Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[DJRas]

Throttling itself isn’t new, that was identified some time ago. A chap who exclusively DC charged noticed the charge rate dropped, and he’d been careful to charge and stay with 20-80% limits most of the time. Another owner received this from his SC after his car had been tested:

‘The DC charge limiting is set to start at 2625 kWh and reaches maximum derating at 13125 kWh.’

Interesting but i am not sure i believe it.
I have over 32,000 kWh Supercharging and mine is throttled back only after the last updates. My charge times are longer now only because my pack capacity is artificially limited and I now have to charge from 15% to 90% instead of 30% to 90%.
Since my new 100% is my old 85% I SHOULD never see the charge current drop. My batteries NEVER get above 4.1 volts.

A fellow here has even more Supercharging than me at over 35,000 kWh and his battery has not been limited.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

Have you been able to prove this by using a Supercharger, as the CHAdeMo rates are slow by comparison anyway?
CHAdeMO is slower than SuC, but the rates (38-40kW on a Chad) and (40-90kW on SuC) have remained pretty constant.

Quite possibly, or in uncharted waters..
It is almost certainly uncharted waters.

I don't think so, it's all DC charging. This was the point made by the owner who first identified the problem as most of his DC charging was CHAdeMo. It was when he visited Superchargers on a regularly taken trip he noticed the difference.

i have definitely not noticed any reduction in Supercharging speeds.

 

[DJP31]

Interesting but i am not sure i believe it.

It was quoted directly from the invoice/report the owner received from the Service Centre. That said, I don't know which battery pack the owner had so I suppose it might not apply to them all.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

We have to use range as that is the ONLY measure the car directly displays. Tesla automatically distegards ALL data from 3rd party apps reading the BMS.
I know this because that is what happened to me. Even their battery capacity test results were reported to me in rated range miles NOT kWh. I am SURE their report shows kWh but they would not tell me those numbers even though I paid $253.50 for the test.

Safety IS a concern for me and I filed a report with NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) to investigate the safety of Tesla batteries following 4 fires in 4 months while cars were parked and not charging. One was in a garage in San Francisco. They are who administer recalls.

I will let you all know when I hear back from them.

I am nervous about using the term Range, as Tesla seem to have range pretty well covered. It’s excluded from the Warranty, and it is an extremely variable thing, dependent on many factors all of which have an effect, so all of which can be used by Tesla to say Range is a variable thing. Although I have a record of 100% Range using Typical for the past 3 years, before and after the download.

I prefer to use Capacity in kWs. It is very easy to establish using the Energy screen, using the average over the last X miles, miles remaining which is based on that consumption figure, and State of Charge %. Whilst Capacity itself does vary, such as by temperature, the variation is small, typically less than 1%. So I can demonstrate that for 3 years my Capacity was 68.x kWhs, but after the download it is now 58.x kWhs, and 20-30 readings later, remains at 58 kWhs.

But I am also attracted to the safety angle. If the restrictions are due to safety, then there must be something wrong with my battery. Elon has said in such circumstances, it’s their fault and they will repair, refurbish or replace at their discretion.

 

[Droschke]

you mean a "settlement". They'd never let something like this go to a jury. You'd be lucky to get a discount on another car. When we joined the class relating to AP2 (waited years after our 2016 S was delivered) being not as promised - we got a few hundred. One mega fanboy here mocked us, and the pittence of a remedy, intimated all we did was waste our time. Get ready for the same crowd to come out of the woodwork for YOU all too.
Unlike that type of characters - i feel all your frustration & am sorry for the grief - after paying 6 figures.
.

Thanks for your post as a reminder that class actions, at least in this case, even though it might be emotionally satisfying it might not be accomplishing our goal here, which is to bring back if not all, but the most of our lost capacity. What's a few hundred dollars settlement prize would do for us if the batteries remain to stay capped, and may be even further capped?

I'm for more publicity of this issue to make the case and to pressure Tesla to fix it. The case that what has happened is negative for Tesla as a brand and how in the real world this kind of manipulation can impact the ownership experience.

 

[DJRas]

It was quoted directly from the invoice/report the owner received from the Service Centre. That said, I don't know which battery pack the owner had so I suppose it might not apply to them all.

I understand. But Service Centers say a lot of things that may or may not be true.

There have been instances reported over the years of individuals being limited. I have not and my friend with even more has not.

 

[Droschke]

Another owner received this from his SC after his car had been tested:

‘The DC charge limiting is set to start at 2625 kWh and reaches maximum derating at 13125 kWh.’

See, this ^^^ needs to be a part of the sales materials, in the fine print and/or at the Tesla website for the buyers to know when they are making the decision to buy that car.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

See, this ^^^ needs to be a part of the sales materials, in the fine print and/or at the Tesla website for the buyers to know when they are making the decision to buy that car.

I agree. Had I known about this when I bought it, my charging regime would have been almost 90% AC.

 

[MP3Mike]

In all honesty why would they replace the battery if it is due to fire. In the long run it would be much easier to let the insurance company pay when it lights up.

Nope, the insurance company is of the hook in case of a fire since the Tesla warranty covers fires that aren't intentional.

 

[cezdoc]

Throttling itself isn’t new, that was identified some time ago. A chap who exclusively DC charged noticed the charge rate dropped, and he’d been careful to charge and stay with 20-80% limits most of the time. Another owner received this from his SC after his car had been tested:

‘The DC charge limiting is set to start at 2625 kWh and reaches maximum derating at 13125 kWh.’

It was quoted directly from the invoice/report the owner received from the Service Centre. That said, I don't know which battery pack the owner had so I suppose it might not apply to them all.

I made a note of the details at the time: the charge limiting explanation was reported in March this year in the UK Owner's Facebook group.
The car in question was a 75D. At the time it was presumed not to apply to older generation (85, 70, non-limited 60's) batteries which have always had different Supercharging profiles to newer (75, 90, 100) batteries.

I have an S70. Based on my own stats I estimate I exceeded 2625 kWh at the end of 2018 but my own Supercharger rates were unaffected as recently as April (I didn't Supercharge in May or June).

Anecdotally it seems likely that reduced Supercharging speeds on 85s & 70s are being experienced as a result of recent software updates (this is separate to the range loss, which I haven't experienced - yet). My car has done 26K miles in 3 1/2 years, with 20-25% of that via Supercharging, and know that reduced Supercharging (20-25% slower) started affecting me in July, but I've read of multiple examples of 70's with higher mileage and higher SuC usage that weren't restricted until the last month or so.

 

[mjmiron]

If your car does go up in flames are you really going to trust Tesla to replace it? I deleted my prior post as after rereading I think it was a little too negative I don't want to continue to bad mouth Tesla. But in cases like this and throttling the launch mode, and taking things away they have done the wrong thing and it took a lot for them to correct it.

 

[Droschke]

Ya, the Electrek and Roadshow articles were very specific in Tesla's statement that this effects "some" early 85kWh batteries. So before silicon was added to the anodes to add 6% capacity, i.e. 90kWh. But as we have seen it is not all 85kWh batteries. But I need to point out that the Roadshow article quoted Tesla as saying "Most owners won't notice". Sorry, but that is an insulting statement from Tesla.
Our attention keeps focusing on range. After all that is the killer for us. But Tesla doesn't give a *sugar*. And they won't. Our position HAS to be SAFETY. We just had another MS 85kWh burst into flames in Germany. This is the point that Tesla cannot deny. Their attempt at limiting battery kWh capacity is a feeble attempt to solve a safety issue that is bigger than any other topic on this thread. Don't talk to the SC about range. Present yourself to the SC and announce in the waiting room that you have specific evidence that Teslas are bursting into flames while sitting peacefully and not even plugged in. That will drive the point home to Tesla. Battery warranty/replacement is the responsible action we need from Tesla. Nothing else. Otherwise who knows who's car will burst into flames while sitting in their garage tonight.

Excellent post. I strongly believe this SW enforced capacity limitation is fire related, hence a major safety issue. I believe the 2019.16.1 update was to perform tests and collect data on the safety of the older batteries and that Tesla has consequently flagged some batteries to be unsafe to charge to the higher voltage and instead of fixing the physical packs in order to maintain their existing capacity they have opted for a cheaper and, as they have wished, an unnoticeable capacity cap. This is, in my opinion, battery replacement deflection strategy for the cars which are still under warranty. What does, in this context, Tesla saying their goal of the update is to “protect the battery and improve battery longevity” really means? I believe it means let's avoid the more expensive physical battery fix and drag it out till the warranty expires by keep capping the capacity. I believe this is a wrong and irresponsible position on part of Tesla and will backfire (no pun intended) even more than it already has. We just saw another parked Tesla burned, this time in Germany.

 

[MP3Mike]

Tesla battery warranty does not cover complete vehicle replacement due to fire. That would be an insurance comp claim.

Nope, Tesla covers damage to the car caused by battery fires during the battery warranty period:

To provide you with even more assurance, this Battery and Drive Unit Limited Warranty will also cover damage to your vehicle from a Battery fire even if it is the result of driver error. (Coverage will not extend to damage that had already been sustained before a Battery fire occurred, or to any damage if the Battery fire occurred after your vehicle had already been totaled.)

So if a battery is likely to catch fire it is cheaper for Tesla to replace the battery before it catches fire than to wait until after and they have to replace the whole car.

 

[Droschke]

This was the point made by the owner who first identified the problem as most of his DC charging was CHAdeMo. It was when he visited Superchargers on a regularly taken trip he noticed the difference.

That's correct. I do remember that since it was a very long thread on TMC.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

That's correct. I do remember that since it was a very long thread on TMC.

It has been suggested that the car can’t distinguish (or perhaps doesn’t need to distinguish) between DC CHAdeMO and DC Supercharging. But with such a history of heavy DC charging, I am a little surprised that my car, like so many others, hasn’t had its charging rate throttled back. So the battery isn’t so bad that it needs such protection, but it does need its capacity reduced. I’m trying, without much success, to find a logical reason to explain this.

 

[SigRed12]

@MP3Mike , thanks for the correction. Post deleted. Yet, if outside the battery warranty, we’re on our own.

 

[Droschke]

We have to use range as that is the ONLY measure the car directly displays. Tesla automatically distegards ALL data from 3rd party apps reading the BMS.
I know this because that is what happened to me. Even their battery capacity test results were reported to me in rated range miles NOT kWh.

Excellent point and a major predicament on how to articulate the impact. I for one do not use any 3rd party measuring tools (hosted or local) to get my capacity metrics. Even if I do, Tesla does not accept the findings. Any manual kWh calculation based on the displayed RM are also dismissed by Tesla as pure approximation and not reliable (they have told me repeatedly). The only calculations they discuss is their own, which is almost entirely lands in their favor.

 

[Droschke]

Interesting but i am not sure i believe it.
I have over 32,000 kWh Supercharging and mine is throttled back only after the last updates. My charge times are longer now only because my pack capacity is artificially limited and I now have to charge from 15% to 90% instead of 30% to 90%.
Since my new 100% is my old 85% I SHOULD never see the charge current drop. My batteries NEVER get above 4.1 volts.

A fellow here has even more Supercharging than me at over 35,000 kWh and his battery has not been limited.

Few links:

The DC charge limiting is set to start at 2625 kWh and reaches maximum derating at 13125 kWh.

Tesla explains why it limits Supercharging speed after high numbers of DC charges

90 and 75 battery packs getting nerfed early???

 

[Droschke]

Elon has said in such circumstances, it’s their fault and they will repair, refurbish or replace at their discretion.

He made that statement before the Mars colonization project and Tesla was the favorite

 

[Droschke]

It has been suggested that the car can’t distinguish (or perhaps doesn’t need to distinguish) between DC CHAdeMO and DC Supercharging. But with such a history of heavy DC charging, I am a little surprised that my car, like so many others, hasn’t had its charging rate throttled back. So the battery isn’t so bad that it needs such protection, but it does need its capacity reduced. I’m trying, without much success, to find a logical reason to explain this.

I believe 85's were excluded. The 70's and 90's were initially targeted.