FWIW, lest I was misunderstood, I was agreeing with @DJRas that this would be formally resolved outside this thread so litigating it here might be good practice, but doesn’t fix anything.
-
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
All,
After a little help.
Mentioned more in depth in previous postings ... have a March 2016 85D MS. Affected by both batterygate and chargegate.
To date my findings have been relatively rudimentary in that I have generally taken a quick pic on my phone of the the start of the charge both in % and rated miles and at completion of charge. As a result I have a little record of my vehicles capacity/rated range over the last three and a bit years. Yes I do appreciate the difference between capacity/range etc.
When I first got the car (circa November 2016), one of the first charges at 100% SoC gave a rated range of 265 miles. Rate of charge used to be around 115kW at the start and tapering as per normal, but certainly well above 80kW around the 50% mark.
100%
10 Sept 2016 - 265 miles rated range
29 Nov 2018 - 259 miles rated range
15 Feb 2019 - 256 miles rated range
27 June 2019 (post software update) - 226 miles rated range - instant cap of 30 miles of range (this wasn’t normal degradation)
90%
23 March 2019 - 231 miles rated range
05 Nov 2019 (post software and latest V10) - 210 miles rated range - instant cap of 21 miles of range (this wasn’t normal degradation)
80%
05 May 2019 - 205 miles rated range
15 June 2019 - 185 miles rated range
05 Nov 2019 - (post software and latest V10) - 187 miles rated range - instant cap of 18 miles of range (this wasn’t normal degradation)
Charge rate barely gets above 76kW even when around 10% SoC and relatively warm battery and tapers pretty quickly. Will add that if I have been driving for 100 plus miles and battery has properly warmed up, then I will actually see 100 plus kW on the charge rate for about 30 seconds or so and will start dropping pretty quickly to the 76kW mark - does suggest though if battery is warmer then the rate is slightly higher .. at least to start with.
OK, sorry for preamble and actually getting to the point of the post .. I don’t have any OBD 2 / Can BUS readers, adapter cables or software. I have had a quick look around he internet and YouTube etc and most refer to 'TM-Spy' or 'Scan My Tesla’ and Windows/Android centric. I have an iPhone and MacBook. Can anyone suggest the best adapter cable, OBD 2 dongle and software for someone who is UK based so that I can get some more accurate data.
Currently in early discussions with lawyers here in the UK who are interested in exploring the breach of the Consumer Rights Act re breach of contract and need more accurate data of Voltage capping etc.
Perhaps some links that could be on the Page 1 Wiki?
Apologies for being the Neanderthal on this and or point me in the right direction if already covered on a better thread. Thanks in advance.
After a little help.
Mentioned more in depth in previous postings ... have a March 2016 85D MS. Affected by both batterygate and chargegate.
To date my findings have been relatively rudimentary in that I have generally taken a quick pic on my phone of the the start of the charge both in % and rated miles and at completion of charge. As a result I have a little record of my vehicles capacity/rated range over the last three and a bit years. Yes I do appreciate the difference between capacity/range etc.
When I first got the car (circa November 2016), one of the first charges at 100% SoC gave a rated range of 265 miles. Rate of charge used to be around 115kW at the start and tapering as per normal, but certainly well above 80kW around the 50% mark.
100%
10 Sept 2016 - 265 miles rated range
29 Nov 2018 - 259 miles rated range
15 Feb 2019 - 256 miles rated range
27 June 2019 (post software update) - 226 miles rated range - instant cap of 30 miles of range (this wasn’t normal degradation)
90%
23 March 2019 - 231 miles rated range
05 Nov 2019 (post software and latest V10) - 210 miles rated range - instant cap of 21 miles of range (this wasn’t normal degradation)
80%
05 May 2019 - 205 miles rated range
15 June 2019 - 185 miles rated range
05 Nov 2019 - (post software and latest V10) - 187 miles rated range - instant cap of 18 miles of range (this wasn’t normal degradation)
Charge rate barely gets above 76kW even when around 10% SoC and relatively warm battery and tapers pretty quickly. Will add that if I have been driving for 100 plus miles and battery has properly warmed up, then I will actually see 100 plus kW on the charge rate for about 30 seconds or so and will start dropping pretty quickly to the 76kW mark - does suggest though if battery is warmer then the rate is slightly higher .. at least to start with.
OK, sorry for preamble and actually getting to the point of the post .. I don’t have any OBD 2 / Can BUS readers, adapter cables or software. I have had a quick look around he internet and YouTube etc and most refer to 'TM-Spy' or 'Scan My Tesla’ and Windows/Android centric. I have an iPhone and MacBook. Can anyone suggest the best adapter cable, OBD 2 dongle and software for someone who is UK based so that I can get some more accurate data.
Currently in early discussions with lawyers here in the UK who are interested in exploring the breach of the Consumer Rights Act re breach of contract and need more accurate data of Voltage capping etc.
Perhaps some links that could be on the Page 1 Wiki?
Apologies for being the Neanderthal on this and or point me in the right direction if already covered on a better thread. Thanks in advance.
Last edited:
@liamharry The Class Action suit links on page 1 should help your lawyer a lot. The US class action names laws specific to the US only, but it lays out specifically what was done by Tesla and which laws were broken. Your attorney should be able to use the US suit as a template when he creates his own documents, replacing the named US laws and statutes with your UK equivalents.
No need to apologize! We're 7500 posts into this thread and that first page was only recently converted to a wiki a few days ago; this is a lot of information!
I'd start with these:
https://www.classaction.org/media/rasmussen-v-tesla-inc_1.pdf
Docket for Rasmussen v. Tesla, Inc., 5:19-cv-04596 - CourtListener.com
I recommend picking up an OBD reader and using something like ScanMyTesla to get volt readings from your car. Range readings are what brought you to this thread and make you suspect Tesla downgraded your car, but volt readings are the only way to prove it. Tesla can claim degradation for range, they can't claim voltage reductions are anything but either an intentional downgrade or a catastrophic battery failure.
No need to apologize! We're 7500 posts into this thread and that first page was only recently converted to a wiki a few days ago; this is a lot of information!
I'd start with these:
https://www.classaction.org/media/rasmussen-v-tesla-inc_1.pdf
Docket for Rasmussen v. Tesla, Inc., 5:19-cv-04596 - CourtListener.com
I recommend picking up an OBD reader and using something like ScanMyTesla to get volt readings from your car. Range readings are what brought you to this thread and make you suspect Tesla downgraded your car, but volt readings are the only way to prove it. Tesla can claim degradation for range, they can't claim voltage reductions are anything but either an intentional downgrade or a catastrophic battery failure.
Ferrycraigs
Member
cpa
Active Member
It is likely because this individual is either on Tesla's payroll or working for the lawyers defending Tesla, and he has infiltrated our midst. Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.
He's alluded to it himself with "And I'm in a position to rather easily escalate in other ways, but have never found the need" but disappears when asked what exactly he is saying with those words.
If we take those words at face value as a truthful declaration of insider status with Tesla his obsession with excusing the BMS from any any all warranty implications to the point of absurdity tells us he believes Tesla is covering up a problem directly related to the BMS. If we accept that hypothesis, we can use his words as a weather vane to guess what Tesla's current hail mary defense is going to be. To quote Shakespeare, the lady dost protest too much, methinks and coupled to claims of inside connections maybe we should treat anything he says as a "wink wink nudge nudge" suggestion of exactly the opposite of what he says. That would suddenly turn absurd claims that don't make any sense into insider tips on what we should be paying more attention to.
If we take those words at face value as a truthful declaration of insider status with Tesla his obsession with excusing the BMS from any any all warranty implications to the point of absurdity tells us he believes Tesla is covering up a problem directly related to the BMS. If we accept that hypothesis, we can use his words as a weather vane to guess what Tesla's current hail mary defense is going to be. To quote Shakespeare, the lady dost protest too much, methinks and coupled to claims of inside connections maybe we should treat anything he says as a "wink wink nudge nudge" suggestion of exactly the opposite of what he says. That would suddenly turn absurd claims that don't make any sense into insider tips on what we should be paying more attention to.
What constitutes an acceptable resolution (for impacted cars) assuming no battery replacement?
- $5000 for affected cars
- Vmax displayed on UI?
Maybe the lawsuit originator will accept this?
If its determined to be a safety issue, wont Tesla have to replace the batteries (and being fined up the wazoo); unless they can prove a lower Vmax solves it and offer customers money for reduced functionality?
- $5000 for affected cars
- Vmax displayed on UI?
Maybe the lawsuit originator will accept this?
If its determined to be a safety issue, wont Tesla have to replace the batteries (and being fined up the wazoo); unless they can prove a lower Vmax solves it and offer customers money for reduced functionality?
DJRas
Member
No, that would mot be acceptable.
Guy V
Member
Personally I'd rather they let me give them the $5000 for a new battery. Of course if we can get it replaced for no cost I wouldn't say no.
I like the Vmax display idea and would like other diagnostic info as well as someone here suggested. That was strangely disagreed with as too much information for most people, like his wife, and should not be made available to complicate things and confuse them. I say strangely, because like all such things it would be on an advanced menu option that those people would never access.
In what world would that be equitable? Do you think these people would have bought a new car with a capped battery with unexplained issues, that takes twice as long to supercharge, for $5,000 off retail?????
Last edited:
I would not have bought a Tesla new or used for $5,000 off with a crippled range or crippled charging speed.
You mean the one called "Battery and Drive Unit Limited Warranty" that has specific conditions and exclusions? Misrepresenting and utterly ignoring the specific black and white terms of the warranty is a common theme in this thread. It will not serve your legal interests.
Reading the articles on lithium plating and other battery effects show that lithium plating is a common and known condition caused by usage of the battery especially under certain environmental conditions which would explain why some batteries have it and some do not. But it is speculation --a theory -- and I never represented that it wasn't. It is also just a placeholder for any other condition caused by wear and detected as condition Z trigger levels.
Airbags are distinguishable as a manufacturing defect and their warranty doesn't specifically exclude wear so that isn't a condition of the warranty that needs to be satisfied. Condition Z may or may not be a manufacturing defect. Based on current information I would bet that condition Z is due to wear rather than a defect but that remains open to intelligent discussion if such is possible.
It was.
No. the argument just points out that if condition Z is caused by wear (any kind of wear, li-plating or otherwise) it isn't covered, but if it is a manufacturing defect it is covered.
I'm just reading and interpreting and applying the terms of the warranty to the facts as they appear, and are likely to be further developed. The benefit of this is explained by @tomas -- but will see the benefit, others will not.
Indeed.
Except the factual scientific answer to the question of what is condition Z directly bears on the legal question of whether the effects of condition Z are due to a defect, or wear, and thus covered, or not.
the supporting authority was directly about the limitations and exclusions in a written express warranty. But interesting point re consumables. Like tires, batteries are known to exhibit wear over their lifetime. In both cases that wear is expressly excluded from the warranty, except the Model 3 batteries have a bottom limit on the level of wear that is not covered. Model S/X batteries do not.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ferrycraigs
Member
When I bought my car, we could have bought a S60 which was several thousand cheaper. But we needed the extra range, so spent more buying a S70. Range is, I believe, one of the primary considerations when buying an EV.
And I believed all the Supercharger hype about speed. Today. Almost every manufacturer quotes the typical time it takes to charge to 80%. It’s an important aspect. Tesla seem to think we won’t mind either being wrecked. Or perhaps they realised it would be unacceptable, which is why they elected NOT to tell us they had done so. Not saying anything, smacks heavily of untoward actions.
This is why another user ad hominem-ed you. This foolish attempt at a backhanded insult buried in an equally ridiculous nonanswer is the essence of all of your posts. None the of them contain useful information. You clearly do not read, understand, and assimilate points based on evidence. Instead, the basic argumentative style in your posts can be referred to as goal-post-movement. The goal of these posts is to simply bait and muddle the thread.
So do car engines. And we don't warrant those either right? You won't respond to this because you've demonstrated an inability to respond to arguments that clearly blow yours out of the water on regular basis.
This is comedy at this point. I hope that you're on the legal team for Tesla as one member conjectured. Because if so, they're hosed!
"Loss of Battery energy or power over time or due to or resulting from Battery usage is NOT covered under this Battery and Drive Unit Limited Warranty"
I mean if you want to take the most obnoxious view of this Tesla could cap 1% of the battery for each 10,000 miles you drive (out of spite or to make you buy a new battery or car) and according to this logic this wouldn't be covered by warranty because it's over time and/or due to battery usage.
I mean if you want to take the most obnoxious view of this Tesla could cap 1% of the battery for each 10,000 miles you drive (out of spite or to make you buy a new battery or car) and according to this logic this wouldn't be covered by warranty because it's over time and/or due to battery usage.
The statement is effectively meaningless, until tested in court. It is not gospel (it's in some forum members' interests to try and convince you it is, I guess) and no customers will be held to it legally unless the customer capitulates or the customer takes Tesla to court and loses. A warranty is a legal document, but there are limits to what can appear in it, set by the law, not by the customer or Tesla. By law, if the warranty contains illegitimate or absurd statements in it, a customer has not automatically agreed to them just by purchasing the vehicle.
But none of this matters. Other members have come here time and again to attempt to convince you that Djras will lose because Tesla has a broad catch-all in its warranty. The case isn't about the warranty, and this argument misses the mark entirely. Folks who come in and talk about the warranty are simply trying to muddle the messaging in the thread so that it becomes less useful and prominent to the public that might stumble upon it. The actual court case is about whether Tesla took something from its customers without their consent, whether the batteries are safe and if the update that took their customer's range was meant to fix a safety issue, and whether they have reduced their cars' EPA range for a subset of users without notifying them or the NHTSA. The warranty is a red herring.
That said, there are so many arguments that can be marshalled against this attempt at a catch-all escape clause. Lawyers will argue over the term "usage" and easily prove that a software update does not constitute usage for a typical customer, especially for those trying to avoid updates. They would argue that damage arising due to usage that Tesla claimed they would prevent in public statements must be filed under the defects category, especially in light of Tesla's statements that damage due to user error and due to mistakes by Tesla will trigger warranty coverage. The plaintiff needs to prove Tesla made a mistake. They will be able to cite about 8000 or so papers which study the effects of lithium plating and dendrite formation and how to avoid it, and submit that Tesla either didn't know about the practices advocated therein when it should have, or knew about them and ignored them. Since Tesla itself has stipulated that user mistakes are covered and Tesla's mistakes are covered, they need to prove that the level of plating present is not due to a mistake, but since plating can be significantly slowed with proper battery management, that won't hold water.
On an earnings call late last year, Elon was asked about the disappointing range of Tesla's new competitor EVs, the Etron and Ipace. Elon said their lower range compared to Tesla was evidence that Tesla was far ahead in its knowledge of batteries. He mentioned that they tried to help competitors at one point, but no one wanted it (there was speculation that this referred to the released patents some time back, but pretty sure those are useless for this purpose). More likely, the competitors are following the advice of the literature and limiting depth of discharge to slow damage to the electrodes and limit plating. The batteries of Tesla's competitors would also be cited as evidence, especially in the case of the bolt.
@raphy you're still taking his insults and impossible "arguments" at face value. He's alluded to being a Tesla employee but can't directly confirm it - probably because of NDA or other legal impediments to direct truthful helping, but he can say the exact opposite of the truth. When he says it's not the BMS, he means it is. When he says the warranty doesn't cover this or any battery problem, he means this is a warranty battery problem CAUSED by the BMS. He's trying to help us, but we have to listen to how he's allowed to not say the important things he's trying to share. That's why he's not allowed to reply when we ask exactly what he meant about his easy inside-tesla access. He wasn't supposed to say it, like he isn't supposed to say "the BMS caused these failures and it's a warranty issue!" But he can say "the BMS isn't warranty covered and there is no warranty" because that sort of nonsense can't be NDAd by anyone on the inside, they'd never think of trying to stop people from saying the opposite.
$5000 is half of what Tesla took from us. They reduced capacity to 59kwh but charged $10700 to upgrade from 60 to 85. They didn't lease capacity, if they want to buy it back from me my price is no less than theirs. And I still say no. I want my car, not a down graded car.
I am going to go with this and call it a day on this warranty nondebate!
Similar threads
