Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[boywonder]

My Model S is an 85D is running 2019.16.2

As an experiment I visited a Supercharger this morning and charged the car from 23% to 90% and tracked the charge rate for each 5% increase in SOC.

2019.16.2 - 85D - Supercharge

• boywonder
• Jul 27, 2019

At the start of the charge session, the charge rate peaked at 112KWH but had dropped back to 105KWH within 2 minutes. Thereafter the charge rate drops in proportion to the increase in SOC. The cooling fan was working hard from the start of the charging session, but reduced in intensity once the charge rate dropped below 50KHW

The ambient temperature was 17C or 63F, and the car had been driven at highway speeds for 10 miles prior to charging.
The charge session took 41 minutes and added 47KWH of energy; taking the battery from a reported 23% to 90% SOC.

Using the back of an envelope, I calculate that the battery capacity is now 70KWH following the recent software updates, and that my available range at 90% SOC has dropped from 233 mile to 207 miles; effectively a 10% loss in range which is in line with what others are reporting.

While the graph doesn't appear to show a significant impact on charge rate, it's worth bearing in mind that 90% SOC now used to be just over 80% prior to the recent firmware updates, so to get to 233 miles of range would probably take another 25 minutes from the new 90% to the (new) 100%.

The remaining 25 miles of range that I used to have is currently unobtainable!

 

[Droschke]

Imagine that the fuel tank of an ICE is punctured at the top end, and when the tank is filled to 100 % some fuel is sipping out, and causes fire danger. Instead of fixing the fuel tank or replacing it all together, the manufacturer is preventing the user to fill it to 100 % and also reduces the fuel flow to avoid that fuel is lost thru the punctures.

... imagine we learn in a new study that when filling your gas tank to 100% in 42°C weather, a compound is created by the fuel pressure (bare with me) that can lead to fire. So the manufacturer sends an over-the-air update limiting you to fill the tank by 0.5% per mol of detected compound.
But suddenly a few people can only fuel to 90% and are complaining. So they investigate and find that when fueling with 7.3%-7.4% ethanol a compound is detected that has the same signature on the sensor but is harmless. Now they have to figure out a way to distinguish between those and release another update that gives back the fueling capacity to affected owners while keeping everyone save.

Excellent analogies. Thank you! Couldn't be said better. Could have used these late last night during my testy exchange with a fool in another thread (regarding the persistent release of silly games in the Tesla updates instead of fixing the long broken software) who was vulgarly dismissive of the ordeal of the impacted owners in this thread.

 

[Droschke]

Ironically, whilst I am suffering from #batterygate (reduced capacity) I am not suffering from #chargegate (reduced charging speed), but I have noticed a very slight (1-2kW) improvement in Supercharging flow rate, although that might be Tesla’s new feature to speed up charging speeds when you select a Supercharger as the destination. I did wonder if that (higher speed=higher temp) wasn’t doing exactly what #batterygate and #chargegate were both trying to overcome. It’s almost as if their left hand and right hand don’t know what each is doing. Hmm

My 50 to 90% supercharging typically takes about 45 minutes now.

On Edit: The last time I charged from 50% to 90% was right after installing 2019.24.4 update. The sad part (again) was noticing another botched-up update. All my screen tabs were showing up gibberish with corrupt fonts again, and this was after I've hard rebooted and car offed multiple times as I always do after an update. The point being I could not read the data shown for that charging sessions at all. Only that took 47 minutes to charge from 50-90% SoC in a deserted SuC station. (BTW, the comical update release notes stated an enhancement to the Sketchpad pad - wanted to scream!!!)

 

[Ferrycraigs]

My 50 to 90% supercharging typically takes about 45 minutes now.

My S70 has been pretty constant on Superchargers, at 5 minutes per 10% up to 50%, then 6, 8, 10, 12 minutes for each 10% above 50%.
So
20%-50%=15 minutes
50%-80%=25 minutes (20%-80%=40 minutes, or time for a coffee and a comfort break)
20%-90%=50 minutes
Also there seemed to be a correlation between SoC% and Power tapering. Both figures used to equal, about, 118.
So
@ 25% it would Supercharge at about 93kW
@ 50% it would be about 68kW
@ 65% it would be about 53kW
@ 75% it would be about 43kW
It was never exactly, and could fluctuate by 2-3kW, but was always in the ball park. As long as I wasn’t sharing at the Supercharger.

 

[ChadFeldheimer]

Or imagine we learn in a new study that when filling your gas tank to 100% in 42°C weather, a compound is created by the fuel pressure (bare with me) that can lead to fire. So the manufacturer sends an over-the-air update limiting you to fill the tank by 0.5% per mol of detected compound.
But suddenly a few people can only fuel to 90% and are complaining. So they investigate and find that when fueling with 7.3%-7.4% ethanol a compound is detected that has the same signature on the sensor but is harmless. Now they have to figure out a way to distinguish between those and release another update that gives back the fueling capacity to affected owners while keeping everyone save.

I know, not a good analogy, but I think you're oversimplifying in yours.

You may be oversimplifying also?

The manufacturer expected the "lead to fire" condition to be so rare that it would not exist in the population. They have the ability to poll and test to learn the actual size of the affected population - but they didn't bother and went straight to releasing an over-the-air update, which addresses the dangerous condition by reducing fuel tank capacity (and fuel filling rate, fuel consumption rate, etc).

Interestingly, despite the expectation that the condition is super rare yet also dangerous, the update doesn't bother warning the customer - instead, it quietly reduces the fuel tank's capacity. Having the very few affected customers bring their cars in for repair costs virtually nothing and protects the customer, the manufacturer, and the general public. Why bother trying to hide it?

Furthermore, if the manufacturer still believes the dangerous condition to be essentially non-existent but they have inadvertently found separate benign condition with similar symptoms, why wouldn't they quickly roll back the update once they found they have impacted customers without the dangerous condition?

One "common cause" that would explain all this peculiar behavior is that the dangerous condition is not actually rare. A second explanation is that Tesla is incompetent. A third one is that wk057 or his sources within Tesla are wrong or provided misleading information. #3 would be a great outcome... but I fear it is the least likely one.

 

[Droschke]

They have the ability to poll and test to learn the actual size of the affected population - but they didn't bother and went straight to releasing an over-the-air update

I believe the 2019.16.1 was to poll and test. The 2019.16.2 was the capacity cap poison pill shoved down. At least what I observed for my car.

 

[Droschke]

Great questions you are posting:

if the manufacturer still believes the dangerous condition to be essentially non-existent but they have inadvertently found separate benign condition with similar symptoms, why wouldn't they quickly roll back the update once they found they have impacted customers without the dangerous condition?

You have indeed answered it by:

One "common cause" that would explain all this peculiar behavior is that the dangerous condition is not actually rare.

 

[boywonder]

I’ve just received a notification that a new update is waiting for download.

My current version is 2019.16.2

Does anyone know what the next firmware version is and what it offers?

2016 MS85D AP1 85D

 

[Ferrycraigs]

I’ve just received a notification that a new update is waiting for download.

My current version is 2019.16.2

Does anyone know what the next firmware version is and what it offers?

2016 MS85D AP1 85D

I was on 2019.16.1.1. Tesla asked me to update to newer version. That was 2019.16.3.2. I can’t see any changes. It just looked like a minor update. Nothing new on the Release Notes.

Of course one of the main problems in all of this is, they don’t tell you which update version you are about to download, nor what it includes. Personally, if you are not suffering from #chargegate, which was a later version (2019.4.x) I would be tempted to wait a bit. I have not read of ANY posts that said there was an update that solved either #batterygate or #chargegate.

 

[Droschke]

I’ve just received a notification that a new update is waiting for download.

My current version is 2019.16.2

Does anyone know what the next firmware version is and what it offers?

2016 MS85D AP1 85D

If it's 2019.24.4 (your SW tab shows it), then you get the mighty and painfully waited for the Sketchpad coloring enhancement.

 

[boywonder]

“... then you get the mighty and painfully waited for the Sketchpad coloring enhancement...”

Awesome!

 

[Whiteblaze]

In a nutshell:

There have been a few posts in this thread about increased vampire drain being related to all this. Has that been conclusively demonstrated? If so, we should add it to your most excellent summary.

In my case, vampire drain is now anywhere from 6-12 miles a day, which seems high. However, I wasn't keeping track before the update, so I can't say for certain whether the update caused that.

 

[fbitz777]

There have been a few posts in this thread about increased vampire drain being related to all this. Has that been conclusively demonstrated? If so, we should add it to your most excellent summary.

In my case, vampire drain is now anywhere from 6-12 miles a day, which seems high. However, I wasn't keeping track before the update, so I can't say for certain whether the update caused that.

I have had that kind of drain for a year ...and that is with all options off as to prevent the car from communicating

 

[mjmiron]

Newest software does nothing to the mileage at all it’s still bad.

 

[Droschke]

In my case, vampire drain is now anywhere from 6-12 miles a day, which seems high. However, I wasn't keeping track before the update, so I can't say for certain whether the update caused that.

That's too excessive in summer time, where mine is about 2, 3 miles max while plugged in. Something does not sound right in your case.

 

[Droschke]

Newest software does nothing to the mileage at all it’s still bad.

Was it supposed to?

 

[Ferrycraigs]

I have had that kind of drain for a year ...and that is with all options off as to prevent the car from communicating

It was due to a noticeable increase in Vampire drain that I was first alerted to #batterygate. So in some small way, I am grateful to have it. On my car it varies from 1%-4% per night. I also have no 3rd party Apps or any Climate Controls set to on.

I have also noticed the sound of, what sounds like, a small fan, working when the car is switched off, and even when unplugged. In the absence of any advice from Tesla, cough, I have assumed they have introduced some function to help cool the battery. But that’s just my assumption based purely on me hearing some very quiet noises from under the front of the car.

 

[mjmiron]

Was it supposed to?

Nope but just confirming for everyone’s else still have hope we get a fix.

 

[Droschke]

@Whiteblaze, @fbitz777, @Ferrycraigs:

Are you guys plugged in when vampire drain is excessive?

 

[Ferrycraigs]

@Whiteblaze, @fbitz777, @Ferrycraigs:

Are you guys plugged in when vampire drain is excessive?

Nope. That’s why it was quite a shock.