Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[ran349]

For the record, the AWD Model 3 has had 230Wh/rmi (discharge) / 245Wh/rmi (charge) constants since at least February 2019, and I think January as well.

On the energy graph, where does the rated line fall; at the 230 Wh/mi, or the 245 Wh/mi value?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

On the energy graph, where does the rated line fall; at the 230 Wh/mi, or the 245 Wh/mi value?

Looks like maybe 250Wh/mi, but the calculations on that screen are done with 245Wh/mi, as you can see. The solid line is the constant line. Dashed is the moving average. Can see here dashed line is slightly below the solid line at 248Wh/mi, but the projections are consistent with 245Wh/mi. (140*245/248 = 138.3 which is about 139 - obviously if 250 were being used, the answer would definitely be higher than 140...)

Efficiency numbers displayed here are consistent with what the trip meter displays, however the rated miles on the gauge consistently tick off at 230Wh/rmi, not the 245Wh/rmi suggested by the Consumption graph.

 

[daranello]

So I’m continuing to test and balance my LR RWD . This is round two. What’s interesting only got 272km and 52kwh out of a 80kwh battery what’s going on? My total rated range is now 467km

 

[_jal_]

Alright, this is a phenomenal amount of info. I’ve spent a number of hours on this, but I’ve only managed to read a couple thousand posts. So, if I may, a recap?

1. tesla has introduced bms changes to reduce the usable portion of the battery pack on some cars
2. It seems these updates affected the 85 packs first, but maybe the 75 packs too???
3. The change was in response to a discovery of Syndrome X that presented a fire hazard
4. Syndrome X wasn’t actually present, but it’s diagnosis uncovered the presence of Syndrome Z which was present but of unknown consequence
5. The risk of fire is apparently the motivation of all this drama
6. The presence of Syndrome W(hat ever) is a function of miles, charging pattern, temperature, or some mysterious parameter that only Tesla knows
7. It is nice to think that battery chemistry, time and/or supercharging frequency is a key parameter in contracting Syndrome W, but now Model 3s see it too, so maybe not
8. There’s reason to think that Tesla massaged the algorithm to make the rates miles look pretty much like they were when sold even though there’s not that much power in the pack
9. Some people can barely supercharge after having their cars nerfed
10. It’s possible that all the cars Tesla has ever produced, or will ever produce, with Lithium Ion batteries possess the hitherto unknown Syndrome W and will therefore degrade inasmuch as become intolerably susceptible to fire than Tesla anticipated when charges within the parameters of a new pack
11. Tesla has no official explanation in writing of what’s going on

Is that about right?

 

[bijan]

Alright, this is a phenomenal amount of info. I’ve spent a number of hours on this, but I’ve only managed to read a couple thousand posts. So, if I may, a recap?

1. tesla has introduced bms changes to reduce the usable portion of the battery pack on some cars
2. It seems these updates affected the 85 packs first, but maybe the 75 packs too???
3. The change was in response to a discovery of Syndrome X that presented a fire hazard
4. Syndrome X wasn’t actually present, but it’s diagnosis uncovered the presence of Syndrome Z which was present but of unknown consequence
5. The risk of fire is apparently the motivation of all this drama
6. The presence of Syndrome W(hat ever) is a function of miles, charging pattern, temperature, or some mysterious parameter that only Tesla knows
7. It is nice to think that battery chemistry, time and/or supercharging frequency is a key parameter in contracting Syndrome W, but now Model 3s see it too, so maybe not
8. There’s reason to think that Tesla massaged the algorithm to make the rates miles look pretty much like they were when sold even though there’s not that much power in the pack
9. Some people can barely supercharge after having their cars nerfed
10. It’s possible that all the cars Tesla has ever produced, or will ever produce, with Lithium Ion batteries possess the hitherto unknown Syndrome W and will therefore degrade inasmuch as become intolerably susceptible to fire than Tesla anticipated when charges within the parameters of a new pack
11. Tesla has no official explanation in writing of what’s going on

Is that about right?

Sounds about right but obviously there's a lot only Tesla knows for sure.

I'd hypothesize that condition W is mitigated by playing with capacity/buffers. Condition z is mitigated by charge rate limit. And condition x the fire condition by voltage capping. But I could be wrong I've been reading the thread off and on.

And I guess maybe w leads to z leads to x.

With the model 3 they probably get to intercept things a few years earlier and kick the can further down the road. Assuming it's the same or a similar issue.

 

[MP3Mike]

The change was in response to a discovery of Syndrome X that presented a fire hazard

We don't know that Syndrome X presents a fire hazard. (Hard to know what it presents when you don't know what it is to begin with.)

The risk of fire is apparently the motivation of all this drama

People are making that assumption, but we don't know that that is what motivated Tesla.

 

[_jal_]

I remember Musk getting almost indignant with Boeing over their Dreamliner battery design and claiming it was a huge fire hazard and unsafe and so on. In my mind it made it seem like he was astutely aware of the fire risks of Li Ion batts. It would be bad if an unknown unknown crept in that somehow made them that more dangerous

 

[_jal_]

We don't know that Syndrome X presents a fire hazard. (Hard to know what it presents when you don't know what it is to begin with.)



People are making that assumption, but we don't know that that is what motivated Tesla.

I tried as best I could to qualify all my synopses My point was that “people are making that assumption” as opposed to that being the Truth

 

[bijan]

We don't know that Syndrome X presents a fire hazard. (Hard to know what it presents when you don't know what it is to begin with.)



People are making that assumption, but we don't know that that is what motivated Tesla.

I remember several online articles about the model S fires and how Tesla pushed out an update to mitigate the issue. But it could have just been poor journalism.

 

[Brass Guy]

You are not capped then. But is your battery safe?

Yes, I know I'm not capped.

For the safety comment, I'm going of topic for this thread now.

I had a loaner for two weeks, was told my car would be updated, so I learned to use V9. Everything I use the screen for (except the media app) takes more clicks using smaller targets, and I had many close calls driving because of it. Thus if my detached garage burns down because the battery is not safe - though Tesla has not said so - that would be a tragedy (V8); but if I injured or killed someone or myself because I looked at the screen 3x as long as I should have to (V9/V10), that is absolutely unacceptable.

For me at least, V8 is safer than V9 or V10 whether the battery has a safety issue or not. I am so lucky the service center left it alone.

 

[jholow]

A bit off topic, but regarding the earlier comments about the browser being non- functional, I was in a service center getting some work done over the summer, and overheard an employee telling another customer that the browser was soon going to be removed, due to the access costs Tesla was paying for internet service, without recouping anything from customers. That they would likely continue to support music streaming, but the browser would be going away. Not much more detail than that, but after hearing that, it does not surprise me that they are crippling it.

 

[mvotb]

Yes, I know I'm not capped.

For the safety comment, I'm going of topic for this thread now.

I had a loaner for two weeks, was told my car would be updated, so I learned to use V9. Everything I use the screen for (except the media app) takes more clicks using smaller targets, and I had many close calls driving because of it. Thus if my detached garage burns down because the battery is not safe - though Tesla has not said so - that would be a tragedy (V8); but if I injured or killed someone or myself because I looked at the screen 3x as long as I should have to (V9/V10), that is absolutely unacceptable.

For me at least, V8 is safer than V9 or V10 whether the battery has a safety issue or not. I am so lucky the service center left it alone.

At least 6 of us were forced on to V10, from V8, last weekend. I would assume they are coming for you, and all the others, soon, and probably not Tesla soon. V10 is a total POS compared to V8, and further proof that Tesla has flipped it business strategy from take care of its customers to, Innovate for new customers, and hope it doesn't catch up with them. Not my idea of a good plan when the product is cars.

 

[CuriousG]

At least 6 of us were forced on to V10, from V8, last weekend. I would assume they are coming for you, and all the others, soon, and probably not Tesla soon. V10 is a total POS compared to V8, and further proof that Tesla has flipped it business strategy from take care of its customers to, Innovate for new customers, and hope it doesn't catch up with them. Not my idea of a good plan when the product is cars.

But but they have smart summon, Beach Buggy Racing 2, Cuphead, Caraoke, Netflix, and rear camera recording now. What? It's only for AP2+ cars, MCU2 and Model 3 screens?

 

[Ferrycraigs]

A bit off topic, but regarding the earlier comments about the browser being non- functional, I was in a service center getting some work done over the summer, and overheard an employee telling another customer that the browser was soon going to be removed, due to the access costs Tesla was paying for internet service, without recouping anything from customers. That they would likely continue to support music streaming, but the browser would be going away. Not much more detail than that, but after hearing that, it does not surprise me that they are crippling it.

Unsurprising news. It follows all the other money saving decisions Tesla has made recently. I shan’t be sad to see it go. It has always been pretty slow, glitchy and unable to run many of the sites I wanted to use. I tend to use my phone anyway, which is much better. It was never much more than a gimmick for me.

 

[First EV]

But but they have smart summon, Beach Buggy Racing 2, Cuphead, Caraoke, Netflix, and rear camera recording now. What? It's only for AP2+ cars, MCU2 and Model 3 screens?

Wasn't V9 supposed to be the software integration with the model 3? So similar Interface as the M3 optimised for one smaller screen. I would assume this would also lower development costs. I am ok not having beach buggy, think flat spots on your tires from turning the wheel back and forth in one spot. I am ok without the browser. Netflix would help especially with the longer supercharge times and ironically the cars that could use it the most don't have it.

 

[Droschke]

Sounds about right but obviously there's a lot only Tesla knows for sure.

I'd hypothesize that condition W is mitigated by playing with capacity/buffers. Condition z is mitigated by charge rate limit. And condition x the fire condition by voltage capping. But I could be wrong I've been reading the thread off and on.

And I guess maybe w leads to z leads to x.

With the model 3 they probably get to intercept things a few years earlier and kick the can further down the road. Assuming it's the same or a similar issue.

For the sake of Condition X and Z reference accuracy, please see the posts below by wk057:

Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

 

[Chaserr]

At least 6 of us were forced on to V10, from V8, last weekend. I would assume they are coming for you, and all the others, soon, and probably not Tesla soon. V10 is a total POS compared to V8, and further proof that Tesla has flipped it business strategy from take care of its customers to, Innovate for new customers, and hope it doesn't catch up with them. Not my idea of a good plan when the product is cars.

If you have an old WiFi access point, hook it up in the garage with no internet connection and connect your car to it. The car will think it has a connection but it won't access anything, so phone network should be off (no app access, no Tesla engineers hacking your car)

Tesla won't be able to remotely connect to your car in the garage this way, and it's doubtful they will initiate a remote install while you're driving. The most they can do is command your car to download over the phone connection when away from home but that will take forever on 3G cars and they will still need to be able to remotely conenct to start the update.

 

[qwk]

Tesla will load software over 3g while the cr is in motion. Happened to me.

 

[omarsultan]

If you have an old WiFi access point, hook it up in the garage with no internet connection and connect your car to it. The car will think it has a connection but it won't access anything, so phone network should be off (no app access, no Tesla engineers hacking your car)

Tesla won't be able to remotely connect to your car in the garage this way, and it's doubtful they will initiate a remote install while you're driving. The most they can do is command your car to download over the phone connection when away from home but that will take forever on 3G cars and they will still need to be able to remotely conenct to start the update.

I am not sure about the advisability of suggesting this. At the end of the day, it appears Tesla is concerned enough about condition X or Y or Z to force changes on owners and kick up this sh!tstorm. Assuming this is all rooted in a safety issue, then that would seem, to me at least, to be a higher concern than preserving a UI or range.

Not suggesting we let Tesla off the hook for their shenanigans, but I think we should also maintain some perspective on these things.

 

[Chaserr]

People have been doing it for years and it works.

If Tesla was genuinely concerned about condition X Y or Z they wouldn't be actively involved in a conspiracy to conceal it from us. We literally would not need to call them "X Y or Z" if they felt the slightest concern.

If they want permission to hack your car, make them ask. Make them tell you why. We want them to stay in business and skirting the law in regards to public disclosure puts all of our warranties at risk.