Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[egn1]

You've missed the point entirely. The lockout of capacity is not any kind of degradation. The capacity still exists.

Yes, this capacity still exist, but it is not save to use it, just like the capacity that can be gained from a cell charged to 4.25 V or even 4.30 V. That is about 3-5 % additional capacity that isn't used, because degradation will accelerate and the risk of thermal runaway on cell temperatures above 160 F rises exponentially.

So I see no problem in reducing usable capacity of cells if something is detected where safety is concerned.

 

[Droschke]

Sorry, I am not educated enough on what it could be and what Tesla engineers could be seeing.
I know what CAN BUS data is available (at least that we have interpreted so far).
I know wk057 is much more involved in the details (but won't share details YET!).

I am in category Z (or maybe X or maybe both).

Thanks for your feedback @DJRas. Even though my question was to @u1e85d5.

 

[sorka]

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.

View attachment 431947
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.

Those are 3 series cell packs full SOC @ 100% is 12.5 to 12.6 volts. (labeled 11.1 volts). I have a stack of D600 batteries in front of me ranging in capacity from 50% to nearly new and every single one of them has the same voltage when charged to 100%.

Why do you think your screen shot only shows 80%? Further more, SOME products limit SOC range from the start to give the battery a longer lifespan(as I stated earlier in this thread). None of them retroactively limit access to previously available capacity.

 

[sorka]

Yes, this capacity still exist, but it is not save to use it, just like the capacity that can be gained from a cell charged to 4.25 V or even 4.30 V. That is about 3-5 % additional capacity that isn't used, because degradation will accelerate and the risk of thermal runaway on cell temperatures above 160 F rises exponentially.

So I see no problem in reducing usable capacity of cells if something is detected where safety is concerned.

And you call THAT normal degradation?

You have yet to answer my question. Is it appropriate for Tesla to lie about what is going on and not properly communicate the truth?

Is it appropriate for Tesla to say that 100% is 100% when it's actually 85%?

 

[Droschke]

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.

Aren't the impacted cars with the Panasonic 18650 Cells?

 

[Droschke]

wtf??

just PM each other

Not with him.

 

[u1e85d5]

Afaiu, normal degradation means that the SEI and potentially other things like metallic lithium block the surface of the electrodes, reducing the total surface available for the intercalation reaction and therefore reducing the total available capacity, no matter which voltage you charge to. If it gets really bad, it can happen whole volumes of the porous electrode are permanently blocked leading to large capacity losses. This happens if all pores leading to a connected volume are blocked. Towards the end of a life cycle of a li-ion battery the capacity will drop very fast close to zero within a few cycles.

If you have to reduce the maximum charging voltage of a cell, that is (in my opinion) not normal degradation. If that happens to a significant degree, I think a battery swap is justified, BUT:
The blocked or limited capacity some people are currently experiencing as far as we known was limited by mistake. As far as we know there was no malicious intent nor did Tesla expect this to happen with their update. So the reasonable thing to expect is that Tesla will undo the limitation and restore your batteries to (at least close to) their original state.

I personally would be very glad that they put a lot of care and effort into making sure my car doesn't catch fire. From caution I would also always update to the newest version even though I'm sure they will force an update/make recall or similar if they actually find a serious issue in the future.

By the way, @sorka: the expert you're linking previously (Jeff Dahn) nowadays is actually one of Teslas top experts on batteries and their safety, so he is probably one of the people currently working on resolving this issue.

 

[Leeboy22001]

Didn't the original Leafs lose like 50% or more due to lack of BMS?

The high degredation was on original leaf pre 'lizard' battery which suffered from heat. The lizard pack has much improved chemistry and has proven to have low degredation.

 

[egn1]

Is it appropriate for Tesla to say that 100% is 100% when it's actually 85%?

Yes, of course!

Tesla has all right to define what available capacity corresponds to the 100 % mark shown to the driver. They define what is save, because the have to cover the risk of sudden battery fires.

I am sure that you would be also one of the first who would Tesla sue when your car would burst into flames, and your life was at risk.

BTW, while Tesla normally only a buffer at the low of the SOC, other companies like Audi have also a buffer at the top end, by always charging to less than 4.2 V. They give up maximum range from the start to limit degradation and make battery safer.

I like the Tesla approach to make this capacity available for occasional range charges. And if the battery is healthy and it is discharged immediately after charge, this occasional charges don't have much effect on degradation.

But if the battery is entering unsafe state by charging to full voltage, it should be clear that Tesla has to reduce full capacity.

That it shows 100 % on such a limited full charge is probably unintended, because of the auto-calibrating BMS. But on the other side this may also be the right thing, because there is no sense showing capacity that isn't available for driving anymore.

 

[Droschke]

If you have to reduce the maximum charging voltage of a cell, that is (in my opinion) not normal degradation. If that happens to a significant degree, I think a battery swap is justified, BUT:
The blocked or limited capacity some people are currently experiencing as far as we known was limited by mistake. As far as we know there was no malicious intent nor did Tesla expect this to happen with their update. So the reasonable thing to expect is that Tesla will undo the limitation and restore your batteries to (at least close to) their original state.

Nice observation. The optimistic part definitely makes me feel better as a Z survivor. Having said that, I'll be definitely pessimistic (pissed off as some say politely) once winter arrives with no range recovery delivered by Tesla

I personally would be very glad that they put a lot of care and effort into making sure my car doesn't catch fire. From caution I would also always update to the newest version even though I'm sure they will force an update/make recall or similar if they actually find a serious issue in the future.

I don't refuse updates even though I've been burned so many times. It's like medications with anticipated side effects.

 

[Gixx1300R]

Aren't the impacted cars with the Panasonic 18650 Cells?

sorry, that is correct. 18650 cells, not the 2170

 

[Droschke]

because there is no sense showing capacity that isn't available for driving anymore.

I wish Tesla would provide an additional tab on the UI displaying some of the currently hidden information that the 3rd party apps disclose. Lack of information brings uncertainty and suspicion.

If you are old enough, as I'm, and worked with the mainframes communication protocols you would recall the lack of an ACK was a NACK, still is

 

[Ferrycraigs]

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?

I think the two things ARE separate. I have a 3 year old pre facelift S70, 53,000 miles, with Condition Z. I do not have the reduced charging speeds symptoms.

Before the 2019.16.1.1 download I had a battery with 68kWh capacity, and presumably some Li Plating. My Typical Mile range at 100% was 220 miles, and had been in the 220-225 mile bracket for 3 years.

Overnight, after the download my KWh capacity dropped from 68.5 kWhs to 58.2 kWhs, about a 15% drop.
My Typical Miles Range also dropped to 192 miles (of course it did, my useable capacity was 15% less)

So I don’t consider that Tesla have discovered a better way to more accurately show my degradation. My degradation has been monitored carefully and regularly over 3 years. Even with my, presumably, Li Plated battery, I was GETTING over 200 miles in actual range. They then, presumably, reduced Vmax in the Cells, resulting in a reduced battery capacity (when all the cells used to hold 4.2V it totalled 70 kWhs, now they only hold 4.1V or whatever it has been limited to and now only totals 58 kWhs) resulting in a reduced actual range. The reduced Range is just the consequence of the reduced capacity.

So my view is my battery was degrading normally (actually slightly better than normally as I don’t charge to 100%, I don’t Supercharge frequently - perhaps 10% of the time only, and I routinely operate between 20% - 80%). It may be that I do have Li Plating, but I believe the recent, dramatic battery capacity reduction is purely the result of a software change, not a better identification of 3 years worth of degradation. It can’t be, as I actually had the kWhs and actually had the range up to 2 months ago, until the software changed all that.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

Yes, of course!

Tesla has all right to define what available capacity corresponds to the 100 % mark shown to the driver. They define what is save, because the have to cover the risk of sudden battery fires.
.

I agree Tesla should be able to say what 100% is. But I bought a 70kWh battery. They have now changed it to a 58kWh battery (let’s ignore the reasons why, any safety issues, any poor communication). So when my car shows 100%, it is showing 100% of a 58kWh battery, not 100% of a 70kWh battery. Which is why my % Consumption rates have gone haywire. Tesla have ‘tested' my battery, and like others, I have been told No Fault Found, it’s perfectly healthy. But when pressed on what and how they tested, it all became very vague, very quickly. I suspect they tested how much charge my battery could hold, compared it to the 100% figure, and of course it came out with a healthy figure. It wouldn’t have done if it had been compared to the charge held by a 70kWh battery. Of course this is my SPECULATION. My assumption. I know my battery consumption is, demonstrably, 15% less. So it’s hard to believe their tests are in any way credible, or the correct tests, if they are telling me my battery is fine and has no problems. If it was fine and has no problems, why do I now have Condition Z being applied?

 

[fbitz777]

Those are 3 series cell packs full SOC @ 100% is 12.5 to 12.6 volts. (labeled 11.1 volts). I have a stack of D600 batteries in front of me ranging in capacity from 50% to nearly new and every single one of them has the same voltage when charged to 100%.

Why do you think your screen shot only shows 80%? Further more, SOME products limit SOC range from the start to give the battery a longer lifespan(as I stated earlier in this thread). None of them retroactively limit access to previously available capacity.

Mine is fully charged but as you can see my battery has lost 48% of its original capacity and my cell voltage is now maxed out at 3.8V (4S)..Says 100 percent in my case

 

[VT_EE]

Yes, of course!

Tesla has all right to define what available capacity corresponds to the 100 % mark shown to the driver. They define what is save, because the have to cover the risk of sudden battery fires.

I am sure that you would be also one of the first who would Tesla sue when your car would burst into flames, and your life was at risk.

BTW, while Tesla normally only a buffer at the low of the SOC, other companies like Audi have also a buffer at the top end, by always charging to less than 4.2 V. They give up maximum range from the start to limit degradation and make battery safer.

I like the Tesla approach to make this capacity available for occasional range charges. And if the battery is healthy and it is discharged immediately after charge, this occasional charges don't have much effect on degradation.

But if the battery is entering unsafe state by charging to full voltage, it should be clear that Tesla has to reduce full capacity.

That it shows 100 % on such a limited full charge is probably unintended, because of the auto-calibrating BMS. But on the other side this may also be the right thing, because there is no sense showing capacity that isn't available for driving anymore.

100% agree

 

[rns-e]

100% agree

What do you agree with? egn1 is 100% wrong, if the battery is unsafe, for any reason, Tesla should call the owner in and change the battery under warranty. End of story.
Just limiting the battery at their own discretion is a slippery slope with no end.
It is not written anywhere that your 8 years limited warranty on the battery will void if you have a certain charging pattern. So Tesla should just own up to the problem, learn from the experience and change the batteries affected.

 

[mjmiron]

11/2014 S 85 xxx14-D battery 133,000 miles when infected

Ok thank you good to know pre software mess up you had very low degradation

 

[⚡️ELECTROMAN⚡️]

my driver's seat belt turned 180 degrees on my new Raven

My passenger seat has this same problem. Need to get it fixed before my warranty runs out.

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 7

My iPhone 6.

 

[mjmiron]

Whatever the fix from Tesla if we get one via software or a new battery needs to be done soon like in the next month. I am patient but I escalated this now with a few different avenues to make sure. I trust myself more than a company and this is affecting each of us now. Coming together as one affected party IMHO is the best way. Not not sure a census from the group on the best option for that but raising concerns with our local Service folks and calling Tesla should help.