Lol "by about 5 minutes" it has literally doubled if not more.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
- Thread starter Dutchmeeuw
- Start date
Double of 5 minutes? No, no. It's much much more than that. Some owners have reported watching the season over while charging
Why do you think they keep adding silly games to the cars? Netflix? Come on ...
I would kill for double. I went from over 100kW/h down to the mid-40’s (sometimes I’ll get low 60’s for a brief few minutes).
It takes literally hours, plural, to charge now. It makes my car unusable for distance driving.
jkennebeck
Member
jkennebeck
Member
A few minutes.
Oy, Elon, can i borrow a "few" effing dollars?
I think they meant to say a few half-hours.
jkennebeck
Member
Sooooo.. Having a few spare minutes this afternoon and reading this:
Tesla Rolls Over Own Feet With Pointless Smart Summon Release
I decided to write a "letter to the editor" to the author of this Forbes article. The content of my email to Mr. Templeton follows for your perusal. Apologies in advance for calling some of you nerds (self included).
Joe
_____________________________________________________________________
Mr. Brad Templeton,
Having found your article regarding smart summon, a few passages struck a chord with me about what has happened recently to a group of early Tesla adopters. You may or may not be aware of this but the following two excerpts are what caught my attention:
"People buy it (full self driving) because they expect -- as Tesla has told them -- that upgrading to that will cost much more than $6,000 if and when that future day comes."
and
"Aside from disappointing customers who were hoping to get something truly useful for the large sums (up to $6,000) they have paid for Tesla's "full self drive" package, this will also erode confidence in Tesla's ability to produce actual self-driving products."
You mention the added $6000 cost a couple of times and it reminds me that some of us, when we bought our "older" Teslas (think 2013-2015 mostly) paid a lot of extra money (in the range of up to $6000 to $12000) for added battery capacity or for extra performance (85 vs 70, and/or standard vs ludicrous).
I fall squarely in that camp. I paid up a lot more than a standard Model S for my car (2015 S performance dual motor 85 battery). That car came with the following promises:
1. Free Supercharging for the life of the vehicle
2. Zero to 60 in 2.8 seconds
3. Starting range of 253 miles
And for the first few years all of those promises were kept.
Starting in May of 2019, after a rash of non-crash Model S fires ("spontaneous combustion") Tesla issued a software update that did two things:
1. Capped many older Model S batteries to a maximum usable voltage of less than 4.10 (4.2 is the max you can charge these packs to which would result in the maximum range the battery could withstand). This resulted in an overnight reduction in range of anywhere from 10 to 30 or more miles of usable battery.
2. The rate of charge at Supercharging stations was drastically reduced overnight as well. What used to take 25-35 minutes to go from 20%SOC to 75% SOC was now more like 1.5 hours. Now, when you get past 90% SOC to get to 100% its another hour on top of the time you've already spent. Some of the affected cars won't even get to 100% at all. (please note, the supercharging reduction seems to be much more widespread at this time)
The company stated to many sources that this update was pushed to our cars "out of an abundance of caution".
Tesla pushes battery software update after recent fires
and
Tesla is updating its battery software following a car fire, claims improve longevity - Electrek
I am aware that you don't have the time to sift through more than 6000 posts on a Tesla forum.
I would like to ask you, however, that if you think this is something that more people might benefit from knowing about (lets say this all works out in the end to unsafe battery packs that are prone to bursting into flames), that you might do some digging and write another op/ed for Forbes that crystallizes and clarifies this issue and gets more people looking into it.
I believe that currently there is a small percentage of fairly nerdy, investigative Model S owners (hey, that's me!) that look at this data on their cars carefully and hence are aware of what happened. I also believe that there are a large group of owners out there that have no idea that Tesla:
1. Stole from us range, charging rates and performance that we paid dearly for.
or, much worse,
2. Have used this situation to cover up a design flaw in their packs that pose a safety/fire risk to the owner.
After backtracking on the "abundance of caution" rhetoric, which probably sounded to in-house counsel like they were admitting safety problems, they changed the message to "battery health and longevity".
If Tesla needs to prolong battery life and 4.07v is better at that than 4.2v then why didn't they do this to ALL Teslas? Why only do it to a portion? And it seems that that portion is the group that is closest to running out of warranty clock. This REEKS of warranty avoidance. And in the mean time, they have made some of their vehicles unusable (those that need a minimum range on a daily basis for work, those that paid for high performance, etc.)
Would you be OK with Subaru sneaking into your garage at night (OTA software update) and filling up 30 miles-worth of your gas tank with concrete?
I appreciate you taking the time to read this. I saw in your article that you are a Tesla shareholder. I bought this vehicle, I think, with the same ideology that you probably bought their stock. In hopes of promoting clean energy transportation, and, in your case, making some money in the process, and, in MY case, saving some gas money in the process. You and I are not at odds. I want nothing but success for Tesla and any other company out there that is working toward getting us away from fossil fuels, greenhouse gases and the destruction of Mother Earth.
But at some point, companies have to communicate the things they do when they hurt their customers. They need to be held responsible for the actions that instantly depreciate the value of the vehicles people paid for. They need to, at the very least, know there are consumers out in the world that wont just "let things go."
To go back to the two excerpts from your article:
What happens when Tesla decides that your FSD payments only EVER get you smart summon, nothing more? They back out of that saying "it was in Beta", "the localities can't mark the roads properly", "we can't figure out stop lights"? More good money after bad? Or will people, you and I, stand up and tell them, give us what we paid for or make us whole in some way.
Enjoy your weekend and thanks for reading,
Regards,
{signed}
Joseph Kennebeck
Richmond, Virginia
10/11/2019
Tesla Rolls Over Own Feet With Pointless Smart Summon Release
I decided to write a "letter to the editor" to the author of this Forbes article. The content of my email to Mr. Templeton follows for your perusal. Apologies in advance for calling some of you nerds (self included).
Joe
_____________________________________________________________________
Mr. Brad Templeton,
Having found your article regarding smart summon, a few passages struck a chord with me about what has happened recently to a group of early Tesla adopters. You may or may not be aware of this but the following two excerpts are what caught my attention:
"People buy it (full self driving) because they expect -- as Tesla has told them -- that upgrading to that will cost much more than $6,000 if and when that future day comes."
and
"Aside from disappointing customers who were hoping to get something truly useful for the large sums (up to $6,000) they have paid for Tesla's "full self drive" package, this will also erode confidence in Tesla's ability to produce actual self-driving products."
You mention the added $6000 cost a couple of times and it reminds me that some of us, when we bought our "older" Teslas (think 2013-2015 mostly) paid a lot of extra money (in the range of up to $6000 to $12000) for added battery capacity or for extra performance (85 vs 70, and/or standard vs ludicrous).
I fall squarely in that camp. I paid up a lot more than a standard Model S for my car (2015 S performance dual motor 85 battery). That car came with the following promises:
1. Free Supercharging for the life of the vehicle
2. Zero to 60 in 2.8 seconds
3. Starting range of 253 miles
And for the first few years all of those promises were kept.
Starting in May of 2019, after a rash of non-crash Model S fires ("spontaneous combustion") Tesla issued a software update that did two things:
1. Capped many older Model S batteries to a maximum usable voltage of less than 4.10 (4.2 is the max you can charge these packs to which would result in the maximum range the battery could withstand). This resulted in an overnight reduction in range of anywhere from 10 to 30 or more miles of usable battery.
2. The rate of charge at Supercharging stations was drastically reduced overnight as well. What used to take 25-35 minutes to go from 20%SOC to 75% SOC was now more like 1.5 hours. Now, when you get past 90% SOC to get to 100% its another hour on top of the time you've already spent. Some of the affected cars won't even get to 100% at all. (please note, the supercharging reduction seems to be much more widespread at this time)
The company stated to many sources that this update was pushed to our cars "out of an abundance of caution".
Tesla pushes battery software update after recent fires
and
Tesla is updating its battery software following a car fire, claims improve longevity - Electrek
I am aware that you don't have the time to sift through more than 6000 posts on a Tesla forum.
I would like to ask you, however, that if you think this is something that more people might benefit from knowing about (lets say this all works out in the end to unsafe battery packs that are prone to bursting into flames), that you might do some digging and write another op/ed for Forbes that crystallizes and clarifies this issue and gets more people looking into it.
I believe that currently there is a small percentage of fairly nerdy, investigative Model S owners (hey, that's me!) that look at this data on their cars carefully and hence are aware of what happened. I also believe that there are a large group of owners out there that have no idea that Tesla:
1. Stole from us range, charging rates and performance that we paid dearly for.
or, much worse,
2. Have used this situation to cover up a design flaw in their packs that pose a safety/fire risk to the owner.
After backtracking on the "abundance of caution" rhetoric, which probably sounded to in-house counsel like they were admitting safety problems, they changed the message to "battery health and longevity".
If Tesla needs to prolong battery life and 4.07v is better at that than 4.2v then why didn't they do this to ALL Teslas? Why only do it to a portion? And it seems that that portion is the group that is closest to running out of warranty clock. This REEKS of warranty avoidance. And in the mean time, they have made some of their vehicles unusable (those that need a minimum range on a daily basis for work, those that paid for high performance, etc.)
Would you be OK with Subaru sneaking into your garage at night (OTA software update) and filling up 30 miles-worth of your gas tank with concrete?
I appreciate you taking the time to read this. I saw in your article that you are a Tesla shareholder. I bought this vehicle, I think, with the same ideology that you probably bought their stock. In hopes of promoting clean energy transportation, and, in your case, making some money in the process, and, in MY case, saving some gas money in the process. You and I are not at odds. I want nothing but success for Tesla and any other company out there that is working toward getting us away from fossil fuels, greenhouse gases and the destruction of Mother Earth.
But at some point, companies have to communicate the things they do when they hurt their customers. They need to be held responsible for the actions that instantly depreciate the value of the vehicles people paid for. They need to, at the very least, know there are consumers out in the world that wont just "let things go."
To go back to the two excerpts from your article:
What happens when Tesla decides that your FSD payments only EVER get you smart summon, nothing more? They back out of that saying "it was in Beta", "the localities can't mark the roads properly", "we can't figure out stop lights"? More good money after bad? Or will people, you and I, stand up and tell them, give us what we paid for or make us whole in some way.
Enjoy your weekend and thanks for reading,
Regards,
{signed}
Joseph Kennebeck
Richmond, Virginia
10/11/2019
Because you wrote that, I know you're joking. I could easily see someone taking that up as a talking point.
@jkennebeck If you're talking money, bring up the $40,000 potential losses that a few people in this thread lost. The battery caps reduce range at those prices but they also reduce $20,000 Performance power and additionally reduce $5,000 - $10,000 Ludicrous upgrade power.
You're undercutting the problem by only discussing capacity , and undercutting estimates since the most impacted batteries are 85s that cost us $10,000 additional to buy. As harsh as you are you're actually sugar coating the problem for him!
You're undercutting the problem by only discussing capacity , and undercutting estimates since the most impacted batteries are 85s that cost us $10,000 additional to buy. As harsh as you are you're actually sugar coating the problem for him!
jkennebeck
Member
Thanks.
I guess you can write him too and express your concerns.
Provide a solution or a partial one, not more problems.
Sorry, but a well thought out request to a long shareholder that MIGHT have a pen that could get this into FORBES, I went easy on it. In hopes that he would feel our pain.
Have a good weekend...
As an attorney I can tell you that is NOT an admission by Tesla. First of all, the section you refer to is not directed specifically to the BMS, rather it is directed to the battery. So the first barrier that would heed to be overcome is to convince a court that “battery” includes the BMS. Secondly, the key phrase in what you cite is “If something goes wrong ...”. Tesla has not (to this date) admitted that anything has gone wrong. That still needs to be proven in a court of law. So unfortunately, it is not as clear cut as you (and others) would infer it to be. I wish it were, but it’s not.
@swegman It's actually more clear cut than you believe. There's no room for them or you to decide their exact words stating "The battery will be replaced at no cost by a factory reconditioned unit with an energy capacity equal to or better than the original pack" says anything remotely resembling "be reduced to a fraction of what it had been previously, with an offer to replace it at extreme cost equal to or exceeding $20,000." BMS is your own distraction; we seek to have the same car we had. If the BMS needs to be replaced with an equal or better version of the BMS to repair the damage, great. If it doesn't we keep the old BMS. We don't care which parts - or none - Tesla needs to replace. We only care that Tesla return what has been stolen. Tesla offers no BMS warranty, we are guaranteed a battery and drive unit warranty. The battery is what has been affected and maybe the BMS is the problem, maybe not - I suspect it's not a damaged BMS, but rather the BMS was used to create the damages as part of its intended function.
It will be proven in court, that's certain. It will probably be proven by the NHTSA's lawyers long before the class action is concluded, but any and all information gleaned from the NHTSA will absolutely help.
It will be proven in court, that's certain. It will probably be proven by the NHTSA's lawyers long before the class action is concluded, but any and all information gleaned from the NHTSA will absolutely help.
You conveniently left off the "before the failure occurred" part of that sentence. So you are saying that all of the capped battery packs have already failed?
That is a fair point and I have nothing more than a layperson's understanding of this. So, my question is, does it make a difference whether the BMS is at fault or the pack has a flaw? The "if something goes wrong, its our fault" statement seems to me they "own" it regardless of the cause.
And while they many not have admitted anything has gone wrong, wouldn't they need to provide some justification for taking away functionality? Why make these changes otherwise? Their "abundance of caution" statement would seem to indicate things are not peachy.
The type, and number of li-ion batteries that Tesla uses would not be safe to operate without a BMS. Therefore the BMS is a integral, and crucial part of their battery.
It makes no difference whatsoever. The BMS is inside the battery - it's like arguing your drive unit isn't covered by the drive unit warranty because it was damaged by a coolant pump inside the drive unit failing.
Tesla's battery warranty is clear cut - trying to blame their theft on an integral part of the battery just underscores the battery warranty applies to this mode of failure and neither their words nor their warranty can be ignored by the reasonable person test.
If it's a failure it's warranty covered, no question. If it's not a failure reverse the malware today.
Tesla's battery warranty is clear cut - trying to blame their theft on an integral part of the battery just underscores the battery warranty applies to this mode of failure and neither their words nor their warranty can be ignored by the reasonable person test.
If it's a failure it's warranty covered, no question. If it's not a failure reverse the malware today.
Last edited:
Of course not, but they would fail when they go into crisp mode.You conveniently left off the "before the failure occurred" part of that sentence. So you are saying that all of the capped battery packs have already failed?
You conveniently left off the "before the failure occurred" part of that sentence. So you are saying that all of the capped battery packs have already failed?
Well, something happened to initiate this proactive action by Tesla, otherwise why reach out and reduce capacity and charging speed in some random selection of cars.
The actual failure mode might that the cars catch on fire and this is 100% defensible step they took to pre-empt that and I think anyone that has an affected car and parks it in their home at night would applaud the move. Especially the owners of this groups of cars that were there at the beginning and expect bumps along the way with Tesla. However, with Tesla's stonewalling, we are all left wondering.
My concern is the safety of the pack. I do not care if they return the lost miles taken away due to the voltage capping if my battery is not safe.
The fact is that my capacity has been capped and I, as well as lots of other owners, do not know the real reason.
This is like the authority quarantines part of my house, but not my neighbor's house, "‘out of an abundance of caution’" and "to help further protect and improve its longevity", without telling me the reason behind it!
The fact is that my capacity has been capped and I, as well as lots of other owners, do not know the real reason.
This is like the authority quarantines part of my house, but not my neighbor's house, "‘out of an abundance of caution’" and "to help further protect and improve its longevity", without telling me the reason behind it!
This is all we ask them to answer. They refuse to communicate, and lie when they are pressed by the media. They have changed their story at least 3 times since May. Hopefully soon the federal inquiry will produce some truthful answers.
Tesla is avoiding answering because every possible answer is harmful to them and helps us. If our cars were crippled because they discovered a safety risk, Tesla failed to report it to the NHTSA. The investigation will eventually end with a fine for their offenses, and notify everyone affected so we can all schedule our battery repair/replacement to equal or better hardware than we had before the reductions.
If it is not a safety risk, the information the NHTSA exposes will help the class action move forward. Tesla will have to explain why they stole from all of us and will have to defend the reasoning given to the NHTSA. If it's not safety, it's probably an attempted warranty skirted action in violation of Magnusen Moss.
I'm not even parking my car NEAR my home any more. More than being made whole, I want an official answer to the question "Will my car kill my family if I park it in the garage?" Wk057 - Tesla's most infamous hacker - has implied that all of the horrible v9 UI downgrades, and even the expensive power/capacity downgrades, are worth it and that everyone should willingly damage their cars with this update. That screams DANGER WILL ROBINSON to me. Tesla still won't say anything, and since they are proven liars I don't believe anything they say anyway. I want to hear an "all's clear" from the NHTSA - who legally should have been notified in May.
Last edited:
