-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
- Thread starter Dutchmeeuw
- Start date
I used to share your optimism that Tesla would look after and fix the issue for capped owners. But now I'm not so sure that we can rely on Tesla's goodwill, and that legal action and investigation from regulatory authorities will be required to exert pressure on Tesla to do make good.
I expect that some of the affected owners won't trust Tesla enough to purchase another vehicle from them... so the increased trade in wouldn't really be a remedy.
If a battery upgrade programme (with new 21700 cells) was offered, I'd also consider that as an option. But trading "up" to another Model S... no way, since there's no guarantee that wouldn't get capped too.
What do you exactly mean by "absolutism of the angered"?
What process the "absolute angered" are missing to notice?
What gives you this level of unrealistic optimism? What is it based on?
Also, if you have not read the entire post#1, please do so before responding. Thanks for chiming in.
The law is absolute. No company is exempt. I think he's pointing out that Tesla rightfully angered a lot of people breaking the law.
Due Process. Multiple lawsuits and class actions are underway, the federal government is investigating. Justice will be served, through due process.
I don't share your assumption that Tesla is that maliciously incompetent. I don't think they would have taken this so far they had to hire a famous corporate bankruptcy law firm to represent them on this issue if they didn't even have a clue why they needed legal representation. They're facing fines that will probably be in the half a billion dollars to a full billion dollars on top of the settlements and repair bills, and they aren't even under investigation from other governments yet - most have agencies like the NHTSA with authority to enforce public safety. They calculated all of this before it got this far and chose this outcome over all other options. It's what they wanted from the beginning.
Last edited:
And, that's the missing point with those who think they understand the issue. One has to be naive and 'un-angered' to believe the property taken in secret will be returned automatically in goodwill as though the whole fiasco was a prank.
I've thought this all along. I suspect Tesla attorneys got involved and studied this and found that there are basically no laws related to guaranteeing you some percentage of the original EPA ratings, nor how fast you can charge. Why would there be a law addressing how fast you can fill your "tank" when the laws were written for an ICE world? I think Tesla knows this is unprecedented and any lawsuit from its customers would boil down to questions in court such as "name the regulation(s) that were broken". No one can, because they don't exist. Yet. So technically Tesla hasn't broken any laws and I'm sure they know they have their customers by the groin on this one. The laws just haven't caught up to EV vehicles and the protections that customers need. The best I can imagine is that I'm sure there are some generic regulations regarding keeping a car in reasonable working order with respect to performance and use under warranty and it could be argued they are breaking the spirit of those regulations. But then you get into an argument of what is reasonable and what is not, and Tesla will argue that reduced range and charging speed is inherent to EV operation and the back-and-forth from those arguments are liable to lead nowhere.
Mike
jkennebeck
Member
I don't have to trade. I already have both
So you still supercharge at high rates too? I thought you said that was throttled. Good on ya if not!
At some point in 2016, the middle of the charge curve flattened out to 7KW difference in the middle. So starting and ending are the same as they used to be but 54% which used to be 74KW is now 67KW.
I think that there could be some application of the arguments used in the Apple battery case:
Did Apple Break Any Laws by Slowing Down Older iPhones?
However, Apple voluntarily settled.
But even if US law doesn't apply, other countries have laws against this. In France, for example it is illegal to degrade older products to promote the sale of new ones.
lightningltd
Member
FInally took my first small road trip with my neutered S85 (Batterygate -16% and chargegate -50% speed).
I am using firmware 2019.32.12, from Eureka, Ca to Orange County CA and back.
These are my observations on the trip with charging, etc:
No matter the SOC, the highest charge rate I saw was 80KW. The lower the battery SOC, the longer it stayed at 80KW, but no more than 3-5 minutes before it started dropping.
At any charge level over about 86%, regen was limited (easily felt), but there was absolutely NO indication on the dash that regen was limited. Dangerous if you are not ready for it, or you are used to it being there.
Navigation has gotten kind of buggy in this version. For example, on the trip south, the navigation kept trying to route me the long way through the Walnut Creek Charger, even though it was longer and slower. It even tried when I was at another charger all charged up just 5 miles away!
Also, it wants to start the trip with only 15% remaining in the estimate, which is kind of low. It used to want to start the trip at 18-20%.
Same thing on the return trip. Very odd.
Other than that, and It taking an extra 1 1/2 hours to charge for each way, nothing else. I resorted to stopping more to take the faster charge at lower SOC rather than the longer legs, which sped things up charging wise. I estimate that had I followed what the nav wanted to do (charge longer and drive further before charging), that it would have taken AT LEAST another hour of charging (at one point it wanted me to charge to 95%).
Basically, it turned a 15 hour trip into a 17+ hour trip.
I am using firmware 2019.32.12, from Eureka, Ca to Orange County CA and back.
These are my observations on the trip with charging, etc:
No matter the SOC, the highest charge rate I saw was 80KW. The lower the battery SOC, the longer it stayed at 80KW, but no more than 3-5 minutes before it started dropping.
At any charge level over about 86%, regen was limited (easily felt), but there was absolutely NO indication on the dash that regen was limited. Dangerous if you are not ready for it, or you are used to it being there.
Navigation has gotten kind of buggy in this version. For example, on the trip south, the navigation kept trying to route me the long way through the Walnut Creek Charger, even though it was longer and slower. It even tried when I was at another charger all charged up just 5 miles away!
Also, it wants to start the trip with only 15% remaining in the estimate, which is kind of low. It used to want to start the trip at 18-20%.
Same thing on the return trip. Very odd.
Other than that, and It taking an extra 1 1/2 hours to charge for each way, nothing else. I resorted to stopping more to take the faster charge at lower SOC rather than the longer legs, which sped things up charging wise. I estimate that had I followed what the nav wanted to do (charge longer and drive further before charging), that it would have taken AT LEAST another hour of charging (at one point it wanted me to charge to 95%).
Basically, it turned a 15 hour trip into a 17+ hour trip.
Last edited:
Another alleged battery fire. This time in a model X:
Shocking moment a Tesla bursts into flames while charging | Daily Mail Online
Shocking moment a Tesla bursts into flames while charging | Daily Mail Online
Where is it alleged that it is a battery fire? The closest detail I say in there says "Wood later tweeted it was a Model X from 2017 that was charging, but 'the fire was at the front of the car'. "
It is possible it was arson like the other recent fire in Germany.
Apple is still losing those suits. They're still in court over 30 more class actions. They have to settle, it's the only way they won't lose them all.
They went the same route as Tesla, public apologies and lengthy legal battles. The difference is people either will or won't buy another phone risking downgrade and the world is full of phone buyers willing to replace lost customers. They simply won't buy another car when treated like this, and since it's one of the largest purchases most people will make the news is going to impact potential buyers a lot more than grade school kids who just want a trendy phone at all costs.
lightningltd
Member
Front is where it usually vents flames first along with the front wheel wells. 2 other battery fires showed the flames starting in the front area of the car. Likely battery fire with the total loss and melt down.
The arson fire only burned the outside where the flammable liquid (guessing petrol) was, not the whole car.
When the flammable material was gone, so was the fire.
Front is where the battery vents are located. No matter where a battery fire is located, it will vent out the cooling pipes towards the louvers and wheel well vents until combustion gets so big it starts making its own exits.
islandbayy
Active Member
Correct. It's designed to keep the passenger compartment safe as long as possible to allow occupants to escape or rescue to come get them out.
Thank you for saying that. I thought regen was really low, too, and made a couple of pretty rapid stops before I got used to it. I used to barely use the brakes, but I have to all the time now.
I have had the same problem since day one as well, and I haven't dared ask them for a software update for it. I'm too scared about what else will happen! I just turned off the auto-aim mirrors when shifting into R. I have the driver's side aimed well enough to see low in R, but high enough to see the needed blind spot in D.
You only use the best attorneys when you have too. I presume at some point Tesla has to answer the question WHY did you limit the battery performance and as far as I can see there are two answers. Safety or extend the life of the battery until the warranty has ceased. Both answers you need a good attorney to wriggle out of the MASSIVE problem. The best attorneys in the world did not save VW.
Similar threads
