Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[lightningltd]

I too have seen some recovered capacity since 2019.28.2.
I have gotten back 2 kWh and 8 miles rated range.
Still have 6kWh and 24 miles to go.
But it is a start.

Again this shows this was not normal degradation and PURELY artificial software limitation.

I still HOPE this was never related to the fires or Lithium dendrites or plating.
Until Tesla opens up about this... we still have issues.

I still have nothing back

 

[MP3Mike]

Roll out the banners, sound the fanfare! I think this may be the first time I have read of anyone having the limitation lifted. Really good news. Particularly if it’s a new policy.

Sadly, from what I can tell, he wasn't suffering from the same problem that people in this thread are suffering from. (But it is likely somewhat related.)

It seems like @MayoOK had a battery fail that set a trouble code in the system. Tesla replaced, or repaired, the failed battery but didn't clear the fault code. As such the BMS was applying a limit for a fault that no longer existed, and required manually clearing the code by engineering.

I'm pretty sure there is at least one other person that reported exactly the same thing happening to them.

 

[GeorgeSymonds]

This is not accurate.
My 70D delivered in August of 2015 is affected.
90% in April was 206 miles.
90% now is 182 miles.

There was a spell when 85 batteries were fitted and capped on 70 and 75 cars due to a shortage. I thought it was later than this but could this be the case? Either way, I feel your pain

On a wider note, with the cumulative changes due to the software update and general degradation of range over time, has anyone now fallen to 70% of their capacity when new? Apologies if its been asked before, given some of the comments I skipped many pages. 70% is the Model 3 threshold for replacement hence the question

 

[sixela]

It only affects the advertised range in that they can't advertise as much as the battery could potentially achieve if it was allowed to be fully charged; it actually protects them against false advertising claims in the long run by advertising a smaller range that they're more likely to be able to sustain over the warranty period.

Straight out of the Montgomery Scott School of Engineering: underpromise and overdeliver.

Except that e-tron users cannot fully charge their battery to skip a charge session for longer trips...I sure wouldn't like not to be able to charge to 100% on my model 3. It protects Audi against later claims, but it doesn't do customers a service, IMO.

 

[Droschke]

If Tesla had allocated an inaccessible 10% battery buffer at the top end, and sold its vehicles that way, I wonder if this issue would have been tamed? Much like there's an anti-bricking buffer at the bottom end that we can't use for driving. It is for battery protection only.

In other words, a "full charge" would be to battery's 90% physical capacity. There would be no such thing as 100% capacity charge. And yes, over time this "full charge" may give diminishing range as battery degrades, BUT maybe more slowly than if "top end damage" was allowed by hitting 100% physical limit.

That would have also meant that people could zoom up to full charge at the supercharger and get out, because we'd never see that long stretch out into ultra-thin taper area. Much like software limited 60 kw cars see.

I think one of the other EV makers (Jag or Audi) are not giving the top end to the users... They're giving a good chunk in the middle. And yes, it affects the advertised range - it is less. But in these cases the maker has considered it to be a good hedge against degradation warranty claims - the thing that Tesla is now faced head on.

Great observation. I agree and think Tesla went too aggressive with the usable capacity, after all they are not known to be conservative rather risk takers.

 

[Droschke]

I have certainly read that they employ this policy. Of course we can always say, if you dispute the figures feel free to show your own, and we can discuss.

I wonder if arbitration services or courts would be so picky.

Unless something changes quickly, I tend to believe the legal path is the way forward.

 

[mjmiron]

Unless something changes quickly, I tend to believe the legal path is the way forward.

I agree Tesla has had enough time to come clean on what was going on that produced the capping.

 

[Droschke]

How hard would it be for them to just send out a service bulletin being honest and saying why they are doing it?

I believe the reason they have not done what you are suggesting points to the fact that these are defective batteries which need to be replaced under warranty, which they refuse to do due to adverse financial/publicity reasons.

 

[st50maint]

There was a spell when 85 batteries were fitted and capped on 70 and 75 cars due to a shortage. I thought it was later than this but could this be the case? Either way, I feel your pain.

My understanding is that my 70D is a true 70, not a capped 85.
It operates at 350 volts and has fourteen 25 volt modules instead of 16 modules used in the 85s.

 

[Droschke]

Roll out the banners, sound the fanfare! I think this may be the first time I have read of anyone having the limitation lifted. Really good news. Particularly if it’s a new policy.

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.

 

[lightningltd]

Has anyone with a scan tool brought up to Tesla that the available charge is now limited to 4 volts versus the 4.2? Or shared with them the data before and after the update? I am guessing yes and it didn’t help?

After this is fixed we need to ensure we get reporting from Tesla about our battery health printed out at a minimum. What other car company does not share data about the engine? How else can they prove the battery is truly healthy? Are we supposed to just blindly follow what they say? I don’t care if I am not a battery expert one thing I do expect is explanations on what is healthy and something to verify what a service tech is telling me.

They have many times and the response is the same: "We do not accept 3rd party information. Your battery is fine. Nothing is wrong. Nothing to see here. Move along."

 

[Droschke]

Is Tesla at least offering a "refurb option" for people who find their battery has fallen to something below what they need for range?

Nobody expects or said batteries will last the life of the car. Inevitably, they will get to a point of "hey I want to replace my battery".

So, when the time comes for me, can I just get a new or refurb'd pack? Straight up with a price tag?

I would hate to think my whole car is "over" when its original pack is no longer delivering the range I need.

I would pay for a new or refurb battery. It was in my head that when I bought the car I'd be able to do that "in ten years" or so... even by then, something aftermarket if Tesla isn't on the ball enough (or maybe ... off the face of the earth by then).

That has been my plan all along. But, I'm not aware of any straight forward battery replacement program. I hope there is (will be) one.

 

[lightningltd]

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.
View attachment 440775 View attachment 440776 View attachment 440777 View attachment 440778

How does one get on this 'list'? I was one of the first to complain to Tesla about it.

 

[jkennebeck]

How does one get on this 'list'? I was one of the first to complain to Tesla about it.

I'm in the same boat here. They need to put everyone on this "list"!!!!

 

[sorka]

Had the same experience.
It has dropped, after the software update, from 364 to 320 km. (on the screen; in reel life from about 450 to 375km!)
Called Tesla and they the let me make an appointment at the service centre.
Came today, they told me it was a "normal" degradation, only the calculations of the distant was different and therefore more "realistic".
When I asked that apparently the odometer also more than 10% was effected they only laughed but were not able to explain the reason of a drop of more than 10%.
I have driven almost 200.000 km with my Tesla, and drive for the most part distances of around 300km, so I know exactly what the range was.
So don't lie to me, in more than 5 years the battery degraded for about 3% and than in one night 14%?!
Tesla degraded, whithout my permission, my 85 kWh car to a 75 kWh car.
Mayby we also need a guy as David Rasmussen who started a lawsuit against Tesla for illigal altering and decreasing of his battery properties.

Do they have "rated range" where you are or is that a US thing? It seems they're giving the same BS "more realistic calculation" answer but folks need to push back more tell them it's the rated ranged and battery capacity and the proof is that the SOC voltage at any comparable 70, 80, 90, or 100% is lower than it was before at each of those levels.

 

[SMShadowfax]

I'm in this thread because there may be a durability problem with some or more Tesla batteries. I am also a Nissan Leaf owner and I am sure some are tired of me talking about needed improvements of battery engineering (cooling) and longevity in that forum. Doesn't mean that I don't like my two Leafs or want to see Nissan bankrupt or discontinue electric vehicles. I want them to do better (because they can) and fix the main issue of short battery lifespan, rapid depreciation (battery related), greatly over inflated range estimates (GOM) and #rapidgate (battery cooling related). They have also had a battery lawsuit in their past and were not forthcoming with customers. I am hoping that Nissan will do better...

Now on to Tesla... #Batterygate, #Chargegate. Tesla is a much better vehicle than Leaf or anything currently on the market. Even with these problems. But that doesn't give Tesla a pass to do what they are doing here. Yep, look back at my posts, I believe a lot in electrifying vehicles and Tesla is my favorite thus far! I am an EV enthusiast. I have invested money in regards to this enthusiasm and believe that this is the right path.

There are many EV enthusiasts out there and many many more to come. It is us early adopters who believe it is a great idea/product that give a business a foothold to then mass produce. Early adopters often are instrumental in many aspects of the products. The great, the good, the bad and the ugly. It is a marriage of sorts. No marriage is perfect. Communication is a key element to things going more smoothly.

Tesla has downgraded some (as yet) unknown number of enthusiasts/customers and has seemingly tried to not communicate truthfully in writing to a few customers of why these affected batteries have been throttled. I say please stop hiding, skirting with us. Using the Press (after a lawsuit was filed) to publish ambiguities was only an attempt at damage control. Communication at (so many levels) and doing right by (your car enthusiast customers) is paramount. If these affected batteries do not represent the norm, tell us so, and replace them as abnormal/defective. It is time to be sorry and treat us better so we can kiss and make up.

Right on! Nicely stated. Thank you.

 

[mymagiccarpet]

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.

same here. Got good service, but very different when it comes to recent issues with battery capacity. cancelled appointments, resolution type: customer education, and we'll see what happens with 3rd one.

 

[mymagiccarpet]

This is not accurate.
My 70D delivered in August of 2015 is affected.
90% in April was 206 miles.
90% now is 182 miles.

I think same here, but I don't know what battery I have except its serial and model number. However, it is not possible to upgrade, so that would imply it's real 70.
3/16 build 70D
May 14th: 239/240 RM (215/216 @90%)
May 15th: 211 RM (190 @90%)
after 28.2.* SW: 208 RM (188 @90%) @26k miles

 

[SMShadowfax]

There is an old maxim of Divide and Conquer. I’m sure Tesla don’t employ that, as we seem to be doing a pretty good job of doing it ourselves lately.

Personally I would think we might achieve far more by directing our energies at Tesla, not at each other. I have certainly learnt a great deal on here about the issue, for which I am genuinely grateful. I understand it’s difficult sometimes on mediums like an Internet forum to turn the other cheek, and if I’m honest I am not without sin. Sometimes the temptation really is too strong.

But as granny used to say, please play nicely now boys.

I totally agree!

 

[mymagiccarpet]

Hi all,
wondering if for those who are seeing some RM improvement with latest SW (28.2.x) are only looking at RM or looking at max V as well?
I saw one member showing increased max V, but not sure about others.
If they only change RM, but usable battery capacity is not increasing, then there is no actual change.
Thank you.