Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[sorka]

The range loss is a non-issue for most, but the reduction in Supercharging speed is not. That is lawsuit worthy because Tesla never, ever disclosed to buyers that Supercharging speeds would be reduced over time—something they must have known at the time but did not disclose. We can apply the batterygate arguments to chargegate, i.e., if it is related to a potential hazard or degradation issue then it is a defect. Reducing charging speeds is just another way to avoid warranty claims just like with batterygate.

I think it's fair to say that most of us expected to enjoy the promised supercharging speeds for the full ownership period. Anything else would require knowledge of batteries, electrical systems, etc., and that is well beyond the understanding of most Tesla customers. Bottom line: Tesla lied to early owners and has gotten away with it.

The way Tesla has treated us early adopters—once Tesla no longer needed us—has been utterly horrific. Elon should spend less time barefoot and pregnant in interviews and more time figuring out how to stop lying and screwing customers. Unfortunately, the only way to do that is to hit him where it hurts financially.

I'm pretty sure FSD will spell the end of Tesla. The tech is going to kill people, regulators will get involved, and flaws/shortcuts/lack of QC will be found everywhere. That is, after all, Elon's calling card. Elon continuing to foolishly and irresponsibly push FSD beta is the single best bet at Tesla getting the regulator smackdown.

I can predict how Biden's administration will handle something like this and I personally can't wait!

And it's not like they can claim that it's the age of the batteries or miles and not the software. Since I held on on V9/V10 for years keeping V8 until only just last month, I have multiple supercharging sessions graphs just days before the MCU2 / V10 upgrade and just after showing the 130 combined is now at 110 combined. It had nothing to do with a change in the battery.

Had I not babied the miles the first 4 years to squeeze as much bumper to bumper warranty time, I would have had 200K miles with V8 and before and have enjoyed normal charge speeds for many more miles than the 125K miles had when I switched to V10.

But I am compensating quite well. I now always supercharge at my local charger in Merced when I'm grocery shopping to 80% and then on a long trip out of town, I charge the rest of the way at home to 100% even if I only needed 60% to get to the next supercharger. This reduces the amount of time I spend at the first supercharger on the trip.

On our trip to Disneyland next month, when we stop for that one meal half way, instead of charging to 75% and then moving the car and coming back to finish my meal with my family, I'll just keep the slider at 100% and charge to or nearly to 100%.

It's harder on the battery but it's the only way to compensate for slower charging speeds.

I'm also charging very little at home now. Tesla has taken something from me and I'm going to squeeze every dollar out of the supercharger network for the next two years before my warranty expires.

Then it's back to gas. Hoping the Z06 initial demand bump is over by then.

 

[aerodyne]

Statistics show otherwise.

I agree with a lot of what amped said, but a few fatalities because of faulty FSD will probably not outweigh the lives saved by autopilot to date.

IMO, Elon's behavior will be the downfall of Tesla if it happens.

 

[Pruitt]

The range loss is a non-issue for most, but the reduction in Supercharging speed is not. That is lawsuit worthy because Tesla never, ever disclosed to buyers that Supercharging speeds would be reduced over time—something they must have known at the time but did not disclose.

The assertion that Tesla knew they would have to reduce charging speeds is laughable speculation. The use of massed batteries at that scale had never been done before in a wide spread endeavor like Tesla automobiles, which would support exactly the opposite conclusion, in fact. And I'm speaking an an engineer who spent his career on the leading edge of many different technologies. Breaking new ground technologically nearly always results in unanticipated problems and solutions.

We can apply the batterygate arguments to chargegate, i.e., if it is related to a potential hazard or degradation issue then it is a defect.

Making that argument in court will be a sure loser. Tesla hopes the plaintiff's attorneys are that stupid, I'm sure!

The way Tesla has treated us early adopters—once Tesla no longer needed us—has been utterly horrific. Elon should spend less time barefoot and pregnant in interviews and more time figuring out how to stop lying and screwing customers. Unfortunately, the only way to do that is to hit him where it hurts financially.

Here I completely agree with you. If Tesla had been open with us about what was happening as it happened, the whole scandal (and they turned it into a scandal by their refusal to be upfront about it) would have an entire different complexion. I think most of us would have been much less upset and more understanding had they just been honest with us.

 

[cpa]

The assertion that Tesla knew they would have to reduce charging speeds is laughable speculation. The use of massed batteries at that scale had never been done before in a wide spread endeavor like Tesla automobiles, which would support exactly the opposite conclusion, in fact. And I'm speaking an an engineer who spent his career on the leading edge of many different technologies. Breaking new ground technologically nearly always results in unanticipated problems and solutions.

Therein lies the rub. We'll stipulate that "breaking new ground technologically nearly always results in unanticipated problems and solutions." Since you spent your career on leading technology edges, would you make promises to potential customers that you knew could very well result in these unanticipated problems? If your answer is in the affirmative, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you would have a sensible and equitable solution should any problem creep up.

Instead, Tesla had no contingency plan other than to increase Supercharging times from 1 1/2 to double depending upon the weather. Some of us feel that Tesla intentionally misrepresented Supercharging speeds as a marketing ploy in order to sell more cars in furtherance of their brand. Personally, I would not have purchased a Tesla in 2014 if their materials said that "you can fill your battery from 20% to 70% in as little as 40 minutes!" Road trips would have become interminably slow if a two-hour leg was followed by a 40-50 minute charge. Twenty to twenty-five minutes felt right, and it was a sacrifice I was willing to make.

In my opinion, what Tesla did with their Supercharging software and promotional materials is unethical and immoral. It is unclear if the engineering profession and licensing standards have any sort of ethics requirements that could result in license revocation. And, I think it is about time to license and regulate software and hardware engineers. If civil, mechanical, electrical, and geologic engineers need to be regulated to protect the public, it is high time to require the same for the software and hardware trades.

But I would never consider a pacemaker or other key medical software or hardware if it ever had a Tesla label.

 

[JRP3]

But I would never consider a pacemaker or other key medical software or hardware if it ever had a Tesla label.

"We are slowing down your heart rate in order to extend the life of your pacemaker"

 

[Pruitt]

Instead, Tesla had no contingency plan other than to increase Supercharging times from 1 1/2 to double depending upon the weather.

They had no contingency plan because they had no idea the batteries would develop problems as they aged. Tesla's battery management system is very sophisticated because the Tesla engineers who designed it incorporated protections against basically everything that was known to happen to those types of batteries as they age. They had no real reason to think never-before-seen issues would come up. To reemphasize - The problems for which Tesla throttled the charge rate had never been seen before.

Some of us feel that Tesla intentionally misrepresented Supercharging speeds as a marketing ploy in order to sell more cars in furtherance of their brand.

To be guilty of misrepresentation Tesla would have to have known they would need to throttle supercharging speeds on their batteries in the near future. Since there was no knowledge base from which to work, they couldn't have known. As the problems had never been seen before, there was no real way to anticipate them.
Here's an illustration of my point. Back in the mid 1980's some company (I don't remember the name) developed a new aluminum alloy with some very specific characteristics (this happens frequently). As it turned out, this alloy had one very unique, and completely unanticipated characteristic (which rendered it unsuitable for its intended use) - it dissolved in water! (no, I'm not kidding). It was written up in Design News. Similarly, Tesla's batteries age in ways that were completely unanticipated, because batteries had never been configured and used in that way before.
So you may feel that Tesla intentionally misrepresented supercharging speeds, but...

In my opinion, what Tesla did with their Supercharging software and promotional materials is unethical and immoral.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. But all Tesla did was paint their vehicles' characteristics in the most positive light as the state of the art was known at that time. If that's unethical and amoral, then everyone who has ever pitched a sale of anything is guilty of the same thing.

(What was so egregious and I agree possibly unethical was how they ignored the owner base after they learned about the problems and blithely emasculated all our vehicles without even a "How-de-do." And now that their understanding of the issues is more complete, they're restoring much of the lost charging rates, with a kind of "Nothing to see here, All is well, Let's move along" attitude).

It is unclear if the engineering profession and licensing standards have any sort of ethics requirements that could result in license revocation.

It's very clear to anyone who actually knows anything about the profession. Ethics is BIG part of retaining a professional engineering license. If you are charged and found guilty of unethical behavior, you lose your license and your right to offer engineering services to the public. Period.
But working for a manufacturing company does not generally require an engineer to have a license.

 

[AustinP]

But I would never consider a pacemaker or other key medical software or hardware if it ever had a Tesla label.

about pacemakers:

“In the 1970s, results of an Oregon study indicated that 10% of implanted pacemakers failed within the first month.[4] Another study found that more than half of pacemaker complications occurred during the first 3 months after implantation.”
Source: Pacemaker failure - Wikipedia

it’s probably useless to reply here to the disappointed owners (or previous owners) but can’t help it.

you either see the bottle half full or half empty I guess.

I don’t know what the very early adopters got before 2015, I can only share what I got and saw:
- incredible sales experience: no push, fun, gifts (2 baseball caps for the kids) even before I was decided
- above and beyond service: small shop but fridge full of various sodas, candy’s...
- lot of coolance and courtesy repairs, even for damage caused outside of warranty.
- premium connectivity that was first for 4 years turned to be unlimited
- special offers like free ludicrous upgrade a few years back for trade in old one

Everyone is entitled to its opinion and can be vocal about it.
Mine is that Tesla was groundbreaking and key to the EV adoption.

If the disappointed ones by Tesla can shop for a decent EV like etron or Taycan or ipace or ID.3/4, it’s -by my book- thanks to Tesla and the buyers who supported them by buying and driving their cars.
I’m not happy about slower SuC but I was never told it would be eternally fast. Indeed I was not told otherwise either.

I believe in honesty and my opinion is that Tesla at that time did not know either and learned with us.

 

[Florian500]

I just don't care if the pack has foreseeable or completely unknown new problems. They made a promise

source: https://www.tesla.com/de_DE/blog/creating-world’s-best-service-and-warranty-program-0

 

[AustinP]

Here is the link for the original English version:

https://www.tesla.com/blog/creating-world’s-best-service-and-warranty-program-0?redirect=no

Again, everyone is free to interpret to fit their point of view.

To me this dates from April 2013, way before significant data point from the fleet were available. But more importantly, the context is about warranty replacement of failed batteries. Failed as in car not able to move anymore. It’s not talking about working batteries with less capacity than new or slower SuC speed.

 

[Droschke]

The problems for which Tesla throttled the charge rate had never been seen before.

What do you think those problems are, especially if they "had never been seen before"?

 

[Droschke]

gifts (2 baseball caps for the kids)

fridge full of various sodas, candy’s

thanks to Tesla and the buyers who supported them by buying and driving their cars.

Do you realize all your liking of the list above is utterly off topic here?

 

[aerodyne]

Should be moved to a new thread, "Gradual loss of customer service quality since 2018"....

 

[Lukez]

I don't feel like digging up dates but I'm pretty sure I remember they slowed Supercharging pretty early on (sure beginning max kw was same but the charge curve changed) but they still advertised the "how long does it take to charge" calculator on the website based on the brand new don't need to reduce your curve rate and time

 

[Florian500]

I don't feel like digging up dates but I'm pretty sure I remember they slowed Supercharging pretty early on (sure beginning max kw was same but the charge curve changed) but they still advertised the "how long does it take to charge" calculator on the website based on the brand new don't need to reduce your curve rate and time

This one?

 

[JRP3]

I'm sorry, but if there are unanticipated problems then I as a customer, who was promised a thing of value, should be made whole.

This is true, and I'd also point out that it was well known in the battery world that faster charge rates would prematurely degrade cells. When Tesla announced unlimited Supercharging some of us speculated that they must have found a solution to the problem. Certainly aggressive cooling was part of it, maybe special additives as well, but obviously whatever they thought didn't work out as planned.

 

[Dave EV]

On our trip to Disneyland next month, when we stop for that one meal half way, instead of charging to 75% and then moving the car and coming back to finish my meal with my family, I'll just keep the slider at 100% and charge to or nearly to 100%.

IMO, unless the Supercharger is full or nearly full and you would be preventing someone from plugging in, I would do that anyway simply out of convenience.

The number of times that you charge to high SOC is so small compared to what happens during daily use, that the effects of any additional degradation due to it are minimal and lost in the noise, especially considering you'll be driving off immediately and reducing the state of charge, anyway.

For those that obsess about minimizing the rate of degradation, it would be nice to have a "long-life" Supercharging profile where maybe the car charges somewhere between 70-80% of the maximum "safe" charge rate.

Not that any of this would have had an effect on the changes to the charge profile and capacity retention as discussed in this topic.

I think it would still be interesting to know exactly why the maximum charge rate has been capped so much. It's interesting how the 85 kWh packs will very briefly peak for a few seconds at a quite acceptable charge rate of 105-110 kW, but then quickly ramp back down to 90 kW or less. Why the head fake? Is the BMS picking something up that indicates that the extra charge rate is not OK?

 

[sorka]

IMO, unless the Supercharger is full or nearly full and you would be preventing someone from plugging in, I would do that anyway simply out of convenience.

The number of times that you charge to high SOC is so small compared to what happens during daily use, that the effects of any additional degradation due to it are minimal and lost in the noise, especially considering you'll be driving off immediately and reducing the state of charge, anyway.

For those that obsess about minimizing the rate of degradation, it would be nice to have a "long-life" Supercharging profile where maybe the car charges somewhere between 70-80% of the maximum "safe" charge rate.

Not that any of this would have had an effect on the changes to the charge profile and capacity retention as discussed in this topic.

I think it would still be interesting to know exactly why the maximum charge rate has been capped so much. It's interesting how the 85 kWh packs will very briefly peak for a few seconds at a quite acceptable charge rate of 105-110 kW, but then quickly ramp back down to 90 kW or less. Why the head fake? Is the BMS picking something up that indicates that the extra charge rate is not OK?

Along the "long life profile" idea, it would be cool if there was just a "I'm not in a hurry button" or a "I'm going to be at this location for x hours and minutes" so that if the supercharger is NOT full and there's no chance it's going to be anywhere near full based on current destinations of other teslas, then they could charge nice and slow when you don't need the speed or slow enough to handle what you need for the time you're going to be stopped. If suddenly a bunch of drivers punch in that supercharger as their destination when they're already 10s of minutes out, that slow charging could be automatically upped to maximum so there's not a waiting inconvenience by someone.

 

[cpa]

I think it would still be interesting to know exactly why the maximum charge rate has been capped so much. It's interesting how the 85 kWh packs will very briefly peak for a few seconds at a quite acceptable charge rate of 105-110 kW, but then quickly ramp back down to 90 kW or less. Why the head fake? Is the BMS picking something up that indicates that the extra charge rate is not OK?

I don't know a thing about software and how it is written, designed, or implemented.

Perhaps Tesla merely augmented their original software for cars like ours, and it takes a few seconds for the BMS to go through all its calculations, comparisons, or other repetitive functions before concluding that the allowed maximum charge rate for our vehicles is much less than the absolute maximum charge rate. Hence it drops precipitously.

This procedure occurs at any SOC at any temperature. I've plugged it at ~35% with 65 degree temperature to see the kW ramp up to about 70 before sliding down to ~50-55 and oscillating up and down a couple kW before slowly locking in and declining as the battery fills.

 

[Florian500]

This procedure occurs at any SOC at any temperature. I've plugged it at ~35% with 65 degree temperature to see the kW ramp up to about 70 before sliding down to ~50-55 and oscillating up and down a couple kW before slowly locking in and declining as the battery fills.

can confirm

plug in at 33%

plug in at 18%

 

[Droschke]

"The cars’ groundbreaking over-the-air updates mean users can be subject to sudden performance changes if products become out of date — like battery throttling for which Apple has come under fire."
. . .
"Tesla had taken about 40 miles of range off his used Model S, which began with 265 miles, in what Tesla said was an effort to protect the battery. The update also slowed down charging times, ... "
. . .
"That issue, among others, led to a lawsuit from Tesla owners who allege the company issued software updates that reduced range, lengthened charging times and ultimately cut into the value of their vehicles. The plaintiff named in the 2019 class action complaint, David Rasmussen, 64, of Victorville, Calif., said his used Tesla Model S went from 252 miles of rated range to 217 miles following the software changes. And he said some owners tried to find workarounds to resist software updates."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/05/14/tesla-apple-tech