AZ Ed
Member
Over 3 years ago (06/19/2017) I was supercharging in Wickenburg at 114 degrees. I got a message "Vehicle Systems Being Cooled. Air Conditioning is Reduced". This was at about 64 ,000 miles and never happened again.
-
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
Over 3 years ago (06/19/2017) I was supercharging in Wickenburg at 114 degrees. I got a message "Vehicle Systems Being Cooled. Air Conditioning is Reduced". This was at about 64 ,000 miles and never happened again.
islandbayy
Active Member
I've mentioned previously in this thread, both my Model S on firmware 8.1, and my Model X on latest 10.2 firmware, are reaching temps over 130*F while supercharging on 90*F days.
Since getting MCU2 upgrade and FSD computer installed 3 weeks ago, my Model X, which previously took forever to charge, but still hit burst speeds of 132 and occasionally higher, also no longer gets over 94kW charge rate. And usually 85 or lower never even hitting 94kW.
Since getting MCU2 upgrade and FSD computer installed 3 weeks ago, my Model X, which previously took forever to charge, but still hit burst speeds of 132 and occasionally higher, also no longer gets over 94kW charge rate. And usually 85 or lower never even hitting 94kW.
"We are also subject to various other legal proceedings and claims that arise from the normal course of business activities. If an unfavorable ruling or development were to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, prospects, cash flows, financial position, and brand."
They don't mention this lawsuit specifically as one that will cost them over $100k but they do show they spent $60 million on warranty, but have continued to increase accrued warranty and recall reserves - it is now at $1.2 Billion in reserve. Since they didn't increase production capacity that much it is a reasonable assumption the extra billion is reserved for recalls. This isn't a new reserve - Tesla has been banking additional recall/warranty reserves all along, but they have dramatically increased how much they are putting into that fund. Warranty expenses are only up about 5 million (8%) since the last 10Q pre-batterygate, but recall reserves have been increased 70% in the same time.
I've set the scheduled AC charging limit to 50% to avoid the fans going off at a higher S0C.
Today, I noticed a very loud fan noise and warm air from the front of the car and underneath as the car was charging from ~48% to 50% off HPWC. First time I've experienced it at this SoC and the first time this loud with full speed. Thinking the AC might have started for some reason at the full fan speed inside the car, entered the car to turn it off only to discover that the fans inside the cabin were silent and not blowing any air at all. Exited, locked the doors and the fans started to slow down and then quickly stopped. Few minutes later charging completed at 50%. Not sure the fans stopped running that high and that loud on its own or opening the driver driver and closing it did the trick. Either way, it's concerning.
Today, I noticed a very loud fan noise and warm air from the front of the car and underneath as the car was charging from ~48% to 50% off HPWC. First time I've experienced it at this SoC and the first time this loud with full speed. Thinking the AC might have started for some reason at the full fan speed inside the car, entered the car to turn it off only to discover that the fans inside the cabin were silent and not blowing any air at all. Exited, locked the doors and the fans started to slow down and then quickly stopped. Few minutes later charging completed at 50%. Not sure the fans stopped running that high and that loud on its own or opening the driver driver and closing it did the trick. Either way, it's concerning.
I didn't plug in yesterday and went out to the car to grab something after sundown. It was parked in the street away from the house and trees so I couldn't hear it until I was close but it sounded like the AC was on full blast but the interior wasn't cool and I have smart preconditioning disabled. SOC was about 75%. Concerning is right this doesn't make me feel like it's safe to park inside again any time soon. I don't like being an unwilling "test group" participant in fire prevention beta software.
For all we know Tesla could be aware of an issue with 100 kWh or Model 3 batteries as well and are preparing their bank account...?
Extra billion?
The warranty reserves are barely over a billion and you think there is an "extra" billion just for recalls? What time period are you looking over?
But yet Tesla has been ratcheting down the amount reserved per car over time:
And to update those numbers they increased the reserves by $120M in Q2, and sold 90,650 vehicles, so they are now only reserving $1,323 per vehicle.
What are you looking at?
What are these "recall reserves" you are talking about? There is no such thing. And that they have increased by 70%?
As of 3/31/2019 the warranty reserves were 844M, they are now 1197M, that is only a ~41.8% increase.
Last edited:
I don't think the word "voltage" is even in the actual warranty verbiage in any way (except to reference the "high voltage battery" in the summary of the warranty, not the official document), let alone a specific voltage reduction limitation specified.
(How is this person still allowed to post?)
(How is this person still allowed to post?)
Voltage is in the law but hidden behind how environmental agencies do their tests - the EPA rates a range that equates to the capacity of the battery's voltage at time of testing. That voltage is federal law for the battery, and using cheats to invalidate EPA tests on street cars already has a well established federal prosecution and punishment path.
Some Teslas voluntarily requested lowered range on their EPA ratings, so they can legally reduce voltage to match the EPA rating (first Model 3s did this, as did factory volt capped cars like the 60D and 40). Unfortunately our older Model S 85s were rated using 4.2V per cell and intentionally reducing that voltage invalidates the EPA test.
Dieselgate's massive criminal and financial implications, and Tesla's ironically similar infractions with Batterygate, are adverb the reason Tesla hired a well known corporate bankruptcy firm to represent them while they have spent the last year sctrambling to find a way to return what they stole while keeping your secret from us.
I hope the baseless claims a certain someone made regarding Tesla finally doing "the right thing" (which is a recall, or at least returning our stolen property with a software fix but lets face it if that was possible this thread wouldn't exist) wasn't just another unbacked misinformation, but unfortunately no evidence whatsoever has backed any of that person's claims yet and all of the actual evidence so far says Tesla has growing legal problems. It's basically a matter of time before some hedge fund loser files with the EPA like they did when VW screwed its own customers over, and at that point things get muddy for those of us who justwant our cars repaired. VW was forced to buy back cars they couldn't restore to the original EPA test criteria at the time they were rated, and I honestly didn't think Tesla could handle something like that last year. Tesla's explosive growth recently might make an EPA violations less impact, but it's not the best outcome for any of us especially considering Dieselgate convictions invalidate Tesla's mission which is what a lot of people care about more than the cars themselves. Hopefully Tesla has been working on the same mindset and has a battery day surprise for us.
Some Teslas voluntarily requested lowered range on their EPA ratings, so they can legally reduce voltage to match the EPA rating (first Model 3s did this, as did factory volt capped cars like the 60D and 40). Unfortunately our older Model S 85s were rated using 4.2V per cell and intentionally reducing that voltage invalidates the EPA test.
Dieselgate's massive criminal and financial implications, and Tesla's ironically similar infractions with Batterygate, are adverb the reason Tesla hired a well known corporate bankruptcy firm to represent them while they have spent the last year sctrambling to find a way to return what they stole while keeping your secret from us.
I hope the baseless claims a certain someone made regarding Tesla finally doing "the right thing" (which is a recall, or at least returning our stolen property with a software fix but lets face it if that was possible this thread wouldn't exist) wasn't just another unbacked misinformation, but unfortunately no evidence whatsoever has backed any of that person's claims yet and all of the actual evidence so far says Tesla has growing legal problems. It's basically a matter of time before some hedge fund loser files with the EPA like they did when VW screwed its own customers over, and at that point things get muddy for those of us who justwant our cars repaired. VW was forced to buy back cars they couldn't restore to the original EPA test criteria at the time they were rated, and I honestly didn't think Tesla could handle something like that last year. Tesla's explosive growth recently might make an EPA violations less impact, but it's not the best outcome for any of us especially considering Dieselgate convictions invalidate Tesla's mission which is what a lot of people care about more than the cars themselves. Hopefully Tesla has been working on the same mindset and has a battery day surprise for us.
May be this is what was being (loosely) referred to?
"Your vehicle is covered by a New Vehicle Limited Warranty for 4 years or 50,000 miles, whichever comes first. The Battery and Drive Unit in your vehicle are covered for a period of:
Does the same 70% equate to the comment made in any way?
"Your vehicle is covered by a New Vehicle Limited Warranty for 4 years or 50,000 miles, whichever comes first. The Battery and Drive Unit in your vehicle are covered for a period of:
- Model S and Model X – 8 years or 150,000 miles, whichever comes first, with minimum 70% retention of Battery capacity over the warranty period."
Does the same 70% equate to the comment made in any way?
Is their a public official record (as part of EPA tests?) as to the cell voltage needed / specified to achieve the EPA range for all EV's? Certainly voltage dictates energy storage, so you would think it would be neccessary to state what voltage is being used for range figures. Otherwise it's like having an elastic gas tank.
I refer to this: 2014 Tesla Model S (85 kW-hr battery pack). It is done for every car, and measures capacity (which included as-tested voltage) against efficiency.
Every car is rated by the EPA. The EPA rates range for electric cars, and voltage is intrinsic to capacity. Capacity is how they measure range. Lowered voltage is reflected in lowered range, and when Tesla changed the warranty at the start of 2020 they specifically changed the verbiage to state 70% is their threshold for both physical deterioration, and their limitation on how much could be limited by software chabnges. The software changes portion was new, and invoked Batterygate.
The voltage part applies to every car. If they receive an EPA rating of X that can only achieve the capacity as tested at a certain voltage, they are invalidating the EPA's rating when they lower the voltage. I don't know if spelling it out in the warranty changes how the EPA works, but it is more transparent than just stealing it.
What thought their batteries were so great that they had this Infinite Mile Warranty fancy warranty. What happened? hmm
This post is a whole lot of nothing... and a lot of misinformation, as per usual for @Chaserr
The key points require citations, so please provide citations for the following statements:
Since these are demonstrably false statements, I'll be interested to know what citations are provided. You're claiming these are laws. Since Federal laws are public, you should easily be able to provide a link to the ones that back up these claims.
They fired the people that understood this:
A Bit About Batteries.
And instead assumed cheaper batteries in the future meant 4.2v was a reasonable gamble to get the company off the ground. They enticed us with lies like this:
Creating the World’s Best Service and Warranty Program
But I don't think they originally knew it was all lies. Lying seems to have become a problem in more recent years.
That infinite mile warranty for 8 years was the only reason I was willing to gamble on an electric car. I held up my part of the contract, Tesla just needs to be reminded of their own obligations.
I have lost track of how I would know for sure what wty Tesla thinks my car has. As far as I am concerned, they changed the unlimited miles from Jan 2020. Does the actual applicable terms for each car stay in your online account docs?
That seems to me one of the certain facts - at least if it is not just a gradual effect of normal battery aging. Applying an OTA change that makes a step change in the voltage cells are charged to would seem to be a material change to the vehicle specification that effects its range.
I can't see where there is any reference to cell / pack voltage. In fact, the box for 'Tank Capacity' that would seem somewhat relevent is left empty. As we know, stated pack energy capacities do not directly equate to either total battery energy or energy available.
In a gas car, the main focus would be on efficiency by means of mpg. Absolute / exact range doesn't much matter as it's so easy to fill up with gas - there just isn't the same fixation on exact range on a full tank, and the volume of the tank is less debatable than the kwh of the battery.
But then gas tanks don't suffer if you leave them topped off for a year or only ever fill them 20% full.
It appears to me that this is a new measure that the EPA don't currently measure, and that is an equivalent to 'gas tank shrinkage' over the life of the vehicle. Does the EPA have a publicly visible test document that actually links a specific cell voltage to their rated mileage? In the case of ICE vehicles, there is not any debate over the tank volume (except I guess for stating temperature). Since all batteries deteriorate, this would automatically void the EPA figures unless there was an agreed 'normal battery degradation' applied as soon as normal degradation took place.
Has anyone studied the effect of chargegate / batterygate on vehicle efficiency? Clearly all the heating / cooling and regen behavior changes must have an effect on true efficiency measuring energy into the car at the charge socket, but to what extent is it not reflected by EPA testing / rating?
Last edited:
Similar threads
