BigNick
Infamous Fat Sweaty Guy
Mine shut off exactly as it hit zero. A bit disconcerting but now I know what to expect.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
- Thread starter Dutchmeeuw
- Start date
BigNick
Infamous Fat Sweaty Guy
No + suspension, but the “-“ isn’t intended as a “minus” either, maybe I should just put the DL together.AWESOME range considering when new it was EPA rated at 257 miles !!!
Maybe you should edit your vehicle name to Stormbreaker P85D+L
Your first sentence is not true. Subsequent sentences are consistent with what I wrote, viz, the limit is by software, whether software out of the factory, software in ECU flash at dealer, or software from OTA update.
But please do buy the porsche and let us know how that goes.
Last edited:
DJRas
Member
They REFUSED to print the results or let me take a picture of the results screen on their pc.
DJRas
Member
BigNick
Infamous Fat Sweaty Guy
I believe my car has a minor battery fault, cell group 57 at “empty” is 240 mV less than the highest cell group.
But at SOC higher than about 10%, all 96 cell groups are within 10 mV according to TM-Spy. Without that one low cell group, I might have 2 or 3 more miles available. I do NOT want a replacement because a refurbished one might be worse (assuming one cell group imbalance at very low SOC would even qualify for replacement).
However I don’t charge beyond 80% overnight, just in case. If I need more, I will charge after I wake up.
Um no. And the EPA rating for it's rated RANGE applies when it is new. It doesn't allow Tesla to change the way it calculates rated range. Rated range will decrease over time as the battery degrades, but Tesla can't change the per mile efficiency calculation after the fact.
Can the car even be driven while the update is in progress or as this verifying step after the update finished?
I'll bet they'd be more than happy to also file a class action for this issue given it's certainly effecting many many more cars most of who's owners don't even realize it yet.
This is exactly why I was saying I would have been ok with this limitation if Tesla instead gave a warning and started reducing the charge immediately by running hvac to reduce the SOC. You should never charge to 95%+ and just leave it there. You should start driving immediately.
Except that even the few here in the forum who said they were not effected are now reporting in that they're losing total available kWh. Basically, if you're not yet effected, you will be eventually the first time you hit a triggering state.
DJRas
Member
One low cell likely will not qualify...
Mine passed their test and i only have 60.4 kWh available.
DJRas
Member
I have been working with Ed to get this case filed.. Real Soon Now!
I think you’re confusing EPA rating with the number displayed on the vehicle display. The EPA range was calculated using a new vehicle based on a battery of tests. The tests were done, and the range value was legit at the time of sale. No law was broken as far as the EPA is concerned. Just about every vehicle loses efficiency over time so expecting the EPA range for the life of the vehicle is a fallacy. Your issue is warranty related not EPA related regardless of what multiplier Tesla uses for the display. Hell, the multiplier in my Model 3 changed earlier this year to “give” me more range. It’s completely arbitrary and has no effect on actual range.
DJRas
Member
And yet.. they did exactly that.
To the point that the crowd sourced degradation table UNDERSTATES degradation by about 6.5%.
Ferrycraigs
Member
[
I am in a similar boat. In 3 years I:
Charged up to 100% less than 10 times, every year annually to check and record the range, for degradation and comparison purposes, otherwise it was for an immediate journey.
I only Supercharged about 10-15% of the time.
I normally operated between 20-80%
I never kept the car for any length of time at a high SoC. After logging the annual 100% range figures I always drove it to reduce the SoC.
But my battery has been capped by just over 15%.
So logic suggests that Tesla's actions don’t seem to be linked directly to how we have treated our batteries. I assume they must have found, or mis-diagnosed Plating, but given how carefully I have treated my battery over the 3 years, it seems unlikely. So, as today is learning day, I am open to suggestions.
I also don’t really want money, I would just like my battery back to where it was. In response to Tesla's claim that I should wait patiently as they 'are working on a solution' I did suggest if they were that confident they could give me a loaner until the solution was found, or a temporary battery until the solution was found, or compensation, each week, until the solution was found. They haven’t responded yet.
I am in a similar boat. In 3 years I:
Charged up to 100% less than 10 times, every year annually to check and record the range, for degradation and comparison purposes, otherwise it was for an immediate journey.
I only Supercharged about 10-15% of the time.
I normally operated between 20-80%
I never kept the car for any length of time at a high SoC. After logging the annual 100% range figures I always drove it to reduce the SoC.
But my battery has been capped by just over 15%.
So logic suggests that Tesla's actions don’t seem to be linked directly to how we have treated our batteries. I assume they must have found, or mis-diagnosed Plating, but given how carefully I have treated my battery over the 3 years, it seems unlikely. So, as today is learning day, I am open to suggestions.
I also don’t really want money, I would just like my battery back to where it was. In response to Tesla's claim that I should wait patiently as they 'are working on a solution' I did suggest if they were that confident they could give me a loaner until the solution was found, or a temporary battery until the solution was found, or compensation, each week, until the solution was found. They haven’t responded yet.
Last edited:
Adding myself to the list of affected owners on a 85kWh pack. Went from 6% degradation to 17% right after the software update. Finally got to a service center and the tech said it's because of high supercharger usage, and it's something that Tesla implemented to protect the battery. I drive a lot and the lower range creates more of a need for me to charge more frequently, and supercharging is convenient for me as I'm commuting to/from work.
My concern (on top of the fact they did this with no communication and no plan for resolution), is that they may decide to degrade the battery again to "protect" it, and my car become essentially useless given my driving patterns, which is the entire reason I bought the car in the first place.
I also wonder how this factors into the "unlimited" battery warranty, since a battery with significantly lower range than the rest of the fleet is no longer performing as expected and should be replaced?
My concern (on top of the fact they did this with no communication and no plan for resolution), is that they may decide to degrade the battery again to "protect" it, and my car become essentially useless given my driving patterns, which is the entire reason I bought the car in the first place.
I also wonder how this factors into the "unlimited" battery warranty, since a battery with significantly lower range than the rest of the fleet is no longer performing as expected and should be replaced?
So, I gather the car has not been supercharged (or very little)?
That my position as well. You never know what you would get.
DJRas
Member
They did not let me see that.
They reported results and initial and fleet-wide average only in miles.
Similar threads
