Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[MikeyC]

Not looking to argue, just curious...how could they defend/justify that? Its one thing if they did this in a way that was transparent to me as an owner, but they did something that will apparently benefit them (lower warranty costs) and negatively impacted me (capped battery).

I agree. With laws, it's sometimes helpful to think in extremes. Let's say a manufacturer determines that a V8 engine suffers from excessive wear due to a frequent misfire on cylinder #8. Their solution is to just disconnect the coil pack on cylinder 8 so it never fires, and this improves longevity of the engine. If you agree that's wrong... then you have to agree that capping and charge rate reduction is wrong because they are a similar solution, just different magnitudes.

Mike

 

[Droschke]

I agree. With laws, it's sometimes helpful to think in extremes. Let's say a manufacturer determines that a V8 engine suffers from excessive wear due to a frequent misfire on cylinder #8. Their solution is to just disconnect the coil pack on cylinder 8 so it never fires, and this improves longevity of the engine. If you agree that's wrong... then you have to agree that capping and charge rate reduction is wrong because they are a similar solution, just different magnitudes.

Mike

Good one. Are we helping our legal team with useful analogies?

 

[MP3Mike]

I know you are attorney, but in this case there is really no way for Tesla's law firm to fight what happened. They will literally bury themselves once they start with the first lie.

If you want anything covered under warranty you would have to first prove that there was a failure. So the first issue becomes defining what constitutes a failure. I'm pretty sure that Tesla has told people that to them it means the failure to charge, at all, or the failure to drive the car. (That if it could only charge to, and drive, the car 50 miles that still isn't considered a failure.)

 

[omarsultan]

If you want anything covered under warranty you would have to first prove that there was a failure. So the first issue becomes defining what constitutes a failure. I'm pretty sure that Tesla has told people that to them it means the failure to charge, at all, or the failure to drive the car. (That if it could only charge to, and drive, the car 50 miles that still isn't considered a failure.)

The warranty actually says "malfunctioning or defective" -- again, not a lawyer, but that would seem to cover a broader range of scenarios that just outright failure.

Link: https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/downloads/tesla-new-vehicle-limited-warranty-en-us.pdf

 

[DJRas]

The lawsuit is sbout the battery pack.
The battery pack is made up of individual modules.
These modules are made up of the battery cells themselves (444 18650 cells), the monitoring elements (2 temperature sensors and 6 voltage sensors) and the BMS hardware snd software .
A failure in any of these components could easily be considered a failure of the battery pack.
Judges, juries and lawyers decide what is legal facts.
All the rest are just our opinions.

 

[DJRas]

It’s always good to get expert analysis. Very interesting post, thanks. Developing it a bit further, it has been posted that a couple of people have submitted complaints to NHTSA. As a foreigner I am unfamiliar with how they work. I understand (assume) they can ask whatever question they want and (assume) Tesla are obligated to answer, truthfully., But are the results of their investigations made fully public? eg a very contracted example, but in essence:
N. Is this a safety issue?
T. No
N. OK. Case closed
or is the final bit an in detail explanation why the case is closed, or why they didn’t deem it necessary to conduct a formal investigation.

Basically, do we get to see the answers we are seeking?

The answer is No.
I met with the CEO of Safety Research and Strategies last week and he had to go to court to get the data behind the NHTSA ruling that Autopilot is safer than non-AP.
It took 2 years and their analysis showed just the opposite to be the case.
Only through dogged determination can we get NHTSA to even fairly pursue this.

New Analysis Challenges Bold Tesla Claims | Safety Research & Strategies, Inc.

 

[raphy3]

As an attorney I can tell you that is NOT an admission by Tesla. First of all, the section you refer to is not directed specifically to the BMS, rather it is directed to the battery. So the first barrier that would heed to be overcome is to convince a court that “battery” includes the BMS. Secondly, the key phrase in what you cite is “If something goes wrong ...”. Tesla has not (to this date) admitted that anything has gone wrong. That still needs to be proven in a court of law. So unfortunately, it is not as clear cut as you (and others) would infer it to be. I wish it were, but it’s not.

You can argue that "protect itself" implies a solution additional to the battery. In the first line they say the battery will protect itself. It doesn't have to be referring to the bms specifically to effectively say that the battery has some means to protect itself, as they've stated. Isn't the bms irrelevant here? We don't need to put a label on the software or other means that the battery uses to protect itself. We only need to know that Tesla publicly stated that the battery will protect itself.

The other thing that has to be proven is that the battery, through whatever mechanism it uses, did not actually protect itself. That's the part that Tesla hasn't stated publicly, but they've come awfully close, with clumsy wording saying that their capping software update is meant to "protect" the battery, and they were pushed to us "out of an abundance of caution". It's reasonable to deduce that the battery was not protecting itself properly if an update had to be pushed to protect the battery, especially if they adopted a worrying, cautious stance. So if it's called a bms or whatever, the battery contains a protection system which Tesla said is warranted.

Or, that's what I would try anyway

 

[Droschke]

It's reasonable to deduce that the battery was not protecting itself properly if an update had to be pushed to protect the battery, especially if they adopted a worrying, cautious stance.

My thinking from day one. I believe their BMS has failed in protecting our batteries by insufficient safeguards in place to the point that the packs are now irreversibly damaged. The capping software is just a band-aid to run the warranty clock.

 

[raphy3]

My thinking from day one. I believe their BMS has failed in protecting our batteries by insufficient safeguards in place to the point that the packs are now irreversibly damaged. The capping software is just a band-aid to run the warranty clock.

Your probably right, but for my sake I hope otherwise!

 

[qwk]

If you want anything covered under warranty you would have to first prove that there was a failure. So the first issue becomes defining what constitutes a failure. I'm pretty sure that Tesla has told people that to them it means the failure to charge, at all, or the failure to drive the car. (That if it could only charge to, and drive, the car 50 miles that still isn't considered a failure.)

I’m not quite sure what you are talking about. This lawsuit isn’t about failure, it’s about theft, or bait/switch to put it politely.

On versions prior to 19.16, the failure would have most likely been a battery flamethrower. If you were paying attention, after being pressed, Jason said that “he never said it wasn’t a safety issue”. What do you think than means? I’m not the smartest guy in the room, but I do pay attention.

 

[ElectricOrgan]

Battery Warranty
In developing the Model S, we took great care to ensure that the battery would protect itself... If something goes wrong, it is therefore our fault, not yours.

As an attorney I can tell you that is NOT an admission by Tesla. First of all, the section you refer to is not directed specifically to the BMS, rather it is directed to the battery. So the first barrier that would heed to be overcome is to convince a court that “battery” includes the BMS. Secondly, the key phrase in what you cite is “If something goes wrong ...”. Tesla has not (to this date) admitted that anything has gone wrong. That still needs to be proven in a court of law. So unfortunately, it is not as clear cut as you (and others) would infer it to be. I wish it were, but it’s not.

Just to get my two cents in. When you question if the BMS is included in the above warranty phrases, I would say it was. The specifics mentions that the battery "protects itself" and later refers to leaving it in a low state of charge. The "battery", if the BMS is not included, would not be capable of doing anything about a "low state of charge" and would not know it was in a low state of charge or nearly any other condition.

Of course Tesla has not admitted any wrong doing. But that's the whole point, isn't it? To prove they did wrong.

You wouldn't want me on your jury. lol

 

[omarsultan]

Just to get my two cents in. When you question if the BMS is included in the above warranty phrases, I would say it was. The specifics mentions that the battery "protects itself" and later refers to leaving it in a low state of charge. The "battery", if the BMS is not included, would not be capable of doing anything about a "low state of charge" and would not know it was in a low state of charge or nearly any other condition.

Unless...the batteries are sentient and can think for themselves--capping is the clandestine beginning of SkyNet as they fight back against their oppressors.

[Apologies, thought we could do to lighten things up a bit before the weekend]

 

[Ulmo]

When was it that Tesla advised the owners that DC charging (Supercharging or CHAdeMO) was bad for the battery and should be avoided?

I never heard of such an advice from Tesla. In fact, both charging methods were sold as features which we paid for.

I like your stance. However, it was discussed on TMC: search for "dc charge counter chademo". The first return in that search found:

If you fast charge, Tesla will permanently throttle charging

Tesla confirmed as much from what I recall in that thread. At the time, I owned Chademo on a Model S and that affected me.

I don’t see where DC charging vs AC charging makes a difference. There is a difference between 120 KW charging and 11 KW charging, but DC charging at 1 KW (bypassing the car’s charger) is no different from AC charging at 1 KW (where the car’s charger is used) and should not be counted by the “counter” referred to in the post above.

Yes, we all agree, and said so back then: If you fast charge, Tesla will permanently throttle charging

 

[MikeyC]

I don't understand why the "battery vs BMS" question is even relevant. Even if you assume Tesla is being 100% honest and grant that it is not a safety issue and that the update was to increase battery longevity alone, there is still an underlying issue: can a manufacturer legally alter features of a vehicle in order to ensure that it is simply "roadworthy" during the warranty period. In essence, we are talking about creating a negative impact on features that likely sold you the car: (1) long range and (2) ability to charge quickly on trips.

That alone is grounds for a class action suit. They voluntarily made a negative impact on features of the car after a sale; features that are used publicly to promote sales. Doesn't matter whether it involves the battery, BMS, or stitching in the steering wheel as the end result is the same. So then the question becomes, is that legal and if so, to what extent is a manufacturer allowed to alter vehicle operation after a sale, particularly if those alterations have a negative impact on the vehicle's use case. The latter is the gray area but I think the spirit of a warranty is to ensure that a vehicle's operation doesn't decline enough to affect its use during that period. Maybe it'd be difficult to argue that losing 10-30 miles of range on an EV prevents normal use, but I tend to believe they'd have a difficult time arguing that the reduced charging rates share the same leeway as that problem is even more severe and it does cause you to not be able to operate the vehicle in a similar fashion to when it was new.

Mike

 

[Ferrycraigs]

Tesla has taken the position that everything is fine, and that the update was made to improve longevity of the battery (a future event of making the battery last longer).

I have often asked them why was I capped. They have always said, for the longevity of the battery. When I point out that is what they hope to achieve, not why they did it in the first place, the conversation dries up. Always.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

I like your stance. However, it was discussed on TMC: search for "dc charge counter chademo". The first return in that search found:

If you fast charge, Tesla will permanently throttle charging

Tesla confirmed as much from what I recall in that thread. At the time, I owned Chademo on a Model S and that affected me.


Yes, we all agree, and said so back then: If you fast charge, Tesla will permanently throttle charging

I wonder where that leaves the hundreds of thousands of owners that are not on TMC and so may have missed Tesla's advice about the down side of DC charging. I AM a member and I DID miss it.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

If you want anything covered under warranty you would have to first prove that there was a failure. So the first issue becomes defining what constitutes a failure. I'm pretty sure that Tesla has told people that to them it means the failure to charge, at all, or the failure to drive the car. (That if it could only charge to, and drive, the car 50 miles that still isn't considered a failure.)

I agree with all of that, 100%.

Question 2. If there is no failure, and the battery is 'healthy' why was it capped, and why can’t it be uncapped? (Or is that question 3?)

 

[omarsultan]

I think there are two routes to compel Tesla to do something. One is the “theft” argument which with owners on one side and Tesla on the other. Two is showing the batteries are defective and a safety issue, in which case, I’d think the government and their considerably bigger guns would become involved.

 

[Droschke]

I have often asked them why was I capped. They have always said, for the longevity of the battery. When I point out that is what they hope to achieve, not why they did it in the first place, the conversation dries up. Always.

Very suspicious. What are they trying to hide?

 

[MP3Mike]

I have often asked them why was I capped. They have always said, for the longevity of the battery. When I point out that is what they hope to achieve, not why they did it in the first place, the conversation dries up. Always.

You expect the service center staff to have any idea why the engineers at HQ did something?

Very suspicious. What are they trying to hide?

They aren't trying to hide, they have no clue. They only know what they have been told to say by the engineers/HQ.