Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[MP3Mike]

Tesla was served a summons Aug 8

No, that is the court issuing the summons. Your lawyer has to have that officially served to Tesla. (Which I think has to be in-person; it can't be mailed.) After which point they have to file proof of service to the court. And that hasn't happened yet. (Though it is common for a week to pass between the summons being served and proof of it being served being filed with the court.)

So if @swegman is right and Tesla was served last week we should see the proof getting filed any day now.

 

[bhzmark]

Of all the pre facelift fleet, only a very small fraction of cars have been selected by Tesla for capping.

More precisely I think it's:

only a very small fraction of the pre facelift cars have batteries with the Z condition that triggers the BMS to cap their voltage. Other cars have different conditions that will trigger the BMS to reduce their charges rates or discharge rates or will cause the heating or cooling system to activate or not. And the conditions of those batteries may change over time.

And the BMS continually adapts to the conditions in the battery that it finds, both dynamically and through firmware updates.

 

[NSX1992]

I just called the new owner of my previous 2014 P85DL to inquire if he had regained any mileage. I had felt guilty last July as he was signing his loan to admitting Tesla had reduced the range. My 100% was reduced from 238 t0 208. To my surprise, he now has 231 @ 80%. He had complained to me before he was down to 200 @ 100%. He wrote a letter to Tesla Support complaining that A $100,000 car should not lose 53 miles of range in 4 years (253 to 200). So I just called him again saying 231@ 80% is impossible. He said he did it twice but will try it again to verify and call me later.

 

[Droschke]

There have been posts that mentioned a CAC test. Well, the only CAC test that I am aware of is the coronary artery calcium test. I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but I seriously doubt that this is the test that is being done on batteries.

It would be really helpful for others if on occasion someone with intimate knowledge of technical issues did not resort to acronyms and the like and actually explain in lay terms what procedures or other diagnostic tools were performed, what they examine, and what they mean.

CAC stands for Calculated Amperage Capacity. Search for CAC in TMC as there are threads on CAC numbers and ranges, mostly the Roadster forum but useful on the concept, for example this one.

 

[jerry33]

So I just called him again saying 231@ 80% is impossible. He said he did it twice but will try it again to verify and call me later.

It's very possible if you use Ideal Range.

 

[DJRas]

No, that is the court issuing the summons. Your lawyer has to have that officially served to Tesla. (Which I think has to be in-person; it can't be mailed.) After which point they have to file proof of service to the court. And that hasn't happened yet. (Though it is common for a week to pass between the summons being served and proof of it being served being filed with the court.)

So if @swegman is right and Tesla was served last week we should see the proof getting filed any day now.

I have spoken to the lawyer.
He has not served them yet because he is ammending the complaint with many more plaintiffs.
He has a call with Tesla's general counsel early this week.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

More precisely I think it's:

only a very small fraction of the pre facelift cars have batteries with the Z condition that triggers the BMS to cap their voltage. Other cars have different conditions that will trigger the BMS to reduce their charges rates or discharge rates or will cause the heating or cooling system to activate or not. And the conditions of those batteries may change over time.

And the BMS continually adapts to the conditions in the battery that it finds, both dynamically and through firmware updates.

OK I see where you are coming from. So perhaps the question is, why did those cars suffer from Condition Z? And not all the Rest? I accept that a bunch of slightly inferior cells is only one possible reason, but I also agree that doesn’t mean it's the only reason. The BMS seems to be doing what it’s meant to with the 99%. But for some reason, not with the 1%. I confess I’m struggling to come up with a reason that isn’t related to inferior, or slightly inferior, hardware.

There must be other plausible alternatives. It’s just that I can’t think of any. But I am 100% open to suggestions.

 

[swegman]

Anyone know what the Ah rating should be for a new 85 kWh battery?

 

[Evoforce]

What page is the Atty contact info on? I am still 32 miles short at the 90% so I don't want to miss the window. I have tried to contact Tesla regarding my battery issue without any response. In my situation, I have a loaner battery for 2 years and 2 months after a contactor failure of the original. They are supposed to get me a new battery to replace this loaner but have not responded to any of my attempts at contacting them regarding this. I do not want this loaner battery!

 

[Droschke]

I just called the new owner of my previous 2014 P85DL to inquire if he had regained any mileage. I had felt guilty last July as he was signing his loan to admitting Tesla had reduced the range. My 100% was reduced from 238 t0 208. To my surprise, he now has 231 @ 80%. He had complained to me before he was down to 200 @ 100%. He wrote a letter to Tesla Support complaining that A $100,000 car should not lose 53 miles of range in 4 years (253 to 200). So I just called him again saying 231@ 80% is impossible. He said he did it twice but will try it again to verify and call me later.

That means a 2014 P85DL can today fully charge to 288 rated miles. That's not possible as that car was rated @242 rated miles when was new.

 

[Droschke]

OK I see where you are coming from. So perhaps the question is, why did those cars suffer from Condition Z? And not all the Rest? I accept that a bunch of slightly inferior cells is only one possible reason, but I also agree that doesn’t mean it's the only reason. The BMS seems to be doing what it’s meant to with the 99%. But for some reason, not with the 1%. I confess I’m struggling to come up with a reason that isn’t related to inferior, or slightly inferior, hardware.

There must be other plausible alternatives. It’s just that I can’t think of any. But I am 100% open to suggestions.

@Ferrycraigs - Here is my observation:

Your humble and very patient exchange with the other poster started from zero degrees on a circle to 90, to 180, to 270 and this post of yours puts the exchange at the 359.9999 marker on the circle. Get ready to see the circle to get restarted with the other side re-claiming the "normal degradation" of your battery and how wonderfully this BMS is protecting your battery, and so ... continuing the path on the circle

 

[sorka]

All packs degrade, including the 70 which wouldn't perform like a brand new 70 anymore either. And the BMS should address that as best it can.

As mine has. I've lost 11 miles since new after 100K miles and I'll lose another 5 miles in the next 100K miles provided I'm able to avoid V9 and not have them artificially steal another 20% on top of the 4.5% I've already lost.

 

[sorka]

The fleet got the same software. The software responds to the specific battery in the car. Some batteries have more or less degradation depending on usage, environment, and random quantum wave collapses etc.

So I have 11 miles of degradation. Are you telling me that if I take v9 and lose another 30 miles of range because my capacity is being capped to 85% of what is still remaining that the existing capacity that I can no longer use is because the battery was degraded more than was showing up before the update?

REALLY??????????????

 

[sorka]

It isn't tied to the vehicle generally. It is reading metrics of the specific battery and adjusts its BMS control of the battery based on the metrics of the battery, different batteries age differently.

Similarly the BMS wont cool batteries that aren't hot and wont heat batteries that are not cold. It will allow higher and lower rates of charge and discharge based on the condition of the battery. The BMS adopts to the condition of the battery in probably 100 different ways. This is another way.

Name one other product where the top SOC charge was revised downwards after it was shipped. I'll give you one to start....Note 7.

 

[Todd Burch]

Update:

Earlier this year, my 2014 P85 (at around 100k miles) had 228 rated mi at 90%.

In the past few months (now at 112,000 mi) I am getting 213mi at 90%.

I still have not regained anything with recent software updates, and I continue to lose a mile every two weeks or so.

 

[Guy V]

This really is just an annoying semantic dispute. You seem to use degradation to mean only a single thing (I’m not sure what that is though — perhaps you might try to specify exactly what you think you mean by “degradation”?). Whatever it is for you it can’t be (why not?) battery condition Z.

I use the plain English dictionary definition to mean any degradation in performance metrics of the battery that tends to degrade over time and all the things that happen over time. Sometimes the time might be the time of a random quantum wave collapse. Who knows.

I don’t know of any one week old battery that has been affected. So by induction (not speculation) it only affects aged batteries. In fact well aged batteries. But: all swans are white — find a black swan to make your argument to weaken the induction.

Meanwhile, it’s degradation. And adding “period” to your denials, or underlining words, or saying “for the millionth time” aren’t persuasive in denying that it is degradation.



And for every single software version he ever saw in his life, there was always a first time.

There are semantics involved, and yes ANY failure over time is degradation, but warranties are to cover failures and defects. Tesla is claiming that those capped very differently from most others are still "normal degradation" even though normal essentially means like most others.

Those experiencing it find that hard to accept without clear explanation from those making the claim since what has happened to them suddenly is not consistent with what has been normal for their cars and others up to this incident.

 

[Guy V]

The informed induction is that the BMS was changed to detect, and mitigate, condition Z, a product of battery age, usage, environmental history and resulting condition i.e., degradation.

Actually, to be semantically correct as you seem to prefer, that would have to be "uninformed" because Tesla has NOT informed us of any such condition Z or otherwise.

 

[Droschke]

Actually, to be semantically correct as you seem to prefer, that would have to be "uninformed" because Tesla has NOT informed us of any such condition Z or otherwise.

Absolutely. The ambiguous term "Condition Z" is what @wk057 called it to clarify his understandably guarded opinion:

Basically they went looking for X and found Z instead. X is pretty bad, but doesn't seem to have happened anywhere. Detecting X is definitely a good thing. Z is not good, but not as bad as X. The process of looking for X's ended up finding a bunch of Z's as well. Z was not being looked for and wasn't known. Detecting Z is still a good thing. The people with a rapid range loss have condition Z.

Hopefully that's less ambiguous, and also still ambiguous.

To this date, no one except Tesla knows what the Condition Z really means. Speculations? Sure.

Furthermore, and more importantly, He went further and said:

I personally wouldn't consider X or Z to be "normal degradation."

So, this is all we have, and it's not from Tesla, and you would assume it would stop the detractors from bringing the bogus claims such as this one (the underlining is mine):

"The informed induction is that the BMS was changed to detect, and mitigate, condition Z, a product of battery age, usage, environmental history and resulting condition i.e., degradation."

 

[Droschke]

Absolutely. The ambiguous term "Condition Z" is what @wk057 called it to clarify his understandably guarded opinion:


To this date, no one except Tesla knows what the Condition Z really means. Speculations? Sure.

Furthermore, and more importantly, He went further and said:


So, this is all we have, and it's not from Tesla, and you would assume it would stop the detractors from bringing the bogus claims such as this one (the underlining is mine):

"The informed induction is that the BMS was changed to detect, and mitigate, condition Z, a product of battery age, usage, environmental history and resulting condition i.e., degradation."

Since the beginning of this Batterygate fiasco, I've believed the capacity cap has nothing to do with the normal (gradual) degradation in its classic sense, where you lose range by age, but rather it's related to a serious safety issue and I've posted my concerns repeatedly. I know this thread is very long and July 18th was long time ago , but this is also what wk057 said:

Oh, another interesting thing is that they do seem to care about Z. I specifically asked why don't they pull the update until they can get a better grip on the situation, and was told that if the update is protecting owners as it is, "we'll deal with it" in order to keep safety first.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

There continue to be views and counter views. One view is that BMS is there, amongst other things, to detect what is happening in the battery and react accordingly. When it detects something, it reacts. I agree. We have seen the charge rate slowed down, and I understand normal tapering whilst DC charging is designed to protect the battery. There was a proposal that capping the battery was just BMS reacting to finding something. I can accept that, up to a point. Going as far as changing the cell voltage seems, to me, to be quite a big step. I wasn’t aware of any other instances where the BMS action was to change the cell voltage. But just because I haven’t read about it doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened. Is anyone aware of any other EV where the cell voltage has been capped in this way? ie it is a novel approach by Tesla or is it an unusual method that has actually been tried by other EV manufacturers?