Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[fbitz777]

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.
done about.

0.1% so that's what 50 cars? (did they even build 50k of these '85 cars?) ..
Now you add chargegate, Limited Regen under 60F, vampire drains and am sure you cover 90 percent of cars...Hey my 75D pack has all of these; Don't have pumpgate though..

 

[Smiles83]

To any Canadians effected by 2019.16 I have been told by Transport Canada to report any concerns or complaints to APA.
[email protected]

 

[hpartsch]

I'm a bit disappointed with battery day. Was hoping there would be some info about pack replacements. Basically, what I saw is the packs are still super expensive and the cost isn't going to go down much for years. I guess the 21k replacement might drop down to 20k in the next year or so (if we are lucky).

 

[BPeter]

I'm a bit disappointed with battery day. Was hoping there would be some info about pack replacements. Basically, what I saw is the packs are still super expensive and the cost isn't going to go down much for years. I guess the 21k replacement might drop down to 20k in the next year or so (if we are lucky).

Doesn't seem like Tesla is interested in pack replacements at all. One of their "big improvements" they showed off was a vehicle/battery design where it looks like the battery is impossible to replace.

 

[faughtz]

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.



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.

Had tesla delivered what was advertised, and not stolen range, accel performance, and charging speed with my P85DL, I would be in line for Plaid. Fool me once, never again.

 

[qwk]

This is just a hobby for me, and I have personally seen more affected cars than Jason has mentioned. Far more. I guess it’s possible that it’s an anomaly, but probably not. If it really was a small number of packs, they would just be replaced, because it would be cheaper than the law firm they hired. Being a bean counter myself(day job), a company doesn’t spend more money just because.

I also disagree big time with Jason here about litigation. All it would take is a motivated attorney, some MCU’s with old/new software, somebody with some Linux skills, and Tesla would be SOL. There were definitely laws broken here(only those with a financial stake in Tesla would disagree).

I guess I don’t understand how money would trump someone’s integrity, but it seems to always happen. My integrity is not for sale BTW.

 

[First EV]

If you are upset don't give more of your money to tesla and vote with your wallet. I did and my new car already has a recall for a potential fuel pump failure. Honda will replace it for free just call or message the dealer and schedule an appointment. No stupid one size fits none only way to contact them app, clearly aimed as a cost reduction. No ignoring it and only maybe warranting the ones that do fail. No pretending this is normal or an act of God like bumpers falling off. This means I am more likely to buy new from Honda again because they stand behind their products. Had tesla stood behind theirs like they promised I would have a performance model 3 now instead.

 

[Chaserr]

When they are finally forced to safety recall eventually maybe we will hear some actual numbers. In defense of my Plaid preorder some people just value money over the safety of others or their own reputation. Sociopaths that put money over integrity are often exposed by this kind of corporate malfeasance, but they seem to work their way up the corporate ladder and obviously Tesla has a few on the payroll. Maybe a federal shot across the bow will help them clear out the riffraff. I still think tesla will be forced to come through this the honest way (or lie in a way that makes us safe, if that's what it takes to survive) and the company will be better for the punishments. It's a young company, and children need to be punished to teach them right from wrong. The children that are lying to us need discipline, but the company can learn from this especially if the liars are held responsible.

 

[Battpower]

Games like these have certainly resulted in one of my contacts going to Kia and 2 or 3 others holding off on an EV. And that's potential buyers ready to be tipped into making a purchase rather than those cold prospects I would encourage to buy Tesla if there were less of this kind of carry-on.

There are undoubtedly good pockets in Tesla, but on the corporate integrity front the evidence earns a very low score.

 

[JRP3]

When they are finally forced to safety recall eventually maybe we will hear some actual numbers.

So never.

 

[raphy3]

If you are upset don't give more of your money to tesla and vote with your wallet. I did and my new car already has a recall for a potential fuel pump failure. Honda will replace it for free just call or message the dealer and schedule an appointment. No stupid one size fits none only way to contact them app, clearly aimed as a cost reduction. No ignoring it and only maybe warranting the ones that do fail. No pretending this is normal or an act of God like bumpers falling off. This means I am more likely to buy new from Honda again because they stand behind their products. Had tesla stood behind theirs like they promised I would have a performance model 3 now instead.

It's a reasonable point, and my family is also on the verge of that (having a hard time convincing someone of buying a Tesla at the moment). But I want another Tesla. I just can't justify such a thing under the current conditions, until they are resolved 100%. It's been hard to convince another person, who looks at my experience with repair, which isn't even really negative (just very long wait times, but everything gets fixed for sure so far), and their response is "what is this chicanery, I'll take a reputable brand for my next car."

 

[Chaserr]

Service will be fixed by the time semis are available. No trucking business can function with current Tesla service and Elon never hired anyone to run Service after Jon McNeil left. Elon took over those duties and stinks at them, but he will have to hire someone to do what he can't and turn it around or they will fail at commercial trucking. It's all temporary. Meanwhile there isn't a better car made than Tesla.

Warranty and safety dodging are temporary too. They might get one mulligan but won't get a second. They'll come through this better.

@JRP3 I understand your pessimism but the NHTSA is moving much faster than you think.

 

[Battpower]

I'm still digesting.....

and these points are not 'going down'!

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.

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

I am not taking a swipe or nit-picking, but these two don't quite work together. Being reasonably certain (fair enough.... maybe based on evidence we can't get at) that the issue is less prevalent than some level, and far less than getting on 14k of posts might indicate) that the number effected is small (relative to? current sales, number of 85 packs out there?), while at the same time most people who have the problem are not aware of it. Hmm. May be because it is actually hard to tell if you gain or lose range due to capacity loss or driving style / conditions combined with ongoing changes to software and misleading info from service centers - 'everything is normal, just turn off the a/c and drive slower'.

Invalidating EPA ratings with software "cheat devices" was punished severely

I think EPA cheat devices are definately identified as unacceptable, have been heavily punished and are an example of invalidating of EPA ratings in a fraudulant manner. The software change / capping / change of heating / pump running / cooling algorithms must surely affect the validity of EPA testing in a negative way such that a car no longer performs in accordance with testing due to manufacturer applied modifications. It's may be kind of backwards in that the 'cheat' was in the original spec, and had to be removed and the car downgraded in spec once the vehicle components had settled down to their 'normal', 'realistic' opperating state.

And that likely effects a bunch of known cars that are now capped and have much tighter thermal management / reduced efficiency instigated by remote software changes.

Certainly tweeks have been applied that likely have significant effect on performance compared with EPA tested spec. At the same time, battery degradation / increasing cell imbalance also likely effects efficiency too, so I guess just as an old ICE banger wont meet it's EPA figure, neither will a vehicle with an old heavily used / aged battery.

 

[Chaserr]

I think EPA cheat devices are definately identified as unacceptable, have been heavily punished and are an example of invalidating of EPA ratings in a fraudulant manner. The software change / capping / change of heating / pump running / cooling algorithms must surely affect the validity of EPA testing in a negative way such that a car no longer performs in accordance with testing due to manufacturer applied modifications.

EPA / dieselgate is limited to the voltage manipulating. It changed the capacity the EPA would have tested at. EPA tests were performed with 4.2 volts - no exceptions on the 85 battery - less than 4.2v charge would never have reached 265 miles on the standardized tests. I believe that is why the new 350 volt battery has so much more capacity than a 90 yet they still labeled it"85". It can be capped 10% and still deliver the EPA tested 265 miles so it meets "better or equal" requirements.

Using up power might change the test results (open door retest submissions to the EPA donstrate this) but that is harder to prove thana demonstrably and undeniably decreased capacity. Reduction like that were the reason VW had to buy back cars when dieselgate punishments were announced. If it couldn't make the fraudulently cheated cars meet the specs they were sold as or better, they had to buy the car back. Dieselgate fixes directly and intentionally caused reduced range, hence buybacks. Range reduction has more established responses already.

 

[Battpower]

At the same time, battery degradation / increasing cell imbalance also likely effects efficiency too, so I guess just as an old ICE banger wont meet it's EPA figure, neither will a vehicle with an old heavily used / aged battery.

I forgot to finish with:

But those inevitable, gradual aging processes and their consequences arenit the same as software induced step changes.

 

[Battpower]

EPA / dieselgate is limited to the voltage manipulating. It changed the capacity the EPA would have tested at.

Are you saying that it would not have effected EPA testing if cooling had to be run as soon as cell volts over say 4.1v?

 

[Chaserr]

No but I am saying that hasn't already been definitively established in the courts. It could go more but the bare minimum precident has already established volts trigger Dieselgate cheatable criteria. Just because draingste hasn't been established doesn't mean it can't be later but I don't think Tesla will let it get that far. The court gave VW the chance to make it right with software changes first and that's when range was reduced (to meet emissions test results) and Tesla already can meet those results at 4.2V. The question unanswered is can they do it without breaking any laws?

If cooling has to be run over a certain volt to properly measure individual temps for anomalous readings in order to avoid safety hazards, it means a power outage is a safety hazard since loss of cooling would make those safety measures fail to operate. That falls into NHTSA's court but it could be tackled by EPA since they were not allowed to test draingste and we know just the drain from leaving a door open is enough to invalidate EPA test results.

 

[wk057]

The new 2020 85 packs are just 14 module packs using 100-type modules. 100% charge on these packs still results in a CV charge stage at ~4.2V for the highest cell. These new "85" packs are actually almost identical to the original 90 packs in actual capacity. They're not "capping" them as far as I can tell.

My speculation is that the modules used for these packs are lower-binned modules that they're not putting in 100 packs, since all of the ones I've seen data from so far have slightly less capacity than similar 100 packs using the basic 14x/16 calculation method. CAC is a few Ah less on average, too. This is based on a small set of new-85 pack data points, though, so within the margin of error of my speculation being wrong here.

---

Moving on, I still find the comparisons to "diesel gate" amusing... especially when people are still trying to push that this is a safety issue the NHTSA will have to handle. In case it wasn't obvious, EPA != NHTSA.

For a refresher, in the VW scandal, my understanding is that they produced cars from the factory that had built-in software hacks specifically designed to cheat the EPA tests to be able to claim lower emissions values than they really were, resulting in the scandal when people realized this was the case.

In Tesla's case, they released a software update, 3+ years after the EPA had anything to do with these vehicles, which causes a loss in usable capacity in some percentage of vehicles. Yeah, that sucks, but I don't see how this is cheating the EPA a la DieselGate.

Can anyone explain how the issue in this thread is in any way congruent to VW's scandal? I honestly don't see it, but it's possible I'm missing something.

---

Don't get me wrong, as I noted quite a few times, Tesla is pretty clearly in the wrong here, and should make things right one way or another. I don't think anyone here would disagree with that.
Cue the usual Disagrees from people who don't even read the posts!

 

[Battpower]

they produced cars from the factory that had built-in software hacks specifically designed to cheat the EPA tests to be able to claim lower emissions

That is my understanding too. Track steering movement or similar.

 

[wk057]

Random thought: I wonder if Tesla can argue that no one forced people to install the updates that prolonged the life of the pack and reduced usable range... which would technically be true (with the exception of one unconfirmed example I've heard of in this thread).

Not saying it's a great argument, just crossed my mind.