That particular poster supposedly posts only the facts he likes.
-
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
That particular poster supposedly posts only the facts he likes.
does anyone have voltage curves for a 85 pre-aft charge limit capping? SOC vs V
I've been trying to log voltages at SOC's for a while on my 85 that charges to 4.2V still @ 250 rated.
I assume it should be a straight line? the early firmware did have a scale on the SOC vs rated miles but it became linear sometime in V5 or 6
or maybe SOC vs rated. is that still linear?
I've been trying to log voltages at SOC's for a while on my 85 that charges to 4.2V still @ 250 rated.
I assume it should be a straight line? the early firmware did have a scale on the SOC vs rated miles but it became linear sometime in V5 or 6
or maybe SOC vs rated. is that still linear?
Below the last message, on the right, there's "Show Ignored Content". Clicking that text displays hidden messages, even the quoted ones, for the loaded page. Sometimes it's the only way to make sense of a thread.
Just for context. To quote Seinfeld, "You don't stare at it. It's too risky. Ya get a sense of it and then you look away."
⚡️ELECTROMAN⚡️
Village Idiot
I don't think there is anyway Tesla would know for sure if they are preventing a safety hazard or not. It's not like a bunch of their cars are spontaneously combusting all over the place. I don't see how it would be a safety cover up if there hasn't been an obvious safety issue. With a similar reasoning you could say the BMS itself is an attempt at covering up a safety hazard. Without a BMS the cars would probably be very unsafe. How many Teslas have caught on fire without any obvious explanation, like being in an accident or having someone fire a gun into the floor of the car? In my opinion not enough to demonstrate that there is an obvious safety flaw.
Guy V
Member
Ummm, once a few start spontaneously combusting a lot of people get nervous. I would think Tesla would get very very nervous if they couldn't explain it, I suppose even more nervous if they could and it turned out to be a fatal defect in all of their batteries...
⚡️ELECTROMAN⚡️
Village Idiot
I'm guessing they are a bit nervous / concerned. That's why they are going to extremes to reprogram the BMS. I just don't see enough going on out there that would definitively prove we have a significant safety issue that would warrant a safety recall. Maybe if they couldn't remotely reprogram the BMS then that might warrant a recall. I doubt it's a huge safety issue (if it is one) otherwise they would force a firmware update on everyone.
⚡️ELECTROMAN⚡️
Village Idiot
Of course. I just don't see evidence that Tesla has very unsafe cars out there.
Again Dieselgate was causing actual harm to people. I'm not saying that Tesla would get off scot free if they are hiding a safety issue, but I don't think comparing them to that is really the right way to go either.
For all we know they have been in contact with the NHTSA while they investigate the issue. (It has only been a few months since they were aware of it.)
Either you are not listening to yourself when challenging other users or intentionally attempting to distract and confuse.
When @Chaserr wrote people can go to jail if they break the laws, you challenged it by saying the GM executives did not go to jail (straw man). When I provided the links that people (VW folks because of dieselgate) actually been sentenced to go to jail (might be already there), you come back and saying that's not the same thing!
The essence of the exchange was if there is or there is not a punishment for violating the laws. You showed there is not (your straw man GM example). I showed you there is. Now you are saying that violations for which the punishments are issued are not the same!!!
Mind bugling!
⚡️ELECTROMAN⚡️
Village Idiot
Even if they are making changes for safety reasons, it doesn't mean they are guilty of a cover up. They could just be proactively trying to make their cars even safer. There's no evidence out there that they have anything to cover up. If there had been frequent spontaneous car fires happening, then that would be different.
It is just speculating. That is all any of us have been doing. Tesla has not been forthcoming with the facts.
I agree. Suggesting the changes were made to cover up fire problems and then lying to us about it is just too absurd. There's nothing safety related behind this issue - they stacked the cards against themselves too badly for that to have been done intentionally.
"safety" is just something people grasp at as a speculative excuse. "finances" is the more likely answer to why. Tesla has a long history of harming customers with dishonest practices over warranty services denied but no history of willingly placing lives in mortal danger to save money.
"safety" is just something people grasp at as a speculative excuse. "finances" is the more likely answer to why. Tesla has a long history of harming customers with dishonest practices over warranty services denied but no history of willingly placing lives in mortal danger to save money.
He did not say he was speculating. Please read what he says. It would be informative if he provides proof for his claim. He might have inside information we do not have. That's all.
Similar threads
