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

Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Tesla has written that updates are required not optional in the latest warranty agreements. Prior warranties I am not sure..
In prior warranties, especially for classic 85s. Updates are not required. Let's just put that myth to bed now. It wasn't even a requirement in 2017. This requirement is very new and came along with M3 mass production.
 
Actually it does. Anyone that bought a used Model S/X from Tesla since they changed the warranty. (I don't know what date they made that change but I know it was no later than February, 2019.)

For example @mjmiron bought his in May of this year.

Edit: maybe it is more nuanced than that. They have to keep up on software updates to maintain the bumper-2-bumper warranty but maybe they have to don't for the drive-unit/battery warranty. (Since with a used car sale you get a "new" bumper-2-bumper warranty and the remaining orginial drive-unit/battery warranty.)
That is a 2019 used car warranty. Prior to 2019 there were two used and CPO warranties which didn't have this requirement.
 
Not at all in defence of Tesla's actions, but to play devils advocate...
If condition X is dangerous and they have deployed software to check for it and found no instance of it in the fleet, only Z...
Do they have to notify anyone of a so far undetected safety concern?
We are also talking about whether Z is a safety risk without the update.

If it is a safety hazard to not install updates Tesla absolutely needs to warn everyone of that. I would think it would require a reminder of that with each and every update that addresses a safety issue.

Arguments about whether it voids any versions of warranties is a red herring.
 
If your battery has the issue, the chargerate/range is capped, thereby "resolving" the issue.
If your battery have the issue and you refuse to update, your battery constitutes a safety hazard.
Therefore you should update.

Atleast thats how I understood wk057.

Easy to say.

By "resolving the issue", you mean a battery pack that can not hold high voltage and fast charging?

If that's the case, we need to know why? These batteries are still under warranty. Mine is 4.5 years old with 43K miles and was capped with 30 miles loss overnight.
 
If anyone bought their car used from Tesla this year and suffers from battery or charge gate work with your local service center and complain to them. It took two months but they finally caved and are replacing my battery with what size pack not sure but it’s been since June. Maybe it’s luck or PR not sure but it worked for me.
:) Thumbs up!

This is what they'll need to do for everyone else. It sounds like they realized they can't sell you less than you bought, and there isn't a time limit for take-backs that they could use to justify doing it to the rest of us. I hope you become an example in the class action of how they handle these warranty issues appropriately.

We are also talking about whether Z is a safety risk without the update.

If it is a safety hazard to not install updates Tesla absolutely needs to warn everyone of that. I would think it would require a reminder of that with each and every update that addresses a safety issue.

Arguments about whether it voids any versions of warranties is a red herring.

They don't need a perpetual software reminder that leaves owners guessing - and in fact that's still illegal. Tesla is already compliant with how the law tracks issues like this: They maintain a list of all possible cars needing a recall and contact all owners informing them they need to have the recall or recall inspection performed. In the case of a software work around they may need to send a notification that informs owners that portions of the car as originally purchased will be disabled as a safety measure until the recalled parts have been repaired or replaced at a service center. They then apply the needed fixes or replacement parts to cars where the inspection determines that a recall is necessary and only after the recall is done in compliance with the filed NHTSA declaration is the car marked down as having been notified, inspected, repaired, and has passed the recall. The owner is always kept informed of course, lying to owners is illegal.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Droschke
I'll just leave this here:
In the aftermath, Lee Iacocca had this to say: “Clamming up is what we did at Ford in the late ’70s when we were bombarded with suits over the Pinto, which was involved in a lot of gas tank fires. The suits might have bankrupted the company, so we kept our mouths shut for fear of saying anything that just one jury might have construed as an admission of guilt. Winning in court was our top priority; nothing else mattered.”
 
If anyone bought their car used from Tesla this year and suffers from battery or charge gate work with your local service center and complain to them. It took two months but they finally caved and are replacing my battery with what size pack not sure but it’s been since June. Maybe it’s luck or PR not sure but it worked for me.
Congrats! Sounds like SCs have leeway in deciding these issues, so that's good news (if your SC is nice).
 
:) Thumbs up!

This is what they'll need to do for everyone else. It sounds like they realized they can't sell you less than you bought, and there isn't a time limit for take-backs that they could use to justify doing it to the rest of us. I hope you become an example in the class action of how they handle these warranty issues appropriately.



They don't need a perpetual software reminder that leaves owners guessing - and in fact that's still illegal. Tesla is already compliant with how the law tracks issues like this: They maintain a list of all possible cars needing a recall and contact all owners informing them they need to have the recall or recall inspection performed. In the case of a software work around they may need to send a notification that informs owners that portions of the car as originally purchased will be disabled as a safety measure until the recalled parts have been repaired or replaced at a service center. They then apply the needed fixes or replacement parts to cars where the inspection determines that a recall is necessary and only after the recall is done in compliance with the filed NHTSA declaration is the car marked down as having been notified, inspected, repaired, and has passed the recall. The owner is always kept informed of course, lying to owners is illegal.
Wouldn't that be nice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Droschke
AChaserr I understand your position, and don't disagree on the concept. My point is this, in a court of law, the term Safety will not be used as it is being used here, it will be defined, by the court, through evidence. In new battery tech, it will be an argument amongst the experts, as to what constitutes a safety issue, and decided by the court. Not wanting to start more speculation, and given that Tesla will have to start answering questions, which will provide real information, I will give just one example of what I am talking about, for clarity, and then speculate no more, as it can be endless, and we are missing most of the relevant facts. SPECULATION. Tesla might argue that condition Y has never caused a safety anomaly, and no damage or injuries have been caused by condition Y, and further, that nerfing the batteries eliminates any potential of Y turning into a safety issue. Therefore this is a contractual issue. Owners might argue that having to nerf the batteries to avoid the potential of Y becoming a possible safety issue, is in itself a safety issue , and therefore the batteries are damaged beyond "normal degradation" and must be repaired or replaced under warranty. END OF SPECULATION, and I speculate no mas, until some facts come from Tesla.
 
AChaserr I understand your position, and don't disagree on the concept. My point is this, in a court of law, the term Safety will not be used as it is being used here, it will be defined, by the court, through evidence. In new battery tech, it will be an argument amongst the experts, as to what constitutes a safety issue, and decided by the court. Not wanting to start more speculation, and given that Tesla will have to start answering questions, which will provide real information, I will give just one example of what I am talking about, for clarity, and then speculate no more, as it can be endless, and we are missing most of the relevant facts. SPECULATION. Tesla might argue that condition Y has never caused a safety anomaly, and no damage or injuries have been caused by condition Y, and further, that nerfing the batteries eliminates any potential of Y turning into a safety issue. Therefore this is a contractual issue. Owners might argue that having to nerf the batteries to avoid the potential of Y becoming a possible safety issue, is in itself a safety issue , and therefore the batteries are damaged beyond "normal degradation" and must be repaired or replaced under warranty. END OF SPECULATION, and I speculate no mas, until some facts come from Tesla.
No, it will be decided by a jury.
 
And that specific court is only going to be found when / if federal criminal charges are levied after it has been determined that a safety recall was not performed per federal laws (notification of owners, proper safety protocols followed, safety repairs performed, etc).

This thread is about us mitigating the problems caused by Tesla's theft of property we purchased from them. If there are criminal charges that stem from their motivations for these thefts, it will be an entirely separate issue - but the outcome of those criminal charges could mean we wither get what they owe us back, or we can't if the company ceases to exist. Regardless, criminal motivations are a side show. We simply want our property returned, and right now this is an ongoing matter for civil courts. We all know there were crimes, we hope there weren't any murderous intentions behind hiding the reasoning for the crimes we've been subjected to, and all we want is for the stolen property to be returned in whatever manner they are able to do so.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: DJRas and Droschke
After reading the latest from wk57 and the ensuing comments, is my inference plausible?

We do not have batterygate for our 2014 S85. However, we do have chargegate. The software update(s) that restricted the charging capacity of the individual cells did not affect us because the software did not detect the issue at the time of the installation. However, to reduce or mitigate the possibility of our battery cells developing this condition in the future, it installed chargegate to throttle the Supercharging rate throughout the session.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJRas
And the court is only found whenfederal criminal charges are levied after it has been determined that a safety recall was not performed per frederal laws (notification of owners, proper mitigation, etc).

This thread is about us mitigating the problems caused by Tesla's theft of property we purchased from them. If there are criminal charges that stem from their motivations for these thefts, it will be an entirely separate issue - but the outcome of those criminal charges could mean we wither get what they owe us back, or we can't if the company ceases to exist. Regardless, criminal motivations are a side show. We simply want our property returned, and right now this is an ongoing matter for civil courts.

Chaserr,

I am just trying to get a handle on some of your comments over the past weeks. You have used the word "illegal" with frequency. (I am not a lawyer, but I have been a percipient witness a few times in my salad days.) The lawyers for whom I testified made it abundantly clear to me:

Illegal means that there is a statute on the books that has been violated. It can be something as insignificant as a local ordinance prohibiting spitting on the sidewalk to heinous crimes like murder to civil matters like practicing law without a license! (LOL)

Everything else that is legally wrong is unlawful. Breach of contract is not illegal; it is unlawful. Torts are unlawful, but they are not illegal.

I am just asking for my personal benefit when you use the term illegal, if you know for certain that what Tesla is doing or has done has violated consumer protection laws or other federal or state statutes, and what statutes they are. Or is much of what you assert is illegal is more along the lines of breach of contract, breach of warranty, or other tortious acts including interference, and therefore unlawful?
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Droschke
Last edited: