Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[wk057]

Just to be clear, the voltage-capped owners, who are the vast majority of the posters in this thread, are not some conspiracy theorist or FUDesters. I'm sure you have no evidence of any "overlapped" malicious intent ongoing in this thread. In fact, the impacted owners have numerously stated their desire for Tesla to do well by being a responsible vendor. After all, they have spent a big chunk of their hard earned money to buy Tesla cars. Tesla's failure is the failure of their investment. No "overlapping" generalization/accusation, please!

Seriously? You really need to clarify this.

And, lastly:

Consider this analogy - A patient has a very troubling medical issue. The patient is told by a reputable doctor the recommendation is to take medication and, while the doctor knows what the problem is, the doctor can not tell the patient what that is! [end_of_analogy] ... With your good reputation here at TMC, you have been that doctor in this thread. You have told us to OTA update (the medication) but can not tell us what our problems with our batteries are (the nature of the illness), not because you do not know but because you have chosen not to share it with us. That is a very bad position for any doctor to be in, let alone the negative impression felt by his/her patients.

Lot to unpack here, but this is likely going to have to be my last post on this topic as I can't continue to waste time battling obvious FUDsters like @Chaserr, provide useful information, and cover my own a** at the same time.

I've mainly been debunking the "coolant leak" narrative lately, which provably has no basis in reality. That was tied into this thread for whatever reason, before I got here, so if a moderator wants to waste time sifting through hundreds of posts to split it off from the battery capping issue, maybe that'd work out... but I wouldn't waste my time at this point. This thread is just a disaster. Without being able to do more than 20 posts per page it's basically impossible to find anything.

So my apologies for mixing my speculation of malicious intent on the part of the stationary fire instances with the "batterygate" folks. That was not my intention.

I stand by my statement: Tesla's vehicles do not just burst into flames. They can catch fire in an accident, sure. That's any car, really. But I've seen zero evidence of a vehicle spontaneously combusting due to some kind of systemic flaw. Every stationary Tesla fire I've seen is pretty suspect from an arson/insurance fraud standpoint.

As for your doctor analogy, that's fun... except it doesn't really work, as I have no obligation to my "patients" here to disclose anything whatsoever, where a doctor has a duty to do so. In my case, needing to protect myself from potential legal issues is more important than publishing information that just doesn't actually help anyone here in any meaningful way.

I'm sorry if that's insufficient for folks, but that's where I have to be on it. For the record, Tesla has not threatened anything. I'm choosing to handle this as I have based on advice I've acquired on my own.

This still is not a link. lol. You'd rather write a meaningless wall of text that gets us no where than either share a link, or admit that you were spreading misinformation. *sigh*

This still is not a link. lol. You'd rather write a meaningless wall of text that gets us no where than either share a link, or admit that you were spreading misinformation. *sigh*

I'm... just at a loss for words. Instead of providing useful information (you know, the link to your source for the quote from Tesla) you've instead lowered yourself to grade-school mocking. lol. How is that helpful in any way whatsoever? How does this strengthen your case?! I DONT GET IT. I DONT UNDERSTAND. I'm genuinely confused. Like, seriously. Is @Chaserr a bot or something? I really don't get it.

 

[Chaserr]

which provably has no basis in reality

Tesla battery cooling system is subject of federal safety probe
Tesla is facing NHTSA probe over possible design flaw in older Model S cars - Electrek
The feds are reportedly looking into Tesla's Model S battery cooling system
NHTSA Launched Investigation on Defects in Battery Cooling System of Tesla Model S
Tesla’s reportedly shipped early Model S cars with leaky battery packs
Tesla's Alleged Battery Coolant Coverup Investigated by the NHTSA

I can link all day. You can't. Your refusal to provide citations doesn't make you the a "FUDster" or "spreading information". Stop it with the name calling, if you want to counter evidence do it with evidence. Do you not realize your words apply to you?

 

[MP3Mike]

We already have a volunteer battery that is an ideal candidate for photographic evidence, and the battery has already identified its module that has the cells we want to photograph. A perfect evidence battery was easier to find than I thought it would be, and you are to thank! Dendrites are so dangerous photographs of them proving a Tesla coverup could end this case within hours of the class action lawyers getting their hands on them, so you may not have to wait. I'm not sure if the class action will want them, but if not you'll see them yourself when they are released publicly.

What is the status of getting, and sharing, that photographic evidence of dendrites in cells out of a Tesla module?

 

[MP3Mike]

Tesla battery cooling system is subject of federal safety probe
Tesla is facing NHTSA probe over possible design flaw in older Model S cars - Electrek
The feds are reportedly looking into Tesla's Model S battery cooling system
NHTSA Launched Investigation on Defects in Battery Cooling System of Tesla Model S
Tesla’s reportedly shipped early Model S cars with leaky battery packs
Tesla's Alleged Battery Coolant Coverup Investigated by the NHTSA

I can link all day.

And all of those headlines are false. NHTSA has not yet opened any kind of investigation into the Tesla battery cooling system. They acknowledged that they were aware of the leaked information that claimed that there is an issue. But never actually said they were going to investigate it.

What they actually said: we are “well aware of the reports regarding this issue and will take action if appropriate based upon the facts and data.”

 

[wk057]

Tesla battery cooling system is subject of federal safety probe
Tesla is facing NHTSA probe over possible design flaw in older Model S cars - Electrek
The feds are reportedly looking into Tesla's Model S battery cooling system
NHTSA Launched Investigation on Defects in Battery Cooling System of Tesla Model S
Tesla’s reportedly shipped early Model S cars with leaky battery packs
Tesla's Alleged Battery Coolant Coverup Investigated by the NHTSA

I can link all day.

Checked all of these. None of these have anything to do with what's been asked.

Instead, how about a link to the source for where Tesla said they thought coolant was involved in the San Francisco fire where they supposedly asked if it was parked on a hill.

I mean, I can link to all sorts of irrelevant stuff, too, if you think that'd be helpful???

Edit: I don't want the summary of the game that @Chaserr is playing here to get buried, so I'll keep linking to it at the bottom of my posts here:
Summary of Chaserr's Deflection Tactics and Refusal to Answer a Simple Question Regarding a Citation

 

[ucmndd]

It's the reason Tesla asked if the burned garage fire car was posted at an incline and a plausibly deniable excuse for only lowering cell voltage in Round one of Batterygate. When they realized it was dendrite formation they had to do a lot more, but early on they thought it was something else

If this whole lawsuit-fanning hyperbole thing doesn’t work out for you, I think you’ve got a real shot at a Miss Cleo style tele-psychic hotline.

Being psychic is the only way I can imagine speaking with such factual authority about actions/intent of others and future events as you do.

 

[Chaserr]

Link to everything you've brought up here PLEASE. Until then, you've introduced a lot of interesting words to for people like yourself who don't. Not doing it genuinely confuses you.

If you have a hypothesis for why they asked if the car was parked at an angle before it caught fire, I'm willing to listen to reason. If you only want to suppress reason... you've already supplied a word for people that do that.

I've mainly been debunking the "coolant leak" narrative lately, which provably has no basis in reality.

Checked all of these.

Caught you. Don't spread misinformation. You know these has a basis in reality.

Your words apply to you. Listen to them.

 

[wk057]

Link to everything you've brought up here PLEASE. Until then, you've introduced a lot of interesting words to for people like yourself who don't. Not doing it genuinely confuses you.

If you have a hypothesis for why they asked if the car was parked at an angle before it caught fire, I'm willing to listen to reason. If you only want to suppress reason... you've already supplied a word for people that do that.

Which reality? The one linked you just read through exhaustively?

I've stated no opinion whatsoever on why they may have asked if the car was on an incline. This is not the issue at hand.

You stated the following as if Tesla had stated it:

Tesla thought it was coolant last year was when they asked if the car was parked at an incline

Oh, even better. Just noticed when quoting your statement that the moderators here have some sense! Thanks!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderator Note: This post was reported as being inaccurate. Citation needed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, you've multiple people here asking for you to cite where Tesla stated this, including the forum mods. I believe the onus is on you to do so, or retract, before you try to say anything else at this point... and you're still refusing to do either. That speaks volumes about your credibility (or, in this case, lack thereof).

Also, so this doesn't get buried: Summary of Chaserr's Deflection Tactics and Refusal to Answer a Simple Question Regarding a Citation

 

[Droschke]

So my apologies for mixing my speculation of malicious intent on the part of the stationary fire instances with the "batterygate" folks. That was not my intention.

Appreciate the clarification.

I have no obligation to my "patients" here to disclose anything whatsoever, where a doctor has a duty to do so. In my case, needing to protect myself from potential legal issues is more important than publishing information that just doesn't actually help anyone here in any meaningful way.

Look, that's the alarm we hear. If you can't share your findings out of protecting yourself from potential legal issues (understandable), wouldn't you agree that it has to be sensitive enough for the impacted owners to be worry about, especially if it involves the safety of our cars?

It appears, as a safe assumption, that only Tesla and you know the facts (I can be corrected if I'm wrong on that). Tesla is not talking and you say you can't share your knowledge of it based on legal concerns. All we are left with is the speculations among ourselves, and that's what people do on Internet in absence of facts. Agree?

 

[Gwgan]

I really don't get it

Imagine how I feel, I have a chaserr on ignore.

 

[sdoorex]

Ok, how about this. I'll make it interesting.

Link the legit source for Tesla stating that they asked about the burned car being parked on an incline because they thought it may be a coolant leak issue, and I'll DM 100% of the data I have on the actual issues with the battery packs. Everything I have on the issues, what Tesla has done to mitigate them, firmware with full annotations across multiple versions, photos, screenshots of confidential convos with insiders. Everything. 100%. And you can do what you want with it.

Everyone wins. (Edit: Well, except me. I'll probably get sued. But still, since the source in question about the incline question doesn't exist and everyone knows it at this point, this is a non-issue.)

If this doesn't get the source link, it doesn't exist, period. It's put up or shut up time.

Can you posit a reason that Tesla would ask if the vehicle was parked on an incline? Unless the incline somehow changes the risk of fire, why would it matter how the car was parked?

 

[wk057]

Appreciate the clarification.

Look, that's the alarm we hear. If you can't share your findings out of protecting yourself from potential legal issues (understandable), wouldn't you agree that it has to be sensitive enough for the impacted owners to be worry about, especially if it involves the safety of our cars?

It appears, as a safe assumption, that only Tesla and you know the facts (I can be corrected if I'm wrong on that). Tesla is not talking and you say you can't share your knowledge of it based on legal concerns. All we are left with is the speculations among ourselves, and that's what people do on Internet in absence of facts. Agree?

Speculation is perfectly fine and understandable.

Stating speculation as if it were fact is, however, unacceptable, which is what I've been chasing the past several pages with @Chaserr who seems to not understand the distinction between "I thought" and "Tesla thought" ........ wait, unless @Chaserr is Tesla?! /s

Can you posit a reason that Tesla would ask if the vehicle was parked on an incline? Unless the incline somehow changes the risk of fire, why would it matter how the car was parked?

Plenty of non-coolant related reasons why being on an incline could have an impact on the severity of a vehicle fire (Edit for clarification: I know of nothing whatsoever where parking on an incline would be related to starting a fire.) I've not speculated as to a reason why Tesla would ask (if they did at all), as that's not what I've been getting at here at all.

@Chaserr stated that Tesla thought the incline had something to do with coolant causing a fire. I've simply been asking for him/her to cite where that information came from, which seems pretty reasonable for such a damning claim, and that's been refused over and over.

---

Also, so this doesn't get buried: Summary of Chaserr's Deflection Tactics and Refusal to Answer a Simple Question Regarding a Citation

 

[sdoorex]

Plenty of non-coolant related reasons why being on an incline could have an impact on the severity of a vehicle fire.

Such as?

 

[ucmndd]

You stated the following as if Tesla had stated it:

This is the all-encompassing problem with Chaserr’s participation in this matter. Repeated, fanatical insistence on making factual claims that are impossible to substantiate.

Things he could not possibly know.
Claims of future actions and outcomes that are impossible to predict.
Things that are extreme exaggerations of available evidence and observation.
Things that are quite simply lies.

I admit, he seems intelligent enough to me to know that he’s doing this, so I’m left with the only conclusion that he’s being deliberately obtuse in an effort to bolster his legal claims and further his self interest.

 

[wk057]

Such as?

Didn't want this rabbit hole, but:

Parking on an incline changes the vector for up/down with regard to a fire that's going. (Again, as in the edit in my last post: I know of nothing whatsoever where parking on an incline would be related to starting a fire.) On a steeper incline a fire is able to spread more readily to parts of the object ahead or behind the currently burning point where it may not be able to do so as easily if it were sitting flat. Take a piece of paper and light the corner on fire, and then tilt it so the fire is below the rest of the paper. It'll spread more readily and in a different manner.

My speculation is that if Tesla did ask this question, they were doing so as part of their investigating of the spread rate of the fire to compare and match the expected with physical examination... most likely as part of an investigation to confirm suspicion of or to rule out arson. Again, this is my speculation based on the sum of all of my first hand knowledge and experience regarding the vehicles and their components.

---

Also, so this doesn't get buried: Summary of Chaserr's Deflection Tactics and Refusal to Answer a Simple Question Regarding a Citation

 

[Droschke]

Speculation is perfectly fine and understandable.

Stating speculation as if it were fact is, however, unacceptable, which is what I've been chasing the past several pages with @Chaserr who seems to not understand the distinction between "I thought" and "Tesla thought" ........ wait, unless @Chaserr is Tesla?! /s

@Chaserr has not said he has the facts, which make me believe he is just speculating as the rest of us. Tesla has the facts and you say you have it - neither is sharing. I wish between Tesla and you one would have talked already to put the matter to rest. Unfortunately, that has not happened and people keep proposing possible root causes.

 

[gmo43]

The actual problem he has with you is that you came in here months ago and hinted that you know what the problem is as informed by Tesla contacts, but said you weren't going to tell us what it is. Remember coming back again and reiterating that you can't say anything? You told us to read between the lines in your posts, which, well, just confused me more thoroughly. That line of discourse was unhelpful and has frankly helped lead to the wild conspiracy theories you don't like. I'm not part of the in-group that has deciphered your coded message between the lines, and I guess neither is Chasserr. Maybe someone can PM me and help.

Also don't bother asking me to go back and find the post where you said this and link it here. Just pre-empting mp3mike's request.

THIS!!!!! You are not the only one that read that. I remember that and made me hopeful he would get Tesla to fix or I was hoping wk057 would come back and tell us what condition z I think it was labeled. Why would he get sued if Tesla is the one lying or hiding such information.

 

[wk057]

@Chaserr has not said he has the facts, which make me believe he is just speculating as the rest of us. Tesla has the facts and you say you have it - neither is sharing. I wish between Tesla and you one would have talked already to put the matter to rest. Unfortunately, that has not happened and people keep proposing possible root causes.

I was somewhat willing to chalk some of it up to a potential language barrier or reading/writing comprehension issue... but there's too much of it to be the case.

There's a huge difference between saying things like "Tesla thought" then stating subsequent speculation as if it were things Tesla noted as having thought/said/etc... and actual speculation.

Take these example sentences (WARNING: THESE ARE NOT THINGS TESLA NOR I HAVE SAID OR BELIEVE):

---

Tesla thought that batteries might explode if you drive to Canada, because the cold weather causes rapid degradation that's dangerous.

Tesla probably thought that the batteries might explode if you drive to Canada, because I believe the cold weather causes rapid degradation that could be dangerous.

---

One of these requires a citation. The other does not.

---

Also, so this doesn't get buried: Summary of Chaserr's Deflection Tactics and Refusal to Answer a Simple Question Regarding a Citation

 

[ucmndd]

@Chaserr has not said he has the facts, which make me believe he is just speculating as the rest of us.

What language exactly, in this post, implies speculation?

“It's the reason Tesla asked if the burned garage fire car was posted at an incline and a plausibly deniable excuse for only lowering cell voltage in Round one of Batterygate. When they realized it was dendrite formation they had to do a lot more, but early on they thought it was something else”

This is just one example - there are literally dozens of others.

 

[gmo43]

Checked all of these. None of these have anything to do with what's been asked.

Instead, how about a link to the source for where Tesla said they thought coolant was involved in the San Francisco fire where they supposedly asked if it was parked on a hill.

I mean, I can link to all sorts of irrelevant stuff, too, if you think that'd be helpful???

Edit: I don't want the summary of the game that @Chaserr is playing here to get buried, so I'll keep linking to it at the bottom of my posts here:
Summary of Chaserr's Deflection Tactics and Refusal to Answer a Simple Question Regarding a Citation

Enough with the bs about coolant leading to fires. What about the condition that lead to battery hate?
We all know chaser is just trying to make a hypothesis on what could have been the cause. In no way do I think it concrete work he's done that will get Tesla to talk. But it's start and happy to hear someone with ideas.

On the other hand you actually wrote that you knew what happened to our batteries that lead to batterygate and hopeTesla would do the right thing. But now don't want to share for some selfish reason. But that's your right and hope the best for you. I definitely looked up to you in the ev world.