Hence the reason I'm essentially resorting to voodoo to prevent v9 from installing on my car.
-
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
Hence the reason I'm essentially resorting to voodoo to prevent v9 from installing on my car.
DJRas
Member
So, the "mitigation" of the range issue has stalled at ~2.5kWh (out of 8 lost) - 10 miles (out of 30 lost).
Todd Burch
14-Year Member
That's the thread I started right before losing 30 miles with 2019.16.1 and 2.
I went out and pulled the fuse. For some reason I thought that was inside. So I'll skip on getting the switched bypass.
However, it disables both rear door handles, not just the drivers side rear. No big deal as it's convenient to open it from within by opening a front door and the rear doors are never used unless the front doors are.
Now now I've got my door handle and seat connector spells woven. Let's hope it's enough to hold off the evil range robbing spirits
I mixed up my rated and typical, Rated miles before reduction was 232 miles, at its worse it had dropped to 202 miles !, has now recovered a little to 212. Typical miles had dropped from 184 to 160 at its worse, now recovered a little to 168.
Is your battery a software locked 85?
What a great question! That's what we'd all like to know after 3700 posts in this thread!
A service manager confirmed that there is no date for a firmware release (when I complained about capacity loss) but that the Engineering Team are working on it.
Not sure if that is just the standard line or this person actually knows something about what is happening in Tesla HQ.
If Tesla turned around and said they'd match the M3 degradation warranty of 70% after 8 years what would people think? Even some of the bad examples shown are only about 20% loss in total from my rough maths (there may be some which are worse). I still don't think we'd be happy as the cars had been losing a lot less than that, and the way Tesla have done thins stinks,. but at least we'd have a known backstop
The issue is that some owners purchased a vehicle that met their driving requirements (distance for commute etc) but which after the infamous 2019.16.x updates no longer do.
Not only that but the Supercharging speeds have been severely reduced; both issues are what is creating so much pain for affected owners.
I've heard that some owners have sold their 85s; something that I am also considering.
Only Tesla has the ability to fix this.
Not only that but the Supercharging speeds have been severely reduced; both issues are what is creating so much pain for affected owners.
I've heard that some owners have sold their 85s; something that I am also considering.
Only Tesla has the ability to fix this.
I would actually rather have my battery capped 10% and have SuC speed restored. I almost never charged beyond 90% anyway. So in my view chargegate is worse than batterygate, and it seems to affect all vehicles of these generations whereas only a minority(?) are capped.
FairFrank
Member
Supercharging with these batteries is now roughly half of the advertised speed. This is significantly impacting long range travelling.
Tesla need to come up with a solution to match their advertised specifications. If the old 85kWh battery/technology can’t, maybe a switch to newer 100kWh can.
This is not a normal/gradual "degradation" issue. It's a sudden and deliberate capacity cap. Two different things.
You are framing the issue totally incorrectly. Any comparison between the impacted owners' imposed capacity lock and the normal degradation of the batteries confuses the topic here.
If any impacted owner has asked for the battery replacement, it is not because of the battery suddenly and overnight degraded but because the battery might be defective and/or unsafe and that's why this sudden/deliberate capacity lock was imposed, i.e., replace the battery because it is fire prone not because it's normal degradation is high (there is no such thing as normal degradation here!)
On Edit: Added more to the last paragraph to make the point clearer.
Last edited:
BigNick
Infamous Fat Sweaty Guy
Moderator Note: Corrected information in post down thread.
Isn't that about 90 more kW of max power with virtually no weight penalty?
Last edited by a moderator:
You can unplug a door handle and you will never be able to download the update too. Just helping a friend try to update and found out the bad door handle that was unplugged was the problem
Seems like we are getting a sprinkling of folks that are now starting to see range return between 8-10 miles thus far. For those with the CANBUS readers what changes have you seen in the total capacity has it gone up to 4.0 or higher? I am wondering if Tesla didn't put a fix in the last software 2019.28.2 that is slowing returning the range and what the cap will be. Even if range returns I still feel the lawsuit is very relevant to protect the rights of future consumers of EV. Tesla should not be able to just change the performance and capacity of batteries without explanation and if it's substantial reimburse the buyers.
BigNick
Infamous Fat Sweaty Guy
Isn't that about 50 more kW of max power with virtually no weight penalty? (Previously I had thought it was 90 kW more but I was confusing specs for the 90V3 vs 100 pack).
jread
Member
I'm now +8 (208 @90%) on 28.2 after dropping 26 (226 to 200) - 2015 P85+ AP1 50k miles.
Hopefully that applies to older software and not some sort of validation check that only occurs if you already had v9.
Similar threads
