100% agreed with this. I never observed anything remotely close to what's being described as draingate in this thread on older software. I wonder which way, the old way or the post-update way, is describable as "operating as designed; totally normal."
-
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
Everybody supercharge to 100% as often as possible or all at once? Even non batterygated cars with a battery "reparied" by chargegate will probably spend all day trying to reach 100% and a lot of us can't even even reach the falsified "100%" reading. Lines and lines of visibly older cars blocking high traffic superchargers would make for a good protest. It will definitely be a loud protest - our cars charge louder than newer ones now.
I think you misunderstood me. The car never used the chiller(keep in mind that this is the hottest part of the year with ambient temps in the 90’s). Also the pumps almost always ran at around 25% for the entire supercharging events(some charges were 100%). I also drove the car hard, trying to see how hot the component parts got, stator, cells, inlet, outlet temps etc.
In other words, not only was your statement BS, it was exactly opposite of reality. Not sure why you would be posting false info, it’s very perplexing.
While I do appreciate the info you are providing based on your experience, research, and work on these cars, In the spirit of keeping things truthful I need to note something here. There are cars less than 5 years old and with low miles (eg. mine is 3/2016 with 38k miles). Considering the battery has 8 year warranty, I can't in any way consider this an old car or old pack. Furthermore, when these measures were instituted, car was just over 3 years old with around 23k miles. It also charged to its full capacity. That does not indicate an old or unhealthy pack. So the theory that these packs are old and that's why the pump is running, I do not see well supported. Of course, there is always a chance that packs were "old" due to some previously unknown factor. But since Tesla has not come out and said anything like this, I'm not interested in exploring that further - it's just not useful.
Regardless of that, I appreciate this discussion and info provided.
Thanks for the offer. Can you or someone else provide (or point to) detailed instructions on how to do this and what equipment to use?
Thanks.
Do you have any CAN logs of this? Because that'd be interesting to see... and also kind of impossible. My guess is that for whatever reason you don't have the whole picture, which a CAN log would provide.
The car will always engage the chiller during a supercharge when ambient temps are above about 10C, and the charge rate it high (above 80kW or so) unless it's a really quick supercharge (under 10 min or so, or otherwise doesn't hold a high rate for long) or there is an issue with the chiller or A/C system. Charging to 100% doesn't actually generate much heat, since charge rates are usually super low. There is generally almost always an imbalance in thermals by this point which would trigger the loop to run for a while, however, so there's that. If you were truly only seeing a max of 25% pump speed, then either your vehicle is/was very inside the target specs, or... well, frankly, you're not being genuine here.
There is a huge difference between driving and stationary. Even "driving hard" is easier on the thermal system because you're moving air through the coolant radiator.
I work on these vehicles literally every single day, and I have a vehicle still running v8.0 that I still drive. These base behaviors haven't changed much at all over the years, because the overall concepts haven't (and in fact can not) change.
This may actually a bit of a math fail on my part when glancing at my notes, but my understanding was that vehicles with 2.0 packs (released mid 2015) were not impacted by this issue. If they are in fact being affected, then this could extend to about April 2016 vehicles (the last of the 85-type modules), which would shift to 4.5 years instead of 5.5 years.
Yes, I have logs, but they are still on the old MCU(bad motherboard), as it went out shortly after that. The chiller worked, as it came on a couple of times on different trips at the target temp, which I think was 49C? I run it in range mode, which has a different Active cooling target. Like I stated up thread, I ran the car in developer mode most of the time, and watched different behaviors, mostly on the thermal diagram.
We must not lose sight of this point.
If there is a clear, factual and bullet proof message that can't somehow be used by Tesla to shoot down the whole discussion, then of course. Having loads of gated cars trying to supercharge at the same time sounds like an attraction.
And all these discussions can easily lose sight of passing time. This irks me especially when considering the absence of useful communication from Tesla.
Which makes the input potentially very valuable but does require more explanation and patience than you might feel necessary.
Edit:
Any idea what the thermal conductivity is like? What sort of deg. C / watt at 20 C and 50 C?
Last edited:
Guy V
Member
I don't understand your logic. The packs of most on Model S and X are still interchangeable and most do not have the the problems that "a small number" of us are having. They have already made and installed some newer technology "85" packs so clearly they certainly can do it.
Not everyone knew they had already designed and are currently field testing a completely new design for the old 85 battery as a replacement for our originals. If you actually believed their "small number" cover story and hadn't seen the thread about the new battery, Tesla's response has been so terrible you might feel similarly pessimistic about Tesla's ability to make sustainable transportation.
As things stand right now, I am in the pessimistic camp.
I'm not blaming any one or anything other than may be 'the system', but Tesla is showing more evidence of 'shortcomings' imo rather than 'turning the industry upside down' (for the better) by doing things 'right' (sustainably).
That's exactly why I'm cautiously optimistic. This issue either establishes Tesla as a permanently bad reputation for making disposable cars that can't even survive through their own warranty reliably - a reputation worse than Nissan's Leaf which was teh worst in the industry, and a reputation similar to VW's dieselgate that drove a lot of people here away from VW forever - or this issue is eventually reseolved in a way that continues to prove Tesla is capable of making reliable batteries and sustainable transportation.
There's no question the early batteries have flawed technology at a large enough scale they couldn't do the right thing immediately. They risked a lot - maybe everything - to break so many laws delaying for this long. But if they mitigated safety problems and danced around those laws just long enough to bring tech to market that would allow them to make replacement batteries, and hopefully a replacement battery program. Long term thinking simply didn't exist at Tesla and this issue blindsided them because it requires an immediate long term solution to yesterday's long term promises. Some of us bought these cars solely because of those long term promises - be it sustainability or warranty - and disposable cars that have to be crippled while they are still in warranty "for longevity" shreds any scrap of credibility those promises might have had left. They can bring it all back by respecting their own promises. We're still in warranty, and we were promised sustainable transportation. Tesla still has a chance to deliver on those promises. I choose to believe that's what Battery Day is about - sustainability. If Tesla isn't about sustainability, then disposable cars makes the company's mission statement itself a lie. And disposable cars that lack the longevity to survive their own warranty without being crippled intentionally is teh definition of unsustainable. Tesla has an answer to this crisis coming - it must.
There's no question the early batteries have flawed technology at a large enough scale they couldn't do the right thing immediately. They risked a lot - maybe everything - to break so many laws delaying for this long. But if they mitigated safety problems and danced around those laws just long enough to bring tech to market that would allow them to make replacement batteries, and hopefully a replacement battery program. Long term thinking simply didn't exist at Tesla and this issue blindsided them because it requires an immediate long term solution to yesterday's long term promises. Some of us bought these cars solely because of those long term promises - be it sustainability or warranty - and disposable cars that have to be crippled while they are still in warranty "for longevity" shreds any scrap of credibility those promises might have had left. They can bring it all back by respecting their own promises. We're still in warranty, and we were promised sustainable transportation. Tesla still has a chance to deliver on those promises. I choose to believe that's what Battery Day is about - sustainability. If Tesla isn't about sustainability, then disposable cars makes the company's mission statement itself a lie. And disposable cars that lack the longevity to survive their own warranty without being crippled intentionally is teh definition of unsustainable. Tesla has an answer to this crisis coming - it must.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Not sure what you mean. Tesla has certainly screwed up in the customer service area many times but that does not negate the huge changes they are bringing to transportation and energy sectors. You can find horror stories about service from every OEM but there is a reason Tesla satisfaction rates are higher than most. We are still in the early days of new and rapidly changing technology, it's not going to go smoothly every step of the way.
I'm generally satisfied at the moment, although as we speak I am communicating with T regarding headrest 'leather' that has split where pulled around corner on recent car. (and I'm getting the 'that's normal ' treatment). But I am satisfied because there is no alternative that offers the same package.
100% agree.
My point is that for me a key part of the deal is integrity and honesty. True sustainability and recognition of environmental impact requires this. Tesla having issues doesn't concern me. The way they handle them, does.
Also, for many buyers the whole EV experience is what they are so happy with, and many / most don't have any other EV experience to compare with.
It's OT, but links in with this thread's content imo.
Last edited:
I understand from some of these posts that the concern is that the huge changes may turn out to be no good in the long run if they end up producing cars that are more disposable than current ICE vehicles. Batteries need to last longer than 8 years. There's already a recycling industry, and some former Tesla employees foresaw a looming problem here and are attempting to change the way batteries are recycled, making the process much cheaper. Making sure batteries both last a very long time and that they are highly recyclable are requirements, not options, to the equation of EVs being better for the environment than ICE. Right now both long lived batteries and cheap recycling at large scale are bets. They're not guaranteed. I'm an optimist that the bets are fairly low risk.
Yes, completely agree. And in the absence of a 'core charge' for our batteries, there is an obvious piece of the puzzle missing at the moment.
When people who are new to EVs/Tesla/etc inevitably ask me about the "what about when you need to replace the battery" or "how long will the battery last" type questions, I usually give the same answer: "You don't replace it. It will effectively last forever, it just won't be as useful 10 years from now as it was on day 1." And for the most part, with some exceptions of course, this is true. The battery in almost every Tesla vehicle is likely to outlive the rest of the car. It effectively has only 3 mechanical components (two contactors and a precharge relay), all of which have very high MTBF on the order of decades. There's not much to go wrong with them outside of normal degradation.
I actually have a customer with a signature Model S (VIN under 100) with almost 400,000 miles on his original battery... and his car still charges to about 230 rated miles at 100%. That's something like only 13% degradation in almost 8 years and over 4x average mileage per year. Even if this rate were normal degradation, < 2% range loss per year is pretty acceptable. Would mean most cars wouldn't hit the new 70% warranty replacement threshold for over 15 years.
I kind of feel like recycling the raw materials is a dead end, unless some time in the future the raw material costs skyrocket.
A better recycling method in the near term seems to be use in stationary storage applications after useful life in an EV is over, where energy density generally isn't the top project requirement. An EV battery at 70% original capacity, with probably another 10 years of life before hitting 50% capacity, is likely to be pretty valuable still. Since it's secondhand, the price per kWh would be lower also.
Or, even using degraded batteries to power lower cost lower range EVs might even be an option. Maybe future short range Model 3's will just have older long range Model 3 packs, for example. Would make a lot of sense.
Absolutely makes sense. There will always be demand for a whole variety of spec's.
It's great to hear that you see batteries lasting as long as vehicles, and some of the issues discussed in this thread are hopefully not going to be replicated. There is a confidence issue though.
That's true. The idea behind this former Tesla exec venture is that costs will go up due to restricted metal supplies, and pulling raw materials will come into play as an important path, but only if it can be done as cheaply as mining. I do agree that second life of batteries makes the most sense, first. Maybe even a third life in some other application is possible. Down the line, eventually recycling them will then make the whole process as green as possible.
Re. 230 RM signature S, that sounds awesome. My optimism for that kind of longevity is why i got mine too. Crossing fingers! (I'm optimistic/hopeful).
Similar threads
