You would think, wouldn't you?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
- Thread starter Dutchmeeuw
- Start date
You would think, wouldn't you?
DJRas
Member
This is also not comparable because Intel is working around a defect in hardware. Prior to May 16 my battery was working just fine all the way to 4.2 volt charge. Charging to 90% (less than my current 100%) was a reasonable 50 minutes. The few times each year that I needed to extra 10% was available and took an extra 15 to 20 minutes to fill at a Supercharger.Tell that to Intel when they put a software "microcode" update on their CPUs to fix/workaround a hardware defect.
And what about if the part is failing because of software? You say the warranty is only for the hardware? No warranty on the software? Wow.
Well replacing the hardware won't fix the issue if the software it that causes it to do the wrong thing.
This update fixed no visible defect.
Their claim that this will increase longevity (decrease degradation) is ridiculous on the face of the statement. Why take 10 years of degradation instantly so the battery doesn't degrade on its own over the next 5 years?
DJRas
Member
Tesla could have handled this much more appropriately. They could have identified a potentially dangerous condition and provided a warning on the display of such a condition. They then could say thay have a work around that will safely maintain the battery for years, but take some (10-15%) of your range. Or, you could continue using as is with the knowledge that something is going on with your battery.
Even on a day by day or charge by charge basis.
But, to just blindly apply this to cars without notification and then claim the instantaneous "degradation" is normal and further tell us after testing that our batteries are operating just fine. Without even admitting that they changed the max charge voltage which resulted in this "degradation" is flat out lying or disingenuous at best.
Even on a day by day or charge by charge basis.
But, to just blindly apply this to cars without notification and then claim the instantaneous "degradation" is normal and further tell us after testing that our batteries are operating just fine. Without even admitting that they changed the max charge voltage which resulted in this "degradation" is flat out lying or disingenuous at best.
But if it is indeed a possible fire issue, they would not want to give you the choice...
DJRas
Member
If indeed it is a fire issue the NHTSA should be involved to at least verify that the "fix" actually ELIMINATES the chance of fire. Otherwise a recall should be issued with this software patch as a temporary safety measure.
If it is indeed a fire issue then Tesla replaces the battery, the defective battery, as they are supposed to do.
DJRas
Member
We KNOW the fires were not while charging. We KNOW at least one was isolated to an individual module.
We don't know the charge level of the batteries or any other information.
We also don't know just what Tesla is detecting that is now causing the "few" batteries to be affected.
CuriousG
Active Member
Funny how you bring Intel up when their fixes are also known to hamper performance.Tell that to Intel when they put a software "microcode" update on their CPUs to fix/workaround a hardware defect.
And what about if the part is failing because of software? You say the warranty is only for the hardware? No warranty on the software? Wow.
Well replacing the hardware won't fix the issue if the software it that causes it to do the wrong thing.
This is the way I see it. The BMS has failed to protect our batteries from whatever it's unique about them. After a few fire incidents, they have detected these batteries to be damaged (Condition Z = Li Plating/dendrite) but have had no intention to replace them with the healthy packs. The software Band-Aid was hastily issued to cap the capacity to keep the packs out of the danger zone for now at the expense of the owners, to buy time and to run out the warranty clock.
Correct. Replace the defective/damaged batteries.
Recall:
A product recall is a request from a manufacturer to return a product after the discovery of safety issues or product defects that might endanger the consumer or put the maker/seller at risk of legal action ...
Product recall - Wikipedia
As I asked before, what if one of these capped packs catches fire?
I have the same experience on my 2014 p85dl. Called Tesla service line and got no real satisfaction or good explanation for the degradation. Glad I’ve found the forum!
I have a small problem with this post. Dendrites are the main reason reason solid lithium batteries are not mainstream yet, but is far less of a problem in carbon based anodes with Solid Interface Layer (as are Tesla batteries), so quoting this article seems a little fake news sensational.
In fact, Jeff Dahn and colleagues and Tesla Canada, has recently released a paper with details for at NMC cell, with around 200 Wh/kg and almost no degradation over 25 years and projected to work for more than a million miles. The battery has less capacity than current Tesla cells and so is well suited for daily cycling and robo-taxis
In the end this may all boil down to results without consideration on how you got there. It likely isn't going to matter that it is software changing hardware and it may not matter that Tesla "stole" some range and charging speed. The net result on owners is a sudden drop in range and charging speed, regardless of how that happened. The case would likely hinge three things: (1) a manufacturer's responsibility to ensure that your car works within some specified limits during the warranty period, (2) how we define those limits, and (3) whether or not a manufacturer is legally allowed to make changes to your car without consent. The hardest part might be defining how much performance/features a manufacturer is allowed to take while still claiming the vehicle is working to specifications (potentially as defined in the warranty).
Mike
Mike
I and others would argue that Tesla should not be able to turn an S85 into an S70 overnight without the owners consent or compensation.
The 85 (when new) cost more than a 70 and customers purchased the 85 for the range it offered.
Like others I suspect that the voltage cap is a software ban aid to 1) reduce the threat of thermal runaway/fire and 2) get the battery to limp to the end of its warranty period.
I’m sure Tesla will wheel out the big legal guns in the US class action lawsuit... but it’s not the only jurisdiction where further legal/regulatory action and pressure can be applied.
The 85 (when new) cost more than a 70 and customers purchased the 85 for the range it offered.
Like others I suspect that the voltage cap is a software ban aid to 1) reduce the threat of thermal runaway/fire and 2) get the battery to limp to the end of its warranty period.
I’m sure Tesla will wheel out the big legal guns in the US class action lawsuit... but it’s not the only jurisdiction where further legal/regulatory action and pressure can be applied.
The Intel processor mitigation for the different security design flaws also decrease performance; before people discovered the security exploits there was also no "visible defect". That defect became apparent years later, and people were running with the vulnerability exploitable for years "without issues".
Yet I have yet to see anyone demand either a faster processor or their money back because of Spectre or Meltdown.
That poster seems to be in the same category of the "drive by shooter" posting where the poster show ups with false and misleading messages and once challenged to back up their false and misleading messages they disappear. When have had our fair share of those in this thread unfortunately.
Similar threads
