Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[Chaserr]

It is. Stuff goes wrong all the time.

So we are now circling back to Magnusson Moss warranty Act. Batteries in warranty can't be legally downgraded. If they are failing, they must be fixed replaced with equal to or better parts. Keeping the same failing part is illegal. The hardware is covered by warranty and Tesla broke the law.

@JustADude I'm not sure why you would think @Battpower is obsessed just for posting a lot - he's interested in why Tesla is doing these wrongs and when they are going to make them right. As for my answer to you I'm here because he sent me an email alert asking me to talk with him. I responded to his email and we've been having a back and forth conversation, just like you.

@Battpower I agreed to a half glass and paid for it. I loved that half glass, but I was never told the rest of the glass was going to be stolen from me or that it might be filled with poison.

 

[Battpower]

they have no reason to let us degrade exactly the same as every other manufacturer.

Other manufacturers make different design choices, including lower performance, greater or lower efficiency, longer or short life expectency, different max voltage etc. So you can't compare.

 

[Droschke]

Tesla linked their actions to being in some way POSSIBLY linked to fires. And it is obviously the case that if you don't manage Lithium voltages, that could be a problem too. Damned if they do. Damned if they don't

You are suggesting living with the Band-Aid and no cure. In other words, a workaround is not a solution

 

[Battpower]

You are suggesting living with the Band-Aid and no cure. In other words, a workaround is not a solution

Goodness knows.

Seems to matter if it's normal or not. Find a way to answer that. Obviously not going to manage that here.

 

[Droschke]

Goodness knows.

Seems to matter if it's normal or not. Find a way to answer that. Obviously not going to manage that here.

A workaround to a problem is widely accepted as a temporary measurement to continue the usage till a solution is given soon. The customers left with an uncomfortable workaround and are told to chew it up as a solution start to defect quickly. That's pretty much understood in the consumer world. One can accept the sudden range loss of up to 30 miles overnight by a software update as a temporary workaround to a problem (whatever the hell that is) but that is NOT acceptable as a solution.

 

[Guy V]

I (perhaps hastily) have posted similar to this myself. I can kind of agree that from an owner perspective it feels like theft. No car owner should have to wade through all this stuff to try and understand if something is wrong with their car. And without straight forward warranty terms and evidence to support battery condition claim, owners seem left no choice.

[edit: I think an argument of mis-selling might make more sense on the grounds that you were sold something that proved to be unable to meet the claims made of it.]



This case seems the most plausible argument to me at the moment. It is at least a happy coincidence for Tesla that while doing the right thing to look after batteries and keep (hopefully) the vast majority of owners fairly happy with their cars, they also stand to save themselves some money on warranty claims. Not sure which is chicken and which is egg.



This might come under a similar argument to Warranty i suppose, in that the actions they took could possibly be taken as (unavoidably / coincidentally) making the car safer, but I don't think that means it was particularly dangerous or faulty in the first place, except as in being able to drown in water or make gasoline explode.

That was Apple's claim in their fiasco and it didn't work for them even in an under $1k product with much shorter expected useful life. They sure didn't guarantee them for 8 years after all. Tesla seems to have borrowed from both Apple's Batterygate AND VW's Dieseglate by also using different software settings for legally required EPA testing than they are now using for everyday customer operation.

They may not owe us free brand new batteries but they do owe us, the regulators and the marketplace an honest explanation and a fair resolution to a problem entirely of their making. I am open to either the VW or Apple remedy, a buyback or a reasonable cost battery replacement program.

 

[Guy V]

'Intentionally reduced capacity' and 'unavoidably reduced capacity' are really different and I think there is a good case that in completely normal opperation of the car, range / capacity were unavoidably reduced.

There is no proceedure required or in existance to notify 'on going normal opperation' of a car. Honestly, (and I hope you know that I absolutely have no alegence here to anything other than understanding stuff) there is an extremely strong argument that says everything on the car including battery monitorring systems and controls - exactly as supplied day one - are working perfectly as intended.

To violate warranty terms you need enforceable terms. The warranty terms and Tesla's approach to making changes is deplorable.

I will leave that argument for now. I wish there was a better way of separating that kind of argument from the more technical stuff because they are quite different but unavoidably liked while potentially being of primary interest to different groups of posters.

They were required in EPA testing to use the same operating parameters of ordinary customer use. They have arbitrarily changed the latter parameters and are obligated to notify the EPA and retest under their newly determined safe operating parameters and compensate owners for their previously overpromised capability at time of sale. This is shades of VW Dieselgate + Apple Batterygate.

Under the reasonable person rule I can't imagine a jury if not a judge having trouble drawing conclusions with minimal prompting from these consecutively in code:

BMS_w117_SW_Delta_soc_Weak_Short (hidden) [no audience] (logdata: BMS_w117_sw_Delta_SOC_Weak_Short)

BMS_u025_Brick_Voltage Limit (hidden) [service, factory] (logdata: Charge Settings Adjusted. Indicates limit on brick voltage is in effect)

Tesla is going to have some very fancy explaining to do.

 

[Battpower]

8

They were required in EPA testing to use the same operating parameters of ordinary customer use.

That makes sense and is a key point. I haven't seen an EPA document that records the test voltage. In any case, with gas cars what I believe they do is try to standardize the energy value of the fuel (volume, Temperature, type of fuel). They need to record the energy value stored in the battery which is not the same as the voltage.

When you fill a propane tank, you can squeeze more propane into the tank by raising the pressure. That's kind of what you do by raising the voltage (pressure) to squeeze in more charge. Measuring the pressure of a propane tank is only a guide as to the amount of gas.

Focus on volts is more like focusing on what pressure the propane tank can withstand. It effects how much energy you can hold but not the vehicle efficiency (well, not in this context at least).

By capping the voltage, my point is that Tesla effectively gave you a smaller gas tank. (By limiting charge rate they made the filler nozzle smaller. That's not such a good analogy, because the filler actually changes size as you charge, but it is similar)

They undoubtedly made unsolicited material changes to vehicles and there are no standards or external control of that AFAIK.

Of course, despite all the technical waffle around what's going on, the point is then loud and large. Why the heck did you do something as stupid as change the size of gas tanks if there was no need? The only answer I can think of is that the gas tank isn't up to the task its being used for. Alternatively, you could argue that we are just seeing a characteristic of this kind of gas tank. Like the Prius bladder tank had its 'characteristics'.

Tesla make a huge deal about how much energy their batteries store, and buyers pay a premium for that. The problem is that there is no open disclosure of data to support warranty claims.

 

[Battpower]

obligated to notify the EPA and retest under their newly determined safe operating parameters and compensate owners for their previously overpromised capability at time of sale.

That seems reasonable. I totally agree. That will be interesting because there are so many material changes (like regen performance) that should trigger EPA retesting. If OTA updates become too restricted though, everyone will suffer in some way.

Anyways, Pandora's box is open now. If EPA stopped Tesla using OTA updates to adjust these parameters, it could be argued that EPA would be responsible for the consequences.

 

[Keshk]

That seems reasonable. I totally agree. That will be interesting because there are so many material changes (like regen performance) that should trigger EPA retesting. If OTA updates become too restricted though, everyone will suffer in some way.

Anyways, Pandora's box is open now. If EPA stopped Tesla using OTA updates to adjust these parameters, it could be argued that EPA would be responsible for the consequences.

That seems reasonable. I totally agree. That will be interesting because there are so many material changes (like regen performance) that should trigger EPA retesting. If OTA updates become too restricted though, everyone will suffer in some way.

Anyways, Pandora's box is open now. If EPA stopped Tesla using OTA updates to adjust these parameters, it could be argued that EPA would be responsible for the consequences.

Battpower. You keep hashing old stuff and arguments that have been trashed over and over.
You unmasked yourself. You sidetrack the thread with issues that has zero bearing on the MAIN issue, which is: People DID NOT GET WHAT THEY BARGAINED FOR. It is clear what axe you grinding here.

 

[Battpower]

It is clear what axe you grinding here.

No axe.

And there is no answer imo. Tried both sides of the argument.

 

[tga]

@wk057 believes it is a safety problem that needs to be recalled.

Ask Jason directly. He believes it is a safety problem being wrongly covered up.

@wk057 made no such statements. That is your interpretation of what he said. Once again, more conjecture stated as absolute fact.

I'm sure you'll disagree with that, so be prepared with quotes from Jason that say there's a "safety problem that needs to be recalled" that is being "wrongly covered up" when you do.

Lots of conjecture there.

Indeed.

 

[tga]

When you fill a propane tank, you can squeeze more propane into the tank by raising the pressure. That's kind of what you do by raising the voltage (pressure) to squeeze in more charge. Measuring the pressure of a propane tank is only a guide as to the amount of gas.

Technically, no. As long as there is liquid in the tank, the pressure is constant at a given temperature (depends on the vapor pressure of LPG at that temp). Adding more LPG just increases the liquid level in the tank, but tank pressure stays constant as long as there is head space above the liquid.

Propane Butane Mixtures - Evaporation Pressures

That's why those external "gas gauges" are useless - they read "full" until the tank is devoid of liquid, then drop fast. They also give wacky results when your gas draw-off rate exceeds the tank's capacity to absorb heat to vaporize LPG (the erroneously termed "freeze-up").

 

[Battpower]

Technically, no. As long as there is liquid in the tank, the pressure is constant at a given temperature (depends on the vapor pressure of LPG at that temp). Adding more LPG just increases the liquid level in the tank, but tank pressure stays constant as long as there is head space above the liquid.

Propane Butane Mixtures - Evaporation Pressures

That's why those external "gas gauges" are useless - they read "full" until the tank is devoid of liquid, then drop fast. They also give wacky results when your gas draw-off rate exceeds the tank's capacity to absorb heat to vaporize LPG (the erroneously termed "freeze-up").

OK. Analogy retracted!

I conveniently ignored:

" the pressure is constant at a given temperature (depends on the vapor pressure of LPG at that temp)"

Need a different analogy!

 

[Chaserr]

I haven't seen an EPA document that records the test voltage. In any case, with gas cars what I believe they do is try to standardize the energy value of the fuel (volume, Temperature, type of fuel). They need to record the energy value stored in the battery which is not the same as the voltage.

Tesla says voltage capping = capacity reduction. They also say the decision to submit EPA testing with full 4.2V charge made the Model S batteries last "a whole lot" shorter. We are warranty protected - we paid for the warranty.

There is a huge difference in cycle life between a 4.2V/cell charge (defined by the manufacturers as “fully charged”) and a 4.15V/cell charge. 4.15 volts represents a charge of about 95 percent. For this reduction of initial capacity (5 percent), the batteries last a whole lot longer. Unfortunately, further reduction of charge has a much smaller benefit on cycle life. Understanding this tradeoff, Tesla Motors has decided to limit the maximum charge of its cells to 4.15 volts, taking an initial 5 percent range hit to maximize lifetime of the pack.

A Bit About Batteries

So right there Tesla put it in writing they knew reduce capacity when they reduce charge voltage. The EPA test measures capacity, and Tesla's batteries reduce capacity with charge voltage.

EPA rated 100% at 4.2V and we were delivered 4.2V at 100%. Reducing what we paid invalided our sale agreement and the EPA rating for the tested capacity because the EPA did not test capped batteries. If they stayed true to those words we would have lower range at the time of sale, the EPA would have tested lower range, and Tesla wouldn't be facing so much trouble.

If we believe what Tesla said, this all sounds like post-sale volt capping was done to push failing hardware over the warranty cut off date. Illegal from both warranty and dieselgate angles but not a safety issue. But with the safety problems on top of it all, this isn't just Tesla saving money.

They need to deliver what was tested and what we paid for. They can't limit voltage because they admit in writing they knowingly the invalidated EPA tested capacity we paid for. They can't limit voltage because they can't cripple hardware just to limp it past the warranty cutoff date. They can't limit voltage to reduce the amount of fires because safety requires oversight that specifies repairs at least as good as the original part and volt capping is worse because it IS the original part with additional limitations imposed.

We need a recall. If we didn't need a recall the software restrictions wouldn't exist.

 

[Battpower]

Tesla says voltage capping = capacity reduction.

Voltage capping applies to the first brick to reach said capped. As far as I can see and based on @wk057, once any brick reaches the max voltage, you can't keep charging the pack. I believe there is no way for current to flow only through part of the pack and zero in others.

So the capacity you lose is all the capacity in the remaining cells that you don't get to fully charge.

So yes, setting a lower max voltage on any brick to halt charging does leave battery capacity unused, but the voltage is not the capacity.

It doesn't make any difference as to if the lower limit took away something though. Of course it made the battery less effective / lower performance.

 

[mymagiccarpet]

I updated to 2020.24.6.11 last week.
They are definitely making some changes wrt to battery management. Yesterday, app was now showing 233mi at 100%. It seems to line up with what the car is reporting too (44% at 104mi), so it's not just an in-app change. Over the summer and possibly last few updates, the number has been going up. However, looking right now, it's "back to" 222. To put this in perspective:
- before battery capping, car was charging to 239/240 (at 3 years old and 23k miles)
- At worst, it dropped to 208 at 100%
- climbed back up to 211 and stayed there through the winter
- in the spring it moved up to 214-216
- with late spring/summer and/or SW update moved to 222
- last weekend showed 233
- this morning again showing 222, and now showing 226
- I haven't charged it to 100% since January, so I don't know if it actually can reach any of those numbers and how long that would take

Why would it one day show 233 and the very next day 222? That's a rather large delta.
The number seems to be dependent on temperature, which makes sense, but possibly on SOC as well.

Anyone else notice this? Are they just better at correctly calculating actual battery capacity under current conditions, b/c it sure wasn't moving around this much last year before or after capping.

What is the easiest, quickest and cheapest way to look at battery max allowed charge voltage?
With the history of Tesla's management of this problem, I'm sure they'll forgive me for being skeptical about this change, but here is an opportunity to prove me wrong.

On the other hand, car still does not cool well when it's hot out. Why one day I can set AC to 72 and be perfectly cool in the cabin while outside is 95, but another day (after car has been in the sun for a while), even setting it to 62 I still cannot cool off after 20mins. It's downright maddening to be told "everything is fine" - I'm going to ask SC to drive with me for a while and see how they like sweating in the car with AC full on.

 

[Chaserr]

Understood. Lowered performance and broken laws weren't their intention but unfortunately it's what they chose instead of more expensive legal and proper procedures to address these problems.

 

[Chaserr]

If EPA stopped Tesla using OTA updates to adjust these parameters, it could be argued that EPA would be responsible for the consequences.

Tesla is responsible for the consequences. They need to report problems to the NHTSA and let the NHTSA do what it has always done when a manufacturer needs to fix its problems.

OTA is optional! Tesla keeping this secret is still putting lives in mortal danger if older software allows fires and Tesla refuses to inform them. This has always been Tesla's responsibility. We would have a recall notification within days if Tesla was willing to disclose everything right now.

OTA is a convenient way for Tesla to send recall notifications, but it is not a legal way for them to avoid recalls.

 

[MP3Mike]

We would have a recall notification within days if Tesla was willing to disclose everything right now.

Another piece of speculation stated as fact. Do you think Tesla hasn't submitted the requested information to NHTSA already? I suspect they have, and given no action has been taken yet, even to open a formal investigation, I have to assume that there is no clear evidence that a recall is needed.