-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
- Thread starter Dutchmeeuw
- Start date
Simple test:
Start with let's say 150mi of range (actual does not matter) then drive around and use the energy consumption graph to get right on 295 wh/mi (clearly indicated as rated on graph) ...then compare the projected range of that graph and you'll see that the projected range is below the rated range on the display.
Or do like me, 200 mile trips diving at rated and see that you lost 5% of the rated range.
Like I stated upthread, mine is based on 265. Tesla has changed so many variables in the rated range algorithms over the years through software updates, it's hard to say what is what. The only thing that matters is kWh remaining estimate. You can find your true estimated degradation that way.
It's really irrelevant though, as the usable capacity has been reduced, not the true capacity.
faughtz
Model S P85DL
I think it a software bug since the trip planner is always fine (in percent) so can't claim deception.
faughtz
Model S P85DL
Agreed.
Why is Tesla not willing to display true Kwh used so we can do run down tests.. My Focus Ev and Bolt Ev have no problem clearly showing that number. The interesting part is that Bolt never advertised its battery capacity, presumed however to be 65Kwh...Tesla did put a badge of my car (75)
Attachments
Last edited:
You probably tried a few different ways to communicate with them, but to make sure: did you tell the tech specifically that your 100% is not the actual 100%? For example using the quoted sentence or telling them the Ah @ 100% is far less than the 219.4 stated.
I guess you tried already, but it seems like an important point that would enable both parties to talk past one another. Their reply looks to be talking about the *actual* 100% not understanding that you cannot access the top 10%.
faughtz
Model S P85DL
Think some of this is incompetence, but some may be deliberate obfuscation. I’m not talking with TESLA in terms of percentages or rated miles. I’m talking in terms of battery capacity being reduced some 8kWh (~74kWh to ~65kWh) and power being reduced by more than 30kW through the deployment of this software to my car. This is the direct result of the cells not being allowed to charge to about 4.2v.
I have another affected car - 2012 P85. Interesting thing is that this happened while I was out of town, so my car updated the day before I left and then sat plugged in to my HPWC in the garage for 11 days. I have TeslaLog metrics showing it bleeding off charge from my 90% at 219 to what appears to be my new 90% of 198 miles. I also can correlate this with the version of software installed.
Probably stating what has already been said in the prior 100+ pages of this thread:
The battery warranty states gradual range loss is expected. I have history going back almost 4 yrs and 50k miles showing my 90% has remained at 219 +/- a mile or two. Losing 21 miles of range at 90% overnight doesn't look gradual to me. It looks like a reason to replace my battery (or fix the software). Not only has planned use of the car be impacted "overnight," but so has my resale value.
A PDF of my log is attached... the gap between 7/11 and 7/22 is because it wasn't driven during that time.
I'm definitely interested in participating in getting this resolved.
Aaron
Probably stating what has already been said in the prior 100+ pages of this thread:
The battery warranty states gradual range loss is expected. I have history going back almost 4 yrs and 50k miles showing my 90% has remained at 219 +/- a mile or two. Losing 21 miles of range at 90% overnight doesn't look gradual to me. It looks like a reason to replace my battery (or fix the software). Not only has planned use of the car be impacted "overnight," but so has my resale value.
A PDF of my log is attached... the gap between 7/11 and 7/22 is because it wasn't driven during that time.
I'm definitely interested in participating in getting this resolved.
Aaron
Adrian
Title(D)
The "Dev" and ludicrous screen option are not the same. Neither requires root - just access to the dev mode with a token. If you're real friendly with a Tesla tech they'll give you one or activate the screen on your profile when you're in for service.
I've attached an image of my P85+ at 100% 4.19V. Showed 4.2V while charging. Peaks at 4.2V with regen as normal. I also got 366 km Typical indicated after updating, which is a moderate reduction. But the car does indicate it's charging to 4.2V as before. However, it seems like it's charging slightly faster at the top than before.
EDIT: As others have noted earlier in the thread, I've also noticed the car running the coolant pumps a lot more than normal when idling at higher SoC. Usually it sits at 80% at most, but recently there's been a few 90% charges and two 98/100%. When left at 90% the car will run the coolant pumps for quite a while - i haven't timed ut, but i was away from it for an hour and it was still going when i got back. Curiously my vampire drain is way less on 2019.16.3 than i had on 2018.42.3.
Last edited:
Very interesting, you confirm that the new 'wanted' StateOfCharge is 'simply' lower and not based on a calculation (like DifferentialVoltageAnalysis during charging) .
But (being Danish and un-familiar with US laws) your comment: 'I have history going back almost 4 yrs and 50k miles showing my 90% has remained at 219 +/- a mile or two. ' does not really argue for a problem less a lawsuit? Problem is that that your documentation seems based on a calculated value and not a concrete range.
Tesla warranty terms stated that gradual loss of Li-Ion caåpacity is to be expected.
I am suggesting that the old algorithm falsely concluded a too high range. (and we have all been pleased that the calculated range showed that we all had less degradation than anybody expected:for the last 3 years-))
If Tesla suddenly realized that their 'Remaining Capacity Calculator' is wrong (or worse cause a risk), then of course, they need to reduce the estimate to the 'real' value. This means you will not run out of juice unexpectedly and you will not increase risks.
DJRas
Member
The consumption graph uses a different algorithm than the dashboard "Rated Range".
If you look at the Rated Range at ANY State of Charge % and the Usable kWh Capacity (ScanMyTesla or TM-Spy - 4kWh buffer) you will see the 276 Wh per mi is what they are now using.
Last edited:
P85D was 253 new (less than non perfomance) and 242 now with range mode on (241 with range mode off). P85D rated is 310 wh/mile and has never changed. Remember, i'm on v8.
Current degradation is 4.75%.
Last edited:
So the thread where I got slammed with something like 15 disagrees when I said you wouldn't damage your battery by running it down to 5%(which is really like 13% when you include the buffer) as long as non of the cells were exposed to reverse polarity were all wrong and I was right after all
But more seriously, are you saying based on that research it's actually good to store the battery at a really low SOC for extended periods of time? Very interesting if true.
I think that's a confusing topic and the real answer might be demonstrated by this video.
Watch what happens to the end trip estimated remaining vs starting out. The point to note that is at 32 seconds into the video.
Adrian
Title(D)
This is a feature, not a bug. It's been present for as long as i can remember. The indicated range at arrival under 5% always factors in the expected consumption at "stay below X kph" speed. The more you charge, the higher the X value. Easy enough to check if you stop charging while this is happening.
faughtz
Model S P85DL
Similar threads
