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.
I don't think it is established there were (or are) matching issues. It is just speculation. Less speculative imo is that

1) Parallel connected lithium cells must be accurately matched especially in demanding applications.

2) It is not easy to accurately determine what is going on between individual parallel wired cells within a brick other than making assumptions based on what happens to the voltage and temperature of the brick under load / charging.

3) Most components (in general) are more likely to deviate from their original specs over time when used in harsh conditions.
Exactly, we can have nothing but speculation here because Tesla will tell us nothing, and no one else either has real information or if they do is prepared to reveal it.

All we can do is out forth and discuss various ideas that may be put together to fit what clues we can observe, and keep digging for more, in that off chance something may come of it. It is essentially intellectual thumb-twiddling while we await increasingly delayed legal action or some benign solution from Elon. (Note I'm not saying from Tesla, but from the man who made the grand promises, and has the wherewithal, 7th richest?, to make good on them. Seriously, how big a dent would it make for him to replace "a small number" of battery packs?)
 
Your ticking down comment gave me a chilling thought. Tesla has every cars birthday built in. They can kill them all at 8 years if they want to stop unlimited supercharging it sell more batteries.

Will they? Adverb not, but does anyone trust them not to consider it?

In my opinion battery day must be planning a battery refreshment program for older cars. Disposable teslas isn't just bad for sales now, disposable cars kills teslas mission and is bad for their reputation firever. There's nothing sustainable about disposable cars they don't want anyone to fix.
66 days until Battery Day...
 
  • Love
Reactions: Chaserr
There's nothing sustainable about disposable cars they don't want anyone to fix.

This is really important given the brand image. My pre-Tesla EV's showed me how difficult it is / will be to deal with battery costs especially battery replacement.

As I posted previously, a lot hangs on extracting maximum value from used battery packs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Guy V and Chaserr
That is exactly the point. This discussion is held by people accept authority over evidence, and by people who accept evidence over authority. Two schools of thought.

It would help if those claiming authority could back their statements with with maybe a shred of evidence and they have refused. In several instances, evidence proves authority should not be believed because we've seen them make claims we can use evidence and deductive reasoning to show are factually untrue. Authority can say anything, and it will be believed by anyone who chooses to believe.

The other school of thought - evidence - can change everyone elses minds . Evidence can erase previous hypothesis instantly, as long as we are able to accept the evidence and try to reason through it.

Just a reminder, I still have the Kettle holding for you on line 2.

It’s bizarro-upside-down-world level weird to see you in this this thread waxing philosophical about evidence-based reasoning and communication.
 
On the reader, dongle, SMT....

I have done it, highly recommend. You don't have to cut holes or anything like that. My cost was like 70 USD.

Mount under cubby using the same black 3M brand Dual Lock used through out the model S (Avail at HD, Lowe's)
IMG_20200327_175224627.jpg
 
Last edited:
So if this really our problem Tesla had quality-control matching issues which they should be responsible for rectifying, right?

Tesla has some problem in the pack which they should be responsible for rectifying. I don't yet know what caused the issue. Assuming it's cell related then it's really the fault of Panasonic or a cell component supplier, though of course Tesla is ultimately responsible. I remember years ago huge numbers of capacitors in many products had been made with a bad batch of electrolyte and caused many products to fail prematurely. Maybe Panasonic received a bad batch of electrolyte or additive which can significantly affect the life of a cell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Guy V and gmo43
Assuming it's cell related then it's really the fault of Panasonic or a cell component supplier, though of course Tesla is ultimately responsible.

The supplier would be responsible assuming that Tesla's software used the cells in accordance with their duty cycle and operating conditions however if Tesla did not do that by allowing too high of a C-rate during supercharging or by allowing the cells to be charged/discharged when they were outside the proper temperature range then Tesla would be responsible fully.

I think a similar issue has and is occurring with the MCUs. The first is a result of the adhesive in the panel not having a high enough temperature rating for automotive use which Tesla ignored or disregarded and attempted to rectify later with cabin overheat protection. The second is that they either used too small of an eMMC or the incorrect type of NAND flash to handle the daily writes per drive (DPWD) they wanted for logging purposes which is resulting in an early death of the NAND and they have tried to rectify by reducing the logging.
 
On top of all of that, you need electrolysis to continually lower the water content out of the coolant for a few years. As the water content falls, so does the flashpoint of the coolant until it's eventually so low it can be ignited easily. Coolant is very flammable, but water is added to it that making it difficult to ignite unless you happen to have something like dendrites puncturing cells and creating uncontrollable electrical sparks that not only convert water into hydrogen and oxygen gas but also provide an ignition spark.

I do find it interesting that the a couple fires ago (the one that burned the Porsche too) there were comments pointing out the fire was stopped more easily than a lithium battery fire and was probably someone else, but when the NHTSA is investigating coolant fires that would fit that fire's observations suddenly it isn't something else any more. A few people here just disagree with everything. I've looked at every bit of evidence and tried to piece together what we know - fires and Tesla's admission of guilt - to come up with some kind of hypothesis. Coolant is one that works with a long drawn out set of circumstances, and to me the kicker that Tesla thought it was coolant last year was when they asked if teh car was parked at an incline. That doesn't make any sense unless they were worried about liquid inside the pack contacting the cells.

It doesn't really matter if coolant is the cause of the fires - if Tesla can recall batteries with dendrites without saying their batteries had a fundamental flaw by design it's best for everyone. Almost every manufacturer has been recalled for coolant leaks but none have been recalled for lithium ion battery design flaws like this. If the recall replaces my dangerous battery I don't care what they call it, and Tesla gets to keep lying. Everybody gets what they want.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderator Note: This post was reported as being inaccurate. Citation needed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ve never tried this with a lithium cell, but I remember in inorganic chemistry my nutty professor threw elemental Mg in water and BOOM! Since Lithium (unsure if elemental or not) needs oxygen (Oxygen in dihydromonoxide <— causes cancer lol) to combust, I think you’ve got it backwards. Decussated Glycols, carboxyl, sugars in general are extremely difficult to combust. Fuel is largely the protons on organic compounds. Oxygen is just an electron acceptor and when you have these alcohol or ketone groups on organic compounds, especially on conjugated rings like benzene, there are less protons (hydrogen atoms) available to combust. Remember the number of hydrogens available on carbon chains is a determinant of combustibility. Same reason diesel has more combustion power over gasoline is it has longer carbon chain lengths. Gasoline burns more readily at room temp because it can more easily be aerosolized. Shorter length carbon chains stick less to each other, sort of like 1 inch lengths wet Spaghetti Is easier to pick up with a fork compared to full length spaghetti. And once you heat diesel up, it becomes extremely volatile and burns intensely because energy was added to favor combustion.
With the decussated coolant, it lends itself to be more crystallized. By virtue of crystallization, almost every molecule has a higher melting point temperature due to the fact that you have to overcome all the tight ionic bonds. This allows oxygen to more homogeneously spread throughout the fuel creating ideal conditions for combustion. The tight dipole bond of water also reduce combustibility of dihydromonoxide within the coolant. But vaporized water is effective at absorbing heat and thus cooling combustion. In fact, Diesel tractors and some BMWs inject water directly into the pistons to make more efficient combustion by cooling and increasing mass to the combustion mix but doesn’t contribute directly to combustion. The expansion of water to vapor yields a more powerful stroke (explain more about this shortly). The bond between oxygen and hydrogen is one of the strongest bonds in inorganic chemistry. So strong that it is one of the most potent greenhouse gases that exist. Arid vs jungle environments demonstrates this because the temperature delta in arid is extreme compared to jungle. One only needs to look to mars and see what I’m talking about. Predominately CO2 atm and yet the temp delta is still very extreme. Dihydromonoxide acts like the strongest molecular enthalpy shock absorber in existence. So much so that it expands 1000X volume during liq->vapor phase change. They build containment vessels in nuclear reactors that account for this volume change (Except RBMK reactors) because they keep coolant under pressure so that it can be heated above 100C without evaporating.
Highlights are:
1) crystallized or decussated sugars are difficult to combust due to lack of oxygen being able to reach fuel and less hydrogens on the carbon chain. Carbon can make 4 covalently bonds, and each carbon in benzene (Loops) is bonded 3 ways to carbon and once to hydrogen (fuel). Carboxyl, sugars, glycols similarly are less fuel dense (less hydrogens) than carbon chains.
2) dihydromonoxide cools combustion and retards the reaction at atmospheric pressure. It removes oxygen as it expands from liq to vapor, this is how wind is created in our atmosphere. Think blowing out a candle.
3) Once lithium ignites, the most effective way to stop combustion is to completely starve the batteries of oxygen. Like Jason previously stated, the coolant can slow the reaction as it spills into the pack. But as long as there is heat and punctured cells, you have a run-away process until all the lithium is oxidized.
4) Whether the coolant participates in combustion is relatively insignificant once lithium is ignited. The key is whether the coolant creates an environment conducive to starting combustion. Once started, there isn’t much else the coolant can due for either retarding or accelerating the oxidation of Lithium. Think of it like solid rocket fuel. Once it starts, it’s going to burn until the fuel is spent or exploded.

Just an extra thought, Tesla made it’s largest contribution to fire retarding its batteries in the model 3 with the foam injection. Essentially removing almost all elemental oxygen from the space combustion could occur. If the pack is damaged from a collision, all bets are off. But I think the reason we haven’t seen a model 3 spontaneously combust is due to this feature.
 
I remember years ago huge numbers of capacitors in many products had been made with a bad batch of electrolyte and caused many products to fail prematurely.

Yes. I spent months replacing electrolytics on PC motherboards. It's not as bad now, but electrolytic caps don't like heat and are an easy way to 'design in' obselesence (predictable failure).

Given how important matched cells are to operation of the bricks, it would be significant if they become mismatched with age, and accelerated testing qc might not have been able to pick up certain batch issues prior to / during manufacture.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Guy V
So far my battery experiences with Ev's and home storage is pretty good in so much as they at least live up to the warranty. Having the stored up liability of eventually needing to replace batteries is still not really appreciated by the marketplace - reasonably.

When I researched before buying I mostly focused on mileage. Could the battery survive delivering the kind of mileage you see on high quality ICE vehicles, such as Toyota, so at least providing some return for the elevated cost. There was plenty of evidence they could and the fact even very early builds were holding up pretty well was definitely reassuring.
The last ICE vehicle I got rid of was a Chrysler minivan I bought new in 2004 and donated to a charity in 2019, though it only had about 120k miles on the engine. The engine was still very sound, but the body mechanically and cosmetically had pretty much had it. Ot had a pretty good run getting five kids through a big chunk of their lives.
Thinking of that car I also began to wonder if the Tesla will cover both cases, high mileage and long physical service. We're only about half way there with early vehicles, which had their share of discovery of subpar components, but the company seems to continue working to improve such things over time and newer vehicles no longer exhibit those problems. The battery is certainly a wildcard in this question.
I don't think we would keep this Tesla that long, mainly because I'll probably want an updated model if this one keeps holding up or it doesn't hold up and I have to get rid of it.
I really want it to hold up, because I want a Cybertruck. If it doesn't hold up it will likely make me hesitant to buy anyone else's EV product as well for some time. If Tesla can't do it I have doubts anyone else can bottle the lightning.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Chaserr
All of you blocking each other. Grow up! Take everyones view like an adult. If you dont like it move on and read the next post.
I prefer a drama-free reading experience. I also prefer the posts that I do read to come from educated, thoughtful, professional, insightful people and not from vindictive, narcissistic, self-serving ones filled with vitriol. I also block science deniers because stupidity is not something I'm interested in as a general rule. But that's just me.

For me too. Up until I get the Taycan next year, right after when I am able to get rid of this piece of crap/best city car in human history that Tesla has been forcing me to drive since 2019/06
I now have a free Taycan thanks to TSLA and the next generation of fools willing to buy into Musk's smoke, mirrors, and false promises. Thank goodness there's one born every minute! My pocketbook thanks them all!
 
When I researched before buying I mostly focused on mileage. Could the battery survive delivering the kind of mileage you see on high quality ICE vehicles, such as Toyota, so at least providing some return for the elevated cost. There was plenty of evidence they could and the fact even very early builds were holding up pretty well was definitely reassuring.
The last ICE vehicle I got rid of was a Chrysler minivan I bought new in 2004 and donated to a charity in 2019, though it only had about 120k miles on the engine. The engine was still very sound, but the body mechanically and cosmetically had pretty much had it. Ot had a pretty good run getting five kids through a big chunk of their lives.
Thinking of that car I also began to wonder if the Tesla will cover both cases, high mileage and long physical service. We're only about half way there with early vehicles, which had their share of discovery of subpar components, but the company seems to continue working to improve such things over time and newer vehicles no longer exhibit those problems. The battery is certainly a wildcard in this question.
I don't think we would keep this Tesla that long, mainly because I'll probably want an updated model if this one keeps holding up or it doesn't hold up and I have to get rid of it.
I really want it to hold up, because I want a Cybertruck. If it doesn't hold up it will likely make me hesitant to buy anyone else's EV product as well for some time. If Tesla can't do it I have doubts anyone else can bottle the lightning.

I am not worried about everyone making more reliable cars in the future. Tesla is capping batteries after sale and facing the music for it, but every other company has been capping all along. Tesla even blogged about how they needed to cap lower than 4.2v years before selling cars, so it wasn't a mistake it was a calculated gamble they lost. It's a tough lesson but they won't repeat it and nobody else is making the same error.

I'm betting Tesla wouldn't have a batterygate if their new CEO hadnt ignored their previous CEOs decisions. The rest of the industry and batterygate have shown us that was a big mistake.
 
The rest of the industry and batterygate have shown us that was a big mistake.
Others in the industry have had their own battery problems. The LEAF had quite a few and even the Bolt has had some. This was interesting, GM handled it much better than Tesla but reading about the various different ways a cell can degrade because of manufacturing issues is informative
My Chevy Bolt Is On Third Battery Pack: Here's Why

We have 280 cells in a Bolt. It has to do with the geometry of the cell. Even at a smaller level than the cell, there’s a lot going on. You have to make sure everything ages appropriately. Batteries expand, contract, and vary with temperature. It’s electrochemistry. And so there were two problems that took a while to manifest themselves. There were some very subtle things that happened in the supply chain and in the cell assembly that caused the inside of those cells to fade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bhzmark
The supplier would be responsible assuming that Tesla's software used the cells in accordance with their duty cycle and operating conditions however if Tesla did not do that by allowing too high of a C-rate during supercharging or by allowing the cells to be charged/discharged when they were outside the proper temperature range then Tesla would be responsible fully.

I think a similar issue has and is occurring with the MCUs. The first is a result of the adhesive in the panel not having a high enough temperature rating for automotive use which Tesla ignored or disregarded and attempted to rectify later with cabin overheat protection. The second is that they either used too small of an eMMC or the incorrect type of NAND flash to handle the daily writes per drive (DPWD) they wanted for logging purposes which is resulting in an early death of the NAND and they have tried to rectify by reducing the logging.

I'm sure there has been on going acrimony between Tesla and Panasonic.

Probably a fairly tense love-hate deal. You can imagine Tesla pushing the specs at least to the limit and then wanting more. While Panasonic were struggling to meet huge levels of demand from Tesla while keeping consistency levels acceptable and at the same time pulling out all the stops to keep other clients happy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Guy V