Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[Droschke]

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



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.

I deleted my post asking you to provide more info on "Tesla covers damage to the car caused by battery fires during the battery warranty period" since you already have.

Are you aware of any owner who lost the car due to the fire to get a replacement car from Tesla?

 

[David99]

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.

The 85 packs have been gradually reduced long time ago. I noticed the reduction in Supercharging speed more than a year ago. The 90 packs see a more or less sudden cap of the peak charge rate. That's very noticeable to the owners. The 85s where reduced by tapering down the charge rate earlier and faster. There has been a more recent change were they now allow a higher peak (up to 130 kW initially) but then quickly reduce even stronger. I graphed it out in this post. Supercharging classic 85, or what's left of it
Many other 85 owners saw the same reduction during the last years. I'm sure yours was also reduced before but now even more with the software. Tesla has always made all kinds of changes to cars out there without asking owner's permissions.

 

[David99]

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

No, they got the reduction is a different way. It was just less noticeable on the 85s. The 90s got a sudden cap in peak charge rate, the 85 always had the same initial peak but then dropped faster. That's just less notiacable to the owner, but the 85s were definitely reduced even before the 90s.

 

[David99]

Are you aware of any owner who lost the car due to the fire to get a replacement car from Tesla?

I believe back in 2014 a Model S in Canada caused a fire in a garage and Tesla payed the owner the damages after signing an NDA. IIIRC it was related to charging, though.

 

[Droschke]

No, they got the reduction is a different way. It was just less noticeable on the 85s. The 90s got a sudden cap in peak charge rate, the 85 always had the same initial peak but then dropped faster. That's just less notiacable to the owner, but the 85s were definitely reduced even before the 90s.

You are correct. The first time I read about the issue was by a TMC thread (2 years ago ???) by a 70/75 owner in Kansas City (my memory is foggy) who reported the DC charging speed on his car has been capped by Tesla. He was successful to get Tesla in writing to confirm it. I believe the 85's at that time were not throttled yet.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

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

Hmm I have a genuine 70 (rather than a capped 85).

 

[Droschke]

Hmm I have a genuine 70 (rather than a capped 85).

Seems they made it simple for us to avoid confusion. They are all included. Even S100D's.

 

[cezdoc]

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

Hmm I have a genuine 70 (rather than a capped 85).

As per this link (Bjorn's tests earlier this year) it was the 75, not the genuine 70, that was initially affected along with the 90:
90 and 75 battery packs getting nerfed early???

However as @Droschke says it appears that within the last month or two all S & X battery variants are now affected one way or another.

 

[mjmiron]

For those who have submitted an arbitration claim how did you go about doing that is their a form and what email did you send those onto?

 

[Ferrycraigs]

As per this link (Bjorn's tests earlier this year) it was the 75, not the genuine 70, that was initially affected along with the 90:
90 and 75 battery packs getting nerfed early???

However as @Droschke says it appears that within the last month or two all S & X battery variants are now affected one way or another.

Aye, methinks 2019.20.4.2 may be the culprit.

 

[Chaserr]

Are you aware of any owner who lost the car due to the fire to get a replacement car from Tesla?

I remember the guy that shot his battery had a replacement they took back after they found the bullet. He got a loaner and they ordered him a new car build before the bullet was found.

 

[Droschke]

For those who have submitted an arbitration claim how did you go about doing that is their a form and what email did you send those onto?

You probably missed my post earlier in July.

 

[MP3Mike]

Are you aware of any owner who lost the car due to the fire to get a replacement car from Tesla?

No, but like the Model X that burned up on an ice lake recently after hitting something we never heard of any problems. I'm sure the insurance companies know about the warranty and would say Tesla needs to pay to save themselves money.

The only one that I have seen was because of a law suit where Tesla was in the process of replacing a burned up car but during their investigation they found that the reason for the fire was that a bullet was shot into the pack from inside the car so they stopped the replacement right before delivering the replacement to the owner. (I haven't seen if that case has finalized or not.)

 

[Droschke]

No, but like the Model X that burned up on an ice lake recently after hitting something we never heard of any problems. I'm sure the insurance companies know about the warranty and would say Tesla needs to pay to save themselves money.

The only one that I have seen was because of a law suit where Tesla was in the process of replacing a burned up car but during their investigation they found that the reason for the fire was that a bullet was shot into the pack from inside the car so they stopped the replacement right before delivering the replacement to the owner. (I haven't seen if that case has finalized or not.)

Thanks. I'm familiar with both cases but was not sure if the owners got a replacement car or not.

 

[mjmiron]

You probably missed my post earlier in July.

Thank you.

 

[lightningltd]

Some have reported claim being accepted and waiting on a hearing and some others have reported being denied. No other information is known.

Mine is at the end of August and I read one person having theirs as soon as Aug 9th.

So we will see

The ones that were so far denied focused on the loss of MILES, so Tesla was able to bs the arbitrator with the crap about changing the calculations. Focus on the loss of USABLE KW and its effects, then they will have to explain it better to the arbitrator. You may also add that the change was done so fast that the service centers were not even aware. Clearly it was an emergency action.

 

[FredTMC]

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



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.

Let’s say there’s 5,000 affected cars. At $20k replacement cost for each pack, that’s $100m of exposure to Tesla. Hence, we’ve got Tesla capping battery packs via firmware.

 

[Droschke]

@MP3Mike, got interrupted and didn't finish my complete post.

You said:

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.

Does that mean you believe these impacted batteries are not likely to catch fire and that's why Tesla is not replacing them?

 

[lightningltd]

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.

You can give them KW numbers... It depends on the year an model.. It is a calculatable field since it uses a constant (EPA rated miles).
For example:
My car is a 2013 Model S85. My RATED range NEW is 265. That comes to 295 wh/mi
To get KW, take 100% charge miles X .295 and you get KW.
265m X .295 = 78.175 KW
If your Pre update range was 259 then
259m X .295 = 76.405KW
Post Update (for me):
215m X .295 = 63.425KW

Now TESLA, explain THAT!

Its not PERFECT but its damn close. You just need to find the wh/mi for your car. I don't include any buffer since it was not mentioned in the EPA test, and besides, new displays 265 anyway, and that's what Tesla advertises.

And like all things, I am probable missing something, but its what I have

 

[lightningltd]

Let’s say there’s 5,000 affected cars. At $20k replacement cost for each pack, that’s $100m of exposure to Tesla. Hence, we’ve got Tesla capping battery packs via firmware.

That's not entirely true... You are assuming that A: They pay full retail for the battery, and B: you would be getting a new one.
You would get a loaner battery while they refurbished yours back to the level it was before all this started. They COULD even keep refurbished ones in stock to do it with and just exchange them.