Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[Droschke]

the Tesla sitting in the garage at 50%,

Not plugged in?

On Edit: I'm also away for an extended time. The charge limit bar @50%, but plugged in. Also, received a sw update notification on my phone a bit more than a week ago but chose not to go ahead with it until I'm back home.

 

[PaulusdB]

Tesla is walking on a very thin ice. It takes one mainstream journalist to make a story about this ant sh*t hits the fan.

Really nefarious writers would time such 'news' for maximum impact.
E.g. thursday morning.

 

[DJRas]

Tesla is walking on a very thin ice. It takes one mainstream journalist to make a story about this ant sh*t hits the fan.

I have been contacted by Reuters' Transportation Correspondent
More to follow soon I hope.

 

[DJRas]

My guess:... since you don't just slap new code on a fleet of vehicles without thorough testing.

Clrearly... not thorough enough testing was done before this release.
I have been in the embedded software business for 40 years. If I released something that had this serious of an adverse unexpected effect I would Immediately release a revision that backs out that change.
IF this was to protect from fires then Telsa MUST stop insisting that is not related to fires. AND have an independent 3rd party verify the "fix" is safe and effective.
As has been stated... Li plating is non-reversible. Dendrite formation MAY be reversible, but limiting charging current does not help that.
So, if the damage is already done to MY battery and it is in danger of bursting into flames while parked and not charging (both Hong Kong and Shanghai) then I need something directly to me from Tesla stating it is now safe and why it is now safe and what I did that their BMS didn't already protect from.
What was the SoC of the csrs that buned up?
What charging had they done prior to the fires?
Etc, etc, etc.

 

[DJRas]

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.

My condition Z battery at 2% Usable (8.1% nominal) State of charge had 3.169 avg cell voltage.

 

[u1e85d5]

The detection of condition Z was not a software bug, but an unknown physical condition according to my understanding wk057s post. You cannot test for what you don't know.

And by the way, most of lithium plating is reversible, depending on conditions and reactions of plated lithium with the electrolyte, which is non-reversible.

 

[Droschke]

The detection of condition Z was not a software bug

Correct. Except the post#1852 has misleadingly claimed it as such

You cannot test for what you don't know.

I was mainly referring to the poor quality of the Tesla updates in recent years. They do not have a stellar record on thorough testing.

 

[ChadFeldheimer]

The detection of condition Z was not a software bug, but an unknown physical condition according to my understanding wk057s post. You cannot test for what you don't know.

Actually, I think this is relatively straightforward for Tesla. First, release software that searches for condition Z and then reports the result home. Once you have sampled the population size of affected vehicles, then you release new software to take action upon those vehicles as appropriate.

But perhaps Tesla decided it was prudent to bypass this test - for example, say condition Z poses an imminent threat to life and property.

What's a little strange to me is that Tesla also reportedly believed condition Z was so rare that it may not even exist in the population. But in that case, why bother quietly reducing max-V / battery capacity? Why not simply issue a dashboard warning to ask the customer to bring their car in for service / battery replacement?

 

[u1e85d5]

o

I was mainly referring to the poor quality of the Tesla updates in recent years. They do not have a stellar record on thorough testing.

My reply was more aimed at DJRas than at you. Their software often has bugs and sometimes crashes. For example, when I lose 3G connectivity, which happens often around my area, all bets are off.

It is important though to note that I was always able to break, steer, drive, charge, all while having the car NOT go up in flames. There are different computers in the car, some of them running different software systems. Some of them are apparently very well tested, while others like the browser are tested less.

But perhaps Tesla decided it was prudent to bypass this test - for example, say condition Z poses an imminent threat to life and property.

What's a little strange to me is that Tesla also reportedly believed condition Z was so rare that it may not even exist in the population. But in that case, why bother quietly reducing max-V / battery capacity? Why not simply issue a dashboard warning to ask the customer to bring their car in for service / battery replacement?

You're confusing condition Z (benign) with condition X (worrying).
Why no message in the dashboard? Very good question!

Two ideas:
- maybe one needs to observe the behavior of the cell for a while to make sure it actually is condition X?
- maybe it's not a binary issue (yes or no) but something scalar. Strong condition X would only necessitate a tiny reduction of V_max, but since condition Z looks like super-X it lead to a reduction orders of magnitude stronger than expected with condition X.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

Absolutely with a loaner battery.

I have also been told my battery is healthy, indeed they said it is above average. So whilst I agree the point that reversing the code and risking a fire would be a bad thing, I think it falls to how likely is the fire. if they have said the battery is healthy, and they have not found any Dendrites (that cause the fire) then it’s a judgement call as to which is better; my battery without the restriction, or a replacement battery (even a temporary battery). Actually I would be happy with either option. I just want this period of reduced ability to now end. Two months is too long.

 

[Droschke]

Actually, I think this is relatively straightforward for Tesla. First, release software that searches for condition Z and then reports the result home. Once you have sampled the population size of affected vehicles, then you release new software to take action upon those vehicles as appropriate.

Thanks for mentioning this. I strongly believe they did this 2-stage process at least for my car. The first stage was 2019.16.1 and the next one was 2019.16.2 update, which happened shortly after.

I'll be happy to elaborate if anyone is interested.

 

[u1e85d5]

I have also been told my battery is healthy, indeed they said it is above average. So whilst I agree the point that reversing the code and risking a fire would be a bad thing, I think it falls to how likely is the fire. if they have said the battery is healthy, and they have not found any Dendrites (that cause the fire) then it’s a judgement call as to which is better; my battery without the restriction, or a replacement battery (even a temporary battery). Actually I would be happy with either option. I just want this period of reduced ability to now end. Two months is too long.

It sounds to me like some people in this thread are assuming that Tesla can easily flip a switch to switch around your voltage. It's probably not quite as simple. Also their internal communication is probably similarily bad as their external one, so if somebody at the SeC tells you, your battery is fine, they might not be fully informed as to the current situation.

 

[DJRas]

o

My reply was more aimed at DJRas than at you. Their software often has bugs and sometimes crashes. For example, when I lose 3G connectivity, which happens often around my area, all bets are off.

It is important though to note that I was always able to break, steer, drive, charge, all while having the car NOT go up in flames. There are different computers in the car, some of them running different software systems. Some of them are apparently very well tested, while others like the browser are tested less.



You're confusing condition Z (benign) with condition X (worrying).
Why no message in the dashboard? Very good question!

Two ideas:
- maybe one needs to observe the behavior of the cell for a while to make sure it actually is condition X?
- maybe it's not a binary issue (yes or no) but something scalar. Strong condition X would only necessitate a tiny reduction of V_max, but since condition Z looks like super-X it lead to a reduction orders of magnitude stronger than expected with condition X.

Just how much longer do they need to look?
It has been more than 2 months and 3 updates since they nerfed my battery.

 

[Guy V]

It sounds to me like some people in this thread are assuming that Tesla can easily flip a switch to switch around your voltage. It's probably not quite as simple. Also their internal communication is probably similarily bad as their external one, so if somebody at the SeC tells you, your battery is fine, they might not be fully informed as to the current situation.

Oh, I'm pretty sure they CAN, though I doubt even Tesla would jump in with something quite so quick and dirty ...maybe.

 

[DJRas]

Thanks for mentioning this. I strongly believe they did this 2-stage process at least for my car. The first stage was 2019.16.1 and the next one was 2019.16.2 update, which happened shortly after.

I'll be happy to elaborate if anyone is interested.

I agree completely
See sttached... the knee in the final cliff is 2019.16.2 release

 

[Ferrycraigs]

It sounds to me like some people in this thread are assuming that Tesla can easily flip a switch to switch around your voltage. It's probably not quite as simple. Also their internal communication is probably similarily bad as their external one, so if somebody at the SeC tells you, your battery is fine, they might not be fully informed as to the current situation.

I certainly agree that the internal communication falls well short of adequate.

I also read, on here (yes I know it’s a huge thread) that battery restrictions certainly can be reversed, almost just like that. The post was actually someone that had had restrictions placed on their car, their battery was replaced, the restrictions were still in place, and they were subsequently removed, I think remotely, or at least at a Service Centre. But the point being, it was done locally and didn’t need to wait for a fleet wide update. I accept they at be different sorts of codes etc, but at least it gives (me) hope.

 

[Me2]

I also recently had my 2013/110k km battery replaced with a software limited reman battery (85kWh F). After (a lot of) complaining the local SC reversed the limitation , restoring full capacity, but still limited SuC rate.

 

[lightningltd]

This is far from enough to warm the battery to best superchargering temperature around 100 F.

The average low temperature in the mornings here are in the 50's... Not very cold for it to warm up to.

 

[GHammer]

The average low temperature in the mornings here are in the 50's... Not very cold for it to warm up to.

You'd be surprised, I get temperature limited when I've parked for a couple of hours in the 60's next to San Francisco bay.

 

[faughtz]

I also recently had my 2013/110k km battery replaced with a software limited reman battery (85kWh F). After (a lot of) complaining the local SC reversed the limitation , restoring full capacity, but still limited SuC rate.

What was the software limited battery capacity, and how was that determined?