Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[sorka]

Since I don't yet have the offending change I still have all of my range(minus my 11 miles of "normal" "natural" degradation). I'm assuming that I'm going to be significantly impacted when I eventually have v9 forced on me for whatever reason so I'm getting all my data ducks in a row from Teslafi and CANBUS scans.

I just got on the waiting list for a C8. Going to do Museum Delivery this time in Bowling Green.

 

[u1e85d5]

Here is Tesla's response to my NCDS action. There are a number of inaccuracies and questionable assertions in this document, detailed discussion of which I will withhold until the hearing. However, the referenced text of 14 June was never received, and appears to never have been sent – and it’s especially revealing of the implementation of “charge limit” changes. I especially like the guidance of charging to something less than 100% to reduce the impact of the reduction in range. And I will again remind everyone, including Tesla, that this is not just capacity or range reduction, it’s also a dramatic reduction of maximum acceleration performance.

Very interesting reply. They state the battery has 219.4Ah. If I'm not mistaken, when new, it should have 3.4Ah * 74 or about 251.6Ah. (Compare Tesla Model S Lithium Ion Battery 18650 EV Module - 22.8 Volt, 5.3 kWh, EV West - Electric Vehicle Parts, Components, EVSE Charging Stations, Electric Car Conversion Kits). So that would put you at 87.2% remaining capacity or 12.8% degradation.
Apply that number to the EPA miles stated in the document, you should have a rated range of 211 miles (0.872 * 242mi) and a capacity of 74.1kWh (0.872 * 85kWh). Isn't that the capacity you were reading before the update? If you now have 64kWh that's only 75.3% of the original 85kWh or 189.44Ah.

That would mean that Tesla's internal system tools show the pre-update capacity. Maybe you should try directly communicating this discrepancy to their number - if it's not too late now and if I'm not wrong with the numbers above, of course.

 

[qwk]

Very interesting reply. They state the battery has 219.4Ah. If I'm not mistaken, when new, it should have 3.4Ah * 74 or about 251.6Ah. (Compare Tesla Model S Lithium Ion Battery 18650 EV Module - 22.8 Volt, 5.3 kWh, EV West - Electric Vehicle Parts, Components, EVSE Charging Stations, Electric Car Conversion Kits). So that would put you at 87.2% remaining capacity or 12.8% degradation.
Apply that number to the EPA miles stated in the document, you should have a rated range of 211 miles (0.872 * 242mi) and a capacity of 74.1kWh (0.872 * 85kWh). Isn't that the capacity you were reading before the update? If you now have 64kWh that's only 75.3% of the original 85kWh or 189.44Ah.

That would mean that Tesla's internal system tools show the pre-update capacity. Maybe you should try directly communicating this discrepancy to their number - if it's not too late now and if I'm not wrong with the numbers above, of course.

Those numbers must be pre software update. Mine has 219 Ah, 74.2Kwh estimated, with a Rated range of 250+.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

Here is Tesla's response to my NCDS action. There are a number of inaccuracies and questionable assertions in this document, detailed discussion of which I will withhold until the hearing. However, the referenced text of 14 June was never received, and appears to never have been sent – and it’s especially revealing of the implementation of “charge limit” changes. I especially like the guidance of charging to something less than 100% to reduce the impact of the reduction in range. And I will again remind everyone, including Tesla, that this is not just capacity or range reduction, it’s also a dramatic reduction of maximum acceleration performance.

Thank you very much for sharing this. It is extremely helpful to see their counter argument. But it reinforces my belief that arguing the case based on loss of Range, or degradation, is likely to fail, because their response would seem a very plausible argument, ie older cars lose range and their batteries degrade. Far better, IMO, to complain that they have arbitrarily reduced the battery's capacity, removing something that has been paid for. Regardless of any arguments on their part to say it was for longevity or good health etc, they have still removed something that you paid for. Without your permission. I would also recommend not calling it theft, or using any other emotional terms. The Capacity has been restricted, and you have been denied access to it.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

Those numbers must be pre software update. Mine has 219 Ah, 74.2Kwh estimated, with a Rated range of 250+.

I have a pre facelift, 15 module, S70. Should my Ah also be 219 Ah or should it be a different figure being a 70kWh battery rather than an 85kWh battery?

 

[faughtz]

This is just basically a repeat of what techs have been telling customers so now we know Tesla's legal department crafted the messaging.

The response completely ignores the facts and focus estimated range. Basically a standard magicians distraction technique to try and confuse the arbiter.

Do you get to respond to this?

I can, although I’m considering waiting until the hearing. Not sure what the best approach might be...

Also considering retaining a credentialed battery expert...

 

[sorka]

They claim batteries degrade and lose range over time. You have to show that you lost a bunch of real range as the result of a single update because what you actually lost was the ability to charge to nearly 100% of existing capacity and instead are only being allowed to charged to 87% of existing capacity(if that's your number).

Why they did this is open to debate, speculation, etc. The fact that they stop charging at a lower SOC than they did before is so easy to prove if you have before and after CANBUS screenshots.

 

[Chaserr]

Honestly, just showing that you can no longer charge to 4.2V proves everything. They can't call that degradation, and if they try it's in the public record against them.

 

[faughtz]

Very interesting reply. They state the battery has 219.4Ah. If I'm not mistaken, when new, it should have 3.4Ah * 74 or about 251.6Ah. (Compare Tesla Model S Lithium Ion Battery 18650 EV Module - 22.8 Volt, 5.3 kWh, EV West - Electric Vehicle Parts, Components, EVSE Charging Stations, Electric Car Conversion Kits). So that would put you at 87.2% remaining capacity or 12.8% degradation.
Apply that number to the EPA miles stated in the document, you should have a rated range of 211 miles (0.872 * 242mi) and a capacity of 74.1kWh (0.872 * 85kWh). Isn't that the capacity you were reading before the update? If you now have 64kWh that's only 75.3% of the original 85kWh or 189.44Ah.

That would mean that Tesla's internal system tools show the pre-update capacity. Maybe you should try directly communicating this discrepancy to their number - if it's not too late now and if I'm not wrong with the numbers above, of course.

There are many assertions in the tesla response, but little data, and even less data with provenance.

 

[sorka]

Honestly, just showing that you can no longer charge to 4.2V proves everything. They can't call that degradation, and if they try it's in the public record against them.

Exactly but it seems like they're trying to make a convoluted argument to obfuscate or hide the fact that they are simply not charging to existing capacity in order to avoid having to argue WHY they aren't charging to existing capacity. If not fully charging point is stipulated, then they have to disclose why they software limited capacity. Did they do it to promote longevity? Did they do it for safety?

If they answer longevity, which is what they've told customers, then they're acknowledging that they have restricted full charge access to prevent FUTURE degradation and that the reduction is NOT really current degradation.

If they answer safety then they have to explain that they're limiting charging in order to prevent battery fires (aka Note 7) which is still not normal degradation and they have to admit that the batteries might catch fire even if they are less likely to do so on a lower SOC. If I were them I'd not want to even start down that road.

Of course their lawyers are ABSOLUTELY monitoring this thread which means their legal roadmap will influenced by what's discussed here which gives them a huge advantage.

 

[u1e85d5]

Well there is the data of 219.4Ah either as the fleet average CAC or your CAC which supposedly is 1.6% below fleet average. According to that tech.

 

[qwk]

Well there is the data of 219.4Ah either as the fleet average CAC or your CAC which supposedly is 1.6% below fleet average. According to that tech.

This has nothing to do with anything. Once you are restricted to a certain charge level, your CAC won't matter. The actual battery capacity available to you is all that matters.

 

[u1e85d5]

Yeah that's why I'm saying: apparently the techs cannot see the limitations, because they're talking about the number that corresponds (according to the info I found) to the number before the update.

 

[qwk]

I have a pre facelift, 15 module, S70. Should my Ah also be 219 Ah or should it be a different figure being a 70kWh battery rather than an 85kWh battery?

It wouldn't be the same as an 85kWh pack, unless it is one of those bigger packs with a software restriction.

 

[Lukez]

If it was me proving my case I would stick to using voltage and kwh data whenever possible. It's too easy for tesla to make "range" sound subjective

 

[gmo43]

Here is Tesla's response to my NCDS action. There are a number of inaccuracies and questionable assertions in this document, detailed discussion of which I will withhold until the hearing. However, the referenced text of 14 June was never received, and appears to never have been sent – and it’s especially revealing of the implementation of “charge limit” changes. I especially like the guidance of charging to something less than 100% to reduce the impact of the reduction in range. And I will again remind everyone, including Tesla, that this is not just capacity or range reduction, it’s also a dramatic reduction of maximum acceleration performance.

Looks like this attorney did a lot of copy and paste ;-) . Definitely sounds like theres a lot more people that contacted NCDS and that may be the reason they are denying other claims.

 

[DILIE]

Exactly but it seems like they're trying to make a convoluted argument to obfuscate or hide the fact that they are simply not charging to existing capacity in order to avoid having to argue WHY they aren't charging to existing capacity. If not fully charging point is stipulated, then they have to disclose why they software limited capacity. Did they do it to promote longevity? Did they do it for safety?

If they answer longevity, which is what they've told customers, then they're acknowledging that they have restricted full charge access to prevent FUTURE degradation and that the reduction is NOT really current degradation.

If they answer safety then they have to explain that they're limiting charging in order to prevent battery fires (aka Note 7) which is still not normal degradation and they have to admit that the batteries might catch fire even if they are less likely to do so on a lower SOC. If I were them I'd not want to even start down that road.

Of course their lawyers are ABSOLUTELY monitoring this thread which means their legal roadmap will influenced by what's discussed here which gives them a huge advantage.

They also directly brought value into the discussion. You should bring priced out S70 and S85 vehicle quotes to show the difference in value based solely on battery capacity. You then tie that to the reduction in capacity performed by the software to show they absolutely reduced the value. When they rebut you ask if they have ever sold cars at a lower price by reducing capacity of otherwise equivalent batteries. You should have documentation of this practice.

Was the mechanism of reducing capacity in your car via the software update the same as the mechanism used to differentiate vehicle models by capacity? (Hint: It is. Lower maximum voltage.) They have now admitted they reduced the value of your car using the same method through which they reduce the value of new cars they sell.

I also agree with attacking the "Usage over time" by showing the capacity reduction did not occur with usage or over time, but was instantaneous through software changes.

None of this line of reasoning brings range to the table. It's only about capacity and value, which they explicitly tie together in their pricing models.

 

[Blu Zap]

If they answer safety then they have to explain that they're limiting charging in order to prevent battery fires (aka Note 7) which is still not normal degradation and they have to admit that the batteries might catch fire even if they are less likely to do so on a lower SOC. If I were them I'd not want to even start down that road.

@sorka BINGO!! That's it. Range and/or kWh reduction is not the issue. The fact that Tesla took a deliberate step through a BMS software update to put limitations on the batteries to prevent fires is the real issue. That is one that will have a strong case. Tesla is all about safety. No public explanation about the Singapore, Hong Kong and others' spontaneous combustion of 85kWh batteries. But Tesla took a deliberate step to mitigate that risk. Hmmmm.....
Lets run with that idea. Warranty replace/repair my battery because it will burst into flames.

 

[neroden]

The 2.4% figure would be correct if Vmin was 0.0V, but it’s not. My research has shown that Vnom is 3.66V and Vmax (when the car registers as 100% full) is 4.2V. I have not been able to establish what Vmin (when the car registers as 0% or empty) is. But if Vnom is 3.66, then Vmin is more likely to be around the 3.0V mark. If so, a 0.1V drop from 4.2V is much larger in % terms.

So 8.4%-9%.

 

[neroden]

The voltage curve is far from linear. At 4.1V you're close to 80% SoC:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure...cell-versus-State-of-Charge-28_fig5_289994303

Soooo, 10%-15% range drop according to that model... OK, that fits the worst cases people have seen (but others saw less of a drop).