Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[DJRas]

UPDATE:
I just finished having my battery tested at Oceanside Service Center.
As expected they said that my battery does not fit the criteria for replacement.
The test is HV Battery Capacity (looking at Charge Amperage Capacity?).
My battery is version 41 (41 is the number they used... but they didn't call it version).
Original rated range for this pack was 264 miles at 295Wh/mi (77.88 kWh usable capacity).
A battery with my age/mileage should have a capacity of 231 miles (Fleet-wide average).
IF my battery is <90% of that window they can replace my battery under warranty.
With my 217 mile rated range that is 93.9% therefore... no warranty replacement.
BUT, the currently reported 217 mile rated range is NOW based on 276 Wh/mi (Which they saw while looking at my recent drives).
IF we use the 295 Wh/mi calculation for rated range my current max range is 204 miles - 88.3% of nominal.
ALSO, with rev 2019.20.2.1 the most I can charge to is 97% or 210 miles (@276 Wh/mi) thus 90.9% of nominal.
At 295 Wh/mi my 97% range is only 196 miles or 85% of nominal.

I will be returning this afternoon to discuss this information with the technician

Additionally, The official Tesla stance is "These changes are meant to increase battery longevity. NOT related to the fires".
When confronted with my stance that they are software degrading MY battery to keep it from degrading on its own...
They said "yeah... that seems wrong" and "Tesla will likely look closed at the new data they gather after this update and will "likely" revise the algorithm and POSSIBLY restore some of our range to those of us affected

Also, my battery reported a BMS error "Battery_Brick_Limited (hidden)". They did not explain that well. Just that it was "not critical to battery usage" and "NOT covered under warranty"

The Service Manager and the Technician really seemed to care about my concerns and they WANT to replace my battery. But until they can go to engineering with an "Out of normal condition" their hands are tied.

They also did verify that I COULD buy a replacement battery (for about $20,000 installed).

Oh Yeah!!! while I was there they replaced my recalled air bag!

 

[sorka]

UPDATE:
I just finished having my battery tested at Oceanside Service Center.
As expected they said that my battery does not fit the criteria for replacement.
The test is HV Battery Capacity (looking at Charge Amperage Capacity?).
My battery is version 41 (41 is the number they used... but they didn't call it version).
Original rated range for this pack was 264 miles at 295Wh/mi (77.88 kWh usable capacity).
A battery with my age/mileage should have a capacity of 231 miles (Fleet-wide average).
IF my battery is <90% of that window they can replace my battery under warranty.
With my 217 mile rated range that is 93.9% therefore... no warranty replacement.
BUT, the currently reported 217 mile rated range is NOW based on 276 Wh/mi (Which they saw while looking at my recent drives).
IF we use the 295 Wh/mi calculation for rated range my current max range is 204 miles - 88.3% of nominal.
ALSO, with rev 2019.20.2.1 the most I can charge to is 97% or 210 miles (@276 Wh/mi) thus 90.9% of nominal.
At 295 Wh/mi my 97% range is only 196 miles or 85% of nominal.

I will be returning this afternoon to discuss this information with the technician

Additionally, The official Tesla stance is "These changes are meant to increase battery longevity. NOT related to the fires".
When confronted with my stance that they are software degrading MY battery to keep it from degrading on its own...
They said "yeah... that seems wrong" and "Tesla will likely look closed at the new data they gather after this update and will "likely" revise the algorithm and POSSIBLY restore some of our range to those of us affected

Also, my battery reported a BMS error "Battery_Brick_Limited (hidden)". They did not explain that well. Just that it was "not critical to battery usage" and "NOT covered under warranty"

The Service Manager and the Technician really seemed to care about my concerns and they WANT to replace my battery. But until they can go to engineering with an "Out of normal condition" their hands are tied.

They also did verify that I COULD buy a replacement battery (for about $20,000 installed).

How many miles do you have and what is the current BMS reported usable kWh? Rated range has nothing to do with pack capacity. Did they tell you the rated range calculation changed from 295 to 276? If so, you better go file a formal complaint with the EPA asap...and since your in California, CARB as well.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Tesla's communications failures are killing goodwill towards the company.

Blame Elon. The bad communication has been there as long as he has. Ever since taking over sales & service, service has gotten worse. The lame texting/chat and lack of direct human communication is all Elon.

Did you 'range charge' your car? More specifically charge to more than 93% SoC?
It is not impossible that the (protective) range drop only materializes after the rebalancing process triggered by SoC > 93%.

Tesla batteries rebalance at all states of charge. The 93% thing is a myth.

How many miles do you have and what is the current BMS reported usable kWh? Rated range has nothing to do with pack capacity. Did they tell you the rated range calculation changed from 295 to 276? If so, you better go file a formal complaint with the EPA asap...and since your in California, CARB as well.

When new, my rated miles appeared to be calculated based on close to 300 Wh/mi. Now, after 6 years and over 90,000 miles, I can only hit rated range if I drive around 270-275 Wh/mi. Tesla has changed this number at some point, or perhaps software changes it slowly over time. Something isn't right here. It's much, much harder to hit rated range the older the car is and the more degradation you've experienced. In fact, when new, I was able to get close to ideal range. Now I can't even hit rated.

 

[DW254]

After my visit with the Service Manager in Rocklin, CA last week he contacted an associate in engineering and sent me the following today:

I spoke to the engineering department for the past week and this is the response that I have received :

“The battery health is good, firmware is adjusting it for ageing cells to increase pack longevity. As part of our recent revision of the charge and thermal management settings on Model S and Model X vehicles to protect the battery and improve battery longevity, a percentage of owners who own older vehicles may notice a slight reduction in range when charging to a maximum state of charge. The drop in charge is not expected to continue and should stabilize quickly.”

“This change is the result of the updated charging profile as well as increased cooling, which helps improve the overall health of the battery.”

The engineer stated that there will be no further reductions to the charging of the vehicle however, this shift is a permanent change.


MY RESPONSE
I then responded with the following, and will post Tesla's response when received:

"Thanks Chris,

I will be sharing this response with the Teslamotorclub among other, and perhaps you can share my response below with engineering:

Tesla Engineering:

Let me begin by quoting the reaction received when I reported my range loss to Chris Elder, your Associate Service Manger in Rocklin. His initial response was “a 30-mile range loss is huge”. It makes the difference for me having to now stop and charge every time I visit family members, where before the update I could travel roundtrip without a charge stop.

That “slight reduction in range” is the difference between a Model S70 and a Model S85. I specifically paid a $10,070 upgrade for the extra 30 mile range which has now been removed.

If my battery is in “good health” then there should be no reason to make any adjustments. However, if some of Tesla’s “older vehicles” require a reduction in range for “thermal management” and others do not, then those batteries that are receiving the battery range reduction must not be in good health, or Tesla wouldn’t be limiting the ability to fully charge. As such, under warranty, I request a battery replacement to receive the same driving range as other Model S85 owners who haven’t had the range reduced on their vehicles.

When I brought the car in for service last week I suggested 3 options: Software adjustments to return the 30 miles of range removed by the update; replace the battery with one that provides the range I purchased; or refund the $10,070 I paid for the extra 30 miles that were removed. If the “shift is a permanent change” then it looks like two options remain for Tesla: a new battery or a refund.

As mentioned to your service manager last week, we have a cross-country road trip scheduled the end of this month that has been months in the planning, based on a full driving range of 256 miles which was the range we had left after 4 years and 55,000 miles of driving. We now have 224 miles of range and dropping. Our first choice of options given the timeliness of our trip would be to have our battery that is in “poor health” replaced with one in “good health” with the range we purchased. That would need to happen in the new two weeks.

If not, then we request a $10,070 reimbursement for the mileage range we purchased that Tesla removed from our vehicle with the recent firmware update but not from other S85’s.

I am not one who has any interest in arbitration or litigation, so a timely battery replacement or reimbursement is what I ask for. Nonetheless, with a near $100,000 purchase know that I will not hesitate to initiate legal proceedings to underscore the significance of this theft-ware update range loss for me and other “percentage of owners”.

(I will post responses received from Tesla.)

 

[DJRas]

How many miles do you have and what is the current BMS reported usable kWh? Rated range has nothing to do with pack capacity. Did they tell you the rated range calculation changed from 295 to 276? If so, you better go file a formal complaint with the EPA asap...and since your in California, CARB as well.

As reported in my many other posts (my car was also highlighted in the Electrek article):
2014 S 85 manufactured 11/2014
Battery 1014114-00-D serial #T14I0052941
135,879 miles on the odometer
I SuC 2/3 of the time - mostly to 90% drive to 30%
Charged to 100% 3 times in last 12 months (prior to May 15 - 2019.16.11)
Car is located in Southern California since new (so no long cold nights).

Prior to 2019.16.1.1 I was getting 247 rated range.
Now at 2019.20.2.1 I get 217 max rated range.
I CANNOT charge above 97% (at home or SuC) or 210 mile rated range.

My BMS reads 60.3 kWh usable capacity.
90% charge = 4.000 volts.

 

[sorka]

As reported in my many other posts (my car was also highlighted in the Electrek article):
2014 S 85 manufactured 11/2014
Battery 1014114-00-D serial #T14I0052941
135,879 miles on the odometer
I SuC 2/3 of the time - mostly to 90% drive to 30%
Charged to 100% 3 times in last 12 months (prior to May 15 - 2019.16.11)
Car is located in Southern California since new (so no long cold nights).

Prior to 2019.16.1.1 I was getting 247 rated range.
Now at 2019.20.2.1 I get 217 max rated range.
I CANNOT charge above 97% (at home or SuC) or 210 mile rated range.

My BMS reads 60.3 kWh usable capacity.
90% charge = 4.000 volts.

So your current degradation(real plus software induced) is now 22.5%

Your new rated range based on 77.88 kwh and 265 miles is now 205 miles @ a displayed100% if the rated range calculation didn't change.

It appears they really did change the rated range calculation.

Folks, those of you who are effected by this...it's way worse than you previously thought. In addition to lying about the SOC displayed, they are trying to hide much of your software induced degradation by changing the rated range calculation to make the rated range appear higher than it would have previously.

Additionally, many of those here who said they were not effected because they so not drop in rated range may in fact be effected because the decrease in capacity is offset by a boost in rated range due to a lower wh / mile constant.

I'm pretty sure this would not be ok with the EPA or CARB.

Folks need to contact the EPA, CARB, and I'd resend tips to Electrek right away!

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Folks, those of you who are effected by this...it's way worse than you previously thought. In addition to lying about the SOC displayed, they are trying to hide much of your software induced degradation by changing the rated range calculation to make the rated range appear higher than it would have previously.

^^ this. I've been mentioning this casually for over a year since I noticed that I'm unable to hit rated range at anything above ~275 Wh/mi, figured I was just losing my mind. Tesla has changed this number on us, which obviously makes degradation appear less severe than it actually is. It also keeps our range loss above the threshold that triggers a pack replacement. This is major!

Also weird that there are no threads about this at official Tesla Forums. Could Tesla be removing threads relating to this issue? Seems strange nobody over there is discussing it.

 

[tomjonesrocks]

I'm sorry to ask a dumb question - I have a '13 P85 that I'd like to check for this - is the only way to do so to max charge the battery?

 

[sorka]

Blame Elon. The bad communication has been there as long as he has. Ever since taking over sales & service, service has gotten worse. The lame texting/chat and lack of direct human communication is all Elon.


Tesla batteries rebalance at all states of charge. The 93% thing is a myth.


When new, my rated miles appeared to be calculated based on close to 300 Wh/mi. Now, after 6 years and over 90,000 miles, I can only hit rated range if I drive around 270-275 Wh/mi. Tesla has changed this number at some point, or perhaps software changes it slowly over time. Something isn't right here. It's much, much harder to hit rated range the older the car is and the more degradation you've experienced. In fact, when new, I was able to get close to ideal range. Now I can't even hit rated.

I'm still easily able to hit rated range on my P85DL. My total usable capacity has decreased from 77 kWh when nearly new to 74.4 kWh. My lifetime currently sits at 309 vs the 320 rated rated for the P85D. Also on nearly every trip, I'm 3 or 4% higher than the original estimate almost every time.

Also, based on the difference in capacity rather than displayed rated range, I've only lost 8.5 miles vs the displayed rated range saying 11 miles lost.

 

[sorka]

I'm sorry to ask a dumb question - I have a '13 P85 that I'd like to check for this - is the only way to do so to max charge the battery?

Nope, but now it appears the only way to truly check is by reading the BMS on the canbus directly since Tesla is now hiding part of the range reduction via changing rated range calculation.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

I'm still easily able to hit rated range on my P85DL. My total usable capacity has decreased from 77 kWh when nearly new to 74.4 kWh. My lifetime currently sits at 309 vs the 320 rated rated for the P85D. Also on nearly every trip, I'm 3 or 4% higher than the original estimate almost every time.

Also, based on the difference in capacity rather than displayed rated range, I've only lost 8.5 miles vs the displayed rated range saying 11 miles lost.

I can hit rated range, it's just a lot more difficult. To do so, I cannot consume more than 275 Wh/mi. Six years ago, I could hit rated by consuming much closer to 300 Wh/mi. I have a RWD model, so pushing consumption into the 270s requires a very light foot and lots of coasting.

 

[sorka]

@DJRas , your battery has already fallen outside the 10% window they specified. If they told you 231 miles minus 10% or more then they'd replace your battery. Your battery is now 11.3% less than their claimed 231 mile fleet average(using the the original wh / mile constant of course).

 

[sorka]

I can hit rated range, it's just a lot more difficult. To do so, I cannot consume more than 275 Wh/mi. Six years ago, I could hit rated by consuming much closer to 300 Wh/mi. I have a RWD model, so pushing consumption into the 270s requires a very light foot and lots of coasting.

Interesting, and in my case It's the same or slightly easier than it used to be. The other interesting thing is that when factoring in time of year/temperature/etc, my ending SOC arriving at work 130 miles away is still exactly what it used to be when new. I leave with 90% and typically arrive with 35%.

 

[sorka]

FYI, fleet wide average is 92% @ 135K miles. Your degradation is 22.57%.

My degradation is 6.1% @93 K miles which as you can puts me exactly on the red line....but then I'm still on v8.

 

[camthehombre]

When new, my rated miles appeared to be calculated based on close to 300 Wh/mi. Now, after 6 years and over 90,000 miles, I can only hit rated range if I drive around 270-275 Wh/mi. Tesla has changed this number at some point, or perhaps software changes it slowly over time. Something isn't right here. It's much, much harder to hit rated range the older the car is and the more degradation you've experienced. In fact, when new, I was able to get close to ideal range. Now I can't even hit rated.

Interesting that you mention that. I'm creeping up on 122k miles and I can ONLY hit the rated range if I am at 250-265 wh/mi. Yes, this is in a straight shot, drive. Luckily I can hit that if I set cruise control, but if I'm at 295-300 wh/mi, (or even 275), my miles goes down faster than I travel said distance.

I should mention, I'm not having any issues with my battery range dropping lately. Still says full charge is 249 miles, and can charge to 100%.

 

[Chaserr]

I should mention, I'm not having any issues with my battery range dropping lately. Still says full charge is 249 miles, and can charge to 100%.

If they're messing around with EPA ratings to give falsified watt hours / mile calculations they can hide any amount of degradation they want. They can reduce your capacity to 10% "for longevity" so you only get 20 real miles, but change the watt hours so your car shows more rated miles range than it ever had when new. It's dishonest and potentially illegal if the EPA investigates, but they might be subtlely doing it according to the last few posts. I'll check my driving and see what it shows.

 

[camthehombre]

If they're messing around with EPA ratings to give falsified watt hours / mile calculations they can hide any amount of degradation they want. They can reduce your capacity to 10% "for longevity" so you only get 20 real miles, but change the watt hours so your car shows more rated miles range than it ever had when new. It's dishonest and potentially illegal if the EPA investigates, but they might be subtlely doing it according to the last few posts. I'll check my driving and see what it shows.

I'm trying to remember if it's worse now than it was when I got the car 1.5 years and 34k miles ago. I recently noticed it on a trip from home to see my sister and back. I drove something like 101 miles, used 99 miles of range with a 2 minute stop at her house, and averaged about 245 wh/mi. I just remember looking down and thinking "I've used about 20% less energy per mile than the car is rated for, and I still *barely* managed to beat the rated range used." I should have only used about 80 miles of range.

 

[sorka]

Interesting that you mention that. I'm creeping up on 122k miles and I can ONLY hit the rated range if I am at 250-265 wh/mi. Yes, this is in a straight shot, drive. Luckily I can hit that if I set cruise control, but if I'm at 295-300 wh/mi, (or even 275), my miles goes down faster than I travel said distance.

I should mention, I'm not having any issues with my battery range dropping lately. Still says full charge is 249 miles, and can charge to 100%.

What does the BMS report your usable kWh capacity is?

 

[camthehombre]

What does the BMS report your usable kWh capacity is?

I don't have access to that. Would it be accurate if I got my car down to 0% (until it shuts down) and then charge to 100% and see how much energy is added? Not sure how accurate that would be, but I'm for sure willing to try it if it could get the info needed.

 

[Gixx1300R]

After my visit with the Service Manager in Rocklin, CA last week he contacted an associate in engineering and sent me the following today:

I spoke to the engineering department for the past week and this is the response that I have received :

“The battery health is good, firmware is adjusting it for ageing cells to increase pack longevity. As part of our recent revision of the charge and thermal management settings on Model S and Model X vehicles to protect the battery and improve battery longevity, a percentage of owners who own older vehicles may notice a slight reduction in range when charging to a maximum state of charge. The drop in charge is not expected to continue and should stabilize quickly.”

“This change is the result of the updated charging profile as well as increased cooling, which helps improve the overall health of the battery.”

The engineer stated that there will be no further reductions to the charging of the vehicle however, this shift is a permanent change.


MY RESPONSE
I then responded with the following, and will post Tesla's response when received:

"Thanks Chris,

I will be sharing this response with the Teslamotorclub among other, and perhaps you can share my response below with engineering:

Tesla Engineering:

Let me begin by quoting the reaction received when I reported my range loss to Chris Elder, your Associate Service Manger in Rocklin. His initial response was “a 30-mile range loss is huge”. It makes the difference for me having to now stop and charge every time I visit family members, where before the update I could travel roundtrip without a charge stop.

That “slight reduction in range” is the difference between a Model S70 and a Model S85. I specifically paid a $10,070 upgrade for the extra 30 mile range which has now been removed.

If my battery is in “good health” then there should be no reason to make any adjustments. However, if some of Tesla’s “older vehicles” require a reduction in range for “thermal management” and others do not, then those batteries that are receiving the battery range reduction must not be in good health, or Tesla wouldn’t be limiting the ability to fully charge. As such, under warranty, I request a battery replacement to receive the same driving range as other Model S85 owners who haven’t had the range reduced on their vehicles.

When I brought the car in for service last week I suggested 3 options: Software adjustments to return the 30 miles of range removed by the update; replace the battery with one that provides the range I purchased; or refund the $10,070 I paid for the extra 30 miles that were removed. If the “shift is a permanent change” then it looks like two options remain for Tesla: a new battery or a refund.

As mentioned to your service manager last week, we have a cross-country road trip scheduled the end of this month that has been months in the planning, based on a full driving range of 256 miles which was the range we had left after 4 years and 55,000 miles of driving. We now have 224 miles of range and dropping. Our first choice of options given the timeliness of our trip would be to have our battery that is in “poor health” replaced with one in “good health” with the range we purchased. That would need to happen in the new two weeks.

If not, then we request a $10,070 reimbursement for the mileage range we purchased that Tesla removed from our vehicle with the recent firmware update but not from other S85’s.

I am not one who has any interest in arbitration or litigation, so a timely battery replacement or reimbursement is what I ask for. Nonetheless, with a near $100,000 purchase know that I will not hesitate to initiate legal proceedings to underscore the significance of this theft-ware update range loss for me and other “percentage of owners”.

(I will post responses received from Tesla.)

Please keep us informed with the response from Tesla