-
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
⚡️ELECTROMAN⚡️
Village Idiot
Does that count preheating, pre-cooling, and cabin overheat protection use, in that calculation?
Rated range is calculated from your usable capacity / kilowatt hours per mile.
I am really sympathetic with your loss of range issues. I have a feeling, and it is speculation, that some of your lost range may reappear in the future. Measurement and assessment of Li batteries is a difficult, empirical science and improving day by day. I wish there was a way to address and talk about your issues, and Tesla's issues, in a way that did not have so much potential to become fodder for FUD.
This is the first time Tesla has ever software capped existing battery capacity(excluding caps at delivery due to unpaid for capacity).
Batteries that are in danger of starting a fire are either defectively manufactured or were damaged by charge management due to a programming issue.
Because of Tesla's lack of communication, we don't really know which it is. The last thing they should do is leave those batteries in the cars they've detected the issue with. Slapping software cap may lower the risk of fires in these batteries but won't eliminate it. I'm speaking of the kind of fire that happens spontaneously with no external source of cell damage.
I agree with your wish. The professional and responsible ways to to address and talk about our issues, are for Tesla to come clean with the information they have about the status of our capped batteries and discuss options, some of which have been so eloquently enumerated by the impacted owners and others in this long thread. This fiasco is a self-inflicted wound on part of Tesla.
Only because owners have allowed this to happen. Go into any Tesla forum, including the ones here, and you'll find the majority of owners putting Tesla's interests ahead of theirs. Idiots with money.
If this is truly the case then it needs to be investigated and exposed. This has to be ILLEGAL. Tesla represented range based on an EPA test procedure. That EPA test procedure resulted in a multiplier of 295 Wh/mi being used to calculate EPA range. By reducing that multiplier to 276 Wh/mi in order to keep range artificially high, Tesla is basically covering a gross loss of range for which we all paid.
Unfortunately, this will likely require a major lawsuit and requisite discovery to unwind. I hope someone does this because it's completely unacceptable for Tesla to behave in this fashion. Given Tesla's financial troubles and Musk's willingness to throw early adopters under the bus every time, expect this to drag out in order to keep Tesla from replacing packs as long as humanly possible.
Musk is playing a shell game with owners, the media, and investors. It will all come crumbling down around him eventually.
What do you think is the biggest risk for them: the battery issue, quality issues (like soft Model 3 paint?) or FSD commitments?
Maybe? I'm not sure how things are calculated precisely all the time. I do, occasionally reset the short-term counter for things like short-trip travel when the initial use starts at 900+ Wh/mi
eek: I'm assuming battery and AC are going overtime) or in the morning of an all-day trip. The numbers almost always come out < 300Wh/mi in the end.Which brings me to this sad confession: Since the start of this fiasco, I've been very concerned to drive, how to charge or even let the car sit idle in the garage unused! Because I do not know if its battery is in a safe state. We are talking about over 7000 cells, some of which might have been Li-Plated, some speculate. In meanwhile, there is no official communication or even any recommendation from Tesla to the impacted owners.
Every sign currently points to Tesla attempting to cut costs where they can to position the company on a stable footing for the next stage in their growth.
If our speculation and research is right, they seem to continue with their old ways of using sneaky firmware updates to potentially try to avoid warranty costs, which is at least the third major incident that looks that way. They seem to be denying warranty service even in many cases where previously they ”made it right” (or at least tried), which is new.
If there was a significant issue with their batteries, they might be between a rock and a hard place on how to react to it, given this reality of cost-cutting. A major recall could be very costly.
Our cars are probably fine. But I can’t shake the question: would they tell us if they weren’t, if the cost to repair was massive? Or would they try, say, a silent firmware update instead to avoid that cost?
Could the many recent executive departures be over disagreements on how to handle potential liabilities?
Do you mean altruists with money?
Maybe they feel that keeping Tesla alive is ultimately in their best interest?
Since we're rounding back to conjecture that Tesla is intentionally choosing massive lawsuits because it can't afford the warranty service these batteries require, let me say once again in the hopes someone at Tesla reads these forums:
TESLA, LET US PAY TO UPGRADE OUR BATTERY. YOU DID IT YEARS AGO AND THIS WAY YOU CAN TURN BAD PUBLICITY AND POOR POLICY INTO GOOD PUBLICITY AND PROFIT!
Since this is all naive optimism, I'll add some more: If they were updating the S/X platform to Model 3's 2170 batteries, they would want to perform a large scale warranty service like this using those newer cells because it's much cheaper - a Model 3 LR pack has almost the same capacity as an 1865 S85 pack, but only 5500 cells instead of 7400 cells, so there are fewer raw materials and less labor. If I had to replace a bunch of batteries, I'd want to use the cheaper ones.
TESLA, LET US PAY TO UPGRADE OUR BATTERY. YOU DID IT YEARS AGO AND THIS WAY YOU CAN TURN BAD PUBLICITY AND POOR POLICY INTO GOOD PUBLICITY AND PROFIT!
Since this is all naive optimism, I'll add some more: If they were updating the S/X platform to Model 3's 2170 batteries, they would want to perform a large scale warranty service like this using those newer cells because it's much cheaper - a Model 3 LR pack has almost the same capacity as an 1865 S85 pack, but only 5500 cells instead of 7400 cells, so there are fewer raw materials and less labor. If I had to replace a bunch of batteries, I'd want to use the cheaper ones.
Last edited:
Did you not see the post of the owner that got that option. He states it cost 20k for that upgrade/replacement.
Similar threads
