Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[MP3Mike]

I didn't read all 684 pages, so I didn't see the part about the 90 packs being garbage.

This thread isn't about the 90kWh packs... And you missed one important word in what he said: "The original 90 packs, as noted elsewhere, are garbage."

Not all 90kWh packs are garbage. I'm sure there are a list of part numbers for the various versions, but I don't know where it is.

 

[trayloader]

There's definitely other detectable issues that will cause a vehicle to shutdown in all versions, and a lot of these detections involve testing over an extended period involving data accumulated across the lifetime of the vehicle. Rolling back BMS firmware before certain points will clear parts of EEPROM, as the structures have changed over time. While forward compatibility is assured, backwards updates have to wipe out some data to install properly, which can cause some of these algos to have to start from scratch.

The condition X error is definitely not what you experience though. The error literally comes up on both screens and, in part, tells you to exit the vehicle immediately. It's pretty unambiguous. So this definitely isn't what happened to the car that had the issue that you're referring to.



Well, sure. They do it for all sorts of reasons. But I was referencing your "freaking out" note... which would be tied to Tesla needing to service the vehicle and being unable to.

Goodness of their hearts? Of course not. This was a paid feature bought as part of the car. There was nothing that said they can drop connectivity related to refusing updates or any other method "for the life of the vehicle". And they definitely get tons of diagnostic data from the fleet that they can use to improve things. It's definitely not useless to them.

This just doesn't really tie into forcing updates or anything to do with this thread, really.

And here we have it Ladies & Gentlemen. The enigma has finally spoken:

CONDITION X IS THE THERMAL
RUNWAY.

The worst case scenario.

thank you for finally coming clear Jason. Appreciated.
So they were searching for factors of thermal runway, found none but instead could define degraded and overtaxed batteries which wouldn’t make it past the warranty and decided to step proactively in.

 

[Droschke]

they were searching for factors of thermal runway and found degraded and overtaxed batteries which wouldn’t make it past the warranty and decided to step proactively in.

... by capping them all.

 

[qwk]

Goodness of their hearts? Of course not. This was a paid feature bought as part of the car. There was nothing that said they can drop connectivity related to refusing updates or any other method "for the life of the vehicle". And they definitely get tons of diagnostic data from the fleet that they can use to improve things. It's definitely not useless to them.

It was not a feature bought and paid for that was to last forever. At first it was going to be cost free for the initial bumper to bumper warranty period. Then Elon extended it to 5 years, and nothing was said about it after that. Yes they get a ton of benefit from it, including changing the functionality of the car to their benefit. That’s why this thread exists.

 

[Battpower]

I'm pretty sure if anyone had actually ever gotten this particular note it would have made headlines.

So they were searching for factors of thermal runway, found none

Factors like:

Gas plumes?
Smoke clouds?
Jets of flame?

[or related on screen message alluding so something equally headline worthy]

[edit: "No darling, we have to wait for the message on BOTH screens before we need to get out the car". Doesn't take much coding to spot your car bursting into flames. (I'm sure driving along it might be less obvious but then these were parked vehicle fires originally.]

You'd think there would be just as significant but less dramatic tell tales we'll before the flames start licking up the sides of your car....

And the very fact they were even looking for thermal runaway means.... Well, unless it was very controlled and safe thermal runaway that they were looking for, that they suspected a safety issue. (stating the obvious again, I know!)

 

[trayloader]

No need for snippiness Batt- we’re from the same team and I’m not a native speaker.

 

[Battpower]

No need for snippiness Batt- we’re from the same team and I’m not a native speaker.

No snipping.....

DrO pointed out that I was stating the obvious previously.

 

[Droschke]

Factors like:

Gas plumes?
Smoke clouds?
Jets of flame?

You'd think there would be just as significant but less dramatic tell tales we'll before the flames start licking up the sides of your car....

And the very fact they were even looking for thermal runaway means.... Well, unless it was very controlled and safe thermal runaway that they were looking for, that they suspected a safety issue. (stating the obvious again, I know!)

If someone claims he/she knows what the exact message is they need to post it here for the owners to be aware of. Not doing so is irresponsible. We are talking about a safety issue after all.

 

[wk057]

[...]

Incorrect. Please do not try to speak for me. (Point of order: Seems many times I say things here some people try to twist and expand what I said well beyond the scope of rational, and otherwise try to put words in my mouth. This is just an observation, which is relevant here, so folks know not to read too much into these off-the-rails assessments of my posts.)

---

If someone claims he/she knows what the exact message is they need to post it here for the owners to be aware of. Not doing so is irresponsible. We are talking about a safety issue after all.

Tesla knows, as they programmed the dialogs. Guess they should post it here.

Or, much more likely no one will ever actually see it in the wild anyway. Given this, I see no reason to fuel that particular topic.

Also, there are a few other events besides condition X that trigger the same messages, all equally unlikely to actually happen. But the fact that Tesla has taken the time to design in such warnings for highly unlikely eventualities is something to give them credit for, not grief.

Unfortunately this is unrelated to the thread topic (loss of range after an update)... despite this thread going in 1,000 different directions over the course of a year or so.

---

As for the range loss issue, I was actually just looking at data from an 85 vehicle on my network that was hit hard by the original update over a year ago, and is confirmed having condition Z. On the latest firmware they have access to nearly all of their original range. Factoring in normal degradation, I'd say their usable capacity is basically back to normal now. Would be curious as to if others are seeing anything similar.

Full disclosure: I've not had time to catch up on RE of the latest BMS firmwares in great detail, so I'm unsure on some of technical details behind any recent changes.

 

[islandbayy]

AACK!

I didn't read all 684 pages, so I didn't see the part about the 90 packs being garbage. At 75,000+ miles, I haven't seen a lot of degradation in mine, but the charge rate was cut by about 20-25kwh, and the taper increased draconically, very early on (at maybe 20k miles on the car, with around 2/3 of that being supercharging).

Guess I should have waited a few months longer to order a car, but when I ordered in Jan 2016 we didn't know about the degradation issue (to be fair, I don't think Tesla did either), and had no idea a 100 kw battery would be coming out a few months after I took delivery.

Tesla's handling of the issue sure leaves something to be desired, though. They never sent any sort of alert or message when they discovered the issue - just killed the charge rate and hoped no one would notice.

my 4 year old 90 pack is currently about 70kWh in capacity. I've been capped at 94kW max charge rate since month 2 of ownership. It kicked in halfway through my first road trip in it. I'm still on firmware 8.1 with it, riding it out as long as possible. My MX with the same cells is already capped at about 74kW supercharging rate. If I update firmware it's only going to get worse.

 

[BigNick]

my 4 year old 90 pack is currently about 70kWh in capacity. I've been capped at 94kW max charge rate since month 2 of ownership. It kicked in halfway through my first road trip in it. I'm still on firmware 8.1 with it, riding it out as long as possible. My MX with the same cells is already capped at about 74kW supercharging rate. If I update firmware it's only going to get worse.

I'd have to guess your 90 pack is a V1. What part number is on the pack sticker?
I can see why you don't want to gamble with further reductions in charge speed.

 

[Pruitt]

my 4 year old 90 pack is currently about 70kWh in capacity. I've been capped at 94kW max charge rate since month 2 of ownership. It kicked in halfway through my first road trip in it. I'm still on firmware 8.1 with it, riding it out as long as possible. My MX with the same cells is already capped at about 74kW supercharging rate. If I update firmware it's only going to get worse.

Ouch! That really must hurt!
My S was delivered in late March 2016. Currently my 90% range is 242 miles. How does that compare? 100% is in the upper 260's, I think (I almost never charge that high, so I don't know the actual number). I'm likewise capped at 94kw charge rate, but on a recent road trip I did hit 95 (wahoo!) once or twice for about two minutes.
I am on the latest update, whatever that is. I haven't seen any major changes to my charge rate or range since the original knife in the ribs a few years ago.

 

[islandbayy]

I'd have to guess your 90 pack is a V1. What part number is on the pack sticker?
I can see why you don't want to gamble with further reductions in charge speed.

I'd need to dig through old videos and photos to see the sticker as it's long since fallen off. Yes it's a V1, Jan 2016 build, had the option between a 85 or 90 pack at the time of ordering this one. My MX is either a V1 or V2 cell, it's a late october or early november build with FSD (one of the first). that one also has a brick thats 40-60mV lower than the rest, but once I hit 10 megawatts of DC charging supercharging rates instantlly dropped form the 137 kW max to 74, if I'm extremely lucky i can see 84kW rate for 1 minute or less. Takes 3+ hrs to charge 0-100% at a supercharger the MX75, and at least my MS90 with the capped 94kW, which can maintain that rate at least for qutie a while, takes less than 2 hrs. The MX is now useless for long distance towing, and long road trips. So I believe the 90 packs belong in this thread as they are getting the charge rate cap as well.
Confirmed by a friend in service that if I update my MS, my rates are going to definately drop to the same or worse than my MX. I'm torn, as I have service credits I need to use, and want to upgrade the MS to MCU2, but at the same time, how much functionality will be lost. Almost all my driving is Long Distance.

 

[islandbayy]

Ouch! That really must hurt!
My S was delivered in late March 2016. Currently my 90% range is 242 miles. How does that compare? 100% is in the upper 260's, I think (I almost never charge that high, so I don't know the actual number). I'm likewise capped at 94kw charge rate, but on a recent road trip I did hit 95 (wahoo!) once or twice for about two minutes.
I am on the latest update, whatever that is. I haven't seen any major changes to my charge rate or range since the original knife in the ribs a few years ago.

How many miles does yours have? My 100% charge on a good day is now 250 miles. As I stayed on 8.1, I would have been extremely better off in the long run saving $10,000 and getting the 85 pack instead of the 90.
My MS is going to be hitting 100,000 miles within the next week or so.

 

[trayloader]

Thread Hijack in Progress-
can we get BTT please?

 

[raphy3]

No need for snippiness Batt- we’re from the same team and I’m not a native speaker.

I don't think he was directing it towards you, more using it as a launching off point to go onto a funny post. I read it as a humorous post without directing at a particular person. It's kind of highlighting how nutty this whole thing has become (all they had to do was just replace the batteries on, apparently, less than 2k cars and this would be all gone!).

 

[islandbayy]

Thread Hijack in Progress-
can we get BTT please?

Is charge gate not on topic?

 

[raphy3]

On the latest firmware they have access to nearly all of their original range. Factoring in normal degradation, I'd say their usable capacity is basically back to normal now. Would be curious as to if others are seeing anything similar.

I'm interested in this. any chance you have TeslaFi data (or any battery range estimate data over time will due) and any data on SuC rates before and after updates? I've only seen a couple of range estimates as a function of time, showing increases after certain updates, and I'd really like to see more to understand if this issue is starting to be fixed (unceremoniously, without communication from Tesla about it, of course!).

This would help my case to people I would want to convince to buy Teslas.

 

[BigNick]

Is charge gate not on topic?

I think it's because we were talking about your 90 packs?

 

[Gwgan]

Jan 2016 build

Same. 97k miles. Chargegate. Effective range 200 in good weather.
From the API:
Level: 77%
Estimated Range: 164.77 / 214
Rated Range: 174.75/ 227
IdealRange: 216.32 / 281