Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[First EV]

So what about all the salvage teslas running older software? I thought Tesla didn't support including provide software updates for salvaged teslas. So does that mean salvaged teslas that supercharge could have a problem since they won't get the software update or will Tesla make an exception with battery gate. My understanding is supercharging is not always turned off and can be turned back on or prevented from being turned off. Also I don't believe my range has been cut but charging speeds especially the last 80-100% have slowed drastically at the supercharger.

 

[qwk]

So what about all the salvage teslas running older software? I thought Tesla didn't support including provide software updates for salvaged teslas. So does that mean salvaged teslas that supercharge could have a problem since they won't get the software update or will Tesla make an exception with battery gate. My understanding is supercharging is not always turned off and can be turned back on or prevented from being turned off. Also I don't believe my range has been cut but charging speeds especially the last 80-100% have slowed drastically at the supercharger.

I’m sure that Tesla would be happy to neuter those too, because now it benefits them. They will also be gracious, and do it free.

 

[Evoforce]

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.

I would say that it is only when Tesla is forthcoming with just what is going on is when maybe your fears can be calmed or not.

 

[Droschke]

I would say that it is only when Tesla is forthcoming with just what is going on is when maybe your fears can be calmed or not.

Agreed. That's why I qualified my relief with an if at the beginning of the sentence.

 

[Guy V]

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

That's the universal, isn't it?

We really need Tesla to provide some useful information.

Maybe we're suffering some consequences here of the SEC stomping on Elon for saying what's on his mind.

 

[Guy V]

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.

I can imagine many ways a non-safety issue could be extremely important to me.

Tesla hasn't given any useful information about what kind of unpleasantness could result without this "fix".

Since wk057 and Tesla are the most knowledgeable sources I am aware of on the subject and they both claim we wouldn't like them I accept that.

The two things I believe we are owed from Tesla on the issue are: 1) an honest explanation, and 2) a true fix optimized to address this problem specifically.

I'd like to start seeing other initiatives from them supporting longevity and long-term customer satisfaction as their fleet ages. I think that would be very wise of them in the marketplace to start thinking about such things as they bandy comments about "million mile" cars and batteries. Of course, how they prioritize that is their business, literally.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

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 fully understand your desire to keep out. And I very much appreciate the little bits of info you give out, and the helpful nudges in the right direction. And I appreciate why you cannot be specific. I do find it reassuring.

Of course for many of us, the not knowing is the problem. It only leads to speculation. As you say, sometimes wild speculation.

In my case I have my suspicions about what has happened, which I have voiced. They may or may not be on the money. What I do know is, I used to operate my real S70 between 20-80% almost all the time. Capping my battery has forced me to restrict its operation to 20-80% of the original capacity. So as far as I can see no real change except I now don’t have the extra range on the few occasions I need it. So the day to day effect is less restrictive for me than for others that are affected. But in terms of strain on the battery it looks to me that it’s pretty much the same as it has always been. So I’m struggling to see how this new operating regime, which changes very little in the way I have always used it, 'fixes' my battery. As you can see, by not knowing the real issue it makes it very difficult to make any useful or meaningful decisions.

I hear your implications when you say we should update. My issue is, I am pretty sure that the next update will open me up to the charge limiting (chargegate) which really would make the car close to unusable. I read into your comments that Tesla ARE working on a fix, and certainly when one appears, eventually, I think I will be happy to update. But I am VERY nervous about doing it now.

I am also reassured that my car probably isn’t going to burst into flames one night

 

[MikeyC]

On Thursday, you said:

Clarifying my post in another thread, the particular issue this thread is about is, as noted earlier, is one I'm going to have to stay out of. This issue does appear show in the software as an issue with one module in a pack being the culprit...

Then yesterday, you said:

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...

Maybe I'm reading the first quote wrong, but these statements seem contradictory. The only investigation where Tesla actually publicly announced an outcome was the China fire where they claimed the cause of the fire was a "single battery module". Unless I'm misinterpretting the context of your first quote, you seem to be saying that the software detects some anomaly in a single module and caps batteries based on one module being the culprit.

So we know the cause of the China fire: a single module. And as best I can read your responses, Tesla pushes firmware that caps cars where the software finds some anomaly in a single module. Yet we are to believe that the capped cars are no more likely to suffer a catastrophic failure than any other cars, even though some anomaly is found in a single module that requires it to be capped? That's the part I can't get my head around.

I don't expect an answer that would require you to give more details as I know you are trying to stay out of it. Just clarifying why I'm confused about some of the info in this thread.

Mike

 

[MP3Mike]

Maybe I'm reading the first quote wrong, but these statements seem contradictory. The only investigation where Tesla actually publicly announced an outcome was the China fire where they claimed the cause of the fire was a "single battery module". Unless I'm misinterpretting the context of your first quote, you seem to be saying that the software detects some anomaly in a single module and caps batteries based on one module being the culprit.

So we know the cause of the China fire: a single module. And as best I can read your responses, Tesla pushes firmware that caps cars where the software finds some anomaly in a single module. Yet we are to believe that the capped cars are no more likely to suffer a catastrophic failure than any other cars, even though some anomaly is found in a single module that requires it to be capped? That's the part I can't get my head around.

I think you are missing the fact that this capping fix was designed for a different issue. We don't know what the appropriate fix for the issue actually detected would be.

 

[Droschke]

The essence of your good post in so many ways is indicative of living in a place called mystery land.

I fully understand your desire to keep out. And I very much appreciate the little bits of info you give out, and the helpful nudges in the right direction. And I appreciate why you cannot be specific. I do find it reassuring.

Of course for many of us, the not knowing is the problem. It only leads to speculation. As you say, sometimes wild speculation.

This whole ordeal of batterygate/chargegate and the lack of direct, accurate and honest communication from the manufacturers to the impacted owners are disturbing in so many levels.

The impacted owners are forced, in their quest for truth, to either speculate, sometimes wildly - it's human nature after all, and/or to rely on the available third party best efforts to shed some light on the mystery, only to find that info as well to be vague and speculative due to the third party's well-understood limitations on disclosure. Not unheard of, but not acceptable either. Like life in the mystery land.

I read into your comments that Tesla ARE working on a fix, and certainly when one appears, eventually, I think I will be happy to update. But I am VERY nervous about doing it now.

Let's assume that Tesla has been working on a fix for the infamous condition Z and releases the fix tomorrow. How do we know the update that pops up on your screen is it? After all, Tesla has never acknowledged the existence of condition Z, let alone an available fix for it. Furthermore, we will only know about the purpose of the update through the carefully chosen blurbs in the release notes, that is if you are lucky and get a non-blank release note, after you update. You have no idea what you are updating to. Yes, I know you probably would need to hear from the update guinea pigs on TMC in advance to know what's in that update. Life in the mystery land.

I am also reassured that my car probably isn’t going to burst into flames one night

I hope so, but as others have commented, I believe this assurance should officially come from Tesla, and not only from the third party best efforts to feed their good faith but guarded information out of their good hearts. Again, life in the mystery land.

PS:
I'm not a novelist, but this whole topic makes a reasonable draft script for one (more than enough materials in ~5000 posts). Let's called it:

Batterygate, Chargegate
The agony of living in a mystery land

 

[MikeyC]

I think you are missing the fact that this capping fix was designed for a different issue. We don't know what the appropriate fix for the issue actually detected would be.

It's that very "fact" that I'm questioning. In April, a single battery module causes a spontaneous fire in a Model S in China. Two months later, there is a software update that can cap charging (max and rate) if it finds a problem in a single module. Coincidence?

Mike

 

[fbitz777]

If we wait long enough we will get these:

Tesla's Jeff Dahn Unveils Million-Mile Battery Cell

 

[Chaserr]

So we know the cause of the China fire: a single module. And as best I can read your responses, Tesla pushes firmware that caps cars where the software finds some anomaly in a single module. Yet we are to believe that the capped cars are no more likely to suffer a catastrophic failure than any other cars, even though some anomaly is found in a single module that requires it to be capped? That's the part I can't get my head around.

I don't expect an answer that would require you to give more details as I know you are trying to stay out of it. Just clarifying why I'm confused about some of the info in this thread.

Mike

He's also said he can't sell all of the modules from a capped pack, even though he tears them down and just sells the parts. This means the module is damaged beyond repair. Which means it's a hardware warranty issue. Which means there is no legal or logical reason to accept an update to help Tesla not repair their hardware without any explanation.

Either we've been lied to and it's a safety issue that must be updated for safety reasons, or we haven't been lied to, it's not a safety issue, and we have no reason to avoid letting the pack fail as soon as possible so Tesla repairs it instead of ignoring it. Driving forever on a faulty battery is a bigger safety issue, long term. Who knows what catastrophe is hidden in that single failed module? It's safest for anyone not updated yet to wait it out and let the pack identify it needs repair, fail gracefully, and call for a tow. One day's inconvenience from a tow, and then a new battery. Much better than forever wondering if the faulty battery between your legs is ever going to get repaired, become more dangerously faulty, or remain stable and faulty forever.

I wish we had Wk057's reasons. I know we won't get them, but the contradictory information makes me think his reasoning might be "you might die without the update, and tesla might die if they have to do the right thing."

 

[fbitz777]

It's that very "fact" that I'm questioning. In April, a single battery module causes a spontaneous fire in a Model S in China. Two months later, there is a software update that can cap charging (max and rate) if it finds a problem in a single module. Coincidence?

Mike

Now that we know that a single defective module is enough to put the whole battery pack out of balance I am starting to wonder if a single cell can do the same ...i.e a single cell can throw a single module out of balance.
I was always under the impression that cell balancing function in BMS would be able to handle either case.

 

[mjmiron]

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.

For charging is it taking sometimes two hours for you to charge from 20-90% like DJRass at a Super Charger? i can deal with the loss of range for now waiting for a fix but waiting two hours to charge is too long.

 

[wk057]

I hear your implications when you say we should update. My issue is, I am pretty sure that the next update will open me up to the charge limiting (chargegate) which really would make the car close to unusable. I read into your comments that Tesla ARE working on a fix, and certainly when one appears, eventually, I think I will be happy to update. But I am VERY nervous about doing it now.

If you have the issue, my understanding at this point is that you'll likely at least temporarily lose range during detection and correction anyway, even if a better fix is released at a later time. In the meantime, not updating means you can't know if you have the issue... which is not a good thing.

Maybe I'm reading the first quote wrong

You're definitely misinterpreting something.

Tesla pushes firmware that caps cars where the software finds some anomaly in a single module. Yet we are to believe that the capped cars are no more likely to suffer a catastrophic failure than any other cars, even though some anomaly is found in a single module that requires it to be capped?

Maybe repeating my earlier post will help?

The capacity cap does "fix" the problem with these packs

Rephrased: A car experiencing the range loss problem has the underlying problem corrected.

(Edit: Reading this again, "corrected" is not quite the right word since it implies the actual problem itself is fixed. I'm looking for a word that means something more like "prevented from causing any issues", but coming up short. heh)

This is the best I can do without potentially causing problems for myself.

 

[Chaserr]

Can confirm. Supercharging times more than doubled. I can't charge over 70kW any more and it tapers sooner - 2 hours is probably being optimistic. My car sounds like a harrier jet landing too, other tesla owners have told me to get my car serviced for the noise on many occasions.

 

[bhzmark]

In April, a single battery module causes a spontaneous fire in a Model S in China. Two months later, there is a software update that can cap charging (max and rate) if it finds a problem in a single module. Coincidence?

yes.

He's also said he can't sell all of the modules from a capped pack, even though he tears them down and just sells the parts. This means the module is damaged beyond repair.

No that's not remotely what he said. And the conclusion doesn't remotely follow from the (false) premise.

 

[wk057]

Er...

He's also said he can't sell all of the modules from a capped pack, even though he tears them down and just sells the parts.

I sell them as modules. 16 modules are in an 85-type pack. I don't break them down further than that.

No that's not remotely what he said. And the conclusion doesn't remotely follow from the (false) premise.

I said I'd have to inspect the capped pack to see if either 16 or 15 modules were good for resale. Spelling that out more, it's possible one of the modules would not be suitable for resale.

I've already stated this issue is the result of an issue with a single module in a pack.

I never said a car with this issue was in any way related to any other single-module issue known (like that China car).

All I've said is that 85 and 70 folks should update their firmware, despite the absolutely horrendous v9 UI, if they haven't already. You're not very likely to lose any range by doing so, because it's not very likely you'll have this particular issue... but by updating, if you do have the issue, it will be mitigated.

 

[qwk]

So I’m a nutshell, the limited cars have a bad module, which is going to pull the rest of the pack down with it. Tesla doesn’t really want to warranty the packs(although they have in the past for this issue or a similar issue), thus this is a warranty obligation dodge. A bad module is a warranty issue, and not degradation, any way you slice it.

BTW, this similar thing happened with the high mileage Roadsters, one sheet pulled the pack down, and downhill it went.