Not all packs are impacted. If your pack is impacted you already can't access all of the reported range.
-
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
Not all packs are impacted. If your pack is impacted you already can't access all of the reported range.
...and then if it is affected, you can't access that range at the bottom minus the 10% or more at the top if your charge is limited to 4.1 volts or less?
@wk057, my pack is 1074980-00-E which is not on your list. My car was produced the last week of March 2015 so it's not the early BMB1.0 packs but it's not late enough to the mid 2015 BMB 2.0 boards?
Also, my battery sticker changed when it was upgraded to Ludicrous. I don't recall what the old part number was.
Also, my battery sticker changed when it was upgraded to Ludicrous. I don't recall what the old part number was.
It appears other folks that had their P85D upgraded to ludicrous that have the 1074980-00-E previously had a revision sticker of 1031043-00-E which *IS* on the list.
So I am potentially effected....unless as part of the upgrade they replaced the BMB's?
Yes - ultimately if you lose 10% or ~25 miles off the top after the update, you've already lost 10% or ~25 miles off the bottom, but you just won't know it until you try to use it and your car shuts off with 25 miles shown on the dash.
As wk057 has stated, you're better off updating and getting all the latest BMS updates that go with it which take care of your pack better, aside from possibly slower Supercharging rates.
1031043-00-E is HWID 57, or upgraded to Ludicrous HWID 70. This is BMBv1.5.
If you have the issue, you can't access the range that would be "lost" with 100% certainty right now on any earlier update anyway. You risk a shutdown at range showing > 0 miles if the BMS gets an anomalous Condition Z induced reading while attempting to utilize that area of the voltage spread, which is quite likely if you have the issue. As noted, this is why I previously suggested folks update in the first place.
If your pack has the issue, after an update beyond 2019.16 (I'd suggest at least 2020.36 if you decide to do so) your gauge would show lost range soon after the update. You've only got a few % chance of that at worst, so, your gamble to make the call on. If so, it will take months and thousands of miles of use to recover, but the range shown will be somewhat guaranteed usable.
At this point I'm not going to make any specific recommendations either way. The information is available. If you decide not to update, and you have Condition Z, and your car shuts down prematurely at some point as a result... well, that's the gamble. You'd be virtually guaranteed a supercharge slowdown (nearly every non-100 pack vehicle over a few years old is limited it seems) when updating to current versions, so, there's that also. Not my call to make.
Anyway, I'm still locked down here on TMC despite tremendous community outrage on the matter, which is ridiculous at this point (basically a 6 month lockdown at this point). Doug's post even made it into some of the top most disagreed posts lists! So, I'm going to have to go back to not posting here, since there's no sense in trying to contribute such a topic like this without real time posting. Sorry folks. Can catch me elsewhere for now. If TMC comes to their sense and releases my account, I'll probably be back.
(Thanks again to whoever's been approving my posts relatively quickly the past couple of days.)
If you have the issue, you can't access the range that would be "lost" with 100% certainty right now on any earlier update anyway. You risk a shutdown at range showing > 0 miles if the BMS gets an anomalous Condition Z induced reading while attempting to utilize that area of the voltage spread, which is quite likely if you have the issue. As noted, this is why I previously suggested folks update in the first place.
If your pack has the issue, after an update beyond 2019.16 (I'd suggest at least 2020.36 if you decide to do so) your gauge would show lost range soon after the update. You've only got a few % chance of that at worst, so, your gamble to make the call on. If so, it will take months and thousands of miles of use to recover, but the range shown will be somewhat guaranteed usable.
At this point I'm not going to make any specific recommendations either way. The information is available. If you decide not to update, and you have Condition Z, and your car shuts down prematurely at some point as a result... well, that's the gamble. You'd be virtually guaranteed a supercharge slowdown (nearly every non-100 pack vehicle over a few years old is limited it seems) when updating to current versions, so, there's that also. Not my call to make.
Anyway, I'm still locked down here on TMC despite tremendous community outrage on the matter, which is ridiculous at this point (basically a 6 month lockdown at this point). Doug's post even made it into some of the top most disagreed posts lists! So, I'm going to have to go back to not posting here, since there's no sense in trying to contribute such a topic like this without real time posting. Sorry folks. Can catch me elsewhere for now. If TMC comes to their sense and releases my account, I'll probably be back.
(Thanks again to whoever's been approving my posts relatively quickly the past couple of days.)
You're either not phrasing that correctly or you're a little confused. If you've already lost 10% off the bottom before the update that caps the charge to 90%, then after the update, you're losing *ANOTHER* 10% off the top for a total of 20%. If that's what you mean then fine, but I don't see how one has anything to do with the other.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Having read the writeup by Jason, especially the section about having been contacted by owners/lawyers hoping to sue Tesla for this (mainly for their own monetary gain and not really coming from the angle of getting Tesla to actually resolve the issue), Tesla saying anything more detailed than their statements to the media likely would be used in a lawsuit against them. Most people's eyes would gloss over anyways reading something so technical (as evident even in this thread with some people claiming the issue needs a battery expert to determine, when it has nothing to do with that).
Just as a reminder what they said to the media at the time:
"Tesla told us that the goal of the update is to “protect the battery and improve battery longevity” and it resulted in a range loss for only “a small percentage of owners.”
The company says that it is working to improve the impact of the update on the range for those owners."
Tesla owners see battery range drop after software update to 'improve longevity' - Electrek
That seems to have been exactly what they had been doing, although that may not be the conclusion some people wanted to hear.
Having read up on how the BMS works for both S/X and 3/Y since before coming to this thread, I can certainly see why it takes so long to do what it does.
Last edited:
No, you are completely missing what he said. Here is an example: Pre-update your car reports 260 miles of range, but shuts off when it reports 30 miles are left. Post-update it reports 230 miles of range and shuts off at 0 miles left. You have lost no available range, the estimated range is just more accurate to what you can actually use. Then after the remediation has completed you might get returned to have 255 miles of range available. (This is assuming of course that your battery pack suffers from a BMB problem.)
No. I'm getting what he's saying and it's just wrong. What he and you are saying is that before the update, when you could still charge to 4.2 volts, that there was a missing 10% the bottom that the BMS was mis-reporting as available. But AFTER the update when you can only charge to 4.1 volts the BMS is correctly reporting at the bottom.
What you're not getting is that when the battery is capped to 4.1 volts, that 10% off the top no matter what is happening on the bottom. The only way what he and you are asserting could be true is if the BMS is opening up 10% on the bottom that was previously locked out after locking out the top 10%.
That's exactly what it's doing after the update according to wk057.
Post update it allows lower voltages when discharging, but temporarily prevents higher voltages. After enough cycles/miles, it allows nearly all of the higher voltage range again.
A brand new car does not take 30 days and 30 cycles for the BMS to figure out its range.
Until I see any of the many people affected on this thread having recovered to 4.2V I remain skeptical. I certainly have more deep cycles since 2020.30 and I have not seen any recovery. (however my battery is not on the list but has all the symptoms)
dark cloud
Active Member
So are you inclined to drive around in a supercharger parking lot to less than 3% SOC to find out if your pack has condition Z?
This part still has me a little confused. Why would it do this? Supposedly the issue is the BMS will erroneously read lower than it actually is, and cutoff because of that. The update in 2020.30 is supposed to fix the erroneous reading so that it doesn't cutoff.
That fix wasn't in place in 2019.16, so how does that work? Is it no longer cutting off at the lower voltage? That's what 2020.30 is supposed to do. What is the purpose of capping the max voltage?
Just thinking while I type here.
So the issue is the BMS has to consider what if this lower voltage is the real voltage. If it is then when the voltage reading goes up to what is the actual voltage, could that be dangerous? Only if we charge the lower voltage to 4.2V, but we are charging the higher voltage to 4.2V so that shouldn't happen. Maybe the algorithm was previously not distinguishing on what voltage is usually seen (higher reading) and was just thinking maybe the higher voltage is the intermittent one and the lower voltage is normally seen but is potentially incorrect?
But there were reports of people charging to 4.2V before the update and being capped to 4.1V after. Were they mistaken?
Was the BMS previously outputting the actual voltage and after the update outputting a filtered voltage?
Still some questions..
But again, they are asking for it, because they are bacially saying 'there are a few issues, but trust us' and there have been so many issues where Tesla could not be trusted to act in the owners interest i.e 691hp, MCU1, 85kWh, control arms etc. etc. etc.
So Tesla have put themselvs in a situation where there are many owners that do not trust them anymore and with good reason. So in this case they should be upfront and tell what they are doing and not just say trust us. For all the owners that for one reason or another had to sell their car during this period have lost money due to this uncertainty.
I apologize we're crossing wires by using different meanings for "after update". What I meant by "after" is after the 2019.16.x update that removes removes range by capping the voltage to 4.1 and locking out the top 10%. This is aside from whatever the BMS is using to determine capacity and when it shuts down at the bottom end. Capping voltage to 4.1 remove the top 10% of whatever capacity is actually remaining.
They were not mistaken and those and those that were being capped to 4.1 volts were being prevented from using the top 10% of whatever capacity the battery had left.
And to answer the about if I drive down to 3%. I recently drove 10 miles under 0% due to my own stupidity of not verifying supercharger status (since I don't get live updates on my current version).
Pre 2019.16.x update if your pack suffers from Condition Z it will shut down when you hit ~30 miles remaining. (i.e. you can't access all of the range that is reported as available.) Post 2019.16.x update it corrects the range reporting, while locking out the top, but you can then use down to ~0%.
If you are on pre-2019.16.x and you were able to drive down to 0% your pack does not currently suffer from Condition Z.
That very well could be but capping to 4.1 volts ALSO locks out an additional 10% that has nothing to do with when the BMS decides to shut down on the bottom.
What you're saying is is that there was never an actual range reduction with the 2019.16.x firmware and that it was just a reporting issue. If the BMS hadn't been capping cell voltage to 4.1 after that update, that assertion might be true but capping to 4.1 volts means that after the update, there's already 10% that is being locked out on that top that would be available if the BMS was allowed to finish charging to 100%.
Show me where Jason claims there wasn't an actual range reduction with the detection the mistaken detection of condition X when it's actually condition Z.
Similar threads
