Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[hpartsch]

I think that message was referring to the charge being limited to maximum 80% SOC (unless you over-ride Tesla’s setting) due to (what is supposed to be) heavy usage of the charge stalls.

Makes sense. Thanks!

If they were charge limiting me (which I think is happening), I'd rather them tell me -- rather than playing these games. However, I could see how doing this could even raise more red flags/panic -- so doubtful it will occur. I just don't get why Tesla doesn't publicly say something about this.....

 

[BM3B]

I have measured both the charge capacity and discharge of my two Model 3 LR cars. One of them had 30k miles on it. Both have a charge capacity of 72-73 kWh, and discharge (driving) capacity of 68-69 kWh. I measured these multiple times with long charge and discharges (drives), pulled the rated miles used and kWh used, extrapolated to 100% of my battery. So I think Bjorn is mixing and confusing charge and discharge capacity, which are different.

In regards to the 16.2 update, I did lose 2.8% of my range over 2 weeks following the update. You can see in the attached image, 16.2 update was at 28,000 miles. So maybe something did change.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

Don't disagree, but we don't have enough info to judge the scope and immediacy of the issue to know is such a declaration is meaningful. I mean look at the Tanaka airbag recall, which is taking years to play out. Heck, I spent a year or so driving around with an airbag that could have potentially turned me into a colander, because I needed to go places, there were no airbags available and it seemed a reasonable risk. I guess I could have parked my S for a year, if I was really worried.

If the SW fix reduces the incidence the issue to negligible, it gives Tesla time to figure out and implement a fix and allows us to maintain the utility of our vehicles. But, say Tesla announces the are going to replace all the affected 85 kWh packs, there is still no immediate impact:

• There is the logistics of building packs they no longer make
• There is at the cost of said packs so, given the push for profitability, I am sure they would like to find a less expensive option, especially if its something that may extend to the entire fleet, and a cheaper, simpler fix will likely get rolled out faster
• There is still the time to cycle all those cars though Service

And, again, Tesla could have treated us like adults and explained some of this which would reduced the level of angst for everyone involved.

I like the sound of all of that. I have to say I am more attracted to the ‘cells wearing out faster therefore threatening significant warranty costs' to the 'safety issue and risk of fire' theories. I am not rejecting either, and there is logic in both positions, but for me there is not sufficient evidence to make an educated guess either way. However if it is the hardware issue, then short of replacing the batteries the only alternative is capping and throttling, so I am not confident of a Tesla solution.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

I think that message was referring to the charge being limited to maximum 80% SOC (unless you over-ride Tesla’s setting) due to (what is supposed to be) heavy usage of the charge stalls.

Prior to chargegate, I know of a number of owners whose cars were charge rate capped due to the amount of Supercharging. But I don’t remember anyone saying they had seen a warning on the dash, they just noticed the effect (Tesla style restriction changes!). It seemed to be after a fixed number of kWhs (something like 35,000 Whs but don’t quote me on that figure) and like batterygate, not all cars were affected. My total charge figure is higher than that although nearly all is CHAdeMO DC and I didn’t think the car could differentiate between Supercharging and CHAdeMO Charging. The capping wasn’t significant, ie from 115 to mid 90s (or of that order), whereas chargegate is sometimes down in the 40s or 50s.

But it is worrying that Tesla seem to be throtttling a much wider selection of models. It does suggest the Supercharging might be fast, but has a price.

 

[raphy3]

Prior to chargegate, I know of a number of owners whose cars were charge rate capped due to the amount of Supercharging. But I don’t remember anyone saying they had seen a warning on the dash, they just noticed the effect (Tesla style restriction changes!). It seemed to be after a fixed number of kWhs (something like 35,000 Whs but don’t quote me on that figure) and like batterygate, not all cars were affected. My total charge figure is higher than that although nearly all is CHAdeMO DC and I didn’t think the car could differentiate between Supercharging and CHAdeMO Charging. The capping wasn’t significant, ie from 115 to mid 90s (or of that order), whereas chargegate is sometimes down in the 40s or 50s.

But it is worrying that Tesla seem to be throtttling a much wider selection of models. It does suggest the Supercharging might be fast, but has a price.

There is a thing where Tesla says "this SC is seeing heavy use and could have long lines, so we're going to limit how much you can charge." It basically doesn't depend on your car itself or chargegate; it's limiting people to 80% SOC so they can get people in and out of the SC faster to avoid long lines, since from 80-100% takes almost as long as 10-80% (on an actual correctly working battery, and chargegate is much much worse of course!).

 

[jerry33]

There is a thing where Tesla says "this SC is seeing heavy use and could have long lines, so we're going to limit how much you can charge." It basically doesn't depend on your car itself or chargegate; it's limiting people to 80% SOC so they can get people in and out of the SC faster to avoid long lines, since from 80-100% takes almost as long as 10-80% (on an actual correctly working battery, and chargegate is much much worse of course!).

Just bear in mind that they don't actually limit the amount of charge, they just set the slider to 80%, you can change it back if you really need the charge. So it's not a limit in the "can't charge more than" sense.

 

[_jal_]

In today’s Sun Times

Tesla’s disappearing miles: Owners say automatic software fix has had unwanted side effects

 

[First EV]

In today’s Sun Times

Tesla’s disappearing miles: Owners say automatic software fix has had unwanted side effects

This is a great article! Shame on Tesla for this! It was the word of mouth, warranty, environmentally progressive stance and customer service that convinced me to buy my car. Understand that for many of us these were the most expensive cars we have ever purchased and did so because of the reasons I listed. Now I feel that I have been cheated.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

There is a thing where Tesla says "this SC is seeing heavy use and could have long lines, so we're going to limit how much you can charge." It basically doesn't depend on your car itself or chargegate; it's limiting people to 80% SOC so they can get people in and out of the SC faster to avoid long lines, since from 80-100% takes almost as long as 10-80% (on an actual correctly working battery, and chargegate is much much worse of course!).

There is. In UK I suspect they have categorised every SuC with this, as I have yet to come across one that doesn’t show it now. It is a good idea, as it does, as you say, reduce waiting times and leads those that don’t know about such things, by the nose. And if you need more it can be overridden.

I wasn’t sure if @hpartsch's post related to the too many Supercharges effect, or the new busy Supercharger effect. I don’t think the new one affects speed, just the amount.

 

[Chaserr]

Don't disagree, but we don't have enough info to judge the scope and immediacy of the issue to know is such a declaration is meaningful. I mean look at the Takata airbag recall, which is taking years to play out. Heck, I spent a year or so driving around with an airbag that could have potentially turned me into a colander, because I needed to go places, there were no airbags available and it seemed a reasonable risk. I guess I could have parked my S for a year, if I was really worried.

If the SW fix reduces the incidence the issue to negligible, it gives Tesla time to figure out and implement a fix and allows us to maintain the utility of our vehicles. But, say Tesla announces the are going to replace all the affected 85 kWh packs, there is still no immediate impact:

• There is the logistics of building packs they no longer make
• There is at the cost of said packs so, given the push for profitability, I am sure they would like to find a less expensive option, especially if its something that may extend to the entire fleet, and a cheaper, simpler fix will likely get rolled out faster
• There is still the time to cycle all those cars though Service

And, again, Tesla could have treated us like adults and explained some of this which would reduced the level of angst for everyone involved.

Lets look at the Takata seatbelt recall. Honda was fined half a $billion because the NHTSA believes they knew about a potential safety risk from another company's product in their cars, but didn't inform the NHTSA so an official evaluation could be performed. Failure to report, even if there is only a suspected issue, is a crime.

That was a huge fine and conviction to Honda over not reporting a potential issue they believed they knew about. Not actively covered up or even a Hinda recall; but an infraction for not reporting to the NHTSA.

The NHTSA has opened an investigation file into Tesla, except in this case it's a first-party Tesla recall issue and apparently Tesla is actively trying to cover it up. They tell us there was never a safety issue to report in our cars, and they have already changed their story several times so we know they are lying we just don't know to what extent.

We won't judge the scope and immediacy of this issue, but Federal judges will. Tesla made this a matter of the courts when they chose not to report.

The courts decided that your airbag would be recalled with an also-affected airbag of a younger age (less probability of failure) if you were in the near-highest danger group but no new airbags were available. Your manufacturer sent you the required NHTSA recall info that advised you not to drive your car for any reason other than directly to a dealership solely for the purpose of having the airbag recall performed if you were in the highest risk group.

Tesla chose to skip everything and we had to ask for an investigation to get some answers. They're picking fights with us they can't win, when all they needed to do - all they still need to do - is use their words.

The end of this road is bad news no matter what, for Tesla. They took decisive action "out of an abundance of caution" that has had real negative impacts on us, and they have failed to report the cause of that caution to the NHTSA within 5 days of discovering the issue. The law does not allow anyone to try hotfixes in secrecy, it is structured to report first and work out solutions with public officials afterward.

 

[Droschke]

Heck, I spent a year or so driving around with an airbag that could have potentially turned me into a colander, because I needed to go places, there were no airbags available and it seemed a reasonable risk.

I guess I could have parked my S for a year, if I was really worried.

You shouldn't and you do need to worry about it. You are giving a simplistic view of the battery safety issue and your analogy is not a good one. You should worry about a parked model S with a faulty battery pack since it can burst into flames while parked. It has happened multiple times.

 

[omarsultan]

You shouldn't and you do need to worry about it. You are giving a simplistic view of the battery safety issue and your analogy is not a good one. You should worry about a parked model S with a faulty battery pack since it can burst into flames while parked. It has happened multiple times.

Sure, and Tesla has apparently made a change that mitigates that concern (based on the comments from @wk057). Granted, none of us are happy with the change or the way it was done, but it seems like the near-term risk has been addressed, which leaves us waiting a long-term resolution from Tesla.

 

[Droschke]

Sure, and Tesla has apparently made a change that mitigates that concern (based on the comments from @wk057). Granted, none of us are happy with the change or the way it was done, but it seems like the near-term risk has been addressed, which leaves us waiting a long-term resolution from Tesla.

So, your confidence comes from what Tesla is telling you and what wk057 has said?

- What has Tesla told you (please quote them) and state why you believe them?

- wk057 has never said the cars with condition Z, or X, are safe to drive or even "parked". Please provide a quote from wk057.

 

[Chaserr]

All but one of the recent fires were when parked. Tesla isn't talking so the only thing we can do is try to put the pieces together from what we know, and what we know is parked cars are the most likely to burn. Some in garages, some in lots, one in motion. We've been looking and asking for a common link but nobody will talk. But we do know that the probability of a parked burning is much higher than one in motion.

If you're thinking a lot about how Tesla "mitigated" concerns, they lowered pack volatge to do it. That's exactly what Samsung tried to do to mitigate lithium ion battery fires too... and it failed to work. If Tesla is similarly overcharging their batteries over 4.2v, that would explain why they would reduce pack volts but once the damage is done you can't trust the pack any more and you're waiting for that "single module" to eventually reach thermal runaway. They can't check every cell and wk057 has said they let them get out of balance sometimes, so maybe only one in a group of 74 (the smallest number of cells Tesla can use to determine voltage) is being charged to 4.3 volts, but that would cause it to fail just like Samsung's battery fires. With Samsung, most fires happened when "parked" unused in a pocket rather than plugged in or during a call but the damage itself was caused long before - while charging.

You may be on to something. Tesla may have the same problem as Samsung. How was the Samsung phone fire problem sorted out? Did t hey have to report it to anyone? I know they tried to lower pack voltage, but was that the end of the problem and owners were forced to keep crippled phones or replace them?

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Don't disagree, but we don't have enough info to judge the scope and immediacy of the issue to know is such a declaration is meaningful. I mean look at the Tanaka airbag recall, which is taking years to play out. Heck, I spent a year or so driving around with an airbag that could have potentially turned me into a colander, because I needed to go places, there were no airbags available and it seemed a reasonable risk. I guess I could have parked my S for a year, if I was really worried.

If the SW fix reduces the incidence the issue to negligible, it gives Tesla time to figure out and implement a fix and allows us to maintain the utility of our vehicles. But, say Tesla announces the are going to replace all the affected 85 kWh packs, there is still no immediate impact:

• There is the logistics of building packs they no longer make
• There is at the cost of said packs so, given the push for profitability, I am sure they would like to find a less expensive option, especially if its something that may extend to the entire fleet, and a cheaper, simpler fix will likely get rolled out faster
• There is still the time to cycle all those cars though Service

And, again, Tesla could have treated us like adults and explained some of this which would reduced the level of angst for everyone involved.

Do you truly believe that Tesla spending hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to defend itself in this lawsuit is buying time to figure out and implement a fix? If Tesla wanted to buy itself some time, all it needed to do was tell folks that this patch is temporary while it figures out a longer term solution. That would have satisfied the majority of folks while saving a lot of money and creating no ill will. I certainly hope Tesla makes this right, but their actions indicate they have no intention of doing so. This isn't the same Tesla that existed when you and I bought our first cars.

 

[omarsultan]

So, your confidence comes from what Tesla is telling you and what wk057 has said?

- What has Tesla told you (please quote them) and state why you believe them?

- wk057 has never said the cars with condition Z, or X, are safe to drive or even "parked". Please provide a quote from wk057.

Well, I have zero confidence in anything Tesla has told me because they have told me nothing. I do, in general, have faith in the people that I have interacted with at Tesla and their desire to do the thing that is most right as opposed to the thing that is most profitable. Call me naïve but that is where I am at.

I do have a lot of confidence in @wk057 both in terms of technical ability and in having enough of a moral compass to blow the whistle if he thought lives were being put at risk. He responded to you in #1648 that he thinks Tesla believe the patch will be effective in addressing condition X (which we are *assuming* is fire risk). He says something similar in #1661.

 

[Guy V]

The issue the court will have to decide is whether the term “battery” in the sections that were referred to above is strictly interpreted to mean the battery itself or whether the term is expanded to also includes the BMS (which the battery requires to safely operate). It’s fine points like this that makes litigation interesting, and very expensive. And why U.S. Supreme Court cases are often decided 5 to 4. Reasonable people can (and do) disagree.

Of course it's tough to be up against a high-powered law firm who can make things drag out forever, but the other side of the coin is that everyone on a jury is a consumer who is very likely to have felt victimized by a big company at some point, and the longer it drags on the greater the public relations and marketing disaster.

 

[omarsultan]

Do you truly believe that Tesla spending hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to defend itself in this lawsuit is buying time to figure out and implement a fix? If Tesla wanted to buy itself some time, all it needed to do was tell folks that this patch is temporary while it figures out a longer term solution. That would have satisfied the majority of folks while saving a lot of money and creating no ill will. I certainly hope Tesla makes this right, but their actions indicate they have no intention of doing so. This isn't the same Tesla that existed when you and I bought our first cars.

Look, I will be the first one to say this is a dumpster fire of their own making--I have posted upthread that I think Elon got crappy advice on how to handle this.

That being said, now that there is a lawsuit in the water, it changes things--it creates new paths to resolution but also closes others off. IMO, the class action could represent and existential threat to the company and so, they need to defend against it to the best of their ability otherwise they'd be facing a shareholder lawsuit about fiduciary duty or the like.

I would argue, one possible strategy is to delay the legal proceedings long enough to get a viable and acceptable technical solution out the door. I would imagine most people here are not really looking to sue Tesla into oblivion but just want their range and charging speed restored to pre-update condition.

 

[Droschke]

Well, I have zero confidence in anything Tesla has told me because they have told me nothing. I do, in general, have faith in the people that I have interacted with at Tesla and their desire to do the thing that is most right as opposed to the thing that is most profitable. Call me naïve but that is where I am at.

I do have a lot of confidence in @wk057 both in terms of technical ability and in having enough of a moral compass to blow the whistle if he thought lives were being put at risk. He responded to you in #1648 that he thinks Tesla believe the patch will be effective in addressing condition X (which we are *assuming* is fire risk). He says something similar in #1661.

I know what wk057 has said in this thread.

You indicated that you are not worried about parking your car (or parked it for a year). I asked you:

wk057 has never said the cars with condition Z, or X, are safe to drive or even "parked". Please provide a quote from wk057

You have not produced an explicit quotation from him. The reason being, he can not have such a claim.

Think of it this way: A band-aid would stop the wound from getting worse to some degree. It will not stop you from dying due to a deadly infection that you already have contracted.

BTW, that band-aid is that software patch you are referring to. Show me how you would get rid of that infection.

 

[Chaserr]

I do have a lot of confidence in @wk057 both in terms of technical ability and in having enough of a moral compass to blow the whistle if he thought lives were being put at risk. He responded to you in #1648 that he thinks Tesla believe the patch will be effective in addressing condition X (which we are *assuming* is fire risk). He says something similar in #1661.

If you read back, @wk057 said he absolutely was going to blow the whistle on tesla if they didn't disclose this first. He was then "advised" to keep quiet and while he tried to, he did come back her eto drop some nuclear bomb hints that this is a danger to us that is worth every downgrade tesla might offer, and that Tesla was chosing to do the wrong thing. If you have faith in those words by Wk057, it means you don't have any in Tesla. It's tough to question why Jason was influenced into keeping us all in danger, but his moral compass forced him back to urge voluntary sacrifices in the name safety Tesla still won't discuss with us.

Tesla has at least a half billion dollars in fines alone coming from the NHTSA so that's how much they feel it's worrth to spend keeping this secret, and Jason's own income is predicated on Tesla wrecked parts availability that will vanish if his words bankrupt the company. Make your choices carefully if morality is what you seek, Tesla may actually be actively trying to murder people with this secrecy - and last week's rush of Tesla engineers manually installing updates onto peoples cars without their consent points at them trying not to kill people as they keep the secrecy going. Every intentional act to hide this makes them more guilty if it's related to safety in the slightest. Trusting TEsla with your life is not a smart play right now, and Jason has made it pretty clear you shouldn't.