Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[DJRas]

Excellent feedback I finally got the chance to read thoroughly. I suppose you mostly charge at home, correct?

I am one of the few that now charge 95% at Superchargers. I used to do that by choice. Now with the range restrictions i MUST supercharge twice per day for my commute.
But, a fellow 2014 S 85 owner with more kWh at the supercharger and 50% more miles is not affected with condition Z. We both reside in Southern California (so similar weather and driving conditions).

I used to charge from 30% to 90%. Now it is 15% to 90% and if i go out for lunch 2% to 90%.
My Supercharging TIME hasn't been affected much though. It is still about 50 minutes time. At 72kW chargers i start at 70kW and it stays there fir a while before dropping. However, at 150kW chargers they used to start at over 110kW and now i never get above 90kW (since 2019.21.x).
I also, cannot get to 100% (217 miles) either at home or at Superchargers. It stops at 210 miles (96%) and charge current at 1-2 kW.

 

[Droschke]

And guys... you're the native speakers, but I'm pretty sure it's "affected", not "effected". For some reason that bothers me

That's why I always say "impacted", which basically means affected

 

[Droschke]

I am one of the few that now charge 95% at Superchargers. I used to do that by choice. Now with the range restrictions i MUST supercharge twice per day for my commute.
But, a fellow 2014 S 85 owner with more kWh at the supercharger and 50% more miles is not affected with condition Z. We both reside in Southern California (so similar weather and driving conditions).

I used to charge from 30% to 90%. Now it is 15% to 90% and if i go out for lunch 2% to 90%.
My Supercharging TIME hasn't been affected much though. It is still about 50 minutes time. At 72kW chargers i start at 70kW and it stays there fir a while before dropping. However, at 150kW chargers they used to start at over 110kW and now i never get above 90kW (since 2019.21.x).
I also, cannot get to 100% (217 miles) either at home or at Superchargers. It stops at 210 miles (96%) and charge current at 1-2 kW.

I hope we soon know:
1) What this condition Z is
2) The malignant/benign nature of it per car

 

[⚡️ELECTROMAN⚡️]

Interesting, I agree that it is their responsibility to make sure it is safe, but what rights do Tesla have? That is the core of this issue, owners right vs Tesla's rights - personally I don't think Tesla can have any rights that overwrites the rights of the owners of the cars.


I will see it before I believe it. The Roadster v3 battery was/is way to expensive to be considered economically practical and I don't think Tesla will offer any upgrades for older model S/X, they 100% focus on batteries for new cars. It was a dream scenario when they started selllingthe cars, but never going to happen - sorry.

They are required to have replacement parts available for at least ten years, so they are going to have to do something. Maybe not offer an upgraded battery, but at least an equivalent replacement. I just don't think there is much need for it yet.

And guys... you're the native speakers, but I'm pretty sure it's "affected", not "effected". For some reason that bothers me

It didn't even make me pause. I think the spelling police are a lot bigger distraction than the miss-spellers.

 

[Bill_75D]

You misspelled the word misspellers ;-)

 

[fbitz777]

Tesla Model S Shanghai Fire, Range, And Charge Issues Seem Connected

 

[Droschke]

Tesla Model S Shanghai Fire, Range, And Charge Issues Seem Connected

I noticed the author has used the correct word "affected". Rather than that, nothing new in a badly composed article.

The readers' comments are interesting though.

 

[Droschke]

I hope we soon know:
1) What this condition Z is
2) The malignant/benign nature of it per car

@ran349,

You disagree?

 

[MP3Mike]

They are required to have replacement parts available for at least ten years

I've heard things like that many times, but have never been able to find any law or anything to back it up. Do you happen to have a reference for that?

 

[ran349]

I hope we soon know:
1) What this condition Z is
2) The malignant/benign nature of it per car

Of course I don't disagree with that. That was purely accidental somehow when I was reading on my phone! I fixed it now.

 

[Droschke]

Of course I don't disagree with that. That was purely accidental somehow when I was reading on my phone!

Appreciate it. Was just wondering to read your perspective if you have indeed disagreed. Thanks again for clarification.

 

[VT_EE]

Hey! The fact that 85kWh batteries burst into flames in Hong Kong and Singapore tell me there is a flaw in the battery. The possible reasons why have been discussed here at nauseam. But that isn't the issue. 1. Tesla is not telling us about it. 2. Tesla put restrictions on our BMS to put a bandaid on the real problem. 3. If my battery will burst into flames, there is no other remedy than a warranty replacement with a safe battery. Software, range restriction, charging rate reduction? Wait... the batteries burst into flames!! We have seen that in Hong Kong and Singapore, and more! That is what brought this whole thing upon us. We are discussing the BS around the real issue. Tesla needs to do a warranty replacement for the effected batteries. Some say that is a "few". Tesla says many owners won't notice. Well, then replace the "few" batteries with new warrantied new batteries!!! Since we are "noticing"!

You did read wk057’s post, right? It sounds like there is not a significant safety issue, but rather a software bug they are working on.

 

[trayloader]

....SNIP

I'm also hesitant to say it, since, again, I don't want to inflate this issue beyond where it already is and cause further speculation, but: If you have a car with an 85-type pack (85 or 70) then you should probably update if you either supercharge a lot, charge to 100% often, or both.

No, I'm not saying your car is going to explode or otherwise have other issues if you don't update, so don't take it like that, but I do believe that what is being detected is an issue that will eventually need to be addressed one way or another, whether or not there is a safety issue involved, and if you are in that group it'd be better to know than not know.

Again, I want to give Tesla a good faith opportunity to work this all out before I start throwing things out their publicly. Right now, I do believe this particular situation isn't something they were originally aware of and just kind of stumbled across once this update hit the masses. They have been working to determine a reason for. I'm pretty sure my input is pushing that along in the right direction.
....

.

Here´s WK057s phantastic analysis again, I trimmed the first part and made the relevant content which I feel speaks volumes bold. The takeaway isn´t that of a simple software bug.
Quite the opposite IMHO. One could speculate about a recall. Read between the lines.

 

[faughtz]

I want to buy a used Model S.
Is there a way to tell what vehicles could have this problem?
All 85’s? Some or all years?

Do some 70’s have “85 type” batteries that could also be affected??

Any reports of problems with 90 or 75 batteries?

Use TM Spy or scan my tesla to look at battery capacity- probably a good exercise even apart from this latest situation.

 

[VT_EE]

Here´s WK057s phantastic analysis again, I trimmed the first part and made the relevant content which I feel speaks volumes bold. The takeaway isn´t that of a simple software bug.
Quite the opposite IMHO. One could speculate about a recall. Read between the lines.

That is not how I interpreted what he stated. My take away was that people with “Z” would probably get at least some portion of their range back. Doesn’t sound like a big recall to me. Maybe for some extreme cases though. All speculation at this point, but promising.

 

[sorka]

You did read wk057’s post, right? It sounds like there is not a significant safety issue, but rather a software bug they are working on.

Both, they just targetted the the wrong non critical battery issue with the limitation that was mint to target the ultra rare dangerous condition. Even in that case, Tesla should not LIE about the SOC and should notify the user after limiting charging to come in for a warranty replacement of the battery due to OBVIOUSLY NOT NORMAL DEGRADATION

 

[u1e85d5]

(...) Tesla should not LIE about the SOC and should notify the user after limiting charging to come in for a warranty replacement of the battery due to OBVIOUSLY NOT NORMAL DEGRADATION

This is not an automated process. And when somebody looked at the new found issues they were probably surprised to find a list of hundreds of affected models or more, so they didn't send out anything yet before investigating further. Sure a notification in that scenario would be nice, to know what's going on. And I would also prefer them showing a max of 90%, greying out the rest to 100%.
Most likely they never had to limit it that far and just had nothing in code to show it that way. This wasn't a planned effect after all ;-)
Chill and give them some time, unless your life now is really negatively affected, in which case you should complain to your service center and I think they should probably give you a loaner with enough range until the issue is worked out.

 

[Chaserr]

We can invent reasons for WHY they lied to us (and we have to, they aren't capable of an open dialog), but the fact remains that they lied. And still are lying. This was NEVER normal degradation like they continually tell us. That is, was, and will continue to be a lie. Either they are deceiving us on purpose or their diagnostics equipment is worthless. Neither is a good thing.

 

[sorka]

This is not an automated process. And when somebody looked at the new found issues they were probably surprised to find a list of hundreds of affected models or more, so they didn't send out anything yet before investigating further. Sure a notification in that scenario would be nice, to know what's going on. And I would also prefer them showing a max of 90%, greying out the rest to 100%.
Most likely they never had to limit it that far and just had nothing in code to show it that way. This wasn't a planned effect after all ;-)
Chill and give them some time, unless your life now is really negatively affected, in which case you should complain to your service center and I think they should probably give you a loaner with enough range until the issue is worked out.

I agree mostly with what you're saying and it would be 100% agree except that Tesla has had a long while now to fix the messaging but the messaging they are telling customers is still completely wrong and misleading.

 

[Blu Zap]

This was NEVER normal degradation like they continually tell us. That is, was, and will continue to be a lie. Either they are deceiving us on purpose or their diagnostics equipment is worthless. Neither is a good thing.

Its all about the 85kWh batteries bursting into flames. This all started with the Hong Kong and Singapore Model S 85 fires. Tesla investigated it and next thing we have range reducing, SuperCharger slowing software updates. The problem is the batteries catch fire for no apparent reason. It should be an unquestionable warranty replacement based on safety. Nothing to do with the self induced range and SuperCharger performance reductions.