Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[David99]

I'm a new member who has been following this thread for some time. I just got a Bolt last month as it was a better fit for me/family currently but I'm a fan of Tesla and I know one is in my future in a few years when the kids are out on their own. As I'm currently an outsider looking in, I see Tesla as a company who is pushing the limits of technology. In doing so, I think you open yourself up to the possibility of realizing "we pushed a little too hard" and having to dial things back a bit. Contrast this to the mainstream car manufacturers who's mantra seems to be "underdo everything" in a more conservative approach. It's why I get reactions like "Wow, that's a pretty cool little car" in regard to my Bolt but my friend who owns a M3P gets "HOLY ----" reactions.

It makes me wonder what would have happened if Tesla had known about the long term limits when they built the cars. Seems like they could have coded an algorithm to examine battery performance over time and make the system slowly reduce battery capacity (and charge rate) over time, distributing that 10% chunk over the years rather than all at once. Would people have just accepted that as normal battery degradation? I also wonder if, over time, Tesla will realize that charging the Model 3 at 250kW is too much and will dial that back? Personally, I think other manufacturers will end up having to push the envelope a little harder to keep up, but maybe the answer lies somewhere in between. After all, how will we know what the technology is truly capable of unless you push the envelope? Maybe I wouldn't be happy if I was an owner of an affected car, being a "test bed" for the technology, but in the end it benefits us all.

Mike

You are right. Tesla is pushing the limits, the others are on the conservative side. The oldest Teslas are from late 2012 (just a handfull, though. Meaningful production numbers were more like late 2013). So there is really no experience from history.
I'm very confident that the 250 kW charge rate of the Model 3 is just a marketing stunt. The battery is not capable of taking that charge rate for more than just a few minutes and not on a regular basis without consequences on battery health. It's the same in my old 85. It peaks to 130 kW to make the owner feel good but it drops rapidly. I really wish people would stop looking and talking about peak charge rate. It's virtually meaningless when the rate drops so fast as the battery fills up.

 

[David99]

Since installing 2019.28.2.5 on my 2013 P85 with about 64K miles (now), I’ve charged my car several times. To recap, my 89% charge PRIOR to the installation of 2019.16.x was 227 miles, with an indicated 74kWh battery capacity per Tesla Remote (formerly Remote S). AFTER 2019.28.2.5 was installed, my 89% range dropped to 199 miles with a 66kWh indicated battery capacity. Thus, I experienced a range drop of 28 miles at a 89% charge (approximately 31 mile drop at 100% charge level) and lost 8kWh of indicated battery capacity.

I have driven multiple trips of approximately 40 miles/trip and then charged using a HPWC charging at a 64 Amp rate. My range has increased as follows:
1st charge - 89% yielded 200 mile range;
2nd charge - 89% yielded 201 mile range;
3rd charge - 89% yielded 202 mile range; and
4th charge - 89% yielded 204 mile range.
Tesla Remote (formerly Remote S) indicates a battery capacity of 67kWh.

I’ll update as I do more charging. Range us increasing, but painfully slow. How much total range will be recovered is unknown. I do have another appointment for Tesla to examine my battery (again) in light of the fact that error messages appeared that the battery voltage was too low, even though the car indicated the battery had a 154 mile range on it.

Looks like the latest software is making adjustments much slower over time. BTW, 'Tesla Remote' has no way to directly read the battery capacity. It's not a data set sent by the car. I assume the app calculates it from the rates miles, battery percentage and the (in)official consumption numbers.

 

[Droschke]

Since installing 2019.28.2.5 on my 2013 P85 with about 64K miles (now), I’ve charged my car several times. To recap, my 89% charge PRIOR to the installation of 2019.16.x was 227 miles, with an indicated 74kWh battery capacity per Tesla Remote (formerly Remote S). AFTER 2019.28.2.5 was installed, my 89% range dropped to 199 miles with a 66kWh indicated battery capacity. Thus, I experienced a range drop of 28 miles at a 89% charge (approximately 31 mile drop at 100% charge level) and lost 8kWh of indicated battery capacity.

I have driven multiple trips of approximately 40 miles/trip and then charged using a HPWC charging at a 64 Amp rate. My range has increased as follows:
1st charge - 89% yielded 200 mile range;
2nd charge - 89% yielded 201 mile range;
3rd charge - 89% yielded 202 mile range; and
4th charge - 89% yielded 204 mile range.
Tesla Remote (formerly Remote S) indicates a battery capacity of 67kWh.

I’ll update as I do more charging. Range us increasing, but painfully slow. How much total range will be recovered is unknown. I do have another appointment for Tesla to examine my battery (again) in light of the fact that error messages appeared that the battery voltage was too low, even though the car indicated the battery had a 154 mile range on it.

I couldn't find your info on the sheet.

 

[Chaserr]

It makes me wonder what would have happened if Tesla had known about the long term limits when they built the cars. Seems like they could have coded an algorithm to examine battery performance over time and make the system slowly reduce battery capacity (and charge rate) over time, distributing that 10% chunk over the years rather than all at once. Would people have just accepted that as normal battery degradation?

That would still be visible as a software limited maximum charge voltage and slower acceleration rather than looking like actual degradation. If we look at other EVs that degrade very fast, cars like a 2012 Leaf have lost half their range to degradation but they aren't half as fast as they were.

 

[gmo43]

Well NCDS is useless. Denied on insufficient evidence, which sucks because I had a dead line to submit and by then it was too late with a lot from what I had learned here.

So now I hope we get somewhere with this class action since Tesla seems to think what they stole is justified.

 

[Guy V]

Since installing 2019.28.2.5 on my 2013 P85 with about 64K miles (now), I’ve charged my car several times. To recap, my 89% charge PRIOR to the installation of 2019.16.x was 227 miles, with an indicated 74kWh battery capacity per Tesla Remote (formerly Remote S). AFTER 2019.28.2.5 was installed, my 89% range dropped to 199 miles with a 66kWh indicated battery capacity. Thus, I experienced a range drop of 28 miles at a 89% charge (approximately 31 mile drop at 100% charge level) and lost 8kWh of indicated battery capacity.

I have driven multiple trips of approximately 40 miles/trip and then charged using a HPWC charging at a 64 Amp rate. My range has increased as follows:
1st charge - 89% yielded 200 mile range;
2nd charge - 89% yielded 201 mile range;
3rd charge - 89% yielded 202 mile range; and
4th charge - 89% yielded 204 mile range.
Tesla Remote (formerly Remote S) indicates a battery capacity of 67kWh.

I’ll update as I do more charging. Range us increasing, but painfully slow. How much total range will be recovered is unknown. I do have another appointment for Tesla to examine my battery (again) in light of the fact that error messages appeared that the battery voltage was too low, even though the car indicated the battery had a 154 mile range on it.

Could we be seeing a difference in rate of recovery between 2019.28.2.5 and 2019.28.2, with 2019.28.2.5 worse?

I also have a 2013 P85 with 2019.28.2.5 and it seems more in line with your results, but I don't drive as much so do not charge as often, and admittedly can't come close to your enviable consistency and precision.

 

[KArnold]

Well NCDS is useless

Denied getting a hearing? Or you had a hearing and it was decided against you? And if you had a hearing was it in person?

I had a successful yellow screen decision. But that wasn't nearly as complex as this. I think any hearing has to be face-to-face and clearly articulated, dumbed down so your average arbitrator, who knows nothing about batteries or EV's, can understand. That's not easy to do.

Heck, I've owned an MS for 2 years, I've read every post here, and there are posts way over my head.

 

[Chaserr]

DI think any hearing has to be face-to-face and clearly articulated, dumbed down so your average arbitrator, who knows nothing about batteries or EV's, can understand. That's not easy to do.

This is why we need to make it clear they reduced battery voltage. It is a hard number that has direct impacts on range and power and can't be dismissed any of the excuses offered because it's undeniable. Range loss is a side effect of them reducing this number, as are many other things they sold that are all contingent on a battery that charges to the default 4.2v - including the EPA's official government data. Reducing the voltage makes them uncompliant with EPA tested vehicles.

If it helps in a face to face meeting, bring a single 18650 cell and explain that it is not charged to 100% unless it is at 4.2 volts. Charging it to 80% reduces how long it can be used, and how powerfully it can exert energy. A battery with less charge in hand makes it easy to identify our cars with toys that slow down and act incorrectly when not preoperly charged. This is an experience most people will recognize, and that's exactly what Tesla did to us.

 

[DW254]

Update. As of this morning during a supercharge noticed a 10-mile range return in my 2014 S85. May range had dropped to 222 and is now at 232. However it took exactly one hour to charge from 20% to 90%. Started out at the 100Kw charge rate and quickly dropped to 75Kw dropping constantly until at 90% it was charging at only 20Kw rate. Dismal.

My most recent response from Tesla Support when asking for a battery exchange and offering to pay $10K for an upgrade:

Thank you for your reply.
We sincerely apologize about any communication issues you may have experienced with our support and service team so far.
I would recommend scheduling a service appointment with your local Tesla service center to receive further assistance.
Our service team will be able to diagnose your vehicle's High Voltage Battery System and provide you with options to rectify any range issues you may be currently experiencing in your Model S.
Unfortunately, we are not able to provide any exchange offers at this time but, your local service team will be able to provide a better insight to resolve this situation.
Please let us know if you have any further questions or concerns, thank you!
Best regards,
S. P. | Tesla Support

I've bolded two words (rectify and resolve) which are indications they are curiously now acknowledging the issue. I have sent an email to our service center manager, including this note from Tesla support that I would like to make another appointment at the service center, but before making the trip what to have him ensure in advance that he has "options" in place to "rectify" range loss to "resolve" this situation. Haven't heard back yet, but will keep all posted.

 

[Chaserr]

I hope you get some reasonable options to rectify this issue and resolve the problem. To be honest I'd leap on a $10,000 exchange program for an upgrade and it's essentially the same sort of "resolution" Tesla offered to victims of their previous 691-gate controversy.

 

[swegman]

I couldn't find your info on the sheet.

That’s because it’s not on there.

 

[mjmiron]

Well NCDS is useless. Denied on insufficient evidence, which sucks because I had a dead line to submit and by then it was too late with a lot from what I had learned here.

So now I hope we get somewhere with this class action since Tesla seems to think what they stole is justified.

Very sorry to hear that I am waiting on a response from Tesla myself which I should have later today or tomorrow and will update the forum afterwards. I have a little different scenario I think than most as I just purchased my car back in May so not sure if that will help me or not.

With the most recent update I have been gaining mileage back was 210 now after last night charging it was 220.

 

[gmo43]

Denied getting a hearing? Or you had a hearing and it was decided against you? And if you had a hearing was it in person?

I had a successful yellow screen decision. But that wasn't nearly as complex as this. I think any hearing has to be face-to-face and clearly articulated, dumbed down so your average arbitrator, who knows nothing about batteries or EV's, can understand. That's not easy to do.

Heck, I've owned an MS for 2 years, I've read every post here, and there are posts way over my head.

Denied at hearing. Technically in person hearing is via documents too.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

This is why we need to make it clear they reduced battery voltage. It is a hard number that has direct impacts on range and power and can't be dismissed any of the excuses offered because it's undeniable. Range loss is a side effect of them reducing this number, as are many other things they sold that are all contingent on a battery that charges to the default 4.2v - including the EPA's official government data. Reducing the voltage makes them uncompliant with EPA tested vehicles.

If it helps in a face to face meeting, bring a single 18650 cell and explain that it is not charged to 100% unless it is at 4.2 volts. Charging it to 80% reduces how long it can be used, and how powerfully it can exert energy. A battery with less charge in hand makes it easy to identify our cars with toys that slow down and act incorrectly when not preoperly charged. This is an experience most people will recognize, and that's exactly what Tesla did to us.

Unfortunately I don't think any of that will make sense to an arbitrator. Even from my vantage point it soudns like hearsay. An owner explaining all the technicals is similarly useless because the owner is not an expert and would not be qualified to explain such things. The only way, I believe, would be to have a battery expert explain what's happening.

Even then, Tesla could say that the reduction in voltage is a direct response to cell degradation and within their purview to manage. How would one prove in arbitration that Tesla's stance is not true? We have no clue what's going on inside our cells.

Tesla is relying on the complexity of the issue to confuse.

 

[cpa]

Tesla is relying on the complexity of the issue to confuse.

California CCP Section 1283.05 permits depositions and discovery in arbitration cases. While Tesla certainly can try to obfuscate, ultimately through depositions and discovery and the selection of plaintiff experts, the kitty will eventually be released from the burlap.

It may not be worth it to spend tens of thousands of dollars on all this, but there are those to whom principle is more important than money because they have more than enough of the latter.

EDIT: The CCP indicates that for injury arbitration, 1283.05 is automatic. All other situations (non-injury) are governed by the agreement between Tesla and us owners. I do not recall the agreement that I signed, so it is likely that we signed away our rights under 1283.05.

 

[Chaserr]

It may not be worth it to spend tens of thousands of dollars on all this, but there are those to whom principle is more important than money because they have more than enough of the latter.

Tesla believes it's worth more than that or we wouldn't have come this far already.

 

[DILIE]

Could we be seeing a difference in rate of recovery between 2019.28.2.5 and 2019.28.2, with 2019.28.2.5 worse?

I also have a 2013 P85 with 2019.28.2.5 and it seems more in line with your results, but I don't drive as much so do not charge as often, and admittedly can't come close to your enviable consistency and precision.

Has anyone that isn't affected received either of the 2019.28 updates?

 

[dark cloud]

Has anyone that isn't affected received either of the 2019.28 updates?

Yes, me and over half of the AP1 cars are on 28.2 or newer by the looks of it. We have no idea of the % of cars affected, but I assume it is nowhere close to 50%; I wager less than 10%? . I noticed no change in anything other than chess with 28.2, but I have not charged to 90% lately.

 

[r1200gs4ok]

A bit off topic here, but still related re regen and recent SW updated. After May 15th update, I received multiple updates in June.
on topic, re regen:
One of those updates (I don't know which one but could maybe figure it out) seems to have reduced regen in some way. Specifically, I see the car slowing down much less above around 50mph. No yellow dashes, and green line seems to go all the way down, but car is slowing down considerably less than prior to these updates. I believe I also figured out that when car is hot (so not necessarily hot outside, but just car is hot, eg. sitting out or being driven in the sun for a while), the overall regen (I mean slowing down of the car) is much less.
Talked to SC, and got "customer education" resolution where regen is dependent on many factors - I don't doubt that, but it sure behaves different now.

this is a bit off topic re AC:
another one changed how my AC auto mode behaves. Typically I keep it at 74F, and it is comfortable - again this is in AUTO mode with re-circulation of air. After one update in July, suddenly I had to keep it at 70 to be even somewhat comfortable. There was no changes in weather that week or any other parameters (same time, same road, same temp, car parked in garage, etc). I did not make conclusion about this after one 5min ride. This was over multiple days, and am damn certain there was a change in behavior.
Change was again overnight right after SW update. Notified SC, and they pushed another update (no idea now if it was the same or a new update but was within a week of previous one), and miraculously back to 74F was very comfortable. Btw, car is tinted, including the roof.
28.2 seems to have changed that again. now i have to keep it at 70 again just to be somewhat comfortable. SC again pushed the update (at my request), and that didn't "fix it".
Anyone else has similar situation?

yep....after 28.2 my a/c is now having to be set at 69-70 to stay comfortable...before is was set at 73-74 and were very cool and comfortable

 

[David99]

Has anyone that isn't affected received either of the 2019.28 updates?

Not affected here and I'm still on 2019.24.4. Even had a service recently where they almost always force install the latest firmware, but they didn't.