JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Maybe because there is an ongoing court case?
-
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
Guy V
Member
Tesla does not support that. Tesla disavows and restricts those cars. At this point Tesla offers no plan or endorsement for continued use of their vehicles after the original battery has worn out. We will soon be beginning to find out what the practical extent of that utility will be.
We've seen Tesla developing that framework, first an 8-year warranty, then 100,000 miles, and most recently range degradation down to 70% within that. While they talk of million-mile batteries, that framework is the only indication they give us on their confidence of what to expect over time and usage. If you do not believe you can be satisfied with that as the useful life of your car, how can you buy a Tesla?
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Because I've extended the life of many vehicles well beyond the warranty period with salvaged parts.
We should welcome all hypothesis and when the facts prove the hypothesis is wrong discard it in favor of another hypothesis that is supported by evidence. This is the scientific method. A thesis based on selective denial isn't a valid hypothesis it's just misinformation. It can help us get closer to the truth though. Like how someone's A battery was used to support the hypothesis that there is no such thing as our problem - wrong but helps prove A batteries don't have the same faulty hardware.
I have not seen anyone report that their car was restricted, or had any problems with Tesla servicing their car, after they had their battery pack repaired or replaced by a third party. (Which is totally different than how Tesla treats totaled/salvaged vehicles.)
Sure they do. They will sell, and install, a replacement battery pack.
Guy V
Member
And which of those cars had essential parts that had to be registered to the master computer with support of the manufacturer for full functionality?
So far this has held true, however Tesla does make such folks sign a waiver of liability document regarding their third party serviced component(s) now. Have had several of my customers go through this, but Tesla so far has not given any clean title folks issues following a repair/replacement I've done on a battery pack.
Technically correct, however Tesla will only install the same type of pack or pack they otherwise consider compatible. They won't sell you a 100 pack for your 85 for example. Maybe that will change one day, but definitely not now.
I think part of it is that different types of packs change some specifications of the vehicle (weight, horsepower, etc), and that may be a headache for them to deal with.
As this discussion keeps bouncing between safety, warranty / quality, legality (tampering) and integrity concerns, I'm not sure that Tesla’s willingness to take your money (to have a new / replacement battery installed) would be in doubt.
Are Tesla any happier with salvage parts remaining ’in the fleet’ than salvage vehicles?
While safety is very important, so too is meeting claimed performance levels at a stated price. In a major sub-assembly like the battery (a misleading name imo since battery in my mind refers to a group of cells while our car hv batteries are far more complex than that) there are many potential points of failure that effectively render the whole 'energy module' (aka battery) useless to typical owners - as well as devaluing the car it is part of. Why should it be ok for Tesla to decide that an identifiable hardware issue within a complex sub-system can be remedied by changing the specifications / performance to mask the issue?
AFAIK there is no way for an owner to retain the (substantial) value of their own specific 'battery' in the event of an internal component / board fault while remaining assuredly within the Tesla approved system. You should not have to turn to the dark side or wait a couple of years plus several months recalibration to (arguably) get back what you paid for.
Imagine being obliged to write off an ice motor because it needs valve stem seals or replacement timing belt / tensioner or water pump. Would it be ok to tell the owner to increase their journey times or use thicker lubricants to mask the problem? Not that any one has done so, but talking about 'battery failure' or 'issues' makes it feel like the same discussion could be had about a conventional 12v battery as the traction energy pack / battery. You would not say that a 12v battery had failed just because the starter won't crank due to corroded battery terminals. It would be unacceptable for a manufacturer to weld the hood shut 'because it's dangerous in there' which would effectively make the battery terminal corrosion terminal for the car unless the owner breaks the warranty seal / weld! But imo there is an element of that with Tesla's approach to traction batteries.
Imo this all highlights gaping holes right at the heart of Tesla's offering. (previously mentioned need for battery core charge and regulations for tweaking software without clear rules / disclosure)
And I would accept that some batteries have been replaced under warranty, but is that part of a transparent, accountable process?
Last edited:
Basically any Audi V6, V8 or V10 from 2003 forward it's a engine out job to replace tensioner - so many are being totaled on that account. But just because others are doing it, Tesla does not have to do it. I agree with your point.
Which is a good example of why I don't have such a vehicle! We don't want EV's to be burdened with the same stupidity, especially allowing ev’s to retain some eco-credibility.
I still remember the EV's are more reliable and have a lower cost of ownership than ice cars. Wow that statement did not age well. Neither did the best warranty claim.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
None but does an aftermarket battery replacement limit functionality?
lightningltd
Member
Nope. I have not seen over 70KW (and only for a second before it drops to 67) since charge gate started
This matches exactly what I'm getting now vs what I was getting last week on my 2018.28.5 build.
Supercharging sessions are increased in time about 30%. Really hope Tesla is fine with me watching 30% more videos on Netflix
Last edited:
Thanks, looking forward to these adaptions! While we're at it, when selecting the data for SuC sessions per Firmware, I have different data for Model:
S 85
S 85D
S P85
S P85+
S P85D
I would like to select all of them to be shown in one graph if possible.
BR! Oaito.
PS: While looking at my post I realized there is one calculation off, somehow I am not able to change the post anymore. This is the correct one:
Similar threads
