faughtz
Model S P85DL
And an outright lie, as we can see the module voltages.
-
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
And an outright lie, as we can see the module voltages.
faughtz
Model S P85DL
That is what Tesla charges for battery packs, I am sure it does cost the 20K to make a battery pack given their history of massive mark up on parts.
I had the exact experience with my car. I started this thread.
It happened after the 2019.16.x update. Quickly after that I lost up to 30 miles of range, which is the topic of this thread here.
So it has been a little over a month since this started. The initial roll out of the correcting software was....
"Tesla recently announced that it has identified the cause of a Model S fire that was reported in Shanghai last April. The incident, which attracted a notable amount of attention from international media, was due to a single battery module near the front of the vehicle, according to the carmaker. The company has also noted that it had rolled out an over-the-air update to help prevent similar incidents from happening in the future.
Tesla’s findings, which were determined after a joint analysis with an investigation team, were announced in the electric car maker’s official Weibo account on Friday. The company noted that the investigation covered several aspects of the ill-fated vehicle, from its batteries, its software, its manufacturing data, and its history. The results of the joint investigation showed that the pre-facelift Model S did not have any system detects. Instead, initial findings pointed to a single battery module as the cause of the blaze, which was caught in a parking lot surveillance camera. In order to avoid similar incidents from happening, Tesla has revised the charge and thermal management settings on Model S and Model X units, which feature the same systems as the ill-fated vehicle from Shanghai. The Silicon Valley-based company noted that the fix, which was rolled out through an over-the-air update, would help protect the vehicles’ batteries while improving longevity."
The end result was lost range, slow charging and a loss of performance. I think it is past time action should be taken and inform the National news about this issue, go past filing arbitration and go straight to filing lawsuits. With everything that has transpired I am done waiting on Tesla to fix this issue with range loss and I am tired of their excuses.
"Tesla recently announced that it has identified the cause of a Model S fire that was reported in Shanghai last April. The incident, which attracted a notable amount of attention from international media, was due to a single battery module near the front of the vehicle, according to the carmaker. The company has also noted that it had rolled out an over-the-air update to help prevent similar incidents from happening in the future.
Tesla’s findings, which were determined after a joint analysis with an investigation team, were announced in the electric car maker’s official Weibo account on Friday. The company noted that the investigation covered several aspects of the ill-fated vehicle, from its batteries, its software, its manufacturing data, and its history. The results of the joint investigation showed that the pre-facelift Model S did not have any system detects. Instead, initial findings pointed to a single battery module as the cause of the blaze, which was caught in a parking lot surveillance camera. In order to avoid similar incidents from happening, Tesla has revised the charge and thermal management settings on Model S and Model X units, which feature the same systems as the ill-fated vehicle from Shanghai. The Silicon Valley-based company noted that the fix, which was rolled out through an over-the-air update, would help protect the vehicles’ batteries while improving longevity."
The end result was lost range, slow charging and a loss of performance. I think it is past time action should be taken and inform the National news about this issue, go past filing arbitration and go straight to filing lawsuits. With everything that has transpired I am done waiting on Tesla to fix this issue with range loss and I am tired of their excuses.
A - They are totally uninformed about the issue which customers are asking for help, and keep copy/pasting the Tesla's generic talking points
or
B - They know what's taking place but are told by the management to deflect by giving generic non-answers
Either way, it's pathetic.
Last edited:
faughtz
Model S P85DL
In my experience, many of the front line staff have no technical training or experience, and receive limited or no tesla corporate information, but try to be responsive - even in difficult circumstances. Case in point, my rear hatch would not close using the hatch close button. It was diagnosed by the service tech by listening to a properly closing hatch and hearing the “cinching” action - no such sound from my car. Result, the cinch motor was diagnosed as the issue, and replaced.
Other times it’s very clear their objective is to move to the next customer.
It would be interesting to see corporate staff performance goals, and the associated metrics, by role/title. What’s rewarded by tesla as success?
I love to see them too. From what we have seen, they can't be anything related to "The Effortless Experience". A must read for every customer support management and staff.
@wk057 , Do you agree that regardless of the reason, Tesla's latest software is removing access to capacity that actually exists? Whether this be mistake(probably not) or intentional as safety remediation.
Assuming the latter, the change is either a) to remediate a condition that was occurring regardless of how good the BMS took care of the battery and is now being detected, or b) the bms was not properly programmed and allowed the battery to be damaged in a way that now mandates cutting the maximum SOC to something less than 4.2 volts.
Additionally, do you think when Tesla did this and say cut the SOC to say 85% of existing capacity that they indicate 100% SOC when it's only 85% or do you think they should display the true SOC and indicate that they will not charge above that?
Assuming the latter, the change is either a) to remediate a condition that was occurring regardless of how good the BMS took care of the battery and is now being detected, or b) the bms was not properly programmed and allowed the battery to be damaged in a way that now mandates cutting the maximum SOC to something less than 4.2 volts.
Additionally, do you think when Tesla did this and say cut the SOC to say 85% of existing capacity that they indicate 100% SOC when it's only 85% or do you think they should display the true SOC and indicate that they will not charge above that?
There lies the issue (pun intended.) The method of calculating the range did not change (or at least that's not the beef.) The maximum charge was reduced by software limiting the maximum voltage of the battery. There is no way that is normal degradation, as normal degradation does not reduce the maximum voltage to which the battery can be charged and doesn't involve software limits. If they have found there is an issue with the battery that requires them to reduce the maximum voltage to which the battery can safely be charged they should be forthcoming with that information to owners, rather than attempt to deflect the issue through smoke and mirrors about driving habits and range calculations.
The people who can no longer make trips they have previously been able to make (I believe there are at least 3 in this thread) certainly deserve to be told why, in the course of a single software update, they find their cars to be significantly limited for their usage. I specifically bought an 85 over a 70 to allow me to more comfortably make a regular trip without having to stop for supercharging. So far my range hasn't changed, so I'm not expecting anything, but I fully support those affected being told why.
I work in the computer industry. We sometimes have to release patches that introduce performance degradation in order to mitigate security issues. We would never release such patches without communicating the impact. Thinking about it... We probably did way back when (roaring 80s or so) and got our butts roasted over it by customers and developed policies about being transparent. Devaluing something you've sold simply doesn't go over well with savvy customers.
One other thing I'm wondering is if Tesla was more transparent about the issue would they get more slack? What if they said something like, "affected owners will be receive lifetime telematics with no restrictions", or "any affected owner will be given free supercharging if they ever purchase a new vehicle", or other meaningful, yet non-crippling perks? Would most impacted owners accept this in the interests of supporting the company's well being?
My wife noticed the AC running like a daemon right after the 2019.16 update and thought there was something wrong. It sometimes buzzes like a chainsaw. Yesterday we took the kids to the mall and I got a notification the AC was turned off, because it had been on for 4 hours. No one turned it on! WTF? Fortunately it only reduced the charge by about 2%. It's interesting we've seen no range reduction, but we're definitely noticing a change in the vehicle's behavior. We're up to 2019.20.4.2 now and the new behavior continues.
Anyone affected could you please check if you get sizable Regen at 100 percent indicated SOC....I lost 5 miles rated range after update and that (217 miles) has been stable for last 1000 miles ...however I get good Regen at 100 percent and Full Regen at 98 percent....used to see these dashed lines on the energy graph for quite a while before.
Conclusion: my de-rating has been achieved by Tesla not letting car charge as much as before the update.
Conclusion: my de-rating has been achieved by Tesla not letting car charge as much as before the update.
Attachments
Last edited:
partially related subject. i’ve read contradictory reports on software restricted base models that can actually charge to 100% because the hardware of the battery allows for 310- (base is 240 mi with suggested charges to 80%). i’ve read reports that contradicts this in that the batteries are different and fully charging a base model will in fact cause degradation.
can someone 110% certain which is true?
i’ve asked tesla technician that said 100% won’t degrade base model but i doubt his answer- therefore i’m looking for more confirmation.
can someone 110% certain which is true?
i’ve asked tesla technician that said 100% won’t degrade base model but i doubt his answer- therefore i’m looking for more confirmation.
Sure. Max power dropped from 116-118kW to 70ish dropping fast while charging. Power@50% dropped from 75kW to less than 50kW. Chademo would reach max of 48kW@67% before all this, but now the car limits the charge so much I only get like 30-32kW at that SOC. Normally chademo power would ramp up towards that soc point, but is now impaired from approx. 57%.
We have almost never let our car sit with more than 70%, an most of the time they spent around 40-50% when parked. Newest car has about 25% supercharging due to some very long road trips, while the oldest is at about 6%. Both cars have the same mileage, and got identical supercharger caps at exactly the same time.
Also looks like they are closing threads on the Tesla site on this as well
I don’t know how you can witness all this @neroden and still think Tesla is only ”failing to communicate”.
Their actions on their own forum — if true — seem to again suggest sweeping this topic under the rug quite intentionally, which would support more the thesis that they are choosing not to communicate about this, instead of failing to. Having your own forum is quite useful too, because then you can control the message...
As for a speculated $90 million cost in battery replacements, for a company that has been denying much cheaper Yellow Band screen replacements and has been saving toilet paper costs and struggling with service center service volume, do you really think avoiding that warranty cost would not enter their calculations at Tesla?
Besides Tesla is communicating about this. They clearly have a corporate message that amounts to ”nothing to see here”. To me it seems they are sweeping this one under the rug and hoping it stays there, which given the age of the cars it might. The hordes of Model 3 enthusiasts — and its value to the company — are the perfect smokescreen for any such small issues with Model S/X.
trayloader
Member
Bravo!
And that is the key culprit of these whole shenanigans.
Something much bigger seems to be lurking in the background.
If Tesla would willingly replace affected batteries without any hassle, it would create goodwill and boost sales. OTOH, if Tesla refuses to do so, it will cost sales.
trayloader
Member
Every day passing without proper (no longer proactive) PR damage control will affect the brand perception and the used car market.
This runs deeper and deeper.
This runs deeper and deeper.
