Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[Guy V]

You are making the assumption that Tesla’s internal “fleet average” metric is being manipulated to their benefit. If you have some insight into how Tesla determines their fleet average, please share.

We have had reports here indicating that decline generally, and that it is happening to individuals one-by-one is pretty much the whole point of this thread.

On the other hand we have gotten absolutely no public information from Tesla at all about longevity trends of older vehicles, you know, something they might find themselves publicly held to account for.

It's only slowly starting to trickle out, with those charts (not from Tesla itself of course) showing more and more points suddenly popping up significantly below the trend line, but just not enough below to fall into remediation territory. Remember, Tesla has ALL the numbers from EVERY one of their cars, and still nothing is forthcoming from them.

 

[MP3Mike]

their behavior, and your scenarios, definitely point to a deliberate approach to deny any warranty replacement due to any degradation by setting the average fleet data to a manipulated metric and maintaining it as a moving target.

Considering the warranty specifically excludes degradation it would make sense for them to deny any degradation related warranty claims. That they offer any degradation coverage is a bonus because it is more than the warranty offers.

 

[Robbie]

Screenshot? You are mistaken or looking at something wrong. It's 4.2 volts max for uncapped car. Here is mine at 99%

Thanks for the screenshots. Can you share the BMS info at 100% or close to it? I would like the BMS data from an uncapped car showing close to 9.2v. Mine is capped at 9.1v. Here is a screenshot of my car:

 

[Droschke]

Good luck with that. They will never tell you, because the people at the service centers have no idea.

Most people that get a CAC test done on their battery only receive a verbal report as to the condition of the battery. They never receive any report in writing.

I was fortunate in that Tesla let me look at the results of the various CAC tests done on my battery since July. While I was shown the actual screen results from each test, I was told that I could not photograph the screens, nor was I allowed to take any written notes.

The test results contain a 4 or 5 line summary that indicates the Ah rating of the tested battery and how that compares to the fleet average of the same type battery of the same approximate vintage (age) and mileage. In addition there is a graph with green bars that represent the fleet batteries of the same vintage and mileage and a single red bar that represents the battery under test. The green bars form a bell curve with the highest mid-point representing the average of the fleet batteries, with those to the left being worse than average and those to the right being better than average. There is no indication of how or where this information has been obtained or calculated. The service center personnel don’t know either.

The Ah rating of my battery never changed from the first CAC test to the second CAC test to the third CAC test. Yet the first test indicated my battery was 10 percent worse than the fleet average. The second test indicated my battery to be 10% better than the fleet average, and the last test indicated my battery to be 30% better than the fleet average. As my AH rating didn’t change from one test to another, this implies to me that either the batteries are staring to naturally degrade more (unlikely) or that more and more cars are being capped (more likely) in order to lower the fleet average and thus reduce the number of batteries that need replacing under warranty. Especially in view of Tesla’s recent July 2019 change (according to the service center) that a battery will only now be replaced if it is at least 30% worse than the fleet average for the same vintage (age) battery with similar amount of mileage on the battery. Beforehand, I was told a battery would be replaced if it had degraded by 30% from when new.

Your entire excellent feedback is the clear testimony of the manipulation of data (seemingly a distracting set of facts to the Tesla apologists, of course) to fit Tesla's interest to the moving targets set up deliberately to be unreachable (30% below new vs. 30% below some average):

The Ah rating of my battery never changed from the first CAC test to the second CAC test to the third CAC test. Yet the first test indicated my battery was 10 percent worse than the fleet average. The second test indicated my battery to be 10% better than the fleet average, and the last test indicated my battery to be 30% better than the fleet average.

Especially in view of Tesla’s recent July 2019 change (according to the service center) that a battery will only now be replaced if it is at least 30% worse than the fleet average for the same vintage (age) battery with similar amount of mileage on the battery. Beforehand, I was told a battery would be replaced if it had degraded by 30% from when new.

 

[Droschke]

Considering the warranty specifically excludes degradation it would make sense for them to deny any degradation related warranty claims. That they offer any degradation coverage is a bonus because it is more than the warranty offers.

Very funny.

 

[jensk2]

My post explained what to do and it's very simple. After charging your car, preferably a relatively large amount, just take the energy added in kWh and divide by the rated miles added.
I disagreed with DJRas claim that the multiplier has been manipulated (changed) and I said so in my posts at the time. In fact, I believe the evidence he claimed actually supports the opposite, that the multiplier has not changed.
If Tesla intentionally changed the multiplier to hide actual degradation, that would be straight out fraud. But like I said, I have not seen any evidence that actually supports that claim.

I took my LinkMyTesla data from April 2016 to date and did above in Excel. It cause this graph for my Oct 2015 Tesla Model S 70D. As can be seen my Car has same Wh(km appart from some temprary lows around the recent software updates. I see no fiddeling with Rated or Typical Wh/km for my European car

Next graph shows Rated Range/SoC and shows approx 3-4% degradation in the time period:

Third graph is kWh capacity based NOT on constants for Wh per Rated or Typical, but from the very first graph Wh/km, a lofaritmic trend shows degradation from 68kWh to approx 64kWh, which is around 6% degradation over 3,6 years and 60.000 km. Why it is not the above 3-4% I need to sleep on

However, that degradation is somewhat 'thrustworthy' at 6% (and not 1.5%). I belive this is the minimum degradation possible - I live in a cold climate in Scandinavia, SuperCharge rarely and only in summer going south in Europe and my daily SoC is like shown in very last graph.

(I have no range Capping, only SUC cap)

 

[qwk]

Very funny.

He is right. This thread isn’t about degradation though, because if it wasn’t for a software downgrade voltage cap, it wouldn’t exist.

With the older software, there were few cars with range problems.

 

[Lukez]

Thanks for the screenshots. Can you share the BMS info at 100% or close to it? I would like the BMS data from an uncapped car showing close to 9.2v. Mine is capped at 9.1v. Here is a screenshot of my car:

View attachment 457487

Sorry don't have one, but the cell min avg and max in my screenshot should be good enough.
Also you keep saying 9 volts, it is 4 volts!!!

 

[mjmiron]

Wait a minute, aren't rattles covered under your bumper-to-bumper warranty?

They charge a diagnostic fee and then refund it if they need to do repairs. It’s crazy but they didn’t change the coverage just charge to see if it’s broke.

 

[VT_EE]

I think it must be indisputable that using a fleet average rather than an 'As New' average, must be in their interest. And an ageing fleet average keeps moving the goal posts further and further away from the owner. So they are not interested in a battery that may have lost, say, 30% capacity, but would only be interested in a battery that has lost 30% more than the fleet average. Whilst I can see the fairness in comparing it to the fleet, I would have thought that any battery that had lost 30% within 3 or 4 years must be suspect.

Agreed. My issue is with the assumption that Tesla “manipulates” data to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else. There is no evidence that Tesla is using capped batteries in their calculations for the normal fleet average as many people seem to think in this thread. That is an assumption which may not be correct. Nobody, outside of Tesla, knows how this average is calculated.

 

[swegman]

Agreed. My issue is with the assumption that Tesla “manipulates” data to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else. There is no evidence that Tesla is using capped batteries in their calculations for the normal fleet average as many people seem to think in this thread. That is an assumption which may not be correct. Nobody, outside of Tesla, knows how this average is calculated.

The CAC test does not take capping into account. The test simply determines what the capacity of the battery is if it were charged to its true 100% SOC of 4.2 volts. It doesn’t matter if the battery is capped or not. They all form part of the group of batteries of a certain vintage and age. My specific capped battery is part of the group of 6-1/2 year old 85 kWh batteries that have approximately 65,000 miles on the car.

I was told a new 85 kWh battery is approximately 230 Ah. My 6-1/2 year old battery, which is now capped to a maximum voltage of 4.094 volts, has a rating of 219 Ah. This corresponds to a 4.78% degradation over the 6-1/2 years. The day before the forced update capping my battery was installed, my battery range at 100% SOC was 253 miles (4.53% loss from its new rated range of 265 miles). However, due to the capping, my range at 98% SOC (car will no longer charge to 100% after the forced update that capped my car) is 226 miles, which is a loss of 14.72%.

 

[DJRas]

Thanks for the screenshots. Can you share the BMS info at 100% or close to it? I would like the BMS data from an uncapped car showing close to 9.2v. Mine is capped at 9.1v. Here is a screenshot of my car:

View attachment 457487

Your screenshot shows capped at 4.091 to 4.101 volts NOT 9.1 volts

 

[Robbie]

Your screenshot shows capped at 4.091 to 4.101 volts NOT 9.1 volts

How embarassing! Yes, I meant 4.1v and 4.2v.

 

[Guy V]

Considering the warranty specifically excludes degradation it would make sense for them to deny any degradation related warranty claims. That they offer any degradation coverage is a bonus because it is more than the warranty offers.

The argument is that if it is significantly below average (which they seem to be pegging at 30%?) then it is not normal degradation, but something indicative of a defect somewhere.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

Agreed. My issue is with the assumption that Tesla “manipulates” data to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else. There is no evidence that Tesla is using capped batteries in their calculations for the normal fleet average as many people seem to think in this thread. That is an assumption which may not be correct. Nobody, outside of Tesla, knows how this average is calculated.

I understand. Although Tesla have given that line to me; that my battery is in line with the fleet average. But as they have just swiped 10 kWhs off it, or about 15%, how can that possibly be true if they are just comparing it to non capped batteries? If they were comparing my battery with only non capped batteries, it must surely not show as Average, or in my case ‘slightly above average'. I just don’t find that a credible statement. So, IMO, I find it hard to conclude they are not including capped batteries in the fleet average. As batterygate only affects pre facelift cars, and we don’t know what % of them are affected, I would say it’s entirely possible, perhaps even probable, that they are including capped batteries (particularly as they are comparing batteries of similar age and mileage) which would, of course, lower the average allowing them to claim, truthfully, that my battery fares well in comparison.

Perhaps the debate is whether that amounts to manipulation of the figures. Or what they are describing as comparable with the fleet average is not what we think they are describing. As always Tesla's silence only confuses and compounds the speculation.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

I'm taking my capped 2015 Model S 85 in for service in a couple of weeks for a clunking noise in the rear from deceleration to acceleration and wanted to make an issue (again) about my loss of 30 miles range. I have Scan My Tesla data showing my max charge is 9.1 volts. I was wondering if I were to show this data from an un-capped similar car charging to 9.2 volts that I would be able to make a reasonable argument that they should replace the battery. Can someone here help me with this and provide screen shots of their car showing 9.2 volts? It is a simple argument that I wanted to make and see their response. My car also has 123K miles and is RWD.

If you are going to raise an issue, I would STRONGLY suggest you don’t describe it as Loss of Range. That is just the consequence of the issue. Loss of Range is NOT covered under the Warranty, which they will delight in telling you. So you are onto a 100% loser by complaining about Loss of Range. The issue is capping of the battery. The awkward questions are:
Why was I capped?
Likely answer, 'for longevity of the battery'. (That’s not why they did it, that’s what they hope to achieve).
Important question. Was I capped because there is a fault with my battery?
If they say yes (which they won’t) grounds for a replacement.
If they say 'No, your battery is healthy'
Then straight in with:
If it’s healthy, why was it capped?
If it is healthy why can’t the capping be removed?
If they claim it’s just good practice and will lengthen the life of your battery..
Well why didn’t you do it to all the fleet rather than just a few cars?

Tesla have never been able (willing) to answer any of these. Press hard!

 

[AdamInFlag]

The EPA has rated the S85 model consumption as 380wh/mi.

Are you saying when the projected range = the rated range, the wh/mi shown is 380wh/mi?

No - the wh/mi shown in that case is 287 wh/mi for my 85D. Presumably it would be a bit higher for an 85 - 295 wh/mi from what I’ve read. The 380 wh/mi value (it’s 340 wh/mi for the 85D) reported on the sticker is consumption from the wall and includes charging losses.

 

[swegman]

I understand. Although Tesla have given that line to me; that my battery is in line with the fleet average. But as they have just swiped 10 kWhs off it, or about 15%, how can that possibly be true if they are just comparing it to non capped batteries? If they were comparing my battery with only non capped batteries, it must surely not show as Average, or in my case ‘slightly above average'. I just don’t find that a credible statement. So, IMO, I find it hard to conclude they are not including capped batteries in the fleet average. As batterygate only affects pre facelift cars, and we don’t know what % of them are affected, I would say it’s entirely possible, perhaps even probable, that they are including capped batteries (particularly as they are comparing batteries of similar age and mileage) which would, of course, lower the average allowing them to claim, truthfully, that my battery fares well in comparison.

The problem is that the CAC test is not performed at the capped voltage of 4.1 volts or less, but is based on a 100% SOC corresponding to 4.2 volts.

Anyone having Tesla perform a CAC test should request the Ah of your battery. You can then calculate the approximate capacity of your battery without a cap as follows:

3.6 volts (average of 3.0 Vmin and 4.2 Vmax) times 6 times 16 times your battery’s Ah rating. For example, my battery has 219 Ah, yielding an uncapped capacity of 75.7 kWh. A new battery has a capacity of around 80 kWh.

However, because my battery is now capped to a Vaverage of 3.5 volts, resulting in an approximate capped capacity of 73.6 kWh (which includes both the “new” upper and lower non-usable capacity), or about 68.5 kWh useable. For comparison purposes, ScanMyTesla shows my capped capacity as being 69 kWh.

 

[swegman]

If you are going to raise an issue, I would STRONGLY suggest you don’t describe it as Loss of Range. That is just the consequence of the issue. Loss of Range is NOT covered under the Warranty, which they will delight in telling you. So you are onto a 100% loser by complaining about Loss of Range. The issue is capping of the battery. The awkward questions are:
Why was I capped?
Likely answer, 'for longevity of the battery'. (That’s not why they did it, that’s what they hope to achieve).
Important question. Was I capped because there is a fault with my battery?
If they say yes (which they won’t) grounds for a replacement.
If they say 'No, your battery is healthy'
Then straight in with:
If it’s healthy, why was it capped?
If it is healthy why can’t the capping be removed?
If they claim it’s just good practice and will lengthen the life of your battery..
Well why didn’t you do it to all the fleet rather than just a few cars?

Tesla have never been able (willing) to answer any of these. Press hard!

I asked basically the same questions; specifically, if my battery tested as being 30% better than the average of other batteries of similar vintage and mileage why was my battery capped. They couldn’t tell me other than to say that my car was randomly selected to be part of a test of new BMS algorithms. I don’t buy that assertion. I also requested that the battery be uncapped if it really is as good as they assert, and was told I can request that until I’m blue in the face, that Tesla will not uncap the battery until they wish to or a court orders them to do so.

 

[Droschke]

He is right. This thread isn’t about degradation though, because if it wasn’t for a software downgrade voltage cap, it wouldn’t exist.

With the older software, there were few cars with range problems.

Correct. That's why I found his post very funny.