Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[Chaserr]

old batteries do not die, they get slower and loose capacity. Very unpleasant but much better than a dead battery which needs to be replaced.

Porsche is blocking off 15% of the battery's capacity at the time of purchase and not selling the increased horsepower and range for $30,000 like we bought from Tesla. Tesla took that money out of our pockets and we paid for the products they took away, we all have it in writing. If they told us they needed to refund the 60 to 85 battery range upgrade and Performance upgrades when they took away our purchases, we would be upset that they didn't honor their warranty, but at least we would not have been victimized by their decision to steal from us instead. And that is what they've done. Theft is illegal and we had our upgrades stolen from us after they were all paid for and the deal was done. If Porsche chooses to downgrade Taycan owners a month or a year after purchase to slower performance and 100 miles of range, they are just as guilty of theft as Tesla.

If these are dead batteries we want tesla to replace them. We don't want them to tell us the batteries are fine (they tell us the batteries are all fine) and treat them like dead batteries that are out of warranty (the batteries are all in warranty). They don't get to have it both ways - warranty the dead batteries or leave them alone. We own the battery, not Tesla. They only get to take ownership of it if they trade us for a new one under their warranty terms.

 

[mjmiron]

Porsche is blocking off 15% of the battery's capacity at the time of purchase and not selling the increased horsepower and range for $30,000 like we bought from Tesla. Tesla took that money out of our pockets and we paid for the products they took away, we all have it in writing. If they told us they needed to refund the 60 to 85 battery range upgrade and Performance upgrades when they took away our purchases, we would be upset that they didn't honor their warranty, but at least we would not have been victimized by their decision to steal from us instead. And that is what they've done. Theft is illegal and we had our upgrades stolen from us after they were all paid for and the deal was done. If Porsche chooses to downgrade Taycan owners a month or a year after purchase to slower performance and 100 miles of range, they are just as guilty of theft as Tesla.

If these are dead batteries we want tesla to replace them. We don't want them to tell us the batteries are fine (they tell us the batteries are all fine) and treat them like dead batteries that are out of warranty (the batteries are all in warranty). They don't get to have it both ways - warranty the dead batteries or leave them alone. We own the battery, not Tesla. They only get to take ownership of it if they trade us for a new one under their warranty terms.

I think Porsche probably sees ownership differently than Tesla as far as the battery in the car and tech. With Tesla corporate thinks they still own the car and battery. Tesla has no incentive to take care of the automobile owner like some of the locally owned dealerships. Sorry I am extremely upset at Tesla and never really realized this till after all this happened that the local dealers at least have skin in the game. Their is no skin in the game when they don't have to deal with the owners of THEIR cars face to face.

Outside of them lying to us about the issues with chargegate and batterygate makes me also question the legitimate longevity of Tesla with the push for faster charging. Newer tech will come out on batteries but the current lithium obviously are hurt by fast charging.

 

[Evoforce]

I think Porsche probably sees ownership differently than Tesla as far as the battery in the car and tech. With Tesla corporate thinks they still own the car and battery. Tesla has no incentive to take care of the automobile owner like some of the locally owned dealerships. Sorry I am extremely upset at Tesla and never really realized this till after all this happened that the local dealers at least have skin in the game. Their is no skin in the game when they don't have to deal with the owners of THEIR cars face to face.

Outside of them lying to us about the issues with chargegate and batterygate makes me also question the legitimate longevity of Tesla with the push for faster charging. Newer tech will come out on batteries but the current lithium obviously are hurt by fast charging.

Sorry, but I think Tesla is the best game in town. We need to see how they end up fixing this. My positive side hopes they are working on this to everyones satisfaction. Is a lawsuit needed? Sadly that is how it appears. Should they have contacted us affected owners by now? Definitely! Do I hold false hope? Maybe, but I think they are scrambling to come up with solutions. I don't know that they are lying to us but they sure aren't giving us any answers...

 

[mjmiron]

Sorry, but I think Tesla is the best game in town. We need to see how they end up fixing this. My positive side hopes they are working on this to everyones satisfaction. Should they have contacted us affected owners by now? Definitely! Do I hold false hope. Maybe, but I think they are scrambling to come up with solutions. I don't know that they are lying to us but they sure aren't giving us any answers...

Well when people are not talking their is a reason we will see. I love my Tesla too but this needs resolution.

 

[Droschke]

It sounds like the capping (lowering of Vmax) was intended to fix condition X, but it can also "sort of work" for condition Z, but may not be the best fix available for Z; but Z wasn't expected to be found at all.

Developing a "proper" fix for Z would take enough time that putting the "X fix" would sufficiently address Z until a less "intrusive" fix for Z could be developed.

I believe engineering a software Z fix might have taken six months or more, and Tesla didn't want to let condition Z continue without putting something in place to prevent either Z becoming worse and requiring total pack replacement or turning into condition X.

Thanks @BigNick for the clarification of @wk057's post. I think you have answered my question I asked Jason. Your interpretation is what I was looking for. It's a lot more comforting if that's indeed the case.

 

[Droschke]

This is why I don't believe it's a safety issue.

The safety issue has been haunted me and my family from day 1 of this issue. If it's not a safety issue it is definitely a sigh of relief.

We bought these cars because the 8 year warranty convinced us Tesla stands behind their hardware.

Absolutely. Contract is a contract.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

Excellent. I now understand your thoughts and I deeply share your point of view. I must confess your earlier post where two irreconcilable posters agreed with you had me a bit confused and raised the not_too_red flag

When I enthusiastically purchased my Model S in 2015, the 265 miles of range and the projected 5% normal degradation in about 50K miles was acceptable to me. Did not know I would lose 12% at 43K miles by one software update, and not knowing why, despite of babying my battery and following all care good practices (as you have indicated done with yours). Did not know what was really behind that long range was a highly aggressive and maverick approach to high voltage/current charging and the high but risky upfront available capacity for the purpose of marketing and at the expense of hurting the packs ... and then denying any liability, but freely to apply a significant cap at will to slow down a further damage. On top of that, had no idea my $100K car will be viewed as a 1K cell phone in four years, even though my cell phone has not gone through an overnight sudden 12% drop in capacity.

The point is Tesla has screwed this one royally. It's bad for Tesla and it's bad for its most loyal customers who supported the company and its mission only to be treated as we have been.

We share very similar views. And our position and history also look very similar. What is the point of following their advice for our good treatment of our cars to then be universally ignored, and we have to suffer the consequences of their errors.

I think if the reports are correct that Tesla are selling capped cars as capped cars, and waiving a higher sale price rather than uncapping the cars they own and want to sell, that says to me the chances of Tesla uncapping our cars is remote in the extreme. I am more worried by the reports that they appear to have capped some facelift cars. That suggests to me a major problem right across the range. And with so many cars now charge limited it sounds like bad news on two fronts. Having a long range EV that takes 90-120 minutes to fill up is no longer a long range car.

Are 120 kW Superchargers too much for the battery to handle? Have they discovered something so major that a fix would destroy the company? I am beginning to wonder.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

I concur. Tesla has repeatedly told me my battery is "aging". The notable occasion when the "aging" of the cells were mentioned was during the time they were running tests on my battery. This was before I noticed the capacity cap which happened few days later via SW update and when the car cooling system worked non-stop in two consecutive days and each day about 8 to 10 hours long while the car was parked in the garage. Calling the support line, two different agents told me they see "some kind of tests" might be going on and they were noticing (reciting) the "aging" words in the log they were looking at and something about "voltage" which I did not understand at the time (remember, this was before I noticed the cap).

Thank you. Hence:

- They "went looking for potential fires" = Condition X?
- "and found excessive wear" = Condition Z?

Initially I went to Tesla because I had noticed excessive Vampire drain (overnight loss). Before it had been about 1% per night. Now it varies between 2-5%, but normally between 2-3%, which is still a lot. I can hear small fans working even when the car is not plugged in.

When I asked them to investigate they claimed they couldn’t pull the logs because I hadn’t updated to the latest firmware. Really? Is Firmware even related to being able to pull the logs? I was left wondering if this was just another device to avoid answering difficult questions.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

Porsche is blocking off 15% of the battery's capacity at the time of purchase and not selling the increased horsepower and range for $30,000 like we bought from Tesla. Tesla took that money out of our pockets and we paid for the products they took away, we all have it in writing. If they told us they needed to refund the 60 to 85 battery range upgrade and Performance upgrades when they took away our purchases, we would be upset that they didn't honor their warranty, but at least we would not have been victimized by their decision to steal from us instead. And that is what they've done. Theft is illegal and we had our upgrades stolen from us after they were all paid for and the deal was done. If Porsche chooses to downgrade Taycan owners a month or a year after purchase to slower performance and 100 miles of range, they are just as guilty of theft as Tesla.

If these are dead batteries we want tesla to replace them. We don't want them to tell us the batteries are fine (they tell us the batteries are all fine) and treat them like dead batteries that are out of warranty (the batteries are all in warranty). They don't get to have it both ways - warranty the dead batteries or leave them alone. We own the battery, not Tesla. They only get to take ownership of it if they trade us for a new one under their warranty terms.

Tesla keep telling me my battery is healthy. But:
IF it IS healthy, why was it capped in the first place?
IF it IS healthy, why can’t they remove the cap?
Even if healthy means 'within specification', they have NEVER even attempted to answer either question.

 

[BigNick]

Thanks @BigNick for the clarification of @wk057's post. I think you have answered my question I asked Jason. Your interpretation is what I was looking for. It's a lot more comforting if that's indeed the case.

I can only speculate, but it seems logical

If my speculation is correct, I hope Tesla is actively working on a better, less Draconian solution to Condition Z than what (presumably the “X fix”) is in place now.

For the sake of all who are currently affected as well as those whose batteries may develop Z in the future.

 

[Droschke]

I can only speculate, but it seems logical

If my speculation is correct, I hope Tesla is actively working on a better, less Draconian solution to Condition Z than what (presumably the “X fix”) is in place now.

For the sake of all who are currently affected as well as those whose batteries may develop Z in the future.

Your speculation is dead on. I believe you have correctly translated what wk057, for the reasons he has previously stated, had to be vague about.

Thanks.

 

[Droschke]

We share very similar views. And our position and history also look very similar. What is the point of following their advice for our good treatment of our cars to then be universally ignored, and we have to suffer the consequences of their errors.

I think if the reports are correct that Tesla are selling capped cars as capped cars, and waiving a higher sale price rather than uncapping the cars they own and want to sell, that says to me the chances of Tesla uncapping our cars is remote in the extreme. I am more worried by the reports that they appear to have capped some facelift cars. That suggests to me a major problem right across the range. And with so many cars now charge limited it sounds like bad news on two fronts. Having a long range EV that takes 90-120 minutes to fill up is no longer a long range car.

Are 120 kW Superchargers too much for the battery to handle? Have they discovered something so major that a fix would destroy the company? I am beginning to wonder.

For my car, the supercharging has become a myth. Long distance travelling will be long, very long.

 

[Droschke]

Tesla keep telling me my battery is healthy. But:
IF it IS healthy, why was it capped in the first place?
IF it IS healthy, why can’t they remove the cap?
Even if healthy means 'within specification', they have NEVER even attempted to answer either question.

And, we need to keep asking these good questions.

 

[raphy3]

Some of the speculation here is a bit outrageous... and ya'll have been blowing up my PMs on this for weeks.

Affected packs with the range loss/charge cap/etc are not any more likely to explode or otherwise suffer another kind of catastrophic failure than any other pack. The capacity cap does "fix" the problem with these packs, even if it's not the best solution. While technically effective, it's just not the fix with the least outwardly noticed effect as it wasn't intended as a fix for this particular issue.

As I said previously... if you have an 85 or 70, you should update your firmware. Given how terrible the v9 UI is, I wouldn't make such a suggestion if it were not important... so read into that as much as you like.

Again, sorry for being vague... but it's the best I can do. I really should just be staying out of this entirely.

Going to need some numbers. Some probabilities. Why is it important to update? Is a downside to not updating life threatening?

 

[MP3Mike]

Is a downside to not updating life threatening?

Didn't he pretty much already answer that?

 

[raphy3]

The safety issue has been haunted me and my family from day 1 of this issue. If it's not a safety issue it is definitely a sigh of relief.



Absolutely. Contract is a contract.

Here here. This is a contract. Too many people in this thread think warranty is some kind of fluid thing tesla can change as it sees fit to suit the moment.

 

[raphy3]

Didn't he pretty much already answer that?

No.
But maybe you have a better understanding that I'd be happy to hear you elaborate on.

 

[MP3Mike]

No.
But maybe you have a better understanding that I'd be happy to hear you elaborate on.

Did you read what he wrote?

Affected packs with the range loss/charge cap/etc are not any more likely to explode or otherwise suffer another kind of catastrophic failure than any other pack.

Or do you think there is non-catastrophic failure that would be life threatening?

 

[qwk]

Some of the speculation here is a bit outrageous... and ya'll have been blowing up my PMs on this for weeks.

Affected packs with the range loss/charge cap/etc are not any more likely to explode or otherwise suffer another kind of catastrophic failure than any other pack. The capacity cap does "fix" the problem with these packs, even if it's not the best solution. While technically effective, it's just not the fix with the least outwardly noticed effect as it wasn't intended as a fix for this particular issue.

As I said previously... if you have an 85 or 70, you should update your firmware. Given how terrible the v9 UI is, I wouldn't make such a suggestion if it were not important... so read into that as much as you like.

Again, sorry for being vague... but it's the best I can do. I really should just be staying out of this entirely.

I normally agree with the majority of your postings, but this is about as a contradictory post as one could make.

If it’s not a pack safety issue, then it’s just not that important. Especially when you factor in the fact that it may very well limit the car, to a “city car”.

Of course charging to 100%, and supercharging degrades the battery faster(no matter what Elon says), but we are all big boys here, and should factor that in out decision process.

 

[raphy3]

Or do you think there is non-catastrophic failure that would be life threatening?

Actually that doesn't answer the question and is far too vague. The question is what will happen to batteries that do not have the gimping update applied. The statement you quoted is about batteries that do have the update, and it simply says that gimped batteries won't suffer catastrophic failure. As for batteries that do not have the update, he simply says "it's important". My question is, "why is it important?" The word "fix" was also in quotes, which... who knows what that implies. Why are you being facetious about this?