Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[MP3Mike]

Not true according to Habib, Kareem (NHTSA)" < [email protected]>

From their site: https://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/recalls/documents/MVDefectsandRecalls.pdf (page 8)

2. Petition Analysis

Any person may submit a petition requesting NHTSA to open an investigation into an alleged safety defect. After conducting a technical analysis of such a petition, ODI informs the petitioner whether it has been granted or denied. If the petition is granted, a defect investigation is opened. If the petition is denied, the reasons for the denial are published in the Federal Register. Similarly, a person may submit a petition requesting NHTSA to hold a hearing on whether a manufacturer has reasonably met its obligation to notify and/or remedy a safety defect or noncompliance with a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. If the petition is granted, a hearing is held to assess the matter and decide what corrective action should be taken. If the petition is denied, the reasons for the denial are published in the Federal Register.

So they would be in the "technical analysis" phase right now. The investigation phase doesn't start until they grant the petition. (If they grant it at all.)

 

[Gwgan]

https://twitter.com/LeilaniMunter/status/1308165811404787714

@LeilaniMunter: Road trip today so I fully charged and this is impressive: I took delivery of my @Tesla Model S on Sept 7, 2013 — over 7 years and 94,269 miles later, my battery still charges to 249 miles. Despite all these cycles, my battery has only lost 16 miles. #BatteryDay #ElectricAvenue https://twitter.com/LeilaniMunter/status/1308165811404787714/photo/1

 

[Chaserr]

@MP3Mike you solved your confusion. They granted the petition a year ago and have been in contact with many Tesla owners gathering evidence as part of their investigation. Tesla had to supply a large quantity of the evidence themselves as part of this investigation.

Contact the investigators if you've purchased a tesla. They are asking for some specific data and while they aren't answering questions their own questions make guessing what they are looking for easy to figure out. Spoiler: its all based around the charge and thermal settings changes Tesla already talked about but failed to report in the 60 day deadline we needed to be informed. You already have Kareem's email. Ajits is [email protected] if you have a tesla and want to help the investigation. These investigators are looking for specific data as part of the investigation. I urge anyone not yet contacted to offer your own data if you hadn't been contacted already.

 

[Sup3rt3sla]

Sure, Tesla made that clear too.

But that's not the same as owners getting what they originally purchased and they should retain the option of keeping exactly the spec they were sold supported by the 'best warranty'.

And it wouldn't have anything to do with the flip-side for Tesla's warranty obligation costs?

Just like with an ICE or any other piece of equipment, the manufacturer warns you about the type of use that reduces its longevity. Up to the owner to decide if he/she wants to take the risk or early breakdown, *beyond the warranty period*.

I totally agree that Tesla should have reinstated the original specs, unless they're interested in pushing "out the time table of certain failures". I'm Supercharging once or twice a year, during a 2 week roadtrip. The rest of the year I charge at home. Why I got my my charging speed severely downgraded (at least 30kW up to 50% SoC)? My P85 has now driven 100.000km, less than 30% of which with DC charged kWh.

30%!!!

 

[wk057]

So battery day was somewhat disappointing. And obviously nothing about this issue mentioned.

Based on the data I've gathered over the past year or so, it appears at this point less than 1% of packs tested for "condition Z" were adversely impacted by mitigations that resulted in a loss of usable capacity (and thus range). This is from internal data as noted by insiders, as well as matches stats from my own observations.

I think some people here forget my experience and knowledge with all of this is very first hand. As in, my company has processed thousands of these battery modules from the "wild" over the past several years (and maybe somewhere around 2000 since this issue was known), the vast majority being 85-type, and have only run into a single module (so one affected vehicle) with "condition Z". (This doesn't include a couple of third-party owned vehicles we've examined and dealt with specifically related to the range loss issue, which I may have mentioned previously. I've also gone out of my way to purchase a salvage vehicle that an insider noted was affected by "condition Z", which also had a single module affected, which I don't include in my from-the-wild tally.) Oh, and 0 with "condition X".

Overall, I'm reasonably certain this isn't as widespread of an issue as even I originally thought it was, and much less prominent of an issue than most here are making it out to be. And, I'll reiterate: there's clearly no safety issue involved here.

Doesn't mean Tesla shouldn't do something about it. I think they should be doing pack swaps/upgrades for affected folks... but I doubt that'll happen at this point. I really don't think Tesla will do much else here, and I don't see any entity/agency forcing them to do anything any time in the foreseeable future.

 

[Battpower]

I'm reasonably certain this isn't as widespread of an issue as even I originally thought it was, and much less prominent of an issue than most here are making it out to be.

Hopefully your experience and exposure to potential evidence - well beyond a typical owner - is not really in question / doubt.

What I am struggling with is visualizing a problem (or problems) that meets these characteristics:

Significant enough for Tesla to reduce capacity of some batteries with only a tangential explanation / justification.

Requires max charging rates to be restricted apparently more widely (based on other TMC thread? and some here).

Is significant / sensitive enough either commercially or otherwise that you feel unable to offer more detailed specifics.

While at the same time is trivial, effects almost no cars, is supposedly of no interest to the safety authorities, has not given you any cause for concern even in a car selected as a prime candidate for giving evidence.

IMO it's slightly unfortunate that in order to have ended up with access to the data on which you base your statements (processing so many batteries) it leaves you unable to publicly share your observations (at the present time you said - iirc).

Do you forsee a time when the reason for not sharing what you know will no longer apply, and if that time comes and 'all is known' can you honestly say everyone (well most) on here will just shrug and say 'I guess he was right after all. No possible connection with vehicle safety and the loss of value / use certain owners suffered balanced with his reasons for not saying more at the time.'

Their response was pretty dismissive, basically saying, without directly saying, that they already had all of this and didn't need data from me. A follow-up phone conversation by my counsel on the matter pretty much confirmed that, and the impression was that it's pretty obvious the whole matter is "outside their purview" (as in, not a safety issue).

Seems potentially quite conclusive, although you are also pointing out they didn't actually say it.

Just a reminder (which I found useful when Re-reading)

In this case, it seems to be that Tesla made some changes that should push out the time table of certain failures (probably indefinitely, but at least until beyond the warranty period) at the expense of performance (range, charge speed, etc). For this, I think people should be pissed and Tesla should be held accountable for it one way or another.

 

[wk057]

Hopefully your experience and exposure to potential evidence - well beyond a typical owner - is not really in question / doubt.

What I am struggling with is visualizing a problem (or problems) that meets these characteristics:

Significant enough for Tesla to reduce capacity of some batteries with only a tangential explanation / justification.

Requires max charging rates to be restricted apparently more widely (based on other TMC thread?)

Is significant / sensitive enough either commercially or otherwise that you feel unable to offer more detailed specifics.

While at the same time is trivial, effects almost no cars, has not given you any cause for concern even in a car selected as a prime candidate for giving evidence.

Simple enough: As noted before, it's pushing out longevity. Tesla appears to be continuing to mitigate the issue "Z" at the expense of owner experience (loss of range and/or charge speed), which would prevent a premature failure of the pack. Without mitigation, the pack would be more likely to unambiguously fail (likely within the warranty period), requiring warranty replacement. With the mitigation the pack is unlikely to fail at all, at the expense of range and/or charge speed.

So Tesla's options are: Leave things alone, let these packs fail and be replaced over the next 3-4 years; or, implement mitigations and be almost guaranteed to not have to replace those packs. Can you guess which option the Tesla bean counters would choose?

I honestly can't blame them. It's shady, sure. Bad business all around taking things from customers at all... but they've been at that since day when clawing back window-sticker features like supercharging, connectivity, updates, etc from salvage vehicles. Unfortunately I just don't see people being able to do much about it. It's not widespread enough for there to be thousands of people up in arms about it, so the court of public opinion will never even have a hearing. The actual courts are likely to do very little (how much is 20-30 miles of range on a 3+ year old EV, or 60kW of charge speed actually worth in damages anyway?).

Overall, just a crappy move on their part.

As for my not publicly disclosing data, again that's a cover-my-*** decision on my part. Given all of the above, it benefits no one for me to publish such information. It's not a safety issue, it's a Tesla stealing from customers issue. I've already been in contact with several working on civil lawsuits on this, and I'm happy to provide expert witness testimony, with reasonable compensation for time + travel, for their cases. Why am I going to publicly publish this data, only then to have no choice but to defend my information (likely at my own expense in that case) when inevitably its brought up in civil cases, or even potentially by Tesla themselves, at some point? Nope. Sorry. I'd much rather be in a position where that's not a possibility, and if someone else wants to take on the responsibility for those issues, they can hire me as an expert witness.

Suffice it to say, no good for anyone would come from me publishing my data at this point. It's not going to get anyone their range back. At best, it has a small chance of shutting up some of the crazies in this thread (since it would unequivocally and empirically be proven that this is not a safety issue, beyond my statements as an expert on the matter that this is not a safety issue)... but that's in no way shape or form worth the potential negative consequences of doing so, as noted above. Besides, trolls rarely back down when faced with facts, so, unlikely to get that result anyway.

 

[Battpower]

Leave things alone, let these packs fail and be replaced over the next 3-4 years; or, implement mitigations and be almost guaranteed to not have to replace those packs.

For 'the very small number affected' you'd think Tesla would have been far better off taking the small hit on wty costs, or offering those few owners the choice of sticking as they are with possible earlier battery (? what? Failure, degradation? ) or accepting an update to favor longevity.

I get that YOU might be in a position to see just how beneficial the change in battery handing could be in the long term in certain cases, but that is no help to those effected and certainly does not explain why Tesla would not address concerns and offer options / explanations.

 

[sdoorex]

Simple enough: As noted before, it's pushing out longevity. Tesla appears to be continuing to mitigate the issue "Z" at the expense of owner experience (loss of range and/or charge speed), which would prevent a premature failure of the pack. Without mitigation, the pack would be more likely to unambiguously fail (likely within the warranty period), requiring warranty replacement. With the mitigation the pack is unlikely to fail at all, at the expense of range and/or charge speed.

So Tesla's options are: Leave things alone, let these packs fail and be replaced over the next 3-4 years; or, implement mitigations and be almost guaranteed to not have to replace those packs. Can you guess which option the Tesla bean counters would choose?

I honestly can't blame them. It's shady, sure. Bad business all around taking things from customers at all... but they've been at that since day when clawing back window-sticker features like supercharging, connectivity, updates, etc from salvage vehicles. Unfortunately I just don't see people being able to do much about it. It's not widespread enough for there to be thousands of people up in arms about it, so the court of public opinion will never even have a hearing. The actual courts are likely to do very little (how much is 20-30 miles of range on a 3+ year old EV, or 60kW of charge speed actually worth in damages anyway?).

Overall, just a crappy move on their part.

As for my not publicly disclosing data, again that's a cover-my-*** decision on my part. Given all of the above, it benefits no one for me to publish such information. It's not a safety issue, it's a Tesla stealing from customers issue. I've already been in contact with several working on civil lawsuits on this, and I'm happy to provide expert witness testimony, with reasonable compensation for time + travel, for their cases. Why am I going to publicly publish this data, only then to have no choice but to defend my information (likely at my own expense in that case) when inevitably its brought up in civil cases, or even potentially by Tesla themselves, at some point? Nope. Sorry. I'd much rather be in a position where that's not a possibility, and if someone else wants to take on the responsibility for those issues, they can hire me as an expert witness.

Suffice it to say, no good for anyone would come from me publishing my data at this point. It's not going to get anyone their range back. At best, it has a small chance of shutting up some of the crazies in this thread (since it would unequivocally and empirically be proven that this is not a safety issue, beyond my statements as an expert on the matter that this is not a safety issue)... but that's in no way shape or form worth the potential negative consequences of doing so, as noted above. Besides, trolls rarely back down when faced with facts, so, unlikely to get that result anyway.

So not a safety issue, just warranty fraud. Got it.

 

[wk057]

For 'the very small number affected' you'd think Tesla would have been far better off taking the small hit on wty costs, or offering those few owners the choice of sticking as they are with possible earlier battery (? what? Failure, degradation? ) or accepting an update to favor longevity.

Why offer anyone a choice if the alternative costs them pennies on the dollar, if anything?

Let's say 0.1% of possible packs are affected. That's still millions of dollars in replacements. I mean, given the options of spending millions of dollars to do something this or... well, not spending millions of dollars on it.... their choice is pretty clear.

So not a safety issue, just warranty fraud. Got it.

Generally would agree. But, really, I think this is not as concrete as it seems, and would be a pretty long road to prove and get anything done about.

 

[BigNick]

So I chalk it up as “All companies do shady shiznit here and there where people can’t see it.”

The number of people affected is obviously small enough Tesla can afford to sacrifice them to save money. Unlike back in the day when they recalled every car they had built to install the titanium battery protector.

Apples and oranges, I know, because a battery strike can be a safety hazard.

Edit: for a tech-based example of said shady shiznit, look into Western Digital “Red” hard drives and CMR vs. SMR write technology. Then buy Seagate IronWolf drives for your NAS instead.

 

[wk057]

I think people just need to realize that Tesla is a company. A for-profit, publicly traded corporation.

Unless it benefits them, they're not going to spend millions on something like this just to correct something that, frankly, the majority of affected people probably haven't even noticed. There's no value in it for them. Not enough gain in PR (since so few are even aware they're affected), not in saving on legal costs (I see no way any lawsuit settlements on this cost them as much as replacing a bunch of batteries), etc. To spend that money, they've got to get something in return, and it's just not there on this.

 

[Battpower]

I'm still digesting.....

But are we suggesting the abundance of caution was for Tesla's bottom line?

And.....

the majority of affected people probably haven't even noticed.

Not sure that helps.

 

[wk057]

I'm still digesting.....

But are we suggesting the abundance of caution was for Tesla's bottom line?

Seems that way to me.

Edit: Also, thanks for those providing legit post ratings to help counter the t..., er, users... who just hit Disagree on every one of my posts. Appreciated.

 

[BigNick]

So for the affected owners, what is their best course of action? (My pack has not been subject to “85ing”, asking for a friend.)

 

[wk057]

So for the affected owners, what is their best course of action? (My pack has not been subject to “85ing”, asking for a friend.)

Honestly don't know at this point. Like I said, Tesla is unlikely to do much, if anything. The NHTSA is a definite dead end due to the non-safety nature, and some OTA correction by Tesla is probably just not happening at this point given that this would cost them long term.

Me personally, if I had an affected car, I'd be all over the service center first. Kindly, but firmly, pushing to get them to do something about it. Be it a pack replacement, a reasonable paid upgrade, full buyback, whatever. You'd be surprised what kind of options could be possible on the service side through kind dealings with the front line folks. They're not going to go above and beyond if you go at them like an ***hole or with anything other than kindness and understanding (keep in mind, they didn't mess up your car, so don't treat them like they did), but if they want to help you they may be able to push for more than you could otherwise.

If no success there, a civil suit against Tesla would seem to be the only other option to pursue. Even with very little technical data, and provable claims such as "Tesla released update x.x.x. After installing this, I lost access to xyz. Multiple attempts to get Tesla to correct this have been unsuccessful,"... I think would be more than enough to get something moving...... possibly towards some kind of pre-court NDA-covered settlement with Tesla. They're obviously in the wrong here, it's just up in the air as to what the value of that wrong would actually be. I think one-on-one dealings have the best chance of a favorable outcome. Class action stuff seems highly unlikely to do much for most, aside from possibly the initiators.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not providing legal advice here. Just noting the path I'd personally take if I were affected.

 

[Chaserr]

So not a safety issue, just warranty fraud. Got it.

Sounds like it's everything named in the class action suit.

 

[Battpower]

Let's say 0.1% of possible packs are affected. That's still millions of dollars in replacements.

Care to share very rough math behind that?

Mine is not worth sharing, but I'm coming up with under 1M USD is possible, and maybe much less if Tesla adopted a targeted approach with a variety of solutions - chargeable and FOC.

 

[raphy3]

So battery day was somewhat disappointing. And obviously nothing about this issue mentioned.

Based on the data I've gathered over the past year or so, it appears at this point less than 1% of packs tested for "condition Z" were adversely impacted by mitigations that resulted in a loss of usable capacity (and thus range). This is from internal data as noted by insiders, as well as matches stats from my own observations.

I think some people here forget my experience and knowledge with all of this is very first hand. As in, my company has processed thousands of these battery modules from the "wild" over the past several years (and maybe somewhere around 2000 since this issue was known), the vast majority being 85-type, and have only run into a single module (so one affected vehicle) with "condition Z". (This doesn't include a couple of third-party owned vehicles we've examined and dealt with specifically related to the range loss issue, which I may have mentioned previously. I've also gone out of my way to purchase a salvage vehicle that an insider noted was affected by "condition Z", which also had a single module affected, which I don't include in my from-the-wild tally.) Oh, and 0 with "condition X".

Overall, I'm reasonably certain this isn't as widespread of an issue as even I originally thought it was, and much less prominent of an issue than most here are making it out to be. And, I'll reiterate: there's clearly no safety issue involved here.

Doesn't mean Tesla shouldn't do something about it. I think they should be doing pack swaps/upgrades for affected folks... but I doubt that'll happen at this point. I really don't think Tesla will do much else here, and I don't see any entity/agency forcing them to do anything any time in the foreseeable future.

Yeah, I mean with such a small number affected, it's a headscratcher as to why they don't do something to fix this for the affected owners right now. It seems like action would autogenerate a few vocal pro-Tesla fans in response who would tell all their friends, "Tesla isn't like the others, they'll go out of their way to honor the spirit of the warranty on this battery." Seems like a missed opportunity.

 

[Battpower]

"Tesla isn't like the others, they'll go out of their way to honor the spirit of the warranty on this battery." Seems like a missed opportunity.

It would make sense to demonstrate that you will stand by your battery claims and wty especially if there was any thought of making the battery integral to the car and intended to last the life of the car!