Just want to make sure we are using the same terminology. Here is a link What Does a Core Charge for an Auto Part Mean?
-
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
Yep. Essential Tesla charge full price for the core. You want to replace the battery it is $15k, f you want to keep the old pack as well it is $30k. Unlike a failed starter a bad Tesla pack still has a lot of value.
ok I was just checking. That is the issue that I am having. I don't believe a refurbed battery pack should cost 30K (30K minus the 15K core charge = 15k for the replacement pack). Something is not right. I can see a brand new pack costing that much but not a refurbished one.
I agree but then again you can likely sell the parts in a failed pack for close to $16k, so maybe a refurbished one is with it. (Depending on the failure.)
The storyline had been charging rates were reduced because of too much DC charging for the pack, so I am not clear why a new pack would have restrictions out the door.
Maybe because they are not "new" but refurbished. Just a guess. When was the last 90 pack even made?
Or maybe they were just trying to say that the maximum charge rate on the 90 pack isn't any higher than on the 85.
Even after chargegate started mine, a 2014 s85 with about 87k miles, charged at or slightly above that for a few minutes maybe 5 to 10. Charge rate taper was much more agressive than before charge gate but not aggressive as many others have experienced.
Supply and demand. Tesla can charge whatever they want. The consumer doesn't have to pay what Tesla is asking. However if the consumer doesn't pay what Tesla wants then they may have a 5000 pound paper weight. 15-$20k buys a lot of gas or a refurbished pack with a 4 year warranty. I really miss my Tesla but this is why the Tesla replacement was a Honda Accord. Its not as cool or fast nor does it have all the awesome tech. But it is reliable and I know they won't shrink my gas tank in 5 years because I used the car as they told me I could.
islandbayy
Active Member
The price they charge for replacement packs, they already factor in the credit of the old pack into the price. Additionally, they will not sell in any way, shape or form, a replacement pack without getting the original as exchange.
I can only guess but I think that's is the key on this whole issue. Tesla knows if the battery packs continue (without being capped), they will have a so called catastrophic failure. Whatever happens in the cells at that point will cause relatively quick and dramatic degradation or worse. I think that's what happened to those cars catching on fire. The problem will get worse and worse and by dong so accelerates itself more and more. Qickly it gets worse at such a high rate that the pack becomes useless or catches on fire.
jaitch
Member
I have coils on my P90DL.
"to prevent sudden and significant loss of range" must be Tesla speak that includes fire as a worse case outcome. That's how I read it anyway.
I like the fact that Tesla have used the same words (sudden loss of range) as per this topic - it shows they are paying some attention.
And yet, they have refused to recall.
And that is against the law in some states. If I am willing to pay for the complete asking price for the pack I am entitled to my old pack in return if I request it in writing. I have been through it twice with Tesla. I forwarded the SC the state law and they returned my 12v battery, coolant pump and DC to DC converter on one occasion and my MCU on the other...…...
I hope that was coincidental. They wouldn't be dumb enough to describe the thread complaining of this effect when describing what they are supposedly trying to stop. That's like saying chargegate is intended "to prevent a sudden drop in supercharging rates" - it's the description of the cap not what they are trying to prevent. I think it's clear they mean "sudden and significant loss" involves pyrotechnic displays involving the fire department. They were never shy to tell us batterygate and chargegate were instituted to stop more fires from happening. It's why I will never park indoors again until they issue a recall and I can have a officially sanctioned OK / NOT OK status on my battery that isn't motivated by deception.
@gmo43 I have been following NHTSA investigations lately and based on recent fines and settlements they have handed out we shouldn't expect immediate results. Tesla will probably not be fined until some time around November, with public recall notices being sent out immediately at that time. The NHTSA takes its time with these investigations and Tesla has been slow to cooperate early on, delaying a month or more. If they delay again they risk sanction so the NHTSA should have all of the BMS and update in a week or 2 if not already. They will come to the only obvious conclusion possible rather quickly after that but will need to audit everything else. We aren't guaranteed a new battery, we might just have caps removed (this is what I think the latest update addresses - a more accurate assessment of whether capping was done with cause or not) but we will have a resolution to this issue since Tesla directly said they were investigating causes of fire and changed charge and thermal settings in 2019.16 to address that investigation. They should have looped in the NHTSA that same week as is the law; this thread only exists because Tesla tried to skirt those laws but the end result means we will be made whole somehow - but we must wait a year for the legal process to play itself out.
MY biggest hope is Tesla heard of the recent Mercedes slap on the wrist punishment that involves a year or two of active safety auditing by the NHTSA. Tesla should hope for that and maybe use the opportnity to educate them on the positives of OTA, instead of just letting the NHTSA decide OTA is a negative on their own and potentially putting some rules in place that limit future updates.
MY biggest hope is Tesla heard of the recent Mercedes slap on the wrist punishment that involves a year or two of active safety auditing by the NHTSA. Tesla should hope for that and maybe use the opportnity to educate them on the positives of OTA, instead of just letting the NHTSA decide OTA is a negative on their own and potentially putting some rules in place that limit future updates.
Last edited:
lightningltd
Member
I wish I COULD! I USED to, when we had a FUNCTIONAL browser in the car, but since the last update, it is completely DEAD. And yes, I have rebooted several times.
And buy the way, I seem to be hit hard with ChargeGate. I see normal charge rates in the 35-40 KW range (max 80kw for a few seconds) when it USED to be 100+ KW at the same temperatures and level.
It's certainly true that fire tends to cause a sudden and significant loss of range. Can't argue with that!
I keep reading all these posts, and however I try to see the issue it keeps coming back to Tesla having most likely over-stated the capabilities of cartain packs. For owners who either purposefully or unknowingly pushed the limits (but still staying within Tesla claimed specs) there was a much higher chance than Tesla predicted of early pack failure. This failure would manifest as reduced range, excessive pack heating during charging or worst case as combustion. While Tesla could be seen as being 'in the wrong', compare situation with an ICE vehicle driven near limits causing excessive wear, while in wty the owner might want parts to fail, but once out of wty they might prefer to have power limited in some way to extend life of parts.
Where it is harder to judge between is that one or two significant failures could still be swept under the carpet (impossible to avoid all failure) just as excessive non-fire failures outside of warranty could also be regarded as being outside of Tesla's concern. Their obligations kind of end once out of wty.
I forget if I have seen any owners of capped vehicles who primarily charged on home charger and rarely beyong 80 per cent and also with low mileage. That combination would surely demonstrate a total failure of Tesla to produce a viable car capable of performing to specification and such cases take away any argument that aggressive use is in any way to blame.
Last edited:
Isn't mediation scheduled for another month and a half? And you are expecting an update this week?
