The voltage read at 100% SoC now is 392V, as reported from the BMS of my Model S 85 RWD (2014). They did cut off the capacity at the upper end.
-
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
Let’s assume you have an ICE car instead of your Model 3, which BTW does not seem impacted here. Your ICE car fuel capacity is 16 gallons. Your ICE car is serviced by the manufacturer’s outlet . Afterward, you notice you can only fill up to 10 gallons and it's decreasing. You hear from another owner that per manufacturer’s text message they are limiting the capacity of your fuel tank to prolong the life of the tank and reduce the tank wear. In the meanwhile, you can fuel up even less as the days go by. Heck, you might not be able to drive that far soon!
What would you do/say?
You are the second poster in recent weeks in this forum who has advised us as such.
When I purchased my car the SW updates were sold to me as a unique characteristic of the Tesla ownership experience which would offer improvements/increase. What we are upset about is not that, I'm sorry to say.
I called the 1800 number too. They stated it was normal. Its so weird that in 4 years of owning I had lost about 10 rated miles and then within a month I lost another 30!!! Definitely will call my service center and see if they say anything different.
BoerumHill
not great not terrible
I’d probably be pissed just like you guys are although I’d wouldn’t want to drive an unsafe vehicle around just to carry the extra 1 gallon of gas. I just read all the fine print I could find on the Model S warranty and there is nothing that defines what constitutes a defective battery except for a general statement that gradual loss of range is not covered. Obviously you guys are not seeing a gradual loss. This whole thing follows the Tesla mode of operation: throw out a fix and deal with the consequences later. In this case, my guess is it’s unsafe for older 85 batteries to operate at full capacity so they limited it to 90%. I suspect they will eventually undo this software fix once more testing is complete or they will have to offer something to current owners for the 10% loss of range. I don’t see any way Tesla could replace all these batteries so some sort of monetary settlement is really the only option.
How do you know this is a safety issue. Tesla has never communicated anything as such to us. The impacted owners just see a drastic range loss suddenly in few weeks.
You got this one right
Again, what your "guess" is based on? There are multiple reasons, we just don't know what this one is.
I've not seen anyone on this thread asking for a replacement. Have you?
The bottom line is this: The owners understand and expect the gradual range loss. They know it now and then when they purchased the cars, like I who did over four years ago. There is enough crowd sourced data to except a gradual loss. No impacted owner has experienced a sudden and significant range (the usable capacity) loss at will of the manufacturer.
And no, I do not want to disconnect my car from the Internet to avoid these issues, and in your words, because it's "part of the Tesla experience". After all, I like to keep my car updated (it always is) in the hope of all the features that used to work and Tesla kept breaking over the time to be fixed.
Last edited:
CuriousG
Active Member
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
Theft of what exactly? You don’t have a warranty or guarantee of ANY amount of range from your battery.
Furthermore, I imagine you’d be quick to claim loss and negligence if Tesla knew of a safety/fire risk present in your battery and did nothing about it.
Can’t have it both ways...
⚡️ELECTROMAN⚡️
Village Idiot
Too bad, so sad, buy a Model 3. I'll buy your Model S with 20 mile range for a few bucks.
⚡️ELECTROMAN⚡️
Village Idiot
I meant this as what Tesla’s attitude seems to be towards the Model S. It’s all about the Model 3 now. I’m really starting to regret my Model S purchase.
faughtz
Model S P85DL
I expect, or demand, it both ways.
I paid for a level of capacity, performance, and safety. TESLA can’t come in my garage and take any of those things.
You may not be aware of the deception associated with 691hp, 762hp, 1 ft rollout, max battery power, on ramp to off ramp, summon, etc.
faughtz
Model S P85DL
That’s consistent with my TM Spy screen shots upthread. This will, of course, affect performance also.
Here are my scans from V8. Still showing 4 kWh in reserve. What is this showing for others?
The TM-SPY capture shows 4 volts at 81.6% which is displayed as 80% on my dash.
I will log these every week so that I have solid proof if I get V9 (without my consent) and have to proof that they locked out capacity right after the update. It sounds like the software is doing this in steps to make it appear that it isn't an instant change tied to one software update. Also, if it's more gradual over a few weeks, owners could be convinced more easily that it's degradation.
Now what I'd like to believe is that this is a REALLY bad bug and that what the service center rep from the Bay Area area code is simply wrong about Tesla doing this intentionally.
The TM-SPY capture shows 4 volts at 81.6% which is displayed as 80% on my dash.
I will log these every week so that I have solid proof if I get V9 (without my consent) and have to proof that they locked out capacity right after the update. It sounds like the software is doing this in steps to make it appear that it isn't an instant change tied to one software update. Also, if it's more gradual over a few weeks, owners could be convinced more easily that it's degradation.
Now what I'd like to believe is that this is a REALLY bad bug and that what the service center rep from the Bay Area area code is simply wrong about Tesla doing this intentionally.
I don’t see it this way, otherwise why would they be working on a refresh. I really like my MS and would only consider a M3P in lieu of an S. I think the issue being described here goes beyond the S. It could apply to the 3 at some point or to any of Tesla’s cars. I’ve been wrestling with how to think through what I consider to be the trade-offs of the problem, and see a best value (good for customers, good for Tesla) solution. On the one hand, Tesla wants to keep delivering enhancements to its products and has pioneered, the OTA updates for cars (computer/phone paradigm). On the other, it wants to protect itself and its customers from potential hazards. And on the customer side, most customers want the opportunity to get new features via OTA, but understandably don’t want to lose features. I keep thinking about how it works for computers and phones, since that’s the model I think Tesla most closely approximates, albeit, the use case for most of those devices doesn’t come close to the life and death risk associated with a car. Taking an update for a phone or a computer, is entirely optional. Even on autos, recalls for parts replacements are optional for the owner. So, I lean toward the position that Tesla should not force an update on anyone, and should either provide advance knowledge of what is in the update and/or allow you to revert back if you don’t like it. At some point I see this as a make or break problem for Tesla, as the volume of its cars grows in the market.
Last edited:
I'm already fine with never getting another update and don't want one with the fiasco that v9 has been. That said, I do need traffic, maps, straming, etc which I can't get if I could somehow manage to disconnect the network connection. I've removed all saved wifi APs and turned wifi off hoping that I'll never get an update.
Similar threads
