-
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
That lawsuit is all over the map...not very well written IMHO...talks about rated range vs what he gets in real life without specifying how he's driving (vs rated wh/mi).
Not that it makes Tesla innocent; but are we too assume that newer (than 2017) cars could be suffering as bad as we are? I know I drove a demo Y from 100 to zero percent and I could not get the rated range (while driving at rated) due to vampire drains and battery conditioning (things that Telsa does not display)
It is kind of all over the place, but makes many good points too. It's worthwhile reading in full.
What would help is to show definitive proof that calculation itself has changed and that is how the rated range has been maintained (or given back in some cases). With so many people taking data meticulously from their cars, there should be a path to showing one way or the other.
However, I found this interesting - wasn't aware there was a specific dollar amount limit placed on the damage:
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) 18 U.S.C. § 1030 et seq., establishes a private cause of action against a person who “knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access,” and whose access results in damage or loss in excess of $5,000. 1
Does anyone know how many 70s and 85s were sold or exist currently?
Does anyone know/remember what was the base price delta between
60->70
70->85
b/c effectively, most of 85s got turned into 70s, and most of 70s got turned into 60s. That places a definitive dollar amount on the damage, at least material damage.
What would help is to show definitive proof that calculation itself has changed and that is how the rated range has been maintained (or given back in some cases). With so many people taking data meticulously from their cars, there should be a path to showing one way or the other.
However, I found this interesting - wasn't aware there was a specific dollar amount limit placed on the damage:
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) 18 U.S.C. § 1030 et seq., establishes a private cause of action against a person who “knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access,” and whose access results in damage or loss in excess of $5,000. 1
Does anyone know how many 70s and 85s were sold or exist currently?
Does anyone know/remember what was the base price delta between
60->70
70->85
b/c effectively, most of 85s got turned into 70s, and most of 70s got turned into 60s. That places a definitive dollar amount on the damage, at least material damage.
Brass Guy
Active Member
Approx 100k made according to wikipedia
That sounds like a big enough reason to not do the safety recall. Their handling of the MCU recall dodge tells us how they try to avoid safety reporting when they know it's expensive. Their handling of the Model Y trailer lighting recall shows us how they handle a recall they know is cheap.
I wonder what the exact dollar value of my family safety is according to Tesla.
I wonder what the exact dollar value of my family safety is according to Tesla.
My thoughts why Tesla can't just replace all 70/85 packs: Logistics.
The new 85 pack is a 14 of 16 100 pack, so there are 8256 x 14/16 = 7224 cells in each pack. What's the production capacity for 18650 cells per year? 722,400,000 per year? I doubt it. And that's just the start.
You don't put 500kg Li-Ion packs into a paper bag and give it to DHL/UPS/FedEx/... you need specialized logistics.
For transport and warehouse management. Potentially every country has different laws on fire safety regulations how to store battery packs.
To replace just 50,000 packs in one year, that's 250 per working day, each service center or certified partner must have specialized battery storage rooms for the new packs and, of course, the pile of old packs which are maybe a fire hazard. Old packs have to be discharged for mounting them. My service center told me they have to discharge to below 20% before they are allowed to do anything on the pack. The new packs have to be charged.
So either Tesla has gone the google way and is now even more evilor than Skeletor's brother Voldemort, or they are still preparing this major logistics nightmare. Or a third option: trying to fit 4680 cells into the 85 pack space and we have to wait for 4680 ramp up.
The new 85 pack is a 14 of 16 100 pack, so there are 8256 x 14/16 = 7224 cells in each pack. What's the production capacity for 18650 cells per year? 722,400,000 per year? I doubt it. And that's just the start.
You don't put 500kg Li-Ion packs into a paper bag and give it to DHL/UPS/FedEx/... you need specialized logistics.
For transport and warehouse management. Potentially every country has different laws on fire safety regulations how to store battery packs.
To replace just 50,000 packs in one year, that's 250 per working day, each service center or certified partner must have specialized battery storage rooms for the new packs and, of course, the pile of old packs which are maybe a fire hazard. Old packs have to be discharged for mounting them. My service center told me they have to discharge to below 20% before they are allowed to do anything on the pack. The new packs have to be charged.
So either Tesla has gone the google way and is now even more evilor than Skeletor's brother Voldemort, or they are still preparing this major logistics nightmare. Or a third option: trying to fit 4680 cells into the 85 pack space and we have to wait for 4680 ramp up.
If we look at the MCU dodge attempts as an example of the lengths Tesla will go to avoid doing safey recalls, they will use software band aids for everything until there is no other option, offer paid upgrades eventually,and reduce the paid upgrade price when the recall is imminent.
It's a small dataset but it looks like kludgy software dodges are still all they are trying.
It's a small dataset but it looks like kludgy software dodges are still all they are trying.
You have to assume that most packs are "bad' because of a single module and that would be fairly easy to debug/replace. However that would require to use modules from 4+ years ago to even match closely the other modules in our packs (i.e need to find used/salvage modules). That would point to a large side business refurbishing packs. On the other had we could also hope that new 85kwh packs would come down in price to 10-12k in a few years and make it palatable for many of us to upgrade
In any case let's take Telsa side besides the financial hit (not that big given their market cap); what would you do?
trayloader
Member
I think this is the pinnacle of this whole discussion here. A perfect sum up!
This is what it’s all about and why they try to delay it in definitely. The logistics are just not manageable and would break the company.
Last edited:
cpa
Active Member
Tesla may move to consolidate these complaints if there are enough similarities, which seem to be the case.
Asking for a friend:
Tesla could just restore the software to pre-May 2019. Therefore, no need for tens of thousands of new or completely remanufactured batteries. Then, most of the charges would be dismissed as moot; the remaining violations of various consumer protection and warranty laws could be negotiated with the court. There would be no need for complex solutions to deliver these battery packs across the globe. But Tesla does not reverse the software kludge. Why not?
Asking for a friend:
Tesla could just restore the software to pre-May 2019. Therefore, no need for tens of thousands of new or completely remanufactured batteries. Then, most of the charges would be dismissed as moot; the remaining violations of various consumer protection and warranty laws could be negotiated with the court. There would be no need for complex solutions to deliver these battery packs across the globe. But Tesla does not reverse the software kludge. Why not?
I’m loving the idea of batteries coming down in price quickly enough in the next couple years that we could INCREASE the range of ~V2 Model S vehicles for a few grand. Loving the idea of 4680 replacements for the 85kwh packs, but they’re 15 mm taller than 18650’s, is there 15mm of height left over in these packs/cavities?
sdoorex
Member
There in lies the rub, doesn’t it? It would seem to me that they are not rolling back the firmware because there is a safety concern with impacted batteries and they do not want to replace them under warranty so they are trying to make the batteries last as long as possible.
15mm taller but tabless and structural too so they might be able to save that much in overall pack height?
For the Batterygated cars, the number does not appear to be in the tens of thousands. Seems to be much much less.
It also appears that the capping was applied to all cars suspected of being fire hazard - a sort of dragnet approach with the total number to have been small. Then, and after a long wait, Tesla announced the deployment of a software update which included a set of "Diagnostic tools". The tools seem to do what I understand to be:
- Monitor all capped cars
- Identify the unsafe packs so they can be replaced. We know this has been done for a small number of cars which have reportedly received replacement packs (new or refurbished)
- Release the “innocent” cars previously caught in the dragnet - we know some owners, including a handful in this thread (but definitely not all), have reported having all or a portion of their capacity restored
On Edit:
I see @sdoorex, (post#14093) offering one explanation.
Last edited:
Seems that if the lawsuits are ruled in favor of us, the only practical solution will be some compensation to owners and/or possibly reduced price on new battery (i/e upgrade). Maybe $1500 each so you can use it on new MCU2? 
- i wouldn't be surprised if that's what the thought process is within the company.
Ok, on to the serious topic. If what is said here is correct, then many or possible all of these packs are not safe, so remanufacturing them, or giving you brand new ones (let's just say they could) will not make them safer.
Alternative is to allow upgrade to SR battery (for 70s) and LR (for 85s) battery. Those are different batteries correct? And they also fit.
Personally, I would be ok with that path if:
- It was shown that those do not have safety concerns like the 70/85s
- They are brand new
- come with brand new warranty effective when I bought the car - 8 years, unlimited miles (this is tricky. do you want 70% guarantee or not)
- promises they will never again reduce capacity of the battery or range calculation to make it look better than it is. Range calculation changed b/c they improved efficiency, is ok, but has to be specifically shown. Terms would have to outline HEAVY penalties if such step is taken again and proven
- promise they will never again reduce or limit charge rates drastically for longevity of the battery or safety
- price for upgrade is <USD$2000 (hard limit, non negotiable, meaning it's not a starting point of negotiation to arrive at 5k) - remember, you are paying to get increased range, NOT to get a safer battery - that should be paid by Tesla! Possibly for 85s, upgrade contribution could be justified to be a bit higher but not over $3k.
- throw in an MCU2 (ok, ok, this is a negotiating element)
This list is long, and specific, and as we know there is a reason for that. We got burned left and right for believing this company, so yes, the terms have to be very specific, and this list is non-negotiable. I'm sure some of you can throw in other requirements, list is probably not complete, but they are hung up on cost and logistics nightmare, than this path can bi viable.
Keep in mind, I'm not suggesting this as a resolution, but rather saying that would be at a bare minimum what I would want if full replacement with a new and safe pack is not logistically possible.
- i wouldn't be surprised if that's what the thought process is within the company.Ok, on to the serious topic. If what is said here is correct, then many or possible all of these packs are not safe, so remanufacturing them, or giving you brand new ones (let's just say they could) will not make them safer.
Alternative is to allow upgrade to SR battery (for 70s) and LR (for 85s) battery. Those are different batteries correct? And they also fit.
Personally, I would be ok with that path if:
- It was shown that those do not have safety concerns like the 70/85s
- They are brand new
- come with brand new warranty effective when I bought the car - 8 years, unlimited miles (this is tricky. do you want 70% guarantee or not)
- promises they will never again reduce capacity of the battery or range calculation to make it look better than it is. Range calculation changed b/c they improved efficiency, is ok, but has to be specifically shown. Terms would have to outline HEAVY penalties if such step is taken again and proven
- promise they will never again reduce or limit charge rates drastically for longevity of the battery or safety
- price for upgrade is <USD$2000 (hard limit, non negotiable, meaning it's not a starting point of negotiation to arrive at 5k) - remember, you are paying to get increased range, NOT to get a safer battery - that should be paid by Tesla! Possibly for 85s, upgrade contribution could be justified to be a bit higher but not over $3k.
- throw in an MCU2
(ok, ok, this is a negotiating element)This list is long, and specific, and as we know there is a reason for that. We got burned left and right for believing this company, so yes, the terms have to be very specific, and this list is non-negotiable. I'm sure some of you can throw in other requirements, list is probably not complete, but they are hung up on cost and logistics nightmare, than this path can bi viable.
Keep in mind, I'm not suggesting this as a resolution, but rather saying that would be at a bare minimum what I would want if full replacement with a new and safe pack is not logistically possible.
SmartElectric
Active Member
"Most". Sorry. No. Ours is 95% original range. This issue hasn't been quantified in this entire thread with factual evidence of the number of affected cars, and certainly not to the certainty of "most". I completely understand the frustration for those affected, but there are perhaps a large number of unaffected cars with owners not posting (like I am). Beware the false equivalent of thinking this forum thread represents a majority, or even a sizable percentage of owners.
cpa
Active Member
Seems that if the lawsuits are ruled in favor of us, the only practical solution will be some compensation to owners and/or possibly reduced price on new battery (i/e upgrade). Maybe $1500 each so you can use it on new MCU2?
Ok, on to the serious topic. If what is said here is correct, then many or possible all of these packs are not safe, so remanufacturing them, or giving you brand new ones (let's just say they could) will not make them safer.
Alternative is to allow upgrade to SR battery (for 70s) and LR (for 85s) battery. Those are different batteries correct? And they also fit.
Personally, I would be ok with that path if:
- It was shown that those do not have safety concerns like the 70/85s
- They are brand new
- come with brand new warranty effective when I bought the car - 8 years, unlimited miles (this is tricky. do you want 70% guarantee or not)
- promises they will never again reduce capacity of the battery or range calculation to make it look better than it is. Range calculation changed b/c they improved efficiency, is ok, but has to be specifically shown. Terms would have to outline HEAVY penalties if such step is taken again and proven
- promise they will never again reduce or limit charge rates drastically for longevity of the battery or safety
- price for upgrade is <USD$2000 (hard limit, non negotiable, meaning it's not a starting point of negotiation to arrive at 5k) - remember, you are paying to get increased range, NOT to get a safer battery - that should be paid by Tesla! Possibly for 85s, upgrade contribution could be justified to be a bit higher but not over $3k.
- throw in an MCU2
This list is long, and specific, and as we know there is a reason for that. We got burned left and right for believing this company, so yes, the terms have to be very specific, and this list is non-negotiable. I'm sure some of you can throw in other requirements, list is probably not complete, but they are hung up on cost and logistics nightmare, than this path can bi viable.
Keep in mind, I'm not suggesting this as a resolution, but rather saying that would be at a bare minimum what I would want if full replacement with a new and safe pack is not logistically possible.
I've said before, and I'll say again: This lawsuit will not go to trial. Even if Tesla were to prevail on a majority of the complaints, the optics of such a lawsuit would cast Tesla in a negative light. This trial would receive enormous publicity. It would be the tech version of David vs. Goliath with Goliath winning. Tesla does not want any discovery out in the open--discovery like how and why the Service Centers told us our batteries were normal when they were not; discovery like the software changes were "minor bug fixes and improvements;" discovery of how much (or little) research, development, testing, and analyzing the early batteries with and without thousands and thousands of kWh via Supercharging; internal emails and memos before, during, and after the suit was filed; the list would be pretty extensive. This suit would require dueling EE experts testifying about Tesla's design and manufacturing processes. No doubt a trial of this magnitude and complexity would last for months. The average citizen juror would be overwhelmed with a whole lot of physics and arcane warranty/consumer protection law.
Therefore, I believe that this class action will result in the dreaded negotiated settlement with Tesla neither confirming or denying all these accusations. Rather, "in the interest of expedience and fairness, Tesla will agree to do thus and such for all members of the affected class."
As to just how extensive and equitable any negotiated settlement will be, I do not feel that very many of the above will even be entertained by either side. It will be simple and easily understood by us members. It may only be some cash; it may be a combination of cash and a discounted replacement battery; it may be a trade-in on a new car with a special discounted price. I think it will boil down to who blinks first.
So your car does not have chargegate? What about terrible zero REGEN at 50-60F each morning? I don't believe you could do the same trips (minus 5 percent) as you did when your car had v8 software. I waste 30% of my battery these days with BMS warming up my battery and lack of REGEN. Now I need to build a garage for it and keep it above 60F.
Last edited:
You say that, but if this is true:
That would mean that they could demand the moon and just threaten to go to trial if they don't get it. Meaning that Tesla has to give in to any demands. But Elon doesn't like to settle he will go to trial to defend Tesla. Look at what he did with the board. Insurance settled for everyone but him. So he fired the insurance and insured the board himself so he won't have to settle in the future. (IMO)
Similar threads
