Not exactly FACTS here. Prior to 2019.16 I had >210 mile ACTUAL RANGE available. I drove over 200 mile round trip to Los Angeles and pulled into the garage with 7 miles remaining. The end of May 2019 I had REAL RANGE of about 180 miles. We KNOW they limited charge voltage from 4.2 MaxV on May 14, 2019 to 4.07 MaxV on May 20, 2019. which matches the 15% reduction in reported range as well as actual range.
In Sept the MaxV was raised to 4.10v. thus restoring about 25% of the range lost (about 7 miles - both actual and rated). Starting March 2020 the software started restoring MaxV back to 4.20V. It took me 6 months and 10,000 miles to achieve full restoration. The restoration is more related to miles driven rather than just time
All of this data is available in ScanMyTesla BMS readings that I have captured from my car and a couple of dozen others.
So, I KNOW it was actual capacity and not some phantom recalibration factor.
Nope. Still facts. Code backs it up, and someone even recently sent me a screenshot of a Tesla internal document that pretty much completely confirms my findings with regard to Condition Z and its correction. Basically a document about what to do if a customer complains of lost range and what the problem and fix are.... which are pretty much exactly what I wrote about from pure reverse engineering prior to even knowing this document existed. Maybe someone will leak it. Not mine to leak.
Unfortunately, I think you're just misinterpreting your data, along with missing my clarifications about the details around inaccessible bottom range. Yes, of course 2019.16 locked out access to "actual capacity," as I said it did. In fact, what you're noting is
exactly in line with mitigation for Condition Z as described. The margin of error recognized by the BMS during Z correction
can impact both sides of the usable voltage range during correction to account for the margin of error involved, but on pre-2019.16 firmware, since the issue almost always presents as a lower-than-expected reading, you'd only have issues at the lower end when trying to access part of the SoC range below the error range, and not 100% of the time. Again, it'd be a dice roll each time. Basically the code is more comfortable allowing access to lower SoC levels than higher SoC levels during correction
if the detected error deltas are quite high. There is a LOT of nuance in how this is corrected, and it'd be impossible to describe every possible way it's done by the code in detail.
Suffice it to say, if you have Condition Z then some portion of displayed range was inaccessible with 100% certainty pre-2019.16. Moving to 2019.16 you went from
maybe having some access to that range in some cases to not having access to it at all until a correction was completed (quite some time/updates later). Exact details of what was done to prevent an error from causing a shutdown vary case to case. In a worst case I saw a 65 mile loss on a car after going to 2019.16. I personally would rather always have access to the range displayed than be rolling the dice at some unknown point.
I have SLIGHTLY improved charging speed and am now able to start at over 100kW when below 10%SOC.
But, it still takes over and hour to get to 85% and over another hour from 85% to 95%.
It's always taken a significant amount of time to go from 80-100%... usually 45-60 minutes at a supercharger in my experience. This hasn't changed much at all except that occasionally it takes longer to get to the CV portion of the charge curve due to lower overall rates.
The other portions have definitely had changes, however, and as noted previously:
Charging speed is NOT related to the same issues from the 2019.16 range issues.
I've been saying this for quite some time, but people still flood this thread with charging speed related grievances.