Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[Ferrycraigs]

I’m not so sure about the speed, thou you may be referring to its top speed and not its 0-60 mph acceleration. My P85 definitely feels slower after the capping. I had a same year P85 loaner vehicle last week (which had an uncapped 90 kWh battery) and the loaner vehicle was definitely faster than my capped battery P85 car is now.

There are few benefits to being a Tesla owner these days it seems. My penury level Model S70, was, IIRC, the slowest Model S ever made. It was fast enough for me, my years of traffic light Grand Prix starts are long behind me. It’s so slow (5.5) that capping hasn’t noticeably affected either the acceleration or top speed.

But for others that paid more for P models, well I guess you might be a bit miffed (that’s Olde English for serio7sly f&+£Ed Off).

 

[jkennebeck]

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.

I find this absurd. Its your car. The diagnostics are IN and PART OF "YOUR" car! They can't claim they are using some secret proprietary system if you've been driving that system around for a few years. We need a ton of affected cars to get root and screenshot the values showing the cap.

 

[Droschke]

What could have been a confidence-building experience is instead leading to the FUD that delights the shorts, ICE manufacturers and oil companies.

... that delights the shorts, ICE manufacturers and oil companies.

• Shorts and buy-and hold types are definitely present
• At least one poster who posts frequently and constantly as a Tesla apologist, a super "disagreeable" type, by all accounts owns no Tesla car!
• The Model 3 detractors who are still in their honeymoon period and not being impacted by the voltage cut or any other schemes, yet to be pulled on them, are also no help here. It's only their unpleasant noise the new readers have to cope with. It's unfortunate that some of these types keep coming back with the same selfish clumsy arguments over and over again. None of their deceptions by their weak attempts to divert the attention to something else rather than the very fact that our battery capacities were cut unjustifiably and significantly overnight, with astonishing degree of arrogance, have gone anywhere

 

[Droschke]

I find this absurd. Its your car. The diagnostics are IN and PART OF "YOUR" car! They can't claim they are using some secret proprietary system if you've been driving that system around for a few years. We need a ton of affected cars to get root and screenshot the values showing the cap.

They have to cover their cover-up somehow ...

 

[Droschke]

• Shorts and buy-and hold types are definitely present
• At least one poster who posts frequently and constantly as a Tesla apologist, a super "disagreeable" type, by all accounts owns no Tesla car!
• The Model 3 detractors who are still in their honeymoon period and not being impacted by the voltage cut or any other schemes, yet to be pulled on them, are also no help here. It's only their unpleasant noise the new readers have to cope with. It's unfortunate that some of these types keep coming back with the same selfish clumsy arguments over and over again. None of their deceptions by their weak attempts to divert the attention to something else rather than the very fact that our battery capacities were cut unjustifiably and significantly overnight, with astonishing degree of arrogance, have gone anywhere

I had not even released the "Post" button yet, but I see one of them "Disagree" already! How can that be? Hilarious.

 

[dhanson865]

I believe wk057 said that wasn't doable. Specifically discussed that earlier in the thread.

@Guy V @Droschke @Chaserr

Lets revisit this since you disagree:

@raphy3 said "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"

There are two situations in this overall.

1. the 16th module is bad, leaving 15 good modules
2. Tesla currently uses packs with either 16 modules or 14 modules.

Without having to do crazy logistics and special BMS firmware they have two choices

A. grab a usable module from another pack and replace the 16th module to have 16 total. This is what WK057 said wasn't doable. He said something to the effect that the pack would be out of balance no matter how hard you tried to find a matching module and it'd be right back into the same limited situation very quickly.

B. take out one bad and one good module out and put 2 dummy modules in to convert the pack to a lower capacity. This could be done but turns a 85 pack into a 60 and wouldn't be quick or easy.

So if you look at a list like 85, 75, 70, 60 it won't just step down one place on that list. It'd drop multiple places on the list.

Neither of these are things WK057 does on a regular basis. What he does is swap entire working packs or tear down the pack and sell loose modules for use NOT with a tesla but somewhere else like a home system or a custom converson of a non Tesla.

 

[Keshk]

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.

btw - I don't see anything in this thread title that references "Model S owners paying for their range and then having it removed by software? Perhaps you should start a new thread dedicated to that.

VT_EE: It sounded clearly that you are either completely confused, or you have an axe to grind here. Degradation was NEVER the subject of this thread. May be you should go and find or start a thread about degradation. This thread is about the SUDDEN Range drop. Please stop.

 

[DJRas]

@Guy V @Droschke @Chaserr

Lets revisit this since you disagree:

@raphy3 said "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"

There are two situations in this overall.

1. the 16th module is bad, leaving 15 good modules
2. Tesla currently uses packs with either 16 modules or 14 modules.

Without having to do crazy logistics and special BMS firmware they have two choices
B. take out one bad and one good module out and put 2 dummy modules in to convert the pack to a lower capacity. This could be done but turns a 85 pack into a 60 and wouldn't be quick or easy.

So if you look at a list like 85, 75, 70, 60 it won't just step down one place on that list. It'd drop multiple places on the list.

Neither of these are things WK057 does on a regular basis. What he does is swap entire working packs or tear down the pack and sell loose modules for use NOT with a tesla but somewhere else like a home system or a custom converson of a non Tesla.

I agree with your A. You can't make a new 85 without some extreme efforts.
I disagree with your B.
If you take 2 modules from an 85kWh pack you would get a 350 volt 70kWh pack (normally degraded). There are several 70s that have also been capped... so these could be an easy swap.

 

[VT_EE]

VT_EE: It sounded clearly that you are either completely confused, or you have an axe to grind here. Degradation was NEVER the subject of this thread. May be you should go and find or start a thread about degradation. This thread is about the SUDDEN Range drop. Please stop.

Read all posts in this thread, and it's apparent not everyone agrees with what constitutes "degradation" It was already discussed by some that the "Sudden" drop was the result of a revised BMS responding to some unknown physical property (check out wk057's posts) of the battery and capping it. The end result is a 10-20% loss of range. At some point, most people agreed to disagree and moved on without the name calling and such. Others can't let it go and and attempt to run people out of this thread. I posted the rated range change in my vehicle because I thought it might provide insight with regard to the discussion on the consumption multiplier. Obviously there are some here that jump all over any post that doesn't fit in their narrative although it seems lately it has become a natural response to the poster rather than what is actually posted. If you seriously think any of my posts are here to derail this thread, feel free to report them the moderator. I don't feel any are off base or offensive, at least I hope not. To my knowledge, nothing I have posted has been moved to snippiness after at least two rounds of culling. Cheers.

 

[Chaserr]

@Guy V @Droschke @ChaserrNeither of these are things WK057 does on a regular basis.

It sounds like you're unaware of Wk057's solar business. Where do you think all those kWh storage came from? Tesla can do the same thing, they choose not to. The Tesla label doesn't make something impossible to accomplish, nor does your misunderstanding of the distracting off topic conversation you're having. It's probably why someone else suggested ebay - scrap parts sold without warranty means they can avoid the legal issues they are already facing from violating Magnussen-Moss and that's probably why they won't sell whole product refurbished.

In the end though, it doesn't matter what Tesla does with faulty warranty replacement hardware. We can hope they find a way to remain in business so they can honor their warranty, but whether they violate warranty law for the fun and enjoyment they feel at harming their customers or are too bankrupt to support their products the end result is the same for us. They aren't fixing their own damaged goods after we paid them to fix it, and instead they're stealing things we paid for to skip out on the fix.

Somewhere they have a mountain of dangerous faulty airbags. Not being able to safely dispose of them didn't stop Tesla from complying with the law, and it shouldn't stop them from complying with it again right now.

 

[AdamInFlag]

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

I'm confused...are we saying anything different here?

 

[Chaserr]

I'm confused...are we saying anything different here?

There's a handful of tesla apologists that keep insisting the EPA's rated range isn't a legal problem in misguided attempts to try and make excuses for Tesla's thefts. They're wrong - willful Monroney manipulation was used to convict VW during the dieselgate trials; it's a very serious crime. When Tesla lowered its 100% charge voltage, they reduced the actual kWh capacity that the EPA tested, creating a new untested configuration that made the EPA's rating a fraudulent submission on every affected car. This is the entire basis of the Dieselgate suits.

 

[Chaserr]

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.

I find this absurd. Its your car. The diagnostics are IN and PART OF "YOUR" car! They can't claim they are using some secret proprietary system if you've been driving that system around for a few years. We need a ton of affected cars to get root and screenshot the values showing the cap.

I had not even released the "Post" button yet, but I see one of them "Disagree" already! How can that be? Hilarious.

Can any hackers volunteer to help us get this data from our cars? Also, ignore the disagreeabots. They are programmed and have no free will to stop. Block them and they're gone forever.

 

[swegman]

Read all posts in this thread, and it's apparent not everyone agrees with what constitutes "degradation" It was already discussed by some that the "Sudden" drop was the result of a revised BMS responding to some unknown physical property (check out wk057's posts) of the battery and capping it. The end result is a 10-20% loss of range. At some point, most people agreed to disagree and moved on without the name calling and such. Others can't let it go and and attempt to run people out of this thread. I posted the rated range change in my vehicle because I thought it might provide insight with regard to the discussion on the consumption multiplier. Obviously there are some here that jump all over any post that doesn't fit in their narrative although it seems lately it has become a natural response to the poster rather than what is actually posted. If you seriously think any of my posts are here to derail this thread, feel free to report them the moderator. I don't feel any are off base or offensive, at least I hope not. To my knowledge, nothing I have posted has been moved to snippiness after at least two rounds of culling. Cheers.

I’m not accusing you or anyone else of snippiness. I do believe you do not understand the situation.

Degradation is the reduction in capacity of a battery. In particular, a new 85kWh battery has a capacity of 230 Ah. The numerous CAC tests performed by Tesla on my battery (last test being this month) indicates my battery has a capacity of 219 Ah. That is a degradation of 4.78% over a 6-1/2 year time period.

Capping is the intentional limiting of the SOC that the battery is subjected to. The day before my car was forcibly updated by Tesla (I did not initiate any installation of new firmware), the cells in my battery would charge to 4.2 volts. The day I went to my car and discovered that the vehicle had been forcibly updated, the battery cells would only charge to 4.09 volts or less, resulting in a lost range of approximately 30 miles, which is a range reduction of 14.72%.

The range indicator on the car has been changed so that a 100% indication corresponds to what originally was about 89%. If you use ScanMyTesla, you would see this. Perhaps this change by Tesla is why you appear not to understand the difference between degradation and capping. Tesla is attempting to attribute the lost range to a natural reduction in capacity of the battery when the truth is that the battery is not being permitted to charge to the level it once charged to.

So please, keep discussions of degradation in another thread and limit the discussion herein to the capping of the battery to a voltage of less than 4.2 volts per cell.

I hope this helps you to understand the difference between degradation and voltage capping.

 

[Droschke]

...


Couldn't resist to challenge yet another disinformation:

To my knowledge, nothing I have posted has been moved to snippiness

Here are some snippies for your knowledge, all tagged as Off Topic:
snippiness
snippiness
snippiness
snippiness

 

[dhanson865]

It sounds like you're unaware of Wk057's solar business. Where do you think all those kWh storage came from? Tesla can do the same thing, they choose not to. The Tesla label doesn't make something impossible to accomplish, nor does your misunderstanding of the distracting off topic conversation you're having.

you are moving the goalposts there quite nicely. The quote was "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"

That has nothing to do with solar business. It was very specifically about reusing those packs in Tesla vehicles.

 

[Droschke]

I'm confused...are we saying anything different here?

Yes. Your original post said this:

When projected range = rated range, the wh/mi shown = the EPA rated consumption of the car.

I showed you what the EPA rated consumption was (380 wh/mi) and that is NOT the same as "When projected range = rated range"

 

[meomyo]

I find this absurd. Its your car. The diagnostics are IN and PART OF "YOUR" car! They can't claim they are using some secret proprietary system if you've been driving that system around for a few years. We need a ton of affected cars to get root and screenshot the values showing the cap.

Is it really "your car" "your cell phone" "your home"??? I mean back to the car-they control everything via software-you just control where it goes and how fast.- Get used to feeling like you dont own it if they can mess with your battery /charging situation.

 

[dhanson865]

For all I know, the Solar business is not all he does, you know?

what does that have to do with my post?

WK057 could do a dozen different businesses but my post wasn't about WK057 it was about what raphy3 said which specifically is "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".

 

[jkennebeck]

Is it really "your car" "your cell phone" "your home"??? I mean back to the car-they control everything via software-you just control where it goes and how fast.- Get used to feeling like you dont own it if they can mess with your battery /charging situation.

You make a valid point, but taking features/range away after the agreed upon price was paid for those features and range without compensation in a sudden and dramatic and unexplained way is not fair to the consumer.

If you bought a phone that had 85GB of memory and 2 years in, the phone manufacturer, out of an abundance of caution and to prolong the life of the phone decided to take away 12GB of that memory, wouldn't you want to be compensated for that reduction? I certainly would.