Decibelle
Member
I haven’t noticed the pumps running and I’m on an older version as well. Would be interesting to see how many are experiencing the above 78-80% syndrome.
-
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 haven’t noticed the pumps running and I’m on an older version as well. Would be interesting to see how many are experiencing the above 78-80% syndrome.
Can you map V1, V1.5, V2 to pack part numbers?
I have a 1014114-00-F pack and it looks like only the charge power was reduced so far.
I got home at 3:12 this afternoon from a 5 mile drive. Car is in my garage, where door has been open all day, about 82* today. I'm currently at 53% and not only are the pumps running 100%, but car now cycles the front louvres.
Maybe it's running some sort of check, or comm to the mothership?
Maybe it's running some sort of check, or comm to the mothership?
S/ Some say that's what happen when your car gets "older" /S
But seriously, I've noticed this with my car as well. I do not charge to more that 50% these days. Nevertheless I've noticed the same myself. My car is actually pretty young (see the info in my signature below).
*sigh*
At some point I'll have to go through all of the thoroughly debunked conspiracy theories in this thread and summarize how ridiculous they all have been. "Pumps are running because the battery would explode if they didn't!" is the latest garbage to add to that particular pile, being pushed by the same few folks here. I can't wait to hear what the next nonsense will be.
It will probably be something even more insane, like "Does your car seem to warm up faster in the cold since 2019.16? Mine has been. It's crazy. It has to be all the waste heat from the coolant that's leaking into the battery that the pumps are trying to suck up and they're trying to hide it in the cabin now so you don't hear the fans running! Evil! Recall!" (This is sarcasm, for those playing along at home.)
This whole thread is basically this comic, except with conspiracy theories about evil Tesla.
If any of you feel like you're experiencing this pump running issue, please grab a CAN logger and provide a CAN log from the PT CAN (CAN3). I'll be happy to publicly decode it (or privately, provided you post at least a summary here yourself) to explain why they're running, along with specifics for how to decode relevant messages, if desired. (That way you can even compare those decodings against your own tests and don't even need to trust that I'm decoding them properly!) It would need to be a raw log, not some output from one of the Tesla CAN decoding tools, which all seem to use outdated deciphering and don't include the specific data we'd be looking for anyway.
Regardless, I wouldn't get too excited about it, as I've already explained the most likely reason in detail earlier (previous page of this thread I believe), but I'm happy to check an actual log for folks. There's a ton of reasons for pumps to be running, and it's nothing unusual. I'd probably pay to get a CAN log from one of the top conspiracy pushers here, but I doubt any of them are interested in an actual technical analysis that would thwart the pushing of FUD.
On to the next conspiracy!
At some point I'll have to go through all of the thoroughly debunked conspiracy theories in this thread and summarize how ridiculous they all have been. "Pumps are running because the battery would explode if they didn't!" is the latest garbage to add to that particular pile, being pushed by the same few folks here. I can't wait to hear what the next nonsense will be.
It will probably be something even more insane, like "Does your car seem to warm up faster in the cold since 2019.16? Mine has been. It's crazy. It has to be all the waste heat from the coolant that's leaking into the battery that the pumps are trying to suck up and they're trying to hide it in the cabin now so you don't hear the fans running! Evil! Recall!" (This is sarcasm, for those playing along at home.)
This whole thread is basically this comic, except with conspiracy theories about evil Tesla.
If any of you feel like you're experiencing this pump running issue, please grab a CAN logger and provide a CAN log from the PT CAN (CAN3). I'll be happy to publicly decode it (or privately, provided you post at least a summary here yourself) to explain why they're running, along with specifics for how to decode relevant messages, if desired. (That way you can even compare those decodings against your own tests and don't even need to trust that I'm decoding them properly!) It would need to be a raw log, not some output from one of the Tesla CAN decoding tools, which all seem to use outdated deciphering and don't include the specific data we'd be looking for anyway.
Regardless, I wouldn't get too excited about it, as I've already explained the most likely reason in detail earlier (previous page of this thread I believe), but I'm happy to check an actual log for folks. There's a ton of reasons for pumps to be running, and it's nothing unusual. I'd probably pay to get a CAN log from one of the top conspiracy pushers here, but I doubt any of them are interested in an actual technical analysis that would thwart the pushing of FUD.
On to the next conspiracy!
Also, will just quickly address this:
A 2015 RWD 85 February build would put you in VIN range of about 68k to 76k. That's well inside v1.5 pack territory, and would make the pack 5.5 years old. With the average age of a vehicle on the road being about 11 years nowadays, I'd say that doesn't quite qualify as "young" by that metric. If you go by the 8 year warranty, you're almost 70% through that... so not quite "young" by that metric either. And if you compare your VIN to the current vehicle counts... well, your car is ancient!
Odometer, 46k... alright, you're about 30% below average there. But I'd bet cycle data would show a different story vs vehicles of a similar age (and would be similar). Got any CAN data? Let's see how "young" your pack really is.
All RWD 85's from Feb 2015 got the same pack, also: HWID 49 / 1014114-00-F (reman p/n is 1088815-xx-F, I believe).... these were discontinued about a month later, I believe.
A 2015 RWD 85 February build would put you in VIN range of about 68k to 76k. That's well inside v1.5 pack territory, and would make the pack 5.5 years old. With the average age of a vehicle on the road being about 11 years nowadays, I'd say that doesn't quite qualify as "young" by that metric. If you go by the 8 year warranty, you're almost 70% through that... so not quite "young" by that metric either. And if you compare your VIN to the current vehicle counts... well, your car is ancient!
Odometer, 46k... alright, you're about 30% below average there. But I'd bet cycle data would show a different story vs vehicles of a similar age (and would be similar). Got any CAN data? Let's see how "young" your pack really is.
All RWD 85's from Feb 2015 got the same pack, also: HWID 49 / 1014114-00-F (reman p/n is 1088815-xx-F, I believe).... these were discontinued about a month later, I believe.
This statement is 100% false. The 8.1 and older software did not run the pumps at 100% or anywhere near that very often. I observed this on a rooted car during a 2k mile road trip with my own eyes. 112kw charging with a pack between 35-45 C yielded 25-55% pump speeds during the entire trip during August ambient temps.
Did it occur to you that I did not ask you to appraise my car? The car is not for sale.
The fact is that our cars were fine until the infamous update which brought a major range loss, a max of 50kW charging speed and the pumps running non-stop for hours. And, Tesla said the update was issued to address a series of fire incidents, not because our cars are ancient.
Don't blame us and our cars, blame Tesla.
Keeping my analogy to the MCU2 upgrade, I do hope for a "modern" battery upgrade option. The car might not be fitted with the appropriate cooling or cabling for 250KW SuC, but the battery size (100kWh) should not be an issue and is what I hope Tesla will offer.
The more details I gather about this whole situation, the less confident I am that there will ever be a solution from Tesla.
IMO, Tesla would have to modify/replace:
- the pack, with older chemistry and requiring higher voltage/temp deltas, forcing the BMS to limit the charging speed and increasing stressing the coolant loop
- the coolant loop itself, which is known to have improved in later revisions (both in and outside the pack)
- the generic algorithm that seems to be optimized to newer packs, with lower V/T deltas, thus causing charging limitations on older packs with the added "bonus" of increasing their longevity and reducing chances of mass battery recalls/repairs
Do you really think Tesla would design a pack/coolant loop for a very few group of people really interested in paying to refurbish their Model S to almost new range/charging specs? I find it very unlikely that a drop-in replacement with brand new cells will ever exist unless Tesla is forced to do it.
IMO, Tesla would have to modify/replace:
- the pack, with older chemistry and requiring higher voltage/temp deltas, forcing the BMS to limit the charging speed and increasing stressing the coolant loop
- the coolant loop itself, which is known to have improved in later revisions (both in and outside the pack)
- the generic algorithm that seems to be optimized to newer packs, with lower V/T deltas, thus causing charging limitations on older packs with the added "bonus" of increasing their longevity and reducing chances of mass battery recalls/repairs
Do you really think Tesla would design a pack/coolant loop for a very few group of people really interested in paying to refurbish their Model S to almost new range/charging specs? I find it very unlikely that a drop-in replacement with brand new cells will ever exist unless Tesla is forced to do it.
I've made a cable and have SMT, can I just put a tablet in the garage and leave it to record, or will that cause other side affects, such as prevent sleep, etc? Or if there is a better method, let me know and I'll see what I can put together.
*sigh* My mistake making that an absolute statement. I should have noted "almost always". Also, keep in mind my previous statement was in the context of a stationary vehicle, since we've been talking about pumps running while parked.
There are exceptions to nearly everything, and it'd be impractical to list every one of them.
In the case of the initial high rate charging, specifically, there is a mode the BMS can be in, assuming everything checks out, that explicitly allows the pack to self-heat from internal heating during fast-charging to allow the system to maintain that high rate for longer before kicking in on the taper and needing max cooling. This is why you don't immediately hear the A/C compressor and fans running when you first plug in at a supercharger, and its usually a couple of minutes later when this happens. Once the system requires the full use of the chiller for max heat removal, the BMS will indeed run the battery loop pump at or near 100%, depending on chiller targets.
As for the rest of the trip, sure, you don't need 100% pump speeds if everything is staying within limits... which is pretty likely while the vehicle is moving and air is rushing over the passive radiator. 35-45C is well within a tolerable range for the pack in any mode (in use, at rest, charging), provided the delta temperature between modules was not extreme.
Tesla has created that exact battery.. The question now has to do with what the plans are.
New 85kWH battery for my 2013 P85+
Because, as noted, the answers are right in front of you... if you had read the post, you'd have your answer. Since you're still asking the question when the answers are right there in front of you... obviously you didn't read the post. Simple deduction.
But alright, guess I'll break it down for you... not that it'll do any good.
1:
2:
In particular, I also think it's been quite lost here in the noise that the update that causes a loss of range and the update Tesla pushed that's noted in the referenced article are not the same update and not the same changes.
Elaborating: all Tesla changed fleet wide with their "revise the charge and thermal management settings” update as referenced in that article, were active thermal targets and when active cooling was permitted (as in, the BMS was now allowed to do any kind of cooling any time it saw fit, unlike before where active cooling wasn't available to the BMS while the vehicle was sleeping). This update also targeted chiller-based cooling as the primary cooling method during any kind of charging, not just supercharging, expanding on when this was available already as a noise reduction measure (even at the expense of a little more power usage).
That's it. The big "stop all the fires" update was smoke and mirrors PR, like I'd previously mentioned at some point in the thousands of posts in this thread. They really changed nothing of consequence with that update, and nothing that would be likely to actually prevent any fires. My speculation is that Tesla finally got sleep sorted out on older vehicles to the point where they could afford a watt or two back to feeding the vampire for the sake of extending BMS capability, and this was something coming anyway.
Now the updates that caused range loss, and subsequent loss of charging speeds, released soon after, is a whole different can of worms that I've gone into as much as possible over the past year+, is completely unrelated to the update Tesla publicly touted, and is also unrelated to "pumps running for hours beyond 78% SoC", as I've previously noted.
But, I guess folks will continue to assume they're the same update and equate range loss and loss of charging speeds with fires. This is horrible communication on Tesla's part, for sure.
Also, I don't see any appraisal. Please point me to where I quoted a value for your vehicle.
You flaunted that your vehicle was "young" and pointed to data in your signature as reference. I was simply pointing out that this was essentially a factually false statement... which is nothing new, really.
I too would love to have a list available of different packs and their capabilities.
But only because I'm a huge nerd and into this stuff.
My pack was replaced with an ID 65 and not knowing how it differs from my old pack is driving me nuts.
I don't. I think Tesla lied about it being a small amount of batteries with this problem and that has been semi-confirmed in this thread. They needed to design a pack for all of the older batteries to satisfy warranty law and NHTSA safety law requirements that would not put them in any more legal trouble than they are already in, which is why they now have a 350 volt "85" pack that actually has about 90kwh of capacity (more than the actual 90-badged packs). If they need to cap the new packs, they can do it legally because they are still better than original capacity and P85DL owners that have it are saying it delivers more power than original. By the letter and intent of the law, this satisfies "equal or better than original" requirements and presumably it is safe enough to function as a recall part for that fire problem that they reacted to to start all this trouble.
They also need an answer to the question: "Does Tesla make disposable cars or sustainable transportation?" and that is how they should market this as a product and not just a late fix to a big problem.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Possibly related to future pack replacement, some rumors inline with what was expected to happen:
"The only cells being made by Panasonic at GF1 are for vehicles. One of those lines is now making cells more energy dense and...
...longer lasting than those that went before."
https://twitter.com/carsonight/status/1305332657622978560?s=20
"The only cells being made by Panasonic at GF1 are for vehicles. One of those lines is now making cells more energy dense and...
...longer lasting than those that went before."
https://twitter.com/carsonight/status/1305332657622978560?s=20
As a brief non sequitur: I find it amusing that the same folks mindlessly rate almost all of my posts in this thread "Disagree" without any explanation... even ones that are overwhelmingly rated well by nearly everyone.
I think I'm just going to have to return the favor from now on when I don't see any post addressing what there is to disagree with. Should help weed out the noise a little.
I think I'm just going to have to return the favor from now on when I don't see any post addressing what there is to disagree with. Should help weed out the noise a little.
Instead of re-hashing and beating to death debunked hypotheses and nit-picking with one another, maybe conversation can turn towards organizing a protest of some kind during the Battery Day presentation. Nothing anyone is saying here is doing anything to solve the problem or increase exposure for this issue. Tesla only changes when it is publicly embarrassed, so needs pie on its face.
An opportunity exists to create a media story at a battery-centric event just around the corner, one that everyone around the globe will be watching. There are members here with tremendous resources, media contacts, and influence. I did my part by getting Reuters to pick up this story and blow it up. I think others need to put some motion into their ocean and help organize a counter-event on battery day.
Perhaps plaintiffs could hold a news conference the morning of Tesla's presentation to steal their thunder and attempt to change the narrative. It's time to employ unorthodox, guerrilla tactics. Playing nice isn't going to make affected customers whole.
There is no better time to call Tesla on the carpet than Battery Day. Catch Musk off guard and force him to say something about the issue to the hordes of media.
An opportunity exists to create a media story at a battery-centric event just around the corner, one that everyone around the globe will be watching. There are members here with tremendous resources, media contacts, and influence. I did my part by getting Reuters to pick up this story and blow it up. I think others need to put some motion into their ocean and help organize a counter-event on battery day.
Perhaps plaintiffs could hold a news conference the morning of Tesla's presentation to steal their thunder and attempt to change the narrative. It's time to employ unorthodox, guerrilla tactics. Playing nice isn't going to make affected customers whole.
There is no better time to call Tesla on the carpet than Battery Day. Catch Musk off guard and force him to say something about the issue to the hordes of media.
Last edited:
Similar threads
