Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Take out HV batt pack / cut out bad cell? (S P85+)

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I have some ways around the OTP issue, but it's definitely not ideal.
Hear hear. There is a solution.

But my pack is out in Lagos, Nigeria. Shipping Tesla Lithium Battery Packs or individual modules is difficult if not impossible. What's the nature of solution?

Got caught in Elon's X, Y or Z tesla battery degradation palaver, and like the gooey ooze draining from my instrument cluster and main computer monitors, I have to grin and bear it. So I got another P85D.

I intend to use the failed Tesla pack at 400v in a solar application, with a HV solar charge controller (not salvage individual modules in a 22v or 44v application). I was not sure I can achieve good enough water tight pack integrity for automobile application after opening up the pack.

On my bad pack, Module 11 Cell 66 was bad from what seems like a balance Mosfet stuck low. Replaced BMB (old version, no plug to sense leads), rewired blue sense wire which came lose during BMB replacement from its spot weld by drilling and screwing to cell 11 + terminal plate, now seems cell 66 balance mosfet is stuck open as it will not balance with rest of module. All voltage sense and temperature wires are properly wired to replacement BMB. Will a later version BMB work? Another question, does the BMB balance at the module level, and the BMS balance at the pack level?
 

Attachments

  • pack voltage readings 1.jpg
    pack voltage readings 1.jpg
    493.3 KB · Views: 196
  • pack voltage readings 2.jpg
    pack voltage readings 2.jpg
    573.3 KB · Views: 101
The BMS commands balancing. It won't command balancing on a BMB that does not match the pack.
The BMS commands balancing. It won't command balancing on a BMB that does not match the pack.
Thanks for your kind response.

Please is it the disparity in voltage match, or that the replacement BMB ID address assignment does not match the original BMD ID address assignment? I had pressed the reset button on the BMS board with the hope it will resolve ID addressing conflicts.

Put another way, will replacing all 16 BMB boards with new preprogramed BMBs allow this module to be put back in service? Or can I remove the bad module completely and get the work around solution you indicated might be possible? Thanks again.
 
It's not that it's too "picky" or anything. The BMS's only ability to influence balancing is to enable a 100mA dump load via bleeder resistors on individual bricks (74 cells). This is miniscule when looking at the whole pack, and with good reason. Once the pack is out of balance beyond the ability of the bleeder resistors to keep it in check, the pack likely has an underlying issue that should be dealt with.

Under normal conditions, the 100mA bleeders are actually overkill for bringing a pack that's aged normally into balance within a reasonable amount of time. In real world use with a regular pack, the balancers are actually pretty rarely enabled for more than an hour or so, and usually only on a handful of bricks. Even the oldest highest mileage packs naturally remain very tightly balanced with minimal assist from the BMS.

Removing just one cell from a brick means every other brick's bleeders need to run for about a full 32 hrs per charge cycle to keep the pack in balance. (We'll ignore that this means wasting ~1-2% SoC just for balancing...) So every ~1 hr of use the car needs at least ~8 hours rest for balancing to stay in check. And that's just with one cell missing!

Assuming the BMS doesn't pick up on this immediately and the car is actually usable initially, any time you drive more than a cycle per 32 hours (like on a trip where you hit a few superchargers), you bring the pack more and more out of balance, somewhat exponentially depending on how good the pack is. This is why the YouTuber guy who had one of the other YouTuber guys "fix" his car with a module swap ended up stranded on the side of the road with the dash showing 30+ miles of range. The pack reached a critical threshold of imbalance under load and the BMS was like, "nope!"

This is the inevitable result of any pack modified by removing cells or swapping in mismatched modules. It will die unexpectedly and generally without warning. Assuming it works at all initially, it could be days or months before it does, but it will stop working. Every. Single. Time. Doesn't matter how well you think you've matched modules. Once the BMS detects an uncorrectable imbalance, it will eventually cease to allow it to be used.

Things like the cell-level fuses are there as a safety mechanism. If a cell level fuse pops in normal use, that's cause for concern, and the BMS rightfully will make a fuss about it. When you do something dumb like literally break a fuse on the pack and cause the same damage that would be caused by something like a shorted cell, the BMS has no idea this is intended, detects the issue, and the end result is the same.

The packs are built to be safe. They're not built to be modularly repaired, and not built so that they can lose cells and still be used RAID style. That's not how it was designed at all. If there's an issue with a cell or cells, the pack needs to be replaced as a whole and that's the only real solution to such problems.


Addressing this specifically, everyone I'm aware of using these modules in EV conversions is using modules from the same original pack, so they are perfectly matched. For example, when you order modules from 057tech, you always get modules from the same original pack (unless > 16, of course... then we do our best to match them closely, even though the use case likely isn't a series set at that point).

Also, a lot of EV conversions are lower voltage than Tesla, meaning modules can be parallelized with fewer modules in series. You can put mismatched modules in parallel without much issue, since voltage in parallel sets is a constant and the modules will naturally charge/discharge based on their real viability.



This is actually a pretty good analogy.

Every battery pack has aged differently. From the factory, the cells are all a little tiny bit mismatched, but all from the same batch of cells. So they'll quickly find their place within the whole and stay there, with a little nudge from the BMS occasionally, for the life of the pack without issue.

When trying to mix and match, things like mileage don't matter. Cycles don't matter. Capacity doesn't matter. How hard or lightly it's been driven doesn't matter. It's every factor combined over the entire life of the pack that determines how it ages and how it will continue to perform. You might be able to get a module that has a very similar total capacity to the rest of a pack, or even get it to balance pretty well with the rest of the modules. But, it's impossible for a replacement module to perfectly match the rest of the pack. Things will always be slightly off, and because these bricks are in a large series set these differences always result in a feedback loop that amplifies the differences over time no matter how small the differences are... and that's just how it is. You don't mix and match cells in series because current under load/charge is constant in a series string by definition. With mismatched modules you end up with the same current at different loaded voltages, resulting in unequal power/energy distribution throughout the pack, resulting in an imbalance.

I could go on and on about the details, but suffice it to say many have tried (myself included), and all have failed. I've tried this several times, always thinking I've gotten close enough to beat the BMS (or, well, physics/chemistry)... and every time the result has eventually been failure. The difference between me and others seems to be that the folks who've been super public about their miracle battery fixes never follow up with the failure portion of the "repair"... 🙄

Trying to understand this in simple terms (snipping a cell to fix the battery pack) Am no battery expert and not even much of an EE. Am mostly digital computers and system software. Have very basic understanding of electronics.

Did some first principles and review MS battery architecture and rebalancing theory followed by digesting the quoted post. Here is my simple man's understanding. Please correct if wrong.

On 85kwh pack, each of the 16 modules is in 6S 74P layout. So 6 x 3.8v 18650 connected serially making 22.8v and 74 of these 6 cell strings connected in parallel. So I assume snipping 1 cell = removing 6 cells from this layout. Basically becomes 6S 73P (a lower capacity module) So the rebalancing is attempting to handle 1x 6S 73P with 15x 6S 74P

16 modules connected serially producing ~350V (depends on SOC or how full/empty the battery is)

A lower capacity module will drop voltage first compared to the higher capacity module while discharging. Since modules are serially connected, this drops the overall voltage of the pack and car sees this as battery capacity being lowered. Thus, stop and charge. When charging, higher capacity modules starts at higher voltage and will reach full (reaching some spec voltage) before the lower capacity module. To prevent over charging the full modules, higher capacity modules are bled to avoid over charging while waiting for the lower capacity to get to the spec voltage. After all this, pack is back in balance.

Snipping out 6/444 cells of a 6S 74P pack is like 1.5% capacity. 6 cells of 18650 is ~75Wh of energy. 100mA dump load isn't much during rebalance so probably trickle charge the lower capacity module while dumping load on the full ones? And as you say, don't want to have some huge dump load capability as battery pack has underlying out of wack issues.

And if balance doesn't complete before discharging and charging again. Imbalance accumulates (exponentially per quoted explanation) At some point, gap is large enough and BMS compares the voltage difference between the modules and say... sorry

Of course would have been nice to just disable the module with bad cell. Accept the lower capacity and keep on rolling. I guess Tesla (and maybe all EV manufacturers) with safety liability might be ultra conservative and return battery pack with any cell failure. Downside is cost customer $20k+ post warranty.

FYI, MS battery pack info from here

Tesla Model S Battery System: An Engineer’s Perspective (circuitdigest.com)
 
The main thing here is that the BMS was designed with safety as the number one priority. Kind of like the laws of robotics, the first law of the BMS is any action must be a safe action, and every action attempted (like driving the car) must pass all safety checks or it doesn't happen.

In the case of module replacements, snipping out a cell, etc... these result in unusual information.

Let's take snipping out a cell. What does this do? To people touting this as a repair they're just like, "Well it reduces usable capacity by 2%" or some other seemingly benign explanation. From the BMS's perspective, it drops the capacity of a brick by some %, increases IR for that brick, etc etc. So we have to look at how the BMS sees this situation, not how we want it to see it. It either immediately or eventually notices these changes in parameters, and has to assume the worst case scenario for what it sees. What could cause a brick to drop in capacity like this? Is this module failing? Is there any potential safety risk involved with operating the battery pack under any of the potential causes for such a reading? In the case of losing a cell, the answer is yes. An unexplained drop in capacity in a brick could be caused by any number of things, some of which mean the pack can not be operated safely... therefore the BMS has to decide in favor of safety and shutdown the vehicle.

Replacing a module is the same problem, just exaggerated to an entire module. The BMS has no way to explain the sudden change in parameters for the replaced module. What failure modes can result in these types of changes, and do any of those failure modes pose any potential safety risk? The answer to the latter is yes, so the BMS must act in the interest of safety and shutdown the pack.

Even reprogramming the BMS to a virgin state and letting it relearn capacity and such results in the BMS detecting the issues and eventually shutting down.

So while some of the designs might be perceived as Tesla preventing repairs, in reality these are really done to prevent potential safety issues when readings indicate that something is unusual. Since there's no normal situation where a cell should be lost or a module should change parameters unexpectedly, these situations are considered unacceptable... as they should be.

Full pack replacement is the only solution to issues that affect one or more actual cells.
 
The main thing here is that the BMS was designed with safety as the number one priority. Kind of like the laws of robotics, the first law of the BMS is any action must be a safe action, and every action attempted (like driving the car) must pass all safety checks or it doesn't happen.

In the case of module replacements, snipping out a cell, etc... these result in unusual information.

Let's take snipping out a cell. What does this do? To people touting this as a repair they're just like, "Well it reduces usable capacity by 2%" or some other seemingly benign explanation. From the BMS's perspective, it drops the capacity of a brick by some %, increases IR for that brick, etc etc. So we have to look at how the BMS sees this situation, not how we want it to see it. It either immediately or eventually notices these changes in parameters, and has to assume the worst case scenario for what it sees. What could cause a brick to drop in capacity like this? Is this module failing? Is there any potential safety risk involved with operating the battery pack under any of the potential causes for such a reading? In the case of losing a cell, the answer is yes. An unexplained drop in capacity in a brick could be caused by any number of things, some of which mean the pack can not be operated safely... therefore the BMS has to decide in favor of safety and shutdown the vehicle.

Replacing a module is the same problem, just exaggerated to an entire module. The BMS has no way to explain the sudden change in parameters for the replaced module. What failure modes can result in these types of changes, and do any of those failure modes pose any potential safety risk? The answer to the latter is yes, so the BMS must act in the interest of safety and shutdown the pack.

Even reprogramming the BMS to a virgin state and letting it relearn capacity and such results in the BMS detecting the issues and eventually shutting down.

So while some of the designs might be perceived as Tesla preventing repairs, in reality these are really done to prevent potential safety issues when readings indicate that something is unusual. Since there's no normal situation where a cell should be lost or a module should change parameters unexpectedly, these situations are considered unacceptable... as they should be.

Full pack replacement is the only solution to issues that affect one or more actual cells.

Yes totally make sense. Considering safety vs more gradual repair cost trade off (slowly degrade 16 module towards a 14 module car). Tesla had to consider 8-10 years into the future on a newish mass consumer tech using a high capacity stored chemical energy system with a rapid release mechanism... aka a bomb..

Gasoline has even more energy density (10x LiON) But consumers are comfortable with the gas tank protection after 100 years. EV charging at home garage is another chemical reaction so the high energy store is undergoing not insignificant chemical reaction while car is parked. Make sense Tesla reduced the default charge rate and max capacity (as Chevy Bolt also had to do) for greater safety during home charging.

I realized my 6S 74P understanding is slightly wrong. Its 74 cell in parallel to form a brick, and 6 bricks in serial. Snipping 1 cell only reduce 1 cell worth of capacity. But the balancing bleed rate is low not assuming missing a cell. As you say, what should Tesla assume as abnormal and unsafe signal?

Finally, I'm not sure anyone is actually doing the 1 cell snip repair anymore. It might have been a PR video sometime back but not sure I can find such "service" anywhere currently (even for a Roadster). Repair shops that are rooted in Roadster business have mostly returned to focus on that business. Roadster and Model S battery repair business seems completely different. In the case of Roadster, Tesla's service center is unavailable at any cost and owners are mostly collectors willing to ship across oceans and likely low annual mileage. In the case of the bigger market MS battery repair business, costs of a lifetime matched module replacement pack also depends on failed pack's salvage value extraction which seems to be 057's history and enable offering a $2k+/24mo warranty. Not easily duplicated. Just wish I was closer :)
 
Last edited:
I have some ways around the OTP issue, but it's definitely not ideal.
Any updates on this? Is there still no way to take say a MY pack and reduce it to function at say 75% of whatever math aligns to a sector or zone (not sure if terms are correct) so that the pack still functions? Maybe open the pack up and take good cells from failed zone and move to remaining zones with failed cells to retain proper balancing? I am way out of my league in understanding wk057's explanations, but as an industry / if Tesla doesn't figure this out for repairs - it is environmentally non sustainable as well as ultimately going to reduce value of vehicles knowing at 120k miles the car is a 25k repair timebomb.
 
Is that true if you go to a third party though?
You think third parties are going to send a pack to the garbage heap instead of selling it for recycling? :eek: (Not that there are many third parties dealing with HV packs at this point.) Third parties actually sell the good modules from the S&X packs to be used in other projects, so they get a second life before being recycled.

@wk057 @Recell what do you guys do with failed/bad modules? Are you able to sell them to recyclers to recover some value?

Shoot even if the recycler wouldn't pay for it, you at least wouldn't have to pay to dispose of it.
 
there's a solid aftermarket (or 'secondary use' being the emerging term of art for it) that we're able to recover the value on most modules. of course, some are complete basket cases and get sent to our recycling partner for proper disposal.

@wk057 may have further insight as they've worked the 'secondary use' market for some time.
 
what do you guys do with failed/bad modules? Are you able to sell them to recyclers to recover some value?

For modules that are not repairable (cell level issues of some kind, bad cell fuses, etc), we've had an ongoing arrangement with a third party who breaks them down to the cell level and repurposes the cells themselves in their products. Unfortunately this is a pretty labor intensive process on their end, so these modules end up not being worth a whole lot unfortunately.... but at least they don't go to waste!

For usable modules, but insufficient matching ones for a Tesla pack, those are generally repurposed for EV conversions, solar setups, RV setups, etc.

The only time we generally fully dispose of a module is in the case of something unsafe, such as an internally shorted cell, physical damage, etc. In this case we salt bath the module to render it inert, and then send it off to be appropriately scrapped. This is pretty rare, but does happen.

As a general note, given the overall construction I'm not convinced that recovery of raw materials from these modules for recycling is really viable at any scale without some drastic (magic?) advances in that field. Recovering individual cells without damage is a lengthy and labor intense process in itself based on what I've seen from the third party noted above. Recovering raw materials would be worse all around. I don't see it happening.

---

"FICSIT does not waste."
 
While far from ideal, it would seem that a 16-module pack could be converted to a 14-module pack with the removal of the 1-2 "bad" modules. All, the remaining modules would be matched. The software/firmware changes might be tricky, but might be one way to get more life out of the pack/car and turn a S85 into an S60. The lighter weight might mean some suspension changes. I wonder if all the HV components are rated for both 350v and 400v, but if not then other components would need to be replaced too.
 
While far from ideal, it would seem that a 16-module pack could be converted to a 14-module pack with the removal of the 1-2 "bad" modules. All, the remaining modules would be matched. The software/firmware changes might be tricky, but might be one way to get more life out of the pack/car and turn a S85 into an S60. The lighter weight might mean some suspension changes. I wonder if all the HV components are rated for both 350v and 400v, but if not then other components would need to be replaced too.

Why the suspension changes if the HV is lighter?
 
I'm not sure if the suspension change is needed, but if the car is 150 lbs lighter (my rough estimate), I expect the car would ride higher than normal and might handle or be misaligned in a way the car was never designed to deal with. Likely not a huge issue, but I don't know where the design limits are for the related hardware. Thinking about it more, it may also upset the airbag controller timing a bit as the crash effects are going to be slightly different. Again, maybe I'm being paranoid, but worth thinking about all the side effects of changes that were never intended or tested by Tesla.

If someone were to plan to do the 16 to 14 module change, they should go into the parts list for the S85 and S60 and see what, if any changes are between the two suspension systems.
 
If someone were to plan to do the 16 to 14 module change, they should go into the parts list for the S85 and S60 and see what, if any changes are between the two suspension systems.

Well, I'm hoping that's what Tesla is doing when replacing the old S85 packs with the new 350v/90kWh packs. We see some cars get their suspension components replaced and some don't (mine wasn't). Their explanation has been "it depends on your car configuration", even though we know these are all S85 cars.
 
It could be Tesla changed the design at some point to be more universal or perhaps cover a wider weight range. I'd expect the weight change from the old S85 to the new 90 kWh packs to be minimal, but I don't know for sure. Nothing close to that pulling out two modules or installing an original S60 pack in an S85.