Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[Chaserr]

The brick buffet stays at 4kWh for our 85s from new to now

This makes me realize - we should crowd-source the Vmin value at 0% for as many of us willing to try it as possible. I'll use the heater to go to 0% the next time I drive down to single digits and measure what my lowest volts are.

With everything tesla has done already, it might help catch them trying to take more off the "bottom" in the future.

 

[Nick70d]

My S slowly gaining mile after 2 times drove the car to 10% and home charge 100%

 

[Droschke]

Tesla part numbers follow a "Part Number-Subpart Number-Revision Letter" format; ie, my battery is 1014114-00-E. You can only compare revision letters with the same part and subpart numbers. When a new part/subpart number is issued to supercede an old one, the revision letter resets to A. So there is likely an xxxxxxx-yy-A battery that is later than mine.

In the old days, there was one part/subpart number, and people could just compare the letters (hence the 90kw A's and 120kw B and up). But the original A packs were long gone before the AWD 85D appeared.

Correct. Also this decoder: Fabbec´s Batteriedecoder

 

[SmartElectric]

Does anyone in this forum state that they have a Model S from 2012 to 2015 and not have either charging restrictions or capping?

+1. Not affected.

Early production May 2013 Tesla S85 VIN near 6000, not affected.

Car was limited from factory to 90 kW maximum supercharging (due to original "A" pack battery specification). Still charges at 90 kW maximum (saw this rate earlier this week).
No loss in range over the past 4.5 years with only 3% degradation from new.

 

[liamharry]

Have you added yourself to this sheet?
Tesla battery capacity loss with FW 2019.16.2

Yup .. on it

 

[liamharry]

That isn't the "A" packs that people refer to as "A" packs. The real "A" packs were never able to charge over 90kW. (And were never available in a dual motor Tesla.)

OK. Misunderstood .. thought meant ‘A’ packs as labeled. Didn’t realise there was another type.

 

[Chaserr]

+1. Not affected.

Early production May 2013 Tesla S85 VIN near 6000, not affected.

Car was limited from factory to 90 kW maximum supercharging (due to original "A" pack battery specification). Still charges at 90 kW maximum (saw this rate earlier this week).
No loss in range over the past 4.5 years with only 3% degradation from new.

Aren't you drastically impacted by chargegate though I thought I remembered you saying earlier that your A-Pack had been slowed to 3 hour supercharges longer than we even knew about chargegate.

 

[bijan]

Aren't you drastically impacted by chargegate though I thought I remembered you saying earlier that your A-Pack had been slowed to 3 hour supercharges longer than we even knew about chargegate.

Here's the post:
Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

He was saying that he always got chargegate rates/charging curve, even before chargegate. (as in A-packs were always that slow).

 

[SmartElectric]

Aren't you drastically impacted by chargegate though I thought I remembered you saying earlier that your A-Pack had been slowed to 3 hour supercharges longer than we even knew about chargegate.

Am not affected by charge-gate, rather, as I continue to advise here, my car "looks" like it's affected by charge gate, but the truth is that it has always charged this way due to having original "A" pack battery as our car is early 2013 Tesla S85 VIN near 6000.

I have a monitoring device that logs all trips and charging (FleetCarma) for many years.
I provided a number of the longest charge sessions in a post last month.
These showed that charging above 90% is slow for my car, and always has been.

Whereas charging up to 90% typically followed a pattern of:
(state of charge in percent) + (kW charge rate) =~ 110

I did a ~10% to 90% supercharge within the past week.
The battery was pre-warmed significantly using Bjorn Nyland documented method of hard acceleration/regen.

Within a few minutes of starting, peaked to 90 kW and the formula for the charge rate was roughly
SOC 10%, rate 90 kW
SOC 40%, rate 70 kW
SOC 80%, rate 25 kW

but once the car gets to 85%, the rate dropped quite a bit, and I don't even try to supercharge above 90% when not necessary, but that's nothing new.

Started the trip with car charged to 413 km range (out of 425 km as new) at 100%.

 

[Zextraterrestrial]

"your mileage may vary"
...
Battery use and care will impact your range.
.

this is just not true in as far as the difference in use between these cars with different voltage caps and capacities.
not like anyone has let their battery go to 0%soc and stay for a long time. or 100% everyday without driving.
battery temperature is well controlled by Tesla - use and care / there is not a lot you can do that is bad use or care in reality since temp and charge is so controlled

I charge to 99% 2 times a month to race. let my car go to 2 -5 miles on road trips at least 20 times. Supercharge a few times a month. since 2013
my car charges to 248 rated - says 73kWhr

 

[ran349]

Not quite SoC as displayed by the car though, as car can display 100% SoC even when there is degradation.

My SoC definition uses (nominal full pack of current car) in the denominator (this is what the car displays for SoC and can give 100% even if the car degrades since nominal full pack of current car will also degrade). My rated miles definition uses (nominal full pack of brand new car) in denominator and so shouldn't give the EPA rated miles if the car degrades.

Edit: This is how my car now shows 474km at 100% SoC, when the car should show 499km at 100% SoC when new. This is since nominal full pack is now 72.1kwh, when for new car the value would be 76kwh. 72.1/76 * 499 = 474 (I should have subtracted the buffer from both nominal full pack values, but I don't know what brand new buffer should be, and assume that it decreases linearly as battery degrades, unless Tesla plays around with the buffer).

Not sure what your point is here. Of course SOC will display 100% even if the battery degrades. That is why just looking at percent display does not give any indication of actual battery degradation.

 

[bijan]

Not sure what your point is here. Of course SOC will display 100% even if the battery degrades. That is why just looking at percent display does not give any indication of actual battery degradation.

My point was that rated miles is not calculated based on SoC (at least as displayed in the car), but on one of the kWh measures that the car/BMS has. That's how you get less than EPA miles even if SoC is 100%, since kWh drops.

 

[ran349]

Please, keep the conversation to battery capacity in kWh. Range of any kind will be thrown back in our faces by Tesla. With that they can take in all the driving factors that effect range. Not the discussion. It is all about kWh limitation through restricting battery capacity (voltage). With 2019.16.1 my kWh dropped from 73 kWh to 62 kWh. Don't go past that. It dilutes our case.

Tesla will make whatever arguments they want to make, regardless of what is said in this forum. Rated range is not the same as driving range. We know that. Tesla knows that. And Tesla knows that we know that.
That argument will not serve Tesla well in a courtroom.

 

[Chaserr]

Here's the post:
Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

He was saying that he always got chargegate rates/charging curve, even before chargegate. (as in A-packs were always that slow).

Am not affected by charge-gate, rather, as I continue to advise here, my car "looks" like it's affected by charge gate, but the truth is that it has always charged this way due to having original "A" pack battery as our car is early 2013 Tesla S85 VIN near 6000.

I have a monitoring device that logs all trips and charging (FleetCarma) for many years.
I provided a number of the longest charge sessions in a post last month.
These showed that charging above 90% is slow for my car, and always has been.

Whereas charging up to 90% typically followed a pattern of:
(state of charge in percent) + (kW charge rate) =~ 110

I did a ~10% to 90% supercharge within the past week.
The battery was pre-warmed significantly using Bjorn Nyland documented method of hard acceleration/regen.

Within a few minutes of starting, peaked to 90 kW and the formula for the charge rate was roughly
SOC 10%, rate 90 kW
SOC 40%, rate 70 kW
SOC 80%, rate 25 kW

but once the car gets to 85%, the rate dropped quite a bit, and I don't even try to supercharge above 90% when not necessary, but that's nothing new.

Started the trip with car charged to 413 km range (out of 425 km as new) at 100%.

It looks like he was never affected by chargegate and just thought his slightly reduced A-pack speeds were the same as those of us chargegate limited to half his speeds now. I thought he was saying he was as slow as we are now, before we knew about it. None of the A pack loaners I ever had were this slow. They charged a little slower, but not twice as long or more. What I wouldn't give for those speeds now!

 

[gmo43]

At the moment some of the original posters are working on a big informational post, along with Djras. If possible it would be nice if folks could hold off for a day or so while it gets finalized.

Any idea of what exactly this will be?

 

[faughtz]

LA Times:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-11-01/federal-safety-agency-launches-investigation-of-tesla-battery-fires%3f_amp=true

 

[Chaserr]

Any idea of what exactly this will be?

Post #1 on page 1 will be continually updated with everything we know. Links to report to the NHTSA, how to check your volts, explanations of what batterygate is, why "degradation" and "calibration" are off topic distractions, et cetera. Basically, it's a summary so you won't need to read 7200 posts and climbing to have a grasp on what's going on.

 

[cpa]

Returning to the complaint and the forthcoming mediation, I have a couple of thoughts that might be worthwhile to pursue while the lawyers are sitting around the table doing whatever lawyers do.

There is too much ignorance with us customers. Even the knowledgeable folks with engineering or other salient backgrounds have questions and concerns. To me, Tesla has to stop the dissembling and sophistry of Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook. The legerdemain behind Tesla's software upgrades needs a lot more transparency. No more "minor bug fixes and improvements." Tell us what you did, no matter how insignificant. You are foisting upon us changes that (in this complaint) have had a material impact on our lives. We have significantly less range. We have substantially decreased Supercharging speeds, which adds hours to a day's drive. Yet, Tesla backdoored these changes, burying them in the "minor bug fixes and improvements."

In addition, I believe that Tesla needs to add some sort of diagnostic information to the touchscreen. This information should show the battery's health--its maximum voltage allowed per cell, its minimum voltage per cell (dead battery) over an extended period of time. Indicate the current temperature of the battery. Show graphically the temperature sweet spot for Supercharging. We should not have to buy materials and hook them up to our cars to dissect our situation. For people like me, that information would have no meaning. But a clearly designed screen to show what is expected would go a long way towards understanding what our battery's system is like.

Speaking of Supercharging, there is an ocean of unknowns as to why Supercharger speed can vary dramatically:

--Using a paired stall with the version 2 engineering.
--Charging when the battery is cold--too cold.
--Charging in the desert in the summer and the resistance forces a reduction in current because the heat cannot dissipate quickly.
--Defective charging equipment that has reduced the speed because one or more of the chargers are down in the stack or a faulty cable.
--Charging software detects an issue with our charge port so reduces the current for safety.
--Charging with a high state of charge.
--Charging with capped speeds.

Tesla must include relevant information on the charging screen when we Supercharge. It need only address the speed as compared with "ideal." It could indicate the paired stall issue, battery temperature issue, external heat issue, known defective equipment (and suggest a change in stalls), a suggested service appointment for the charge port, or any other relevant factor, including the capped rates and why.

What Tesla did was sneaky. They cannot be allowed to continue this sort of devious behavior. Eventually, people will tire of their shenanigans and tricks and buy other vehicles from other companies.

While Tesla is not running a Ponzi scheme, Tesla will eventually implode like one because its set of new customers will dry up the same way a Ponzi scheme runs out of new money eventually.

 

[bhzmark]

NHTSA procedures are : Motor Vehicle Defects and Safety Recalls: What Every Vehicle Owner Should Know | Safercar.gov | NHTSA

The relevant text is pasted at end below.

It seems to me that the current stage is not at investigation but rather at "technical analysis" to determine whether to grant the petition, or not, thus only then opening a defect investigation, or not.



2. Petition Analyses:

Any person may submit a petition requesting NHTSA to open an investigation into an alleged safety defect. After conducting a technical analysis of such a petition, ODI informs the petitioner whether it has been granted or denied. If the petition is granted, a defect investigation is opened. If the petition is denied, the reasons for the denial are published in the Federal Register.

 

[DJRas]

NHTSA procedures are : Motor Vehicle Defects and Safety Recalls: What Every Vehicle Owner Should Know | Safercar.gov | NHTSA

The relevant text is pasted at end below.

It seems to me that the current stage is not at investigation but rather at "technical analysis" to determine whether to grant the petition, or not, thus only then opening a defect investigation, or not.



2. Petition Analyses:

Any person may submit a petition requesting NHTSA to open an investigation into an alleged safety defect. After conducting a technical analysis of such a petition, ODI informs the petitioner whether it has been granted or denied. If the petition is granted, a defect investigation is opened. If the petition is denied, the reasons for the denial are published in the Federal Register.

Agreed.
But, they are asking Tesla to produce by Nov 28 much of the information to evaluate the changes made regarding the batteries, updates and fires.
THIS will allow them to make a proper evaluation.
It also shows that NHTSA is not just dismissing the petition and taking the issues seriously.