Guy V
Member
Oh, you are progressing. Now it's a made-up fantasy, a delusion we suffering under, nothing wrong with our cars at all, we're just trying to cause trouble for poor innocent Tesla.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
- Thread starter Dutchmeeuw
- Start date
Wow. Way to not actually read what I wrote, folks.
Never said there wasn't an issue, and I never said Tesla was "innocent"... in fact, I rarely defend them on anything at all because the company is run so horribly and they've screwed over so many different groups over the years it's ridiculous.
What I said was that there's nothing for a whistleblower to blow the whistle on. If there were, that'd imply that Tesla's covering up some crime/fraud, which doesn't appear to be the case here at all based on everything I know about this situation.
If somehow this issue ended up in a criminal court, and I was on the jury? Yeah, my vote would be not guilty. I don't feel like they've done anything criminal here. Shady? Disingenuous? Violation of consumer faith and good will? Sure. Something folks can sue them over? Yeah, probably... on a civil case jury for this I'd not side with Tesla over owners.
Do I think there may be some civil recourse for the folks who lost range? Probably... but then again, I thought there would be civil recourse for folks who purchased P85D vehicles advertised has having 691 HP... but I still haven't gotten that particular check in the mail as far as I'm aware (there was the win in the EU somewhere on this, but nothing in the US AFAIK).
The problem is that there are specific people in this thread trying to convince others of completely preposterous things that just have no basis in reality.
My favorite is a certain couple of folks that like trying to say things that are literal FUD like it's unsafe to park your car inside or near your house. Really? Just get a grip. There's two Tesla vehicles parked in my garage right now, with a third right outside, and several more parked inside at my shop... you really think if I thought there was even a snowball's chance in hell of any of them just bursting into flames that I would do so? Of course not.
The issue here is simple: Tesla modified vehicle software OTA in a way that caused range loss and charge speed slowdowns for a more than negligible amount of owners of particular Model S configurations, and afterward they are not doing right by owners in correcting this one way or another (either by a software or hardware change). This should really come as no surprise to anyone following Tesla long term. The company itself is historically horrible when it comes to doing the right thing in almost all cases where the customer loses out (I could make a list, but just ... ugh... do some research. AP1 release timing... 691 HP.... kWh asterisk... etc etc).
Trying to extrapolate out Alex Jones-style into crazy conspiracy theories isn't helpful in any way. Affected owners should be on Tesla like white on rice about this until they get it resolved, whether that's with Tesla directly or through the courts, regardless of why they issued the changes. The NHTSA isn't going to swoop in and help with this no matter how many people throw up random baseless theories. It's just not something they will or need to do anything about. It's a civil issue. As far as I'm concerned, Tesla stole value from affected owners.
Why they did it? Honestly, not super important. Did they do it to correct/mitigate a potential issue? Yeah, seems that way. What's the severity of that issue? No where near what the people pushing the conspiracy theories. Let's put it this way. Unmitigated, your car still isn't going to burst into flames. It could potentially, eventually, have other serious issues however, hence my suggestion last year that people apply the update.
So yeah, pretty tired of people pushing off the wall nonsense.
End of line.
Never said there wasn't an issue, and I never said Tesla was "innocent"... in fact, I rarely defend them on anything at all because the company is run so horribly and they've screwed over so many different groups over the years it's ridiculous.
What I said was that there's nothing for a whistleblower to blow the whistle on. If there were, that'd imply that Tesla's covering up some crime/fraud, which doesn't appear to be the case here at all based on everything I know about this situation.
If somehow this issue ended up in a criminal court, and I was on the jury? Yeah, my vote would be not guilty. I don't feel like they've done anything criminal here. Shady? Disingenuous? Violation of consumer faith and good will? Sure. Something folks can sue them over? Yeah, probably... on a civil case jury for this I'd not side with Tesla over owners.
Do I think there may be some civil recourse for the folks who lost range? Probably... but then again, I thought there would be civil recourse for folks who purchased P85D vehicles advertised has having 691 HP... but I still haven't gotten that particular check in the mail as far as I'm aware (there was the win in the EU somewhere on this, but nothing in the US AFAIK).
The problem is that there are specific people in this thread trying to convince others of completely preposterous things that just have no basis in reality.
My favorite is a certain couple of folks that like trying to say things that are literal FUD like it's unsafe to park your car inside or near your house. Really? Just get a grip. There's two Tesla vehicles parked in my garage right now, with a third right outside, and several more parked inside at my shop... you really think if I thought there was even a snowball's chance in hell of any of them just bursting into flames that I would do so? Of course not.
The issue here is simple: Tesla modified vehicle software OTA in a way that caused range loss and charge speed slowdowns for a more than negligible amount of owners of particular Model S configurations, and afterward they are not doing right by owners in correcting this one way or another (either by a software or hardware change). This should really come as no surprise to anyone following Tesla long term. The company itself is historically horrible when it comes to doing the right thing in almost all cases where the customer loses out (I could make a list, but just ... ugh... do some research. AP1 release timing... 691 HP.... kWh asterisk... etc etc).
Trying to extrapolate out Alex Jones-style into crazy conspiracy theories isn't helpful in any way. Affected owners should be on Tesla like white on rice about this until they get it resolved, whether that's with Tesla directly or through the courts, regardless of why they issued the changes. The NHTSA isn't going to swoop in and help with this no matter how many people throw up random baseless theories. It's just not something they will or need to do anything about. It's a civil issue. As far as I'm concerned, Tesla stole value from affected owners.
Why they did it? Honestly, not super important. Did they do it to correct/mitigate a potential issue? Yeah, seems that way. What's the severity of that issue? No where near what the people pushing the conspiracy theories. Let's put it this way. Unmitigated, your car still isn't going to burst into flames. It could potentially, eventually, have other serious issues however, hence my suggestion last year that people apply the update.
So yeah, pretty tired of people pushing off the wall nonsense.
End of line.
Guy V
Member
You are flat out dead wrong that WHY does not matter. It's called motive. It's called intent, and it very often makes a difference as to whether something is a crime, and the degree of a crime.
I simply cannot grasp where you are coming from to say otherwise.
It does seem the number of cars affected by the voltage reduction is relatively small. The number of cars affected by significantly slower supercharging is very large, though. From what I gathered it is pretty much every old 85 pack. Just drove another 85 that only 70k miles and was a year younger than mine and it had the same reduction in supercharge speed. It seems the reduction of charge rate is now administered to all 85 packs (and likely other variants with the same cells).
For me personally I plan to keep my car way past the warranty so I think that Tesla making changes to extend the life of the battery pack is a good thing. I know I would be way more upset if the pack failed shortly after it went out of warranty and Tesla could have prevented, or significantly delayed, the failure and didn't.
Guy V
Member
I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings but I learned long ago not to accept "Just trust me" as substance. What's more, I think you did too.
Guy V
Member
I also hope to keep my car long past the battery warranty. Until this debacle delivered via update I was feeling very good about that. As things are going now that only looks feasible if Tesla comes up fairly soon with a practical battery replacement program. I strongly believe ultimately that is going to be far more important to them than to any of us. After all, we can cut our losses and buy a different car when we have to. Tesla can't afford to be known for selling disposable cars, not at the prices and volumes they will need to survive.
That's... interesting I guess?
And no, as far as I'm concerned, me taking time to write explanations for things here is a voluntary contribution to the folks here. No one "deserves" or is entitled to it in any way whatsoever. It's 100% my choice who I share my knowledge and information with, where, in what format, etc. And in my opinion, some of the folks here who have been a constant thorn in the side of the ongoing conversation are not deserving of my time or contributions.
Despite that, for whatever reason I'm still here... fighting to improve the SNR around here. *sigh*
^ The above two sentiments in the two quotes above seem somewhat incompatible. On the one hand you point out what I posted was "worth" something somehow, then immediately note along the lines that you don't accept it.
Either what I note on the topic has worth to you and others beyond a random person's speculation, or it doesn't. You're not hurting my feelings either way. Accepting the former makes sense, since at some point you simply have to rely on someone else who has more knowledge and experience in an area than you do. (Ever, oh I don't know, go to a doctor for certain things, for example?) Claiming the former is just willful ignorance.
It appears the message "Maximum battery charge level reduced", which some owners have been getting and subsequently getting their packs replaced, is due to condition Z.
And, if that's correct would a non-mitigated condition Z potentially lead to condition X?
So, what is this Z?
Is it safe to drive 900km in a S85 with my wife and two children? (not range reduced, but of course charge rate reduced)
BigNick
Infamous Fat Sweaty Guy
I suppose, short of becoming employed as a Tesla engineer or having/obtaining the knowledge and equipment required to safely dismantle a battery pack and reverse engineer the BMS software, we will never know what exactly conditions X and Z are.
I’m fine with that, however. Here is my takeaway from the situation:
Condition X is rare, with no evidence of it occurring so far; it is bad and potentially dangerous. If it occurs in conjunction with Condition Z, the danger can be mitigated.
Condition X without Condition Z is a catastrophic battery failure mode which warrants an immediate shutdown. There is no evidence of this occurring either, but it is the highest-danger situation.
Condition Z is mitigated, on 2019.16.x and newer firmware, possibly in a somewhat heavy-handed manner, but is not inherently dangerous.
Speculation: Remaining on old firmware without the mitigation code could possibly accelerate pack degradation if Z is present, or lead to a combination of X and Z.
I do think it is in Tesla’s best interest to develop a battery replacement program. Perhaps not best for them financially in the short term, but better for them in the long term.
People have mentioned “disposable cars,” which brings to mind images of mid-80s to early-90s cars such as the Yugo and Hyundai Excel which sold for under $4000 and $5000 - where the expression “you get what you pay for” applied. If early Tesla cars end up being disposable, buyers are certainly getting far less than what they paid for.
I’m fine with that, however. Here is my takeaway from the situation:
Condition X is rare, with no evidence of it occurring so far; it is bad and potentially dangerous. If it occurs in conjunction with Condition Z, the danger can be mitigated.
Condition X without Condition Z is a catastrophic battery failure mode which warrants an immediate shutdown. There is no evidence of this occurring either, but it is the highest-danger situation.
Condition Z is mitigated, on 2019.16.x and newer firmware, possibly in a somewhat heavy-handed manner, but is not inherently dangerous.
Speculation: Remaining on old firmware without the mitigation code could possibly accelerate pack degradation if Z is present, or lead to a combination of X and Z.
I do think it is in Tesla’s best interest to develop a battery replacement program. Perhaps not best for them financially in the short term, but better for them in the long term.
People have mentioned “disposable cars,” which brings to mind images of mid-80s to early-90s cars such as the Yugo and Hyundai Excel which sold for under $4000 and $5000 - where the expression “you get what you pay for” applied. If early Tesla cars end up being disposable, buyers are certainly getting far less than what they paid for.
Mitigating Z by reducing range is stealing range from the owners. Stealing is illegal.
Sounds about right.
X and Z are, surprisingly, unrelated and don't cause or lead to each other. Maybe more interesting is that X and Z can't exist together... You can have one or the other (or neither). It's that original detection method for X happens to also detect Z. They're independent. X can not actually be mitigated (in any reasonable way) without replacement hardware, which is why if its supposedly detected, and Z doesn't get detected (as in, the "detection" of X isn't actually a false positive indicating Z), the car has to shutdown. There's a bit more to it than this, but this is the basic rundown.
Sounds about right, with my clarifications above. X is not a failure directly, but a condition that could lead to a failure. So detecting it and shutting down the vehicle for a warranty swap would be reasonable. And again, this is something that appeared to be completely proactive in order to make things safer in the long run.
Edit: Contrary to the outrageous claims of others here, the fact that Tesla was and is proactively looking for a potential failure mode, and didn't actually find it, makes it plainly obviously there's nothing for them to hide from any safety regulators.
That'd be like me doing something like checking if my laptop might burst into flames if [insert super unlikely but detectable situation here], not finding any evidence that existed, but still trying to say the manufacturer needed to recall the product based on my research that turned up nothing.
Sounds about right.
Z doesn't lead to X, but otherwise sounds about right.
Agreed.
Last edited:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
You aren't even in the same galaxy as the truth.
I have a 4.5 yr old XP90D which was a great trip car until the max supercharge power was severely reduced. My curiosity would be sated by knowing what Z is but what I need to know is any progress on a battery replacement plan, which may include the outcome of the lawsuit as that could impact my plans to hold, fix, or sell. I appreciate the reiteration of the X and Z story but hope this thread expands further only when there is real new information.
More useful info that seems to either have gotten lost before or wasn't present in the thread already. This answers a question a few posts up from @Droschke as well. It seems like it would be useful to update the thread with this.
At this point it sounds like what we know is, Tesla accidentally found condition Z and saw a big warranty monsoon coming, decided to reduce cars' range to sidestep it. It sounds like like most people in the thread seem to agree that this was effectively taking something away from owners without their permission.
Even if that is true we have no knowledge of if Tesla told NHTSA that they were looking for condition X. They very well could have.
No he didn't. Did Tesla look for a safety issue? Yes. Did they find it? No. Since they didn't find it they couldn't take action against it. Therefore no recall was necessary. Did they report that they were investigating a possible safety issue? We have no idea if they did or not.
Guy V
Member
I would NEVER accept treatment from a doctor who wouldn't explain the facts of his diagnosis. I would run from his office.
I certainly wouldn't pay you to remedy my car on that basis.
The worth of your post was that it provided a solid context of all that you had previously said on this topic, even with the lack of any actual facts. I can think of no other poster here who has withheld facts at the disposal.
It hasn't been easy, but I do feel that the thread has moved forward a bit. We have confirmation that the updates never fixed a safety issue. It seems that Tesla could tell if folks have X or Z (or a false positive of X that is actually Z) before issuing the updates. It seems that all updates to date have only corrected condition Z. I think many folks in the thread assumed this at some point and moved on, but to my mind, I have never seen any black and white confirmation of it till now. So I consider this to be great news. Also, the idea that Z cannot develop into X was confirmed, and that is also gret news. So I think it's two steps forward, one step back, but we're getting somewhere.
Similar threads
