Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[Robbie]

So you show 65.9/223 = 295.5 Wh/rated mile. Are you impacted by voltage capping?

I'm totally capped. My nominal full pack is 65.9 kWh now leaving me with 223 full rated miles. I used to be able to change to 256 miles at 100% when new which would have been 75.9 kWh nominal full pack. It looks like I've lost 10 kWh from new. From what I considered acceptable degradation my full range had dropped to about 249 miles of range before the May update and now I pretty much don't get more than 217 miles. The BMS also stops charging at 4.1 volts now.

 

[ran349]

That is the quirk of the arthritic.
The Wh per mile is ONLY usable kWh 61.9/223 = 277.6
You will find the ~276 number will be close all the way to 5% SOC using ScanMyTesla data.
The rated miles remaining and SOC will also track EXACTLY to the IC displayed data all the way to 2%

A new S 85, or one with no degradation would show 78.175/265 = .295 on the display, or 74.175/265 = .280 in scan my tesla.
Despite the discrepancy, it still doesn't mean anything was ever changed by Tesla in the calculation.
That is my only point, I haven't seen where it has ever been changed.

 

[Robbie]

A new S 85, or one with no degradation would show 78.175/265 = .295 on the display, or 74.175/265 = .280 in scan my tesla.
Despite the discrepancy, it still doesn't mean anything was ever changed by Tesla in the calculation.
That is my only point, I haven't seen where it has ever been changed.

My uneducated guess is that Tesla simply limited max voltage to 4.1v from 4.2v to make the batteries last longer and avoid warranty replacements. I'm not sure it is much more complicated than that but this is just my opinion.

 

[Droschke]

I'm sorry, did I leave the impression I was disagreeing with anything? I don't disagree with anything he said.

I was just throwing out more numbers for info. As a matter of fact, my numbers support the .295 Wh / mile: 65.9 kWh / 223 miles = .29551569....

Ooops, sorry Droschke I misread this and thought you'd thought I was disagreeing rather than being disagreed with. Carry on..

My apologies. The quote from @ran349 did not make it in my post. I was addressing him when he disagreed with me without any explanation. Sorry about that. I'll see if I still have time to edit my previous post.

On Edit: I guess this is what happens when Mp3Mike is on vacation and someone else is in charge of that "Disagree" button

 

[jkennebeck]

They aren't claiming safety either,...This is why Tesla only admitted to the safety problem once before changing the story to a mysterious and undefined "it's for longevity of the battery" fiction.

Do we actually have any documented admission of "safety" other than the "abundance of caution"? That can be lawyer wrangled. But if there was any official doc that said "safety" concern that would be gold for the class action suit.

 

[Droschke]

My apologies. The quote from @ran349 did not make it in my post. I was addressing him when he disagreed me without any explanation. Sorry about that. I'll see if I still have time to edit my previous post.

@Robbie
I edited my post. Sorry again!

 

[ran349]

The problem (IMHO) with TM-Spy is that it includes the 4kWh buffer so the SOC does not track anywhere below 100% SOC.
The divergence is REALLY BAD at 5% SOC on your IC TM-Spy will show 11% but 4kWh are unusable.

I agree that the SOC on TM-Spy is not the same as the car reported SOC. But the pack value and remaining value does match Scan my Tesla. I can calculate the SOC from that information by subtracting out the 4kWh number and then it matches the car SOC exactly.

 

[DJRas]

My uneducated guess is that Tesla simply limited max voltage to 4.1v from 4.2v to make the batteries last longer and avoid warranty replacements. I'm not sure it is much more complicated than that but this is just my opinion.

The fact that this limitation happened to only a few cars and was implemented the very day they said they would release an update to address the fire issue "out of an abundance of caution" is too much of a coincidence for me.

If they had fleet-wide limited EVERYONE to 4.1 volts then I would buy that.

It was funny today there was a report of a Delta flight from Atlanta to Ft Lauderdale that had some sort of in-flight emergency that caused them to drop from 39,000 ft to 10,000 ft and they diverted to Tampa.
They used the same wording:
The flight “diverted to Tampa out of an abundance of caution and landed without incident following a cabin pressurization irregularity en route,” a Delta spokesperson said in a statement about the stomach-churning incident.

 

[jkennebeck]

...an update to address the fire issue "out of an abundance of caution"...


If they had fleet-wide limited EVERYONE to 4.1 volts then I would buy that.

THIS is what will win the lawsuit. If Tesla needs to prolong battery life and 4.1v is better at that than 4.2v then why didn't they do this to ALL Teslas? Why only do it to a portion? And it seems that that portion is the group that is closest to running out of warranty clock. That REEKS of warranty avoidance. And in the mean time, they have made some of their vehicles unusable (those that need a min range on a daily basis for work, those that paid for high performance, etc.)

I noticed that the first judge the C.A. was assigned to recused herself. I think she is currently presiding over another case where Tesla is the plaintiff.

This WILL be interesting.

 

[jkennebeck]

from the ftc directly:
Warranties

Implied Warranties
Implied warranties are created by state law, and all states have them. Almost every purchase you make is covered by an implied warranty.

The most common type of implied warranty—a "warranty of merchantability," means that the seller promises that the product will do what it is supposed to do. For example, a car will run and a toaster will toast.

Another type of implied warranty is the "warranty of fitness for a particular purpose." This applies when you buy a product on the seller's advice that it is suitable for a particular use. For example, a person who suggests that you buy a certain sleeping bag for zero-degree weather warrants that the sleeping bag will be suitable for zero degrees.

My interpretation:
Another type of implied warranty is the "warranty of fitness for a particular purpose." This applies when you buy a product on the seller's advice that it is suitable for a particular use. For example, a person who suggests that you buy a certain car that charges its battery to 100% (4.2v) warrants that you can actually charge its battery to 100% (4.2v).

 

[Robbie]

THIS is what will win the lawsuit. If Tesla needs to prolong battery life and 4.1v is better at that than 4.2v then why didn't they do this to ALL Teslas? Why only do it to a portion? And it seems that that portion is the group that is closest to running out of warranty clock. That REEKS of warranty avoidance. And in the mean time, they have made some of their vehicles unusable (those that need a min range on a daily basis for work, those that paid for high performance, etc.)

I noticed that the first judge the C.A. was assigned to recused herself. I think she is currently presiding over another case where Tesla is the plaintiff.

This WILL be interesting.

I'm speculating here but I think it is possible that they didn't want to roll out an update that would limit all cars to 4.1v all at once because they wanted to gauge the response of the owners. Kind of a blue / green test. It seems that for all we know 85 kWh cars were selected at random. My hope is that this is what is happening and they will roll it back due to the angry reactions to those affected. I think if Tesla feels the reaction isn't too negative they will limit all cars to 4.1v, not just older 85 kWh cars.

The saying "the candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long" might apply here.

 

[jkennebeck]

I'm speculating here but I think it is possible that they didn't want to roll out an update that would limit all cars to 4.1v all at once because they wanted to gauge the response of the owners. Kind of a blue / green test. It seems that for all we know 85 kWh cars were selected at random. My hope is that this is what is happening and they will roll it back due to the angry reactions to those affected. I think if Tesla feels the reaction isn't too negative they will limit all cars to 4.1v, not just older 85 kWh cars.

The saying "the candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long" might apply here.

Very very true! But as you can see from 5000+ posts most of which have been negative, and certain owners hassling service center techs for a solution and a class action lawsuit for remedy, they already have their reaction. And to turn a portion of their owners into "test subjects" without notification or compensation isn't good business or good PR.

 

[Chaserr]

THIS is what will win the lawsuit. If Tesla needs to prolong battery life and 4.1v is better at that than 4.2v then why didn't they do this to ALL Teslas? Why only do it to a portion? And it seems that that portion is the group that is closest to running out of warranty clock. That REEKS of warranty avoidance. And in the mean time, they have made some of their vehicles unusable (those that need a min range on a daily basis for work, those that paid for high performance, etc.)

I noticed that the first judge the C.A. was assigned to recused herself. I think she is currently presiding over another case where Tesla is the plaintiff.

This WILL be interesting.

This is a very good distinction, well put and thank you for pointing it out. For some reason in my mind I assume it wiill affect everyone and only a few are impacted now... but the reality is they have identified specific cars that are in need of repair and told a few owners the are "in a test group" which reinforces the fact that our batteries aren't functioning normally.

 

[Robbie]

Very very true! But as you can see from 5000+ posts most of which have been negative, and certain owners hassling service center techs for a solution and a class action lawsuit for remedy, they already have their reaction. And to turn a portion of their owners into "test subjects" without notification or compensation isn't good business or good PR.

Yup, and thanks for everyone turning up the heat on them. I hate the nanny state and want to decide for myself how to care for my own car and be given the freedom to charge to 100% on trips if I choose. I think there are better ways to encourage owners to not overcharge their cars rather than just limit them outright, maybe temporarily disable full charging if the car is left over X% for more than Y hours. I think this is very much like when Tesla limited launch mode on ludicrous cars to avoid premature wear. The cars would look good on reviews but owners would get the candy taken out of their mouths after purchase. They did eventually roll that change back and I'm hoping they do the same here.

 

[Droschke]

...they didn't want to roll out an update that would limit all cars to 4.1v all at once because they wanted to gauge the response of the owners.

I wish that was the case. But looks like it isn't. Tesla is going to go to court to fight it.

... It seems that for all we know 85 kWh cars were selected at random. My hope is that this is what is happening and they will roll it back due to the angry reactions to those affected.

I wish that was the case. But, per the SC's are telling several owners that they (those owners) are part of a "Test Group".

...The saying "the candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long" might apply here.

True. The long range, low degradation batteries were oversold.

 

[raphy3]

Do we actually have any documented admission of "safety" other than the "abundance of caution"? That can be lawyer wrangled. But if there was any official doc that said "safety" concern that would be gold for the class action suit.

we need to see the context. If the quote was given in response to the question, "will my battery catch on fire?" then that is not going to leave a lot of lawyer wiggle room when considering what a "reasonable" bistander (paying customer) would think.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

THIS is what will win the lawsuit. If Tesla needs to prolong battery life and 4.1v is better at that than 4.2v then why didn't they do this to ALL Teslas? Why only do it to a portion? And it seems that that portion is the group that is closest to running out of warranty clock. That REEKS of warranty avoidance. And in the mean time, they have made some of their vehicles unusable (those that need a min range on a daily basis for work, those that paid for high performance, etc.)

I noticed that the first judge the C.A. was assigned to recused herself. I think she is currently presiding over another case where Tesla is the plaintiff.

This WILL be interesting.

Great point. I'd like to make another point that is rather simplistic: Tesla is essentially preventing affected owners from charging their vehicles to 100% by reducing max voltage of the cells. That constitutes removal of an essential feature of the vehicle that was advertised at time of purchase and which functioned up until the dreaded software update.

 

[TJtv]

I noticed that the first judge the C.A. was assigned to recused herself. I think she is currently presiding over another case where Tesla is the plaintiff.

I think this may be Tesla's new strategy. Get people to bring so many lawsuits against you so that every judge in the country is already assigned to a Tesla case, therefore no new cases can ever be heard.

 

[cpa]

Took my Tesla in last week for a door handle replacement and range loss concern - got these responses for the latter.

Tesla's written response to the sudden reduction in range that your readings are well within the bounds of other vehicles is specious at best. It is intentionally vague, and it is worded to make the owner feel like he is no worse off than anyone else with the hopes that the owner will just accept this statement at face value and forget about his situation. Tesla is trying to play us as fools.

Let me see now. If these batteries suddenly dropped to 50% usable range (~125 miles), there is nothing wrong, right? Your battery is still within the bounds of similar batteries that we test each and every day! There is no excessive degradation, this is merely ordinary wear and tear, and it is not covered under warranty. Thanks for playing!

This scene reminds me of an economics class I took decades ago just to try to get a better handle on the subject. (I already had my college degree.) The professor had a hard-to-understand accent, and economics to him was like breathing to the rest of us. Come time for the first midterm, and he was very angry at the class. The highest grade was ~68/100, which he charitably assigned a B. Over half the class scored between 40-50--several were even lower--I think I was one of the luckier ones with 52 or 53. I escaped with a D. Using Tesla's sophistry, those who received a test score of 45 were well within the bounds of the entire class, so they had nothing to worry about.

As I stated many pages ago, Tesla is trying to finesse warranty claims on batteries as they approach the 8-year period. The explanations are a hoax and a distraction from their ulterior reasons.

Tesla needed to take the high road. They needed to hope that degraded batteries within the warranty period would not become a significant strain on their resources.

What I do not have an answer for is this hypothetical: If Tesla had taken the high road, and had to replace a percentage of batteries under warranty, but not all batteries, would it have made sense for Tesla to push this software update to the remaining batteries after the warranty period had expired? Perhaps make it a voluntary update and explain that those who opt in will be able to purchase a new battery at 80% of retail (i.e., bribe the owners) when the battery gets to a certain point. For those who opt out, if they want to purchase a new battery, they would pay full retail. Maybe this would be a public relations disaster. But I believe that any potential PR issues with this plan will pale in comparison to whatever comes out of the class action lawsuit filed by DJRas.

 

[Droschke]

Tesla's written response to the sudden reduction in range that your readings are well within the bounds of other vehicles is specious at best. It is intentionally vague, and it is worded to make the owner feel like he is no worse off than anyone else with the hopes that the owner will just accept this statement at face value and forget about his situation. Tesla is trying to play us as fools.

Let me see now. If these batteries suddenly dropped to 50% usable range (~125 miles), there is nothing wrong, right? Your battery is still within the bounds of similar batteries that we test each and every day! There is no excessive degradation, this is merely ordinary wear and tear, and it is not covered under warranty. Thanks for playing!

This scene reminds me of an economics class I took decades ago just to try to get a better handle on the subject. (I already had my college degree.) The professor had a hard-to-understand accent, and economics to him was like breathing to the rest of us. Come time for the first midterm, and he was very angry at the class. The highest grade was ~68/100, which he charitably assigned a B. Over half the class scored between 40-50--several were even lower--I think I was one of the luckier ones with 52 or 53. I escaped with a D. Using Tesla's sophistry, those who received a test score of 45 were well within the bounds of the entire class, so they had nothing to worry about.

As I stated many pages ago, Tesla is trying to finesse warranty claims on batteries as they approach the 8-year period. The explanations are a hoax and a distraction from their ulterior reasons.

Tesla needed to take the high road. They needed to hope that degraded batteries within the warranty period would not become a significant strain on their resources.

What I do not have an answer for is this hypothetical: If Tesla had taken the high road, and had to replace a percentage of batteries under warranty, but not all batteries, would it have made sense for Tesla to push this software update to the remaining batteries after the warranty period had expired? Perhaps make it a voluntary update and explain that those who opt in will be able to purchase a new battery at 80% of retail (i.e., bribe the owners) when the battery gets to a certain point. For those who opt out, if they want to purchase a new battery, they would pay full retail. Maybe this would be a public relations disaster. But I believe that any potential PR issues with this plan will pale in comparison to whatever comes out of the class action lawsuit filed by DJRas.

Marvelous post. Eloquently stated.

PS:
Too bad there is only one "Love" button to push (no pun intended)