Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[Droschke]

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

Thanks for your rational and objective post.

you'd almost have to be delusional not to suspect the capping was part of the fire investigation

You would think, wouldn't you?

Sadly, I doubt your precise and logical articulation would convince the delusional posters, or those who pretend to come across as, based on their ulterior motivations.

We have been dealing with several of Tesla apologists since the beginning of this thread. Some came, tried to poison the discourse, gave up, and left. Few are still here and persist.

 

[Keshk]

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.

Where can I find a copy of this announcement? Do you have a link? I tried Tesla site, but nothing there

 

[DJRas]

Where can I find a copy of this announcement? Do you have a link? I tried Tesla site, but nothing there

Tesla to update battery software following car fires - Reuters

 

[fbitz777]

Has anyone with the reduced (capped) range NOT suffered the reduced charge rates (or much longer charging times) at the SC?

My case ('17 X75D):

-Got Instant reduction in 100% rated range but not as much as most affected people (7 miles)

-Got a boost in Supercharging rate (110KW from 80KW before) BUT that only lasts for a few minutes and then drops sharply. I am suspecting that "boost" is to heat up battery. Overall takes much longer to charge at SC.

-I get Regen at "100%" so I am suspecting my new 100% is the old 95%

I don't suspect I have a defective module but more that Tesla is babying my battery so it lasts longer..

 

[raphy3]

I think you are exaggerating quite a lot. For example hiding a fatal ignition-switch defect tied to at least 174 deaths, General Motors employees faced no criminal charges and the automaker paid a $900 million fine. Yes the fine was big, but there were deaths involved.

Gm fixed the problem with a massive recall under the watchful eye of the govt. Hopefully Tesla will do the same if needed here. ... And hopefully no deaths will be involved.

 

[⚡️ELECTROMAN⚡️]

Good info. Definitely going to keep the stop-loss in place... and install a smoke detector in my garage.

 

[raphy3]

Without a BMS the cars would probably be very unsafe.

This is a slippery slope argument that doesn't make sense when compared to any other situation or car. There are plenty of things in ICE cars that are extremely unsafe to users (gasoline, combustion...) without proper controls in place to harness them for powering forward motion. So what's your point, exactly? You're trying to say that claims about unsafe conditions are invalid because one could arbitrarily claim individual pieces of the car are unsafe? Sorry to be harsh, but that's nonsense.

 

[DJRas]

Good info. Definitely going to keep the stop-loss in place... and install a smoke detector in my garage.

I installed a smoke detector that alerts my phone on the nightstand 3 weeks ago

 

[electronblue]

For what it is worth, the fact that Tesla had announced a software update and single module failure related to the China fires was already pointed out in this thread several times as it was reported by Electrek in May/June.

Tesla gives updates on cause of a battery fire, says single module is responsible - Electrek

Tesla is updating its battery software following a car fire, claims improve longevity - Electrek

Tesla added that preliminary findings show the source of the fire as a single battery module at the front of the vehicle.

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.”

 

[electronblue]

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.

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.

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.

No one ever said it wasn't a safety issue.

It seems to me @wk057 is saying there is very serious issue in affected packs, unless you upgrade to the range loss/charge cap firmware after which the issue is mitigated and the battery is not likely to explode or otherwise suffer another kind of catastrophic failure (anymore?).

Being the responsible chap he seems to be @wk057 seems to be issuing a very stern warning here to upgrade. Not upgrading seems to suggest potentially serious consequences that may be safety related.

This is of course would be completely at odds from the alleged statements from Tesla that there is no safety issue, so someone must be in the wrong here. Tesla has allegedly used legal threats to silence @wk057 from saying more, is it because @wk057 is wrong or because he is right is unknown.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

Has anyone with the reduced (capped) range NOT suffered the reduced charge rates (or much longer charging times) at the SC?

My case ('17 X75D):

-Got Instant reduction in 100% rated range but not as much as most affected people (7 miles)

-Got a boost in Supercharging rate (110KW from 80KW before) BUT that only lasts for a few minutes and then drops sharply. I am suspecting that "boost" is to heat up battery. Overall takes much longer to charge at SC.

-I get Regen at "100%" so I am suspecting my new 100% is the old 95%

I don't suspect I have a defective module but more that Tesla is babying my battery so it lasts longer..

As I have said several times on here, I suffer from capping but not from reduced charge speed. (2016 MS70).

IMO they are two separate problems. Some people suffer from capped battery. An even larger number suffer from reduced charge speed. A number, probably in between, suffer from both.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

It seems to me @wk057 is saying there is very serious issue in affected packs, unless you upgrade to the range loss/charge cap firmware after which the issue is mitigated and the battery is not likely to explode or otherwise suffer another kind of catastrophic failure (anymore?).

Being the responsible chap he seems to be @wk057 seems to be issuing a very stern warning here to upgrade. Not upgrading seems to suggest potentially serious consequences that may be safety related.

This is of course would be completely at odds from the alleged statements from Tesla that there is no safety issue, so someone must be in the wrong here. Tesla has allegedly used legal threats to silence @wk057 from saying more, is it because @wk057 is wrong or because he is right is unknown.

I understand wk057's advice to update to mean update to see if your battery gets capped. If you have the 'issue', being capped goes a long way to neutralising the effect of the 'issue'. I also understand him to mean the 'issue' if there and untreated, is a bad thing and you are far better updating and being capped than not updating, not being capped and putting yourself at risk of the 'issue' doing something worse. I won’t speculate on what that 'worse' might be.

I consider myself to be in limbo at a point beyond that. I have updated, the update presumably identified the 'issue' in my car and capped the battery. The 'issue' presumably has been neutralised because of the capping. But I am extremely reluctant to download any further updates until I read that a proper fix is available and IS working, primarily because I don’t suffer from charge rate capping and that the next update is likely to include charge rate capping, and I feel that charge rate capping would make my car very unsuitable for long journies. I have not, yet, read anything substantial from a reliable source that claims charging at normal rates is likely to result in anything catastrophic, although I am sure there may be soothsayers forecasting such things.

Has Tesla allegedly used legal threats to silence him? He says not, and I trust his word. I very much got the impression that he has a professional relationship with Tesla that he wants to maintain, and continuing with this debate, on here, might put that at risk. I think he made the correct decision.

 

[Brass Guy]

I will not be updating from V8. I drove a loaner for 2 weeks trying to get used to V9, but the UI demanded so much more attention that I had many close calls. Everything I use the screen for takes more "clicks" in V9 (except activating the media app) and many targets are smaller.

It has been implied (but not explicitly stated) that not updating could be a safety issue. IMO upgrading is absolutely a safety issue, for myself and anyone around me while driving.

 

[electronblue]

Has Tesla allegedly used legal threats to silence him? He says not, and I trust his word. I very much got the impression that he has a professional relationship with Tesla that he wants to maintain, and continuing with this debate, on here, might put that at risk. I think he made the correct decision.

I believe the root of that allegation and speculation is @wk057 ’s message that he would have to defend himself potentially should Tesla decide to pursue the issue and that he has been advised to stay out. The details are unknown of course as is the interpretation’s accuracy but defending does not sound like an action taken at an end of a professional (or any) relationship unless there is a threat of a lawsuit.

Regrettably, I've been advised to stay out of this issue.

Suffice it to say, I'm less than convinced they're going to do the right thing here... but, unfortunately I just don't have the resources to waste defending myself should Tesla actually decide to try something stupid against me on this.

Best of luck with the class action case.

 

[Zextraterrestrial]

I will not be updating from V8. I drove a loaner for 2 weeks trying to get used to V9, but the UI demanded so much more attention that I had many close calls. Everything I use the screen for takes more "clicks" in V9 (except activating the media app) and many targets are smaller.

It has been implied (but not explicitly stated) that not updating could be a safety issue. IMO upgrading is absolutely a safety issue, for myself and anyone around me while driving.

This is almost a bigger problem still imo if you aren’t road tripping and need the range and charge speed

 

[MikeyC]

As I have said several times on here, I suffer from capping but not from reduced charge speed. (2016 MS70).

IMO they are two separate problems. Some people suffer from capped battery. An even larger number suffer from reduced charge speed. A number, probably in between, suffer from both.

That would suggest there are at least two metrics that the updated software uses to determine whether to cap and/or reduce charge speed. Just as an example, maybe it uses the variance in cell voltages within a module to determine whether to cap and uses the difference in module temperatures during charging to determine whether to nerf charging speed. It'd also be reasonable to think that if you have been both capped and charge rate nerfed, your battery may have more problems than one which has only one of the two.

The interesting part is that I've seen at least one report in this thread where a service center checked the battery on a capped car, determined it was OK, and was able to "uncap" the battery. While contemplating how they may have written the code, I wonder if the software just periodically tests the issue conditions and if it finds a problem, it sets a capping flag and at that point, you remain capped until uncapped by a SC... when the process starts over again. Meaning if it ever discovers a problem condition, you might get recapped in the future after being uncapped by a SC. That might be how I'd write the code if I was afraid of a fire condition. The only other option I can think of is to periodically test uncapped charging to see if the problem still exists... but then if you detect a problem, it might be too late.

Sorry for the pontifications but I'm a software developer and can't help asking myself "How would I do this" if I was told to come up with a software solution.

Mike

 

[Chaserr]

I installed a smoke detector that alerts my phone on the nightstand 3 weeks ago

I feel like a moron for believing tesla's lies to my face when I have been repeatedly told the downgrades weren't imposed for safety. I'm ordering a smart fire detector and will continue to park outside until it's installed and I can work up th confidence to put a confirmed-as-compromised unsafe battery in my garage. Since Tesla lies to us, we can't actually believe that the thefts do anything but slightly reduce the chances of death.

It seems to me @wk057 is saying there is very serious issue in affected packs

That's my impression. His livelihood is in selling Tesla parts and if this scandal reaches the NHTSA before tesla brings it to them it could end the company, he doesn't want that so he pulled out. Alternately, nobody wants to be involved in a federal nvestigation and the feds would probably want to know how involved he was - especially since he knows what he knows and has publicly told us that his upgrades can require permanently blocking updates (he said this as recently as last week in the 90v3 pack for sale thread)... He'd need to get away from this topic as fast and far as possible if that is fatal advice. There's no winning move for him with Tesla trying to kill people that don't update. He's tried to tell us this is a mortal danger without admitting his own guilt or killing tesla. Early on he said he'd throw them under the bus if they didn't do the right thing, so it took something huge to change his course - and these are the kinds of life altering things that could be. So he avoids killing tesla, he avoids implicating himself, and he does his best to urge people to apply an update that could literally save the lives even though it does tens of thousands of dollars worth of damage tesla refuses to repair.

 

[MP3Mike]

especially since he knows what he knows and has publicly told us that his upgrades can require permanently blocking updates (he said this as recently as last week in the 90v3 pack for sale thread)...

That only applies to upgrades to a non-Tesla configuration. For example putting a 100kW battery in a rear wheel drive vehicle. Things like upgrading the battery pack don't require blocking updates.

 

[fbitz777]

As I have said several times on here, I suffer from capping but not from reduced charge speed. (2016 MS70).

IMO they are two separate problems. Some people suffer from capped battery. An even larger number suffer from reduced charge speed. A number, probably in between, suffer from both.

Do you mind sharing or describing your charging curve at SC from low SOC to "full"...I find hard to believe your charge times are not affected. Or is your "MS70" a software locked 85?
Sorry to bug you!

 

[Droschke]

The interesting part is that I've seen at least one report in this thread where a service center checked the battery on a capped car, determined it was OK, and was able to "uncap" the battery.

I do remember the poster @MayoOK reported that his battery went bad few months before the cap update was released and the replaced pack he received was capped to his surprise. After complaining, Tesla removed the cap on his replaced pack.