Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[lightningltd]

LOL. Will do.

I am hoping maybe just maybe this is the start of Tesla trying to remedy the situation. Maybe they finally figured out how to test further to either identify specific issues or at least get more info. The reason I am hopeful is if I was them and just wanted that info for internal use I would not have added the info to the release notes and just kept it hidden in an update.

Or they added it to the notes so they can say "See, we are doing something" in court and to the NTSB

 

[Droschke]

It's funny the "laptop" analogy is used here. That poster who says "So the battery must not be "useless"" is actually talking about his own laptop battery. He does not own a Tesla.

@MP3Mike,

I keep saying you do not own a Tesla and you keep disagreeing. Fine.

Do me a favor and provide a link to any post (you should have plenty out of 10,000 posts you have) that you have talked about YOUR own Tesla car.

Fair?

 

[lightningltd]

@MP3Mike,

I keep saying you do not own a Tesla and you keep disagreeing. Fine.

Do me a favor and provide a link to any post (you should have plenty out of 10,000 posts you have) that you have talked about YOUR own Tesla car.

Fair?

He has one in his matchbox collection

 

[T.R.T.e.s.l.a.]

accidentally downloaded 40.2.1 last night.....am worried, should I install

Take one for the team and report back

 

[DJRas]

I think that is a significant exaggeration. Isn't the battery in your Model S capped? But yet you are still driving it. So the battery must not be "useless."

Yes, For ME it IS still useful.
But there are others (especially with 60, 70 or 75 kWh) packs that have lost as much range and with their much more limited access to the Supercharger network as well as the much slower charging they have or are planning to sell their car.
I happen to live in Southern California where there are superchargers every 50 miles or so.
I DO have to charge more often and take more time doing so.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

Thanks for posting. That release note is very funny. What does that mean? Looks like possibly the potential for more range/performance loss.

I think they hope people will read that as meaning 'we will be better able to detect degradation ...... which we will then tackle.' Unfortunately the second bit is an assumption, that is unlikely to follow.

 

[Kim.T]

In europe 2019.40.2.2 cripples the AP due to EU regulations - might be for AP1 cars only because I guess later model already are restricted. We received an e-mail directly from Tesla yesterday explaining the changes.
A couple of hours ago 2019.40.2.3 was released - might be an correction to the EU models
Reduced autopilot functionality in Switzerland with the next update : teslamotors

 

[Ferrycraigs]

For your infected Tesla? I don't even see that one showing up on the trackers yet. You on the early release program?

Ah! I see... You mean 2019.40.2.3. Looks like its only out to the infected models so far. AP1 and non AP. S60, 70, 85.
Wonder how much MORE KW and power I will lose.
Knowing Tesla it probably changes the faults stored to make it look more gradual

Interesting if it’s only going to those affected vehicles. Makes you wonder what’s afoot? I wonder what the chances are of me downloading this?

 

[lightningltd]

Well, I tried to charge to 100% last night
After 2 1/2 hours, it stopped at 98% and wouldn't go any further.
I have now modified my entry on the sheet as follows:
Pre-2019.16.x range: 256
Post 2019.16.x range: 209.5
Loss went from 16.02% stolen to 18.36% stolen with the extra 2% missing
Post 2019.28.2 changes to 219.5 miles or 14.06% from pre 2019.16.x WOW! I got a WHOPPING 10 miles back!
My MEASURED degradation (gradual loss) before the update was 3.4% after 100,000 miles!

 

[Ferrycraigs]

Yes, For ME it IS still useful.
But there are others (especially with 60, 70 or 75 kWh) packs that have lost as much range and with their much more limited access to the Supercharger network as well as the much slower charging they have or are planning to sell their car.
I happen to live in Southern California where there are superchargers every 50 miles or so.
I DO have to charge more often and take more time doing so.

I have certainly had to cancel a holiday I was planning on going on, as my car can longer get there. Some of the gaps between Superchargers are greater than my new range. I can’t begin to say how grateful I was for Tesla's abundance of caution. My battery may really last considerably longer, as the car is absolutely no longer a long distance cruiser.

 

[lightningltd]

Interesting if it’s only going to those affected vehicles. Makes you wonder what’s afoot? I wonder what the chances are of me downloading this

I have certainly had to cancel a holiday I was planning on going on, as my car can longer get there. Some of the gaps between Superchargers are greater than my new range. I can’t begin to say how grateful I was for Tesla's abundance of caution. My battery may really last considerably longer, as the car is absolutely no longer a long distance cruiser.

I had to cancel my annual road trip around the US due to this. The car simply refused to calculate the route it made 3 times prior. It said no charger in range or something like that.

 

[Chaserr]

"Performance degradation" makes me think they are trying to create a new excuse for the yellow lines power limiting threads we are seeing lately or trying to tie limited horsepower from software capping to the word "degradation" so they can later use this to obfuscate the downgrades in horsepower. Since capping limits power but degradation doesn't, and Tesla has never proven to be trustworthy on this topic, I assume the worst.

Just got update to 2019.49.2.3.

Release notes say it has High Voltage Battery Diagnostics Improvements. Something about being able to better detect performance degradation.

View attachment 489634

Or they added it to the notes so they can say "See, we are doing something" in court and to the NTSB

NHTSA required them to outline what every update did over the last couple years. They are having to go back and scrutinize "why didn't we release any release notes between 2016 and 2017 at all?" - this is definitely related to the federal investigation. Lack of any notes may be a reason for their delay in complying with the investigation's deadline, and will come up in court when they are asked why they didn't notify owners - even cryptically - about the substantial downgrades we had to endure.

I hope this trend expands beyond just this problem. Actual update notes is something we've wanted all along and this is an improvement even though the reasoning behind it is suspect.

 

[faughtz]

Thanks for posting. That release note is very funny. What does that mean? Looks like possibly the potential for more range/performance loss.

Looks like they misspelled “introduce” as “detect”.

 

[David99]

Tesla is. like most companies, very reluctant to talk about anything that can possibly be used against them in the future. Not talking about things also helps not sparking a public discussion about a possible negative aspect. For example Tesla has never made any recommendation about how to treat the battery best other than very vague statements. The only indirect statement is the battery slider, daily charging between 50-90% and trip charging above 90%. I believe they fear if they elaborate how to treat the battery it will be seen as pointing out the downsides of a battery and how it will degrade. Any shortcomings or limitations are very carefully avoided by Tesla in any official communication.
Any issues, like the software update, is labeled in positive words like 'to preserve battery life'.
The official FAQ about spercharging was worded very clever as well. The question was 'is supercharging bad for the battery. The answer said something like 'owners are free to use superchargers as much as they like. It does not affect the warranty'. They knew it would cause more degradation to use fast charging, but never mention it. Instead they talk about the battery warranty which has nothing to do with degradation. But it sounded reassuring.

 

[lightningltd]

Tesla is. like most companies, very reluctant to talk about anything that can possibly be used against them in the future. Not talking about things also helps not sparking a public discussion about a possible negative aspect. For example Tesla has never made any recommendation about how to treat the battery best other than very vague statements. The only indirect statement is the battery slider, daily charging between 50-90% and trip charging above 90%. I believe they fear if they elaborate how to treat the battery it will be seen as pointing out the downsides of a battery and how it will degrade. Any shortcomings or limitations are very carefully avoided by Tesla in any official communication.
Any issues, like the software update, is labeled in positive words like 'to preserve battery life'.
The official FAQ about spercharging was worded very clever as well. The question was 'is supercharging bad for the battery. The answer said something like 'owners are free to use superchargers as much as they like. It does not affect the warranty'. They knew it would cause more degradation to use fast charging, but never mention it. Instead they talk about the battery warranty which has nothing to do with degradation. But it sounded reassuring.

Well said. However, an overt act of omission can and has been seen in courts to be the same as a lie when such overt act of omission misleads the public into believing something is true. It is still considered a form of dishonesty in the eyes of the law.

 

[David99]

I saw 2019.40.x has reduced regen for many people. Since regen can cause voltage spikes and usually allows (short) periods of charging at higher rates, this might be yet another measure of Tesla to limit the cell voltage. Anyone else any experience with 2019.40? I'm refusing to update at this point.

 

[lightningltd]

2019.40.2.3 must not break anything.. Otherwise I would have gotten it first. The rule is, if it breaks something, I get it first, if it fixes something, I get it last.

 

[David99]

Well said. However, an overt act of omission can and has been seen in courts to be the same as a lie when such overt act of omission misleads the public into believing something is true. It is still considered a form of dishonesty in the eyes of the law.

Excellent point. This is most probably the case here, Tesla did make a lot of changes and adjustments without telling the owners anything. That means they knew about issues but dd not inform us.

 

[First EV]

Two threads currently on the main page. Interesting how the fanbois keep dismissing the range losses as normal "degradation" and the slow charging rate as no big deal ...

Why I recommend AGAINST buying a Tesla
Arbitration: 90d rapid battery degradation

If they think this is acceptable and to be considered normal degradation, yes I know it's not, then this destroys any practicality of an electric car at this point. Meaning the resale value of the cars owned by these fanbois is in for a steep decline once people understand the true useful life is only 5 to 6 years for a $50k plus model 3.

 

[Chaserr]

Well said. However, an overt act of omission can and has been seen in courts to be the same as a lie when such overt act of omission misleads the public into believing something is true. It is still considered a form of dishonesty in the eyes of the law.

Great point. In my industry this is a very important legal matter known as informed consent