Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[raphy3]

Here we go with the armchair warranty experts
For those who keep trying to state that virtually nothing under the sun is covered in Tesla's warranty, we have public statements, advertisements, from Tesla directly, and directly from Elon Musk, stating preceisly that if Tesla makes a mistake in the BMS, then the damage to the battery is covered by the warranty. You don't get to litigate that. Also, "usage" means to a reasonable person who bought a Tesla, that the energy stored in the battery will be used for driving. So natural degredation over time is due to using the battery to drive the car. "Usage" does not constitute "software 'update'".

 

[Chaserr]

As far I know Tesla didn't cap voltage on any new cars though, not sure about battery replacement but I would assume same.

Edit: that is to say do any impacted cars have a new battery and yet maintain the cap?

Monroney isn't a new-car-only law. It's forever. Any changes need to be recertified with the EPA. VW tried that defense and their executives went to prison.

Any volt cap invalidates the Monroney rating. It was made at 4.2v and unlike the Model 3 Tesla didn't request a derating. It is impossible for any battery rated at 4.2v to achieve the same energy use as tested at lower capacity.

Maybe if Tesla replaces drive units with Ravens. That get more range per kwh they can avoid a battery replacement, but original hardware was tested at 4.2v

 

[MP3Mike]

Tesla is guilty of Dieselgate fraud so you can report here. Dropping pack ndervoltage under the EPA rated 4.2v makes the EPAs monroney MPGes sticker fraudulently submitted and impossible for any impacted car to achieve, even with a brand new battery.

Dieselgate was about pollution, not mileage listed on the Monroney sticker.

 

[cpa]

While evidence does seem to indicate they did something, it also clearly points to safety vs $ as the motivation. Let this play out before you judge. You basically said they are plotting to capriciously limit voltage post warranty to sell cars. I think you are way out over your skis. And you guys who “loved” the post... did you really think about it?

Let's run with your hypothesis: Tesla's only motive is safety. Period. So, the sensible solution to make our cars safer is to force a surreptitious software update on us that is silent as to what these "minor bug fixes and improvements" are. When affected owners notice this drastic reduction in range, the service departments are evasive and disingenuous with their responses, only that their batteries are "within normal." Tesla's definition of normal was something related to the average battery health of similar vehicles for age and mileage. This metric had never been disclosed prior to this software change.

Therefore, if safety were the only reason, why did Tesla do everything under cover? Why did Tesla not contact the affected parties and work out an arrangement, including non-disclosure agreements to correct the problem? If 2,000 is indeed an approximate number of affected vehicles, these battery replacements would have run less than $30 million at Tesla's presumed $15,000 battery cost. I am certain that Tesla had other options available to them to remedy this putative safety software update.

Tesla can tell us that we need a new battery, or they could tell us our car is fine if we do not need to drive long distances or Supercharge quickly. Or they can try to sell us on a new car. All because of their artifice in downloading poisonous software to encourage us to spend more money on their products. This purely fictive scenario might be wedged deep in Musk's brain should Tesla not attain the results they want.

Please read what I wrote. Please read it carefully. I never said, "...they are plotting to capriciously limit voltage post warranty to sell cars." I wrote that my scenario was purely fictive. If you do not understand what I wrote, kindly refrain from responding until you understand it clearly.

Finally, I do not ski. What do you mean by being over my skis? Skis are attached to one's feet. One's body is over one's feet. Are you implying that I skied into a large object,crashed, and died? Thank you.

 

[bijan]

Monroney isn't a new-car-only law. It's forever. Any changes need to be recertified with the EPA. VW tried that defense and their executives went to prison.

Any volt cap invalidates the Monroney rating. It was made at 4.2v and unlike the Model 3 Tesla didn't request a derating. It is impossible for any battery rated at 4.2v to achieve the same energy use as tested at lower capacity.

Maybe if Tesla replaces drive units with Ravens. That get more range per kwh they can avoid a battery replacement, but original hardware was tested at 4.2v

Dieselgate was about pollution, not mileage listed on the Monroney sticker.

Also I believe they were making the vehicles report false data during emissions testing.

 

[Droschke]

"the software suppressed the emissions controls, allowing better fuel economy, at the expense of emitting up to 40 times more nitrogen oxides than allowed by law"

Volkswagen emissions scandal - Wikipedia

" In reality, the system failed to combine good fuel economy with compliant NOx emissions, and Volkswagen chose around 2006[51] to program the Engine Control Unit to switch from good fuel economy and high NO
x emissions to low-emission compliant mode when it detected an emissions test, particularly for the EA 189 engine."

The end was to show better MPG. The means was polluting.

 

[Chaserr]

While emissions are what people remember, Dieselgate was won using Monroney fraud. They used software to lower the range of customer cars, just like Tesla. It's why they had to buy back customer cars rather than just install emissions equipment or fix the software.

Interesting but was that a new pack or a refurbished pack. The argument made was that this cap is EPA fraud because a new car or car with new pack won't meet EPA numbers.

Let's run with your hypothesis: Tesla's only motive is safety. Period. So, the sensible solution to make our cars safer is to force a surreptitious software update on us that is silent as to what these "minor bug fixes and improvements" are. When affected owners notice this drastic reduction in range, the service departments are evasive and disingenuous with their responses, only that their batteries are "within normal." Tesla's definition of normal was something related to the average battery health of similar vehicles for age and mileage. This metric had never been disclosed prior to this software change.

Therefore, if safety were the only reason, why did Tesla do everything under cover? Why did Tesla not contact the affected parties and work out an arrangement, including non-disclosure agreements to correct the problem? If 2,000 is indeed an approximate number of affected vehicles, these battery replacements would have run less than $30 million at Tesla's presumed $15,000 battery cost. I am certain that Tesla had other options available to them to remedy this putative safety software update.



Please read what I wrote. Please read it carefully. I never said, "...they are plotting to capriciously limit voltage post warranty to sell cars." I wrote that my scenario was purely fictive. If you do not understand what I wrote, kindly refrain from responding until you understand it clearly.

Finally, I do not ski. What do you mean by being over my skis? Skis are attached to one's feet. One's body is over one's feet. Are you implying that I skied into a large object,crashed, and died? Thank you.

We know safety was never a concern for Tesla. If it was, they wouldn't be under investigation right now for committing the very serious crimes of concealing safety problems from the NHTSA. If safety was their concern, they would have reported this to the NHTSA in April.

Knowing this, we can conclude 2 possible things 1 is this has nothing to do with safety, or 2 they don't care about safety whatsoever.

 

[bijan]

While emissions are what people remember, Dieselgate was won using Monroney fraud. They used software to lower the range of customer cars, just like Tesla. It's why they had to buy back customer cars rather than just install emissions equipment or fix the software.

If I'm reading this right none of the affected VW cars could ever achieve rated MPG while having acceptable emissions. In this case these affected Teslas did achieve rated miles for years until batterygate and then it was the affected subset that had the problem. I'm not saying batterygate is legal or acceptable just saying it's a big difference.

Edit: I see the parallel in that if this is a safety or durability issue and Tesla could not satisfy that requirement and EPA and switched the cap on to mitigate that issue then that is a similarity but Tesla will probably argue this is an issue that didn't exist with the car when new. Don't know if that is convincing.

 

[MP3Mike]

While emissions are what people remember, Dieselgate was won using Monroney fraud. They used software to lower the range of customer cars, just like Tesla. It's why they had to buy back customer cars rather than just install emissions equipment or fix the software.

It was won based on emissions. Their original mitigation plan was to change software, but that would have resulted in the loss of range and power, so it wasn't acceptable. But even if they could have mitigated it with software they still would have been subject to the fines for cheating on emissions.

 

[Chaserr]

None of the effected Tesla's could ever achieve rated mpge. It's impossible.

Dieselgate doesn't become legal if VW pushes the same illegal software after you sign the paperwork. Some of the cars on the street had illegal software that can never achieve their Monroney sticker data. Some of the Tesla's on the road have the same problem, committed for the same secret fraudulent reasons.

The crime is intentionally invalidating Monroney.

 

[bijan]

New None of the effected Tesla's could ever achieve rated mpge. It's impossible.

What do you mean?

Didn't they all achieve it for years until batterygate. Isn't that why people are trying to keep V8 on their cars?

Edit: I see you mean after the cap they couldn't achieve it when new...

Edit2: if an ice car after 50k miles doesn't achieve EPA miles is that the same? Or is it the fact that they don't achieve it due to a software switch that is the issue.

 

[bhzmark]

battery degradation is an intrinsic property of the chemicals in the battery and not due to BMS algorithms. So condition z notwithstanding if Tesla fudged the BMS to deal with that it is not degradation by this definition.

"condition Z notwithstanding" ? not sure how to understand that. Condition Z is likely a physical condition of the battery, e.g., lithium plating. If the BMS responds to physical condition of the battery, that isn't just the BMS, and it isn't just the physical condition of the battery -- it is both.

Degradation is physical battery damage.

Condition Z could be physical battery damage, e.g., lithium plating.

why the first sentence at all?

Because it is a simple informative fact, but it isn't a warranty term like the following sentence.

if this all happened in 2014 or 2015,

If the BMS was designed that way in 2014 and 2015 there are two possible cases:

Case 1) you wouldn't have noticed anything because you wouldn't have Condition Z yet because the condition Z trigger only arises from usage.

Case 2) you would have noticed right away because condition Z was a manufacturing defect which was sensed right away.

Case 2 would be warrantable, but not Case 1.

Possibly there is a Case 3) which is a manufacturing defect that only arises over time. But that would be tough to distinguish from usage, especially if Condition Z is a normal usage condition like lithium plating. Condition Z would likely have to be something like a broken wire or connection or broken part of some kind.

 

[bijan]

condition Z notwithstanding" ? not sure how to understand that. Condition Z is likely a physical condition of the battery, e.g., lithium plating. If the BMS responds to physical condition of the battery, that isn't just the BMS, and it isn't just the physical condition of the battery -- it is both.

The BMS is supposed to prevent damage to the battery. Sounds like lithium plating is damage that should have been avoided by properly heating the battery or limiting charge rates.

Mitigating damage to the battery is not the same as degradation.

Degradation is a loss in capacity. The battery chemically/physically can and will hold less charge. I don't know if lithium plating affects that.

 

[gmo43]

What do you mean?

Didn't they all achieve it for years until batterygate. Isn't that why people are trying to keep V8 on their cars?

Edit: I see you mean after the cap they couldn't achieve it when new...

Edit2: if an ice car after 50k miles doesn't achieve EPA miles is that the same? Or is it the fact that they don't achieve it due to a software switch that is the issue.

Alright I'm sorry but you should do some reading. We have talked about same issues you bring up numerous times before. You are taking us back instead or forward. Please updated yourself before posting again. Or bring up some new.

 

[bijan]

Alright I'm sorry but you should do some reading. We have talked about same issues you bring up numerous times before. You are taking us back instead or forward. Please updated yourself before posting again. Or bring up some new.

I am sorry for this.

This will be my last post on this topic of EPA mileage.

From my understanding Volkswagen cheated emissions on 11million vehicles, 500,000 of which were sold in the US.

Fixing the problem with emissions would cause the cars not to meet epa mpg so they had to pay a fine for the emissions and buy back the cars.

Tesla has applied a voltage cap to a few thousand cars for some unknown reason either safety or to prevent degradation to the point of warranty repairs but this is speculation at this point, only Tesla knows. This fix causes these cars not to meet epa.

That is my understanding and I won't draw any conclusions if my previous posts were rehashes of what has been said. Draw your own comparisons.

 

[Chaserr]

What do you mean?

Didn't they all achieve it for years until batterygate. Isn't that why people are trying to keep V8 on their cars?

Edit: I see you mean after the cap they couldn't achieve it when new...

Edit2: if an ice car after 50k miles doesn't achieve EPA miles is that the same? Or is it the fact that they don't achieve it due to a software switch that is the issue.

Not with under 4.2v

It doesn't become legal to cheat emissions testing after a delay. The altered configuration to cheat Monroney is what Dieselgate was too. Read page 1, it will help.

 

[Droschke]

The VW Dieselgate is not too hard to understand.

VW wanted very high MPG (which would yield higher range) for their diesel engines. That was their goal and they achieved that goal while the car was driven but not when at the emission inspection stations where the MPG is not checked.

When the car was on the road, the software would pollute at illegal level, but the MPG was high - goal accomplished. When the car was at the inspection stations, the software was reducing the emission in order to pass the inspection.

That's it.

On Edit: Their MPG was a cheat and their emission control software was a cheat.

 

[Chaserr]

Correct. They falsified EPA testing results. Just like Tesla.

 

[qwk]

If I'm not mistaking @qwk had his battery replaced and he got it capped. Hope he will chime in.

Yep. Capped 2014 refurbished battery was the replacement. Engineering kept saying everything was normal, until the question of why this battery won’t charge to vmax of 4.2. Then their exact words were “internal issue with the pack”. They are going for pack replacement #2 now.

 

[omarsultan]

Because it is a simple informative fact, but it isn't a warranty term like the following sentence.

OK, apparently your experience is different than mine. My legal folks tell me I don't get to pick and choose which sentences are important and which ones are not in a contract. Every sentence, every word matters. Someone is going to get to decide what all those words mean in their totality.