Did my dealer inadvertently hurt my battery?

[Jim Lewis]

The Tesla techs at three different service centers confirmed that the best strategy was to run them hard and from top to bottom

Perhaps the Tesla techs were thinking of lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries, which I've read that Tesla has switched to on standard models. An article today in The Verge explains the differences between lithium batteries with nickel, cobalt, and manganese (what the Lightning has now) and the LFP batteries that Ford plans to make at its new $3.5 billion plant in Michigan. A quote from the article ( Ford’s EVs are getting faster charging and more affordable batteries thanks to new chemistry - The Verge):

“They are exceptionally durable and they tolerate more frequent and faster DC fast charging,” Lisa Drake, vice president of EV industrialization at Ford model e, the company’s EV division, said during a briefing with reporters Monday. “And they actually perform best when they’re being charged from zero to 100 percent regularly. And that is ideal for customers who want to drive all the way to empty and then charge quickly back to 100 percent.”

There's a neat graphic in the article that illustrates the relative pluses and minuses of the two types of batteries.

Sponsored

 

[ctuan13]

For those interested in the graphic, but don't want to skim the article:

 

[KevinC]

One thing not shown on that graphic is the likelihood of runaway fires. Supposedly the LFP is less likely to catch fire.

 

[ctuan13]

One thing not shown on that graphic is the likelihood of runaway fires. Supposedly the LFP is less likely to catch fire.

Much less likely to have runaway thermal events. Far from impossible, but the difference in risk is like 10:1. There's a reason solar power systems and power stations are all moving towards lithium iron phosphate chemistries, the risk of fire is far too great with these large capacity packs in home and portable storage. And yet somehow we've just gotta trust the NMC chemistry in our ginormous truck packs

Here's a video on the difference between LFP and NMC chemistry when it comes to response to cell puncture:

 

[Grumpy2]

SK Innovation has bragged of never seeing a fire case after more than 270 million deliveries.

 

[KevinC]

Seeing that video, I feel like I couldn't in clear conscience get an nmc going forward. I'll wait for the cheaper battery that will last longer and won't lite my vehicle, house and self on fire. Just a matter of priorities.

 

[Maquis]

Seeing that video, I feel like I couldn't in clear conscience get an nmc going forward. I'll wait for the cheaper battery that will last longer and won't lite my vehicle, house and self on fire. Just a matter of priorities.

Even though most EVs on the road today use NMC batteries, ICE vehicles catch fire at about 3 times the rate of BEVs.
Don‘t freak out over hyperbole.
The real issue with batteries is how hard they are to put out if they do catch fire, not their propensity to catch fire.

 

[ctuan13]

Even though most EVs on the road today use NMC batteries, ICE vehicles catch fire at about 3 times the rate of BEVs.
Don‘t freak out over hyperbole.
The real issue with batteries is how hard they are to put our if the catch fire, not their propensity to catch fire.

Well considering there are 49 times more ICE vehicles on the road than EVs, that isn't as assuring of a statistic as you think. What it really says is that EVs catch fire at a disproportionately higher rate when adjusted for the number of vehicles on the road.

I'm far from an EV hater, I mean I own a Lightning, but moving to safer, more stable chemistries is going to be critical as adoption and market share increase.

 

[Maquis]

Well considering there are 49 times more ICE vehicles on the road than EVs, that isn't as assuring of a statistic as you think. What it really says is that EVs catch fire at a disproportionately higher rate when adjusted for the number of vehicles on the road.

I'm far from an EV hater, I mean I own a Lightning, but moving to safer, more stable chemistries is going to be critical as adoption and market share increase.

The quantities are normalized. I stated rate. As in fires per 100,000 vehicles.

 

[KevinC]

I still wonder if the statistics are really truthful though. For one, every ICE car I've ever seen catch fire was an old beater and or poorly maintained. Electric cars on the other hand are typically brand new. Also, who is reliably counting categorizing all these fires and the degree of the fires. The Big ICE fires again i've seen were always older cars which pretty much caught fire and left their black shadow on the side of the highway. I've rarely seen a significant fire in an actual accident of ICE cars.

 

[ctuan13]

I still wonder if the statistics are really truthful though. For one, every ICE car I've ever seen catch fire was an old beater and or poorly maintained. Electric cars on the other hand are typically brand new. Also, who is reliably counting categorizing all these fires and the degree of the fires. The Big ICE fires again i've seen were always older cars which pretty much caught fire and left their black shadow on the side of the highway. I've rarely seen a significant fire in an actual accident of ICE cars.

Precisely. Also the vast majority of ICE vehicle fires occur when the vehicle is involved in an accident or in operation and a fuel rail starts leaking or a fuel line bursts ona hot exhaust manifold. Whereas the issue with lithium ion battery fires especially more unstable chemistries like NMC could be perfectly cared for, not subject to any harsh temperature fluctuations, poor charging habits, vibration or puncture damage and yet still spontaneously combust in the vehicle after its been parked for hours, stone cold in someone's garage.

In addition @Maquis even if the statistic you describe is truly adjusted for number of vehicles on the road, the problem you admitted was still an issue is far from a small one: runaway lithium fires are incredibly hard to put out and will often reignite. Gasoline fires are scary and yes countless people are permanently disfigured or killed by gas engine fires. Yet gasoline fires are easily extinguished, often with a single fire truck's worth of water or less.

But a lithium fire burns with far higher intensity and strength than any comparably gas fire and NMC battery fires are self oxidizing meaning they are almost impossible to smother. The only way is to effectively cool the battery cells themselves to halt the runaway chemical reaction, but direct access to the cells to cool them effectively is almost unachievable. Spraying water on the flames alone will do absolutely nothing to stop the fire. Even in instances where fire fighters were able to eventually put out a fire, they used 10s of thousands of gallons of water and often the vehicles still auto-reignited.

This may seem rare and manageable now, but we're at barely 2% EVs on the road. What happens when that's 50%? And what good are we doing for the environment if we're using hundreds of thousands of gallons of fresh water to put out these impossible fires?

This is why a move to LFP and more chemically stable and fire resistant chemistries is so critical.

 

[ExCivilian]

I really don't want to get into a protracted argument over how vehicle fires are extinguished but suffice to say they aren't easily extinguishable regardless of gas, diesel, or battery propulsion. Firefighters don't, as a general rule, just pull up to a scene and dump thousands of gallons of water on any fire. Modern firefighting combines a tremendous (and surprising) amount of chemistry, math, and engineering.

EVs have been on the road for a decade now and firefighters are well-trained in dealing with them, have chemicals to assist, and know how to extract people from them safely. These are all issues they have had, and will always have, with ICE vehicles, as well. About the only thing being accurately portrayed is that batteries have unique issues when they're "burning"--but that doesn't translate to gas vehicles on fire being "easy" to deal with by any measure.

Liquid gas pouring from gas tanks lighting everything on fire and exploding into huge balls of fire is Hollywood. In reality, the mostly empty gas can in your garage or partially filled vehicle tank is far more dangerous. The numbers come from insurance and fire agencies--they aren't secret if anyone is genuinely curious about them.

I don't have hands-on experience with this. All of my information is from people who do this for a living day in and day out. I have more exposure to them than the average bear because of my career but I don't have any specialized knowledge other than chewing the fat with the brass about things on my mind over the years. So while a professional firefighter might take issue with some of my points I think they'd agree with me that it's certainly not as simple as old beaters catch fire but then get extinguished without issue whereas brand new EVs are burning houses down out of the blue and there's nothing anyone can do about it other than stand around and wait for it to finish.

 

[Roy2001]

Based on my laptop experiment, 100% for days or even weeks is not a problem

 

[AZT9]

It isn't a huge issue to charge to 100% occasionally as there is buffer built in to the battery. 100% is not truly 100% on the battery but likely somewhere around 90% charge (no one knows the true full capacity of the battery pack). DC fast charging will probably do more damage to the battery than it sitting at 100% for a day or two.
@MickeyAO would know the best answer to this question.

Total kWh for ER is 141kwh

 

[PungoteagueDave]

Perhaps the Tesla techs were thinking of lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries, which I've read that Tesla has switched to on standard models. An article today in The Verge explains the differences between lithium batteries with nickel, cobalt, and manganese (what the Lightning has now) and the LFP batteries that Ford plans to make at its new $3.5 billion plant in Michigan. A quote from the article ( Ford’s EVs are getting faster charging and more affordable batteries thanks to new chemistry - The Verge):



There's a neat graphic in the article that illustrates the relative pluses and minuses of the two types of batteries.

No, and I have huge respect for Mickey’s experience and guidance on this question. However, I have driven Teslas over 250k miles, had one of their earliest MS deliveries in 2012, had two full battery replacements in my 2012 car, spent a lot of time with their techs. Tesla has a built-in procedure in the BMS and MCU that runs a conditioning procedure that does exactly what I said to correct the BMS and recondition the pack when range “appears” to drop, recovering lost range. It isn’t really lost, but the BMS loses track over time, so needs to “see” the entire battery from time to time to know its status. The procedure is a documented Tesla service process that intentionally runs the battery under stress to near zero, and then charges its to 100%, and then does the cycle again. Tesla would not have this if it was bad for the battery.

This is the owner method:
https://help.tessie.com/article/78-calibrating-the-battery-management-system

There is a Tesla Service Center shop procedure method using a hidden menu on the Tesla MCU that firsts tests the battery’s health, then runs the cycling procedure, discussed here:
https://tesla-info.com/guide/tesla-bms-calibration.php

We are seeing this same phenomenon with the Lightning - the best way to have your truck reset the GOM is to do a full charge and the run to to as close to zero as possible, then fully charge again. It’s ability to project range is dramatically improved after doing this.

Sponsored