-
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
faughtz
Model S P85DL
Vampire losses are out of control. For various reasons I don’t travel as I once did, leaving the car parked, but look at this:
Blu Zap
Grinning member
It is all about lost battery capacity measured in kWh. When you talk about "range" Tesla will tell you that you are not driving your car correctly. With 2019.16.1 I lost 15% kWh overnight. Forget about miles. That is an arbitrary measurement. My kWh dropped from 73 kWh of capacity to 62 kWh of capacity.. THAT'S the measurement we should be using. Anything else is a field day for the Tesla attorneys.
Still on 2020.20.17, I did a full charge to 100% SoC.
I got another ~ 2 kWh back (349.5 km = 217 miles)
Additionally, here's a screenshot of ScanMyTesla showing the cell voltages shortly before the end of the charging session:
The battery pack now has 187,000 miles and is still the original one in my S85 (no repair, no swap). If the range stabilizes at this point, I'm actually satisfied with the durability/degradation of the battery.
Although I'm still not pleased with Tesla's costumer communications. And there still is charge gate, which has not yet been adressed by Tesla...
Last edited:
When I posted this:
It was prompted by the recent evidence of just how extreme the parasitic / vampire energy drain has become, almost to the point of heating and cooling the battery simultaneously and at every opportunity!
So @faughtz's post was timed perfectly!
...... and draingate. Purposefully avoiding comments specifically about these data, in the absence of independently verifiable facts that support all of the evidence, there is little individual cases can do to address the underlying questions / concerns.
Plus effect of energy 'wasted' cooling / heating & reduced regen (when applicable).
It was prompted by the recent evidence of just how extreme the parasitic / vampire energy drain has become, almost to the point of heating and cooling the battery simultaneously and at every opportunity!
So @faughtz's post was timed perfectly!
...... and draingate. Purposefully avoiding comments specifically about these data, in the absence of independently verifiable facts that support all of the evidence, there is little individual cases can do to address the underlying questions / concerns.
Plus effect of energy 'wasted' cooling / heating & reduced regen (when applicable).
Last edited:
Which is why we have to look at everything on the whole to make any sense.
What is Tesla trying to avoid? High states of charge and high temperatures. How seriously does Tesla take the problem they are trying to avoid? Seriously enough to state in writing it's all been done in response tpo fires, seriously enough to cripple cars and face class action. But not seriously enough to report and inform as is the letter of the law.
Still on 2020.20.17, I did a full charge to 100% SoC.
I got another ~ 2 kWh back (349.5 km = 217 miles)
View attachment 578094
Additionally, here's a screenshot of ScanMyTesla showing the cell voltages shortly before the end of the charging session:
View attachment 578092
The battery pack now has 187,000 miles and is still the original one in my S85 (no repair, no swap). If the range stabilizes at this point, I'm actually satisfied with the durability/degradation of the battery.
Although I'm still not pleased with Tesla's costumer communications. And there still is charge gate, which has not yet been adressed by Tesla...
Thanks @Guillaume - So, you are gaining kWh without software updates? Or, is it that your 2020.20.17 is giving you incremental gains?
You also have your pumps running after you charge to that high SoC, right?
SmartElectric
Active Member
Nissan took >10 years to learn their lesson on not actively cooling the battery pack. Leaf is not capable of DC charging repeatedly before degrading charge speeds.
Whereas Tesla cools the battery pack, which allows repeated supercharging on a road trip and extends longevity of the battery.
You and I bought the Model S, knowing it has an actively cooled pack. The energy requirements to cool the pack is part of the bargain for having repeated fast DC charging and high power drive train using battery cells designed in 2012 (in my case). In fact, you noted that your rear motor heats up (due to your left foot using accelerator liberally) to the point of requiring active cooling as well. Seems like you must enjoy the performance of your car enough to engage active drive train cooling, which isn't something you'd see if you were just cruising at speed limit.
My ancient 2013 Classic Model S with "A" pack battery also actively cools (AC system running full blast while supercharging, and runs at lower speed in the garage when nearly fully charged) and after 7.5 years still operates like new, but then again, I didn't supercharge my car regularly/daily like you bragged about (posted your posts in other threads on TMC from a few years ago upthread), so we have different battery longevity due to usage, which is par for the course.
I think his point was the A packs aren't badly crippled because supercharging was limited to 90kW and they didn't as easily form lithium plating, suffer from lithium stripping, or short circuit from lithium dendrites as often as later 85 packs. I think his point applies to why 60 packs are mostly safe too.
People lucky enough to have packs that couldn't heat up enough to form the uncontrollable high energy lithium structures that cause fires don't need to be actively cooled constantly below 80 degrees Fahrenheit to avoid combusting at random, so they aren't crippled by Tesla (yet).
People lucky enough to have packs that couldn't heat up enough to form the uncontrollable high energy lithium structures that cause fires don't need to be actively cooled constantly below 80 degrees Fahrenheit to avoid combusting at random, so they aren't crippled by Tesla (yet).
Detection of Lithium Plating During Thermally Transient Charging of Li-Ion Batteries
Interesting article on lithium plating
I think this is how Tesla is eventually going to continue to try and spin the cause of the fires into "degradation" (assuming they aren't ever planning to do the right thing) since plating can also cause long term rapid degradation if you manage to avoid any "compromised safety" events that are always a risk this long after uncontrolled and undetected formations have been allowed to propagate as long as they were in our batteries. This article goes into the thermal controls that Tesla is employing right now and probably explains how they are detecting "sick" batteries to downgrade before a runaway thermal event.
@IngTH Does this make sense to you?
Interesting article on lithium plating
I think this is how Tesla is eventually going to continue to try and spin the cause of the fires into "degradation" (assuming they aren't ever planning to do the right thing) since plating can also cause long term rapid degradation if you manage to avoid any "compromised safety" events that are always a risk this long after uncontrolled and undetected formations have been allowed to propagate as long as they were in our batteries. This article goes into the thermal controls that Tesla is employing right now and probably explains how they are detecting "sick" batteries to downgrade before a runaway thermal event.
This explains @David99 's recent discovery of Tesla's ridiculously low 80F active cooling target and why it is triggered most near supercharging. Lithium plating can be controlled by thermal gradients and they are desperately trying to stop our batteries from growing more lithium deposits (especially on the ones causing David's "weak" short circuits that are probably constant and ongoing). If 95F is the temperature at which plated cells can start a thermal runaway reaction leading to fires, Tesla needs to get that temp down fast - and reducing volts helps everything. Supercharging batteries rarely runs cooler than skin temperature so they have to dump as many kWh into cooling as possible and get twice the fire-stopping benefits of cooling under 95F while reducing voltage potential for shorts to arc uncontrolled. This all makes sense, scientifically. Safety wise it's incomprehensible, but as always I would love for a legitimate hypothesis to be shared that fits all of the data we have available and doesn't make me afraid to park my car near anyone or anything I am not willing to destroy. I think the evidence warrants an abundance of caution.
@IngTH Does this make sense to you?
Last edited:
Yes. Definitely seemed to take an age to be taken note of, but then this was an early design and not really conceived to satisfy the same market as Tesla went for.
Temperature management is fine, and I'm sure Tesla have learned lessons too from their approach. Horses for courses. Tesla's performance claims are so dependant on them getting battery manufacture and management spot on that this represents a large proportion of what you pay for. You can't imo just remove capacity / downgrade a vehicle while you work out your next move to keep it performing correctly. How can an owner even tell if they have a 'fault' if their car spec keeps changing? Oh.... If Tesla says so! That doesn't work for me.
A reasonable degree of cooling is obviously part of the design, as you point out. Needing to pump energy into the battery to get it warm enough for one phase of use only to have to madly cool it minutes later for some other reason is ridiculous and not commensurate with a system working 'as intended'.
I am very judicious with my use of supercharging too. It makes sense. But when you buy (bought) a new or 'cpo' Tesla with years of warranty, there is no official way of knowing with Tesla's agreement just what state a given battery is in. Sure, you have the range figure, but there is so much more to consider than just that.
I have a small 2015 EV that is showing 73% battery condition. The manufacturer will confirm that figure on request, and have a clear warranty response if it drops below 70%. They work with my car as sold, and we all know pretty much where we stand.
The numerous (largely clandestine) adjustments Tesla make in no way have universal and unequivocal benefit.
It is great that some cars - maybe that have been exposed to different environments and use - have faired better than others, but that means nothing when you look at the broader picture.
Yes, I'm still getting additional range back without doing further updates. But I made a mistake in my earlier post, I'm already on 2020.24.6.11 since 30/07/2020.
In summary, the regaining of range started with 2020.20.17 and accelerated with 2020.24.6.11.
The pumps are running at high SoC, so drain gate is still a problem. E.g. after the recent 100% charge I lost 3.4 kWh in 2.5 hours before driving away. That's crazy....
Thanks Guillaume. I'm also @2020.24.6.11 but have seen no gains at all going back to any post-2019.16.x update. But again, I do not charge to 100%, do I have to? If yes, AC or Supercharging to 100%? Hate to sit at the supercharger station for hours in hope of reaching 100%.
I don't understand how you just make up how I drive to explain your theory.
On my current road trip (8000 miles so far) my energy consumption driving through record heat is one of the lowest consumption on any road trip I have taken in the last 6 years. IOW I'm driving very conservatively. The DU doesn't heat up because I drive fast or accelerate fast. I'm driving very carefully. In fact I'm going very close to the speed limit. Yet the car still behaves like I described. Would you please stop making up stuff to support your theories?
BigNick
Infamous Fat Sweaty Guy
In the absence of facts, we’re all making theories to match the math we have.
Kind of like string theory*. The math works if you have N dimensions where N is an arbitrary integer greater than 10, but everyone’s math and value of N differs.
* Anything I know of string theory was gleaned from reruns of The Big Bang Theory.
Kind of like string theory*. The math works if you have N dimensions where N is an arbitrary integer greater than 10, but everyone’s math and value of N differs.
* Anything I know of string theory was gleaned from reruns of The Big Bang Theory.
Not really, Nick. The motivation is different. Search for what I posted above. In this very thread search for this:
"the entire thread is full of over blown hysterical owners with self generated expectations. Gradual range loss. That is your expectation. Disabuse yourself of this false hope and embrace that the technology of our vehicles is a work in progress. Get in and drive. Stop with the drama."
Normally I only charge up to 80% SoC. But I can monitor the range @100% as Teslafi extrapolates it even when the charging session stops earlier.
The 100% charge I mentioned above was AC. I cannot find a correlation to AC or DC in my data. But due Corona I'm charging AC mostly.
I extracted the recent charge log for you:
Regaining Range with 2020.20.17 and 2020.24.6.11
Similar threads
