-
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
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Where they talked about pack longevity? I think we are talking past each other at this point, I'm not understanding you and you aren't understanding me.
I understand, you seem to be reaching for assorted reasons to apologise for the crimes you personally accused Tesla of committing earlier today. I give you facts, you give me impossible situations that frankly do not exist.
A person driving your hypothetical 100%-60% every day was using 40% of their available capacity daily. On a capped battery they are now using over 50% to drive the exact same distance. Your example, real world math. We physically can't charge as high and by necessity are deeper discharging. Degradation happens at all states of charge and gets worse at lower states of charge, far worse than it does at higher states of charge. There is no % wher edegradation doesn't exist like you seem to believe, we are forced to discharge more deeply and are degrading more quickly.
Lets do the math on your car. What was the daily capacity drain before you were capped? What is it now that you've been capped? We can calculate the volts and determine how much more stress your cells are subjected to by determining how much lower your volts are dropped every day.
This is the only way degradation ties to batterygate directly, and I don't know why you would assume its intentional. tesla might have increased rates of degradation but that was a side effect not the intent.
Reread where you found them talking about that. They never mention degradation, not once. They discuss fires the entire time. Fire was the only reason they released that statement at all, it was a single topic press release and "Longevity" refers to batteries that are not burned out husks.
A person driving your hypothetical 100%-60% every day was using 40% of their available capacity daily. On a capped battery they are now using over 50% to drive the exact same distance. Your example, real world math. We physically can't charge as high and by necessity are deeper discharging. Degradation happens at all states of charge and gets worse at lower states of charge, far worse than it does at higher states of charge. There is no % wher edegradation doesn't exist like you seem to believe, we are forced to discharge more deeply and are degrading more quickly.
Lets do the math on your car. What was the daily capacity drain before you were capped? What is it now that you've been capped? We can calculate the volts and determine how much more stress your cells are subjected to by determining how much lower your volts are dropped every day.
This is the only way degradation ties to batterygate directly, and I don't know why you would assume its intentional. tesla might have increased rates of degradation but that was a side effect not the intent.
Reread where you found them talking about that. They never mention degradation, not once. They discuss fires the entire time. Fire was the only reason they released that statement at all, it was a single topic press release and "Longevity" refers to batteries that are not burned out husks.
Last edited:
Correct.
Fact: There is a connection between the capping software updates and the fire incidents
Speculation/opinion: There is a connection between battery longevity (who, BTW, asked for that?) and the capping software updates
I keep providing you with the facts as we know them and you keep telling me about your speculation/opinion the way you see them. That's why we are talking past each other.
As @Ferrycraigs, a respected owner posting in this thread, has stated repeatedly here, you are entitled to your opinions (your speculations) but not entitled to your facts.
Tesla did use the word "longevity" when they admitted the caps were rolled out to stop more parked cars from bursting into flames. A crippled battery does have more longevity than a burning one.
I suspect this is where that excuse's myth came from; not everyone read the admission in its entirety and some intentionally misquoted it to help Tesla maintain the deception.
I suspect this is where that excuse's myth came from; not everyone read the admission in its entirety and some intentionally misquoted it to help Tesla maintain the deception.
True, but they definitely could have done a better job communicating what the plan was/is.
JRP3,
Can you please expand on what you mean by “is happening”. Did Tesla officially acknowledge capping our batteries and that’s why they are replacing them? If so, where is this info coming from?
cpa
Active Member
Actually, the reserve for warranty repairs must be recorded in the accounting period (generally quarterly for publicly traded companies) the situation comes to light and a reasonable estimate is calculated by the engineering department and accounting department. We saw that there was no mention of this lawsuit in the third quarter 10-Q. We will see whether there is mention in the 10-K that will be released "soon."
In other words, if our hypothetical solution is to roll out replacement battery packs to all affected owners over an 18-month period, Tesla still has to do the accounting to increase its warranty reserve today, and not bleed in into the financials over this 18-month period.
It is entirely possible using engineering and accounting sleight-of-hand that any increased warranty costs for us affected by battery/chargegates would be offset by reduced warranty costs for newer cars if there is justification that prior years' reserves were too high.
Then, there is the concept of materiality. Tesla may be able to persuade its auditors that any costs associated with this lawsuit are immaterial. Without knowing the facts and quantity of cars affected, we can only guess.
So, this should be higher on your list, Omar!
He's referring to a single case where someone had a P85+ battery fail with the "charge limit reduced" error and got a 14-module version of the 100 pack instead of a 85/90 replacement. It's wild conjecture, but it is possible they might make more of those batteries and if the old 16 module 85/90 packs all have the same design flaw it means Tesla is going to have a big recall floodgate coming sooner or later.
They didn't invent that pack type for no reason at all, though. It's only the fourth unique battery architecture Tesla has ever put in a Model S, there's probably a reason they created something new and have only used it for warranty replacement in one car. He's probably having his volts and logs checked every day by Tesla devs looking for signs of whatever fault they are still hiding from us behind batterygate.
They didn't invent that pack type for no reason at all, though. It's only the fourth unique battery architecture Tesla has ever put in a Model S, there's probably a reason they created something new and have only used it for warranty replacement in one car. He's probably having his volts and logs checked every day by Tesla devs looking for signs of whatever fault they are still hiding from us behind batterygate.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
That's your interpretation. I interpret longevity in a broader sense, i.e. cycle life and calendar life.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
We're all speculating and interpreting here.
I'm not interpreting or speculating it's plain English and Tesla's official explanation. I posted the press statement it's impossible to miss. It only discusses fire concerns. One has to imagine anything else.
I agree with you and Tesla, burning batteries lack longevity. That's definitely true.
MP3mike read this post
I agree with you and Tesla, burning batteries lack longevity. That's definitely true.
MP3mike read this post
Last edited:
Not at all. Nothing new since it happened here multiple times, some just refuse to accept the facts as we know them, even when the evidence are presented, and keep bringing in 'that's how I interpret it'. One's own interpretation stops when the facts are presented. That's the way I see it.
The voltage capping is due to the fire incidents (the facts). "Longevity" is the corporate PR bit to soften the gravity of the root cause.
Last edited:
And not ever Tesla's PR team tried to claim it had anything to do with degradation. It was always fires that prompted the investigation into battery problems and "revised charge" (batterygate) "and thermal" (chargegate. Tesla says it and they weren't lying at that point. They only started lying later, probably after someone on their legal team brought up the criminal implications of not doing anything to inform owners or authorities. "Degradation" was some random person here throwing conjecture around with nothing to back it.
As long as people are throwing random conjecture around, why do you suppose Tesla has gone through like 4 General Counsel hires in the last year? What could scare away so many high end lawyers quickly?
This seems to be a red herring excuse and deflection. none of the details he asked for could be used to identify you. On the other hand, they could be used to establish credibility and an atmosphere for constructive conversation.
You obviously have never done work on re-identifying de-identified data before.
And I could make up and post any reasonable looking numbers and you would have no way to verify them. So it wouldn't add any credibility to the conversation.
Last edited:
this is a great story except that if it is a series of steps to resolve a safety issue all of it is illegal from the get go.
It's legal if step 2 is "Inform the NHTSA within 5 days of step 1" and the NHTSA is directly involved in all of the rest.
We're still on step 1 but it is 275 days past due reporting to the authorities.
We're still on step 1 but it is 275 days past due reporting to the authorities.
I had a period of charging to 75%, range stayed pretty constant with 2019.36.2.7, then 2019.40.2.3 came along and the range started dropping ! And hasn't stopped !.. I'm almost at the same range I was after the 2019.16.2 update ! .. and have rarely supercharged since.. not happy
.. and have rarely supercharged since.. not happy Attachments
Similar threads
