Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[Chaserr]

Short circuits are dangerous and we have proof Tesla is aware of and intentionally hiding shorts from us rather than alerting to the danger so it can be repaired.

They had to report everything they knew a year ago to the NHTSA - they didn't and that was illegal.

We might not know why they broke the law, but we know they are currently still intentionally breaking the law and placing us in danger by hiding known dangers they have explicitly identified. David's photo is proof - the fact that Tesla wrote a program to identify short circuits and limit charge means they can detect dangerous situations. This is good - we want to have safe cars. The fact that they hide the danger after it is detected is not good. It means we have long-term unsafe cars on the road. If they detect something known to cause fires - and they can now - they need to alert us so we can have the car towed, repaired, and made safe as quickly as possible.

I believe this is why they designed the new 350v 85kwh battery for older car warranty and recall use. It almost definitely has the design flaws addressed and meets the legal criteria for both warranty and recalls: It is equal or better than the original. Downgrades are illegal, and volt capping has always been an illegal band-aid because while they didn't realize it would have a massive day to day impact on owners, it is why they are delaying class action and under federal investigation. They didn't want those problems, but they needed a band aid. Band-aids simply don't work on short circuits, they are too dangerous to intentionally hide when they are detected, and hiding safety problems is too illegal to be Tesla's permanent plan. They needed to buy time and did it in the most cost-sensitive way possible rather than the safe legal route.

 

[Battpower]

Short circuits are dangerous and we have proof Tesla is aware of and intentionally hiding shorts from us rather than alerting to the danger so it can be repaired.

Short circuits can be safe! Can't have any volts across a short circuit.

I'm not sure we know there are short circuits. We just have David99's error messages which on the face of it might suggest something short-circuit in nature. That would make much of my recent posting embarrassingly wrong (at least in part). This question is exactly what was behind my earlier question:

@wk057, do you know if it is a continuous drain due to an internal shorting effect, or a self balancing effect as charge balances between stronger and weaker cells that is more likely responsible? The voltage going higher during charging for a given net charge into a brick doesn't sound primarily 'shorty'.

 

[MP3Mike]

Short circuits are dangerous and we have proof Tesla is aware of and intentionally hiding shorts from us rather than alerting to the danger so it can be repaired.

No we don't. We don't know what a "WeakShort" message in the log means. You are just jumping to conclusions and then stating them as fact again.

They had to report everything they knew a year ago to the NHTSA - they didn't and that was illegal.

You don't know that. Tesla certainly could have been in communication with NHTSA from day one.

 

[Battpower]

we know they are currently still intentionally breaking the law and placing us in danger by hiding known dangers they have explicitly identified.

You are putting your self in danger by driving your car. And by crossing the street. And a bunch of other things too. You can focus on every potentially dangerous aspect of life (or component of a car) or you can focus on going about life in the safest way reasonably possible. Why trust Tesla any less than any other car manufacturer?

David's photo is proof - the fact that Tesla wrote a program to identify short circuits and limit charge means they can detect dangerous situations.

David's post is certainly relevent and interesting, but what it proves is imo completely undetermined at this time.

 

[Chaserr]

but what it proves is imo completely undetermined at this time.

It proves Tesla is intentionally limiting charge voltage. And hiding it.

It proves when they detect a short they have a prepared response, and the response is intentionally hidden

 

[Battpower]

It proves Tesla is intentionally limiting charge voltage. And hiding it.

We all know the limit charge voltages so they are hardly hidden. Every Lithium battery product should limit cell voltage, and if you want to extract maximum power from a battery of cells, you will most likely have to change the maximum voltage allowed over time.... or accept lower power from the outset. The battery is (evidently) capable of safely delivering huge amounts of power especially when new. And you also have to adjust parameters to keep the battery working optimally. This might sound like Tesla defense, but it isn't. It's just physics.

It proves when they detect a short they have a prepared response, and the response is intentionally hidden

I agree David's error message sounds like it could be referring to short circuits and it also sounds reasonable to say 'what the heck else could it be referring to other than shorts?', but internal system messages like that can be extremely cryptic and overly abreviated. They are not intended for our eye's, but for the eye's of someone who understands the exact significance. That could be a good reason why they are hidden - because joe public wouldn't know what they mean or what action is approriate. I stand by 'no PROOF' at this moment of any short circuits.

In fact, the graph posted by @BigNick showed a module with high voltages. We don't yet have more data, but it would be easy to see something tending to short circuit, as it would likely cause lower & reducing voltage not higher.

SPECULATION:
Significant shorting would blow the cell fuse so no risk.
Significant shorting that did not blow the cell fuse would keep draining the pack so batteries so effected would lose charge at a faster rate than other cars when left standing and unplugged.

 

[Chaserr]

Do we? People are still trying to deny Tesla is using volt limiting to reduce capacity on purpose. Now that we have concrete evidence we will see fewer denials but people are denying everything.

We don't yet have more data, but it would be easy to see something tending to short circuit

What we know is that is illegal.

I think the hypothesis of "bad cells" tied together to other hypotheses makes sense. What we are coming to find is Tesla allows (or allowed) catastrophic failure conditions to happen and they are hiding the particulars from us. The solutions they came up with are illegal because they reduce rather than preserve equal performance. They may have a fairly reliable way to stop too many more fires from happening, but they don't have a legal way.

 

[Battpower]

trying to deny Tesla is using volt limiting to reduce capacity

As @wk057 recently pointed out, the type of cells Tesla use are capable of being run up to 4.4v, so based on that (which is also supported by other recent posts) every single Tesla (and probaby every device using similar cells) is limiting voltage below an absolute maximum. And, if they didn't take those factors into account, then there would be an increased risk. Tesla are not doing it to limit capacity, it just unavoidably limits capacity. And it's a neccessary and intrinsic 'feature' / characteristic of using Lithium batteries.

You can't really argue both ways. If there is a (potential) SPECIFIC UNMITIGATED risk (and Tesla take action to address it, then it's no longer even a potential risk. You can't address a non-existent issue. What might be a problem is if something new cropped up and Tesla didn't disclose it. But I haven't seen anything going on posted here that wasn't present day one of Lithium car batteries and built into the design. The sensors present are physically part of the car so clearly they have been there sensing whatever they sense right from the start and they continue to do so. Tesla designers put the sensors in place that are needed to use Lithium batteries safely in their design.

What we know is that is illegal.

If it is illegal to follow prudent measures dictated by the (natural change in) intrinsic characteristics of a given system design then we are stuck. Everything becomes a one-shot gamble. In any case, for IT to be illegal, there must be a clear definition of what IT actually is. Tracking and regulating maximum (and minimum permitted cell voltages is an intrinsic part of the design and always has been. Failure to use the inbuilt monitoring systems that Tesla designed in from the start would surely be negligent and a safety issue for sure.

 

[Chaserr]

It's illegal to not follow procedure. Tesla isn't. We are here to conjecture why Tesla did illegal things, but we know for a fact they did break the law.

What IT is: Intentionally reduced capacity. Which is illegal under all circumstances - whether civil theft, federal Magnusson Moss Warranty violation, or federal safety law something was done illegally.

If it isn't safety or warranty they can return the stolen property with no consequences. Leaf owners have terrible degradation problems, and they aren't hidden or intentionally caused by software limits or described using language that strongly implies safety hazards. That is how manufacturers handle safe, normal, predictable loss of range from natural lithium battery decline over time. Tesla doesn't need to reduce capacity if they are going to try and use natural processes as their defense in court. They only need to reduce capacity if there are unnatural processes and they aren't following legal procedures established to stop manufacturers from intentionally reducing perdormance.

Lithium ion batteries can be charged much higher than 4.4v - it reduces the amount of lifespan when they go higher. Tesla gambled more range versus shorter battery life, and they have a warranty that covers their error if their math didn't work out.

In visual form, you can see why they didn't charge over 100% - it cuts battery life significantly. Reducing volts increases it.

If we had bought batteries rated with less capacity all along, the lower volts wouldn't matter, but by intentionally stealing capacity they broke laws. They should have followed procedure but they chose to steal instead. We don't know their reasons but the theft is measurable, and David's picture is proof it is intentional.

 

[Battpower]

It's illegal to not follow procedure. Tesla isn't. We are here to conjecture why Tesla did illegal things, but we know for a fact they did break the law.

What IT is: Intentionally reduced capacity. Which is illegal under all circumstances - whether civil theft, federal Magnusson Moss Warranty violation, or federal safety law something was done illegally.

If it isn't safety or warranty they can return the stolen property with no consequences. Leaf owners have terrible degradation problems, and they aren't hidden or intentionally caused by software limits or described using language that strongly implies safety hazards.

'Intentionally reduced capacity' and 'unavoidably reduced capacity' are really different and I think there is a good case that in completely normal opperation of the car, range / capacity were unavoidably reduced.

There is no proceedure required or in existance to notify 'on going normal opperation' of a car. Honestly, (and I hope you know that I absolutely have no alegence here to anything other than understanding stuff) there is an extremely strong argument that says everything on the car including battery monitorring systems and controls - exactly as supplied day one - are working perfectly as intended.

To violate warranty terms you need enforceable terms. The warranty terms and Tesla's approach to making changes is deplorable.

I will leave that argument for now. I wish there was a better way of separating that kind of argument from the more technical stuff because they are quite different but unavoidably liked while potentially being of primary interest to different groups of posters.

 

[Chaserr]

'Intentionally reduced capacity' and 'unavoidably reduced capacity' are really different

They are not different. If an emergency forces them to give the "Pull over safely" error, they need to use it. They aren't. They a aren't replacing batteries they are reducing. This is illegal. Theft is avoidable - if there is an underlying reason for it they don't want to own up to, they may have broken more laws than just stealing capacity. But there has never been any doubt they have criminal intent. There is nothing "normal" about an operation to hide what is probably a safety problem anbd certainly a warranty one, with "charge and thermal" changes that result in Tesla actively removing options that cost tens of thousands of dollars.

The technical stuff is "Are they breaking the law because they are cheap? Or because they are cheap AND they are trying to avoid killing anyone?"

Lots of conjecture there. I believe Tesla doesn't want to steal. I believe Tesla is hiding a safety issue to our detriment, which is extraordinarily illegal. The loss of battery performance isn't IT - it's how we see how they are trying to mitigate IT without actually repairing IT.

 

[Battpower]

So to me, the key words in that error screenshot are "Delta SOC", meaning there is a detected deviation in SOC for a brick (or bricks). There are multiple potential guesses at causes for the imbalance, in this case "weak short" would indicate that whatever brick has a SoC imbalance is consistently below the SoC of other bricks but not pushed above other bricks when charged. If it were pushed above other bricks when charged, that'd mean the brick in question was weak or had lost a full cell or otherwise had less capacity than the others. But the guess of "weak short" suggests that brick is being discharged in some way that is not being commanded.

Taking this post at face value, I read it that @wk057 is not sure of the exact cause or significance of the messages in question.

"There are multiple potential guesses at causes for the imbalance..."

"in this case "weak short" would indicate that whatever brick has a SoC imbalance is consistently below the SoC of other bricks but not pushed above other bricks when charged."

Yes, a 'shorty' condition in cells could manifest itself as described. ( reminder: SOC is not necessarily the same as brick voltage. )

"If it [voltage] were pushed above other bricks when charged, that'd mean the brick in question was weak or had lost a full cell or otherwise had less capacity than the others. But the guess of "weak short" suggests that brick is being discharged in some way that is not being commanded."

Yes, I understand that a blown cell fuse or other effect could have the cell voltage rise quicker than other bricks.

 

[Chaserr]

I could see how dead cells could make one brick imbalanced, and supercharging them at the old speeds would push those cells harder. It might even snowball into more dead cells, and if the condition went undetected for years of supercharging it might even lead to cells being charged at higher voltages and higer temperatures in conditions that are perfectly ideal for Tesla's cells to form dendrites, which poke tiny holes in the cell membrane and create small shorts. The last time I mentioned this, Jason pointed out that Tesla should be able to detect small shorts like this. Now we see that not only can they see them, they can conceal them and attempt to mitigate problems that might be caused by uncontrolled short circuits with voltage reductions. This is preferable to another fire, but concealing this from us and intentionally not issueing a recall or at least a bulletin is still illegal.

I think this is what Jason is trying not to say. Most of us are at minimal danger and dendrites are end stage like the Shanghai video or the San Francisco garage fire. Earlier stage could be the battery's design allowing dead cells to happen and unchecked the remaining cells around them get worked harder because the dead ones create unavoidable imbalances and increasingly rapid loss of range to normal degradation in abnormal conditions. Mitigating conditions ideal to creating dendrites is good; hiding packs with detected conditions Tesla felt the need to take corrective action on is bad. Procedure is corrective action must be OK's by the NHTSA and disclosed to you and I. Hiding such things is really bad, but I hope Tesla had good reasons to break the law. Someone found the maximum fine they can be addressed for hiding the recalls, and it's a pretty small number in relation to what they could save by designing the new battery rather than replacing our batteries multiple times. That's what I hope is their justification.

 

[Battpower]

They a aren't replacing batteries they are reducing.

I have to stop, but do you accept that degradation is just a normal fact of (battery) life? If not, then I suggest that is quite unreasonable.

If it is 'normal', then just how much is 'normal' and should / could it in any way be effected by the way owners use their cars? Tesla (didn't) specify what normal degradation might look like, and there wasn't any evidence until.... well, recently. Tesla DID suggest what acceptable use might be. Supercharging, ludicrous launches, etc.... by virtue of making these features available. If Supercharging was responsible for accelerated degredation, then that's something Tesla should answer for. Likewise selling or giving performance upgrades that potentially compromise the car in some way in terms of degradation.

I believe there is a lot to explain / answer for, but the safety angle I feel is not a strong argument.

Hard to know what Jason isn't saying.

 

[Chaserr]

All of us accept degradation. Degradation never needs to be pushed via an update, and can't be reversed via another software change. What Tesla did is definitely not degradation.

You're repeating an oft-used red herring, reading page 1 should help separate why you shouldn't start that argument again.

I've mentioned the Leaf a number of times to help you see this buit I think you didn't understand why so let me add a little more. Leafs have bad but normal degradation. It's different from Tesla because Nissan doesn't need to cause it all at once with a voltage adjustment, and they can't reverse it like Batterygate is being reversed. Degradation is like rust, batterygate isn't like rust it can be reversed.

If this was degradation, Tesla never needed to take any action. Taking action is why we know it was never degradation. Hardware failure is not natural.

 

[Battpower]

Correct, the update(s) were not degradation.

They were more likely a pre-planned response to inevitable degradation. Hence the designed-in ability to monitor and respond.

Reversing the 'corrective action' would remove the correct 'response' to the detected (eventually inevitable) condition(s).

Why would we think that Tesla did not fully understand degradation possibilities and limits based on how far they pushed the technology? They had already seen how the Roadster evolved and the underlying technology wasn't especially cutting edge even if the application was.

Should they have explained all this before you purchased?

Are Tesla renown for good communication?

If they had explained and you (one) understood, would you still have purchased anyway?

 

[Chaserr]

Degradation has no response, itait happens sand that's just how it is. Tesla said charge and thermal settings are in response to a fire problem and that's the problem. Fire isn't degradation, but does need an emergency response. We had degradation before, battery gate is reversible and degradation isn't.

Ask Jason directly. He believes it is a safety problem being wrongly covered up.

Reversing the "corrective action" is all we want from Tesla. Unless it is dangerous they have no reason to let us degrade exactly the same as every other manufacturer. No manufacturer needs to understand degradation it happens whether they understand or not. What the manufacturer can respond to is warranty costs. But reducing performance to save warranty costs is illegal, so we are back to Tesla breaking laws.

Everything WAS explained before purchase. This isn't degradation it's a safety problem. At least wk057 thinks so.

 

[Battpower]

Tesla said charge and thermal settings are in response to a fire problem and that's the problem.

I have argued that, and fwiw, even though that might seem to contradict some of my arguments, I agree still with that point.

Even if they were ill chosen words, they still were the gist of their initial response.

I could waste all day going around the houses making the point about nothing in life being a dead cert, and not being able to respond to something that hasn't happened.... so how much is something allowed to happen before you are negligent? But it won't get us anywhere.

Yes, Tesla linked their actions to being in some way POSSIBLY linked to fires. And it is obviously the case that if you don't manage Lithium voltages, that could be a problem too. Damned if they do. Damned if they don't.

 

[Battpower]

Missed:

Hardware failure is not natural.

It is. Stuff goes wrong all the time.

Even so, what measure of hardware failure have we got to work to based on the original warranty that basically says nothing will go wrong (with the battery) (at least for 8 years)?

 

[Battpower]

In visual form, you can see why they didn't charge over 100% - it cuts battery life significantly. Reducing volts increases it.

Yes. But that was just a design decision along with loads of others.... including changes to max charge voltage.... that allows maximum performance to be extracted from the battery over its life.

Glass half full or half empty.