Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[Spacey73]

The production date is on the drivers door jamb. Is this at 90 or 100%?

Sorry I forgot to add total charge % .... it’s around the 223 miles area at 100% charge

 

[DJRas]

Ok, i have been following this thread almost from the beginning and have posted here several times, but i still want to give huge thanks for David and all the others involved in moving this forward and for all the priceless info that has been updated on the first post of this thread.
Great work!!

I recently installed Scan My Tesla app and made it work with my late 2014 S85.
I found out i have 74.5 kWh of Nominal full Pack and 75.5 kWh of Usable full pack (the other 4.0 kWh is the buffer).
Are these figures trustable and do they show i have been capped by Tesla, or is that only verifiable through the BMS?
I think i have read somewhere that an S85, when new, should have 81.5 kWh of Nominal full Pack and 77.5 kWh of Usable full pack, is this correct?

I think you made a typing error. You say Nominal full pack of 74.5 and Usable full pack of 75.5. I believe you meant Usable full pack of 70.5 .
If that is the case then you are likely NOT affected and what you are seeing is normal degradation. I had about 68.2 kWh Usable before May 15. Now I have 60.0.

But the way to KNOW is to look at the max voltage at 100%. If it is not close to 4.2 volts (say above 4.18) then you indeed are capped

Please report that number because what we have seen is the cap is set to something below 4.1 volts on all of the affected cars.

Thank you very much for recognizing the work we all have been doing.

 

[DJRas]

All this time my car remained unaffected despite having very high mileage and supercharging a lot. I just noticed today that I lost 8 - 10 mils or range and aprox 2 kW of capacity. Cell voltage is definitely lower than it was before at the same percentage. I'm on the road and don't have access to my old data to compare it exactly but it definitely happened.

That means any car that wasn't affected so far can still be affected and Tesla doesn't have a grip on the issue.

I saw your data which shows the capping didn't happen following a new update. You had been on the same version for quite a while.
This proves that there is some trigger condition that the software is looking for to induce the capping
That is a significant learning!

 

[tomas]

I saw your data which shows the capping didn't happen following a new update. You had been on the same version for quite a while.
This proves that there is some trigger condition that the software is looking for to induce the capping
That is a significant learning!View attachment 472712View attachment 472713

I do not know how it could be otherwise. Only 3 options I can think of to code a restriction that only hits some cars:
1) list of affected VINs in a table
2) check during the install process (1 time)
3) code that continuously checks for condition and branches accordingly.

1 and 2 are ridiculous. Has to be 3. Ergo, unaffected cars can become affected if they meet the condition.

 

[Droschke]

The amount of information requested from Tesla by NHTSA is enourmous.

The Microsoft Access 2010 requirement is the one I'm worried about You think they are up to it?

 

[DJRas]

I do not know how it could be otherwise. Only 3 options I can think of to code a restriction that only hits some cars:
1) list of affected VINs in a table
2) check during the install process (1 time)
3) code that continuously checks for condition and branches accordingly.

1 and 2 are ridiculous. Has to be 3. Ergo, unaffected cars can become affected if they meet the condition.

You got it!
That is the significant learning!
Unaffected cars can become affected once they meet some trigger condition.

Now, what IS that trigger condition?

 

[swegman]

I recently installed Scan My Tesla app and made it work with my late 2014 S85.
I found out i have 74.5 kWh of Nominal full Pack and 75.5 kWh of Usable full pack (the other 4.0 kWh is the buffer)./QUOTE]

Please double check these numbers. They do not sound right.

Charge your car to 100% SOC and check ScanMyTesla to see what the cell voltage is (whether it is 4.2 volts or less that that). It will also tell you the battery capacity and the range for a fully charged battery pack.

 

[JMG]

Just saw a story on this randomly this morning on Good Morning America.

 

[gmo43]

The amount of information requested from Tesla by NHTSA is enourmous. If you read the letter it require a mountain of information about each and every car, and details about every update since Jan of this year. Only a small subset of the information will be needed to determine if the petition will substantiate an investigation. The rest will be used to aid in the investigation which is almost certainly forthcoming at this point. The writing is on the wall, as they say.
Some in this thread are taking an ostrich-stance, on the other hand.

Where is this info located?

 

[Droschke]

All this time my car remained unaffected despite having very high mileage and supercharging a lot. I just noticed today that I lost 8 - 10 mils or range and aprox 2 kW of capacity. Cell voltage is definitely lower than it was before at the same percentage. I'm on the road and don't have access to my old data to compare it exactly but it definitely happened.

That means any car that wasn't affected so far can still be affected and Tesla doesn't have a grip on the issue.

Well, ours was sudden. Bang. A hefty 30 miles at once for me. May be they are getting a bit smart and are going for gradual cap hoping the owners won't notice/complain

 

[Droschke]

”limited charging to 80% of capacity” Isn’t that exaggeration?

Close enough if you look at the worst cases reported in the Tracker.

 

[swegman]

As a related side note, my car was forcefully updated from ver 8 to ver 9 (2919.16.2) by Tesla on or about June 20, 2019. Then I updated to 2019.28.2.5 since I was now on ver 9 anyway snd had my battery capped. I’ve been on this version since.

Some people may recall that when I complained to Tesla about my battery capacity, I was told I am part of a (non-voluntary) test group in which a Tesla is trying different BMS firmware.

Two days ago I received notice of a firmware update for my car. After checking with some people as to whether there would be any negative to updating to what I assumed was ver 10, I went ahead and did the install. When the update was completed I checked and saw I was still on 2019.28.2.5. No ver 10 for what is alleged to be a “test” car.

 

[raphy3]

Where is this info located?

if you mean the info about what NHTSA has asked for, it's in the letter they sent to Tesla. The letter has now been posted in a few news stories whch are linked to here in the thread, primarily by @DJRas. If you're referring to where the info on each car that NHTSA has asked for is located, only Tesla knows that, but you know they have it, capping shows that!

 

[bhzmark]

This proves that there is some trigger condition that the software is looking for to induce the capping
That is a significant learning!

Indeed, that is very interesting and confirms how I suspected the software works -- in general and for this specific case. it reads the condition of the battery and modifies the charging, discharging, cooling, heating and other functions accordingly. In one sense or another all functions of battery performance are controlled by the software which itself determines its actions based on the state of the battery. When the battery exhibits certain wear or other characteristics it will change the performance of the battery accordingly.

This update looked for a new condition, or it used a new metric of a condition that it already measured, and the software found that some batteries had that condition and adopted accordingly.

The issue is primarily whether that condition that was now detected and caused the trigger is a warrantable defect, or is non-warrantable wear from usage.

 

[Droschke]

We are discussing this as if anyone with a brain actually believes a journalistic clickbait headline. What is the world coming to!

I've found that particular author's writings at insideevs to be a bit off the mark here and there. So, that's not the point to worry so much about. The point is one should stop exaggerating himself while accusing others of the same. You see, the poster you are responding to has claimed:

Yep, another article making false claims.

I asked him which other articles he believes are making false claims. He went mute as usual.

 

[Droschke]

Where is this info located?

Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

It's also in the Wiki, the links section all the way at the bottom.

 

[Droschke]

As a related side note, my car was forcefully updated from ver 8 to ver 9 (2919.16.2) by Tesla on or about June 20, 2019. Then I updated to 2019.28.2.5 since I was now on ver 9 anyway snd had my battery capped. I’ve been on this version since.

Some people may recall that when I complained to Tesla about my battery capacity, I was told I am part of a (non-voluntary) test group in which a Tesla is trying different BMS firmware.

Two days ago I received notice of a firmware update for my car. After checking with some people as to whether there would be any negative to updating to what I assumed was ver 10, I went ahead and did the install. When the update was completed I checked and saw I was still on 2019.28.2.5. No ver 10 for what is alleged to be a “test” car.

That is very interesting. Then, looks like you are in that "test group" you did not volunteer for.

 

[Nick70d]

My 2015 70D still knows what a proper 90% charge is.
I purposely charge slowly at 120 volts and 12 amps.
At 188 miles it says I have 4 hours and 50 minutes remaining.
Then 4 minutes later charging is complete at the same 188 miles instead of about 207 miles that I used to get. If it continued charging for the remaining 4 hours and 50 minutes it would be about 207 miles.View attachment 472407 View attachment 472410

Mine at 100%

 

[Droschke]

The issue is primarily whether that condition that was now detected and caused the trigger is a warrantable defect, ...

... or is non-warrantable wear from usage.

Nonsense. There is no such a phenomenon as "non-warrantable wear from usage" as it applies to the Tesla batteries. It's a myth. Please stop repeating it as it confuses the discourse.

The battery usage and preventing its premature wear are all under control of the Tesla's BMS.

The BMS was sold and paid for to prevent the "wear from usage". Tesla breaks it, Tesla owns it. Period.

The "non-warrantable wear from usage" applies to your tires.

 

[DJRas]

Nonsense. There is no such a phenomenon as "non-warrantable wear from usage" as it applies to the Tesla batteries. It's a myth. Please stop repeating it as it confuses the discourse.

The battery usage and preventing its premature wear are all under control of the Tesla's BMS.

The BMS was sold and paid for to prevent the "wear from usage". Tesla breaks it, Tesla owns it. Period.

The "non-warrantable wear from usage" applies to your tires.

I agree!
There is no "mon-warrantable wear from usage" that could render 5% (or more) of the top end of the pack unusable from one day to the next