Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[wk057]

This thread is pretty crazy, and I'll probably be stoned from multiple directions for posting here again.

I never said anyone's cars were going to burst into flames or anything. For that to happen, more failures than just condition X or Z would have to happen. They're both just additional risk factors when looking at overall failure possibilities, neither of which will cause something catastrophic on its own and neither of which is any more of a problem than some aspects of general use (charging to 100%, supercharging, leaving the car in the sun, etc... or in an ICE vehicle, I'd say just pumping gasoline is riskier than all of the above).

There are a bunch of factors that increase the risk of fire in a battery. For example, I'd say just charging a car (one without any other issues, new, whatever) to 100% and letting the car sit without discharging soon can result in as much, or likely even more in many cases, risk of fire than any of the conditions mitigated by the range loss updates. Charging to 100% in direct sunlight is probably more risky than having condition Z.

Heck, I'd say using Ludicrous+ battery heating is probably 5x riskier than any of the conditions relevant to this discussion.

So, let's not blow things out of proportion. There is acceptable risk involved with the operation of any automobile, ICE or EV. However, the more risk eliminated, the better.

The problem for me is that other conditions that would end up with condition X or Z as a catalyst for a disaster type failure are not really as easy to detect or prevent, so eliminating the risks you can eliminate (ie: update) is a positive thing in this case when you compound multiple problems.

I'm still not convinced Tesla is going to do the absolute right thing by owners as far as actually correcting the underlying issue (which requires a pack replacement to fix 100%, no way around it). I'm convinced they are working in the best interest of safety by pushing the updates they have pushed. I'm also convinced that they're really working pretty hard to mitigate as much as possible with as little adverse effect as possible.

I'm convinced no one involved on Tesla's side is sitting there thinking, "Well, we can just let cars have problems for the sake of our bottom line." As far as they're concerned, the update eliminates the risk factor entirely. By not applying the update, you're accepting that slightly elevated risk of failure... just like you would if you had an ICE vehicle and say, didn't replace a component you knew could fail.

From what I've gathered, the number of people who could possibly still be affected by conditions X or Z (ie, have not updated) is less than 100... out of tens of thousands. I'd say that's good enough.

Yes, it sucks that range loss could be involved, and I'm hoping they'll find a way to either mitigate it in a way that corrects that, or corrects the issue entirely by replacing packs for those who can not recover 100% of the range lost by software mitigation.

Commence the stoning...

 

[omarsultan]

The point that Djras has been making, which I think is very valid, is that "it mitigates that concern says who?" If there is a safety concern, Tesla cannot make a fix and claim it is mitigated all on their own, with no oversight. That just isn't how it works. Someone has to verify the claim, and for that to happen, someone has to say what actually happened. Hopefully it's safe, but even in that case Tesla has gone about it the wrong way.

This hypothetical situation above is actually exactly the same situation that has happened with Intel and AMD and all other CPU manufacturers that relied on different forms of "speculative execution" to speed up some operations on their CPUs. Different bugs for different families of cpus that have had different degrees of impact when corrected, but the result is that many companies have had (tens? hundreds?) millions of dollars of CPU capacity taken from them due to disabling performance improvement functionality. Retail customers as well have had their performance reduced.

The situation is a catastrophe for shared hosting companies that make their profits at the margins and still must maintain safe multi-tenancy. Sometimes, like with AWS, the costs are probably invisibly passed on to customers as they have to buy more capacity from the same instance type to achieve the same results as prior to the mitigations. Other times, the companies just have to eat the costs.

I imagine there are probably some promises of cheaper units in the future, possibly even claw backs for some special customers, but probably for the majority of the customers, I'd be surprised if there was even a "so sorry for your loss" from the sales reps.

It is not an uncommon things, which is why the characterization by @Bet TSLA is curious. One of the first things folks ask when looking at new hardware is "hey, how hot [fast] can we run this thing?"

It kinda feels like the response was intended to muddy the waters as they never answered my questions and we now have a sub thread on how easy it is to change the battery out.

 

[omarsultan]

The point that Djras has been making, which I think is very valid, is that "it mitigates that concern says who?" If there is a safety concern, Tesla cannot make a fix and claim it is mitigated all on their own, with no oversight. That just isn't how it works. Someone has to verify the claim, and for that to happen, someone has to say what actually happened. Hopefully it's safe, but even in that case Tesla has gone about it the wrong way.

Absolutely it is a valid point. Under the category of Why-is-Tesla-Behaving-That-Way-?, having third party validation is asking them to expose some of their most closely held intellectual property to an outsider. I would expect them to be resistant to that in general and work especially hard to keep it out of discovery. Maybe that incentivizes them to look for a compromise or maybe it incentivizes them to dig in?

 

[omarsultan]

This thread is pretty crazy, and I'll probably be stoned from multiple directions for posting here again.

Thank you for wading back in.

 

[bmah]

Moderator note: Shoveled a bunch of posts off to snippiness. I apologize for moving some related (non-snippy) posts as collateral damage.

Contrary to what some have said, disagreement is tolerated, and even encouraged here on TMC. What's not acceptable is attacking or insulting other members.

I was going to make a comment about trying to stay on topic to the issue at hand, but I think that ship has sailed, crashed onto the rocks, and is now in a wreck on the bottom of the ocean.

Bruce.

 

[raphy3]

This thread is pretty crazy, and I'll probably be stoned from multiple directions for posting here again.

I never said anyone's cars were going to burst into flames or anything. For that to happen, more failures than just condition X or Z would have to happen. They're both just additional risk factors when looking at overall failure possibilities, neither of which will cause something catastrophic on its own and neither of which is any more of a problem than some aspects of general use (charging to 100%, supercharging, leaving the car in the sun, etc... or in an ICE vehicle, I'd say just pumping gasoline is riskier than all of the above).

There are a bunch of factors that increase the risk of fire in a battery. For example, I'd say just charging a car (one without any other issues, new, whatever) to 100% and letting the car sit without discharging soon can result in as much, or likely even more in many cases, risk of fire than any of the conditions mitigated by the range loss updates. Charging to 100% in direct sunlight is probably more risky than having condition Z.

Heck, I'd say using Ludicrous+ battery heating is probably 5x riskier than any of the conditions relevant to this discussion.

So, let's not blow things out of proportion. There is acceptable risk involved with the operation of any automobile, ICE or EV. However, the more risk eliminated, the better.

The problem for me is that other conditions that would end up with condition X or Z as a catalyst for a disaster type failure are not really as easy to detect or prevent, so eliminating the risks you can eliminate (ie: update) is a positive thing in this case when you compound multiple problems.

I'm still not convinced Tesla is going to do the absolute right thing by owners as far as actually correcting the underlying issue (which requires a pack replacement to fix 100%, no way around it). I'm convinced they are working in the best interest of safety by pushing the updates they have pushed. I'm also convinced that they're really working pretty hard to mitigate as much as possible with as little adverse effect as possible.

I'm convinced no one involved on Tesla's side is sitting there thinking, "Well, we can just let cars have problems for the sake of our bottom line." As far as they're concerned, the update eliminates the risk factor entirely. By not applying the update, you're accepting that slightly elevated risk of failure... just like you would if you had an ICE vehicle and say, didn't replace a component you knew could fail.

From what I've gathered, the number of people who could possibly still be affected by conditions X or Z (ie, have not updated) is less than 100... out of tens of thousands. I'd say that's good enough.

Yes, it sucks that range loss could be involved, and I'm hoping they'll find a way to either mitigate it in a way that corrects that, or corrects the issue entirely by replacing packs for those who can not recover 100% of the range lost by software mitigation.

Commence the stoning...

well it's not a stoning, but your previous statement that said "I never said this wasn't a safety issue." followed up with "read between the lines people!" in gif format, made things sound a lot more suspicious than this current post from you. This current post from you is the stuff Tesla should be saying to us! Why does it take someone on the sidelines not associated with Tesla to try and allay our fears. This to me sounds like almost a non issue and the hammer of axing range and performance sounds like way too heavy-handed a solution.

Thanks for the info. I think this will help some of us not worry as much about the safety.

Last question: Tesla doesn't need to update your MCU to update your BMS firmware, though, do they? They could cap your battery OTA without updating the MCU, right? Hopefully that's incorrect.

 

[MP3Mike]

This thread is pretty crazy, and I'll probably be stoned from multiple directions for posting here again.

I sure hope not. You don't deserve to be stoned at all.

I never said anyone's cars were going to burst into flames or anything. For that to happen, more failures than just condition X or Z would have to happen. They're both just additional risk factors when looking at overall failure possibilities, neither of which will cause something catastrophic on its own and neither of which is any more of a problem than some aspects of general use (charging to 100%, supercharging, leaving the car in the sun, etc... or in an ICE vehicle, I'd say just pumping gasoline is riskier than all of the above).

There are a bunch of factors that increase the risk of fire in a battery. For example, I'd say just charging a car (one without any other issues, new, whatever) to 100% and letting the car sit without discharging soon can result in as much, or likely even more in many cases, risk of fire than any of the conditions mitigated by the range loss updates. Charging to 100% in direct sunlight is probably more risky than having condition Z.

Thank you very much for taking whatever risks you are for posting this. I wish I could rate your post Helpful, Informative, Like, and Love.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

This is now a trending topic over at the Tesla Owners Worldwide Facebook group with over 65,000 members. If you aren't a member, you may wish to pop over there and chime in. The topic seems to be gaining traction there among owners and more are coming out pissed about their loss.

TESLA Owners Worldwide

 

[DJRas]

Absolutely it is a valid point. Under the category of Why-is-Tesla-Behaving-That-Way-?, having third party validation is asking them to expose some of their most closely held intellectual property to an outsider. I would expect them to be resistant to that in general and work especially hard to keep it out of discovery. Maybe that incentivizes them to look for a compromise or maybe it incentivizes them to dig in?

There are absolute protections available in the legal discovery phase. I have been an expert witness in a patent/trade secret lawsuit and had access to very sensitive internal documents. That is protected information. But, I was able to make conclusions and testimony based on this information as to the validity of the claims.
I would accept a report from a reputable third party validating the safety of the batteries and the updates.
That does NOT make it acceptable to take the capacity we paid for.

 

[VT_EE]

This thread is pretty crazy, and I'll probably be stoned from multiple directions for posting here again.

I never said anyone's cars were going to burst into flames or anything. For that to happen, more failures than just condition X or Z would have to happen. They're both just additional risk factors when looking at overall failure possibilities, neither of which will cause something catastrophic on its own and neither of which is any more of a problem than some aspects of general use (charging to 100%, supercharging, leaving the car in the sun, etc... or in an ICE vehicle, I'd say just pumping gasoline is riskier than all of the above).

There are a bunch of factors that increase the risk of fire in a battery. For example, I'd say just charging a car (one without any other issues, new, whatever) to 100% and letting the car sit without discharging soon can result in as much, or likely even more in many cases, risk of fire than any of the conditions mitigated by the range loss updates. Charging to 100% in direct sunlight is probably more risky than having condition Z.

Heck, I'd say using Ludicrous+ battery heating is probably 5x riskier than any of the conditions relevant to this discussion.

So, let's not blow things out of proportion. There is acceptable risk involved with the operation of any automobile, ICE or EV. However, the more risk eliminated, the better.

The problem for me is that other conditions that would end up with condition X or Z as a catalyst for a disaster type failure are not really as easy to detect or prevent, so eliminating the risks you can eliminate (ie: update) is a positive thing in this case when you compound multiple problems.

I'm still not convinced Tesla is going to do the absolute right thing by owners as far as actually correcting the underlying issue (which requires a pack replacement to fix 100%, no way around it). I'm convinced they are working in the best interest of safety by pushing the updates they have pushed. I'm also convinced that they're really working pretty hard to mitigate as much as possible with as little adverse effect as possible.

I'm convinced no one involved on Tesla's side is sitting there thinking, "Well, we can just let cars have problems for the sake of our bottom line." As far as they're concerned, the update eliminates the risk factor entirely. By not applying the update, you're accepting that slightly elevated risk of failure... just like you would if you had an ICE vehicle and say, didn't replace a component you knew could fail.

From what I've gathered, the number of people who could possibly still be affected by conditions X or Z (ie, have not updated) is less than 100... out of tens of thousands. I'd say that's good enough.

Yes, it sucks that range loss could be involved, and I'm hoping they'll find a way to either mitigate it in a way that corrects that, or corrects the issue entirely by replacing packs for those who can not recover 100% of the range lost by software mitigation.

Commence the stoning...

No stoning needed. Thanks for the additional information, which will hopefully dampen some of the wild speculation going on here. It should put some of the posters’ minds at ease.

 

[CSFTN]

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?

Apologies if already answered ..,
If by sorted out you mean mechanism understood ... If my understanding is correct: Samsung's issue was in communication between the battery engineers and the body designers. The initial design plan included squared corners; the battery engineers designed the physically biggest battery which would fit within that container. Later, the designers decided to round off the corners (more closely copy Apple?) and didn't communicate this to the battery engineers. So, in final form the battery didn't QUITE fit in the corners; it was close enough that the assembly folks didn't realize it was too snug; when completing assembly the corners of the battery were compressed beyond design spec, causing the insulation layer to be under excessive strain, ultimately leading to rare but not uncommon failure of the insulation layer, leading to shorts, leadings to thermal runaway leading to fires.

 

[swegman]

Last question: Tesla doesn't need to update your MCU to update your BMS firmware, though, do they? They could cap your battery OTA without updating the MCU, right? Hopefully that's incorrect.

That is what Tesla service told me. They claim I am part of a test group (which I had not agreed to participate in nor even knew about until I complained about the battery capacity loss) and that my BMS has a unique firmware version that Is separate from the firmware downloaded into the MCU (2019.16.2 at the time). They further stated the BMS firmware will likely be revised several times in the future without the MCU firmware being updated. The BMS firmware version number they told me (don’t remember it anymore) was different from the MCU firmware version (2019.16.2 at the time).

I don’t know if this is true or Tesla BS, but that is what I was told. I have ScanMyTesla but can’t find a BMS firmware version using the app.

 

[ltrkstooge]

From what I understand the essential problem is thermal management of the battery pack as it is recharged. The 85kwh has s piping through the pack which is not that efficient and may leak. While charging there is an enormous amount of heat and the pipes either do not actually touch a number of batteries or cannot effectively cool the battery. And when the battery pack heat reaches a certain temperature there is an increased danger of fire.
What is most distressing is there seems to be evidence that Tesla knew of this issue when they began manufacturing the packs but never redesigned a better cooling dynamic. It was only when the batteries started to explode that Tesla artificially reduced through software the maximum range the pack would charge to. That is problematic because: 1. it never addresses the actual issue of insufficient cooling and 2. it negates the promised and advertised range capability through no fault of the owner.
Add to that the deliberately misleading and obfuscating way Tesla has handled this and there seems to be a mega issue coming. I still think my S is light years better vehicle than anything I have ever owned but this is a very troubling situation. Mostly because of the goofyfooted approach by Tesla.

 

[sorka]

Samsung did the right thing and recalled the galaxy S7. Not only did they recall, they recalled every single one that they produced. They allowed some owners to keep their phone if they really wanted to, with a replaced battery and an onerous software hack to keep it from charging to anything remotely close to full capacity (I think it was around 75%?). Samsung Recalls Galaxy Note7 Smartphones Due to Serious Fire and Burn Hazards

Actually even that was temporary. Samsung downloaded a range...errr oops...capacity capping update as a response to those that refused to return their note 7's. The batteries weren't replaced and then capped, they were just capped.

Eventually, all carriers blocked all sims used in note 7s which finally killed them.

There are still a few idiots left using the Galaxy Note 7

 

[sorka]

Not anymore. That ended when they added the titanium battery shield, and the automated battery change system could no longer swap the battery packs. I think it added like a half hour for someone to manually remove the shield and then reinstall it after the automated swap.

And of course on the Model 3 it is entirely different, it takes almost 5 hours to swap a battery and entails ripping the interior apart to do it.

That can't be right. The titanium shield was introduced in early 2014 and retrofitted to all previous Model S's. The swap station at harris ranch was introduced in mid 2013 and operated until late 2016.

FYI. I've removed my titanium shield. It comes off in a about 30 seconds with hand tools.

 

[sorka]

That is what Tesla service told me. They claim I am part of a test group (which I had not agreed to participate in nor even knew about until I complained about the battery capacity loss) and that my BMS has a unique firmware version that Is separate from the firmware downloaded into the MCU (2019.16.2 at the time). They further stated the BMS firmware will likely be revised several times in the future without the MCU firmware being updated. The BMS firmware version number they told me (don’t remember it anymore) was different from the MCU firmware version (2019.16.2 at the time).

I don’t know if this is true or Tesla BS, but that is what I was told. I have ScanMyTesla but can’t find a BMS firmware version using the app.

Geez, if the effected folks have a special BMS firmware version that they are experimenting with, I'd hate to see how many cars lose range when they unleash that on the entire population.

 

[qwk]

This thread is pretty crazy, and I'll probably be stoned from multiple directions for posting here again.

I never said anyone's cars were going to burst into flames or anything. For that to happen, more failures than just condition X or Z would have to happen. They're both just additional risk factors when looking at overall failure possibilities, neither of which will cause something catastrophic on its own and neither of which is any more of a problem than some aspects of general use (charging to 100%, supercharging, leaving the car in the sun, etc... or in an ICE vehicle, I'd say just pumping gasoline is riskier than all of the above).

There are a bunch of factors that increase the risk of fire in a battery. For example, I'd say just charging a car (one without any other issues, new, whatever) to 100% and letting the car sit without discharging soon can result in as much, or likely even more in many cases, risk of fire than any of the conditions mitigated by the range loss updates. Charging to 100% in direct sunlight is probably more risky than having condition Z.

Heck, I'd say using Ludicrous+ battery heating is probably 5x riskier than any of the conditions relevant to this discussion.

So, let's not blow things out of proportion. There is acceptable risk involved with the operation of any automobile, ICE or EV. However, the more risk eliminated, the better.

The problem for me is that other conditions that would end up with condition X or Z as a catalyst for a disaster type failure are not really as easy to detect or prevent, so eliminating the risks you can eliminate (ie: update) is a positive thing in this case when you compound multiple problems.

I'm still not convinced Tesla is going to do the absolute right thing by owners as far as actually correcting the underlying issue (which requires a pack replacement to fix 100%, no way around it). I'm convinced they are working in the best interest of safety by pushing the updates they have pushed. I'm also convinced that they're really working pretty hard to mitigate as much as possible with as little adverse effect as possible.

I'm convinced no one involved on Tesla's side is sitting there thinking, "Well, we can just let cars have problems for the sake of our bottom line." As far as they're concerned, the update eliminates the risk factor entirely. By not applying the update, you're accepting that slightly elevated risk of failure... just like you would if you had an ICE vehicle and say, didn't replace a component you knew could fail.

From what I've gathered, the number of people who could possibly still be affected by conditions X or Z (ie, have not updated) is less than 100... out of tens of thousands. I'd say that's good enough.

Yes, it sucks that range loss could be involved, and I'm hoping they'll find a way to either mitigate it in a way that corrects that, or corrects the issue entirely by replacing packs for those who can not recover 100% of the range lost by software mitigation.

Commence the stoning...

What a change of heart. Lol. So now the affected capped packs have miraculously cured their bad module?
If what you say in this post is true, than why is it these battery packs were just fine for years, but just recently started to go into crisp mode, thus forcing Tesla to send these neutering updates?

 

[Chaserr]

That's not what he's saying. He's avoiding saying he knows there is an undisclosed safety issue, and he's trying to say he thinks the voltage cap should reduce probability of catastrophe or fatalities without actually saying so because he can't admit he knows too much if Tesla lets this go on long enough to escalate.

He said a lot just by confirming the batteries are faulty and need complete 100% replacement, the software "fix" is the band aid we thought it was. I'd like to hear a non-financially-motivated scientific explanation for how the band aid works, and for how long until the now-confirmed faulty packs will function before total failure.

It's interesting that he or Tesla thinks they can contact every blacklisted and off-network (and private non-Tesla alternate Networks, Jason knows of these) and know an exact number of cars still at risk of catastrophic failure. It's a low number, but still far too damning because that confirms that this has been a deception all along, and that we should have been notified of a safety recall months ago.

Rather than guessing at the "less than 100" number, Tesla should have an exact list of VINs with check boxes for every owner that is confirmed to be contacted and confirmed as OK / Not OK in accordance with legally established procedure on this matters.

Jason's attempt to settle matters appears to have escalated our understanding how extremely bad it is for Tesla to have made these decisions.


ONCE AGAIN, TESLA, WE IMPLORE YOU TO OPEN A LINE OF COMMUNICATION. STOP THE ESCALATION.

 

[tga]

The 85kwh has s piping through the pack which is not that efficient and may leak. While charging there is an enormous amount of heat and the pipes either do not actually touch a number of batteries or cannot effectively cool the battery.

All supposition with 0 evidence to back it up. The cooling loop actually touches the every cell, as shown in teardown threads here.

 

[bhzmark]

why is it these battery packs were just fine for years, but just recently started to go into crisp mode, thus forcing Tesla to send these neutering updates?

They may not have been fine for years. The condition may have arose gradually over time/usage/cycles, but was only measured and detected recently.

Or in other words, maybe they just degraded -- and, as with most things, some more than others.