Model 3 at 100,000 miles

Some Tesla owners are up in arms, because after one of the over-the-air updates occurred, range immediately diminished.
Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software | Tesla Motors Club
My better ½ went up in arms/ballistic when update V8 to V9 permanently changed the model X's UI. It was the straw that broke the camel's back. We stopped allowing updates after that, by enabling the next update, but as it started, we began driving around for ~20 minutes. The only way the cars can update after that, is at the service center.
The going theory is Tesla has reduced range on some (but not all) models by increasing the pack's upper buffer. This ensures the traction pack warranty will make it to end of life. Maybe a good time to note, Porsche reduces its EV's efficiency by installing heavier/larger traction packs, so that their larger buffer can be so large, that it can be DC QC'd again & again without the traction pack's charge rate upper-end dropping off as it nears 100% SOC.
.

 

another quest will be time vs miles, but i trust tesla is way more on top of this than any other ev mfg

 

What kills the nimh battieres for me was time not miles. I've seen 70k battery packs and 240k mile battery packs fail.

 

Bjorn has a theory about the updates and change in range...

 

i think you mean kWh. Also - i think you mean Lithium chemistries ...... as there ARE NO 70kWh nickel packs.

 

Or he meant 'thousand miles'.

 

and prius batteries

 

ni-mh and tesla have nothing in common

 

Bjorn - at the end of that video states HE discovered the traction pack resizing of buffer. If you had looked at the provided link in post #2 - you would see he was 3 or 4 months late to the discovery. The problem with these Shenanigans is, many owners aren't so generous - where they simply rationalize, "oh well, if it protects the battery then that's okay". Rather, owners are, "hey! you advertise X amount of miles range - - & now your failure Tesla, to properly calculate how many kWh's are adequately needed to maintain battery health, means you can just short sheet us !?!"
Threats of litigation are in the Wind. The rationale being if you base the cost of usable traction pack at 'X' .... but you only get 94%, because you miscalculate the likelihood of warranty issues down the road - shouldn't you be entitled to a 5-6% refund to make up for the loss? Heck, even your 12-volt lead-acid starter battery gets a prorated warranty if it doesn't meet the written expectation.
.

 

your just a bjorn hater

 

if I raced him - would I be a bjorn loser?

.

 

That was my experience with the NiMH battery in my Honda Civic Hybrid (OEM battery died at 75k/12 years, cheapo remanufactured one died at 90k/14 years).

Li-ion chemistry is different and, from what I understand, less prone to degradation over time.

However, there are still two countdowns for the life of your battery:

• Number of cycles
• Age of battery

Just because most people are going to hit the former first, doesn't mean the latter isn't still counting down in the background.

 

The Honda nickel packs died prematurely because they were over programmed so that the cars would falsely get higher mileage. It brought about a class action lawsuit, that yielded only a pittance for the class. Hopefully Honda and all the others learn the error of their ways.
.

 

Well this is a pleasant surprise. Getting ready for the 1000 km challenge, my 240 mi rated, Standard Range Plus Model 3 charged to 100% and the last time, 100% charge gave 234 mi:



The charging session started at 66%, took 03:47:30 (hh:mm:ss) for 24.15 kWh from the Juicebox 40. Ambient temperature, 61F (16C). My expectation was adding ~18.3 kWh. Speculation, battery thermal management may have increased the power consumption.

SR+ Model 3; odometer 14,729 mi (23,566 km); service date March 26, 2019. Our car loss, (240 - 238) / 240 = 0.83% loss.

Well this is a surprise in my e-mail:

I was expecting 18.3 kWh and this e-mail reports 17.523 kWh. This is a new EVSE puzzle. Regardless, the 17.523 projects to 52.569 kWh.

Bob Wilson

p.s. The EVSE server has a bug that reports only the last of a split charge session. The actual electrical charging was 24.15 kWh.

 

the "charge-gate" bru-ha-ha has evolved into the notion that not ALL Tesla models that are getting shorted ½v (~4.7v per cell, down to ~4.2v) per cell (which causes the range to diminish) are loosing range. The grenade hidden in the latest software MAY very well be related to accrued mileage - rather than a blanked code to kill all upper buffers. That may be why the higher mileage cars noticed the sudden drop in range, while others of the same model have not yet been hit. Note that even the high mileage 100D's have not been affected. Owners affected may not notice, unless they buy & know how to use the various voltage logging tools;
Reading Battery Voltages and Temperatures via CAN on Model S | Tesla Motors Club
on a similar note - a class action over the mater has grown legs;
Rasmussen v. Tesla, Inc., 5:19-cv-04596 – CourtListener.com
kind of disappointing ~ even if your car's lead acid battery gives out early - you get a pro-rated value.
EDIT:
just looked up the firm on our Bar's website. HA! a local guy - just a couple miles down the road - practicing just over 2 years. Hope he's got a good software/electrical EE lined up, because the minutia that'll be being described will make most jurors' eyes glaze over, unless you can do entertainment speak like Jay Leno.
Perhaps the record high mileage Tesla (over 400K miles) wouldn't have had to have his battery replaced (under warranty) had the new software been implemented earlier.
Here's how a Tesla Model S holds up after 400,000 miles in 3 years - Electrek
Not a bad deal ... 400K miles ... free supercharging ... grandfathered prior to warranty exclusions re commercial use .... executive rear seats ... and a new battery. All that happened over 1yr ago. Wonder how high his mileage is now ...
.

 

I read the Rasmussen complaint, ~100 pages, and noticed he is citing the 'estimated range' reported by the car and not benchmarks showing the actual range. His complaint would have more merit if he ran a benchmark test showing the reduced range AND any warranty risks. Regardless, let's take a look:

"2014 Tesla Model S 85" - EPA range listed as 265 mi
"approximately 137,000 miles"
"reduced ... capacity ... by approximately 8 kWh" - EPA lists 38 kWh/100 mi
Rasmussen complaint but more details buried in the complaint.

So (8 kWh/38 kWh) * 100 mi = 25 miles the claimed lost range per EPA metrics.

"The Used Vehicle Extended Limited Warranty applies to vehicles that are over 4 years old or have over 50,000 miles (80,000 km) on the odometer but under 6 years old and have less than 100,000 miles (160,000 km) on the odometer at the time of Tesla’s delivery. ' - https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/downloads/tesla-used-vehicle-limited-warranty-en-us.pdf

FACT: The 137,000 miles is greater than 100,000 miles so the battery is no longer covered by warranty. ... case dismissed.

FACT: Safety trumps performance.
​

Rasmussen added 'battery fire' to the complaint quoting a service manager. So a lot of 'lay' press are claiming it is a Tesla battery fire investigation but Rasmussen is complaining about a loss of 25 miles range. The battery fire was added as he has not had a battery fire.

Regardless of the legal case, the NHTSA has asked for a lot of engineering data which does and doesn't bother me. There was a short response period (often negotiable) and data on both Model S/X as opposed to the specific model in the original complaint. The NHTSA data requested is pretty broad but then I think about the 737-Max accidents and wonder if 300 people might be alive if the FAA had been as through. The NHTSA may report "no problem."

I don't have a whole lot of confidence in this complaint as much of the evidence is 'hearsay' from others and not direct metrics. It makes claims about how the 'Guess O Meter' (GOM) works that are not empirical evidence. You really have to be in the right conversations for the evidence.

Bob Wilson

 

There will definitely need to be more leg work (actual voltage cap versus estimated range) if this is not going to be thrown out. The sloppy filing is something a seasoned legal team would not do - having to make complaint amendments down the road. Ergo, the above mentioned comment that 2 years licensed legal experience does not a good class-action filing make. Kind of like a 2 year drivers license holder versus 2 decades. Guess who generally has a better driving record.

.

 

He has a 9.4% range loss at 137K mi/220k km. That is worse than average for reported Tesla's with that mileage, but not the worse seen.


Tesla battery degradation at less than 10% after over 160,000 miles, according to latest data - Electrek

 

It looks like the hyperbolic curve morphs & goes linear at about 100K miles. It'll be interesting to see how that changes with the newer/latest chemistries
.