The only plausible reason I can come up with is that there were a batch of slightly defective batteries to start with (a bit like there were a bunch of defective heaters in some cars).
What about the option that they put a bug in their BMS update?
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The only plausible reason I can come up with is that there were a batch of slightly defective batteries to start with (a bit like there were a bunch of defective heaters in some cars).
ZERO. If that's all it was, wk057 would not have been told to stay out of the discussion either by Tesla or legal counsel. Tesla would not be telling owners, nationally, that this update limited range in order to extend the life of the battery. None of Tesla's actions are consistent with your conjecture. None. Why do you work so hard at defending Tesla's bad behavior? Are you a major stockholder or something?What about the option that they put a bug in their BMS update?
Regrettably, I've been advised to stay out of this issue.
Suffice it to say, I'm less than convinced they're going to do the right thing here... but, unfortunately I just don't have the resources to waste defending myself should Tesla actually decide to try something stupid against me on this.
Best of luck with the class action case.
Why do you work so hard at defending Tesla's bad behavior?
Regrettably, I've been advised to stay out of this issue.
Suffice it to say, I'm less than convinced they're going to do the right thing here... but, unfortunately I just don't have the resources to waste defending myself should Tesla actually decide to try something stupid against me on this.
Best of luck with the class action case.
Well of course that is always possible. But it doesn’t really explain why the restricted 85 was 'infected'What about the option that they put a bug in their BMS update?
That doesn't fit that after 12 weeks they kept saying that our range reduction is normal degradation or the rest of their reply to the reporters request for comment on the suit.What about the option that they put a bug in their BMS update?
Load the most recent updates when you get them. It’s looking like range/battery capacity is slowly coming back for some affected vehicles.
Mine Max cell voltage has increased to 4.077V, but capacity has increased again slightly this morning, so will likely have increased again
I too have seen some recovered capacity since 2019.28.2.
I have gotten back 2 kWh and 8 miles rated range.
Still have 6kWh and 24 miles to go.
But it is a start.
Again this shows this was not normal degradation and PURELY artificial software limitation.
I still HOPE this was never related to the fires or Lithium dendrites or plating.
Until Tesla opens up about this... we still have issues.
Concern: Customer states: Range has drop from 219 miles @ 90% in May 2019 to 197 miles @ 90% in 1 month.
-NO REPAIRS NEEDED.-Wear is expected on the HV battery pack along with some alteration of performance.-We are aware that a very small percentage of owners who own older Model S and Model X vehicles may notice a small reduction in range when charging to a maximum state of charge.-This occurred following a software update that we released last month to protect the battery and improve battery longevity of Model S and X cars, and does not have any other impact to the vehicle. While charging behavior will always vary based on how a vehicle is driven, charged, vehicle age, and other factors, we will improve the impact on range for this small group of owners.
No change to my car with the update still the same mileage 2019.28.2 version. I had lost 30 miles and that has stayed the same. I ordered a battery reader and waiting on correct cable then I can hopefully tell if capacity is higher or lower, and no I have not supercharged with the new update.
My initial 100% charge after being clipped, was 237 miles down from 254. So as much as 17 with a subsequent charge of 239 miles. Then I had a charge of 244 miles @100%. After update 2019.28.2, I had a 90% charge in the morning of 216 miles, and a night time charge to 247 miles @100%. So currently clipped 7 miles @100%. Will find out if that improves with subsequent charges.So you first lost 14 and now got 7 back?
Advised by whom?
Well - for what its worth, my range went up a bit after updating to 2019.28.2 320fba0. It is a single point. My first SC after updating. The chart doesn't reflect it as Teslafi doesn't record all my charges, but on getting my car, charging and range were very solid, repeatable numbers. Then SW updates, range and SC rate dropped and remained low. SC rate fluctuates but has not come close to high rate previously. Today was the closest it has come to pre-sw update territory. View attachment 440206
Not yet.Do you have any vmax readings before and after the new update?
Regrettably, I've been advised to stay out of this issue.
Suffice it to say, I'm less than convinced they're going to do the right thing here... but, unfortunately I just don't have the resources to waste defending myself should Tesla actually decide to try something stupid against me on this.
Best of luck with the class action case.
Tesla doesn't want wk057 talking, either, as they have shut him down. It's quite clear Tesla are trying to keep the lid on something potentially damaging.
Advised by whom?
I’m not so familiar with the U.S. legal system, but how could Tesla impose that?
There’s the first amendment...
I think it’s implied that wk057 has people inside Tesla engineering that communicate with him off the record and if he wants to keep those communications channels open he should not wade to deep into this one.