Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[David99]

Unless they are flat-out lying and and doing a monstrous suicidal cover-up, the cost to replace the number of affected batteries that they claim would in no way endanger the company financially. Elon could pay it out of his own pocket as he did the "financing secured" fine which would be the same order of magnitude.

Perspective, they are spending billions per year in capital investment for future production, which this incident could actually jeopardize.

Just curious, how do you know how many batteries are affected now and in the years to come suffering from the same condition?

 

[jensk2]

I didn't say that, I was just making an observation.

It seems like if the cause of the capping was a safety issue they wouldn't put a capped battery back in as a replacement.

Or there is the option that the restriction on your current pack is a false one that needs cleared. (I think someone else mentioned that a fault flag was set on a replacement pack he got and that Tesla had to clear the flag to get his battery back to normal.)

Interesting comment!

My 2 Cents:

If Tesla replaced the 'ruined' battery with another with same capacity and then new Software then capped it, that would be 'semi understandable', if all batteries are capped by the new software. As Tesla claims only a few owners are affected, they need to document that your old battery WOULD BE capped or your new battery is not an okay replacement!

 

[Guy V]

Just curious, how do you know how many batteries are affected now and in the years to come suffering from the same condition?

My comment started with "unless they are flat-out lying"

Tesla told us it was a small percentage.

Don't you believe them?

 

[Chaserr]

Interesting comment!

My 2 Cents:

If Tesla replaced the 'ruined' battery with another with same capacity and then new Software then capped it, that would be 'semi understandable', if all batteries are capped by the new software. As Tesla claims only a few owners are affected, they need to document that your old battery WOULD BE capped or your new battery is not an okay replacement!

The Magnussen Moss Warranty Act won't allow them to replace anything with less than original specifications. They can upgrade over original (and have in the past) but can't downgrade.

 

[David99]

David thanks for taking the time to explain. Alas I may be one of the, I think, many exceptions that break the rule. I was voltage capped but not charge rate capped. But all that does is query the order of events. Whilst your comment suggests Capping was a final resort, I think capping came first in download terms (2019,16,1,1) and charge rate strangling came second (2019.20.4.2). Is the order important? Don't think so.

As for more aggressive cooling, I am onside. I have certainly experienced much more fan cooling than before, including when not even plugged in, and this is reflected in much higher, but variable (1-5%), Vampire drain. The Loss appears to be higher on warmer nights. I also know a number of pre facelift owners that have not been Capacity capped, (although that could mean they just haven’t noticed it) so I am less persuaded that it it is all pre facelift cars (that have been voltage capped. I am sure the % of charge rate cars is much much higher)

Whilst I find the theory of high voltage persuasive, I only charged to 100% very rarely, ie once per year. I normally operated between 20-80%, sometimes 85%, ironically exactly the position Tesla now puts me in after battery capping. So their fix is to put me in the same position that my car is normally in. The logic, or lack of logic of that position indicates, to me, that high voltage may not be the original trigger.

My theory? As you say, pure speculation. I am attracted to a batch of pre silicon cells that only just made the quality control line. Only the 60, 70 and 85 packs had these cells. The 90s only ever had Silicon Cells; perhaps why they have never been Capacity capped. Tesla, whilst hunting for Dendrite conditions found out that a bunch of these, not sub standard but perhaps poor standard, cells were wearing out faster than expected, and their deterioration rate indicated they might not last until the 8 year warranty had expired. But could last that long if their working conditions were less stressful via max voltage capping. I am conscious that could easily be described as degradation. I prefer 'defect' as it sits more properly in hardware problems. As these cells were still, technically, within specification, Tesla can say with some confidence that our batteries are healthy, by which they mean within spec.

I have often wondered if the battery capping and charge rate capping are actually two separate, but linked, conditions. Particularly as Rate Capping does seem to suggest voltage or temperature issues.

My charge rate was reduced over the years long before this recent software capping voltage. I saw another reduction in charge rate just around the same time. I cannot say when the additional cooling at high SoC and extra slow charging to 100 % came as I only charge beyond 80 or 90 at home at night where I don't keep track of time.

I don't think the exact timing of when which measures were implemented is that important. Tesla might well be experimenting with different options and release them to different cars at different times. Some cars might be affected less so they don't show the behavior as much.

For example the additional cooling when at high SoC only happens when the battery temperature is above a certain level, it's not happening all the time. Most people don't have access to CAN bus data.

You said it yourself, 'some cells have been wearing out faster'. That's what might just be happening all along. The line between 'degradation' and 'defect' is not clear. Ultimately the court will make that decision (if it comes to that).

Regardless, I strongly believe Tesla should not stonewall and go to trial on this. The battery is the most fundamental part of their cars and the critical thing for EVs in general. IMHO they should replace these batteries (those that were range capped) right away and make this problem go away. If the issue affects all old batteries (with the original cells), that's a bigger problem of course. I don't think Tesla has the means to replace that many batteries. In that case a significant discount or buyback payment for loss of performance and resale value would be an option.

 

[swegman]

It does not appear Tesla intends to do replace the capped batteries at this time. They have retained a large law firm to handle the lawsuit. I will leave it to David R. (lead plaintiff) and his attorney to expound on that, if they wish.

 

[Keshk]

Living in a Parallel Universe

Have been following and taking active part in this thread for a long while, I am coming to the conclusion that we are living here in a parallel universe. I have been affected drastically with the malicious actions of Tesla. Criminal, immoral, or unethical for them to mock with my car without my knowledge or my consent. I can not use the car now for the purpose I bought it for. I CAN NOT MAKE any long trips that I needed the car for.

On the other hand, I don't see Tesla as a company has been affected by that at all. All the stories in the public domain seems to be positive about Tesla and its business. Why is that? I know about the class action suit and the NTHSA requested investigation. Things can take time. Nevertheless, a story of such impact should jump to the headlines business news, but it didn't.

I believe the only way for us, as impacted customer,s is find ways to move the story to the public domain. I know personally that there many many customers are not aware they have been impacted. May be we should hire a PR company, an/or find interested business media to advance our cause. The only way a company like Tesla will respond to is a huge negative publicity that affect their bottom line.

 

[faughtz]

More than 4 people have posted their h aving filed complaints here already, some with full text of what was sent. If the NHTSA is having a difficult time sorting them all I recommend everyone that has filed a complaint do so again.

The link is here: File a Vehicle Safety Complaint | Safercar.gov | NHTSA

Include this at the top:
RE: NHTSA Action Number: DP19005 - INVESTIGATION Subject : Battery Management Software Updates

That is their internal number and their internal title. Remember this is a safety complaint not a legal one. Mention that they took action to downgrade horsepower and range along with all other aspects of performance through a total voltage cap after claiming to be releasing a fire-safety update, but officially no safety update was released ever. All we want is answers - recalls have procedures that aren't being followed.

I suggest writing in your own words, the gist being something like what @jkennebeck said:

Starting with a software update in May 2019, Tesla capped the max voltage the high voltage battery would charge to. They claim they did this "out of an abundance of caution" after several non-crash fires happened to these models. Tesla took action to downgrade horsepower and range along with all other aspects of performance through a total voltage cap after claiming to be releasing a fire-safety update, but officially no safety update was released. This change happened while the car was parked in my garage and stationary.

My own complaint asked them to investigate as I would like to have a definitive answer of whether it is safe for my family to have a battery in the garage that may catch fire for any reason at any moment, and Tesla refuses to clarify why they have crippled my battery and removed $30,000. My request if for answers - recompense can come later if justified, but safety is most important and Tesla will not directly answer any questions regarding safety. Nobody will willingly update and risk losing so much value to they car on purpose, so we need to knowz:
(1) This update is a critical safety issue and worth more than money,
(2) The update is effective at reducing the fires that necessitated the updates and our homes/families will not burn if we resume parking in the garage,
(3) The downgrades are temporary measure taken while more permanent repairs are planned,
(4) people that have chosen not to upgrade, people that are blacklisted from official Tesla updates, and people that are unable to receive wireless data are notified that there is a critical safety update needed and they should schedule an appointment with Tesla to have it installed in accordance with NHTSA recall procedures.

Since Tesla has refused to answer any of the above questions and only made vague statements implying a safety risk - to the press, not to us - we seek definitive answers from an NHTSA investigation.
______________________________________________________________

Mods or @Dutchmeeuw could you add this to Post #1? There's a lot of helpful updates that could ge there to make this an easier to follow thread. We've learned a lot in the months since the reductions were first discovered, the first post is still just a simple "has anyone else lost a ton from this last update, tesla says it's normal" blurb.

Here's a list of people that filed and shared:
I did, presumably DJRas did, @lightningltd , @jkennebeck , @Ferrycraigs , I quit here but I do remember a few more people posting their text. It's helpful to see what others are saying to make our submissions more direct, I'll link them when I have time.

I filed this morning.

 

[Guy V]

It does not appear Tesla intends to do replace the capped batteries at this time. They have retained a large law firm to handle the lawsuit. I will leave it to David R. (lead plaintiff) and his attorney to expound on that, if they wish.

Here's hoping the get some good practical advice from their expensive lawyers.

 

[Droschke]

Just curious, how do you know how many batteries are affected now and in the years to come suffering from the same condition?

Dave -

You don't think Tesla should not be believed?

They have all the data and have publicly stated it's just a "small percentage"

On Edit: I see Guy V has already said the same ...

 

[SmartElectric]

I am pretty sure that my May 2013 P85 must have an A pack and what is is happening now is in no way anything like my experience pre-cap.

May was a cut over to the B pack. My car was produced and delivered before May 2013. You can easily confirm by taking a picture under the car, just rear of the passenger side wheel well where the battery pack specification label is visible.

 

[SmartElectric]

It isn't a 90kWh maximum that would be a major problem, it's the very quick fall-off and extremely low rates as the battery fills that can make it take twice as long or more, approaching infinity as it never reaches 100%.

I never stated 90 kW maximum was a major problem. Straw man.

30 days ago I outlined in this very thread, factual charging data from a monitoring device (not made by Tesla) that has been installed in my car for many years now.

It records all charging and driving events. The charging curve that I am seeing in the data is similar to the curves posted by affected "capped" owners in this thread. Namely, one hour to charge from 90-100%, dropping charge rates rapidly, etc.

My car has an "A" pack battery manufactured early 2013.
The maximum charge rate is 90 kW on my car from factory.
The car has similar charging curve to those posted by "capped" owners in this thread, and that curve has not substantially changed in the past 3+ years I have had the monitoring device installed.
While I am not "capped" or otherwise affected by recent firmware, the charging rates for my car closely align with those of capped owners.

My point : Tesla has managed battery packs like my old "A" pack differently from other packs, and recently a firmware change appears to have changed things so newer packs are managed similarly to the rates I have historically seen. This is an interesting data point. Take this for what ever you need to understand why I post this information. It is relevant.

 

[glide]

I would be willing to take a hit if the company tried to work with us customers. Maybe paying some for a replacement "update" battery, a special discount on the next purchase, free insurance coverage, whatever, in exchange for NOT forcing them to do an expensive battery replacement. However, if they're just going to unilaterally downgrade with no meaningful explanation, then I'm going to feel vindictive and not care all that much if they go out of business. Yep, it's emotional, but I doubt I'm alone in that feeling.

I've told Tesla all I want is to get a replacement battery or purchase a new vehicle from them. I'm even willing to pay them more money to do so. Unfortunately their trade-in offer was, let's just say, not remotely satisfactory.

They could get the affected vehicle off the road and rack up another sale for the quarter. Instead they are digging in their heels and saying nothing is wrong which isn't inspiring confidence in them as a brand. If I wind up having to sort this out on my own, I can guarantee I will not be spending any money with them in the future.

A year-one business school student could figure this one out but unfortunately Tesla's direct online sales-only policy is kneecapping them (and me).

 

[Droschke]

This:

A year-one business school student could figure this one out but unfortunately Tesla's direct online sales-only policy is kneecapping them (and me).

 

[swegman]

May was a cut over to the B pack. My car was produced and delivered before May 2013. You can easily confirm by taking a picture under the car, just rear of the passenger side wheel well where the battery pack specification label is visible.

My car was built March 2013 and has a “B” battery pack.

 

[Droschke]

After installing 2019.32.12.1 641e9fa I charged to 90% and the previous range loss is somewhat restored. View attachment 464604

Does this fall within normal? 2019 MS Long Range manufactured 3/2019

I don't think your minimal range drop (fluctuation) for your new 2109 Model S is relevant to the topic of this thread. The topic here applies to the older model years than yours and the drop has been up to 30 miles or so.

 

[kkillebrew]

I don't think your minimal range drop (fluctuation) for your new 2109 Model S is relevant to the topic of this thread. The topic here applies to the older model years than yours and the drop has been up to 30 miles or so.

You are correct sorry. Thought I was posting in the V10 range loss thread. Too many windows open...

 

[jensk2]

Have you definitively seen on-route battery warm-up working, through either CAN bus data or faster supercharging? I've never seen any indication of it working on my 2014. I've set a supercharger as an explicit destination or let the nav put it in as a stopover on a longer trip. My supercharging speeds never improved as a result, and I've never seen any indication on the CAN bus that it's actively heating (or not cooling) the battery. No activation of the heater, no reduction in cooling, no increase in battery temp. Nothing.


After telling her about all this, my wife has no interest in a Tesla. I'm probably going to suggest the electric V40 when it comes out.

Ditto here - we own a 2015 Model S and will buy warranty insurance for an extra 2 years (car approaches 4 year in december) then await that other car manufactiurers catch up with Tesla, to switch to another car producer sround 2021
:-(

 

[jensk2]

If you have been driving for a while before the battery is most likely warm enough anyways. So on road trips you would never see an advantage. It would only make a noticeable difference if you have the battery cold soaked and then drive directly to a Supercharger. That's a rare case. I think the feature is more a marketing thing.

I don't think this is true!

The optimal battery use temperature is likely around 25C, whereas the optimal superchargign temperature at low SoC (20-60%) is likely up to or above 40C.

Or:

Tell the car what you aim, or don't blaime Tesla

 

[Chaserr]

Living in a Parallel Universe

Have been following and taking active part in this thread for a long while, I am coming to the conclusion that we are living here in a parallel universe. I have been affected drastically with the malicious actions of Tesla. Criminal, immoral, or unethical for them to mock with my car without my knowledge or my consent. I can not use the car now for the purpose I bought it for. I CAN NOT MAKE any long trips that I needed the car for.

On the other hand, I don't see Tesla as a company has been affected by that at all. All the stories in the public domain seems to be positive about Tesla and its business. Why is that? I know about the class action suit and the NTHSA requested investigation. Things can take time. Nevertheless, a story of such impact should jump to the headlines business news, but it didn't.

I believe the only way for us, as impacted customer,s is find ways to move the story to the public domain. I know personally that there many many customers are not aware they have been impacted. May be we should hire a PR company, an/or find interested business media to advance our cause. The only way a company like Tesla will respond to is a huge negative publicity that affect their bottom line.

My money is in a PR press if you set it up. I've suggested paying the Funemployment time for any Tesla employee willing to step forward and blow the whistle on these crimes with damning personal internal info as well.

>

My car has an "A" pack battery manufactured early 2013.
The maximum charge rate is 90 kW on my car from factory.
The car has similar charging curve to those posted by "capped" owners in this thread, and that curve has not substantially changed in the past 3+ years I have had the monitoring device installed.
While I am not "capped" or otherwise affected by recent firmware, the charging rates for my car closely align with those of capped owners.

My point : Tesla has managed battery packs like my old "A" pack differently from other packs, and recently a firmware change appears to have changed things so newer packs are managed similarly to the rates I have historically seen. This is an interesting data point. Take this for what ever you need to understand why I post this information. It is relevant.

Your battery has been damaged for years and needs warranty repair. A packs never charged like the cap until after the cap. You charged at between 90kW and 70kW at 50% before the cap, and afterward the cap dropped that by almost half. If your cooling system was crippled before all this, don't insist undamaged cars are "normal" because their crippling softwarwe makes them behave similarly to your damaged vehicle! Don't settle, demand repair! You have the data logged proof and they'll quickly determine a coolant pump isn't working in your battery (Why a failed cooling pump in the battery doesn't flag errors I will never understand - but that's Tesla's BMS quality for you).

>

You are correct sorry. Thought I was posting in the V10 range loss thread. Too many windows open...

V10 may be using a similar volt cap to reduce your range less, if there is a large number of people noticing it. Get a data logger and charge to 100%, see how close you come to 4.2v

There is an ongoing discussion about why Tesla i s choosing to make this an international lawsuit media extravaganza of negative publicity. It might be because every battery they ever made could all eventually be impacted, and those of us in this thread that were hit first only noticed because our cars are old enough. Cars are new as 2017 and possibly 2018 have already measured reductions in voltage, so we know the scope is larger than we originally thought and it must be larger than the "small number" Tesla has claimed, otherwise they would choose to replace these damaged batteries and wouldn't need to hire an external "big guns" law firm when they have their own internally employed legal team that always handles cases like this. Replacing the old batteries now would set a precedent that replacing all batteries will happen, and I don't think they want to admit that yet.

Measure volts. Find out if you are capped, reduction in 100% charged volts is how they do it.