Unless I missed it, no one has reported improved charge rates for the 90 batteries. Please point out where this information is coming from.
My charging speeds certainly haven't improved....
-
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
My charging speeds certainly haven't improved....
DJRas
Member
Not exactly FACTS here. Prior to 2019.16 I had >210 mile ACTUAL RANGE available. I drove over 200 mile round trip to Los Angeles and pulled into the garage with 7 miles remaining. The end of May 2019 I had REAL RANGE of about 180 miles. We KNOW they limited charge voltage from 4.2 MaxV on May 14, 2019 to 4.07 MaxV on May 20, 2019. which matches the 15% reduction in reported range as well as actual range.
In Sept the MaxV was raised to 4.10v. thus restoring about 25% of the range lost (about 7 miles - both actual and rated). Starting March 2020 the software started restoring MaxV back to 4.20V. It took me 6 months and 10,000 miles to achieve full restoration. The restoration is more related to miles driven rather than just time
All of this data is available in ScanMyTesla BMS readings that I have captured from my car and a couple of dozen others.
So, I KNOW it was actual capacity and not some phantom recalibration factor.
DJRas
Member
I have SLIGHTLY improved charging speed and am now able to start at over 100kW when below 10%SOC.
But, it still takes over and hour to get to 85% and over another hour from 85% to 95%.
Charging speed is NOT related to the same issues from the 2019.16 range issues.
Nope. Still facts. Code backs it up, and someone even recently sent me a screenshot of a Tesla internal document that pretty much completely confirms my findings with regard to Condition Z and its correction. Basically a document about what to do if a customer complains of lost range and what the problem and fix are.... which are pretty much exactly what I wrote about from pure reverse engineering prior to even knowing this document existed. Maybe someone will leak it. Not mine to leak.
Unfortunately, I think you're just misinterpreting your data, along with missing my clarifications about the details around inaccessible bottom range. Yes, of course 2019.16 locked out access to "actual capacity," as I said it did. In fact, what you're noting is exactly in line with mitigation for Condition Z as described. The margin of error recognized by the BMS during Z correction can impact both sides of the usable voltage range during correction to account for the margin of error involved, but on pre-2019.16 firmware, since the issue almost always presents as a lower-than-expected reading, you'd only have issues at the lower end when trying to access part of the SoC range below the error range, and not 100% of the time. Again, it'd be a dice roll each time. Basically the code is more comfortable allowing access to lower SoC levels than higher SoC levels during correction if the detected error deltas are quite high. There is a LOT of nuance in how this is corrected, and it'd be impossible to describe every possible way it's done by the code in detail.
Suffice it to say, if you have Condition Z then some portion of displayed range was inaccessible with 100% certainty pre-2019.16. Moving to 2019.16 you went from maybe having some access to that range in some cases to not having access to it at all until a correction was completed (quite some time/updates later). Exact details of what was done to prevent an error from causing a shutdown vary case to case. In a worst case I saw a 65 mile loss on a car after going to 2019.16. I personally would rather always have access to the range displayed than be rolling the dice at some unknown point.
It's always taken a significant amount of time to go from 80-100%... usually 45-60 minutes at a supercharger in my experience. This hasn't changed much at all except that occasionally it takes longer to get to the CV portion of the charge curve due to lower overall rates.
The other portions have definitely had changes, however, and as noted previously:
I've been saying this for quite some time, but people still flood this thread with charging speed related grievances.
DJRas
Member
It is pretty hard to misread cell voltages and total pack voltage.
Also difficult to argue that actual range was reduced and now restored.
Also difficult to argue that actual range was reduced and now restored.
Not sure where the disconnect is. Seems like semantics at this point, as nothing you've written is outside of what's been described. You're just looking at it differently.
Hypothetical (these voltages are made up): If 100% of the cell's normally usable capacity is from 5 to 6V, and for the sake of argument we'll just say it's linear (it's not, but doesn't matter for this). Another parameter being that charging above 6V, this is bad for the cell and can result in failures. If discharged below 5V, still bad, but not as bad... usually recoverable.
The BMS is unsure it's correctly measuring the cell. So, it adds error bars to its measurements. These error bars place the usable capacity inside the actual capacity range.... reflected to the user as a loss of range.
It doesn't matter where the error guard rails are placed, the end result is a loss of usable capacity. Nothing about the actual capacity has changed. So let's say a 10% error bar is added. Does it matter to the user if that error bar makes 5.9-6V inaccessible or 5.0-5.1V inaccessible? Or 5.0 to 5.05 and 5.95 to 6.00? No. It doesn't. The end result is the same. The user has less access to the actual pack capacity. The actual capacity is, however, unchanged.
In practice, the BMS makes a best decision where to place the guard rails on range based on the data available to ensure that an erroneous reading a) can not cause an overcharge event as the result of an erroneously low reading, b) can not cause a premature shutdown while > 0 miles of range are shown to the user, c) can not cause an over-discharge event in the case of an erroneously high reading. These are listed in order of the BMS's priority based on my understanding of the code.
Pre-2019.16, the car could get an erroneously low reading that could cause a premature shutdown while showing > 0 miles of range available. As noted, this is not guaranteed, but the other side of that coin is that you're not guaranteed access to that capacity, either.
So again, nothing you've noted goes against what's been explained.
Last edited:
DJRas
Member
My actual data:
Mar 13, 2019
120,308 100% 248mi rated
120,508 7% 15mi rated
200 actual 233 rated miles driven
Jun 14, 2019
132,872 100% 218 rated
133,049 5% 11.9 rated
177 actual 206 rated miles driven
Sep 27, 2019
146,448 90% 204 rated
146,565 11% 24 rated
136 actual 179 rated driven
Oct 20, 2020
172,838 100% 238 rated
173,031 5% 12 rated
193 actual 226 rated miles driven
I also drove below 15% 16 times between Dec 2018 and Oct 2020 inluding 6 times less than 5%.
@wk057 if you can make your theory (not fact) fit this data then I could be convinced. Your FACTS are what you observed (bad solder joints, etc) your theory is your explanation of the reverse engineered software. That theory fits what you described but that doesn't fit my measurements. Either I shouldn't have been able to drive to 200 actual miles with 11 rated miles remaining in March 2019 or I should have been able to drive much further in June (20 miles past zero?).
Mar 13, 2019
120,308 100% 248mi rated
120,508 7% 15mi rated
200 actual 233 rated miles driven
Jun 14, 2019
132,872 100% 218 rated
133,049 5% 11.9 rated
177 actual 206 rated miles driven
Sep 27, 2019
146,448 90% 204 rated
146,565 11% 24 rated
136 actual 179 rated driven
Oct 20, 2020
172,838 100% 238 rated
173,031 5% 12 rated
193 actual 226 rated miles driven
I also drove below 15% 16 times between Dec 2018 and Oct 2020 inluding 6 times less than 5%.
@wk057 if you can make your theory (not fact) fit this data then I could be convinced. Your FACTS are what you observed (bad solder joints, etc) your theory is your explanation of the reverse engineered software. That theory fits what you described but that doesn't fit my measurements. Either I shouldn't have been able to drive to 200 actual miles with 11 rated miles remaining in March 2019 or I should have been able to drive much further in June (20 miles past zero?).
Last edited:
@DJRas , @wk057 did explain just that - you could access the range, or it could suddenly not down low, roll of the dice. Supports your spot checks just fine.
Moving to 2019.16 you went from maybe having some access to that range in some cases to not having access to it at all until a correction was completed (quite some time/updates later). Exact details of what was done to prevent an error from causing a shutdown vary case to case. In a worst case I saw a 65 mile loss on a car after going to 2019.16. I personally would rather always have access to the range displayed than be rolling the dice at some unknown point.
And still no statement from Tesla......
Disagree with the supercharging. Before 2019. I could go from 10% to 100 in an hour or sometimes a little over it. Never did it take over 2.5 hrs like it does now.
Edit: i understand that it not related. But I did notice the change at the same time.
Disagree with the supercharging. Before 2019. I could go from 10% to 100 in an hour or sometimes a little over it. Never did it take over 2.5 hrs like it does now.
Edit: i understand that it not related. But I did notice the change at the same time.
So, you have been made whole by Tesla now since you are back to 4.2 volts? Of course, you would still have some natural degradation from when you were first voltage capped, so you would not get all your original range back.
Is that what you have observed?
Edit: Now after looking at your data, I think it answers my question.
Everything I've explained about the facts of how this is handled in the software fits what you've posted perfectly fine, as noted in my last post with repeated explanations on why this is. You're either still misunderstanding or choosing not to understand for whatever reason. Either way, I can't be of further help to you as I know of no additional ways to explain the same thing yet again.
As others noted, it's unlikely any statement will happen while multiple parties are litigating this.
Timing is a coincidence, as the supercharging stuff doesn't appear to be changed at all in the first update that had detection of X/Z.
The last 20% generally has always taken as long as the first 80% under uncapped supercharging. The final 20% still takes about the same amount of time, it's the lower sections that are slower due to a lower constant-current charge rate. The constant-voltage rate is unchanged AFAICT.
Correction using other available data. This is explained in my writeup.
Not as far as I'm aware. The revised version (BMB v2) is not compatible with the v1.5 modules.
Last edited:
If anything it's much worse. Was charging at 30kw the other day at 25%. If I "pre condition" it, it does charge faster, but not a lot maybe get 50kW, and on some occasions, I may hit 60kw, but that's very briefly.
Last edited:
DJRas
Member
That is correct pending mediation settlement (currently scheduled for end of March.
DJRas
Member
I have EVERY trip's data from June 2016 until today.
My sample just showed I did ACTUALLY lose range when looking at selected single trips where I started at high SOC and ended at a low SOC.
I have gigabytes of data from June 2019 onward.
I NEVER was rolling the dice. I did multiple below 10 mile range left before, during and after May 2019.
I disagree with his analysis of the mechanism of the updates (per my legal team's discovery - which I cannot share).
It doesn't. Per @wk057 's write-up, they use some clever software engineering to infer the correct voltages and work around the faulty components.
Like many of the new features of the MCU2. The UI is not as user friendly as V8 was. The worst thing so far is that the USB player no longer shows a grid of albums like 8.1 did. It's just a text list that you scroll. So not only does it not display the artwork in the grid since there is no grid, it doesn't display embedded artwork in mp3s when playing on the main player screen(multiple threads about this being broken since November).
So far no loss of range through multiple super chargers in the last few days. The time displayed to charge complete doesn't take into account their new algorithm. So when it says 35 minutes left when starting a charge from 30% to 90%, it will really take 60 minutes instead. So it ticks down 5 minutes on the remaining time about every 9 minutes.
One other discovery. Previous to the upgrade, my battery would pull 1525 amps. Now it only pulls 1500 amps. Although I'm disappointed in the slight power loss, the Ludicrous upgrade was sold as a 1500 amp battery so from that standpoint I'm still getting what I paid for.
The supercharging speed is a different story. Huge reduction in charging rate. This is slower strictly because the BMS firmware has changed...not a change to the battery state itself.
What stings even more is the P90D loaner I had was happy to start at 140KW at 27% and stayed well above 120KW until 40%. Because I babied battery and didn't WOT throttle at every chance, I didn't hit BMS error 159 "max WOT count of 2500 exceeded" until early last year. Had I hit that error 6 months earlier, they would have replaced the battery....most likely with a 90 V3. There was no software fix for error 159 prior to that. I essentially screwed myself by trying to take care of the battery.
So far no loss of range through multiple super chargers in the last few days. The time displayed to charge complete doesn't take into account their new algorithm. So when it says 35 minutes left when starting a charge from 30% to 90%, it will really take 60 minutes instead. So it ticks down 5 minutes on the remaining time about every 9 minutes.
One other discovery. Previous to the upgrade, my battery would pull 1525 amps. Now it only pulls 1500 amps. Although I'm disappointed in the slight power loss, the Ludicrous upgrade was sold as a 1500 amp battery so from that standpoint I'm still getting what I paid for.
The supercharging speed is a different story. Huge reduction in charging rate. This is slower strictly because the BMS firmware has changed...not a change to the battery state itself.
What stings even more is the P90D loaner I had was happy to start at 140KW at 27% and stayed well above 120KW until 40%. Because I babied battery and didn't WOT throttle at every chance, I didn't hit BMS error 159 "max WOT count of 2500 exceeded" until early last year. Had I hit that error 6 months earlier, they would have replaced the battery....most likely with a 90 V3. There was no software fix for error 159 prior to that. I essentially screwed myself by trying to take care of the battery.
You should read wk057's text which he linked in a previous post. It answers your question. Do the work.
Hoping this is the last extension and we see Tesla make a statement and give us a resolution.
Similar threads
