Who he wants to hear from is Tesla, and I concur.
-
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
Ferrycraigs
Member
I feel exactly the same. Normally great service, but now it seems I am just getting Tesla's Template responses, that often don’t even relate directly to my question. I feel like they have battened down the hatches, that an instructions has been issued to deny or refuse anything to do with batterygate. If they won’t listen or respond it may be time to change gear.
Ferrycraigs
Member
Tesla told me my battery was healthy. Despite it losing 10kWh. So I guess they have their own definition of healthy (well they do have their own definition of Soon).
They also said they had compared it to all the other batteries of its age and mileage and it was fine, indeed slightly above average. How can that possibly be the case? I suspect they checked its ability to hold a charge against the new 100% rather than the old 100%. When asked what parameters they used to check, they wouldn’t say. It seems whenever I ask a truly pertinent question I get a 'I don’t know, they haven’t told us. I will pass it up the line' reply. Convenient really.
willow_hiller
Well-Known Member
Just popping back into this thread to warn you folks that the $TSLAQ crowd has found this thread: TempWorker on Twitter
They're already playing up the "wk057 was silenced" angle. Don't trust anything posted by new members, pro or anti-Tesla.
They're already playing up the "wk057 was silenced" angle. Don't trust anything posted by new members, pro or anti-Tesla.
Guy V
Member
You have a lot of nerve calling someone else a liar when you post false statements. Tesla said nothing about X or Z or any other basis for their update "to improve battery longevity". What people got from Tesla was denials that there was anything abnormal about their batteries.
Are you now accusing Elon that his patent pledge was as empty as his don't worry it's on us battery warranty promise is so far showing to be?
Not only are you not helping anyone here who has the problem or has a concern about such problems, but your comments undermine Tesla as well.
Tesla has true believers. They are not rational and they will attack anyone who complains about nearly anything that is wrong with Tesla.
It really doesn't affect them but they feel justified telling those who are affected how it shouldn't matter and then following that with shameless ad hominem attacks.
Litigation has often been the way companies and society achieve revolutionary reforms like Civil Rights, environmental protections and additional constitutional rights. Tesla can be made better but not by apologists.
It really doesn't affect them but they feel justified telling those who are affected how it shouldn't matter and then following that with shameless ad hominem attacks.
Litigation has often been the way companies and society achieve revolutionary reforms like Civil Rights, environmental protections and additional constitutional rights. Tesla can be made better but not by apologists.
They have done this as well for people who heavily use SCs, not to disincentivize them, but purportedly to protect the pack. I haven't run into throttling, but I understand the throttle is to 90kW from the ~103kW I'm getting now. That peak doesn't last long anyway, so I don't think it's much of a disincentive for me at this point.
Not rational? That describes half of the people in this thread who are clearly emotional regarding purported range loss. I love how you label anybody with posts contrary to the conspiracy theory crowd as a Tesla apologist. I haven't seen anybody apologizing for Tesla's lack of communications or treatment of customers. There are plenty of posts from these "apologists" disputing theories such as: NO Li-Ion device maker limits Vmax of cells to mitigate battery stress, Tesla is has a conspiracy going on, or Tesla is stealing from people. These are all ripe for discussion and debate. What I have seen are people slammed by a number of posters for attempting to shed some light on the a situation that is not black and white, but highly technical and nuanced. Some us who do engineering for a living like to think critically and logically while examining the facts that frankly are few and far between here.
Here's an update to my original post on page 159. To my surprise I charged to 254 today. SA had said the update would come maybe Wednesday or later. I had been put on a list that went to California and would get an unnoticed update. I was 2019.24.4 before and after range change. Looks like they cut out about 9 Kwh. Seems like I'm back to a realistic range of about 233 or so. Here are before and after pics you can mull over. This has been a long three months.
Let me try my hand at truth-squadding this one.
Isn’t it factual that range (capacity) is effected when charged to any state of charge?
It would be a smaller absolute reduction in range if the affected small percentage would charge to a lower SOC.
Yes, I charged today to 5% SoC. I did not notice any range loss or sudden degradation of my battery. So, this whole thing is a hoax
He just said it would remove a lock on the last 10% of the battery. Did give it a name, just said I was being put on a list.
That is curious. So you went to the SC with the range issue and your vehicle was forwarded too engineering. Sometime later an update was sent to your car that unlocked the capacity. I wonder if they are doing some special diagnostics on batteries that are flagged by the BMS before unlocking the recently locked capacity. Perhaps they have some way to confirm you don't have wk057's bad condition (Z or X I can't remember) before the unlock.
No, read his original post. He had a bad battery which was replaced. His replacement was capped by the malware update. A different case than what we are facing.
There are now two reports from owners who had failed their battery replaced and received their replacement with range clipped that was later restored.
Similar threads
