Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[Ferrycraigs]

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.

My formula deliberately does not use algorithms, magic multipliers, or Rated Range. Or Lifelong Average Consumption. It specifically takes a snapshot from the Energy App, using the Average Consumption over a given period, the Projected Range using that consumption figure taken from the amount of charge left. It is not open to manipulation by Tesla unless they change how they derive the Average Consumption over the last 5/15/30 miles.

But it HAS to be these figures. It will not work using normal Rated Miles Range Estimates, or overall averages. It HAS to be the figures from the Energy Screen as shown in the photo.

 

[DJRas]

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!

On the legal front...
Our counsel has talked with Tesla's general counsel and they are not willing to negotiate at this point.
There will be more things happening between now and Nov 4.

We are pursuing NHTSA action. But, the NHTSA has no appointed administrator under the Trump administration.
They are under staffed and without complete support and direction.
Though there have been fires, no lives have been lost (thank goodness). But, that also puts this "safety" issue at a much lower priority than say Tesla autopilot running cars into things.

Other fronts we will be pursuing is wider media attention, local states' Attorneys General, Bureau of Consumer Protection at the FTC.

Life is getting interesting!

 

[Chaserr]

Try and force an NHTSA response by repeating to them that Tesla has not applied the update to all cars, nor notified owners that they must apply the OPTIONAL update. There are hundreds of threads here from owners discussing their choice not to update for many reasons - some are still on v7, many are on b8, and others are on pre-Downgrade v9s avoiding the update only because they don't want their cars to be damaged by it.

 

[mjmiron]

Update-i was told by Tesla today they are replacing my 85 pack with a 90. So if they do end up replacing packs for others affected be interesting to see if they all get 90's. Makes me think they are done with the old 85 packs now.

With that said Tesla will most likely rebadge my car to be a 90D correct?

 

[MP3Mike]

I think this calculation can be valid if the "magic" multiplier has not been tempered with.

I assume you meant "tampered with." I wonder if what you are calling tampering could be related to a feature that they added in a recent firmware that allows you to select your wheel/tire combo. (It notes that changing the wheel/tire combo will change your estimate range.) Though I can't recall if that feature made it to the S/X or if it is just on the Model 3.

I think it makes a lot of sense for them to do that, since people with larger wheels and stickier tires have higher consumption so their range estimate would be off.

 

[MP3Mike]

With that said Tesla will most likely rebadge my car to be a 90D correct?

Yes, they have rebadged cars, and updated the car configuration to show it, for other people when they got a larger pack as part of a warranty replacement.

 

[mjmiron]

On the legal front...
Our counsel has talked with Tesla's general counsel and they are not willing to negotiate at this point.
There will be more things happening between now and Nov 4.

We are pursuing NHTSA action. But, the NHTSA has no appointed administrator under the Trump administration.
They are under staffed and without complete support and direction.
Though there have been fires, no lives have been lost (thank goodness). But, that also puts this "safety" issue at a much lower priority than say Tesla autopilot running cars into things.

Other fronts we will be pursuing is wider media attention, local states' Attorneys General, Bureau of Consumer Protection at the FTC.

Life is getting interesting!

Yes it is i think having the states attorney general involved here in MN helped me get mine replaced besides just purchasing the car in May.

 

[DJRas]

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.

TM Spy does NOT include the 4kWh buffer. So, you have 56.6 kWh usable (the 75 uses 2.4 kWh buffer).

 

[CuriousG]

Update-i was told by Tesla today they are replacing my 85 pack with a 90. So if they do end up replacing packs for others affected be interesting to see if they all get 90's. Makes me think they are done with the old 85 packs now.

With that said Tesla will most likely rebadge my car to be a 90D correct?

All because you are to receive a 90 pack doesn't mean they'll update the profile for that. I take it they would just software limit it to be an 85 pack.

 

[MP3Mike]

All because you are to receive a 90 pack doesn't mean they'll update the profile for that. I take it they would just software limit it to be an 85 pack.

I have never seen them do that. But I have seen multiple people report getting their car updated to a 90 configuration including rebadging.

 

[Droschke]

Update-i was told by Tesla today they are replacing my 85 pack with a 90. So if they do end up replacing packs for others affected be interesting to see if they all get 90's. Makes me think they are done with the old 85 packs now.

With that said Tesla will most likely rebadge my car to be a 90D correct?

That's a great news, but it's applying to your unique situation. For all, we have a permanent fix called cap , the only way that would change is if the lawsuit force them to.

Regarding the rebadging of your car, ask for the P100DL

 

[swegman]

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.

I did not mix projected range with rated range. My projected range was 201. My rated range was 226. I used the projected range of 201.

Note that it has been documented by @DJRas that Tesla has manipulated the energy usage value to make it appear that the battery has more capacity than it really has. He is in a better position than me to explain it.

 

[Droschke]

My formula deliberately does not use algorithms, magic multipliers, or Rated Range. Or Lifelong Average Consumption. It specifically takes a snapshot from the Energy App, using the Average Consumption over a given period, the Projected Range using that consumption figure taken from the amount of charge left. It is not open to manipulation by Tesla unless they change how they derive the Average Consumption over the last 5/15/30 miles.

But it HAS to be these figures. It will not work using normal Rated Miles Range Estimates, or overall averages. It HAS to be the figures from the Energy Screen as shown in the photo.

Thanks for clarifying. I did a bit more calculation. Looks valid in my case.

 

[DaveBC]

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.

@Ferrycraigs I agree with your math to calculate an approximate kWh capacity, but it would not indicate cap vs degradation.

To verify cap someone would have to compare that voltage at a given SoC does not match what is expected.

I believe another more difficult method would be to multiply CAC times nominal voltage, that would give the full kWh capacity including buffers and compare that to either your calculated capacity or RM divided by magic multiplier, if what we believe to be the multiplier can be trusted.

 

[swegman]

I have never seen them do that. But I have seen multiple people report getting their car updated to a 90 configuration including rebadging.

I was given a 2013 “P85” model S loaner on Monday when I took a model 3 in for service. The emblem on the rear hatch of the loaner car said P85. However, the touchscreen said “P90”. The loaner indicated it had a range of 220 miles at 81% charge level, which translates to 272 miles at 100% charge level. So it doesn’t seem that the loaner vehicle had the 90 pack software limited to 85.

As an aside, the loaner felt much quicker than my 2013 P85 currently feels (it seems slower to me than it felt before the software update was forced on my car, capping the battery). In addition, the regen on the loaner car was much stronger than it currently is on my car, resulting in me having to use the brakes much more to slow down my car. Taking my foot off the accelerator in my car now results in the car coasting like an ICE car when the SOC of the battery is 90% or more. At 95% SOC, the orange line indicates the regen is limited to 15 kW, but when taking the foot off the accelerator I get no regen at all. Regen does not work until the SOC is less than 90%, regardless of the orange line indication on the instrument cluster.

 

[DJRas]

I am holding little hope from NHTSA regarding this issue.
From Safety Research and Strategies, inc
New Analysis Challenges Bold Tesla Claims | Safety Research & Strategies, Inc.

“NHTSA has shown its unwillingness to regulate the safety of the electronics that control modern vehicles and to properly assess potential safety defects in increasingly complex vehicles. This once-storied public health agency, built on epidemiological principles, now resorts to hiding data and promoting the business interests of companies they were entrusted with regulating as it promotes autonomous vehicles and surrenders its oversight role in favor of industry ‘guidance.’"

But I will let our petition play out there.

 

[Droschke]

I assume you meant "tampered with." I wonder if what you are calling tampering could be related to a feature that they added in a recent firmware that allows you to select your wheel/tire combo. (It notes that changing the wheel/tire combo will change your estimate range.) Though I can't recall if that feature made it to the S/X or if it is just on the Model 3.

I think it makes a lot of sense for them to do that, since people with larger wheels and stickier tires have higher consumption so their range estimate would be off.

Yes, I meant tampered with. Thanks for correcting my English.

I do not understand the rest of your post. The "magic" multiplier has been discussed in this thread numerous times, that being the Tesla modifying the 295 wh/mi constant (multiplier) for 85kWh cars, for example, to a lower value to manipulate the RM shown on screen to make the degradation look good. We have gone through this multiple times. I thought you knew that!

Since you do not discuss your ownership experience that I've read, I asked out of curiosity multiple times: Do you even own a Tesla car?

Why don't you answer it?

On Edit: There is a major difference between the opinion of an owner vs a non-owner, especially in terms of real life, first hand experience to form opinion. I hope this helps as to my curiosity.

 

[DJRas]

@Ferrycraigs I agree with your math to calculate an approximate kWh capacity, but it would not indicate cap vs degradation.

To verify cap someone would have to compare that voltage at a given SoC does not match what is expected.

I believe another more difficult method would be to multiply CAC times nominal voltage, that would give the full kWh capacity including buffers and compare that to either your calculated capacity or RM divided by magic multiplier, if what we believe to be the multiplier can be trusted.

I agree that this gives a decent rough estimation (~5% off).
But as pointed out it cannot distinguish between capped battery and actual degradation.
Is the lower capacity due to limited charging maxV or just lower available kWh in the pack at 4.2 volts (and all points in between)

 

[swegman]

Charged my capped car to 100% thus morning to examine Dara using ScanMyTesla.

First off, the capped battery would only charge to 99%, not 100%. Battery voltage was 393 volts and not the 402.3 volts of an uncapped battery. Cell average was 4.094 volts. Cell diff was 0.004 volts. Nothing shown in ScanMyTesla sticks out as being a potential battery problem.

An uncapped battery would have a cell voltage of 4.2 volts at 100% SOC, proof that the battery on my car has been capped.

The cell voltage in module 8 ranged between 4.090 to 4.091 volts .

The cell voltage in module 11 ranged between 4.091 to 4.092 volts.

The cell voltage in all other modules were slightly higher, ranging from 4.092 to 4.094 volts.

 

[kavyboy]

I am holding little hope from NHTSA regarding this issue.
From Safety Research and Strategies, inc
New Analysis Challenges Bold Tesla Claims | Safety Research & Strategies, Inc.

“NHTSA has shown its unwillingness to regulate the safety of the electronics that control modern vehicles and to properly assess potential safety defects in increasingly complex vehicles. This once-storied public health agency, built on epidemiological principles, now resorts to hiding data and promoting the business interests of companies they were entrusted with regulating as it promotes autonomous vehicles and surrenders its oversight role in favor of industry ‘guidance.’"

But I will let our petition play out there.

FYI, this has a definition: regulatory capture.