Agree on the low end but I have CANBUS data that proves you wrong at the high end. Yes it may only really be 99% but you're splitting hairs. We're not talking a 1%. We're talking 15% and in some case even more......overnight.
-
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
Agree on the low end but I have CANBUS data that proves you wrong at the high end. Yes it may only really be 99% but you're splitting hairs. We're not talking a 1%. We're talking 15% and in some case even more......overnight.
DJRas
Member
My battery was severely impacted. Over the last 12 months (prior to June) I charged to 100% 3 times. Since then I have tried 3 more times though it stops at 97% (what was 85% prior to latest updates).
I did charge daily to 90% (standard charge). It had degraded to a bit over 92% on May 13. Now 81% of initial range. Now i MUST SuC twice per day to make my daily commute (260 miles round trip).
This is factually incorrect. The only Tesla batteries that are limited above 100% are the ones that have been software capacity limited like a Model 3SR (SR+ with limit applied) or a 75 that was sold with 60 capacity. This is easily verified simply by looking at charge data or doing a google search - there is 11 years of evidence proving this statement wrong.
Looks to me like a "100%" charge in a Tesla P85D is actually only 95% of capacity. Are you saying that all of this unaccessible capacity is at the low end and that Tesla allows it's cells to be charged completely full?
"Now the data is directly from Tesla’s software and not a calculation based on the capacity of cells from a tear down of a pack. He gathered similar data from other Tesla models. Here’s a list he sent to Electrek:
- Original 60 – ~61 kWh total capacity, ~58.5 kWh usable.
- 85/P85/85D/P85D – ~81.5 kWh total capacity, ~77.5 kWh usable
- 90D/P90D – ~85.8 kWh total capacity, 81.8 kWh usable
- Original 70 – ~71.2 kWh total capacity, 68.8 kWh usable
- 75/75D – 75 kWh total capacity, 72.6 kWh usable
- Software limited 60/60D – 62.4 kWh usable
- Software limited 70/70D – 65.9 kWh usable"
DJRas
Member
Yes, the 4kWh "Energy Buffer" is at the bottom end. So, you don't run out early.
The software limited was at the top end - as my 85 (77.5) is now 60.3 kWh usable.
What were the times? Can you post the timeslips on Dragtimes. Or use Dragy and share it?
your data on performance seems to undercut the theory that the loss in range is a significant loss in power also. did you get any power readings?
faughtz
Model S P85DL
I can’t believe you have the same performance as before 2019.16.2, having observed capacity reduction. That’s not the case for me.
Range reduction has been coupled with fully charged cell voltage reduction. I see both range reduction, and the loss of more than 40kW in performance. Have you looked at your pack voltage or cell voltages post 2019.16.2? If you are seeing a range reduction, but not a performance reduction, this may be yet another variation of theft, deception, and manipulation by tesla.
I am at Lake Havasu in Arizona through Friday and my timeslips are in Thousand Oaks. I don't post on Dragtimes unless I break my record. My best on Dragtimes 3 years ago was 7.07 @ 97 and my best last Thursday was 7.18 @ 93 about the same as a month ago. My runs were made with 218 miles @ 100%, not the 209 today on a 110-volt outlet. I do not have power readings but I can take a picture of my timeslip. I made 5 good runs, all within 0.1 seconds. My range lost is real as I could not even make the reduced range indicated on my 340-mile trip.
I figured that one, but that is pennies compared to the devaluation of the cars Tesla has SW limited. No serious investor would act like that. Any serious investor would demand that Tesla plays with open cards!Actually, one of the recent entrants to this discussion and the guy who's giving him thumbs up when nobody else would both have skin in the game. Just go look at their posts in the investor section of this forum
If they really, as investors, think that it's ok for Tesla to keep playing like this, maybe they would be better off investing in the local used car dealership.
I would be particularly interested in your information from your 85D. My 85 has also gotten a severe decrease in supercharging speed with recent updates, but I don't have the range reduction.
I got the notification that there is a new update waiting, but I'm also hesitant to install it. If the supercharging speeds are restored I could attempt it, but I'm also afraid I will be affected by the range drop then...
Pfff, updates used to be fun and something I looked forward to installing, now I'm terrified it will nerf my car. Make it right, Tesla.
I’m aware of that, but Tesla has never said, that that would cause safety risk. Only loss of range. So I think, that the people who frequently charge to 100% accept, that it reduces their range in the long rung because of degradation, but they aren’t OK, if Tesla then artificially limits their range more.
Tesla is using chemistry which has 4.2 V at max charge. There are many users, who can measure packs cell voltages and it shows that at 100% charge Tesla has 4.2 V cell voltages. So there’s no unused overhead with 100% charge with unaffected cars. Cars which are affected do have unused capacity and that is the crux of the matter of this thread.
Actually the unused part in the low end is to prevent battery’s bricking. You can drive the car until it stops but there’s still that buffer as a antibricking safety.
If 0% were real 0%, your battery would more easily be bricked, if you leave it unplugged for weeks with low charge.
User can never use that buffer.
For reference, I finally updated the software on my early-2013 Model S 85 from v8 (they managed to fix enough of USB music for it to be an improvement and not a regression). I saw no change in my range level at all. One more data point for "some cars aren't affected at all".
Whatever Tesla has done in the software this time, it's intelligent -- it isn't blind ignorant caution like some of the previous changes. (Like when they keep kicking my charging rate down from 40 amps to 30 amps because their program to prevent overheating wiring doesn't like the voltage of my electrical supply. They're just wrong there. My electrical wiring is top notch overkill, heavier duty than needed, and their algorithm there is junk; the dumb algorithm just can't handle that the mains supply here tends to run a high voltage and have unsteady frequency. Or the "counter based" limits on some people's 90 pack Supercharging, which are just guesswork and not based on actual battery state. Or the "counter based" limits on top acceleration, which are again guesswork-based.)
In this case, unlike previous cases, they're clearly detecting something specific which actually happened in particular batteries and not in others, and reacting to that only when they find it in the battery. It would be interesting to know the technical details.
Because it seems like an intelligent response rather than a blind excess-of-caution response, people probably should do the update; if your range drops, your car probably *was* at risk of catching on fire.
Whatever Tesla has done in the software this time, it's intelligent -- it isn't blind ignorant caution like some of the previous changes. (Like when they keep kicking my charging rate down from 40 amps to 30 amps because their program to prevent overheating wiring doesn't like the voltage of my electrical supply. They're just wrong there. My electrical wiring is top notch overkill, heavier duty than needed, and their algorithm there is junk; the dumb algorithm just can't handle that the mains supply here tends to run a high voltage and have unsteady frequency. Or the "counter based" limits on some people's 90 pack Supercharging, which are just guesswork and not based on actual battery state. Or the "counter based" limits on top acceleration, which are again guesswork-based.)
In this case, unlike previous cases, they're clearly detecting something specific which actually happened in particular batteries and not in others, and reacting to that only when they find it in the battery. It would be interesting to know the technical details.
Because it seems like an intelligent response rather than a blind excess-of-caution response, people probably should do the update; if your range drops, your car probably *was* at risk of catching on fire.
Last edited:
St Charles
Tesla, not TSLA!
Hi sorka. I am genuinely confused. Here you are arguing for freedom and that Tesla is taking away your freedom by protecting your battery from further degradation. And yet I thought that in some other posts you were advocating that Tesla should do warranty replacements (or recall?) and give lots of people free batteries. Or maybe that was other posters who advocated for free replacement batteries? I am really not sure and just trying to follow this 43 page thread and learn from it.
It looks like you already figured out your confusion and others have answered, but your question's answer is a definitive "Yes."
Tesla uses a roughly 4kwh brick protection buffer at "the bottom" below 0% on every battery. It uses no "top" buffer whatsoever, except on a small number of batteries that are software locked. Those are the ones that can be unocked for a fee, or are unlocked for free during a hurricane. Since you're figuring it out now, this is the 77kwh that we were able to charge completely from 0% to 100% before, that was reduced to 64kwh artificially by software locking the "top" with voltage caps. Limiting voltage is how the top is dropped below 100%. The bottom is the same, this is done on all lithium ion batteries because when voltage drops too low they can't be recharged again and are "bricked." That is the purpose of the unusable kwh; "top" buffer only exists to limit usable capacity and reduce performance on Teslas that have not paid to unlock it yet - or affected batteries in this thread that were maliciously nerfed by Tesla. 100% is always a real 100% unless it is one of the software limited packs, but "0%" is never 0% or else the battery would need to be replaced.
This is why the thread you're reading now keeps discussing voltage - volts are how we see an artificial "100%" is now being faked, where before it was not.
@MaryAnning3 - Tesla has hinted that the affected batteries are dangerous and need to be replaced. Their software update is removing tens of thousands of dollars worth of upgrades people paid for, and that is illegal. If they are not lying about the update's purpose, these dangerous batteries need to be fixed under Tesla's warranty or the NHTSA's safety recall rules. It's not a matter of "free" they are taking money away from owners and are avoiding doing repairs on batteries they have described as a safety hazard. They don't have to do anything "free" - they can do nothing and simply not steal what anyone paid for and everyone is happy. If they are concerned about faulty hardware in need of repair, theft is not how warranty service is supposed to be performed, nor is it in compliance with NHTSA or federal law regarding recalls of dangerous faulty hardware problems.
Last edited:
If you were Tesla, what would you do about the fire danger associated with batteries that are showing indications of some Li plating?
