Not sure where I noted this, but I did note somewhere that there are multiple variants of Condition Z. The most common is a lower than expected reading, the next is a higher than expected reading, and the final is a completely unexpected reading (in either direction). Every case I saw where top level capacity was locked out by 2019.16 had one of the latter two issues.
Again, keep in mind that even the worst off units were still getting valid or close-enough-to-valid readings MOST of the time pre-2019.16. The disparity is between the range algo and the BMS internal algo is the cause the unusable range as a result of periodic erratic readings.
If these erratic readings happened and showed too low of a voltage during a low discharge, the vehicle would shutdown. If they happened during charging and showed too high of a voltage, the car would stop charging (and oddly show the set SoC with "Charging Complete").
Let's say 30 miles were lost by Condition X false detection in 2019.16. If you drive down to 29 miles, you've got a 99% chance of being fine. 15 miles, probably 80%... etc at 10 miles, probably 60-70% chance you'll be fine. at 5 miles, maybe 50/50. (Just estimates based on the amount of voltage delta I've seen condition Z cause and how much would be required in a glitchy reading to shutdown the car). Below that exponentially worse for sure, and would partly depend on how much lead was in your foot.
Saying "
I HAD the range available prior to them “mitigating” it"
/ "Personal experience says the range WAS accessible" based on just being lucky and reaching lower range numbers on occasion doesn't refute anything. Just means you got lucky, and your car didn't get a glitchy reading during the time you attempted to use that range. That's fin.e I'm glad you didn't get stranded! But if your car lost range with 2019.16, and is recovering or has recovered it, then you had Condition Z. Plain and simple.
"Mitigation started with 2020.8.1.1"... I don't see any evidence of that, unless you must have got some early version or some version otherwise not widely released. Definitely evidence this was being internally developed for quite some time, so alpha/beta released may not be in my collection. The earliest version I see doing anything at all is a not-widely distributed version of 2020.20. The wide release was 2020.30-something.
Like I said, the "abundance of caution" update does not appear to correlate at all with 2019.16. Again, look at the version numbers and the timing.
Can agree to disagree I suppose, but I can only go with the data I have available. If you have something that actually goes against anything I've uncovered I'd be happy to look into it... but just saying things like, "You're wrong because my car never shutdown" is not going to cut it.
Edit: Going to specifically address this:
Line 208 ending "caution and safety". AGAIN Jason points to caution and safety.
Line 241 "While this" Then he contradicts himself saying there is no safety concern.
I don't contradict myself, and there is no safety concern.
The first portion is referring to the BMS pre AND post 2019.16. The BMS has
always responded to misplaced readings in this manner in order to prevent any bad reading from causing an over charge or over discharge. This is the standard duty of the BMS: to protect the batteries and prevent issues, catastrophic or otherwise. This functionality has been in place since day 1, and is still in place today. This is nothing new, and does not represent a safety
issue, rather represents a standard safety function of the BMS that is required for its functionality.
The reason Condition Z is not a safety concern is exactly because of what I described above: The BMS was already overly cautious, and any erroneous reading caused by Condition Z or X would have been treated in the safest possible manner by the BMS, pre and post 2019.16, including premature shutdown of the car.
Edit: Also, thank you for respecting my request and maintaining my copyright.
