restricted regen - not fully charge, nor very cold

[Rocky_H]

I totally don't get why this had to be such a big change in car behavior.

Well, that's you.

It is infuriating that Tesla promotes based on the idea of win-win and ground breaking technology, but then after they've made the sale, they just shrug and say ' whoops, we aren't as good as we claimed after all, so now please accept a downgrade for your car

Oh jeez. Do people really not get this? The reduction in regen is not because they want to personally irritate or insult you. It's to avoid damage to the batteries.

I think a lot of people forget this who gripe about reduced regen. You need to realize that with the larger and larger power of the motors they have in the cars, they total regen available is getting up to 60kW+. If you think about it the other way, that is a ton of recharging power, and if you try to force that full rate into a cold battery, you WILL damage it. So yeah, of course it's going to be reduced some to 20 or 30kW when it's cold.

 

[faughtz]

Well, that's you.

Oh jeez. Do people really not get this? The reduction in regen is not because they want to personally irritate or insult you. It's to avoid damage to the batteries.

I think a lot of people forget this who gripe about reduced regen. You need to realize that with the larger and larger power of the motors they have in the cars, they total regen available is getting up to 60kW+. If you think about it the other way, that is a ton of recharging power, and if you try to force that full rate into a cold battery, you WILL damage it. So yeah, of course it's going to be reduced some to 20 or 30kW when it's cold.

So you’re saying I have a damaged battery, since for the first five years of ownership I never saw this limitation due to temperature and now I see it frequently? Tesla cannot or least should not be able to continue crippling the performance of my car for safety or for warranty liability.

 

[Battpower]

Well, that's you.

Oh jeez. Do people really not get this? The reduction in regen is not because they want to personally irritate or insult you. It's to avoid damage to the batteries.

I think a lot of people forget this who gripe about reduced regen. You need to realize that with the larger and larger power of the motors they have in the cars, they total regen available is getting up to 60kW+. If you think about it the other way, that is a ton of recharging power, and if you try to force that full rate into a cold battery, you WILL damage it. So yeah, of course it's going to be reduced some to 20 or 30kW when it's cold.

I totally get it.

I've put the same point you make. Yes, I want my battery to last. No, I don't want to pointlessly destroy my car just so regen works.

BUT

Compared with the first version software I had, I have seen regen reduced significantly and not just at what I call cold. My other non Tesla has 8 year battery wty to 75% capacity. It always gives some regen. and if ambient is above 15 deg C I get near max regen.

If the spec of a car depends SO much on temp, then imo you should give some of that in the spec. EG: supercharge limited to xxx kW below y deg C. My over all point is that saying you have a 100 kwh battery that delivers certain levels of performance is meaningless if it can only deliver that performance in very specific situations.

 

[Battpower]

Just out of curiosity, have you calculated how much it costs in electricity not having full regen for your trips? I'm willing to bet its very little. Not trying to say that makes it justifiable for you in particular.

Honestly, it's not the cost. I mean it might be $5 a month max. But as a percentage of the cost of those short journeys, it's probably 50%.

 

[Battpower]

Tesla cannot or least should not be able to continue crippling the performance of my car for safety or for warranty liability.

This seems to be the issue that SOME people don't get. When you buy a car like the MS, and you decide exactly what spec to go with, the difference in cost for fairly small differences in performance / range / features can be significant. (like 7k for FSD or to get the Raven LR plus) So, it matters that the spec you buy actually is the spec that you see during ownership, without risk of capping / nerfing / reducing performance to keep you car working (and reduce Tesla's liabilities).

Tesla are not doing you a favor by saying 'we have knobled your charging and part of your braking system only works as advertised in hot weather, but don't worry, it's for your own benefit'!

 

[ucmndd]

Tesla are not doing you a favor by saying 'we have knobled your charging and part of your braking system only works as advertised in hot weather, but don't worry, it's for your own benefit'!

I think the important point in your post is "as advertised". I think there's a valid argument to be made when talking about OTA changes that impact actual ADVERTISED specs or performance. Power output, acceleration times, rated range, etc.

You were never sold a car that advertised a specific amount or capability of regenerative braking. The idea that Tesla can never change vehicle behavior in the interest of longevity or any other reason is stupid, and if you want a car that never changes from the moment you drive it off the lot, you should probably pick literally any other brand.

I for one think regen changes in the interest of increasing battery longevity and reducing degradation - i.e. responding to fleet data - are a great feature. Faughtz on the other hand has a massive bone to pick with Tesla and can't see any change as anything other than "crippling the performance" of his car.

Who's right? Who decides who's right?

 

[faughtz]

I think the important point in your post is "as advertised". I think there's a valid argument to be made when talking about OTA changes that impact actual ADVERTISED specs or performance. Power output, acceleration times, rated range, etc.

You were never sold a car that advertised a specific amount or capability of regenerative braking. The idea that Tesla can never change vehicle behavior in the interest of longevity or any other reason is stupid, and if you want a car that never changes from the moment you drive it off the lot, you should probably pick literally any other brand.

I for one think regen changes in the interest of increasing battery longevity and reducing degradation - i.e. responding to fleet data - are a great feature. Faughtz on the other hand has a massive bone to pick with Tesla and can't see any change as anything other than "crippling the performance" of his car.

Who's right? Who decides who's right?

I do, esp since I paid a hefty premium, and there is long list of specs that were never met. Beginning with 85kWh and 691/762 hp.

 

[ucmndd]

I do, esp since I paid a hefty premium, and there is long list of specs that were never met. Beginning with 85kWh and 691/762 hp.

No, I do. I paid a hefty premium for a car that can be changed/improved over time, which I expect to last many hundreds of thousands of miles. Tesla determining that cold-temp regen causes unnecessary damage and degradation to the battery, and fixing my car to minimize that wear and tear, is a welcome feature for me.

So I ask again. Who’s right, who decides?

 

[Battpower]

I think (know?) that there is a heavy obligation on Tesla to deliver on the spec's and claims they use to sell their cars. It is (imo) completely wrong to claim or intimate (for example) that your new Tesla will charge 50% faster than an older model, if what they mean is that it CAN charge faster, but only under rare circumstances that may not be met for some owners. (colder climate, wrong charging facilities etc). There should be a decent liklihood of the car meeting different performance claims concurrently too. IE if I can (should) expect reasonable battery performance beyond the warranty period, then it's no good if that excludes using important features like Supercharging at the claimed speed. In fact, Supercharging gives me no option to slow charge, so effectively I am trading battery longevity for Supercharging according to Tesla's own guidance.

At first, I thought 'free unlimited supercharging' would be a worthwhile benefit, but once I found out that a) it might not be very fast b) potentially damaging to the battery [Elon advises slow home charge whenever you can, plus some cars have battery capped etc] and c) you can't find out in advance of buying a car how much it's been supercharged and when charging rates might be reduced.

Point c) is not good for resale of a car, other than back to Tesla, as once the market is more mature, the perceived value will sink to that of the worse case cars as buyers can't be sure if a car is about to get restricted or not.

So who is right? Mr. Protect My Car or Miss Want What's Promised? They should not be mutually exclusive! What is missing is not Robo Taxi Mode, but 'Guniea Pig Mode' where Tesla pay you or give some other benefit for testing out features on your car. When you buy a car or upgrade that has a published spec (or otherwise permitted expectation of performance in return for the stated price) then that should be met for the vast majority of owners and for the life of the vehicle. Any use that is claimed as 'manufacturer approved' but that could likely be detrimental to the car meeting claimed specs must be made clear as part of the spec.

There will be owners (may be like me) who are more lenient on performance claims being met because I baby my car. Even if it could supercharge at 200kw, I would do my best to avoid doing so. I drive my car gently to preserve tyres and my license. I love the car, but hate being cheated, having the wool pulled over my eyes, paying extra for something that doesn't work (FSD?) and just having to sit pretty while Tesla tell me everything is normal while they make more likely shaky claims to suck in new buyers.

With the new cam viewer (which is a good thing) it is now very clear that newer cars have a brightness issue with the rear cameras. This effects me a lot when reversing in the winter. Tesla just fob me off with 'we are working on it' but with no way of me expecting a fix. Same for other owners with their own 'significant gripe'.

Can you objectively separate reasonable from unreasonable expectation? Can you objectively say if longevity or meeting claimed spec should have priority / higher value? Is it OK / acceptable / desirable for the manufacture to be able to force unwanted & /or unsolicited and often untested changes on to MY car?

Tesla's approach would perhaps be more acceptable if I was just renting the car from them. But if rental was the only option, I would not be driving a Tesla.

[Edit] Just a thought. If I buy a really expensive diving watch that's claimed good to 500m, even though I only care about it being good for dipping in a bucket of water, should I care if the manufacturer then tells me for the longevity of my watch it is now only good to 100m?

 

[CeSinge]

Oh jeez. Do people really not get this? The reduction in regen is not because they want to personally irritate or insult you. It's to avoid damage to the batteries.

I think a lot of people forget this who gripe about reduced regen.

I bought a car with an AP that worked for miles without touching the wheel - very confortable for long highway drives - behind my back they crippled it so I've now to hold my hands on the wheel and move it every 20-30s: driving myself is easier, so I don't use AP any more.
I bought a car where I could do most things with one click or touch. They upgraded the software Microsoft-style so now I've to touch the screen more for no reason, and what they added are useless games.
I bought a car with a full regen, where summer and most of winters I could drive with one pedal - behind my back they removed that for most of the year.
I bought a car with a battery good for 430km, full performance, fast Supercharging - behind my back the battery was changed to charge about 10% less, less range, and about 10-15m more waiting at SC.

I can understand that you don't care much because you may have a car only since a few months, so you get used to the changes or you didn't see them at all. For some fairly early supported of Tesla, that's a lot of change. And again, my problem is not that they change, it's the sneeky way they do it behind my back. For that reason I changed from being a fan-boy to someone who would not really recommend them any more and who will probably not buy again.

 

[CeSinge]

Who's right? Who decides who's right?

I am, or with less pretention: the customer is. I will ultimately decide if I still recommend Tesla to others as I did in the early days (answer: much less so, with much less enthusiasm, and with several caveats), and I will decide if my next car is another Tesla (answer: some time ago, that was a sure thing; today I'll evaluate the market, and if there really is nothing else, it might be, but it will be somewhat reluctantly, because I don't like buying from cheaters).

If Tesla is fine with that, then it's their calculation. They probably are, and unfortunately, some of us are kind of upset, but that's a detail for them - I undertand that.

 

[Battpower]

I don't like buying from cheaters.......

....... If Tesla is fine with that, then it's their calculation. They probably are, and unfortunately, some of us are kind of upset, but that's a detail for them - I undertand that.

How many times in a lifetime do you get a company come along like Tesla? And how many make it past the first few years? So there isn't much to compare 'The Tesla Experience' with. They have already gone from highly niche Roadster to mainstream M3 / MY in no time, aiming new models primarily at very different potential owners. So hardly surprising that the vanguard owners (to whom Tesla owes its existence) are not well catered for by the current phase of Tesla's business model.

Also, hopeful (and maybe unrealistic) early expectations and hopes are now turning into less palatable realities / necessities, which obviously resonates with earlier owners the most.

Tesla need to get their offering in line with current and future customer expectations going forwards because they are now well into mainstream delivery and the current owners will play a big part in what comes next for the company.

I would take a lot of comfort from seeing Tesla stand by its longest standing obligations and I am sure others would too.

 

[Battpower]

Actually, a year ago I was thinking of putting down a deposit for the new Roadster, but Tesla felt borderline hostile towards me as a potential client, so I decided to try them out first with MS. On the product side I would rate 8/10 so far. On service centre contact so far, 7/10 but on company image / ethics / communication its hard to give 5/10. Probably nearer 3/10 which is disappointing.

 

[SSedan]

No, I do. I paid a hefty premium for a car that can be changed/improved over time, which I expect to last many hundreds of thousands of miles. Tesla determining that cold-temp regen causes unnecessary damage and degradation to the battery, and fixing my car to minimize that wear and tear, is a welcome feature for me.

So I ask again. Who’s right, who decides?

This a heavily koolaid laden response.
I bought my car at 65k miles 2.5 years ago and it would supercharger at 120kw and has 257miles of range.
Tesla's constant updates mean now it only charges to 242miles and in cool weather my little supercharging was capped at 40kw though it sounds like I can expect 70 once it is warm. Since the westbound supercharger is 180 miles away this basically kills my ability to family road trip with the car. That stop just went from a relaxed meal to having to kill time with a wife and elementary school age kids and all there is at that charger is food and a Hallmark store.

I would gladly give back the ability to read a text to get even just the supercharging speed. I struggle to see any real benefit to the software changes other than reading text messages that my Chevy did 5 years earlier.

Someone asked if the downgrades mean Tesla was allowing abusive use of the battery and with age had to dial.it back. Absent a real reply from them, that seems to be the case. The next question is was it deliberate for the marketing value of the high range and charging speed or was it poor engineering? Based on the other things I have had fail in 30k on the car I have to lean towards poor engineering due to Elon pushing the limits too far.

 

[ucmndd]

This a heavily koolaid laden response.
I bought my car at 65k miles 2.5 years ago and it would supercharger at 120kw and has 257miles of range.

As I said in a prior post, I think there is real concern (and even legal damages to be had) when it comes to the batterygate and chargegate issues. My point in this thread the whole time is that I don’t view changing the regen profile through the same lens. They’re not the same.

 

[Battpower]

I have to lean towards poor engineering due to Elon pushing the limits too far.

Yep, I tend to agree. And I regard the main reason for doing that is to make your product look more attractive, better value and increase sales. EV's obviously have very different ownership costs from ICE, so there are loads of (new and unexpected) places to catch out new owners. I drove EV's for several years before I felt able to assess Tesla's cars and make a half informed buying decision.

There are pretty obvious examples of pushing the technology too far (most obvious battery and charge gate related) and others of making claims way ahead of what's actually possible within a reasonable time frame (FSD). FSD (EAP, AP1 etc) are all evidence of selling an over optimistic claim, then back-tracking, renaming features, muddying what claims were actually made, then reselling the same original (slightly tweaked) offer as something new and great (and probably also not deliverable).

When minor things like getting automatic wipers to behave usefully and consistently see to be such a challenge, and so many 'updates' also 'break' something, it makes you question the bigger picture.

 

[Battpower]

As I said in a prior post, I think there is real concern (and even legal damages to be had) when it comes to the batterygate and chargegate issues. My point in this thread the whole time is that I don’t view changing the regen profile through the same lens. They’re not the same.

You'd think there might be an objective view about what 'makes sense' and 'what doesn't' but who is to say what features and what financial and longevity issues are the most important / highest value for each owner?

A small suspension geometry or seat construction change is all it would take to really change the value of a car for a particular individual. When (all / most?) updates are forced unsolicited, and without even the chance to review supposed changes for your car ahead of installation, you have no control over your own property.

Regen effects braking behaviour. Braking is a safety component and also really effects how the car behaves in normal driving. If the reason a change was made was to provide an unequivocal benefit, then may be OK, but over claiming on battery capability is most likely closely linked to reducing regen especially when cold. It is not automatically a small cosmetic change (at least not for all owners) to significantly reduce regen, even though there may be good reason to do so.

 

[faughtz]

No, I do. I paid a hefty premium for a car that can be changed/improved over time, which I expect to last many hundreds of thousands of miles. Tesla determining that cold-temp regen causes unnecessary damage and degradation to the battery, and fixing my car to minimize that wear and tear, is a welcome feature for me.

So I ask again. Who’s right, who decides?

We’re both wrong. The owner of our cars, tesla, makes all these decisions for us. I’m glad you’re happy with their management of your property. But, stand by, that may change.

 

[Battpower]

I think there's a valid argument to be made when talking about OTA changes that impact actual ADVERTISED specs or performance. Power output, acceleration times, rated range, etc.

You were never sold a car that advertised a specific amount or capability of regenerative braking.

You are correct about never sold certain level of regen. But I believe I was offered one pedal driving, and this doesn't work (useably) without regen.

I want to agree with the premise that some characteristics are more fundamental to the car 'bein the same car I originally bought' but it is hard! It would likely be a lot less on my mind if Tesla fixed glitchy annoying bugs and communicated better about not significant stuff. Taken as a whole, Tesla's current approach isn't working for me and I don't want them randomly messing with features of MY car without a decent explanation before giving me a choice to accept or not.

 

[aerodyne]

Maybe a somwhat older thread, but I hit it because I was searching about this issue. I've a November 2015 S 85D. Usually, regen was only limited either when the battery was 100% full, or when the temperature was lower than about 10C/50F, and went away after about 10-15m of driving. More recently, I noticed that the regen almost never turned off - it was winter, but a mild one, with temps varying between 0-10C/32-54F.

A week ago, the car drov 15m, then was parked outside for about 45m with 20C/68F, and the regen was still limited. Only when I was almost at home, after another 15m drive, would the regen limitation begin to turn off!

Should I then conclude that after the batterygate limitations forced on us, we now also have a regengate? And if Tesla continues like this, in a few years, will Tesla even allow us to drive above 10mi/h?
I'll call a service center when that's possible, but if it really another limitation behind our back, then it's clear my next car will not be Tesla any more. I'm more and more upset about this tendency.

You have to look at the battery temp, not the outside temp.

There is regengate, search this forum and you will see posts from me and others.

However, the reduction in Regen is only occuring 5 deg higher than it was before the update. There is a chart some where showing that.

I verified I have full Regen by using SMT, at 65 deg. It used to be at 60.

I am not going to give up on Tesla. I am going to push back, even if I have to turn the car into a powerwall. Too many people have worked too hard to see this company turn to another legacy automaker.