Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[Droschke]

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.

Please read my monroney for the EPA consumption of S85 (attached here) and tell me what it says:

 

[Robbie]

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!

Other than recent owners of CPO cars with range loss I don't know anyone with a winning strategy getting Tesla to warrantee their batteries. I'm going to make the simple argument that my battery should be able to be charged to 4.2v and it is not compared to healthy cars that do. Unless someone has a better idea that does work that's my strategy.

 

[VT_EE]

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.

Well put, and thank you for the civilized discussion. I try to be a glass half full kind of person and tend to assume noble intent until proven wrong. In this case, people are assuming nefarious intent without knowing what Tesla actually does with their internal data. Some people talk like they know what Tesla’s intent is. They do not at this point in time. Having said that, I do understand how your perception is shaped from Tesla’s lack of reasonable communication.

On a side note, the consumption multiplier for my rated range just changed from ~232Wh/mi to ~240Wh/mi (in the Energy app). I was wondering why my 100% range dropped overnight by about 15mi. This multiplier change is likely the culprit. Tesla is messing with rated range on 3’s too, but I suspect it’s to better represent real world conditions.

 

[Keshk]

Quantification of Regen loss with battery capping. I noticed a loss of regen since the capping. Is there a way to quantify that loss? Does anyone have some figures on that?

 

[thesnooch]

I read the complaint yesterday, all one hunnert pages!

I urge all of you who are active participants in this discussion to read the complaint. It lists (recalling from memory) 19 separate causes of action. These causes include inter alia [I love lifting expressions from lawyers!] violations of federal and state computer hijacking laws, contract law, various torts, breach of warranty, fraud, and curiously, a civil RICO violation. The complaint also asserts a California elder-abuse type law addressing (again, if I remember) that any product when used as originally purchased that causes hardship to a senior citizen (65+) or a disabled person is subject to a $5,000 civil penalty per occurrence. Which of these causes of action that ultimately are decided to have merit will be decided in pretrial motions and proceedings before any discovery gets underway.

The complaint lists not only the battery-gate incident (in fact, this phrase is used in the complaint), but also includes the throttling of Supercharger speeds. So, those of us like me who so far only have the Supercharging issues are part of the class.

The damages sought include injunctive relief in addition to cash or the equivalent, like replacement batteries.

My accountant's opinion is that the lawyer did a very good job in laying out the 100-page complaint. It is clear. There is ample "evidence" presented in the complaint supporting the assertions and allegations therein.

It will be interesting to see just how much fight is in Tesla. The sixty-day window to reply gives Tesla some time to weigh the totality of the complaint against what Tesla knows to be true, partially true, or untrue, and to decide upon a defense.

Your move, Tesla.

Boom

 

[boywonder]

Quantification of Regen loss with battery capping. I noticed a loss of regen since the capping. Is there a way to quantify that loss? Does anyone have some figures on that?

I charged my 85D to 100% yesterday from a 7kwh ac source over 9 hours.

At 100% the car showed my range as 238 miles, down from 255 prior to the software cap.

When I drove the car, the regen section on the dial showed a limit of (I’m guessing) 15kwh but it felt like the car had virtually no regen and coasted quite easily.

Prior to to the software cap I would still get full regen at my old 90% ( around 235 miles), so Tesla have changed a few parameters in the BMS.

I also see the yellow power limit warning triangle when I floor the accelerator to demand 300kwh from the battery.

This doesn’t seem dependent on range as I’ve seen it at different ranges and during different types of driving. I only ever used to see this in the past when the battery was cold.

And finally in answer to your question, sorry but I don’t have a hard number for the regen limit at 100%.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

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.

Yep, that pretty much mirrors my experience. My advice is based on, if a customer complains about Lack of Range, they will close down the discussion immediately with a 'Loss of Range is not covered under the Warranty'. It appears to be a well tried and effective defence. The 'Why Capping' or 'Why me?' at least allows for some discussion. They have never suggested to me I am part of a random test. Frankly that seems like an unusual claim, perhaps something staff who are not in the know, might say to relieve the pressure of angry owners. If it is true, then that surely makes our position stronger.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

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.

Can anyone describe , in VERY simple words please, what the CAC Test does and how it does it?

 

[ran349]

On a side note, the consumption multiplier for my rated range just changed from ~232Wh/mi to ~240Wh/mi (in the Energy app). I was wondering why my 100% range dropped overnight by about 15mi. This multiplier change is likely the culprit. Tesla is messing with rated range on 3’s too, but I suspect it’s to better represent real world conditions.

In an earlier post, you said that your multiplier had changed from 240 to 230, and your rated range increased. Sounds like they reversed it now and are back to the original value. Is that correct? Did the change come from an update? And if so, did they describe that change in the release notes?
I know that does not affect actual range, but that would mess with a lot of people's minds if they do that without any notice. People would think that their battery capacity has changed when it really has not.

 

[VT_EE]

In an earlier post, you said that your multiplier had changed from 240 to 230, and your rated range increased. Sounds like they reversed it now and are back to the original value. Is that correct? Did the change come from an update? And if so, did they describe that change in the release notes?
I know that does not affect actual range, but that would mess with a lot of people's minds if they do that without any notice. People would think that their battery capacity has changed when it really has not.

You are correct. Last spring I got an update that “added” 15 miles to the car. I can’t remember if it was stated in the release notes, but it was publicized via Twitter. The recent removal of the “added” miles by an OTA update was not in any release notes. It certainly makes one ponder the state of their battery when Tesla doesn’t communicate what the updates are changing.

 

[DJRas]

You are correct. Last spring I got an update that “added” 15 miles to the car. I can’t remember if it was stated in the release notes, but it was publicized via Twitter. The recent removal of the “added” miles by an OTA update was not in any release notes. It certainly makes one ponder the state of their battery when Tesla doesn’t communicate what the updates are changing.

In an earlier post, you said that your multiplier had changed from 240 to 230, and your rated range increased. Sounds like they reversed it now and are back to the original value. Is that correct? Did the change come from an update? And if so, did they describe that change in the release notes?
I know that does not affect actual range, but that would mess with a lot of people's minds if they do that without any notice. People would think that their battery capacity has changed when it really has not.

Tesla has NEVER put any of this in the release notes. When asked they defer to the last line tgat says to the effect "and various minor bug fixes".

 

[DJRas]

I have been thinking about this issue bringing down the fleet-wide average and disagree.
There are about 200,000 Model S on the road and fewer than 100,000 from 2012 to 2015. There are 100,000 TMC members. So, there are maybe 25% of early Model S owners on this forum. Of those less than 100 have posted anything on this thread.
So, call it 400-500 CURRENTLY affected cars in the US and another 200-300 in Europe. That is less than 1% of the cars affected and the range loss has been 10-15%. So, statistically that is in the noise for fleet-wide average numbers.

But, if it IS less than 1% of the cars then WHY doesn't Tesla just respect their warranty that something is wrong with OUR packs and replace them???
Their cost is between $120‐$150 per kWh to produce a pack. A new pack would cost $10k to $5k and they could Ebay probably 15 out of 16 modules from our defective packs for $1,000 each and recover their entire cost.

 

[FooFenix]

I have been thinking about this issue bringing down the fleet-wide average and disagree.
There are about 200,000 Model S on the road and fewer than 100,000 from 2012 to 2015. There are 100,000 TMC members. So, there are maybe 25% of early Model S owners on this forum. Of those less than 100 have posted anything on this thread.
So, call it 400-500 CURRENTLY affected cars in the US and another 200-300 in Europe. That is less than 1% of the cars affected and the range loss has been 10-15%. So, statistically that is in the noise for fleet-wide average numbers.

But, if it IS less than 1% of the cars then WHY doesn't Tesla just respect their warranty that something is wrong with OUR packs and replace them???
Their cost is between $120‐$150 per kWh to produce a pack. A new pack would cost $10k to $5k and they could Ebay probably 15 out of 16 modules from our defective packs for $1,000 each and recover their entire cost.

I thought about this as well, and agree. However the current approach may still make sense from Tesla's perspective:

1. Are our cars simply the 1st batches of a "fleet-worsening" / moving average program which would continue over the next months (especially if the resistance of the current victims is deemed "acceptable")

2. Cash and profit-tight, every warranty claim they can dodge is a desirable outcome. Especially if they have the intention to roll this out further.

What do others think? If this could be the case, it would make sense to explicitly "threaten" our local Service Centres with social media outbursts... which in general, even at this moment / on this issue, I would rather not ...

 

[Droschke]

Can anyone describe , in VERY simple words please, what the CAC Test does and how it does it?

Ferry, look at this post by @swegman on what it does, and the posts right after that on how it's done (by reading the diagnostics screen, the 17", the Tesla SC and the rooted cars have access to). I think that's what you are looking for.

 

[meomyo]

I have been thinking about this issue bringing down the fleet-wide average and disagree.
There are about 200,000 Model S on the road and fewer than 100,000 from 2012 to 2015. There are 100,000 TMC members. So, there are maybe 25% of early Model S owners on this forum. Of those less than 100 have posted anything on this thread.
So, call it 400-500 CURRENTLY affected cars in the US and another 200-300 in Europe. That is less than 1% of the cars affected and the range loss has been 10-15%. So, statistically that is in the noise for fleet-wide average numbers.

But, if it IS less than 1% of the cars then WHY doesn't Tesla just respect their warranty that something is wrong with OUR packs and replace them???
Their cost is between $120‐$150 per kWh to produce a pack. A new pack would cost $10k to $5k and they could Ebay probably 15 out of 16 modules from our defective packs for $1,000 each and recover their entire cost.

They don't want to admit anything cause it would signal weakness and open them to down the road issues they must also admit to and fix.

 

[Droschke]

I have been thinking about this issue bringing down the fleet-wide average and disagree.
There are about 200,000 Model S on the road and fewer than 100,000 from 2012 to 2015. There are 100,000 TMC members. So, there are maybe 25% of early Model S owners on this forum. Of those less than 100 have posted anything on this thread.
So, call it 400-500 CURRENTLY affected cars in the US and another 200-300 in Europe. That is less than 1% of the cars affected and the range loss has been 10-15%. So, statistically that is in the noise for fleet-wide average numbers.

But, if it IS less than 1% of the cars then WHY doesn't Tesla just respect their warranty that something is wrong with OUR packs and replace them???
Their cost is between $120‐$150 per kWh to produce a pack. A new pack would cost $10k to $5k and they could Ebay probably 15 out of 16 modules from our defective packs for $1,000 each and recover their entire cost.

1) Bad publicity
2) The % of the impacted or soon to be impacted, is much higher
3) Mindset, the software remediation (cheaper) as the primary fix for most problems

 

[meomyo]

They have to know exactly which cars have issues or will have issues-ie batteries , with all their software logs and it's updating so yea...just signal out the individuals and be proactive and replace or fix those!

 

[BigNick]

Their cost is between $120‐$150 per kWh to produce a pack. A new pack would cost $10k to $5k and they could Ebay probably 15 out of 16 modules from our defective packs for $1,000 each and recover their entire cost.

Tesla can’t even manage to get my car registered at the DMV after 5 months, what makes you think they have enough staff to handle hundreds to a couple thousand used modules for sale on FleaBay? People would be waiting years to get them.
Just like their referral rewards.

(edit: reduced quote bulk)

 

[ran349]

You are correct. Last spring I got an update that “added” 15 miles to the car. I can’t remember if it was stated in the release notes, but it was publicized via Twitter. The recent removal of the “added” miles by an OTA update was not in any release notes. It certainly makes one ponder the state of their battery when Tesla doesn’t communicate what the updates are changing.

Do you think they did this change fleet wide? That is the only thing that would make sense and I think it would have created a lot of discussion for sure.

 

[raphy3]

Tesla has NEVER put any of this in the release notes. When asked they defer to the last line tgat says to the effect "and various minor bug fixes".

IF you can read the release notes at all! Mine is a blank screen and has been for 1+ years. Another reason I refuse all updates.