-
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
I just came here after reading the article. So Tesla knew about the issue and continued using the bad part/connection for something like 4 years?
Wk057, have you ever found a loose coolant connection on an 85, or noticed a change in the connection hardware?
I didn’t read the article, but it’s not a loose coolant connection causing this issue. I’m sure Jason Hughes could confirm if he feels like posting again. More lies from Tesla. It’s kind of like a $2 part(Musks own words), causing the drive unit issues of the past. It was a bearing issue.
Can anyone find a blogger claiming this isn't an official NHTSA investigation so we can deny the problem?
Good that the NHTSA is openly discussing recalls now. They're evaluating how bad it is because Tesla's response is well over a year past the 5 day reporting window and apparently several more years more than we knew about! This is going to hurt. I hope it means Tesla takes safety seriously after this finally; Mercedes has a hand-holding NHTSA deal right now to help them learn how to communicate wit hthe NHTSA and buyers, maybe Tesla can get that sort of training session.
I'm only now researching it but on the surface I think maybe this could be the cause of everything. Apparently the coolant is caustic and conductive. It looks like an unchecked leak on the cells can cause short circuits and kickstart other dangerous brakdown processes. I can't believe Tesla knew about this years ago and just accepted they would have a fire problem as if that's OK and normal! I'm editing more here - apparently the coolant is flammable on its own too! So it can cause a short circuit and catch on fire inside the pack, but if the fire is stopped before it gets hot enough to ignite lithium it can be stopped. I think this data fits at least one or two of the fires under investigation, and leaky coolant causing battery terminals to chemically break down fits everything else we've discussed. High heat, high voltages, etc would all accelerate the chemical decomposition of the impacted cells.
I hope everyone involved in that decision making process is fired and held criminally responsible for what they have done.
63000 recalled batteries (NHTSA's number) is a lot to handle. Tesla, offer still stands: Some of us will pay for an upgrade pack. Turn this act of corporate hostility into a PR positive spun new program by offering upgrades making your cars sustainable vehicles instead of disposable torches.
On the logical hypothetical turn of thought, if this is a flaw in the cooling system it explains why Tesla is experimenting with 14 module versions of the 100-pack in their recall tests runs. The 100 uses different modules and a totally new cooling system, so it probably shouldn't have the same flaw. 100 kwh S/X are probably the most numerous by now but they seem to burn less often.
Tesla battery cooling system is subject of federal safety probe
Last edited:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
That's odd, since you've made definitive statements that the ONLY cause of these problems MUST be dendrite growth, and repeatedly castigated anyone who dared suggest otherwise.
For the record I doubt the coolant issue is the cause of range/charge/regen-gate since adjusting those parameters would have no impact on leaking coolant.
There is still no official open investigation listed on the NHTSA site. The NTSB investigation seems to be unrelated and is/was about fires after an accident. (An entirely different organization that has no ability to make changes or force recalls.)
It seems like yesterday you were 1000% positive that it had to be dendrite growth causing batterygate. Now you've switched your opinion and think it is from leaking coolant?
It seems that you really have no idea what the cause is. (And neither does pretty much anyone at this point.)I'm sure if it was leaking coolant we would have heard about it by now. And of course if it really was a coolant leak we likely would have seen a lot more reports about people getting low coolant warning messages that weren't caused by leaks external to the battery pack. @wk057 how many of the packs that you have torn down have you seen evidence of internal coolant leaks? (If you could be so kind as to provide a little bit of information about this.)
Nope, just more bad reporting. The coolant isn't flammable on its own, but the deposits left behind by dried out coolant are. (At least the Business Insider story got that correct.)
As far as I can tell this seems to be an unrelated issue.
We don't have enough information to really say that. Maybe there were just some manufacturing issues with the parts and Tesla tested them and replaced/rejected the bad ones before cars were delivered.
From the LA Times article:
"Although Tesla used the same China-based supplier for four years, it’s not clear if and when the cooling tube problems were remedied before Tesla brought manufacturing in-house in 2016. Without information from the company or safety regulators, it’s impossible to know how many cars were affected."
So, basically the 2012-2016 Model S owners do not know if their cars have this critical safety defect. What a mess!!!
"Although Tesla used the same China-based supplier for four years, it’s not clear if and when the cooling tube problems were remedied before Tesla brought manufacturing in-house in 2016. Without information from the company or safety regulators, it’s impossible to know how many cars were affected."
So, basically the 2012-2016 Model S owners do not know if their cars have this critical safety defect. What a mess!!!
Out of well over 100 packs dealt with to-date.... none. (There are, of course, packs I've run into that have had coolant inside, but in all cases this was caused by physical damage from a crash, not an internal leak.)
The coolant is definitely NOT flammable, anyway.
While I've no doubt that they may have had super early issues with the module cooling loops (as in, pre-production), since they are somewhat unique in general... I see no evidence that any production cars shipped with ones that would leak. Have dealt with the earliest vehicles (sig vehicles under VIN 500) up to some of the most recent.
For those who may be unaware, I'm super critical of Tesla when they actually do something they shouldn't have. In this case, I'm in a position to have probably the most data on this outside of Tesla... and I see absolutely nothing to backup these claims.
Edit: Also to note, if you look closely at the coolant loops on the battery modules, they all have a part name that is something like "ASY,COOLANT LOOP,TESTED", suggesting that Tesla does QA on all of these anyway... as they should.
Which is why the NHTSA is talking 60k recalls. If Tesla can't say which specific cars are flawed, the only safe assumption is they all are. NHTSA has done recalls for 2 vehicles, when the manufacturer can ID specific cars that need it and show why other cars don't. If there is a safety risk with no way to identify it before catastrophe, every potentially affected car can be recalled. Small number recalls are also more likely when the recall is voluntarily provided in the name of immediate safety. Tesla keeping a lid on this safety hazard for 8 years won't earn them much leniency from the NHTSA's decision makers.
Tesla seems to have shown us their method of identifying specific catastrophic cars: Batterygate and chargegate. Maybe they can leverage that method of concealment to limit the recalled batteries, but I have a feeling that was just a way to ID cars mid-failure and not cars that are flawed. Chargegate is so widespread it makes it sound like Tesla thinks it's all of the chargegated cars potentially.
@wk057 are we safe to assume by the recall needing to be sent out in 2012 that the fires caused by these coolant leaks are your "condition X" they were expecting to find when they discovered something else as well?
Tesla uses Propylene glycol which absolutely is flammable. It gets even more flammable as it is heated, losing water and becoming easier to auto ignite. Since it's electrically conductive a leak on the cells it is wrapped around can lose water through electrolysis while creating heat through the short circuits it creates, lowering ignition temperature and providing an ignition spark. Electrolysis also creates trace amounts of hydrogen and oxygen gas, both flammable gases that can continue to exacerbate an uncontrolled reaction inside the battery pack.
I find it interesting that this brought you back to a thread you were not going to discuss. Since you're back, are you able to explain everything you had intended to say before you had were silenced? You originally gave a sort of ultimatum to Tesla, and I can understand not wanting to push that too far but now that the ultimatum comes from the US government's safety investigators I think you should be safe.
Last edited:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Dendrites are the only acceptable answer in this thread, Chaserr said so. Do not contradict Chaserr.
So wait wait. You're telling me that the NHTSA is going to force a recall of 60,000 vehicles, based on rumors and speculation, and not a single visible or provable case of this defect actually occurring? I mean, if you can point me to some information where owners had internal battery leakage not related to an accident... I'm all ears.
This is really a stretch.
These have nothing to do with coolant leaks.
I'm not sure what you're saying here (there's no recall I'm aware of). But, as noted above, nothing with the charge speed reductions or range reductions has anything whatsoever to do with coolant leaking. Again, the coolant leak thing is not actually a thing.
That's a lot of words... but no basis in reality.
I've got about 100 gallons of coolant recovered from Tesla battery pack coolant loops stored in drums at my shop. You're welcome to swing by and try to light some of it on fire.
Fun fact: The same coolant used in Tesla's battery packs are actually used in fire sprinkler systems around the world. The systems are filled with coolant to prevent freezing. When the system trips when a sprinkler head pops, hundreds of gallons of this coolant douse the fire before water from the pipes reach the sprinkler head. If it were even remotely flammable, this would not be a thing. (Source: I used to work in construction building and servicing these systems.)
So yeah, cut the BS. lol.
Was never silenced. I made the decision to stay out of this whole thing for a bunch of reasons, and again, this fake coolant leak stuff has nothing to do with the various "gate" things people have been going on about.
I'd like to see this "ultimatum [coming] from the US government's safety investigators." I can find nothing about this in any NHTSA docs.
I said it was the most fitting hypothesis. You elevated my hypothesis to a theory because you didn't know what a hypothesis is. The scientific method makes us change our hypothesis to suit the data, which is why I informed you repeatedly that your use of "theory" is scientifically wrong and not helpful. Rejecting data in favor of your personal beliefs is the opposite of scientific reason. Accepting data and forming ahypothesis based on it is science. Only one of us chooses to deny obvious data in favor of rejecting hypothesis with no justifications given, the other has formed a hypothesis based on available data and true to the scientific method that hypothesis is fluid based on the data as it is now. This is exactly why you were wrong to call it a theory and why you needed to learn the difference in a discussion of science. Wk057 still indicates the dendrite hypothesis has merit; I'm willing to entertain the coolant leak data but he knows what causes the fires and says it isn't coolant. Remember when we all begged you to supply your own hypothesis instead of rejecting data without reason? This is what your reaction would have been if you had presented new data. It's how reason works.
Give the scientific method of reasoning a try.
The NHTSA said it's evaluating the recall of those 60k vehicles.
Googling coolant leaks and fires proiduces this: https://www.reddit.com/r/RealTesla/comments/bkac27/tesla_catches_fire_inside_garage_of_san_francisco/emg09d0
It's a third party account of one of last years cluster of fires that prompted batterygate and Tesla themselves seem to point to coolant as the source of the fire. There is discussion of how the fires happen if you find the propylene glycol's MSDS to be unrealistic. I didn't write the MSDS, I just read it. You should too! Especially with that personal responsibility you have in direct use.
Thank you for confirming you know there are other flaws. I wish you would talk about those before anyone dies.
Give the scientific method of reasoning a try.
So wait wait. You're telling me that the NHTSA is going to force a recall of 60,000 vehicles, based on rumors and speculation, and not a single visible or provable case of this defect actually occurring? I mean, if you can point me to some information where owners had internal battery leakage not related to an accident... I'm all ears.
This is really a stretch.
These have nothing to do with coolant leaks.
I'm not sure what you're saying here (there's no recall I'm aware of). But, as noted above, nothing with the charge speed reductions or range reductions has anything whatsoever to do with coolant leaking. Again, the coolant leak thing is not actually a thing.
That's a lot of words... but no basis in reality.
I've got about 100 gallons of coolant recovered from Tesla battery pack coolant loops stored in drums at my shop. You're welcome to swing by and try to light some of it on fire.
Fun fact: The same coolant used in Tesla's battery packs are actually used in fire sprinkler systems around the world. The systems are filled with coolant to prevent freezing. When the system trips when a sprinkler head pops, hundreds of gallons of this coolant douse the fire before water from the pipes reach the sprinkler head. If it were even remotely flammable, this would not be a thing. (Source: I used to work in construction building and servicing these systems.)
So yeah, cut the BS. lol.
Was never silenced. I made the decision to stay out of this whole thing for a bunch of reasons, and again, this fake coolant leak stuff has nothing to do with the various "gate" things people have been going on about.
I'd like to see this "ultimatum [coming] from the US government's safety investigators." I can find nothing about this in any NHTSA docs.
The NHTSA said it's evaluating the recall of those 60k vehicles.
Googling coolant leaks and fires proiduces this: https://www.reddit.com/r/RealTesla/comments/bkac27/tesla_catches_fire_inside_garage_of_san_francisco/emg09d0
It's a third party account of one of last years cluster of fires that prompted batterygate and Tesla themselves seem to point to coolant as the source of the fire. There is discussion of how the fires happen if you find the propylene glycol's MSDS to be unrealistic. I didn't write the MSDS, I just read it. You should too! Especially with that personal responsibility you have in direct use.
Thank you for confirming you know there are other flaws. I wish you would talk about those before anyone dies.
Last edited:
Sorry for the brief change of subject, but I went on a day trip yesterday that required a 20 minute supercharging session. My P85 rolled into the stall with 18% charge (~ 43 miles). Initial charge rate hit 120 kW (never seen any session that high, ever) and it settled over the next 10-15 seconds at just over 100 kW. It was nice to see that high charge rate, albeit briefly. I can't wait for these issues to get sorted out!
A couple of years after I bought my car—I want to say 2014 or 2015—Tesla informed of a service bulletin to replace my coolant pumps. I'm wondering if this might have been Tesla's fix to the issue?
A couple of years after I bought my car—I want to say 2014 or 2015—Tesla informed of a service bulletin to replace my coolant pumps. I'm wondering if this might have been Tesla's fix to the issue?
Last edited:
No they aren't. And where are you getting that number from? Could it be the BI article? Maybe you should read more carefully:
BI said:
Yep, they have started a probe into the MCU failures that they say could impact 63,000 vehicles. But that has nothing to do with the battery, and they aren't talking about recalls yet.
Nobody is saying a recall was needed to be sent out in 2012. At least not yet. NHTSA hasn't even started an investigation into this. (At least not that they list on their site.)
Sure at 99% pure, but Tesla uses a 50/50 mix with water. Here is a sample MSDS:
MSDS said:
Where? I can't find where they have said that.
Where? Again you seem to be putting words in Tesla's mouth because some random person on the Internet thought that could be the issue.
Maybe you should look at the MSDS for what is actually used instead of one that fits with your narrative. (I linked one above.)
https://hmdb.ca/system/metabolites/msds/000/001/472/original/HMDB01881.pdf?1358895490#:~:text=Flammability of the Product: May,C (210.2°F).&text=Flammable Limits: LOWER: 2.6%,oxides (CO, CO2).
Here you are.
Since you had trouble reading MSDS info it when you asked me to help you look it up I'll copy and paste the relevant parts for you:
Auto-Ignition Temperature: 371°C (699.8°F)
Flash Points: CLOSED CUP: 99°C (210.2°F). OPEN CUP: 107°C (224.6°F)
Auto ignition looks great doesn't it? That's pretty high. Flash points though... that's very low. Especially in a substance where all of those temperatures get lower and lower as the water content is reduced through unexpected reactions over time. Autoignition goes lower, flash point becomes more easily achieved... just by reducing water content. It's a good thing the coolant isn't electrically conductive. Wait, it is you say? Well, even then, if Tesla was worried about this they would probably try to hide it by reducing temperatures below potential flash points and rducing voltages so much the chances of a spark igniting it all is as close to nil as can be achieved without a class action lawsuit. That might work mostly, except maybe for that fire a month ago that started in a Tesla battery but didn't keep going like a lithium fore would be expected to burn. They might even need to worry about uncontrolled sparks from lithium plating at high voltages setting off flammable gases from the process, or the two combining to make fires more likely overall.
But that's probably very unlikely. It would only affect... how would Tesla say it?... "a small number of vehicles"
Here you are.
Since you had trouble reading MSDS info it when you asked me to help you look it up I'll copy and paste the relevant parts for you:
Auto-Ignition Temperature: 371°C (699.8°F)
Flash Points: CLOSED CUP: 99°C (210.2°F). OPEN CUP: 107°C (224.6°F)
Auto ignition looks great doesn't it? That's pretty high. Flash points though... that's very low. Especially in a substance where all of those temperatures get lower and lower as the water content is reduced through unexpected reactions over time. Autoignition goes lower, flash point becomes more easily achieved... just by reducing water content. It's a good thing the coolant isn't electrically conductive. Wait, it is you say? Well, even then, if Tesla was worried about this they would probably try to hide it by reducing temperatures below potential flash points and rducing voltages so much the chances of a spark igniting it all is as close to nil as can be achieved without a class action lawsuit. That might work mostly, except maybe for that fire a month ago that started in a Tesla battery but didn't keep going like a lithium fore would be expected to burn. They might even need to worry about uncontrolled sparks from lithium plating at high voltages setting off flammable gases from the process, or the two combining to make fires more likely overall.
But that's probably very unlikely. It would only affect... how would Tesla say it?... "a small number of vehicles"
Last edited:
Sorry, but that isn't helpful because that isn't what Tesla uses in vehicles. Again, try to use a MSDS for the product that is actually used. (Like I linked to.)
Tesla uses propylene glycol. Read up on the water losses reducing flash points, it appears you didn't read anything you replied to previously. Tesla themselves seem to have indicated they believe their coolant starts fires at least in San Francisco's case last year. Water losses are part of this discussion you've missed all along, and if this hypothesis holds water can explain why Tesla felt comfortable hiding the hazard for so many years, and why they feel it will only burn a small number of cars. None of this was an issue in 2012, it apparently takes years for the environment inside your, er, Tesla owners' batteries to reach a point that it can ignite the coolant.
Last edited:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
No you just played word games, as usual, when you and everyone else knew perfectly well that colloquial use of the word theory is acceptable as hypothesis, speculation, etc. Again this is a general discussion forum, not a science forum.
Similar threads
