It's a vicious circle, we always end up making it clear that this is not about degradation. But seems the few people come back to mess with this thread and pop in with their degradation bs. It been CAPPED by BMS for whatever reason and we either need an explanation from Tesla or a fix.
-
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
That is why I didn't buy another S when mine was wrecked. They aren't taking care of the early adopters the way the said they would. I watched service degrade quickly, I think I used the word correctly. Maybe they figure they have enough model 3 fanboys now that they don't need us for word of mouth anymore. We are out to the trash along with last weeks leftover fish dinner.
@mymagiccarpet degradation isn't a detected condition, it just is. Like rust, it is just a process io change that degrades the battery slowly. Capping was never degradation, someone was just overapplying it to all things because they didn't know what it actually means in context of electric cars.
Anyone know if the late 2014 Model S builds have anything about any supercharging causing battery damage(degradation) in specific language such that there is some prohibition against % of superchargers vs. , say 32kW or 8kW chargering or other rates?
Also, I remember when there were TESLA livery service vehicles lined up at superchargers and the drivers told me they supercharged several times per day as the only means of charging. TESLA, as I remember did something tolimit such use, but don't know how that resolved, either in supercharger usage OR battery issues. Anyone what happened to those type of near 100% supercharger usage?
thank you very much
FURY
Also, I remember when there were TESLA livery service vehicles lined up at superchargers and the drivers told me they supercharged several times per day as the only means of charging. TESLA, as I remember did something tolimit such use, but don't know how that resolved, either in supercharger usage OR battery issues. Anyone what happened to those type of near 100% supercharger usage?
thank you very much
FURY
faughtz
Model S P85DL
Interesting to contrast the approach taken by Jaguar/Audi/Porsche regarding their batteries. I believe that these manufacturers have applied more aggressive voltage capping from the factory in order 1) to protect their batteries and 2) not to have to apply a future cap in the way that Tesla did with update 2019.16.x which would materially change the driving and ownership experience for their owners.
What's also interesting is that these manufacturers' EVs are getting hammered for poor energy efficiency and lack of range - while what they might actually be doing is being honest about the battery technology and ensuring that the customer only suffers gradual degradation, and not sudden range loss due to a concern over fires or total battery failure (speculation, I know).
In a recent survey conducted by Sean Mitchell with over 3k respondents, more than 50% stated that range was their number one concern for EV (followed next by price).
I suspect that Tesla also knows that range is the most important selling factor and has been pushing the envelope (on range/voltages/charge-rates) and continues to do so with vehicles from the factory in order to keep up the "good" headline news their cars' range; knowing that they can apply any kind future limits to voltage or charging rates using the BMS and OTA updates. If this is done gradually then they might even be able to get away with it appearing to be degradation.
Whether Tesla are legally allowed to do this (suddenly) will be decided either by the NHTSA or the class action.
What's also interesting is that these manufacturers' EVs are getting hammered for poor energy efficiency and lack of range - while what they might actually be doing is being honest about the battery technology and ensuring that the customer only suffers gradual degradation, and not sudden range loss due to a concern over fires or total battery failure (speculation, I know).
In a recent survey conducted by Sean Mitchell with over 3k respondents, more than 50% stated that range was their number one concern for EV (followed next by price).
I suspect that Tesla also knows that range is the most important selling factor and has been pushing the envelope (on range/voltages/charge-rates) and continues to do so with vehicles from the factory in order to keep up the "good" headline news their cars' range; knowing that they can apply any kind future limits to voltage or charging rates using the BMS and OTA updates. If this is done gradually then they might even be able to get away with it appearing to be degradation.
Whether Tesla are legally allowed to do this (suddenly) will be decided either by the NHTSA or the class action.
“Bad thing inside cells” could be eg. short circuit because of a manufacturing defect. Or “bad thing” could be some other manufacturing defect. Manufacturing defect is not degradation.
Would you say, that the Boeing 737 Max crashes are due to degradation? The two crashed airplanes have certainly experienced undesirable changes.
I think the crashes are due to the design defects in Boeing 737 Max Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, which those planes allready had when they came from the assembly plant.
MCAS functioned as designed. There may be malfunctioning angle of attack sensor involved. I don’t know if the reason for its malfunction is established. It may be because of e.g. freezing or indeed degradation in that sensor (in which case there would also be some design or manufacturing defect involved, because those sensors were new). To say that those two brand new aircrafts were crashed because of degradation would obviously be false.
Last edited:
Ferrycraigs
Member
I think it might if the previous degradation was caused by Tesla. I'm sure there are laws that prevent Warranties from excluding legitimate and legal culpability. In the supercharging scenario, if Tesla said buy this car and use our powerful and fast Superchargers, but those Superchargers then damaged the batteries. In that situation the exam question is not is degradation excluded, but rather, why did only some batteries suffer and not others. If it was because some batteties could not stand the heat, perhaps literally, then its a question of quality of equipment rather than simple degradation. Only an example of the logic path, not a suggestion.
Ferrycraigs
Member
I loved that summary. Spot on.
The previous 10,000+ posts seem to be trying to answer why. But the actual problem is not why, but rather the effect of the solution, specifically reduced available capacity resulting in reduced range and power. Range and power that many owners paid more money to get.
The thread, in its desire to establish the why, now seems to be drifting towards - something caused something (I am reluctant to use the words degradation, or damage, or deterioration etc) to happen to the pack, and Tesla introduced Volt capping to address it. A plausible theory is that the Why was High Powered Supercharging. It has also been put forward that AC charging is fine. And public Rapid charging, by which I mean DC charging up to 50 kWs, should also be fine as that level is below the reduced DC power limits imposed by Tesla via Chargegate on some cars. So it is only some form of High Powered DC charging that is causing the problem. ie Supercharging. But it does not stop there. It is not correct to say Supercharging is the problem. It isn't. Supercharging works just fine on many many cars. The issue is, it causes a problem with SOME cars. Why? It can only be because the equipment in some cars can't do what it is meant to. Most people would call that part either Faulty, or Not Fit for Purpose. If Supercharging is causing some damage to some cars, then that must surely sit with Tesla. They are holding both ends of that stick. It is their equipment that is causing the damage. The fact that the debate is discussing whether this degradation/damage/deterioration happened before capping is, IMO, a red herring.
Last edited:
Thanks for posting it. The very first paragraph when applied to the batterygate would look like:
Tesla has been fined ... million euros (£...m, $...m) for deliberately slowing down older S models without making it clear to consumers.
TESLA told me that my battery "degradation" was due to frequent supercharger use over the 5 years I have had my late 2014 85S and driven it 32K miles. They said that when the replaced the the following last week. BTW, after all the below, the max kW that they said was achieved when they supercharged the car at the SC was 35kW from 23% to 90%. That is waaaay below the 50kW posted above, BTW. They also said the battery system is operating as "expected."
Master Charger-1st generation Remove and Replace
ASY,Gen2 Chrgr,MDLS(1014963-00-L)
ASY,CBLDATA-GND,INLET,EV(1006033-00-B)
Any comments?
Thank you very much
FURY
Master Charger-1st generation Remove and Replace
ASY,Gen2 Chrgr,MDLS(1014963-00-L)
ASY,CBLDATA-GND,INLET,EV(1006033-00-B)
Any comments?
Thank you very much
FURY
I looked in the owner's manual book and on the MCU. I could not find where it states that frequent supercharging is detrimental to the battery packs health. I would have asked "so you are saying that the Superchargers that Tesla supplied has damaged my battery pack?" The only thing I did see is where the advise not to drain the battery to zero. It is my belief that Tesla has dug themselves in a very deep hole.
Actually it does effect power output as does volt capping. They are not mutually exclusive. As internal resistance rises, the voltage drops at the same x amp load so the battery can't make as much power. I've lost 20KW of output do to degradation and 13 miles of range. I'm not volt capped(still on v8).
Obviously capping voltage reduces power more at same displayed SOC after vs compared to before capping since a displayed 100% might only really be 90%(depending on how capped your battery is) of the actual existing capacity and the voltage drop under load is ALSO inversely proportional (non linearly) to charge state.
This is why it's a double whammy with batterygate. Those who have been capped have also likely had some actual degradation. Tesla has stacked simulated degradation on top of actual degradation and displays 4.1 volts as 100% when it's really only 90%.
I agree with you and after reading the prior posts makes me question if super charging is really that great for the battery. One other friend has a 3 and after his research he does not use SC. This is why Tesla needs to let us know the truth holy hell someone buying a 100k car should certainly be entitled to this. But here comes corporate like VW hide the info and then only come out with the truth when they get caught.
I still have my 90D and will be saying goodbye Monday won’t be looking at another EV till this stuff blows over. I have come to the conclusion current EV imho are for local driving if SC are wrecking the batteries that’s tbd
Check out the current crop of EVs from pretty much everyone but Tesla. They are ALL capping from the factory - IMHO Tesla knew this was going to happen all along but thought they could push it outside of warranty - they blogged about the importance of needing to cap volts in 2006! And of course the new 2020 warranty clearly states they intend to software limit 30% of the battery post-sale.
I'm cross shopping Porsche and a new Tesla right now, and Tesla's lack of accountability is why I won't just buy the car I can actually touch right now, but while shopping it struck me that Tesla is the only manufacturer that isn't capping from the factory and is the only one with a controversy capping (or specifically selling cars that weren't capped). That makes me think Tesla knows less about batteries, and they aren't talking to try and convince me otherwise.
I'm cross shopping Porsche and a new Tesla right now, and Tesla's lack of accountability is why I won't just buy the car I can actually touch right now, but while shopping it struck me that Tesla is the only manufacturer that isn't capping from the factory and is the only one with a controversy capping (or specifically selling cars that weren't capped). That makes me think Tesla knows less about batteries, and they aren't talking to try and convince me otherwise.
I don't think its a binary choice, but some more guidance from Tesla would be appreciated on Supercharging best practices--what are the factors that negatively impact the pack. There are times you have to do what you have to do, but it would be great to be able to make informed decisions. When I bought my car, the guidance was just drive and just charge and don't worry about it and that's not turning out to be the case.
Similar threads
