Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[MP3Mike]

The SF fire owner is still an ongoing case. No resolution. No new car. They even accused the owner or their frieds of arson.

It could have been a random stranger that broke into the garage and set the car one fire.

I would hope that if Tesla is saying that they think arson might be at play that they would have some evidence to make them think that. It seems sort of strange that the person backed down from going to the press like they said they would, which could make you think they have something to hide.

 

[DJRas]

It could have been a random stranger that broke into the garage and set the car one fire.

I would hope that if Tesla is saying that they think arson might be at play that they would have some evidence to make them think that. It seems sort of strange that the person backed down from going to the press like they said they would, which could make you think they have something to hide.

Really????
Victim blaming??????
What a crock of *sugar*!
She has nothing to hide.
She just doesn't want any publicity.
There is no evidence of arson.
Tesla is sharing no evidence at all.
I doubt that you could ignite a battety if you tried. They are liquid cooled.

 

[MP3Mike]

Really????
Victim blaming??????
What a crock of *sugar*!

Nowhere am I blaming the victim. I said that if Tesla was going to blame arson they might as well blame some random person breaking in and torching her car.

As far as her saying that she was going to go to the press that could have just been bluffing to try to get Tesla to give her what she wanted.

She has nothing to hide.

While quite likely we don't know that. (And neither do you since you don't even know who she is.)

There is no evidence of arson.

You don't know that either, while it is highly unlikely it is possible.

I doubt that you could ignite a battety if you tried. They are liquid cooled.

Well if that was the case then the battery shouldn't be able to catch fire from cell(s) overheating internally either. Apparently a single bullet to the pack can cause it to catch fire. (As we found out from a lawsuit where someone shot the pack from inside the car and tried to force Tesla to pay to replace it.)

 

[David99]

And I agree it’s not very good at highlighting degradation. Using Rated Range will work, as long as Tesla doesn’t change the Rated Range algorithm, again!

AFAIK the rated range consumption has never changed.

 

[Blu Zap]

AFAIK the rated range consumption has never changed.

It is an EPA rating. Set in stone. Based on your car it is a set calculation on wh/mi.

But this whole discussion about % vs. rated miles is misleading. Guys, when discussing battery capacity, especially when our comments will be scrutinized, use kWh. Charge to 100%, I know it takes a long time. Drive a far distance. The vehicle will tell you how many kWh you consumed and what your % remaining is. Use that to determine kWh capacity. This is how I determined my battery went from 73kWh to 62kWh that fateful evening last May when 2019.16.1 was downloaded. You can't dispute kWh. % and rated miles are effected by many other factors that don't give the full picture.

 

[FooFenix]

It is an EPA rating. Set in stone. Based on your car it is a set calculation on wh/mi.

But this whole discussion about % vs. rated miles is misleading. Guys, when discussing battery capacity, especially when our comments will be scrutinized, use kWh. Charge to 100%, I know it takes a long time. Drive a far distance. The vehicle will tell you how many kWh you consumed and what your % remaining is. Use that to determine kWh capacity. This is how I determined my battery went from 73kWh to 62kWh that fateful evening last May when 2019.16.1 was downloaded. You can't dispute kWh. % and rated miles are effected by many other factors that don't give the full picture.

Good point @Blu Zap . Do you mean by this that you got the problem solved (battery uncapped, refurbished or replaced) by showing this - which indeed seems darn close to "proof" to me - at a Tesla SeC?

 

[ran349]

AFAIK the rated range consumption has never changed.

I agree. At least with respect to any of the model S cars, including the ones that have been affected by voltage capping. We have seen no evidence to indicate otherwise.

 

[FooFenix]

Reflecting a bit on all this, I'm led to the impression that the chief objective of both forced limitations (usable capacity and charge rate) is likely to be, simply, preventing that these batteries reach higher SoC's (say >=90% in actual terms).

Why? Well probably Tesla was triggered by safety (and hence liability) concerns, meaning somehow concluded or fears that these batteries, when holding high SoCs, are (more) likely to trigger uncontrolled heat development.

Of course admitting unambiguously to this is not an option they like, but they're also trying to avoid replacing batteries so they can't simply call it "substantial" / advanced degradation.

Pretty sure I'm not the first to think or post this, but don't remember reading it, so am wondering what others think?

 

[DJRas]

Nowhere am I blaming the victim. I said that if Tesla was going to blame arson they might as well blame some random person breaking in and torching her car.

As far as her saying that she was going to go to the press that could have just been bluffing to try to get Tesla to give her what she wanted.



While quite likely we don't know that. (And neither do you since you don't even know who she is.)



You don't know that either, while it is highly unlikely it is possible.



Well if that was the case then the battery shouldn't be able to catch fire from cell(s) overheating internally either. Apparently a single bullet to the pack can cause it to catch fire. (As we found out from a lawsuit where someone shot the pack from inside the car and tried to force Tesla to pay to replace it.)

I did not say I don't know who she is.
But she does not want her name made public.
I do know there was no evidence of arson as the SFFD has no arson report for the incident.

Yes, a bullet through the pack can cause the battery to ignite. But that is not an arsonists tool. And there is no evidence of that either. Tesla made that one case very public.

 

[DJRas]

Reflecting a bit on all this, I'm led to the impression that the chief objective of both forced limitations (usable capacity and charge rate) is likely to be, simply, preventing that these batteries reach higher SoC's (say >=90% in actual terms).

Why? Well probably Tesla was triggered by safety (and hence liability) concerns, meaning somehow concluded or fears that these batteries, when holding high SoCs, are (more) likely to trigger uncontrolled heat development.

Of course admitting unambiguously to this is not an option they like, but they're also trying to avoid replacing batteries so they can't simply call it "substantial" / advanced degradation.

Pretty sure I'm not the first to think or post this, but don't remember reading it, so am wondering what others think?

I agree that they did this "out of an abundance of caution" and IS safety related.
The fact that they took this measure without informing NHTSA is a violation. They had 5 days to report that. Which expired May 20.
Since they did not report it as a safety issue they must now dance around the subject and just call it degradation.

 

[davidc18]

Tesla service finally reached out to my request for contact to discuss my battery will keep everyone posted on how it turns out.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

I agree. At least with respect to any of the model S cars, including the ones that have been affected by voltage capping. We have seen no evidence to indicate otherwise.

You may be correct. But I’m not so convinced that changes to the 'magic multiplier' have not been raised on here.

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.

The "magic" multiplier has been discussed in this thread numerous times, that being the Tesla modifying the 295 wh/mi constant (multiplier) for 85kWh cars, for example, to a lower value to manipulate the RM shown on screen to make the degradation look good. We have gone through this multiple times. I thought you knew that!

 

[Chaserr]

The SF fire owner is still an ongoing case. No resolution. No new car. They even accused the owner or their frieds of arson.

I'm sure you've made her aware of your class action suit, but in case she is not yet involved I'd like to say this to her: I understand why you are advised not to speak publicly, and we stand with you. I am convinced your fire is related to the topic of this thread and Tesla probably is too. I'm sorry you've been harmed by Tesla's coverup and I hope we can help you bring you justice.

Really????
Victim blaming??????
What a crock of *sugar*!
She has nothing to hide.
She just doesn't want any publicity.
There is no evidence of arson.
Tesla is sharing no evidence at all.
I doubt that you could ignite a battety if you tried. They are liquid cooled.

I agree that they did this "out of an abundance of caution" and IS safety related.
The fact that they took this measure without informing NHTSA is a violation. They had 5 days to report that. Which expired May 20.
Since they did not report it as a safety issue they must now dance around the subject and just call it degradation.

It sounds like they're actively involved in conspiracy to deepen the criminal coverup if they're attacking victims now. I can't imagine how poorly this is going to go for them in Discovery. Do your best to get your lawyer to make them produce everything they can get regarding internal communications regarding these fires - whatever executive made the decision to take it this far will eventually be forced to listen to TEsla's legal team when they explain how dangerous this is getting for them and us.

AFAIK the rated range consumption has never changed.

If they change it for the worse they're guilty of the same crimes VW was convicted of for the Dieselgate scandal.

 

[MikeyC]

As far as arson, if I planned to car-b-cue my Tesla, I wouldn't drive it to a friends house and park it in their garage. I'd park it outside since that's what most people would do when parking at a friend's house anyway so there's a reason for it to be outside. Saying it could have been arson is almost as silly as saying Tesla could have a "fire switch" that lets them remotely start fires when they feel like it.

Mike

 

[Droschke]

The fact that Tesla has never been transparent with us on the voltage capping fiasco to this date speaks volumes about something else at play they do not want us, the owners of these cars, to know.

 

[Guy V]

As far as arson, if I planned to car-b-cue my Tesla, I wouldn't drive it to a friends house and park it in their garage. I'd park it outside since that's what most people would do when parking at a friend's house anyway so there's a reason for it to be outside. Saying it could have been arson is almost as silly as saying Tesla could have a "fire switch" that lets them remotely start fires when they feel like it.

Mike

Oh wow, interesting point. Tesla certainly could have the equivalent of a "fire switch". That leads into strange territory. Tesla is known to have had disgruntled employees and has publicly accused at least one of sabotage...

 

[lightningltd]

Oh wow, interesting point. Tesla certainly could have the equivalent of a "fire switch". That leads into strange territory. Tesla is known to have had disgruntled employees and has publicly accused at least one of sabotage...

That plain out scares me. I would HOPE they have some kind of fail safe preventing someone from setting the BMS to allow overcharging or changing the charge rate limits to a super high level like 150kw for the whole charge session. There MUST be some kind of peer review of such things (we hope).

 

[lightningltd]

Maybe we will get lucky with v10 and it will be like when v9 first came out: They enabled chill mode then took it back on the next update.
I know if they accidentally give back KW and charge speed, I am unplugging my wifi and seat

 

[islandbayy]

Maybe we will get lucky with v10 and it will be like when v9 first came out: They enabled chill mode then took it back on the next update.
I know if they accidentally give back KW and charge speed, I am unplugging my wifi and seat

V10 does have the Feeling Lucky button!

 

[Zextraterrestrial]

V10 does have the Feeling Lucky button!

will it upgrade us back to v 6, 7 or 8?
that would be sweet