Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[Gixx1300R]

Ironic that salvaged Teslas are in better shape (range and charging speeds) that the cars that are supported by Tesla.

 

[lightningltd]

It has not been uncommon that some have shown up in this thread not to learn and exchange of ideas. Their minds are already made up to naively act as cheerleader of a company which has turned up to be dishonest and not living up to its obligations, or just because they have not been impacted themselves they view everyone else's ordeal trivial. This particular poster has apparently an issue with another poster who has started a separate thread, but just happened to be on the same topic. Rather than asking questions here and learn a few things (which he seems desperately can benefit), he starts attacking, mocking and accusing others. That's very immature. And, this is not the first time we witness this kind of behavior in this thread. The best way to respond, if any, is to direct them to post#1 first. Then they are welcome to come back and have a meaningful dialog, if that's what they are capable of. Short of that, it's us feeding their mere ignorance. Folks, direct them to post#1 first.

At least it gave our resident apologist something to click agree on

 

[Jonas_man]

Yes, I am sure it includes the buffer. It has been corroborated by BMS interrogating Software (eg TMSpy and Scan My Tesla). I have a MS70. Using the Energy capacity method it comes out at 60 kWhs. When I use TMSpy it comes out with 60.9 Nominal Full Pack and 56.9 Usable Full Pack, and 4.0 Energy Buffer.

And yes, it doesn’t make sense to include it in Projected Range, (unless you want to give the impression that the car has more range than it actually does.)View attachment 494570

Here’s my data:
car as new: 443km , car now: 424km
4.3% degradation using inaccurate range method

average: 324Wh/km , projected: 244km, 100%SOC
Energy: 79kWh
Degradation vs 81.8kWh (according to Jason Hughs)
using no buffer: 3.5%
removing buffer (your method): 8.3%

I haven’t tried the BMS analysis software. But “my method” seems to be closer to the inaccurate range at 100% method than your method with buffer.
I know this is not scientific way but I start to believe that maybe BMS software is indeed not correct. And I have seen in Portugal a user with some incorrect readings before his battery was replaced by Tesla.

 

[Battpower]

I have seen a few owners posting here also have other EV experience, but I wonder if there are enough (and without getting off topic) to link Tesla experience with somehow 'normal' and 'inevitable' behavior / characteristics.

There seem two sides to this. Tesla over selling, pushing the envelope too far for their financial gain etc (for which they must be held accountable) vs the realities that physics and current technology is capable of. Either way they are responsible, but personally I feel differently about a company trying to get the best performance vs a company screwing its clients.

The thing standing between those two views is communication.

Hopefully without getting shot down, if we knew similar data-supported behavior of other ev's it might paint some of this in a slightly different light. I know my Renault drops from around 180 miles in summer to 130 miles in winter. I know that 70 miles indicated range at 20 deg C will drop to 55 / 60 miles at 5 deg C and creep back up as the battery warms up. I know that with prolonged regen the indicated range increases (I've not seen this on the Model S). I am familiar with this over different cars and over a few years so I know what to expect.

If Tesla is significantly ahead of the curve in extracting performance from batteries while keeping the negative effects tolerable for a majority of owners, that is a good thing. (compare with I-Pace energy management etc.) Many owners here are evidence of how far you can trust early claims for new products.

In order to understand that, we need to be clear where that curve is - maybe not so much for those who have already suffered as their situation is different, but for new and recent buyers knowing that they got the best that's available and good value given the state of technology at a certain point in time must be relevant.

Clearly EVs have different issues than ICE vehicles, and they are not issue free much as we want them to be. This is a dieselgate scenario in so far as vehicle values getting reduced but with one big difference and that is that while diesels have been fighting with meeting ever more stringent emission controls for years and the likes of VW are long established and experienced players in an established market, Tesla are still new players in a new market.

Keeping a clear and unbiased eye on what is actually possible and what is not - based on the industry as a whole - must play a part in deciding where Tesla sit on a guilt scale. If Tesla took back all their crap batteries, retested and graded them and resold them 'honestly' with clear warranty and revised performance claims, that would fix the problem to some extent. I understand that Renault reporpose batteries that are end of life for vehicle applications for use in utility energy storage, as the batteries typically have a lot more to give just by down-rating them.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

Here’s my data:
car as new: 443km , car now: 424km
4.3% degradation using inaccurate range method

average: 324Wh/km , projected: 244km, 100%SOC
Energy: 79kWh
Degradation vs 81.8kWh (according to Jason Hughs)
using no buffer: 3.5%
removing buffer (your method): 8.3%

I haven’t tried the BMS analysis software. But “my method” seems to be closer to the inaccurate range at 100% method than your method with buffer.
I know this is not scientific way but I start to believe that maybe BMS software is indeed not correct. And I have seen in Portugal a user with some incorrect readings before his battery was replaced by Tesla.

Jonas, thanks for the data. I’m afraid you are not comparing apples with apples. When you mix Battery Icon Range estimates and Projected Range estimates, it’s not a valid comparison as they use different formulae. The Energy App calculations are used primarily to calculate your battery capacity. However, as it uses your recent driving style to calculate the Projected Range it should also give a pretty accurate estimate of your real life remaining Range. But I would strongly recommend you NEVER compare Projected Range with Icon Range. It will always produce confusion. Better to use one system, or the other, but not both.

The battery icon Range Estimate just uses a fixed algorithm, which I have never found gives me a reliable estimate. Probably because my 55,000 mile average consumption is 328 Wh/mi compared to the battery algorithm which uses (I think) 295 Wh/mi or similar. No wonder they produce very different estimates!

There are a number of bits on your post that confuse me.

You start by saying your new range was 443 km and it is now 424 km. OK. But these must be Battery Icon range estimates, not Projected Range forecast.

You then give the useful Energy App figures of 324 Wh/km giving Projected Range of 244 km @100%. Are you sure these are km figures and not miles? I don’t understand why your Range would drop from 440/420 to 244. If they are miles, and Wh/mi rather than /km, they would be about right. The figures, whether they are km or miles do indicate a battery capacity of 79 kWh. So we agree on that bit.

You then suggest my method does not include the buffer, and that the buffer is only 3.5 kWhs. Both are incorrect. My method absolutely does include the buffer, and the buffer should be 4 kWhs.

So, assuming you have a 90 kWh battery (actually 85.8 kWh total including buffer) then the degradation (79 kWh including buffer) seems to be 6.8 kWhs, or about 8%. Which although I think is high, is about half of the normal batterygate loss (often 15-16%), so doesn’t of itself indicate capping. Sorry, but I have no suggestions as to why your battery should have lost 8%.

It is a confusing subject, and I would be happy to discuss further by PM if there are still bits that are not clear.

 

[Droschke]

I have seen a few owners posting here also have other EV experience, but I wonder if there are enough (and without getting off topic) to link Tesla experience with somehow 'normal' and 'inevitable' behavior / characteristics.

There seem two sides to this. Tesla over selling, pushing the envelope too far for their financial gain etc (for which they must be held accountable) vs the realities that physics and current technology is capable of. Either way they are responsible, but personally I feel differently about a company trying to get the best performance vs a company screwing its clients.

The thing standing between those two views is communication.

Hopefully without getting shot down, if we knew similar data-supported behavior of other ev's it might paint some of this in a slightly different light. I know my Renault drops from around 180 miles in summer to 130 miles in winter. I know that 70 miles indicated range at 20 deg C will drop to 55 / 60 miles at 5 deg C and creep back up as the battery warms up. I know that with prolonged regen the indicated range increases (I've not seen this on the Model S). I am familiar with this over different cars and over a few years so I know what to expect.

If Tesla is significantly ahead of the curve in extracting performance from batteries while keeping the negative effects tolerable for a majority of owners, that is a good thing. (compare with I-Pace energy management etc.) Many owners here are evidence of how far you can trust early claims for new products.

In order to understand that, we need to be clear where that curve is - maybe not so much for those who have already suffered as their situation is different, but for new and recent buyers knowing that they got the best that's available and good value given the state of technology at a certain point in time must be relevant.

Clearly EVs have different issues than ICE vehicles, and they are not issue free much as we want them to be. This is a dieselgate scenario in so far as vehicle values getting reduced but with one big difference and that is that while diesels have been fighting with meeting ever more stringent emission controls for years and the likes of VW are long established and experienced players in an established market, Tesla are still new players in a new market.

Keeping a clear and unbiased eye on what is actually possible and what is not - based on the industry as a whole - must play a part in deciding where Tesla sit on a guilt scale. If Tesla took back all their crap batteries, retested and graded them and resold them 'honestly' with clear warranty and revised performance claims, that would fix the problem to some extent. I understand that Renault reporpose batteries that are end of life for vehicle applications for use in utility energy storage, as the batteries typically have a lot more to give just by down-rating them.

I feel differently about a company trying to get the best performance vs a company screwing its clients.

Those are not mutually exclusive. As it has been with our case, I would like to rephrase your comment referencing Tesla as: a company trying to get the best performance AND a company screwing its clients.

The rest of your post, if I'm reading it correctly, begs a comparison between Tesla and other companies. I would say that proposition is rather irrelevant because from any angle you prefer to look at the promise/message was the Tesla was going to be different (better) than all other companies. I definitely believed it.

 

[Chaserr]

I think that is an overly tight interpretation of the blog post, which, as a whole is called Creating the World’s Best Service and Warranty Program


Sure this is referring to "if you are not smart enough to plug your car in for 6 months", but, since its the BMS doing the protecting, I don't think its unreasonable to also extend this to "if we screwed up in programming a charging strategy into the BMS" as well...

I see no exclusions to this beyond the ones stated (emphasis added):


Finally, there is the closing to the section of the blog:

It's hardly a leap of logic to say Tesla is capping batteries because they failed to maintain them properly. They have always known this is their fault, that is the reason they won't say anything. They always point the blame at people whenever they feel like they can get away with it, and in fact they tried to accuse the Tesla owner from this year's LA garage fire of arson but the FD told them they were were wrong.

Tesla screwed up.. They caused fires. They stole from a bunch of people because they wanted to skip the legal process of safety recalls. And here we are explaining what happened to us.

@Battpower Tesla probably thought they were at the front of technology but theyt screwed up and won't take responsibility. Every otaher long range EV released recently has a cap in place from the factory - Jaguar, Audi, Porsche, VW's upcoming release... they all had these caps in palce before Tesla retroactively tried to take back what they had already sold. It turns out, Tesla knew less about batteries than those company. It wouldn't be a problem if Tesla hadn't lied to us about their cars' reliability or the warranty they claimed to stand behind, or the safety they pretended to strive for.

Communication is still something we beg for. Hostility is all we will ever get. That is what Tesla the company is now, and a drastic corporate shake-up will need to happen to change its course.

 

[David99]

I made an service appointment and put in 'voltage capping' and a few other things into the description. The appointment isn't for another 10 days but I got a text asking me to agree to a $97 diagnostic fee for pulling logs remotely. Based on the posts by other members here I assume I will get the same canned response. But I can't complain if I don't even try to have Tesla resolve this issue for my car.

 

[Gixx1300R]

I made an service appointment and put in 'voltage capping' and a few other things into the description. The appointment isn't for another 10 days but I got a text asking me to agree to a $97 diagnostic fee for pulling logs remotely. Based on the posts by other members here I assume I will get the same canned response. But I can't complain if I don't even try to have Tesla resolve this issue for my car.

If the part you want checked is under warranty there shouldn't be any fees.

 

[Chaserr]

Tesla is trying to discourage people from reporting this ongoing problem, and they are legally required to report these concerns to the NHTSA. Mercedes was recently fined for not reporting customer complaints, and how much would you like to bet Tesla "forgot" to report ours until the subpoena they were recently served demanded this information?

Ask one of the hackers here to pull your logs and email them to tesla with a $97 due bill for the trouble. It would be a funny snark response. If you do pay, keep the receipt - Tesla will eventually have to pay it back after they are corrected by the authorities.

 

[David99]

If the part you want checked is under warranty there shouldn't be any fees.

If it turns to to be a warranty issue the $97 will be waived. If it's not a warranty issue and I have them fix it I also don't pay the fee. Only if I decide not to have any work done they will charge me the fee. That's how they explained it to me at a previous service visit. They just don't know if it is a warranty issue yet so they are saying there could be a fee.

 

[Chaserr]

It won't be a warranty issue right now. They will tell you to lose weight, drive slow, and all the other patronizing things on their standard-issue legal department written form letter they always give in response to batterygate.

At this point service centers are banned from discussing or diagnoring the issue by Tesla corporate which is why we all get the same canned responses. They will not be allowed to acknowledge your problem, will say all is fine and that your battery is one of the best they have ever seen. Then they will mockingly make unrelated suggestions you didn't ask for.

 

[islandbayy]

Do you get to keep the old battery.

Nope. All battery replacements no matter what are with exchange.

 

[jread]

Do you get to keep the old battery.

I didn't ask - I assume not

 

[mjmiron]

If it turns to to be a warranty issue the $97 will be waived. If it's not a warranty issue and I have them fix it I also don't pay the fee. Only if I decide not to have any work done they will charge me the fee. That's how they explained it to me at a previous service visit. They just don't know if it is a warranty issue yet so they are saying there could be a fee.

I had suspension clicking it turned out to be nothing and the manager said they would waive the diagnostic fee. If your issue turns out to be nothing and they want to charge a fee ask to speak with the service manager and have it waived. Good luck I am hoping Tesla does have a shake up they seem to be in limbo right now on how to take care of their clients.

 

[doctorwho]

My suggestion would be for the 85 and smaller packs, who have not seen any changes other than reduced SuC speeds. For those that have been voltage capped, resulting in reduced range and power, I agree there needs to be another solution. I think the most those folks can hope for is a case settlement of a few grand, like the performance cars got in Europe.

I want a replacement pack. It would be very easy for Tesla to reframe this as looking after their customers in a way that would only reassure prospective buyers. I'm also happy to wait if they want a staged replacement process, I'm just not happy with silence

 

[Gixx1300R]

Nope. All battery replacements no matter what are with exchange.

If the battery is under warranty there is an exchange and Tesla keeps that battery pack, if you are paying for a replacement pack then the old pack is your property and there should be a core charge deducted from the new pack.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

I made an service appointment and put in 'voltage capping' and a few other things into the description. The appointment isn't for another 10 days but I got a text asking me to agree to a $97 diagnostic fee for pulling logs remotely. Based on the posts by other members here I assume I will get the same canned response. But I can't complain if I don't even try to have Tesla resolve this issue for my car.

David the pre arrival comment about a possible payment if it is not found to be Warranty work is pretty standard practice across the industry, and in UK it has been normal from Tesla for a few months now. Normally I would say don’t worry too much about it. But of all the cases I have read about where the owner asks Tesla to look into battery capping, or chargerate capping, I don’t remember, EVER, Tesla coming back and not saying No Fault Found. If it were me, I would never, ever, ever agree to a possible charge for pulling the logs on a batterygate/chargegate related fault. Never ever. Did I say NEVER? I meant to. They don’t play fair when it comes to batterygate/chargegate. I would say the chances of them stiffing you for a $97 diagnostic fee is about 100%.

If you need other things looked at, which are covered under the Warranty, then you should think about removing the voltage capping bit from the list. Experience tells us that even if we can prove the capping, Tesla aren’t interested. But do write to them separately about it, to get it logged on their system. Just don’t sweep it up with other issues that they may actually address.

 

[Battpower]

Tesla is trying to discourage people from reporting this ongoing problem,

Without doubt. I feel I am being pulled ever more in opposite directions. Part of me needs to believe the 'well meaning, pioneering, doing the best that is possible and risking being different' view of Tesla, while everything Tesla does with regards to dealing with 'gates' is negligent, short sighted, myopic, deceptive, possibly illegal and fraudulent.

I just want inner peace to match my quiet ride!

 

[MP3Mike]

If the battery is under warranty there is an exchange and Tesla keeps that battery pack, if you are paying for a replacement pack then the old pack is your property and there should be a core charge deducted from the new pack.

I'm pretty sure that the last person that asked was told that the core charge was $15k. (i.e. they don't want you to keep the pack.)