Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[faughtz]

not regularly. Occasional road trips.

Teslafi says:
View attachment 420385

Which also shows that free supercharging is no big deal for a lot of people. A total of $130 saved.

As a trigger mechanism; not superchargering with the new software may explain why you have not seen the impacts I have.

 

[Droschke]

As a trigger mechanism; not superchargering with the new software may explain why you have not seen the impacts I have.

And, that's why some owners claim no decline yet?

 

[Droschke]

Yes. The reported reductions are in the limits i expected them to be.

Wouldn't that (i.e., which EoC voltage they consider to be 'safe' for your specific battery) result in an imbalanced pack (but a safer one perhaps)?

 

[IngTH]

Wouldn't that (i.e., which EoC voltage they consider to be 'safe' for your specific battery) result in an imbalanced pack (but a safer one perhaps)?

No, why? And: The difference between plating and stripping potential is about -30mV only!

 

[Droschke]

I understood when the analysis determines which EoC voltage is consider to be 'safe' at cell level, that cell won't charge to what it use to (a higher voltage). So, you are saying since the Plating/stripping difference is so small (-30mV), the pack will still be considered balanced, correct?

 

[faughtz]

I'm not see constrained capacity and I have 16.2. Maybe 16.2 is only limiting capacity of certain batteries? Maybe certain battery part #s? or maybe batteries that are showing certain types of wear?

I saw 440 peak on May 27 was the most recent time I Iogged a good peak power run. was near 100 SOC but not fully heated MBP. That was with 16.2 which I installed on May 22.

I now get 412kW at 95% SOC, and in L mode (no max battery).
Not quite 762hp.

Regen was limited down to 93%.

 

[faughtz]

And, that's why some owners claim no decline yet?

I don’t know, fits with the data, so far.

 

[Droschke]

After a test supercharging today to 97% to get a better idea on how many RM I'm losing, I thought it was funny to see the yellow dots for the Regen limitation to show up at 226 RM. I used to see it at around 250+ Rated Miles in good old days.

 

[faughtz]

After a test supercharging today to 97% to get a better idea on how many RM I'm losing, I thought it was funny to see the yellow dots for the Regen limitation to show up at 226 RM. I used to see it at around 250+ Rated Miles in good old days.

I saw limited regen down to 93%, which makes sense given what they are doing.

Tesla stopped replying to my service request after I guessed it was software.

 

[Dr. J]

I saw limited regen down to 93%, which makes sense given what they are doing.

Tesla stopped replying to my service request after I guessed it was software.

It's probably bottled up in the Legal Department now.

 

[sorka]

Theft of what exactly? You don’t have a warranty or guarantee of ANY amount of range from your battery.

Furthermore, I imagine you’d be quick to claim loss and negligence if Tesla knew of a safety/fire risk present in your battery and did nothing about it.

Can’t have it both ways...

This is the first post you've ever made that I disagree with. You and I always agree except for now.

• They made range claims with a disclaimer that normal degradation will reduce range over time. This is NOT degradation. It's intentionally removing access to existing capacity. They have not stated why officially and there's been no safety recall. The only thing we have to go on is a text from a CS rep and we know how reliable their information is
• They made performance claims that were never disclaimed even by normal degradation. If my 0-60 time drops significantly with or without range reduction, you can bet I'll be making a warranty claim whether it happens to be DU or battery related. This update will clearly limit performance given that it limits charge at the top and as such voltage will be lower at @ x amps given apples to apples SOC.
• Teslas still have lower rates of car fires compared to gas cars per capita. There is no reason to believe this done to prevent car fires. In fact, there's no reason to believe yet it was intentional for sure although there is a shred of maybe not so reliable communication from one Tesla employee.
• If the change was intentional, I'll bet it was done to slow degradation and reduce warranty claims. Not on my dime they don't. By your thinking, why stop at 10%. Why not reduce the access to available capacity by 30 or even 50%. After all, there's no warranty on range, right?

The only product I'm aware of that ever had a software update to lock out capacity was the Note 7 and that was done as a short term measure until Note 7 owners returned the phones.... FOR A FULL REFUND.

I'd be perfectly fine with Tesla updating the software to detect potentially hazardous conditions within the battery and to reduce range as long as that was accompanied by a "battery needs service" message so that the owner knows they need to make an appointment to have their battery replaced under warranty. But simply locking capacity out without any notice and any reason and doing it in such a way as to make it look like gradual degradation would be extremely slimy and I have no doubt would unite owners in a large class action.

For now, I'm going to give Tesla the benefit of the doubt and assume this a bug but that benefit of doubt will last a very short time if they don't respond to this with something other than the one screen shot of a text we've seen from an employee.

So glad I still have v8

 

[sorka]

I now get 412kW at 95% SOC, and in L mode (no max battery).
Not quite 762hp.

Regen was limited down to 93%.

That's less than Insane mode at 90% which was 415K. Last I checked my car, I got 443KW @ 90% @ 89K miles.

 

[tinm]

Maybe this is all a ploy for us owners of old Teslas to finally trade ‘em in. Nuttiest demand lever yet if true, which I doubt

 

[sorka]

Maybe this is all a ploy for us owners of old Teslas to finally trade ‘em in. Nuttiest demand lever yet if true, which I doubt

Opposite effect

 

[Dutchmeeuw]

Just for reference, now down to 355km. A total loss of 45km of full range in 4 weeks.

 

[Droschke]

Maybe this is all a ploy for us owners of old Teslas to finally trade ‘em in. Nuttiest demand lever yet if true, which I doubt

Facetiously it has crossed my mind as well. That would be going too far.

 

[Droschke]

Just for reference, now down to 355km. A total loss of 45km of full range in 4 weeks.

You are catching up with me. I updated the Gsheet yesterday.

 

[Droschke]

So far, we see the owners of these models are reporting the impact:

S85D
S85
P85D
P85
S70D
S90D

 

[faughtz]

So far, we see the owners of these models are reporting the impact:

S85D
S85
P85D
P85
S70D
S90D

For completeness, my impacted car is a SP85DL, although we know the battery is the same as SP85D. Year is important also, mine is Nov 2014.

 

[Droschke]

For completeness, my impacted car is a SP85DL, although we know the battery is the same as SP85D. Year is important also, mine is Nov 2014.

Leverage this spreadsheet .

That's were I got my tally from. It needs more data.