-
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
DJRas
Member
Interesting!!!
In my post I showed that
I am in So Cal and will travel pretty much anywhere you say to read your car and discuss the data over a beer or coffee.
The original rated range was displayed using the constant of 295 Wh/mile matching the EPA number to get 265 miles for a usable 78.2 kWh initial capacity.
Now that constant is 276 Wh/mile to match whatever rated range at it's SOC and usable kWh remaining.
Just to compare numbers...
Using Scan My Tesla, my battery info shows 65.9 kWh Nominal full pack, 61.9 kWh Usable full pack (understanding there is 4 kWh reserve), 223 Full rated miles, and 258 Full typical miles (presuming this is ideal miles). I've got 123k miles, lots of supercharger use. May 2015 build.
just throwing this in here, but this the 295/276 Wh/mile discrepancy here is endemic to 85s. In other threads on TMC, you can find others discovering this same discrepancy and discussing it. The general idea is that 295 Wh/mile is the EPA rated Wh/mile comsumption observed in pretty ideal (EPA) driving conditions. Based on this number, Tesla takes the total Kwh of the pack and divides by the EPA consumption rate to get an EPA rated range. That's your rated miles display. So, RM are a good proxy for battery capacity in kwh since they are related by a constant. However, plenty of people have found that it is physically impossible to achieve a real range equivalent to your rated range (the max RM your car can display at 100% SOC). Why? because you cannot use the whole battery pack to travel with, despite Tesla being able to use it to calculate a theoretical rated range. Others have found that because of the buffer at the bottom - the unusable kwh capacity - the true range is somewhat lower if you go ahead and drive with a consumption rate of 295wh/m. If you want your RMs displayed to decrease at the same rate as you drive in true miles (measured on your trips in the IC), then it so happens you need to drive with a 276wh/m consumption rate.
Note that I'm not posting this to say anyone is wrong, just mentioning something I read elsewhere on TMC that may or may not be true.
Note that I'm not posting this to say anyone is wrong, just mentioning something I read elsewhere on TMC that may or may not be true.
So I had an appointment set for this next week to evaluate the slow charging. Before the appointment they texted the following.
Hi my name here, I reviewed the data from your vehicle as well as conducted a remote battery health check. There are currently no issues with your vehicle's battery and supercharge rate. If your battery ever falls within concerning bounds we will be notified remotely and you will receive a warning on the center display. As you noticed, the charge profile for your vehicle was updated starting in a previous software update. This was done to protect the battery health as well as its longevity. Furthermore, it is expected that supercharge performance will decrease overtime as your battery and vehicle ages. Is there anything else I can help you with?
To which I responded.
It doesn't make sense to slow down the supercharging with this mileage. There have been much higher mileage and older model S running the older software that supercharged faster before this update. If this was just age and mileage than those other cars would have slowed down their supercharging much before this update. This does not ad up.
Almost 4 hours later they responded.
Our battery engineers concluded that it was in the best interest for battery health and longevity that the software modifications you are experiencing are necessary. This will save your vehicle in the long run from accelerated wear and tear. Additionally, supercharge rate depends on many factors some of which include another vehicle charging at the same supercharging station, temperature, current battery charge level, and the number of times the vehicle has been supercharged in its lifetime.
Hi my name here, I reviewed the data from your vehicle as well as conducted a remote battery health check. There are currently no issues with your vehicle's battery and supercharge rate. If your battery ever falls within concerning bounds we will be notified remotely and you will receive a warning on the center display. As you noticed, the charge profile for your vehicle was updated starting in a previous software update. This was done to protect the battery health as well as its longevity. Furthermore, it is expected that supercharge performance will decrease overtime as your battery and vehicle ages. Is there anything else I can help you with?
To which I responded.
It doesn't make sense to slow down the supercharging with this mileage. There have been much higher mileage and older model S running the older software that supercharged faster before this update. If this was just age and mileage than those other cars would have slowed down their supercharging much before this update. This does not ad up.
Almost 4 hours later they responded.
Our battery engineers concluded that it was in the best interest for battery health and longevity that the software modifications you are experiencing are necessary. This will save your vehicle in the long run from accelerated wear and tear. Additionally, supercharge rate depends on many factors some of which include another vehicle charging at the same supercharging station, temperature, current battery charge level, and the number of times the vehicle has been supercharged in its lifetime.
So I take this that yes they can do the battery check remotely without a visit. They also admitted they reduced the supercharging speed.
Wow...admiring under the guise of safety for your own good...lol...truly liberal gibberish double speak.
What's next?... "For the children's sake" geezzz
Thank you for posting this clarification.
This part of your earlier post is what had me concerned that other forum members would conclude that confirming a loss of capacity is the same as being capped.
I have noticed some posters stating a lesser (2 to 5%) loss of capacity with 2019.16 and no partial recovery with the updates that gave some range back to the capped vehicles. I’m interested to determine whether they were voltage capped or lost rated miles for some other reason with 2019.16.
Ferrycraigs
Member
I have often commented to them about who owns the car? ie what authority do they feel they have to tamper with my car without my authority, or without letting me know they have done so. They have never, ever, ever, replied.
But then again, there are a number of other questions they robustly refuse to answer.
Recently started logging my supercharge rates, I currently have to do the same trip weekly where I recharge at the same supercharger on the way back. I arrive with somewhere between 15-20% SoC. In each situation I was the single car on the pair. The first thing I always notice is that initially the charge starts to go up rather fast (even at 19%) to reach 120 kW, but that only lasts a 2-3 seconds. Then the rate goes down to stabilize at around 95kW (at 20% SoC). Back in the good old days this used to be 110+ kW easy.
Note that these stalls are supposedly upgraded to allow 140-150 kW. It feels like it going "let's supercharge this up!". Then it's like "oh wait, this car is capped, let's bring it down fast".
Even though, I don't really need it and if the station is not busy I stay a bit longer. With the recent updates (32.1.2) something weird goes on as well when reaching higher SoCs (75%+), the cooling fan starts blowing like an airplane lifting off and doesn't really stop until driven at least 5 kilometers (it was actually quite scary).
Compared to say a 2018.50.6 (the best) the supercharger curve was abysmal in 2019.20.4 is, but 32.1.2 shows an "improvement" so far (N=2). Imgur
Note that these stalls are supposedly upgraded to allow 140-150 kW. It feels like it going "let's supercharge this up!". Then it's like "oh wait, this car is capped, let's bring it down fast".
Even though, I don't really need it and if the station is not busy I stay a bit longer. With the recent updates (32.1.2) something weird goes on as well when reaching higher SoCs (75%+), the cooling fan starts blowing like an airplane lifting off and doesn't really stop until driven at least 5 kilometers (it was actually quite scary).
Compared to say a 2018.50.6 (the best) the supercharger curve was abysmal in 2019.20.4 is, but 32.1.2 shows an "improvement" so far (N=2). Imgur
I noticed something interesting earlier this year. I got new louvers in my bumper installed, and while waiting for them to arrive, my car sat out in extremely low, well below freezing temps at night for several days. When I got my car back, they had "helpfully" applied an update I had been avoiding installing. (BTW, that was when I got to experience the horrors of v9). When I got home, I had a new range of 250 miles, it had dropped from 255 suddenly. I don't know if it was from the battery getting damaged by being in the cold, or if it was the update. But my guess is, the BMS has been getting tweaked all along and certain people have been affected in small ways up to now with this big change. Now my range is rapidly decreasing: I'm losing 1 mile of range per 1500 miles driven. I've gone from 250 to 247 miles in only a few months, whereas I had previously lost only about 2 miles over a year and a half of driving.
I don't have the capping update, but i know if i take it my battery will be nerfed pretty bad, based on what im seeing with my already rapidly declining range.
Once I saw this sudden drop I decided to use TeslaFi to take data over time so that I'd have some evidence if it ever became a big problem. Right now it's hard to say if the sudden 5 mile drop followed by 3 mile drop is due to some kind of fast degredation or something from an update.
Also just to correct myself here: RM is not a good proxy for capacity at anything other than 100% SOC, because RM will decay faster than the 295Wh/mile rate as you approach "zero" percent SOC, which is actually something like 4kwh left in the battery. That said, at 100% SOC, you can take your RM and multiply by .295 and that should give your total kwh, not your usable kwh, which is lower.
This is off topic. Keep that belief off this thread please.
He's right though. Tesla's doublespeak makes no sense. They're trying to tell us there's no excuse for why they took from us, while simultaneously telling us they have a mysterious excuse that is for our own good. They contradict themselves constantly to try and avoid admitting they're breaking laws.
It sounds like the class action is progressing; they won't be able to use the same tactics in court and Discovery will expose them.
It sounds like the class action is progressing; they won't be able to use the same tactics in court and Discovery will expose them.
I see your point as it applies to what Tesla has been doing all along, and I agree entirely. However, for all I know, @meomyo is resembling that behavior to "truly liberal gibberish" which I objected to and believe he should keep off of it here. If he wants to talk about the liberal vs. conservative "jibberish", this is not the thread to discuss it. We have had enough distractions here already.
What version are you on? Have you taken any updates since the SvC updated you to v9?
i am on 2018.50.6. I've denied all updates since then due to how bad v9 was, and I started to get suspicious that things would get worse. Then all this happened...
jread
Member
Similar threads
