Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[Droschke]

Hmm. This is pic from Finnish users. We have witnessed it too.

Second drop is for the: 2019.32.2.2 software.

Model 3 or S?

 

[Johnii__82]

Model 3 or S?

Model 3.

 

[Droschke]

That means everyone will have been sold more range than their car would be capable of after this charge depth reduction. And this will be a big issue for Tesla.

We agree. Just to be transparent, my initial loss after capping was 30 miles. Somehow 10 miles were returned, leaving me at the net loss of 20 miles.

 

[Droschke]

Model 3.

That's a big drop.

 

[lightningltd]

So have any of the victims that have been infected by batterygate received v10 firmware yet, or are we orphans?

 

[Johnii__82]

That's a big drop.

Yep... from 496 to 478 with like brand new car.... too big i would say.

 

[glide]

So have any of the victims that have been infected by batterygate received v10 firmware yet, or are we orphans?

Plenty of people w/battery issues have V10

 

[jerry33]

How many more miles is that additional range of 85kWh (over 60kWh)?

IIRC:
85 = 265 EPA
60 = 208 EPA
60/85 = 70.5%
208/256 = 78.5%
FWIW, I am so happy I got the 85 because I'd be in real trouble on my most frequently traveled road trip. Now 6.66 years later, I can still make it in cold weather (-3 lows)--though it's getting close, but not quite white knuckle time yet.

 

[Guillaume]

Yep... from 496 to 478 with like brand new car.... too big i would say.

You should keep in mind that the numbers in this chart are in km, not in miles. So the total drop in 38,250 km (24,000 miles) is just 22 km (14 miles).

 

[omarsultan]

One of the key points made in Bjorn's video is that Tesla apparently changed the scaling factor used by his Model 3 to determine range, so, his point is you cannot simply look at your rated miles to determine degradation. If we got miles "back" its hard to tell if they are actual increase in pack capacity or simply tweaking the scaling factor.

 

[meomyo]

wow..all teslas are affected? this is huge!

 

[malventano]

I would also like to know how you rolled the software back. Has tesla ever before now updated a non supported salvage car? If not then what does that mean if they updated your salvage car?

I have root access to my car. Updates can be rolled back within some limitations (every so often the gateway version is updated, and that can not be rolled back, limiting how far one can roll back the main firmware). I can't say if other unsupported cars were pushed the 2019.8.3 firmware, but mine was for some unknown reason.

 

[MP3Mike]

Call me naive, I deserve it, but I thought the newer batteries were safe.

THis explains why they're fighting all of us. They're screwed. We need to open a dialog before they take this down the drain.

You really need to pay more attention to the data Bjorn provided. What he is reporting is sort of the opposite of the capping. The battery voltage at the same SoC is higher now than it was before.

@KarenRei posted some thoughts on that:

Bjørn Nyland did some investigation into the recent several percent drops in range that some people reported with V10:

The short of it? He noticed that the charging voltages for a given SoC are now higher after V10. Since that's something that can't be altered by software, it appears that Tesla moved about 3kWh of SoC to the bottom of the nominal SoC range; what's 0% now is what used to be ~4%. Basically the emergency buffer looks to be larger now.

Why would Tesla do that? Maybe too many people were running their car down to, or close to, 0% and they were shutting off since 0% was the actual shutdown point. If that was the case and Tesla just moved 0% up a little bit but still allows you access to that energy I don't think it is a big deal.

Hopefully Bjorn will follow through with his idea of actually driving his car until it shuts down to see if 0% is really 0% now or if they have hidden extra range to prevent people from standing themselves.

His original calculation seemed suspect to me as well, since the Model 3 only has a 75kWh pack and his old calculations were showing that essentially all of it was available. (No bottom/anti-bricking buffer.)

 

[DJRas]

One of the key points made in Bjorn's video is that Tesla apparently changed the scaling factor used by his Model 3 to determine range, so, his point is you cannot simply look at your rated miles to determine degradation. If we got miles "back" its hard to tell if they are actual increase in pack capacity or simply tweaking the scaling factor.

yep... just like I found in the Model S

 

[omarsultan]

You really need to pay more attention to the data Bjorn provided. What he is reporting is sort of the opposite of the capping. The battery voltage at the same SoC is higher now than it was before.

@KarenRei posted some thoughts on that:



Why would Tesla do that? Maybe too many people were running their car down to, or close to, 0% and they were shutting off since 0% was the actual shutdown point. If that was the case and Tesla just moved 0% up a little bit but still allows you access to that energy I don't think it is a big deal.

Hopefully Bjorn will follow through with his idea of actually driving his car until it shuts down to see if 0% is really 0% now or if they have hidden extra range to prevent people from standing themselves.

His original calculation seemed suspect to me as well, since the Model 3 only has a 75kWh pack and his old calculations were showing that essentially all of it was available. (No bottom/anti-bricking buffer.)

I think that mis-characterizes the video. He shows about 3kWh of capacity was not "moved" it was removed (start watching @13:47) and then the constant used to calculate range was tweaked to cover some of the loss of range (@16:52).

 

[xbox4me62]

How does the depth of discharge of a tesla compare to other EVs? Are they that far off compare to say a chevy bolt or kona/niro/soul EV?

I understand lithium dendrites but is the chemistry of the tesla battery higher energy density but also higher propensity for dendrites?

 

[Chaserr]

Welcome to our world

And Thank you Tesla. I was just informed that I am now required to park 25 feet from any occupied buildings at work until they can confirm that there is no danger

If they ever get confirmation, please share it with me! I'm parking 25 feet from my own home for the same precautionary reasons.

Hmm. This is pic from Finnish users. We have witnessed it too on model 3. Which are 5-6 months old.

Second drop is for the: 2019.32.2.2 software.

That looks suspiciously like the same drop they pulled on 85 owners.

I wish we weren't right about Model 3 owners being eventually impacted - I thought the apologists would have at least a few years to enjoy the cars as they were purchased like we did before Tesla forced them to come around. I'm sorry your ownership experience was downgraded so soon, just so Tesla could teach those naysayers you never even met a little empathy!

Tesla, start talking.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

You really need to pay more attention to the data Bjorn provided. What he is reporting is sort of the opposite of the capping. The battery voltage at the same SoC is higher now than it was before.

@KarenRei posted some thoughts on that:



Why would Tesla do that? Maybe too many people were running their car down to, or close to, 0% and they were shutting off since 0% was the actual shutdown point. If that was the case and Tesla just moved 0% up a little bit but still allows you access to that energy I don't think it is a big deal.

Hopefully Bjorn will follow through with his idea of actually driving his car until it shuts down to see if 0% is really 0% now or if they have hidden extra range to prevent people from standing themselves.

His original calculation seemed suspect to me as well, since the Model 3 only has a 75kWh pack and his old calculations were showing that essentially all of it was available. (No bottom/anti-bricking buffer.)

Posted this elsewhere. Remember that the trip meter is simply a meter with arbitrary scaling - there is no reason it needs to read accurately. I also have never seen the constant change from 144Wh/rkm, as he claims at 17:00. (On my Model 3 AWD P.)

Assuming the chargers read accurately and consistently (big assumption), the charging event is a better place to look, but also has issues:

First comment is that his "since x:xxPM" vs. " since last charge" discrepancy explanation makes little sense. The distances are different! It's just bad data - this discrepancy can easily be explained - the explanation is that he drove and then stopped, after charging. What impact that has on the numbers, who knows. Hard to know, without knowing for sure what happened.

If you look at his charging event at 12:50, you'll see it's 65.6kWh vs. 62.2kWh for a 10-90% charge. But the 100% charge in the second case is 483km, and in the first case it is 499km. It wasn't clear to me in the video whether or not the constant scaling was different between the two cases, as he claimed elsewhere in the video (144Wh/rkm (230Wh/rmi) vs. 150Wh/rkm (240Wh/rmi) is what he claims - I've always seen 144Wh/rkm since early 2019). He also did not show the displayed rated km in the car for each of the 10% values. So it's really hard to say what actually happened - how many rated km were added in the car, specifically. He also did not display the charging screen data with the added kWh - just the Ionity charger data.

I did not go look up his video for where he got 74.5kWh shown on the trip meter (presumably for a 499km to 0 km discharge - or was this value extrapolated, as he did in this latest video?). If that video where he drained the battery to 0 rated km from 499km was not done with zero net elevation loss, you could end up with an incorrect constant (because gravitational potential energy is an important component of your actual available energy capacity - would take a couple thousand feet for the error here). As I said, I have never seen the constant change. I've been looking at it for quite some time - I'd have to look back at my posts but I think my first accurate calculations were from January of 2019 or so (and I got 230Wh/rmi). I'm sure it can be changed by Tesla; I am just saying I for sure haven't seen it for my Model 3 in most of 2019.

Anyway, back to the charging event:
So added energy (which obviously includes some losses that don't make it to the battery) for 100% charge would be 65.6/0.8 vs. 62.2/0.8 (82kWh vs. 77.8kWh, extrapolated, a 5.2% difference - these aren't battery capacities of course).

But how much of that difference is due to "degradation" and how much of it is due to hiding of capacity below 0%? He does some plots of battery voltage vs. state of charge to try to determine, and draws the conclusion that the 4% is nearly entirely below 0%. I'm not entirely sure about this method.

But if the constant were DIFFERENT, then he had 144Wh/rkm * 483rkm = 69.6kWh available (now)
and 150Wh/rkm * 499rkm = 74.9kWh. (before)

That's too large a difference. 7%

If we go to using the same constant (144Wh/rkm), we get 71.86kWh and 69.6kWh.

That's a 3.2% difference.

That makes more sense, and if we make some assumptions that he charged from 48rkm to 435rkm, and originally charged from 50rkm to 450rkm, then we're looking at a "difference" in the scaling of the trip meter of:

65.6kWh ("true")/400rkm = 164Wh/rkm (charging)
62.2kWh ("true")/387rkm = 161Wh/rkm (charging).

So that's just a 2% difference. That could be an error/variation with the Ionity display, or it could be due to a hidden Tesla scaling of the trip meter Wh, or them hiding some kWh below zero.

It's just hard to tell from the video exactly what happened.

 

[BPeter]

How does the depth of discharge of a tesla compare to other EVs? Are they that far off compare to say a chevy bolt or kona/niro/soul EV?

I understand lithium dendrites but is the chemistry of the tesla battery higher energy density but also higher propensity for dendrites?

The Audi etron has a 95 kWh battery with 83.6 kWh unable. The Model S 100 pack has 102 kWh capacity and 98 kWh usable. The 85 pack has 81.5 kWh capacity with 77.5 kWh usable. Tesla has been reserving just a 4kWh buffer (5% in 85 and 4% in 100) in their packs while Audi reserved 11 kWh (12%).

Tesla battery pack info: Tesla’s hacked Battery Management System exposes the real usable capacity of its battery packs - Electrek

Up until this, everyone was raving about how Tesla's incredible BMS let them use a lot more of their capacity than anyone else. But it looks like everyone else may have made the smarter decision.

 

[malventano]

The main problem is no mud guards so if you drive on roads with sand or gravel you get that. Cheap aftermarket mud guards prevent the issue but Tesla isn't doing anything for people suffering from the issue.

Plenty of cars without guards have sufficient paint durability to not visibly wear / chip / peel within the typical usable life of the car.