Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[sorka]

I’m still on 2019.16.2 and refusing updates because I don’t want to lose range, especially since my range already sucks at 187k miles I can barely get 165 real world miles on a 100% charge. Can anyone suggest a canbus reader I can get off of amazon and point me to a cheat sheet on how to use it and what to look for? I want to be able to provide data here especially given that I’m one of the higher mileage early build cars.

Any eom327 bt dongle. But you need to make a special cable to plug obdii connector into diagnostic connector.

 

[DJRas]

@DJRas , your battery has already fallen outside the 10% window they specified. If they told you 231 miles minus 10% or more then they'd replace your battery. Your battery is now 11.3% less than their claimed 231 mile fleet average(using the the original wh / mile constant of course).

Their calculation was 217/231 = 93.9% this not 90% of 231 (208)

 

[DJRas]

I don't think Tesla changed the calculation for rated miles in your car based on your last reported Scan My Tesla data.
Your nominal full pack which is used to calculate rated range showed 64.3 kWh. Your full rated range was given as 218 miles. By using the .295 multiplier you get 218 x .295 = 64.31 kWh, which exactly matches the nominal full pack number.
Using rated miles, your 217 miles would be a degradation of about 17.8%. But if you can only charge to 97%, you could argue that your true degradation is about 20%. Based on what they told you, you would be entitled to a replacement battery at around 208 miles range, which is about 21% degradation from the original 264 miles. That's a lot better than the 30% degradation number people often mention for the required replacement point. Are you sure that's what they meant? If so, you are already pretty close, and you will probably soon qualify for another battery.

Either they changed the nultiplier from 295 to 276 or they changed from usable battery to nominal battery and added 4kWh buffer back in.

 

[DJRas]

The is not correct. The reserve has never been included in the usable capacity and the useable capacity is the only non constant number used to calculate rated range.

For example, I just scanned this off another co-workers car 20 minutes ago:

His full 100% charge shows 239 rated currently with his useable capacity at 70.6 kWh. This is exactly 295 wh / mile. In this case, this car has not been effected in any way by the update.

TMSpy does NOT show usable full pack.
You will also notice that the TMSpy SOC does not match the display except at >95%.

 

[Droschke]

Also weird that there are no threads about this at official Tesla Forums. Could Tesla be removing threads relating to this issue? Seems strange nobody over there is discussing it.

I posted here earlier as to the same observation I've had. No one in the other forum is complaining. That's very weird.

 

[DJRas]

NOW my Supercharging REALLY SUCKS!

 

[odguy]

Just got a software update notification. already on 2019.20.2.1 Not sure if I'm affected but either way will the next update make any difference?

 

[sorka]

Their calculation was 217/231 = 93.9% this not 90% of 231 (208)

That's my point. Why are you letting them use 217 when it's really 205. 60.3 / 0.295 = 204.4.

 

[sorka]

The pack value in TM-Spy is the same as the nominal full pack value in Scan My Tesla. So @DJRas TM-Spy data would show this same thing, i.e., his rated miles x .295 would equal his TM-Spy pack voltage. And there is no question that his car has been affected.

If you look back at the two side by side screen shots form TM-SPY and scan my tesla you'll see they both state 74.4 kWh useable. TM-SPY doesn't show or include the 4 kWh anti brick buffer.

 

[sorka]

I'm still easily able to hit rated range on my P85DL. My total usable capacity has decreased from 77 kWh when nearly new to 74.4 kWh. My lifetime currently sits at 309 vs the 320 rated rated for the P85D. Also on nearly every trip, I'm 3 or 4% higher than the original estimate almost every time.

Also, based on the difference in capacity rather than displayed rated range, I've only lost 8.5 miles vs the displayed rated range saying 11 miles lost.

Waiting for @SmartElectric to correct my math and thumbs me down on accuracy. Oh well.
77.88 - 77.4 = 3.48

3.48 / 0.320 (rated for P85D) = 10.875 which is the 11 miles of lost range I have, not 8.5.

 

[DJRas]

That's my point. Why are you letting them use 217 when it's really 205. 60.3 / 0.295 = 204.4.

I figured out this after I left the service center. When i went back at 5:30pm i could find nobody... though the door was unlocked and i had a cup of coffee.

I will be going back in the morning.

 

[DJRas]

If you look back at the two side by side screen shots form TM-SPY and scan my tesla you'll see they both state 74.4 kWh useable. TM-SPY doesn't show or include the 4 kWh anti brick buffer.

No, my side by side show 64.4 nominal full pack in scan my tesla and 60.4 usable full pack. TMSpy shows 64.4

 

[sorka]

I figured out this after I left the service center. When i went back at 5:30pm i could find nobody... though the door was unlocked and i had a cup of coffee.

I will be going back in the morning.

Drat! Oh well, there's always tomorrow

 

[DJRas]

More than large enough sample size.

Clearly Tesla disagrees since they say nominal fleet-wide 231 miles at 135,000 miles where the user dataset shows 246 miles.

 

[DJRas]

The is not correct. The reserve has never been included in the usable capacity and the useable capacity is the only non constant number used to calculate rated range.

For example, I just scanned this off another co-workers car 20 minutes ago:

His full 100% charge shows 239 rated currently with his useable capacity at 70.6 kWh. This is exactly 295 wh / mile. In this case, this car has not been effected in any way by the update.

TMSpy does NOT show usable pack.
ScanMyTesla shows the same value as Nominal full pack and Usable 4kWh less.
Also TMSPY soc does not match the dash display percent

 

[DJRas]

I don't think Tesla changed the calculation for rated miles in your car based on your last reported Scan My Tesla data.
Your nominal full pack which is used to calculate rated range showed 64.3 kWh. Your full rated range was given as 218 miles. By using the .295 multiplier you get 218 x .295 = 64.31 kWh, which exactly matches the nominal full pack number.
Using rated miles, your 217 miles would be a degradation of about 17.8%. But if you can only charge to 97%, you could argue that your true degradation is about 20%. Based on what they told you, you would be entitled to a replacement battery at around 208 miles range, which is about 21% degradation from the original 264 miles. That's a lot better than the 30% degradation number people often mention for the required replacement point. Are you sure that's what they meant? If so, you are already pretty close, and you will probably soon qualify for another battery.

Nominal full pack is NOT used to calculate rated range. It is Usable (removing the 4kWh buffer). 60 4

 

[ran349]

Nominal full pack is NOT used to calculate rated range. It is Usable (removing the 4kWh buffer). 60 4

Your own numbers say different: Nominal full pack = 64.3 kWh. Rated miles = 218. Then, 64.3/218 = .295.
All the scan my tesla data I have seen shows the same calculation.

 

[sorka]

Any eom327 bt dongle. But you need to make a special cable to plug obdii connector into diagnostic connector.

Did that from my phone. ELM327.

 

[sorka]

TMSpy does NOT show usable pack.
ScanMyTesla shows the same value as Nominal full pack and Usable 4kWh less.
Also TMSPY soc does not match the dash display percent

I stand corrected. I just went back and looked back at the scan my tesla screen shot and it shows 70.4, not 74.4. The problem is that TM-SPY showed nearly 78 when my car was new and now shows 74.4 which is the 11 miles of lost rated range based on the 320 wh / mile of the P85D.

...and now it all makes sense. If your useable is really 64.3 and not 60.3, then your rated range would be 217.9 miles which is what your car actually says and you are NOT out of the 10% bounds of normal that Tesla claims you need to be.

 

[trayloader]

I posted here earlier as to the same observation I've had. No one in the other forum is complaining. That's very weird.

Why don’t you guys start a thread on Teslas own forum then and monitor it’s „survival“