-
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
My point was more that this is unrelated to battery chemistry, so dates of battery chemistry changes aren't the endcaps, it's whenever these BMBs were revised to no longer have this defect.
If WK057 is correct, then there never was any safety risk. The super old firmware would detect this issue and protect against it, but not show any reduced range to the user and would not prevent the car from getting to a voltage range that would cause it to shut down if the voltage sense error happened while it was in that range.
I'd have to re-read his writeup for the exact details, here is the link to it
Explaining Changes post-firmware 2019.16 Regarding Range Loss | wk057's SkieNET
wk057 project siteskie.net
EDIT: Just skimmed it again. It all makes sense to me, except one thing. Why would they limit the UPPER voltage, if the erratic readings read LOWER voltage than actual. Having an erratic reading at the bottom makes sense that it would shut the car down, but how does limiting the upper voltage do anything? Not sure.
Only thing I can think of is if they're unsure of that voltage reading then it could be that the lower erratic voltage is the correct one, and the more consistent, higher voltage is actually the incorrect one. And with enough data they can know which the voltage actually is using the algorithm they made.
Also, if they're only capping the upper voltage, wouldn't the car still shut down if there was an erratic reading at the low end? Or did they also increase the minimum voltage? Or possibly ignore erratic low readings?
Thanks for your edit. The upper voltage was capped. Like you said, the upper end misreading was a concern and can potentially cause overcharging and fire. This was about the fire safety from day one. Others have tried to spin this.
According to the graph on there, the erratic reading would read a lower voltage, but generally the correct voltage was read. If the correct voltage was being read most of the time, there is no risk of exceeding the safe upper voltage.
Given that, I'm just confused on why they limited the upper voltage. Thinking about it some more, if the upper more consistent voltage was incorrect, and the lower voltage was correct, and you charged the upper voltage to 4.2V then you are STILL below the safe upper voltage, since the actual voltage is lower.
EDIT again: Actually at the bottom of the FAQ, he does say that erroneous readings that read higher than actual are possible, but more rare. That would explain the upper cap. If there was any concern that the consistent reading was actually incorrect and the blips of higher voltage were correct. That means you would need to charge so that the higher blips were 4.2V which would put the consistent (and what we now know to be the actual voltage) reading to be lower than 4.2V.
That must have been the cause of the voltage cap. But since the readings were erroneous there wasn't actually any safety risk, just a concern that later turned out to not be real, which is why they removed the voltage caps.
Last edited:
If the upper voltage was being read lower than actual, the car would overcharge above the safe upper limit.
I have a 2013 S85 with 150k miles on it now. Using the technique described in post #1 of this thread, I have 61.8 kWh of capacity. My max range is about 212 miles.
You mean you did not amend your lawsuit to include chargegate? This seems like a most basic oversight on the class action's part. Tesla got a really sweet deal from people who did not demand enough. Restoration of range and/or $625 is a pittance and an insult. What you think you can get and what you actually get have nothing to do with fact and reality, and everything to do with how well you can bully the other side. Too bad none of that happened here, and too bad the plaintiffs negotiated with themselves and left everything on table.
I'm sorry to say that, at least from this side of things, the lawsuit appears to have been severely bungled. Nobody applied any public heat to Tesla over this. The results could have been so different if a proper, aggressive law firm had handled this case. Pfft.
Last edited:
Was that ever the case?
You have a consistent reading, and then there are the blips.
You have two scenarios, the blips could be a lower voltage, or (more rare) a higher voltage than the consistent reading.
- If the blips are lower voltage readings, there is no fire risk, since no matter which one is the actual voltage, you won't overcharge the battery.
- If the consistent reading is actual, then you won't overcharge since it is reading that most of the time.
- The blip will show that the voltage is lower and you could charge more, but since it's just a blip the real reading will return very quickly and set charging complete.
- If the blip is actual voltage, then the consistent reading is too high and when it reaches 4.2V and stops charging, the actual voltage is below that.
- If the consistent reading is actual, then you won't overcharge since it is reading that most of the time.
- If the blips are higher voltage readings, there is a potential fire risk if the blip is the correct voltage, since the consistent lower voltage is lower than actual voltage.
- If the consistent reading is the actual voltage, it won't overcharge the battery and the blip may just cause it to stop charging early
- If the blip is the actual voltage and the consistent reading is below actual, then it could overcharge the battery
- How often do the blips occur?
- If they occur pretty frequently then you'd actually reach charging complete with an extremely small amount of overcharging and there would be no fire risk
- If they don't occur often, and the BMS does not remember them, then yes, you could overcharge
- How often do the blips occur?
But what we know now is the consistent reading is the actual voltage. The blips are erroneous readings to be filtered out.
So, there was no actual fire risk. There was just a concern of a fire risk. How quickly did they figure out this out? If it was very quickly then that makes the lack of communication not quite as bad (but yes still bad).
Because of David’s hard work and his dedication to this legal pursuit, while we were all sitting around and watching/arguing, many impacted owners have their lost capacity restored or their packs replaced (see the stats under "The latest" in post#1, right on the top). David also got Tesla to admit they have intentionally capped our upper voltage. Furthermore, David explained:
We are very grateful to David for what he has done for us (the impacted owners, even though I've never read you are one).
Will be watching AmpedRealtor vs. Tesla Chargegate class action soon
? Right?Will be watching AmpedRealtor vs. Tesla Chargegate class action soon
I'll need to refill my popcorn for this one. They uncapped the charge rate on the 75, 90, and 100 packs, but not on the older packs.
Thanks for your detail analysis. I do not have a solid argument to offer against the different scenarios you have outlined.
Many of us have speculated that the capping was out of fire safety concerns. Whether it was actual fire risk or just a concern for fire risk we do not have the facts for. Only Tesla knows. In fact it does not matter which one was the trigger to release the update. In either case, it was for the fire safety reason, which we said from day one. The good news is that the cars seemed to be much safer now.
Thanks David for your hard work, nice Tesla admitted the cap but with #chargegate still an issue, looks like I will be getting rid of my car at the end of the month 
With full thanks to David for his class action, I think this settlement is very pathetic. What Tesla did was to convert my car from a Travel car to a town car. I bought my 2016 S70 to do long distance travelling, which I did until Spring of 2019, Now, I can not use practically for any out-of-town travel due to capping and significantly due to charging time. That is not what I bargained for !!!!!!
aerodyne
2 of 3 EV's - Defect Free!
BigNick
Infamous Fat Sweaty Guy
Or HellMoose, but that won't fit on a license plate (but neither will HellPony in most states, and most states probably won't allow "Hell" anyway.)
Trust me, I know it’s high and I’ve raised the issue with Tesla at least 10 times. Once they even told me that I qualified to get a new battery only to reverse that decision a day later. The range loss has been consistent since year one. I’ve lost 6-8 miles per year.
Funny thing is that they admin to it, nut then state that this settlement is no admittance on Tesla's part, huh hahaBecause of David’s hard work and his dedication to this legal pursuit, while we were all sitting around and watching/arguing, many impacted owners have their lost capacity restored or their packs replaced (see the stats under "The latest" in post#1, right on the top). David also got Tesla to admit they have intentionally capped our upper voltage. Furthermore, David explained:
We are very grateful to David for what he has done for us (the impacted owners, even though I've never read you are one).
Will be watching AmpedRealtor vs. Tesla Chargegate class action soon
Lawyer talk got me thinking to never sue anyone unless its only me and not class action. So could we technically not take this settlement and sue them individually?
"If you choose to opt-out of a class action, you will not be able to claim part of any settlement funds or court award that results from the case. Before opting out, you may want to talk to an attorney. He or she can help you weigh the pros and cons of opting out of a particular lawsuit."
Opting Out of Class Actions | ClassAction.org
Click here to learn what it means when consumers choose to opt out of a class action lawsuit.
www.classaction.org
Similar threads
