Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
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.


Same here it seem they were taking off the restrictions on my battery capacity and nope back down with same update.
 
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.

For someone that said nthsa took forever on such cases. You are quick to come to this conclusion.

Edit: speculation conclusion
 
if older software allows fires and Tesla refuses to inform them.

I don't recall seeing or hearing mention of any statement from Tesla to the effect that cars must not be used if software is prior to a certain version, even though they might have tried hard to get all cars updated.

(I wonder if in general all mandatory system updates are supposed to be notified to authorities or specifically made optional for owners? - Since 'mandatory' suggests more important than just fixing the USB audio player!)

In the absence of such a mandatory update requirement that would presumably have to come with an explanation, one has to conclude:

1 Tesla need to come clean and make update obligatory along with all that this would entail, including compensation / replacement / return to original spec.

2 Tesla accept that there is no issue (can't see how they can do that) and revert cars back to original capacity etc.

Knowingly having cars running and charging unmodified would seem to need the issue forced one way or the other.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Chaserr and Guy V
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.
So you suspect it is an NHTSA coverup? :rolleyes:
 
It's about Model S cells too, which is why our capacity is reduced by the voltage capping they have instituted. We have seen them reduce range with these volt caps so there is no question voltage is still reducing capacity. The Roadster's 18650 cells aren't some alien technology that doesn't apply to the Model S, and Tesla was describing the 18650 cells in that statement. They might have changed minor chemical coatings, but everything they said there is applicable to the 18650 cells in our cars right now. The ones they did those things to that they saidf they were going to do in 2006, with exactly the results they said would happen.

In context it was used to describe how Tesla is reducing range, and even why if it's not a safety issue. I doubt capacity reduction wa sthe intent all along, but capacity reduction via intentional volt reduction is what they are doing and since you believe it IS a safety issue I no longer park my unsafe car inside or near anyone or anything that can be harmed when it catches on fire from whatever the safety problem that you believe exists yet are still concealing from us really happens to be.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: MP3Mike
It's about Model S cells too, which is why our capacity is reduced by the voltage capping they have instituted. We have seen them reduce range with these volt caps so there is no question voltage is still reducing capacity. The Roadster's 18650 cells aren't some alien technology that doesn't apply to the Model S, and Tesla was describing the 18650 cells in that statement. They might have changed minor chemical coatings, but everything they said there is applicable to the 18650 cells in our cars right now. The ones they did those things to that they saidf they were going to do in 2006, with exactly the results they said would happen.
18650's from an S are very different than those in a roadster. You do realize that "18650" is just a cell size spec, right? All it means is 18mm diameter x 65mm length. It says nothing about cell chemistry.

For an extreme case, here's a 3.3V nominal LiFePO4 18650 cell - Lithium-ion Cells | Nano Phosphate Lithium-ion Batteries | Lithium Werks
 
  • Like
Reactions: JRP3
We are warranty protected - we paid for the warranty.

Everything should be fine then!

So I get that the warranty is for unlimited miles. EM made various claims about not even needing to follow instructions because owners can do no wrong....

But what actually was guaranteed about the battery? I have the same warranty so I may need to deal with this too.
 
Tesla does not use LifePo. There is no substantive difference when we already know they used 4.2V 18650 in the S and that reducing volts reduces range but increases longevity. That did not change. Tesla told us what they were going to do, and then they did it. Illegally.

@wk057 himself believes Tesla intentionally reduced capacity to conceal a safety problem (rather than recall it).

Data is not relevant here.
For some people that could not be more true. For the rest of us, data is all we are begging for.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: gmo43 and MP3Mike
But what actually was guaranteed about the battery? I
Very little in the way of degradation - which again makes the "they needed to program fake degradation!" excuses sound empty and worthless. Degradation can get severe before Tesla replaces teh pack, but that's what we bought.

What the warranty does cover is hardware failure and design flaws. As does the law when it comes to safety.

Tesla should just go back to doing nothing - that's all they need to do. No reductions means degradation happens exactly like we always knew were were buying. The safety problem @wk057 believes must be recalled must be dangerous enough to break laws to cover up without recalling, but not dangerous enough for anyone at Tesla to worry about the repercussions of covering it up instead of recalling.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: Guy V and MP3Mike
Tesla does not use LifePo.
<sarcasm> No kidding, really? </sarcasm> I didn't say they did. Just that 18650 is a physical cell spec, available in a wide variety of formulations. LiFePO4 is an extreme example. It doesn't preclude the fact that S and Roadster cells are very different.

@wk057 himself believes Tesla intentionally reduced capacity to conceal a safety problem (rather than recall it).
More speculation stated as fact. You have know way to know what @wk057 "believes"
 
This is about the Roadster cells (post is from 2006...), which are not the same as the S cells. Data is not relevant here.

(But hey, at least a source was cited... even though it was used out of context and without understanding of the info.)

The safety problem @wk057 believes must be recalled must be dangerous enough to break laws to cover up without recalling,

Can we get this point resolved please?

[edit: While Tesla is unlikely to reply to the thread, surely we can at least determine, fwiw, if a member on this forum actually said something or not. More importantly, what absolute factors can help determine if this is:

a response to degradation.

on-going inevitable tweeks using a system that the cars have had from day 1 to monitor and adjust as needed.

a response to a new and previously 'unknown' condition.

Just a means of ducking warranty obligations.

Or something else.

So far, those cars running on old software (for whatever reason) and left in service by Tesla unchecked are the best case for Tesla having to act urgently either way. A bullet they can't dodge maybe?]
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Guy V and Chaserr
100% not speculation. @wk057 believes Tesla is covering up a safety recall.
Perhaps you could show where wk057 said he believes this is a safety issue.
Now safety issue or not I don't have confidence that the batteries would have a useful life in a car beyond 5 years. Useful for me means still being able to takes trips for vacation around 500 miles one way minimum. So supercharge at a rate no slower to when the car was 3 years old and still have at least a 240 mile rated range.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tga and Guy V
Perhaps you could show where wk057 said he believes this is a safety issue.
Now safety issue or not I don't have confidence that the batteries would have a useful life in a car beyond 5 years. Useful for me means still being able to takes trips for vacation around 500 miles one way minimum. So supercharge at a rate no slower to when the car was 3 years old and still have at least a 240 mile rated range.

They sound like very modest expectations. Surely it's not unreasonable to expect...... well, what have Tesla settle on? 70% of something based on their hidden calculations? Over 8 years / 150k miles.

Which is quite similar to other manufacturers.

But based on the Tesla of 5 or 6 years ago, you were sold a much broader warranty. Some how the it has to be determined exactly what that warranty covers and Tesla held to deliver accordingly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Guy V
Perhaps you could show where wk057 said he believes this is a safety issue.
Now safety issue or not I don't have confidence that the batteries would have a useful life in a car beyond 5 years. Useful for me means still being able to takes trips for vacation around 500 miles one way minimum. So supercharge at a rate no slower to when the car was 3 years old and still have at least a 240 mile rated range.

Oh boy, I have seen that here. It's buried in this long post. I'm sure I'm not the only one that saw it along with his excuse of why he wouldn't say.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Guy V
Hey y'all just go check twitter please, circa July 7 2019. Have you noticed wk057 has not said chaserr is wrong on this point about safety? :rolleyes:

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
No, not at all. Is my car on a prebattery gate update operating perfectly as intended? Or is the post-battery gate updated cars that are operating exactly as intended? Both you say? OK. As others have said, this necros dead arguments that "it's really degredation though!"

They undoubtedly made unsolicited material changes to vehicles and there are no standards or external control of that AFAIK
What?? Yes there are standards. Why do you think tampering with computers was part of DJras's original suit?
I appreciate your attempts to flood the thread with a positive tone and what to you must seem like positive speculation - some sort of counterweight to chaserr, i guess - but this doesn't seem helpful.