Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[Chaserr]

We know they are capping volts. This is theft of horsepower and range - products we paid for. They are guilty of manipulating officially tested EPA ratings a la dieselgate - Not good. We don't need to know why they did this, we know they did and that it is illegal.

If they did it to reduce the impact of a design flaw, that's a recall problem. if they did it to reduce the impact of warranty claims on Tesla's budget it's still a warranty issue. What we know for certain is that it is not something owners have done, and it is not natural. Tesla is avoiding telling us the reason for the thefts, but they are still guilty of theft. They need to return what was stolen, it's as simple as that.

If they can't safely return what was stolen, they need to perform a safety recall. If they can't afford to warranty the product as they sold it... that isn't our fault either. In every possible explanation, Tesla is punishing owners for Tesla's mistakes. This is why they are not telling us why they did it - and probably why they returned *some* of the stolen property starting a day after the class action suit was filed. They're afraid of telling us the reason, and want to avoid the discovery process exposing it. Unfortunately, anything less that 100% restoration of the missing volts is still theft and keeps the suit active - discovery is inevitable as long as they refuse to charge batteries that they have chosen to reduce with software capped voltages.

The batteries can't be in spec if the voltage is software capped. The EPA's rated spec requires a charge to 4.2v and anything less than that at 100% is a dieselgate manipulation. Customer cars can't be software manipulated to not meet what the EPA certified - Vw tried this and that's where the term dieselgate comes from. The spec requires 4.2v - range, performance, any other side effects of voltage manipulation are just side effects. We are not discussing range, or "within spec range" we are discussing voltage that has been illegally capped. Range is impacted, but it is a shadow of that central issue and not the issue itself.

Similarly, Tesla could replace our batteries with real 60kWh packs that have the same range as teh software cap allows. This

 

[swegman]

Charged the car again and this time the range increased 1 mile to a total range of 208 miles at 89% charge. Indicated battery capacity is still 69kWh.

Charged the car another 2 times and each time the 89% charge range was 207 miles. Do the car now appears capped at 207 miles, meaning Tesla “returned” 7 miles of range at 89% charge level, which is still 20 miles short of where it used to be (227 miles at 89% charge level pre-capping).

Plus I’ve noticed that the car and app now indicate a projected charge time that is approximately 50% longer than it actually takes to charge.

On my way to Tesla for a squeak issue on the Model 3. Going to insist that they escalate this matter on the Model S and perform a complete CAC test of the battery.

 

[MikeyC]

I'm not trying to add fuel to the fire but for me, it helps to think of things in relation to what any car should be. We have to hold EVs to the same standard as ICE cars. So what would an equivalent ICE (any) car situation be? Maybe a manufacturer finds out that their fuel injectors are not lasting the length of the powertrain warranty and using them fully might be a fire hazard. So rather than replace the injectors under the powertrain warranty, they update the software to cut the fuel injector pulsewidth so it isn't allowed to inject as much fuel (less power) and the less-effective (old/worn) injectors also result in worse gas mileage. Is it acceptable that we, as EV owners, are OK with our cars being incrementally downgraded over time?

My point is that it is counterproductive to just accept the mentality that "Oh well. It's an EV and they degrade over time." I think we should hold manufacturers to the same standard as ICE vehicles. As Jay Leno put it, to succeed, new technology can't just be as good as past tech. It has to be better. I think battery degradation comes with the territory and maybe we accept that. But do we extend that to include incremental downgrades in range, power, and how fast we can "fuel" on top of the expected amount of battery degradation?

Mike

 

[Droschke]

We know they are capping volts. This is theft of horsepower and range - products we paid for. They are guilty of manipulating officially tested EPA ratings a la dieselgate - Not good. We don't need to know why they did this, we know they did and that it is illegal.

If they did it to reduce the impact of a design flaw, that's a recall problem. if they did it to reduce the impact of warranty claims on Tesla's budget it's still a warranty issue. What we know for certain is that it is not something owners have done, and it is not natural. Tesla is avoiding telling us the reason for the thefts, but they are still guilty of theft. They need to return what was stolen, it's as simple as that.

If they can't safely return what was stolen, they need to perform a safety recall. If they can't afford to warranty the product as they sold it... that isn't our fault either. In every possible explanation, Tesla is punishing owners for Tesla's mistakes. This is why they are not telling us why they did it - and probably why they returned *some* of the stolen property starting a day after the class action suit was filed. They're afraid of telling us the reason, and want to avoid the discovery process exposing it. Unfortunately, anything less that 100% restoration of the missing volts is still theft and keeps the suit active - discovery is inevitable as long as they refuse to charge batteries that they have chosen to reduce with software capped voltages.

The batteries can't be in spec if the voltage is software capped. The EPA's rated spec requires a charge to 4.2v and anything less than that at 100% is a dieselgate manipulation. Customer cars can't be software manipulated to not meet what the EPA certified - Vw tried this and that's where the term dieselgate comes from. The spec requires 4.2v - range, performance, any other side effects of voltage manipulation are just side effects. We are not discussing range, or "within spec range" we are discussing voltage that has been illegally capped. Range is impacted, but it is a shadow of that central issue and not the issue itself.

Similarly, Tesla could replace our batteries with real 60kWh packs that have the same range as teh software cap allows. This

Bravo. An excellent sum up of what has happened. The unimpacted detractors will be back with the usual "how about that normal degradation thing, the Li-Ion batteries, BTW, are susceptible to normal degradation, did you know?", or "The BMS is here to protect you, bow to the King and to its judgement", or this one: "I drive 5000 miles per year, I don't see a problem if I'm capped or my charge speed is reduced, so why are you complaining?". Unbelievable.

and probably why they returned *some* of the stolen property starting a day after the class action suit was filed.

It's a game they are playing. I got 10 miles back out of 30 miles loss. Charging to 90% today, 2 miles was shipped back to Tesla similar to what other impacted owners have noticed as well.

 

[Droschke]

I'm not trying to add fuel to the fire but for me, it helps to think of things in relation to what any car should be. We have to hold EVs to the same standard as ICE cars. So what would an equivalent ICE (any) car situation be? Maybe a manufacturer finds out that their fuel injectors are not lasting the length of the powertrain warranty and using them fully might be a fire hazard. So rather than replace the injectors under the powertrain warranty, they update the software to cut the fuel injector pulsewidth so it isn't allowed to inject as much fuel (less power) and the less-effective (old/worn) injectors also result in worse gas mileage. Is it acceptable that we, as EV owners, are OK with our cars being incrementally downgraded over time?

My point is that it is counterproductive to just accept the mentality that "Oh well. It's an EV and they degrade over time." I think we should hold manufacturers to the same standard as ICE vehicles. As Jay Leno put it, to succeed, new technology can't just be as good as past tech. It has to be better. I think battery degradation comes with the territory and maybe we accept that. But do we extend that to include incremental downgrades in range, power, and how fast we can "fuel" on top of the expected amount of battery degradation?

Mike

You are the rational one and your post is based on reason and logic. Unfortunately, this thread has been infected with the false information by few unimpacted disruptors who so comically have been trying to deflect from the real issue and feed their online ego. The good news is that the impacted owners are all on the same page.

This issue has nothing to do with "degradation". Period.

 

[sorka]

It's ridiculously easy to prove that. measure volts. If it doesn't reach 4.2v it's 100% impossible that car is running the same software that the EPA rated for that capacity, because it's 100% impossible for that battery to have the same capacity the EPA used in its testing protocols.

This is remarkably close to how the dieselgate convictions were achieved.

The two of you who disagreed with that statement, and you know who you are, what is it you disagree with? If the car can reach the EPA rated range before 16.1 and then 16.1 prevents you from filling the tank up as far as you did before, then you obviously can't reach the rated range anymore. It so obvious that there wasn't even a need to state it.

 

[sorka]

New or old, 4.2v is the only way to reach the rated range on an 85 pack. Software limited packs like on an S40 (60kwh) or a 2016 S60 (75kwh) were limited the same way, by capping volts below the actual 100% value of 4.2v

Exactly. Now you may not be able to achieve the EPA range on a pack that has NOT been software capped from being able to fully charge due to actual degradation, but software capping will guarantee you can no longer reach it since the battery is now for all intents and purposes is being treated as though it has less capacity than it actually has.

 

[sorka]

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.

Have you not been reading the thread? I guess I could understand that since it's now nearly double the infamous 691-gate thread. But your point above has NOTHING do with with anything being discussed.

 

[sorka]

Yes. And the cars that I've seen affected do not have new batteries, which means that there is some degradation with respect to the packs in new cars.

But again, that's not what we're talking about. I have 11 miles of real degradation in my 100K mile pack. I'm still on V8. If I take V9, I could see upwards of a 20% reduction in range immediately over the actual minimal degradation I already have. That's why I'm leaving my rear door handles fuse out.

FYI, this hack works. My P85D tried to install the update multiple times and it failed each time and the update is now gone so no more yellow clock...until the next time they try and download over LTE.

 

[VT_EE]

Forgive me, but I fail to see in the marketing literature where Tesla tells me that Vmax for the cells in my battery when charging is complete is 4.2V, and that it's going to remain that way for the life of the car, regardless of what the BMS measures.

Apart from that, we do agree: if you reduce Vmax, you reduce the capacity that is stored in the battery when "full", and I can't see where I claimed otherwise.


Hah! Where did I make that claim? It's likely much smarter people than me are going to put forward similar arguments during the class action suit, I think.


I'm still unconvinced it's cast iron. That is for the courts to decide, I think.


No argument from me. My argument is that asserting that Tesla should charge the cells to a Vmax of 4.2V even on older batteries and regardless of what the BMS measures is bold at best. "Just because it used to and I still want that capacity" is not a sufficient reason.


I think that's what we all want to know, no? And we also want to know what makes it decide to do so only on some batteries and not on others.

And once we know that, the second question is whether Tesla should be allowed to reduce the voltage or whether it falls outside of their remit (if you'll excuse the British English for a second).

It's your battery but it is still their job to manage it as it's also their responsibility if the BMS makes an awful mistake. All they would need to show is that there is a rational basis for the choices of the BMS, and you'd basically have to show a fraudulent intent (or at least crass incompetence), and I'm still puzzled as to what intent that would be (in the case of Apple, make people buy newer phones, but in Tesla's case?)

If they had a rational reason and they could tie it to something measurable that they can argue shows (probable) degradation, then the onus would be on you to prove that the battery was also "degraded" like that when new for the battery to be proven "defective", which would be a tall thing to prove even if it's true (see above). And to prove it for one battery (which would make it eligible for warranty service) is different from proving it for all the batteries in the class, when you have a class action suit.

Thank you for effectively explaining what some people on this thread are having a really hard time grasping. There are many valid explanations as to why the BMS is reducing max voltage. All are possibilities, just as it is possible Vmax reduction is done solely for legally questionable reasons.

Some people here have a very narrow view of what constitutes “degradation” and how it’s dealt with. According to them, reducing Vmax is never used deal with any degradation type. I find this line of thinking naïve given all the chemical, mechanical, electrical interactions in a battery. Regardless, a possible solution shouldn’t be excluded just because it isn’t usually done. People need to keep an open mind and stop assuming the worst. I’m sure Tesla crap communications skills aren’t helping.

I find it amusing to have internet experts continuously explain what voltage is to those of us with electrical engineering/technical backgrounds. Perhaps I should use the Funny button more, similar to our passive aggressive friends in this thread. On second thought, I’ll just hit the straight up Disagree to be clear.

 

[VT_EE]

But again, that's not what we're talking about. I have 11 miles of real degradation in my 100K mile pack. I'm still on V8. If I take V9, I could see upwards of a 20% reduction in range immediately over the actual minimal degradation I already have. That's why I'm leaving my rear door handles fuse out.

FYI, this hack works. My P85D tried to install the update multiple times and it failed each time and the update is now gone so no more yellow clock...until the next time they try and download over LTE.

Please define what “real” degradation is. Any explanation should include all the various chemical and mechanical processes that are affected by age and usage ( for the specific chemistry and design in your Tesla battery). It would also be nice if you included all the options for mitigating these battery properties and how Tesla’s BMS deals with them.

 

[sorka]

Some people here have a very narrow view of what constitutes “degradation” and how it’s dealt with. According to them, reducing Vmax is never used deal with any degradation type. I find this line of thinking naïve given all the chemical, mechanical, electrical interactions in a battery. Regardless, a possible solution shouldn’t be excluded just because it isn’t usually done. People need to keep an open mind and stop assuming the worst. I’m sure Tesla crap communications skills aren’t helping.

My view is what Tesla's view was from 2012 all the way until 16.1 was delivered earlier this year when they decided to change to software cap battery capacity. They never did before and 2012 batteries went for years and hundreds of thousands of miles without any issues. Yet Tesla is now capping 2015 batteries that now don't have the chance to have the same access to their capacity that 3 year older batteries had access to through their life.

 

[sorka]

Please define what “real” degradation is. Any explanation should include all the various chemical and mechanical processes that are affected by age and usage ( for the specific chemistry and design in your Tesla battery). It would also be nice if you included all the options for mitigating these battery properties and how Tesla’s BMS deals with them.

I've already done that. Real degradation is the original capacity when new minus the existing capacity when fully charged. Software capping a battery so that it cannot achieve it's current existing capacity is not any kind of degradation at all.

I will remind you that I'm STILL on v8 and that my actual degradation is 11 miles down from the original 253 miles. This is after 100K miles. Using existing fleet data, I can expect to lose another 5 miles over the next 100K miles.

If I were to take v9, I could very well end up losing another 20% on top of my existing minimal 4.5% and that would be instant.

I will also remind you that the only known cases where manufacturers software capped batteries after the fact are cases where those batteries were deemed defective and the capping was done as a safety measure until those devices could be returned for full refunds.

BTW, we're officially into rinse and repeat mode

So glad I'm still on v8

 

[VT_EE]

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?

Feel free to stop the childish comments.

 

[Chaserr]

some people on this thread are having a really hard time grasping. There are many valid explanations as to why the BMS is reducing max voltage. All are possibilities, just as it is possible Vmax reduction is done solely for legally questionable reasons. .

They don't need to have a hard time grasping it. We know that they reduced voltage. They told us they reduced voltage. We know that in doing so and removing things we paid for that are contingent on voltage, they have publicly admitted to theft. These are facts. Everything attempting to excuse that crime which Tesla has already publicly admitted to committing is conjecture. Everything attempting to cover up what was done with unrelated fictions is off topic; Tesla has admitted to reducing voltage and returned a fraction of what was taken, disproving many of the proposed fictions some users have dreamed up. We don't seek to get them to explain why they committed the crime, we seek to force them to return what was stolen, by whatever means they or the courts deem appropriate.


>

Please define what “real” degradation is.

I'm amazed you don't know what it is, but in its simplest terms degradation is the loss of usable energy storage capacity at a full charge. Specifically, on a Tesla charged to 4.2v 100%, it is a lower EPA range than it was able to hold at the same voltage earlier in its life cycle. Tesla did not cause degradation with 2019.16 and newer firmware updates, they reduced voltage which can be confused for degradation by people who are unfamiliar with how a battery works. This has been explained to you many many times and is an extremely simple concept to understand once you throw away the misconceptions that Tesla is able to create and delete degradation with successive firmware updates - which is not at all the topic of discussion in this thread. TLDR: Degradation cannot be measured by a voltage reading, unlike the topic of this thread that is defined by a voltage reading. If you still have a really hard time grasping this simple concept, ask "is that at 4.2v? If the answer is "4.2v can't be reached even though that was the EPA's officially measured 100% voltage, no it isn't degradation."

 

[Stere0graph]

As an affected owner who posted previously on the subject

I have surmised the following from this extensive thread.

A 1st generation 85kWh Tesla model S catches fire in a Shanghai car park on 22 April 2019, the Vehicle spontaneously catches fire whist stationary and in an uncharged state.

Tesla investigates and concludes a battery module was the root cause, subsequently they decide to mitigate the risk by pushing an OTA to vehicles sharing the same battery hardware, The update contains triggers within its algorithms to target specific vehicles which correlate to be most at risk. Tesla have equivocated to the public the intent of said update, the effects of which capped the Vmax voltage of individual cells from 4.2v to less than 4.1v resulting in a loss of battery capacity, directly reducing range and performance.

Given the above I do not see how Tesla can simply reverse the update, through their perceived fear of another fire incident and the PR damage and potential litigation that would ensue.

In addition why have forum members with extensive technical knowledge openly proclaimed that they are unwilling to share what they know; I suspect the ramifications could prove costly to the company – a company that is still struggling to turn a profit.

Tesla have, through their own design, bunkered down to ride out the storm and in turn deal with the bad press and lawsuits that they know will follow- I guess It’ better than having Burning Teslas broadcast on CNN.

We have repeatedly been told to “cut Tesla some slack” and let them find a fix – Ok, so owners have recently reported small increments of range after recent updates increased the Vmax by a few milli volts - This is simply Tesla trying to steam the growing condemnation and backlash – For me at least range is still down by 25 miles.

It’s clear to my mind Vmax 4.2 will not be forthcoming via a software update.
Crucially if there is a fault with the hardware, software will not fix it - The only way forward is to address the hardware by either battery repair or replacement.

A starting point wold be for to Tesla disclose the number or % of vehicles affected.

I do wonder have other car Manufactures would have dealt with this.

 

[VT_EE]

As an affected owner who posted previously on the subject

I have surmised the following from this extensive thread.

A 1st generation 85kWh Tesla model S catches fire in a Shanghai car park on 22 April 2019, the Vehicle spontaneously catches fire whist stationary and in an uncharged state.

Tesla investigates and concludes a battery module was the root cause, subsequently they decide to mitigate the risk by pushing an OTA to vehicles sharing the same battery hardware, The update contains triggers within its algorithms to target specific vehicles which correlate to be most at risk. Tesla have equivocated to the public the intent of said update, the effects of which capped the Vmax voltage of individual cells from 4.2v to less than 4.1v resulting in a loss of battery capacity, directly reducing range and performance.

Given the above I do not see how Tesla can simply reverse the update, through their perceived fear of another fire incident and the PR damage and potential litigation that would ensue.

In addition why have forum members with extensive technical knowledge openly proclaimed that they are unwilling to share what they know; I suspect the ramifications could prove costly to the company – a company that is still struggling to turn a profit.

Tesla have, through their own design, bunkered down to ride out the storm and in turn deal with the bad press and lawsuits that they know will follow- I guess It’ better than having Burning Teslas broadcast on CNN.

We have repeatedly been told to “cut Tesla some slack” and let them find a fix – Ok, so owners have recently reported small increments of range after recent updates increased the Vmax by a few milli volts - This is simply Tesla trying to steam the growing condemnation and backlash – For me at least range is still down by 25 miles.

It’s clear to my mind Vmax 4.2 will not be forthcoming via a software update.
Crucially if there is a fault with the hardware, software will not fix it - The only way forward is to address the hardware by either battery repair or replacement.

A starting point wold be for to Tesla disclose the number or % of vehicles affected.

I do wonder have other car Manufactures would have dealt with this.

Answer: Any other manufacturer would have done a much better job dealing with it to include incentives to make customers happy.

 

[Chaserr]

I agree. if it's safety related they would have complied with t he law and notified owners, scheduled repairs, and reported recall information to the proper authorities. If it's not safety related they would have an incredible explanation to accompany the cheque for the products they took from owners - or perhaps just an apology and a return of the missing property.

Only Tesla seems to have the bunker mentality that makes them so combative and hostile to its owner base.

 

[mjmiron]

I am sadly accepting the new reality this is probably not going to change till 1. Lawsuit gets an answer from Tesla or 2. Someone leaks info from Tesla.

This thread seems to have taken a few different spins I followed due to someone hopefully finding new info or a fix. I may check this less just do to the fact there is too much off topic going on it's truthfully sad because a lot of folks want to help.

 

[Chaserr]

I'm still willing to crowd fund a Tesla whistle blower's "funemployment" wrongful termination legal suit. I have no doubt we as a group can make it possible for someone in the know to publish evidence of wrongdoing.