Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[boywonder]

I've installed the latest update 2019.28.2 and NO range has been recovered. My 90% SOC shows 207 miles of range when prior to #batterygate it used to show 234 at 90% SOC.

Not only that but the charge profile has also changed so that supercharging is now slower.

So far from improving things for affected owners, I believe that things have actually got worse.

Here is a supercharger graph taken after the latest update

Here is a comparison between a previous version and the latest Supercharger sessions

In the charge carried out with 2019.16.2, it took 41 minutes to add 47KWH @17C ambient
In the latest charge carried out with 2019.28.2 it took 46 minutes to add 43KWH @23C ambient
In both cases the car was driven for 25+ minutes before charging and the supercharger was selected in the nav to pre-condition that battery for best charge.

My feeling is that the new version is limiting charging rate more than the previous version - I was on an empty Supercharger pair, and that the fan runs much harder and longer (maybe 15 minutes) after coming off the charger at 90% SOC.

My advice if I was to give any would be to skip update 2019.28.2 if you can because it has only made things worse for me.

 

[Evoforce]

Mine updated to 2019.28.2 but not 2.5. Darn I got your warning too late...Hope update 2.5 comes soon to see if that improves.

 

[wayner]

This issue has made the Globe and Mail (Canada's national newspaper) Tesla owner lawsuit claims software update cuts battery capacity to avoid expensive recall

 

[wayner]

For what its worth:

I have a P85D with Ludicrous update - my delivery date was early Jan 2015. I noticed a few weeks ago that my range seemed to be down slightly - about 2-3%. 100% charges now seem to give be about 390km vs 400km before, and 90% charges have me at about 358km vs 364km. I don't know exactly when this started but I would guess around mid-June to early July. I am in Canada in case that makes a difference.

p.s. I was unaware of this issue until I saw it in a newspaper story this morning.

 

[MP3Mike]

Your translation is correct, but that doesn't explain the higher tapering at 80% and above. At this SoC, the cells should have reached the same temperature in both charging sessions.

Um no. The conditions weren't the same. The charging on the new firmware started at a lower SOC and peaked to a higher charge rate. So the battery would have likely gotten to the peak battery temperature sooner requiring the throttling of the charge rate.

 

[Droschke]

If any aspect of the battery worsens over time - which forces the limits that have been there since the very day you picked up your car to decline - that's known as degradation.

Degradation, a debatable term and even more controversial when it comes to what it means in the context of warranty coverage. Gradual/natural vs. deliberate/sudden. They are not the same.

Saying "We're artificially capped" is like saying "I want to put more gas into this gas cylinder, but this stupid pressure limiter is preventing me! And now they're telling me that because my gas cylinder is old and rusty, they'll only fill it up to 80% as much as when it was new. Yeah, they told me that it would one day become old and rusty and not hold as much gas and that they offer no guarantee against its capacity being limited, but because I got this 80% limit thing all at once rather than gradually... LAWSUIT!"

How about if that old gas cylinder is prematurely rusty and hence it's unable to hold the expected capacity because it was manufactured defectively to start with?

While the warranty has no provision for range guarantees, I think a goodwill gesture would be to sell updated packs at-cost. So your old car ends up with the range of a new, top-of-the-line one. And the timing is great - with the current lower S/X sales rate, they should now have enough 18650 capacity to make more S/X packs for this purpose.

Now, we are talking. Thank you.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

I'm sorry that you got bad luck with a battery whose longevity turned out to not be as good as some others. I really am. These were Tesla's first batteries with silicon in the anodes, and it became clear as soon as they started having to impose higher limitations on supercharging rates that their longevity was not holding up as well as Tesla anticipated.

I believe most, if not all, affected vehicles are 85s. These did not have silicon in the anodes. The first battery to have silicon in the anodes was the 90 kWh pack. That had its own degradation issues that are different from what is being discussed in this thread. One day you have X miles of range and can drive X miles of range. Your battery is happily charging to 4.2v (100%) without any issues and you are able to utilize all available pack energy. One day you install a software update that reduces your calculated and drivable range by 30+ miles and caps your maximum cell voltage from 4.2v to 4.07v. How is any of that 'normal degradation' when that range was available and usable prior to the update?

Not only has capacity been suddenly limited, but supercharging rates have dropped from before the update as has acceleration. You have the acceleration and supercharging speed one day, then after the update it's suddenly reduced. That is not normal degradation. If it were, your acceleration would have decreased gradually over time, not as a result of a sudden limit placed on your vehicle by Tesla "out of an abundance of caution". Caution about what? That is a reaction to something.

 

[Chaserr]

How so?



Please give exact quote.

Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software and also Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

X is pretty bad, but doesn't seem to have happened anywhere. Detecting X is definitely a good thing. Z is not good, but not as bad as X. The process of looking for X's ended up finding a bunch of Z's as well. Z was not being looked for and wasn't known. Detecting Z is still a good thing. The people with a rapid range loss have condition Z

No, I'm not saying your car is going to explode or otherwise have other issues if you don't update, so don't take it like that, but I do believe that what is being detected is an issue that will eventually need to be addressed one way or another, whether or not there is a safety issue involved, and if you are in that group it'd be better to know than not know.

 

[Az_Rael]

In terms of communicating with Tesla, there's got to be a middle ground between tweeting at Elon Musk and hiring a lawyer.

I think half of the frustration comes from the fact that the customer facing Tesla employees have no agency to solve most of our problems. Elon can fix a Dog Mode bug within 24 hours after reading a tweet about it, but it does seem like you folks have had radio silence from them.

There is a 3rd option that I believe a few people are trying on this thread: the arbitration clause in the warranty. Not sure that we have heard back any results on that process yet.

I know the yellow screen folks are having good luck with that option, I don’t think I have seen anyone with a lost arbitration case yet for that issue.

 

[mjmiron]

So with the most recent software update no one has seen anything positive outside of slower charging?

 

[MP3Mike]

Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software and also Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

X is pretty bad, but doesn't seem to have happened anywhere. Detecting X is definitely a good thing. Z is not good, but not as bad as X. The process of looking for X's ended up finding a bunch of Z's as well. Z was not being looked for and wasn't known. Detecting Z is still a good thing. The people with a rapid range loss have condition Z

No, I'm not saying your car is going to explode or otherwise have other issues if you don't update, so don't take it like that, but I do believe that what is being detected is an issue that will eventually need to be addressed one way or another, whether or not there is a safety issue involved, and if you are in that group it'd be better to know than not know.

Got it, so he didn't actually say what you said he did.

 

[MP3Mike]

So with the most recent software update no one has seen anything positive outside of slower charging?

I don't think anyone in this thread has reported getting the most recent software update.

 

[mjmiron]

There is a 3rd option that I believe a few people are trying on this thread: the arbitration clause in the warranty. Not sure that we have heard back any results on that process yet.

I know the yellow screen folks are having good luck with that option, I don’t think I have seen anyone with a lost arbitration case yet for that issue.

It has been EXTREMELY frustrating to say the least to get any response out of Tesla. I filed a complaint with the local state AG as well as trying to request a battery replacement from the local sc. I was told as of last week and I posted this that the local SC is working with remarketing team for the appropriate response. I love my car I truly do but I need my range BACK especially before winter.

 

[Chaserr]

He said impacted cars have condition Z, that condition Z is bad, and that "what is being detected is an issue that will eventually need to be addressed" But go ahead and believe whatever you want.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

I would think that Tesla will fix this and make it right for owners. Imagine all of the discovery Tesla will need to provide about its battery, proprietary systems, and events that led up to Tesla's decision. I don't think Tesla wants all of that out there.

 

[Chaserr]

@AmpedRealtor

Electrek posted this today: https://electrek.co/2019/08/08/tesla-owner-range-slashed-software-update-class-action-lawsuit/ and Tesla responded by saying they are reversing reduction and sent @DJRas a new firmware immediately. It sounds like Tesla doesn't want to enter the discovery phase in Ras' class action and we'll all be seeing a fix soon.

 

[sdoorex]

So for example, I mentioned earlier one possibility of selling replacement, modern packs at-cost, as well as doing the installation at-cost. So you end up with a car with better range and charging performance than the day you bought it.

Another possibility would be to offer discounts to people with said vehicles on new S/X so that the new vehicles are sold at-cost.

I think doing expensive work on things not covered by warranties is a bad precedent to set, but at the same time, I do think the company should try to make things up to customers some way or another when they feel let down by something. Just my take.

Under your proposal, how does Tesla make whole someone that does not want to give them any more money or do you think that Tesla should ignore past customers that aren't going to be future customers? Seems a bit like "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."

I realize that Tesla having to replace a bunch of bad batteries on the warranty could hurt them since they're really cash strapped however between the touchscreen adhesive problems, MCU e-MMC issue, battery, and drive unit issues, it appears that Tesla should have spent a bit more time in R&D and durability testing before rolling things our or they should cover the cost of replacement as part of gaining their first mover advantage on long range EVs.

 

[qwk]

"It is not degradation" is interpretation. It could be seen as degradation that had been happening all along on some batteries, but was not properly detected, with more recent firmware correctly recognizing that certain batteries have become unsafe to charge to the same voltage as new ones (or older ones that have not degraded in the same way). No one unfamiliar with the battery chemistry and the monitoring software can really tell.

I give this class action suit exactly zero chance of success, frankly, unless its aim is to make Tesla finally spill the beans on exactly why they decided to make the firmware behave as it does (it doesn't even have to go very far to succeed in that -- I can imagine that even in discovery Tesla could be compelled to provide the information, but possibly not in a way that would allow public dissemination).

This lawsuit has a 100% chance of being lost by Tesla. Nothing in life is 100%, but their attorneys and shady antics make this one that 100%. This whole thread is not about degradation, it’s about a SOFTWARE LIMITED BATTERY PACK that people bought as not software limited. No more, no less.

But since you are into condoning theft, how about I come over to your house and remove between 10-20% of your stuff? After all, it’s no big deal. PM me your address...

 

[Chaserr]

Warranty service has never required anyone to pay. If they need to replace abattery with a more modern one they can lock the new one at 265 miles and you'll be better than whole for years. If you want more range you can pay to upgrade. This would work out well for them and us - they get their large software cap or they get paid to remove it and we are made whole or better than new.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

Warranty service has never required anyone to pay. If they need to replace abattery with a more modern one they can lock the new one at 265 miles and you'll be better than whole for years. If you want more range you can pay to upgrade. This would work out well for them and us - they get their large software cap or they get paid to remove it and we are made whole or better than new.

I am very attracted by the idea of having a larger battery capped to my old level of 70kWhs. I wonder how many people that paid to uncap their batteries are now wondering if that was actually a good idea.