Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[lightningltd]

@lightningltd Don't you think you should share the safety issue you found with people here so that they are aware and can deal with it? (Possibly getting more people to report it to speed up Tesla's response.)

While supercharging, or even in the car with it off, I hit the Tesla T, select Arcade.
Immediately, power steering starts working, and I was able to take it out of park. Display says parking brake is not engaged. If passive entry is off, it will switch back to park with the parking brake not applied. Power steering, etc stays on until you exit the arcade
Needless to say, not a behavior that would be safe, especially if a child goes to play the games.

 

[lightningltd]

So, you say you are 11 miles degraded.
Does that mean your full rated range is 254 (down from 265)?
If so, then you are actually degraded by more because of their change to 276 Wh/mi.
The 265 was based on 295 Wh/mi (78.1 kWh usable)
Your displayed 254 is at 276 Wh/mi (70.1 kWh usable)
So 70.1 kWh / 295 Wh/mi = 237 miles using the same rating method.
265-238 = 27 miles actual degradation (10%)

THIS is why we need to talk about capacity in kWh AND max charge voltage.

Now I am confused. With a 2013 S85 should I be using 295 or 276??? I did not think they could modify EPA ratings

 

[sorka]

My Monroney, 2014 P85D, shows 242.

Interesting, my sticker shows 253 which is what I got when it was new with range mode on. With range mode off, it was 252.

Did your P85D come with 21" wheels? If so, then they factored in the 4% less range. The P85D was never re-rated by the EPA so the numbers never changed.

Despite the claimed lower efficiency of the 21" wheels, when I swap mine on which I bought about a year after getting the car, my wh / mile average stayed the same long term and on commute trips to work so despite the claim that it was less efficient, I think that only holds true for staggered setup which has the wider rear wheels. My 21" wheels are the square all the way around.

Also, when you change wheels to reset the sensors, you have to select the wheel size but doing so makes no difference in range calculation. Additionally, the actual diameter of the 19" tire vs the 21" tire is no different than 1 mm so I'm still not quite sure why you need to select the wheel size itself.

 

[DJRas]

Now I am confused. With a 2013 S85 should I be using 295 or 276??? I did not think they could modify EPA ratings

Well... The actual EPA rating said 38kWh/100 miles (380Wh/mi)
The 295Wh/mi was used to calibrate their full usable pack (78.1kWh) and 265 mil EPA range

So, they aren't changing the EPA Wh/mi rating... just how the kWh remaining capacity is displayed to the user. This is probably the escape clause Tesla uses.

 

[lightningltd]

Very interesting, you confirm that the new 'wanted' StateOfCharge is 'simply' lower and not based on a calculation (like DifferentialVoltageAnalysis during charging) .

But (being Danish and un-familiar with US laws) your comment: 'I have history going back almost 4 yrs and 50k miles showing my 90% has remained at 219 +/- a mile or two. ' does not really argue for a problem less a lawsuit? Problem is that that your documentation seems based on a calculated value and not a concrete range.

Tesla warranty terms stated that gradual loss of Li-Ion caåpacity is to be expected.

I am suggesting that the old algorithm falsely concluded a too high range. (and we have all been pleased that the calculated range showed that we all had less degradation than anybody expected:for the last 3 years-))

If Tesla suddenly realized that their 'Remaining Capacity Calculator' is wrong (or worse cause a risk), then of course, they need to reduce the estimate to the 'real' value. This means you will not run out of juice unexpectedly and you will not increase risks.

Its not the range indicator that was changed. They the reduced usable capacity of the pack itself. The range loss is a symptom of the removal (lock out).

 

[DJRas]

Its not the range indicator that was changed. They the reduced usable capacity of the pack itself. The range loss is a symptom of the removal (lock out).

They did BOTH... but not at the same time.
I just haven't pinpointed when the 276 Wh/mi was introduced (for S 85 RWD cars).

 

[jensk2]

So the thread where I got slammed with something like 15 disagrees when I said you wouldn't damage your battery by running it down to 5%(which is really like 13% when you include the buffer) as long as non of the cells were exposed to reverse polarity were all wrong and I was right after all

But more seriously, are you saying based on that research it's actually good to store the battery at a really low SOC for extended periods of time? Very interesting if true.

Yes, but Take care! Running down to 5% is not the same as resting at 9%! Your 'case' is more like cycling at P5 == 9%. f you look at the P5 graph, it degrades MORE than P2, P3 and P4, that cyclies around 65%, 45% and 19%.

As well, in real life you cycle far more than 6 or 12 percent. This paper/test presumably was designed to show what happens at different SoC.

But this paper - in isolation - definetely does not argue against storing at a very low SoC. This very well matches Jeff Dahns comment in the All-over-the-internet-video, that a Li-Ion cell stored at 20% SoC and at low temperature lasts forever.

 

[faughtz]

Interesting, my sticker shows 253 which is what I got when it was new with range mode on. With range mode off, it was 252.

Did your P85D come with 21" wheels? If so, then they factored in the 4% less range. The P85D was never re-rated by the EPA so the numbers never changed.

Despite the claimed lower efficiency of the 21" wheels, when I swap mine on which I bought about a year after getting the car, my wh / mile average stayed the same long term and on commute trips to work so despite the claim that it was less efficient, I think that only holds true for staggered setup which has the wider rear wheels. My 21" wheels are the square all the way around.

Also, when you change wheels to reset the sensors, you have to select the wheel size but doing so makes no difference in range calculation. Additionally, the actual diameter of the 19" tire vs the 21" tire is no different than 1 mm so I'm still not quite sure why you need to select the wheel size itself.
View attachment 434086

I do have staggered 21”s, so I guess that’s the difference. All interesting...

So I guess I gave up 4% degradation, before I even took delivery.

 

[sorka]

Yes, but Take care! Running down to 5% is not the same as resting at 9%! Your 'case' is more like cycling at P5 == 9%. f you look at the P5 graph, it degrades MORE than P2, P3 and P4, that cyclies around 65%, 45% and 19%.

As well, in real life you cycle far more than 6 or 12 percent. This paper/test presumably was designed to show what happens at different SoC.

But this paper - in isolation - definetely does not argue against storing at a very low SoC. This very well matches Jeff Dahns comment in the All-over-the-internet-video, that a Li-Ion cell stored at 20% SoC and at low temperature lasts forever.

Right. Yea, my comment that I got slammed over was me disagreeing with someone else where they said running down to 5% remaining was really bad for the battery. 5% is actually 9.8% when you factor in the 4kwh buffer. TM-SPY includes the buffer but the display subtracts it before display remaining SOC% so 5% on the IC display shows 10% in TM-SPY which is the true SOC.

 

[Whiteblaze]

I do have staggered 21”s, so I guess that’s the difference. All interesting...

It's not, though. I have 19"s and my sticker says 242. It is an early P85D that I believe has the +P suspension, despite the 19" wheels. Perhaps that is the difference.

 

[VT_EE]

They also directly brought value into the discussion. You should bring priced out S70 and S85 vehicle quotes to show the difference in value based solely on battery capacity. You then tie that to the reduction in capacity performed by the software to show they absolutely reduced the value. When they rebut you ask if they have ever sold cars at a lower price by reducing capacity of otherwise equivalent batteries. You should have documentation of this practice.

Was the mechanism of reducing capacity in your car via the software update the same as the mechanism used to differentiate vehicle models by capacity? (Hint: It is. Lower maximum voltage.) They have now admitted they reduced the value of your car using the same method through which they reduce the value of new cars they sell.

I also agree with attacking the "Usage over time" by showing the capacity reduction did not occur with usage or over time, but was instantaneous through software changes.

None of this line of reasoning brings range to the table. It's only about capacity and value, which they explicitly tie together in their pricing models.

Any discussion about refunding the cost difference between an 85 and a 70 would need to take into account depreciation too. It might be cheaper to just refund this depreciated difference than to fight this.

 

[sorka]

It's not, though. I have 19"s and my sticker says 242. It is an early P85D that I believe has the +P suspension, despite the 19" wheels. Perhaps that is the difference.
View attachment 434094

I have the + suspension. Wish I didn't. Stiffer than the Z51 on my C5.

In early 2015, Tesla made P85D more efficient with the introduction of torque sleep that kept the rear motor completely asleep during cruising. Perhaps my statement that the EPA didn't change the rating is wrong and perhaps it was retested by the EPA with the improvement.

I believe @wk057 thoroughly documented the before and after effects of this improvement.

 

[sorka]

Tesla Model S P85D Gets Rated At 242 Miles* Of Range

Note the difference between 19" and 21" wheels.

 

[Whiteblaze]

Tesla Model S P85D Gets Rated At 242 Miles* Of Range

Note the difference between 19" and 21" wheels.

And just to make things more confusing, here they are on fueleconomy.gov. The 2014 P85D is 242 (maybe this was an estimate?), 2015 is 253.

 

[mjmiron]

For Sale 2015 S 85D dark blue
Every option available
Dark Black interior
265 miles oops sorry now 233 due to Tesla

Was $46,800 now only 36,800
Car may loose value with future updates including but not limited to slower and reduced available battery capacity.

 

[Blu Zap]

Its not the range indicator that was changed. They the reduced usable capacity of the pack itself. The range loss is a symptom of the removal (lock out).

Folks, do we want to make a case for battery warranty repair/replacement? If so, drop the discussion about range, wheel size and anything else related to the symptoms of the fix Tesla put in place. FIX? What did Tesla fix? They cut battery capacity as measured in kWh to prevent our 85 kWh batteries from bursting into flames. Quit speculating as to what physically is causing the fires. We need to focus on Tesla's behavior and why they reduced the battery capacity on a certain category of batteries (ours). We have to prove that 1. 85 kWh batteries burst into flames while sitting idle. Examples to start with are Hong Kong and Singapore. 2. We have to prove that Tesla issued 2019.16.1 limiting battery capacity to address the issue. Our problem is not battery performance, range, kw/mi. It is a SAFETY issue. Lets focus on that if we are to get anywhere with Tesla.

 

[mjmiron]

I think a good follow up question is has anyone gotten any success with getting their battery replaced? I am still waiting for a call back from the local service center. I have also filed a complaint with my local Attorney General which I should know something next week. I think it would be pretty hard to prove both of your points BluZap without hard data from the cars involved in the fires.

 

[verheyleweghen]

Lost 20km of max charging within 2 weeks on my S85D. At the 12th of May I was able to charge to 399km at 100% charge. 2 days ago the max charge has dropped to 379km all of a sudden. Temperatures at both charge times were around 18 degrees Celsius.

Called Tesla and they’re telling me the car logs show battery degradation and saying this is “normal”. Has anyone on this forum ever had such a steep loss of max range in such a short period? 5% loss of the max capacity in 2 weeks seems a bit much...
View attachment 415328

I currently have the same problem and they said it was normal and that the OTA update recalculates a correct range. My range dropped from 378 to 330 whicj is almost 50 km and unacceptable in some weeks

 

[mjmiron]

just noticed this a new lawsuit against Tesla due to batteries anyone have an account with Reuters where you can post it online here

Lawsuit says Tesla fails to honor battery warranties for used vehicles - Reuters

 

[Droschke]

I am suggesting that the old algorithm falsely concluded a too high range. (and we have all been pleased that the calculated range showed that we all had less degradation than anybody expected:for the last 3 years-))

I'm not convinced if this is the case. Their silence in explaining the real reason and resorting to all kinds of distraction points to a different scenario which, in their mind, in secured, at least for now, by being tight-lipped. In my opinion, this is fire related. Either the batteries are showing unexpected behavior (condition Z), or taking conservative route going forward on the usage profile of the batteries, "prolonging" the battery life toward the 8-year warranty line (warranty replacement deflection).

If Tesla suddenly realized that their 'Remaining Capacity Calculator' is wrong (or worse cause a risk), then of course, they need to reduce the estimate to the 'real' value. This means you will not run out of juice unexpectedly and you will not increase risks.

There is no evidence that the owners were prematurely running out of juice due to erroneous "Remaining Capacity" calculation, pre-update.