Thanks for posting for the first time. A bit more detail and before/after data points about your capped car would be helpful.
-
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
Thanks for posting for the first time. A bit more detail and before/after data points about your capped car would be helpful.
They know it's not going away, but have decided to fight it in hope of winning. Either way, the lawsuit win/lose, Tesla will lose.
Must admit I still struggle with this. I mean, there is - I guess - no doubt that Elon is an intelligent guy himself. And there should still be enough smart people left in their organisation. Let's assume so at least.
I can somehow understand how the very first reaction of a large corporation to a threat could indeed be to deflect, avoid, deny. But by now it is indeed evident this isnt going away, and I can't imagine it hasn't been escalated all the way up the organisation.
For me the 2 points above feel incompatible. This does indeed seem like a lose-lose situation, where deciding to fight in the hope of winning seems anything BUT smart. And yet they insist on that strategy.
So... what do they know that we don't (yet)?
My 2015 P85D is a CPO vehicle bought from Tesla in May of last year with 38000 miles on it. A full charge at that time gave me 254 miles.
Now with 57000 mile a full charge it gives me 217 miles. I made an appointment with the Costa Mesa service center to have it looked at and 3 days before my appointment I got a text saying they did a remote test on my battery and it was fine. Due to an update there was a small loss and would be returned thru future updates and said they cancelled my appointment.
Now with 57000 mile a full charge it gives me 217 miles. I made an appointment with the Costa Mesa service center to have it looked at and 3 days before my appointment I got a text saying they did a remote test on my battery and it was fine. Due to an update there was a small loss and would be returned thru future updates and said they cancelled my appointment.
Well you are correct, he hasn't replied - although he found time to disagree with you again
.Intelligence does not have much to do with doing the right things, necessarily. That trait can be used negatively as well as there are very intelligent people with dumb decisions.
Regarding the rest of your post "how the very first reaction of a large corporation to a threat could indeed be to deflect", I remind you that there was no threat of any kind. The impacted owners were begging for corrections and all they got were outright lies, deflection and distraction. They have had enough time to address the issue. Heck, they never even acknowledged if there is a problem and asking for time and patience to resolve.
"So... what do they know that we don't (yet)?"
They know a lot and that it is a serious issue with a major adverse affect.
Well... so @Droschke , do I understand correctly that you believe Tesla believes that they will, indeed, get away with this? Or at the very least that the negative impact (for Tesla) of the current strategy, even if they lose, will be smaller than the impact of addressing and solving the problem - meaning first of all admitting there's a problem, and then replacing or refurbishing the packs of all affected vehicles?
To be honest that's the only explanation I can think of that is compatible with the information I've seen.
Thanks for the additional detail.
@mjmiron is another impacted owner here with a similar story, but he bought his car from them in March of this year, I believe. They finally agreed to replace his battery.
CuriousG
Active Member
When was this change made?
I've never tried but doesn't it work by putting it in the cupholder?
Last edited:
That is the standard line the service centers have been told to tell people, that an update resulted in some people having a small range loss and that they were working on adding the range back.
The software update reduced the range of many cars by about 30 miles by reducing the maximum voltage charge on each cell in the battery pack from 4.2 volts to about 4.09 volts. Most people would not consider 30 miles to be a small loss.
After people complained, showing the range loss was not due to degradation (as asserted by Tesla) but due to a voltage cap placed on the battery pack, Tesla issued another update that returned between 7 to 10 miles to the affected cars by very slightly increasing the voltage that the cells in the battery can charge to. So now the affected cars have a loss of about 21 miles of range. Most people would still not consider 21 miles to be a small loss.
So in a sense, Tesla did issue an update to address the lost range, by giving back a small amount (approximately 30%) of the range that was initially taken away.
At this point, I would not expect Tesla to issue a further update that returns the remaining range (approximately 21 miles) that was taken, absent a court order or a governmental order.
I have a pre facelift 90 and have not been affected by batterygate. I was affected by crippled charge rate and tapering (as were all 90 owners, fromw hat I read) about two years ago. Not exactly the same as the non-90 chargegate, but the effect is the same (or worse, actually).
I wouldn't mind Tesla offering the option to spend a little to upgrade, but they can't force spending. If they are too bankrupt to afford their own warranty, they should consider letting those of us willing to spend a little for upgrades help offset the costs of the warranties we all paid them for already.
Tesla will lose big, no matter how this plays out. It's just not possible that the courts will accept any excuses they offer for why they think it was OK to steal from us. The only sensible reason they would choose to burn the future and the present is if that's their only option. Which would mean the number of impacted batteries approaches 100% and the ones that are currently downgraded are just the tip of the iceberg.
TO TESLA:
Tesla, if anyone on your legal team reads this: We want our warranties honored. We will fight you and we will win. We asked the NHTSA to help fight you and they will win. Stop it with your childish bunker mentality and start communicating before you lose everything - we lose everything too if you go bankrupt over this. Tell us something. Open a channel of communication, admit there is a problem and you're working on it. Tell us the downgrades are temporary. Tell us you will make us whole. We will work with you, if you stop being impossible to work with at all. If money is a problem, offer to sell us upgrades for a reasonable sum and a jump straight to the front of the repair queue. For those that choose not to upgrade, just hearing they will have the car they paid for again is the only thing you need to say.
Communicate. With. Us. You're turning your biggest asset into your opponent because someone stupid told you to treat customers like your enemy and that is the path to bankruptcy. We all want to win together. We need your help, you need ours. Don't burn your future over this stupid policy.
Not really necessary:
- If you "start" the car within ~30 seconds of unlocking the car with the card you don't need to present the car at the cupholder at all.
- You don't have to leave the card on the cupholder, (You just have to temporarily present it.)
- If you use your phone as the key you don't have to use the card at all to start the car.
- If you use the, optional, fob as the key you don't have to use the card at all to start the car.
Ferrycraigs
Member
I confess I am not a M3 owner.
The Self Park and Lane Change is straight from Tesla's web page.
The key card thing was lifted from a YT video by WhatCar (large UK car magazine) comparing M3 with iPace. (Keycard bit at 14:45 in this video)
CuriousG
Active Member
Hmmm what looks like features that were in EAP looks like they have shifted those features into FSD. If enhanced summon is any indication, they are a long way off before FSD becomes usable.
They are all marketing gimmicks for my taste. Irrelevant to the serious issue per topic of this thread.
lightningltd
Member
Something dawned on me....
A month or so before the evil update came out that crippled our cars, I had a major drive unit failure. It set off not just drive errors, but main battery and even 12 volt battery errors along with MPU involved errors that were cleared up when the Drive Unit was replaced. Basically, it had totally bricked the car even to the point that the flatbed driver had to put it on wheels to get it on the flatbed.
I wonder if these erroneous errors could still have been in the BMS, triggering whatever X and Y are that caused the limits to be imposed...
I wonder what would happen if I requested Tesla to clear the error logs in BMS.. Would it re-detect issue X and Y if they really exist, or would it clear out the limit if they no longer exist and were in error?
Thoughts?
A month or so before the evil update came out that crippled our cars, I had a major drive unit failure. It set off not just drive errors, but main battery and even 12 volt battery errors along with MPU involved errors that were cleared up when the Drive Unit was replaced. Basically, it had totally bricked the car even to the point that the flatbed driver had to put it on wheels to get it on the flatbed.
I wonder if these erroneous errors could still have been in the BMS, triggering whatever X and Y are that caused the limits to be imposed...
I wonder what would happen if I requested Tesla to clear the error logs in BMS.. Would it re-detect issue X and Y if they really exist, or would it clear out the limit if they no longer exist and were in error?
Thoughts?
Last edited:
Ferrycraigs
Member
Possibly. But I certainly don’t have ANY of that with my MS. So I stand by my position that the M3 is NOT better than my MS, apart from range/efficiency.
Similar threads
