Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[Droschke]

Umm.

Try reading it again:



That is speculation.

No, that's not. To mislead at best. You did not say they might have been, instead of "they have been". The "might" qualifier makes it speculative. But I'm not surprised.

 

[faughtz]

Chaserr,

I am just trying to get a handle on some of your comments over the past weeks. You have used the word "illegal" with frequency. (I am not a lawyer, but I have been a percipient witness a few times in my salad days.) The lawyers for whom I testified made it abundantly clear to me:

Illegal means that there is a statute on the books that has been violated. It can be something as insignificant as a local ordinance prohibiting spitting on the sidewalk to heinous crimes like murder to civil matters like practicing law without a license! (LOL)

Everything else that is legally wrong is unlawful. Breach of contract is not illegal; it is unlawful. Torts are unlawful, but they are not illegal.

I am just asking for my personal benefit when you use the term illegal, if you know for certain that what Tesla is doing or has done has violated consumer protection laws or other federal or state statutes, and what statutes they are. Or is much of what you assert is illegal is more along the lines of breach of contract, breach of warranty, or other tortious acts including interference, and therefore unlawful?

Well, in CA, there’s this:

California Penal Code Handbook 502 c) 1, states:


(c) Except as provided in subdivision (h), any person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of a public offense:

(1) Knowingly accesses and without permission alters, damages, deletes, destroys, or otherwise uses any data, computer, computer system, or computer network in order to either (A) devise or execute any scheme or artifice to defraud, deceive, or extort, or (B) wrongfully control or obtain money, property, or data.

(bold emphasis, mine)

 

[DJRas]

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?

The State of Charge in percentage is linear to the rated miles and the available kWh.
I have data for my affected battery at various SOC from 5% to 100% which include the cell voltage - but only while charging.
I know that is not an accurate voltage reading. But I have been too lazy to stop charging every 5% and take a reading and re-start it.

Maybe a project for later this week.

 

[Zextraterrestrial]

The State of Charge in percentage is linear to the rated miles and the available kWh.
I have data for my affected battery at various SOC from 5% to 100% which include the cell voltage - but only while charging.
I know that is not an accurate voltage reading. But I have been too lazy to stop charging every 5% and take a reading and re-start it.

Maybe a project for later this week.

Just FYI SOC vs percentage was not always linear. I did 10% increments on every firmware early on

that was what I've been trying to do at various resting SOC / voltages just to get some baseline data. I have been tracking my car SOC rated miles temps and all trip data since day 1 in 2012. my battery does seem pretty decent though.

 

[DJRas]

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.

There have been 4 fires with older Teslas while parked and not charging between April 21 and July 30.
Tesla stated on May 15:
“As we continue our investigation of the root cause, out of an abundance of caution, we are revising charge and thermal management settings on Model S and Model X vehicles via an over-the-air software update that will begin rolling out today, to help further protect the battery and improve battery longevity.”

This pretty clearly says they KNOW there is a safety issue and this update was rolled out to address that.
WITHOUT giving notice to the affected owners, NHTSA or any other action.

 

[MikeyC]

There have been 4 fires with older Teslas while parked and not charging between April 21 and July 30.
Tesla stated on May 15:
“As we continue our investigation of the root cause, out of an abundance of caution, we are revising charge and thermal management settings on Model S and Model X vehicles via an over-the-air software update that will begin rolling out today, to help further protect the battery and improve battery longevity.”

This pretty clearly says they KNOW there is a safety issue and this update was rolled out to address that.
WITHOUT giving notice to the affected owners, NHTSA or any other action.

I hadn't seen that quote. This is contrary to the multiple posts in this thread that claim the update had nothing to do with the fires. Obviously it does and Tesla themselves are basically admitting that the update was designed to reduce the possibility of spontaneous combustion. As I've said before: Tesla found a single bad battery module in at least one burned car, then releases an update that detects a bad single module and caps you if it finds that condition. It looked like a duck, quacked like a duck, and here we have Tesla saying "just in case it's a duck...".

Mike

 

[Chaserr]

“As we continue our investigation of the root cause, out of an abundance of caution, we are revising charge and thermal management settings on Model S and Model X vehicles via an over-the-air software update that will begin rolling out today, to help further protect the battery and improve battery longevity.”

Thank you for that I had only seen the "for longevity of the battery" denials. This makes me worry more since it makes it sound like they are still lying to us and to the NHTSA. We know the NHTSA is out of the loop since the NHTSA could never allow them to lie to us or to avoid notifying owners in writing, they haven't been contacted for 6 months. Step 1 is notify owners, step 2 would be explaining to Tesla that they can't ever hope to reach all at risk owners with optional and unlabeled over the air updates. Especially not if they plan to deny the update addressed a safety issue.

Mitigating safety issues temporarily while permanent fixes are sorted out is a good step 3 for people that can be reached via OTA but public disclosure needed to come 6 months (and counting) before that.

If anyone at Tesla's legal team reads this (and they have read parts of this thread, it is named in ongoing class action litigation) please issue the proper owner notifications to owners immediately. Our warranties are invalid if Tesla no longer exists, and we are willing to work with you but deception will not make us do that. Tell us when our cars will be repaired and when these dangerous faulty batteries will be removed from our garages, and we can do our best to work around the crippling temporary work arounds this update may have imposed in the name of safety. But for the love of all that is good, notify every owner and the NHTSA. Today. it's not optional and we'll never be made whole if the company fails which is a possibility should the NHTSA come to you over this before you bring it to them.

I will be parking outside from now on, the HPWC cable is long enough to put a safe distance between my family and my battery. I eagerly await Tesla informing me when they plan to take measures to make it safe to resume indoor parking.

 

[VT_EE]

This is making me nervous. Just placed a stop-loss order. Hope Tesla doesn't really screw us and announce a massive battery recall after hours. I have a lot more to worry about than my car's range and charging speed.

Sounds like you have a high-stakes bet on Tesla. In the long term, fixing this won't affect stock price. It will screw you though if you bought a bunch on margin.

 

[Droschke]

I hadn't seen that quote.

It's been out there for sometimes:

Reuters, MAY 15, 2019
Tesla to update battery software following car fires

 

[Guy V]

I hadn't seen that quote. This is contrary to the multiple posts in this thread that claim the update had nothing to do with the fires. Obviously it does and Tesla themselves are basically admitting that the update was designed to reduce the possibility of spontaneous combustion. As I've said before: Tesla found a single bad battery module in at least one burned car, then releases an update that detects a bad single module and caps you if it finds that condition. It looked like a duck, quacked like a duck, and here we have Tesla saying "just in case it's a duck...".

Mike

Tesla providing conflicting information has been noted several times in this thread alone.

 

[DJRas]

Just FYI SOC vs percentage was not always linear. I did 10% increments on every firmware early on
View attachment 453434

that was what I've been trying to do at various resting SOC / voltages just to get some baseline data. I have been tracking my car SOC rated miles temps and all trip data since day 1 in 2012. my battery does seem pretty decent though.

Well, in CA, there’s this:

California Penal Code Handbook 502 c) 1, states:


(c) Except as provided in subdivision (h), any person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of a public offense:

(1) Knowingly accesses and without permission alters, damages, deletes, destroys, or otherwise uses any data, computer, computer system, or computer network in order to either (A) devise or execute any scheme or artifice to defraud, deceive, or extort, or (B) wrongfully control or obtain money, property, or data.

(bold emphasis, mine)

Read count 1 of the lawsuit:
"The federal Consumer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) establishes a private
cause of action against a person who “knowingly accessed a computer without
authorization or exceeding authorized access,” and whose prohibited access results in
damage or loss in excess of $5,000 in any 1-year period 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4)."

They had authorization to update "MOST" of our cars (some were forced). But clearly they exceed the authorized action by taking capacity without our authorization.

 

[MP3Mike]

There have been 4 fires with older Teslas while parked and not charging between April 21 and July 30.
Tesla stated on May 15:
“As we continue our investigation of the root cause, out of an abundance of caution, we are revising charge and thermal management settings on Model S and Model X vehicles via an over-the-air software update that will begin rolling out today, to help further protect the battery and improve battery longevity.”

This pretty clearly says they KNOW there is a safety issue and this update was rolled out to address that.
WITHOUT giving notice to the affected owners, NHTSA or any other action.

But we don't know if the update they talked about related to the fires is the same update that capped the capacity on some packs. They could be different updates.

 

[Droschke]

This guy ^^^ is amazing. Finds whatever excuse out of air to deflect.

 

[kavyboy]

This guy ^^^ is amazing. Finds whatever excuse out of air to deflect.

Inb4 auto disagree!

 

[Droschke]

Inb4 auto disagree!

I doubt to be a Tesla owner. The motivation rests elsewhere.

 

[DJRas]

But we don't know if the update they talked about related to the fires is the same update that capped the capacity on some packs. They could be different updates.

On May 16 I received the update that affected MY battery.
So, one day after they said they were rolling out a new update... I got it.

Which I DO seem to get the updates about as quickly as they are released:


Software Version Date Installed Days Since Previous Update
2019.32.1 53f03e4 09/05/2019 9:16 PM 11
2019.28.3.1 f9e95acd 08/25/2019 9:41 AM 17
2019.28.2 320fba0 08/07/2019 10:16 PM 5
2019.28.1 4ff958d 08/02/2019 9:18 AM 9
2019.24.4 73fb1ab 07/23/2019 10:18 PM 10
2019.24.1 1d133ad 07/13/2019 6:47 AM 10
2019.20.4.2 66625e9 07/03/2019 4:10 AM 7
2019.20.2.1 5659e07 06/25/2019 10:16 PM 27
2019.16.2 73d3f3c 05/29/2019 3:24 PM 14
2019.16.1.1 697c2ff 05/15/2019 3:34 AM 14
2019.12.1.1 4b1dd29 04/30/2019 6:12 PM 3

 

[Droschke]

On May 16 I received the update that affected MY battery.
So, one day after they said they were rolling out a new update... I got it.

Which I DO seem to get the updates about as quickly as they are released:


Software Version Date Installed Days Since Previous Update
2019.32.1 53f03e4 09/05/2019 9:16 PM 11
2019.28.3.1 f9e95acd 08/25/2019 9:41 AM 17
2019.28.2 320fba0 08/07/2019 10:16 PM 5
2019.28.1 4ff958d 08/02/2019 9:18 AM 9
2019.24.4 73fb1ab 07/23/2019 10:18 PM 10
2019.24.1 1d133ad 07/13/2019 6:47 AM 10
2019.20.4.2 66625e9 07/03/2019 4:10 AM 7
2019.20.2.1 5659e07 06/25/2019 10:16 PM 27
2019.16.2 73d3f3c 05/29/2019 3:24 PM 14
2019.16.1.1 697c2ff 05/15/2019 3:34 AM 14
2019.12.1.1 4b1dd29 04/30/2019 6:12 PM 3

I'm pretty sure he will like and take one from this list. It's a long list, the update is got to be one of them, uhm,....

 

[Bmod]

2019.12.1.1 4b1dd29 04/30/2019 6:12 PM 3

Anyone else remember, this was suppose to be the update that increased supercharging speeds?

 

[Guy V]

But we don't know if the update they talked about related to the fires is the same update that capped the capacity on some packs. They could be different updates.

We don't know a lot of things. It's very irritating that's by design.

 

[MikeyC]

But we don't know if the update they talked about related to the fires is the same update that capped the capacity on some packs. They could be different updates.

Technically that might be true since we can't "know" anything unless Tesla comes clean on all aspects. But there's enough circumstantial evidence that you'd almost have to be delusional not to suspect the capping was part of the fire investigation:

• Tesla investigates Model S fires and claims the problem was in a single battery module
• Tesla announces an update to change charge and thermal management while they investigate the root cause
• As soon as 1 day after the update announcement, some owners start to see the capping
• The capping update was later discovered to cap if a problem was found in a single battery module (the fire condition)

So you have to ask yourself, what is more likely? All of the above are coincidences, or... Tesla did what they said they were going to do: push an update out of "an abundance of caution" to mitigate fire risk while they continue to look for the root cause? Just the Tesla announcements alone are too much of a coincidence: (a) they announce the China fire was the result of a single bad battery module, (b) they announce that they are pushing a "cautionary" firmware that changes charge and thermal management... and it turns out that you get capped if you have a problem in a single module.

Based on the information we have at this point, I'd say that if your car got capped: (a) the software detected a module in your car that has an issue, and (b) you got capped in an effort to reduce fire risk in your car.

Mike