Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[Ferrycraigs]

Today I pretty much demonstrated how bad charge gate would be for me. I had a tight schedule and had to be somewhere to give a talk, 3 hours away, and I had 40 miles on the car. I had 4 hours to charge and get there in time. With charge gate, I would have been hosed. With my current charging config, I made it with 20-25 min to spare. Of course, to get back home I had to SC again, which added about an hour to my trip. Got home at 11. That would have been more like 12:30-1:00AM with charge gate. Basically, if Tesla updates my car with this, today demonstrated to me that I'll have to sell it. It won't be able to keep up.

Exactly my view. Slightly against my better judgement I updated recently (to 2019.32.2.2 so not V10). It cured the ever increasing problems I was having with my Apps, but I absolutely live in fear that I have jumped from the 'Apps not working' pan into the 'Chargegate' pan. Off now to a Supercharger to TMSpy my capacity, and 100% voltage, and to check and log my charge speed.

But if my car now suffers from Chargegate (as well as Batterygate) that makes it pretty useless and it’s likely to have a For Sale sign on it pretty soon. Sadly Tesla’s Trade In offer is so pathetic, I am unlikely to sell it to them. Although I would LOVE to do so and give them the problem of trying to sell a car that doesn’t even have 200 miles range, and takes 2 hours to recharge on a journey.

 

[Chaserr]

The very last version of v8 added pin to drive which I kind of wish I had but not enough to wish for v9...or even v10 with Spotify.

You don't want Pin To Drive. It's a neat idea but it requires a functional MCU to disable and with the short and unpredicatble lifetime of MCU1 having it enables is a roll of the dice for when your car is bricked. Without it enabled, a dead MCU1 is still a drivable car, with it enabled tesla's excessive logging will brick your car eventually.

You can disagree with my post, but show us the proof that capping was the fix for the fires. It's just circumstantial evidence, at best. We're assuming the capping was the fix. It's a reasonable assumption, but not proven. Ergo speculation, not proven fact. There are other changes that likely help as well. Cooling fans are running faster and more often, the coolant pumps are running more, etc.

You've seen the proof, tesla tacitly admitted to it publicly. You can choose not to believe Tesla - they're proven liars and you're right to mistrust them - but it's what they claim as their reason for downgrading our capacity and power and since they downgraded us for a reason and they told us the reason, you're making a choice to refute the source itself.

The only more proof you can possibly get beyond their admission of guilt is a conviction, which may be even more difficult to acknowledge than their public disclosure. But with the NHTSA directly contacting us asking for evidence (they want to see our records) now, you will be faced with that decision sooner or later as well.

Now, if you're refuting the cap as an actual fix - I agree with you. When Samsung batteries had the same fire problems, they tried capping their voltages with updates too. It failed to work and they had to recall every impacted battery.

We'll get an update from the NHTSA soon enough. They won't let fire hazards go uncommented for too long, and they are actively investigating as we speak.

 

[jkennebeck]

Anyone else get an email asking for more information about their complaint to NHTSA that was referenced earlier in the thread?
They're asking some good questions, I hope they do something with this.

answered mine today.

Really hope they're asking these questions of effected owners that have teslafi as questions 2 - 11 can be answered from teslafi alone.

I didn't have Teslafi until late July after noticing the drop and finding this thread. But I sent logs to them of all charges since then.

 

[wk057]

Is it likely that there are 10s of thousands that have pre 16.1 software still? I would have thought it would have been less than 100 that even have something older than 16.1.

Heck, out of all teslafi.com subscribers, there are 3 left that have v8 on the entire planet.

Edit: 2018.39.7 9736c9b was the first v9 so there are teslafi subscribers that have some version of v8 left. I have the second to last. The very last version of v8 added pin to drive which I kind of wish I had but not enough to wish for v9...or even v10 with Spotify.

The raw counts aren't relevant here. It's the number of vehicles possibly affected by the issue that do not have the update that matters. Tesla pushed the update to those vehicles hard (fast rollout with no wifi wait), including some forced updates as others have noted. The actual number of vehicles on that list without the update is a very small number and tiny percentage.

Edit: In fact, I'd venture to guess that most of the vehicles not updated are probably wrecks/salvages that haven't made it to the unsupported list yet, or are otherwise not connected anymore for whatever reason.

 

[Chaserr]

[QUOE="wk057, post: 4141043, member: 21811The raw counts aren't relevant here. It's the number of vehicles possibly affected by the issue that do not have the update that matters. Tesla pushed the update to those vehicles hard (fast rollout with no wifi wait), including some forced updates as others have noted. The actual number of vehicles on that list without the update is a very small number and tiny percentage.

Edit: In fact, I'd venture to guess that most of the vehicles not updated are probably wrecks/salvages that haven't made it to the unsupported list yet, or are otherwise not connected anymore for whatever reason.[/QUOTE]

Wait, you're saying that raw numbers are irrelvant because Tesla has already identified actual specific criteria for which exact vehicles that need to be recalled for this problem, and they still haven't published anything to the NHTSA?

If what you're saying is correct, the list in the other thread with specific older vehicles that have been manually updated without consent will be a match to this secret new list you're implying Tesla is using to cover up whatever this problem is - one you've personally implied is a safety issue.

@DJRas make sure this is noted, if @wk057 is to be believed that list he just brought up should be specifically looked for in Discovery, along with any communications related to why they are targeting specific vehicles. It means Tesla believes it knows the exact criteria of impacted vehicles to search for already and has identified the common link we've been trying to suss out ourselves.

Thanks, Jason!

 

[55RD]

Anyone else get an email asking for more information about their complaint to NHTSA that was referenced earlier in the thread?
They're asking some good questions, I hope they do something with this.

Yes I got one yesterday and was happy to see some action

 

[wk057]

Wait, you're saying that raw numbers are irrelvant because Tesla has already identified actual specific criteria for which exact vehicles that need to be recalled for this problem, and they still haven't published anything to the NHTSA?

If what you're saying is correct, the list in the other thread with specific older vehicles that have been manually updated without consent will be a match to this secret new list you're implying Tesla is using to cover up whatever this problem is - one you've personally implied is a safety issue.

@DJRas make sure this is noted, if @wk057 is to be believed that list he just brought up should be specifically looked for in Discovery, along with any communications related to why they are targeting specific vehicles. It means Tesla believes it knows the exact criteria of impacted vehicles to search for already and has identified the common link we've been trying to suss out ourselves.

Thanks, Jason!

You mean all vehicles with 85 and 70 packs? I thought this was noted here ages ago when this issue first appeared. This isn't new information, and Tesla can easily make a list of such vehicles.

 

[Chaserr]

,OK now i'm confused. Is the issue you're not letting us in on now applicable to every 85 and 70 pack ever produced? That would make the raw numbers relevant again and make this a much bigger design flaw than we previously thought.

Tesla can easily make a list of such vehicles.

They have to when the NHTSA takes the data we're sharing with them in their investigation forward. If every 85 and 70 ever made potentially has the flaw that they haven't declared it increases the scope of the problem. But since all we want is information neither you or Tesla is willing to disclose, the scope doesn't really matter except maybe for the huge financial hit that Tesla might be trying to avoid - and that explains the coverup or as you've put it "Tesla not doing the right thing". Tesla will answer when ordered by the courts eventually, and your information helps the suit find relevant information. It sounds like you've confirmed they are taking proactive measures to hide the problem and there will be internal communications verifying this. It's possible some of your own communications may even be included, if you contacted people at Tesla through their official Tesla email addresses.

here's hoping you've helped us find the answers we need!

I also find it extraordinarily unlikely that less than 100 of every 85 and 70 pack ever made (and presumably 75s, they are affected as well) have updated. That's just not possible - more than that have been exported to countries without support or are on private off-Tesla networks like yours and out of communication.

 

[sorka]

The raw counts aren't relevant here. It's the number of vehicles possibly affected by the issue that do not have the update that matters. Tesla pushed the update to those vehicles hard (fast rollout with no wifi wait), including some forced updates as others have noted. The actual number of vehicles on that list without the update is a very small number and tiny percentage.

Edit: In fact, I'd venture to guess that most of the vehicles not updated are probably wrecks/salvages that haven't made it to the unsupported list yet, or are otherwise not connected anymore for whatever reason.

Ah. I think I get it. Do you mean cars that have the BMS update, not just 16.1 or later?

If not that many have the update, it's amazing that how this thread concentrated those that have the issue and of course all of those that replied in the first Electrek article on this that also say they had a sudden drop in range.

 

[gmo43]

I have certainly noticed, occasionally, some minor pump running when my car is parked up and not plugged in. It’s certainly not always, but it’s far from rare. I have put this new activity down as the most likely source of my recently ever increasing Vampire Drain, which is no longer constant; it fluctuates, I think linked to temperature.

Yup I reported that about a month ago. When I noticed range coming back. They are just taking it back by making ac or other pumps work.

 

[jaitch]

......................Although I would LOVE to do so and give them the problem of trying to sell a car that doesn’t even have 200 miles range, and takes 2 hours to recharge on a journey.

It wont make any difference to Teslia as they advertise the "as new" range on their degraded used cars - ask me how I know!

 

[sorka]

My P85D is once again sitting in wifi oblivion

 

[TexasDuke]

I called tech support and they advised that during software updates that the “projected range” sometimes are affected, but the actual range won’t be that and should adjust to your driving the next time you drive your vehicle.

I called as I noticed a ~20 mile drop from evening to morning during the last two weeks suddenly after the first v10 update. My actual range and performance hasn’t altered even though the projected range changes during the night. They’ll probably be able to adjust this in a future update.
(I have a 17MS75D w/52k+.)

 

[Ferrycraigs]

I called tech support and they advised that during software updates that the “projected range” sometimes are affected, but the actual range won’t be that and should adjust to your driving the next time you drive your vehicle.

I called as I noticed a ~20 mile drop from evening to morning during the last two weeks suddenly after the first v10 update. My actual range and performance hasn’t altered even though the projected range changes during the night. They’ll probably be able to adjust this in a future update.
(I have a 17MS75D w/52k+.)

It is important that people understand there are 3 terms.
Rated Range - this is a figure used by Tesla and is virtually unachievable. It’s a simple algorithm calculation based on the amount of charge left in the battery. Not regarded by ANYBODY as in any way representative of real world figures.
Typical Range - again derived from a fixed algorithm so it will not take any outside factors into account, like driving style, temperature, geography. This is a figure much closer to reality, and whilst it is achievable, it does require gentle driving in 'standard' weather conditions.
Projected Range - this is taken from the Energy App in the Main Screen. This takes into account the driving style from the last 5/15/30 miles (you select which one). When used in conjunction with a Sat Nav route, or a selected destination, it also factors in geography (the more knowledgable will be able to confirm whether or not it takes temperature into account) so is, IMO, a much more accurate estimate. But they are all estimates.

 

[Pruitt]

It is important that people understand there are 3 terms.
Rated Range - this is a figure used by Tesla and is virtually unachievable.

Not so, Ferrycraigs!
If you drive 30 mph down a freeway with essentially no hills, and on a pleasant summer day when you don't need heat or AC, your actual range may well exceed rated range. At least until some semi going 75 runs you over.

 

[DJRas]

It is important that people understand there are 3 terms.
Rated Range - this is a figure used by Tesla and is virtually unachievable. It’s a simple algorithm calculation based on the amount of charge left in the battery. Not regarded by ANYBODY as in any way representative of real world figures.
Typical Range - again derived from a fixed algorithm so it will not take any outside factors into account, like driving style, temperature, geography. This is a figure much closer to reality, and whilst it is achievable, it does require gentle driving in 'standard' weather conditions.
Projected Range - this is taken from the Energy App in the Main Screen. This takes into account the driving style from the last 5/15/30 miles (you select which one). When used in conjunction with a Sat Nav route, or a selected destination, it also factors in geography (the more knowledgable will be able to confirm whether or not it takes temperature into account) so is, IMO, a much more accurate estimate. But they are all estimates.

In the US Rated Range is the same as Typical Range outside the US. It is a "fixed" constant times the energy remaining. Though the "fixed" value can be altered by firmware updates.
In the US Ideal Range is the other ICD selection that is virtually unobtainable.

 

[jerry33]

It is important that people understand there are 3 terms.
Rated Range - this is a figure used by Tesla and is virtually unachievable. It’s a simple algorithm calculation based on the amount of charge left in the battery. Not regarded by ANYBODY as in any way representative of real world figures.
Typical Range - again derived from a fixed algorithm so it will not take any outside factors into account, like driving style, temperature, geography. This is a figure much closer to reality, and whilst it is achievable, it does require gentle driving in 'standard' weather conditions.
Projected Range - this is taken from the Energy App in the Main Screen. This takes into account the driving style from the last 5/15/30 miles (you select which one). When used in conjunction with a Sat Nav route, or a selected destination, it also factors in geography (the more knowledgable will be able to confirm whether or not it takes temperature into account) so is, IMO, a much more accurate estimate. But they are all estimates.

Note:
Rated Range = Ideal Range in North America. This is what I use because it's very close to my actual results.
Typical Range = Rated Range in North America. Based on the EPA numbers. Quite conservative.
Projected Range. I've never heard a different North American expression. This is the estimate from the trip graph that for use with the Nav system on trips. There is also an energy graph with a projection, but that really hasn't had any use since the trip graph came out.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

Note:
Rated Range = Ideal Range in North America. This is what I use because it's very close to my actual results.
Typical Range = Rated Range in North America. Based on the EPA numbers. Quite conservative.
Projected Range. I've never heard a different North American expression. This is the estimate from the trip graph that for use with the Nav system on trips. There is also an energy graph with a projection, but that really hasn't had any use since the trip graph came out.

See all you Americans use different words for the real thing, ie boot/trunk, bonnet/hood, tyre/tyre, pavement/sidewalk, gallon/nearly a gallon, unwanted interference/Tesla update.

No wonder there is confusion.

 

[jerry33]

See all you Americans use different words for the real thing, ie boot/trunk, bonnet/hood, tyre/tyre, pavement/sidewalk, gallon/nearly a gallon, unwanted interference/Tesla update.

No wonder there is confusion.

It's the French influence.

 

[DJRas]

Note:
Rated Range = Ideal Range in North America. This is what I use because it's very close to my actual results.
Typical Range = Rated Range in North America. Based on the EPA numbers. Quite conservative.
Projected Range. I've never heard a different North American expression. This is the estimate from the trip graph that for use with the Nav system on trips. There is also an energy graph with a projection, but that really hasn't had any use since the trip graph came out.

Really????
I see Ideal Range as unobtainable. It is based on about 240 Wh per mile. My lifetime average is 320 Wh/mi. But I drive up and down hills (+/- 4,000 ft elevation charge).
Rated Range has NOTHING to do with the energy display. It is currently based on 276 Wh/mi on 85 kWh rwd cars.
I can hit the 276 Wh/mi on the downhill leg from my home to the Supercharger 85 miles and 3,000 ft downhill.