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.
Since you are speculating (and rightfully so), what's your educated guess on what the X and Z might be?

Judging by the heavy handed response the software gave (mistakenly), I am GUESSING that:
They were looking for X (Definite Dendrite that may be shorting out a battery) and set the software to react to reduce the chance of fire. This would definitely need immediate addressing, since we know as we have been taught by Frankenstein, FIRE BAD.

They found enough Z (Li Plating) to make the software mistakenly calculate it as POSSIBLE dendrite formation and reacted.

Thoughts?

I think that Li Plating and "dendrites" are something they have been looking for from day 1. Dendrites also is not a very specific term.
There's different types that have different impacts on the batteries performance.
You can find an interesting article about the topic here: Whiskers, surface growth and dendrites in lithium batteries

Disclaimer: while being a physicist with interest in li-ion technology, I'm far from an expert.
Usually a single small short in a battery won't cause the battery to fail. The short circuit will melt itself and disconnect. You're only really in trouble if short becomes big enough to reach thermal runaway. Lithium plating, fingers, dendrite - this all should at first only affect very small parts of the large surface area of a li-ion battery. As the issue accumulates over time, problems get worse though.

The plating happens at a *cell* voltage of 4.2V or higher. So when you're charging either to a high SoC or with a lot of power, your charging voltage ideally would be exactly 4.2V once you reach a high enough SoC not to overcurrent the battery, since current = voltage differential * resistance. -> The higher the differential, the higher the charge current.
The trouble is, you don't charge every cell on it's own but a module with many cells in serial and you want to keep every cell below 4.2V. The voltages are distributed according to the internal resistance of the cells (see voltage divider), which again is also dependent on the amount of plating and other internal cell factors and even slightly varies across the surface of the cell. Even more it can change while you're charging if the lithium ions cannot intercalate into the electrode fast enough.

Long story short: my only slightly educated guess would be that they were looking to mitigate a certain failure mode related to Li fingers (X) and found something completely different (Z), maybe some previously unknown interaction between the electrolyte and the electrodes. It might be something really minor that is no big deal but might extend the life of the cell if handled properly.

These issues are usually really really complex and deeply researched though, so I don't think chances are high that some random guy on a forum with zero to no information guesses even close to correct.

If you wanna keep your battery free of metallic lithium, I guess it's a good idea to always keep the charging voltage a good bit below the maximum. For my (unaffected) P85D my latest data shows: if I want to stay below 4.1V / cell (~394V total, which should hopefully be plenty), I should stop charging at 75% with 32kW or slightly above when charging on 22kW.
 
Yesterday I stopped by my Service Center to have my driver's seat belt turned 180 degrees on my new Raven (345 mile range) and asked about the 30 mile range lost on my sold P85DL. They said the new software now more accurately shows the actual range. Also, people had complained that they were not getting the rated miles and now it is more accurate. I said that was bs and that Tesla reduced the miles to avoid future warranty costs.
 
  • Like
  • Funny
Reactions: neroden and bhzmark
Yesterday I stopped by my Service Center to have my driver's seat belt turned 180 degrees on my new Raven (345 mile range) and asked about the 30 mile range lost on my sold P85DL. They said the new software now more accurately shows the actual range. Also, people had complained that they were not getting the rated miles and now it is more accurate. I said that was bs and that Tesla reduced the miles to avoid future warranty costs.
Did he pee on your head and tell you it was raining too? I really hope this isn't the official position Tesla is taking on this. It is really insulting and infuriating.
 
Just how often do You want to repeat this over and over. It´s getting boring. WE DO KNOW that You are affected.
Take a lawyer and don´t vent here, same goes for the other Germans here. We need substantial facts like Wk, Bhzmark, even EGN from Germany presents here.

thank You.

...and what exactly are you doing here in this thread?
 
The point is that the problem certainly developed over time, but became visible to the users instantaneous after new firmware has been installed, which was able to detect the problem. If the sudden drop would have been expected by Tesla, I am sure they would have found a way to decrease the kWh value gradually over a longer time span, to make this additional degradation less noticable.

Again, name one product where software updates took away existing capacity on Lithium Ion batteries. I already mentioned the one case I know of. Hint: Note 7o_O
 
  • Like
Reactions: neroden and Chaserr
You know before this update my 2015 85D had 234 miles at 90% charge. I think Tesla dialed down the chargeable space to max out at 90% it makes logical sense. When I charged last week to 100% it maxed out at 234. They made some changes to the battery since it charges slow but this is my humble assumption.
It does seem like 90% is the new 100%. it would be really great if Tesla could get to the point where they can explain this to us soon.
 
Tesla has claimed testing was done on the 2170 battery packs with 500,000 miles. The batteries degraded to 80% capacity. Most Tesla owners are aware of degradation but sudden degradation or sudden range loss has already resulted in battery packs being replaced under warranty in the past. This should be no different. If Tesla found out the batteries truly degraded beyond the norm and adjusted the battery packs then that is a warranty issue but last I checked Tesla stated they slow charging due to a risk of fire. If there is a risk of fire the battery packs should be changed.
That's evading the questions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: neroden
Damage was detected that was being done to the battery over time that hadn't been shown or accounted for before. The updates revealed and attempt to mitigate that.

Are you claiming that the damage did not occur over time?

Are you claiming that the damage occurred because of the update?

Damage caused by an improperly programmed charging system is NOT normal degradation.
 
Yesterday I stopped by my Service Center to have my driver's seat belt turned 180 degrees on my new Raven (345 mile range) and asked about the 30 mile range lost on my sold P85DL. They said the new software now more accurately shows the actual range. Also, people had complained that they were not getting the rated miles and now it is more accurate. I said that was bs and that Tesla reduced the miles to avoid future warranty costs.

Continual BS answers. I'm sure the person who told you that was was given a script so it's not their fault. But Tesla as a corporation is intentionally lying to it's customers when they say the range was never there in the first place and that capacity hasn't really been lost and that's it's just a more accurate estimate. Absolutely nuts!
 
What makes you the authority on what is normal degradation?.

You've missed the point entirely. The lockout of capacity is not any kind of degradation. The capacity still exists. And for the record, the reasons why Tesla has done this are ALL speculation which means that we both agree Tesla needs to be explain this honestly and NOT keep lying to customers about "more accurate" range estimation.

At the very least, if they take away 15% capacity, they could stop lying about the SOC and display 85% charged when they stop instead of 100% charged which is a lie.

Even Samsung, when they rolled out their update to lock out the upper end of the Note 7's battery to keep them from catching fire, until the phones could be returned for a full refund, didn't lie about the true state of charge. They stopped the charged 60% and DISPLAYED 60%.

This guy is an expert on normal degradation and he talks about it extensively.

 
Last edited:
Again, name one product where software updates took away existing capacity on Lithium Ion batteries. I already mentioned the one case I know of. Hint: Note 7o_O

Probably every BMS in a notebook BMS is taking away capacity from lithium battery constantly, at least my Dell notebooks are doing this since more than 10 years. You can read out current capacity with tools like HWINFO.

Dell-Battery.JPG

Dell is doing this even more than 99 % of the time the notebook is connected to AC, and charging is limited to 80 % and is only recharged when below 50 %.

Even after battery packs have reached a (software) wear level of 50 % most of the cells in the packs have much more capacity when charged to full. There are people collecting such packs, opening them, testing the cells and build own solar storage systems with 1000s of cells.

The usable capacity of a lithium battery in a consumer item is a calculated value, just like it is for the Tesla battery.
 
Last edited: