Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[DJRas]

After a little more digging I realized I was actually affected by the software update back in March. I was just affected very little. I didn't think any of it back then as it was very small and could easily be explained by variations in the way the BMS calculates or other factors. But if I look at the graph now, it is actually very obvious how the capacity was reduced more or less suddenly. The BMS just smoothed it out over a certain time/miles to make it less sudden. The max voltage dropped to 4.18 instead of 4.2
Then recently the second attack on my battery capacity. Now the battery capacity dropped more noticeably. Max voltage is now 4.09 and usable capacity is down to 59.6 kWh. As a result range dropped to 214 miles. I'm now down 21% from it's original capacity.

I totally agree with what was said before, we must not argue in terms of range, we must stress the point that, without the owner's permission, Tesla reached into our cars and artificially reduced battery capacity, charge speed, performance and decreased efficiency of the charging process. As a result, our cars have less range, less performance, charge slower and lost value.

View attachment 480417

Check your Teslafi updates.
From what I can find 2019.16 wasn't release until May.

 

[sorka]

Does anyone effected by 16.1 range reduction have any week strings similar to my 58 when scanned with tm-spy?

 

[David99]

View attachment 480590
Check your Teslafi updates.
From what I can find 2019.16 wasn't release until May.

True. I must have looked at the wrong cells. Can you see any difference in range when your car went from 2018.50.6 to 2019.8.6.3?

 

[Ferrycraigs]

Does anyone effected by 16.1 range reduction have any week strings similar to my 58 when scanned with tm-spy?

Like this?

I am conscious that apart from giving the capacity, Voltage at 100%, I’m not entirely sure I know what the figures indicate. I had assumed mV discrepancies at 100% were insignificant.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

And 20 minutes later, when it had risen from 99% to 99.4% it looked like this.

 

[BigNick]

Roughly 4.1V at almost 100% means you are locked out of about 10% of your pack capacity, you should be within 10 mV or so of 4.2V at 100%.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

Roughly 4.1V at almost 100% means you are locked out of about 10% of your pack capacity, you should be within 10 mV or so of 4.2V at 100%.

Thank you. Although I think the chart shows the spread from highest to lowest rather than how close to 4.2V.

 

[DJRas]

Thank you. Although I think the chart shows the spread from highest to lowest rather than how close to 4.2V.

The scale on the left shows the cell voltage.

 

[DJRas]

True. I must have looked at the wrong cells. Can you see any difference in range when your car went from 2018.50.6 to 2019.8.6.3?

No, mine came mid 2018 with 2018,26

 

[Ferrycraigs]

The scale on the left shows the cell voltage.

Indeed, and in the top right it shows the mV spread between the fullest and emptiest Cell. 13mV in the first and 7mV in the second. My point was I had (have) no idea if that is a good figure or a bad figure. So I feel I am not getting as much out of all the info as I could, or should.

Is it more important, for instance, to see the spread lower down, rather than just before they are all balanced. Is 183mV @ 44% good/bad/average?

 

[DJRas]

View attachment 480849
Indeed, and in the top right it shows the mV spread between the fullest and emptiest Cell. 13mV in the first and 7mV in the second. My point was I had (have) no idea if that is a good figure or a bad figure. So I feel I am not getting as much out of all the info as I could, or should.

Is it more important, for instance, to see the spread lower down, rather than just before they are all balanced. Is 183mV @ 44% good/bad/average?

The 183 mv seems excessive.
But, I don't know enough to ssy with any certainty.
Probably @wk057 would know.

 

[David99]

View attachment 480849
Indeed, and in the top right it shows the mV spread between the fullest and emptiest Cell. 13mV in the first and 7mV in the second. My point was I had (have) no idea if that is a good figure or a bad figure. So I feel I am not getting as much out of all the info as I could, or should.

Is it more important, for instance, to see the spread lower down, rather than just before they are all balanced. Is 183mV @ 44% good/bad/average?

It is important to measure cell balance when there is no load on the battery. No charging no driving, no AC or heater.

The cell voltages are not measured correctly when there is a load on the battery. 180 mV difference would be terrible and the pack would probably have cause serious issues. I'm guessing you made the screen shot when there some load on the battery.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

It is important to measure cell balance when there is no load on the battery. No charging no driving, no AC or heater.

The cell voltages are not measured correctly when there is a load on the battery. 180 mV difference would be terrible and the pack would probably have cause serious issues. I'm guessing you made the screen shot when there some load on the battery.

Yep, I had just started charging. The next time, I shall screenshot before starting, and after switching everything off. Thanks for the advice.

 

[liamharry]

Charging at a Supercharger starting at 34% SoC.

This is my 100% SoC battery info. Average cells peaked at a capped 4.099 volts. Only 5mV difference across the pack. Charged to 100% then let settle for a few minutes after charge completion and no load.

By the way, took 59 minutes to go from 34% SoC to 90%. Then took a further 1 hour and 17 minutes (2hrs 16mins total), to go from 90% SoC to 100%.

Just dug out the original web page advert from Tesla back in 2015/16 that said 0% SoC to 80% in 40 minutes, with total time to 100% SoC being only 75 minutes. So over an hour more if those advertised timings are to be believed.

Oh .. and my own dumb fault, but got a £60 parking ticket as forgot the SuC was in a motorway services area where the parking limit is only 2 hours .. doh ..

 

[faughtz]

Does anyone effected by 16.1 range reduction have any week strings similar to my 58 when scanned with tm-spy?

I experienced the theft, but don’t see anything unusual across my modules (quiescent):

 

[jkennebeck]

look for the TMC threads where “users” (not owners) of teslas are seeing accel and regen limitations they have never seen before. Yet another deception and theft by tesla.

We are not users (unless MAYBE you leased your car from Tesla). We own the vehicle and the battery and the BMS. Alteration of those items without consent is not allowable. To use the example again below...

...It’s the equivalent of removing your 70 gallon tank and replacing it with a 60 gallon tank, and all that that brings.

Well, not quite ALL that that brings. If you swap a smaller gas tank in an ICE car, they can actually refuel FASTER. We now have smaller tanks and shittier gas pumps.

Thanks Elon,
You Suck!

 

[faughtz]

We are not users (unless MAYBE you leased your car from Tesla). We own the vehicle and the battery and the BMS. Alteration of those items without consent is not allowable. To use the example again below...


Well, not quite ALL that that brings. If you swap a smaller gas tank in an ICE car, they can actually refuel FASTER. We now have smaller tanks and shittier gas pumps.

Thanks Elon,
You Suck!

That’s why I repeatedly call Tesla’s actions theft.

(roll your firmware back, then I’ll believe you own it!)

 

[Chaserr]

We are not users (unless MAYBE you leased your car from Tesla). We own the vehicle and the battery and the BMS. Alteration of those items without consent is not allowable. To use the example again below...


Well, not quite ALL that that brings. If you swap a smaller gas tank in an ICE car, they can actually refuel FASTER. We now have smaller tanks and shittier gas pumps.

Thanks Elon,
You Suck!

A smaller swapped gas tank wouldn't actually slow down the car like Tesla did. They didn't just replace gas tanks with smaller ones, they replaced the engine with a less powerful one too. Volts = horsepower AND capacity!

Tesla believes we are users, that they own their cars from cradle to grave. That why they felt OK stealing from us - they still think they're just taking back what they already owned even when their expensive corporate bankruptcy specialty law firm has explained it to them thoroughly by now.

 

[jkennebeck]

A smaller swapped gas tank wouldn't actually slow down the car like Tesla did. They didn't just replace gas tanks with smaller ones, they replaced the engine with a less powerful one too. Volts = horsepower AND capacity!

Tesla believes we are users, that they own their cars from cradle to grave. That why they felt OK stealing from us - they still think they're just taking back what they already owned even when their expensive corporate bankruptcy specialty law firm has explained it to them thoroughly by now.

point 1 very true!!!
point 2, i'm hoping this goes to trial as I don't think a judge will see it that way.

If they truly OWN my car, why am I paying the bank for the loan on it. They can have it back and refund my money.

I never signed ANYTHING that says lease, user, etc on it.

 

[Chaserr]

I never signed ANYTHING that says lease, user, etc on it.

I can't find it anywhere on my original MVPA either, but I'd love to be able have someone at Tesla at least give me the time to sit down and point at the expiration date on my horsepower and range as originally purchased. I'd have bought the Unlimited Package if I knew Tesla performance expires randomly. At the very least they should let me renew my subscription!