islandbayy
Active Member
When I updated my MS December 29th-ish, it went from 8.1 from ~July 2018, to a April 2020 10.1, then got 2 more updates within 24 hrs. Once it hit 10.1 though, my connectivity came back.
-
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
I think it's just a display rounding thing. 50% should be 117.5 miles.....235 @ 100%.
Super bumped. I somehow didn't realize it was charging and when I dropped it off I forgot to set the max charge 50% from 90%. So by the time I looked again tonight, I realized it was charging. I stopped it at 85%.
So now my car is going to sit all night above 75% for the first time ever in its life. I can't even run the AC or something to discharge it because it's plugged in and climate will use shore power instead
So now my car is going to sit all night above 75% for the first time ever in its life. I can't even run the AC or something to discharge it because it's plugged in and climate will use shore power instead
Last edited:
High storage SOCs degrade Lithium Ion batteries faster. It's already gone down to 80% overnight on it's own. I'm sure the new BMS software is shedding power to get the charge down. With V8 it might lose 1% overnight.
Just picking it up now. No loss in kwh capacity from canbus scan so far.
lightningltd
Member
I have read wk057 paper a couple times, and it makes sense to me...
Unfortunately, it left me with a burning question...
I have been through over 30 cycles, and no improvement in my range numbers...
Will Tesla finally decide that since the number of affected are much lower, that they will replace the battery of those still affected(infected)?
And why even now won't Tesla say anything about the issue, except 'Everything is normal'?
As to ChargeGate, I agree with wk. There is no technical reason for the charge throttling... UNLESS...
A: They are trying to 'baby' the batteries on OUR time to prevent any stress and avoid a warrantee replacement...
B: There is something happening to the batteries during supercharging they want no one to see?
Who the hell knows, since Tesla is still remaining silent and treating its BUYERS like morons.
So any bets on whether our charge rates 'magically' return to normal the week after our warrantee is up?
Unfortunately, it left me with a burning question...
I have been through over 30 cycles, and no improvement in my range numbers...
Will Tesla finally decide that since the number of affected are much lower, that they will replace the battery of those still affected(infected)?
And why even now won't Tesla say anything about the issue, except 'Everything is normal'?
As to ChargeGate, I agree with wk. There is no technical reason for the charge throttling... UNLESS...
A: They are trying to 'baby' the batteries on OUR time to prevent any stress and avoid a warrantee replacement...
B: There is something happening to the batteries during supercharging they want no one to see?
Who the hell knows, since Tesla is still remaining silent and treating its BUYERS like morons.
So any bets on whether our charge rates 'magically' return to normal the week after our warrantee is up?
Only 75 and 90 packs, no one has reported improved charging speeds for the 85 packs, unfortunately.
What I would do for its original charging curve, dammit. Probably have to sell this car and get a 90/75, but in Europe, the used prices for them are unreasonably astronomic. 50-100% more than U.S.
Just dreaming here, imagine having an extended storage module allowing you to switch between two "EMMC-Images", like having a backup BIOS:
EMMC-Image A) is having a regular/recent version of Firmware, BMS can do it's magic and "heal" (rather minimize issues) the range and prolong battery life while charging at home or with Type2 for daily short range driving.
EMMC-Image B) is having e.g. 2019.12.1.1 and when switching towards it, automatically an installation is triggered onto the Gateway, the CD, IC and all other controllers for the next long distance trip for holidays.
With this kind of setting I would always drive with one or another set of "Tesla Original Firmware".
Back to reality, recently I've met a fellow 2015 85 owner at a SuC and he showed me his 2019.12.1.1 and the Brick min and max voltages during charging, less than 20mV difference when charging. After a few hours after charging the difference is even less, he added.
Back in November his car was scheduled for a CCS upgrade, thus he updated to 2020.36.11, immediately after the install the SOC% jumped by roughly 6% and in the CD Diagnostic Mode the car lost >5kWh. While charging at 89% his Brick Max Voltage reached 4.1V and charge rate dropped below 9kWh and seemingly the BMS started leveling the other bricks slowly towards 4.11V and stopped at 96% SOC to charge, regardless of SuC, CCS, CHAdeMO, DeC or UMC... No Condition X or any other Battery issue was detected during a two month period of driving and SlowSuCing a couple hundred Kilometers.
Then he went back to 2019.12.1.1 (He did not share the process, yet he explained he is not able to do it by himself but has help from a 3rd party.) Again immediately the Full Pack kWh calculation showed >5kWh more in total. From these behavior I'd assume a case of Condition Z and thus IMHO and AFAIK according to @wk057 explanations the BMS falsely shows more available capacity. Despite this, he explained he usually plans his long trips with ABRP with a max speed of 150km/h when possible, down to 3% soc at arrival at a SuC and short bursts of charging 15-25minutes. Yet no early shutdown so far, he must be lucky or his battery has other issues or/and the BMS is perhaps falsely handling it as Condition Z?
Yet, he enjoys the (shorter) SuC stops similar to what he was used to in 2015 to early 2019. Did I mention that I envy him? He arrived after me with a lower soc and left before me with a higher soc, something I've got used to when a 90, 100, 3 was there, but a virtually identical S 85 when it comes to age and mileage, damn!
BR! Oaito.
Last edited:
Did the car preheat? Yesterday I saw for the fist time the message about preheating the battery. I was going somewhere close to the supercharger, I did not actually supercharge. Time for a longer trip!
Yes, it preheated with the message on the nav. Battery temp 30 minutes before arrival to the SC was 89F. It was 105F when I arrived.
It said something like "preheating for fast charge" and then proceeded to charge the slowest it ever has
cpa
Active Member
Summing your SOC and kW gives 95. That is pretty much in line with a moderately warm but not ideal battery temperature. This time of year I see anywhere from 80-85 to 95-100 as the totals of those two variables. I drove the 32 miles from home to the Traver Supercharger earlier this week at 8AM, preconditioned the battery, and recall getting about 60+kW at 32% SOC.
On the return trip from Bakersfield at 3:30PM, I plugged in with 8% and saw 112kW briefly before it settled down to the expected sum of ~110. I think you will see that we will realize the 110 approximation here in the Valley from late April through October without any preheating.
I thought we couldn't necessarily downgrade, caus some components can't downgrade firmware. (regardless of working out the signed software install from your own location)
Because I would definitely do that... run a newer version, and for long road trips put an old version back in where supercharging speds are back
for an 8 hour drive it would make a difference of well over an hour of charging time.
all because 85 packs are getting the short end of the stick here. happy for 75/90 owners, but damn.
Just to be clear: Tesla does not offer neither an owner option nor a SeC option to downgrade the Software.
The owner options were extended to offer re-installation of the existing Version AFAIK in 2020 and before that to chose to prioritize download/installation more often. (*)
The SeC and the hotline repeatedly stated all over the world (as fellow owners reported in forums such this), that the only available option is to push out the newest F/W as shown to be available for the specific VIN. (**)
IMHO Telsa actively designed their Software for Diagnostics/Troubleshooting, Configuration and "Repair" (Toolbox2) to limit and simplify the available options to re-installation of the existing F/W or installation of the newest available F/W depending on the VIN. (***)
Please keep in mind, this is not a fully closed system. The CD is running a Linux and the internal deployment procedures are utilizing the Linux functions. There are some people around the world outside Tesla (not me), whom are crafty enough being able to look behind the User Interface, understood what they found and are able to extract the individual internal access tokens. With them they found ways to initiate the internal deployment process with any given originally Tesla-signed F/W package send to the car and initiate a full re-install. With all the risks involved: underlying and thus unknown issues of the CD/MCU, IC, GW and the other Controllers breaking the process and leave you with an unusable car. Then you have to bring the "bricked" Tesla to the SeC with the risk of a hefty invoice or them even declining to touch it.
Nevertheless, this is for the most of us owners a hypothetical option only, since letting a third party gaining access to your Tesla this way is a risk most of us aren't willing to take. Perhaps it would be different in the future when such an offer comes from an actual Shop where we can go, meet the persons, evaluate their trustworthiness and getting a warranty to fix the issue in case anything goes not as it should.
The benefit of the few people willing to do this are at least to learn what is technically possible and get a confirmation, that Tesla not offering a downgrade, is not based on technical limitations within the process but rather the decision to implement limitations to actively prevent downgrades. There are a lot of good reasons to do so in the first place.
BR! Oaito,
(*) IMHO the re-installation was put in after Tesla realized they could decrease support calls by simplifying the re-installation process to being initiated by the owner. Thus I conclude a realization on Teslas side: Teslas presumption of being able to build a F/W installation process which is stable and reliable enough in the first run, only needing re-installation in rare cases is not achievable (any more) giving the complexity of the software itself plus the growing number of different hardware in their fleet interacting with each other.
(**) There are some exemptions: Recently a ranger explained: "I can push the installed F/W as a full download and re-installation thus no local F/W cache will be used. Or a newer version as an upgrade." ...He did not iterate if they could chose between newer versions or if they are only able to push the newest version.
(***) Then at least not all SeC are aware of every option buried in their "Toolbox2". As we learned in the past from at least two users in Europe whom shared their experience how "their" SeC handled/invoiced upgrading from an older F/W. One had the luck of having a technician familiar of the process in his "Toolbox2" application: AFAIR he had to install different (newer) versions instead of upgrading e.g. v7 directly to 10.1., only charging him with a minor fee for starting these couple of installs. The other fellow owner faced a significant higher amount of hours to pay, since "his" SeC was not familiar and they had to find another SeC to explain to them the process and AFAIK charged the owner with both the time to learn of this feature and the whole upgrade time through multiple versions.
PS: I'm looking forward to a more broad usage of "Toolbox2" through 3rd parties and hopefully there will be subsequently a shared list of actual possible functions...
Last edited:
Similar threads
