Sudden large degradation supposedly a "new algorithm"

[Blup85]

My "classic" just got the update as well, Didn't change anything regarding rated range. Last week it was 232@ 90%, this morning 232 @ 90% post update. BAD module!

 

[gutowskia]

Six months ago I was at a supercharger, when charging completed my rated range dropped by over 20 miles. I noted exact time and date. I gave this info to tesla service and they were able to pull the logs and see the faults. A month later I was given a loaner battery while mine was shipped off to California for repairs. I also have a 2012 P85.

Don't let the rep guess that it's software related. Insist that they pull the logs

 

[ckessel]

My "classic" just got the update as well, Didn't change anything regarding rated range. Last week it was 232@ 90%, this morning 232 @ 90% post update. BAD module!

My 90% was almost exactly the same as yours (low 230s) until this last week, so thanks for the data point!. Looks like more evidence that something is off in my battery. The whole "algorithm based on driving style" must just be a misunderstanding. Maybe the algorithm updated, but it'd be for how it measures the energy, not on how I drive, that'd be silly.

My service center has always been good to me and I've known some of those folks since they day they started on the job. Portland's service center was one exhausted, overworked fellow relocated from Seattle when I got my car, an awesome fellow, loved talking with Jason. I'm optimistic they'll put in the due diligence, they always have before, and often above and beyond.

 

[Piney999]

Like I said, I had the EXACT same situation, and Tesla Service gave me the EXACT same answer. Tesla did a remote diagnostics of my battery, and told me all modules were ok. I will eagerly await to what Telas has to say in your situation.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

You have a bad module. I received the .28 update last week and my rated range has not changed. I have 61,500 miles and charged to 252 miles @ 100% two days after receiving that update. I find that whenever customers complain to Tesla about their range dropping, Tesla pulls out the stock (and inaccurate) answers to try and make you go away. I'm sure that 90% of the time it's probably just owners not understanding rated vs ideal range, but the rest have legitimate issues.

 

[KidDoc]

I'm full charging my 2014 S85 with 58k miles tomorrow for a roadtrip to Louisiana. What version of the software do you have running? I'll report my max rated tomorrow. My lifetime trip usage is 330 kw/mi if that matters. I really think you have a bad module though. Dropping that much range for me would be a big problem is it would mean round trips to downtown Houston from College Station would no longer be possible. I do those trips ~1 x a month.

 

[brianman]

I find that whenever customers complain to Tesla about their range dropping, Tesla pulls out the stock (and inaccurate) answers to try and make you go away. I'm sure that 90% of the time it's probably just owners not understanding rated vs ideal range, but the rest have legitimate issues.

I think you're on to something here.

Take a look at the second picture here:
Biggest and Smallest Wh/mi and Biggest Projected Range

Imagine that someone wrote the training manual back in 2012 with something like

If the customer complains about range loss, they probably switched from Ideal to Rated. If they still complain, make sure they're not looking at Projected. If they are looking at Projected, then advise that this is based on (recent) driving habits.

Now imagine that this UI has been removed from the instrument cluster (which it has) but that the Projected presentation remains in a new form. As a Tesla representative, it's hard to keep track of all this over the last N years. So now it has been clouded by the mists of time into:

If the customer complains about range loss, they probably are confused about Ideal, Rated, and Projected. Projected is based on driving habits. Also the algorithm for measuring capacity is adjusted periodically via firmware updates.

It's very easy to see how this leads to bad communications with customers. Just an explanation, not an excuse.

 

[brianman]

I have a 2012 P85.

More data:

"option_codes" : "MS01,RENA,TM02,DRLH,PF01,BT85,PPSR,RFPO,WT21,IZMB,IDCF,TR00,SU01,SC01,TP01,AU01,CH01,HP01,PA01,PS01,AD02,X001,X003,X007,X011,X013,X024,X019,COUS",

charging_state=Complete
charge_limit_soc=90
charge_limit_soc_std=90
battery_range=224.58
est_battery_range=175.39
ideal_battery_range=254.24
battery_level=89
usable_battery_level=89
timestamp=1498741048586
car_version=17.14.23
exterior_color=SigRed
odometer=46894.468284
perf_config=P2
vehicle_name=TesS
wheel_type=Silver21

Delivered November 2012. Original battery.

 

[llavalle]

My 90% was almost exactly the same as yours (low 230s) until this last week, so thanks for the data point!. Looks like more evidence that something is off in my battery. The whole "algorithm based on driving style" must just be a misunderstanding. Maybe the algorithm updated, but it'd be for how it measures the energy, not on how I drive, that'd be silly..

Where are you located ? There's a rather easy way to check for a bad module and overall battery degradation : dump the can bus info from the diag connector. You can do it with something like a CANtact + custom cable or buy an ELM module and use your smartphone and an app like TMSpy.

We'll have the actual usable capacity in kWh and the voltage of each of the 96 series of cell in the pack.

They do change the kWh calculation algorithm over time... and the estimate of the BMS (the battery's compter basically) varies over time (it goes up and down)

As a reference, my 85D has 60K KMs on it and my "BMS_nominalFullPackEnergyRemaining" is 78kWh. That doesn't include the "buffer" which the car lists as 4.0kWh.
My 85D also has that value : VAPI_ratedWattHourPerMile,290.000

Combine the 2 and you get 268.9 miles of range...

The "ratedWattHourPerMile" value does not change as far as I know but the reported "nominal full pack energy" does move slighly.

for you viewing pleasure, here's the list of values for my car :

BMS_energyBuffer,4.000
BMS_expectedEnergyRemaining,63.300
BMS_idealEnergyRemaining,63.000
BMS_nominalEnergyRemaining,63.200
BMS_nominalFullPackEnergyRemaining,78.000
VAPI_expectedEnergyRemaining,62.546
VAPI_idealRange,270.569
VAPI_idealEnergyRemaining,62.231
VAPI_nominalEnergyRemaining,62.336
VAPI_projectedRange,225.092
VAPI_projectedWattHourPerMile,277.869
VAPI_ratedRange,214.589
VAPI_ratedWattHourPerMile,290.000

The car's UI reports 80% SOC.

 

[KidDoc]

My S85 2014 charged to 258 rated miles this morning and only dropped to 257 after the 3 mile drive to work. My current OS is v8.1(17.24.28). New algorithm my foot.

 

[KidDoc]

Ideal is not more accurate than rated in assessing battery capacity. It's just a different way of expressing it. The problem is battery capacity can't be measured directly, so any result is an estimate.

I agree it shouldn't be more accurate unless they were using an algorithm that uses your specific wh/mi to display rated miles which is what the service center is claiming. If that was the case then ideal miles should be more accurate than a custom calculated rated miles to display actual battery capacity.

I think the service center is full of bull in this specific case and he had a module go out.

note I am only a doctor for humans not cars so I could be wrong!

 

[HumanGenome]

Did you read the manual?

 

[DB 2]

for you viewing pleasure, here's the list of values for my car :

BMS_energyBuffer,4.000
BMS_expectedEnergyRemaining,63.300
BMS_idealEnergyRemaining,63.000
BMS_nominalEnergyRemaining,63.200
BMS_nominalFullPackEnergyRemaining,78.000
VAPI_expectedEnergyRemaining,62.546
VAPI_idealRange,270.569
VAPI_idealEnergyRemaining,62.231
VAPI_nominalEnergyRemaining,62.336
VAPI_projectedRange,225.092
VAPI_projectedWattHourPerMile,277.869
VAPI_ratedRange,214.589
VAPI_ratedWattHourPerMile,290.000

The car's UI reports 80% SOC.

I can get the BMS values from the CAN3 message 382 using TM-Spy, but I don't know how to get the VAPI values. How do you get them? Thanks.

 

[VikH]

Sounds like the service center is trying to brush you off. You should escalate and ask them to check the modules.

 

[Electric700]

My 90% was almost exactly the same as yours (low 230s) until this last week, so thanks for the data point!. Looks like more evidence that something is off in my battery. The whole "algorithm based on driving style" must just be a misunderstanding. Maybe the algorithm updated, but it'd be for how it measures the energy, not on how I drive, that'd be silly.

My service center has always been good to me and I've known some of those folks since they day they started on the job. Portland's service center was one exhausted, overworked fellow relocated from Seattle when I got my car, an awesome fellow, loved talking with Jason. I'm optimistic they'll put in the due diligence, they always have before, and often above and beyond.

It could be that the new software version needs to relearn your driving habits, so you may want to give it another two weeks to adjust. Try also driving from a 90% charge level to 10% at least once.

Another thing you can do is to restart everything by pressing and holding the top two (left and right) steering wheel buttons for 10 seconds and waiting for the left screen to restart. Then do the same for the scroll buttons, which should restart the right screen.

 

[TexasEV]

It could be that the new software version needs to relearn your driving habits, so you may want to give it another two weeks to adjust. Try also driving from a 90% charge level to 10% at least once.

Once again, rated range has nothing to do with your driving habits. It's the range on the EPA test cycle. Period. Full stop.

 

[asim120]

OP, I had nearly the same experience as you and Piney999, with the same brushoff by my local SC. Very disappointing overall. I wish you the best with your efforts!
---
My story:
2014 RWD S 60 (3/2014, VIN 30k) - 22k miles: 90% SOC = 130 rated miles, formerly 180 when new. Lifetime Wh/mi is 308. Have supercharged about 8-10 times total. Max was 204 rated miles when the car was new.

I charge to 100% (145 rated miles) once every 6-8 weeks to visit family, and I always depart minutes after reaching 100%. I used to effortlessly keep the SOC at 50-75% as I have a 10mi drive to work. I kept the car plugged in at night and charged from ~55% to 70% at 3am daily.

I contacted the local SC. They claimed that my logs were fine and blew me off with "it's a firmware bug." They told me to charge to 90% nightly instead of 70%. I emailed Tesla; they brushed me off also and told me to deal with my local SC. After doing charging to 90% instead of 70% for a month, my 90% is now up to 133 miles. Oof.

 

[SageBrush]

I contacted the local SC. They claimed that my logs were fine and blew me off with "it's a firmware bug." They told me to charge to 90% nightly instead of 70%. I emailed Tesla; they brushed me off also and told me to deal with my local SC. After doing charging to 90% instead of 70% for a month, my 90% is now up to 133 miles. Oof.

That is just silly. Forward a complaint with your SC notes to Tesla corporate.

 

[asim120]

That is just silly. Forward a complaint with your SC notes to Tesla corporate.

Thanks for the suggestion. I emailed ServiceHelpNA at tesla.com. The reply I received on June 9 is below. I've received no contact since then. Is there another email address that I should try?

Hello,

Thank you for contacting Tesla Customer Support.

I have documented your feedback on the request tracking this issue and have escalated to Service Management. As far as a fix for a bug and possible issues with the battery it’s a question that would be best handled by our Service Team. We appreciate your patience as we look into this matter and we will be contacting you for a follow up in the next 1 -3 business days.

 

[SageBrush]

Thanks for the suggestion. I emailed ServiceHelpNA at tesla.com. The reply I received on June 9 is below. I've received no contact since then. Is there another email address that I should try?

Hello,

Thank you for contacting Tesla Customer Support.

I have documented your feedback on the request tracking this issue and have escalated to Service Management. As far as a fix for a bug and possible issues with the battery it’s a question that would be best handled by our Service Team. We appreciate your patience as we look into this matter and we will be contacting you for a follow up in the next 1 -3 business days.

I was thinking of Jon McNeil, the VP of service.

If someone does not chime in with the email soon I'll try to track it down for you.
And fwiw, I am not one to generally recommend calling the boss, but your case is SC arrogant incompetence.
Any way you could try a different SC in the meantime ?