Ik heb er vorige week nog geladen en staat bij mij gewoon in mijn navigatie hoor. De laadkosten gingen ook gelijk van mijn creditcard af dus gratis laden is het ook niet.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Superchargers in Nederland (NL)
- Thread starter redevries
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Netherlands Supercharging
Ik heb er vorige week nog geladen en staat bij mij gewoon in mijn navigatie hoor. De laadkosten gingen ook gelijk van mijn creditcard af dus gratis laden is het ook niet.
Jkr85
Active Member
Dit is de ‘chargegate’. Helaas. Is je S ook in capaciteit fors achteruit gegaan? De mijne (nog) niet.
Wat ik ook zie is dat 22kW laden (AC dus, niet snelladen) boven 90% aan het taperen gaat. Ook dat is nieuw. Ik ben benieuwd wat de class action in de VS brengt.
Lost 20km of max charging within 2 weeks on my S85D. At the 12th of May I was able to charge to 399km at 100% charge. 2 days ago the max charge has dropped to 379km all of a sudden. Temperatures at both charge times were around 18 degrees Celsius.
Called Tesla and they’re telling me the car logs show battery degradation and saying this is “normal”. Has anyone on this forum ever had such a steep loss of max range in such a short period? 5% loss of the max capacity in 2 weeks seems a bit much...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE: TESLA HAS CONFIRMED THEY ARE DOWNGRADING CARS WITHOUT PERMISSION. HERE IS WHAT WE KNOW:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SITUATION
BMS (BATTERY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM)
WHICH CARS HAVE BEEN VOLTAGE CAPPED
EFFECT OF CAPPING
.......EFFECT ON RANGE
.......EFFECT ON PERFORMANCE
CAPPING CAUSES
.......OWNER CAUSED
.......CAR CAUSED
NET EFFECT OF BATTERY CAPPING
CALCULATION OF AMOUNT OF CAPACITY BLOCKED BY CAPPING
REASONS GIVEN BY TESLA FOR ARTIFICIAL CAPPING
POSSIBLE REASONS FOR THE CAPPING
.......Why the capping?
.......Condition X and Condition Z
.......Is it plausible that some cells are inferior?
.......Why only some cars?
CONCLUSIONS
MORE TO KNOW
.......THIS IS NOT DEGRADATION
.......AM I AFFECTED?
............Model S/X
............Model 3
.......IMPORTANT TO FILE AN NHTSA COMPLAINT
.......CLASS ACTION
.......USEFUL LINKS
SITUATION
Download 2019.16.1.1 is widely believed to have introduced Battery Voltage Capping. The effect has been felt by many hundreds of owners across the world. The information contained within this summary is drawn primarily from posts within TMC (TeslaMotorsClub), the international Tesla Owners Forum, from other Tesla Owners fora and from other research from various published articles.
Before going further, it is important that everyone is familiar with how battery cells work. Many of you will already be familiar with this, but for those that are not:
- When a battery cell is built, it is built to a certain specification in regard to the amount of charge it can hold. Insofar as Tesla Lithium Ion cells are concerned, they are built with a nominal voltage of 3.66V. This is commonly called Vnom.
- Each cell can take more charge, or less charge. But care has to be taken as to how much more, or how much less, as too much or too little can often damage the cells. The amount of charge held within a cell is determined by the cell’s voltage. The higher the voltage, the higher the charge. (Purists will weep at this awful generalisation, but that is all it is, a generalisation).
- The maximum Voltage in Tesla Cells is 4.2V. This is commonly called Vmax. (4.2V is virtually an Industry Standard setting for lithium ion EV cells).
- The minimum Voltage in Tesla Cells is 3.12V @ <1%. This lower figure is commonly called Vmin.
BMS (BATTERY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM)
- In a Model S70, for example, when all the cells are at Vmax, ie 4.2V, the combined total charge held in the pack equals 70 kWh.
It is the role of BMS to ensure, amongst other things, that the charge in each cell does not exceed Vmax, or Vmin. When a Cell is at Vmax, the BMS reports the battery as being 100% full. When it reaches Vmin, it reports the battery as being at 0% empty. It is important to realize that this does NOT mean the battery is 100% full, or 0% empty, merely that Vmax or Vmin has been reached. If the values of Vmax or Vmin are changed, BMS will still report 100% or 0% but only at these new revised values. So State of Charge (SOC) merely indicates where the battery is at between Vmin and Vmax.
When the battery charge is at Vmax, BMS stops the cell from receiving any further charge, even though the battery could physically take on more charge. As noted above, doing so might damage the battery. This is why, as the car reaches the higher level of charge, the BMS slows down the charge rate, until eventually all charging stops when all the cells are at Vmax, or whatever charge limit has been set within the car. If BMS thinks the battery is getting too hot, such as with faster DC charging, it will turn on coolant systems and limit the charge speed to a level where the max temperature is maintained. This is why there is much more tapering when Supercharging than when home charging.
WHICH CARS HAVE BEEN VOLTAGE CAPPED
Not all cars. Only pre facelift cars as far as we have determined (ie built before summer 2016, the ones with the old nose cones). Even then, not all of them, only those cars with smaller batteries, specifically 60 kWh, 70 kWh, 75 kWh, or 85 kWh. And even then, only some of them. There have been no reports of any cars with 90 kWh, or 100 kWh being affected.
EFFECT OF CAPPING
EFFECT ON RANGE
It has been widely tested, and confirmed that Capping has been achieved by the software reducing the applied Vmax of the individual cells in the pack. In many cars suffering from batterygate, they have changed Vmax from 4.2V to 4.07V. Not much difference you might think. But when all the Cells are now at 4.07V (the new Vmax) the combined total now only equals 59 kWh, and not the original 70 kWh for model S70 as an example. The net effect is the battery appears to have lost 10 kWh. It is not actually a loss of 10 kWh, it is just that 10 kWh has been made unavailable for use.
Let’s look further at the impact of a small drop in voltage. A Model S70 owner, for example, reported the observation below:
- At 4.2V his 100% range was 225 miles
- After capping to 4.07V his Range was 192 miles
- After a slight increase to 4.1V his Range was 199 miles
So, even though the Voltage drop looks insignificant, the actual effect is tangible.
A smaller battery obviously provides less range, and this is what most people first notice. Their range appeared to have gone down. Many people reported this Loss of Range. But of course that loss is not the cause, or the fault, it is merely the consequence of a smaller battery. Think replacing a 70 litre fuel tank with a 59 litre fuel tank.
This is exactly the procedure Tesla use when they used to sell a car as a S60 with a restricted 75 kWh battery. They have simply reduced the Vmax to a level that corresponds with 60 kWh. They then allow you to “uncork” the battery, at a price. You pay the money, they change the Vmax to 4.2V, and bingo, you now drive a S75.
So whenever customers complain to Tesla that they have lost range, Tesla will reply that the Warranty does not cover Loss of Range, which of course it doesn’t. So Tesla rejects the claim.
They also reject any claim about loss of Capacity due to voltage cap. But normal loss of Capacity (commonly called Degradation) is described in the Warranty as a loss resulting from gradual usage, and over time. We all expect that to happen. But the key point is, this batterygate loss of Capacity is due to voltage cap and has not been gradual. Nor has been over time. It has been sudden, virtually overnight.
It is also VERY important to note that when batteries do degrade, which they will, the cell voltage limit will not change. A very old battery that is only holding, say 50% of its original charge, will still (try to) charge to 4.2V. It may not get there but Vmax will certainly not reduce. It is not the voltage cap that drops, just the energy contained within the cell. So a 50% degraded battery may only be able to charge to 50%. But the battery will not report that as 50%. A degraded battery will use its charge up more quickly. The Cell will charge up more quickly, and deplete more quickly. This will be reflected in higher Wh consumption per mile. So if the reduction in capacity (due to voltage cap) is due to an imposed change of cell Voltage, i.e. changing Vmax, that is not, in any way, normal degradation. That is 100% artificial degradation, achieved through software changes to the cell voltage limits.
EFFECT ON PERFORMANCE
The volt cap also reduces horsepower (power as in kW). In an electrical system, power is determined by multiplying volts times amps (V*A=Watts). Lower volts means lower horsepower (available kW).Furthermore, because the voltage capping in effect reduces your actual SoC% (your capped 100% SoC is not the real 100%, rather it’s 90% of your old 100% SoC), your max power is reduced. The P85DL cars lose the most power to volt capping, but all cars will have reduced performance.
CAPPING CAUSES
Tesla have been pretty robust in refusing to say why they have imposed this capping. There can really be only two reasons. One is something caused by the Owner, or alternatively something caused by the Car.
NET EFFECT OF BATTERY CAPPINGOWNER CAUSED
It has frequently been suggested that Batterygate is a result of owners that:
- Supercharged (or DC charged) too frequently.
- Charged to a very high, or very low State of Charge (SoC), i.e., frequently to 100%.
Anecdotal evidence from many dozens of owners suggest none of these are likely reasons. There are many examples of owners that did meet the criteria but were not capped, and many that didn’t meet the criteria, but were capped. There are so many contra examples, that it is difficult to conclude any of these reasons is a credible reason as the trigger for Capping. Tesla have informed some owners verbally, that their DC history is the reason their car has been capped. Of course that is an unusual argument as ALL charging is DC charging as far as the car is concerned. The battery can only take DC. Tesla has never warned owners that frequent Supercharging was a bad thing of itself, that might damage their battery. Indeed in the early days Tesla used to site Superchargers in cities, rather than in between them, so that owners had access to charging facilities. Perhaps they were not aware that Supercharging was so detrimental, or perhaps the trigger is another reason.
- Normally operated to a high range of SoC, i.e., normally between 70-100% SoC, rather than say 20%-80%.
However, even if excess Supercharging, or just excessive DC charging is the reason, that charging, and the way in which the BMS deals with it, is entirely within Tesla’s control. As was the advice given to owners by Tesla on charging. The only advice given by Tesla to owners was that, if possible, owners should restrict the charge to 90% as that's better for the battery, but to charge to 100% whenever you need it. Doing it occasionally is fine. Owners have no influence over this. So if, in hindsight, Tesla got the BMS coding wrong, or didn’t taper the charge rate and the battery cooling/heating protocols sufficiently, or gave incorrect advice about charging, that must surely be Tesla’s responsibility, not the owners.
CAR CAUSED
If it is not Owner Caused, then it is perhaps due to something within the car.
- Only pre facelift cars have been affected, ie built prior to Summer 2016.
Deduction: Facelift cars can be excluded from the cause.
- Only smaller batteries (60, 70 or 85 kWh) have been affected.
Deduction: 90 kWh batteries can be excluded from the cause.
- 60 and 70 kWh batteries only have 14 Modules (6216 cells) and are 350V batteries. 85 kWh batteries have 16 Modules (7104 cells) and are 400V batteries.
Deduction: The number of Modules or Battery Voltage can be excluded from the cause.
- 90 kWh batteries have 16 Modules and are 400V batteries. They were introduced in 2015, so well within the pre facelift period.
- 100 kWh batteries were introduced in Summer 2016, i.e., outside of the pre facelift period. There should be no pre facelift vehicles with 100 kWh batteries.
Deduction: 100 kWh batteries can be excluded from the cause.
- 90 kWh batteries were actually 85 kWh batteries, but with the new ‘Gen 2’ battery cell. Gen 2 Cells introduced Silicon into the Graphite Anode. Silicon holds greater energy density. So the increase in energy wasn’t as a result of a larger battery, or different design, simply a change of Cell type. It was described by Tesla as “a range upgrade due to the improved cell chemistry with the introduction of silicon into the graphite Anode”. Deduction. Only 90 kWh batteries had the new Gen 2 Cell. All 60, 70 and 85 batteries had the old Gen 1 Cell.
- The only Common Factor that links pre facelift, and smaller batteries (60, 70, 85 kWh) is the old Gen 1 Cells. There may be other common factors, but no-one across the globe has been able to identify one.
The net effect of this capping of the battery was the amount of battery being made available to hold a charge was reduced by about 16%.
This artificial capping of the battery did not reduce the size of the battery, it simply denied access to up to 10 kWh of the battery. This is an important point. It means the reduction in the battery capacity (because of voltage capping) is not due to degradation or any other form of wear and tear. It is absolutely an artificial and deliberate reduction effected through a software change to the Battery Management System.
CALCULATION OF AMOUNT OF CAPACITY BLOCKED BY CAPPING
The only accurate method of testing whether a battery has been capped is to interrogate the BMS. That requires specific hardware and software that allows owners to interrogate the BMS itself, through the CANBUS 3. Normally the OBD Port provides this information; not in a Tesla! This is an expensive way to establish what the Capacity is, and what the Cell Voltage is. On some forums there have been many suggestions about how best to determine the car’s Capacity; these normally require owners to charge up to 100%, sometimes running it down to close to 0% then back up again. This is both inconvenient, and unnecessary. The Capacity of your car’s battery can be easily, and quickly, established from screen information within the car itself, at any time. (It is not possible to read the cell voltage without accessing the BMS or CANBUS3 or root access). The figures are available from the battery icon (when it is selected to show energy %) and from the Consumption Screen in the Energy App on the Main Central Screen.
The Consumption Screen (from within the Energy App on the Main Screen in the car) shows the Average Consumption figure for the past 5/15/30 miles. It also shows the Forecast Range, which is based on that consumption figure. It arrives at this Range forecast by using the recent consumption figure, then multiplies this by the SoC. By using these figures it is a simple calculation to work out the Capacity.
Method:
1. Open the Energy App on the Main Screen.
2. From below the graph, select 5mi, or 15 mi or 30 mi (highlighted in blue on the photo). It doesn’t matter which one, but “15 mi” is selected for this example.
3. Note the Avg. Wh/mi value (348 Wh/mi) from the left side of the graph. (Circled in yellow)
4. Multiply this figure by the Projected Range value (85 miles) from the right side of the graph (also highlighted in yellow).
5. Divide that number by the SoC as a % shown on your Instrument Panel. For example, 348 x 85 = 29,580. Divide this by the SoC%, say 38%, = 77,842. (Remember to use 0.38 and not just 38). This gives Whs. Divide by 1000 to give kWh, i.e., 77.84 kWh. That is your total battery capacity. This calculation can be done at any SoC. Capacity can be affected by outside factors such as temperature, but normally by less than 1%.
This calculation produces the total capacity, including the reserved buffer (4 kWh).
REASONS GIVEN BY TESLA FOR ARTIFICIAL CAPPING
Tesla has been asked several times for the reason for capping. Invariably they have replied that it was done for the longevity of the battery. There is a view that this is what they were trying to achieve, not why they did so in the first place. They have never given any other explanation for the reason. If pressed to explain why, they have responded with a variety of suggestions, many of which completely miss the point, such as giving advice on driving techniques to improve range, like removing cargo, closing windows, use of seat heaters rather than HVAC, driving more slowly. Almost without exception these were aimed at improving range rather than explaining the reason why batteries had to be capped. There seems to be a determination not to answer the 'why' question.
They are also very keen on replying with their stock answer of “We are working on improving the reduced range effect, and if it is possible customers may see an improvement in coming months. The S/X Battery Warranty does not cover range, we cover any hardware defect inside the pack.”
Tesla have been reported in the Press as stating “A very small percentage of owners of older Model S and Model X vehicles may have noticed a small reduction in range when charging to a maximum state of charge following a software update designed to improve battery longevity. As previously noted, we have been working to mitigate the impact on range for these owners, and have been rolling out over-the-air updates to address this issue.”
- Yes, it appears to be a very small percentage of owners.
- The effect is not ‘when charging to maximum state of charge’, it is a linear reduction across the board.
- Yes, they are working on improving it, and have rolled out an update to improve it. The update (2019.28.2.5) does appear to somewhat achieve this. In fact what it does, is increases Vmax from 4.07V to 4.08V. This gives an apparent increase in range, but only of about 5 miles or so, nothing like the 20-30 miles lost to start with.
POSSIBLE REASONS FOR THE CAPPING
- This update appeared the day following the submission of a potential Class Action Lawsuit in the U.S. It would be fair to say there is a great deal of suspicion on TMC that this quick update had more to do with Tesla being able to say to the court that not only are they working on a solution, but look, some owners are already seeing an improvement. Pure supposition on their part, and there is no way of knowing if this is correct or not.
There have been many suggestions worldwide as to the actual reasons for Tesla imposing this capping, and also why only some cars and not the entire fleet.
Why the capping?
There is strong support for the view that it may be related to the recent battery fires. Battery fires are always bad press. It is widely accepted across the industry that such fires are most commonly caused by Lithium Dendrites. Dendrites are small growths that develop on the anode within the battery, particularly during high temperature or high current charging. These spikey Dendrites can grow across the gap between the two electrodes, piercing the membrane between the plates, and eventually crossing and touching the opposite electrode. When that happens there is a short circuit, a significant transfer of energy and heat. If it becomes a thermal runaway, then a fierce fire is likely to occur. We have all seen videos of firemen trying to put out EV battery fires. They seem to extinguish the flames, only to bursts back into flames again. In a Dendrite fire, as long as the short circuit exists, the fire is likely to continue.
Condition X and Condition Z
You may have heard these terms. If the China, Singapore and other fires were indeed caused by Dendrites, it is not at all unreasonable to conclude that Tesla would take steps to identify how many other batteries may have dendrite growth. An acknowledged expert, who has been posting in this thread, and has been working with Tesla on this issue, has stated that “basically they (Tesla) went looking for X and found Z instead. X is pretty bad, but doesn't seem to have happened anywhere. Detecting X is definitely a good thing. Z is not good, but not as bad as X. The process of looking for X ended up finding a bunch of Zs as well. Z was not being looked for and wasn’t known. Detecting Z is still a good thing. The people with a rapid range loss have condition Z.” The general speculation doing the rounds was that Condition X was Dendrite growth. Initially it was thought Condition Z was Li Plating (think of it as an oxidation of the Plates and it is a precursor to Dendrite growth). There is now some uncertainty about Condition Z. One view is that given the Gen 1 Cells are the only apparent common factor, Condition Z maybe related to Cells. The theory is whilst searching for Dendrites, they did so by analyzing the condition of the cells, and discovered that some cells appeared to be decaying faster than they should, or at least faster than the majority. Condition Z may therefore be weak cells with certain unsound properties.
- It seems to meet all the Tesla-defined criteria. If the weak cells are still, just, within spec, then Tesla can describe the battery as healthy.
- If they are deteriorating faster than expected, reducing the battery capacity will make for a much less stressful condition, which should delay that decay.
- Capping the battery, (and indeed restricting charge rate), will help reduce decay and lengthen battery life.
Is it plausible that some cells are inferior?
- It would meet with Tesla’s statement that the download was “to secure longevity of the battery’s life span”.
By inferior, meaning only slightly. Still within specification (you have to draw the quality line somewhere) but less capable, slightly, than the majority of cells within the Pack. As detailed above, the 70 kWh battery, for example, uses 6216 Cells. They are the old Gen 1 Cells. Given the number of pre-facelift cars built, (probably in the thousands) then it seems statistically possible, indeed perhaps even statistically probable, that some of those millions of cells may have passed the Quality Control tests, but only just. If only 0.005% of the Cells fitted this description….. So, at the very least it is a plausible theory that some cars have some cells that are of slightly poorer quality, and are degrading faster than expected. However, it is not possible to state categorically that this is the correct explanation.
There is, of course, a suspicion that Tesla has realized that admitting this is likely to lead to a significant number of Warranty Claims, at a time when they do seem to be making a significant effort at reducing costs. Possibly, it is said, for them to slow the degradation down, so that the inevitable failure happens slower, ideally outside of the 8 year Warranty window. It’s an attractive theory for the conspiracy theorists, but there has not been a shred of substantive evidence to support this view.
Why only some cars?
Tesla has claimed it was done for the longevity of the battery. There is no escaping that this capping will indeed put the battery in a much less stressful state, and that it should indeed lead to longer battery life. However the implication that it was done for good housekeeping reasons seems flawed, as if this were the case, surely they would have applied this measure across the fleet, or even across the pre-facelift fleet. But they have not. They have only applied it to certain, selected vehicles. Estimates indicate there are only about 0.5% of the worldwide fleet. The % figure for Pre Facelift cars is likely to be much higher. Whilst this is a very rough figure and would not withstand any serious scrutiny, it is perhaps useful in putting the percentage of people affected into context.
On the assumption that selection was not done by Random Selection, but by deliberate selection, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that they have identified certain vehicles that have some sort of issue with the battery. It does not lead unavoidably to mean they have identified a certain fault, merely an issue. In the absence of any statement or explanation from Tesla, any conclusion can only be speculation.
Owners have been told both verbally and in writing by Tesla that having examined their battery, it was healthy. It is highly unlikely that Tesla would make such a statement, particularly in writing, if it were not true. But given that affected batterIes are palpably not in the same condition as perhaps 99.5% of the fleet, and are actually in such a condition that Tesla deem it necessary to take pre-emptive action even at the risk of bad publicity, legal challenge, and customer revolt, it is hard to see how they can class the battery as healthy. Unless they are using a specific definition of healthy.
Healthy, in this context, may just mean within specification. So all of the battery is within specification, but some part of it only just.
It has also been suggested, and it is a plausible theory, that certain batteries get too hot at too high a charge, say above 80 or 85%. There is no hard evidence to support this theory, or indeed to support the 'weak cell' theory. But indications do seem to point to there being some issue, perhaps even a defect, within the battery. In the absence of any information from Tesla, or indeed even any denials, any theory can only be speculation. i.e., your guess is as good as mine.
Finally, it raises the interesting question of who owns your car. Even many years after selling the car, Tesla still feel able to significantly alter the car’s specifications. When done in reverse, ie uncorking, owners have not only paid Tesla thousands to do so, but have had to change the vehicle specification with the relevant vehicle licensing authority. This capping is not a minor issue.
CONCLUSIONS
There are very few hard facts. They are, or appear to be:
- Update 2019.16.1.1 (and later) contained the batterygate software.
- Affected batteries appear to have had their Vmax reduced to a figure below the normal 4.2V.
- This reduction of Vmax has reduced the size of the usable Capacity.
- This reduction of Vmax has reduced the car’s performance.
- This reduction of usable Capacity is reflected in reduced range.
- This reduction of usable Capacity is reflected in the resale value of the impacted cars.
There is a view that, initially at least, Tesla's intentions were sound. They were trying to identify if any vehicles had dendrites, which would be dangerous, in order that they could take some pre-emptive action. Those good intentions may have produced some unintended consequences. There can be no escaping that Tesla are aware of them, as they say they are, and that they are working on a solution.
- Tesla have robustly refused to explain why they have capped some vehicles and not others.
Based on owners’ recommendation, if you do tackle Tesla on this, DO NOT frame your issue as Loss of Range. Whilst that may be what drew your attention to it, Tesla will take great delight in telling you that Loss of Range, or Loss of Capacity is not covered under the Warranty. They are correct, it is not. Loss of Range is just the consequence. The real issue is the capping of the battery, making up to 10 kWh or so unavailable to you. The questions should be:
Was my battery capped because there is a fault or issue with my battery?
This is the weak area. Press hard.
- If the response is “there is a fault or issue with your battery”, then you could claim a fix via the Warranty
- If the response is, and this is very likely, “there is no fault with your battery”, “your battery is healthy”, and “this is all done for the health or longevity of your battery”, your position should be “if the battery is healthy with no issue then there should be no need to cap it”. Demand the capping to be removed if there is no issue with your battery.
MORE TO KNOW
1. THIS IS NOT DEGRADATION
This has been officially stated and re-confirmed by Tesla in multiple public statements. If you are unsure of what Degradation is,or whether your battery is losing range due to degradation or downgrade, skip to step 2. All batteries lose range to degradation over time. No batteries should be artificially capped to a software limited reduction in range or power without your consent or knowledge.
Starting with Firmware 2019.16.1 Tesla has begun to reduce kWh capacity and horsepower by reducing the battery’s maximum charge voltage. They also reprogram the battery display to make it appear as if the newly lowered charge value appears to be “100%” when it really isn’t.
This cap is achieved in exactly the same way Tesla limited some 75kwh battery-equipped cars 60 kwh usable capacity, or 85kWh BTX8 cars to 75kWh, or limit Model 3 SR cars to lower range than Model 3 SR+ even though they share the same battery. The subsequent updates reduced charging speeds substantially for many people, though not all have had their range or power taken away yet. It is important to note that reduction of charging speeds is a separate issue to the capping of the battery. Some owners have been capped but not had their charging rate reduced, and vice versa. And some owners’ cars suffer from both conditions.
2. AM I AFFECTED?
Degradation is the slow and natural loss of storage capacity batteries experience over time. In simplest terms, it is a slow loss of storage capacity experienced when charging to the same voltage as always. This is different than Tesla’s battery capping, which is a voltage limit below “true” 100% that reduces range by not allowing the battery to be fully charged. Unlike degradation, capping has another side effect - it makes your car to perform slower too. Also unlike degradation it can be fixed by a software update to remove the cap.
Here is how you can see whether your battery has lost range due to degradation, or if it has been voltage capped by Tesla:
Model S/X3. IMPORTANT TO FILE AN NHTSA COMPLAINT
Charge to 100%. Using CANBUS tools, if your car’s cell volts @ 100% are close to 4.2v (real world readings are usually 4.198 or similar, don’t expect true 4.2v but you should be very close) you are OK. If you consistently charge to 4.18v or less @ 100% regardless of temperature, etc., you have probably been capped. Please add yourself to this spreadsheet:
Tesla battery capacity loss with FW 2019.16.2
Model 3
Tesla has not stated why they took the range and power the owners paid for. The NHTSA (the U.S. National Highway Transportation Safety Administration) has opened an investigation, but needs examples to move forward. Click the link below to report your losses and ask them to investigate. If this is a Warranty and/or Safety related issue, Tesla is required by law to repair or replace your battery with equal or greater performance than the defective original in accordance with the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. They are not legally allowed to reduce range and power!
File a Vehicle Safety Complaint | Safercar.gov | NHTSA
Include this at the top:
RE: NHTSA Action Number: DP19005 - INVESTIGATION Subject : Battery Management Software Updates
See notes here for what people other owners are saying in their own NHTSA reports: Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
4. CLASS ACTION
You are already included in the Suit as of right now (October 2019 ) if you own an impacted Tesla. You do not need to “join up” though if you choose to add your input on the google sheet and NHTSA reports it will help.
https://www.classaction.org/media/rasmussen-v-tesla-inc_1.pdf
Docket for Rasmussen v. Tesla, Inc., 5:19-cv-04596 - CourtListener.com
5. USEFUL LINKS
GOOGLE SHEET TRACKER (IF YOU ARE CAPPED ADD YOUR CAR TO THE SPREADSHEET OF KNOWN IMPACTED VEHICLES)
Tesla battery capacity loss with FW 2019.16.2
TESLA’S HACKED BATTERY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM EXPOSES THE REAL USABLE CAPACITY OF ITS BATTERY PACKS
Tesla’s hacked Battery Management System exposes the real usable capacity of its battery packs - Electrek
TESLA OWNERS SEE BATTERY RANGE DROP AFTER SOFTWARE UPDATE TO ‘IMPROVE LONGEVITY’
Tesla owners see battery range drop after software update to 'improve longevity' - Electrek
TESLA PUSHES BATTERY SOFTWARE UPDATE AFTER RECENT FIRES
Tesla pushes battery software update after recent fires
TESLA ROLLS OUT MODEL S AND X BATTERY SOFTWARE UPDATE AFTER HONG KONG FIRE
Tesla rolls out Model S and X battery software update after Hong Kong fire
TESLA GIVES UPDATES ON CAUSE OF A BATTERY FIRE, SAYS SINGLE MODULE IS RESPONSIBLE
Tesla gives updates on cause of a battery fire, says single module is responsible - Electrek
TESLA IS UPDATING ITS BATTERY SOFTWARE FOLLOWING A CAR FIRE, CLAIMS IMPROVE LONGEVITY
Tesla is updating its battery software following a car fire, claims improve longevity - Electrek
TESLA OWNER WHO SAW RANGE SLASHED BY SOFTWARE UPDATE FILED CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
Tesla owner who saw range slashed by software update filed class action lawsuit - Electrek
TESLA TO UPDATE BATTERY SOFTWARE FOLLOWING CAR FIRES
Tesla to update battery software following car fires
TESLA OWNER LAWSUIT CLAIMS SOFTWARE UPDATE FRAUDULENTLY CUT BATTERY CAPACITY
Tesla owner lawsuit claims software update fraudulently cut battery capacity
TESLA CLASS ACTION ALLEGES DEFECTIVE BATTERIES
Tesla Class Action Alleges Defective Batteries | Top Class Actions
TESLA’S DISAPPEARING MILES: OWNERS SAY AUTOMATIC SOFTWARE FIX HAS HAD UNWANTED SIDE EFFECTS
Tesla’s disappearing miles: Owners say automatic software fix has had unwanted side effects
TESLA SAYS SINGLE BATTERY MODULE CAUSED CAR FIRE IN SHANGHAI, HAS CHANGED VEHICLE SETTINGS
Tesla says single battery module caused car fire in Shanghai, has changed vehicle settings : teslamotors
FEDERAL SAFETY AGENCY LAUNCHES PROBE OF TESLA BATTERY FIRES
Federal safety agency launches probe of Tesla battery fires
TESLA BATTERIES INVESTIGATED FOR POSSIBLE DEFECTS
Tesla Batteries Investigated for Possible Defects
FEDERAL SAFETY OFFICIALS PROBE ALLEGED TESLA BATTERY DEFECTS
https://www.washingtonpost.com/tech...fficials-probe-alleged-tesla-battery-defects/
NHTSA, INVESTIGATING TESLA FIRE REPORTS, DEMANDS DATA ON BATTERY SOFTWARE CHANGES
NHTSA, Investigating Tesla Fire Reports, Demands Data on Battery Software Changes
TESLA UNDER SCRUTINY BY FEDS FOR BATTERY, SOFTWARE ISSUES
Tesla under scrutiny by feds for battery, software issues
UPDATE: Class Action Suit Cites 19 Issues With Tesla Software Update
UPDATE: Class Action Suit Cites 19 Issues With Tesla Software Update
WK057'S POSTS
Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
Calculate usable battery capacity based on rated miles values
BATTERY TECHNICAL LINKS
COMPILATION OF ARTICLES/PAPERS ON LI-ION BATTERIES
Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
PREDICTIVE MODELS OF LI-ION BATTERY LIFETIME
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/62813.pdf
TRANSITION METAL DISSOLUTION, ION MIGRATION, ELECTROCATALYTIC REDUCTION AND CAPACITY LOSS IN LITHIUM-ION FULL CELLS
Transition Metal Dissolution, Ion Migration, Electrocatalytic Reduction and Capacity Loss in Lithium-Ion Full Cells
STRUCTURAL STABILITY OF LINIO2 CYCLED ABOVE 4.2 V
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsenergylett.7b00304
LITHIUM-ION BATTERY CELL PRODUCTION PROCESS
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330902286_LITHIUM-ION_BATTERY_CELL_PRODUCTION_PROCESS
Whiskers, surface growth and dendrites in lithium batteries
Whiskers, surface growth and dendrites in lithium batteries | The Source | Washington University in St. Louis
Interactions between Lithium Growths and Nanoporous Ceramic Separators
https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30403-3
NASA: Lithium Plating in Lithium-Ion Cells
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/1-lithium_plating_azimmerman.pdf
NHTSA
File a Vehicle Safety Complaint | Safercar.gov | NHTSA
Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
https://www.classaction.org/media/rasmussen-v-tesla-inc_1.pdf
Docket for Rasmussen v. Tesla, Inc., 5:19-cv-04596 - CourtListener.com
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
BATTERY PART#’S
Fabbec´s Batteriedecoder
Fabbec´s Batteriedecoder
Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
MEMBER DISCUSSIONS
Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
Max Power vs State of Charge and Temp
Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
Da’s vreemd dat de navigatie SuC Duiven niet herkent. Ik zie in mijn navigatiescherm in de auto 2 ballonnetjes staan, 1 in Duiven en de ander in Zevenaar. (Ik werk daar vlakbij)en voor duiven navigeer je naar Van Der Valk Duiven. Staat NIET in de navigatie... en het verschilt nogal van de brakke laders in Zevenaar
Vlak voor en na de parkeerplaats is een toe- en afrit: daarmee is deze locatie vanuit beide richtingen op de A1 snel bereikbaar. Wat mij ook niet ondenkbaar lijkt is dat de stalls aan de Markeloseweg komen bij restaurant de Poppe.
SpeedyEddy
Active Member
Ik denk dat jouw duivense ballonnetje de SeC is op de Geograaf. Ook in mijn Tesla app staat hij niet overigens.
Gaston
Active Member
Als je vanuit de verkeerde richting komt zul je bij A1 Tankstation Beuseberg via die 2 op- en afritten zo'n 8km moeten omrijden. Dat vind ik niet "vlak voor en na" en "snel bereikbaar".
Van der Valk Deventer zou veel sneller en logischer zijn.
SupwrChager locatie Leiderdorp bijna klaar. nu geen melding van maar 80%!!
Van 10% naar 93% 1 1/2 uur bezig!...
Vorige keer van 1% naar 100% ging er 74Kwh de accu in. Niet heel slecht met het koude weer en hij was niet helemaal leeg.
Paco
Member
Welk nut heeft het om bij een SuC te laden tot 93%, en blijkbaar zelfs tot 100% ??? Een SuC 1,5 u bezet houden vind ik vooral bijzonder asociaal.
Alle begrip indien je gratis Superchargen hebt, dat je er zoveel mogelijk gebruik van wil maken. Maar die laadsnelheid op het einde is zo traag dat het mij die paar euro’s “besparing” echt niet waard zou zijn.
Asociaal ben je als je dit doet tijdens top drukte niet als er maar 3 van de 16 stals bezet zijn!
Wachten? Ik werk gewoon in de auto en ga wanneer ik zin heb weer verder rijden
Nou, ik vind het maar echt een verschrikking om in de auto te MOETEN werken. Heb het ook wel eens gedaan maar het is geen hobby van me.
Omgerekend €5/uur. Misschien wel een hele jonge bestuurder. Ken de minimumjeugdlonen niet uit m’n hoofd, maar ik zou die laatste 10kW lekker laten voor wat het isMee eens, al zou ik het dan nog niet doen. M'n tijd is ook wat waard
Similar threads
