Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[mvotb]

I wonder if the arbitration clause only exists in the CPO or "used cars from Tesla" purchases. I imagine that from Tesla's perspective, arbitration takes less time and incurs less financial cost than dealing with the courts which is why they may prefer this option for dispute resolution.

Reading the above document, it looks like the complaint is over range reduction... Am I right in assuming that this is not the same class action instigated by DJRas ?

Correct, this is not the DJRas suit. This is about people who bought used, Tesla advertised the cars with the EPA mileage when new. Unfortunately buying used fromTesla usually means sight unseen. These people believe they received cars with considerably less ability, than they thought they were purchasing. Tesla added the arbitration agreement to used and new at some point.

The arbitration agreement didn't exist when I bought mine new in April 2016, so generally these owners in the DJR have no such agreement.

 

[r1200gs4ok]

I used the formula given in the 1st post.....I have a Model 3, FSD, 19” wheels and we bought it 16 Jun 19....It has 3,953 miles....Software Ver: 40.1.1

Here are my results:

Wh/miles avg = 236
Projected Range = = 232
SoC = 72%

236 x 232 = 54,752

54,752 / .72% = 76,044

74,044 / 1000 = 76.04kW

as I continue to charge to 90%, I an consistently getting 277miles - 279 miles

so I appear not to be seeing any issues with my barely yet......in fact, I thought I had a 75kW battery.......can someone with better insight explain to me what is happening.......thanks in advance

OKU

 

[jaitch]

You won’t find a single snipe or insult from me anywhere on this thread.

I disagree with posters who come into this thread with no knowledge and spread misinformation stating their slow charging times in cold conditions either cold battery. Such a post is ignorant and unnecessary. The first wiki post is thorough and should be required reading when you walk into a 400 page thread.

Note that the word ignorant is exactly that, the person posted with a lack of knowledge or care to gain that knowledge. It does not describe them as a person.

For the purposes of clarification is there a battery temperature vs charge rate table or graph? I couldn't find any specific numbers. If I remember the post you are referencing was some low charge rate (29 kWh) that seemed way below what a simply cold battery would charge at on a Supercharger. Maybe you can educate with actual numbers?

 

[Ferrycraigs]

There was one NCDS case result that I read and was astounded by the negative result.
The arbiter agreed that:
1) Tesla had noncongormities (reduced the battery capacity) with the software update.
2) The noncongormities should be covered by the manufacturer's warranty
3) The noncongormities adversely affected the value and usefulness of the car
4) The customer ONLY allowed Tesla to repair the issue 2 times. The reasonable allowed attempts is 4.
Therefore claim denied because he didn't take it in 4 times. Even though Tesla told him to not come back after the 2nd attempt.
Arbitration is binding and final.
No appeal.

Noncongormities! That must be a nomination for word of the week. Love it

But I agree, that is an incredible conclusion. (Although was that in relation to the case seeking a judgement based on the Lemon Law, which specifically requires 'a reasonable amounts of attempts' by the manufacturer to rectify a fault? If so I would expect there must have been a precedent setting a finite figure on what constitutes a reasonable amount in regard to Lemons Law (looks like it might be 4), in which case it is less surprising. If not then a very surprising judgement.) I always understood that Arbitration attendance was compulsory but decisions were not binding on either party, (although I did understand there was no appeal, just the option to progress to litigation). But that may just be in UK Law and it could easily not be the case in the USA.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

I used the formula given in the 1st post.....I have a Model 3, FSD, 19” wheels and we bought it 16 Jun 19....It has 3,953 miles....Software Ver: 40.1.1

Here are my results:

Wh/miles avg = 236
Projected Range = = 232
SoC = 72%

236 x 232 = 54,752

54,752 / .72% = 76,044

74,044 / 1000 = 76.04kW

as I continue to charge to 90%, I an consistently getting 277miles - 279 miles

so I appear not to be seeing any issues with my barely yet......in fact, I thought I had a 75kW battery.......can someone with better insight explain to me what is happening.......thanks in advance

OKU

OK I agree it looks like your battery capacity is 76 kWh (that includes the buffer), so a Useable Capacity will be slightly less. I don’t know what the buffer is in a Model 3; in Model S or X it is normally 4kWh. If it is the same in a M3 then the Useable battery is around 72 kWh.

You then quote range miles, but don’t state where this figure comes from. If it is from the battery icon, that just indicates a figure based on a fixed algorithm, and doesn't really reflect reality. (Batteries store energy, not miles etc). However if you take your recent average consumption figure of 236 Wh/mi then that indicates a realistic range of slightly more than 300 miles.

As for the size of the battery, alas Tesla have history in calling a battery one size, but it being another in reality. This screen grab gives the figures for Model S and X batteries. No doubt this is why Tesla have stopped describing their batteries as 70, 75, 85, 90 100 etc, and now just describe them as Standard Range and Long Range. A cynic might say it might make it much easier for them in the future if they issue more updates that restrict the size of the battery.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

The courts don't even need to do that. People posted here the root / (Dev? Service?) screens made by tesla that show they have a line item BMS value for limit setting - both volt cap and UI display cap appear to be there. All the courts need to see is that same screen from one of our cars with the cap set to less than 100%.

Since it's official Tesla diagnostic screen data used by service centers, nobody can refute or argue it.

I find this VERY helpful. If (when) Tesla reject any 3rd party data, the obvious reply would be, “well if you don’t accept 3rd party data, please show me your own Root Diagnostic Screen that shows the line item that deals with Cell Voltage to prove my data is wrong and that you haven’t changed the Cell Voltage limit”.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

I believe my Model X 100D - Delivered Dec 2018, with less than 9k miles on it is being capped. I did the calculation and my kWh are 93. I have to take it in anyway for unrelated problems to the Tesla repair shop. Should I request they check the voltage at 100% while it is there?

I am not aware of ANY 100 kWh battery that has been capped, so on that basis I would say it is very unlikely that you have been.

I don’t know what the actual capacity of a Tesla 100kWh Battery is, but in all other Tesla battery variants, the actual capacity has always been less than the figure (I posted a picture showing the details a few posts ago).

How to calculate your capacity is detailed on Page 1 of this thread. I would expect your normal capacity to be in the 90s somewhere (others may know the normal figure). I would do this check first to establish what your capacity actually is. I don’t see ANY benefit in asking Tesla to check your voltage, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t, just that I don’t think it will help.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

I am still waiting answer to this question especially from all those who defend Tesla here blindly or who have axes to grind

My lawyer is constantly suggesting I must have signed a document giving Tesla permission to download and implement updates. I keep telling him it’s not on the Order form, and I certainly can’t find one anywhere. My assessment is that Tesla rely on me pressing the OK button when I am advised an update is available. But given they require me to press this before telling me what the update is, or what it includes, that must put that permission in jeopardy.

Does anyone have a document where the small print gives permission for Tesla to dip its fingers into our cars?

 

[Ferrycraigs]

From what I can tell in the other threads, some lost NCDS arbitration on the yellow screens but most did not. Mine was successful. IMHO, they key (in both cases) is the "value" - this situation has indeed affected the value of your vehicle. Do you think you could sell if for the same amount now as opposed to 6 months ago? Seems unlikely.

I don't know how many tried arbitration for this problem but I'd still recommend it. It's easy to do and doesn't take a lot of time. In my case, it was me and an arbitrator in the room and the Tesla lawyer on the phone - we both presented our cases verbally. It took maybe an hour and 2 or 3 hours prep time. Should be easy enough to show that value was indeed affected. I'm not lawyer nor a subject-matter expert here but the more NCDS attempts we have, the more it might reflect on the class action as well. Chargegate/Capgate doesn't affect safety, arguably it can affect use, but "value" is the key here. That's definitely taken a hit. If it were me, I'd do it in a heartbeat - there is nothing to lose. The decision is binding on Tesla but not on you. It would be great to hear an NCDS decision (just 1 for grins) telling Tesla they have 30 days to remediate this problem.

My understanding of the yellow border issue is that it was a pretty different sort of case.

Issue. Some screens were turning yellow round the edge.
The fault was, in a particular batch of screens, the glue holding the screens on turned yellow (due to the heat from the screen?)
Tesla admitted it was an issue and initially replaced the screens under warranty.
Tesla didn’t have the tools to just take the screen off, replace the glue and re-attach the screen. So they just replaced the entire screen and MCU.
But what was happening was Tesla we’re replacing yellow border screens, with new screen, that were from the same batch. Unsurprisingly, some of them failed again.
They then realised, this was a stupid and expensive way forward. Initially they said as the screens were still work8ng, it was just a cosmetic issue not a fault, so not a Warranty Issue.
This was challenged, successfully
Tesla then said they would fix it, but not with screens from the original batch as they were just as l8jely to fail as the original screen. They would build tools to remove the screen and replace the glue, and owners would have to wait until those tools had been made.
As with many Tesla forecasts, it took longer than expected.
Tesla now have the tools and are now fixing the yellow glue.

I see that issue as primarily timing. I would love to think our issue was timing, in that a solution is in the pipeline. Sadly that’s not what I think.

 

[Droschke]

My lawyer is constantly suggesting I must have signed a document giving Tesla permission to download and implement updates. I keep telling him it’s not on the Order form, and I certainly can’t find one anywhere. My assessment is that Tesla rely on me pressing the OK button when I am advised an update is available. But given they require me to press this before telling me what the update is, or what it includes, that must put that permission in jeopardy.

Does anyone have a document where the small print gives permission for Tesla to dip its fingers into our cars?

None I can see in what I was given a copy of or in anything I had signed.

They did give me a small booklet, a copy of which is still posted here. Note that under "Safety Information" (Page 33), software updates are discussed. The warranty info for my car is in the last section.

 

[Az_Rael]

If it is the same in a M3 then the Useable battery is around 72 kWh

My Canbus data shows a 3.3 kWh buffer for my 3

Does anyone have a document where the small print gives permission for Tesla to dip its fingers into our cars?

The current US warranty document has a clause that software updates are required to maintain the warranty. Not sure what year the wording was added.

 

[liamharry]

My lawyer is constantly suggesting I must have signed a document giving Tesla permission to download and implement updates. I keep telling him it’s not on the Order form, and I certainly can’t find one anywhere. My assessment is that Tesla rely on me pressing the OK button when I am advised an update is available. But given they require me to press this before telling me what the update is, or what it includes, that must put that permission in jeopardy.

Does anyone have a document where the small print gives permission for Tesla to dip its fingers into our cars?

The only documentation I have bar the original invoice (which by the way clearly states 85kWh battery - which we know it isn’t), the vehicle 'final invoice' (which has a description of the car .. oh and again the 85kWh battery), the 2016 version of the vehicle 'New Owner’s Manual' - none of which includes anything about Tesla being able to reduce battery capacity through software at some point in the future.

The only other reference to telematics is the below, which is a small paragraph out of the sale 'terms and conditions’. Talks about sending diagnostic data to ensure the car is working properly and ’to guide future improvements’.

 

[liamharry]

Also below tweet from Elon back in 2018 that states that charging ‘nightly’ below 80% is not worth it and even 90% is fine. Also no issue going to 5% SoC or ‘lower'.

So surely Tesla can’t say any reason for capping is due to routinely running below 5% or going to 90%?

Assuming of course that is the genuine EM.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

My Canbus data shows a 3.3 kWh buffer for my 3

The current US warranty document has a clause that software updates are required to maintain the warranty. Not sure what year the wording was added.

Thanks. Model 3 buffer noted.

As you suggest, the requirement to implement updates is a new feature that was in a recent revision. The Warranty that was extant when I bought my car (Match 2016) does not have this requirement.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

The only documentation I have bar the original invoice (which by the way clearly states 85kWh battery - which we know it isn’t), the vehicle 'final invoice' (which has a description of the car .. oh and again the 85kWh battery), the 2016 version of the vehicle 'New Owner’s Manual' - none of which includes anything about Tesla being able to reduce battery capacity through software at some point in the future.

The only other reference to telematics is the below, which is a small paragraph out of the sale 'terms and conditions’. Talks about sending diagnostic data to ensure the car is working properly and ’to guide future improvements’.

View attachment 486069

Liam thanks. I’m pretty sure that them sucking Diagnostic info from the car is different to them sending software changes TO the car.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

Also below tweet from Elon back in 2018 that states that charging ‘nightly’ below 80% is not worth it and even 90% is fine. Also no issue going to 5% SoC or ‘lower'.

So surely Tesla can’t say any reason for capping is due to routinely running below 5% or going to 90%?

Assuming of course that is the genuine EM.

View attachment 486074

In the early days when we were all unsure what might be the trigger, the level of charging was one of the theories in the crosshairs. I think that theory no longer holds water, there are simply too many contra examples.

 

[hpartsch]

I'm surprised the media/oil/conventional car companies haven't picked up on this whole debacle. They could easily use it for their own benefit.

 

[DJRas]

Would the outcome of the arbitration affect any claims of the class action, if it turns out in favor of the owners?

Yes, a win in NCDS claim would help.
A legally binding decision in favor of the customer would be a positive precedent.

That would also open the floodgates for winning hundreds of individual cases if that is how Tesla wants to handle it.

 

[sorka]

Got the dreaded yellow clock this morning. Apparently the hotspot died because I haven't driven it for the last 3 days

 

[DJRas]

Got the dreaded yellow clock this morning. Apparently the hotspot died because I haven't driven it for the last 3 days

Good luck!
Are you still in limbo with the battery warning?