Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[Droschke]

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.

My RM increased to ~4-5 miles @90%. No way to measure the vMax in my case. But I believe others with the CANBUS tools have reported no vMax increase.

 

[mjmiron]

My RM increased to ~4-5 miles @90%. No way to measure the vMax in my case. But I believe others with the CANBUS tools have reported no vMax increase.

same for me about 3 miles don't have canbus yet.

 

[Guillaume]

A Tesla owner in Germany received a written explanation concerning the firmware based capacity loss and uploaded it on facebook.
It was made available to the service center by Tesla-HQ and unfortunately it has been poorly translated into german before it was handed out to him.
(IMO the last paragraph reveals that this wasn't meant to be a handout for the customer. ;-))

I tried to make a rough translation back to english (I don't have a ESL certificate)

The cells have accumulated sufficient wear, mainly through DC charging, but also through regular cycles, and charging cells to the same level as when new would result in accelerated cell depletion (both in terms of capacity retention and performance).
The system has adapted to the state of the cell and gradually adjusted the maximum state of charge of the cells over several weeks to reduce the long-term retention of capacity and performance.

The system can reduce the maximum state of charge of the cells by about 10% compared to the original state of charge.

From there, the cell is operated in an optimal range to maximize long-term retention and performance and to stabilize the range at full charge.

Make sure towards the customer that adjusting the maximum charge limit is, in most cases, a one-time event and means that the range [does not] continue to slip.
The system implements this proactive precaution to ensure that the cells of the HV battery have years and thousands of kilometers left to counteract accelerated cell wear, which would lead to a loss of capacity and a loss of performance.

 

[sorka]

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.

If it had been sold with a 91 kWh battery but advertised as an 81kWh battery then it wouldn't be an issue. They really shouldn't even have associated the model number with the battery size as the S85 isn't even really an 85 either. They should have only sold it with an epa rated range. The issue here is that they're changing the size of the battery to smaller than what it was when you bought it by locking out range that still exists before the lockout. If they'd locked out the upper 10% from the start, then the customer would never had access to that capacity in the first place.

 

[sorka]

It blows my mind that Tesla thinks they can just cut off range and hope we don't notice. How hard would it be for them to just send out a service bulletin being honest and saying why they are doing it?

I am really disappointed with their lack of transparency and poor communication.

What would have been even more insidious is if they'd done it so you lose the range over not just a day or days but over the course of 6 months. There'd have been a lot fewer people if any looking at vmax to see if that was the reason.

 

[scottm]

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.

Yes, they can. An etron owner can fully charge their battery. Set the dial to maximum, and charge. Done.

You are demonstrating the point, you've been caught up in believing you have a right to use the whole physical capacity of the battery for driving. Tesla has misguided you there.

What Tesla should have done is "pack 10% more cells in there" and sold you the same car with the advertised range that you bought at, and not charge any more money for those extra cells. Done. It would have been that easy.

And then you too could still charge fully as you do today to skip charging stations. Your expectations would be managed, and you'd be a happy driver, and get the benefit of possibly a longer lasting pack.

....

Or look at this the other way around. Tesla allows you to charge to the physical limit of the battery. But, what if when you adjust the dial beyond 90% they showed the warning, "charging your battery beyond 90% should only be used for emergencies and prorates your warranty faster. You have charged beyond 90% six times already."... would you go again?

....

I ask you which of the two experiences do you like better, e-tron with no arguments or warnings and no possible way to use more than 90%, or Tesla's high risk approach?

We are living the Tesla high risk approach right now. We have been lulled into thinking 100% occasionally is OK. When maybe it's not.

 

[qwk]

What would have been even more insidious is if they'd done it so you lose the range over not just a day or days but over the course of 6 months. There'd have been a lot fewer people if any looking at vmax to see if that was the reason.

Which adds more evidence that this was the knee jerk reaction to the spontaneous fires.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

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.

Wouldn't these cases prove that the limits were artificial and not "normal degradation"? These owners' experiences may be valuable data points in @DJRas' lawsuit as it shows the cap was artificial and reversible. Normal degradation is not reversible.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

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.

It seems to me that Tesla has done something to start the return of lost range. More and more people saying they got a little bit back last night. Not a lot, just a little. Thinks. How is that actually being affected? Are they having to tweak, ever so slightly, the cell voltage again, just to squeeze a couple of miles out of it. Sounds a bit sneaky if that is what they are doing. I would imagine that such reports might be viewed by an 'independent source' as evidence that Tesla actually are beginning to solve the problem. Has anyone checked if their voltage has been adjusted?

 

[jaitch]

What would have been even more insidious is if they'd done it so you lose the range over not just a day or days but over the course of 6 months. There'd have been a lot fewer people if any looking at vmax to see if that was the reason.

True. Tesla could still give the range back and then implement a stealth steal method over an extended period - much like the P90D drip feed range reduction/degradation I am seeing at the moment.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

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.

Has anyone ever accused you of being a party pooper? Only a question!

I knew the battery had been replaced but couldn’t locate why it had a restriction. I’ll hold the stick at the other end again. I’m getting good at changing hands.

 

[sorka]

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

That wouldn't have worked for me. The extra weight would effect handling and acceleration with no range benefit.

 

[sixela]

Yes, they can. An etron owner can fully charge their battery. Set the dial to maximum, and charge. Done.

You are demonstrating the point, you've been caught up in believing you have a right to use the physical capacity of the battery for driving. Tesla has misguided you there.

What Tesla should have done is "pack 10% more cells in there" and sold you the same car with the advertised range that you bought at, and not charge any more for those extra cells. Done. It would have been that easy.

But with that battery I would be denied the possibility of getting yet more range at my discretion (and my responsibility). Also: have you driven an e-tron? That extra battery does make the car more sluggish...

 

[Ferrycraigs]

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.

Thanks. On the plus side, it at least demonstrates they are able to change cell voltage from afar if they are minded to. So the 'we can’t do it as long as the moon is in the seventh house' excuse won’t fly.

 

[sorka]

But, what if when you adjust the dial beyond 90% they showed the warning, "charging your battery beyond 90% should only be used for emergencies and may void your warranty sooner"... would you do it?

They already do this if you charge over 90% two times in a row. No need to void the warranty but just warn that faster degradation already isn't covered by the warranty.

 

[jkennebeck]

This is very good:
ScanTool OBDLink LX Bluetooth:... https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00H9S71LW?ref=ppx_pop_mob_ap_share
I use ScanMyTesla app and tmSpy

Is this all you need to scan to a laptop or Android? no cables needed?

 

[Ferrycraigs]

A Tesla owner in Germany received a written explanation concerning the firmware based capacity loss and uploaded it on facebook.
It was made available to the service center by Tesla-HQ and unfortunately it has been poorly translated into german before it was handed out to him.
(IMO the last paragraph reveals that this wasn't meant to be a handout for the customer. ;-))

I tried to make a rough translation back to english (I don't have a ESL certificate)

Wow! That sounds like a bit of a blunder in their part.

 

[scottm]

What would have been even more insidious is if they'd done it so you lose the range over not just a day or days but over the course of 6 months. There'd have been a lot fewer people if any looking at vmax to see if that was the reason.

If they took that approach it would be much harder for Tesla to make a credible claim that there was any reason for doing this at all. Because if there was, then, "why did you react so slowly"?

And for all you know, that might be going on, as well.

 

[sorka]

If they took that approach it would be much harder for Tesla to make a credible claim that there was any reason for doing this at all. Because if there was, then, "why did you react so slowly"?

And for all you know, that might be going on, as well.

They'd just say the BMS was responding over time to slowly changing conditions in the battery.

 

[MP3Mike]

Thanks. On the plus side, it at least demonstrates they are able to change cell voltage from afar if they are minded to. So the 'we can’t do it as long as the moon is in the seventh house' excuse won’t fly.

I don't think they changed the vmax remotely, they cleared a trouble/fault code from the BMS and the BMS adjusted the vmax itself as a result. I'm sure they could clear the fault/trouble codes on all the cars impacted from this issue remotely and the range would come back, at least until the BMS detected the issue again and set the code again resulting in the range being restricted again.