Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[JRP3]

I like it when every time i say something against you, lots of minions rush out and disagree.
It's like a sport

Or it's like you're disagreeing with a person who has actual information, probably more than anyone else in the thread.

 

[T.R.T.e.s.l.a.]

Or it's like you're disagreeing with a person who has actual information, probably more than anyone else in the thread.

Ah yes!
His post

This thread flew off the planet and left the rails at escape velocity towards the abyss long ago with insufficient delta-V to return.

with which i disagreed is full of actual information

 

[JRP3]

Ah yes!
His post with which i disagreed is full of actual information

It also contained this:

I'd kindly ask the reasonable folks around here to rate all posts here appropriately, and if you have a problem with something say why. Should help weed out the wheat from the chaff a bit at a glance.

 

[T.R.T.e.s.l.a.]

It also contained this:

WRONG!
That (and all the rest) was added after my disagreement.

 

[JRP3]

Fair enough.

 

[raphy3]

Alright meow. Before we get back on topic let me say one more thing. About sustainability, sadly, truth be told, if we care about sustainability, we should be dedicated to getting rid of cars of any kind altogether.Tesla as a money making organization exists for the stated purpose of making money. Electric cars are greener, but not having a car at all is infinitely greener than both ICE and BEV, unfortunately. That will get a little bit better when all energy is 100% renewable....

Anyway, none of that matters, soapbox down.

 

[JRP3]

About sustainability, sadly, truth be told, if we care about sustainability, we should be dedicated to getting rid of cars of any kind altogether.

That's a rabbit hole you don't want to start down, why stop at cars? You end up back in the stone age as hunter gatherers.

Tesla has to make money to grow and it has to grow to further the move to sustainability.

 

[raphy3]

That's a rabbit hole you don't want to start down, why stop at cars? You end up back in the stone age as hunter gatherers.

Tesla has to make money to grow and it has to grow to further the move to sustainability.

I don't think it's as simple that, but ok. The point is, who are we kidding

 

[Battpower]

Short version: Since the battery is likely the single most expensive and important component of a BEV, it's maybe inevitable and acceptable that this thread encompasses many different issues.

Long:
While fantom braking, general road discipline and other AP issues are clinging to the promised rewrite for their solution, this thread is clinging to battery day for Tesla to address some important battery related issues. I find most of the posts in this thread paint a clear and important picture of just how far reaching the central 'loss of range' issue could be.

From Tesla's 'right' to make adjustments to cars that bring with them detrimental consequences, to the need for different approaches when broadly considering EV based transport (like battery longevity) . From the issues linked to product development using the public space for beta testing, to making realistic deliverable claims about performance. About sustainability and environmental impact. The safe development of new technology in the face of commercial realities at national and international levels. About the birth of a new World Class vehicle manufacturer and energy business in a pretty hostile and sceptical climate. About communication, honesty and integrity. About breaking the worst stereotypes and trying to do transport 'better'.

IMO this thread, like the batteries themselves, relates to key elements of the whole EV ownership experience, so while we twiddle our thumbs waiting for Tesla to do the right thing for loyal customers, reminding ourselves just why this all matters might not be a bad thing.

 

[JRP3]

I don't think it's as simple that, but ok. The point is, who are we kidding

I guess you're downplaying the real difference being made with the switch to highly efficient electric propulsion powered by renewable sources. That's the goal, don't make perfect be the enemy of good. The elimination of direct vehicular emissions alone will provide huge health benefits.

 

[wk057]

don't make perfect be the enemy of good

But that's what they want!

---

In seriousness, the viability of long term battery use is kind of the heart of this discussion. If we do in fact take some of the changes done based on what Tesla has said publicly (even if not directly related to the specific issue here), "to improve longevity"... then, this is kind of an issue. At the core of this issue is the question of whether or not Tesla should be allowed to "improve longevity" at the expense of customer usability. I'm all for improved longevity, but not if it means we're being mislead in the process with a sort of bait and switch (sold X miles, sometime later turns out to be significantly less than X miles).

 

[Battpower]

the question of whether or not Tesla should be allowed to "improve longevity" at the expense of customer usability.

They can't legally make this determination imo. The only case I could accept is a safety related one (that would have to be handled very differently where some gain in longevity was somehow factored in to a settlement deal. Owners purchased cars in good faith and with a certain specification along with 'leading warranty' to back it all up. The price they paid was very much related to claimed performance levels and the warranty, so for the spec to be forcibly changed without notification, explanation or agreement can't pass unchallenged.

 

[Battpower]

(sold X miles, sometime later turns out to be significantly less than X miles)

Is that the same X as 'condition X'?!

 

[AustinP]

---

Off topic: big fan of Star Trek TNG. The Borgs idea and challenge was brilliant. Seeing Star Trek Picard and the old crew/cast brought back good memories.
Sorry for the off topic, this was stronger than me

 

[Chaserr]

This is and always has been a safety issue. Nobody denies that. Tesla says so, and Tesla's cheerleaders say so. It's why the NHTSA is involved and why Tesla is settling and "doing the right thing" to keep decision makers out of prison. Too many laws have been broken to let everything go to discovery.

Let them lie to us and pretend it's about breaking Magnuson Moss law instead of safety law - as long as they fix the problem before anyone dies who cares?

 

[johnman10]

They can't legally make this determination imo. The only case I could accept is a safety related one (that would have to be handled very differently where some gain in longevity was somehow factored in to a settlement deal. Owners purchased cars in good faith and with a certain specification along with 'leading warranty' to back it all up. The price they paid was very much related to claimed performance levels and the warranty, so for the spec to be forcibly changed without notification, explanation or agreement can't pass unchallenged.

Agree to all except to the settlement deal. What Tesla thinks has the right to do, is simply unheard of in the world of automotive. Never before, safety reason, warranty reason or otherwise, has a car manufacturer downgraded a car like this during ownership, either during or after its warranty period. Of course they couldn't sneakily do so with a software update like Tesla can.

Tesla must lose the lawsuit/s BIG TIME with a thud, otherwise I (and many others) will never buy an EV again. We will only lease potential disposable garbage like our Model S and let some other poor guys take what is left of it.

I am checking the Taycan when I can (once and for all) be done with Tesla, but of course they have the same warranty terms (70%, no minimum DC charging speed, no specific term that nothing on the BMS can be changed from its original settings).
If Tesla somehow gets away with this, who will then stop all others to do the same when/if needed?

 

[MP3Mike]

This is and always has been a safety issue. Nobody denies that. Tesla says so, and Tesla's cheerleaders say so.

No, everybody doesn't agree. Tesla has never said it, and @wk057 says he doesn't think it is a safety issue.

It's why the NHTSA is involved and why Tesla is settling and "doing the right thing" to keep decision makers out of prison.

NHTSA hasn't even started an investigation, and where is your link showing that Tesla is settling? (Last we heard they are still in mediation with @DJRas and his lawyers.)

 

[Battpower]

Agree to all except to the settlement deal.

My post was ambiguous in that I wasn't really advocating some friendly mid ground fudge of a compromise settlement with an agreement to caps and gates thrown in! I was contemplating if ANY circumstance could justify enforced unsolicited downgrade of spec, and safety was the only answer I could think of.

 

[Battpower]

Tesla has never said it, [....... is a safety issue....].

Doesn't 'caution' necessarily relate to a risk? It's hard to be abundantly cautious if there is no specific risk that it relates to. And the timing of the overly abundant caution did 'coincide' with parked vehicle fires, didn't it? Do we know of any other potential risk that the caution might relate to? If it were something trivial.... like risk of a flat or the seat adjustment not working, a) Tesla would have publically stated what the risk was and b) released a fix to put any negative press to bed.

Only going by what may be incorrect info here, even if Tesla suspected a possible safety issue / risk, they were obliged to disclose it officially.

So 'no risk', what was the abundance of caution relating to? Really trivial risk, they would have dealt with swiftly and openly. More serious risk and they should have disclosed it. No?

 

[Chaserr]

Agree to all except to the settlement deal. What Tesla thinks has the right to do, is simply unheard of in the world of automotive. Never before, safety reason, warranty reason or otherwise, has a car manufacturer downgraded a car like this during ownership, either during or after its warranty period. Of course they couldn't sneakily do so with a software update like Tesla can.

Tesla must lose the lawsuit/s BIG TIME with a thud, otherwise I (and many others) will never buy an EV again. We will only lease potential disposable garbage like our Model S and let some other poor guys take what is left of it.

I am checking the Taycan when I can (once and for all) be done with Tesla, but of course they have the same warranty terms (70%, no minimum DC charging speed, no specific term that nothing on the BMS can be changed from its original settings).
If Tesla somehow gets away with this, who will then stop all others to do the same when/if needed?

VWs ceo went to prison flaunting some of the same laws Tesla is still breaking today. Porsche recently voluntarily turned themselves in for punishment because they're part of VW and learned the hard way not to do what Tesla is doing.

Nobody else is insane enough to do it. They probably all did before but VW was the lesson only Tesla failed to learn.

It took years to convict VS and Tesla is still setting itself up for a fall. They can still turn it all around but the walls are closing in, and I think every company including Tesla knows it.

Tesla's story is changing to try and minimize the impact of their crimes on the people that committed them, but the impact on us is absolutely going to be removed sooner than evidence is forced into public disclosure.


Nobody will be forced to accept the terms of settlement. If you don't like it and want to take it farther, refuse and open a new case based on the story they are about to make up.