Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[Droschke]

Back a little over 2 years ago, it took them a month to get me the loaner battery as they claimed there were none available.

Was your loaner battery a refurbished one? I can't imagine that have a new 85KW sitting around to ship even for someone who wants to pay full price. Can they even build new 85KW on-demand?

 

[MP3Mike]

Was your loaner battery a refurbished one? I can't imagine that have a new 85KW sitting around to ship even for someone who wants to pay full price. Can they even build new 85KW on-demand?

Everyone I have seen that had a 85kWh battery fail recently has gotten a replacement 90kWh battery. (So even making cars like a P90 that was never sold.)

 

[Droschke]

Everyone I have seen that had a 85kWh battery fail recently has gotten a replacement 90kWh battery. (So even making cars like a P90 that was never sold.)

Thanks for the info.

Capped 90's? Refurbished?

Do (can) they still make brand new 90's?

 

[MP3Mike]

Thanks for the info.

Capped 90's? Refurbished?

Do (can) they still make brand new 90's?

Not capped, and they actually re-program/re-badge the cars as 90 or P90 and make the full capacity available. Refurbished? Likely.

Can they make new? I would think so unless they retired the machines that make the 75/85/90 modules and only make modules for the 100kWh pack. (They use the same cells.)

Note: When people asked about what they would get they were told they would get what was available, that could be a 85 or a 90 kWh pack, but I don't recall seeing anyone actually getting an 85 kWh pack.

 

[gmo43]

You got the standard for warranty claim correct, with a correct analysis to these facts that we have so far. And also I agree with you that I don’t rule out there could be an underlying battery defect — that would be indicated, by, for instance, showing that the affected batteries were all from a certain batch or used a certain part, or used a certain design, that the unaffected batteries did not use. But there is no information indicating that, and in fact since the the affected batteries appear to be from a wide variety of the older batteries, it seems to be just a normal statistical distribution over the fleet’s older batteries that all happened to be subjected to a wide variety of usage and environmental exposures. Some combination of usage and environment and perhaps pure randomness, are likely the causes, not particular batch of batteries.

But finding that a warranty claim won’t likely fly, I suggest you do better than inventing an “unpermitted taking.” As a legal claim that won’t get you far.



You are not using “degradation” in the way people normally use the word, but again, trying to look past the uninteresting semantic quibbles, I’m trying to find a persuasive legal or even moral claim that Tesla did something wrong other than disturb people’s expectations and keep proprietary trade secret information, (surprise!) secret.

And meanwhile even the affected batteries are yielding better range over time and cycle usage for cars than most people thought when they bought the cars which was at a time when there was little data, and explicitly no assurances from Tesla on range over time.

This whole thread is really a great example of the endowment effect — especially evident when people resort to childish insults to defend their endowment effect generated emotional upset.

I am done with people like you. We obviously have been affected and you are trying to make us feel like we should just shut up and live with it. Obviously if it was normal, just like it was the last 5 f'n years prior to this update this thread would not be around. So if you aren't one that is suffering from a loss then please don't comment! Start a new thread and complain there or do whatever just not here. You aren't helping our situation.

 

[Droschke]

I am done with people like you. We obviously have been affected and you are trying to make us feel like we should just shut up and live with it. Obviously if it was normal, just like it was the last 5 f'n years prior to this update this thread would not be around. So if you aren't one that is suffering from a loss then please don't comment! Start a new thread and complain there or do whatever just not here. You aren't helping our situation.

He claims he has been impacted by the cap (somehow/somewhat), but given the lack of credibility, the insensitive content of his posts and his overt adversity/distaste toward the impacted owners I seriously doubt his claim to be true.

 

[Droschke]

Not capped, and they actually re-program/re-badge the cars as 90 or P90 and make the full capacity available. Refurbished? Likely.

Can they make new? I would think so unless they retired the machines that make the 75/85/90 modules and only make modules for the 100kWh pack. (They use the same cells.)

Note: When people asked about what they would get they were told they would get what was available, that could be a 85 or a 90 kWh pack, but I don't recall seeing anyone actually getting an 85 kWh pack.

Thanks for your informative response.

 

[mjmiron]

I believe Tesla is taking care of their cars and not stating the why due to the battery chemistry secrets and lawsuit and the strain on Elon pushing to get the most out of the cars.

It will be several years till anyone catches up to Tesla especially the charge networks.

I sadly am still waiting on Tesla Corp to respond to my complaint as well that was escalated on the battery capping.

I am still following the thread and will update If I get a resolution . I wish you all luck on getting back what we rightfully paid for.

 

[sorka]

Why do you think your battery has condition Z? Seems imprudent to not take the latest software to maximize longevity, and as some think, safety. Seems really stupid to think that you know better than the Tesla engineers as to what is best for your BMS for battery longevity and perhaps safety. Even if the voltage cap isn’t related to safety, perhaps other changes that we don’t know about were. Fail to update at your own risk.

It's funny how you answer my question without actually answering it That's why I said "IF" and previously said "COULD". I can only hope that I don't have the condition that results in Tesla lobotomizing my battery with v9. And in fact, it's unlikely that if I updated to v9 that I'd say any range reduction since Tesla claims that it effects such a tiny percentage of the cars.....yea sure I'd actually be surprised if it doesn't effect nearly every older 85 to at least some degree.

But my actual point is that there are many in this forum who had very little degradation like me, got 16.1, and then lost 20% additional capacity overnight on top of their "natural normal degradation"(Come @VT_EE , I dare you).

Those who lost that capacity lost access to existing capacity because the BMS stops the battery short of charging to full. This resulted in real cases where folks either had a much longer journey than before because of charging logistics or they simply could no longer make that journey.

Revising things after they are shipped is pretty much a unique Tesla phenomenon.

Wait, what? Do you mean the 150+ devices I own that do OTA updates of which several dozen of which are battery operated don't really exist??? Which DC parallel word did you just Vibe in from?

Of course if the BMS restricts SOC range, especially at the top, the battery will lost longer. I don't need my battery to last longer. But if I self restrict myself to charging to the top except for that once or twice a year when I really need it, that also won't cause any significant degradation. It will cause a little tiny tiny bit and I'm willing to live with that for having that extra range on those rare occasions when I must have it. This is why I've had so little range loss in 100K miles. Had I charged to 100% several times a month, I'd expect to see a much larger decrease.

But Tesla is just skipping ahead and taking the range away and the choice away that we paid for.

 

[David99]

Friday I did a deep discharge and then full AC charge overnight.
I had 2.6% - 6 miles remaining when Igot home (1.7kWh - excluding 4kWh buffer).
I got to 99.2% - 224 miles (62.1 kWh - excluding 4kWh buffer).

Both of these number show the rated range is remaining capacity in kWh divided by 276 Wh/mile.

However, the charge screen and Teslafi both show 218 miles and 64.5 kWh added.
This comes out to 295 Wh/mile.

Since the BMS shows my car only has 62.6 kWh usable when full and had added only 60.4 kWh this is further proof manipulation of the Wh/mile.

Note that Teslafi also showed it took 70.2 kWh to charge to this level. So, the 64.5 reported did not include charging losses.

They sure cheat on the range display. :-/

 

[Evoforce]

Was your loaner battery a refurbished one? I can't imagine that have a new 85KW sitting around to ship even for someone who wants to pay full price. Can they even build new 85KW on-demand?

I don't know anything about the loaner battery. It was supposed to be a short term thing and is now over 2 years. So time for them to take this voltage capped and charging slowed problem loaner battery back and give me a new battery. Long overdue... I suppose I could go out and locate the battery info sticker in the wheel well.

 

[David99]

This effect has unfortunately never been studied extensively, but it is clear from multiple studies and sources that Tesla batteries seem to recover a lot of lost capacity when they are stored for a longer amount of time at low-ish SoCs. Maybe I will make a longer post about this, if anyone is interested.

Please do! It is OT here, so maybe you start another thread about this! I would love to hear more about this effect.

 

[Droschke]

I believe Tesla is taking care of their cars

Although I know what you mean, it's funny you say that, because that's how they have been treating "our" cars

 

[mjmiron]

Although I know what you mean, it's funny you say that, because that's how they have been treating "our" cars

Agreed that's why I wrote their cars.

 

[jensk2]

I
Of course if the BMS restricts SOC range, especially at the top, the battery will lost longer. I don't need my battery to last longer. But if I self restrict myself to charging to the top except for that once or twice a year when I really need it, that also won't cause any significant degradation. It will cause a little tiny tiny bit and I'm willing to live with that for having that extra range on those rare occasions when I must have it. This is why I've had so little range loss in 100K miles. Had I charged to 100% several times a month, I'd expect to see a much larger decrease.

But Tesla is just skipping ahead and taking the range away and the choice away that we paid for.

Very, very good point! As we all know Li-Ion degrade (think Smart-Phone) and IF we consistenly charge above 90% without needing that range, we immediately receive a warning, that we are causing unnecessary and excessive wear. So why would Tesla cap the ability to occasionally take the extra wear, when we know and undrerstand, that WE cause IT and Tesla has not given us a capacity warranty?

Must be a security concern!

Even fixing a previously very bad algorithm for capacity loss from DC charging (GUESS), does not necessarily call for capping?

(I have Tesla S 70D Oct 2015 in Denmark, had no loss of range with 2019.16.* and onwards, but I have always had car rest at low SOC (<50%) and rarely charge above 72%, not even when super charging as I prefer shortest possible travel time.. My car HAS received charge-gate, because I used to charge around SoC+kWh = 124 amd now newer gets above 109 at any SoC.

 

[SmartElectric]

in fact, it's unlikely that if I updated to v9 that I'd say any range reduction since Tesla claims that it effects such a tiny percentage of the cars.....yea sure I'd actually be surprised if it doesn't effect nearly every older 85 to at least some degree

As has been outlined in a number of examples in this thread alone, and across the TMC forums, there are a significant number of owners of older 85 battery cars that are not affected by firmware changes, including recent updates.

You continue to make spurious claims to the contrary. Request : could you please tone down your claims and focus on what you do know? I don't have an issue with you staying on old firmware due to your own personal reasons (which are not backed by fact), but claims that staying on old firmware is advantageous for the health of the car battery are not factually backed up.

if the BMS restricts SOC range, especially at the top, the battery will lost longer. I don't need my battery to last longer. But if I self restrict myself to charging to the top except for that once or twice a year when I really need it, that also won't cause any significant degradation. It will cause a little tiny tiny bit and I'm willing to live with that for having that extra range on those rare occasions when I must have it. This is why I've had so little range loss in 100K miles. Had I charged to 100% several times a month, I'd expect to see a much larger decrease.

Another unsubstantiated claim. It is not practically proved that your charging methods have had any positive or negative effects on your current battery capacity.

As I noted previously (and you well know), my original "A" pack early 2013 Tesla S85 has 97%+ original capacity and this hasn't changed at all in the past 4 years even with our charging to 100% many times per month and daily charging to 90% . Our weekend trip also saw some of the best supercharging rates we've experienced, it was perfect weather though, so there are lots of variables in play.

I am just trying to keep your contributions to this thread on a factual basis, and stop with the claims, especially with respect to your specific (and personal) choice to stay on older firmware.

 

[Chaserr]

Tesla will be unlocking software capped batteries for Hurricane Dorian - what are the chances they unlock cars that weren't originally sold with the software lock?

Any affected Florida owners chime in? My bet is they only unlock batteries that they can legally sell the unlock.

Also I was reading a bunch of Model 3 owners in Florida were accidentally downgraded. Tesla must have gotten so used to downgrading volts they forgot to reverse it back to an increase.

 

[MP3Mike]

Tesla will be unlocking software capped batteries for Hurricane Dorian - what are the chances they unlock cars that weren't originally sold with the software lock?

Any affected Florida owners chime in? My bet is they only unlock batteries that they can legally sell the unlock.

What ones aren't they legally allowed to sell the unlock for? The only ones I could think of is the Canadian Model 3 SR-. (Of course it is highly unlikely, with only ~93 miles of range, that one of those would make it down to hurricane area.)

 

[sorka]

You continue to make spurious claims to the contrary.

False. I've not made any such claims but since Tesla is not forthcoming we don't really know how many are effected. I do suspect that it is more than a trivial number based on the traffic in this thread. I will continue to assert that suspicion regardless of your request. Sorry.

We will not know the true extent of this issue until the class is certified and all potentially effected owners are sent a notification.

Another unsubstantiated claim.

Which claim are you referring to???

 

[Chaserr]

I think he's pointing out that Tesla has no predictable rhyme or reason to who they have reduced. The only hypothesis I've read that seems to make any sense is a particular vendor or batch of cells themselves was faulty or maybe a factory line manufacturing defect of some kind spanning years . People are impacted that never charged to 100%, have low miles, never supercharge, set low charge limits, and the opposite 100% - 0% supercharging every day are affected.

If it was users, Tesla would probably be blaming users. It's Tesla's fault so they're not telling us anything and even lied to us to try and hide what they did. Users aren't the issue, Tesla is.