Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[NMCasey]

in reply to mjmiron, Yesterday at 8:02 PM

We take for granted the technology in Lith-ion batteries, because they work to well, but Mjmiron made significant points and the comments outline dendrite structures built from liquid lithium metal structures that limit battery capacity and can lead to the end of the battery life. Further research using sources from the same article source journal, shows current research and development potentials that Tesla/ Panasonic could incorporate to improve charge /discharge formation of liquid lithium metal deposits that destroy battery life:
Date:
June 12, 2019
Source:
Carnegie Mellon University
Summary:
Researchers have developed a semiliquid lithium metal-based anode that represents a new paradigm in battery design. Lithium batteries made using this new electrode type could have a higher capacity and be much safer than typical lithium metal-based batteries that use lithium foil as anode.

Semi-liquid metal anode for next-generation batteries: The new anode could help create a safer high energy lithium metal battery

 

[NMCasey]

The idea of limiting the heat and rapidity of a charge, or discharge/rapid acceleration or battery drain, to expand the battery life and limit the formation of liquid lithium metal that when it cools and forms shorts within the battery's structure or destroys the cell is smart and we need to follow all suggestions and software limits as improvements to a complex revolutionary CO2 emission free vehicle. Keep in mind you are not just driving a status symbol that you can do what you want with, but leading edge technology that will change and improve as a process that created the vehicle in the first place and significantly contributes to you stopping or augmenting the negative carbon footprint on the atmosphere from driving a car.

 

[cpa]

The idea of limiting the heat and rapidity of a charge, or discharge/rapid acceleration or battery drain, to expand the battery life and limit the formation of liquid lithium metal that when it cools and forms shorts within the battery's structure or destroys the cell is smart and we need to follow all suggestions and software limits as improvements to a complex revolutionary CO2 emission free vehicle. Keep in mind you are not just driving a status symbol that you can do what you want with, but leading edge technology that will change and improve as a process that created the vehicle in the first place and significantly contributes to you stopping or augmenting the negative carbon footprint on the atmosphere from driving a car.

This is my guess about Tesla, its batteries, and its methods--ya gotta remember that I am an accountant, but I have dealt with the general public for over forty years. Tesla has dealt with the general public for ten.

Tesla was in a rush to get their Model S to market--they wanted to be the leader and innovator with BEV. All part of Tesla's mission. Long distance driving and Supercharging with a BEV was novel. Tesla broke new ground with each step they took.

The Model S battery was designed before the Supercharger network was established. I am sure they had prototypes at Hawthorne or Fremont, but they had not been released publicly. I assume (always a dangerous road) that Tesla performed thousands of laboratory tests on various battery types--charging and discharging at various rates and levels. These were laboratory tests. Lab tests are clinical in nature and serve only as simulations. The batteries were torn down and analyzed.

Once Tesla was satisfied with the clinical results, they built a number of prototype cars to be driven by engineers and other technicians to establish real-world data. I assume that these autos were recharged under a variety of circumstances to try to emulate how we plebs would recharge our cars. I would guess that there was a handful of stealth Superchargers about California to enable the testers to make long-distance trips and to test Supercharging stress on the batteries.

We do not know for how long and for how far Tesla performed these real-world, engineering tests. But I can surmise that the prototype vehicles did not amass 100,000 miles or more in a wide variety of conditions over several years. The results were satisfactory enough to allow Tesla to proclaim its signature lines about distance and Supercharging times. And Tesla was confident enough to announce its 8-year, unlimited-mile warranty on the battery.

Now the public is buying Model S in large numbers. The 100,000+ of us are the true scientific testers. And guess what? We all do not have the same charging and driving habits as the simulated lab testing or the engineering test drivers. Tesla could not possibly determine all the permutations of driving and charging habits with a dozen or so prototypes driven for 12-18 months by test engineers.

With a statistically valid sample of drivers and batteries now on the road, Tesla has determined that there have been some design flaws or chemistry flaws with the cells due to how we owners operate and charge our vehicles. It could very well be that only one habit is deleterious to the battery, but Tesla really has no way of knowing which batteries have suffered this effect. Accordingly, Tesla caps the voltage to 4.1 and/or reduces the amperage at Superchargers to compensate.

Maybe if Tesla had delayed its release of the Model S to allow for more testing, we would not be experiencing these phenomena, because they would have been standard from the get-go. Tesla made a business decision, perhaps in haste. But I guess the modern view with technology is that we are all test subjects in one way or another.

 

[Droschke]

The idea of limiting the heat and rapidity of a charge, or discharge/rapid acceleration or battery drain, to expand the battery life and limit the formation of liquid lithium metal that when it cools and forms shorts within the battery's structure or destroys the cell is smart and we need to follow all suggestions and software limits as improvements to a complex revolutionary CO2 emission free vehicle. Keep in mind you are not just driving a status symbol that you can do what you want with, but leading edge technology that will change and improve as a process that created the vehicle in the first place and significantly contributes to you stopping or augmenting the negative carbon footprint on the atmosphere from driving a car.

I see your very first message in TMC is posted in this thread. What particularly attracted you to this thread, may I ask?

Also not sure what "limiting the heat" is supposed to mean?

Finally, do you own a Tesla, and if so, is your battery capped?

Thanks.

 

[Droschke]

This is my guess about Tesla, its batteries, and its methods--ya gotta remember that I am an accountant, but I have dealt with the general public for over forty years. Tesla has dealt with the general public for ten.

Tesla was in a rush to get their Model S to market--they wanted to be the leader and innovator with BEV. All part of Tesla's mission. Long distance driving and Supercharging with a BEV was novel. Tesla broke new ground with each step they took.

The Model S battery was designed before the Supercharger network was established. I am sure they had prototypes at Hawthorne or Fremont, but they had not been released publicly. I assume (always a dangerous road) that Tesla performed thousands of laboratory tests on various battery types--charging and discharging at various rates and levels. These were laboratory tests. Lab tests are clinical in nature and serve only as simulations. The batteries were torn down and analyzed.

Once Tesla was satisfied with the clinical results, they built a number of prototype cars to be driven by engineers and other technicians to establish real-world data. I assume that these autos were recharged under a variety of circumstances to try to emulate how we plebs would recharge our cars. I would guess that there was a handful of stealth Superchargers about California to enable the testers to make long-distance trips and to test Supercharging stress on the batteries.

We do not know for how long and for how far Tesla performed these real-world, engineering tests. But I can surmise that the prototype vehicles did not amass 100,000 miles or more in a wide variety of conditions over several years. The results were satisfactory enough to allow Tesla to proclaim its signature lines about distance and Supercharging times. And Tesla was confident enough to announce its 8-year, unlimited-mile warranty on the battery.

Now the public is buying Model S in large numbers. The 100,000+ of us are the true scientific testers. And guess what? We all do not have the same charging and driving habits as the simulated lab testing or the engineering test drivers. Tesla could not possibly determine all the permutations of driving and charging habits with a dozen or so prototypes driven for 12-18 months by test engineers.

With a statistically valid sample of drivers and batteries now on the road, Tesla has determined that there have been some design flaws or chemistry flaws with the cells due to how we owners operate and charge our vehicles. It could very well be that only one habit is deleterious to the battery, but Tesla really has no way of knowing which batteries have suffered this effect. Accordingly, Tesla caps the voltage to 4.1 and/or reduces the amperage at Superchargers to compensate.

Maybe if Tesla had delayed its release of the Model S to allow for more testing, we would not be experiencing these phenomena, because they would have been standard from the get-go. Tesla made a business decision, perhaps in haste. But I guess the modern view with technology is that we are all test subjects in one way or another.

Nice post!

You did forget the BMS and its role (or lack of) to protect the battery.

 

[Droschke]

dendrite structures built from liquid lithium metal structures that limit battery capacity and can lead to the end of the battery life

You mean catastrophic fire?

 

[cpa]

Nice post!

You did forget the BMS and its role (or lack of) to protect the battery.

Yeah, I was unsure how to incorporate the BMS into my already prolix comment. I was hoping that it could be inferred!

 

[Droschke]

Keep in mind you are not just driving a status symbol that you can do what you want with, but leading edge technology that will change and improve as a process that created the vehicle in the first place and significantly contributes to you stopping or augmenting the negative carbon footprint on the atmosphere from driving a car.

A way too long sentence. But I get what you mean. Not sure what reducing the negative carbon footprint has to do with the topic of this thread.

Keep in mind you are not just driving a status symbol that you can do what you want with ...

You need to keep in mind that as it has turned out someone else can also do what they want with our cars

 

[DJRas]

This is my guess about Tesla, its batteries, and its methods--ya gotta remember that I am an accountant, but I have dealt with the general public for over forty years. Tesla has dealt with the general public for ten.

Tesla was in a rush to get their Model S to market--they wanted to be the leader and innovator with BEV. All part of Tesla's mission. Long distance driving and Supercharging with a BEV was novel. Tesla broke new ground with each step they took.

The Model S battery was designed before the Supercharger network was established. I am sure they had prototypes at Hawthorne or Fremont, but they had not been released publicly. I assume (always a dangerous road) that Tesla performed thousands of laboratory tests on various battery types--charging and discharging at various rates and levels. These were laboratory tests. Lab tests are clinical in nature and serve only as simulations. The batteries were torn down and analyzed.

Once Tesla was satisfied with the clinical results, they built a number of prototype cars to be driven by engineers and other technicians to establish real-world data. I assume that these autos were recharged under a variety of circumstances to try to emulate how we plebs would recharge our cars. I would guess that there was a handful of stealth Superchargers about California to enable the testers to make long-distance trips and to test Supercharging stress on the batteries.

We do not know for how long and for how far Tesla performed these real-world, engineering tests. But I can surmise that the prototype vehicles did not amass 100,000 miles or more in a wide variety of conditions over several years. The results were satisfactory enough to allow Tesla to proclaim its signature lines about distance and Supercharging times. And Tesla was confident enough to announce its 8-year, unlimited-mile warranty on the battery.

Now the public is buying Model S in large numbers. The 100,000+ of us are the true scientific testers. And guess what? We all do not have the same charging and driving habits as the simulated lab testing or the engineering test drivers. Tesla could not possibly determine all the permutations of driving and charging habits with a dozen or so prototypes driven for 12-18 months by test engineers.

With a statistically valid sample of drivers and batteries now on the road, Tesla has determined that there have been some design flaws or chemistry flaws with the cells due to how we owners operate and charge our vehicles. It could very well be that only one habit is deleterious to the battery, but Tesla really has no way of knowing which batteries have suffered this effect. Accordingly, Tesla caps the voltage to 4.1 and/or reduces the amperage at Superchargers to compensate.

Maybe if Tesla had delayed its release of the Model S to allow for more testing, we would not be experiencing these phenomena, because they would have been standard from the get-go. Tesla made a business decision, perhaps in haste. But I guess the modern view with technology is that we are all test subjects in one way or another.

There likely is a defect as you describe. But, it does affect a "few" cars and Tesla DOES know exactly which cars. Not ALL batteries are capped. So, with such a low defect rate and their sold public endorsement that they will cover the battery for 8 years and unlimited mileage they should just cover this defect under warranty.

 

[Droschke]

Yeah, I was unsure how to incorporate the BMS into my already prolix comment. I was hoping that it could be inferred!

The BMS role is crucial. It's supposed to regulate and protect. Some believe it has failed to do both with our batteries, leading the manufacturer to: it's too late, let's cap them strategy.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

Be aware that depending on when you bought your Tesla you may void your warranty by not keeping the software up to date:



And yes, it is in the used car warranty as well.

I know it wasn't originally in the warranty, but I don't know when they added it.

Good point. But my car is out of Warranty now because of mileage, and although it still has a battery warranty, that’s clearly not worth the paper it’s written on. So on the balance of probabilities, I think downloading the next update opens me up to chargegate, whereas not downloading may void a warranty they are not keen to honour. So I know which one I’m going to stick with.

But thanks for pointing it out.

 

[raphy3]

Good point. But my car is out of Warranty now because of mileage, and although it still has a battery warranty, that’s clearly not worth the paper it’s written on. So on the balance of probabilities, I think downloading the next update opens me up to chargegate, whereas not downloading may void a warranty they are not keen to honour. So I know which one I’m going to stick with.

But thanks for pointing it out.

Keep in mind that you have the warranty you purchased with your car, not the one posted in June 2019. Warranties cannot be retroactively changed, and you definitely should not accept that. No one can compel you to download software that changes the functionality of your car to something different than what it was at purchase as a condition for continuing the same warranty you paid for when you bought the car. The warranty is for the car you bought at the time, as it was and as it would continue into the future from there. The warranty was not set to cover future funtionality that may show up one day out of the blue.

Warranties cover hardware and warrant them against defects. It's surprising that anyone would accept or think it's normal that Tesla would require software updates to keep within warranty. Software updates are not hardware maintenance items. Anyone agreeing to that is being fooled. A software update cannot fix a hardware defect, for example. I'd be surprised if that nutty line from the warranty held up in court. Someone should try them and see. If Tesla successfully argues in court (and let's be honest, it would be by pulling the wool over everyone's eyes) that your can roll out a piece of software to repair a hardware defect, then we are in serious trouble as consumers going forward. It's quite a slippery slope that ends with arbitrary loss of funtionality through software limitation being legally deemable as a "repair". This is definitely not rational. To sum up, software can mask defects, not repair them.

 

[MP3Mike]

A software update cannot fix a hardware defect, for example

Tell that to Intel when they put a software "microcode" update on their CPUs to fix/workaround a hardware defect.

And what about if the part is failing because of software? You say the warranty is only for the hardware? No warranty on the software? Wow.

Well replacing the hardware won't fix the issue if the software it that causes it to do the wrong thing.

 

[raphy3]

Tell that to Intel when they put a software "microcode" update on their CPUs to fix/workaround a hardware defect.

And what about if the part is failing because of software? You say the warranty is only for the hardware? No warranty on the software? Wow.

Well replacing the hardware won't fix the issue if the software it that causes it to do the wrong thing.

Of course they warrant their software, and software updates fix software defects. They don't fix hardware defects. How is that hard to understand?

 

[Droschke]

Tell that to Intel when they put a software "microcode" update on their CPUs to fix/workaround a hardware defect

But the hardware itself was still defective, correct?

 

[MP3Mike]

But the hardware itself was still defective, correct?

It depends on how you look at it. The hardware unit, i.e. CPU, now works correctly after the software update. You aren't just buying hardware you are buying a component made up of hardware and software. You have to have both for it to be functional.

And for example on the Bolt EV they had to replace the wiper motor assembly to fix a problem because they were unable to update the software in it.

 

[raphy3]

There are plenty of people that would argue the cpu hardware does not function correctly after the software was changed. It was widely reported that performance was removed in order to make the updated microcode fix effective against the exploits. That wasn't a matter of opinion or how you look at it. The processor no longer worked the same as it did when it was bought.

Intel is also a bad example anyway and pointless discussing further on a car forum, since the practical impact to the user is far smaller than the battery capping issue observed here. Intel is also a bad example because the software didn't damage their hardware. Mp3mike seems to be implying that tesla can change the software that operates a piece of hardware if the hardware is being damaged by the software, and then that seems to be the end of the problem. What about the now damaged hardware that hasn't been corrected/repaired?

 

[Droschke]

It depends on how you look at it. The hardware unit, i.e. CPU, now works correctly after the software update. You aren't just buying hardware you are buying a component made up of hardware and software. You have to have both for it to be functional.

And for example on the Bolt EV they had to replace the wiper motor assembly to fix a problem because they were unable to update the software in it.

I asked you because you said the CPU had a "hardware defect" and Intel wrote code as a workaround for a hardware defect.

If the hardware was defective, a software workaround is not a fix. No workaround is considered a fix. A workaround is usually given till the final fix is available.

 

[meomyo]

In other words, a cleaver way to avoid warranty replacement of the unhealthy packs.

THIS WOULD BE SHADY-hate when companies are dishonest

 

[Droschke]

Mp3mike seems to be implying that tesla can change the software that operates a piece of hardware if the hardware is being damaged by the software, and then that seems to be the end of the problem. What about the now damaged hardware that hasn't been corrected/repaired?

This is basically what has happened here.

The software (the BMS) has failed to protect the batteries from being damaged (Li-Plating, dendrite, etc.) resulting in hardware defect. A software update was released to "address" the issue (the hardware defect) by capping the hardware (the topic of this thread). So, what about the damaged hardware itself (the damaged batteries)?