Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[Chaserr]

”limited charging to 80% of capacity” Isn’t that exaggeration?

no. Tesla has decreased how much they are downgrading cars several times butsince 2019.16 to try and reduce the fallout of their actions but a full charge was just slightly over 80% of the original 100% when this thread was created. For those of us charging to 80% daily we suddenly found ourselves with 60% of the range uncapped even though Tesla lied and told us nothing was wrong and nothing had changed.

The nhtsa investigation and lawsuits are working. They gave back the first scraps of what they stole the day after the class action was filed, and they are now giving back a little more only days after being served an ultimatum from the NHTSA. They can keep giving back scraps little by little because they took so much... This latest scrap increases volts to 4.1v (about 90% of actual, so they've returned roughly half under duress)

 

[gmo43]

I agree!
There is no "mon-warrantable wear from usage" that could render 5% (or more) of the top end of the pack unusable from one day to the next

Any update or anything you would be able to share? Did Tesla make the deadline? What should we expect?

 

[DJRas]

Any update or anything you would be able to share? Did Tesla make the deadline? What should we expect?

Tesla hired new outside counsel which pushed their resonse date out.
We added another law firm also.
Tesla's counsel has asked for mediation. That might produce a quicker resolution.
It must be completed by Feb 28 now.
If mediation fails then it resorts back to the federal court in March.

 

[DJRas]

Video: Federal regulators look into possible defect in Tesla batteries

 

[bhzmark]

Nonsense. There is no such a phenomenon as "non-warrantable wear from usage" as it applies to the Tesla batteries. It's a myth. Please stop repeating it as it confuses the discourse.

It's not a "phenomenon" (whatever you think you mean by that) but it is a legal term of the printed warranty.

More precisely from my December 2014 printed warranty book:

"Loss of Battery energy or power over time or due to or resulting from Battery usage, NOT covered under this Battery and Drive Unit Limited Warranty." bold emphasis mine. ALL CAPS emphasis in the original

In other words the warranty specifically excludes loss of battery energy or power (i.e., wear) resulting from usage. In still other, but fewer, words, wear from usage is not warrantable.

Please stop misrepresenting the specific legal terms of the warranty as it confuses the discourse.

 

[bhzmark]

I asked him which other articles he believes are making false claims. He went mute as usual.

All articles which refer to a NHTSA "investigation" are false because it specifically is not an official NHTSA investigation accordingly to the plain language on the NHTSA website and in the letter. An NHTSA investigation may, or may not, come later.

 

[tomas]

I understand why the parties initiating this action express their opinion in absolutes about what is and isn’t warrantee. They have to, and they will disagree with this post because they have to. They are on one side of a dispute and need to preserve their position. But the reality is that it is a gray area that will be argued and decided in mediation and/or the courts. Maybe. More likely there will be a settlement so that question will not be resolved at all, but everyone will be made equally unhappy.

 

[omarsultan]

I do not know how it could be otherwise. Only 3 options I can think of to code a restriction that only hits some cars:
1) list of affected VINs in a table
2) check during the install process (1 time)
3) code that continuously checks for condition and branches accordingly.

1 and 2 are ridiculous. Has to be 3. Ergo, unaffected cars can become affected if they meet the condition.

Some version of #1 could be in use. I am not sure how computationally intensive the battery analysis is, but it is possible that the mothership chews on data pulled from cars then makes a determination on when action is needed then signals the car to cap itself. I think this approach might provide a more comprehensive view of what is going on in the fleet as a whole and provide better longitudinal data which allows them to fine tune the capping criteria. That might be why some folks are slowly getting some miles back as they refine their approach with more/better data.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

I understand why the parties initiating this action express their opinion in absolutes about what is and isn’t warrantee. They have to, and they will disagree with this post because they have to. They are on one side of a dispute and need to preserve their position. But the reality is that it is a gray area that will be argued and decided in mediation and/or the courts. Maybe. More likely there will be a settlement so that question will not be resolved at all, but everyone will be made equally unhappy.

Tomas there is always room for an alternative view, particularly when it is put forward sensibly, politely and non emotionally. I welcome your view. Even though I am a foreigner so am unlikely to be affected one way or the other by the action, I’m not sure I share it. But just because we disagree doesn’t mean one of us is wrong, just that we hold differing opinions.

 

[Droschke]

I understand why the parties initiating this action express their opinion in absolutes about what is and isn’t warrantee. They have to, and they will disagree with this post because they have to. They are on one side of a dispute and need to preserve their position. But the reality is that it is a gray area that will be argued and decided in mediation and/or the courts. Maybe. More likely there will be a settlement so that question will not be resolved at all, but everyone will be made equally unhappy.

Fair point. What is stated in Tesla warranty policy regarding the usage is about the normal (gradual) degradation of battery. Not what has happened to the impacted owners overnight. No owner can have an over-usage of the battery overnight by 12%. We have gone through this thousands of times.

 

[omarsultan]

It's not a "phenomenon" (whatever you think you mean by that) but it is a legal term of the printed warranty.

More precisely from my December 2014 printed warranty book:

"Loss of Battery energy or power over time or due to or resulting from Battery usage, NOT covered under this Battery and Drive Unit Limited Warranty." bold emphasis mine. ALL CAPS emphasis in the original

In other words the warranty specifically excludes loss of battery energy or power (i.e., wear) resulting from usage. In still other, but fewer, words, wear from usage is not warrantable.

Please stop misrepresenting the specific legal terms of the warranty as it confuses the discourse.

It is kinda funny you neglected to include the sentence immediately preceding the ones you quote (emphasis added):

The Battery, like all lithium-ion batteries, will experience gradual energy or power loss with time and use.

 

[Droschke]

It is kinda funny you neglected to include the sentence immediately preceding the ones you quote (emphasis added):

Thank you!

 

[mvotb]

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 think Tesla is changing BMS parameters, on most, if not all the S and probably Xs, and doing at least some of it, outside of the known, announced updates. My 60/75 2016, < 20,000 miles, which has been on V8, until force downgraded about a few weeks ago, showed no degradation for 3 years, charged to 209 miles. In the last 7 mos lost 11 miles, while on V8. Twice, when starting the car in the morning, the MCU would have different apps on it, that I don't use, and I would have to reboot, a couple of times to get things functioning again. I believe Tesla has made BMS changes outside of known updates, and many if not, most S and Xs are affected in one way or another. Just another thing to look for DJRas, although I believe you and the Feds understand that some of these changes may have been made in stealth rather than through scheduled updates.

 

[tomas]

Fair point. What is stated in Tesla warranty policy regarding the usage is about the normal (gradual) degradation of battery. Not what has happened to the impacted owners overnight. No owner can have an over-usage of the battery overnight by 12%. We have gone through this thousands of times.

It will be interesting to see the real arguments in mediation and/or courts and how they are perceived and what prevails. Not in a forum, or more specifically a specific thread in a forum which is dominated by a few like minded. Do not assume by that that I disagree... just that I try to express my views as views, not absolutes and I get annoyed when others don’t extend the same courtesy. I’ll post my view soon when I have some time.

 

[bhzmark]

It is kinda funny you neglected to include the sentence immediately preceding the ones you quote (emphasis added):

But in the operative sentence the word gradual isn't used. They could have used it, but they didn't. So I didn't quote it. And anyway condition Z hitting the triggering limit may have arose gradually. What point are you trying to make? It is common in most warranties that they cover manufacturing defects but do not cover product problems that arise from usage.

So the point still remains: is condition Z hitting the triggering limit a battery malfunction or defect, or is it from usage?

And by the way, if Condition Z is or is indicative of some species of lithium plating it will almost certainly be wear and thus not warrantable.

Lithium plating can be hard to detect and perhaps the new software that now measures Condition Z and found a new way to detect the plating -- plating that lithium batteries have as a known artifact of usage.

Another question is whether the software change is a temporary or permanent mitigation of the plating or whether it is a A/B testing of various strategies to try to mitigate.

It's odd that the affected parties aren't more intellectually curious about these questions. I would be if I were affected, and I am a little curious even though I am not affected.

 

[bijan]

It is kinda funny you neglected to include the sentence immediately preceding the ones you quote (emphasis added):

The Battery, like all lithium-ion batteries, will experience gradual energy or power loss with time and use.

Would everyone be happy if Tesla gradually capped voltage to 4.1V by 0.01V increments? Is it just the fact that the batteries were downgraded overnight that has people upset?

 

[omarsultan]

But in the operative sentence the word gradual isn't used. They could have used it, but they didn't. So I didn't quote it.

By that logic, any contract must be one continuous, run on sentence. The sentence you excluded provides context to the subsequent sentence otherwise they could have simply said "any loss of Battery energy or power over time or due to or resulting from Battery usage is NOT covered under this Battery and Drive Unit Limited Warranty..." and skipped the first sentence altogether.

Besides, the loss in question is not from me using the battery, the loss is from them applying a SW patch to the BMS--its not from natural degradation, it's from an artificial, externally imposed limitation.

 

[omarsultan]

Would everyone be happy if Tesla gradually capped voltage to 4.1V by 0.01V increments? Is it just the fact that the batteries were downgraded overnight that has people upset?

Why is Tesla capping anything? Why is that OK in any circumstance? We are not talking about the natural degradation that comes with use (battery packs, timing belts, pump seals, whatever). We are talking about the manufacturer explicitly and artificially modifying the functioning of a car for their own purposes.

A few years ago, I had an MB SUV--loved it, but over time it developed a grinding noise, when it shifted into its highest gear. I don't think anyone here would argue that an OK resolution would be to program the transmission to lock out the top gear, they would expect MB to honor their warranty and fix or replace the transmission. In my mind, this situation is no different.

 

[bijan]

Why is Tesla capping anything? Why is that OK in any circumstance? We are not talking about the natural degradation that comes with use (battery packs, timing belts, pump seals, whatever). We are talking about the manufacturer explicitly and artificially modifying the functioning of a car for their own purposes.

A few years ago, I had an MB SUV--loved it, but over time it developed a grinding noise, when it shifted into its highest gear. I don't think anyone here would argue that an OK resolution would be to program the transmission to lock out the top gear, they would expect MB to honor their warranty and fix or replace the transmission. In my mind, this situation is no different.

I don't disagree. My point was the gradual word doesn't really matter the problem is not that it was sudden but that it was due to Tesla making changes. If degradation happened suddenly maybe the gradual statement would matter. But since as you say it's not degradation...

 

[Chaserr]

But in the operative sentence the word gradual isn't used. They could have used it, but they didn't. So I didn't quote it. And anyway condition Z hitting the triggering limit may have arose gradually. What point are you trying to make? It is common in most warranties that they cover manufacturing defects but do not cover product problems that arise from usage.

So the point still remains: is condition Z hitting the triggering limit a battery malfunction or defect, or is it from usage?

And by the way, if Condition Z is or is indicative of some species of lithium plating it will almost certainly be wear and thus not warrantable.

Lithium plating can be hard to detect and perhaps the new software that now measures Condition Z and found a new way to detect the plating -- plating that lithium batteries have as a known artifact of usage.

Another question is whether the software change is a temporary or permanent mitigation of the plating or whether it is a A/B testing of various strategies to try to mitigate.

It's odd that the affected parties aren't more intellectually curious about these questions. I would be if I were affected, and I am a little curious even though I am not affected.

Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

Read this link, post #1 was recently updated to help get you up to speed and is constantly updated with new info as we learn more.

It's not gradual and it doesn't matter. It's theft, EPA fraud, and possibly NHTSA fraud. Theft isn't in doubt, Tesla admitted to it. This week's update returns more stolen volts, so it was never any natural condition.