Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[Ferrycraigs]

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?

Apologies, long post. Beware!
For a number of weeks many of us have been trying to work out what the reason might be. Many theories have emerged. I have been looking for a common factor, that applies to the 3 categories, namely, pre facelift, smaller batteries (60, 70, 85 kWhs), and only some of those vehicles, ie not the entire pre facelift fleet.
Firstly, method of ownership, ie too much Supercharging, or too often to 100%, or operating too often at high (or low) SoC. There are so many contra examples in all these areas, ie those who don’t being affected and those that do not being, that style of operation does not seem credible reason.

Then looked at the car.
60 and 70 cars have 14 Modules and are 350V batteries
85 kWh is 16 Module, 400V batteries. So dissimilar.
90 kWh is also 16 Module, 400V battery, so why were they not affected?
100kWh battery didn’t appear until summer 2016 so should only be in facelift cars.
Then I remembered, the 90 kWh was actually just a 85kWh battery, with the new Gen2 Silicon battery. All the 60, 70 and 85 kWh variants all used the original Gen 1 18650 Cell.
So at last a common factor. Would this also fit in with a Tesla statements? 'Capping done for longevity of battery life.'
'Our batteries are healthy', etc.

Given the 6000+ Cells per battery, and the thousands of cars built, what are the chances of there being a bunch of 'slightly' dodgy cells (not sub standard, but barely up to standard and 'just' within spec. You have to draw a quality line somewhere). It must not only be possible, but perhaps even statistically likely that some of the tens or hundreds of thousands of cells were not 100% to spec.

Scenario. If Tesla discovered, whilst looking for Dendrite growth, that some cells were wearing out much more quickly than expected, then one way to extend their life span would be to limit their charge cycles. And they could describe such batteries as 'healthy' because they were still within spec, even if only just.

So IMO it doesn’t 'need' to be a safety issue, but at a time when the company is trying really hard to save money, admitting hardware issues might not be the most attractive option for them.

Just a theory of course, but for me, quite convincing.

 

[sixela]

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.

Except that for LiIon batteries there is actually a disclaimer that the company doesn't guarantee that over the life of the car that tank will continue to hold 20 gallons. It would have been better had Tesla given guarantees about what degradation of the capacity they would have considered "abnormal" over the years, but that would have been hard, since that depends on the battery chemistry, the way the battery was charged and discharged over the years, and also sheer luck with how "above average" the cells in the pack are. My guess is that they themselves didn't know yet how the batteries would age over the years, because they were on the bleeding edge of how much capacity you could cram in a given volume and weight.

On the other hand, if you could prove that even when new your gas tank couldn't hold 20 gallons, or only held 20 gallons when you filled up part of the gas tank that shouldn't have been filled with fuel, while someone else's gas tank did hold 20 gallons, then you have a different case (and one for which class actions against manufacturers have succeeded in the past).

 

[sixela]

Not ALL 85kWh batteries have received this limitation. Go figure.

That probably means that the BMS is monitoring some parameter during charging and is trying to make a "judgement call" as to whether to cap Vmax or not depending on what it sees. And yes, they're not telling you exactly what that is (which is unfortunate).

 

[sixela]

Just a theory of course, but for me, quite convincing.

That is at least a credible hypothesis, I agree. But given the warranty (or rather lack of cast-iron guarantees about longer term capacity of the batteries) if that were true then I can't see how you can demand any remedy under warranty or twist Tesla's arm in litigation (as in winning a suit rather than settling it).

Unless somehow a class action suit could be settled by agreeing on a protocol to measure who's been "unlucky" with their battery --i.e. sees their Vmax capped extremely drastically even if they took good care of their battery-- with some compensation being offered. But even in the current state of the service organisation, that's probably something I would have preferred to negotiate with service people rather than lawyers, but perhaps that's just my personal experience with lawyers colouring my judgment (service people have a vested interest in keeping customers happy because they're out of a job if there are no customers; for lawyers, you sometimes have the impression that the optimum is to have no customers, because then there's also no risk, and "making revenue" is someone else's problem).

 

[sixela]

Astraphobia?

If you had seen hailstones 2" in diameter dent your four week old Model 3 (and shred every plant in your garden and destroy some glass panes on your house) you wouldn't particularly like thunderstorms either ;-). Thank God that they didn't introduce Partial Premium on Long Range models without a glass roof, because at least that part of the car emerged unscathed.

 

[RobPet]

Luckily I have not been affected by 'batterygate' (90%=335 km, 208 miles). 2014 S85, on average 1-2 supercharging sessions a month, 145k km driven, 90% daily charge.

However, supercharging speeds have definitely changed. Recording speeds with Teslafi has shown me that the curve is the same, but the tapering starts earlier at around 10% instead of 20%. Seems like this blogpost by abetterrouteplanner shows similar (check second graph): Tesla Supercharging - Summer 2019 Update

 

[boywonder]

Luckily I have not been affected by 'batterygate' (90%=335 km, 208 miles). 2014 S85

That’s interesting.

In my 85D pre the update my 90% range was 234 miles (376km) and after it is 209 (~337km)

Your unaffected range is the same as my affected range!

 

[RobPet]

That’s interesting.

In my 85D pre the update my 90% range was 234 miles (376km) and after it is 209 (~337km)

Your unaffected range is the same as my affected range!

The dual motor should be more efficient. I believe, when new, the 85D shows 425km at 100% whereas the 85 should show 395km at 100% (in Europe).

in Europe I believe the rated range for a new 85D should have shown 264 miles and in US the rated range for a 85D is apparently when new 270 miles (please correct me if I am wrong). So, 90% = 237 miles. You had a degradation of ~1,3%. Now it's almost 12%.

So, I am currently at ~5,5% degradation after 145k km and 4.5 years, thus I believe I am unaffected.

 

[Droschke]

If you had seen hailstones 2" in diameter dent your four week old Model 3 (and shred every plant in your garden and destroy some glass panes on your house) you wouldn't particularly like thunderstorms either ;-).

That must be frightening for some, especially children

The lake effect does not help either

As to the M3, have you considered Saran wrapping the toy?

 

[Droschke]

Except that for LiIon batteries there is actually a disclaimer that the company doesn't guarantee that over the life of the car that tank will continue to hold 20 gallons.

Except that there is a huge difference between a gas tank being gradually degraded by sediments accumulating at the bottom of the tank overtime, hence less capacity overtime, and the intentional large dent applied to the tank to cap its capacity (as @MikeyC demonstrated above). How hard is this fact, which has been repeatedly stated here in this long thread, to understand?

 

[Droschke]

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.


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.

You say "tl;dr" to @Guy V short but informative post (only 91 words), and then you write a reply with 605 words of circular confusion!!!

May be you should read before you write. That might actually help.

There is definitely something terribly wrong here.

 

[Theoa]

Today my 100% charge dropped to 359km.

So I officially lost 40km in 1 month, or 10% of my range. 18% from new. Anyone else with these kind of numbers?

The dual motor should be more efficient. I believe, when new, the 85D shows 425km at 100% whereas the 85 should show 395km at 100% (in Europe).

in Europe I believe the rated range for a new 85D should have shown 264 miles and in US the rated range for a 85D is apparently when new 270 miles (please correct me if I am wrong). So, 90% = 237 miles. You had a degradation of ~1,3%. Now it's almost 12%.

So, I am currently at ~5,5% degradation after 145k km and 4.5 years, thus I believe I am unaffected.

I am new here and could not read all over 4000 messages!!! But yes, I am having the same problems as described by others.
I always charge to 90% (model S, 4,5 years old, 60.000 Kms)
My range used to be something like 380 Kms. I started monitoring when it was 352 in April this year. In May it went down quickly to 310 on June 17.
In August it went up by 10km and now it still is 320 for 90% charge. All together a big loss in capacity!

 

[Droschke]

That probably means that the BMS is monitoring some parameter during charging and is trying to make a "judgement call" as to whether to cap Vmax or not depending on what it sees. And yes, they're not telling you exactly what that is (which is unfortunate).

Why you keep worshiping the sanity of this questionable BMS while totally ignoring the possibility of these batteries might indeed be defective?

 

[Droschke]

... But even in the current state of the service organisation, that's probably something I would have preferred to negotiate with service people ...

Well, it has obviously escaped your attention but this has been tried by every impacted owner with unsuccessful outcome. Perhaps you can make yourself available in person with the impacted owners reaching out to the service organization and get this matter resolved once and for all That would also shorten this thread and help your focus on more serious Tesla issues in need of attention. Agree?

 

[Droschke]

I am new here and could not read all over 4000 messages!!! But yes, I am having the same problems as described by others.
I always charge to 90% (model S, 4,5 years old, 60.000 Kms)
My range used to be something like 380 Kms. I started monitoring when it was 352 in April this year. In May it went down quickly to 310 on June 17.
In August it went up by 10km and now it still is 320 for 90% charge. All together a big loss in capacity!

If you listen to the detractors, it's all happy and normal. Of course, they are not impacted, just are here to disrupt and distract.

If you listen to the facts and what the impacted owners have gone through, yes, your capacity has been suddenly and intentionally capped without your knowledge and via software updates (the topic of this thread).

 

[Theoa]

Lost 20km of max charging within 2 weeks on my S85D. At the 12th of May I was able to charge to 399km at 100% charge. 2 days ago the max charge has dropped to 379km all of a sudden. Temperatures at both charge times were around 18 degrees Celsius.

Called Tesla and they’re telling me the car logs show battery degradation and saying this is “normal”. Has anyone on this forum ever had such a steep loss of max range in such a short period? 5% loss of the max capacity in 2 weeks seems a bit much...
View attachment 415328

 

[Chaserr]

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

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.

You're still repeating your anti-science drivel. You yourself already appealed to your own authority when this was pointed out - don't back down from your own fallacious appeals to your personal scientific authority when your words are thrown back at you.

Tesla didn't just promise to charge to 4.2v forever, they asserted such to the EPA and every other government agency like it around the world. It's a crime for them to change it post-EPA rating. That's how VW was convicted in Dieselgate and had billions of dollars in fines assigned while the their executives who made those decisions were jailed. Software shenanigans to cheat the government tests (and steal from customers) is a very hefty set of crimes. You've finally admitted you understand this, stop trying to make excuses for how badly Tesla and VW screwed up when they committed those felonies.

Now, if you're confusing unintentional out of warranty engine failures with intentional criminal engine modifications... you know better. Stop being dishonest, if this reduction is a mechanical failure it's covered by warranty. If it's an intentional software change (And Tesla has already admitted to it, and proven they did it on purpose by reversing it which is a scientifically impossible feat when degradation is discussed) it's a crime, it's not a mechanical failure, and it's - in your words - a cast iron court win.

That "promise" wasn't just made to you and I, it was filed with our governments. Every time you try and excuse Tesla for what they've done keep asking yourself "why didn't this work for VW? Am I smarter than VW's armies of lawyers?" This will either help to bring you back to reality or feed your ego.

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

Everyone so desires.

 

[Theoa]

I would happily trade with you. Since yesterday I’m down to 365 kilometers at a 100% charge. I now lost 35 kilometers in 3 weeks... Waiting for my appointment at Tesla...

Hello fellow Dutchman, did you already have the appointment and if yes, what was the outcome? I am thinking of doing the same.

 

[Droschke]

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

Please do. That would be helpful. Good bye.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

That is at least a credible hypothesis, I agree. But given the warranty (or rather lack of cast-iron guarantees about longer term capacity of the batteries) if that were true then I can't see how you can demand any remedy under warranty or twist Tesla's arm in litigation (as in winning a suit rather than settling it).

I see this as a real problem. If my scenario, or one very similar, is the case, then the batteries are still within spec, so outside of the Warranty. At that point I guess the argument is, if they are within spec, then why the capping? Or at least why can’t it be removed? It seems likely that Tesla might reject action as the batteries are within spec and if they do remove the capping, then the batteries may fail within Warranty. But where would that leave us? With batteries that are blocking 10 kWhs that might otherwise be available, and 10 kWhs for which we had paid extra. Probably having to rely on some Consumers Rights in that the car no longer matches the seller's description when they sold it.