Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[islandbayy]

I do have an ongoing DM thread with him on Twitter, and he's generally pretty responsive. He reached out a couple of years ago, and so far all positive developments there. (MCU1 eMMC situation is resolved partly due to these conversations, for example). It's a line of communication I use sparingly, and definitely not one I ever plan to abuse. Just have to not miss 3AM local-time messages. haha



It's a matter of resources. Yeah, I have tons of BMBs, and the knowledge to make it all work. But it's kind of a pointless venture given there is a fix available in the form of software. Why am I going to put a couple of guys on such a task when there's better things they could be doing?

I'm not a salesman or a con artist... so if I don't think something's in the customer's best interest, even if it benefits my pockets, I tell them straight up that it's not something I suggest doing. If after that they still decide they want to move forward with something despite my objections, then that's a different story. So while I probably could spread FUD and be like, "Get your BMB replacements scheduled today for the low low price of only $4,999!" ... that would be against my nature and would be quite unethical IMO.



I agree. I get a lot of people wanting battery upgrades. When I tell them the pricing, the amount of range they'll gain, etc... most people realize it doesn't make sense. I've had a few who just love their exact car and want to just upgrade and keep it forever. For example, I have a customer with a VIN under 100 2012 signature Model S who is now dual motor performance 100 kWh with AP1 now... because he just loves that car... doesn't matter to him that he could have bought 2 more for what he spent on that one. But I always tell people if I think something makes sense for them or not, and I don't try to upsell something they don't need.

I just sent 3 more people your way for battery upgrades for failed 60 packs that tesla wants $18k+ to replace with software capped 75's.

 

[sorka]

Any change in the constant jet fan behavior on parked cars? My fans never come on regardless of SOC just sitting there cold. But others have reported the fans coming on almost constantly regardless of how long the car has sat there and regardless of ambient air temperature. Are the new updates effecting this?

 

[stopcrazypp]

When did wk057 claim to be an expert at the economics of BMB replacement for Tesla except for its logistics nightmare.
The affected cars are NOT the first versions of S! And certainly Tesla can afford to fix the batteries these days! Others like GM and Hyundai can and their market cap is a fraction of Tesla
Hyundai reportedly set to replace Kona LG batteries in Korea - Electrek

I've pointed out before, but market cap has absolutely nothing to do with the financial strength of a company. They can't convert that to money unless they make public offerings. Absent of that it's all just a numbers have that people play with in the stock market. In terms of revenue, Tesla is a fraction of either GM or Korea. It seems so many people don't understand this.

Also given the rumormill is this is a cell defect from LG Chem (the only logical explanation so far, given the issue affects cars with very different battery pack designs, just with the same cells), LG Chem is likely paying a bulk of the cost anyways.

 

[wk057]

I just sent 3 more people your way for battery upgrades for failed 60 packs that tesla wants $18k+ to replace with software capped 75's.

It's a bit capital intensive on my part, but I can generally do 60 to 85 upgrades in the $10-12k range (plus the 60 core), depending on the exact vehicle spec and condition of the 60 pack. I don't tend to suggest replacements with a 60. Upgrading to a 75 is possible for slightly less, but I only note this for people without air suspension since the 75 matches the weight distribution profile of the 60 to avoid coil upgrades.

It's usually still not cost effective for the customer, though, and after discussing options they tend to just list their cars for sale instead, provided they're functional.

 

[fbitz777]

I've pointed out before, but market cap has absolutely nothing to do with the financial strength of a company. They can't convert that to money unless they make public offerings. Absent of that it's all just a numbers have that people play with in the stock market. In terms of revenue, Tesla is a fraction of either GM or Korea. It seems so many people don't understand this.

Also given the rumormill is this is a cell defect from LG Chem (the only logical explanation so far, given the issue affects cars with very different battery pack designs, just with the same cells), LG Chem is likely paying a bulk of the cost anyways.

Oh Tesla just made $600Million on bitcoin profits... that's 30k brand new batteries.
Assuming Tesla has produced 1million cars, that is 70B is sales or less than 10 Percent of their Market cap.

 

[JRP3]

Oh Tesla just made $600Million on bitcoin profits

Only if they sold it.

 

[cpa]

As @wk057 pointed out the economics of replacing BMB's don't add up. If you ran Tesla and had to address this problem given the fact you could not afford to give everyone a new battery what would you do? You could ignore the problem or you could dedicate some of your smartest engineers to mitigate it. Tesla opted for the latter and according to @wk057 they did a terrific job.

Today all of us are driving these awesome cars that, when introduced, pushed the limits on what was possible almost a decade ago. The Model S will go down in history as a trailblazer for EV's and like any other car that was a first, it is not without its flaws (just like a Citroen DS for example). The rule of thumb is that if you want a perfect car, you don't buy the first version. We all did and thus we end up paying to fix some of the flaws. This is a fact. I dislike it, but I like the car more If this is not for you sell your MS and buy something else.

I think you have missed our thesis.

The past 14,000+ posts have less to do with Tesla's trailblazing, dedicating the smartest engineers towards mitigation, and buying the first-of-its-kind car and expecting flawless performance. Instead, this thread has been digesting all the data and trying to connect dots that really cannot be connected. Our collective contempt for Tesla is more to do with their thorough lack of probity. Instead, we receive lies, dissembling, and other misinformation about the batteries and charging.

Tesla could have saved itself lawsuits and customer enmity at the outset by being forthright about their investigations into potential defects. They could have sugar-coated it and given us affected customers a small token of their appreciation and understanding, like a T-shirt .

That would have done more to promote the Tesla brand and given rise to testimonials about Tesla's dedication to its customers and punctilious desire to ensure their products endure.

 

[MP3Mike]

Tesla could have saved itself lawsuits and customer enmity at the outset by being forthright about their investigations into potential defects.

How are you sure that armed with that information nobody would have filed a lawsuit anyhow, or even because of it?

 

[cousin_IT]

I think you have missed our thesis.

The past 14,000+ posts have less to do with Tesla's trailblazing, dedicating the smartest engineers towards mitigation, and buying the first-of-its-kind car and expecting flawless performance. Instead, this thread has been digesting all the data and trying to connect dots that really cannot be connected. Our collective contempt for Tesla is more to do with their thorough lack of probity. Instead, we receive lies, dissembling, and other misinformation about the batteries and charging.

Tesla could have saved itself lawsuits and customer enmity at the outset by being forthright about their investigations into potential defects. They could have sugar-coated it and given us affected customers a small token of their appreciation and understanding, like a T-shirt .

That would have done more to promote the Tesla brand and given rise to testimonials about Tesla's dedication to its customers and punctilious desire to ensure their products endure.

Thanks for your response in writing, to be honest I was surprised by the negative feedback I got on my post. I can understand your disappointment in Tesla and perhaps I would feel the same if I’d have that experience all the way from 2019. Now that @wk057 connected the dots I thought people would be more appreciative and less angry but that doesn’t appear to be the case.

When I talked to a Tesla Ranger about batteriesa while ago I noticed a strong and reserved reaction, the kind you’d expect from an organization that’s highly concerned with being sued. Their reservation seems to counterbalance the contempt you and others have. I can understand your ask for transparency but that ask varies wildly per individual. While you’d be happy with a t-shirt others are fine with the software solution and others want a brand new car. This ambiguity poses a great challenge for organizations, regardless of the fairness of your ask.

My original point I tried to make was aimed at accepting the risks of owning an innovation for a car. Given their mission it is to be expected that they’ll continue to dissapoint as they’ll focus on producing more instead of better vehicles. Some people here appear to have very unrealistic expectations of a company that tries to electrify the car industry. The goal of Tesla is to reduce your carbon footprint, not to make you happy.

Bring on the dislikes

 

[AustinP]

My original point I tried to make was aimed at accepting the risks of owning an innovation for a car. Given their mission it is to be expected that they’ll continue to dissapoint as they’ll focus on producing more instead of better vehicles. Some people here appear to have very unrealistic expectations of a company that tries to electrify the car industry. The goal of Tesla is to reduce your carbon footprint, not to make you happy.

I'm with you on the innovation risk and that along the way, there are issues that comes with it, at the expense of the customer.
But I’m sure customer happiness is on their list, not far after their goal of accelerating transition to sustainable energy.

 

[JRP3]

The goal of Tesla is to reduce your carbon footprint, not to make you happy.

If they don't make customers happy they will fail as a company and thus the mission. Early adopters can expect to have problems, they should not have to expect or accept lack of communication and outright lies from the company.

 

[Smiles83]

I think I could look pass the lack of communication and misinformation that was given by tesla if our supercharging rates would be put back to normal. Having so many things taken away from 2019.16 and telsa taking 2 years to find a work around for a defective part has put a bitter taste in my mouth.

I understood there could be issues with Teslas first mainstream car, but was sold on the top of the line warranty that musk promised. These are not inexpensive cars.

QUOTE="cousin_IT, post: 5343689, member: 148074"]

Thanks for your response in writing, to be honest I was surprised by the negative feedback I got on my post. I can understand your disappointment in Tesla and perhaps I would feel the same if I’d have that experience all the way from 2019. Now that @wk057 connected the dots I thought people would be more appreciative and less angry but that doesn’t appear to be the case.

When I talked to a Tesla Ranger about batteriesa while ago I noticed a strong and reserved reaction, the kind you’d expect from an organization that’s highly concerned with being sued. Their reservation seems to counterbalance the contempt you and others have. I can understand your ask for transparency but that ask varies wildly per individual. While you’d be happy with a t-shirt others are fine with the software solution and others want a brand new car. This ambiguity poses a great challenge for organizations, regardless of the fairness of your ask.

My original point I tried to make was aimed at accepting the risks of owning an innovation for a car. Given their mission it is to be expected that they’ll continue to dissapoint as they’ll focus on producing more instead of better vehicles. Some people here appear to have very unrealistic expectations of a company that tries to electrify the car industry. The goal of Tesla is to reduce your carbon footprint, not to make you happy.

Bring on the dislikes [/QUOTE]

 

[MP3Mike]

Others like GM and Hyundai can and their market cap is a fraction of Tesla
Hyundai reportedly set to replace Kona LG batteries in Korea - Electrek

So that reports that it will cost Hyundai $1.8 billion to replace the the LG batteries in 54,090 vehicles in Korea alone. So about $33k per vehicle, and a Kona EV started at only ~$38k. It seems excessive that replacing the battery would cost ~85% as much as the original cost of the vehicle. (But I suppose that includes recycling/disposal expenses as well.)

 

[dark cloud]

10K for a small range increase isn't very attractive IMO

I agree. You and probably everyone else were thinking about a range loss issue. And of course that is the topic of this thread, so that makes sense. Of course no-one would be buying a new pack from Tesla for $20+K for 30 miles of range loss.

I rushed on that post before running out the door this morning: What I was trying to ask, but failed in communicating it properly, was in the event of pack failure.

I should have included this quote section:

As far as I know, no one outside of Tesla, besides myself, would have any clue where to even begin on making sure that was done properly. Given Gruber's publicized "fixes" for battery issues thus far, I can all but guarantee they would have no knowledge of this at all, let alone a way to perform such a repair. The physical work, sure. Replacing the BMB is physically doable. Fully functional end result? Highly doubtful.
n

So if and when the customer get the "car may not restart" message, and the pack "packs" it in, I wondered if possible replacing a BMS and or module/bad cell was a service @wk057 offered.

So I'lll say it again, I think for $10K many will take him up on that instead of buying a pack from Tesla for $20-22K. Yes?

 

[JRP3]

So I'lll say it again, I think for $10K many will take him up on that instead of buying a pack from Tesla for $20-22K. Yes?

You might be better off swapping in a newer low mileage pack from a salvaged vehicle. Then sell your pack to someone who wants the modules.

 

[dark cloud]

You might be better off swapping in a newer low mileage pack from a salvaged vehicle. Then sell your pack to someone who wants the modules.

Theres another question: can one just swap out one 85 pack for another, hook it up, and it works fine? Without some kind of software handshake?

edit: And, how does the MCU2 upgrade affect third party repairers with the HV pack?

 

[cousin_IT]

So I'lll say it again, I think for $10K many will take him up on that instead of buying a pack from Tesla for $20-22K. Yes?

As more batteries are falling out of warranty I'm sure you're right and people will be looking at the most viable/affordable option. There's also the environmental aspect to consider: We don't want to discard usable cells. I'd be happy to have my pack refurbished and make as many miles possible from it. Would also prefer this service to be closer to home (instead of shipping packs across the globe).

 

[Battpower]

The goal of Tesla is to reduce your carbon footprint, not to make you happy.

I wish the 'reducing carbon footprint' [or as I would prefer 'reduce negative environmental impact'] was a clear, honest objective - above TSLA and financial profit. But that's just a wild dream (sadly). The two (happy environment and happy owner) should be tied together, not 'either - or'. Most EV buyers are likely to have eco-conscience in the mix somewhere.

I’m sure customer happiness is on their list, not far after their goal of accelerating transition to sustainable energy.

I wish. We are all so tied up with such contradictory rules and regulations that it's hard to see where 'doing the best thing' gets a look in. For me, Tesla could go a lot further at not too great expense to build real longevity into their model. One place to start would be to get servicing working better, and then having a business model that actually put things like efficient handling of battery packs high on the list. Yes, shipping used / potentially faulty battery packs around is costly and a hassle. Yes, dead packs (old or just failed) are a hassle to deal with. But you can't just ignore that whole area like it doesn't exist.

hopefully companies like Straubel's will make this less of a problem. I wouldn't be surprised if in addition to reclaiming the raw materials, some of these companies realize that rebuilding batteries from perfectly good materials is also a good idea.

Yes ^^^

There's also the environmental aspect to consider: We don't want to discard usable cells.

Absolutely. So in the rush to build new and push out as much kit as fast as possible, there should be a parallel obligation to demonstrate how reprocessing will be handled in the most efficient manner - keeping cars on the road for the longest time and pushing the costs of doing that down.

Observations on WK's recent post.

He says something close to:

Keepping aa laarge liteium ionn pack with meny cells in series in ballance is critical for the safety, reliability, and longevity.....

As well as typing more accurately than me, he also refers to stuck MOSFETS in the balancing circuits - which is a known failure mode of the passive balancing approach. This led me to consider that any (un-identified / un-adressed) issue that sufficiently compromises cell balance could be a safety issue.

@wk057, is there no substance in the idea that some cells age towards a self-discharging state that can create imbalance that the BMS can't address / keep in check?

It would be helpful to understand where points raised in these old posts stand given latest info:

Error message from an affected battery pack. This should clear up some of the speculation. The key word 'hidden' means these error messages only show up when the car is in service mode.

In my opinion...
#2 it clearly states the voltage limitation.
#1 'weak short' appears to be dendrites (dendrites are needle-like and can poke through the insulation layer).View attachment 570684

I would highly recommend updating the software on your car so they can better diagnose your battery and apply the appropriate amount of protection or possibly even remove the limitations.

My April 2015 P85D has been adversely affected by batterygate and chargegate (I believe). I had not really thought much about it except that long stretches between Superchargers became tougher to make especially in winter months. That said, tonight I get the message below and it stops charging very short of the charge limit. With a charge limit set at 70% it stops charging at 26% (on my HPWC at home). I already have a mobile service appointment for this coming Friday. For what it is worth, my CPO bumper to bumper warranty just expired (mobile service appointment was scheduled before this expiration) when I rolled over 100,000 miles
Anybody get this message? If so, would you share your outcome?

How does this fit in with WK's recent explanations. EG: Old software? What conditions (XYZ - can we now use proper names for these?!) relate to @David99 's error?

For reference:

The BMS's threshold for starting to freak out about things is > 20mV imbalance (over an extended period of time). A 40-50mV imbalance at the end of a charge, or at rest, is a pack with some problems.

Keep in mind the BMS calculates and models on-the-fly the SoC of each brick... and does so with incredible precision given the limited sensor information available.

So to me, the key words in that error screenshot are "Delta SOC", meaning there is a detected deviation in SOC for a brick (or bricks). There are multiple potential guesses at causes for the imbalance, in this case "weak short" would indicate that whatever brick has a SoC imbalance is consistently below the SoC of other bricks but not pushed above other bricks when charged. If it were pushed above other bricks when charged, that'd mean the brick in question was weak or had lost a full cell or otherwise had less capacity than the others. But the guess of "weak short" suggests that brick is being discharged in some way that is not being commanded.

My posts summarizing Jason's wall of text also got snippied despite being helpful and just calling for the wiki post to be updated. Here is the relevant info in concise form ("confirmation" refers to not from Tesla's mouth, but from expert opinions here) :

1. Confirmation that software updates did not fix safety issues - condition X

2. Confirmation that X has not been found in the fleet, but Z was found which isn't unsafe but needs mitigation

3. Tesla has been attempting to bring the range back up incrementally but stopped at some point (as they are wont to become distracted...). Lets hope they get back in the saddle.

4. No cases of X detected in the wild. What the "abundance of caution" was about remains a mystery.

And of passing relevance:

You are suggesting living with the Band-Aid and no cure. In other words, a workaround is not a solution

bold added

A workaround to a problem is widely accepted as a temporary [measure] to continue the usage till a solution is given soon. The customers left with an uncomfortable workaround and are told to chew it up as a solution start to defect quickly. That's pretty much understood in the consumer world. One can accept the sudden range loss of up to 30 miles overnight by a software update as a temporary workaround to a problem (whatever the hell that is) but that is NOT acceptable as a solution.

bold added


Have any of these concerns / comments been put to bed now?

I am still trying to wrap my head around the fundamental implications of what we really do know:

Teslas experienced apparently spontaneous battery fires.

Tesla went looking for causes and solutions for a potentially serious safety issue.

Tesla announced and delivered "out of an abundance of caution" an update that gimped charging rates on all 85's and capacity on "a small number" of them.

I think different legal and liability conclusions can be drawn from which result we end up with:

- No more fires: Problem mostly solved, Tesla fixed a major safety problem, but without notification and recall of units it now knows to be defective but some are still out there in the wild without the update

- No more fires: It's just a coincidence that they stopped after Tesla issued the update

- More fires: Tesla has a major safety problem they don't know how to fix without replacing all 85 battery packs, still without notification and recall. We have no way to even know that it is a problem only with 85 packs or a subset. If it turns out to be all packs they, and we of course, are seriously screwed.

I just can't buy that it can be coincidence that Tesla issued an update and then the fires stopped, so I can't see the case where Tesla doesn't have a major safety problem that they didn't report and issue a recall. Neither can I accept a case that fires just happen, get over it. I am sure any number of folks here will tell me I an just too close-minded.

What would any other no safety problem case look like? Some fires, but not too many doesn't seem to make sense to me.

Nothing I have read in all these pages is helping me to get around this.

Has Tesla kicked the can down the road long enough that the problem is dissipating and becoming 'small and blurred' to the extent that they can dodge it? Is the 'solution' just having in place more software checks for signs of BMS red flags? Somehow it feels like Tesla are selling the idea that 'putting smarter software controls in place' is the same as fixing the underlying hardware issue(s).

 

[Droschke]

I wish the 'reducing carbon footprint' [or as I would prefer 'reduce negative environmental impact'] was a clear, honest objective - above TSLA and financial profit. But that's just a wild dream (sadly). The two (happy environment and happy owner) should be tied together, not 'either - or'. Most EV buyers are likely to have eco-conscience in the mix somewhere.



I wish. We are all so tied up with such contradictory rules and regulations that it's hard to see where 'doing the best thing' gets a look in. For me, Tesla could go a lot further at not too great expense to build real longevity into their model. One place to start would be to get servicing working better, and then having a business model that actually put things like efficient handling of battery packs high on the list. Yes, shipping used / potentially faulty battery packs around is costly and a hassle. Yes, dead packs (old or just failed) are a hassle to deal with. But you can't just ignore that whole area like it doesn't exist.



Yes ^^^



Absolutely. So in the rush to build new and push out as much kit as fast as possible, there should be a parallel obligation to demonstrate how reprocessing will be handled in the most efficient manner - keeping cars on the road for the longest time and pushing the costs of doing that down.

Observations on WK's recent post.

He says something close to:

Keepping aa laarge liteium ionn pack with meny cells in series in ballance is critical for the safety, reliability, and longevity.....

As well as typing more accurately than me, he also refers to stuck MOSFETS in the balancing circuits - which is a known failure mode of the passive balancing approach. This led me to consider that any (un-identified / un-adressed) issue that sufficiently compromises cell balance could be a safety issue.

@wk057, is there no substance in the idea that some cells age towards a self-discharging state that can create imbalance that the BMS can't address / keep in check?

It would be helpful to understand where points raised in these old posts stand given latest info:





How does this fit in with WK's recent explanations. EG: Old software? What conditions (XYZ - can we now use proper names for these?!) relate to @David99 's error?

For reference:






And of passing relevance:

bold added

bold added


Have any of these concerns / comments been put to bed now?



Has Tesla kicked the can down the road long enough that the problem is dissipating and becoming 'small and blurred' to the extent that they can dodge it? Is the 'solution' just having in place more software checks for signs of BMS red flags? Somehow it feels like Tesla are selling the idea that 'putting smarter software controls in place' is the same as fixing the underlying hardware issue(s).

Excellent ^^^

 

[wk057]

The biggest issue with this thread and the people in it is that its been attempted to turn the range loss issue into a fire issue in order to spread FUD. That false narrative is pushed far too hard here and tangled in everywhere, despite zero evidence this is remotely related.

This has nothing to do with fires. Nothing whatsoever.

As noted previously, the "Abundance of caution" update, which came down way after they publicly noted, barely did anything at all. A few thermal deltas were tightened a couple degrees, and the SoC vs allowed temperature table was tweaked almost insignificantly.

That's it. It's an update that has no real effect on anything in order to say they did something. While I think this is pretty dumb, and doesn't do anything to actually prevent fires... they're not technically lying. Tightening a few allowed ranges could be seen as being cautious... but in reality, this can't really do much besides make the thermal systems work harder than they need to, as some have noticed.

Again, none of this has anything to do with the range loss issue in any way shape or form.

What actually prevents battery fires? The existing engineering, software, and hardware that's gone into the things to ensure that the battery's metrics are kept in line, and any deviations are detected. Very little has changed on that front in the past 2-3 years. Even the Model 3/Y BMS uses the same tried and true algorithms.