You know so why do you ask?
Reduced capacity, first by capping then by draining the battery after charging, and reduced charging speed (power).
-
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
Reduced capacity, first by capping then by draining the battery after charging, and reduced charging speed (power).
That's a different issue. The charging speed wasn't reduced as a result of 'improving' the entertainment package for instance.
DJRas
Member
Reduced capacity has been restored by my lawsuit.
The others are not spec'd anywhere.
Not everyone's capacity was restored so that makes Tesla in violation of your lawsuit does it not?
Not all were restored and others are being drained to 90% or less. Maybe some in your group also.
The charging speed was advertised as half capacity in about half an hour and that's how it used to be. Supercharging Tesla Model S 60 kWh Versus 85 kWh - Video + Graphs
Customers accepted the delivery based on that and Tesla has no right to change it after handover.
The problem is the reduction of capacity and charging are not the real issues. They are just workarounds to manage junk batteries. Restoration is not a fix to the real problem. The affected batteries must be subject to design and/or construction faults, hence the need for workarounds. Calling the software updates improvements is of course nonsense. Yes, they are improving faulty batteries which never should have been on the road.
DJRas
Member
Your link is an independent review, not an advertisement. The batteries ARE within all apecs after the restoration of capacity.
Yes, there are a few (about 20l that have not been restored. They will be investigated as part of this settlement agreement.
There is no warranty coverage for capacity or degradation in the written warranty from 2016 and earlier.
Even the early lawsuits that tried to get damages for 85kWh packs that never had 85kWh of cells went nowhere.
I have linked to Teslas description of their superchargers earlier. Supercharger | Tesla Motors. This is what they sold.
There is no need for a warranty coverage against active willful degrading/downgrading/damaging of another persons property. It's illegal. This must not be mixed up with normal wear and tear, which is a totally different matter.
There is no need for a warranty coverage against active willful degrading/downgrading/damaging of another persons property. It's illegal. This must not be mixed up with normal wear and tear, which is a totally different matter.
cpa
Active Member
Not going to argue Tesla's disingenuous stance with Supercharging speed. Not going to dispute DJ's lawyers about the reasons for not pursuing the substantial reduction of SC speeds in court. I will say this, however:
I think with full discovery, plaintiffs would find out that Tesla did not test the original battery chemistry sufficiently enough with repeated Supercharging sessions in all types of weather conditions. I think the marketing arm promulgated the "up to 120kW" and filling your battery from 20% to 75% in "as little as 30 minutes" as the honest truth at the time because Tesla just did not have enough science. Tesla wanted to sell cars, and the best pitch was to take the worry out of recharging the batteries when out of town. If I recall correctly, those marketing slogans were based upon (a) not sharing a Supercharger as the maximum rate was split, and (b) not charging in very cold weather, like sub-freezing. I had many sessions when I charged with a cold battery and still received close to 100kW at 15% when the ambient temperature was in the 40s.
By the time 2019 rolled around, Tesla had enough data to conclude that the rapid rates of Supercharging in certain conditions were deleterious to the long-term viability of those batteries. They accordingly adjusted the amperage down when the system detected sub-optimum battery temperatures. Tesla did not want to replace batteries within the warranty period or have a massive recall due to their sloppy or hasty research. One would wonder if such publicity became commonplace, that buyers of the 3 and the Y would shy away from making their purchases if the public sentiment was that Tesla acted like a bunch of amateurs when it came to their technology. The surreptitious nature of both the reduction in range (with a mea culpa from Musk once cornered) and the reduction in SC speeds were designed to conceal, period.
I do believe that there could be a claim for damages in this instance. It might be difficult to quantify, but I believe that a restoration of the old speeds plus an extension of X months on the 8-year, unlimited mileage warranty would be easy enough to justify. Damages are not always in dollars and cents.
The real reason IMO is that juries are tricky beasts. Here we have people who drop 100K on an electric car. That 100K is probably more than many jurors earn in two years' work. It is difficult to persuade a juror who drives a 12-year-old Camry that we are not a bunch of spoiled, whiny brats who take matters to court in order to get our way. They might reason, "if it takes 40 minutes to fill the battery today when it took 25 minutes before, why not sell the Tesla and buy a Mercedes?" Then there is the compensation of the lawyers. This would be a strictly contingency fee case. Kinda hard to carve out 40%/33% of the damages if those damages are awarded in kind or with other non monetary compensation. It only takes four jurors to reject the claims.
As an aside, I noticed that when the temperatures are over 100 degrees, and I had been driving for a couple of hours, the SC time from 15%-65% or so is not that much longer--perhaps 5-8 minutes. But when the temperatures are in the 80s with the same amount of driving, that the time increases to about 10-12 minutes. Preconditioning the battery does help, but the max rate of SOC + kW generally tops out at 105-110.
I agree 100% with everything that you stated except this. Tesla cannot restore the old speeds or capacity without the risk of fires. The only solution is to replace the old battery packs with new ones that have the new battery chemistry. Some of the replacement packs are now 350v. The old packs were 400v so why did Tesla lower the voltage? I would like for Tesla to explain that under oath.
No, none of the changes have had anything to do with fire risk...
That is easy to explain. They no longer make the modules that made up the 85/90 kWh packs. (They probably don't even have the equipment to make them anymore.) They only made the new modules that packed in more cells for the 100 kWh packs. They just removed two modules from the 100 kWh pack design to to make the replacement 350v packs. (Just like how the 75 kWh pack is a 90 kWh pack with 2 modules removed.) They could even go as far as taking a 100 kWh pack with 2 failed modules and turning it into a refurb 350v 85/90 kWh replacement pack by removing the two failed modules.)
@DJRas- There was a lot of talk about this in the original lawsuit. Did this issue get discussed at all? And what did Tesla say about it?
58. Upon further information and belief, Tesla fraudulently and unlawfully manipulated and pushed out a software update prior to February 2019 (actual update date is unknown at this time), which contained changes to the battery management system software, by replacing the variable previously used for energy consumption, or, 295 Wh/mi. Upon further information and belief, the energy consumption constant was reduced to 276 Wh/mi, for subject vehicles which in effect, would artificially increase the number of rated miles displayed for Plaintiff’s car.23
I don't think they did what is claimed here, but they do something a little shady related to this. So I am wondering if it was explained at all.
58. Upon further information and belief, Tesla fraudulently and unlawfully manipulated and pushed out a software update prior to February 2019 (actual update date is unknown at this time), which contained changes to the battery management system software, by replacing the variable previously used for energy consumption, or, 295 Wh/mi. Upon further information and belief, the energy consumption constant was reduced to 276 Wh/mi, for subject vehicles which in effect, would artificially increase the number of rated miles displayed for Plaintiff’s car.23
I don't think they did what is claimed here, but they do something a little shady related to this. So I am wondering if it was explained at all.
lightningltd
Member
Except for those of us NOT restored. I wish the settlement covered those of us NOT restored.
lightningltd
Member
What does this investigation entail? When I brought it up (the lawsuit right after the settlement and supposed fix was announced), that was when Tesla Service suddenly decided it was normal wear and tear due to 'too much DC charging' (and after the warrantee period, of course) and not likely due to the updates.
Also, although I did NOT have a lot of miles on the car when the update stole the miles, NOW they are saying it is also because I have a lot of miles on the car at this time. They keep coming up with new reasons.
Last edited:
DJRas
Member
There is no correlation between high supercharging and limited charging now.What does this investigation entail? When I brought it up (the lawsuit right after the settlement and supposed fix was announced), that was when Tesla Service suddenly decided it was normal wear and tear due to 'too much DC charging' (and after the warrantee period, of course) and not likely due to the updates.
Also, although I did NOT have a lot of miles on the car when the update stole the miles, NOW they are saying it is also because I have a lot of miles on the car at this time. They keep coming up with new reasons.
My 2014 S85 with 200,000 miles can now charge to 237 miles and I have supercharged about 75% (50 MWh on DC).
The only way to independently see if you are capped is to use ScanMyTesla (or equivalent). Tesla service will not share their diagnostic data.
DJRas
Member
Tesla did not respond to that portion of the lawsuit. That multiplier has not changed since before the lawsuit. So, they have not manipulated iit further.
Since the early cars had no degradation coverage, the manipulation I discovered still wouldn't legally apply.
DJRas
Member
You are correct that the 350 volt 85kWh packs are made from 14 modules that are in 100kWh packs. There are many more cells in each of those modules.
A non 100kWh car is not physically capable of accepting a complete 100kWh pack (size and weight constraints).
islandbayy
Active Member
Need to add, that new 350v 85kWh pack, is actually around 87kWh. So actually larger than the original 85 pack. The 350v 85 pack is actually larger than the 90 packs, which were about 85.4-ish kWh. Realistically, the 90kWh pack should have been advertised as a 85, and the original 85 should have been advertised as an 80.
DJRas
Member
We did discuss the option to get the warranty extended. That was a non-starter by Tesla lead counsel (per Musk direction).
My lawyers also said there was is no case law supporting extending the warranty.
My lawyers DID say they would pursue a case where the battery failed shortly after the warranty expired and Tesla not provide a replacement pack.
Note that replacement packs are often crap. The warranty states the battery wouldbe replaced with one with at least the same capacity of the failed pack. This is also backed by wk057 (Jason).
My lawyers also said there was is no case law supporting extending the warranty.
My lawyers DID say they would pursue a case where the battery failed shortly after the warranty expired and Tesla not provide a replacement pack.
Note that replacement packs are often crap. The warranty states the battery wouldbe replaced with one with at least the same capacity of the failed pack. This is also backed by wk057 (Jason).
DJRas
Member
That is true too.
The only downside to the 350 v packs is they cannot deliver as much power on hard acceleration.
DJRas
Member
My lawyer say the settlement administrator will address these cars. Contact them directly (contact information above).
Similar threads
