Fine. But what's your point? That your car charges better than mine or two cars are supposed to charge the same? Or, the chargegate is a hoax? Or, the owners (except yourself, of course) don't know what they are doing?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
- Thread starter Dutchmeeuw
- Start date
Fine. But what's your point? That your car charges better than mine or two cars are supposed to charge the same? Or, the chargegate is a hoax? Or, the owners (except yourself, of course) don't know what they are doing?
Come on, my post is a proposal, that ChargeGate could have different Gates depending on 'measured/assumed' battery performance.
So I show you that my S70D with its smaller 350V batterypack, happens to charge a HIGHER RATE at 56% than you reported for you 400V S85 pack at only 40%
At 40% my smaller pack charges 56kW as compared to your 36kW - hope your battery was just cold!
Was not inserted in my owners manual and not texted by the SC techs to the owners. Good info, but a mute point
Since you seem to be enjoying this (BTW, I'm completely sober), why don't you follow Elon Musk's recommendation I posted earlier in my reply to you. You ignored it conveniently
Last edited:
Of course ChargeGate is not a hoax, go to the ABetterRoutePlanner blog i previously linked: Tesla Supercharging - Summer 2019 Update
You and you car are definitely a special case. Happy for you.
Might it just be that posters such as yourself are contributing to it too?
Last edited:
Droschke, please go look at ABetterRoutePlanner, my car is slightly BELOW average. Your car should approx meet the green graph attached.
Attachments
I did. My car and lots of other cars these days are reporting to fall below that green line. What do you think we should do?
Average SoC at 50% IS a good advice. If you add 'only charge to what is needed and in the very last moment', it becomes perfect.
Important is that any periods at high SoC needs to be 'recovered' at low SoC. So the durations at either ends is important.
Lets assume you need to Supercharge 80% in your daily communte. Then a scheme where you leave early at low SoC, Supercharge on your way to work (while doing e-mails) and ends at work with 50% and at home with 10% is FAR better than the opposite.
You leave from home with 90%, end at work at 50%, drives home to SUC charges to 90% (while doing e-mails) and leaves car at 90% over night.
Here is constant cycling 12% around P1 == 81%, then resting at either P1 == 81% or at P5 == 9%. As can be seen remaining capacity is largely recovered at 9%, but it takes time!
Attachments
Hmmm. I am on 2019.40.2.3 and live in cold 3C Denmark, which could explain why I am slightly below ABRP.
If limitation is new software, then I guess ABRP will discover and blog. If the issue is temperature, that could be challenging for ABRP, because they then need to add temperature to their graphs.
(Trust me: I am sober as well!)
Reference test/report is here: Investigation of capacity recovery during rest period at different states-of-charge after cycle life test for prismatic Li(Ni1/3Mn1/3Co1/3)O2-graphite cells - ScienceDirect
No longer public, will search for copy without copyright!
I agree there appears to be a number of possible chargegate nerfs possible. The ABRP graph green line is at the top of what looks like a rather strange overall decrease. It's likely some are hit harder than others with people that are also infected with the batterygate malware getting additional "protection for longevity" nerfs to charging. I haven't seen higher than 60kW for most of this year and I think I'm going to start contributing my charge sessions to ABRP. I suggest everyone else infected do the same - we can add a potential new graph to the data showing crowdsourced data. Can ABRP pull 100% volts too? It would be interesting if they can automatically diagnose an infection for contributors.
1 week before the fire : Elon Musk on Twitter
"It’s not a big deal. Charge to 90% to 95% & you’ll be fine. At 100% state of charge, regen braking doesn’t work, because the battery is full, so car is less energy efficient."
But I guess this tweet where meant to every one - except owners of pre-faceliftet cars.........
Please can someone reply Elon on this Tweet ?????
eye.surgeon
Active Member
I posted some thoughts and a possible solution regarding batterygate and chargegate here:
Making the case for an Apple solution to the looming Tesla battery crisis
I didn't want to derail this thread by posting it here, but feel free to read and post your thoughts.
Making the case for an Apple solution to the looming Tesla battery crisis
I didn't want to derail this thread by posting it here, but feel free to read and post your thoughts.
He's never going to say that again. I guarantee it. Everything post 2019.16 seems to be intended on lowering the amount of energy held by the battery and it is literally impossible to charge to 95% any more for everyone infected.
Even at the time I remember thinking Jeff would facepalm. Degradation at 90% is something like twice as bad as at 80% and it keeps getting higher as you increase charge % so for them the lower you charge the cheaper the warranty risks. Telling the whole fleet to charge to 90% daily when some were charging to 80% or whatever increased their operating costs in 140 words.
I seriously doubt it will work. The chargegate is imposed.
Similar threads
