Clever enough to make these batteries get past the warranty period. So a bandage on a bigger issue. Mark our words since I am not the only one making such statement.
-
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
Clever enough to make these batteries get past the warranty period. So a bandage on a bigger issue. Mark our words since I am not the only one making such statement.
This ^^^ should serve as sufficient food for thought.
Charging speed is a joke compared to what it was. Hoping this maybe can get resolved within the next 6 months?
Concur, this quick charging is what blew me away with the car. Now it seems like some are trying to erase my memory of it.
I think you are right...the reduction in charge speed happened many months after the battery cap. As a matter of fact I had a few months where my 75D reached 110kw charging after the cap. Now I am maxed out at 80kw
From this thread do we know the first time the word chargegate is even mentioned?
Still the charge estimator (in app or car) is obviously bogus...Says 70 minutes for a full charge but ends up taking 120. Are you saying that yours is accurate?
Thanks for using the word “clever” in your post to describe a “workaround” (allegedly) implemented as a so-called “fix” for defective components of a product still under warranty. I wonder if the scenario below would be acceptable for the buyers of cell phones:
The cell phone manufacturer discovers the bad solder joints for some components on the circuit boards are experiencing faulty reading of actual data and are causing the phone battery meter to display misleading percentages, causing the phone owners to believe they have access to non-existent charge capacity. As a result, the phones run out of battery charge unexpectedly and shut down earlier. To avoid hardware replacement under warranty, the phone maker devises a “clever” software “workaround” to make corrections on the erroneous reading of these faulty hardware components and calls it a “fix”, leaving the owners to live with their bad hardware and strong potential of very expensive out of warranty repairs.
I wonder how many owners would find that acceptable! And, by the way, that particular cell phone model was purchased around $100K.
cpa
Active Member
I returned home from a road trip around May 20, 2019, and Supercharging rates were unchanged. Most sessions from 15% to 65% took about 35 minutes.
I did a little jaunt about California in mid-August 2019. Supercharging rates had plummeted and the regen had become more restrictive through about 75% SOC.
No I got:
2019.16.1.1 on the 16. may 2019
2019.16.2 on the 22. may 2019
2019.20.1 on the 11. jun 2019.
And it was with 2019.20.1 I saw slower charging speed.
Yes, I remember you telling us at the time in Aug. of 2019 after your slow charging during your summer holidays.
Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
Thanks for the reminder.
Two different things. If Tesla can use SW to provide the same function (reading module voltage) with the necessary level of precision and reliability to meet system needs, then I don't see it as an bandaid. Tesla has changed the extending door handle design several times over the years and if your break they replace it with a newer design--I don't see anyone arguing about the internals of the handle design as long as it reliably does what it is supposed to do.
The broader issue of how Tesla is handling the aging of the original 85 kWh packs is disheartening and it has colored my feelings on the company as a whole.
Last edited:
The measurements you have described appear to fit the mitigation in wk057's writeup to a tee. You guys seem to be talking past each other. Assuming that wk057 is not lying about his reverse engineering of the BMS code related to condition Z, it is unlikely your reduction, then increase, in range is anything other than condition Z mitigation.
The real problem here is that you guys had reduced usable range for almost two years before the functional fix was implemented. That is a long time in the life of a vehicle. There is nothing wrong with using software to fix a hardware fault as long as functionality doesn't change IMO. There still needs to be some sort of compensation for the hassle.
faughtz
Model S P85DL
and don’t forget the loss of performance/acceleration for over a year for which some of us paid a premium.
So a bit more brain-picking @wk057 if you don't mind--I find the approach for the fix fascinating. So, going forward, running curretnFW, is the following correct (as far as you know):
- BMS measures battery using direction measurement via HW
- BMS notices noisy data
- BMS flips over to using SW inference
- Change is mostly transparent to owner except for a dip in range for some period of time
If only a number of these BMB's are indeed bad, more of them would get out of shape over time and beyond the warranty window. I certainly don't want a hardware in that condition which should have been replaced during the warranty window. The $100k cell phone analogy.
The other point to consider is that lots of owners are still fully capped (like me) and the claim by some that we will get uncapped at an unknown date is no comfort. The "check is in the mail" analogy.
I agree with the 2 year hardship and the compensation part of your post.
I get the impression that there is nothing to "fix" per se, this is a policy decision by Tesla.
Similar threads
