Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[Droschke]

I do feel that the thread has moved forward a bit.

I agree. Hopefully the same would apply to the issue resolution soon by Tesla.

We need more owners' feedback post new OTA updates as to the range status.

 

[qwk]

It hasn't been easy, but I do feel that the thread has moved forward a bit. We have confirmation that the updates never fixed a safety issue. It seems that Tesla could tell if folks have X or Z (or a false positive of X that is actually Z) before issuing the updates. It seems that all updates to date have only corrected condition Z. I think many folks in the thread assumed this at some point and moved on, but to my mind, I have never seen any black and white confirmation of it till now. So I consider this to be great news. Also, the idea that Z cannot develop into X was confirmed, and that is also gret news. So I think it's two steps forward, one step back, but we're getting somewhere.

While Z doesn’t develop into X, a pack cursed with Z, can also get X. Kind of like HIV cannot turn into Hep C, but you can acquire both.

 

[Chaserr]

It's excellent to hear there was never a safety issue. I have booked my appointment to have EMMC upgraded and 2018.50 installed at the same time based purely on these assurances of safety.

Looking forward to 4.2V and full speed charging, but most of all parking in my garage and near the office again!

 

[Guy V]

I am still trying to wrap my head around the fundamental implications of what we really do know:

Teslas experienced apparently spontaneous battery fires.

Tesla went looking for causes and solutions for a potentially serious safety issue.

Tesla announced and delivered "out of an abundance of caution" an update that gimped charging rates on all 85's and capacity on "a small number" of them.

I think different legal and liability conclusions can be drawn from which result we end up with:

- No more fires: Problem mostly solved, Tesla fixed a major safety problem, but without notification and recall of units it now knows to be defective but some are still out there in the wild without the update

- No more fires: It's just a coincidence that they stopped after Tesla issued the update

- More fires: Tesla has a major safety problem they don't know how to fix without replacing all 85 battery packs, still without notification and recall. We have no way to even know that it is a problem only with 85 packs or a subset. If it turns out to be all packs they, and we of course, are seriously screwed.

I just can't buy that it can be coincidence that Tesla issued an update and then the fires stopped, so I can't see the case where Tesla doesn't have a major safety problem that they didn't report and issue a recall. Neither can I accept a case that fires just happen, get over it. I am sure any number of folks here will tell me I an just too close-minded.

What would any other no safety problem case look like? Some fires, but not too many doesn't seem to make sense to me.

Nothing I have read in all these pages is helping me to get around this.

 

[Chaserr]

What would any other no safety problem case look like?

Dead cells? They are more like maybe-safety. Post-batterygate an overworked dead cell riddled brick probably can't be overcharged or overheated too much any more.

 

[Guy V]

Dead cells? They are more like maybe-safety. Post-batterygate an overworked dead cell riddled brick probably can't be overcharged or overheated too much any more.

Hmmmm, will we or won't we then have more fires?

...and what does either case imply? That's where I'm stuck.

 

[mymagiccarpet]

It does seem the number of cars affected by the voltage reduction is relatively small. The number of cars affected by significantly slower supercharging is very large, though. From what I gathered it is pretty much every old 85 pack. Just drove another 85 that only 70k miles and was a year younger than mine and it had the same reduction in supercharge speed. It seems the reduction of charge rate is now administered to all 85 packs (and likely other variants with the same cells).

Likely true, at least is for my 70D. However, from personal standpoint, although reduction in charge speed is extremely annoying and inconvenient, I'm much less irritated by that one then battery capacity loss.

 

[faughtz]

Just as a reminder someone has already gone down the "theft" claim and was told that legally restricting range isn't theft. Legally theft requires the physical taking of something, and Tesla did not take possession of the battery capacity that people are now unable to access:

However I wish I had pursued CA penal code:

502 c 1

(c) Except as provided in subdivision (h), any person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of a public offense:

(1) Knowingly accesses and without permission alters, damages, deletes, destroys, or otherwise uses any data, computer, computer system, or computer network in order to either (A) devise or execute any scheme or artifice to defraud, deceive, or extort, or (B) wrongfully control or obtain money, property, or data.

because I believe that is tesla’s action.

 

[MP3Mike]

However I wish I had pursued CA penal code:

502 c 1

(c) Except as provided in subdivision (h), any person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of a public offense:

(1) Knowingly accesses and without permission alters, damages, deletes, destroys, or otherwise uses any data, computer, computer system, or computer network in order to either (A) devise or execute any scheme or artifice to defraud, deceive, or extort, or (B) wrongfully control or obtain money, property, or data.

because I believe that is tesla’s action.

Yep, that is part of the law suit. But most people authorized the software upgrade. (I've only seen a few people that say it was forced.)

 

[raphy3]

While Z doesn’t develop into X, a pack cursed with Z, can also get X. Kind of like HIV cannot turn into Hep C, but you can acquire both.

I think that's right. Crossing my fingers that i have neither condition (the car conditions!)

 

[raphy3]

Yep, that is part of the law suit. But most people authorized the software upgrade. (I've only seen a few people that say it was forced.)

That won't hold up in court, if they get there. Tesla gives no release notes and frankly actively hides them. Also, for every one that authorizes it there's another person who accidentally got hit by the "not hitting X to close it so it went ahead and updated without further input" bug. Choosing not to do anything is not authorization. This one straight up won't hold up under 5 minutes of scrutiny in court.

 

[raphy3]

Hmmmm, will we or won't we then have more fires?

...and what does either case imply? That's where I'm stuck.

Good points. If the updates never fixed condition X, then what caused the fires and what was the abundance of caution about? It might have been an abundance of caution for Tesla's pocketbook

 

[Guy V]

Good points. If the updates never fixed condition X, then what caused the fires and what was the abundance of caution about? It might have been an abundance of caution for Tesla's pocketbook

Based on the 70% in the new warranties, my instinct is that this is going to spread and not stay confined to the era of 85s, but at least folks won't be able to claim they weren't forewarned. We are also approaching the all new territory of what happens after 8 years.

 

[Droschke]

I am still trying to wrap my head around the fundamental implications of what we really do know:

Teslas experienced apparently spontaneous battery fires.

Tesla went looking for causes and solutions for a potentially serious safety issue.

Tesla announced and delivered "out of an abundance of caution" an update that gimped charging rates on all 85's and capacity on "a small number" of them.

I think different legal and liability conclusions can be drawn from which result we end up with:

- No more fires: Problem mostly solved, Tesla fixed a major safety problem, but without notification and recall of units it now knows to be defective but some are still out there in the wild without the update

- No more fires: It's just a coincidence that they stopped after Tesla issued the update

- More fires: Tesla has a major safety problem they don't know how to fix without replacing all 85 battery packs, still without notification and recall. We have no way to even know that it is a problem only with 85 packs or a subset. If it turns out to be all packs they, and we of course, are seriously screwed.

I just can't buy that it can be coincidence that Tesla issued an update and then the fires stopped, so I can't see the case where Tesla doesn't have a major safety problem that they didn't report and issue a recall. Neither can I accept a case that fires just happen, get over it. I am sure any number of folks here will tell me I an just too close-minded.

What would any other no safety problem case look like? Some fires, but not too many doesn't seem to make sense to me.

Nothing I have read in all these pages is helping me to get around this.

All valid points.

Due to the conflicting feedback from the impacted owners describing their treatments of their batteries, I've always suspected the capped cars might be part of a pool of Non-Capped-Worthy and Capped-Worthy cars:

Non-Capped-Worthy cars - We have heard from some low-mileage owners who have pampered their batteries only to be capped after the 2019.16.x OTA update. Those packs need to be uncapped as they just/might happen to be part of a wrong pool.

Capped-Worthy cars - These are the packs that must be (have been) capped by Tesla to avoid some particular failure/safety risk(s). These packs need to be recalled and replaced.

That's what the right thing is for Tesla to do, and to do soon.

 

[artx55]

Not about to go through 648 pages but this should be a non-argument. If there is in fact a critical defect which causes a fire hazard, Tesla should fix the problem long term. Short-term capping of range, sure but they need to give back what customers purchased.

 

[qwk]

Good points. If the updates never fixed condition X, then what caused the fires and what was the abundance of caution about? It might have been an abundance of caution for Tesla's pocketbook

Condition Z, and X is a physical problem, the update is supposed to sense X, and shut the car down. Before the first cripple update, the car would just keep going like nothing is happening, and then just burn when the affected module got hot enough.

 

[fbitz777]

Short-term capping of range, sure but they need to give back what customers purchased.

Short term ...it's over a year!
I am one of the few X75D affected and I am convinced my capping has more to do with Tesla babying my battery so that it lasts another 4 years.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Tesla legal are probably laughing their asses off seeing where this thread has gone, and how derailed and unhinged it has become.

 

[Chaserr]

Tesla legal are probably laughing their asses off seeing where this thread has gone, and how derailed and unhinged it has become.

Tesla legal has been burning through General Counsel hires at an alarmingly rapid rate. I hope batterygate isn't on their radar considering the implications of concealing safety problems.

 

[KryoPhoenix209]

My vehicle is affected by the slower charging rate, however I do not think that my range decreased (maybe?). With the new update are they slowly allowing vehicles to charge at their original rate again?