Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[sorka]

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.’

But only with v1 and v2 90 batteries...NOT 85 kWh batteries.

 

[Droschke]

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

Sure and no one has disputed that. Your point was, as you were advising others to do, that one can take that 295 value and use it to argue with Tesla about the capacity cap issue, because you were claiming "Its not an arbitrary number. It is the result of the EPA testing, and is from Tesla." @this post, and more on earlier post. That claim is not accurate. Furthermore, you were saying about the 295 value: "Its also where the little line is that says rated under it on our wh/mi consumption screen when you are set to rated range". There is no such a value on screen unless you make it appear so, as you said later you did during your test run by driving in a certain fashion.

 

[Droschke]

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

It says 295?

 

[lightningltd]

Sure and no one has disputed that. Your point was, as you were advising others to do, that one can take that 295 value and use it to argue with Tesla about the capacity cap issue, because you were claiming "Its not an arbitrary number. It is the result of the EPA testing, and is from Tesla." @this post, and more on earlier post. That claim is not accurate. Furthermore, you were saying about the 295 value: "Its also where the little line is that says rated under it on our wh/mi consumption screen when you are set to rated range". There is no such a value on screen unless you make it appear so, as you said later you did during your test run by driving in a certain fashion.

Solid line right below dashed line...

 

[sorka]

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.

The reduction on the 85's was due to a software update, NOT because a counter limit was reached.

 

[DJRas]

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

Only on the center console energy display. Which on MY car equals 300 Wh/mile

 

[sorka]

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.

The ironic thing is that some here are claiming that they DID change the way range is calculated because they lowered they wh / mile constant. If true, then tesla is CORRECT when they say they changed the range calculation but it's NOT what caused the reduction in rated range but rather what HID part of the reduction in range caused by capping the charge SOC. If this is indeed true, then it's a felony and the EPA needs to know about it.

 

[lightningltd]

Only on the center console energy display. Which on MY car equals 300 Wh/mileView attachment 436675

Odd I have it on the screen on the dash as well. It could be 300, Who knows with all the conflicting numbers from Tesla anyways. I think they TRY to keep people confused so they don't catch on.
Anyhow, I surrender. Lets get back to the real issue. They reduced available battery KW.

 

[sorka]

Bummer!
Let us know if unplugging it works.

I've decided to set the teslafi disconnect notification to 5 minutes. If I get a notification that the are is offline in a good signal area, I will run out and check. If it's installing software, I will pull the high voltage disconnect and interrupt it at which point it will stay on the previous partition. It's a little bit of a risk but I'll do anything I can to avoid having my car destroyed by a power and range robbing update.

 

[Droschke]

Solid line right below dashed line...
View attachment 436674

You are killing me @lightningltd ... What about the "Solid line right below dashed line"? It has no label and at best looks like the 300 mark to me. Not worth sweating over this any longer.

 

[Droschke]

Odd I have it on the screen on the dash as well. It could be 300, Who knows with all the conflicting numbers from Tesla anyways. I think they TRY to keep people confused so they don't catch on.
Anyhow, I surrender. Lets get back to the real issue. They reduced available battery KW.

That's the chart line delimiter. It's always been that way @300, i.e. -300-0-300-600-900, etc. There is no 295 solid line there as you were claiming

 

[MP3Mike]

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

@mjmiron any chance you can scan and post a copy of the letter? (personal info redacted of course.)

 

[mjmiron]

Here is a copy of the letter they also recommended I write the dept of public safety and complain since they are in charge of dealers in MN.

 

[fbitz777]

To me the fact that each cell is now limited to 4.1V would be enough evidence of Tesla capping the capacity to about 90 percent of total possible... I have over 100 batteries for my toys and I knew of such a charging curve (V vs SOC) before I got my Tesla...everyone in the hobby business would be upset if their charger stopped at 4.1V.

Aren't they plenty of papers proving that as well?

With a class action a battery expert could easily be hired and compare an affected with a non affected car...even if CAN data was the only way to get to this number.

Why play Tesla game and only rely on the data they present us with: rated range and rated wh/mi ...nowhere do they present us with real KWH used on a trip unless you run from 100percent to zero percent and don't stop...

 

[MP3Mike]

View attachment 436736
Here is a copy of the letter they also recommended I write the dept of public safety and complain since they are in charge of dealers in MN.

It looks to me like all the AG's office did was take your request and forward it to the NCDS, starting the arbitration process for you. Nowhere do they direct, demand, request, or even ask Tesla to replace your battery.

 

[mjmiron]

It looks to me like all the AG's office did was take your request and forward it to the NCDS, starting the arbitration process for you. Nowhere do they direct, demand, request, or even ask Tesla to replace your battery.

I agree they requested they address my concerns it’s a start but I did ask in the letter for them to replace it. This is one part of my strategy to get them to correct it. They must respond and then I can rebuttal. It’s better than doing nothing.

 

[David99]

View attachment 436679 View attachment 436679
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.

The 295 adds up when you include the buffer. 275 adds up when you exclude it. The car's energy graph has 300 as rated. In the firmware 295 is hard coded (according to Jason). Either way, it doesn't really matter what the number is. Whatever number we use, it proves Tesla took away battery capacity and range. To my knowledge Tesla never changed the rated consumption. Different cars sure have different consumption but it never changed within a specific car. No software update ever changed it. So Tesla claiming they calculate range differently is not true.

Here is Jason's post where is states he pulled these numbers from the firmware.
Calculate usable battery capacity based on rated miles values

BTW, an ex Tesla employee said the buffer was not designed to be completely inaccessible. It was designed to be used (at least partially) should the BMS miscalculate and come in short towards the end. To prevent the car from shutting down before showing 0, it would allow you to drive into the buffer. I certainly did this a few times. Elon tweeted about this as well.

 

[boywonder]

It’s worth mentioning that Tesla are quite happy to software unlock capacity in exchange of more of your hard earned cash. Taking a 75kwh pack to a 90 for example.

In limiting capacity of certain battery packs, the situation has been reversed but without any notice, owner agreement or compensation!

Tesla needs to do the following ASAP:

1. Tell affected owners what is going on - the full story and what their plans for remediation are
2. And one of:
a. Reinstate the capacity
b. Replace the affected (modules in the) battery packs on safety grounds
c. Compensate for capacity loss BUT ONLY IF the owner agrees to the cap remaining in place

 

[Ferrycraigs]

It’s worth mentioning that Tesla are quite happy to software unlock capacity in exchange of more of your hard earned cash. Taking a 75kwh pack to a 90 for example.

In limiting capacity of certain battery packs, the situation has been reversed but without any notice, owner agreement or compensation!

Tesla needs to do the following ASAP:

1. Tell affected owners what is going on - the full story and what their plans for remediation are
2. And one of:
a. Reinstate the capacity
b. Replace the affected (modules in the) battery packs on safety grounds
c. Compensate for capacity loss BUT ONLY IF the owner agrees to the cap remaining in place

Or paying compensation whilst they 'work on a solution'. I have just suggested this to Tesla. Not hopeful, not least because they haven’t even replied to my last letter.

Another letter sent today as my Vampire drain is now around 4% per night. Lost 8% in last 2 days and haven’t even driven it. (No 3rd party apps, or Climate/Range Settings/or Always Connected set to On.). But I have heard a very quiet fan type noise from under the front of the car, even when it is not plugged in. Beginning to wonder if this is a new 'health' option that is happening.

 

[DJRas]

The 295 adds up when you include the buffer. 275 adds up when you exclude it. The car's energy graph has 300 as rated. In the firmware 295 is hard coded (according to Jason). Either way, it doesn't really matter what the number is. Whatever number we use, it proves Tesla took away battery capacity and range. To my knowledge Tesla never changed the rated consumption. Different cars sure have different consumption but it never changed within a specific car. No software update ever changed it. So Tesla claiming they calculate range differently is not true.

Here is Jason's post where is states he pulled these numbers from the firmware.
Calculate usable battery capacity based on rated miles values

BTW, an ex Tesla employee said the buffer was not designed to be completely inaccessible. It was designed to be used (at least partially) should the BMS miscalculate and come in short towards the end. To prevent the car from shutting down before showing 0, it would allow you to drive into the buffer. I certainly did this a few times. Elon tweeted about this as well.

The 295 number ONLY works at 100% SOC and includes the buffer today.
With a NEW car it does not work because Jason also showed that the battery has 81kWh but 265 miles at 295 Wh/mile is 78.1 kWh. They never claimed 274 mile range (81kWh at 295).

So it doesn't work if initially they excluded the buffer and now they are including it.

You can't have it both ways.

It also does not work for ANY other SOC and gets horribly wrong the closer you get to zero.