Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[lightningltd]

@MP3Mike, got interrupted and didn't finish my complete post.

You said:



Does that mean you believe these impacted batteries are not likely to catch fire and that's why Tesla is not replacing them?

That's the billion dollar question.
The action taken SEEMS to have been an emergency (NOW!) action. Degradation would not be a NOW issue. Their silence is what is causing the speculation. They CLAIM its not a safety thing, but they will not disclose the ACTUAL issue they are looking at.
Personally, I think that it IS a safety issue, especially given how heavy handed they are being with this issue.

 

[FredTMC]

That's not entirely true... You are assuming that A: They pay full retail for the battery, and B: you would not be getting a new one.
You would get a loaner battery while they refurbished yours back to the level it was before all this started. They COULD even keep refurbished ones in stock to do it with and just exchange them.

5,000 and $20k is arbitrary assumption. Could be 50,000 cars or more

As far as battery cost, the cells in your pack are FUBAR. There’s no refurbishing them. They have a fire safety issue. They are throw away. Likewise the Electrics are probably outdated too. The battery pack shell can maybe be reused. Then there’s the labor for removing and replacing twice. and possibly refurbing your pack. It’s expensive.

 

[Droschke]

You can give them KW numbers... It depends on the year an model.. It is a calculatable field since it uses a constant (EPA rated miles).
For example:
My car is a 2013 Model S85. My RATED range NEW is 265. That comes to 295 wh/mi
To get KW, take 100% charge miles X .295 and you get KW.
265m X .295 = 78.175 KW
If your Pre update range was 259 then
259m X .295 = 76.405KW
Post Update (for me):
215m X .295 = 63.425KW

Now TESLA, explain THAT!

Its not PERFECT but its damn close. You just need to find the wh/mi for your car. I don't include any buffer since it was not mentioned in the EPA test, and besides, new displays 265 anyway, and that's what Tesla advertises.

And like all things, I am probable missing something, but its what I have

I wish I was as optimistic as you are on the tactic, but I believe Tesla will reject all that calculation. They have not acknowledged the 295 constant. The 295 is our magic number, not theirs, and I believe @wk057 was first to publish the constants for different models.

 

[David99]

Tesla's service people won't accept any 3rd party programs as evidence, but a judge would. The CAN bus data speaks volumes. It's not up to Tesla what evidence is admissible in court.

The battery voltage limitation is very strong evidence of capping the charge level. That data is even available without any CAN bus reading. Tesla officially allows reading the data sent from the car (API) and battery voltage is part of that. I don't think it's of any use to argue anything with the service people. They are instructed to just block. This will have to be decided in court.

 

[Droschke]

Tesla's service people won't accept any 3rd party programs as evidence, but a judge would

Absolutely.

 

[MP3Mike]

Does that mean you believe these impacted batteries are not likely to catch fire and that's why Tesla is not replacing them?

Correct. I have seen no facts that this is related to a safety/fire issue.

The action taken SEEMS to have been an emergency (NOW!) action. Degradation would not be a NOW issue. Their silence is what is causing the speculation. They CLAIM its not a safety thing, but they will not disclose the ACTUAL issue they are looking at.
Personally, I think that it IS a safety issue, especially given how heavy handed they are being with this issue.

No, Tesla was just has heavy handed back with the launch limits and the DC fast charging limits both of which were just to limit "premature" wear/degradation. And at least on the launch limits they eventually backed down. But they move very slowly on these things.

You may also add that the change was done so fast that the service centers were not even aware. Clearly it was an emergency action.

Really? The service centers never know anything about what changes with the firmware updates until they see it or we tell them. (Or make them ask engineering to find out.) That is not proof of anything.

 

[Droschke]

I have seen no facts that this is related to a safety/fire issue.

Then why do you think they are capping capacity?

 

[lightningltd]

I wish I was as optimistic as you are on the tactic, but I believe Tesla will reject all that calculation. They have not acknowledged the 295 constant. The 295 is our magic number, not theirs, and I believe @wk057 was first to publish the constants for different models.

Its not an arbitrary number. It is the result of the EPA testing, and is from Tesla. Its also where the little line is that says rated under it on our wh/mi consumption screen when you are set to rated range.

 

[Droschke]

The service centers never know anything about what changes with the firmware updates until they see it or we tell them. (Or make them ask engineering to find out.) That is not proof of anything.

That I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[Droschke]

Its not an arbitrary number. It is the result of the EPA testing, and is from Tesla. Its also where the little line is that says rated under it on our wh/mi consumption screen when you are set to rated range.

I need help then.

Can you tell me which EPA document says anything about 295?

Can you tell me where on my screens I see 295?

Its also where the little line is that says rated under it on our wh/mi consumption screen when you are set to rated range.

 

[ran349]

Tesla's service people won't accept any 3rd party programs as evidence, but a judge would. The CAN bus data speaks volumes. It's not up to Tesla what evidence is admissible in court.

The battery voltage limitation is very strong evidence of capping the charge level. That data is even available without any CAN bus reading. Tesla officially allows reading the data sent from the car (API) and battery voltage is part of that. I don't think it's of any use to argue anything with the service people. They are instructed to just block. This will have to be decided in court.

Are you sure about that? I have Remote S app and I have not seen the battery voltage displayed on that, and of course, it doesn't show on the Tesla app either. I recently got TM-Spy and now I can see my voltages from the CAN bus but I never saw them before.
Maybe I am just missing something.

 

[Chaserr]

That's not entirely true... You are assuming that A: They pay full retail for the battery, and B: you would be getting a new one.
You would get a loaner battery while they refurbished yours back to the level it was before all this started. They COULD even keep refurbished ones in stock to do it with and just exchange them.

Elon recently said battery replacements on the model 3 (roughly same capacity as an 85) should be $5k - $8k. That's incentive for them to make 2170 fit the S so those cheaper cells can be used for all these outstanding Warranty claims they have.

Tesla's service people won't accept any 3rd party programs as evidence, but a judge would. The CAN bus data speaks volumes. It's not up to Tesla what evidence is admissible in court.

Hear hear!

Tesla officially allows reading the data sent from the car (API) and battery voltage is part of that.

Well it did until someone on Tesla's legal team reads this and they remove voltage in the next update. /s

Not that an update would work on most of us affected in this thread any way. Tesla has weaponized OTA and turned it into a dangerous thing to be avoided at all costs. How many still want to see that pop up?

 

[DJRas]

Let’s say there’s 5,000 affected cars. At $20k replacement cost for each pack, that’s $100m of exposure to Tesla. Hence, we’ve got Tesla capping battery packs via firmware.

I would suspect that
A) only one module of 16 is actually defective and we all know they refurbish battery packs and even recycle cells.
B) their cost is much less than $20,000 each with a retail price of $20,000 installed.
So, call is $5 million exposure.
The lost revenue from a well publicized failure like this would easily eclipse that.

 

[MP3Mike]

Elon recently said battery replacements on the model 3 (roughly same capacity as an 85) should be $5k - $8k.

Actually he said your pack could be refurbished, by replacing the modules inside for $5-8k. Not replacing the whole pack. (But the Model 3 pack has a lot of electronics in it that the S&X don't have.)

 

[DJRas]

You can give them KW numbers... It depends on the year an model.. It is a calculatable field since it uses a constant (EPA rated miles).
For example:
My car is a 2013 Model S85. My RATED range NEW is 265. That comes to 295 wh/mi
To get KW, take 100% charge miles X .295 and you get KW.
265m X .295 = 78.175 KW
If your Pre update range was 259 then
259m X .295 = 76.405KW
Post Update (for me):
215m X .295 = 63.425KW

Now TESLA, explain THAT!

Its not PERFECT but its damn close. You just need to find the wh/mi for your car. I don't include any buffer since it was not mentioned in the EPA test, and besides, new displays 265 anyway, and that's what Tesla advertises.

And like all things, I am probable missing something, but its what I have

They do not care what YOUR range was prior to the update. They use fleet-wide average.
In my case new 265 @ 295 wh/mile =78.1
May 13 - 247 @ 295 = 73.5
June 21 - 217 @ 295 = 64.0
But, fleet-wide average is 231 @ 295 = 68.1.
Thus mine post update is 7% below average and does not qualify for replacement.

However, my battery reports 60.2 kWh usable 217 on 60.2 = 276 Wh/mile
And AS IF BY MAGIC

247 @ 276 = 231 @ 295

Thus hidden adjustment of rated range multiplier and making our "simple" calculation worthless.

 

[FredTMC]

I would suspect that
A) only one module of 16 is actually defective and we all know they refurbish battery packs and even recycle cells.
B) their cost is much less than $20,000 each with a retail price of $20,000 installed.
So, call is $5 million exposure.
The lost revenue from a well publicized failure like this would easily eclipse that.

Interesting theory about a single “bad” module.
I don’t agree though. Not in the slightest.

Remember that Tesla is trying to avoid a safety issue by not pushing cells too hard - Via Slower charge rate and capping the max charge voltage.

I suspect all the cells in the pack are at risk. They all have the same charging history and any one if them could develop dentrites leading to an internal cell short circuit.

Again, all the thousands of cells in a pack have the same cycles on them.
Sure, one string could start weakening before the others but the others aren’t far behind.

I think there are 96 strings of cells. These strings are in series with each other. 4.1v per string times 96 strings give you the pack voltage. Tesla doesn’t monitor EACH cell. Each cell in a string is in parallel and therefore at a single voltage. It’s a guessing game which cell in a string will suffer an internal short.

 

[DJRas]

Its not an arbitrary number. It is the result of the EPA testing, and is from Tesla. Its also where the little line is that says rated under it on our wh/mi consumption screen when you are set to rated range.

If ypu look at the EPA site it ckaims 38 kW per 100 miles or 380 Wh/mile

The 295 is a magic number that makes the 265 EPA rated miles make sense. Because we KNOW our packs don't have 100 kWh capacity (265 @ 380).

 

[DJRas]

Interesting theory about a single “bad” module.
I don’t agree though. Not in the slightest.

Remember that Tesla is trying to avoid a safety issue by not pushing cells too hard - Via Slower charge rate and capping the max charge voltage.

I suspect all the cells in the pack are at risk. They all have the same charging history and any one if them could develop dentrites leading to an internal cell short circuit.

Again, all the thousands of cells in a pack have the same cycles on them.
Sure, one string could start weakening before the others but the others aren’t far behind.

I think there are 96 strings of cells. These strings are in series with each other. 4.1v per string times 96 strings give you the pack voltage. Tesla doesn’t monitor EACH cell. Each cell in a string is in parallel and therefore at a single voltage. It’s a guessing game which cell in a string will suffer an internal short.

More than just a theory.
Tesla publicly stated only one bad module caused the fire in Shanghai.
ALSO, yes, you are correct about series connections. But, they do monitor the voltage of all 96 bricks of 74 individual batteries wired in parallel.
Thay CAN see individual bricks that are "bad" and throttle the WHOLE pack to avoid stressing that one brick.

If you are say my whole back is bad then it is just as likely that EVERY 16850 pack out there is bad and their exposure is in the billions.

 

[Chaserr]

I agree with you completely, but can't hold myself back from pointing out "Tesla publicly stated..." should always be taken with a 25 pound bag of salt.

 

[lightningltd]

I need help then.

Can you tell me which EPA document says anything about 295?

Can you tell me where on my screens I see 295?

The EPA numbers include charging losses. The 295 is hard coded in the car to achieve the EPA estimated range at 100% and does not include charging losses.

From WK:

• All RWD Cars (non-Performance and Performance): 295 Wh/Rated Mile
• All Pre-refresh Model S Dual Motor, non-Performance: 290 Wh/Rated Mile
• Refresh Model S Dual Motor, non-Performance under 100 kWh: 285 Wh/Rated Mile
• Model X Dual Motor, non-Performance under 100 kWh: 320 Wh/Rated Mile
• Model S Dual Motor, Performance under 100 kWh: 310 Wh/Rated Mile
• Model X Dual Motor, Performance under 100 kWh: 333 Wh/Rated Mile
• Model X Dual Motor, Performance 100 kWh: 342 Wh/Rated Mile