Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[Droschke]

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?

I recall this post from wk057 in this thread:

Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

 

[gmo43]

I recall this post from wk057 in this thread:

Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

For those who are too lazy or this somehow gets lost.

Edit:was too quick to upload with it fully uploading.

 

[gmo43]

Now if wk057 could lay out his facts and post concrete evidy to his own statements.

 

[qwk]

If you have been following this drama, he changes his tune quite a few times. I get not wanting to be involved in this mess, but by posting that info, he already involved himself. It doesn’t make him any less knowledgeable, though. You just have to know which version to believe, lol.

 

[Battpower]

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?

No. 'Both' is virtually impossible. Hence my post that (assuming Tesla haven't attempted any recall or issued any notice regarding yours and other cars) this is imo the smoking gun or bullet they can't dodge.

If your car is 'just fine' and otherwise identical to the capped cars, then all those with voltage cap / reduced charge should be just fine going back to pre-capped settings. For all the technical reasons (many of which Jason has also left to stand) that have been thrashed around here, it is virtually impossible that there is no safety issue if a car that needed these 'updates' didn't get them. Tesla's failing to address the continued use of uncapped cars seems an unavoidable and likely illegal safety issue.

your attempts to flood the thread with a positive tone

No intent to flood with positive tone. I think a few people have misunderstood that. I have been totally of the opinion that there is a potential safety issue all along, not least evidenced by the timing of Tesla's 'abundance of caution'. Caution about what??

The huge mess of this post (imo) before I first posted anything back in December or January I think, made it very difficult to separate arguments, conjecture, opinion, legal arguments and technical facts. I have tried to keep banging on the same drum until it is impossible for an argument to stand. If people can't knock down an argument supported with fact / evidence, then that position COULD be valid.

Thankfully, given the clarification that Jason has previously stated he has safety concerns and also not contradicted that as well as some significant posts about (roughly) what's going on in the batteries, combined with early version software still in use unhindered by Tesla seems to be a conclusion imo.

Even though I might have sometimes been arguing against @Chaserr, that's how you get to the bottom of which point of view deserves to prevail.

I still maintain that the systems on the cars are working as the designers intended. That's how come they had mechanisms in place to monitor and adjust these parameters. Using those systems to ensure safe operation would also seem an obligation. (A separate issue is how can these changes that have such material effects on a car's specification just be applied with so little external verification).

Tesla MAY have been responding to the fires by changing settings (OK, most likely were) but in the absence of further fires, it's hard to argue either way. (In any case they still effectively 'stole' part of the car by reducing capacity).

But by allowing continued use of pre-update cars without issuing a recall, (which they didn't do because on the face of it they didn't notify a safety issue - unless someone can show they did!) they are either showing that the caps are not needed (when there is a lot of evidence that they are) or that they are leaving that safety issue unaddressed.

 

[Battpower]

he changes his tune quite a few times.

I'm not so sure. Once I have found things he has posted they are usually pretty specific and accurate, even down to stating areas of uncertainty. It has usually been my understanding of what he posted that gave me the impression he might be 'changing his tune'.

It doesn’t make him any less knowledgeable, though.

Quite the opposite in fact imo.

 

[Battpower]

Now if wk057 could lay out his facts and post concrete evidy to his own statements.

Of course that would be fantastic. But I can see many reasons for not wanting to do that. For example not wanting to expose how much you actually know and the potential for being required to disclose. With a 'tinkering' hat on, you often know stuff for sure that you can't really defend (yet) with hard evidence but you still know it. That's fine for your own purposes but not for the public arena. The code behind those errors of @David99 would be very telling.

 

[Battpower]

Says everything.

To help clarify, I mean if this is something that is the result of normal wear and tear, it wasn't taken into account by the BMS until now. I'd argue that if that were the case, it'd still be normal wear and tear, and the BMS is doing what it should to keep things operating safely as a result, regardless of previous handling.

Since I don't know the details of what exactly it is that is being used to affect the calculation just yet, by normal I mean it could be some process that occurs as the result of specific environmental conditions, usage patterns, etc... but not necessarily a defect.

For example, a hypothetical (nothing to do with this, since IR is already detected... just an example): Let's say that under some conditions some modules develop higher internal resistance as a result of wear from chemical processes during fast charging. But, with the old software, this went undetected, and in vehicles with this wear pattern there was an increased chance of a cell group having thermal issues. With the new software, this is detectable and limitations are put in place to keep things operating safely within the parameters specific to that battery. In this case, I'd argue that the resulting loss in range would be normal wear and not a defect.

But, another hypothetical: Let's say that there turns out to be some issue with specific cells/groups/etc that's been present since manufacture, or developed after manufacture that is not the result of normal use. Perhaps a physical process that put too much strain on a cell group or something, and caused less thermal contact for safe cooling. Dunno, could be a bunch of things. Previously, this went undetected, and as a result there were some safety issues. The new software detects this, and places limits to prevent it. I'd say this is a warranty issue. More so, I'd say this should be a recall issue.

Overall, as I said, I'm inclined to believe it's not a mistake and is related to some sort of actual safety issue that they're mitigating. I'm just not sure if it's a defect or wear based issue at hand here. Given my experiences with Tesla over the past six years or so, while I'm definitely willing to give the benefit of the doubt that it isn't a screw up of some kind and is actually a justified change... my willingness to cut them slack on it ends there. Regardless of the reasoning, that reasoning should be provided to affected owners in black and white plain language without any issues. My worry is that this is a larger issue than it appears to be, and maybe it is something recall-worthy... and Tesla is being shady about it trying to sweep the issue under the rug with software limitations that they won't explain. No proof of that, but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

Just imagine how much it'd cost Tesla to have to recall and replace even a small percentage of 85 packs. There's something like ~90,000 cars out there with 85 packs, and another ~40,000 or so with 85-type cells. If say 5% of those needed to be replaced, that's like ~$125,000,000 in parts, not counting labor or anything. Would be a bad hit for sure.

Anyway... will update when/if I have more info.

 

[qwk]

I'm not so sure. Once I have found things he has posted they are usually pretty specific and accurate, even down to stating areas of uncertainty. It has usually been my understanding of what he posted that gave me the impression he might be 'changing his tune'.



Quite the opposite in fact imo.

To clarify, there is the tweet posted above, then a while later he said that the uncapped cars(pre 2019 update), were just as likely to catch on fire if leaving them parked in the sun. Which is simply BS. You guys will have to dredge up that post, as I don’t have the desire or time, but it’s here in this very thread.

Although the Roadster had a slightly different cell chemistry, the failure mode is very similar. Tesla knew, or at least should have known that this was going to happen. They just do the bare minimum to get by, and rely on software updates to get rid of problems as they arise.

Why do you think there is no charge for the 3g/lte connectivity? It’s no coincidence. They charge through the nose everything else now.

 

[Battpower]

To clarify, there is the tweet posted above, then a while later he said that the uncapped cars(pre 2019 update), were just as likely to catch on fire if leaving them parked in the sun. Which is simply BS. You guys will have to dredge up that post, as I don’t have the desire or time, but it’s here in this very thread.

Although the Roadster had a slightly different cell chemistry, the failure mode is very similar. Tesla knew, or at least should have known that this was going to happen. They just do the bare minimum to get by, and rely on software updates to get rid of problems as they arise.

Why do you think there is no charge for the 3g/lte connectivity? It’s no coincidence. They charge through the nose everything else now.

Yes, I saw those posts. Not easy to work out, especially as he recently pointed out that his current understanding has come on a long way.

[EDIT:

usually pretty specific and accurate, even down to stating areas of uncertainty.

bold added

just as likely to catch on fire if leaving them parked in the sun.

I remember taking that to mean they were safe once the cap was applied, but could have been wrong.]

 

[gmo43]

Well tried to charge and it stopped at 96%. So definitely some capacity back but with some restriction still on full charge. On firmware 2020.24.6.11

 

[Keshk]

Yes, I saw those posts. Not easy to work out, especially as he recently pointed out that his current understanding has come on a long way.

[EDIT:


bold added



I remember taking that to mean they were safe once the cap was applied, but could have been wrong.]

Can you please give us a break. Take sometime and go do something else, at least for a while. Would you.

 

[raphy3]

I still maintain that the systems on the cars are working as the designers intended

We'll have to agree to disagree. Sending out an update to fix a problem with a work around means the systems are not operating as designed tho...

they are either showing that the caps are not needed (when there is a lot of evidence that they are) or that they are leaving that safety issue unaddressed

I agree with this one (which is at odds with the first quote)

 

[Chaserr]

I'm willing to believe Tesla thought the caps were a slightly safer delay tactic than doing nothing, maybe, but if they were ever unsafe they are still not safe with the cap in place. "Safer" can be legal, the NHTSA allows band-aid fixes if they improve safety while real solutions are designed, built, etc. Band aids aren't safe though, just safer, and if they aren't disclosing the danger there has been no safety evaluation. The NHTSA doesn't allow safty mitigation actions to be taken without disclosure so we know they still haven't signed off on the caps. Without approval and in light of more fires after they were sent, "safer" is pure speculation with no evidence to support it. If there had been a recall, we would know "safer" is a fact and those burned cars would be tracked by the NHTSA to confirm whether they had been updated or were still on dangerous firmware version. Fires were rare before the caps and they are still rare now, but they kept happening and we can only hope the caps are safer for so long.

The existence of the cap means they made some mistakes already and the only way the cap could be considered safe is if
(1) there was never anything unsafe (making the cap unnecessary)
(2) Tesla can't possibly make a mistake that could cause unsafe battery conditions (making the cap unnecessary),
(3) the unsafe conditions that Tesla and wk057 don't want to come right out and say they are intentionally working to hide from us are evaluated by the NHTSA and recalled appropriately will full public disclosure.

Safer is not "safe" especially when laws have to be broken and misinformation is being spread here to try and avoid making Teslas safe again for real. We all make educated decisions about our safety; driving is itself a dangerous activity. We should not be kept in the dark to stop us from making educated decisions about this safety problem. Tesla doesn't get to decide who gets to make those decisions - the NHTSA is the only entity who decides it is OK to hide a safety problem.

Evidence indicates there is safety problem that is being hidden from us. A fire related safety problem that happens at night when people are asleep carries a very high chance of causing death or injury eventually. The legal ramifications if someone is killed could be tremendous. A much bigger risk than what would happen if Tesla might sue a good Samaritan whistle blower in my opinion, but Tesla felt it was worth the risk to keep that secret and anyone that had staked their reputation on a decision to hide dangers from Tesla owners might have felt the same. I can imagine those people might have been spooked by recent news of Teslas once again catching fire while parked again this summer as the temperatures climb. Especially with rumors being spread Tesla is going to have to "do the right thing" whether they planned to or not. When news is out, some of Teslas victims may feel outraged to learn those in the know were keeping in danger are going to react to the coverup as litigiously as any spiteful Tesla employee might to stop them from blowing the whistle. Any Tesla employees or insiders that haven't already used the NHTSA's whistle blower program are urged to do so NOW. Get out in front of this and don't let Tesla's decisions impact your future. It will feel better on your conscience to be a hero in this story rather than a villain, and you protect yourself. Whatever you might imagine Tesla might do in retribution is trivial to what you are probably already imagining what law enforcement or victims might do when everything is laid on the table.
Motor Vehicle Safety Whistleblower Act - Wikipedia
Contact an attorney and ask them how to proceed if you don't want to go directly to the NHTSA. The attorney may be able to act as an anonymous proxy for you, and it establishes you as a protected witness immune to retribution from Tesla or anyone else. People doing the right thing have unique protections, but only if you voluntarily use the whistle blower program. Once a subpoena is served over statements you might have made in the past indicating insider knowledge, all whistle blower protections are gone. Use those protections to protect yourself from Tesla by protecting us from Tesla!

Funny enough, that weak short message was there for months. I saw a while ago just never posted it here. 2 days after I posted it here publicly, it disappeared. I wonder if Tesla did that.

Suspicious. Since you have the ability to see hidden safety alerts, can you save the logs? Teslas log too much right? Maybe something suspicious like that will have some interesting log entries.

 

[wk057]

Can only be a whistleblower if there's an actual whistle to blow. It's been quite some time since people started bringing up the range loss issue (over a year now?!). With so many bets riding on Tesla's presumed demise, if there were going to be a whistle blown on anything (especially something supposedly so huge), there would have been by now. Oh wait... nothing. Just a bunch of misinformation by a few in a ~13k post thread on a forum (with some useful bits in a fraction of a percentage of those posts).

Fortunately most people, in general, are reasonable. They don't just make things up in order to try to cause problems for others... unlike several in this thread.

 

[raphy3]

Can only be a whistleblower if there's an actual whistle to blow. It's been quite some time since people started bringing up the range loss issue (over a year now?!). With so many bets riding on Tesla's presumed demise, if there were going to be a whistle blown on anything (especially something supposedly so huge), there would have been by now. Oh wait... nothing. Just a bunch of misinformation by a few in a ~13k post thread on a forum (with some useful bits in a fraction of a percentage of those posts).

Fortunately most people, in general, are reasonable. They don't just make things up in order to try to cause problems for others... unlike several in this thread.

Are you just trying to wave away the whole issue now and pretend it isn't real? You seem to be trying to make it sound like only a couple of people have an issue with with this charge gate problem. Of course, since your livelihood depends on the opposite of "bets riding on Tesla's presumed demise", that could explain why a "few" people in the thread have stopped listening to you.

As a related aside, would you people please stop claiming that anyone who says anything negative about Tesla is a shortseller? Chrissakes. some people just want them to do better and may not *gasp!* have a financial stake in Tesla's market performance.

 

[gaswalla]

Hi folks, I need some experts to weigh in on this. I have a 2012 Model S, original owner. Will be out of warranty in 2 months. I have 253k miles on it, was quite fortunate to get a "new" refurbished battery at 200k miles Jan 2019. About 1 year later (Jan 2020), noticed the classic batterygate symptoms. I finally got around to hooking up the car to get scanmytesla data. At 100%, I get 221 miles (was around 250)...
CELL MAX IS 4.175 v
CELL AVE 4.167 v
CELL MIN is 4.067v

it appears that module 1 has all the lowered voltage?... is this a bad cell (and I should take it to Tesla), or is this classic batterygate?

 

[Dave EV]

Hi folks, I need some experts to weigh in on this. I have a 2012 Model S, original owner. Will be out of warranty in 2 months. I have 253k miles on it, was quite fortunate to get a "new" refurbished battery at 200k miles Jan 2019. About 1 year later (Jan 2020), noticed the classic batterygate symptoms. I finally got around to hooking up the car to get scanmytesla data. At 100%, I get 221 miles (was around 250)...
CELL MAX IS 4.175 v
CELL AVE 4.167 v
CELL MIN is 4.067v

it appears that module 1 has all the lowered voltage?... is this a bad cell (and I should take it to Tesla), or is this classic batterygate? View attachment 574174 View attachment 574175

Not classic batterygate, that's when all modules are limited to lower voltage.

You have one module with either higher internal resistance, or a parasitic load that's causing it to discharge relative to the others. You're well on your way to another battery pack.

A few full discharge/recharges seems to help get the BMS to recognize this and trigger error codes that will get you a new pack, but Tesla might be able to diagnose it over the air as well.

 

[gaswalla]

I sure hope you are correct! thank you for your input. will do the full cycles and also make attempts at finding help in the Tesla abyss

 

[trayloader]

Can only be a whistleblower if there's an actual whistle to blow. It's been quite some time since people started bringing up the range loss issue (over a year now?!). With so many bets riding on Tesla's presumed demise, if there were going to be a whistle blown on anything (especially something supposedly so huge), there would have been by now. Oh wait... nothing. Just a bunch of misinformation by a few in a ~13k post thread on a forum (with some useful bits in a fraction of a percentage of those posts).

Fortunately most people, in general, are reasonable. They don't just make things up in order to try to cause problems for others... unlike several in this thread.

I must say I find your post very strange Jason. You co-unveiled this and now it seems like you try to make a 180. why?