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

bhzmark

Active Member
Jul 21, 2013
3,671
6,210
What is the evidence of “sufficient irreversible damage” “to cells or boards from heat exposure”?

Remember, Condition Z is simply a sensor error that generated false positives for Condition X.

Are you under the impression that Condition Z causes harmful heat exposure to something? If so what is the evidence for this belief?

for many of the packs, sufficient irreversible damage was done prior to the 2019.16.x software deployment. Not damage that would cause spontaneous combustion, but damage to cells or boards from heat exposure, sufficient to trigger a failure condition within the original 8-year period.

Unlike GM, Tesla doesn’t have a steady income stream from

Close. Tesla doesn’t yet have the income stream from servicing a large off-warranty fleet. That is really the true profit for both OEMs and their dealers, and it is a profit stream that Tesla will only get once the large fleet of Model 3s start to go off warranty.
 

bhzmark

Active Member
Jul 21, 2013
3,671
6,210
It's a long time back, but didn't someone state service wasn't / isn't a cost / profit center for Tesla?

Of course that can / will likely change, but has Tesla made a statement to that effect?
As a shareholder I hope it does contribute profit to TSLA. off-warranty parts and service does contribute massive profit for all other OEMs (selling parts) and their independent dealers (selling parts and service). TSLA is positioned to capture both of that by avoiding the burden of, and sharing profits with, independent dealers.
 

JRP3

Hyperactive Member
Aug 20, 2007
20,686
49,861
Central New York
It's a long time back, but didn't someone state service wasn't / isn't a cost / profit center for Tesla?

Of course that can / will likely change, but has Tesla made a statement to that effect?
I thought it was more along the lines of Tesla shouldn't profit from it's manufacturing mistakes.
Elon:
"Unlike other makers of cars, our goal is *not* to profit from service. Best service is not needing service in the first place."

Interpret that as you will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Battpower

BigNick

Infamous Fat Sweaty Guy
Dec 3, 2017
1,341
1,615
Pennsylvania, USA
What is the evidence of “sufficient irreversible damage” “to cells or boards from heat exposure”?

Remember, Condition Z is simply a sensor error that generated false positives for Condition X.

Are you under the impression that Condition Z causes harmful heat exposure to something? If so what is the evidence for this belief?





Close. Tesla doesn’t yet have the income stream from servicing a large off-warranty fleet. That is really the true profit for both OEMs and their dealers, and it is a profit stream that Tesla will only get once the large fleet of Model 3s start to go off warranty.
I have zero proof or evidence. I have never torn down a pack or performed any diagnostics other than what tools such as TM-Spy provide (the last line of my post stated the entire post was my opinion.) I have read the excellent technical explanation written by @wk057 earlier this year. Nothing here is directly copied from that document.

IIRC, 2019.16.x brought the voltage caps to prevent possible overcharging from invalid voltage readings due to Condition Z, but the Supercharging nerfs didn't come until 2019.20.x. I believe it is possible that internal battery temperatures getting too high (on components not directly cooled from the battery coolant flow) during Supercharging may have contributed to Condition Z. This could potentially have been why newer 85 packs were charge-nerfed, despite having very little Supercharging use (my pack, specifically, had less than 800 kWh of Supercharging in its lifetime.)

Original "A pack" (early) 85s had a much lower SC rate from the beginning and never experienced the slowdown of Supercharging post 2019.20.x, nor were they affected by Condition Z. This may simply be a coincidence, but I think the Supercharging nerf was to reduce the internal heat in the later 85 packs to prevent damage (or further damage) to internal components (such as BMBs.)

Even if zero actual cell damage occurred due to high-rate Supercharging heat in this scenario, the logistics of removing a battery pack, shipping it back to Fremont, opening it up, testing/repairing/replacing sixteen BMBs per pack, shipping it back to the Service Center, and finally reinstalling it would constitute a significant cost per affected vehicle. So Tesla decides to nip this in the bud and reduce Supercharging speeds on all 85 packs that didn't have their rates limited from the start like the "A" packs.

Again, this is entirely my opinion and speculation only. I no longer have a dog in this fight.
 

lightningltd

Member
Apr 16, 2018
319
1,367
Trinidad, Ca.
A lot of words doesn’t make it fact. Proof makes it fact.
I have documented all these FACTS here and with Tesla. Just because you do not like the FACTS, does not change them. If you are happy with Tesla and are unaffected, then good for you. All I ask is for some simple understanding that some of us got the shaft.
 

bhzmark

Active Member
Jul 21, 2013
3,671
6,210
I have documented all these FACTS here and with Tesla. Just because you do not like the FACTS, does not change them. If you are happy with Tesla and are unaffected, then good for you. All I ask is for some simple understanding that some of us got the shaft
I understand that you feel you got the shaft. I don’t understand why you feel that way because you didn’t respond to the simple request to post your current range — ideally pictures of the relevant screen and most ideally your teslafi chart.
 

faughtz

Model S P85DL
Jan 4, 2015
316
718
Los Angeles
Brilliant thought experiment reframing exactly the functionality of what happened in a slightly new light.

This should affect those who pause their outrage and upset long enough to understand it.
I would have been unhappy at month 1, upset around 6 months, and pissed for the remainder of the period where my car lost performance and capacity. Yup, thought experiment works the same as reality.
 

Battpower

Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Oct 10, 2019
2,117
2,189
Uk
And it's energy just being dissipated as heat.

The balancing resistors can't drain any where near that much.

What are you charging up to at the moment and does the drain only happen above a certain SOC?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Droschke

aerodyne

Nose cone car - "Going to LR"
Nov 19, 2018
3,137
4,142
Los Angeles
Well this fix is more of a bandaid. Got almost all of the range back. But this drain gate is unreal! I loose 5-10 miles of range, or 1.5 to 2 kWh loss a day. But sure it's fixed.

Might be something else. Are the pumps running? Is the car sleeping?

Assuming you have SMT or Teslafi...otherwise it will be hard to diagnose, without getting Tesla Service involved...
 

Products we're discussing on TMC...

About Us

Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


SUPPORT TMC
Top