Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[WilsonWilbur85]

My car also has this issue, but it has never happened at a low state of charge. The car is currently making the noise very loudly right now and Its 75°, the car has 85 miles, and it hasnt been driven in over 8 hours. I sent them a other communication but they keep saying the noise is normal. That seems outside of the normal 'high state of charge

 

[gmo43]

My car also has this issue, but it has never happened at a low state of charge. The car is currently making the noise very loudly right now and Its 75°, the car has 85 miles, and it hasnt been driven in over 8 hours. I sent them a other communication but they keep saying the noise is normal. That seems outside of the normal 'high state of charge

Yup #draingate

 

[Florian500]

Do you know if other params are same, eg. battery temp? assuming not
Variation between 15%-35% SOC is quite wide
Also, wondering why some stop at 90-95%, users stopped charging, or car couldn't charge further

I guess superchargers are so rare (in Europe) that most people actually use them to travel long distances. I usually stop at 90%.
Battery Temperature is not reported by the Tesla API and therefore not collected by TelsaLogger (except for the few users that have ScanMyTesla integration). Outside temperature is logged, but as far as my experience goes does not play a role if you drive 150km/h for one hour to the supercharger.
Since 2019.24.x the rule of thumb that applies no matter what outside temperature (with battery warmed by Autobahn speed) is charge power = 110 - state of charge.

 

[Droschke]

Since 2019.24.x the rule of thumb that applies no matter what outside temperature (with battery warmed by Autobahn speed) is charge power = 110 - state of charge.

In my case, the formula is: charge power = 95 - state of charge !!!

 

[SmartElectric]

The car is currently making the noise very loudly right now and Its 75°, the car has 85 miles, and it hasnt been driven in over 8 hours

Any particular reason to leave your call unplugged at ~30% SOC for 8 hours, is this a common usage pattern or you are stranded somewhere without a charger?

 

[SmartElectric]

Since 2019.24.x the rule of thumb that applies no matter what outside temperature (with battery warmed by Autobahn speed) is charge power = 110 - state of charge.

I have an early 2013 Tesla S85 with original "A" pack limited to 90kW peak supercharging.
The formula (110 - SOC = kW) is the same rate my car has charged from since 2015 when I purchased it used.
There has been no change in this on any firmware in these 5 years.

Seems interesting Tesla is using this formula for your car now after the firmware change last year, it's almost as if they have good data from the older 90 kW peak charging cars like mine that led to the choice of this formula for whatever purpose (I won't speculate).

^ just info folks, I don't particularly care how upset you are with this formula, but we've supercharged ~25% of all of our mileage, so more than most, and the formula and charge rates are suitable for our trips.

 

[Chaserr]

In my case, the formula is: charge power = 95 - state of charge !!!

I'm almost exactly the same.

My offer still stands for anyone with an A pack willing to "upgrade" to a newer pack with slower charging and less range. I will trade you my "better" battery even up no cost!

In all seriousness the testimony we've heard from the A pack folks who are holding up so much better long term, it sounds like faster charging is Tesla's achilles heel. Your post just now wasn't the first time in this thread someone has pointed out the superiority of the A pack over later "improved" batteries in long term usability. I'm interested to see how much worse batterygate will be for 250kW charged packs in a few years.

 

[JRP3]

You managed to keep 8.1 past the deadline didn't you? I'm still jealous.

If any hackers offer a full 8.1 downgrade service, I will pay whatever you think it's worth plus 100% mark up.

So now I guess you don't think Tesla limited your pack for safety reasons? Because otherwise then removing those limits would be dangerous. I thought I was the one who supposedly didn't care about owner safety

 

[Keshk]

I still don't understand why the lights weren't given a physical switch to override the AUTO function.
The hazard flashers have a physical button. They were important enough to have a hardware button but the headlights weren't?

 

[qwk]

So now I guess you don't think Tesla limited your pack for safety reasons? Because otherwise then removing those limits would be dangerous. I thought I was the one who supposedly didn't care about owner safety

I’m no genius, but I think he meant that he is after some li-ion flavored s’mores, followed by a new car at Tesla’s expense.

 

[Chaserr]

So now I guess you don't think Tesla limited your pack for safety reasons? Because otherwise then removing those limits would be dangerous. I thought I was the one who supposedly didn't care about owner safety

I guess it depends on whether I believe it's for no reason, or you believe Elon is going to prison over a massive criminal cover up, but I'd prefer to prove the crimes with a warranty claim as soon as possible since I haven't parked near anyone or anything this year.

If there is no criminal conspiracy, Tesla's v8.1 software suite is the safest most stable and useful Model S software they ever released. Lots of owners will choose to downgrade, and since there is no recall or bulletin warning of any kind of safety risks we know it's either perfectly safe or it's a criminal conspiracy big enough to change the industry forever. There really isn't a middle ground, so I don't recommend it to anyone that isn't already treating their cars like an unexploded munition.

Glad to see you've joined us on Team Safety - we all hope we can get Elon to choose our team but if not, whoever is appointed to fill his vacancy will definitely have to be one of us.

 

[JRP3]

I admit it didn't occur to me that you'd be willing to purposely get the car to self destruct. Might be a good plan, but on the other hand Tesla would just claim you tampered with the software so it might not help the case.

 

[qwk]

I admit it didn't occur to me that you'd be willing to purposely get the car to self destruct. Might be a good plan, but on the other hand Tesla would just claim you tampered with the software so it might not help the case.

How exactly would the car self destruct on Tesla’s own software? I thought you claimed that there is no safety issue? Do you yourself even believe the stuff you post? Either the car is safe on 8.1, or its not. You can’t have it both ways.

 

[JRP3]

The claim is that Tesla limited the car for safety reasons. If this is true then removing the limits would be unsafe. How is that not consistent?

 

[sdoorex]

The claim is that Tesla limited the car for safety reasons. If this is true then removing the limits would be unsafe. How is that not consistent?

So wouldn't that make the firmware update a safety recall? Why is it not listed on nhtsa.gov/recalls?

Edit: Either Tesla limited the cell voltage due to a safety issue and it should be listed as a recall or they limited it to avoid premature battery death to reduce warranty claims for failed batteries. Either way they need to properly and fully disclose the reason to owners.

 

[JRP3]

I agree. Just because some people in this thread try to create some narrative that I think Tesla has handled this correctly doesn't mean it's true. They have not, as I've stated a number of times.

 

[sdoorex]

I agree. Just because some people in this thread try to create some narrative that I think Tesla has handled this correctly doesn't mean it's true. They have not, as I've stated a number of times.

It seems to me that you are taking an awful lot of effort to defend Tesla which gives the impression that you approve of their handling of the situation. Playing devil's advocate is usually not a worthwhile hill upon which to die.

 

[Chaserr]

The claim is that Tesla limited the car for safety reasons. If this is true then removing the limits would be unsafe. How is that not consistent?

I agree with you but Tesla is sticking to the story that 8.1 is perfectly safe. If they're lying you get the truth you're hoping for and everybody gets a factory recall. Tesla employees trying to make Tesla's unsafe go to jail, replaced by people who aren't criminals. If it's safe S owners get a factory approved firmware that has maximum range and charge speeds.

Everybody wins no matter what. We either get what we want or we learn the hard truth and still get what we want.

 

[Guy V]

How exactly would the car self destruct on Tesla’s own software? I thought you claimed that there is no safety issue? Do you yourself even believe the stuff you post? Either the car is safe on 8.1, or its not. You can’t have it both ways.

Oh my, if it isn't safe there should be a recall!

 

[islandbayy]

I guess it depends on whether I believe it's for no reason, or you believe Elon is going to prison over a massive criminal cover up, but I'd prefer to prove the crimes with a warranty claim as soon as possible since I haven't parked near anyone or anything this year.

If there is no criminal conspiracy, Tesla's v8.1 software suite is the safest most stable and useful Model S software they ever released. Lots of owners will choose to downgrade, and since there is no recall or bulletin warning of any kind of safety risks we know it's either perfectly safe or it's a criminal conspiracy big enough to change the industry forever. There really isn't a middle ground, so I don't recommend it to anyone that isn't already treating their cars like an unexploded munition.

Glad to see you've joined us on Team Safety - we all hope we can get Elon to choose our team but if not, whoever is appointed to fill his vacancy will definitely have to be one of us.

As of RIGHT NOW, I'm still being told by service that if 8.1 is working well for me, they see no reason for me to need to update, unless a bug or something needs to be fixed. Or of a software update is required to get a replacement part working.