Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[raphy3]

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.

Weird. It's almost like the fleet average range is manipulated when things like this happen.

 

[raphy3]

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.

There is a caveat, though, which is that anecdotally they are taking capped cars and rebadging them. Its hard to know what the capped car percentage truly is. Also, and probably more likely, Tesla never defines what they mean when they refer to averages from similar cars. More than likely the "fleet average" is actually multiple fleets and multiple numbers. They aren't going to compare an 85 from 2013 to a 2017 car, for example. They probably don't even compare 85s to 90s. In fact, capped owners may be in their own special little "fleet", which would explain why tesla is telling capped people their batteries are right in line with their peers.

 

[VT_EE]

Weird. It's almost like the fleet average range is manipulated when things like this happen.

They manipulate just about everything, which typically leads to improvements. In my range reduction case, I’m of the opinion it’s either a software bug or an attempt to make rated range more realistic. I could be wrong, but there is no evidence either way.

 

[Kenz]

Your mileage may vary.

 

[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 have anything you can share that shows this change in the multiplier? Not just rated miles but maybe an energy graph before and after the change that makes it clear that the multiplier has been changed.

 

[DJRas]

There is a caveat, though, which is that anecdotally they are taking capped cars and rebadging them. Its hard to know what the capped car percentage truly is. Also, and probably more likely, Tesla never defines what they mean when they refer to averages from similar cars. More than likely the "fleet average" is actually multiple fleets and multiple numbers. They aren't going to compare an 85 from 2013 to a 2017 car, for example. They probably don't even compare 85s to 90s. In fact, capped owners may be in their own special little "fleet", which would explain why tesla is telling capped people their batteries are right in line with their peers.

They group them by battery version according to the service technician. He grouped mune into "type 14" which appears to be the last 2 digits of the model number.

 

[VT_EE]

Do you have anything you can share that shows this change in the multiplier? Not just rated miles but maybe an energy graph before and after the change that makes it clear that the multiplier has been changed.

I do not. I didn’t feel the need to photograph the energy screen while driving. It’s difficult enough to get the rated and current lines to align so I can tell what the actual rated value is.

 

[Guy V]

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.

According to Tesla they are only messing with the minds of a small percentage of us. LOL

 

[Guy V]

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)

They don't need to sell the well-performing modules on eBay. They certainly can find value internally, putting a pack refurbishment program in place would be my favorite, but they ought to be able to use them for Powerwalls, if not to sell, at least for their Superchargers or their own factory solar/power use. Roll-out of their internal solar installations are way, way, way behind the promise.

 

[DJRas]

They don't need to sell the well-performing modules on eBay. They certainly can find value internally, putting a pack refurbishment program in place would be my favorite, but they ought to be able to use them for Powerwalls, if not to sell, at least for their Superchargers or their own factory solar/power use. Roll-out of their internal solar installations are way, way, way behind the promise.

I too would prefer that.
But, Jason advised that there would be problems integrating these into usable packs due to the wide variety of cell imbalance.
And selling them at a profit on Ebay removes them from any further liability on them.

 

[ran349]

I do not. I didn’t feel the need to photograph the energy screen while driving. It’s difficult enough to get the rated and current lines to align so I can tell what the actual rated value is.

You wouldn't need to photograph anything while driving. A snapshot of your energy graph, even if the lines don't match up, along with the current reading of your rated miles would allow you to calculate your multiplier. This would be a rough approximation since everything is given in whole numbers.

 

[meomyo]

They manipulate just about everything, which typically leads to improvements. In my range reduction case, I’m of the opinion it’s either a software bug or an attempt to make rated range more realistic. I could be wrong, but there is no evidence either way.

But charging people anwhere from 2k to 9k for the extra miles and then taking it away OTA is just shady. Refund those that are affected.

 

[cpa]

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.

I appreciate your sanguine outlook.

Forty years in the accounting dodge has convinced me that in my microscopic corner of the world, mistakes are made. Some people own up to their mistakes and remedy them. Some people make excuses, rationalize, and evade their responsibilities until cornered and then they come clean. Then there is the group that deny that any mistakes were made, and then they cover them up. It goes without saying that all too often the cover up (think Watergate) is worse than the crime.

I think we can all agree that somewhere along the line, Tesla made a mistake. Maybe the science was poor. Maybe the manufacturing process was defective at times. We can also agree that Tesla has not made an overt confession and taken affirmative action to remedy the software restrictions that were foisted upon us.

We are divided as to exactly where upon this continuum Tesla is. Are they in the excuses stage, hoping to buy time and find a cheaper, long-term solution and our concerns mostly evaporate with new software version ABC.123.675? Are they slowly building up replacement battery inventory to address these issues and send each of the affected parties a new or refurbished battery with better BMS under warranty?

Or are they past the excuses stage and trying to cover up their manufacturing or design defects because they realize that any remedy would be prohibitively expensive and detract from manufacturing new cars for a lengthy period of time?

We have seen that a few owners who brought the reduced range and capped voltage issues to the attention of service, the responses were not identical. We have seen where the service manager would not give the customer a print out of the diagnostic information, or permit a picture to be taken of the display. I find this highly irregular and unsettling. Only the guilty flee when no man pursueth.

I am not yet to the point of dusting off the "F" word with this entire chain of events. But it is becoming more and more likely that this is where it will wind up.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

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.

I had read them. They are actually the trigger for the question. Helpful as the posts are they don’t really describe what it is the Test does, or how it is achieved. I understand it calculates the Ah Capacity, and so (I assume) puts a figure on the battery’s health or ability to hold a charge, and that gaining access to the diagnostics screen (access I don’t have) may give the figures, but I’m really looking for a better understanding of the mechanics of how it works - in a similar way that explaining that capping is achieved by changing the Voltage setting of Vmax.

 

[Chaserr]

I appreciate your sanguine outlook.

I like your word choice.
“Sanguine”. Hopeful. Plus, point of interest? it also means “bloody”. That pretty much covers all the options, don’t it?

 

[VT_EE]

But charging people anwhere from 2k to 9k for the extra miles and then taking it away OTA is just shady. Refund those that are affected.

I don’t consider it shady in my case since it really has no effect on real world range. The capped battery scenario is different.

 

[Guy V]

I too would prefer that.
But, Jason advised that there would be problems integrating these into usable packs due to the wide variety of cell imbalance.
And selling them at a profit on Ebay removes them from any further liability on them.

He said they would have to have thousands to be able to match and balance them adequately. I don't see that as not being doable for them. They can build whatever test equipment necessary to evaluate them. They can use the best combinations for car packs and the more out-of-norm for smaller assemblies like Powerwalls. Apparently they only need to be compatible matches for the BMS to manage them as a unit or it would be inconceivable to ever manage megawatt Powerpack installations over time.

 

[raphy3]

I don’t consider it shady in my case since it really has no effect on real world range. The capped battery scenario is different.

Are you in here to purposely obfuscate the point of the thread? You said you drive a model 3 and that extra range that was added in at some point for free was taken away by software and then readded later. Therefore you don't find the subject of the comment you quoted shady. How does your experience have anything to do with the comment you quoted about model S owners paying for their range and then having it removed by software?

 

[MP3Mike]

They can use the best combinations for car packs and the more out-of-norm for smaller assemblies like Powerwalls.

Powerwalls/packs use a different module design as well as different chemistry. So they wouldn't be used for that.

 

[raphy3]

He said they would have to have thousands to be able to match and balance them adequately. I don't see that as not being doable for them. They can build whatever test equipment necessary to evaluate them. They can use the best combinations for car packs and the more out-of-norm for smaller assemblies like Powerwalls. Apparently they only need to be compatible matches for the BMS to manage them as a unit or it would be inconceivable to ever manage megawatt Powerpack installations over time.

The quickest thing to do would be to yank the bad modules and remanufacture the battery with the rest of the good modules as one level lower battery, and use it for warranty repairs of vehicles with smaller batteries. So, 75, 70, 60... and even 40