Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Even though this is somewhat off-topic:
FWIW, and I'm not just trying to be contradictory, but I'm at 280 Wh/mi over 27,000 miles on my 2015 S70. That's probably 3/4 local city driving and 1/4 long-range driving at 5 MPH above speed limits. Almost all warm-weather drives.
Does that count preheating, pre-cooling, and cabin overheat protection use, in that calculation?
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.
The trip meters are only calculated while the car is in "Drive;" things like preheating, pre-cooling and cabin overheat protection are never calculated in the trip meter's display of Wh/mi — those losses are considered "vampiric" (to which my car easily loses 20% of its battery's capacity just sitting there "doing nothing," not even the aforementioned specifics — and that was before the relatively-abrupt loss of 9 kWh and the commensurate recalculation of percentage… but I digress).

FWIW, in the 23k-and-change miles I've owned this vehicle, my average sits at 334 Wh/mi — though it can easily push upwards of 400 during the fall/winter (basically whenever the heat is on — which I generally try to avoid, but when the coffee's sludge…), while hovering around 300 in the spring and parts of the summer (pushing back up somewhat with the AC on — which again I generally try to avoid, but when the eggs are frying…).
 
Batteries that are in danger of starting a fire are either defectively manufactured or were damaged by charge management due to a programming issue.
That is a sort of black-and-white perspective. Fire danger is non-zero in all cars, EV or ICE. Hopefully your car is at or below industry norms for fire danger. I would tend to imagine that it is, and that that is important to Tesla. Possibly well below norms due to an overabundance of caution.
 
That is a sort of black-and-white perspective. Fire danger is non-zero in all cars, EV or ICE. Hopefully your car is at or below industry norms for fire danger. I would tend to imagine that it is, and that that is important to Tesla. Possibly well below norms due to an overabundance of caution.

Interesting.

@sorka is saying the batteries that are in danger of starting a fire are either:

- defectively manufactured (black)
or
- were damaged by charge management due to a programming issue (white)

To MaryAnning3:
Care to define the missing gray part?
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: neroden
That is a sort of black-and-white perspective. Fire danger is non-zero in all cars, EV or ICE. Hopefully your car is at or below industry norms for fire danger. I would tend to imagine that it is, and that that is important to Tesla. Possibly well below norms due to an overabundance of caution.

Unfortunately, this precise issue demonstrates quite the opposite to me. We have often heard that Tesla has the most advanced BMS and thermal management system in the world. Yet if they had performed extensive testing on their technology before deploying it in the real world, then they would have discovered this issue of Li Plating and would have corrected it before it became an issue.
 
However, when confronted with my data that my 217 mile full pack rated is now based on 276 Wh/mile, they refused to accept or acknowledge my data. Claiming they do not trust ANY 3rd party data and they can ONLY go by the data that their test set provides.

It IS THEIR DATA! It is the CAN bus data from the car itself!
 
Is everyone that is impacted by dropped range also impacted with slower supercharging?

Im not impacted by the range and I now have a higher top supercharging speed of 130 kW instead of 120.
I have no change in reported range (38k miles); however my charging profile has changed by a-bit.

My before and after change across my charging profile; 98kw to 85kw at 30% SoC, 70kw to 65kw at 50% SoC, and finally converge at 37kw at 80% SoC.
 
That is a sort of black-and-white perspective. Fire danger is non-zero in all cars, EV or ICE. Hopefully your car is at or below industry norms for fire danger. I would tend to imagine that it is, and that that is important to Tesla. Possibly well below norms due to an overabundance of caution.

Car fires occur for many different reasons. I was drilling down into one specific issue that if is true and is the reason Tesla is crippling batteries to hide a dangerous state then you bet I'm being very black and white on this issue :eek:
 
Also, somewhere along the trail of software updates Tesla HAS changed the rated range constant from 295 Wh/mile to 276 Wh/mi.
This has occurred on all cars that I have seen ScanMyTesla data from - including cars that have NOT been affected by the sudden range reduction.
This change to 276 Wh/mi artificially inflates your rated range.
I know of NOBODY that can average under 300 Wh/mi. My average over the last 2 years is 317 Wh/mi. The ONLY time I get below 300 is on the downhill half of my commute from 3,000 ft elevation to 4,240 ft and down to ~1,000 ft.

I tried to use this information to show that MY car now exceeds their 10% beyond normal degradation limit for warranty replacement.
But, they will not even look at my data from 3rd party apps.

Note below that TM-Spy data uses Nominal Full Pack and Nominal Remaining (includes to 4 kWh "brick buffer").
Their SOC is the SUC UI info in ScanMyTesla data.
I asked the author of TM-Spy about this and they believe showing the total battery capacity is the "truest" information. Even though the SOC does not track the vehicle's SOC display.

View attachment 426387
I don’t think Tesla changed the multiplier from 295 to 276 with any updates (It would be crazy and cheating if they did). Many of the very earliest Tesla adopters reported that to achieve rated range they had to drive at 276 Wh/mi or approx., to achieve rated range. This was long before wk057 had reported the 295 number. From day 1, I have always had to drive around 270 Wh/mi to achieve rated range in my car, even though the multiplier is 290 for my 70D.

Is this an issue? Yes, but I think it is a separate issue from the main theme of this thread, which is the big reduction in range due to the recent updates to protect or preserve the battery.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: VT_EE and neroden
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!

Did you not see the post of the owner that got that option. He states it cost 20k for that upgrade/replacement.

Unfortunately they did not get an upgrade offer. They got an offer for a battery replacement (more of the same), not a battery upgrade. I am sure @Chaserr did not mean to equate the two.
 
I know of NOBODY that can average under 300 Wh/mi. My average over the last 2 years is 317 Wh/mi. The ONLY time I get below 300 is on the downhill half of my commute from 3,000 ft elevation to 4,240 ft and down to ~1,000 ft.
I had lifetime 297Wh/mi and recently it went to 298. I'm sure there are others that are much lower which I don't know how they do it other than drive really, really slow and only in town.
 
  • Disagree
  • Like
Reactions: Droschke and DJRas
There’s been some debate, whether Tesla has also secretly changed Wh/miles (Wh/kms) value, which is the basis for odometer’s range projection.

I’ve occasionally monitored Wh/kms consumption and compared it to odometer’s range projection.

My odometer’s range projection is based to same wh/kms value as previously, 187 Wh/km.

You can check what Wh/km car’s odometer uses in range projection by using trip app and choosing “consumption” tab.
DD3E9E13-6E54-4553-96D0-81FCF61D4BFC.jpeg


When you see, that projected range is the same as odometer’s projected range, current wh/km is the same what odometer uses.

My 100% charge range has not changed and wh/km value has also not changed.

2015 S85D.
 
A few months back a few of us made a post about not being able to make the Rated range by driving the Wh/mile. The whole issue is not that your not getting the correct mileage it's the issue that the Rated range is based on using 100 percent of usable pack. When in reality you are only able to use total pack minus 4kWh and the SoC UI scales to this so you never see it.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: DJRas
I had lifetime 297Wh/mi and recently it went to 298. I'm sure there are others that are much lower which I don't know how they do it other than drive really, really slow and only in town.

Or own a raven/model 3 ;). But yeah some people must just drive no ac, windows up, 10 miles under speed limit or something.

None of that.

My lifetime of 285 wh/mi @43k is with the mix of highway/city, @speed limits (a bit over on highways), with AC/Heater, windows always closed. The difference is I drive smooth, have no binary right foot.

Oh, not to forget, we have very cold winters and hot summers, hilly terrain.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: neroden and DJRas