Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[omarsultan]

Does anyone have a link to the warranty PDF as it was in 2015?

I have my book from 2013--uploaded pics a couple of hundred post ago.

 

[omarsultan]

I catch up on this thread every few days and it always strikes me how reasonable your posts are among all the shouting. If you keep this up, I'm writing your name down as a write-in candidate in November.

Um, thanks, but I kinda like my day job.

 

[bhzmark]

"Condition Z" is an imaginary condition that has no factual basis to it.

I find other posts in this thread more persuasive on the point that Condition Z is not imaginary.

"Basically they went looking for X and found Z instead. X is pretty bad, but doesn't seem to have happened anywhere. Detecting X is definitely a good thing. Z is not good, but not as bad as X. The process of looking for X's ended up finding a bunch of Z's as well. Z was not being looked for and wasn't known. Detecting Z is still a good thing. The people with a rapid range loss have condition Z."​

"I never said anyone's cars were going to burst into flames or anything. For that to happen, more failures than just condition X or Z would have to happen. They're both just additional risk factors when looking at overall failure possibilities, neither of which will cause something catastrophic on its own and neither of which is any more of a problem than some aspects of general use (charging to 100%, supercharging, leaving the car in the sun, etc... or in an ICE vehicle, I'd say just pumping gasoline is riskier than all of the above).

"Charging to 100% in direct sunlight is probably more risky than having condition Z.​

"I'm convinced they are working in the best interest of safety by pushing the updates they have pushed. I'm also convinced that they're really working pretty hard to mitigate as much as possible with as little adverse effect as possible."​

"I'm convinced no one involved on Tesla's side is sitting there thinking, "Well, we can just let cars have problems for the sake of our bottom line." As far as they're concerned, the update eliminates the risk factor entirely. "

​

Read these and similar in full:

This is my understanding of the situation from their perspective. Again, they've obviously not being super forthcoming, but this is what I've put together from conversations with both groups.

Basically they went looking for X and found Z instead. X is pretty bad, but doesn't seem to have happened anywhere. Detecting X is definitely a good thing. Z is not good, but not as bad as X. The process of looking for X's ended up finding a bunch of Z's as well. Z was not being looked for and wasn't known. Detecting Z is still a good thing. The people with a rapid range loss have condition Z.

Hopefully that's less ambiguous, and also still ambiguous.

This thread is pretty crazy, and I'll probably be stoned from multiple directions for posting here again.

I never said anyone's cars were going to burst into flames or anything. For that to happen, more failures than just condition X or Z would have to happen. They're both just additional risk factors when looking at overall failure possibilities, neither of which will cause something catastrophic on its own and neither of which is any more of a problem than some aspects of general use (charging to 100%, supercharging, leaving the car in the sun, etc... or in an ICE vehicle, I'd say just pumping gasoline is riskier than all of the above).

There are a bunch of factors that increase the risk of fire in a battery. For example, I'd say just charging a car (one without any other issues, new, whatever) to 100% and letting the car sit without discharging soon can result in as much, or likely even more in many cases, risk of fire than any of the conditions mitigated by the range loss updates. Charging to 100% in direct sunlight is probably more risky than having condition Z.

Heck, I'd say using Ludicrous+ battery heating is probably 5x riskier than any of the conditions relevant to this discussion.

So, let's not blow things out of proportion. There is acceptable risk involved with the operation of any automobile, ICE or EV. However, the more risk eliminated, the better.

The problem for me is that other conditions that would end up with condition X or Z as a catalyst for a disaster type failure are not really as easy to detect or prevent, so eliminating the risks you can eliminate (ie: update) is a positive thing in this case when you compound multiple problems.

I'm still not convinced Tesla is going to do the absolute right thing by owners as far as actually correcting the underlying issue (which requires a pack replacement to fix 100%, no way around it). I'm convinced they are working in the best interest of safety by pushing the updates they have pushed. I'm also convinced that they're really working pretty hard to mitigate as much as possible with as little adverse effect as possible.

I'm convinced no one involved on Tesla's side is sitting there thinking, "Well, we can just let cars have problems for the sake of our bottom line." As far as they're concerned, the update eliminates the risk factor entirely. By not applying the update, you're accepting that slightly elevated risk of failure... just like you would if you had an ICE vehicle and say, didn't replace a component you knew could fail.

From what I've gathered, the number of people who could possibly still be affected by conditions X or Z (ie, have not updated) is less than 100... out of tens of thousands. I'd say that's good enough.

Yes, it sucks that range loss could be involved, and I'm hoping they'll find a way to either mitigate it in a way that corrects that, or corrects the issue entirely by replacing packs for those who can not recover 100% of the range lost by software mitigation.

Commence the stoning...

 

[Chaserr]

Your faith is admirable, but assuming your faith in that specific source is unshakable under any circumstance, Tesla needs to recall ALL 85 and 75 packs

You mean all vehicles with 85 and 70 packs?

Now, he did claim he would go ahead and throw tesla under the bus if they didn't come forward, but he later had to backtrack on that fearing unpleasant retribution from Tesla, who has chosen to do what he calls "the wrong thing" over Batterygate.

Regrettably, I've been advised to stay out of this issue.

Suffice it to say, I'm less than convinced they're going to do the right thing here... but, unfortunately I just don't have the resources to waste defending myself should Tesla actually decide to try something stupid against me on this.

Best of luck with the class action case.

But in the end, that source tells you Tesla needs to recall all 85 and 75 packs

Tesla should be liable to correct the issue with a replacement pack.

I'm inclined to believe that there is a potential safety issue involved here... and Tesla's silence on the situation with lack of a clear response to affected owners leads me to believe that the issue lies in the now-detectable defect category. Again, speculation... but it fits.

So we can either choose to believe him or we can choose not to, but nothing he has said is backed by more than words and faith, and he has unfortunately backtracked on his words to go forward with releasing his information so faith is all we have.

I know you want this to be a big safety problem for Tesla, but I just don't want to believe it. It's a matter of MY faith - not backed by evidence either - that Tesla would not willingly try to harm people and throw away its safety repuattion the way you and @wk057 believe they are doing. It would be insane - No, not insane: criminally, maliciously, evil by premeditated intent - for Tesla to participate in a coverup of that magnitude. And because faith is a belief in imaginary things that may not exist, I haven't parked my car in my garage for many months. I park away from other cars and away from buildings when in public. I do not let my car's probability of conflagration at any moment put lives in danger. Because my faith that Tesla is not covering up a dangerous problem is not backed by any evidence, and Tesla themselves have lied about batterygate too many times to risk it until someone official audits their safety and issues recalls.

But maybe you and Jason are correct. Maybe Tesla really is that evil. I just choose not top believe you're correct without evidence.


Evidence is coming. Literally. The information you want will be submitted in Discovery, Tesla is facing multiple court battles over their subterfuge and will face many more trials in every nation Teslas are sold when that information gets out. The source of your frustration is their unnecesary and potentially lethal secrecy - and whether they are hiding a safety problem or not you will eventually learn the truth you seek directly from Tesla, though not willingly from Tesla.

 

[Gixx1300R]

I have said it before and I will say it again. Tesla has a dark side and it is very well hidden. I was chastised for saying this is as bad as Diesel gate. The reason is Diesel gate was about emissions cheating, battery gate/charge gate is about car fires. Which one has the most potential for property damage or death?

Remember Jason can be deposed as an expert witness, that would protect him from any retaliation from Tesla.

 

[ran349]

does teslafi provide any info on battery like current voltage, and max voltage of cells?

None of the above.

 

[Chaserr]

Jason didn't just pull back because of fear from retribution - he administers a private network of Teslas that he keeps separate from the official Tesla update network... meaning if he acknowledges he has insider information about fire hazards and doesn't update everyone on his network or inform them of the hazards, he can possibly be held accountable for the damage just like Tesla. It's questionable, but it's possible. I doubt he has to report to the NHTSA - probably not as the NHTSA deals with manufacturers - but his legal complications get tangled and confusing in a hurry when it comes to knowing about an imminent danger in the face of a later lawsuit that could have been prevented by a recall and so on. That's why he was "advised" to stay out of it. His risk footprint is similar to Tesla's if he proves he knows for certain there is a risk; his customers don't want to update and more than we do, and they have the luxury of not being forced. His worries stem from what Tesla might do, and what the law might do if he says too much and admits knowledge of what would happen should s one of the cars he has usurped from Tesla for update maintenance become a statistic. Or even if one of the non-Wk057 network of cars burns. People get sued all of the time and his risk is high just for being close to the center of it at one time. People look to assign blame when bad things happen, and fire can cause very bad things to happen.

 

[boywonder]

Not directly related but interesting none the less regarding NHTSA, lawsuits, and manufacturers cost/benefit analysis and response to public concerns over their products and safety, Ford Pinto - Wikipedia

 

[VT_EE]

I haven't seen this particular one yet although I haven't been out to my car this morning.

This message means they are about to disable openVPN which the current software doesn't use.

Once they do I'll lose app access and voice commands. I may still have google maps and slacker. If so, I'll be content to stay on 8.1.

What will be more interesting is if I lose supercharger access. If they control that with expiring certs, then I would have it until the cert expired and then would seemingly randomly lose supercharger access in the future at possibly a very inconvenient time.

The planned disabling of openVPN seems more plausible than some of the other theories floating around here. In your case, it might be time to play that game of Russian Roulette and do the update. There is a decent chance you'll be OK, but then again, who knows.

 

[mvotb]

[QUOTE="bhzmark,

Because chaser posts are increasingly unhinged I will put him on ignore on not waste any more time truthsquading him. Don't take my lack of disagree/funny or direct truthsquading him to indicate any agreement.

.[/QUOTE]

EXCELLENT. Now can you please block all the rest of us also.

 

[First EV]

I

[QUOTE="bhzmark,

Because chaser posts are increasingly unhinged I will put him on ignore on not waste any more time truthsquading him. Don't take my lack of disagree/funny or direct truthsquading him to indicate any agreement.

.

EXCELLENT. Now can you please block all the rest of us also.[/QUOTE]
Ignored bhzmark so long ago I almost forgot about him. Also wtf is truthsquading?

 

[omarsultan]

false hyperbole

Not complete hyperbole. This section added to the revised warranty language essentially codifies what Tesla did with batterygate and chargergate:

I understand why they might want this language in there, but my objection to language like this is that it continues to allow Tesla to expert material control over a vehicle that I ostensibly own, in a way that seems for to be primarily for their benefit.

 

[mymagiccarpet]

Not complete hyperbole. This section added to the revised warranty language essentially codifies what Tesla did with batterygate and chargergate:

Interesting choice of words in the new warranty. Not covered even if it results in more than 30% reduction in range?
I guess then one can just go and claim it was degradation (there is that word again ) and then its covered? or this time around they have data to show it wasn't degradation...neat
Now, on the other hand, it says performance, I don't consider capacity to be under performance umbrella. It is quite it's own category of battery characteristics.

Now that i wrote this, give it a few days, and watch the wording change again...

 

[Guy V]

The "authority" is that words have meaning. "Something wrong" is bad, right? If a cell is not as good as new it has degraded. If the compression in an ICE has dropped it has degraded.


See above. Words have meaning. If you don't know the definition of degraded or degradation look it up. I promise you it doesn't mean "everything is perfect".

No, it can mean defective, as in manufactured wrong, substandard so that it is not capable of performing as designed and intended, and/or susceptible to failure under normal operating conditions.

That happens. That's what warranties are for. That's why stuff gets replaced under warranty.

 

[Guy V]

I've been over this. Obviously the capping is artificial. Equally obvious is the artificial capping is an attempt to counter some undesirable change in the cells, i.e. some form of degradation. Yes they could uncap the pack and range would return but the internal problems would remain. According to Tesla this would hasten capacity loss and potentially lead to fires. Neither of those is a good outcome, I assume we agree upon that?

Even worse! It could lead to replacement under warranty!

 

[Guy V]

Creating the World’s Best Service and Warranty Program

Just drive. If they screw up charge or thermal settings it's their fault not yours. This was my cars enticement. It was a lie But it's still legally binding.

Not if it is fraud in the inducement, then it's illegal.

 

[Guy V]

So you have received a degraded pack (reman) not a capped pack! I guess it would be too costly for Tesla to hand out new packs (if they even still were making them)

It would be interesting to know what "remanufacturing" by Tesla is comprised of.

 

[Guy V]

Warranty is not just a contract. It is also a statutory right. In other words, it’s more complicated than you appreciate right out of the gate. But let’s play with your words a little more.

Some parts of a contract recite facts, some create some covenants, obligations or duties, or grant rights and remedies. Which do you think the sentence with “gradual“ does?

Moving on . . Do I think the use phrase “Resulting from battery usage” Means a non-virginal battery isn’t covered? No I don’t think that. Not even remotely. It means, resulting battery usage, i.e., wear on the battery, i.e., normal things that happen to batteries when they are used, namely the degrade in various ways from usage. For instance lithium plating.

Again, I note a studied failure to avoid any inquiry into Condition Z, lithium plating, or an answer to my question whether anyone has any range loss > 30%.

Go on, try arguing that BS to a jury. LOLOL

 

[Guy V]

I really hope this is something that Tesla is NOT doing since it violates the warranty agreement that states "remanufactured" battery pack. By definition to remanufacture is "to refurbish (a used product) by renovating and reassembling its components"

Nah, just cleaning and flushing, checking fittings and testing components would suffice.

 

[Guy V]

It went from every few weeks (or so it seemed) to few or none... but that could be coincidence. We still don't actually want this to have anything to do with fires whatsoever. That would mean Tesla would have to recall every battery withing a very wide range of builds... which could mean we lose Tesla. Takata had a recall with an unaffordably large number of cars, and while we got our new airbags, but we didn't get them from the now defunct Takata. I don't want Tesla to have been that guilty - if the recall doesn't drag them under the fines and massive blow to reputation from ignoring every safety law could mean we end up getting our cars fixed at some ICE dealership and I don't want that. I just want them to admit they tried to break Magnuson Moss guarantees on warranties and be stick around to fix everything.

There are all kinds of remedies that wouldn't damage Tesla too badly. Would you accept a nice new Chinese manufactured LR Model 3 as a settlement? maybe a Y?