Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[AdamInFlag]

The math works to about +- .2 of the total pack. The problem with the Energy Meter in the car (my belief) is that it's doing a calulation at that moment and making the numbers work. What I mean is that from a basic point, if it says projected is 100 miles and you've averaged 275 Wh/mile you would think that as long as you go 275 Wh/mile you can go 100 miles. I don't think this to be the case though because that projected is using total pack rather than usable. So I think Tesla makes the numbers to always update, maybe on a per mile bases. Then as it gets closer and closer to the 4kWh remaining buffer it starts to manipulate the numbers. In another thread on here I was talking about it a few months back we were saying that the 295 Wh/mile isn't achievable. The math for Rated Range only works at 100% full using Total Pack kWh.

I saw this thread a little while back this seemed like a very convoluted explanation of what was going on to me. I don't think there's anything nefarious going on here in terms of including and then not including the anti-bricking buffer at the bottom of the pack capacity. I too have noticed that my 85D seems to have a rated range that implies consumption of about 287 wh/mi (this is where the projected range on the energy graph matches the rated range), but that in order to achieve a consumption where my rated range consumed = the actual distance driven, the trip meter has to display ~272 wh/mi. Note that this is on a long drive without stops, so no vampire losses not being counted by the trip computer.
I think the trip computer in the car is simply making an assumption that isn't quite true here. The trip computer is measuring the total electrical energy that has been drawn from the battery. This does not quite equal the starting energy state minus the final energy state because of heat losses due to internal resistance of the battery. It's likely that the EPA reported figures were found by measuring the starting and final states directly after the testing procedure, instead of integrating the total draw from the battery as the trip meter does.
There is certainly some variance in the wh/mi that needs to be reported by the car in order to achieve rated range, and my guess is that it goes up with the age, as internal resistance of a battery would be expected increase over time. The variance should also go up with more aggressive driving, as resistance losses will be higher with higher amperage draw.

 

[DJRas]

OK... Here is from my car today:
Energy Consumption screen shows 263 Wh/mi and Projected 163 mile remaining range and 65% charge and 147 mile Rated Range.
So @Ferrycraigs formula (0.263 * 163)/.65 = 65.9 kWh
TM-Spy shows 66.4 kWh pack and 44.6 kWh remaining and 67.1%
Scan My Tesla shows:
Nominal full pack = 66.4 kWh, Nominal remaining = 44.7 kWh, SOC 65.2%, Rated Range = 147 miles,
Usable full pack = 62.4 kWh, Usable remaining = 40.7 kWh

So, TM-Spy displayed 67.1% = 44.6 kWh / 66.4 kWh = 67.169% SOC does not match instrument cluster display

Scan My Tesla SOC 65.2% = 40.7 kWh / 62.4 kWh = 65.22% SOC DOES match instrument cluster display SOC 65%
and Displayed Rated Range of 147 miles = 40.7 kWh / 0.276 kWh/mile =147.46 miles

So, Rated range is directly related to SOC % and USABLE remaining kWh
TM-Spy data does include 4 kWh buffer.
@Ferrycraigs's formula seems to include the 4 kWh buffer.
which then implies Projected range MAY include the 4 kWh buffer

 

[Droschke]

This is insanely unethical and shady.. I bought a used CPO 2015 85D few months back. At the time my rated at 100% was around 265, now after this update, I'm at 236 or so.. that's almost 30 miles lost.

When exactly you bought your car?

 

[DJRas]

I saw this thread a little while back this seemed like a very convoluted explanation of what was going on to me. I don't think there's anything nefarious going on here in terms of including and then not including the anti-bricking buffer at the bottom of the pack capacity. I too have noticed that my 85D seems to have a rated range that implies consumption of about 287 wh/mi (this is where the projected range on the energy graph matches the rated range), but that in order to achieve a consumption where my rated range consumed = the actual distance driven, the trip meter has to display ~272 wh/mi. Note that this is on a long drive without stops, so no vampire losses not being counted by the trip computer.
I think the trip computer in the car is simply making an assumption that isn't quite true here. The trip computer is measuring the total electrical energy that has been drawn from the battery. This does not quite equal the starting energy state minus the final energy state because of heat losses due to internal resistance of the battery. It's likely that the EPA reported figures were found by measuring the starting and final states directly after the testing procedure, instead of integrating the total draw from the battery as the trip meter does.
There is certainly some variance in the wh/mi that needs to be reported by the car in order to achieve rated range, and my guess is that it goes up with the age, as internal resistance of a battery would be expected increase over time. The variance should also go up with more aggressive driving, as resistance losses will be higher with higher amperage draw.

Rated Range uses a fixed multiplier times the remaining usable kWh in the pack.
I have read dozens of cars with the same results.
Only a change in multiplier if you have single or dual motor.
It doesn't matter if the pack is capped or how much real degradation has happened to your car.
Contrary to Tesla's claim that it varies with driving conditions, etc.
PROJECTED Range seems to account your current drive/trip/route, driving style, etc

 

[raphy3]

Rated Range uses a fixed multiplier times the remaining usable kWh in the pack.
I have read dozens of cars with the same results.
Only a change in multiplier if you have single or dual motor.
It doesn't matter if the pack is capped or how much real degradation has happened to your car.
Contrary to Tesla's claim that it varies with driving conditions, etc.
PROJECTED Range seems to account your current drive/trip/route, driving style, etc

I agree that Tesla's claims lately about rated range display changing with driving conditions is head scratch inducing. The constant used to put rated range onto the IC does not change with driving condition (Whether it changes with SOC is another story I don't want to speculate on). Only the energy app changes it's display based on driving style (by displaying average energy use per miles and deriving range from that). It has thrown even more confusion into the mix here when you see people posting responses from Tesla about their shortened rated range display concerns with things like "oh that's because how you drive has changed", which is flat out just not correct.

 

[mjmiron]

This is insanely unethical and shady.. I bought a used CPO 2015 85D few months back. At the time my rated at 100% was around 265, now after this update, I'm at 236 or so.. that's almost 30 miles lost.

When did you buy your car from Tesla? I bought my used Tesla in May from them and worked with the local service center to get my battery replaced. It took a few months but if you read in prior posts I did it explains how.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

Then you certainly are deeply up the creek.
TM-Spy indeed does include the buffer in it's display.
I contacted the author about that several weeks ago and he felt it was the most accurate information even though you cannot access the buffer while driving.

I was going to start by saying thank you. But, honestly, I don’t think I’m at all grateful!

But I am always grateful to learn things, and this forum is excellent for that. Thumbs up.

Question. The picture is obviously a TMS Screen. It shows my capacity as 59kWhs. (As discussed I understand this includes the buffer.) It also shows the SoC as 100%, mirroring the car's 100% SoC icon. But which 100% is it?
The 100% of 59kWhs which includes the buffer, but why does the car also report 100%?
The 100% of 55kWhs, so it matches the car's SoC?
It clearly (IMO) isn’t the 70 kWh original
Or is it just reporting 100% as meaning Vmax, ie 4.07V? Hence TMS and Icon % matching.

It has been suggested that Projected Range includes the buffer to give an apparent larger range.
I have a couple of pre batterygate Energy Graph readings which show the battery at 67.46 kWh and 67.97 kWh. If the original 70 battery capacity was indeed 71.2kWh, then both these Energy Graph readings look like they do include the 4kWh buffer.
I also have 31 readings post batterygate, which range from 57.8 - 60.7 kWhs. TMS reports the battery as 59.1 kWhs which includes the buffer, so again it looks like the Energy Graph is indeed showing a misleading Projected Range figure, ie a range that couldn’t possibly be achievable as the buffer has been used in the Range calculations. The more sympathetic view might describe this as disingenuous. A less sympathetic view might think this is plain old deception. Draw your own conclusion.

Of course none of my readings involve Rated Miles, so at least the magic 295 figure doesn’t apply. Every cloud etc.

 

[DJRas]

I was going to start by saying thank you. But, honestly, I don’t think I’m at all grateful!

But I am always grateful to learn things, and this forum is excellent for that. Thumbs up. View attachment 457188

Question. The picture is obviously a TMS Screen. It shows my capacity as 59kWhs. (As discussed I understand this includes the buffer.). It also shows the SoC as 100%, mirroring the car's 100% SoC icon. But which 100% is it?
The 100% of 59kWhs which includes the buffer, but why does the car also report 100%?
The 100% of 55kWhs, so it matches the car's SoC?
It clearly (IMO) isn’t the 70 kWh original
Or is it just reporting 100% as meaning Vmax, ie 4.07V?

It has been suggested that Projected Range includes the buffer to give an apparent larger range.
I have a couple of pre batterygate Energy Graph readings which show the battery at 67.46 kWh and 67.97 kWh. But if the original 70 battery capacity was indeed 71.2kWh, then both these readings look like they do include the 4kWh buffer.
I also have 31 readings post batterygate, which range from 57.8 - 60.7 kWhs. TMS reports the battery as 59.0 kWhs which includes the buffer, so again it looks like the Energy Graph is indeed showing a misleading Projected Range figures, ie a range that couldn’t possibly be achievable as the buffer has been used in the Range calculations. The more sympathetic view might describe this as disingenuous. A less sympathies view might think this is plain old deception. Each to their own.

Of course none of my readings involve Rated Miles, so at least the magic 295 figure doesn’t apply. Every cloud etc.

The 59.1 kWh shown by TM-Spy is the CURRENT BMS maximum capacity of your battery.
Since you are charged all the way to 100% your remaining of 59.0 kWh is 100% (well 99.8%) of the entire charge possible.
At 100% (and ONLY at 100%) the TM-Spy SOC equals the User Interface SOC 100%

So, it is reporting 100% of the Vmax charge level (whatever your Vmax happens to be set at).


The Projected range DOES take into account your recent drive, driving style, and route to destination (including elevation changes).
This IS a complicated formula that they use... but clearly trade secret.

 

[AdamInFlag]

Rated Range uses a fixed multiplier times the remaining usable kWh in the pack.
I have read dozens of cars with the same results.
Only a change in multiplier if you have single or dual motor.
It doesn't matter if the pack is capped or how much real degradation has happened to your car.
Contrary to Tesla's claim that it varies with driving conditions, etc.
PROJECTED Range seems to account your current drive/trip/route, driving style, etc

Yes, that's correct. Projected takes into account then energy consumption over the last 5, 15, or 30 miles, depending on what you have selected. When projected range = rated range, the wh/mi shown = the EPA rated consumption of the car.

 

[cpa]

I read the complaint yesterday, all one hunnert pages!

I urge all of you who are active participants in this discussion to read the complaint. It lists (recalling from memory) 19 separate causes of action. These causes include inter alia [I love lifting expressions from lawyers!] violations of federal and state computer hijacking laws, contract law, various torts, breach of warranty, fraud, and curiously, a civil RICO violation. The complaint also asserts a California elder-abuse type law addressing (again, if I remember) that any product when used as originally purchased that causes hardship to a senior citizen (65+) or a disabled person is subject to a $5,000 civil penalty per occurrence. Which of these causes of action that ultimately are decided to have merit will be decided in pretrial motions and proceedings before any discovery gets underway.

The complaint lists not only the battery-gate incident (in fact, this phrase is used in the complaint), but also includes the throttling of Supercharger speeds. So, those of us like me who so far only have the Supercharging issues are part of the class.

The damages sought include injunctive relief in addition to cash or the equivalent, like replacement batteries.

My accountant's opinion is that the lawyer did a very good job in laying out the 100-page complaint. It is clear. There is ample "evidence" presented in the complaint supporting the assertions and allegations therein.

It will be interesting to see just how much fight is in Tesla. The sixty-day window to reply gives Tesla some time to weigh the totality of the complaint against what Tesla knows to be true, partially true, or untrue, and to decide upon a defense.

Your move, Tesla.

 

[Todd Burch]

Hey all, I have a little bit of info to share.

I talked to someone in Tesla service that I know..this is someone I know better than just as a random customer/Tesla employee relationship.

Wanted to pass on that Tesla was over-aggressive in the voltage cap of the firmware update, and they are working on a firmware fix to lessen the impact. It doesn't add much info, and I don't really have more details to share, but my impression is that Tesla is working hard to lessen the range loss many of us have experienced. No estimate on any sort of timeframes or anything else...but I get the impression that they are definitely working on the problem.

Before you ask, no I don't have any more information and can't elaborate on this. You all now know as much as I do .

 

[Keshk]

Hey all, I have a little bit of info to share.

I talked to someone in Tesla service that I know..this is someone I know better than just as a random customer/Tesla employee relationship.

Wanted to pass on that Tesla was over-aggressive in the voltage cap of the firmware update, and they are working on a firmware fix to lessen the impact. It doesn't add much info, and I don't really have more details to share, but my impression is that Tesla is working hard to lessen the range loss many of us have experienced. No estimate on any sort of timeframes or anything else...but I get the impression that they are definitely working on the problem.

Before you ask, no I don't have any more information and can't elaborate on this. You all now know as much as I do .

You can always share info when you have info to share. your post does have big Zero info.

 

[Todd Burch]

You can always share info when you have info to share. your post does have big Zero info.

I appreciate the compliment, thanks! LOL.

 

[SBK2013]

I haven't, but know some others who had the exact same error message. They had 100kW of power to get to the SC.... Turned out to be contactors in that case.

Interesting. They are replacing my battery, so maybe it was failing either way and I would have gotten a warning even before the software update that reduced my range. Who knows?

 

[cpa]

One other thing that may or may not have any importance:

Tesla releases earnings about 50 days after the close of the quarter. I highly doubt that this issue will have enough inside information, so will not be addressed. Besides, it is just third quarter results.

However, Tesla will likely release its 2019 results around the first of March 2020. Their external accountants have to have finished their work, and signed off on the numbers. Before the outside accountants sign off on 2019 numbers, they also must assess any lawsuit liabilities directly from counsel that represents Tesla as a defendant. Material settlements or judgements must be accrued at year-end. In addition, if events arise after year-end but before the numbers are published, that information must be disclosed in a subsequent events footnote and accrued for retroactively.

The 10-K that Tesla files with the SEC has a section dedicated to all lawsuits against Tesla with a potential material impact on the financial statements. This information is generally written by general counsel and expresses the likelihood of Tesla prevailing or not. It also attempts to quantify the dollar amount that has hit the books or potentially could hit the books, if material.

Tesla is a big company. The ultimate cost to remedy these claims might be immaterial to Tesla as a whole, because perhaps some of the claims are dismissed by the court. But we should keep an eye out for the 2019 10-K to see if this suit is addressed in the legal section and see if an amount has been quantified, and what Tesla's lawyers state as to whether Tesla has a strong position in defending the claims.

 

[Droschke]

When projected range = rated range, the wh/mi shown = the EPA rated consumption of the car.

The EPA has rated the S85 model consumption as 380wh/mi.

Are you saying when the projected range = the rated range, the wh/mi shown is 380wh/mi?

 

[Droschke]

Hey all, I have a little bit of info to share.

I talked to someone in Tesla service that I know..this is someone I know better than just as a random customer/Tesla employee relationship.

Wanted to pass on that Tesla was over-aggressive in the voltage cap of the firmware update, and they are working on a firmware fix to lessen the impact. It doesn't add much info, and I don't really have more details to share, but my impression is that Tesla is working hard to lessen the range loss many of us have experienced. No estimate on any sort of timeframes or anything else...but I get the impression that they are definitely working on the problem.

Before you ask, no I don't have any more information and can't elaborate on this. You all now know as much as I do .

Thanks for sharing the info. Some owners have been told the same by Tesla SC's. Many don't believe it.

 

[drummerboy7816]

When exactly you bought your car?

When did you buy your car from Tesla? I bought my used Tesla in May from them and worked with the local service center to get my battery replaced. It took a few months but if you read in prior posts I did it explains how.

I bought it in mid-April.

Thanks for letting me know that’s possibly an option! I’ll look back at your posts for more info!

Thanks,
Ben

 

[mjmiron]

I bought it in mid-April.

Thanks for letting me know that’s possibly an option! I’ll look back at your posts for more info!

Thanks,
Ben

Complain to your local service center and tell them you had loss of range and feel you bought an 85 for instance and now have a 70 or whatever the case is for you. I would also explain it takes longer to charge and you lost value as well as available capacity you spend extra money for. Have it escalated to corporate good luck.

 

[Fleer]

I bought it in mid-April.

Thanks for letting me know that’s possibly an option! I’ll look back at your posts for more info!

Thanks,
Ben

Man that sucks, I bought mine in May but luckily I am not affected by the range reduction (still got reduced charge speed). I would be furious if my range was reduced that much. Hopefully you have the same luck as mjmiron getting yours replaced.