When "they said it was normal and that the OTA update recalculates a correct range", was it verbal or written?
-
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
When "they said it was normal and that the OTA update recalculates a correct range", was it verbal or written?
Whatever they say its pure distraction. The real issue is loss of (available) capacity, not range.
As long as customers keep on complaining about range they ll dodge the issue by stating that range depends on many factors and so forth.
Stick to kWh capacity, stick to the physics. Then lets see what they come up with
As long as customers keep on complaining about range they ll dodge the issue by stating that range depends on many factors and so forth.
Stick to kWh capacity, stick to the physics. Then lets see what they come up with
Historically Tesla HAS replaced batteries that ran out of juice WHILE driving while showing range remaining. Look-up Tesslop and Tesla Bjørn X75.
Tesloop:
Tesloop’s Tesla Model S Surpasses 400,000 miles (643,737 kM)
The Tesloop story actually kindof/semi confirms that a rest a low SoC is recommended (My very key point from the European Li-Ion Recovery Papers, A lot of cycle capacity loss is recoverable if battery is rested at a very low SoC):
Snip:
High Voltage Battery: The Model S has had its high voltage battery replaced twice under warranty at 194,000 and 324,000 miles. Battery degradation over the course of the first 194,000 miles was ~6% with multiple supercharges a day to 95-100%, instead of the recommended 90-95%. Between 194,000 and 324,000 miles Tesloop experienced battery degradation of ~22% (see below for details).
AUGUST 2016
Before a firmware update that fixed this issue the vehicle’s range estimator became inaccurate. The estimator would decrease 10 miles even though the vehicle didn’t actually lose range. Upon inspection Tesla found there to be a battery chemistry issue that the software wasn’t calculating correctly prompting the service center to change the high voltage battery for safety and to study. 3 months later a firmware update was released, which had it been released 3 months earlier, Tesloop would not have had to change the battery.
TESLA SERVICE CENTER REASON FOR HIGH VOLTAGE BATTERY REPLACEMENT AT 194,239 MILES:
“Found internal imbalance in HV battery due to consistent supercharging to 100% from a low state of charge (SOC) without any rest periods in between. HV battery has been approved to be replaced. Also recommend that customer does not Supercharge on a regular basis and does not charge to 100% on a regular basis. We also recommend that the customer use scheduled charging to start charge 3 hours after end of drive at low SOC.”
:EndOfSnip
I was talking about the present time. The Teslaloops story is a unique use case and rather old (3 years ago). A fix was issued by Tesla at that time.
Since August 2016 fix, is there any evidence that the range estimator has been erroneous in forcing the owners to run out of juice prematurely due to the erroneous "Remaining Capacity" calculation? That's all I was asking.
DJRas
Member
I am familiar with the case and know the attorney involved (not MY case).
The is a 72 page legal filing related to all aspects of Tesla's CPO program including failure to disclose the condition of the battery at time of sale.
The Reuters' One Pass required is designed for legal firms.
lightningltd
Member
In a nutshell:
Tesla Motors, without prior notice, warning, or permission, did artificially limit the capacity of certain 85KW batteries by way of an over the air firmware update (2019.16.x). This appeared to be an emergency action taken by Tesla as evidenced by the urgency and lack of communication to the affected owners and service staff prior to and after said change.
The end result of said action limits power output and vehicle range by causing the battery to store more than 10% less available energy (KW Capacity). It causes the batteries to charge to 4.1 volts rather than the full 4.2 volts (10% reduction)
Affected owners are no longer able to reach some of the same destinations they had reached just prior to the update, due to the reduced available KW capacity, and therefore range, nor are the affected vehicles able to perform at or near the advertised performance specs as they were able to prior to the change.
Prior to the change, most affected vehicles had a mere 3-5% degradation, which was to be expected and is normal. Reducing the storage capacity of the battery has increased this to 13%-15% less power available and more in some cases.
Tesla Motors also has limited the charge rates to said batteries by a significant amount, causing more congestion and inconvenience to other owners due to the longer charge times of the affected vehicles.
In contacting the local service centers, affected owners are told that it is normal degradation and NOT as a result of recent battery fires, or an emergency action.
In Teslas own promotional documents, it is stated that degradation occurs over time. This action happened all at once, and therefore would not be normal degradation.
Tesla also claims that the lower range displayed is the result of a calculation error that has been corrected. This is not the case, as total CAPACITY AVAILABLE has been reduced. Rated Range is a CONSTANT based on the available KW CAPACITY of the battery. Thst number is set by the EPA, a FEDERAL agency, and there not open to adjustment, especially since that number is used in all of Teslas advertisements.
Tesla REALLY needs to come clean on this issue and do the right thing before it gets too much more out of control.
Thoughts? Does this sum it up?
Tesla Motors, without prior notice, warning, or permission, did artificially limit the capacity of certain 85KW batteries by way of an over the air firmware update (2019.16.x). This appeared to be an emergency action taken by Tesla as evidenced by the urgency and lack of communication to the affected owners and service staff prior to and after said change.
The end result of said action limits power output and vehicle range by causing the battery to store more than 10% less available energy (KW Capacity). It causes the batteries to charge to 4.1 volts rather than the full 4.2 volts (10% reduction)
Affected owners are no longer able to reach some of the same destinations they had reached just prior to the update, due to the reduced available KW capacity, and therefore range, nor are the affected vehicles able to perform at or near the advertised performance specs as they were able to prior to the change.
Prior to the change, most affected vehicles had a mere 3-5% degradation, which was to be expected and is normal. Reducing the storage capacity of the battery has increased this to 13%-15% less power available and more in some cases.
Tesla Motors also has limited the charge rates to said batteries by a significant amount, causing more congestion and inconvenience to other owners due to the longer charge times of the affected vehicles.
In contacting the local service centers, affected owners are told that it is normal degradation and NOT as a result of recent battery fires, or an emergency action.
In Teslas own promotional documents, it is stated that degradation occurs over time. This action happened all at once, and therefore would not be normal degradation.
Tesla also claims that the lower range displayed is the result of a calculation error that has been corrected. This is not the case, as total CAPACITY AVAILABLE has been reduced. Rated Range is a CONSTANT based on the available KW CAPACITY of the battery. Thst number is set by the EPA, a FEDERAL agency, and there not open to adjustment, especially since that number is used in all of Teslas advertisements.
Tesla REALLY needs to come clean on this issue and do the right thing before it gets too much more out of control.
Thoughts? Does this sum it up?
Last edited:
Ferrycraigs
Member
This is definitely the tack I am adopting. I had a response eventually today from Tesla. Almost unbelievable. They seemed very keen to answers the question they wished I had asked (Range), not the question I did ask (capacity). They included what I presume is a 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. (my emphasis)
The S/X Battery warranty does not cover range, we cover any hardware defect inside the pack.”
So I explained why I thought each of their points were wrong, and that as their actions only applied to some batteries, rather than fleet wide, then palpably this was a problem with the battery in my car, ie a hardware defect. I have also reminded them of Elon’s promise that if anything goes wrong with the battery, it is their fault not mine, and that the battery will be replaced free of charge.
I await their response.
And in other news, A number of local owners are already talking about an owners drive in and meet up, very close to the local Tesla Store, where we will be able to explain to as many potential customers, why the car is an outstanding vehicle, and why they should buy with their eyes open.
Last edited:
Probably worth specifically mentioning that the update prevents affected batteries from fully charging to 4.2V per cell, as they did before the update. Charging is limited to ~4.1V/cell, causing an immediate reduction in range/capacity of ~10%, over and above "normal degradation." This arbitrary voltage cap reduces total power available, reducing performance.
jaitch
Member
This is an issue I have after buying a CPO P90DL with 240 odd Typical UK mile range versus their advertised range of much greater (ie as new range). Seems to be an anomaly that needs addressing by advertising standards or something.
On a related note I have decided that this range reduction issue needs a name/acronym. I came up with Tebla - Tesla Enabled Battery Liability Avoidance.
James
BigNick
Infamous Fat Sweaty Guy
#57 seems to always be low, but at higher SOC all 96 groups are within 7 mV, it's only at under 20% SOC that group 57 starts to sag.
lightningltd
Member
Excellent summary. Suggestions:
- Would you re-post the same with revision#, this being rev.1. The next one with new feedback being rev.2, and on.
- Would you also highlight the fact that specific % of 85 kWh type batteries are impacted (connotation being there must be something wrong with these batteries and not all 85 kWh variants)
Thanks again.
lightningltd
Member
They are reporting the original specs of the car, ie. the Monroney sticker information.
When a used car dealer says that a car gets 25MPG do you think he tested that or is he just pulling the EPA number that was assigned to that car?
Decibelle
Member
thanks decibelle I was able to find it as well after searching around on the net. I also posted a link to this thread as well under the most recent news on the blog about earning being reduced. I am hoping to create as much exposure as I can on this to get some action outside of what I have already done.
jaitch
Member
Petrol/diesel cars' mpg doesn't generally degrade over time unlike our beloved Tesla's. Tesla state our range will degrade over time and it is normal behaviour - that is fine. The estimated range based on whatever the Wh/mile is even indicated in the used car for sale's dash display - so it is not difficult to report it. It seems the decent thing is to at least mark it down as a factor in the cars status - just like mileage etc. It is slightly misleading for Tesla to advertise a CPO's range as that when it was new when clearly it is not the case when they are selling it.
James
Similar threads
