Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[lightningltd]

They do not care what YOUR range was prior to the update. They use fleet-wide average.
In my case new 265 @ 295 wh/mile =78.1
May 13 - 247 @ 295 = 73.5
June 21 - 217 @ 295 = 64.0
But, fleet-wide average is 231 @ 295 = 68.1.
Thus mine post update is 7% below average and does not qualify for replacement.

However, my battery reports 60.2 kWh usable 217 on 60.2 = 276 Wh/mile
And AS IF BY MAGIC

247 @ 276 = 231 @ 295

Thus hidden adjustment of rated range multiplier and making our "simple" calculation worthless.

I highly doubt their number of 231 average. We would have heard about it by now (complaints). I think they are comparing RATED to AVERAGE.
We need RATED vs RATED, or KW values. They have both.
The fact that they will not show or share the data says VOLUMES.
And them changing the multiplier to make things look better for them is plain fraud.

 

[Droschke]

Just FYI, installed the new update 2019.28.1:

- I can now play chess since I have to supercharge more often and at much slower speed (that's considerate of Tesla)
- They have made improvement to the Media volume (volume lowers when doors open!!! I thought I had it before this update, weird)

SoC at the time of update: @170 RM, it shows it as 72% >>> ~236 RM @100%. Before this update (and capped) the 100% was approximated to be ~233-234.

 

[FredTMC]

View attachment 436610
More than just a theory.
Tesla publicly stated only one bad module caused the fire in Shanghai.
ALSO, yes, you are correct about series connections. But, they do monitor the voltage of all 96 bricks of 74 individual batteries wired in parallel.
Thay CAN see individual bricks that are "bad" and throttle the WHOLE pack to avoid stressing that one brick.

If you are say my whole back is bad then it is just as likely that EVERY 16850 pack out there is bad and their exposure is in the billions.

Oh brother. Of COURSE one cell had an internal short and it propagated from there.

Look, if I inflate a bunch of balloons to just below their bursting pressure and then put them out into the hot sun, you can’t accurately predict which balloon will pop first.

That’s the situation with the cells. Why? Because Tesla doesn’t monitor INDIVIDUAL cells. Only GROUPs of cells. Which one is ready to short out internally and cause a fire? Impossible to tell. Sure, they know which bricks are weak.

My main point to you all is I hope this doesn’t involve the whole fleet over a few years of production. That would be ugly for Tesla and us owners.

It’s certainly not encouraging that cars across a number of years are being clipped on range and charge rate.

 

[mjmiron]

Well the Mn Attorney General sent a letter to Tesla requesting a battery replacement due to slow charging, reduced range, reduced value, and promises at the time of sale. I will update as soon as I hear anything back for those interested. Still waiting for a call from the local service center on my request to escalate this and get my battery replaced.

If this does not work I will be going that arbitration route I guess or class action if they start one. Honestly I worry every time I am in my car if it’s gonna catch on fire.

Thank you to everyone who hit like on my prior post our thread is listed front page on the TMC website now. Whether you agree or not is ok everyone is entitled to their opinion and I respect that.

 

[Droschke]

The EPA numbers include charging losses. The 295 is hard coded in the car to achieve the EPA estimated range at 100% and does not include charging losses.

From WK:

• All RWD Cars (non-Performance and Performance): 295 Wh/Rated Mile
• All Pre-refresh Model S Dual Motor, non-Performance: 290 Wh/Rated Mile
• Refresh Model S Dual Motor, non-Performance under 100 kWh: 285 Wh/Rated Mile
• Model X Dual Motor, non-Performance under 100 kWh: 320 Wh/Rated Mile
• Model S Dual Motor, Performance under 100 kWh: 310 Wh/Rated Mile
• Model X Dual Motor, Performance under 100 kWh: 333 Wh/Rated Mile
• Model X Dual Motor, Performance 100 kWh: 342 Wh/Rated Mile

So, we settled that they are NOT EPA numbers.

But, are they really "hard coded", or they are @wk057 findings per his research calculations? I think the latter.

And, what happened to my 2nd question? You said I can see the 295 on my screens somewhere!

On Edit: Added "NOT" before "EPA", fixed typo

 

[Droschke]

Well the Mn Attorney General sent a letter to Tesla requesting a battery replacement due to slow charging, reduced range, reduced value, and promises at the time of sale. I will update as soon as I hear anything back for those interested. Still waiting for a call from the local service center on my request to escalate this and get my battery replaced.

If this does not work I will be going that arbitration route I guess or class action if they start one. Honestly I worry every time I am in my car if it’s gonna catch on fire.

Thank you to everyone who hit like on my prior post our thread is listed front page on the TMC website now. Whether you agree or not is ok everyone is entitled to their opinion and I respect that.

That was quick (the MN AG's office). They actually requested battery replacement in your behalf?

 

[lightningltd]

So, we settled that they are EPA numbers.

But, are they really "hard coded", or they are @wk057 findings per his research? I think the latter.

And, what happened to my 2nd question? You said I can see the 295 on my screens somewhere!

lol I verified it to be about 295 by driving on a nice flat long stretch. I originally thought it was 300.
My 5 mile average at 55mpg showed to be 295 and it was dead center on the line
Not scientific, but a buttload more information than Tesla has shared.
If you are fast enough you can line up the current consumption to the line on the instant tab
Also in the Energy graphs explained video, he points it out to be around 300 wh. 295 or 300 not a huge difference. his is a newer model.

 

[David99]

If ypu look at the EPA site it ckaims 38 kW per 100 miles or 380 Wh/mile

The 295 is a magic number that makes the 265 EPA rated miles make sense. Because we KNOW our packs don't have 100 kWh capacity (265 @ 380).

The difference is the EPA test measures energy at the plug thus includes losses from the mobile connector, the chargers, losses occurring during the charging process (coolant pumps, car systems up and running) and the 'round trip' efficiency of the battery itself. The 295 number is energy taken out of the battery at the battery level. The 295 (for the 85 RWD) is what Tesla uses to calculate range. Jason found it in the firmware. It's not made up to make the numbers work, it's what the car uses internally.

 

[Droschke]

lol I verified it to be about 295 by driving on a nice flat long stretch. I originally thought it was 300.
My 5 mile average at 55mpg showed to be 295 and it was dead center on the line
Not scientific, but a buttload more information than Tesla has shared.
If you are fast enough you can line up the current consumption to the line on the instant tab
Also in the Energy graphs explained video, he points it out to be around 300 wh. 295 or 300 not a huge difference. his is a newer model.

Sorry, I was editing my post when you were already responding to its original version (you are too fast). On Edit, I added a "NOT" in front of EPA.

The 295 is neither EPA nor Tesla number. It's merely deduction based on the calculation @wk057 had done, I believe.

 

[Droschke]

The 295 (for the 85 RWD) is what Tesla uses to calculate range. Jason found it in the firmware. It's not made up to make the numbers work, it's what the car uses internally.

I agree. Hard-coded or not, it's "what Tesla uses to calculate range". It's not an EPA number as some keep suggesting and Tesla can change it anytime "to calculate range" based on whatever capacity they see fit. That's my point.

 

[mjmiron]

That was quick (the MN AG's office). They actually requested battery replacement in your behalf?

Yes they did and they gave them 10 days to respond. I bought my car in May so they can’t use that bull crap depreciation on me

 

[lightningltd]

I agree. Hard-coded or not, it's "what Tesla uses to calculate range". It's not an EPA number as some keep suggesting and Tesla can change it anytime "to calculate range" based on whatever capacity they see fit. That's my point.

Yes they can, but it changes the mileage that they have been advertising for years, after the fact.

 

[DJRas]

The EPA numbers include charging losses. The 295 is hard coded in the car to achieve the EPA estimated range at 100% and does not include charging losses.

From WK:

• All RWD Cars (non-Performance and Performance): 295 Wh/Rated Mile
• All Pre-refresh Model S Dual Motor, non-Performance: 290 Wh/Rated Mile
• Refresh Model S Dual Motor, non-Performance under 100 kWh: 285 Wh/Rated Mile
• Model X Dual Motor, non-Performance under 100 kWh: 320 Wh/Rated Mile
• Model S Dual Motor, Performance under 100 kWh: 310 Wh/Rated Mile
• Model X Dual Motor, Performance under 100 kWh: 333 Wh/Rated Mile
• Model X Dual Motor, Performance 100 kWh: 342 Wh/Rated Mile

That was BEFORE they changed to multiplier

 

[DJRas]

lol I verified it to be about 295 by driving on a nice flat long stretch. I originally thought it was 300.
My 5 mile average at 55mpg showed to be 295 and it was dead center on the line
Not scientific, but a buttload more information than Tesla has shared.
If you are fast enough you can line up the current consumption to the line on the instant tab
Also in the Energy graphs explained video, he points it out to be around 300 wh. 295 or 300 not a huge difference. his is a newer model.

I guess you don't realize the dashed line there is the average for the last 30 miles. I can do the same at 320... or 276 (driving downhill with the wind)

 

[lightningltd]

I think we are getting too far into the semantics of how the rated miles are calculated... Deceptive advertising aside, whatever it is based on, the bottom line is that they have artificially placed a limit on the available KW we can use from the battery, thus reducing range, power, and charging speed and have provided no real answers as to why. Stating that it is due to misuse or degradation is plain insulting to the intelligence of Tesla owners.

 

[lightningltd]

I guess you don't realize the dashed line there is the average for the last 30 miles. I can do the same at 320... or 276 (driving downhill with the wind)

There is also a solid line that is for the RATED range. Even says RATED under it.

 

[mjmiron]

I emailed an automotive reporter on Fox about this blog and issues with Tesla batteries see if he writes up an article.

 

[DJRas]

The difference is the EPA test measures energy at the plug thus includes losses from the mobile connector, the chargers, losses occurring during the charging process (coolant pumps, car systems up and running) and the 'round trip' efficiency of the battery itself. The 295 number is energy taken out of the battery at the battery level. The 295 (for the 85 RWD) is what Tesla uses to calculate range. Jason found it in the firmware. It's not made up to make the numbers work, it's what the car uses internally.

My data proves the current multiplier is 276 (for 85 rwd). It works for ALL state of charge. Jason will not respond to my request for comment.

 

[sorka]

Looks like my days are numbered. I drove all day yesterday from the Central Valley in California to Phoenix. I I turned my null hotspot off so the car was connected the entire day because I wanted to see charging status when I was away from the car which was a good thing as I had several charging sessions stop due to red rings at one supercharger.

I put the car back on the wifi null hotspot last night but today at 1:00 PM, the MCU rebooted for no apparent reason and when it came back up, the yellow clock was there and when I parked got the install prompt.

So the new range robbing software is staged and ready to ruin my car and it will probably be forced upon in the middle of the night.

I went ahead and unplugged the drivers side seat connector closest to the center console on the off chance really does work as has been claimed in another thread.

 

[Lukez]

Looks like my days are numbered. I drove all day yesterday from the Central Valley in California to Phoenix. I I turned my null hotspot off so the car was connected the entire day because I wanted to see charging status when I was away from the car which was a good thing as I had several charging sessions stop due to red rings at one supercharger.

I put the car back on the wifi null hotspot last night but today at 1:00 PM, the MCU rebooted for no apparent reason and when it came back up, the yellow clock was there and when I parked got the install prompt.

So the new range robbing software is staged and ready to ruin my car and it will probably be forced upon in the middle of the night.

I went ahead and unplugged the drivers side seat connector closest to the center console on the off chance really does work as has been claimed in another thread.

Bummer!
Let us know if unplugging it works.