Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[Moorebid]

That is opposite to what I am seeing after update...I get noticeable Regen at 100% and full Regen at 97% or so.

That also speaks to the inconsistency with these updates; some people have no loss in capacity, yet are severely hindered in SuC rates (mine by comparison is less-noticably affected — even accounting for the redefinition of percentages, but my pack never could do better than 90 kW anyway, so… it's all relative).

 

[DJRas]

But that speaks to the whole point of this update: they are severely throttling current ("Out of an abundance of caution…") — seemingly across the entire charge curve, but especially at the higher voltages — even the ones to which we still have access.

To give another data point, I'm going to focus specifically on available regen instead of (super)charging in general — since this is how I first noticed the change:

• Prior to the update, my car still had full regen available when charged to ~95% (or ~4.15 V), and would taper off while approaching full charge; that had remained consistent throughout my ownership of the vehicle.
• Immediately after the update, I had charged to 88% (or ~4.08 V? Probably less as the percentages were in the process of being redefined, but it had just started at this point) but had zero regen available, and didn't regain full regen until dropping to ~82-83% (<~4.02 V? Probably less…).
• Now that the cap has settled (~4.07 V at 100%), I still have zero regen when "fully" charged, and don't regain full regen until around 92% (~4.00-4.01 V).

'Twould seem that anything over 4 V is the "Danger Zone" — probably best to avoid that entirely (unless you like Kenny Loggins).

Mine on the other hand gets regen within 2 miles after 100% charge (97% displayed).

 

[Zodiacchris]

Go back to ICE because of this? In daily use my 70D still does everything I expect from it when charging at home despite the measly 57 KWh left. It is a beautiful car that takes me to work on AP1 and goes like the clappers.
Yes, I’ll have to show more patience when supercharging and the 1200km drive to Melbourne takes 2 hours longer. If I need to cover 350km between chargers I have to slow down, an extra 45 minutes to spend, but that is not the end of the world, besides, superchargers here are rarely more than 200km apart.
Other manufacturers of high end electric cars like the eTron still have the training wheels on, good luck with them.
Nope, Tesla or bust...

 

[FredTMC]

But that speaks to the whole point of this update: they are severely throttling current ("Out of an abundance of caution…") — seemingly across the entire charge curve, but especially at the higher voltages — even the ones to which we still have access.

To give another data point, I'm going to focus specifically on available regen instead of (super)charging in general — since this is how I first noticed the change:

• Prior to the update, my car still had full regen available when charged to ~95% (or ~4.15 V), and would taper off while approaching full charge; that had remained consistent throughout my ownership of the vehicle.
• Immediately after the update, I had charged to 88% (or ~4.08 V? Probably less as the percentages were in the process of being redefined, but it had just started at this point) but had zero regen available, and didn't regain full regen until dropping to ~82-83% (<~4.02 V? Probably less…).
• Now that the cap has settled (~4.07 V at 100%), I still have zero regen when "fully" charged, and don't regain full regen until around 92% (~4.00-4.01 V).

'Twould seem that anything over 4 V is the "Danger Zone" — probably best to avoid that entirely (unless you like Kenny Loggins).

Yes. Tesla’s first priority is they don’t want cars to catch fire. Hence the throttling

The big question is how many cars are affected? My guess is all cars of certain years. They all use the same cell chemistry

Would be nice if it was just SOME percentage/batches of cells produced during those years, but I don’t think so

I think the core issue is the chemistry used

 

[Droschke]

Yes. Tesla’s first priority is they don’t want cars to catch fire. Hence the throttling

The big question is how many cars are affected? My guess is all cars of certain years. They all use the same cell chemistry

Would be nice if it was just SOME percentage/batches of cells produced during those years, but I don’t think so

I think the core issue is the chemistry used

I see your points, but not all cars of certain years/models are impacted, as the owners have reported here. There seems to be no common denominator observed throughout this thread. That's the mystery of it.

 

[Whiteblaze]

Question for the group how many more changes and hiding facts from Tesla are you willing to put up with before you change brands or get an ICE?

Despite Tesla's shady practices, I simply don't see a better alternative. I'm not about to switch to an EV with no autopilot, even less range, and no long distance charging network over this. And I don't consider ICE an alternative- I'm done there.

 

[MP3Mike]

They all use the same cell chemistry

You don't know that for a fact, Tesla could tweak the chemistry anytime they wanted to. (Like we have a really good idea that not all 90kWh based packs use the same chemistry as the earlier ones suffered fast/high degradation compared to the later ones.)

 

[lightningltd]

Yes. Tesla’s first priority is they don’t want cars to catch fire. Hence the throttling

The big question is how many cars are affected? My guess is all cars of certain years. They all use the same cell chemistry

Would be nice if it was just SOME percentage/batches of cells produced during those years, but I don’t think so

I think the core issue is the chemistry used

In several communications with Tesla on the issue by several people, Tesla says that this is NOT a safety issue, hence the confusion and mystery as to WHY they did this to us. All we get is "This is normal degradation".

 

[Droschke]

In several communications with Tesla on the issue by several people, Tesla says that this is NOT a safety issue, hence the confusion and mystery as to WHY they did this to us.

All we get is "This is normal degradation".

Yes, we have gotten that because, for lack of a better way to approach it as it is the title of this very thread, we told them, in most part, that we are experiencing a "sudden degradation" in range. So, they said it's all normal degradation, etc. have a nice day, go home.

This is not to say that if one indeed approaches them with the "capacity cap", "voltage cap" or "kWh cap", etc. articulation they would answer favorably to the truth. To the contrary, they would have shut them down in different ways. And, that's because we do not know what they know. How can one argue against unknowns? That's the predicament we have unfortunately been facing, in my opinion.

 

[tga]

I see your points, but not all cars of certain years/models are impacted, as the owners have reported here. There seems to be no common denominator observed throughout this thread. That's the mystery of it.

In fact, there's an 85kWh F pack reported as impacted, while my F is not.

 

[mjmiron]

here is an article I found and it sounds like the software update was because of the Tesla fires,

"As we continue our investigation of the root cause, out of an abundance of caution, we are revising charge and thermal management settings on Model S and Model X vehicles via an over-the-air software update that will begin rolling out today, to help further protect the battery and improve battery longevity.”

seems to me this update was due to the fires but just my opinion here is the article ,

Tesla is updating its battery software following a car fire, claims improve longevity - Electrek

 

[bhzmark]

I'm finished. Porsche has never downgraded any of my cars and Tesla isn't the only performance EV in town any more. Tesla could have retained customers, but they've pushed this one away. One mistake is an error, this many anti-owner downgrades is official company policy. No thank you Tesla, I will not have another.

Sorry you can’t buy a Porsche either as Porsche has done it to their cars.

Porsche Rev range activity guide | 911virgin

@FlatSix911 may have more info.

 

[Droschke]

In fact, there's an 85kWh F pack reported as impacted, while my F is not.

That's my car

Going by the battery part number suffix, in this context, is meaningless.

 

[bhzmark]

I never use any 3rd party app.

Maybe change password anyway just to be safe.

 

[Droschke]

here is an article I found and it sounds like the software update was because of the Tesla fires,

"As we continue our investigation of the root cause, out of an abundance of caution, we are revising charge and thermal management settings on Model S and Model X vehicles via an over-the-air software update that will begin rolling out today, to help further protect the battery and improve battery longevity.”

seems to me this update was due to the fires but just my opinion here is the article ,

Tesla is updating its battery software following a car fire, claims improve longevity - Electrek

That article was referenced here early on. The problem is Tesla, to this date, has not stated which specific update!

 

[Droschke]

Maybe change password anyway just to be safe.

Would you elaborate on this?

Has there been a hacking incidence?

Tnx.

 

[Droschke]

I just emailed Fred who wrote that article and forwarded him our blog this needs to get more exposure.

He already has it.

That's why he wrote this.

 

[mjmiron]

He already has it.

That's why he wrote this.

well obviously didn't see that article but good he is reminded their is still no fix.

 

[Droschke]

well obviously didn't see that article

I knew you had not read all 122 pages of this thread

 

[mjmiron]

I knew you had not read all 122 pages of this thread

I read most of them but maybe it will save some folks who are late to the party from reading them all.