My car developed chargegate symptoms starting with 16.2. It progressively got worse with subsequent updates.
Last edited:
-
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
My car developed chargegate symptoms starting with 16.2. It progressively got worse with subsequent updates.
Then it's not because your car is capped. It's because your battery is cold soaked. You need to drive about an hour or more then try charging with a low state of charge.
[QUOTE="Make the appointments. Inundate service. Make this as inconvenient for Tesla as possible. They need to change their tune, and at some point they will be subpoenad for info asking how many service appointments they have had over this issue - it will help establish "a small number" isn't so small and prove they are dishonest.[/QUOTE]
This reminds me of an idea I had. One way for all of us to escalate this is by all appearing at our nearest service center en masse and demanding that they give us some answers. Also, notify the media. We can call it "Chargegate Day" and do it all service centers across the country.
This reminds me of an idea I had. One way for all of us to escalate this is by all appearing at our nearest service center en masse and demanding that they give us some answers. Also, notify the media. We can call it "Chargegate Day" and do it all service centers across the country.
No way you would get that rate at that temperature. The battery does warm up while you supercharge but since you were at high SoC already it never got a chance to increase the charge rate as the battery got warmer. If you started at 20% or 30% you would have seen the rate increase.
Mjsais
Member
Ferrycraigs
Member
That looks to me like an electrek article not a communique to owners from Tesla. As I said, I don’t remember Tesla ever telling me that Supercharging might be bad for my battery. Perhaps owners in the USA were contacted, but I have zero records of them contacting me. And since new, I have adopted a deliberate policy of charging on 50 kW Rapid chargers whenever possible rather than 120 kW Superchargers. But that has not saved me. My car is affected by both batterygate and also chargegate. What is really annoying is if they HAD told me, I could easily have changed to a primarily AC charging regime and presumably avoided all this.
I do remember them telling me the Supercharger network was great, because it was ubiquitous and would charge me up super fast. Not dissimilar to the current position of Tesla recommending their new, higher powered Superchargers. Why would they do that if they are aware that high powered DC charging has a negative effect on the battery. Perhaps selling cars is more important than maintaining their reputation. The Supercharger network, and their power level were certainly important factors in my decision to buy. Had I at any time thought that trip charging would take in excess of an hour I doubt very much I would have bought at all.
Last edited:
SmartElectric
Active Member
1. Continued postings from people ignorant of cold battery charging and incorrectly complaining they are capped. Is the first wiki post not clear enough on this. These posts should’ve roundly downvoted to signal the poster hasn’t taken the least bit of time to review the purpose of this thread.
2. I posted a direct Tesla response to a news outlet Eletrek. This was clearly known to the Tesla community in 2017.
3. I don’t need to research anything further. The quote is directly from Tesla.
4. Driving one hour is not sufficient to warm a battery. I can warm it in 15 minutes with hard acceleration and regen. But driving one hour at the speed limit won’t even come close to the same effect.
5. My car is capped from factory in 2013 to 90kW charging and similar profile to many posting here. I’ve travelled 80000+ km supercharging with rates that are slow when the car is cold and much better when the battery has been warmed up.
400 pages and counting. So much for collective knowledge sharing.
2. I posted a direct Tesla response to a news outlet Eletrek. This was clearly known to the Tesla community in 2017.
3. I don’t need to research anything further. The quote is directly from Tesla.
4. Driving one hour is not sufficient to warm a battery. I can warm it in 15 minutes with hard acceleration and regen. But driving one hour at the speed limit won’t even come close to the same effect.
5. My car is capped from factory in 2013 to 90kW charging and similar profile to many posting here. I’ve travelled 80000+ km supercharging with rates that are slow when the car is cold and much better when the battery has been warmed up.
400 pages and counting. So much for collective knowledge sharing.
faughtz
Model S P85DL
BigNick
Infamous Fat Sweaty Guy
I take it that "outside the scope of this arbitration" means "a matter which must be determined in a court of law".
Yes. Hence, the reason behind the Class Action lawsuit.
"Any claim that the Manufacturer installed a software upgrade to extend the life of the battery while diminishing its capacity and performance without the knowledge or consent of the Customer is outside the scope of this arbitration."
faughtz
Model S P85DL
And from what I submitted to the arbitrator:
I met with Detective Peterson of the LA County Sheriff’s Office, and we reviewed the California Penal Code Handbook, specifically Chapter 5, Section 484 a). Detective Peterson did not agree Tesla’s action was theft (larceny), by this definition. As it turns out this verbiage is about real property, so I agreed. We are continuing to discuss California Penal Code Handbook 502 c) 1, which states:
(c) Except as provided in subdivision (h), any person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of a public offense:
(1) Knowingly accesses and without permission alters, damages, deletes, destroys, or otherwise uses any data, computer, computer system, or computer network in order to either (A) devise or execute any scheme or artifice to defraud, deceive, or extort, or (B) wrongfully control or obtain money, property, or data.
(bold emphasis, mine)
Ferrycraigs
Member
I am a strong believer in the premise that everyone is entitled to an opinion, and also to voice that opinion. And further, just because two people disagree, does not mean that one must be right and one must be wrong. It is entirely possible it just means two people hold differing opinions. Let me explain why I don’t agree with your opinion.
What you posted was just a link to a journalistic article. You may believe everything journalists report in the press. Having read SO many reports (such as battery fires, another crash caused by autopilot, electric cars are dirtier than fossil fuelled car, etc etc) I have become wary of any journalistic article. In my experience, more times than not, they are inaccurate, although to give credit where it is due, I would classify electrek as much more reliable than the majority. The link you provided was simply a report of what Tesla said. The correct term for that is hearsay, or in journalism, reported speech. It was not a direct quote from Tesla. At best it may have been an indirect quote. And I accept there is a chance it may have been an accurate quote. I am not questioning its veracity, merely that I was not aware of it.
You state 'this was clearly known to the Tesla community'. That is palpably incorrect, unless you regard the Tesla community as a just a small section of owners in the USA. All that proves is electrek wrote an article about it. I doubt you consider the 'Tesla community' to mean only those people that read every electrek article? What about owners that live in Europe, Asia, Africa or wherever they live. At the very least owners that don’t enjoy English as their first language. I would be surprised if they were regular readers of electrek articles. I, as an owner, regard myself as a member of the Tesla community, and I have made it clear that I was not aware of this policy, and that Tesla did not contact me to make me aware. That of itself puts your statement in doubt. I don’t for a minute think that you suspect me of lying, more likely that I am mistaken or forgetful. I don’t believe I am either. Perhaps you are just making a huge generalisation. But I stand by my statement. Tesla did not advise me that using Superchargers (or even just DC charging) would affect my battery adversely. You may not believe it. You may not agree. Frankly it is irrelevant; I am simply voicing my experience.
Is there any owner who has been told by Tesla to get the Tesla's official advisory bulletins from the EV websites such as Electrek?
The answer is none.
It seems as though they are not willing to take on the real issue which is
"While diminishing its value and performance" this is the key of why they won't argue this because they are NOT experts in data theft or battery performance. All the more reason this needs to be fought in the courtroom and include battery experts as well as intellectual property laws experts. I was lucky i got my battery replaced but Tesla should not be able to pick and choose whose battery will get replaced either. I love Tesla but i am on the fence now if i want to keep my car and deal with charging and possible future battery issues.
Mjsais
Member
eye.surgeon
Active Member
This thread has nothing to do will slow supercharging due to battery temperature. We are all very well aware of that issue. I've been supercharging my car for 5 years and the speed has very clearly been capped to half of it's former capability. At no point did Tesla issue any formal directive to owners that supercharging would result in capped speeds. To the contrary, such a policy would have precluded me from buying the vehicle in the first place.
It's disheartening to see Tesla tout their new faster supercharging capability in the press and yet they very clearly have actually dramatically reduced speeds, not increased them, for a large part of their fleet.
Similar threads
