Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[krsgio]

Tesla repaired my DC to DC converter about 4 years ago. When the work was completed I asked for my old parts back. The service center manager explained to me that Tesla will not return old parts. I informed him that Tesla was breaking Florida law and as a Service Manager he should know that. I forwarded him a copy of the law. I got my old parts back. (paragraph 5) Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Good luck with that. It states right there...
"if the shop has no warranty arrangement or exchange parts program with a manufacturer, supplier, or distributor"
Tesla will say they are the manufacturer/supplier and the battery is part of a core exchange parts program.

 

[Gixx1300R]

Good luck with that. It states right there...
"if the shop has no warranty arrangement or exchange parts program with a manufacturer, supplier, or distributor"
Tesla will say they are the manufacturer/supplier and the battery is part of a core exchange parts program.

And there is no law stating that you must give a core to the service center or manufacturer but you do have the right by law to request your old parts to be returned if there is no warranty. I guess you missed the part were I stated I got my parts back

 

[islandbayy]

In Wisconsin, you must request your parts back before service starts, otherwise they are fair game. Tesla must state that there is a required core. If after requesting your parts back, service does not tell you there is a required core for the service, they MUST return the parts back, or be subject to "Double Damages", which allows you to recover twice your monitory damages, including court costs, and reasonable attorney fees.

 

[rns-e]

And there is no law stating that you must give a core to the service center or manufacturer but you do have the right by law to request your old parts to be returned if there is no warranty. I guess you missed the part were I stated I got my parts back

It's Tesla doing you a favor, Tesla buys you faulty item back from you so you can have your car repaired for less. It's not rocket science and comparable to brake rotor. You see the same with alternators, turbos etc. al items that can be renovated. You may be presented with a core charge that can be refunded if you let them keep the faulty alternator or turbo.

You can choose not to have them buy the faulty pack from you and accept that the new battery will be more expensive. This may be a profitable deal for you if you have a way of transporting the 500 kg pack and has something to use it for, but for 97,99999% of Teslas customers the fact that Tesla buys the faulty pack back is a big help.

The reason you want the faulty pack is because you know it has a value, and maybe Tesla should be more clear about the value of the faulty pack so you have an option, but I can't imagine it would be worth the hassle of selling it to others, as you have to find out what is wrong with the pack and how that fault will affect the value etc.

 

[islandbayy]

It's Tesla doing you a favor, Tesla buys you faulty item back from you so you can have your car repaired for less. It's not rocket science and comparable to brake rotor. You see the same with alternators, turbos etc. al items that can be renovated. You may be presented with a core charge that can be refunded if you let them keep the faulty alternator or turbo.

You can choose not to have them buy the faulty pack from you and accept that the new battery will be more expensive. This may be a profitable deal for you if you have a way of transporting the 500 kg pack and has something to use it for, but for 97,99999% of Teslas customers the fact that Tesla buys the faulty pack back is a big help.

The reason you want the faulty pack is because you know it has a value, and maybe Tesla should be more clear about the value of the faulty pack so you have an option, but I can't imagine it would be worth the hassle of selling it to others, as you have to find out what is wrong with the pack and how that fault will affect the value etc.

While I do agree, it brings the cost of the replacement down, my personal stance, is that Tesla needs to start following the law or at least be more transparent or honest. Every other dealer or mechanic shop I've dealt with in the past, including my own motorcycle shop, if a part had to be kept as a core, it was right on our original estimate.
I've flat out seen Tesla state that a part had to be kept as a core when someone requested it back (after paid service). For this example I will use a failed MCU. The MCU was replaced, Tesla kept the part stating it was a core, and then went and tossed the broken MCU in the trash. Sure doesn't look like a core to me.

 

[Gixx1300R]

It's Tesla doing you a favor, Tesla buys you faulty item back from you so you can have your car repaired for less. It's not rocket science and comparable to brake rotor. You see the same with alternators, turbos etc. al items that can be renovated. You may be presented with a core charge that can be refunded if you let them keep the faulty alternator or turbo.

You can choose not to have them buy the faulty pack from you and accept that the new battery will be more expensive. This may be a profitable deal for you if you have a way of transporting the 500 kg pack and has something to use it for, but for 97,99999% of Teslas customers the fact that Tesla buys the faulty pack back is a big help.

The reason you want the faulty pack is because you know it has a value, and maybe Tesla should be more clear about the value of the faulty pack so you have an option, but I can't imagine it would be worth the hassle of selling it to others, as you have to find out what is wrong with the pack and how that fault will affect the value etc.

Do you really think Tesla is doing favors? Then what is the cost of a brand new battery pack? Tesla will not sell you a new battery pack even if they put policies in place stating they would have to install that new battery pack. What is the core charge for your old battery pack? If a battery pack has 2 bad modules (in most packs) there are still 14 good modules. Each module has a value of at least $1200 each so that is $16,800 worth of modules and that does not include the electronics. So lets say that Tesla give you 50% of that cost. An 85kwh battery pack with 2 bad modules should be $8000 to $9000 for a core.

Some members here have been charged up to 22k for a replacement refurbished battery pack and Tesla kept the core. The math doesn't add up and in some cases Tesla is breaking state law.

 

[rns-e]

I agreed that Tesla should be more transparent with there being a core charge and I agree that Tesla in many many many situations are still learning that there are things you can do and things you can't do. It is clear that they focus almost solely on getting new cars to new customers. That is just times we live in at the moment, they are not sales limited, they are productions limited and therefore it is, at least on the short term, good business for them to do things the ways that is easiest for them, even if it's not within the law. I'm not saying it right, just an observation. That also means that if you want to be right, you need to speak lawyer, which is one of the native languages and a pillar of Tesla Customer Service.

But let's focus on the faulty battery pack and it's value. Today Tesla is taking the risk with the battery as they do not differentiate the price for your new battery based on the condition of the faulty battery. It may be the BMS, it may be a pack with 30% degradation and 3 faulty modules, you get the same price. If they were to do diagnose of the fault, open the battery at the service center etc. their cost will go up, and there is one to pay for that and that would be you.

I'm pretty sure you will lose if you went to court to claim your old battery, and Tesla will take this to court, I don't think they would settle this out of court.

Is Tesla the cheapest place to get a replacement battery, no, and dealer service centers almost never is. Then you have an alternative from WK057, Gruber and others, and they will also have a core charge. They are cheaper, which is good for you, and they are more upfront about the core charge which should serve as a good example for Tesla, but the bottom line is that there is a core charge and that makes good sense.

 

[Dave EV]

I recently upgraded a 2013 60 (real 60, not software locked) to an 85 for a customer, and their core pack was a Tesla refurb they purchased for ~$10k after taxes after suffering a failure. They originally quoted $14k, but after the customer went back and forth with them a bit, they somehow managed to "find" him this lower price on the replacement... which was invoiced exactly the same as the original estimate. Gets it back, and 100% charge on the refurb pack is 159 miles (~45 kWh). (184 on their original core pack before it had errors, which Tesla kept, and about ~202 is new.) After complaining to them about this, they basically said too bad so sad, and that they don't guarantee any particular capacity or capacity match on customer-pay refurb packs whatsoever, but under warranty they have to match them to within a certain margin. How sketchy is that? You pay them for a replacement pack, and you get the bottom of the barrel, but if it fails under warranty you get something better... maybe even new. Oh, and this pack won't even hit 20kW with dual chargers, and peaks at like 30kW at a supercharger for like 10 seconds before dropping to < 20kW. Heck of a screw job, IMO.

That's BS - IMO they shouldn't be selling any refurb packs below something like 75% original capacity (~200 rated miles on a "85" kWh pack) - packs that have lost that much capacity aren't likely to last much longer. Usually capacity and charging speeds start accelerating once they hit a certain threshold.

I guess the good news is that with a pack that degraded, you have a good chance of it dying within warranty so you can get another one.

But if Tesla is going to vary the cost depending on the "grade" of the pack, they should have a clear and published price schedule based on something like the percentage of capacity relative to a new pack. Or if not published, at least be able to tell you when you're trying to figure out if you want to buy a refurb or a new pack.

Whelp, S85 and got the dreaded warning yesterday, range reduced greatly and could not engine brake or charge.

After some time I finally managed to charge it back up.

Looks like module 7 has a defect, limiting the maximum charge to the 4.2V Cell-block.

What kind of range can I expect? The car tells me 48kWh and thus 200km. I expect the 3.578 will drop to, say, 3.2V and the car will just die on me way sooner? It looks like the voltages are getting more and more out of hand.

I would like to get to work tomorrow (70km). And I can only get to a Tesla using an appointment in the app in 3 weeks from now.

Also, I see getting a replacement battery means you are either lucky or not.

Thanks.

Yeah, that module is done. But with the pack that far out of balance, I wouldn't be surprised to see the car throw a big enough error code that shuts the car down completely. At 3.578 volts, those cells are at no more than 30-40% charged. Maybe you can make it 70km, maybe not. But try to keep the car charged as high as possible if you decide to go for it.

 

[islandbayy]

Agreed, but a SLOW rate charge might be able to bring it up enough while giving the BMS time to bleed of the other modules/bricks.

 

[wk057]

Whelp, S85 and got the dreaded warning yesterday, range reduced greatly and could not engine brake or charge.

After some time I finally managed to charge it back up.

Looks like module 7 has a defect, limiting the maximum charge to the 4.2V Cell-block.

What kind of range can I expect? The car tells me 48kWh and thus 200km. I expect the 3.578 will drop to, say, 3.2V and the car will just die on me way sooner? It looks like the voltages are getting more and more out of hand.

I would like to get to work tomorrow (70km). And I can only get to a Tesla using an appointment in the app in 3 weeks from now.

Also, I see getting a replacement battery means you are either lucky or not.

Thanks.

This looks like it could be a bad BMB and/or disconnected cell sense on cell 6, causing erroneous readings on cells 5 and 6... but the BMS has to behave as if this were a real reading. However it most likely knows this is a phantom reading and won't trigger issues based on the imbalance itself as it would normally.

You're going to be very limited, since it won't let you drive cell5 below ~3V and cell 6 above 4.2V, limiting you to maybe 10-15% usable capacity. You'll also lose almost all regen, since any regen will push the cell 6 reading through the threshold, making driving less efficient (so even less range).

Since one of the readings is a complete phantom reading, and the other is erroneous due to the missing adjacent connection, it could fluctuate at any time beyond the expected limits and leave you dead in the water.

I wouldn't drive it.

 

[Lewis88]

Thank for the replies. I agree it's very likely a loose sense wire or a bad or damaged AD converter / circuit. Interesting how both cells next to the sense wire location add and subtract some voltage equally (+-300mV). I took the car for a spin yesterday while it reported 200km and did not notice any strange behaviour, estimated range came down as expected, except the lack of charging/regen. Today it woke up with 57km of range and 12.8kWh left according to Scan my Tesla, so I decided to take my wife's car to work. I cannot possible get a hold of anyone with knowledge at Tesla (SeC Groningen The Netherlands), which is a bit awkward. All I get is some young woman telling me to keep driving it and wait for my appointment, which I ofcourse will not do. I guess I will just run down the door tomorrow. Thanks for having a look. I think the battery is still fine, but the tiny issue is hard to fix due to accessibility.

 

[wk057]

Yeah your main issue is that the BMS can't see the real readings of those two cells, so it has to behave as if they were real readings for the purposes of charging/discharging... leaving you with a very narrow window of usability which will only get worse with use.

I'm not sure why anyone at Tesla would tell you to keep driving it for three weeks............... I'd almost say go ahead and do that until it dies, and then complain to them that they said it was fine to drive... but, probably more of a headache than it's worth.

 

[jpvdheijn]

View attachment 785327

Thank for the replies. I agree it's very likely a loose sense wire or a bad or damaged AD converter / circuit. Interesting how both cells next to the sense wire location add and subtract some voltage equally (+-300mV). I took the car for a spin yesterday while it reported 200km and did not notice any strange behaviour, estimated range came down as expected, except the lack of charging/regen. Today it woke up with 57km of range and 12.8kWh left according to Scan my Tesla, so I decided to take my wife's car to work. I cannot possible get a hold of anyone with knowledge at Tesla (SeC Groningen The Netherlands), which is a bit awkward. All I get is some young woman telling me to keep driving it and wait for my appointment, which I ofcourse will not do. I guess I will just run down the door tomorrow. Thanks for having a look. I think the battery is still fine, but the tiny issue is hard to fix due to accessibility.

If you really have a problem which is critical then escalate at the SEC. Last Christmas I had a drive unit warning on my cluster. I scheduled a appointment in Tilburg but it was way to long until I was going to be helped. Then I called the support line explaining the issue also showing/communicating the error message on the screen and they were able to slot me in right away. If you cannot go to the SEC on short notice you should consider getting it towed there since the car will shut down and then it is a brick. Better to have the car in service and have a loaner instead of having it towed and you using your wifes car.

 

[hill]

I mean have they explained what makes it necessary to reduce the charge rate?

it's pretty simple as to why they did it. Charging really really fast and charging to a very very high capacity means your battery will lose capacity faster. That might bring about a valid warranty claim. You can understan once the "follow the money" principal is applied. it wouldn't be surprising if somewhere in the purchase contract boilerplate this phenomenon is now spelled out to prevent further successful class action lawsuits.

 

[AustinP]

it's pretty simple as to why they did it. Charging really really fast and charging to a very very high capacity means your battery will lose capacity faster. That might bring about a valid warranty claim. You can understan once the "follow the money" principal is applied. it wouldn't be surprising if somewhere in the purchase contract boilerplate this phenomenon is now spelled out to prevent further successful class action lawsuits.

My understanding from this long discussion is that
1) Battery capacity, as well as SuC speeds, were never guaranteed in anyway by Tesla contractually for the early S & X. This has changed for the 3, Y and more recent S & X with a minimum capacity, which is 70%. Nothing about charge speed to my knowledge.
2) The charge rate (SuC speed) reduction is to lower chances of failing batteries. Some will argue to avoid failures within the warranty period. Some will argue that it will extend the battery life way beyond 8 years, to the customer's benefit. History will tell.

 

[lgli]

My understanding from this long discussion is that
1) Battery capacity, as well as SuC speeds, were never guaranteed in anyway by Tesla contractually for the early S & X. This has changed for the 3, Y and more recent S & X with a minimum capacity, which is 70%. Nothing about charge speed to my knowledge.
2) The charge rate (SuC speed) reduction is to lower chances of failing batteries. Some will argue to avoid failures within the warranty period. Some will argue that it will extend the battery life way beyond 8 years, to the customer's benefit. History will tell.

When I buy a ICE car I do not need a guarantee against the car maker breaking into my garage and shrinking the fuel tank or partly blocking the filling pipe so that it takes half an hour to fill the tank. If that really is the case in the EV world the law makers are not up to speed.

 

[MP3Mike]

When I buy a ICE car I do not need a guarantee against the car maker breaking into my garage and shrinking the fuel tank or partly blocking the filling pipe so that it takes half an hour to fill the tank. If that really is the case in the EV world the law makers are not up to speed.

Take a look at this: Appeals Court Denies Prius Fuel Tank Class Action Lawsuit

Plaintiffs Henry and Veronica Troup alleged in the class action lawsuit that the Prius models were manufactured with a flexible fuel bladder rather than the standard steel or plastic gas tank, which causes the bladder to shrink in cold weather and reduce the amount of gas the tank can hold by nearly half the advertised capacity. The plaintiffs alleged Toyota had failed to meet standards for express warranty, but the 9th Circuit ruled that the basic warranty protected buyers from “defects in materials or workmanship” and not design choices.

So Toyota did have a shrinking gas tank, and the courts would do nothing about it.

 

[lgli]

Take a look at this: Appeals Court Denies Prius Fuel Tank Class Action Lawsuit



So Toyota did have a shrinking gas tank, and the courts would do nothing about it.

Thanks, but Toyota didn't shrink the tank after the car had been handed over to the customer. Still a wrong decision since this is not a warranty issue. Toyota sold a different product to what was advertised, which is fraud, not breach of warranty.

 

[cpa]

I agreed that Tesla should be more transparent with there being a core charge and I agree that Tesla in many many many situations are still learning that there are things you can do and things you can't do. It is clear that they focus almost solely on getting new cars to new customers. That is just times we live in at the moment, they are not sales limited, they are productions limited and therefore it is, at least on the short term, good business for them to do things the ways that is easiest for them, even if it's not within the law. I'm not saying it right, just an observation. That also means that if you want to be right, you need to speak lawyer, which is one of the native languages and a pillar of Tesla Customer Service.

To amplify the sentiment of this statement:

For a publicly-traded company that has been actively manufacturing cars for about a decade (ignoring the roadster), this is disingenuous. RNS-E is correct in that Tesla is not sales limited, but rather production limited. This is no excuse for "learning that there are things you can do and things you can't do." There are individuals who have scores of years of experience in the automotive, manufacturing, service, and legal worlds. They know right from wrong.

Tesla's marching orders come from somewhere. Those who are at the top of the organization chart have chosen to ignore proper actions or to flaunt the rules. The reasons for this are only speculative at this point.

Many of us here let Tesla skate on many issues in the early years as Tesla was maturing as a company and was suffering loss after loss each quarter. Now, Tesla appears to be on solid footing. But they continue to exercise poor judgment in certain areas, and this is one of them. Time will tell if this eventually bites them in the backside, or if this becomes standard operational procedures for all upstart manufacturers of BEVs.

 

[rns-e]

Now, Tesla appears to be on solid footing. But they continue to exercise poor judgment in certain areas, and this is one of them.

If you look at the churn rate at senior level at Tesla you will see there is no solid footing. It may just be the lack business ethics that is one of the major reasons for the high churn rate.