Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[Droschke]

There continue to be views and counter views distortions.

There ^^^, I corrected it for you

Distortion:
"The action of giving a misleading account or impression.
synonyms: misrepresentation, perversion, twisting, falsification, misreporting, misstatement, manipulation"

 

[Ferrycraigs]

There ^^^, I corrected it for you

Distortion:
"The action of giving a misleading account or impression.
synonyms: misrepresentation, perversion, twisting, falsification, misreporting, misstatement, manipulation"

Thank you, but a bit like Obi-Wan Kanobi, I’m not sure distortions is the word I am looking for. As long as Tesla remains silent on the matter, all we can have are assumptions, deductions and suggestions. One person’s assumption may be X, another's Y. Or put another way, views and counter views.

 

[Droschke]

There continue to be views and counter views. One view is that BMS is there, amongst other things, to detect what is happening in the battery and react accordingly. When it detects something, it reacts. I agree. We have seen the charge rate slowed down, and I understand normal tapering whilst DC charging is designed to protect the battery. There was a proposal that capping the battery was just BMS reacting to finding something. I can accept that, up to a point. Going as far as changing the cell voltage seems, to me, to be quite a big step. I wasn’t aware of any other instances where the BMS action was to change the cell voltage. But just because I haven’t read about it doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened. Is anyone aware of any other EV where the cell voltage has been capped in this way? ie it is a novel approach by Tesla or is it an unusual method that has actually been tried by other EV manufacturers?

There is a wound. A Band-Aid was put on the wound. We want to know what the root cause of the wound is. What process/method was used to mask the wound is irrelevant.

 

[Droschke]

Thank you, but a bit like Obi-Wan Kanobi, I’m not sure distortions is the word I am looking for. As long as Tesla remains silent on the matter, all we can have are assumptions, deductions and suggestions. One person’s assumption may be X, another's Y. Or put another way, views and counter views.

Nup, distortion of the facts have been repeatedly presented here. You are just more diplomatic than me

 

[bhzmark]

So I have 11 miles of degradation. Are you telling me that if I take v9 and lose another 30 miles of range because my capacity is being capped to 85% of what is still remaining that the existing capacity that I can no longer use is because the battery was degraded more than was showing up before the update?

Why do you think your battery has condition Z? Seems imprudent to not take the latest software to maximize longevity, and as some think, safety. Seems really stupid to think that you know better than the Tesla engineers as to what is best for your BMS for battery longevity and perhaps safety. Even if the voltage cap isn’t related to safety, perhaps other changes that we don’t know about were. Fail to update at your own risk.

Name one other product where the top SOC charge was revised downwards after it was shipped. I'll give you one to start....Note 7.

Revising things after they are shipped is pretty much a unique Tesla phenomenon. Wait until other OEMs get around their restrictive dealer agreements and laws — they will do it all the time. And my prior reference to battery university referenced applications where they lower the max voltage in industrial application to maximize longevity. But I understand some people are afraid of novelty and change and are wedded to their prior conceptions and get upset when new things happen, even if, overall, they are better.

what has happened to them suddenly is not consistent with what has been normal

Exactly — and that novelty is what causes so much upset. If the BMS system had been designed that way in the first place, to taper the max voltage as condition Z was detected (assuming condition Z isn’t binary) there would be a lot less upset. The only difference is expectations.

uninformed" because Tesla has NOT informed us

I count @wk057 as a source of information.

, no one except Tesla knows what the Condition Z really means.

As I explained before @wk057 seems to know more than he is revealing and likely knows exactly, or at least generally, what condition Z is.

I understand Tesla’s need to keep proprietary information secret and it will always be a delicate navigation between communication with owners and keeping competitive advantage. THat’s life. It doesn’t make me upset.

 

[jerry33]

Exactly — and that novelty is what causes so much upset. If the BMS system had been designed that way in the first place, to taper the max voltage and condition Z was detected (assuming condition Z isn’t binary) there would be a lot less upset. The only difference is expectations.

And experience. Obviously, if Tesla would have know about this condition it would have been done that way to start with.

 

[MikeyC]

Condition Z is like the old Zika virus. The vast majority of people don't have it, but even those who don't would like to know what causes it and if there are steps they can take to prevent them from getting it in the future. I would think an intermediate olive branch from Tesla would be to define what Condition Z is, let people know if there are certain things (like charging methods) that can be used to reduce the likelihood of "contracting" the condition down the road, and inform owners of newer cars whether or not their cars could come down with this condition in a few years... or if it is limited only to older models.

Mike

 

[Droschke]

Condition Z is like the old Zika virus. The vast majority of people don't have it, but even those who don't would like to know what causes it and if there are steps they can take to prevent them from getting it in the future. I would think an intermediate olive branch from Tesla would be to define what Condition Z is, let people know if there are certain things (like charging methods) that can be used to reduce the likelihood of "contracting" the condition down the road, and inform owners of newer cars whether or not their cars could come down with this condition in a few years... or if it is limited only to older models.

Mike

Very much agreed. The Zika virus is a public safety issue. I believe condition Z is also a safety issue for which Tesla applies software to band-aid it (even though it might require removing the diseased organ, the diseased batteries). Looks to me, Tesla, like lots of public health entities, denies the severity of the risk to avoid public panic, and in hope of the band-aids would heal the wound. We have seen these scenarios before.

 

[Droschke]

I saw a speculative number of about 5000 batteries suffering from condition Z.

Let's assume the real solution is to replace them. Do we even know if Tesla has 5000 compatible batteries in stock to do the the replacements?

 

[Chaserr]

There is a wound. A Band-Aid was put on the wound. We want to know what the root cause of the wound is. What process/method was used to mask the wound is irrelevant.

This is the perfect analogy.

All we know for a fact is that volts were taken away (the band aid) and we're left to guess at the wound. Is it fatal? Is it a bruise? Why is the bandaid so huge we can't move our legs?

 

[bhzmark]

There are also battery conditions A-X that we don't know about -- and the BMS quietly monitors all of them. I don't need to know about A-X, or about Z. I have better things to do and prefer to outsource that function to experts. So I am relieved that Tesla (unlike other BEVs) can monitor and address battery issues with very little lag time.

There is a price to pay for being on the cutting edge of technology -- allowing the mfr to continually optimize their product over time is one of them. Sometime the optimization will provide for higher discharge rates (that happened to me, twice, making the car faster each time) and sometimes lower charge rates (the taper is continually being optimized). Decreasing range is something I knew would happen. I'm agnostic as to how that comes about, but there is good reason to believe that it will aim for the optimal balance among range, performance and longevity and safety. And adjusting that aim is to be expected.

In my calculus the relatively minor costs of bleeding edge tech are greatly outweighed by the benefits.

 

[Droschke]

I don't need to know about A-X, or about Z. I have better things to do and prefer to outsource that function to experts.

Addressing this kind of pretense, a fellow member has already asked:

So you put the interests of some nebulous group of shady people you don't know above fellow owners who are experiencing a hardship?

On Edit:
@Ferrycraigs: Please don't Obi-Wan_Kanobi me on this There were lots of thoughts put into this one, you know

 

[Keshk]

There are also battery conditions A-X that we don't know about -- and the BMS quietly monitors all of them. I don't need to know about A-X, or about Z. I have better things to do and prefer to outsource that function to experts. So I am relieved that Tesla (unlike other BEVs) can monitor and address battery issues with very little lag time.

There is a price to pay for being on the cutting edge of technology -- allowing the mfr to continually optimize their product over time is one of them. Sometime the optimization will provide for higher discharge rates (that happened to me, twice, making the car faster each time) and sometimes lower charge rates (the taper is continually being optimized). Decreasing range is something I knew would happen. I'm agnostic as to how that comes about, but there is good reason to believe that it will aim for the optimal balance among range, performance and longevity and safety. And adjusting that aim is to be expected.

In my calculus the relatively minor costs of bleeding edge tech are greatly outweighed by the benefits.

This issue has NOTHING TO DO with bleeding edge and all that c....
The issue is a Contract law issue. Capping miles (and extremely slowing charge time) is not what affected party bargained for.

Not to mention, what "bleeding edge" are you talking about. Tesla cars have been there already 10 years. What bleeding edge !!

 

[Chaserr]

Ignore "Bleeding edge" it'svictim blaming that asserts Tesla is allowed to commit crimes and it's your fault for owning one.

 

[Droschke]

@Keshk
@Chaserr

The poster is just provoking. Look at how he switches personalities. Also, how the passages from some marketing literature are copy/pasted/modified to appear to be serious with the aim of provocation.

 

[Chaserr]

I assume so. I see the post above asking what they are talking about but never saw the original post so I made that determination long ago and fixed the problem already. I recommend everyone do the same.

 

[Droschke]

@Curious George - What's funny about what @Chaserr said? Can you let us know?

 

[Droschke]

I assume so. I see the post above asking what they are talking about but never saw the original post so I made that determination long ago and fixed the problem already. I recommend everyone do the same.

Good that you did not waste a second on reading the blabber. It was in the category of "Type 2".

 

[Evoforce]

I saw a speculative number of about 5000 batteries suffering from condition Z.

Let's assume the real solution is to replace them. Do we even know if Tesla has 5000 compatible batteries in stock to do the the replacements?

Back a little over 2 years ago, it took them a month to get me the loaner battery as they claimed there were none available.

 

[DJRas]

Friday I did a deep discharge and then full AC charge overnight.
I had 2.6% - 6 miles remaining when Igot home (1.7kWh - excluding 4kWh buffer).
I got to 99.2% - 224 miles (62.1 kWh - excluding 4kWh buffer).

Both of these number show the rated range is remaining capacity in kWh divided by 276 Wh/mile.

However, the charge screen and Teslafi both show 218 miles and 64.5 kWh added.
This comes out to 295 Wh/mile.

Since the BMS shows my car only has 62.6 kWh usable when full and had added only 60.4 kWh this is further proof manipulation of the Wh/mile.

Note that Teslafi also showed it took 70.2 kWh to charge to this level. So, the 64.5 reported did not include charging losses.