-
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
If the algorithm was wrong it would have been wrong for all cars, yet not all cars are capped.
On Edit:
Also, if you have not read it, please read the post#1 as it describes the issue not as "degradation" but as intentional voltage capping.
Last edited:
cpa
Active Member
Added an adjective for full disclosure.
Moreover, capping Supercharger rates really puts a lot of us at a disadvantage. Supercharger build-out has been good, but many locations are still lacking.
For example, in 2014 right after buying our Model S, I took a road trip from home to Denver. The only way to make it sensibly was to drive 70 miles out of our way to the Tejon Ranch Supercharger in order to reach Barstow. (Mojave was not completed until spring 2015.) Once Mojave was up and running, a 95% charge from home could make that stop with about 10-12% remaining. With my apparent capping starting to worm its way into the voltage limits, once again we shall be forced to take only a 60-mile detour to Buttonwillow the next time I want to head east. Supercharger installations along highway 99 have not been added. While there is a permit in progress for Visalia, there is no telling just when that will be completed. Bakersfield seems to be a distant mirage at this time.
Engineers and computer types who understand algorithms and the like may know exactly what you are talking about. But it is little comfort to us unwashed masses who would not know an algorithm from a hole in the ground. To place the blame on a faulty or otherwise inferior algorithm is to avoid taking responsibility for a shoddy, substandard work product that has affected thousands of people currently and who knows how many people in the future. If Tesla had disclosed up front that their "algorithms" were a work in process, and explain precisely what these were with full definition, it may have resulted in fewer sales. But at least we lab rats would have known.
And it makes me wonder about the integrity of the Board of Directors too.
The S60's massive degradation is really unfortunate. My P85DL's degradation at 68K miles was 2.8% and is now 5% at 105K miles which is exactly fleet average for an 85 PRE 16.1 firmware.
Ferrycraigs
Member
I have often wondered if Tesla's complete change of direction and their abandonment of its customer base coincided with Elon’s temporary removal from the Chair and his replacement by Robyn in Nov last year.
The new, peculiar, decisions do seem to make sense if the focus is now on making money.
Sherlo
Member
At the risk of being ridiculed (don’t want to be that guy) for not reading through all the posts (got through first couple hundred)...can someone explain why only the older model years (pre 2016) are being capped? Do we have an estimate of what percentage of the fleet are affected? Thanks
Sherlo
Member
Sorry, I clearly missed the part about cell chemistry change from gen 1. I read through a couple of the linked articles looking for a percentage affected, Tesla knows this answer so hopefully the lawsuit will force the release.
Yes it is small if you read post 1 and look at the spreadsheet of affected users. I only see one 2017 car affected and I know my 2017 X75 is affected (Sudden loss of 5% at 40k miles on top of 5% normal degradation)...Again, please read the post#1. The number of affected cars, as we know it, is discussed there.
A hint: the number (percentage) is "small" according to Tesla
I think it would be great to have started the thread with a yes/no poll (loss of range) so we get a sense of percentages. Would also be nice to check correlation with chargegate.
No one except Tesla knows how many. The only thing they have said is it's a "small" percentage. A small percentage of what? We do not know. No one except Tesla knows the actual number.
Also, the spreadsheet is NOT reflective of the total number of the impacted cars by any means. It's a tiny sample of whoever knows about the sheet's existence and cared to report to it.
Is it possible to find how many different users have posted on this thread or even how many have read it? I know its being referenced quite a lot in other threads
Ferrycraigs
Member
Sherlo, all that info is on the Page 1 WiKi, under 'Car Caused' and 'Why only some cars'. Enjoy! And to avoid any confusion, Batterygate (Capping of the battery) only affects pre facelift cars - so summer 2016 or earlier, whereas Chargegate (throttling of the charge rate) seems to affect almost all years and models of cars. The Wiki discusses Batterygate (the subject of this thread) not Chargegate.
Ferrycraigs
Member
Yep we don’t even know if the 'small percentage' is of the entire fleet, or just the pre facelift fleet. As Droschke says, the spreadsheet only records owners on here, and even then only those that have come across this thread, and have contributed their details. Neither should be regarded as indicative figures.
Ferrycraigs
Member
When the thread was started neither batterygate nor chargegate were known about. Initially, as the thread title suggests, the issue was thought to just be a Loss of Range. We now know better. It would certainly be possible to create a Yes/No Poll, and whilst that seems an easy option, such a poll would be likely to exclude:
all the owners that are not on TMC,
all the TMC owners that are affected but don’t know they are affected, and
all the TMC owners that are affected but are unaware of this thread.
Also there appears to be a number of owners that have reported they are affected, when perhaps they are not. ie just because an owner sees a sudden drop of, say 5% (picked at random, no inference intended), that does not mean the cause is batterygate. Normally batterygate losses are significant, typically three times that. A sudden loss of capacity can certainly suggest capping, particularly if it is in the order of 15%, but the only reliable method of confirming it, is interrogating the battery. Possible, but not that easy.
So whilst I agree it would be very interesting to see more accurate figures I think figures from a Poll on here, because of the factors above, would call into question their validity. Would larger, but still inaccurate, figures help? Probably not, IMO.
Cheers for that info, maybe my high mileage S85 is not doing so bad after all
That's something within the capability of the forum software TMC uses. We don't have access to them.
I am beginning to wonder if this is true--sure they now the number of cars currently affected because the SW caps/throttles and, I assume, reports back to the mothership. However, if they have not figured out the root cause for conditions X and Z (why did this pack behave differently from that pack) they might not have a clear handle on the upper bound. Well, the upper bound is 100% of Ses and Xes and let's all hope that's not the answer.
We've done a poll on the the UK Tesla facebook group, and looks to be around 10% of owners are affected, 495 (not affected) vs 47 (affected).
I agree to the extent that they surely know how many cars are impacted by the capping. However, they might still not know how many cars have actually battery "problems" (there might be capped cars as collateral damage of the Batterygate umbrella preemptive strike).
Similar threads
