There's some edge cases that can result in a shutdown above zero on any car, but not by a lot and generally not if you're not driving like an idiot when you're about to run out of range.
But yes, you'd be correct.
-
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
There's some edge cases that can result in a shutdown above zero on any car, but not by a lot and generally not if you're not driving like an idiot when you're about to run out of range.
But yes, you'd be correct.
wk057,
Have you looked at the 90kw batteries at all? I'm sure you know that several years ago Tesla reduced the max charge rate significantly, and added a very draconian taper as well.
From what I've been able to gather, though similar (and more) things happened to the 85 and other smaller packs, it was for very different reasons. Now the non-90 packs are getting some of their charge rate and range back.
I never had my range reduced, but my time at superchargers on road trips almost doubled! I also learned (from Tesla support - is that reliable?) that the latest update I just got, 2020.48.37.1, has done nothing to relieve the emasculation Tesla imposed.
Any thoughts on the 90's, or hope for a future relaxing of the charge rates, to your knowledge?
Have you looked at the 90kw batteries at all? I'm sure you know that several years ago Tesla reduced the max charge rate significantly, and added a very draconian taper as well.
From what I've been able to gather, though similar (and more) things happened to the 85 and other smaller packs, it was for very different reasons. Now the non-90 packs are getting some of their charge rate and range back.
I never had my range reduced, but my time at superchargers on road trips almost doubled! I also learned (from Tesla support - is that reliable?) that the latest update I just got, 2020.48.37.1, has done nothing to relieve the emasculation Tesla imposed.
Any thoughts on the 90's, or hope for a future relaxing of the charge rates, to your knowledge?
cousin_IT
Face provided by boredhumans.com
I guess that's what makes threads like these so delicate, some want truth, others want blood, and there are few that want a t-shirt
I agree that my sample size is small but by no means his response could be interpreted as an IP related statement. I think clumsy-phrased statements made in the past by Tesla employees were used against them by customers and that they became extra careful.
It seems you feel cheated by Tesla's marketing and I can fully understand that. They promised you X but instead you got a half-decent x. While I don't approve of Tesla's practises I still feel that when you buy a relatively new product from a startup you should be understanding of what you buy despite the shiny sticker.
Tesla's mission certainly isn't anything like Toyota's. A satisfying ownership experience isn't at the top of Tesla's list and it shows. Capitalist or not, their goal is to build batteries on wheels and it seems they stayed true to that as their technology is lightyears ahead on the competition. Everything else is of lesser importance to them.
Tesla invested time and resources in order to solve the problem with the affected packs. Patching hardware flaws in software is part of Tesla's execution strategy and their investment in making remote updates possible is paying out (Mercedes anyone?) in this case. In hindsight it's understandable that they kept their cards close to the chest as their chance of fixing this probably didn't look great from the start. In an ideal world where lawyers would not slap you with a class action lawsuit whenever possible they might have opted to be more transparent but that's the world we live in.
That being said: I personally appreciate more transparency too. I'm curious to learn how Tesla will evolve over time.
cpa
Active Member
cpa
Active Member
I appreciate your discussion, honestly.
I am a person who is totally ignorant about buying a new product from a start-up. I know zero, zip, zilch, and nada about tech and any inherent issues therein. I am sure that there are many thousands of early buyers who work in tech, and they are more knowledgeable about risks with new tech stuff.
This is what I do not understand: Tech historically fails. My tax software fails, then it gets fixed, only to fail, get fixed. Connections between stuff drop until someone figures out how to "patch" it. Hack-proof computers get hacked like Solar Winds. There is a host of others.
Yet, Perseverence stuck its landing on Mars the other day. Those engineers, mathematicians, and computer geniuses ensured a successful launch, transit, and landing. Pacemakers work flawlessly; otherwise people die. Computerized traffic signals and trains work without incident. I think you can see where I am going here.
It seems to me that the tech world can be cheap, sloppy, and careless. It is one thing with a couple thousand dollar purchase like income tax software. I can always delay finishing my work until the problem is resolved, and the company always answers the phone or responds to emails timely. It is entirely a different thing with a six-figure automobile purchase that does not live up to its billing, and we are subject to the whims of Tesla's management and no way to contact them.
While I agree with caveat emptor, Tesla should have disclosed a tad more of the caveats to us emptors.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
You then went on to express surprise the vehicles were "beta". So on the one hand you expected to have problems and on the other hand you were surprised to have problems? I guess I'm missing your points.
cpa
Active Member
I said that too.
Look, you may be the know-all and be-all with all things tech. You may have grown up with it, or you may have selected this industry when young. Others of us did not because of age or because of occupation. It is not like the tech industry releases information voluntarily through various channels to educate the public.
Yes, I expect a new product on the market to have unresolved or unanticipated issues. Remember New Coke? Corporate Coca-Cola loved it. The consumers hated it. I don't think those consumers considered themselves "beta" testers. Coca-Cola subjected their new formula to lots of testing before releasing it to the general public. Similarly, I've purchased "new and improved" kitchen appliances that were shadows of their former iterations. They too were pulled from the manufacturers' lines once they realized that they were unpopular and inferior to prior versions. I did not consider myself a beta tester then either. At least you could return that merchandise for a refund or replacement. Of course comparing a $700 appliance to a $100,000 car makes refunds or replacements out of the question.
And maybe I conflate consumer goods with technological goods. I expected mechanical problems like inferior door handle mechanisms or the shoddy drive train that was replaced after 10 months. I expected a limited life-span of the 12V battery. I expected modest traction battery declension that may be 7-8% after five years while many others experienced half that. To me, this is not what a "beta tester" is. These are purely issues with manufactured goods that are tangible and are subject to misuse, abuse, wear and tear, and poor assumptions by Tesla. Just like the stand mixer I purchased ten years ago. It turns out the manufacturer changed out the gears and self-contained lubrication to a cheaper but lighter design. Apparently it worked in their test kitchens and labs, but it was 50-50 when everyday consumers bought it and used it. After the motor burned out, and I spoke to customer relations, I was told that they scrapped this cheaper design for a better one, and replaced it.
I did not expect to have Tesla using us as guinea pigs to test their intangible products. That is what I feel that "beta testers" do. They test intangible items. Maybe I am wrong in 2021. Maybe I am a beta tester of that new toaster we bought last year and don't even know it.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I think you're splitting hairs, where is the line between a beta product and a new product that has issues? What issue drove the Model S over the line for you? Some of the issues were design problems and others were faulty parts from suppliers. Even OEM's building vehicles for a century still put out flawed products today.
March 2019, rated range 244 miles, March 2020 range 217, today Feb 2021 rated range back up to 239.
When I called Tesla to gripe about the range decline they said it was normal battery degradation.
How in the hell did my battery rejuvenate itself back up to what it was almost in 2019. Sounds like Tesla is manipulating
the numbers knowing something is coming the down the pipeline against them.
Get me back up to 250 and I'll forget about this mess and I also need the damn BatteryGate lifted too.
Anyone else experiencing this event?
When I called Tesla to gripe about the range decline they said it was normal battery degradation.
How in the hell did my battery rejuvenate itself back up to what it was almost in 2019. Sounds like Tesla is manipulating
the numbers knowing something is coming the down the pipeline against them.
Get me back up to 250 and I'll forget about this mess and I also need the damn BatteryGate lifted too.
Anyone else experiencing this event?
Have an exact version?
Latest in my fleet is 2020.48.37.1 (332984f3b038) and a preliminarily review doesn't appear to show any BMS changes of note vs versions from the past few months.
Edit: Looks like I'm a little behind, and there are finally some 2021.x versions popping up. I don't have any of those yet to analyze, however.
Could he have had a second BMB start to suffer from Condition Z and that would start the process all over again?
Possibly, although it should already have calculated the data required to compensate for it once detected and thus shouldn't notice any change in range related to it. The code essentially assumes all BMBs could eventually suffer from Condition Z, and its data gathering process gets the data required to substitute corrected values for any affected BMB in the one pass, adjusted as required on an ongoing basis.
Last edited:
Read the previous 10 pages for a technical explanation of what happened.
Mine appeared to do the same, but after some charging, seems to be back up where it was before the 2020.48 update. Now, why are we just now getting 2020.48 is an interesting question.
@wk057
according to your analysis, it would seem that other issues reported in this thread are not related to capping the voltage on 85s and 70s (at least), where other issues are:
- reduced charge "speed"
- reduced regen at low, but significantly higher temps then below (seems to be in 60s F now)
- reduced cabin cooling
I forget what other issues were, someone add please if there were more.
according to your analysis, it would seem that other issues reported in this thread are not related to capping the voltage on 85s and 70s (at least), where other issues are:
- reduced charge "speed"
- reduced regen at low, but significantly higher temps then below (seems to be in 60s F now)
- reduced cabin cooling
I forget what other issues were, someone add please if there were more.
Supercharging speed changes have nothing to do with the range loss issue, as noted.
Reduced regen at low temps is likely the result of the "Abundance of caution" update (2019.20.something I believe) which tweaked some thermal tolerances a little. The effect should be pretty negligible, however.
Not sure on reduced cabin cooling. Biggest issue I've seen on that front with older Model S is refrigerant loss causing the A/C system to not work well. Culprit is usually an o-ring on one of the condensers, or a leaky schrader valve.
cousin_IT
Face provided by boredhumans.com
Similar threads
