Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[scottm]

I agree 100%, I was chastised by members on this board for comparing this to dieselgate. Look where we are now.

I think it was just your avatar freaking them out. But we've grown used to it.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

Or looking at it another way - current Tesla UK registrations total ~12,700 of which ~2650 are 70's & 85's = about 20% of the fleet.
20% of 5000 members = 1000 of which 20 report range loss = 2% - similar to the 2.25% figure above. Then multiply up to account for inactive/non-responsive members...

Perhaps it should be all cars that have the same, old style battery, ie exclude M3.

 

[Gixx1300R]

To repeat some point I made weeks ago and to further the case that we are not dealing with degradation but battery capping at the top:

I get great REGEN even at 100% indicated range which would be in violation of the BMS in previous software and make the battery go bad quickly.

(Tesla went the Audi Etron route)

clean the dust please

 

[lightningltd]

The voltage limit directly lowers performance and reduces how much it can provide. It's a solid hypothesis. I drive my car above 400 wh/m every day, you don't. Everyone else please weigh in - Tesla won't supply the data but we all can.

BTW you should not be seeing the yellow line on acceleration unless it is extremely cold and your battery is frozen, or your state of charge is very low (20%?). If you're seeing it under normal summer driving conditions on a properly charged battery bring it in to be fixed.

I get the limit even when warm when there is 120-130 rated miles or less. I see it only during acceleration when I hit the top, it throttles back. Already took it in. They said it is normal as usual

 

[sorka]

When I first noticed this thread in May and started for the first time to actively post on this forum, my assumption was I'm doing so because I'm impacted by the update and would like to see what other impacted owners would have to say.

That's funny. When I first started posting back in early 2015, it was in a similar thread where I quickly racked up 691 posts

 

[sorka]

Which is why they clearly disclose that the range number is the EPA range for new vehicles and vehicle range depends on battery age and condition.

View attachment 441423

"Vehicle range may changed based on battery age and condition". Yup. Lost 12 miles in 100K miles of driving due to battery age and condition. If I take v9, I could see another 15 to 20% drop in range that I currently have now at this very moment...thank you

 

[Evoforce]

My car is still capped 5 miles at full charge and has a current mileage of 249 @100%. Current software of 2019.28.2. Before capping it was 254 miles.

 

[lightningltd]

My car is still capped 5 miles at full charge and has a current mileage of 249 @100%. Current software of 2019.28.2. Before capping it was 254 miles.

Lucky you. I got slapped down to 215 from 259 all at once in one charge session

 

[Evoforce]

Lucky you. I got slapped down to 215 from 259 all at once in one charge session

I was capped down 17 miles before update 2019.28.2. I hope yours goes in a better direction too!

 

[mjmiron]

2015 85D 50k miles and I just bought used from Tesla this last May from 260 to 233.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Makes no sense for Tesla to deliberately hobble their flagship vehicles. Much more likely this is a poorly thought out bug fix that introduced even worse bugs.

If it were a bug, I think Tesla would have said as much. In my experience Tesla service has no problem admitting to bugs.

 

[CuriousG]

I know this is the model S forum but I've seen a downward trend ever since 2019.16.x on my Model 3. Went from 0% degradation (at 21k miles) to 6.8% right now (at 28k miles). I posted to a Canadian Facebook forum and a lot of other are seeing the same thing since around June timeframe.

Are you basing this on the original 310 miles or the updated 325 miles?

 

[bijan]

Are you basing this on the original 310 miles or the updated 325 miles?

I have an AWD never got more than 310 (same as all other AWD, that increase was long range RWD only). So based on original 310.

 

[faughtz]

If it were a bug, I think Tesla would have said as much. In my experience Tesla service has no problem admitting to bugs.

It’s not a bug. It’s deliberate.

 

[willow_hiller]

It’s not a bug. It’s deliberate.

Really don't want to start more arguments in this thread, but it's possible it's both.

A deliberate change in firmware, with an unintendedly large reduction in range.

If it was purely deliberate and perfectly executed, rolling back the reduction some makes no sense. They miscalculated how much was necessary to protect the battery.

 

[sorka]

Not complete yet but enough data to publish. This a static voltage vs SOC chart. The blue series is the SOC as displayed in TM-SPY which includes 4 kWh that the IC/MCU display excludes. So as the charge drops, these diverge. At the lost point that I have data for, TM-SPY displayed 21.2% and the car displayed 17%. They merge when you hit 100%. It's also important to note this is based on a battery that has 74.4 kWh down from an original 77.8. This is car that has NOT been software limited in capacity.

I will add more as I get it. There's not much above 90% because I rarely charge above that. I charged once to 100% on my recent long trip as it was necessary. The trip would have been impossible to make had I had v9 and had been limited as much as some of the others here.

There would have been a couple of data points below 17% but I spaced as I was more concerned with just getting the car on the charger. You can almost see the start of the rapid decline on the low end. The discharge curve would curve down quite vertically as it approaches 3 volts. Hopefully I can make a point to get it that low in the next week or so.

 

[David99]

Not complete yet but enough data to publish. This a static voltage vs SOC chart. The blue series is the SOC as displayed in TM-SPY which includes 4 kWh that the IC/MCU display excludes. So as the charge drops, these diverge. At the lost point that I have data for, TM-SPY displayed 21.2% and the car displayed 17%. They merge when you hit 100%. It's also important to note this is based on a battery that has 74.4 kWh down from an original 77.8. This is car that has NOT been software limited in capacity.
View attachment 441546

I will add more as I get it. There's not much above 90% because I rarely charge above that. I charged once to 100% on my recent long trip as it was necessary. The trip would have been impossible to make had I had v9 and had been limited as much as some of the others here.

There would have been a couple of data points below 17% but I spaced as I was more concerned with just getting the car on the charger. You can almost see the start of the rapid decline on the low end. The discharge curve would curve down quite vertically as it approaches 3 volts. Hopefully I can make a point to get it that low in the next week or so.

Was the voltage while 'resting' or while charging?

 

[sorka]

I'm still managing to hold off the v9 install. I'm starting to think there might be something after all to keeping the drivers seat connector closest to the console unhooked. Found another report of some guy with an X that went for a long time without an update because some door sensor was faulty which prevented the update from installing so it could very well be that the seat plug trick works.

 

[sorka]

Was the voltage while 'resting' or while charging?

Stated above. Static voltage so no charge or discharge.

 

[David99]

@sorka What 'SoC' value are you using from SMT? There is SoC Min, SoC UI and SoC. The last is not on the CAN bus rather its calculated from usable remaining. It matches what the car shows. The two others are direct CAN bus values. SoC-min seems to the true SoC from two 100% (at 4.2 Volt) to true empty (including the entire buffer).