Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[lightningltd]

Jeez guys... Get a freaking room!

 

[Guy V]

No, my interest hasn't dramatically changed one way or another. In fact my interest in this particular case was related to yet another instance of @Chaserr polluting unrelated threads with wildly inflated claims and statements of "fact" that have no factual basis. Things such as:

"batterygate is why Tesla removed the 60D->75D unlock" - fully and completely speculative, but presented as fact.

"... plug in and try to charge at a Supercharger. 75D s aren't as old and are still limited by the same hidden fire prevention measures" - it seems nobody has actually confirmed this, but again it's presented as fact. On the contrary, 75kwh batteries have received 30% improvement in peak supercharging rates over the past year, and there isn't a single confirmed report of extended cooling pump cycles.

"There is a long thread with names of owners affected who have 75kwh batteries." - we appear to have identified (possibly) one, without actual substantiation of the claim. So this is, at best, a gross exaggeration.



So my interest is much as it always has been - holding people accountable for the rampant spread of exaggerations, half-truths, and outright lies related to to this case. That said, if I'm wrong and have simply missed the ample evidence available, I'd like to be corrected and educated. @Chaserr disengaged when confronted and refused to provide any actual substantiation to his claims, so I came to the source.

I see Chaserr's " forward-leaning" posting as legitimate efforts, with the help of whatever recruits he can gather elsewhere, to goad Tesla into responding, with explanations, data and/or some plan for resolution.

 

[ucmndd]

I see Chaserr's " forward-leaning" posting as legitimate efforts, with the help of whatever recruits he can gather elsewhere, to goad Tesla into responding, with explanations, data and/or some plan for resolution.

Oh I fully understand the motivation and self-serving tactics... they're quite obvious. I just strongly disagree that deliberately and repeatedly citing speculation as fact is helpful to anybody in this community, including the plaintiffs and affected parties.

Stick with the facts. Mark speculation as such. Chaserr could stick to essentially his same routine and preface his statements with:

"It appears..."
"I think..."
"We believe..."

... and it immediately becomes much more honest and defensible. It's easy.


"Tesla committed crimes and broke the law" -> "We believe Tesla committed crimes and broke the law, which is why we have filed suit".

The first statement (which I should explicitly note is paraphrased and not a direct quote of Chaserr, though he has said variations of such countless times) is a speculative opinion stated as a fact. The second is an honest assessment of what is happening.


"batterygate is why Tesla removed the 60D->75D unlock" -> "I think batterygate is why Tesla removed the 60D->75D unlock."

The first statement is complete speculation stated as a fact. The second is an opinion that can be discussed and debated.


"There is a long thread with names of owners affected who have 75kwh batteries." -> "It appears that at least one person has reported symptoms consistent with batterygate on a 75kwh battery."

The first statement is simply a lie. The second is an accurate assessment of current knowledge on the subject.

 

[Guy V]

Oh I fully understand the motivation and self-serving tactics... they're quite obvious. I just strongly disagree that deliberately and repeatedly citing speculation as fact is helpful to anybody in this community, including the plaintiffs and affected parties.

Stick with the facts. Mark speculation as such. Chaserr could stick to essentially his same routine and preface his statements with:

"It appears..."
"I think..."
"We believe..."

... and it immediately becomes much more honest and defensible. It's easy.


"Tesla committed crimes and broke the law" -> "We believe Tesla committed crimes and broke the law, which is why we have filed suit".

The first statement (which I should explicitly note is paraphrased and not a direct quote of Chaserr, though he has said variations of such countless times) is a speculative opinion stated as a fact. The second is an honest assessment of what is happening.


"batterygate is why Tesla removed the 60D->75D unlock" -> "I think batterygate is why Tesla removed the 60D->75D unlock."

The first statement is complete speculation stated as a fact. The second is an opinion that can be discussed and debated.


"There is a long thread with names of owners affected who have 75kwh batteries." -> "It appears that at least one person has reported symptoms consistent with batterygate on a 75kwh battery."

The first statement is simply a lie. The second is an accurate assessment of current knowledge on the subject.

Oh that's rich, wanting satisfactory resolution to an injury inflicted upon you is now "self-serving" ROFLMAO

"Stick with the facts" - Tesla PROVIDES no facts. That's a MAJOR part of the problem. What world are you living in?

"We believe Tesla committed crimes and broke the law, which is why we have filed suit". - No sir!
Lawsuits make allegations. They are not wishy-washy mealy-mouthed hints that something might possibly be slightly not quite exactly as it should be. And they make demands.

 

[ucmndd]

Oh that's rich, wanting satisfactory resolution to an injury inflicted upon you is now "self-serving" ROFLMAO

Lol, no, stating things that aren't facts as facts, because it serves your interest, is self-serving.

"Stick with the facts" - Tesla PROVIDES no facts. That's a MAJOR part of the problem. What world are you living in?

Hence a reason to file suit, to discover facts. That doesn't mean you just make them up because the other party isn't providing them.

"We believe Tesla committed crimes and broke the law, which is why we have filed suit". - No sir!
Lawsuits make allegations. They are not wishy-washy mealy-mouthed hints that something might possibly slightly not quite exactly as it should be. And they make demands.

Correct - lawsuits make allegations and demands. As in "we allege Tesla broke the law". Judges and juries make verdicts. Until you have a verdict or admission of guilt, saying "Tesla broke the law" is simply not a factual accounting of the current state of affairs.

 

[Guy V]

Lol, no, stating things that aren't facts as facts, because it serves your interest, is self-serving.


Hence a reason to file suit, to discover facts. That doesn't mean you just make them up because the other party isn't providing them.



Correct - lawsuits make allegations and demands. As in "we allege Tesla broke the law". Judges and juries make verdicts. Until you have a verdict or admission of guilt, saying "Tesla broke the law" is simply not a factual accounting of the current state of affairs.

Oh good grief, go read the language of the actual lawsuit.

You speak of motivation. Just what do you imagine is the motivation of the owners with the problem posting as they do?

Get a clue! The greatest effort here is to convince Tesla to settle out of court in the least damaging, most reasonable way, merely to remedy the defect in their product, without giant legal penalties, without survival threatening government punishments, without critical damage to their reputation and image, and before something dire happens to have it all come crashing down on them.

We are owners, some of us shareholders, most long-time supporters of Tesla's stated vision. Tesla's damage to us is real. Tesla's damage to itself is all self-inflicted. It is sad and shameful that they just continue to make it worse instead of honestly admitting some failures and stepping up to resolve them.

Just what is your motivation to defend and apologize for their behavior?

 

[ucmndd]

Just what is your motivation to defend and apologize for their behavior?

I’m doing neither. Could you offer some insight on exactly what I’m saying that is leading you to this conclusion? In fact, I’m speaking exclusively as to the behavior of some individuals in this group, not Tesla.

I’m stating my observation and opinion that achieving the goals you articulate above by misrepresentation, exaggeration, and lying is a questionable approach when you’re trying to claim the moral high ground, and unlikely to have the outcome you claim to want.

 

[Guy V]

I’m doing neither. Could you offer some insight on exactly what I’m saying that is leading you to this conclusion? In fact, I’m speaking exclusively as to the behavior of some individuals in this group, not Tesla.

I’m stating my observation and opinion that achieving the goals you articulate above by misrepresentation, exaggeration, and lying is a questionable approach when you’re trying to claim the moral high ground, and unlikely to have the outcome you claim to want.

The misrepresentation I see is your pretense of being helpful. Hint: Your attacks and slander are not helpful.

We have long ago been through the hopeful and naïve approach for resolution of the problem.

So for insight, come back and put your two-cents worth in AFTER you have read all 12,000+ posts.

 

[ucmndd]

The misrepresentation I see is your pretense of being helpful. Hint: Your attacks and slander are not helpful.

We have long ago been through the hopeful and naïve approach for resolution of the problem.

So for insight, come back and put your two-cents worth in AFTER you have read all 12,000+ posts.

I think we can agree on one thing, it’s time for me to go back to casually observing this thread every hundred pages or so. I’ve achieved what I set out to do, which was demonstrate that the purported overwhelming evidence to support the exaggerations and falsehoods being peddled across the rest of this forum doesn’t actually exist.

So I’ll leave y’all to it again, and go back to keeping the record straight when this circle jerk spills out into other threads where it has no business.

 

[Guy V]

So much for being helpful. Why haven't you offered your alternative explanation for the problem and proposed what you feel is a reasonable solution from Tesla?

You can't seriously be denying there is a problem. Are you saying instead that victims should just accept that their cars are destined to be toast and keep it quietly to themselves, without any heads-up to other potential victims and future buyers?

Coverup is no answer. I just saw a post that Bjorn's P3 lost 6% in 14 months. They better get on that Million Mile Battery real quick.

 

[DILIE]

I like this idea. What did you end up using, if you don't mind sharing? I think I will add a smoke detector to my garage too. Seems necessary and prudent. It's more than unfortunate we have to resolve to such measures to stay safe with this car. It's actually quite insane. Speaks a ton of where their priorities are. I'm somewhat shocked that competition and all the trolls haven't picked up on this thread and its implication. Maybe they have, I'm just not aware of it.

A couple of these
https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B081W4WQHC/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o05_s00
and one of these to track door state, but also has temperature, so why not?
https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B07F956F3B/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o04_s01

I've got a Smartthings hub and a few echos scattered around the house.
The multi-sensor is Zigbee, so the current model of Echo Show can monitor it directly, but mine is too old.
I don't like having Zigbee devices in addition to a house full of Z-Wave, but that thing's a steal for $18.
Contact. tilt, vibration, and battery monitors.

Refitting my garage doors to remote control is to steep for me, but I do like knowing when they open.

 

[DILIE]

People typically install heat detectors in garages instead of smoke detectors. They alert on sudden changes in temperature or high absolute temperatures. I have two installed. An ICE vehicle may set smoke detectors off inadvertently.

I'm fortunate to have two separate garages, so the Tesla has it's own. That's why I put the 2nd one in the house. It was intended to go in my garage, but then I wondered and confirmed they are prone to false alarming there.

The contact sensor is rated to 40C. Kind of dumb. It will get that hot in my Texas garage even without the help of a flaming Tesla.
I set it up anyway, but the smoke detector will alarm way before there's much heat, though I keep seeing images of that Shanghai fire just blooming in mere seconds.

 

[DILIE]

I know someone with S75 who believes they were affected. The problem is how would they know for sure if drop was let's say 10mi and they don't charge >90%? On my car, I got hit with 26-27mi overnight, so it was pretty obvious whether you charge to 80, 90 or 100%. I can check to see if their pump is running once over 80%, such aggressive battery management would seem to indicate potential hazard, true?

And speaking of the various factors impact on battery state and potential hazard risk, keep in mind, when my battery got capped, it only had 23k miles over 3 years. Considering the car seemed like it had really been taken care, and was charging to within a mile of new car range, the previous owner likely did not SC it all the time. Yet, they capped it by 12-13%. So all those stories about, excessive SC, battery age and what not, really does not hold the water in this case. So while things can get worse over time and with various factors such as age, SC, heat, etc... They are neither the only factors, nor highest on detrimental scale - my theory.

Right. Why does your car have magic sauce (dendrites, plating, whatever) in its cells and mine doesn't, though they are nearly idenitical? I got mine from someone in Colorado, so it's hard to imagine it didn't see some cold charging in its first four years of life. I've supercharged it about a dozen times. No idea how often the prior owner did.

 

[DILIE]

Lol, no, stating things that aren't facts as facts, because it serves your interest, is self-serving.


Hence a reason to file suit, to discover facts. That doesn't mean you just make them up because the other party isn't providing them.



Correct - lawsuits make allegations and demands. As in "we allege Tesla broke the law". Judges and juries make verdicts. Until you have a verdict or admission of guilt, saying "Tesla broke the law" is simply not a factual accounting of the current state of affairs.

Wow, if you invest this much time here with this lot your life's dreams could be met if you headed over to Facebook or Quora and joined some discussions on racial equality. Get all those folks to tell the truth and end hyperbole and I'll nominate you for a Nobel; your pick which one!
I guess what I'm saying is, is it really necessary to run around these forums picking fights, just because you think someone needs your policing? To use some fun topical phrases just for the spiciness!

I have to note, and hopefully I'm recalling correctly, Chaserr is the only person I'm aware of who, very early on and on multiple occasions, offered to pay a substantial sum of money if Tesla would just offer an upgrade to a more reliable battery.

That's where you should be concerned with his well being!

 

[Muffinman]

This thread is now officially a trainwreck. Well done.

 

[Florian500]

Hi, please excuse my English as a second language ...

Are there any known details of 75 cars which have the software limited 85 pack? Do those get 4.1V capped? What about their charging curves?

On the topic of preconditioning the battery when a supercharger is set as navigation destination: that was broken from approx 2019.40.x to 2020.12.x. I use TeslaLogger, it can monitor battery preconditioning (see Open Source Teslalogger on Raspberry / Docker with ScanMyTesla integration).

 

[Chaserr]

This thread is now officially a trainwreck. Well done.

Google the phrase "Forum sliding"

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Ignore is your friend, folks. Stop elevating the two or three idiotic posts by responding to them. Let them die.

 

[Chaserr]

Ignore is your friend, folks. Stop elevating the two or three idiotic posts by responding to them. Let them die.

 

[Droschke]

@AmpedRealtor,

Agree.

He came to this thread with vengeance and on a mission to settle a score with another owner who he was fighting with in a different thread. That "motivation" was very obvious from the outset and that behavior is immature and schoolboyish, to say the least. Then childishly, he self-claims "I’ve achieved what I set out to do" as though the affected owners were missing another self-proclaimed "truth-squader" to come back to this thread, again (remember the other ones?) to teach lessons. He came here to take revenge on another owner (what he thinks he has "achieved") but went beyond by exposing his other agenda by quickly belittling the integrity of the lawsuit and by mocking the impacted owners' motivations as self-serving, as he has done outside of this thread and per what I quoted upstream, as an example, one of his previous posts.

I agree with you that these distractions are not worthy of replies.