Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[Ferrycraigs]

That's a very interesting idea. They wouldn't be able to claim degredation, maybe. But, I think they would say that they are prolonging the battery life and preventing future safety issues. So, if no safety issue is currently present when they issued the cap, then they technically don't have to report anything to NHTSA. If they are doing the update to prevent a predicted future safety issue, then they don't have to report anything because the issue isn't actually present yet, and no recall will be required. That dovetails with the "abundance of caution" phrasing. They didn't detect any safety issue, but are providing the updates, being way overcautious, in order to prevent the possibility that a safety issue might develop in the future. The part that is a gray area, though, is what happens if people decide not to update. Is it 100% guaranteed (or even just a non negligible probability) that all nonupdated BMS's will cause batteries to develop a safety issue? If so, then it's just like having a safety issue that needs to be reported, and a recall is needed. However, the case is probably that there is no measurable probability of the safety issue developing. They may not even know what the "root cause" is. Since they can't measure it, they opt not to report anything, I guess.

That leaves folks with the cap (or potential safety issues for those who don't know about it and don't want to get capped) up a creek...

On my local Tesla forum there were a couple of posts where owners had received a notice on their screen that they were charging at a busy Supercharger and that the charge would be limited to 80%. (This is a new feature in UK.) Normally of course that wouldn’t really be an issue; we all know the last 20% takes a couple of weeks. Previously my 80% would give me a useful 170 miles or so. My new 80% now only gives me 140 miles. A shorter distance than between some Superchargers. Thank goodness I don’t also suffer from Chargegate so don’t have to waste 1.5 hours filling up to get my 140 miles.

My wife has a Zoe. It has greater range, and charges up in half the time. And is a quarter of the price. Just saying.

I think as soon as another manufacturer makes a beautiful car with a bit of Range, you may not be able to see me for dust.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

What is the simplest / least expensive (ideally free) way to read the actual (current) battery capacity data as shown by others? Are those free / inexpensive apps, or one can only get to such data through a physical data connection with the car?

You can get a reasonably accurate, and definitely free, reading of your Useable Capacity from the Energy App on the Main Screen.

Method:
Multiply Average Consumption by Projected Range then divide by State of Charge as a %.

example.
Average 248 Wh/mi x 89 Projected miles, divided by 38% SoC.
248 x 89=22,072.
Divide by 38% (not 38, but 38%)=58,084.
This is Whs. dividing by 1000 gives kWhs (58.04 kWhs).

This is your capacity. (It will not matter is you car is set to show Wh/km and Projected Range In km.)

 

[swegman]

I think the formula above is not entirely accurate. My car has an average energy usage of 345 Wh/mi. At 98% charge the estimated range is 201 miles. Using the formula above shows my car’s battery capacity being 70.7 kWh. Yet the Remote Tesla app Indicates my battery capacity is 68 kWh, and the ScanMyTesla app (which reads the BMS data) indicates 68.5 kWh capacity with 64.5 kWh being usable.

So, the above formula appears to be an approximation only.

 

[MikeyC]

I used a simpler method when I had my Volt and it was always accurate to within .1 or .2 kWh. I'd look at the current kWh used and the reported battery percentage: if I had 27% battery left and it had used 10.3 kWh:

27% battery means it had used 73% battery (100-27)
Take 10.3 kWh and multiply by 100/73 = 14.07 kWh capacity.

I'd run the battery to empty and it'd say I had used 14.1 kWh (the capacity of the Volt battery). Don't know if that'll work on a Tesla.

Mike

 

[Droschke]

Rather than "not last as long as they should", I think it more likely it was discovered that they were not going to last as long as the rosy reporting of the BMS was indicating over the last few years.

This seems to be in line with reports here of capped cars showing CAC results that keep getting "more better" than the average, which could be because the average gets lowered as they systematically, selectively, incrementally "correct" the range degradation numbers the BMS had been showing everyone.

The big problem is we are still in uncharted territory on how long we can expect our batteries to last, what is a normal rate of range loss, and what options we will have for replacement/refurbishment at what cost after warranty expiration.

Is a Tesla economically an 8 year life car, 10, 12, 15, 20...?

I think that's a really big deal, much more so than the fastest time around the Nurburgring in my book.

Excellent post on all counts.

What I'm interested is what the current "magic" multiplier is for a non-capped car.

For all I know, his car is not capped, so can @MP3Mike tell us what that multiplier is for his car currently? That would really help.

Thanks.

 

[Droschke]

My wife has a Zoe. It has greater range, and charges up in half the time. And is a quarter of the price. Just saying.

I think as soon as another manufacturer makes a beautiful car with a bit of Range, you may not be able to see me for dust.

I hope Tesla reads your post. Oh wait, do they even care even then?

BTW, the 80% limit pop-up is supposed to show up at a "busy" supercharger, but the owners are reporting to get it also at a empty one as well. Was intended for faster rotations.

 

[Getmethere]

I have a similar situation to report.
Since May 16, 2019 my P85D has lost 27 rated miles (43 Km). That is 11% in 28 days and 3604 miles. The rate of decline continues at a consistent pace. The previous 72000 miles before May 16 the rated range had dropped at most 12 miles in 715 days. The battery has powered 130,026 miles since April 2015.

The rapid decline started the day after I installed software 2019.16.1.1. Perhaps just a coincidence. Current software is version 2019.16.2.

I reported this sudden change to a Tesla tech in Denver on May 29 (down 12 miles) and June 10 (down 24 miles). Both times he replied that he did remote tests on the high voltage battery and said "the battery cells are experiencing some wear, which is normal and expected as the vehicle ages". SNAFU?

I expect the battery to slowly degrade with age and use as I experienced for the first 126400 miles. But this rapid decline is not normal. Now that I see others have similar experiences we need to dig further and escalate this within Tesla.

Comments?
View attachment 419225

My model S has lost 20% of range from 260 to 190 miles following Tesla's installation of firmware. I can no longer make long journeys. and I'm furious.However Tesla continue to ignore me. Cant wait for Rasmussens US lawsuit!

 

[meomyo]

I hope Tesla reads your post. Oh wait, do they even care even then?

BTW, the 80% limit pop-up is supposed to show up at a "busy" supercharger, but the owners are reporting to get it also at a empty one as well. Was intended for faster rotations.

We have seen this a few times on our road trip when noone else was at the SC. in usa. Too bad zoe isnt in the states i would get one.

 

[meomyo]

My model S has lost 20% of range from 260 to 190 miles following Tesla's installation of firmware. I can no longer make long journeys. and I'm furious.However Tesla continue to ignore me. Cant wait for Rasmussens US lawsuit!

Its theft really...i mean think about it. Even worse if you paid 2k-9k for the extra miles/battery unlocking and then they take it away OTA just like that?

 

[MP3Mike]

My model S has lost 20% of range from 260 to 190 miles following Tesla's installation of firmware. I can no longer make long journeys. and I'm furious.However Tesla continue to ignore me. Cant wait for Rasmussens US lawsuit!

Well, waiting is something you will have to do. Law suits move very slowly, especially class action ones. Tesla's initial response isn't due until November 3rd. So that is another month and a half until anything happens. It could literally be years before it comes to a conclusion.

 

[Droschke]

We are seeing more owners coming to this thread and report being capped. An evidence to our claim that there are a lot more out there capped but just not reporting it in here (how would they know about this thread on TMC?).

 

[Droschke]

Well, waiting is something you will have to do. Law suits move very slowly, especially class action ones. Tesla's initial response isn't due until November 3rd. So that is another month and a half until anything happens. It could literally be years before it comes to a conclusion.

Mike - Did you see my post? Can you answer that?

Thanks.

 

[ran349]

Excellent post on all counts.

What I'm interested is what the current "magic" multiplier is for a non-capped car.

For all I know, his car is not capped, so can @MP3Mike tell us what that multiplier is for his car currently? That would really help.

Thanks.

The "magic" multiplier should be the same for the capped cars as the uncapped cars. For the classic S 85, the multiplier is 295. This can be calculated after charging your car by taking kWh added divided by rated miles added. You have to switch between miles and % to get both of the numbers for the calculation. Taking into account the rounding errors, you should still get reasonably close to 295 from the calculation.

 

[Droschke]

View attachment 456240
You can get a reasonably accurate, and definitely free, reading of your Useable Capacity from the Energy App on the Main Screen.

Method:
Multiply Average Consumption by Projected Range then divide by State of Charge as a %.

example.
Average 248 Wh/mi x 89 Projected miles, divided by 38% SoC.
248 x 89=22,072.
Divide by 38% (not 38, but 38%)=58,084.
This is Whs. dividing by 1000 gives kWhs (58.04 kWhs).

This is your capacity. (It will not matter is you car is set to show Wh/km and Projected Range In km.)

I think this calculation can be valid if the "magic" multiplier has not been tempered with. So, with a manipulated multiplier involved to show an exaggerated RM, you would get the capacity that Tesla wants you to see, which shows a rosy picture of the normal degradation.

 

[Droschke]

The "magic" multiplier should be the same for the capped cars as the uncapped cars. For the classic S 85, the multiplier is 295. This can be calculated after charging your car by taking kWh added divided by rated miles added. You have to switch between miles and % to get both of the numbers for the calculation. Taking into account the rounding errors, you should still get reasonably close to 295 from the calculation.

The evidence previously presented by several owners do not support your claim.

 

[mrjedistud]

FYI, "D" is no longer a sufficient answer - once they rev the part number, the number and letter suffix revert to "00-A"

In the early days, there was one main part number, so the letter was sufficient to identify a pack version. If you look at the degradation spreadsheet, we now have "1014114", "1074978", "1031043", "1088815", "1071941", "1107172", and who knows what else.

Your picture shows you have "1014114-00-D". You know that your battery is earlier than my "1014114-00-E", but you can't infer anything about ours in relation to another part number ("1074978-xx-y", for example).

Hi. Do you have a link to the degradation spreadsheet. My HV battery just went and was told I am get the 1088815-01-D model. Thanks

 

[Droschke]

Hi. Do you have a link to the degradation spreadsheet. My HV battery just went and was told I am get the 1088815-01-D model. Thanks

This link.

 

[ran349]

The evidence previously presented by several owners do not support your claim.

I am not sure what "evidence" you are referring to, but you can just check yourself on your own car to verify what I said.

 

[Droschke]

I am not sure what "evidence" you are referring to, but you can just check yourself on your own car to verify what I said.

Search for @DJRas posts in this thread for example for the evidence.

I owned a capped Tesla, what am I supposed to check on my car exactly? Walk me through it step by step please. Then we can compare it with @MP3Mike's results.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

I think the formula above is not entirely accurate. My car has an average energy usage of 345 Wh/mi. At 98% charge the estimated range is 201 miles. Using the formula above shows my car’s battery capacity being 70.7 kWh. Yet the Remote Tesla app Indicates my battery capacity is 68 kWh, and the ScanMyTesla app (which reads the BMS data) indicates 68.5 kWh capacity with 64.5 kWh being usable.

So, the above formula appears to be an approximation only.

Are you sure you are not mixing Rated Range and Projected Range from the Energy Screen? The Energy Screen gives the Average Consumption over the previous 5/15/30 miles. Then, based on that consumption gives a Projected Range using how much is left in the battery (% SoC). So it is a simple calculation to correlate the 3 figures to arrive at Capacity. But it is not possible to arrive at a reliable answer by mixing Rated Miles and Projected Range Miles; they use different formulas.

The difference between Remote Tesla and Scan My Tesla may be one is including the buffer.

If Scan My Tesla indicates Useable Capacity as 64.5kWhs, I would trust that figure.

I use TM Spy. It gives my Capacity at 59.0 kWh. Using my calculation gives 58.6 kWh. Close enough, IMO, to confirm the battery has been capped. But capacity can be affected, slightly, by such things as temperature, so only really sensible to compare the 2 figures at the same time.