Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[Droschke]

Are you claiming (again, with no supporting evidence) that I'm someone a shill for Tesla? Funny how they'd pick some Belgian dude for doing that, no?

"Belgian dude"? I doubt it and I hope not

 

[Droschke]

I'm saying that I find the arguments in this thread unconvincing.

Have you considered to move to a different convincing thread? This thread was not created to convince you.

Move on, you made your case, there is nothing more here to see.

 

[Droschke]

I used to be a scientific researcher at university, I know what it would take to be "anti-science"

You are an authority, if I am to believe you.

Hah! Where did I make that claim?

Unbelievable!

 

[sixela]

That I claim to know what science is doesn't make me “an authority”, merely not someone “anti-science”.

But I'll leave you to your echo chamber if you so desire.

 

[Droschke]

That I claim to know what science is doesn't make me “an authority”, merely not someone “anti-science”.

But I'll leave you to your echo chamber if you so desire.

Good night. It's past 3:00 AM in Belgium

 

[mjmiron]

Has anybody gotten anywhere in their arbitration case outside of a denial?

I complained to the local service center and it was escalated to corporate been their two weeks still waiting on a decision.

 

[sixela]

Good night. It's past 3:00 AM in Belgium

And there are thunderstorms, but thanks for your concern.

 

[Droschke]

And there are thunderstorms, but thanks for your concern.

Astraphobia?

 

[Guy V]

That I'm admitting there is an issue does not mean that I admit that it's not degradation, that Tesla has no right to change the BMS, or that claims the affected batteries are "defective" and should be "fixed" under warranty have merit, or that the older BMS behaviour should be restored.

But I do agree that it would be good for everyone's peace of mind for Tesla to be more transparent about what the BMS is trying to achieve. On the other hand I don't have any trade secrets (or skeletons in the cupboard, depending on your point of view) to protect either, so it's easy for me to say so.

Is this a step forward or a step back?

We should have more transparency than just what the BMS is trying to achieve, like what has Tesla learned that triggered recent BMS changes, why are some batteries behaving significantly different than other similar ones, what might be aggravating those differences, how to avoid that and what plans does Tesla have for battery replacement/renewal/refurbishment as its fleet ages.

 

[sixela]

No argument from me. I'm not going to argue that their current communication strategy around the issue is anything but a big mess, but as said before, I'm not making their calls.

 

[Guy V]

Making sure that the batteries don't catch fire is one of the jobs of the BMS — LiIon batteries need to be protected against overcharging.

If the algorithms would have been changed to make it safer in the event some specific aging characteristics are detected while charging (or even if they were changed just to make further degradation less likely), it doesn't mean they're "hiding a recall”. It may also just means they'd be doing their due diligence.

Except for the part where they are denying that it is a safety-related change.

 

[Guy V]

I hate to belabour that point once more, but there _are_ no guarantees on those models with respect to the longer term capacity of the batteries remaining at the end of the warranty period.

and we need your definition of the word "new"

 

[Guy V]

First of all, I have not seen a shred of evidence that a car with a new 85 pack doesn't charge to that cell Vmax yet. Indeed, there is evidence that even some older batteries still charge to essentially the same capacity with the newer firmware, albeit at least sometimes with a reduced charging rate.

Secondly, suppose that the newer software would drive the car more efficiently during an EPA cycle test, that assertion would also be false — then they could charge even a car with a new 85 pack to a lower cell Vmax and still be compliant with the published EPA range.

Your assertion that they intentionally reduce range (and not as an unfortunate side effect of some other decision) is totally unsupported for the moment, unless I missed something.

What's your hypothesis? They just thought they’d irritate their customers? They're trying to make you all buy Ravens (doesn't seem to be working)? They thought life was too boring without an extra class action suit?

What we are pointing out is that SOME cars are having their charging voltage limited and most (so far) are not. Tesla is not telling us the reason, so we are left to speculate and the most obvious possibilities are that they are hiding something that might be dangerous if they didn't cap the voltage, or that there is some defect with some batteries that they do not want to reveal and that they do not want to replace them under warranty.

What other logical reasons can you postulate for us?

 

[mjmiron]

What we are pointing out is that SOME cars are having their charging voltage limited and most (so far) are not. Tesla is not telling us the reason, so we are left to speculate and the most obvious possibilities are that they are hiding something that might be dangerous if they didn't cap the voltage, or that there is some defect with some batteries that they do not want to reveal and that they do not want to replace them under warranty.

What other logical reasons can you postulate for us?

Or buying time till they figure out a real fix?

 

[Guy V]

Or buying time till they figure out a real fix?

LOLOLOL That was MY starting point 3 months ago!

 

[Blu Zap]

Guys. Can we end this argument and agree to disagree? Those of us that are AFFECTED need to be able to chime in. I have been mostly silent because of all the trolling going on here.
Valid ON TOPIC posts are getting lost in all the poop.
Thanks

Bravo!! Thank you for bringing sense to this trolling mess!

What we are pointing out is that SOME cars are having their charging voltage limited and most (so far) are not. Tesla is not telling us the reason, so we are left to speculate and the most obvious possibilities are that they are hiding something that might be dangerous if they didn't cap the voltage, or that there is some defect with some batteries that they do not want to reveal and that they do not want to replace them under warranty.

What other logical reasons can you postulate for us?

The absence of a believable reason from Tesla has led to speculation. Namely fire safety,

Or buying time till they figure out a real fix?

Yup, that is what is going on. Thanks for bringing the thread back on track to the reasoning behind the topic.

It is too much of a coincidence that the same 85 kWh batteries that burst into flames in Singapore, Hong Kong, Germany, etc. are also the batteries that have the capacity and charging speed limitations put on them. Not ALL 85kWh batteries have received this limitation. Go figure.

 

[BANKWUPT]

I have a June 2015 Model S 85D and I didn't lose any range, but did notice a big drop in supercharging speed in the last few updates

 

[Zodiacchris]

Finally got home from a couple of months overseas and took my 1/2016 70D out to the local supercharger. Charged from 74% at 27KW to 95% at 6KW, took 24 minutes to 90% and 38 minutes to 95%. Pretty slow but about what I have expected given what others experience.
With 28.3, my dismal 100% range of 187 miles has gone up to 196 miles, better than nothing but to at least have 200 miles would have been nice from a psychological point of view. Seems the battery capacity has gone up from 57 to 59 kWh. Acceleration seems to have gone up, too, but maybe after 2 months of ICE I’m just not used to this sort of torque anymore (the Jaguar XKR I drove in Germany seemed outright lethargic). Recovery at 95% was at 25 Kw, at 90% 50Kw.
I will run her down to under 10% tomorrow and check what charging speeds I’ll see in the lower range up to 80%. Who knows, I might find another 4 miles somewhere...

 

[MikeyC]

For me, the only part I can understand is the science part. The EPA test was performed with the batteries (cells) charged to 4.2 volts. Let's equate this with buying an ICE car with a 20 gallon gas tank that was rated for a certain range. If the software was updated to limit charge to 4.1 volts, any car charging to 4.1 volts will certainly never see the EPA rated range. It is the equivalent of the manufacturer sneaking into your garage at night and banging a big dent into your gas tank so that it now holds 18 gallons instead of the 20 it held when you bought it.

You have less "fuel": you're not going to get the same range. The only way they could achieve the same EPA range with 4.1 volts is if they could somehow modify the efficiency of the electric motors and/or regen to be ~10% more efficient overall (doubtful). The difference with an EV is that it is understood that the longer you drive it, the more range you'll lose due to normal battery degradation. That gives Tesla the opportunity to hide the voltage capping in this "noise" and label it as normal. They can just say that EPA range for an EV is based on a new vehicle and it is understood (and customers should expect) some reduction in range as the car ages.

Is it right? Should they be able to take chunks of range and charging speed as they wish? Not for me to decide. I bet lawyers at Tesla have already investigated how much they can "take from you" before getting on the EPA's radar. I wouldn't be surprised if, in the future, the EPA requires some type of disclaimer for EPA range on EVs or requires them to meet a certain percentage of that spec for a certain length of time to address this gray area.

Mike

 

[sixela]

What we are pointing out is that SOME cars are having their charging voltage limited and most (so far) are not. Tesla is not telling us the reason, so we are left to speculate and the most obvious possibilities are that they are hiding something that might be dangerous if they didn't cap the voltage, or that there is some defect with some batteries that they do not want to reveal and that they do not want to replace them under warranty.

tl;dr: everyone is still acting as if you had a cat-iron guarantee from Tesla that all these packs would be charged to a cell Vmax of 4.2V forever. I have yet to see such a promise that was made.

If it would be dangerous not to cap the voltage then obviously it's within their remit to cap the voltage. If they do so and you can continue to drive, albeit with a reduced range, what would be your claim that it needs to be fixed under warranty? Unless you could prove that the battery was in that state when you bought it, of course, which would mean that with the current software you couldn't have driven the EPA range on an EPA cycle.

And for your second claim, if they cap the voltage and you can then continue to drive, how is the battery "defective"? Unless Tesla would have claimed in the past that all batteries could be charged to a Vmax of 4.2V regardless of their age and measured parameters, it's their call to determine what the 'correct' Vmax is for your battery's current state.

A battery that gets capped is certainly in its current state worse than a battery that doesn't get capped, but how do you determine that when you bought the battery with the car it was already in that state that would have made it worse than a "normal" one, and already incapable of reaching the EPA range on an EPA cycle at that time?

You could certainly make the claim that your battery aged less well than someone else's, and perhaps it's not even your fault, but if Tesla doesn't give warranties about the capacity of batteries with an age of X I can't see someone demand it be fixed under warranty. You could plead that it would be reasonable for them to offer some kind of compensation for the users most badly affected by being on the "unlucky" side of the variation in how batteries currently perform (especially if the logs reveal that the battery was well taken care of over these years), and that it would be a good PR and customer satisfaction move without costing them an arm and a leg.

Which is why I personally think that bringing a class action suit was the wrong thing to do -- it focuses on what Tesla must be doing (or, to put it another way, what they could get away with legally) rather than what they should be doing (which is to make their customers as happy as they can be, and as well-informed as possible).

Once lawyers get involved, you also ensure that Tesla won't be saying anything related to the issue unless by pulling teeth in discovery (I know, I've been there on the side of a manufacturer whose lawyers instructed anyone to stop telling customers anything about a particular issue that was being litigated. We were instructed to keep all the relevant data, but to divulge absolutely nothing unless instructed by a lawyer from the company). That's a process that can drag on for years.

Is it right? Should they be able to take chunks of range and charging speed as they wish?

That depends on the reason behind it. If it really is for safety reasons or to prolong the useful life of the battery (e.g. to give you more range in the distant future by taking away some of it now, or to lower your charging speed so that your battery retains more capacity over time), that can be argued. If it is an effort to cripple your car to make you buy a new one, then the answer is most certainly "no", as Apple found out.