Tesla forced me on to V10 2019.32.12.1 last night, from V8. I am REALLY PISSED OFF. So much for unplugging the seat Sorka. 2016 S 60 W/75 battery that I did not unlock. They also seem to have the BMS calculating degradation off my 60kw because my 100% has been 199 from 209. I will see what it is at 100% tonight. Did I mention I am REALLY PISSED OFF?
Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
- Thread starter Dutchmeeuw
- Start date
I see your point, as one might view it a double edge sword. But beside the lawsuit, what has been the alternative in your opinion?
It's not only the range loss, it's also the safety of the impacted packs that is up in the air.
omarsultan
Active Member
My bad--not enough context. I was really responding to @swegman and post #6339 -- perhaps Tesla can prevail in court, but it seems like it will be a Pyrrhic victory for them. I am not sure if there are any winners at the end of this.
I get why some owners have gone the lawsuit route--wish it were not necessary, but completely understandable.
DJRas
Supporting Member
Degradation has always been included in the software locked batteries. (Essentially your charge level is just remapped so that 100% on your "60" kWh pack charges the physical 75kWh pack to 80%.)
I have been disconnected from wifi for a very long, and had my seat unplugged, but they must have done it on LTE or stored my wifi passcode from when it was on wifi, it's not on wifi now. I used to cover my rt mirror in tin foil, but got tired of taking on and off, so I hoped the disconnected wifi and seat would work. NOPE. Is forced updates part of the law suit? Obviously Tesla, somehow, thinks they have more rights to our cars than we do.
Again what about the black listed and salvage cars that don't get updated? Are they going to make an exception and update those cars?
No way to know, or whether we would hear about if they did, but maybe someone would report it. Would be quite telling if they did. In my opinion they must be quite concerned about something to force software on people who have gone way out of their way to avoid it.
Pushing updates through LTE could indeed suggest they consider these particular updates to have safety implications.
Agree with above. If Tesla is forcing the updates despite owners trying to avoid them then this does seem a change in tactic from Tesla.
Possibly as a result of information shared in this thread?
Possibly as a result of information shared in this thread?
Not that it's the most optimal solution since you lose app access, but it seems that putting the car in airplane mode would be the only way to avoid updates, right? (Aside from rooting and blocking updates with a specific command that prevents them downloading).
qwk
P130DL
- Dec 19, 2008
- 3,024
- 766
Of course they think they still own your car. Pressing criminal charges for grand theft, is the only way that this nonsense will stop.
This has been stated before in this thread but it bears repeating...Tesla can limit battery charge level even without forcing a software update if they so desire.
Well if that's your impression I can tell you you're 100% mistaken. They used the BMS to downgrade us and they've proven it's both intentional and reversible. I've said repeatedly that I only want the software changes reversed. No replacement or repair necessary... You're seemingly obsessed with proving things regarding the BMS but I say you're wrong about it - the BMS is likely fine and if there is a hardware defect it's more likely to be a failuse in the cells themselves. We don't need proof of a defect - we only need to be made whole. If Tesla insists they can't return what was stolen because lives are in danger, that is one possible reason why they would be forced to repair or replace hardware with equal or greater parts in accordance with the law. But they haven't filed any safety paperwork with the NHTSA or notified us we are in danger, so if that's the case they're also facing fines in the half-billion range at a minimum and possibly much more, so it's probably a fortuitous coincidence they chose legal representation that is experienced in litigation on all fronts. Since you work in this field look up Honda's concealment of a Takata seatbelt recall on LexisNexis... That was a massive fine, and it wasn't even Honda's recall. Tesla would be facing at least that much punitive response for taking public action and trying to conceal the problem with multiple changes in their story. That's another reason why I choose not to believe there is any safety issue and that TEsla can reverse the downgrades overnight whenever they choose.
I have always said I choose not to believe they're that criminal, but every time someone insists they are I will repeat the fact that there is no possible option but hardware repair. Downgrading us is not legal, we will be made whole in one way or another. My hope is it doesn't involve deception or murderous intent by Tesla - that is best for all of us because if MoFo was employed for their bankruptcy expertise as well as their cutthroat defense, we may win a pyrrhic victory.
But that again means Tesla should just open a line of communication. None of us wants to win that way either.
Very Low was never returned. But that was OK because they opened a dialog and explained why.
Last edited:
jkennebeck
Member
I don't think the BMS is solely software. I think, at least partly, the BMS is what operates the cooling/heating function that is INSIDE and PART OF the battery hardware. If the BMS was not part of the battery that temperature control wouldn't exist. Therefore the BMS ("system" being the software AND the temp hardware) is an integral part of the battery.
Presumably by enacting your garage as a "HIGH USE CHARGER LOCATION" and limiting to 80% like they do with superchargers. That was added in an update, but the limits are map data now and don't need a unique update for each location status change.
Similar threads
