Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[Keshk]

As has been outlined in a number of examples in this thread alone, and across the TMC forums, there are a significant number of owners of older 85 battery cars that are not affected by firmware changes, including recent updates.

You continue to make spurious claims to the contrary. Request : could you please tone down your claims and focus on what you do know? I don't have an issue with you staying on old firmware due to your own personal reasons (which are not backed by fact), but claims that staying on old firmware is advantageous for the health of the car battery are not factually backed up.



Another unsubstantiated claim. It is not practically proved that your charging methods have had any positive or negative effects on your current battery capacity.

As I noted previously (and you well know), my original "A" pack early 2013 Tesla S85 has 97%+ original capacity and this hasn't changed at all in the past 4 years even with our charging to 100% many times per month and daily charging to 90% . Our weekend trip also saw some of the best supercharging rates we've experienced, it was perfect weather though, so there are lots of variables in play.

I am just trying to keep your contributions to this thread on a factual basis, and stop with the claims, especially with respect to your specific (and personal) choice to stay on older firmware.

This is amazing. You blaming others of making spurious claims. How on earth you make a claim "As has been outlined in a number of examples in this thread alone, and across the TMC forums, there are a significant number of owners of older 85 battery cars that are not affected by firmware changes, including recent updates."
Who are you to say that, and on what basis?

 

[hpartsch]

Is there a separate thread for the update and slow supercharging?.... My car is on 2019.28.2 and the fastest supercharging I now get is ~75. I tried two different chargers - both of which I previously got 125 from. My battery was warm and had a low SOC (10%). I don't supercharge/dc charge much. My car only has 64k miles on it. I have not noticed any loss in range since the update but this slow supercharging stinks...

 

[Droschke]

This is amazing. You blaming others of making spurious claims. How on earth you make a claim "As has been outlined in a number of examples in this thread alone, and across the TMC forums, there are a significant number of owners of older 85 battery cars that are not affected by firmware changes, including recent updates."
Who are you to say that, and on what basis?

I see you still have no reply back.

Usually this is how it works: a claim is made out of the air with qualifications such as "a significant number", for instance, and when it's challenged to be proven, the poster goes mute, only to show up few days later with another instance. We have seen various examples of this behavior since the inception of this long thread. What I still can't understand is toward what goal?

The same poster, interesting enough, made a big deal out of one of one of the impacted owners' post when a zero was missing in the post and was highly critical of it since, according to the poster, it was not accurate. But, here, "a significant number of owners" are not affected should just be enough to state with no proof to back it up what so ever!!!

We are facing a real and a highly unpleasant situation with our cars being capped with no explanation from the manufacturer. That's a fact, but something too foreign and unfamiliar nowadays, albeit not necessarily about cars but in general. It used to be 2+2=4. Nowadays, it can be 5 because there are "a significant" number of people out there who say so. That's basically what we are dealing with.

To consider the number of the impacted owners in this thread as the metric for the total number of impacted cars is simply foolish.

Another tactic is this: I'm not impacted and you say you are. So, there is something you have been doing wrong with your car

Or this one: all this is normal and trust the manufacturer because they are there to protect you

On, and on, and on ...

The good thing is that the truth will come out, soon or later.

 

[bhzmark]

make any sense is a particular vendor or batch of cells themselves was faulty or maybe a factory line manufacturing defect of some kind spanning years .

I suppose it could be a defect —- that spans many years and only affects a small %. But that seems unlikely and not how usually bad batches of parts show up as bad after being used in the manufacturing process.

More likely it is just statistical bad luck — a weird unlucky combination of usage and environment. Why did your garage door opener start making that extra noise? Why did the hinge start creaking on your bathroom door? Why did the dishwasher start cleaning the dishes poorly? Sometimes stuff just wears out more than others.

to say that, and on what basis?

On the basis of being a competent reader of the English language? Able to read all the people who simply say, “I have an old battery and the update didn’t change my battery”

 

[Guy V]

I count @wk057 as a source of information.

As wk057 now declines to provide us information because he is unwilling to risk consequences, presumably from Tesla, you are indeed uniformed.

 

[bhzmark]

As wk057 now declines to provide us information because he is unwilling to risk consequences, presumably from Tesla, you are indeed uniformed.

He gave plenty of information -- easily available for those who bother to pay attention, and as many took the time to specifically acknowledge:

 

[Guy V]

He gave plenty of information -- easily available for those who bother to pay attention.

He provided veiled and suggestive information regarding unidentified conditions Z and X, and implied he had further significant information which he was advised in his own best interest not to reveal. His information is suppressed and incomplete.

If that is all you have, you are as the rest of us, woefully uninformed. You actually know NOTHING about whatever problem is going on with these batteries, just as Tesla apparently intends.

 

[bhzmark]

He provided veiled and suggestive information regarding unidentified conditions Z and X, and implied he had further significant information which he was advised in his own best interest not to reveal. His information is suppressed and incomplete.

If that is all you have, you are as the rest of us, woefully uninformed. You actually know NOTHING about whatever problem is going on with these batteries, just as Tesla apparently intends.

I found his posts informative, as did others.

 

[David99]

Is there a separate thread for the update and slow supercharging?.... My car is on 2019.28.2 and the fastest supercharging I now get is ~75. I tried two different chargers - both of which I previously got 125 from. My battery was warm and had a low SOC (10%). I don't supercharge/dc charge much. My car only has 64k miles on it. I have not noticed any loss in range since the update but this slow supercharging stinks...

I kind of started one here
Supercharging classic 85, or what's left of it

I saw a gradual decline in supercharging speed for a while. Actually over the years. Then recently, there was another significant drop in charge rate. If you read through the thread you'll find a post where I graphed out that additional drop. It seems, though that all old cars are affected. This issue here is limited to a relatively small number of cars. The charge speed reduction at the supercharger is happening to all old cars.

 

[Guy V]

I found his posts informative, as did others.

His circumspect posts are the closest thing to real information any of us have received.

Do you have any idea how shamefully, pathetically sad that really is?

Is there any basis at all for anyone to believe now that Tesla won't, without any substantive justification or information, cap/restrict/reduce their battery capacity or capability at any time?

Is it any wonder there is a lawsuit to at least uncover what is going on here?

 

[sorka]

I found his posts informative, as did others.

As did I but he didn't actually disclose what he knew or suspected. What he actually said was that he was pretty sure he knew what was going on, but wanted more data to confirm it. Folks sent him data, but he never actually confirmed anything due to not wanting to burn bridges at Tesla.

 

[bhzmark]

As did I but he didn't actually disclose what he knew or suspected. What he actually said was that he was pretty sure he knew what was going on, but wanted more data to confirm it. Folks sent him data, but he never actually confirmed anything due to not wanting to burn bridges at Tesla.

He said a lot more than that and the search function can easily reveal exactly what he said. This is boring.

 

[sorka]

He said a lot more than that and the search function can easily reveal exactly what he said. This is boring.

Funny, I was just about to say the same thing to you

 

[Evoforce]

@bhzmark, what is your passion on this? What is making you so determined to present your view when you are seemingly unaffected by what this thread is about?

 

[Droschke]

@bhzmark, what is your passion on this? What is making you so determined to present your view when you are seemingly unaffected by what this thread is about?

There is a known personality trait as it applies to the online forums. You can look it up what drives that sort of passion.

Mentioning the name of that trait is apparently not allowed on this forum, but allowing the individuals with that trait who endlessly spew their drivel is! Go figure.

 

[Chaserr]

Just block whoever it is you all are replying to. Accounts that amuse themselves by antagonizing people are best ignored.

 

[MP3Mike]

More information from WK057:

Question:

curious, would you take one of the batteries apparently voltage capped by the recent software update?

Answer:

Probably, but would have to pull the diag data on it first to be sure. So far the ones I've examined can still be repurposed away from the Tesla BMS, with the possible exception of one out of the 16 modules.

So it sounds like in rare cases there is one module that he considers "bad" in the capped packs.

 

[Droschke]

More information from WK057:

Question:


Answer:



So it sounds like in rare cases there is one module that he considers "bad" in the capped packs.

I read the thread.

So far the ones I've examined can still be repurposed away from the Tesla BMS, with the possible exception of one out of the 16 modules.

He is not saying how many capped packs he has examined, but regardless of whatever that total is I read it as he has found at least one bad module in all those capped packs, is that how you read it?

 

[DJRas]

More information from WK057:

Question:


Answer:



So it sounds like in rare cases there is one module that he considers "bad" in the capped packs.

That only one of the 16 modules is affected is what I have been supposing. This gives Tesla a much more manageable replacement scenario where they only need to replace one of every 16. Thus, their warranty cost os only 6% of what it would be if they had to replace all 16.

 

[MP3Mike]

He is not saying how many capped packs he has examined, but regardless of whatever that total is I read it as he has found at least one bad module in all those capped packs, is that how you read it?

No, because he says the "possible exception of one". I read that to mean that most of the time all 16 modules are usable, but there is a possibility that one might not be.