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

Dutchmeeuw

Member
Aug 17, 2018
42
123
Amsterdam
  • | This is a WikiPost. Members with appropriate permissions may edit.
Lost 20km of max charging within 2 weeks on my S85D. At the 12th of May I was able to charge to 399km at 100% charge. 2 days ago the max charge has dropped to 379km all of a sudden. Temperatures at both charge times were around 18 degrees Celsius.

Called Tesla and they’re telling me the car logs show battery degradation and saying this is “normal”. Has anyone on this forum ever had such a steep loss of max range in such a short period? 5% loss of the max capacity in 2 weeks seems a bit much...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE LATEST

Tesla has agreed to pay $1.5 million to settle the U.S. class action lawsuit filed against it in August 2019, alleging that Tesla’s over-the-air software update released in May 2019 had lowered the maximum voltage at which the batteries in certain Tesla Model S vehicles have been affected.

- The May 2019 software update subjected 1,743 Model S in the U.S. to a 10% maximum voltage limitation.

- A software update in July 2019 restored about 3% of the battery voltage in affected Model S cars.

- Another software update released in March 2020 was designed to start the restoration of the batteries’ voltage over time as the vehicles are driven.

- At the time of settlement, the documents show among the affected vehicles:

Max battery voltage fully restored = 1,552 cars
Between 93% and 95.5% restored = 34 cars
Between 95.5% and 99% restored = 79 cars
Battery replaced: 57 cars
Vehicles with data unavailable to access = 21 cars
Total = 1,743 cars

- The U.S. impacted owners are expected to get $625 each from the settlement.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The latest on the litigation against Tesla on this issue is further below (the true purpose of this section of the wiki).

....

@wk057 has written up an explanation of what he believes Tesla did and why: (He believes it isn't fire or safety related. Tesla has not publicly confirmed or agreed with Wk057's information.)

Rasmussen v. Tesla, Inc. Class Action is a class action lawsuit filed against Tesla by an impacted owner claiming the company limited the battery range of older vehicles via a software update:

The Class Action -​
General Status -​
The Latest Docket Entries -​



UPDATE (to the original post): TESLA HAS CONFIRMED THEY ARE DOWNGRADING CARS WITHOUT PERMISSION. HERE IS WHAT WE KNOW:


TABLE OF CONTENTS

SITUATION
BMS (BATTERY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM)
WHICH CARS HAVE BEEN VOLTAGE CAPPED
EFFECT OF CAPPING
.......EFFECT ON RANGE
.......EFFECT ON PERFORMANCE
CAPPING CAUSES
.......OWNER CAUSED
.......CAR CAUSED
NET EFFECT OF BATTERY CAPPING
CALCULATION OF AMOUNT OF CAPACITY BLOCKED BY CAPPING
REASONS GIVEN BY TESLA FOR ARTIFICIAL CAPPING
POSSIBLE REASONS FOR THE CAPPING
.......Why the capping?
.......Condition X and Condition Z
.......Is it plausible that some cells are inferior?
.......Why only some cars?
CONCLUSIONS
MORE TO KNOW
.......THIS IS NOT DEGRADATION
.......AM I AFFECTED?
............Model S/X
............Model 3
.......IMPORTANT TO FILE AN NHTSA COMPLAINT
.......CLASS ACTION
.......USEFUL LINKS


SITUATION

Download 2019.16.1.1 is widely believed to have introduced Battery Voltage Capping. The effect has been felt by many hundreds of owners across the world. The information contained within this summary is drawn primarily from posts within TMC (TeslaMotorsClub), the international Tesla Owners Forum, from other Tesla Owners fora and from other research from various published articles.

Before going further, it is important that everyone is familiar with how battery cells work. Many of you will already be familiar with this, but for those that are not:
  • When a battery cell is built, it is built to a certain specification in regard to the amount of charge it can hold. Insofar as Tesla Lithium Ion cells are concerned, they are built with a nominal voltage of 3.66V. This is commonly called Vnom.
  • Each cell can take more charge, or less charge. But care has to be taken as to how much more, or how much less, as too much or too little can often damage the cells. The amount of charge held within a cell is determined by the cell’s voltage. The higher the voltage, the higher the charge. (Purists will weep at this awful generalisation, but that is all it is, a generalisation).
  • The maximum Voltage in Tesla Cells is 4.2V. This is commonly called Vmax. (4.2V is virtually an Industry Standard setting for lithium ion EV cells).
  • The minimum Voltage in Tesla Cells is 3.12V @ <1%. This lower figure is commonly called Vmin.
  • In a Model S70, for example, when all the cells are at Vmax, ie 4.2V, the combined total charge held in the pack equals 70 kWh.
BMS (BATTERY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM)

It is the role of BMS to ensure, amongst other things, that the charge in each cell does not exceed Vmax, or Vmin. When a Cell is at Vmax, the BMS reports the battery as being 100% full. When it reaches Vmin, it reports the battery as being at 0% empty. It is important to realize that this does NOT mean the battery is 100% full, or 0% empty, merely that Vmax or Vmin has been reached. If the values of Vmax or Vmin are changed, BMS will still report 100% or 0% but only at these new revised values. So State of Charge (SOC) merely indicates where the battery is at between Vmin and Vmax.

When the battery charge is at Vmax, BMS stops the cell from receiving any further charge, even though the battery could physically take on more charge. As noted above, doing so might damage the battery. This is why, as the car reaches the higher level of charge, the BMS slows down the charge rate, until eventually all charging stops when all the cells are at Vmax, or whatever charge limit has been set within the car. If BMS thinks the battery is getting too hot, such as with faster DC charging, it will turn on coolant systems and limit the charge speed to a level where the max temperature is maintained. This is why there is much more tapering when Supercharging than when home charging.

WHICH CARS HAVE BEEN VOLTAGE CAPPED

Not all cars. Only pre facelift cars as far as we have determined (ie built before summer 2016, the ones with the old nose cones). Even then, not all of them, only those cars with smaller batteries, specifically 60 kWh, 70 kWh, 75 kWh, or 85 kWh. And even then, only some of them. There have been no reports of any cars with 90 kWh, or 100 kWh being affected.


EFFECT OF CAPPING
EFFECT ON RANGE
It has been widely tested, and confirmed that Capping has been achieved by the software reducing the applied Vmax of the cell bricks in the pack (each brick is 74 individual battery cells wired in parallel). In many cars suffering from batterygate, they have changed Vmax from 4.2V to about, let's say, 4.07V. Not much difference you might think. But when all the bricks are now at 4.07V (the new Vmax) the combined total now only equals 59 kWh, and not the original 70 kWh for model S70 as an example. The net effect is the battery appears to have lost 10 kWh. It is not actually a loss of 10 kWh, it is just that 10 kWh has been made unavailable for use.​
Let’s look further at the impact of a small drop in voltage. A Model S70 owner, for example, reported the observation below:​
- At 4.2V his 100% range was 225 miles​
- After capping to 4.07V his Range was 192 miles​
- After a slight increase to 4.1V his Range was 199 miles​
So, even though the Voltage drop looks insignificant, the actual effect is tangible.​
A smaller battery obviously provides less range, and this is what most people first notice. Their range appeared to have gone down. Many people reported this Loss of Range. But of course that loss is not the cause, or the fault, it is merely the consequence of a smaller battery. Think replacing a 70 litre fuel tank with a 59 litre fuel tank.​
This is exactly the procedure Tesla use when they used to sell a car as a S60 with a restricted 75 kWh battery. They have simply reduced the Vmax to a level that corresponds with 60 kWh. They then allow you to “uncork” the battery, at a price. You pay the money, they change the Vmax to 4.2V, and bingo, you now drive a S75.​
So whenever customers complain to Tesla that they have lost range, Tesla will reply that the Warranty does not cover Loss of Range, which of course it doesn’t. So Tesla rejects the claim.​
They also reject any claim about loss of Capacity due to voltage cap. But normal loss of Capacity (commonly called Degradation) is described in the Warranty as a loss resulting from gradual usage, and over time. We all expect that to happen. But the key point is, this batterygate loss of Capacity is due to voltage cap and has not been gradual. Nor has been over time. It has been sudden, virtually overnight.​
It is also VERY important to note that when batteries do degrade, which they will, the cell voltage limit will not change. A very old battery that is only holding, say 50% of its original charge, will still (try to) charge to 4.2V. It may not get there but Vmax will certainly not reduce. It is not the voltage cap that drops, just the energy contained within the cell. So a 50% degraded battery may only be able to charge to 50%. But the battery will not report that as 50%. A degraded battery will use its charge up more quickly. The Cell will charge up more quickly, and deplete more quickly. This will be reflected in higher Wh consumption per mile. So if the reduction in capacity (due to voltage cap) is due to an imposed change of cell Voltage, i.e. changing Vmax, that is not, in any way, normal degradation. That is 100% artificial degradation, achieved through software changes to the cell voltage limits.​
EFFECT ON PERFORMANCE
The volt cap also reduces horsepower (power as in kW). In an electrical system, power is determined by multiplying volts times amps (V*A=Watts). Lower volts means lower horsepower (available kW).Furthermore, because the voltage capping in effect reduces your actual SoC% (your capped 100% SoC is not the real 100%, rather it’s 90% of your old 100% SoC), your max power is reduced. The P85DL cars lose the most power to volt capping, but all cars will have reduced performance.​

CAPPING CAUSES

Tesla have been pretty robust in refusing to say why they have imposed this capping. There can really be only two reasons. One is something caused by the Owner, or alternatively something caused by the Car.

OWNER CAUSED
It has frequently been suggested that Batterygate is a result of owners that:​
  • Supercharged (or DC charged) too frequently.
  • Charged to a very high, or very low State of Charge (SoC), i.e., frequently to 100%.
  • Normally operated to a high range of SoC, i.e., normally between 70-100% SoC, rather than say 20%-80%.
Anecdotal evidence from many dozens of owners suggest none of these are likely reasons. There are many examples of owners that did meet the criteria but were not capped, and many that didn’t meet the criteria, but were capped. There are so many contra examples, that it is difficult to conclude any of these reasons is a credible reason as the trigger for Capping. Tesla have informed some owners verbally, that their DC history is the reason their car has been capped. Of course that is an unusual argument as ALL charging is DC charging as far as the car is concerned. The battery can only take DC. Tesla has never warned owners that frequent Supercharging was a bad thing of itself, that might damage their battery. Indeed in the early days Tesla used to site Superchargers in cities, rather than in between them, so that owners had access to charging facilities. Perhaps they were not aware that Supercharging was so detrimental, or perhaps the trigger is another reason.​
However, even if excess Supercharging, or just excessive DC charging is the reason, that charging, and the way in which the BMS deals with it, is entirely within Tesla’s control. As was the advice given to owners by Tesla on charging. The only advice given by Tesla to owners was that, if possible, owners should restrict the charge to 90% as that's better for the battery, but to charge to 100% whenever you need it. Doing it occasionally is fine. Owners have no influence over this. So if, in hindsight, Tesla got the BMS coding wrong, or didn’t taper the charge rate and the battery cooling/heating protocols sufficiently, or gave incorrect advice about charging, that must surely be Tesla’s responsibility, not the owners.​
CAR CAUSED
If it is not Owner Caused, then it is perhaps due to something within the car.​
  • Only pre facelift cars have been affected, ie built prior to Summer 2016.
    Deduction: Facelift cars can be excluded from the cause.
  • Only smaller batteries (60, 70 or 85 kWh) have been affected.
    Deduction: 90 kWh batteries can be excluded from the cause.
  • 60 and 70 kWh batteries only have 14 Modules (6216 cells) and are 350V batteries. 85 kWh batteries have 16 Modules (7104 cells) and are 400V batteries.
    Deduction: The number of Modules or Battery Voltage can be excluded from the cause.
  • 90 kWh batteries have 16 Modules and are 400V batteries. They were introduced in 2015, so well within the pre facelift period.
  • 100 kWh batteries were introduced in Summer 2016, i.e., outside of the pre facelift period. There should be no pre facelift vehicles with 100 kWh batteries.
    Deduction: 100 kWh batteries can be excluded from the cause.
  • 90 kWh batteries were actually 85 kWh batteries, but with the new ‘Gen 2’ battery cell. Gen 2 Cells introduced Silicon into the Graphite Anode. Silicon holds greater energy density. So the increase in energy wasn’t as a result of a larger battery, or different design, simply a change of Cell type. It was described by Tesla as “a range upgrade due to the improved cell chemistry with the introduction of silicon into the graphite Anode”. Deduction. Only 90 kWh batteries had the new Gen 2 Cell. All 60, 70 and 85 batteries had the old Gen 1 Cell.
  • The only Common Factor that links pre facelift, and smaller batteries (60, 70, 85 kWh) is the old Gen 1 Cells. There may be other common factors, but no-one across the globe has been able to identify one.

NET EFFECT OF BATTERY CAPPING

The net effect of this capping of the battery was the amount of battery being made available to hold a charge was reduced by about 16%.

This artificial capping of the battery did not reduce the size of the battery, it simply denied access to up to 10 kWh of the battery. This is an important point. It means the reduction in the battery capacity (because of voltage capping) is not due to degradation or any other form of wear and tear. It is absolutely an artificial and deliberate reduction effected through a software change to the Battery Management System.

CALCULATION OF AMOUNT OF CAPACITY BLOCKED BY CAPPING

The only accurate method of testing whether a battery has been capped is to interrogate the BMS. That requires specific hardware and software that allows owners to interrogate the BMS itself, through the CANBUS 3. Normally the OBD Port provides this information; not in a Tesla! This is an expensive way to establish what the Capacity is, and what the Cell Voltage is. On some forums there have been many suggestions about how best to determine the car’s Capacity; these normally require owners to charge up to 100%, sometimes running it down to close to 0% then back up again. This is both inconvenient, and unnecessary. The Capacity of your car’s battery can be easily, and quickly, established from screen information within the car itself, at any time. (It is not possible to read the cell voltage without accessing the BMS or CANBUS3 or root access). The figures are available from the battery icon (when it is selected to show energy %) and from the Consumption Screen in the Energy App on the Main Central Screen.

The Consumption Screen (from within the Energy App on the Main Screen in the car) shows the Average Consumption figure for the past 5/15/30 miles. It also shows the Forecast Range, which is based on that consumption figure. It arrives at this Range forecast by using the recent consumption figure, then multiplies this by the SoC. By using these figures it is a simple calculation to work out the Capacity.

Method:

1. Open the Energy App on the Main Screen.

Aw3cpJw.png


2. From below the graph, select 5mi, or 15 mi or 30 mi (highlighted in blue on the photo). It doesn’t matter which one, but “15 mi” is selected for this example.

sOqez0k.png


3. Note the Avg. Wh/mi value (348 Wh/mi) from the left side of the graph. (Circled in yellow)

4. Multiply this figure by the Projected Range value (85 miles) from the right side of the graph (also highlighted in yellow).

5. Divide that number by the SoC as a % shown on your Instrument Panel. For example, 348 x 85 = 29,580. Divide this by the SoC%, say 38%, = 77,842. (Remember to use 0.38 and not just 38). This gives Whs. Divide by 1000 to give kWh, i.e., 77.84 kWh. That is your total battery capacity. This calculation can be done at any SoC. Capacity can be affected by outside factors such as temperature, but normally by less than 1%.

This calculation produces a fair estimation of the total capacity, including the reserved buffer (4 kWh).

REASONS GIVEN BY TESLA FOR ARTIFICIAL CAPPING

Tesla has been asked several times for the reason for capping. Invariably they have replied that it was done for the longevity of the battery. There is a view that this is what they were trying to achieve, not why they did so in the first place. They have never given any other explanation for the reason. If pressed to explain why, they have responded with a variety of suggestions, many of which completely miss the point, such as giving advice on driving techniques to improve range, like removing cargo, closing windows, use of seat heaters rather than HVAC, driving more slowly. Almost without exception these were aimed at improving range rather than explaining the reason why batteries had to be capped. There seems to be a determination not to answer the 'why' question.

They are also very keen on replying with their stock answer of “We are working on improving the reduced range effect, and if it is possible customers may see an improvement in coming months. The S/X Battery Warranty does not cover range, we cover any hardware defect inside the pack.”

Tesla have been reported in the Press as stating “A very small percentage of owners of older Model S and Model X vehicles may have noticed a small reduction in range when charging to a maximum state of charge following a software update designed to improve battery longevity. As previously noted, we have been working to mitigate the impact on range for these owners, and have been rolling out over-the-air updates to address this issue.”
  • Yes, it appears to be a very small percentage of owners.
  • The effect is not ‘when charging to maximum state of charge’, it is a linear reduction across the board.
  • Yes, they are working on improving it, and have rolled out an update to improve it. The update (2019.28.2.5) does appear to somewhat achieve this. In fact what it does, is increases Vmax from 4.07V to 4.08V. This gives an apparent increase in range, but only of about 5 miles or so, nothing like the 20-30 miles lost to start with.
  • This update appeared the day following the submission of a potential Class Action Lawsuit in the U.S. It would be fair to say there is a great deal of suspicion on TMC that this quick update had more to do with Tesla being able to say to the court that not only are they working on a solution, but look, some owners are already seeing an improvement. Pure supposition on their part, and there is no way of knowing if this is correct or not.
POSSIBLE REASONS FOR THE CAPPING

There have been many suggestions worldwide as to the actual reasons for Tesla imposing this capping, and also why only some cars and not the entire fleet.

Why the capping?

There is strong support for the view that it may be related to the recent battery fires. Battery fires are always bad press. It is widely accepted across the industry that such fires are most commonly caused by Lithium Dendrites. Dendrites are small growths that develop on the anode within the battery, particularly during high temperature or high current charging. These spikey Dendrites can grow across the gap between the two electrodes, piercing the membrane between the plates, and eventually crossing and touching the opposite electrode. When that happens there is a short circuit, a significant transfer of energy and heat. If it becomes a thermal runaway, then a fierce fire is likely to occur. We have all seen videos of firemen trying to put out EV battery fires. They seem to extinguish the flames, only to bursts back into flames again. In a Dendrite fire, as long as the short circuit exists, the fire is likely to continue.

Condition X and Condition Z

You may have heard these terms. If the China, Singapore and other fires were indeed caused by Dendrites, it is not at all unreasonable to conclude that Tesla would take steps to identify how many other batteries may have dendrite growth. An acknowledged expert, who has been posting in this thread, and has been working with Tesla on this issue, has stated that “basically they (Tesla) went looking for X and found Z instead. X is pretty bad, but doesn't seem to have happened anywhere. Detecting X is definitely a good thing. Z is not good, but not as bad as X. The process of looking for X ended up finding a bunch of Zs as well. Z was not being looked for and wasn’t known. Detecting Z is still a good thing. The people with a rapid range loss have condition Z.” The general speculation doing the rounds was that Condition X was Dendrite growth. Initially it was thought Condition Z was Li Plating (think of it as an oxidation of the Plates and it is a precursor to Dendrite growth). There is now some uncertainty about Condition Z. One view is that given the Gen 1 Cells are the only apparent common factor, Condition Z maybe related to Cells. The theory is whilst searching for Dendrites, they did so by analyzing the condition of the cells, and discovered that some cells appeared to be decaying faster than they should, or at least faster than the majority. Condition Z may therefore be weak cells with certain unsound properties.
  • It seems to meet all the Tesla-defined criteria. If the weak cells are still, just, within spec, then Tesla can describe the battery as healthy.
  • If they are deteriorating faster than expected, reducing the battery capacity will make for a much less stressful condition, which should delay that decay.
  • Capping the battery, (and indeed restricting charge rate), will help reduce decay and lengthen battery life.
  • It would meet with Tesla’s statement that the download was “to secure longevity of the battery’s life span”.
Is it plausible that some cells are inferior?

By inferior, meaning only slightly. Still within specification (you have to draw the quality line somewhere) but less capable, slightly, than the majority of cells within the Pack. As detailed above, the 70 kWh battery, for example, uses 6216 Cells. They are the old Gen 1 Cells. Given the number of pre-facelift cars built, (probably in the thousands) then it seems statistically possible, indeed perhaps even statistically probable, that some of those millions of cells may have passed the Quality Control tests, but only just. If only 0.005% of the Cells fitted this description….. So, at the very least it is a plausible theory that some cars have some cells that are of slightly poorer quality, and are degrading faster than expected. However, it is not possible to state categorically that this is the correct explanation.

There is, of course, a suspicion that Tesla has realized that admitting this is likely to lead to a significant number of Warranty Claims, at a time when they do seem to be making a significant effort at reducing costs. Possibly, it is said, for them to slow the degradation down, so that the inevitable failure happens slower, ideally outside of the 8 year Warranty window. It’s an attractive theory for the conspiracy theorists, but there has not been a shred of substantive evidence to support this view.

Why only some cars?

Tesla has claimed it was done for the longevity of the battery. There is no escaping that this capping will indeed put the battery in a much less stressful state, and that it should indeed lead to longer battery life. However the implication that it was done for good housekeeping reasons seems flawed, as if this were the case, surely they would have applied this measure across the fleet, or even across the pre-facelift fleet. But they have not. They have only applied it to certain, selected vehicles. Estimates indicate there are only about 0.5% of the worldwide fleet. The % figure for Pre Facelift cars is likely to be much higher. Whilst this is a very rough figure and would not withstand any serious scrutiny, it is perhaps useful in putting the percentage of people affected into context.

On the assumption that selection was not done by Random Selection, but by deliberate selection, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that they have identified certain vehicles that have some sort of issue with the battery. It does not lead unavoidably to mean they have identified a certain fault, merely an issue. In the absence of any statement or explanation from Tesla, any conclusion can only be speculation.

Owners have been told both verbally and in writing by Tesla that having examined their battery, it was healthy. It is highly unlikely that Tesla would make such a statement, particularly in writing, if it were not true. But given that affected batterIes are palpably not in the same condition as perhaps 99.5% of the fleet, and are actually in such a condition that Tesla deem it necessary to take pre-emptive action even at the risk of bad publicity, legal challenge, and customer revolt, it is hard to see how they can class the battery as healthy. Unless they are using a specific definition of healthy.

Healthy, in this context, may just mean within specification. So all of the battery is within specification, but some part of it only just.

It has also been suggested, and it is a plausible theory, that certain batteries get too hot at too high a charge, say above 80 or 85%. There is no hard evidence to support this theory, or indeed to support the 'weak cell' theory. But indications do seem to point to there being some issue, perhaps even a defect, within the battery. In the absence of any information from Tesla, or indeed even any denials, any theory can only be speculation. i.e., your guess is as good as mine.

Finally, it raises the interesting question of who owns your car. Even many years after selling the car, Tesla still feel able to significantly alter the car’s specifications. When done in reverse, ie uncorking, owners have not only paid Tesla thousands to do so, but have had to change the vehicle specification with the relevant vehicle licensing authority. This capping is not a minor issue.

CONCLUSIONS

There are very few hard facts. They are, or appear to be:
  • Update 2019.16.1.1 (and later) contained the batterygate software.
  • Affected batteries appear to have had their Vmax reduced to a figure below the normal 4.2V.
  • This reduction of Vmax has reduced the size of the usable Capacity.

  • This reduction of Vmax has reduced the car’s performance.
  • This reduction of usable Capacity is reflected in reduced range.
  • This reduction of usable Capacity is reflected in the resale value of the impacted cars.
  • Tesla have robustly refused to explain why they have capped some vehicles and not others.
There is a view that, initially at least, Tesla's intentions were sound. They were trying to identify if any vehicles had dendrites, which would be dangerous, in order that they could take some pre-emptive action. Those good intentions may have produced some unintended consequences. There can be no escaping that Tesla are aware of them, as they say they are, and that they are working on a solution.

Based on owners’ recommendation, if you do tackle Tesla on this, DO NOT frame your issue as Loss of Range. Whilst that may be what drew your attention to it, Tesla will take great delight in telling you that Loss of Range, or Loss of Capacity is not covered under the Warranty. They are correct, it is not. Loss of Range is just the consequence. The real issue is the capping of the battery, making up to 10 kWh or so unavailable to you. The questions should be:

Was my battery capped because there is a fault or issue with my battery?
  • If the response is “there is a fault or issue with your battery”, then you could claim a fix via the Warranty

  • If the response is, and this is very likely, “there is no fault with your battery”, “your battery is healthy”, and “this is all done for the health or longevity of your battery”, your position should be “if the battery is healthy with no issue then there should be no need to cap it”. Demand the capping to be removed if there is no issue with your battery.
This is the weak area. Press hard.


MORE TO KNOW

1. THIS IS NOT DEGRADATION

This has been officially stated and re-confirmed by Tesla in multiple public statements. If you are unsure of what Degradation is,or whether your battery is losing range due to degradation or downgrade, skip to step 2. All batteries lose range to degradation over time. No batteries should be artificially capped to a software limited reduction in range or power without your consent or knowledge.

Starting with Firmware 2019.16.1 Tesla has begun to reduce kWh capacity and horsepower by reducing the battery’s maximum charge voltage. They also reprogram the battery display to make it appear as if the newly lowered charge value appears to be “100%” when it really isn’t.

This cap is achieved in exactly the same way Tesla limited some 75kwh battery-equipped cars 60 kwh usable capacity, or 85kWh BTX8 cars to 75kWh, or limit Model 3 SR cars to lower range than Model 3 SR+ even though they share the same battery. The subsequent updates reduced charging speeds substantially for many people, though not all have had their range or power taken away yet. It is important to note that reduction of charging speeds is a separate issue to the capping of the battery. Some owners have been capped but not had their charging rate reduced, and vice versa. And some owners’ cars suffer from both conditions.

2. AM I AFFECTED?

Degradation is the slow and natural loss of storage capacity batteries experience over time. In simplest terms, it is a slow loss of storage capacity experienced when charging to the same voltage as always. This is different than Tesla’s battery capping, which is a voltage limit below “true” 100% that reduces range by not allowing the battery to be fully charged. Unlike degradation, capping has another side effect - it makes your car to perform slower too. Also unlike degradation it can be fixed by a software update to remove the cap.

Here is how you can see whether your battery has lost range due to degradation, or if it has been voltage capped by Tesla:

Model S/X
Charge to 100%. Using CANBUS tools, if your car’s cell volts @ 100% are close to 4.2v (real world readings are usually 4.198 or similar, don’t expect true 4.2v but you should be very close) you are OK. If you consistently charge to 4.18v or less @ 100% regardless of temperature, etc., you have probably been capped. Please add yourself to this spreadsheet:​
Model 3
Error Messages:
The error messages from a capacity and charge rate capped Model year 2014 S85 battery pack, reported by an affected owner:​
f3t2Lq0.jpg
3. IMPORTANT TO FILE AN NHTSA COMPLAINT

Tesla has not stated why they took the range and power the owners paid for. The NHTSA (the U.S. National Highway Transportation Safety Administration) has opened an investigation, but needs examples to move forward. Click the link below to report your losses and ask them to investigate. If this is a Warranty and/or Safety related issue, Tesla is required by law to repair or replace your battery with equal or greater performance than the defective original in accordance with the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. They are not legally allowed to reduce range and power!

File a Vehicle Safety Complaint | Safercar.gov | NHTSA

Include this at the top:

RE: NHTSA Action Number: DP19005 - INVESTIGATION Subject : Battery Management Software Updates

See notes here for what people other owners are saying in their own NHTSA reports: Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

4. CLASS ACTION

The class action lawsuit, titled “David Rasmussen v. Tesla, Inc.,” case number 5:19-cv-04596 was filed on August 7, 2019 in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. The 19-count complaint alleges that Tesla violated the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act 18 U.S.C 1030, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act 15 U.S.C 2030 and various violations of state law and includes fraud causes of action.

You are already included in the class action if you own an impacted Tesla. You do not need to “join up”, but you add your input on the google sheet (link below) and the NHTSA case.

https://www.classaction.org/media/rasmussen-v-tesla-inc_1.pdf

Docket for Rasmussen v. Tesla, Inc., 5:19-cv-04596 - CourtListener.com

5. USEFUL LINKS

GOOGLE SHEET TRACKER (IF YOU ARE CAPPED ADD YOUR CAR TO THE SPREADSHEET OF KNOWN IMPACTED VEHICLES)
Tesla battery capacity loss with FW 2019.16.2

TESLA’S HACKED BATTERY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM EXPOSES THE REAL USABLE CAPACITY OF ITS BATTERY PACKS
Tesla’s hacked Battery Management System exposes the real usable capacity of its battery packs - Electrek

TESLA OWNERS SEE BATTERY RANGE DROP AFTER SOFTWARE UPDATE TO ‘IMPROVE LONGEVITY’
Tesla owners see battery range drop after software update to 'improve longevity' - Electrek

TESLA PUSHES BATTERY SOFTWARE UPDATE AFTER RECENT FIRES
Tesla pushes battery software update after recent fires

TESLA ROLLS OUT MODEL S AND X BATTERY SOFTWARE UPDATE AFTER HONG KONG FIRE
Tesla rolls out Model S and X battery software update after Hong Kong fire

TESLA GIVES UPDATES ON CAUSE OF A BATTERY FIRE, SAYS SINGLE MODULE IS RESPONSIBLE
Tesla gives updates on cause of a battery fire, says single module is responsible - Electrek

TESLA IS UPDATING ITS BATTERY SOFTWARE FOLLOWING A CAR FIRE, CLAIMS IMPROVE LONGEVITY
Tesla is updating its battery software following a car fire, claims improve longevity - Electrek

TESLA OWNER WHO SAW RANGE SLASHED BY SOFTWARE UPDATE FILED CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
Tesla owner who saw range slashed by software update filed class action lawsuit - Electrek

TESLA TO UPDATE BATTERY SOFTWARE FOLLOWING CAR FIRES
Tesla to update battery software following car fires

TESLA OWNER LAWSUIT CLAIMS SOFTWARE UPDATE FRAUDULENTLY CUT BATTERY CAPACITY
Tesla owner lawsuit claims software update fraudulently cut battery capacity

TESLA CLASS ACTION ALLEGES DEFECTIVE BATTERIES
Tesla Class Action Alleges Defective Batteries | Top Class Actions

TESLA’S DISAPPEARING MILES: OWNERS SAY AUTOMATIC SOFTWARE FIX HAS HAD UNWANTED SIDE EFFECTS
Tesla’s disappearing miles: Owners say automatic software fix has had unwanted side effects

TESLA SAYS SINGLE BATTERY MODULE CAUSED CAR FIRE IN SHANGHAI, HAS CHANGED VEHICLE SETTINGS
Tesla says single battery module caused car fire in Shanghai, has changed vehicle settings : teslamotors

FEDERAL SAFETY AGENCY LAUNCHES PROBE OF TESLA BATTERY FIRES
Federal safety agency launches probe of Tesla battery fires

TESLA BATTERIES INVESTIGATED FOR POSSIBLE DEFECTS
Tesla Batteries Investigated for Possible Defects

FEDERAL SAFETY OFFICIALS PROBE ALLEGED TESLA BATTERY DEFECTS
https://www.washingtonpost.com/tech...fficials-probe-alleged-tesla-battery-defects/

NHTSA, INVESTIGATING TESLA FIRE REPORTS, DEMANDS DATA ON BATTERY SOFTWARE CHANGES
NHTSA, Investigating Tesla Fire Reports, Demands Data on Battery Software Changes

TESLA UNDER SCRUTINY BY FEDS FOR BATTERY, SOFTWARE ISSUES
Tesla under scrutiny by feds for battery, software issues

Tesla is like an ‘iPhone on wheels.’ And consumers are locked into its ecosystem

UPDATE: Class Action Suit Cites 19 Issues With Tesla Software Update
UPDATE: Class Action Suit Cites 19 Issues With Tesla Software Update

WK057'S POSTS
Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
Calculate usable battery capacity based on rated miles values

BATTERY TECHNICAL LINKS
COMPILATION OF ARTICLES/PAPERS ON LI-ION BATTERIES
Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
PREDICTIVE MODELS OF LI-ION BATTERY LIFETIME
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/62813.pdf
TRANSITION METAL DISSOLUTION, ION MIGRATION, ELECTROCATALYTIC REDUCTION AND CAPACITY LOSS IN LITHIUM-ION FULL CELLS
Transition Metal Dissolution, Ion Migration, Electrocatalytic Reduction and Capacity Loss in Lithium-Ion Full Cells
STRUCTURAL STABILITY OF LINIO2 CYCLED ABOVE 4.2 V
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsenergylett.7b00304
LITHIUM-ION BATTERY CELL PRODUCTION PROCESS
(PDF) LITHIUM-ION BATTERY CELL PRODUCTION PROCESS
Whiskers, surface growth and dendrites in lithium batteries
Whiskers, surface growth and dendrites in lithium batteries | The Source | Washington University in St. Louis
Interactions between Lithium Growths and Nanoporous Ceramic Separators
Interactions between Lithium Growths and Nanoporous Ceramic Separators
NASA: Lithium Plating in Lithium-Ion Cells
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/1-lithium_plating_azimmerman.pdf
Detection of Lithium Plating During Thermally Transient Charging of Li-Ion Batteries
Detection of Lithium Plating During Thermally Transient Charging of Li-Ion Batteries

NHTSA
File a Vehicle Safety Complaint | Safercar.gov | NHTSA
Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
https://www.classaction.org/media/rasmussen-v-tesla-inc_1.pdf
Docket for Rasmussen v. Tesla, Inc., 5:19-cv-04596 - CourtListener.com
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

BATTERY PART#’S
Fabbec´s Batteriedecoder
Fabbec´s Batteriedecoder
Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

MEMBER DISCUSSIONS
Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
Max Power vs State of Charge and Temp
Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
 
Last edited by Droschke

Electric700

Active Member
May 21, 2013
1,758
435
Florida, United States
I recommend you continue to monitor this over the next few weeks and see if the degradation gets worse. Your car appears to have close to 2% degradation, which is in line with what others are seeing (minimal to none).

I've seen a few cases here where Tesla replaced the battery when the degradation was severe. I know that they have an improved battery version now that is supposed to fix those cases.
 

Dutchmeeuw

Member
Aug 17, 2018
42
123
Amsterdam
Thanks for the advise, the initial rating of this car was 270 miles or 435 kilometer. So the loss is much more then 2%. If the loss would be gradual it would concern me less, but a sudden loss of 5% of max range in 2 weeks is what bugs me.

I was hoping that someone had seen this before.
 

ucmndd

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2016
7,266
14,216
California
A few people have reported sudden changes in rated range after updating to the 2019.16.x series firmware. Might be that.

Keep an eye on it, particularly if you see continued reduction in a short period. If it keeps degrading eventually you'll get Tesla's attention.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Chaserr

Electric700

Active Member
May 21, 2013
1,758
435
Florida, United States
Thanks for the advise, the initial rating of this car was 270 miles or 435 kilometer. So the loss is much more then 2%. If the loss would be gradual it would concern me less, but a sudden loss of 5% of max range in 2 weeks is what bugs me.

I was hoping that someone had seen this before.

Sorry for the miscalculation. Yes you're right as you have about a 13% range loss right now (56 km / 435 km =~ 13%). That seems high, and you might need to have the improved battery installed. For now as the other member suggested, I would monitor it closely.

Also, yes I did see at least one other case here where there was a sudden decrease in range, requiring battery replacement. I believe that case was more severe though (e.g. greater than a 30% loss).

Do you charge to 100% frequently? 80 - 90% is better for the battery, and 100% infrequently such as once a year. 100% should balance the battery, but drive your car immediately afterward.

You could also send a message to [email protected] about the issue and let them know specifically that you have a 13% range loss. They can do diagnostics remotely.

Please keep us posted.
 

Droschke

Active Member
Mar 8, 2015
2,562
4,727
Future
After 2019.16.x, I've a drop of 7.5%.

My car has 43K miles and is 4 years old. My cooling pump also ran unusually in two different days and for very long hours. Since then I've noticed the drop. I think the pump running for up to 10 and then 5 hours straight while the car was parked was the result of some battery calibration routine that Tesla was executing on my HVB which has caused the new and much lower RM to be calculated.

On Edit: And here is the weird part, I always showing about 264-265 miles (265 was when the car was new) until these recent software updates. Now the 100% charge looks like about 245. A hefty 20 miles loss in few weeks!!!
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: P85_DA

Droschke

Active Member
Mar 8, 2015
2,562
4,727
Future
Today I’m down to 371 kilometers on a full charge. Tesla recommended discharging and charging it to full once more. So now I lost 28 km of full range within 3 weeks....

You are catching up with me (mu loss is 20 miles).

Did Tesla say if your loss was normal?

Very interested to see the results of your discharge/charge attempts. Please keep us posted.
 

Dutchmeeuw

Member
Aug 17, 2018
42
123
Amsterdam
So the thing is that FW 2019.16.2 updated the BMS firmware to “protect” and “prolong” the battery life. A consequence from this is that some older/pre-facelift cars are getting a real hit in range from this update. Some owners are luckier then others. I seem to be at the far end of the spectrum with a loss of 28 kilometers.

Long story short, Tesla wants the car in for service for a battery capacity test. Keep you posted.
 

trayloader

Member
Nov 21, 2016
365
455
GERMANY
We are seeing the same behaviour here in Germany. Only the pre-FL (old chemistry) seem affected.
cell volatge seems to be limited to 4.11V from before 4.2, and the cruves all look similar like this one:.
Something smells fishy after the BMS update...


What made me wonder was the super naggin persistence of the update pop up reminder, which was almost impossible to click off. Totally contrary to normal updates.



degradation.jpg
 

Droschke

Active Member
Mar 8, 2015
2,562
4,727
Future
We are seeing the same behaviour here in Germany. Only the pre-FL (old chemistry) seem affected.
cell volatge seems to be limited to 4.11V from before 4.2, and the cruves all look similar like this one:.
Something smells fishy after the BMS update...

What made me wonder was the super naggin persistence of the update pop up reminder, which was almost impossible to click off. Totally contrary to normal updates.

View attachment 416735

You have a data point right below 365 on the vertical axis. Was that charge before 2019.16.x? If so, your loss is very close to mine. My loss is about 20 miles.
 

Dutchmeeuw

Member
Aug 17, 2018
42
123
Amsterdam
You have a data point right below 365 on the vertical axis. Was that charge before 2019.16.x? If so, your loss is very close to mine. My loss is about 20 miles.

I would happily trade with you.:) Since yesterday I’m down to 365 kilometers at a 100% charge. I now lost 35 kilometers in 3 weeks... Waiting for my appointment at Tesla...
 

Droschke

Active Member
Mar 8, 2015
2,562
4,727
Future
I would happily trade with you.:) Since yesterday I’m down to 365 kilometers at a 100% charge. I now lost 35 kilometers in 3 weeks... Waiting for my appointment at Tesla...

Well, I might be in the same boat with you only that I've not charged to 100%. Please definitely post here and share what Tesla, at least in your case, says. I'm afraid if this degradation is the intended result of 2016.12.x, they would defend it.
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: Chaserr

Juggernaut

New Member
Feb 9, 2019
2
6
Germany
Sorry for the interuption, (as you see i'm a newbee to that forum)
out of a Excel sheet i stumbled somewhere over i was pointed to this thread.
I'm prior to that sw change and have my battery degradation data very acurat and
convenient stored inside my teslalogger. in parallel i'm using ScanMyTesla on
every charging stop to have the interval cell temp before connecting to the charger.

degradation.JPG


Due to some discussions with tesla concerning speed of charge at CCS/type2 SuC stalls
i would recommend to have better data situation on client side before starting a discussion
with tesla in that specific topic.
 

Dave46

Member
Aug 29, 2014
34
49
Eldorado
I have a similar situation to report.
Since May 16, 2019 my P85D has lost 27 rated miles (43 Km). That is 11% in 28 days and 3604 miles. The rate of decline continues at a consistent pace. The previous 72000 miles before May 16 the rated range had dropped at most 12 miles in 715 days. The battery has powered 130,026 miles since April 2015.

The rapid decline started the day after I installed software 2019.16.1.1. Perhaps just a coincidence. Current software is version 2019.16.2.

I reported this sudden change to a Tesla tech in Denver on May 29 (down 12 miles) and June 10 (down 24 miles). Both times he replied that he did remote tests on the high voltage battery and said "the battery cells are experiencing some wear, which is normal and expected as the vehicle ages". SNAFU?

I expect the battery to slowly degrade with age and use as I experienced for the first 126400 miles. But this rapid decline is not normal. Now that I see others have similar experiences we need to dig further and escalate this within Tesla.

Comments?
2015 P85D Battery Degradation .jpg
 

Products we're discussing on TMC...

About Us

Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


SUPPORT TMC
Top