Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[raphy3]

What to do next? Sit tight and see what the lawsuit will bring.

That's pretty much all we can do till then. Otherwise, stick around for the entertainment, like this:

Call it a conspiracy theory if you must

Yes, let's add one more to the thread, why not? That's not something you've been lamenting for the past 10 pages or so or anything.

 

[IngTH]

I've seen zero of these, and I follow this stuff pretty heavily.

Just for statistics: I know about 110 Tesla fire incidents, which include all of these reasons:

Fire when parked and not charging
Fire when parked and connected to DC or AC charger
Fire while driving
Fire while transport by carrier (trailer or train)
Fire while in repair shop
Fire while at dealership/headquarter
Fire after non severe crash
Fire after severe crash
Fire caused by penetration from debris
Fire caused by arson
Fire caused by nearby non arson fire

 

[wk057]

How much is Tesla paying you?

Definitely not enough to put up with the craziness here. haha.

Gonna ask them for double. Since 2x = 0, I guarantee they'll have no problem with it.

Better get me some stonks options while I'm at it.

I know about 110 Tesla fire incidents

Got a link to a list with sources? Would be an interesting read.

 

[mymagiccarpet]

Hi, i am also impacted by the battery degradation due to firmware upgrade. I have been following this threat since more than a year now. Thank you all for your valuable comments / sharing of experience.
Does anyone know what the current state of this file is ? I mean
1. what is the latest official feedback received from Tesla about this battery degradation issue ?
2. what is the status of the class action lawsuit ? When can we expect outcome and what can we expect from it ?
3. All by recommandation on what to do next about this issue?

thanks for your feedback

Welcome to the thread, but not welcome to the situation ..sorry you're affected too.
Supposedly, the two parties are talking and will go back to the court in late October with potential settlement, but it could very well just be extended again, or going to court. who knows. Either way, nothing until early Nov at least.

I'd like to ask you to not refer to this issue as degradation. That's exactly way how Tesla has been fighting the issue.
It was a deliberate action on Tesla's part to remove capacity from owners' batteries for which the owners paid for.
Some may say it could have been undetected degradation that is now visible with SW update. I strongly disagree. My car was going a lot further on a full charge while using same average Wh/mi before capping. So not degradation, but deliberate and unauthorized change of vehicle specifications.

 

[MP3Mike]

Just for statistics: I know about 110 Tesla fire incidents, which include all of these reasons:

Fire when parked and not charging
Fire when parked and connected to DC or AC charger
Fire while driving
Fire while transport by carrier (trailer or train)
Fire while in repair shop
Fire while at dealership/headquarter

None of those appear to be reasons... Are they just all unknown?

 

[Chaserr]

This isn't going to court. Tesla can't afford to let everything go into public Discovery. Too many criminal violations to just air it all after all the effort to cover it up. Expect a settlement, 100% - the delays are in my opinion not coincidentally post-battery day. This is a fundamental hardware + software defect + mismanagement debacle that is still being illegally covered up. They let it go too far and now their options are limited, but that is one of the most damaging options they could choose.

 

[maximizese]

I mean, yeah, if I wanted to set my car on fire I'd start the fire in a single module too. This means nothing to me.

(Also, where's the actual statement from Tesla? ..... Some random news site saying something is the case is not in any way shape or form "evidence from Tesla". I don't know why I bother asking for such sources here anyway... same people just make these things up consistently.)

There's probably a dozen ways I can think of to start a fire in a single module without literally setting it on fire... many of which would be significantly delayed (like, get it setup, go for a drive, freak out later when the fire starts when you coincidentally have no one else with you this time.... or park somewhere and come back to a flaming wreck).

If anyone wants to donate their S or X to science, we could make a good video of it. lol

This was not the response I expected to the McCormack fire incident. I was sincerely hoping someone had a more conclusive understanding as to what triggered the fire and that we'd have a response from Tesla itself. We will have to keep waiting.

I don't take your theory as probable, but I suppose it certainly is possible. I have a much easier time accepting the probability that perhaps there is a design flaw in the battery because many products (not exclusive to complex energy storage products) are not designed without issues. I think back to the Ford Explorer/Firestone Wilderness tires fiasco. The Firestone tires didn't have any disproportionate number of failures with any other vehicle model; the Explorer didn't experience any disproportionate number of rollovers with any other tire model. However when used together there was an alarming number of tread separations and rollover.

It's a bit of a tangent, but my point is that products can show their flaws in the real-world and I find that a much more likely the reality with respect to early Tesla battery design. It appears that the Model 3/Y and 100kWh battery packs do not appear to show the same proportions of fires experienced with the 60/85/90 kWh battery packs. I have no source to cite, it is just an observation.

 

[IngTH]

None of those appear to be reasons...

Sorry, circumstances. 105 of those should be commonly found in the web. But back to topic?

 

[Chaserr]

Just for statistics: I know about 110 Tesla fire incidents, which include all of these reasons:

105 of those should be commonly found in the web.

You know 5 that weren't public?

 

[IngTH]

It appears that the Model 3/Y and 100kWh battery packs do not appear to show the same proportions of fires experienced with the 60/85/90 kWh battery packs.

Model 3/Y battery pack has advanced thermal propagation protection that's true.

 

[wk057]

Model 3/Y battery pack has advanced thermal propagation protection that's true.

What makes you think that?

The 3 pack design is way worse than the S/X packs in terms of if thermal runaway occurs. Pretty much the whole pack will go up if it does, or at best about 1/4 of it... but very little to prevent spread to adjacent modules compared to the S/X. In the S/X you've at least got a solid shot of containing a fire to one module (1/16 of the pack).

 

[IngTH]

You know 5 that weren't public?

5 i've seen on pics/videos but was not able to find any further information in the web, respective information was removed after some time for some reason.

 

[Battpower]

What makes you think that?

The 3 pack design is way worse than the S/X packs in terms of if thermal runaway occurs. Pretty much the whole pack will go up if it does, or at best about 1/4 of it... but very little to prevent spread to adjacent modules compared to the S/X. In the S/X you've at least got a solid shot of containing a fire to one module (1/16 of the pack).

What was the likely design decision behind the 3 / Y design? Reduced weight? Better thermal conductivity?

 

[MP3Mike]

What makes you think that?

The 3 pack design is way worse than the S/X packs in terms of if thermal runaway occurs. Pretty much the whole pack will go up if it does, or at best about 1/4 of it... but very little to prevent spread to adjacent modules compared to the S/X. In the S/X you've at least got a solid shot of containing a fire to one module (1/16 of the pack).

My understanding is the blue/green "goo" in the Model 3/Y modules is to help prevent the spread of thermal runaway.

 

[IngTH]

What makes you think that?

It's about the way of thermal coupling between the cells. Has advantages and disadvantages. Imho the advantages weigh out the disadvantages. Statistic speaks for M3 on first sight too. Better support for longevity of the pack too. But we are OT.

Could you please give condition "Z" a name that corresponds an electrochemical condition?

 

[wk057]

My understanding is the blue/green "goo" in the Model 3/Y modules is to help prevent the spread of thermal runaway.

My understanding is that the goo (also used in the 100-type S/X modules) is for more uniform heating/cooling (improving overall longevity)... not to prevent thermal runaway from spreading. (In fact, I'd venture a guess that it would actually be worse for this... but would need to test that.)

Could you please give condition "Z" a name that corresponds an electrochemical condition?

Don't recall saying it was anything electrochemical.

 

[IngTH]

Don't recall saying it was anything electrochemical.

And condition "X" or "Y" neither?

 

[MP3Mike]

My understanding is that the goo (also used in the 100-type S/X modules) is for more uniform heating/cooling (improving overall longevity)... not to prevent thermal runaway from spreading. (In fact, I'd venture a guess that it would actually be worse for this... but would need to test that.)

I assumed it was the intumescent material from this patent: Cell Thermal Runaway Propagation Resistance Using Dual Intumescent Material Layers - Patent application

It was talked about here:

Cell Thermal Runaway Propagation Resistance Using Dual Intumescent Material Layers - Patent application

The key feature is that after pack assembly, the cells and entire interior of the pack are sprayed with 2 layers of intumescent material. For those not familiar with it, its basically a material that when exposed to a heat source will absorb that heat, and then undergo a chemical reaction causing it to expand.

An earlier patent by this research team used a single layer, and didn't describe how it was to be integrated into the manufacturing process. In that patent, the single layer would suck heat out of the battery (significantly delaying or stopping thermal runaway) and then expand, keeping the battery thermally separated from other components. Once it got hot enough, it would char and harden. Once this char formed it created a hard thermally resistant cylinder which would direct any heat which managed to burst through the battery shell vertically through the cylinder, and away from surrounding batteries.

In the "finished" patent this charring layer is the second layer, while the first layer is able to absorb heat quicker (thus increasing the chance of the battery not bursting) and then transfer its heat to the second layer, which would provide the final barrier effect described above.

In addition, they describe a manufacturing process which would coat the interior surfaces of the cell with their own intumescent barriers, which would hopefully halt thermal runaway before it ever gets to the exterior of the battery. Again, because this just adds a quick (and cheap) step to the manufacturing process (where the battery is dipped or sprayed) it seems highly likely to be in use.

The pack assembly process is detailed, and basically the individual cells are integrated into the pack, and then the two layers of intumescent material are sprayed on the whole assembly, coating batteries and all of the interior surfaces of the pack. This leaves the metal shell of the batteries still connected to the active cooling elements, while the rest are coated. Any thermal runaway is thus shunted directly into the cooling system, while every other surface is protected by 4 layers of intumescent material (the two touching the battery, and the two on any opposing surface). And that isn't counting the intumescent layers that might be inside of the battery as well.

It seems simple, cheap and entirely fireproof, considering the small size of each individual battery. I am extremely impressed with the way that Tesla is using simple chemical reactions to snuff out thermal events before they occur, which then also create a mechanical barrier to reactions that still manage to get out of hand. This is aside from all of the active controls and safety features built into the macro-pack, including other mechanical barriers, cooling systems and power electronics.

Good to know that the S/X 100kWh packs have it too, I had somehow missed that.

 

[Droschke]

This was not the response I expected to the McCormack fire incident. I was sincerely hoping someone had a more conclusive understanding as to what triggered the fire and that we'd have a response from Tesla itself. We will have to keep waiting.

I don't take your theory as probable, but I suppose it certainly is possible. I have a much easier time accepting the probability that perhaps there is a design flaw in the battery because many products (not exclusive to complex energy storage products) are not designed without issues. I think back to the Ford Explorer/Firestone Wilderness tires fiasco. The Firestone tires didn't have any disproportionate number of failures with any other vehicle model; the Explorer didn't experience any disproportionate number of rollovers with any other tire model. However when used together there was an alarming number of tread separations and rollover.

It's a bit of a tangent, but my point is that products can show their flaws in the real-world and I find that a much more likely the reality with respect to early Tesla battery design. It appears that the Model 3/Y and 100kWh battery packs do not appear to show the same proportions of fires experienced with the 60/85/90 kWh battery packs. I have no source to cite, it is just an observation.

Tesla uses NCA battery chemistry, something discussed in this thread along with comparison to other chemistry(s) used by other manufacturers, batteries like NCM, etc.

Generically, the NCA is high in energy density but rates lower in safety comparing to others.

For my next EV, I'll definitely stay away from NCA packs, an easy decision since that car won't be a Tesla (Tesla is the only EV I know using the NCA batteries, the rest use NCM). There are also new type of battery designs introduced to the market. Read up on Cell-to-Pack (CTP) technology, for instance.

BTW, I'm no battery expert

 

[Chaserr]

Could you please give condition "Z" a name that corresponds an electrochemical condition?

Could you tell us your own name for it, given the data available? Do you believe it is a safety issue? You are the only actual battery expert here that can give useful input.