Musk will anounce it himself at the Battery day event.
Can we maybe get someone in there and ask a question about our issue and blow up the entire event?
-
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
Musk will anounce it himself at the Battery day event.
Can we maybe get someone in there and ask a question about our issue and blow up the entire event?
Yes. I actually want to charge it to 100% and park it just outside the building. And hope for the best. I also want to see Elon's face if someone catches him off guard and asks him to share his thoughts on battery capping
This needs to happen. Public questions about Batterygate repairs will put them on the spot, and ignoring them could end up making them look like the WHO when it comes to questions regarding China politics. "Is this new chemistry going to be used to repair people who have been intentionally downgraded from the Tesla batterygate scandal? Does this mean warranty replacements finally exist?" I wasn't interested in Autonomy day but if I can make it to Battery Day I'll ask the question. I urge everyone to try and do the same. Tesla only seems to make positive strides over problems like this when shamed publicly. This is an opportunity to help Tesla help itself by helping us.Musk will anounce it himself at the Battery day event.
Can we maybe get someone in there and ask a question about our issue and blow up the entire event?
If we aren't inside, we should all show up and picket the event outside too. Reporters will be invited and they seem to love juicy Tesla gossip, it's about time this story made it on their radar. Who's in?
You need to park it surrounded by fire extinguishers and a big sign.
"Please uncap me as I have protection from battery fires now"
Not to mention your consent to use OTA to change BMS settings just in case your battery turns out to be that horrible and is getting close to 70% before 150k miles
Reaching 30% degradation naturally is never going to be a problem - they will cap artificially long before then to avoid repair costs. Read that new warranty again, they don't just claim 70% degradation - they now assert they can take away 30% with a batterygate software cap for any reason at any time.
At some point Accounting is going to suggest just capping to 70% after the 1-week return window ends to "protect the battery" as much as possible.
Edit - Mp3mike marked this as "read" and then replies saying "it doesn't say that" and then goes on to explain that it does say that
Last edited:
It doesn't say that.
It does say that changes to the "performance of the battery" as a result of firmware changes are not covered. Does "performance" include capacity retention? But there is no limit applied to that.
Well from the moment they consider it to be fine throttling my car's max supercharging speed from 115kw to 60kw even though there is no warranty term that allows then to do that, I think that term will give them the right to believe that they can do whatever they want as long as the capacity stays above 70% for the warranty period/miles limit. Supercharging speed by the way is not covered by warranty terms indeed, but! there is a Tesla disclaimer mentioning a small decrease in the magnitude of minutes and over the years. I believe Chaserr is right. They will do whatever has to be done, depending on what the future problem may be
cpa
Active Member
Hey now! You're giving us accountants a bad name!
We merely tell you what something costs, and we record transactions and adjust the books. We do not step into the morass created by engineering or manufacturing any more than engineering and manufacturing tells us accountants when to deposit the payroll taxes or move money between accounts or any other of our exciting functions! True, but since they have advertised fast charging and then taken away intentionally, they are still guilty of false advertising, bad faith, bait and switch, breach of good faith, intentional misrepresentation etc. All named in the class action, all guilty verdicts awaiting Tesla's eventual settlement. tesla simply can't claim they didn't advertise what they stole from us intentionally. They enticed us under false pretenses, and their bait looked good so here we are on the other side of the switch litigating them into giving honesty a try... eventually.
This is strictly a hunch. There isn't absolute certainty in anything I share on here. Invitations to agree/disagree.
Maybe the cap was a temporary tolerance analysis whereby the BMS was put into study mode. Each pack as a device was set to operate so that the battery temps are tightly monitored below the SoC threshold these fires occurred. And that the packs were purposefully kept below spec tolerances until a pack was validated individually.
I suspect Tesla's hope is that certain at risk packs will be replaced based on the results of these test. I suspect that we will find that some functionality of our battery function will return even before this Mid May event. Maybe some range restoration, others some SuC capacity. But others will remain the same and eventually replaced for said defect after they do their magic and study the pack.
In truth, a balancing act going on behind the corporate line. A balance between acceptable risk of catastrophic battery failure and financially acceptable amount of battery replacement. In other words, which standard deviation will best reduce the amount of future fires at the lowest cost.
That being said, there is no evidence that Tesla would invest money into replacing old packs with new technology. That will be reserved for future products not already in production. We'll continue to see remanufactured packs, mix similar module from packs but all containing used batteries.
Tesla can turn off the cap on replacement packs.
This would explain NHTSA lawsuit postponement. Tesla must that have defined measurable degradation beyond capacity or SuC rate decrease. They have to have sufficient data to explain why a pack would likely fail/combust to justify a replacement. I argue that it will sound sophisticated but the reality is closer to a bell curve of risk vs cost based on datamining.
The question we have to ask as customers is, "if batteries are being uncapped, which ones are safe to uncap and why?" This is Tesla's softest way out of this. There may be other cards in the deck, but I imagine we'll start to see cars being uncapped in the following weeks. If you can read the CAN Bus data on the pack, you can better track this. Because SuC speed rely on temperature. But for capacity restoration it should be obvious otherwise.
Maybe the cap was a temporary tolerance analysis whereby the BMS was put into study mode. Each pack as a device was set to operate so that the battery temps are tightly monitored below the SoC threshold these fires occurred. And that the packs were purposefully kept below spec tolerances until a pack was validated individually.
I suspect Tesla's hope is that certain at risk packs will be replaced based on the results of these test. I suspect that we will find that some functionality of our battery function will return even before this Mid May event. Maybe some range restoration, others some SuC capacity. But others will remain the same and eventually replaced for said defect after they do their magic and study the pack.
In truth, a balancing act going on behind the corporate line. A balance between acceptable risk of catastrophic battery failure and financially acceptable amount of battery replacement. In other words, which standard deviation will best reduce the amount of future fires at the lowest cost.
That being said, there is no evidence that Tesla would invest money into replacing old packs with new technology. That will be reserved for future products not already in production. We'll continue to see remanufactured packs, mix similar module from packs but all containing used batteries.
Tesla can turn off the cap on replacement packs.
Capping refurbished packs might be needed for evaluation purposes as I mentioned before. If every type of pack needs a baseline, then newly remanufactured packs are no exception the cap and study. Unless a few packs are justifiably allowed to be uncapped due to the warranty specifying "replacements being equal to or greater than original" rule. That's how PetriKarj got the battery engineers to exclude him from Tesla's battery study.
This would explain NHTSA lawsuit postponement. Tesla must that have defined measurable degradation beyond capacity or SuC rate decrease. They have to have sufficient data to explain why a pack would likely fail/combust to justify a replacement. I argue that it will sound sophisticated but the reality is closer to a bell curve of risk vs cost based on datamining.
The question we have to ask as customers is, "if batteries are being uncapped, which ones are safe to uncap and why?" This is Tesla's softest way out of this. There may be other cards in the deck, but I imagine we'll start to see cars being uncapped in the following weeks. If you can read the CAN Bus data on the pack, you can better track this. Because SuC speed rely on temperature. But for capacity restoration it should be obvious otherwise.
Tesla still has stolen property in their possession almost a year later, and is paying a fortune to retain a world leader in corporate bankruptcy representation to keep them fighting back everyone trying to get back that stolen property. They won't return what they stole without an imminent legal punishment making them do so.
They're too deep in the lie now so they can't uncap any. To uncap one is to admit "whoops, you didn't actually have the defect we're hiding from the government." They can't admit to the defect - they already did way before they knew this was going to be a big problem, but doing it more now just makes their case lose more quickly and the only real bit of information we know for sure is Tesla doesn't have a fix for this that they can afford, so immense amounts of money have been spent trying to keep in unfixed for as long as they can possibly do so before governments step in and force them to come up with fixes at any price.
When safety is discussed here, there is no "risk versus cost" allowed to be done whatsoever. Tesla was legally obligated to report their investigations into why so many batteries were catching fire, and why they took action. they had to report everything to the NHTSA by May 20, 2019. The NHTSA decides to do the recall. Tesla is legally not allowed to avoid reporting, and if action must be taken the law explicitly states no manufacturer is allowed to decrease performance to address a problem. Tesla must deliver equal or better than original - meaning, by definition, capping is illegal both in safety and for warranty law.
We know they can't cap for warranty reasons. Illegal.
We know they can't cap for safety reasons - Illegal.
The NHTSA does allow temporary substitutions for safety - but Tesla has denied these caps are a safety or NHTSA related problem. And if they lied about that, it's another federal crime. The NHTSA would have posted the details of our temporary downgrades to their website and notified us when we can expect Tesla to set up recall repairs for our batteries if they had been informed. The NHTSA does not let manufacturers keep secrets when it comes to safety downgrades.
They're too deep in the lie now so they can't uncap any. To uncap one is to admit "whoops, you didn't actually have the defect we're hiding from the government." They can't admit to the defect - they already did way before they knew this was going to be a big problem, but doing it more now just makes their case lose more quickly and the only real bit of information we know for sure is Tesla doesn't have a fix for this that they can afford, so immense amounts of money have been spent trying to keep in unfixed for as long as they can possibly do so before governments step in and force them to come up with fixes at any price.
When safety is discussed here, there is no "risk versus cost" allowed to be done whatsoever. Tesla was legally obligated to report their investigations into why so many batteries were catching fire, and why they took action. they had to report everything to the NHTSA by May 20, 2019. The NHTSA decides to do the recall. Tesla is legally not allowed to avoid reporting, and if action must be taken the law explicitly states no manufacturer is allowed to decrease performance to address a problem. Tesla must deliver equal or better than original - meaning, by definition, capping is illegal both in safety and for warranty law.
We know they can't cap for warranty reasons. Illegal.
We know they can't cap for safety reasons - Illegal.
The NHTSA does allow temporary substitutions for safety - but Tesla has denied these caps are a safety or NHTSA related problem. And if they lied about that, it's another federal crime. The NHTSA would have posted the details of our temporary downgrades to their website and notified us when we can expect Tesla to set up recall repairs for our batteries if they had been informed. The NHTSA does not let manufacturers keep secrets when it comes to safety downgrades.
Last edited:
it wouldn't matter, the bad battery chemistry remains ( the reason for the capping)
Without hard public domain evidence = more trickery, bullet dodging and coverup.
There needs to be third party supported hard evidence of test results and conclusions before you can even start to have a little confidence that you maybe got back what was originally sold to you.
The whole thing feels like work in progress and especially battery capped owners are Guinea Pigs paying the price for Tesla's poor engineering and commercial decisions. It makes me super cynical about any claimed marginal performance increases which are so much smaller than battery capacity and supercharge rate reductions.
How can any owner be forced to accept unsolicited ota modifications from Tesla when Tesla have clearly demonstrated total disregard for personal property? The arrogance and illegality are stunning.
That said, any solution that risks catastrophic damage to Tesla must be questionable too.
Last edited:
Technology often out paces laws, hopefully the laws will catch up and squash this type of behavior.
It would be one thing to advise owners of a temporary change or even ask owners' permissions to carry out investigation to their car's performance while an issue is investigated. Obviously requires massive understanding / tolerance from owners and openness from Tesla. Almost requires an amnesty for Tesla so they don't incriminate themselves just for being cautious. But completely different situation when you (for whatever reason) end up with under-performing / dangerous goods that Tesla tries to coax past warranty periods just to dodge their obligations.
OTA changes desperately need legal regulation and third party monitoring.
Last edited:
One owner, @swegman , was told by Tesla SC that his capped pack was chosen to be part of a "test group":
Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
Similar threads
