-
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
hill
high fiber member
Wonder what folks would pay - to flash back to the earluer version. There ARE people out there that have copies of old versions and the talent to implement it.
Also - the folks claiming they haven't been impacted, don't worry. Your MCU, (which btw is slowly burning up because it logs so much) is going to soon tattle on you when your voltage loss is sufficiently jeopardizing a payout by Tesla under warranty.
.
Also - the folks claiming they haven't been impacted, don't worry. Your MCU, (which btw is slowly burning up because it logs so much) is going to soon tattle on you when your voltage loss is sufficiently jeopardizing a payout by Tesla under warranty.
.
Last edited:
Send them my way please, I'd also love to get the date and time back on the driver's screen under the speedometer.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
My car is affected and not on the list. Tip of the iceberg when relying on TMC.
I believe there is an overall awareness issue on this. Owners expect some amount of degradation so loss of range is not unexpected. However, unless you keep you car on on remaining miles (instead of SOC) or regularly go on long distance trips, the impact is not readily apparent. If you keep your display and SOC and mostly drive around town, you can be happily oblivious.
Beyond that, the fact that Tesla took the time and resources to develop and deploy the HV diagnostics would seem to indicate there is something more broadly afoot.
eye.surgeon
Active Member
Who wants to put their car on a public list as having been crippled? I can tell you mine is not on that list. I"d like to be able to sell it one day.
Random piece of info I just learned. The 2020 Chevy Bolt charges to max 4.175 Volt. I know they use different chemistry so it's hard to compare, but in Tesla terms that would be aprox 10-13% less than to what Tesla is pushing its battery.
This sheet is in no way representative of how many car are affected. Come on, you know that. The vast majority of owners don't even notice. Even less are members here and even less add their car to the list. I never bothered to add mine, neither have many others here.
Last edited:
Ferrycraigs
Member
The difference is generally believed to be regen. As a comparison, on mine the readings are:
Total charge 27,100 kWh
Total DC is 20,308 kWh
Total AC is 2,773 kWh
Difference 4,019 kWh (14.8% of total)
But I agree, your ‘difference or regen’ figures look surprisingly high . Out of a total of 38704 kWhs Charging, a figure of 14790 kWh from Regen does not seem credible.
Last edited:
Just a guess, but for exchange batteries the AC and DC charge counter values might be manual input by the tech who serviced the pack, to used by Tesla for DC charge speed derating among other things.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Of course I realized only a certain percentage would bother to fill out the form but I thought all of those who expressed concern here would have done so. The more people reporting the more attention this will get. The last few on the list show 100% capacity loss so I assume they get their packs replaced.
What Tesla offered, in black and white plain english was a "limited" warranty. And one of the limits was:
"Loss of Battery energy or power over time or due to or resulting from Battery usage is NOT covered under this Battery and Drive Unit Limited Warranty"
Which sentence in the warranty do you think makes it warrantable? This clear sentence below indicates that battery degradation caused by usage is specifically non-warrantable. You just simply can't ignore that language or pretend that it doesn't exist.
Instead it seems to me that when certain damage due to usage is identified (e.g., by measuring Condition Z to see if it reaches a trigger level) then the BMS takes action (like it does in response to many other triggers) and limits voltage.
What you have to do is find facts to support is that Condition Z reaching the trigger level is a warrantable manufacturing defect or a battery failure rather than simply battery wear from usage, such as lithium plating. I see no evidence supporting that --- yet but it is entirely possible so I do not foreclose that.
The difference is essentially:
1) was there a bad batch of batteries that had a defect that happened to be installed over a range of cars over a range of years (unlikely)
2) was there some use case (one time supercharging in the cold? leaving it sit at 95%+ SOC over night?, electron bad luck?), or even other random event that degraded the battery (likely lithium plating) that the BMS had to address (as it addresses lots of other battery conditions) by limiting voltage. -- much more likely
So far it all points towards wear from usage, probably lithium plating, since only relatively few batteries are affected, rather than lots of them. And the affected batteries do not seem to be from a particular batch of batteries (which would suggest a manufacturing defect) but rather are spread out with no pattern discerned pointing toward some use cause rather than manufacturing defect cause.
What is the factual and evidentiary basis for saying this is not degradation? How do you know the batteries have not degraded? And the BMS is simply responding to that degradation?
Simple question: how do you know the affected batteries haven't degraded? That Condition Z is not a degraded battery?
I did mention this a few months back...it is because they have at top buffer of 3 percent...AND I get half Regen when my Bolt is full
As well nobody is talking much about battery problems on Bolts. LG batteries are used in Bolts and Teslas built in China.
Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
Tesla admits this problem isn't degradation. They told @David99 his car was artificially limited purposefully.
We know factually and without question batterygate isn't degradation because it's a volt cap. Volt capping superficially looks like degradation but isn't. Degradation is literally defined as capacity loss at a specific volt reading. Lower volts isn't degradation, it's just a lower state of charge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_loss
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0167273895002316
Capacity Fading on Cycling of 4 V Li / LiMn2 O 4 Cells - IOPscience
Confusing the side effects of Tesla's intentionally imposed software limitation to how much they allow the battery with the natural damage process called degradation is an easy mistake to make, and a rather common one which is probably why some people keep making it over and over. tesla probably re-adjusted the displayed "100%" value to facilitate this mistake, but the "degradation" hypothesis is instantaneously disproved by a quick reading of the battery's volts.
I hope this helps. There is a little bit of science to understand, but even without the science the simplest definition of degradation is "the loss of battery capacity at a specific voltage" - a battery doesn't degrade when you drive it down from 100% to 90% on a road trip, nor is it degraded when you set the battery to stop charging at 90%. And that's all Batterygate is; tesla reprogrammed our cars to stop charging early. Simple and easy to understand; and definitely not degradation.
The good news is volt caps are reversible - and we know they want to because tesla already released a press statement telling us about how they can reverse the volt caps. Degradation is irreversible. You can't turn rust back into a steel any more than you can turn degradation back into battery capacity. But you can reverse a volt cap by reprogramming the BMS to allow that battery to charge to 100% again.
Tesla admits this problem isn't degradation. They told @David99 his car was artificially limited purposefully.
We know factually and without question batterygate isn't degradation because it's a volt cap. Volt capping superficially looks like degradation but isn't. Degradation is literally defined as capacity loss at a specific volt reading. Lower volts isn't degradation, it's just a lower state of charge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_loss
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0167273895002316
Capacity Fading on Cycling of 4 V Li / LiMn2 O 4 Cells - IOPscience
Confusing the side effects of Tesla's intentionally imposed software limitation to how much they allow the battery with the natural damage process called degradation is an easy mistake to make, and a rather common one which is probably why some people keep making it over and over. tesla probably re-adjusted the displayed "100%" value to facilitate this mistake, but the "degradation" hypothesis is instantaneously disproved by a quick reading of the battery's volts.
I hope this helps. There is a little bit of science to understand, but even without the science the simplest definition of degradation is "the loss of battery capacity at a specific voltage" - a battery doesn't degrade when you drive it down from 100% to 90% on a road trip, nor is it degraded when you set the battery to stop charging at 90%. And that's all Batterygate is; tesla reprogrammed our cars to stop charging early. Simple and easy to understand; and definitely not degradation.
The good news is volt caps are reversible - and we know they want to because tesla already released a press statement telling us about how they can reverse the volt caps. Degradation is irreversible. You can't turn rust back into a steel any more than you can turn degradation back into battery capacity. But you can reverse a volt cap by reprogramming the BMS to allow that battery to charge to 100% again.
Last edited:
Loss of battery energy or power was NOT over time, it was instantaneous due to a software update.
Similar threads
