Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[u1e85d5]

Have you considered, that maybe their internal tools still scale the percentage display to 4.2V i.e. the original 100%?
Maybe when you complain and they check your car, they see the original percentage and the shown range and everything looks perfectly normal. For you on the other hand maybe 4.1V or so is the new 100%, so you perceive a range loss, when there is actually a virtual range limitation done by the software.

This would probably make them think, you're actually talking about the estimated range from the energy monitor and lead to them explaining to you, that it changes based on driving habits and so on. Likely they get a lot of those support requests from users that don't understand that display every day.

By the way, to those saying the "sudden range loss" should trigger the warranty... imho it's not that the capacity is actually lost, it's limited. (At least as far as I understand wks07). So yes, complain about that limitation, complain about Teslas communication or lack thereof - but battery warranty? I think that won't show a lot of success. Just my 2 cents.

As long as you don't actually need the full 100% I think you can just charge to roughly 90 instead of 80, 100 instead of 90 and use the car as before.

In the end I see the whole thing positive: Tesla found a new issue "Z" that apparently isn't so bad. More information means safer batteries and maybe even better batteries in the future.

 

[MP3Mike]

I also reported to them that at least one Tesla owner affected with the range loss has filed an NCDS claim, which has been accepted, indicating their viewing this issue as arbitration worthy.

I'm pretty sure that NCDS accepting your claim only means that they accept that you have a Tesla under warranty that is eligible for NCDS arbitration and that you have supplied the necessary information. I doubt they do any determination on your specific claim at that point. (Unless it is obviously something not covered, like trying to get your car repaired under warranty after a tree fell on it.)

 

[bmah]

Since my last post, I've gathered quite a bit of electronic and physical data on this issue. At this point, I'm reasonably certain of the details at this point, but I don't think going into detail here is going to help anything at this moment. I'd also like to gather additional physical datapoints, and give Tesla some room on this for now. So, apologies for being a little vague here for now.

I just wanted to say thanks for sharing your investigations in this area, and I really appreciate that you took the effort to distinguish between facts you have found out versus your opinions / conjectures.

Bruce.

 

[mjmiron]

I am hopeful I get some resolution from my efforts I am still waiting for my local service center to get back to me after asking to file a battery claim. I have also filed a complaint as I stated earlier with my attorney general. It’s important Tesla knows about our dissatisfaction to force there hand to do what is right whatever the real cause was

 

[bhzmark]

Why would you think the Model S&X should have a better degradation warranty than the Model 3, when the warranty specifically says it is not covered at all?

The warranty is merely silent on the % degradation that isn't covered for S and X. It doesn't "specifically say" that no degradation is covered at all for S and X.

What it does say that applies to S and X is "Loss of Battery energy or power over time or due to or resulting from Battery usage is NOT covered" I would argue that that phrase should be interpreted in light of the Model 3 70% and that would be a basis for a bare minimum for the S and X as well. I agree there is no legal warranty provision to point to argue for the 80%. shrug -- i suppose it is just worth asking.

 

[Guy V]

This change has not only reduced my usable mileage and increased charging time. But it is actually costing me money because I can no longer drive with a buffer. I travel all over the state and sometimes I need the extra range, especially in winter which is coming up quickly. I don't have a dollar amount but I can tell you Tesla needs to communicate some fix asap. That is why I started the process of trying to file a battery claim through the local service center, as well as contacting my state's attorney general. The level of customer service and priority for early adopters should be a top priority for Tesla. I am on my second one and truthfully if they don't take care of this I will be selling my car which I dearly love. I have had 5 bmw's, Hondas, you name it I most likely drove it. It's unacceptable to pay so much for a car without getting answers this is wrong no matter the reason or mistake. I may just trade it in for a Rivian, Nio, or some other electric car for that matter I have almost lost my trust in Tesla. And we are not even touching on if you get in an accident or try and order parts, or set a service appt. Look at Audi and Jaguar they both placed recalls due to issues with batteries. Wake the hell up Elon and take care of your customers!

Maybe you should trade if for one of those EVs with a longer, better track record than Tesla, OH...

 

[CuriousG]

The fact that this isn't a raging topic over at the Tesla Motors forum, combined with the fact that so far nobody in my local Tesla facebook group (1,400 members) has mentioned anything about this, tells me the impacts are extremely isolated and affect just a small fraction of owners.

Without evidence to the contrary, it would appear Tesla is doing exactly this. The discussion has now hit my FB group with over 1,400 Tesla owner members. Out of 20 who responded to our survey, 5 indicated range loss immediately following installation of 2019.16.x. It would be in Tesla's best interest to get on top of this issue before it spirals out of control.

And that's what we call a complete 180; albeit small sample size.

 

[Matias]

Hopefully that's less ambiguous, and also still ambiguous.

So it is Aladeen News?

 

[mjmiron]

Maybe you should trade if for one of those EVs with a longer, better track record than Tesla, OH...

Too bad there is not one I probably would.

 

[Julienx2k2]

The EPA number of 295 is including losses from the charger when going from AC to DC. i.e. they calculate your utility will bill you. Each car has an internal value for the rated multiplier. For example, on my 85D, this is what the car uses.

VAPI_ratedWattHourPerMile,290.000 --> i.e. 290wh/mile.

This is the value used by the car to measure the rated range. Each model is different. 75Ds have better effeciency so consume less. P85D are worst.. and so on.

Another internal value is the "nominal full pack remaining).

BMS_nominalFullPackEnergyRemaining,77.100 --> 77.1kWh usable (down from around 78 when it was new).

When charging to 100%, my car shows 265 miles (lost a bit since new.. I'm over 60K miles)... exactly 77.1kWh at 290wh/mi. It shows 239 miles at 90%... exactly 90% of 77.1 @ 290wh/mi.

The EPA rated this car as 34kWh/100 miles.. aka, 340wh/mi .

As you can see, the EPA number (in energy) is not a 100% match to what you'll see if you match the energy graph.

The "rated" miles on your dash is simply the BMS calculation of the energy remaining in kWh divided by the hardcoded wh/mile value of your model. The consumption never changes, it'll ALWAYS be 290 for my car... but as the pack degrades, the energy remaining will go down so will the rated range.

Agree that when I charge (and on the energy app) the constant used is 200 wh/km, but when driving it is 189 wh/km. The former should be disregarded IMO, the latter used to back-calculate the useable battery capacity. These constants are for a P85+ 2013 model. Note that I do not have any means to read the CANBUS data as of yet, so if anybody can confirm/infirm pls do so)

When charging the dash always seems to give the correct amount of "typical km" added to the battery. That is, it is exactly the difference between what the display (ie the BMS, translating useable capacity from kWh to km) says I have in the end vs what it said in the beginning.
But the "kWh added" during and at the end of the charge are way too large to be what is stored in the battery, and must account for some sort of typical loss. Which loss remains to be determined. Anyway, this constant multiplier is always 200 wh/km for me.
It is also the same constant displayed on the dash and in the app when charging, used to convert kW (kWh/hr, really) into km/hr. Whatever the % SOC, this constant remains the same.

Note that this 200 wh/km is also what is displayed in the energy app as "typical".

When driving one can calculate the other constant by using the formula cst = kWh used/typical km used.

As others have shown elsewhere (Bjørn Nyland I think had videos of that), the "kWh used" figure does not include some losses during discharge, and the faster you drive the higher the losses. Additional underestimation may also arise from the starting/ending SOC, temperature etc. Over all I guess if one accumulates enough data to plot a meaningfull graph, it is possible to show that the true constant is 189 wh/km. Thats the one I believe is used by the software to go from "kWh capacity estimate" reported by the BMS, to the "typical km" estimate shown on the screens.

Thats how I estimate my battery to have a useable capacity of 367×0.189 = 69.4 kWh.
The 367 typical km figure is read by normalization to 100% at any SOC (I observe very little estimation error throughout the whole 0 to 100% SOC range, always land very close to 367km, so there may not be any need to charge to 100% to get a reliable estimate) (note that the 367 km value also assumes the BMS is correctly calibrated, so that 0 km displayed is really 0 km useable left, ie only brick protection of 4 kWh left. If anything the BMS underestimates the available capacity, I believe).

 

[Gixx1300R]

The warranty is merely silent on the % degradation that isn't covered for S and X. It doesn't "specifically say" that no degradation is covered at all for S and X.

What it does say that applies to S and X is "Loss of Battery energy or power over time or due to or resulting from Battery usage is NOT covered" I would argue that that phrase should be interpreted in light of the Model 3 70% and that would be a basis for a bare minimum for the S and X as well. I agree there is no legal warranty provision to point to argue for the 80%. shrug -- i suppose it is just worth asking.

"Loss of Battery energy or power over time or due to or resulting from Battery usage is NOT covered" does not apply. The key words are "over time", the energy loss was instantaneous due to the software update.

 

[DJRas]

Maybe you should trade if for one of those EVs with a longer, better track record than Tesla, OH...

Since I have owned my Tesla 4 other people that i wok with have bought Teslas (3 M3 and one CPO S85). Since this problem and my discussions with coworkers about my loss of range and lack of information or support from Tesla another coworker canceled a M3 order and bought a Kia Niro with 283 mile rated range. He is quite happy.
THIS is hurting Tesla's track record

OH!!!

 

[eggy]

I just wanted to say thanks for sharing your investigations in this area, and I really appreciate that you took the effort to distinguish between facts you have found out versus your opinions / conjectures.

Bruce.

+1

 

[Droschke]

a Kia eTron with 283 mile rated range.

I'm sure you mean Kia Niro.

 

[trayloader]

"Loss of Battery energy or power over time or due to or resulting from Battery usage is NOT covered" does not apply. The key words are "over time", the energy loss was instantaneous due to the software update.

Just how often do You want to repeat this over and over. It´s getting boring. WE DO KNOW that You are affected.
Take a lawyer and don´t vent here, same goes for the other Germans here. We need substantial facts like Wk, Bhzmark, even EGN from Germany presents here.

thank You.

 

[Droschke]

To @trayloader:

@Gixx1300R said this:

"Loss of Battery energy or power over time or due to or resulting from Battery usage is NOT covered" does not apply. The key words are "over time", the energy loss was instantaneous due to the software update.

You replied and with this:

Just how often do You want to repeat this over and over. It´s getting boring. WE DO KNOW that You are affected.
Take a lawyer and don´t vent here, same goes for the other Germans here. We need substantial facts like Wk, Bhzmark, even EGN from Germany presents here.

@Gixx1300R is not breaking any forum rules and you sir, with all due respect, are not the forum moderator. If you dislike a post mark it so. If a poster's comment is boring to you, ignore the posts. Simple.

Also, @IngTH has made lots of helpful comments to this thread. He said this earlier, for an example:

It seems that Tesla has now integrated DVA in the BMS software in order to dectect higher plating levels for all models with pure graphite anodes?

This measurement is done on first miles after a SuC DC charge. The restrictions will be done in steps until DVA can't detect any irregular plateau level anymore.

Just my 50 cents...

You, @trayloader, jumped in and made this comment:

Trouble maker from Germany now posting here?

Attacking other posters as such is not cool. Putting them in categories by their nationalities is even worse.

 

[trayloader]

Sorry, but the same three guys who created this "campaign" in Germany are now trying the same over here. It´s easy to see through.

 

[Droschke]

Sorry, but the same three guys who created this "campaign" in Germany are now trying the same over here. It´s easy to see through.

Who are the three guys? @Gixx1300R is in Orlando (Flarida).

What's the "campaign"?

You disagree with the issue discussed per this topic here?

 

[Droschke]

Not at all.
Since You hide Your profile the German subtone seems inevitable.

Constant whining brings us nowhere.

What's the essence of what I've said to you have anything to do with my non-German profile?

 

[Zextraterrestrial]

wtf??

just PM each other