Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[Droschke]

@Guillaume , would you do this for us in the tracker?

- A link to the Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software, the associated thread
- An explanation that the reported capacity losses are not the results of normal degradation as Tesla has acknowledged they intentionally derated (capped) our batteries via software updates, which has resulted in the impacted owners' battery packs to to charge to lower than 4.2 volts (a software imposed voltage cap).

This would help the new folks, impacted or otherwise, to understand the topic of this thread.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Droschke]

People have been abusing 18650 batteries for several years now and the incidents of fire have been fairly low. The Vaping crowd has had a few of them blowing up but most of those charge from what I have seen directly charge all the way up to 4.3 volts (Crazy) with no BMS. I just looked this weekend on my single 18650 photo strobe charger and it charges the battery up to 4.3 also. I think from a very wide angle that there are many different things at play here. Those packs currently being cap may in the future pose a risk of fire but I don't think currently due. I don't think Tesla capping a bad battery would help them from catching fire if they were already bad. I suspect that certain packs are aging far faster than Tesla thought and they are trying to limit the warranty impact. I think after the fires Tesla did a fleet wide (Oh crap) check and certain packs came back as showing age. Our warranty as written only talks about failure. If a brick starts to have multiple cell chains go out it causes the next brick to fail faster since it's picking up the work, thus causing a pack failure. Not putting words in anyone's mouth but it goes into the thought of went looking for potential fires and found excessive wear. This is being handled much like the MCU screen yellowing, it's all about the money.

I concur. Tesla has repeatedly told me my battery is "aging". The notable occasion when the "aging" of the cells were mentioned was during the time they were running tests on my battery. This was before I noticed the capacity cap which happened few days later via SW update and when the car cooling system worked non-stop in two consecutive days and each day about 8 to 10 hours long while the car was parked in the garage. Calling the support line, two different agents told me they see "some kind of tests" might be going on and they were noticing (reciting) the "aging" words in the log they were looking at and something about "voltage" which I did not understand at the time (remember, this was before I noticed the cap).

Not putting words in anyone's mouth but it goes into the thought of went looking for potential fires and found excessive wear.

Thank you. Hence:

- They "went looking for potential fires" = Condition X?
- "and found excessive wear" = Condition Z?

 

[Droschke]

what can you do? If you bought a 60d and updated to 75d for extra 2k later and this happens under 50k?

A Tesla fanboi would tell you no action is required on your side

 

[CuriousG]

Tesla refuses to communicate with owners and invites legal problems - and we can only hope that there even is a solution in the works because they frequently ignore problems permanently.

If this was truly a safety issue, Tesla should by law send out letters much like I received for my faulty charging adapter and Takata airbag recall to quell this whole battery shenanigan.

So now my car cannot even communicate to the mothership for over a month now which means I have no app access. The last mobile tech spent little time on it but didn't know what was up and now I'm waiting for second visit on Wednesday. Conspiracy theory people time to put your tin foil hat on.

Guess now would be a good time to toy with Scan My Tesla since my cable arrived last week.

 

[DJRas]

People have been abusing 18650 batteries for several years now and the incidents of fire have been fairly low. The Vaping crowd has had a few of them blowing up but most of those charge from what I have seen directly charge all the way up to 4.3 volts (Crazy) with no BMS. I just looked this weekend on my single 18650 photo strobe charger and it charges the battery up to 4.3 also. I think from a very wide angle that there are many different things at play here. Those packs currently being cap may in the future pose a risk of fire but I don't think currently due. I don't think Tesla capping a bad battery would help them from catching fire if they were already bad. I suspect that certain packs are aging far faster than Tesla thought and they are trying to limit the warranty impact. I think after the fires Tesla did a fleet wide (Oh crap) check and certain packs came back as showing age. Our warranty as written only talks about failure. If a brick starts to have multiple cell chains go out it causes the next brick to fail faster since it's picking up the work, thus causing a pack failure. Not putting words in anyone's mouth but it goes into the thought of went looking for potential fires and found excessive wear. This is being handled much like the MCU screen yellowing, it's all about the money.

What do you think they found that is considered "aging"?
Our packs charged to 90% regularly with no issues.
They charged to 100% seldom with no issues.
Tesla controls the charging, temperature during charging, discharge rate and pretty much every aspect of the batteries.

 

[Evoforce]

As to the Used Model S batteries being derated thread and the topic of this very thread, I wonder if the Tesla's decision to eliminate the kWh badging in favor of the Short/Long Range designation has anything to do with the validity of the kWh capacity shortly after the cars are sold!

I have felt that is why they did that because some were complaining that their 85 packs (for example) were not true 85 kWh when manufactured.

 

[Droschke]

What do you think they found that is considered "aging"?
Our packs charged to 90% regularly with no issues.
They charged to 100% seldom with no issues.
Tesla controls the charging, temperature during charging, discharge rate and pretty much every aspect of the batteries.

While awaiting @N..8 to reply to your question, when they mentioned the term "aging" to me it did not sink in that much at the time. Knowing now what has happened to our cars, I think by "aging" they were telling me we screwed up your battery and it should be on us except that it's not

 

[Droschke]

I have felt that is why they did that because some were complaining that their 85 packs (for example) were not true 85 kWh when manufactured.

or they become 65 in 4 years

That's the retirement age, isn't it?

 

[Droschke]

I have felt that is why they did that because some were complaining that their 85 packs (for example) were not true 85 kWh when manufactured.

Besides the humor part, what I meant was that when they made that decision to switch to Long/short/Medium range designations, they already knew about their need to cap our batteries sooner or later. (Master Plan#2?)

 

[wk057]

Some of the speculation here is a bit outrageous... and ya'll have been blowing up my PMs on this for weeks.

Affected packs with the range loss/charge cap/etc are not any more likely to explode or otherwise suffer another kind of catastrophic failure than any other pack. The capacity cap does "fix" the problem with these packs, even if it's not the best solution. While technically effective, it's just not the fix with the least outwardly noticed effect as it wasn't intended as a fix for this particular issue.

As I said previously... if you have an 85 or 70, you should update your firmware. Given how terrible the v9 UI is, I wouldn't make such a suggestion if it were not important... so read into that as much as you like.

Again, sorry for being vague... but it's the best I can do. I really should just be staying out of this entirely.

 

[N..8]

I'm no battery expert that's for sure, I've been interested in batteries for years though. I suspect that since Tesla can't tear apart your car battery that they are only looking at a mass amount of telemetry. I suspect that what they have been seeing is an increase in pack/brick heat and impedance. The problem with going by these two is that both affect each other and the car operates in a variable condition with outside temps. Although the pack is somewhat climate controlled it's only done so with Tesla parameters that seem suspect at best with the recent changes to adding the pack heat on waypoint to SC. Tesla wasn't seeing any mass failures and since most of the Tesla drivers are being very proactive nothing was screaming at them, until the fires. I believe that the 85kWh pack was a bad design from the start, it's was really only a 75kWh pack that they added 2 bricks to it to make it from 350 volts to 400 volts so they could peak it out a little. I think by doing this they messed up the CC/CV charging curve and charged it at too high of a C value and over time it (puffed) the pack. I fly RC Helicopters and back 10 years ago we used 6S Lipo's and we would puff the packs because we would draw too much from them then after switching to 8S it helped. Although not apples to apples the theory still applies. Wk057 can explain all this way better than I can but going from 74 to 86 per cell group was a much needed to push the CC/CV charging curve and discharge amps Tesla was looking for. Also thus the discontinuation of the 18650 75kWh packs. The only way to keep the S/X performance, charge time, and pack sustainability is to make the pack larger and ask less of it during normal operations.

(wk057 sorry just hit the reply button and didn't know you were about to post)

 

[Droschke]

Some of the speculation here is a bit outrageous... and ya'll have been blowing up my PMs on this for weeks.

Affected packs with the range loss/charge cap/etc are not any more likely to explode or otherwise suffer another kind of catastrophic failure than any other pack. The capacity cap does "fix" the problem with these packs, even if it's not the best solution. While technically effective, it's just not the fix with the least outwardly noticed effect as it wasn't intended as a fix for this particular issue.

As I said previously... if you have an 85 or 70, you should update your firmware. Given how terrible the v9 UI is, I wouldn't make such a suggestion if it were not important... so read into that as much as you like.

Again, sorry for being vague... but it's the best I can do. I really should just be staying out of this entirely.

Thanks Jason. I, for one, am always up to date with the updates, so that's not the issue for me. But what does this mean:

While technically effective, it's just not the fix with the least outwardly noticed effect as it wasn't intended as a fix for this particular issue.

Thanks.

 

[kavyboy]

if you have an 85 or 70, you should update your firmware

Is this a safety issue?

 

[kbrandes]

And if this a safety issue, why does Tesla not force a installation?

 

[BigNick]

It sounds like the capping (lowering of Vmax) was intended to fix condition X, but it can also "sort of work" for condition Z, but may not be the best fix available for Z; but Z wasn't expected to be found at all.

Developing a "proper" fix for Z would take enough time that putting the "X fix" would sufficiently address Z until a less "intrusive" fix for Z could be developed.

I believe engineering a software Z fix might have taken six months or more, and Tesla didn't want to let condition Z continue without putting something in place to prevent either Z becoming worse and requiring total pack replacement or turning into condition X.

 

[Chaserr]

If this was truly a safety issue, Tesla should by law send out letters much like I received for my faulty charging adapter and Takata airbag recall to quell this whole battery shenanigan.

This is why I don't believe it's a safety issue. There would be prison time for anyone involved in knowingly deciding to keep that information from us and telling service centers to lie to us about the issue for so many months if just one fire related to the issue happens in a home garage at night and kills an owner's family. Honda was fined $billions because it was believed they knew about a Takata seat belt safety recall but didn't notify owners or the government. And that was Honda - a third party with potential info they refused to share, not info that they actively lied about on their own manufactured parts. Tesla would go out of business if this was safety related and news got out.

I respect wk057's knowledge, but I can't recommend anyone take his recommendation to update unless there is a truthful reason to allow Tesla to steal from us. They give no reason, and we are under warranty, so it's their fault for not telling us if non-safety issues in the battery occur. The only negative for a non safety related problem is the battery fails and the car needs to be towed - an inconvenience for one day. Updating reduces horsepower and range forever - a much worse inconvenience.

Since Jason is unable to elaborate and this information is all we are allowed to have, it comes down to a simple choice - willingly inconvenience yourself forever, and cost yourself $$$ when it comes to resale time, all just to save Tesla the hassle of honoring their warranty... or don't and inconvenience yourself for a day.

Jason has said he may not be able to sell all 16 modules from an affected battery if he buys one from us, so he's told us it's a hardware failure. That's Tesla's job to fix, not ours to absorb without an explanation. We bought these cars because the 8 year warranty convinced us Tesla stands behind their hardware. We didn't donate money to a charity for a good cause.

And if this a safety issue, why does Tesla not force a installation?

It seems they have been. Some of our better known and outspoken never-updaters going back to the beginning of TMC were force-upgraded remotely without their permission or knowledge for the first time ever, over this update.

 

[MP3Mike]

I respect wk057's knowledge, but I can't recommend anyone update unless there is a truthful reason to allow Tesla to steal from us. They give no reason, and we are under warranty, so it's their fault for not telling us if non-safety issues in the battery occur. The only negative for a non safety related problem is the battery fails and the car needs to be towed - an inconvenience for one day. Updating reduces horsepower and range forever - a much worse inconvenience.

It depends on if the failure comes shortly after the warranty expires if you don't apply the software update. Do you want full capacity for the next ~2 years, or would you prefer slightly reduced capacity for ~10 years? (I'm not saying that is how it will work out, but a $15k battery replacement in ~2 years would be a pretty big inconvenience.)

 

[mjmiron]

Some of the speculation here is a bit outrageous... and ya'll have been blowing up my PMs on this for weeks.

Affected packs with the range loss/charge cap/etc are not any more likely to explode or otherwise suffer another kind of catastrophic failure than any other pack. The capacity cap does "fix" the problem with these packs, even if it's not the best solution. While technically effective, it's just not the fix with the least outwardly noticed effect as it wasn't intended as a fix for this particular issue.

As I said previously... if you have an 85 or 70, you should update your firmware. Given how terrible the v9 UI is, I wouldn't make such a suggestion if it were not important... so read into that as much as you like.

Again, sorry for being vague... but it's the best I can do. I really should just be staying out of this entirely.

Thank you for caring and responding to this thread I always find it extremely helpful.

 

[swegman]

And if this a safety issue, why does Tesla not force a installation?

They did force the update onto my car on June 20 without asking for me to approve the install or telling me they were doing an install. I came out to my car in June 20 and discovered that version 9 was installed on my car. And then discovered that the battery capacity was decreased with a reduced range.

 

[McMetric]

Lets look a bit to the left and right, not only on Tesla.
Porsche writes in its new 2019 Taycan brochure that frequent fast DC charging will cause longer charging times longterm.
They suggest DC max 50kW, or better slow AC.
A nice way saying that their current 2019 cells will also suffer. Lower charging speed and maybe other issues as well.

Tesla is again 7 years ahead in the game, now with the reduction, others will follow.
We still have to wait for better batteries. But the old batteries do not die, they get slower and loose capacity. Very unpleasant but much better than a dead battery which needs to be replaced.