Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[gmo43]

Tesla under scrutiny by feds for battery, software issues

Great coverage.

 

[RoyRichardson]

On the update on page 1 of this thread it asserts
"There have been no reports of any cars with 90 kWh, or 100 kWh being affected"
Just to advise this is incorrect.
I have a Jan 2016 MS90RWD and it has been affected by the software update.
My car, in May, had done around 36000 miles and lost around 4% of range through normal battery degradation. After the software update the loss quickly changed to 7.5%.
Now I know this is less of an issue for.me than those with smaller batteries, but it is still an unwarranted reduction in range which negated the money I paid to upgrade from an 85 to.90 at time of purchase.

 

[Az_Rael]

The Washington Post coverage estimated only about 2000 cars were affected. You have to imagine Tesla is being penny wise and pound foolish here. I guess other companies have done the same math with recalls (infamously GM), but Tesla originally was supposed to be “better” than the traditional manufacturers. Every year they get more and more like the old guard, and not in a good way at all. It’s sad, really.

 

[raphy3]

On the update on page 1 of this thread it asserts
"There have been no reports of any cars with 90 kWh, or 100 kWh being affected"
Just to advise this is incorrect.
I have a Jan 2016 MS90RWD and it has been affected by the software update.
My car, in May, had done around 36000 miles and lost around 4% of range through normal battery degradation. After the software update the loss quickly changed to 7.5%.
Now I know this is less of an issue for.me than those with smaller batteries, but it is still an unwarranted reduction in range which negated the money I paid to upgrade from an 85 to.90 at time of purchase.

thanks for that info. You are probably right in that 90s can be capped. it seems that they will be capped at a lower severity. But any range los after an update, especially if it was after 2019.16, is very suspicious as capping. You should try and check your voltages. I think there was one other 90 owner in this thread who also mentioned he was capped, so that seems to be it's possible for 90s to be capped, but at a much lower rate. We should confirm this with voltage measurements.

 

[raphy3]

The Washington Post coverage estimated only about 2000 cars were affected. You have to imagine Tesla is being penny wise and pound foolish here. I guess other companies have done the same math with recalls (infamously GM), but Tesla originally was supposed to be “better” than the traditional manufacturers. Every year they get more and more like the old guard, and not in a good way at all. It’s sad, really.

I suspect that they have done some math and someone got rather scared when they realized, "it's about 2000 cars, for now", and then realized that the issue could affect a massive number of cars in the future. So their actions right now, if they can pull them off, set a precedent for how they plan to deal with these problems in the future.

Total conjecture, but occam's razor, because otherwise this just makes no sense to leave such a small number out in the cold. certainly hope this is incorrect.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

On the update on page 1 of this thread it asserts
"There have been no reports of any cars with 90 kWh, or 100 kWh being affected"
Just to advise this is incorrect.
I have a Jan 2016 MS90RWD and it has been affected by the software update.
My car, in May, had done around 36000 miles and lost around 4% of range through normal battery degradation. After the software update the loss quickly changed to 7.5%.
Now I know this is less of an issue for.me than those with smaller batteries, but it is still an unwarranted reduction in range which negated the money I paid to upgrade from an 85 to.90 at time of purchase.

Roy, as you know I am conscious of your case. But unless you can see if the voltage at 100% has been reduced, your capacity drop (which is not in question) might or might not be down to batterygate. A 3.5% drop does seem to be unusually low (for batterygate). So until proved that it is, the statement stands, perhaps in the same room as Tesla's 'your battery is healthy', but on the basis of what's good for the goose etc.
Iain.

Roy, come up to a Edinburgh. I have a cable.

 

[Az_Rael]

I suspect that they have done some math and someone got rather scared when they realized, "it's about 2000 cars, for now", and then realized that the issue could affect a massive number of cars in the future. So their actions right now, if they can pull them off, set a precedent for how they plan to deal with these problems in the future.

Total conjecture, but occam's razor, because otherwise this just makes no sense to leave such a small number out in the cold. certainly hope this is incorrect.

Certainly possible. I am currently awaiting a CANBus cable to be shipped to me so I can see if the recent drop from 324@ 100% down to 308 @100% is a voltage capping issue on my Model 3.

In the model 3 threads I have seen at least one report of a LR RWD with a 100% charge of 290 which is a good 10% down, and a lot on a 2 year old car.

 

[Chaserr]

On the update on page 1 of this thread it asserts
"There have been no reports of any cars with 90 kWh, or 100 kWh being affected"
Just to advise this is incorrect.
I have a Jan 2016 MS90RWD and it has been affected by the software update.
My car, in May, had done around 36000 miles and lost around 4% of range through normal battery degradation. After the software update the loss quickly changed to 7.5%.
Now I know this is less of an issue for.me than those with smaller batteries, but it is still an unwarranted reduction in range which negated the money I paid to upgrade from an 85 to.90 at time of purchase.

Can you charge to 100% and post volts? Range or power loss is an indicator you might be capped, but volts is proof.

I don't think we have seen a 90 cap proven yet,and page 1 is trying to outline what we know. If 90 can be capped we need to fix page 1.

Nobody knows where that 2000 number came from. It's too low to be real.

 

[Droschke]

On the update on page 1 of this thread it asserts
"There have been no reports of any cars with 90 kWh, or 100 kWh being affected"
Just to advise this is incorrect.
I have a Jan 2016 MS90RWD and it has been affected by the software update.
My car, in May, had done around 36000 miles and lost around 4% of range through normal battery degradation. After the software update the loss quickly changed to 7.5%.
Now I know this is less of an issue for.me than those with smaller batteries, but it is still an unwarranted reduction in range which negated the money I paid to upgrade from an 85 to.90 at time of purchase.

If you do not have the necessary tools to measure your voltage max, can you do this:

- Follow the method described under "CALCULATION OF AMOUNT OF CAPACITY BLOCKED BY CAPPING" of Post#1
- Compare the resulted kWh with your car's kWh when it was new
- Report it back here

 

[jensk2]

There's actually no evidence of the change in constant in the video (in the linked video, he provided the numbers "based on previous data"). I'm not saying the change did not happen; someone should link to his Bjorn's prior video showing where he measured this constant so we can check his method, and figure out exactly when this happened. I've seen no evidence of the constant changing in 2019. Not saying it didn't.

I have shared 'pictured' data (kWh added divided by Km Added) for my cars last 3.6 years, with Bjørn via FaceBook I'm sure he receives tons of FB Messages, so he may overlook mine.

My data argues that MY CAR have always used a constant Wh/km, but I am also not hit by reduced range
Typical versus rated would be around 194 Wh/km and 146 Wh/km (or .312 Wh/m, 191 Wh/m). Of course European cars may NOT be 'rated' as US cars

I'm unfortunately still on 2019.32.2.2, because my car fails all updates due to '12V Battery needs service, but Tesla SC have scheduled the fix more than a month out in the future:-(

 

[jensk2]

I guess I should have defined "big". At about the 1 year mark, I lost 6-7 miles in rated range in one big chunk, other than that I was losing ~1 mile in range per year. Prior to battery gate, I was at ~248 @ 100%. Ironically, I used to track my battery much more closely, but since the decrease was so linear and shallow, for so many years, I had stopped worry about it.

Would your car be 1 year old around May 2016? That is when my Oct 2015 Model S 70D suddenly reduced Range:

 

[Droschke]

We have some major traction! Thanks for your pushing it David!

The Car and Driver's article is the most informative one. I'm bolding/underlining the part we have debated in this thread a lot:

"Tesla told Reuters that because of the update, "A very small percentage of owners of older Model S and Model X vehicles (pictured above) may have noticed a small reduction in range when charging to a maximum state of charge following a software update designed to improve battery longevity."

Exactly what "battery longevity" means here wasn't made clear. NHTSA now wants to get the data from Tesla to evaluate if the updates were actually made because of the fires. NHTSA wants Tesla to provide information and documents regarding the OTA software updates the company made in 2019 that "limit the maximum battery capacity of maximum cell charging voltage of the high-voltage battery."

NHTSA, Investigating Tesla Fire Reports, Demands Data on Battery Software Changes

 

[gmo43]

Question:
Anyone know if I actually pay the TeslaFi monthly fee I will be able to get past car history even if just made the account? Past the 15 days mark they state?

Thanks!

 

[omarsultan]

Would your car be 1 year old around May 2016? That is when my Oct 2015 Model S 70D suddenly reduced Range:

No, I have a ‘13.

 

[hpartsch]

Question:
Anyone know if I actually pay the TeslaFi monthly fee I will be able to get past car history even if just made the account? Past the 15 days mark they state?

Thanks!

Negative on that.

 

[st50maint]

My 2015 70D still knows what a proper 90% charge is.
I purposely charge slowly at 120 volts and 12 amps.
At 188 miles it says I have 4 hours and 50 minutes remaining.
Then 4 minutes later charging is complete at the same 188 miles instead of about 207 miles that I used to get. If it continued charging for the remaining 4 hours and 50 minutes it would be about 207 miles.

 

[hpartsch]

Just read through the new first page. I am starting to fill out the info in the excel document. Was wondering if there is anyone in the Gig Harbor/Tacoma/Seattle area that has the Canbus tools to help me fill in all the data?

 

[tomas]

Boy this thread attracts a lot of irrelevant posts and false positives by people who haven’t taken the time to learn much about their batteries or the topic! It is excruciating to follow. I wish everyone would read the post 1 addendum before posting. Also, we really need a concise charging FAQ, I thought there used to be one.

 

[Droschke]

My 2015 70D still knows what a proper 90% charge is.
I purposely charge slowly at 120 volts and 12 amps.
At 188 miles it says I have 4 hours and 50 minutes remaining.
Then 4 minutes later charging is complete at the same 188 miles instead of about 207 miles that I used to get. If it continued charging for the remaining 4 hours and 50 minutes it would be about 207 miles.View attachment 472407 View attachment 472410

Putting aside the "4 hours and 50 minutes remaining" message, looks like your charging limit is set at 90% (not 100) and you finish at 90% (with 188 miles).

Are you asking about the estimated ""4 hours and 50 minutes remaining" message"?

 

[Droschke]

Boy this thread attracts a lot of irrelevant posts and false positives by people who haven’t taken the time to learn much about their batteries or the topic! It is excruciating to follow. I wish everyone would read the post 1 addendum before posting. Also, we really need a concise charging FAQ, I thought there used to be one.

Agree. Also, keep in mind the post#1 addendum went up yesterday to minimize "a lot of irrelevant posts" you are referring to, hopefully

If an irrelevant post is in, we should direct the poster to read the Post#1 first.