Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[swegman]

Tesla owner lawsuit claims software update fraudulently

Problem is the article didn’t get widespread distribution so it has not been seen by a large group of people. Further, it does not dispute Tesla’s assertion that it only affects a small number of cars, or that the software update issued to address the issue has not returned the range that was taken.

We need nationwide reporting on this matter (along with the reduced charge rate issue that severely hampers the ability to do road trips) to get Tesla’s attention.

 

[cpa]

You can submit questions beforehand via say.com, and if they are voted to the top X Tesla answers them. Otherwise when they get to the Q&A section you have to line up at one of the mics and wait until you get to the front to ask your question. (And for both you have to be a shareholder.)

I might not correct with this, but here goes:

Once lawyers get involved, there is this arcane legal concept of privilege. What I tell my lawyer, and what my lawyer tells me is privileged, and to share any information with others outside this cozy bubble expressly waives this privilege.

I believe that if Tesla or Elon Musk were to address this issue publicly at the shareholders' meeting, any privilege between the 300 lawyers working on this case, and any Tesla employees who have any involvement with the lawsuit would forfeit this privilege and make much of their internal discussions discoverable.

Even if one of us were able to pose a question or two, the reply would be to the effect, "Legal counsel has advised us not to comment on pending litigation."

 

[Chaserr]

We can still ask if the reductions were applied for safety reasons. If they answer with a yes or no it's instantly helpful ammunition for our cause. If they say they can't answer due to ongoing litigation it helps the suit even more because they would only avoid answering a direct yes/no safety question if the answer self-incriminates them. They are avoiding the subject so no matter what is said, any answer gives us new information.... officially there is no safety purpose behind their motivations to cause software-damage to batteries, so the answer should be "no" with no legal issues. Answering no when the truth is yes is a felony, so they won't lie. We just need to ask the question.

 

[DJRas]

Problem is the article didn’t get widespread distribution so it has not been seen by a large group of people. Further, it does not dispute Tesla’s assertion that it only affects a small number of cars, or that the software update issued to address the issue has not returned the range that was taken.

We need nationwide reporting on this matter (along with the reduced charge rate issue that severely hampers the ability to do road trips) to get Tesla’s attention.

If you google Rasmussen Tesla lawsuit you can see how widespread it was, including several investor websites.
But, it needs to be brought up again in the media.

 

[mjmiron]

I have a friend i am trying to work through at Fox to get this publicized again more to come hopefully on that.

 

[DJRas]

So, I just found this about the fire in SF on May 3, 2019: (Thanks Sean!)

Tesla catches fire inside garage of San Francisco home

Posting this here partly for posterity, partly to seek advice from the Tesla enthusiast
community, since the company's response up to this point has left something to be
desired. I can give more context as needed, but the gist is, I drove my vehicle - a relatively
well maintained 2014 Model S with about 47k miles on it - from LA to SF on Wednesday
and parked it in my friend's garage, where it stayed undisturbed for approximately 28
hours until it apparently spontaneously combusted. (I was staying in a hotel downtown,
so didn't find out it was a total loss until this morning.) Importantly, it was powered off,
and unplugged - these friends don't own any EVs and I typically only charge at home or at
superchargers along the way, since I was one of the lucky ones with free charging for life.
Guess that's one way to cut that perk short...
Anyway, I'm very lucky my friends woke up when they heard a boom and smelled smoke,
and one of them grabbed a fire extinguisher and did a good job quelling the flames until
the fire department arrived and took over. There's some damage to the garage - the
concrete under the car is scorched and broken - but thankfully the house itself is fine, as
are all the people in it.
And now I get to drive a rented Nissan south tomorrow, because Tesla wouldn't provide
me a loaner, and no one wants to talk to me about replacing the vehicle even though
that's my main concern. I can't really afford to be out a $64k investment that I expected to
last for another five to ten years minimum, but I guess we'll see what happens when my
insurance and the Palo Alto office finish fighting over the remains.

 

[⚡️ELECTROMAN⚡️]

So, I just found this about the fire in SF on May 3, 2019: (Thanks Sean!)

Tesla catches fire inside garage of San Francisco home

Posting this here partly for posterity, partly to seek advice from the Tesla enthusiast
community, since the company's response up to this point has left something to be
desired. I can give more context as needed, but the gist is, I drove my vehicle - a relatively
well maintained 2014 Model S with about 47k miles on it - from LA to SF on Wednesday
and parked it in my friend's garage, where it stayed undisturbed for approximately 28
hours until it apparently spontaneously combusted. (I was staying in a hotel downtown,
so didn't find out it was a total loss until this morning.) Importantly, it was powered off,
and unplugged - these friends don't own any EVs and I typically only charge at home or at
superchargers along the way, since I was one of the lucky ones with free charging for life.
Guess that's one way to cut that perk short...
Anyway, I'm very lucky my friends woke up when they heard a boom and smelled smoke,
and one of them grabbed a fire extinguisher and did a good job quelling the flames until
the fire department arrived and took over. There's some damage to the garage - the
concrete under the car is scorched and broken - but thankfully the house itself is fine, as
are all the people in it.
And now I get to drive a rented Nissan south tomorrow, because Tesla wouldn't provide
me a loaner, and no one wants to talk to me about replacing the vehicle even though
that's my main concern. I can't really afford to be out a $64k investment that I expected to
last for another five to ten years minimum, but I guess we'll see what happens when my
insurance and the Palo Alto office finish fighting over the remains.

Does he say he is long TSLA, or short TSLA?

 

[jkennebeck]

If they say they can't answer due to ongoing litigation it helps the suit even more because they would only avoid answering a direct yes/no safety question if the answer self-incriminates them.

Disagree. If their counsel advised them not to discuss anything to do with a pending lawsuit, that "no answer" doesn't PROVE there is a safety issue. Wish that weren't true but I think that's how it goes.

 

[jkennebeck]

So, I just found this about the fire in SF on May 3, 2019: (Thanks Sean!)

Tesla catches fire inside garage of San Francisco home

Did Tesla make him whole? Do we know the outcome yet? I'm certain that his car insurance would cover replacing it then they could go after Tesla for building a faulty battery?

 

[MP3Mike]

And now I get to drive a rented Nissan south tomorrow, because Tesla wouldn't provide
me a loaner, and no one wants to talk to me about replacing the vehicle even though
that's my main concern. I can't really afford to be out a $64k investment that I expected to
last for another five to ten years minimum, but I guess we'll see what happens when my
insurance and the Palo Alto office finish fighting over the remains.

Did Tesla make him whole? Do we know the outcome yet? I'm certain that his car insurance would cover replacing it then they could go after Tesla for building a faulty battery?

The Tesla warranty is very clear that they cover the cost of a Tesla that suffers a battery fire, unless it was intentional. So his insurance shouldn't have to do a thing. But, maybe the issue is that the warranty had expired on the car, and I don't know that the battery portion of the warranty covers fires?

After reviewing the reddit thread I see that the third party relaying information said that the owner of the car would go to the media if Tesla didn't satisfy her in a couple days, and that was 4 months ago. So I assume since we didn't hear anything in the news about this that she was able to resolve the issue with Tesla.

 

[DJRas]

Did Tesla make him whole? Do we know the outcome yet? I'm certain that his car insurance would cover replacing it then they could go after Tesla for building a faulty battery?

I am still trying to track him down

 

[Chaserr]

Disagree. If their counsel advised them not to discuss anything to do with a pending lawsuit, that "no answer" doesn't PROVE there is a safety issue. Wish that weren't true but I think that's how it goes.

Their counsel would never advise them to commit felony fraud, and if it's an undisclosed safety issue that's what not answering at all would be. They absolutely must declare safety concerns in all circumstances without exception, ongoing litigation is no excuse. If it later becomes known they are aware of a safety issue at the time the question is asked, just avoiding the question like that becomes ad admission of guilt. The point of asking is it puts them on the spot - they either choose to go on the record as knowingly and criminally in the wrong or they choose to do the right thing.

I am still trying to track him down

NDA'd probably. This happened in week 14 of 2019, the downgrade firmware is 2019.16 - they rushed a firmware that caused our downgrades after a rash of these fires (The China one on video was only a week earlier).

The big cluster of fires all at the same time and a massive over reaction is almost making me think an earlier 2019 firmware caused the damage and 2019.16 was an attempt to roll it back and hide the damage from cars that were already affected.

If Tesla caused the recent fire cluster with a firmware update they might not know what cars would catch fire - but they would know which cars got the update that might make them catch fire and that's the sort of thing that might explain the random distribution of cars and why some low miles never-supercharged cars are lumped into the same "test group" as high miles regularly supercharged cars. When were the faster 145kW regular supercharger speeds supposed to be rolled out pre-chargegate? Did we get it? I don't remember, but maybe a pre-2019.16 precursor that allowed the BMS to cause damage is the trigger. Or maybe that plus supercharging... Someone earlier in this thread had a battery replaced and had the new battery downgraded when they upgraded firmware - could that have happened because the earlier battery had the "test group" update conditions?

I don't log my firmware dates and versions - do any of you have detailed records? to compare with one another? If we all got a low-percentage distribution, or we all supercharged on a low-% and unaffected cars didn't, maybe we can use the data to find Tesla's unethical test group criteria.

 

[DJRas]

Their counsel would never advise them to commit felony fraud, and if it's an undisclosed safety issue that's what not answering at all would be. They absolutely must declare safety concerns in all circumstances without exception, ongoing litigation is no excuse. If it later becomes known they are aware of a safety issue at the time the question is asked, just avoiding the question like that becomes ad admission of guilt. The point of asking is it puts them on the spot - they either choose to go on the record as knowingly and criminally in the wrong or they choose to do the right thing.



NDA'd probably. This happened in week 14 of 2019, the downgrade firmware is 2019.16 - they rushed a firmware that caused our downgrades after a rash of these fires (The China one on video was only a week earlier).

The big cluster of fires all at the same time and a massive over reaction is almost making me think an earlier 2019 firmware caused the damage and 2019.16 was an attempt to roll it back and hide the damage from cars that were already affected.

If Tesla caused the recent fire cluster with a firmware update they might not know what cars would catch fire - but they would know which cars got the update that might make them catch fire and that's the sort of thing that might explain the random distribution of cars and why some low miles never-supercharged cars are lumped into the same "test group" as high miles regularly supercharged cars. When were the faster 145kW regular supercharger speeds supposed to be rolled out pre-chargegate? Did we get it? I don't remember, but maybe a pre-2019.16 precursor that allowed the BMS to cause damage is the trigger. Or maybe that plus supercharging... Someone earlier in this thread had a battery replaced and had the new battery downgraded when they upgraded firmware - could that have happened because the earlier battery had the "test group" update conditions?

I don't log my firmware dates and versions - do any of you have detailed records? to compare with one another? If we all got a low-percentage distribution, or we all supercharged on a low-% and unaffected cars didn't, maybe we can use the data to find Tesla's unethical test group criteria.

I doubt am update caused the failure. But, I know people that have updated all along, supercharged and still unaffected.
Here are all of my udates since June 2017.

 

[sorka]

No, I still have all my range. They just slowed the max charge rate down and made the taper very aggressive.

Probably a V1, though I'm guessing. The car was new in March 2016, shortly after the 90's first came out (I think), with whatever pack was being produced at that time.

Hmm. The 90 was introduced in July of 2015. I believe the V2 was shipping in March of '16. Still you'd need V3 to not have the capping counter.

 

[sorka]

Definitely not a V1. V1 was 2012 and some early 2013

There was no 90 pack in before July of 2015.

 

[sorka]

I don't log my firmware dates and versions - do any of you have detailed records? to compare with one another? If we all got a low-percentage distribution, or we all supercharged on a low-% and unaffected cars didn't, maybe we can use the data to find Tesla's unethical test group criteria.

Anyone that has Teslafi will have that data. I've been on the same version of software for 398 days

 

[jaitch]

No. But if you're fans are screaming in the summer then yes.

What's worse is that it does a system check and if the car determines a louver is stuck, you won't get full charging even in the winter when it is cold and the louver would never have fully opened anyways. So if you have the issue and it isn't warm enough to open them, then you can't tell until it's warm enough to run your fans high where you can see they aren't opening.

I notice today that both the louvers (or louvre for search purposes) will open and you can check yourself by getting the car to do its no key wake up check thing:- after car has not been used for a while (asleep I guess) press door handle with no key present; rear tailgate lock clicks; 20 seconds later main contactors click; both front coolant pumps then run (listen in each wheel well - not sure if all have two pumps but I do) and both louvres cycle to open and back to closed once - you will have to be quick and look at them of course (cycle takes just a few seconds); pumps run for one minute and then turn off; wifi will connect during this process and stays connected for several minutes after.

This might work on cars other than mine (spec in sig) as a louver/louvre check.

 

[swegman]

The big cluster of fires all at the same time and a massive over reaction is almost making me think an earlier 2019 firmware caused the damage and 2019.16 was an attempt to roll it back and hide the damage from cars that were already affected.

An earlier 2019 firmware did not cause damage that 2019.16 tried to hide. I say this because my car was on version 8.1 (for ages) until the car was forcibly updated by Tesla to version 9 on June 20, and the range loss was immediately upon the installation of the forced update.

 

[dhanson865]

V10 Rolling out

Who with loss of range will be first to download and install v10? BTW the version number is reported to be 2019.32.10 (8f5cdff)

 

[Chaserr]

An earlier 2019 firmware did not cause damage that 2019.16 tried to hide. I say this because my car was on version 8.1 (for ages) until the car was forcibly updated by Tesla to version 9 on June 20, and the range loss was immediately upon the installation of the forced update.

You're not the only person that was remotely updated without consent, thanks for the reminder!