dark cloud
Active Member
With a web address name like that I'm surprised the plaintiffs got anything.
-
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
scottf200
Well-Known Member
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
To this day I find your claim that your car is capped to be highly dubious, and your evidence for such to be lacking. You are literally the only person with a 75kwh battery thinking you’re part of this class.
Wish they acknowledged that when we were all brining it to their attention before they got sued.
Oh well…I learned my lesson dealing with Tesla.
I have not seen any type of restoration. My car is still sitting at 62kw on an 85kw battery pack
Then your car, like mine, is possibly part of the 21 "Vehicles with data unavailable to access". Look at post#1 under "the Latest" right on top of the page.
I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying just look at the miles range displayed when you charge to 90% or 100%, and that tells you if your capacity has been restored?
That's one way. Comparing the car's range before 2019.16 update (May 2019) and after (like now) helps. You say your battery capacity (it translate into range) has been capped by Tesla. How do you know you are capped? What are you comparing that makes you think you are capacity capped?
Also, have you read the entire post#1? It includes how to soft-calculate your present kWh capacity (pretty good approximation).
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
4.2V is not a hard limit for NCA chemistry and going above it does not necessarily cause safety issues. It can however lead to faster capacity loss, something which Tesla obviously wants to avoid.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Section:
4.1 NCA cells
"..... It is an important finding, that overcharged NCA cells can proceed straight into thermal runaway when heated above 65 °C. ..."
pubs.rsc.org
4.1 NCA cells
"..... It is an important finding, that overcharged NCA cells can proceed straight into thermal runaway when heated above 65 °C. ..."
Thermal runaway of commercial 18650 Li-ion batteries with LFP and NCA cathodes – impact of state of charge and overcharge
Thermal runaway of commercial 18650 Li-ion batteries with LFP and NCA cathodes – impact of state of charge and overcharge
Thermal runaway characteristics of two types of commercially available 18650 cells, based on LixFePO4 and Lix (Ni0.80Co0.15Al0.05)O2 were investigated in detail. The cells were preconditioned to state of charge (SOC) values in the range of 0% to 143%; this ensured that the working SOC window as...
pubs.rsc.org
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Note that the smallest overcharge in that study was 112% and that didn't hit thermal runaway until 144C. The 65C runaway was at 143% charge. So yeah if you extremely overcharge a cell and then bake it you'll have a problem. I'm assuming the faulty packs might have allowed something like maybe a 5% overcharge, no where near what that experiment was seeing.
Last edited:
dark cloud
Active Member
Speaking of electric vehicle battery fires, here is good article about a Chevy Bolt catching fire, and explaining that the Chevy Bolt has recently received a software update for a recall to prevent fires in the car. I don't follow this as closely as many others here but I certainly haven't seen this on the front pages of the media as it is with Tesla.
Of course Chevy doesn't just sneak in the update in the middle of the night, owners unknowing other than the information of "bugs and fixes", they have to drive to the dealer for a lengthy service appointment, labeled a recall, and therefore there is full disclosure regarding the details for the update.
I suppose this is the difference between a car company and a technology company.
Of course Chevy doesn't just sneak in the update in the middle of the night, owners unknowing other than the information of "bugs and fixes", they have to drive to the dealer for a lengthy service appointment, labeled a recall, and therefore there is full disclosure regarding the details for the update.
I suppose this is the difference between a car company and a technology company.
Folks,
Honestly, I have no idea what he is talking about. What exactly they were wrong about? Anyone knows?
All of this over $1.5 million, what a stupid PR move! Yes I know that is the settlement and not necessarily what it would have cost to be honest from the beginning. But had they just been honest they could have gained/kept us early adopters as free evangelicals of the brand. But by obviously being quiet and misleading many of us will no longer buy a Tesla and instead share our bad experiences. People expect there to be issues with products, it happens, its how the manufacturer handles the issue that makes the difference and either grows loyalty or ruins it. I believe trust with the brand is broken for many and that use to be part of what set them apart from traditional auto. It will take a long time before/if I buy one again due to this. I wonder how the full self driving across the country promises a few years ago will effect people's opinion? Imagine when those $10k upgrade purchases still aren't robo taxis and the cars start wearing out, the koolaid is going to start losing its mesmerizing effects.
Thanks DJRas !
Kudos for leading this. I can’t image how much of your time, resource or personal time it took, but you achieved something nice for so many people you don’t even know.
Our car was not affected, but I followed this closely nevertheless.
I’m part of those naive owners that still believe in Tesla’s mission (dying breed) and them trying to do honestly their best, but definitely they sidestep(ped) and sadly need such action to make things right again.
The optimist in me hope this is a wake up call for them and that they internally see this as a positive lessons learned.
If you ever travel to Belgium, I’d be glad to buy you a wel deserved beer.
dark cloud
Active Member
I assume that meant wrong about hiding what was going on, (voltage capping and range loss) instead of being forthcoming about what was going on.
Or wrong about doing anything in the first place, instead of just letting more batteries die naturally and warrantying them?
Maybe one day we will find out if there was actually an interoffice email sent to service centres to instruct them to tell owners the range loss was normal after the famous software update, or is that what they just all came up with on their own as an appropriate answer to satisfy the owner.
Similar threads
