Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[MP3Mike]

Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

Posting again because there may have been some willful attempts to redefine "degradation" to be things it can not be. Redefining a physical process doesn't work like that; "degradation" isn't whatever we want it to be today and isn't caused or fixed by software caps. Batterygate is software capped volts, and software capped volts aren't degradation ever.

Where in the warranty is the word degradation defined to meet what you say? A standard dictionary definition is: "The condition or process of degrading or being degraded." The definition for degraded is: "1: Treated or regarded with contempt or disrespect.; 1.1: Reduced in quality; inferior."

It seems to me that the process @bhzmark has described very well could be considered degradation. The BMS detects Condition Z and it "degrades" the battery by limiting the maximum voltage it can be charged to. The sticky part is the warranty says gradual and over time. We know that the BMS applied the cap instantly, but is the condition it is detecting something that happened gradually over time, or did it happen instantly as well? I think the answer to that question determines if this is a warrantable claim or not. And at this point I think only Tesla knows the answer to that question. (Unless they have shared details in the confidential mediation process that is ongoing.)

As far as the changes to the warranty terms Tesla has made for new purchases, I think they are just making it more clear and removing ambiguity.

 

[Chaserr]

I agree there are a lot of complaints and denials if evidence. The specific data however is easily seen, and why I constantly link page 1. THe evidence is volts. Proof undeniable and easy to measure. Volts quantitatively prove "degradation" us not a factual description for the property that has been taken from us without permission

"Condition Z" may or may not exist. We don't need to know why a thief broke into our homes and stole our property. Perhaps Condition Z is starvation, the thief wanted to take our things to sell for food. Perhaps Condition Z is poor parenting; criminal behavior and a poor upbringing are probably statistically linked above the limits of mere coincidence. Or maybe condition Z is sociopathy; some people just want to watch the world burn. We can speculate all day and asking a criminal why they committed crimes gets you nothing but answers you must suspect.

We don't need to know why we have been robbed to be victims of robbery, and any excuses the thief offers are academic. Punishment might be lenient if the guilty shows signs of conciliation but the crime is already committed.

Anyone that cares about "condition Z" should probably be aware of the person that coined that phrase and what he said about it:. Hint, it wasn't degradation and he said Tesla wasn't doing the right thing. We will probably find out why the thief burgled our homes, but at that point it won't matter. The thief will already be convicted and knowing he's just a victim of bad parenting won't do us any good, we will already have been made whole by the justice system.

 

[boywonder]

@MP3Mike - you should consider joining Tesla’s team in the class action.

 

[Chaserr]

@boywonder I hope Tesla does try the arguments recently suggested, it would help us all be made whole as quickly as possible.

Could you imagine Tesla claiming in court "we stole more than $10,000 or more from each person in the Class on purpose, just like this dictionary definition says!" I can't imagine a faster way for Tesla to replace or uncap our batteries than that except maybe, you know, just not do it in the first place. They would probably send an uncap update reversing everything before the end of the day (assuming there isn't an underlying hardware danger still being concealed from us, and there most certainly is or they would have made this all go away already).

@David99 you have written proof from Tesla acknowledging batterygate as intentional and artificial limiting right? Did you send that to the lawyers yet?

 

[JRP3]

This is a 100% incorrect statement. Degradation is the physical damage process of a battery that causes it to lose capacity at a specific voltage value.

Batteries can degrade in different ways, capacity is not the only way. Clearly Tesla detected a condition in some packs which was not there when new. Something changed. Since the change led to a potentially negative outcome that is degradation. For example excessive plating on the SEI layer will slow ion transfer, which means a battery would have to be charged at a lower rate.

 

[bhzmark]

The BMS detects Condition Z and it "degrades" the battery by limiting the maximum voltage

An alternative description is that condition z is the degradation itself (even if not reflected in battery characteristics evident in normal use) and the volt capping is just how the BMS manages the degraded battery condition -- just as the BMS limits the battery in various ways according battery temperature too hot or too cold or too much flux capacitor resistance. This is just another way the BMS responds to the changing physical state of the battery.

they are just making it more clear and removing ambiguity.

Agreed

 

[Jcarlson]

Even if the "Condition Z" was atypical degradation (it cannot be typical since many capped cars have very little "typical" Ah degradation), it is a design defect. If we take one example that was mentioned earlier, Supercharging at a too high rate with a cold battery, that is 100% controlled by Tesla and not by the owners. I also do not buy at all the theory that there are only a few cars. It's just that the majority of the owners have no idea if their cars are affected or not.

 

[bhzmark]

Even if the "Condition Z" was atypical degradation (it cannot be typical since many capped cars have very little "typical" Ah degradation), it is a design defect. If we take one example that was mentioned earlier, Supercharging at a too high rate with a cold battery, that is 100% controlled by Tesla and not by the owners. I also do not buy at all the theory that there are only a few cars. It's just that the majority of the owners have no idea if their cars are affected or not.

Leaving my car at a high SOC overnight. Or supercharging repeatedly a cold soaked battery, or random electron bad luck, may result in atypical degradation.

But that degradation is caused by atypical usage, or by atypical wave functions collapsing, rather than a design defect.

A design defect would be apparent in all or at least many more cases than we have here.

And by the way,after the software update to the update, what is the extent of the range loss in percentage terms? Is anyone over a 30% loss?

 

[Chaserr]

Batteries can degrade in different ways, capacity is not the only way. Clearly Tesla detected a condition in some packs which was not there when new. Something changed. Since the change led to a potentially negative outcome that is degradation. For example excessive plating on the SEI layer will slow ion transfer, which means a battery would have to be charged at a lower rate.

Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

Degradation is not what this thread is about. Use "volt capping" instead to help you remember. Volt capping is never degradation. Charge rate isn't degradation either. It's yet another aspect of batterygate (chargegate even has its own name since it affects so many people) software imposed limits, but something else that isn't degradation.

Volt capping is an easy to measure and intentionally perpetrated act of human effort. Degradation is an act of nature.

The person that created the term "condition Z" has already reversed Tesla's volt capping on someone's car. If that same person had reversed degradation on anyone's car as easily as he reversed volt capping, he would be a Nobel Prize candidate and a trillionaire.

Leaving my car at a high SOC overnight. Or supercharging repeatedly a cold soaked battery, or random electron bad luck, may result in atypical degradation.

But that degradation is caused by atypical usage, or by atypical wave functions collapsing, rather than a design defect.

A design defect would be apparent in all or at least many more cases than we have here.

And by the way,after the software update to the update, what is the extent of the range loss in percentage terms? Is anyone over a 30% loss?

Everything in your hypothetical example is typical degradation, in the standard classic and predictable sense and described exactly as degradation can and does occur in nature to all batteries of the sort used in Teslas.

You can tell it's degradation by charging to 100% and measuring volts. Volts will be at or extremely near 4.2v within the software's limits of safe charge (accounting for imbalances and temperature and so on). Always. Degradation doesn't significantly reduce 100% charge volts as we see with intentionally imposed software created volt capping. Looking at 2 identical S85 batteries, one charged to 4.2v and the other to 4.0v, you cannot possibly determine which one has more degradation. You can accurately determine that the one that is charged to 4.2v is charged to 100% and the other to approximately 80%. Volts determine that - state of charge. The "effect" of only charging to 80% is lowered range, and that is a similar effect to degradation. However, unlike degradation the volt cap can be instantaneously fixed by charhing to 4.2v again. Degradation is less capacity at the same volt reading. In your typical and classical example, charging to 100% overnight, repeatedly, on a cold soaked battery, with bad luck and so on, reduces that 85kwh capacity from 77kwh usable at 4.2v SOC when new to a lower ___ kwh number when charged to that same 4.2v number. That delta from 77kwh and the new ___ is degradation. Say that battery only charges to 73kwh at 4.2v SOC now... that battery has lost 5.2% of its range to degradation. This is typical and normal in accordance with the natural laws that define degradation, and within the normal range of Tesla's expected degradation rates as some of the most well cared for batteries in the world. Now, cap that same battery to 4.07 volts vMax and it is instantaneously reduced to 57.1kwh usable. It will appear to have degraded 26% when in fact it is simply not allowed to charge to its fully usable potential. It still can be charged, only software is limiting it. If you remove the cap it will resume charging to 4.2v with no adverse effects whatsoever (giving the impression that "degradation" is instantly cured), and you can still choose to stop charging at 4.07v if you choose, using the slider. Volt capping simply removed the ability to use a full charge, it did not remove the capacity itself or cause physical degradation.

 

[Az_Rael]

What is any scientific or data based evidence that Condition Z is not degradation?

No, as far as I know there is no direct evidence what condition Z is. I will point out that you don't have any scientific evidence that it is degradation either. So we are at an impasse.

In other words, it is all about degradation and not a manufacturing defect

So you think Tesla added that clause to the new warranty to exclude that particular type of degradation from the 70% rule?

 

[Chaserr]

I hope not. If Tesla added that to the new warranty to exclude battery gate problems from future sales and allow themselves to enact post-sale caps without legal repercussions it means they still haven't fixed the underlying defect on the new cars sold today. That's going to blow up in Tesla's face forever.

Though, that would explain why they risked everything to push this problem to trial and hired one of the world's biggest names in corporate bankruptcy to represent them for the suit.

Condition Z is a distraction anyway. I don't even care why I was robbed I just want my stolen stuff back.

I will point out that you don't have any scientific evidence that it is degradation either. So we are at an impasse.

Yes, we do. Volt readings, and the fact that batterygate is reversible and has been reversed by those with the requisite skills. Degradation is not reversible. There has never been any scientific doubt that batterygate is volt capping and not degradation. Like climate change and numerous other science based discussions, that doesn't mean the science itself won't be denied be people opposed to such things.

 

[tga]

Yeah i know.
Anyway I didn't had to delete anything, because, as usual, people like the ones you have blocked just report to the mods whenever someone says what is the truth and have other people's posts deleted...

You post wasn't deleted, it was moved to Snippiness 2.0 (rightly so, IMHO) - posts are rarely, if ever, deleted by mods

 

[tga]

An alternative description is that condition z is the degradation itself (even if not reflected in battery characteristics evident in normal use) and the volt capping is just how the BMS manages the degraded battery condition -- just as the BMS limits the battery in various ways according battery temperature too hot or too cold or too much flux capacitor resistance. This is just another way the BMS responds to the changing physical state of the battery.

I tried to make that point a few hundred pages ago, but the self-appointed thread police just shouted me down. Their definition of degradation is the only one they will allow here.

 

[mvotb]

I tried to make that point a few hundred pages ago, but the self-appointed thread police just shouted me down. Their definition of degradation is the only one they will allow here.

That's because your point is ridiculous. So my new 60 with a 75 battery come with 20% DEGREDATION when I bought it, eh.

 

[bhzmark]

Degradation is not what this thread is about.

Yes it is. And just repeating that it isn't doesn't make it so.

Degradation is less capacity at the same volt reading.

That's not the only degradation. Degradation can also be Condition Z.

In your typical and classical example, charging to 100% overnight, repeatedly, on a cold soaked battery, with bad luck and so on, reduces that 85kwh capacity from 77kwh usable at 4.2v SOC when new to a lower ___ kwh number when charged to that same 4.2v number.

That type of usage, including bad luck, can also cause Condition Z.

I will point out that you don't have any scientific evidence that it is degradation either. So we are at an impasse.

Fair point. But I think the evidence does suggest that Condition Z is lithium plating and no one has trotted any alternative theory. Indeed they spill much ink, but refuse to answer my question:
What do you think Condition Z is?

What is any scientific or data based evidence that Condition Z is not degradation? (in the real definition of the plain english word "degradation" -- not the artificially limited and self-serving definition that degradation can only be this limited definition)

Specifically, what is any evidence that Condition Z is NOT lithium plating?

So you think Tesla added that clause to the new warranty to exclude that particular type of degradation from the 70% rule?

I think the 70% rule stands as a strict rule and the "changes to performance of battery" provision is not an exception to the 70% rule. But, see, English is slippery.

Condition Z is a distraction anyway.

No, not at all. Condition Z is the root cause of the whole issue. Wanting to ignore it is very odd and just seems motivated by fear that Condition Z is just degradation and thus not warrantable.

 

[DILIE]

Instead it seems to me that when certain damage due to usage is identified (e.g., by measuring Condition Z to see if it reaches a trigger level) then the BMS takes action (like it does in response to many other triggers) and limits voltage.

...
1) was there a bad batch of batteries that had a defect that happened to be installed over a range of cars over a range of years (unlikely)

Your words: "certain damage"

That's why it's warranted. Because it is damage under normal (and repeatedly communicated as allowable by Tesla) usage.

If my ICE truck suffers damage under normal usage, such that it cannot be safely revved beyond 3000 RPM would it be OK for Chevrolet to take it in for service and return it to me with it governed to 3000 RPM maximum?

That is exactly what Tesla is doing. Limiting the function of the device to prevent further harm from an already damaged component. They are doing this without full disclosure of the issue, the implemented limitation, or future plans to remedy.

It is not a bad batch of batteries; more likely a bad design. Tesla is responsible for remediating the failures due to the bad design.

They appear to have essentially taken a similar action, but with better end results, with recent firmware.
Suddenly many car owners are upgrading firmware only to then find their vehicles severely limited in charge capacity with a corresponding alert. Limited enough to force them to immediately seek service, whereupon they are provided new batteries. Had this been the original course of action to deal with the problem that underlies batterygate this thread would likely be an order of magnitude shorter.

Oh, and the answer to the service question about my truck: "No, they cannot limit RPM to avoid fixing the vehicle." Pretty obvious, isn't it?

Finally, I'm sure I'll get some lovely feedback over this, even though it isn't meant to be hurtful; only humorous.
Your insistence in conflating damage with degradation brings the following to my mind.

"The condition of the GD battery is damaged!"

 

[Droschke]

Tesla capped batteries to cure degradation. That's very bizarre.

 

[omarsultan]

OK, time for today's edition of dumb questions from Omar:
The first pic is my old pack at 87.9% SoC and second pic is the new pack @ 87.6% SoC (sorry, the scale is not consistent):



So, same 96 groups in both packs but there is 20mV difference between average charge, (4.046 vs 4.066) so, does that small delta translate to the 6 kWh difference in remaining capacity? Can someone show me the math-I am curious?

 

[VT_EE]

"or by atypical wave functions collapsing,

I love it. Some quantum physics humor to lighten the mood

 

[fbitz777]

OK, time for today's edition of dumb questions from Omar:
The first pic is my old pack at 87.9% SoC and second pic is the new pack @ 87.6% SoC (sorry, the scale is not consistent):

View attachment 508715 View attachment 508717

So, same 96 groups in both packs but there is 20mV difference between average charge, (4.046 vs 4.066) so, does that small delta translate to the 6 kWh difference in remaining capacity? Can someone show me the math-I am curious?

please got to 100 percent ...everyone is waiting anxiously to see if you get close to 4.2V