It's all under post#1 of this thread. Use the link under "The Latest Docket Entries" and read the Settlement — Document #49 (26 pages).
-
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
It's all under post#1 of this thread. Use the link under "The Latest Docket Entries" and read the Settlement — Document #49 (26 pages).
aerodyne
2 of 3 EV's - Defect Free!
Sorry to hear that. I have a slight cap, in that when the car says it is at 100% SoC, I'm only at 99.6% per SMT. About 4.19 V per string.
Unless conditions are ideal, does not pay to go over 93% anyway.
doctorwho
Active Member
Tesla has restored my voltage but has crippled my charge rate at Superchargers. This has a far greater impact for me personally as, when not in lockdown) I Supercharge regularly in my weekly 330km commute. It takes me an hour to Supercharge from 20-80%
aerodyne
2 of 3 EV's - Defect Free!
Tesla has restored my voltage but has crippled my charge rate at Superchargers. This has a far greater impact for me personally as, when not in lockdown) I Supercharge regularly in my weekly 330km commute. It takes me an hour to Supercharge from 20-80%
You are not alone. I'll bet most 85 packs are affected by this.
As mentioned earlier somewhere on this thread, nav to SuC to enable pack heater, and using a 250kw stall will improve things slightly, when I do I see 90Kw at 25% SoC.
SMT is helpful as it shows pack temp and projected max charge power.
Got it. Thanks. It seems we can view the settlement document here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.345967/gov.uscourts.cand.345967.49.0.pdf
If these were Tesla's statements in depositions, they appear to be false.
"Tesla’s data show that 1,743 Model S vehicles in the United States were subject to a 10% maximum voltage limitation caused by a May 2019 software update. See July 27, 2021 Declaration of Sean P. Gates (“Gates Decl.”) ¶ 2. A subsequent update in July 2019 restored about 3% of the battery voltage in these vehicles, and a third update released in March 2020 is designed to fully restore the batteries’ voltage over time as the vehicles are driven. Id. ¶ 3. The restoration has proceeded as planned and, to date, Tesla’s data shows that of the 1,722 vehicles for which there is data, 1,552 have had their maximum battery voltage fully restored, 79 have been restored to between 95.5% and 99%, and 34 have been restored to between 93% and 95.5%. Id. ¶ 4. The maximum voltage on the latter vehicles should continue to be restored over time as the vehicles are driven. Of the remaining vehicles, 57 have had battery replacements. Id. Ready access to data from the final 21 vehicles is not available (not unusual for older vehicles), but the data above shows that the update works as planned and there is no reason to doubt that the voltage restoration update will work similarly in these vehicles. Id. ¶ 5. In sum, Plaintiff’s Counsel’s investigation confirmed that the voltage limitation was temporary, with a 10% reduction lasting about 3 months, and a smaller 7% reduction lasting another 7 months before the corrective update was released in March 2020. Following that second update, the vehicles’ voltage showed steady restoration over time."
10% maximum? Nope
Restored? Nope
Temporary? Nope
Data not available [to Tesla?] False.
The update works as planned? Nope
What's worse is that the document claims the "Plaintiff's Counsel" believes this.
aerodyne
2 of 3 EV's - Defect Free!
The voltage limitation does not correlate to the limitation of capacity.
Cell string at zero is 3V. Cell string at 100% is about 4.2V.
A 10% reduction in string voltage would be about 3.8V. that would equate to a capacity reduction of approx 30%.
I do believe some card have had capacity restored with new updates and many charges over time. In my case the improvement is very small, so I can't say for sure.
I also believe some cars do not have their capacity restored. In this case, SMT should show the string voltage to be well under 4.2V, and I think Tesla owes those cars a new pack.
zzzzoeffff
Member
At this Point it is obviously clear that Tesla has discovered a potential issue with all 85 models and is doing everything within the 'legal' warranty limits to prevent disaster (read: fire). That by doing so, they totally ruin the usability of the car, is of no interest to them. My car has been limitedhard and has now come back to 70% capacity. On top of that supercharging is capped. My car had no capacity % limit in it's warranty, but Tesla is now stating that it still has good COC (>70% ). I believe all new Tesla Cars have this 70% limit written in their warranty but not the old 85.
I have started a legal procedure against the software limitation but the first response from Tesla legal are close to surreel. Tesla claims they are allowed to make any change they want in firmware... and as long as they battery is 'good' the warranty is not needed.
I keep saying this: spread the word on social media about this Tesla attitude. Short term it Will make the 85 worth less, but long term this is the only way to Force Tesla to FIX it and make the 85 the unique long term runner it is supposed to be!
I have started a legal procedure against the software limitation but the first response from Tesla legal are close to surreel. Tesla claims they are allowed to make any change they want in firmware... and as long as they battery is 'good' the warranty is not needed.
I keep saying this: spread the word on social media about this Tesla attitude. Short term it Will make the 85 worth less, but long term this is the only way to Force Tesla to FIX it and make the 85 the unique long term runner it is supposed to be!
There are class actions suits ongoing in Norway and Denmark. At this point Tesla has agreed to/admitted that the charge rate is lowered, but claim that you can not look at one specific part of the many SW updates they make. You have to look at them as a whole and the go on listing among other things, games and entertainment. If it did not affect so many legacy owners, it would be outright comical. Without being lawyer I would expect a clear win in both Norway and Denmark. The big question is if Tesla will just turn up the charge rate again, or if it is going to be a monetary compensation?
trayloader
Member
Question is- why do cars with older software, read 2019 and before, show not limitation, neither in charging, nor in end voltage? Even the balancing of this cars shows nothing out of spec.
Why?
Why?
trayloader
Member
I saw it first hand, in both of the cars service mode and external Canbus reader apps.
Why should I doubt this?
Why should I doubt this?
aerodyne
2 of 3 EV's - Defect Free!
Another thing to try if still under warranty, is to get the most out of your range by charging to 100% and then close to Zero. You might blow a module, and get a newer design 350v pack that will restore range and charging speed.
I'll just chime in again to reiterate that this entire issue has nothing whatsoever to do with fires.
The newer 350V "85" packs are a catch 22, IMO. The lower voltage means ~12% higher current required for the same performance, adding additional wear to HV components.
This is terrible advice, since nothing related to charging to 100% and using the full capacity can "blow a module". You're just going to degrade the pack faster, and Tesla explicitly disclaims capacity loss due to degradation in the warranty the applies to all 85s.
The newer 350V "85" packs are a catch 22, IMO. The lower voltage means ~12% higher current required for the same performance, adding additional wear to HV components.
Literally everything on the HV bus.
Want to cruise down the highway at 20kW? ~50A on an original 85, ~60A on the new 85.
Want to supercharge at 120kW? ~300A on an original 85. ~350A on the new 85.
DCDC need to put out 1kW on the 12V rail? ~2.5A on an 85, ~3A on a new 85.
Cabin heater a 5kW? ~13A vs ~15A.
Nail it for the same power on a Ludicrous car? Rear unit will be pushed to 1300-1400A, Front for the balance to make up the 12% missing power from the rear, plus it's normal use and its 12% loss, so performance feels the same.
The front drive unit on a dual motor car gets the bulk of the over use.
In all other cases, for the same power you're pulling at least 12% more current (likely more, since voltage drop is higher).
It actually worries me quite a bit that they push the RWD so much harder.
Want to cruise down the highway at 20kW? ~50A on an original 85, ~60A on the new 85.
Want to supercharge at 120kW? ~300A on an original 85. ~350A on the new 85.
DCDC need to put out 1kW on the 12V rail? ~2.5A on an 85, ~3A on a new 85.
Cabin heater a 5kW? ~13A vs ~15A.
Nail it for the same power on a Ludicrous car? Rear unit will be pushed to 1300-1400A, Front for the balance to make up the 12% missing power from the rear, plus it's normal use and its 12% loss, so performance feels the same.
The front drive unit on a dual motor car gets the bulk of the over use.
In all other cases, for the same power you're pulling at least 12% more current (likely more, since voltage drop is higher).
It actually worries me quite a bit that they push the RWD so much harder.
Wouldn't this be the same for a 70/75 vs a 85/90?, so it would be reasonable to expect that they have a lot of experience with higher current in normal use? The 'new' thing is that they deploy the 350V setup in performance vehicles like the P85 and P85D/L and P90D/L
They most have found some why to limit the internal resistance in the new 350V packs in order to get the same performance out of them in a P85D/L and P90D/L.
On the positive side, any P85D/L that will get a new battery on warranty will most likely be upgraded to the 1014116-00-B 90kWh and thereby a become a P90D/L
It's not the same because the 85 have higher performance than the 70/75... especially 85 dual motor and ESPECIALLY the dual motor performance 85. To keep performance the same, they have to push the hardware 12%+ harder.
Driving the same as pre-swap, its like automatically driving your car 12% harder than you were before. I feel like that's the opposite of how you should be treating major components of an aging vehicle...
The auxiliary stuff would be similar wear to a 70/75, but that still doesn't mean it's not additional wear vs what you originally bought.
The supercharging is additional wear, since the higher currents have to be maintained longer.
Theres dozens of reasons why this is actually a downgrade and the benefits don't really outweigh them IMO.
Driving the same as pre-swap, its like automatically driving your car 12% harder than you were before. I feel like that's the opposite of how you should be treating major components of an aging vehicle...
The auxiliary stuff would be similar wear to a 70/75, but that still doesn't mean it's not additional wear vs what you originally bought.
The supercharging is additional wear, since the higher currents have to be maintained longer.
Theres dozens of reasons why this is actually a downgrade and the benefits don't really outweigh them IMO.
Similar threads
