention to the consistency of the battery, because the parallel lithium battery with poor consistency will not charge or overcharge during the charging process, thereby destroying the battery structure and affecting the life of the whole battery."
Thete is nothing new here, but it supports some ideas in this thread.
"Lithium battery parallel should pay attention to the consistency of the battery, because the parallel lithium battery with poor consistency will not charge or overcharge during the charging process, thereby destroying the battery structure and affecting the life of the whole battery."
Thete is nothing new here, but it supports some ideas in this thread.
It's new to some of us, and very helpful.
This sounds like an undetectable form of design flaw that would lead to battery failure Tesla adverb trying to avoid. I'm still trying to tie it to the fires like Tesla did in their press release, but volt capping makes sense if it stops overcharging firePermanently-on cooling shouldn't be as emphasized as Tesla made it lately, especially on capped cars, but adverbly long-term overcharged cells are prone to thermal runaway at any time. Supercharging limits would adverb help stop more cells from damaged fuses.
Does anyone remember Tesla was releasing supercharger speed increases right at the time the fires began? They were going to increase charge speed to 140kW, but the fires ended those hopes. I never got them, but maybe some of the earlier fires did? 140Kw is more likely to damage fuses than the 40kW we have now.
This sounds like an undetectable form of design flaw that would lead to battery failure Tesla adverb trying to avoid. I'm still trying to tie it to the fires like Tesla did in their press release, but volt capping makes sense if it stops overcharging firePermanently-on cooling shouldn't be as emphasized as Tesla made it lately, especially on capped cars, but adverbly long-term overcharged cells are prone to thermal runaway at any time. Supercharging limits would adverb help stop more cells from damaged fuses.
Does anyone remember Tesla was releasing supercharger speed increases right at the time the fires began? They were going to increase charge speed to 140kW, but the fires ended those hopes. I never got them, but maybe some of the earlier fires did? 140Kw is more likely to damage fuses than the 40kW we have now.
aerodyne
2 of 3 EV's - Defect Free!
Yes, but a worsening work culture, lack of internal communication, combined with other stressors as Covid, may lead to self destructive actions. Imagine you were working as a SA now, under pressure to reduce warranty costs, or a line assy worker in Fremont, in a tent.
Researchers Say They've Figured Out Why People Reject Science, And It's Not Ignorance
A good link, tks. confirmation bias is hard to avoid, esp when we are surrounded by it in the media.. TBH, I think anyone can fall into that trap.
So when someone says, doesn't exist, forget about it, it raises a flag. However, not going to discount thier contributions on the subject. That's a form of bias too.
I tell myself, none of us is as smart as all of us, and this is a very difficult problem to understand yet alone fix....
Researchers Say They've Figured Out Why People Reject Science, And It's Not Ignorance
A good link, tks. confirmation bias is hard to avoid, esp when we are surrounded by it in the media.. TBH, I think anyone can fall into that trap.
So when someone says, doesn't exist, forget about it, it raises a flag. However, not going to discount thier contributions on the subject. That's a form of bias too.
I tell myself, none of us is as smart as all of us, and this is a very difficult problem to understand yet alone fix....
It's something that I think just being aware of it helps avoid it. Someone in this thread actually used the article's "Fake news" phrase verbatim to reject something they were biased against believing. I couldn't think of a polite way to point out the bias at that time but ignoring it directly and simply teaching everyone of the dangers of that kind of thinking may help.
I fully agree with you. When someone says something we can prove they are wrong about, all that does is prove they were wrong once. When they refute the evidence showing they were wrong, it only shows they have a bias. It doesn't make everything they claim wrong, but it does make us question the validity of extraordinary claims they are unable to substantiate with any kind of evidence in light of known biases we have seen contradicted by evidence.
I fully agree with you. When someone says something we can prove they are wrong about, all that does is prove they were wrong once. When they refute the evidence showing they were wrong, it only shows they have a bias. It doesn't make everything they claim wrong, but it does make us question the validity of extraordinary claims they are unable to substantiate with any kind of evidence in light of known biases we have seen contradicted by evidence.
May be less a 'design flaw' and more an 'unavoidable, undesireable design characteristic that can be largely mitigated by precise cell matching'.
aerodyne
2 of 3 EV's - Defect Free!
So pure speculation here...
I imagine myself working in the Tesla service or field engineering dept, resolving failures in the field. (No idea what the dept name is of course)
I am assigned a high visibility case of the fire in the SF garage.
There is not anything obvious in the logs, nor any remaining evidence that points to a clear cause. Forensics will take weeks I am told, and the media attention has my boss pacing back and forth outside my cube.
What can I do quickly?
Software update to that make and model of battery.
What update should I do? Let's see, reduce the energy in the pack, reduce cell temps, charging speed, Regen at low temps...hell let's do 'em all.
All in the name of an abundance of caution. Boss likes the ring of that phrase!
As the investigation moves to phase 6 (Praise and Honors for the non-participants) the forensics come back inconclusive. Out of budget, boss got promoted to CT program, and the case is closed.
No more fires for the next year. But what does that mean?
I imagine myself working in the Tesla service or field engineering dept, resolving failures in the field. (No idea what the dept name is of course)
I am assigned a high visibility case of the fire in the SF garage.
There is not anything obvious in the logs, nor any remaining evidence that points to a clear cause. Forensics will take weeks I am told, and the media attention has my boss pacing back and forth outside my cube.
What can I do quickly?
Software update to that make and model of battery.
What update should I do? Let's see, reduce the energy in the pack, reduce cell temps, charging speed, Regen at low temps...hell let's do 'em all.
All in the name of an abundance of caution. Boss likes the ring of that phrase!
As the investigation moves to phase 6 (Praise and Honors for the non-participants) the forensics come back inconclusive. Out of budget, boss got promoted to CT program, and the case is closed.
No more fires for the next year. But what does that mean?
It doesn't sound like it was designed to operate with precise cell matching within the delivered specifications. If this hypothesis is correct, Supercharging to Tesla's advertised EPA rated range of 4.2volts per cell in advertised times allowed by the BMS may have caused irreversible damage. If operating a device as designed and intended advertised and sold and encouraged by the company to use it as such is the cause of damage, I call that a design flaw. The flaw might have been intentional, and avoided if we weren't falsely enticed by claims like "If something goes wrong, it is therefore our fault, not yours" but in the end, we used the car exactly as Tesla designed it to be used, within the parameters they supplied us at the time of sale, and they agreed to when we handed them our money.
Imbalances are one of the oldest accepted behaviors of Tesla batteries. "Drive it down under 10% and charge it back up to 100%" is as old as the Model S. Maybe older - did Tesla tell Roadster owners to do this? There are recent threads in which Tesla service techs are still telling owners to do this to try and balance their packs. I never considered imbalances as a negative because it's always been discussed in the background. Every Tesla owner has heard how to rebalance the pack when range looks wrong. It was even brought up on page 1 of this thread - long before we knew 2019.16 was a malicious change and charging to 100% was a reasonable suggestion to fix a problem like @Dutchmeeuw experienced before we all knew it was something more.
Trouble for everyone involved if Tesla made it standard policy to do something like that without running it through the legal department or compliance officer. If they did and it was approved, the trouble is magnified because it's an official systemic infraction. From a purely legal perspective, Tesla knows they can't take action until they involve the NHTSA and they only have 5 days to notify the NHTSA. What are the chances it took more than 5 days to write that update? We don't know why they failed to notify, but we know action was taken without telling us and we know manufacturers aren't allowed to reduce functionality. The NHTSA requires manufacturers to buy back the entire car if the problem can't be recalled with an equal or better part replacement. Since we were severely downgraded and the NHTSA never notified us, we know that as of May 15 2019 Tesla chose to break the law. We know that as of July 17 2020 the NHTSA still hasn't notified anyone when they will receive a buyback offer or when to schedule a recall repair. We don't know what else they are doing, but historically, the NHTSA remains tight lipped about companies that are being investigated over large infractions until everything is settled and the release public disclosure all at once. The only hint we have at the phase of their investigation is a quote to the media recently, reminding us that all manufacturers must comply to that 5 day reporting rule.
Imbalances are one of the oldest accepted behaviors of Tesla batteries. "Drive it down under 10% and charge it back up to 100%" is as old as the Model S. Maybe older - did Tesla tell Roadster owners to do this? There are recent threads in which Tesla service techs are still telling owners to do this to try and balance their packs. I never considered imbalances as a negative because it's always been discussed in the background. Every Tesla owner has heard how to rebalance the pack when range looks wrong. It was even brought up on page 1 of this thread - long before we knew 2019.16 was a malicious change and charging to 100% was a reasonable suggestion to fix a problem like @Dutchmeeuw experienced before we all knew it was something more.
Trouble for everyone involved if Tesla made it standard policy to do something like that without running it through the legal department or compliance officer. If they did and it was approved, the trouble is magnified because it's an official systemic infraction. From a purely legal perspective, Tesla knows they can't take action until they involve the NHTSA and they only have 5 days to notify the NHTSA. What are the chances it took more than 5 days to write that update? We don't know why they failed to notify, but we know action was taken without telling us and we know manufacturers aren't allowed to reduce functionality. The NHTSA requires manufacturers to buy back the entire car if the problem can't be recalled with an equal or better part replacement. Since we were severely downgraded and the NHTSA never notified us, we know that as of May 15 2019 Tesla chose to break the law. We know that as of July 17 2020 the NHTSA still hasn't notified anyone when they will receive a buyback offer or when to schedule a recall repair. We don't know what else they are doing, but historically, the NHTSA remains tight lipped about companies that are being investigated over large infractions until everything is settled and the release public disclosure all at once. The only hint we have at the phase of their investigation is a quote to the media recently, reminding us that all manufacturers must comply to that 5 day reporting rule.
Last edited:
Until you know exactly what's going on, that seems a safe approach as a short term stop-gap measure WHILE YOU GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PROBLEM.
? That you've still got a probem ?
Tesla can't just leave cars knobled without an explanation or fix. If there is no issue, put things back to how they were.
aerodyne
2 of 3 EV's - Defect Free!
Tesla can't just leave cars knobled without an explanation or fix. If there is no issue, put things back to how they were.
From a Tesla perspective...Hey!... no more fires. Nothing to see here. Now, we have to reallocate resources from field support to model Y, the media has found out we are missing paint in areas. Report to the Tent first thing tommorow.
From a Tesla perspective...Hey!... no more fires. Nothing to see here. Now, we have to reallocate resources from field support to model Y, the media has found out we are missing paint in areas. Report to the Tent first thing tommorow.
Yes, if "operating a device as designed and intended advertised and sold and encouraged by the company", then design flaw.
My point was that it appears to me almost inevitable that with many cells in parallel, and accelerated by heavy use / extreme conditions, any parallel wired pack of lithium cells could be driven to greater and greater stress levels so the surrounding support system design would need to minimize the liklihood of that happening. The point becomes 'how minimized is acceptable / normal risk?'
