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
I said like. They can certainly design stationary packs to use car modules if they want to. Since they are battery constrained and would have good modules available from unusable car packs it would be very wasteful and uneconomical not to address reuse.
That is a solution I have also considered, ie upgrading to a 90 or 100 pack to escape from batterygate. But if course that wouldn’t make you immune from chargegate, where they limit the charge speed to around 50% of normal.
A significant portion of this thread revolves around trying to figure out how Tesla manages degradation and the various variables they change in the BMS. There are obviously differences of opinion on what constitutes a legit change to manage battery health. It is most certainly relevant to discuss changes in Tesla's other vehicles especially variables that affect the "rated" range. There was a debate earlier in thread on whether or not Tesla had changed the consumption variable. As far as your shady comment, I don't find it shady that Tesla changes how they calculate range during the lifespan of the vehicle as long as it isn't done specifically to hide some defect from consumers. That was the point of my comment.
Wk057's day job is selling them for that purpose. He would never tell you something he does for a living "isn't doable" - he said tesla won't do it. People do it every day.
I would probably follow that thread too, just to see how the new mainstream copes.Here is an idea:
Perhaps Model 3 owners should start a new thread dedicated which references "Model 3 owners paying for their range and then having it removed by software (yet)?"
It already happened, just not to him yet. When hurricane Dorian was coming in and Tesla did their "unlock the software-locked batteries for free PR" thing they always do, a number of Model 3 LR owners were "mistakenly" capped instead, so from that we know they already had a voltage cap update written and ready for immediate deployment. It was mistakenly deployed this time, next time it will be intentional. They wouldn't write downgrade firmware for a battery that isn't avaialble with a software cap if there wasn't any intent to use it.
I have a feeling it's easy to guess how that would go. The model 3 crowd is dominated by some loudmouths that tend to cry "FUD!" at everything Tesla has ever done wrong - and they're demographically younger and more prone to the same bunker mentality that afflicts Tesla so they tend to deny their chosen corporation can do any wrong and lack the years of experience it took for us all to come to grips with Tesla's devious nature. A lot of us probably fell victim to the same naivete years ago; I remember not believing warnings from Roadster owners when the S was the new hotness, it took repeated personal experiences to convince me, though fortunately fewer of us became the sort of evangelical disagreeables that this latest generation has spawned. They won't stop being disagreeables until time or tragedy teaches them some personal lessons they are unable to deny.
It is slower. I noticed the reduction in power before I read about the range. I believe this is one of the counts named in the class action.
I care if it could result in an economical way for Tesla to refurbish battery packs as replacements for capped/degraded packs, either under warranty so they might be more willing to do so, or post-warranty so that it could be an affordable way to extend the useful life of cars we otherwise love.
