Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[MikeyC]

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.

Sounds like a pretty clever way to fund Tesla's legal defense against batterygate/chargegate. Someone clicks a button on a UI somewhere, you get a boilerplate letter, and they take $97 and put it in Tesla's legal defense fund. Kinda like a detective saying "For $97 I'll look for the stuff that was stolen in your home invasion" and then he goes home, eats a bag of Cheetos while watching the football game, and calls you back and says, "Sorry... I didn't find nuthin".

Mike

 

[omarsultan]

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!

Yeah, I think many of us are in that boat.

 

[omarsultan]

Sounds like a pretty clever way to fund Tesla's legal defense against batterygate/chargegate. Someone clicks a button on a UI somewhere, you get a boilerplate letter, and they take $97 and put it in Tesla's legal defense fund. Kinda like a detective saying "For $97 I'll look for the stuff that was stolen in your home invasion" and then he goes home, eats a bag of Cheetos while watching the football game, and calls you back and says, "Sorry... I didn't find nuthin".

Mike

At $1000/hr for legal fees, $97 isn't going to fund much. .

Seriously though, a diagnostic fee for out-of warranty cars is pretty normal, at least I have paid it before for other cars I have owned--typically gets applied to any repair costs. I mean you are burning some mechanics time, even if it is to pull logs and go through them. yes, I know the battery is still under warranty, but pulling the logs and checking out the entire charing system is going to involved checking on things not covered by the battery/drivetrain warranty too. I'd guess this is more about maintaining profitability than it is about trying to squelch this debate.

 

[cpa]

Is the CourtListener link good enough?

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16030151/rasmussen-v-tesla-inc/

No.

I think court listener might subscribe to scribd. I am uncertain on this. Many of the links on courtlistener dump you onto a subscription model.

I've just used other people's scribd subscription over the years, and it contains all filings with the court.

Maybe courtlistener will have them as well if this thing goes onto trial.

 

[MP3Mike]

No.

I think court listener might subscribe to scribd. I am uncertain on this. Many of the links on courtlistener dump you onto a subscription model.

I've just used other people's scribd subscription over the years, and it contains all filings with the court.

Maybe courtlistener will have them as well if this thing goes onto trial.

CourtListner hosts documents once someone that uses it views the document from the official source, PACER. A PACER account is free, and if your usage is less than $15/quarter they don't charge you... But in any case if there is one of the documents not yet available in CL that you think would be interesting let me know and I can get it pulled in.

 

[cpa]

CourtListner hosts documents once someone that uses it views the document from the official source, PACER. A PACER account is free, and if your usage is less than $15/quarter they don't charge you... But in any case if there is one of the documents not yet available in CL that you think would be interesting let me know and I can get it pulled in.

Thank you Mike. We'll just see how this flops out. Let's hope this entire ugly and unsavory ordeal reaches a satisfactory resolution in mediation.

Happy New Year.

 

[mymagiccarpet]

It is "cold" here i.e 32F (0C) and I noticed something new:
I parked my car outside last night with 20mi left (was much warmer) and this morning I see 11mi or range and the snowflake icon
Anyhow now Tesla reduces you rated range seemingly by the amount of range (or energy) that would be taken off to warm battery....I think this is a SMART feature.

See attached (after I reach SC 2 miles away) ....3mi of range BUT 5 percent of SOC (when I switch to %)...obviously that now includes the blue region on the graph.

Took awhile (7minutes) to get it to put any KW into battery ...after 60 minutes only charged to 55% and that estimated 70 minutes is now 115 minutes

Noticed same/similar to this. If battery is below 40mi, overnight loss is much larger then above it (usually 1-2mi in 24hrs, but if battery is below ~40mi, it will be ~8mi)

 

[xbox4me62]

At $1000/hr for legal fees, $97 isn't going to fund much. .

Seriously though, a diagnostic fee for out-of warranty cars is pretty normal, at least I have paid it before for other cars I have owned--typically gets applied to any repair costs. I mean you are burning some mechanics time, even if it is to pull logs and go through them. yes, I know the battery is still under warranty, but pulling the logs and checking out the entire charing system is going to involved checking on things not covered by the battery/drivetrain warranty too. I'd guess this is more about maintaining profitability than it is about trying to squelch this debate.

My CPO vehicle is still under bumper to bumper warranty and they are still trying to pull the $175 diagnostic fee. I specifically asked why there is a fee for a vehicle that's under warranty and all they do is repeat the same message. The tech then told me he was cancelling my appointment.

From now on I will be making separate appointments for every tiny issue that comes up and will tack on the charging issue everytime. I've had three minor issues I've been living with cause they aren't a big deal but will be making three separate appointments!

 

[thewinelake]

Has anyone tried Jailbreaking their car to fix this? I don't know much about it at all, but perhaps a way to revert to pre mid-2019 versions of the software?

 

[the_deacon]

Has anyone tried Jailbreaking their car to fix this? I don't know much about it at all, but perhaps a way to revert to pre mid-2019 versions of the software?

Now THAT is a potential business idea, for some entrepreneurial type! Take people's nerfed cars, downgrade the firmware on all subsystems to a "last known good" version, and then lock it to prevent future downgrades. I'm pretty sure Jason Hughes claimed he did that a few years back with at least one of his cars when Tesla was getting frisky with him about the "P100D" info leak, IIRC.

While you're in there, upgrade the 8GB eMMC chip (there's another TMC thread about people doing this) with a big 32/64GB one, to fix another Tesla-caused early failure issue. I'd line up and pay good money for this, today. Particularly if I could get back to V8. Just DM me if you have the capability.

 

[Lukez]

Has anyone tried Jailbreaking their car to fix this? I don't know much about it at all, but perhaps a way to revert to pre mid-2019 versions of the software?

Now THAT is a potential business idea, for some entrepreneurial type! Take people's nerfed cars, downgrade the firmware on all subsystems to a "last known good" version, and then lock it to prevent future downgrades. I'm pretty sure Jason Hughes claimed he did that a few years back with at least one of his cars when Tesla was getting frisky with him about the "P100D" info leak, IIRC.

While you're in there, upgrade the 8GB eMMC chip (there's another TMC thread about people doing this) with a big 32/64GB one, to fix another Tesla-caused early failure issue. I'd line up and pay good money for this, today. Particularly if I could get back to V8. Just DM me if you have the capability.

Yes there is, and this well known hacker was helping to try and find out why Tesla did what they did. After some investigation he was advised by Tesla (he has a good relationship with them) to stay out of this issue and left this thread basically saying that he highly recommends taking the update. He would not say that this was or was not a safety issue, just said he recommends updating the software. Search the thread for posts from wk057 and you'll see them.

 

[davidGR]

Soo.. I took another road trip from Eureka, CA to Orange County, ca over the thanksgiving holiday. Observations:
I updated to 2019.36.2.7 right before.
Batterygate: No change
Chargegate: No change
New things we pre-facelift (non AP) do not get: The one foot driving. Just like chill mode, even though it is possibkle to do, Tesla has reserved it for AP cars . I know chill is possible because they accidentally activated it in v9 then took it back the next update.
Of course, those of us that are capped already have our own chill mode built in and forced on us
Also, we do not get a functional browser either. I DID get release notes and thought it was fixed, but they would not come back. The browser worked for 1 charge session then wouldn't. I am not rebooting everytime I want to browse.

Supercharging: No positive change. I DID see 100kw for 3 seconds then instantly dropped to 60kw with the battery warm and at 10 miles left in the tank (arrival).
New NORMAL charge rate for most of the middle of the charge is 48kw then 36kw then even lower.
Due to the holiday, all superchargers were at capacity. It got worse when I5 was shut down at the grapevine, causing everyone to divert to hwy 101 via the coast. Massive charge lines at many of them.
Had a model 3 driver piss and moan at me for how long I was at the charger while she had to wait. She said she should get priority since she has to pay! I simply explained what Tesla had done, and that MANY of us original owners PAID for lifetime charging to help BUILD the chargers she needed. She did not know this stuff. We ended up having a great conversation. I did move off to the destination charger next door when my percentage got close to what I needed for the leg, since I would have gained NOTHING more from the Stuper-charger than the destination charger would give.

Also, at one charger, it started at 3KW and stayed there. I unplugged then plugged back in and the car rebooted. THEN I got a WHOPPING 60kw for 1 minute before it tapered. I was the only one there that time since it was 3 AM on the return back.

Went to a service center in OC (my 110v charger croaked and I had to buy another one), and asked the Service Advisor if he knew about Tesla taking away 16% of my and others batteries. He said 'Oh the 85kw? that was to make them last longer so you have a good battery for years to come.' I told him that if I wanted a S60 I would have bought one and paid MUCH less. He suggested I write a letter to Tesla

Went to another supercharger later that day (full house) and there was a Service advisor making up some extra hours helping direct people to the chargers and keep them in their queue for charging... I asked her the same thing, and stated that I had monitored my degradation and I know that when 16% disappears overnight after an update, it is NOT degradation. She actually agreed! She asked when I called support when it happened, and I said in June. She suggested using the app, make an appointment, then in the comments, describe it and to be sure to say what the TRACKED degradation was prior to the update and that I KNOW it is not degradation and ask WHY it was such an emergency action and why they did it and ask for my 16% back. Then see what they say when they email or text me back after looking at the logs. I took that as a 'hint' that she may know something but did not want to say.

Will be doing that tomorrow when I have time

Also, when the nav said 5 minutes to continue, it really meant 25 minutes
I felt bad inconveniencing others to charge, but I have to charge to drive!

 

[davidGR]

Now THAT is a potential business idea, for some entrepreneurial type! Take people's nerfed cars, downgrade the firmware on all subsystems to a "last known good" version, and then lock it to prevent future downgrades. I'm pretty sure Jason Hughes claimed he did that a few years back with at least one of his cars when Tesla was getting frisky with him about the "P100D" info leak, IIRC.

While you're in there, upgrade the 8GB eMMC chip (there's another TMC thread about people doing this) with a big 32/64GB one, to fix another Tesla-caused early failure issue. I'd line up and pay good money for this, today. Particularly if I could get back to V8. Just DM me if you have the capability.

Sorry to hear of your battery degradation problems - I have the same with my P85D but have 20% degradation. I have had this issue for 9 months now (totally ignored by Tesla) and have found that a 2 car solution works fine - Tesla for short distances (I'm limited to 190 miles) and petrol for longer journeys . Its massively less stressful as range anxiety increases significantly with Tesla battery degradation

 

[davidGR]

I agree. Of the many possible reasons for Teslas actions, I am most persuaded by the weakening battery theory. Perhaps the cut corners during the curing process or used slightly inferior materials, or whatever. But it seems very credible that whilst searching for Dendrites, Tesla found a number of batteries that were ageing' quicker than expected. And whilst they might still be within specification now, they foresaw that at some point within the 8 year Warranty period, they would fail if they kept being used at current rates. So they capped some batteries forcing owners to charge up to or below the old 85%, but for a much wider group of vehicles they have realised that pumping DC into the batteries at 90-100 kWs was more than the batteries could handle, and it was wearing them out much faster than expected. Solution, stop charging them at high kW settings.

If this theory is correct then it explains why they are happy claiming our batteries are healthy (read unhealthy but still within spec) and why so many batteries charge so much slower than they used to. This would also be something they couldn’t advertise, as the Supercharging network, and the 40 minutes to 80% is what sells cars.

There must be someone somewhere inside Tesla who can tell us exactly what has happened and blow the cover on the batterygate story ....cant the press find this person?

 

[Chaserr]

I've suggested a few times that I will help fund a GoFundMe or whatever reward / Funemployment compensation for any Tesla whistleblower willing to come forward with evidence of the crimes they've committed. It's a legally protected status, but we all know that means nothing so a golden parachute might help motivate someone's conscience.

We are a fairly affluent group, we could probably make a substantial argument for someone to do the right thing and come forward with evidence.

 

[Az_Rael]

It's a legally protected status, but we all know that means nothing so a golden parachute might help motivate someone's conscience.

Dangle a bunch of money in front of some people for information and they might decide fabricating a juicy hard to verify story about what is really going on is more profitable than their current occupation. Granted, the fabrication would be discovered eventually, but the sort who might make that calculation probably isn’t the brightest bulb. People do stupid things for money. Tesla is a large enough company that there are probably a few of those sorts working there. The resulting media frenzy would be unhelpful to everyone.

Probably better to just wait for a genuine whistleblower to come forward naturally if there really is something to whistleblow.

 

[Chaserr]

Regardless, I'll happily pay that whistleblower and I'm sure many others will too. To be honest the resulting media frenzy would still be helpful to everyone. It's pretty much the only thing that can make Tesla do the right thing, and up to this point media attention has been the only thing that has made Tesla respond to this issue. A frenzy might get the caps removed or a recall issued instantly, regardless of the source. At the very least it would help fund a larger scale investigation into their crimes.

 

[Jonas_man]

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.

Sorry to confuse you.
I do understand how projected range and battery icon range work and are calculated.

My point is that using the projected range (from the energy app) without accounting the buffer to calculate battery degradation gives a closer degradation value to the battery icon range degradation number.

Here's how:
Method of Battery icon degradation: 4.3% (424km/443km)
Method of Projected range degradation excluding buffer (my method): 3.5% (79kWh/81.8kWh)
Method of Projected range degradation including buffer (your method): 8.0% (79kWh/85.8kWh)

4.3% and 3.5% are much closer together than 4.3% and 8.0%. This is one reason why i believe my method is the correct one.


Answering your questions:
Yes my numbers are km and not miles. My car has very high consumption because now it is winter here in Finland.
424km, 443km are the battery icon values now and new.
Buffer is 4kWh, sorry my bad.

I don't believe my degradation is 8% because of what i said above.
I believe you need to compare the actual capacity (in a 90D) with 81.8kWh and not 85.8kWh as i believe that projected range does NOT include the buffer.

Im not trying to have my car included into the degradation gate discussion, just questioning the addition of the buffer in the calculations of projected range because to me it sounds wrong.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

There must be someone somewhere inside Tesla who can tell us exactly what has happened and blow the cover on the batterygate story ....cant the press find this person?

It seems not. But time may tell.

 

[jensk2]

My experience as well. Supercharging (with the Nav Dest. set) and starting @40% SoC, I was pulling only 36kW till 60% SoC when the charge rate started to dip. Charged to 90%, drove home, car parked in the garage for hours and the pump is still running. The temp outside is 50F. The car is plugged in but the pump is running off the main battery (4 miles range loss already). I think with 2019.40.2.3 the charging profile is getting worse for us for sure.
.

I'm not defending Tesla here, but Super Charging to 90%, then drive home and connect to home chargers to stay at 90% is just about the worst treatment for a standard Li-Ion NCA cell.

If you want the maximum capacity and performance of your battery, you need to leave it at a low State Of Charge as often and as long as possible, see here:
Investigation of Capacity and Homogeneity Recovery of Commercial Cells after Cycle Life Tests

In short, leaving/resting at high SoC will 'strand' li-ion in the anode overhang. The apparantly lost capacity, can be recovered with prolonged periods at very low SoC. This is difficult to calculate/monitor and reports that cars have shut down before reaching estimated range of zero miles argues Tesla cannot. Which makes sense unless you discharge at a VERY low rate.