A local owner just posted this regarding their inquiry into range loss that they experienced as a result of the update:
-
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
Ferrycraigs
Member
I’m sure that’s what they told me last May. Perhaps its Tesla Soon
I expect it's BS. Would Tesla have hired an expensive outside law firm to defend itself if it planned to rectify the range loss with a future update?I’m sure that’s what they told me last May. Perhaps its Tesla Soon
If you think it's a BS, why bother posting it here?
Tesla has resorted to "a software update will fix it" for every issue they can pin software on. They are avoiding in warranty repairs as much possible. Even for my memory linked mirrors that have never worked (goes to random positions after you shift from D to R and vice versa) they just say there will be a software fix (i've already brought the car in 4 times for this issue)
Which range loss issue was he referring to? The capping being discussed in this thread, or the Model 3 range "loss" issue? (Which is very likely a BMS/estimate issue that they are probably working on fixing.)
I'm just reading his own words. He said he has insider access to things the rest of us don't, and after that he has been strangely flightly about not answering what that means. He's also insistent that Tesla is committing some crazy crimes and saying they don't have any sort of warranty - all things that make no sense in context, but make perfect sense if you take everything he says and reverse it as the input of a person with his inside access to information, that is not allowed to say the things he isn't saying under threat of losing employment and being prosecuted.
There is a reason he claimed what he claimed, and I expect someone " an enthusiastic supporter (to put it nicely) of all things Tesla" to say the opposite of what he's been saying. What he says defies that - he's repeatedly tried to claim Tesla's warranty isn't worth anything which is the opposite of TEsla support (but again, if his own claims to his authority as an insider with access above and beyond the rest of us are to be believed, then reversing his anti-tesla stance brings him back into line as a tesla supporter. Supporters would never try to paint Tesla the way he has on the surface, but they might have to say the opposite if they were bound by NDAs and not allowed to tell the truth but could say things that are opposite from true like he has here.
That's why @mvotb is pressing for answers. @bhzmark already told you they do have insider access beyond the rest of us. He or she refuses to answer what exactly they meant when they admitted to that fact either because they lied, or because they weren't lying, but they made an extraordinary claim that directly implies insider status. I choose to believe they weren't just making things up to try and make Tesla sound like a bad company, and it sounds like you believe the same. And everything after that that stems from the admission they are trying hard to back away from - going so far as to make accusations against the staff of TMC!
Last edited:
jkennebeck
Member
I'll trade my perfectly operating mirrors for an uncapped unchargethrottled battery.....
jkennebeck
Member
The tesla fire in Germany (Model X) is now being called arson:
Tesla Model X Fire In Germany Reported As Arson Due To Tesla Hate
edit: That might not be the same German fire. This looks to be a new one.
Tesla Model X Fire In Germany Reported As Arson Due To Tesla Hate
edit: That might not be the same German fire. This looks to be a new one.
Shouldn't be any need to speculate. According to bhz the question has already been answered, but deleted by a moderator. I can't imagine why there would be a problem to simply repost the reply to such a simple question, and of course there have been 4 or 5 opportunities to do so. Instead bhz tries to change the subject, here's the latest example.
bhz "Paying such close attention to the specific warranty text (instead of my off-hand comment) would better repay your efforts."
Wouldn't it be easier to answer the question than to try and deflect it? I can't see how bhz would get in trouble with Tesla, or anyone at Tesla, as bhz claims to have already posted an answer, simply repost.
I feel like I've entered a parallel universe...
lightningltd
Member
We would need to know if they are talking about classic model S or another one, or how they are affected to read into this.
Besides.. Tesla said the same thing several months ago, still no resolution.
Finally got my cable for my 3, and am charging up to 100% now while ScanMyTesla is recording. One thing I immediately noticed is my nominal full pack is being reported as 73.2kWh. The app also reports a buffer of 3.3kWh. Anyone know what the nominal full pack is supposed to be for a 3LR?
First of all, these number are all rounded off - so math isn't going to be perfect.
However, if it were here's the math [100/(your charge%) ] * (your battery remnant in miles) = your battery capacity in miles
So: in your case 100/62 * 142 = 1.613 * 142 (I rounded off but you can carry the decimal as far as you would like = 229.05
So, if the charge carries thru then at 100% charge you should have 229.05 miles. You could claim you have lost 11/249 = 4.58% of your range. Tesla says 5% first year then 1% per year thereafter.
But then, all of this is contingent on the readings being accurate and precise - not estimations or averages with wide deviations. You can decrease the deviations (or variants if you please) by discharging the battery to < 30% and then filling >90% and then repeating. Closer to zero and 100% even better. In my 5 years of ownership, doing so always gets me back closer to the car's born with mileage.
Passions run hot in this thread, and I can certainly understand that. But I don't get the absolutism of the angered. This whole thing is a process, and it isn't over yet, so I don't see that any final judgements can be made. I do agree that the communication should have been better (in fact, I don't believe that there has been any official communication).
My bet would be that once Tesla figures out the problems definitively, they will do what they can to make people whole. I would guess they will provide increased value at trade in, or offer some cash equivalent. We shall see ....
I finished my charging session on my 3 and figured out that Tesla just likes to mess with my head.
For months my 90% was rock steady at 292 miles, with an actual 100% at 324. Then it dropped overnight about 1 month ago and I did a 100% charge 2.5 weeks ago to 308 miles prior to a road trip. That held steady up until tonight when I did my 2nd 100% charge since the drop. Now I am back up to 315 at 100%, so I gained back nearly half of what disappeared on this 100% charge. I guess you can just chalk me up to a "newbie" as I had never seen that much variation over such a short time with my 2013 S or over the almost 2 years with the 3. My charging habits (90% daily with a 80 mile r/t commute) seemed to keep the BMS happy and super steady so I never had to "calibrate" at all.
Anyway: on to the data!
4.2V cell max just like it should be. My nominal full pack is up to 73.6kWh so gained .3 there, which is interesting.
At least I now have the CANbus cables and can track this stuff on my car more closely. Definitely an interesting project for sure. Wish I had gotten some data from back when my car actually said 324 @100%.
For months my 90% was rock steady at 292 miles, with an actual 100% at 324. Then it dropped overnight about 1 month ago and I did a 100% charge 2.5 weeks ago to 308 miles prior to a road trip. That held steady up until tonight when I did my 2nd 100% charge since the drop. Now I am back up to 315 at 100%, so I gained back nearly half of what disappeared on this 100% charge. I guess you can just chalk me up to a "newbie" as I had never seen that much variation over such a short time with my 2013 S or over the almost 2 years with the 3. My charging habits (90% daily with a 80 mile r/t commute) seemed to keep the BMS happy and super steady so I never had to "calibrate" at all.
Anyway: on to the data!
4.2V cell max just like it should be. My nominal full pack is up to 73.6kWh so gained .3 there, which is interesting.
At least I now have the CANbus cables and can track this stuff on my car more closely. Definitely an interesting project for sure. Wish I had gotten some data from back when my car actually said 324 @100%.
Last edited:
When you said
“...by discharging the battery to < 30% and then filling >90% and then repeating. Closer to zero and 100% even better. In my 5 years of ownership, doing so always gets me back closer to the car's born with mileage.”
I am understanding what you are explaining. Are you saying drain the battery closer to zero and fill to max gains you back the original 240?
On another thread other sr+ owners are also stating that they have a loss of 10 miles too and are down to 230. Something odd going on but comforting to know that I am not the only having this issue. Strength are when you have numbers. Perhaps Tesla will address the problem .
Similar threads
