Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[Ferrycraigs]

Your cite is not on point. You are referencing a warranty claim against Honda regarding tires which have their separate warranty by the tire manufacturer, not Honda. Please find a cite that is clearly on point. My guess that there are not any, and this is why Tesla is digging its heels in, and the plaintiff is forcing the issue.

I think many on here have argued that this mysterious Condition Z is a defect or failure. If wk057 is to be believed, this was a serendipitous discovery by Tesla as they were looking for Condition X. This Condition Z was deemed important enough to start the dominoes falling. Apparently, Tesla was unaware of the possibility of Condition Z from the start. Would Tesla have sold us these batteries from day one as originally configured had they known about Condition Z in 2011-2012? Or would Tesla have altered the chemistry, BMS, enlarged the packs, whatever to sell cars with stated range and Supercharger speeds in order to stymie this Condition Z? To me, this is a defect or failure.

I guess you would argue that a clock that loses three minutes per day would not be a manufacturing defect or failure because it is still right twice a day.

I absolutely do think the discovery was serendipitous. But is it not relevant that, having found the issue, they only take reactive action on a very small number of batteries. They claim my battery is healthy, and that everything is fine. So fine that they have decided to take some form of pre-emptive action on mine, but not on 99% or so of other owners. I find it almost impossible not to conclude that there is therefore 'an issue' with my battery. An issue that 99% or so of other Teslas don’t have.

The BMS Issue is on point. Tesla designed the car. They designed the BMS. They decided what tapering or preventative actions the BMS should take whilst charging. They are the ones that developed and encouraged us to use a DC Fast Charging system that was nearly three times more powerful than any other charging system. The Supercharger network is a USP. Owners have absolutely zero control over any of that. We are entirely in a Tesla’s hands in this area. So, I believe if Tesla got the design wrong, or the materials wrong, or didn’t conduct sufficient R&D on the effects of DCFC, then that must surely sit with them. When I first bought my car, like many first time EV owners, one of my primary concerns was the battery and it’s longevity. I was persuaded by Tesla’s 8 year, unlimited, unconditional Warranty. It’s a bit like the clock analogy (although it’s only a stopped clock that is correct twice per day) but if you bought an expensive clock then found post purchase, that the spring wasn’t strong enough to withstand the weekly winding, would you consider that to be the rub of the green, or a manufacturing defect?

 

[tomas]

It WILL be up to the courts or a mediator or Tesla to fix or propose reasonable settlement
.

LMFTFY. I think this is true. No amount of foot stomping by anyone on this thread will settle this. But, I think presentation of various angles on this is useful. Even if you don’t agree with someone, their argument can give useful perspective. Repeating the same argument though is non productive and just sounds like shouting. Advancing/improving ones presentation? Better.

 

[lightningltd]

And also developing knowledge to perhaps remediate or slow it down once it occurs.



It would be nice for people to actual provide specific citation and quotes.



Again, it would be nice to provide specific citations. For instance this citation:

The district court ruled correctly in dismissing the claims against Honda for breach of express warranty. Robinson's claim fails to allege that his minivan did not conform to the warranty. By its own terms, the warranty clearly, unambiguously, and repeatedly excludes tires from the warranty coverage. In the “A Quick Reference to Warranty Coverages” section at the beginning of the warranty booklet, under the heading “New Vehicle Limited Warranty,” the text states, “Every new Honda is covered, except for tires, for 3 years or 36,000 miles. The tires are warranted separately.” J.A. 48. In the subsequent, expanded description of the New Vehicle Limited Warranty, the booklet states that “This New Vehicle Limited Warranty Does Not Cover: Emissions control systems, Accessories, Batteries, or Tires. (They have their own warranties).” J.A. 53. Farther along, an entire page in the warranty booklet is devoted to “Tires.” This section explains that “[t]he tires that come as original equipment on your new Honda are warranted by their manufacturer.... A separate warranty statement for the tires is in the glove box.” J.A. 70. This section also makes clear that “a local representative of the tire's manufacturer”—not the Honda dealer—will be responsible for providing “warranty service.” Id.
Robinson does not dispute these terms in the warranty booklet. Instead, he points to other language in the warranty booklet which declares that “y keeping your Honda in top condition, you will be rewarded with years of trouble-free service at the lowest operating cost. The keys to keeping your Honda in top condition are proper operation and regular maintenance.” J.A. 79. Since Robinson alleges that he had all of the recommended maintenance performed by his Honda dealer, he asserts that the need to replace the tires after 18 months and 18,000 miles breaches Honda's express promise that he would be “rewarded with years of trouble free service at the lowest operating cost.”
However, even assuming that this phrase is not mere puffery, because the warranty expressly and repeatedly excludes tires from coverage, applying this provision to the tires is inconsistent with the specific terms of the warranty. In addition, “lowest operating cost” is not the same as “no operating cost,” and the purpose of the warranty section at issue here is to encourage owners to take care of their minivans to minimize future maintenance expenses. The phrase “lowest operating cost” implies that there will be some operating cost, even for a minivan that is kept “in top condition.” J.A. 79. Despite Robinson's alleged tire expenses, his well-maintained van most likely has the “lowest operating cost” when compared to other Honda Odyssey Touring model minivans that were not regularly serviced. Robinson v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 551 F.3d 218, 223 (4th Cir. 2009)​

The Tesla warranty clearly excludes loss of range and power due to usage and no about of foot-stamping denial or conclusory assertions will change the text on the page. You have to argue that Condition Z is a defect or failure. It is amusing that you are so afraid to even entertain that idea or say anything specific or intelligent about it.

Why are you so afraid to deal head on with the point that the BMS is addressing the lithium plating which is from usage. Knocking down dozens of straw men arguments that ignore that point only demonstrate your inability to reconcile the BMS mitigation of the lithium plating wear with the warranty limitations.

Where is YOUR EVIDENCE that it is lithium plating? Do you have an official statement from TESLA?
You are speculating as much as everyone else is due to the lack of communication from Tesla.
The fact that Tesla found condition 'Z' after the fact is not relevant. Look at the airbag recalls. The issue was found after the fact, yet WAS a covered recall repair item.

 

[gmo43]

Still no V10 for my car. Still slow a$$ supercharging. I wonder if I complain for the 5th time about my charging to service would do anything..... Lol

 

[raphy3]

Why are you so afraid to deal head on with the point that the BMS is addressing the lithium plating which is from usage.

All of your "it isn't covered" arguments rest on the idea that lithium plating is normal "wear" due to "usage". While the premise that lithium plating is excluded from the warranty is itself laughable, even that rests on yet another assumption, that the problem is plating to begin with. Let me help you stop making such erroneous claims. The extrapolation that lithium plating is an unwarrantable condition based on usage is unscientific. You've posted some select section of a warranty, made the assumption of lithium plating, and then go on to make a totally unrelated assumption about lithium plating and the warranty. On the other hand, other members have presented to you the CEO's own words that interpret the warranty differently from you. Tesla's mistakes are covered. If lithium plating was a known, common degredation path that Tesla anticipated would lead to a failure mode of the battery over the long term, they would have included wording in the warranty that said simply failure due to lithium plating arising from usage is not covered. Since I don't see that anywhere in the countless instances in which you've mentioned that Tesla said usage is not covered, I can only surmise that you have to agree with the above given that the warranty wording must be taken as gospel. And of course your argument is moot if you're wrong about the problem being lithium plating. Why are you so dead set on trying to convince people in here that their warranties are void? Are you performing some kind of service to the community? What motivates you to make these unsupported claims about the warranty?

 

[Chaserr]

I can't see whoever you all are arguing with, which means they argue so often they're ignored. I suggest clicking ignore and recommending they rear the wiki post to educate themself. If they only want to argue, ignoring helps you. If they want to learn why they're wrong, the wiki helps them. But arguing only helps masochistic folks who provoke internet fights for personal amusement, and they should always be ignored.

 

[lightningltd]

I can't see whoever you all are arguing with, which means they argue so often they're ignored. I suggest clicking ignore and recommending they rear the wiki post to educate themself. If they only want to argue, ignoring helps you. If they want to learn why they're wrong, the wiki helps them. But arguing only helps masochistic folks who provoke internet fights for personal amusement, and they should always be ignored.

Because I am married, which means I am automatically wrong at home. I gotta be right SOMEWHERE!

 

[First EV]

I can't see whoever you all are arguing with, which means they argue so often they're ignored. I suggest clicking ignore and recommending they rear the wiki post to educate themself. If they only want to argue, ignoring helps you. If they want to learn why they're wrong, the wiki helps them. But arguing only helps masochistic folks who provoke internet fights for personal amusement, and they should always be ignored.

It's bhzmark. Raphy3 has a valid point. What are they trying to gain? Is it tesla apologists? A fan boy? I was once a fan boy too but I want to believe I could still see the flaws despite how awesome the company and cars were.

 

[Droschke]

It's not helping the detractors for sure. The opposite is true. It helps to solidify our case by being alert and covering any disadvantage we might have. Of course, there is always a limit to anything. Sometimes, enough is just enough.

 

[_jal_]

If I may say so this is exactly why I attempted to provide my explanation.

You talk, very knowledgeably, about the voltage level across the battery and the many factors which affects it. I agree all your points. They are all spot on the money. And are correct. But I have no idea why you have made them. My post was simply trying to clarify the confusion between claims on one hand that the current perceived drop in capacity may be down to degradation, and the alternative view that such claims cannot be true as this drop in capacity is directly the result of a change in Vmax. And as there is NO form of degradation that alters Vmax, any degradation claim must fail. I hold the latter view. THE crux of my point is a change in Vmax can never be the result of degradation. That’s it. Nothing more, nothing less. The issue was not about how much charge a cell can hold, or what causes it to decrease. I only introduced that to show that type of cell voltage was not what I was talking about. If I did not make myself clear enough, and thereby caused confusion, that must fall at my door. I’m sorry if I caused confusion; based on your reply I appear to have.

Perhaps you don’t agree with the premise. That’s fine. To misquote Mr Rumsfeld, I hope I am wise enough to know what I don’t know. If you have an alternative theory on how degradation can alter Vmax I would, genuinely, be very interested to hear it.

It was kind of clumsy of me to reply to your post specifically, but the point was that there’s a lot of very complicated science and stuff that all the issues at hand involve (except the legal issues which reside in their own domain of specialization). Your post was an example of that. This highly charged thread has a lot of people tuning in at post one gabillion w/o reading post 1, or maybe even after reading it but not devoting all the time necessary to actually digest it, and thinking things that seem intuitively correct but actually aren’t.

Your point re vmax is totally correct, imho. I actually meant to quote another post but my darn phone made it all super complicated so I just went with it. One way or another, or for one reason or another, Tesla has set a lower value for vmax during the charging cycle of certain batteries. But right now - right now - I can hear whispers of people muttering to themselves “But, if the batteries are old, maybe they can’t charge as much...”

We used to write “rtfm” which stood for Read The F***ing Manual. Maybe we need RTFFP - Read the F***ing First Post. That’s a lot of work in that post

 

[_jal_]

If I may say so this is exactly why I attempted to provide my explanation.

You talk, very knowledgeably, about the voltage level across the battery and the many factors which affects it. I agree all your points. They are all spot on the money. And are correct. But I have no idea why you have made them. My post was simply trying to clarify the confusion between claims on one hand that the current perceived drop in capacity may be down to degradation, and the alternative view that such claims cannot be true as this drop in capacity is directly the result of a change in Vmax. And as there is NO form of degradation that alters Vmax, any degradation claim must fail. I hold the latter view. THE crux of my point is a change in Vmax can never be the result of degradation. That’s it. Nothing more, nothing less. The issue was not about how much charge a cell can hold, or what causes it to decrease. I only introduced that to show that type of cell voltage was not what I was talking about. If I did not make myself clear enough, and thereby caused confusion, that must fall at my door. I’m sorry if I caused confusion; based on your reply I appear to have.

Perhaps you don’t agree with the premise. That’s fine. To misquote Mr Rumsfeld, I hope I am wise enough to know what I don’t know. If you have an alternative theory on how degradation can alter Vmax I would, genuinely, be very interested to hear it.

Well, and actually to address your argument directly, my roundabout post supports your assertion that vmax wouldn’t be changed by degradation. Vmax of the potato clock “battery” doesn’t change no matter how much the potato degrades. (I’m assuming we’ve all had the potato clock)

 

[Droschke]

...We used to write “rtfm” which stood for Read The F***ing Manual. Maybe we need RTFFP - Read the F***ing First Post. That’s a lot of work in that post

Thank you!

 

[Droschke]

Repeating the same argument though is non productive and just sounds like shouting. Advancing/improving ones presentation? Better.

Do not disagree. In fact it perfectly addresses the five month long needless repetition of "it's due to usage" blame game without any plausible evidence to support it. But, thanks for pointing it out.

 

[_jal_]

It's almost like this thread should fork a thread about the chemistry of what's potentially going on with a focus on observations collected during this whole debacle. Leave the legal wrangling regarding warranty, property rights, etc. in this thread. It's just really hard to read "They stole voltage!" alongside "What's voltage?"

 

[faughtz]

After almost 6 months of unexplained reduced battery capacity, for which I paid a premium (reduced and never close to 85kWh) reduced performance for which I paid a premium (reduced and never close to 762 hp), and dramatically slowed supercharging rates, I’m adding compensation for that usage loss to what is required to make me whole.

In addition, I can no longer charge past 97%, indicated - so even with extraordinarily long charging time I never get to the 100% indicated. So even further loss, for which I have yet another service appointment.

 

[bhzmark]

We've already done that for you. It's here in the thread. The Tesla blog posts written by Elon Musk about the 85 battery and the Tesla blog posts written by Elon Musk about his interpretation of the warranty are both linked here. Just search the thread. Almost no legal defence will survive an attack against the wording in the warranty bolstered by the words of the company's own CEO, which will be taken plainly on their face as an advertisement to entice people to buy the car.

Still you don't quote the language.

But you do admit that the written limited Battery warranty doesn't cover usage wear such as lithium plating and you are going to go into court with some tweets and blogs? That you can't find and can't quote?

Read the Honda opinion and the respect given the specific language in the written warranty as compared to puffery. good luck.

 

[raphy3]

you are going to go into court with some tweets and blogs

I really think you should start checking the news, generally getting up to speed. Clearly courts take tweets and blog posts seriously. $20 million seriously, for example. And no, I'm not going to Google that for you either. One way or another you're going to find there's a massive hole in your new premise that public statements by CEOs don't matter.

And your supporting evidence is a completely unrelated case about tires not being covered on an ICE... tires are consumables! ...or do you actually not know that? Now you think batteries are in analogy to consumables, which are never covered under general auto warranties. Just to be clear, your thesis is now that car batteries, literally the power trane, is an unwarranted consumable?! Cripes, this tortured logic is beyond the pale at this point. Enjoy being impossible to reason with even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary of your position.

 

[mvotb]

All of your "it isn't covered" arguments rest on the idea that lithium plating is normal "wear" due to "usage". While the premise that lithium plating is excluded from the warranty is itself laughable, even that rests on yet another assumption, that the problem is plating to begin with. Let me help you stop making such erroneous claims. The extrapolation that lithium plating is an unwarrantable condition based on usage is unscientific. You've posted some select section of a warranty, made the assumption of lithium plating, and then go on to make a totally unrelated assumption about lithium plating and the warranty. On the other hand, other members have presented to you the CEO's own words that interpret the warranty differently from you. Tesla's mistakes are covered. If lithium plating was a known, common degredation path that Tesla anticipated would lead to a failure mode of the battery over the long term, they would have included wording in the warranty that said simply failure due to lithium plating arising from usage is not covered. Since I don't see that anywhere in the countless instances in which you've mentioned that Tesla said usage is not covered, I can only surmise that you have to agree with the above given that the warranty wording must be taken as gospel. And of course your argument is moot if you're wrong about the problem being lithium plating. Why are you so dead set on trying to convince people in here that their warranties are void? Are you performing some kind of service to the community? What motivates you to make these unsupported claims about the warranty?

Well lets ask him again. I asked him to fess up on page 168, but he simply disappeared for a long time, never answered. Then a hundred pages, later he came back with some more BS, and asked me to answer a question " exactly precisely " and I did, and I asked him to fess up again, and he left again, but not as long that time, never answered. This is what I asked him.

ME: One thing I have been wondering though, and since you are the self appointed truthsquad, what does this statement mean?

↑
Previous post by bhz where he slipped and let the cat out of the bag bhz said
"And I'm in a position to rather easily escalate in other ways, but have never found the need"

bhz seems terribly stressed by this thread and lawsuit, even to the point of irrational and irrelevant posts, as the post with the tire example. Hmm. Is he reflecting the stress from his connection inside Tesla?

I suggest the appropriate response to any bhz post, until he answers the question "exactly precisely" is

Answer the question exactly precisely.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

It was kind of clumsy of me to reply to your post specifically, but the point was that there’s a lot of very complicated science and stuff that all the issues at hand involve (except the legal issues which reside in their own domain of specialization). Your post was an example of that. This highly charged thread has a lot of people tuning in at post one gabillion w/o reading post 1, or maybe even after reading it but not devoting all the time necessary to actually digest it, and thinking things that seem intuitively correct but actually aren’t.

Your point re vmax is totally correct, imho. I actually meant to quote another post but my darn phone made it all super complicated so I just went with it. One way or another, or for one reason or another, Tesla has set a lower value for vmax during the charging cycle of certain batteries. But right now - right now - I can hear whispers of people muttering to themselves “But, if the batteries are old, maybe they can’t charge as much...”

We used to write “rtfm” which stood for Read The F***ing Manual. Maybe we need RTFFP - Read the F***ing First Post. That’s a lot of work in that post

A pox on these new fangled phones! I do wonder if mine causes as much inconvenience as convenience.

If a post contains genuine information, which yours did, it’s a genuine opportunity to learn. I’ve done a warehouse full of that on here. And yours certainly added to the knowledge base. I agree with all your points.

I do believe we are reading off the same hymn sheet. Or should that be manual?

 

[raphy3]

Well lets ask him again. I asked him to fess up on page 168, but he simply disappeared for a long time, never answered. Then a hundred pages, later he came back with some more BS, and asked me to answer a question " exactly precisely " and I did, and I asked him to fess up again, and he left again, but not as long that time, never answered. This is what I asked him.

ME: One thing I have been wondering though, and since you are the self appointed truthsquad, what does this statement mean?

↑
Previous post by bhz where he slipped and let the cat out of the bag bhz said
"And I'm in a position to rather easily escalate in other ways, but have never found the need"

bhz seems terribly stressed by this thread and lawsuit, even to the point of irrational and irrelevant posts, as the post with the tire example. Hmm. Is he reflecting the stress from his connection inside Tesla?

I suggest the appropriate response to any bhz post, until he answers the question "exactly precisely" is

Answer the question exactly precisely.

With exact quotes provided verbatim in context (or heck, out of context if it helps make a point right), annotated, and with a 5 point plan outlining your legal strategy following it up.