Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[omarsultan]

OK, here you go: charged the new pack to 100% this morning. The pics are points along the way from 90% to 100% and last two pics are at 99.9% and once charging was complete and are kinda interesting. Finally, there is a graph of the charging session from TeslaFi (I am assuming the small spike is when I got int the car to plug ing the ODB dongle. BTW, the temp change was ~4F during this process.

TL;DR is the pack charged to 100% (yay) and all groups were between 4.18 and 4.19.

 

[fbitz777]

View attachment 509273 View attachment 509274 View attachment 509275 View attachment 509276 View attachment 509277 View attachment 509278 View attachment 509279 OK, here you go: charged the new pack to 100% this morning. The pics are points along the way from 90% to 100% and last two pics are at 99.9% and once charging was complete and are kinda interesting. Finally, there is a graph of the charging session from TeslaFi (I am assuming the small spike is when I got int the car to plug ing the ODB dongle. BTW, the temp change was ~4F during this process.

TL;DR is the pack charged to 100% (yay) and all groups were between 4.18 and 4.19.

So you have received a degraded pack (reman) not a capped pack! I guess it would be too costly for Tesla to hand out new packs (if they even still were making them)

 

[mjmiron]

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.

i agree it’s smoke and mirrors

 

[Geek190]

So I finally got around to using Scan My Tesla on my car. Here are some of my observations.

I found that my car will only achieve a voltage of about 4.150 at full charge (at rest). But it won't actually fully charge to 100%. During charging (starting from 90%) it will see about 4.195 volts on some cells. Other cells are still in the 4.150 range. so about a 45mV imbalance when charging (AC charging ~7kw). At rest after charge complete, the cells that were about 4.195 go back to about 4.150. The cells that were always at 4.150 during charging don't drop much when the charging stops. So the imbalance at rest is only 6mV. So I am not sure if there is any voltage capping going on or if this is just the result of a couple weak modules limiting my max charge due to imbalance during charging. Oddly, 2 complete modules exhibited this behavior. All the cells in both those modules were balanced well between themselves, but those 2 modules were considerably off from the rest of the pack.

I re-reviewed the first page of this thread and it's a good write-up of the situation. But I didn't find out much about what to expect for voltages during different situations. For example, Charging vs. at rest. What to expect during supercharging....

So anyway, just posting my observations. Anyone here have thoughts on this?

I never saw anybody address these questions (might have missed it) but I kind of wondered the same. The cell voltage at as close to 100% as I can charge is very different from 1 minute later unplugged.
Is it normal then to see it go from 4.195 to 4.150 as soon as it's unplugged?
Is it really charged to 4.195 or 4.150?

 

[First EV]

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

I have said this before if you have read this before. I had an early 2014 model S 85 with about 87k miles and over half the charging was at a supercharger. It would still go just above 120kw at a supercharger even with the latest software and stay there for a few minutes. I went below 5% frequently and charged above 90% on trips frequently although my daily was 90% and I always started charging as soon as I got home. I did not baby the battery and had no voltage capping although some charge rate capping. Point is I had a similar age car with more miles and more supercharging than yours even has miles and yet I was not that effected by these software updates. So some cars are effected even low mileage babied cars while others aren't. Obviously there is some variation causing a problem for some and not others. Imo Tesla blaming your slow supercharging on too much supercharging is BS.

 

[First EV]

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

Same conclusion! On a trip right now, its fun to point out all the places we used to stop and charge along the way.

 

[cpa]

@cpa, Great post as always. One question if I may:

Wouldn't it be a fraudulent scheme if they have been masking it?

Fraud goes directly to intent. Intent goes to knowledge: They either knew or they should have known. Ignorance is a defense (in my opinion) against fraud, but not a defense against negligence or recklessness.

There is also willful negligence, which approaches fraud but does not rise to fraud. Perhaps Tesla has been willfully negligent with this entire affair.

 

[cpa]

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?

I stated about 9,500 posts ago that when Tesla developed Supercharging, it was right here in Bonnie California, where the sun always shines, and weather is generally not too extreme, save the "higher elevations" and desert regions. I think Tesla had prototype Superchargers in Palo Alto, Fremont, Hawthorne, and a handful secreted away between the Bay Area and Los Angeles and perhaps along Interstate 80 east of Sacramento.

Fast forward a few years. People Supercharge in temperatures approaching 250*K. People Supercharge in temperatures approaching 315*K. People Supercharge at those temperatures with batteries at 4% SOC to (possibly) 60% SOC. The coldest temperatures that I have Supercharged at have been right around 273*K, maybe twice. But I have charged scores of times at 310-320*K. SOC have ranged from 5% to 40% during the summers. Many times those cables and the plug have been scalding hot due to not only the resistance from the electricity but also the ambient temperature being much hotter than the reported temperature in the controlled environment of a weather station.

It is entirely plausible that some of the issues are a result of a lot of driving in extreme weather conditions that Tesla did not foresee because Tesla did not take the necessary steps to subject their batteries to these factors. Tesla did not want to test their cars in the Yukon or the southwestern deserts for 50,000 miles over a three-year period. Instead, it was in California.

I know squat about batteries. Maybe Tesla's battery design with its fancy BMS was ignorant to the extreme conditions where Tesla owners live and visit. Maybe the BMS was too slow to detect and correct battery temperatures when they were at one extreme or another.

Maybe my dissertation is sophistry taken to a new low.

 

[bhzmark]

Why does everyone that takes this line of reasoning always neglect to mention that it also says "gradual" in the relevant paragraph. It gets tedious. Here it is, in context, in back and white with some red thrown in for good measure, or are we now going to have 40 post pedantic discussion of what "gradual" means?

Because “gradual” is not in the relevant sentence. And even if it were, if the underlying cause is Condition Z lithium plating, that was only belatedly detected by the newer software, it still wouldn’t matter.

But the relevant sentence says (why does everyone forget this?) says “OR FROM BATTERY USAGE” — note not qualified as to gradual or even “over time”.

Funny how you pretend to do a careful reading, but actually ignore the key sentence that grants the warranty limits on what is NOT covered.

They can claim that, sensors and software may have not recognized existing degraded condition, etc...

Precisely.

Supercharging works just fine on many many cars. The issue is, it causes a problem with SOME cars.

Right. THe supercharging, combined with other use factors, such as environmental and drive style and random luck. That doesn’t mean it is manufacturing defect.

 

[omarsultan]

So you have received a degraded pack (reman) not a capped pack! I guess it would be too costly for Tesla to hand out new packs (if they even still were making them)

i agree it’s smoke and mirrors

I would not agree with that setiment. The new pack checks the following boxes for me:

• Take me to a rated range/capacity close to where I was pre-16.x, the equivalent of 10% which in line with the degradation curve prior to the "updates"
• Charges to 100%
• Charges to 90% and 100% on my HPWC in reasonable time

The only thing left to check is speed on a Supercharger.

I am not expecting a 265 mile/77.5 kWh pack as that's not what the warranty states and I also don't think that's reasonable expectation for a 7-year-old car. As I have stated before, I think Tesla has honored the spirit of the warranty.

 

[Gixx1300R]

I read about contaminated cells possibly in the early Model S but I could not find the story. Here is a link to a story from 2019 about contamination again.

Panasonic and Tesla factory scrap half a million batteries a day

I believe the variance in some battery packs being nerfed is contamination inside the cells during the manufacturing process

 

[First EV]

I would not agree with that setiment. The new pack checks the following boxes for me:

• Take me to a rated range/capacity close to where I was pre-16.x, the equivalent of 10% which in line with the degradation curve prior to the "updates"
• Charges to 100%
• Charges to 90% and 100% on my HPWC in reasonable time

The only thing left to check is speed on a Supercharger.

I am not expecting a 265 mile/77.5 kWh pack as that's not what the warranty states and I also don't think that's reasonable expectation for a 7-year-old car. As I have stated before, I think Tesla has honored the spirit of the warranty.

I do agree that the replacement was within the spirit of the warranty. However the timing was not even close as I think the spirit of the warranty would have been to replace the battery when there was first a problem. Not to deny the issue and reduce the vehicles capabilities for months while owners are left wondering if the warranty will be honored. This has removed my faith that Tesla's warranty is anything more than a marketing ploy. I am glad that they did replace it for you. I hope you get many more years out of it.

 

[omarsultan]

Because “gradual” is not in the relevant sentence. And even if it were, if the underlying cause is Condition Z lithium plating, that was only belatedly detected by the newer software, it still wouldn’t matter.

But the relevant sentence says (why does everyone forget this?) says “OR FROM BATTERY USAGE” — note not qualified as to gradual or even “over time”.

Funny how you pretend to do a careful reading, but actually ignore the key sentence that grants the warranty limits on what is NOT covered.

I wonder if you are sharing notes with @MP3Mike because I swear I have had the exact same interchange with him. A warranty is a contract. You do not get to pick and choose what words, phrases and sentences are relevant--the whole thing is relevant and it will be judged and interpreted in its totality.

But, let's play with the for a bit. The full sentence is "Loss of Battery or power over time [yes, I know this is in the *same* sentence, but apparently not important] or due to or resulting from Battery usage, is NOT covered under this New Vehicle Limited Warranty." So, is you position that any non-virginal battery is no longer covered by the warranty, because that's what you seem to be arguing--hey, here is a battery warranty, which is cool, but as soon as you use the battery, its gonna start degrading, and then you are on your own, coz you used it and we don't cover used batteries. What is the point of warranty? Module died? Goops, too bad you used that battery, 'coz otherwise we could have done something for you. Why bother with specifying mileage limits? I mean, once you use it, what does it matter it its got 100 miles on it or 100K miles on it,

Speaking of "using the battery". how was I "using" my battery when it lost 20 miles of range overnight, after a SW update, twice. I mean, you are saying I should not expect battery warranty coverage based on my actions ("use"), so what were they? I am curious so others may learn and not have to repeat my mistakes?

 

[omarsultan]

I do agree that the replacement was within the spirit of the warranty. However the timing was not even close as I think the spirit of the warranty would have been to replace the battery when there was first a problem. Not to deny the issue and reduce the vehicles capabilities for months while owners are left wondering if the warranty will be honored. This has removed my faith that Tesla's warranty is anything more than a marketing ploy. I am glad that they did replace it for you. I hope you get many more years out of it.

You will get no argument from me on that. If you refer to this post a while back #10249, my hope is that this is the start of Tesla getting a handle on the issue and getting a fix more broadly deployed--maybe mistaken, but I am optimistic.

 

[bhzmark]

I wonder if you are sharing notes with @MP3Mike because I swear I have had the exact same interchange with him. A warranty is a contract. You do not get to pick and choose what words, phrases and sentences are relevant--the whole thing is relevant and it will be judged and interpreted in its totality.

But, let's play with the for a bit. The full sentence is "Loss of Battery or power over time [yes, I know this is in the *same* sentence, but apparently not important] or due to or resulting from Battery usage, is NOT covered under this New Vehicle Limited Warranty." So, is you position that any non-virginal battery is no longer covered by the warranty, because that's what you seem to be arguing--hey, here is a battery warranty, which is cool, but as soon as you use the battery, its gonna start degrading, and then you are on your own, coz you used it and we don't cover used batteries. What is the point of warranty? Module died? Goops, too bad you used that battery, 'coz otherwise we could have done something for you. Why bother with specifying mileage limits? I mean, once you use it, what does it matter it its got 100 miles on it or 100K miles on it,

Speaking of "using the battery". how was I "using" my battery when it lost 20 miles of range overnight, after a SW update, twice. I mean, you are saying I should not expect battery warranty coverage based on my actions ("use"), so what were they? I am curious so others may learn and not have to repeat my mistakes?

Warranty is not just a contract. It is also a statutory right. In other words, it’s more complicated than you appreciate right out of the gate. But let’s play with your words a little more.

Some parts of a contract recite facts, some create some covenants, obligations or duties, or grant rights and remedies. Which do you think the sentence with “gradual“ does?

Moving on . . Do I think the use phrase “Resulting from battery usage” Means a non-virginal battery isn’t covered? No I don’t think that. Not even remotely. It means, resulting battery usage, i.e., wear on the battery, i.e., normal things that happen to batteries when they are used, namely the degrade in various ways from usage. For instance lithium plating.

Again, I note a studied failure to avoid any inquiry into Condition Z, lithium plating, or an answer to my question whether anyone has any range loss > 30%.

 

[fbitz777]

You will get no argument from me on that. If you refer to this post a while back #10249, my hope is that this is the start of Tesla getting a handle on the issue and getting a fix more broadly deployed--maybe mistaken, but I am optimistic.

Agreed but it seems a tedious process
Tesla needs to take one defective module out of your capped battery Then they need to find another capped battery pack with similar miles and degradation and match modules. You get 15 reman batteries out of 16 cars. Does not seem to me that this is done at SC.
Also means that you could not pay Tesla when out of warranty and get a pack with original specs unless they get into the salvage business looking for low miles pack

 

[Ferrycraigs]

Agreed but it seems a tedious process
Tesla needs to take one defective module out of your capped battery Then they need to find another capped battery pack with similar miles and degradation and match modules. You get 15 reman batteries out of 16 cars. Does not seem to me that this is done at SC.
Also means that you could not pay Tesla when out of warranty and get a pack with original specs unless they get into the salvage business looking for low miles pack

Good idea except you can’t just swap modules in the way you describe. Shame really otherwise that might be a solution for all of us.

 

[David99]

That sounds exactly like they say they are responding to degradation. Cells that have degraded, "cells with enough wear", are at risk of even more significant and rapid degradation if they don't limit the charge level. But the capping is another, different, form of degradation.

I think that's the argument of the lawsuit. Artificially taking away range is the part that's not lost range due to normal degradation.

Why Tesla decided to do it is a different story. I think there are as many definitions of 'degradation' as there are members here. I would argue that even Tesla didn't know entirely how a battery cell would look like after 6-8 years of intense use in a car. Meaning exactly what and how much of that would fall in the definition of degradation wasn't perfectly clear to anyone. I think most people would reasonably assume loss of capacity (= range), loss of peak power and maybe energy retention (higher self discharge rate) would happen. Also, a higher internal resistance is something I would expect from an aging battery. This would further decrease range (because of higher losses during discharge). Same would go for additional energy needed to cool down the battery and during charging. Basically an overall lower efficiency. I would call all these things direct effects of degradation.

I didn't expect the charge speed at the supercharger would go down. In fact it doesn't go down due to degradation. It is lower because Tesla has adjusted it to a lower rate. That's where we are leaving the definition of degradation. That's not an effect of degradation, it's a decision Tesla made.
Now what about Tesla deciding to limit the voltage (=charge level). That is clearly not a direct effect of degradation. It is a pretty dramatic measure that significantly reduced range and performance. Given the fact that it was a reaction to the fires there is something going on in these batteries that is dangerous and unsafe. At the very least, as Tesla has told me in their text message, it causes a sudden loss of range = failure of the battery. (Look at Dahn's research on Lithium batteries. He calls a sudden drop of capacity a catastrophic failure). A battery that fails within the 8 year warranty period isn't degradation by any definition. Tesla feels like at the very least these batteries need to be crippled to prevent that from happening. At the worst case, they are catching on fire. A part of the car that is going to fail within the warranty period and can only make it to the 8 years when you significantly reduce it's intended use is per definition a warranty claim.

 

[omarsultan]

Agreed but it seems a tedious process

Yes, which is another reason I think the issue-that-shatll-not-be-named might be more widespread then they have let on. If it was the odd car here and there, I am sure they could handle it out of their normal parts inventory. If its more meaningful, then they have to ramp up supply chain before they can move into fix mode (remember the Tanaka airbag recall). I think one of the things the HV diagnostics do is give Tesla the data they need to scope the size of the issue and how many replacement packs they need.

 

[sorka]

View attachment 509273 View attachment 509274 View attachment 509275 View attachment 509276 View attachment 509277 View attachment 509278 View attachment 509279 OK, here you go: charged the new pack to 100% this morning. The pics are points along the way from 90% to 100% and last two pics are at 99.9% and once charging was complete and are kinda interesting. Finally, there is a graph of the charging session from TeslaFi (I am assuming the small spike is when I got int the car to plug ing the ODB dongle. BTW, the temp change was ~4F during this process.

TL;DR is the pack charged to 100% (yay) and all groups were between 4.18 and 4.19.

My 109K mile original pack is 74.1 kwh and only 3 mv difference between cells at 90%. You're reman pack quite a bit more degraded than my 109K mile 5 year old pack and you're not volt capped at all.