They say "does not have any other impact on vehicle". That's not correct. In the case of P85 folks, it reduces the horsepower of the car. Since that was the whole reason that most people bought a P model, that is a very bad outcome. For me, it's almost trumps range as an issue. Hopefully that issue will also be brought up in the lawsuit.
-
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
Same BS they have been telling everyone thanks for sharing and I am sorry your affected. May want to joint the class action ?
You asked for data, here's the data.You are a good candidate who can actually show it. You are not impacted and claim 295 wh/mi is still intact. Show your numbers for each data point @DJRas is presenting. Please. Like they say, show us your 295
This is over 2 years of data and even though I have had seen continuous degradation in the last 2 years (but not voltage capped), you can see that the “multiplier” has been very steady. In other words, my rated miles have always been calculated the same way.
For non-performance AWD cars like mine, the multiplier is supposedly 290, not 295, and the precise average number for my car is 287.
While this is Remote Tesla data, you can get the same information directly from a charging session, or using the energy app, although with less precision in the numbers since Remote Tesla gives fractional values in rated miles and kWh.
Now it's your turn to show your 295.
EPA testing involves driving the vehicle until it literally shuts down due to lack of energy. This results in a certain Wh/mi multiplier, maybe this is where 295 is coming from. HOWEVER, Tesla displays the EPA range when new but Tesla's 0 is not the same as EPA's zero (shut down). Per Musk, there is some drivable range (10-15 miles?) past zero. In order to do this, Tesla would have to choose a multiplier that is lower than the one determined by its EPA test. I believe this is why the EPA multiplier and rated range multiplier are materially different, and why Tesla's is lower. Tesla has basically built-in a reserve after 0. To compare with EPA multiplier, you'd have to drive your car past zero until it shut down and then use that mileage/multiplier for comparison.
Tesla tried a similarly deceptive tactic by reducing Ludicrous speed without telling anyone under the guise of protecting the suspension from accelerated wear. This happened a couple of years ago I think? Owners were in an uproar and Jon McNeil addressed the issue by saying Tesla will reverse course. This alone tells us that Tesla is willing to take away range and performance without our permission in order to reduce warranty claims. Tesla tried it before and reversed itself. The difference here is that a battery pack is a lot more expensive to fix under warranty than a control arm.
The more we dig the more this thing smells. Given how strongly Tesla is stonewalling customers and that its chief counsel is not even willing to negotiate with the class action, I believe there is a serious underlying issue with the majority of batteries and admitting to the issue would be an existential threat to Tesla financially. There is no other scenario that makes sense given Tesla's stunning silence on this matter.
John McNeil's departure and Tesla's inability to replace him with -anyone- is what started their overall decline. He used to participate in threads like this and at that time I remember thinking the decision to screw over Ludicrous owners was Elon's and the cooler head that prevailed was McNeil's. Without him, Tesla has now owner advocate and customer service has tanked. There are no more cooler heads explaining to him that this will end badly.
tesla wont admit to anything as it would sink them. they claim any adjustments were made OTA to address battery safety- a feel good answer to make people think" awww look they care about us owners".
I have seen this type of answer a million times from many companies and even goverments when enacting rules and changes-"for the children" mantra comes to mind.
Its reasonable that people should be concerned with throttles SC speeds and capped batteries they PAID TO HAVE UNCAPPED.
jkennebeck
Member
If you own a car as described in the lawsuit you're actually already in it until you opt out of it. I think that's how it works.
You can follow the case directly here:
Docket for Rasmussen v. Tesla, Inc., 5:19-cv-04596 - CourtListener.com
Atty is edchenlaw.com
They aren't claiming safety either, that would sink them faster than admitting to theft. The NHTSA requires Tesla to notify them and us of safety problems and harshly punishes companies that don't follow procedure - Honda was fined $1,000,000,000 because the NHTSA believed they knew about a Takata safety issue report it. Tesla not reporting their own issues is much worse. This is why Tesla only admitted to the safety problem once before changing the story to a mysterious and undefined "it's for longevity of the battery" fiction.
The other part of the issue is that the EPA number includes charging losses, while the range calculation in the car from the battery should not.
You asked for data, here's the data.
This is over 2 years of data and even though I have had seen continuous degradation in the last 2 years (but not voltage capped), you can see that the “multiplier” has been very steady. In other words, my rated miles have always been calculated the same way.
For non-performance AWD cars like mine, the multiplier is supposedly 290, not 295, and the precise average number for my car is 287.
While this is Remote Tesla data, you can get the same information directly from a charging session, or using the energy app, although with less precision in the numbers since Remote Tesla gives fractional values in rated miles and kWh.
Now it's your turn to show your 295.
View attachment 456644
Thanks for your attempt.
I asked you (read my post again) to show your corresponding values for what @DJRas presented here, not a chart with tons of data points, none of them are the 295 you were claiming before nor the 290 you are claiming now (except maybe one ~289 I see). All of those dots on your chart, with that one exception, are way below your new 290 value.
Try again and report back. If that's too much for you, buy @DJRas a nice dinner he can explain all that you
I'm attaching my S85 monroney. It does not say anything about 295. It does say the car can go 265 miles and rated as 38 kWh per 100 miles.
I believe the 295 multiplier was revealed per wk057's discovery that the usable S85 capacity was
78/265 = ~295
On Edit: the EPA's 38kWh/100mi yields 380wh/mi (not 295)
Attachments
Last edited:
DJRas
Member
Well... I agree with a lot of what you say.
BUT, the EPA TEST data was not even close to the 295 number.
The TESTING showed 380 Wh/mil (38kWh/100 miles).
We KNOW the car does not enough kWh to get 265 miles at 380 Wh/mile (100.7 kWh)
The 295 comes from calculating from the the Monroney label EPA range and knowing we had about 78 kWh usable.
It was later discovered by Jason who found the number in the source code.
So you show 65.9/223 = 295.5 Wh/rated mile. Are you impacted by voltage capping?
I wouldn't mind meeting to discuss this although I don't know if reading my car would provide any new information. I have TM-Spy so I can already read my voltages and pack value. I tried to get Scan My Tesla but it doesn't work with my OBD adapter.
DJRas
Member
That is the quirk of the arthritic.
The Wh per mile is ONLY usable kWh 61.9/223 = 277.6
You will find the ~276 number will be close all the way to 5% SOC using ScanMyTesla data.
The rated miles remaining and SOC will also track EXACTLY to the IC displayed data all the way to 2%
DJRas
Member
The problem (IMHO) with TM-Spy is that it includes the 4kWh buffer so the SOC does not track anywhere below 100% SOC.
The divergence is REALLY BAD at 5% SOC on your IC TM-Spy will show 11% but 4kWh are unusable.
Robbie said: ↑
Just to compare numbers...
Using Scan My Tesla, my battery info shows 65.9 kWh Nominal full pack, 61.9 kWh Usable full pack (understanding there is 4 kWh reserve), 223 Full rated miles, and 258 Full typical miles (presuming this is ideal miles). I've got 123k miles, lots of supercharger use. May 2015 build.
61.9/223= ~278 wh/mi
Just to compare numbers...
Using Scan My Tesla, my battery info shows 65.9 kWh Nominal full pack, 61.9 kWh Usable full pack (understanding there is 4 kWh reserve), 223 Full rated miles, and 258 Full typical miles (presuming this is ideal miles). I've got 123k miles, lots of supercharger use. May 2015 build.
61.9/223= ~278 wh/mi
ran349 said: ↑
So you show 65.9/223 = 295.5 Wh/rated mile. Are you impacted by voltage capping?
Droschke said: ↑
61.9/223= ~278 wh/mi
ran349 Disagreed!
------------------------------------
@ran349
You disagree? What do you disagree with?
Don't let the facts distract you. The infamous 295wh/mi was calculated based on the usable kWh (the 78kWh). How many times that needs to be repeated for you?
It's OK to be wrong once in awhile, it's even better to accept and move on.
On Edit: included the ran349's post.
Last edited:
I'm sorry, did I leave the impression I was disagreeing with anything? I don't disagree with anything he said.
I was just throwing out more numbers for info. As a matter of fact, my numbers support the .295 Wh / mile: 65.9 kWh / 223 miles = .29551569....
Ooops, sorry Droschke I misread this and thought you'd thought I was disagreeing rather than being disagreed with. Carry on..
Last edited:
Similar threads
