-
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
More likely to cut costs, that seems to be the priority now, and help congestion a little.
FredTMC
Model S VIN #4925
Omg. I’m sorry. That’s horrible. I wonder why my car wasn’t affected.
Early early car
Here's the thing:
That would account for a 2.4% drop in range ((4.2-4.1) / 4.2). Which some of us have experienced -- after a few charging cycles, I seem to have experienced this. This is about a 5-6 mile range drop.
This does not account for the *serious* drop in range which many people have experienced.
The question is whether this is caused by positive effect on dendrite growth, or because most user of superchargers charge only to a lower SOC and the battery is immediately after charging.
Tesloop had supercharged its first Tesla always to 100 % and got a battery replacement at 200,000 miles.
This is far from enough to warm the battery to best superchargering temperature around 100 F.
Ferrycraigs
Member
The 2.4% figure would be correct if Vmin was 0.0V, but it’s not. My research has shown that Vnom is 3.66V and Vmax (when the car registers as 100% full) is 4.2V. I have not been able to establish what Vmin (when the car registers as 0% or empty) is. But if Vnom is 3.66, then Vmin is more likely to be around the 3.0V mark. If so, a 0.1V drop from 4.2V is much larger in % terms.
The voltage curve is far from linear. At 4.1V you're close to 80% SoC:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure...cell-versus-State-of-Charge-28_fig5_289994303
I'm so glad you have joined this discussion. Excellent posts!
1) From what I recall being reported here, not even one impacted owner has been told by tesla the battery needs to be replaced. I take that Tesla sees all those reported batteries indeed "safe". If Tesla is to be believed, well, that's pretty comforting. (So, I ask, why then 30 miles of range has been taken away from me overnight? See#2)
2) At the same time, Tesla has stated that the goal of the infamous update was to “protect the battery and improve battery longevity” and the range loss has affected only “a small percentage of owners”
- “protect the battery and improve battery longevity”: I see this as warranty replacement deflection (Even though who would argue their batteries should not be protected and should not age long!!!). What if some owners do not want to improve battery longevity but to keep the range? They never asked for it to begin with. To “protect the battery" from what? From driving with the "windows down" as Tesla tech support keep mentioning? Explain why these batteries need more protection beyond what BMS has been doing in the past? What's unique about this "small percentage" that has required extra protection?
- “a small percentage of owners”: Explain what that means, what's the percentage? Percentage of which total? All this needs to be communicated with this "small percentage of owners”.
BTW, #2 debunks the "software bug" myth. Tesla has already said it was intentional. Should we believe Tesla or not?
Imagine this:
You're hunting for X, but you unintentionally find something new: Z. Now let's assume you know X and it's actually a really bad thing that can make the battery catch fire randomly. You really wanna keep an eye out for it. You will have to *add* even more code to make sure you can differentiate between X and Z and lessen the impact of Z onto the BMS parameters.
Would you want to roll back the update hunting for X? What would people say if somebody died in a house fire because of an issue that they could have detected but rolled back the detection software so "a few" customers get their original range back.
I'd rather give those affected a loaner and try to sort it out correctly, even if it takes some time and will make some customers unhappy.
You're hunting for X, but you unintentionally find something new: Z. Now let's assume you know X and it's actually a really bad thing that can make the battery catch fire randomly. You really wanna keep an eye out for it. You will have to *add* even more code to make sure you can differentiate between X and Z and lessen the impact of Z onto the BMS parameters.
Would you want to roll back the update hunting for X? What would people say if somebody died in a house fire because of an issue that they could have detected but rolled back the detection software so "a few" customers get their original range back.
I'd rather give those affected a loaner and try to sort it out correctly, even if it takes some time and will make some customers unhappy.
No, I want a safe battery with no fire. Tesla has already told me my battery is safe. Good.
Then what about the 30 miles range loss? Tesla is telling me is to protect and prolong. For how long it's protected/prolonged? Till warranty expires?
This is a very touchy topic.
Okay, quick newby question for those in the know. My 70D with 58,000miles from 1/2016 has a 100% of 186 miles left after the update, yay. Supercharging at best in the 70‘s and takes 30 to 40% longer. Phantom drain 4% a day.
I‘m currently overseas for another 5 weeks with the Tesla sitting in the garage at 50%, so if the electricity fails my baby will flatline in 13 days. Is it a problem to store a Model S and have it run out of juice for a few weeks? How paranoid should I be?
I truly hope I come back home to some fresh software and my 300+miles range restored...
I‘m currently overseas for another 5 weeks with the Tesla sitting in the garage at 50%, so if the electricity fails my baby will flatline in 13 days. Is it a problem to store a Model S and have it run out of juice for a few weeks? How paranoid should I be?
I truly hope I come back home to some fresh software and my 300+miles range restored...
My guess: your car was falsely diagnosed with X, so the BMS blocked the upper 30 miles, even though you have Z. A fix for misdiagnosing Z will come asap, which in this case might take a few more weeks, since you don't just slap new code on a fleet of vehicles without thorough testing.
I don't think the protect/prolong thing applies to your specific case, since it's misdiagnosing. They might have also changed loads of other stuff that we didn't notice, because that's what I'd imagine they'd aim for.
Last edited:
Perhaps that would be the best for the owners with the problem. Tesla had enough time to explain what is the problem and how they will solve it.
I’m very happy my P85D has not the problem up to now ... but nobody knows what may happen the next time
I hope you are right on that.
"thorough testing" from Tesla?
I don't think my case is that specific based on what I've seen, it's pretty similar to others with the same degree of loss. But even if it is, is it possible for a manufacturer to drag the warranty period to its expiration date by prescribing painkillers in meantime? I believe so. It's in their best interest, but not mine. Furthermore, I've not read anywhere that the software updates are forever. What does an owner with no painkiller who is also out of warranty, the same warranty which would have resulted in no need for the painkillers if it would had applied earlier, would do? (Perspective: my car is 4 years old with only 43K miles, with the projection of much less than the double amount in 8 years)
Again, a touchy topic.
Similar threads
