With 2020.20.17 my S85 also started regaining some capacity.
Here's my Teslafi battery degradation report (it's showing kilometers, not miles).
Here's my Teslafi battery degradation report (it's showing kilometers, not miles).
Last edited:
-
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 your findings. This very significant information.
It leads me to think then, why not reverse capacity losses for owners and end this issue. It would appear it has some benefit to Tesla to keep it as is. I can take guesses, but the most plausible one, considering they said it is for longevity of the battery, is to prevent early failures of the HVB. Early failure of HVB would cost Tesla quite a bit, so they can try to slow down failure of battery pack through capping and charge rates, and hope that
- the lawsuit goes away
- or they win
- or lawsuit prolongs so long that their cost ends up being significantly reduced (while also be able to direct resources and funding to scale and become consistently profitable).
- or they get to point where HVB cost is much lower and they can easier absorb replacements.
Makes perfect sense from their end.
One thing is clear though, SW cannot fix the issue, and therefore I don't see Tesla doing anything any more with respect to batterygate for the MS owners. Their focus is on growing, and growing only. Right now, I'm voting they have "given back" as much as they intend to and the rest they will call degradation. Done deal. New buyers are not aware of many deceitful actions, and continue to buy, company grows, initial buyers are "just unlucky", and that's it. Hope Tesla proves me i'm wrong. If they do, I'll be willing to buy another one. Until then, not getting even solar no matter how cheap (which also has some horrible customer service feedback), let alone another car from them.
On to the quote above. At the same time, the same action they took to mitigate potential of these two conditions has at least three more known side effects:
- reduced SC speed
- cooling/heating pump (whatever the device is) running any time SOC is above 80% to reduce it below 80ish% (essentially forcing SOC to never stay long above 80ish%
- reduced cabin cooling (presumably to cool the battery) especially in hot weather
Combined with loss of range, these are pretty severe consequences of the actions they took that owners sure will not stay silent on, which leads me to believe financial consequences of fixing the issue would be significant to Tesla (whether just financially, or eg, interruption in profitability and reduction of stock price, etc...)
But it also says something else. They figured out something post design that is detrimental to battery health and quickly covered it with an OTA update. I'll ignore the inconveniences the change caused, and focus on something more quantifiable, the fact that they changed specifications of a product we own, and in particular one that was specifically paid for (battery size determined the price of the vehicle) without approval of or notification to owners to gain some quantifiable benefit. It clearly has to be quantifiable b/c somewhere decision was made to not fix the packs, and instead mitigate the issue at the cost of the consumer. One could say, it would be ok to do so without authorization if safety issue was found, but seems that things point away from that. So if true that there was not and is not currently a safety issue, then changing vehicle specification to save company money and should they win or lightly settle the lawsuit, will set a dangerous precedent for any industry (think of any device with OTA update, and who really owns the device?). Apple got hammered for something similar - I know someone mentioned this already and there was a debate, but I see it as very similar course of action to avoid warranty claims and entice owners to purchase a new phone. Not much different from what's going on here, IF there was no safety issue.
So if this battle is lost too, we will practically lose ownership of the car. IMO, a lot more is at stake here then just battery capping. So maybe we should talk about how to assist the lawsuit rather than arguing over what we think may be happening within battery. We have enough evidence.
If, alternatively, it was a safety issue that was mitigated through SW update without timely notification to owners, it still says that manufacturer can change product specification post purchase for consumer safety without notifying the consumer, and without compensating the consumer. Very dangerous precedent again.
Been around 220 for some time now, but haven't charged it full so i can't tell if I can actually reach 220. At worst it was 208 for 100% (70D with 35k miles). No new gains recently, however, starting with spring and summer i did go from 213-220, not sure if it's SW or warmer weather.
I'm still skeptical. Just don't trust them. They could easily give us back a few % to help them get through lawsuit, and reverse changes after that and call it degradation. Again, I hope they prove me wrong. Just don't see it.
Blu Zap
Grinning member
I suggest we prepare a statement to deliver at the Shareholders meeting. Thoughts?
May be a good way to go. Will certainly raise awareness. Anyone done anything like that that we can use as a guide or model?
Blu Zap
Grinning member
Suggest we ALL look at this as battery degradation measured in kWh. We have been down the mileage range discussion previously and it gets all shot up in light of the many variables. What determines range? wh/mi, that is a huge variable based on wind rain, speed and many more things that Tesla will throw back in our faces.
My P85+ originally had 77 kWh of battery capacity new. After careful care, it was down to 73 kWh (5% loss) after ~5 years. Overnight when 2016.19.1 hit, the battery capacity dropped to 62 kWh. A loss of 15% overnight. Please don't even mention range. It is a rat hole Tesla wants us to go down. That way they can tell us we are not driving our cars correctly. Stick to capacity measured in kWh. Glad we are getting back on track and focusing on what we can do to get Tesla to step up to their warranty obligation.
Blu Zap
Grinning member
Another thing to do is not let up on Tesla. As they give you a BS wave-off and tell you "you're driving wrong" when you bring up suddenly reduced range, they're hoping they're done with you and don't have to hear about the subject again. Continue to make appointments in the app and call and send emails to the executive team asking them when you're getting your kWh back. Call out Elon Musk on Twitter. He will ignore for sure, of course. Tweak him with observations that fresh open vats of liquid silicon must be sitting near where they store the new batteries and that must be why they're not fixing this 
I'm sure Tesla hopes that it's done all the capping it was going to do, a year has gone by, and they hope customer anger storm has passed. Everyone who has been capped should set off a flurry after them and kick up as much dust and sand as possible. An additional option is to file your own suits. Just because one class action is in mediation means nothing with respect to your rights and your ability to file a suit in a court. You may or may not choose to mediate after that. A judge may or may not choose to add you to the class action.
I'm sure Tesla hopes that it's done all the capping it was going to do, a year has gone by, and they hope customer anger storm has passed. Everyone who has been capped should set off a flurry after them and kick up as much dust and sand as possible. An additional option is to file your own suits. Just because one class action is in mediation means nothing with respect to your rights and your ability to file a suit in a court. You may or may not choose to mediate after that. A judge may or may not choose to add you to the class action.
Yes, that's correct.
Before the capping with firmware 2019.16.2 the reading for "usable full pack" via ScanMyTesla was ~68 kWh, the worst after the capping was 59,9 kWh. Now, 50.000 km (31.000 miles) later, it's at 63,8 kWh.
Before the capping with firmware 2019.16.2 the reading for "usable full pack" via ScanMyTesla was ~68 kWh, the worst after the capping was 59,9 kWh. Now, 50.000 km (31.000 miles) later, it's at 63,8 kWh.
Last edited:
Yes and No, As I have stated as soon as it stops charging. Something turns on and humming and starts draining my battery fast to almost 80% SOC and stops there. But then slowly drains like it did before or normally does. So unless I use that capacity right away technically I havent got it back if you know what I mean.
cpa
Active Member
I do not practice law; take what I say with a generous serving of your favorite adult beverage.
It is unlikely that this lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice. There are too many individual claims against Tesla for it to vanish. Some of the claims may be judicially dropped or stipulated to be dropped, but most will survive any legal wrangling.
If Tesla were to win, there would have to be a jury trial. This means discovery enters the picture. All of Tesla's internal information, from emails to diagnostics to engineering to Board of Directors decisions--you name it--will be exposed. I seriously doubt that management and legal counsel will want to have all of Tesla's dirty laundry aired publicly. That sort of thing cannot enhance the PR value of the brand.
If the lawsuit drags on, I am not certain how their costs would be significantly reduced, unless part of the settlement would be a replacement vehicle or brand new battery at a steep discount because Tesla will have driven their manufacturing costs much lower than they are now.
o0o
I personally do not believe the mediation postponements are due to COVID. This is a convenient canard, and it is plausible. I believe that the postponements have to do with the internal circus that seems to be Tesla's management style. Perhaps orders from Musk are driving the bus, and make sensible and satisfactory resolution nigh on impossible. Perhaps there is something in the works that will be revealed in the next 3-6 months that will mitigate or ameliorate our situation to our satisfaction, and Tesla does not want to tip its hand.
The conspicuous absence of DJRas on this page leads me to believe that he has been advised by counsel to take a lengthy hiatus from any discussion on this forum. I infer from this that the lawyers know that there is something in the pipeline to be debated when the timing presents itself.
Yes, I know what you mean. Not good to gain back some lost range only to lose it by, and let's called it, the "draingate". So, in a way, as you have said, nothing gained
Glad you clarified it.
Exactly like mine. Car will immediately work hard to reduce that capacity below 80% (not sure what % but it's below 80), so like you said, unless you use it right away, it's useless.
Let's say you are trying to leave your house at 8am with full or close to full battery. You actually now have to time the charging, b/c if it charges full at 2am, it's going to run that pump until you leave, it will not try to recharge, and it's likely to be in 80s or 70s by the time you want to leave. Hard lesson I learned last winter when going for day ski trip - woke up, and instead of seeing 210-213, it was at 185
edit: Have a friend with MS 75. He's noticing the same or similar behavior too. Waiting on him to confirm, and I'll update.
Last edited:
Appreciate your thoughts and I like the way you are thinking about this. I also don't think it's largely been postponed due to covid, maybe the first month, but not beyond that.
On the other side, I believe the longer it goes the less of a chance there will be a significant settlement, unless there is a safety issue.
Reason being, it comes down to reduction of car's value which depreciates over time. We won't be able to go back and say: you turned my MS85 to MS75, and delta is 5k...well your car now is 6 years old, so that's $500. I'm throwing somewhat random numbers, but point is clear i believe. When you get to negotiations, all of these play a role.
Additionally, if you wait for two years, some of those cars, unfortunately may not be on the road any more or may switch hands to owners who are not aware, etc...in number of ways, for them it's better to just drag it out.
Anyways, not to say what you are suggesting will not end up how it goes, but am afraid it won't. However, I'd welcome it, even if it had to be a quiet battery swap program (with guarantee this will never happen again, ie. battery will experience only natural degradation), with full new warranty not remainder.
Last edited:
Just recharged to "100" and got 238 so the not really the 242Yes, I know what you mean. Not good to gain back some lost range only to lose it by, and let's called it, the "draingate". So, in a way, as you have said, nothing gained
Glad you clarified it.
Exactly like mine. Car will immediately work hard to reduce that capacity below 80% (not sure what % but it's below 80), so like you said, unless you use it right away, it's useless.
Let's say you are trying to leave your house at 8am with full or close to full battery. You actually now have to time the charging, b/c if it charges full at 2am, it's going to run that pump until you leave, it will not try to recharge, and it's likely to be in 80s or 70s by the time you want to leave. Hard lesson I learned last winter when going for day ski trip - woke up, and instead of seeing 210-213, it was at 185
edit: Have a friend with MS 75. He's noticing the same or similar behavior too. Waiting on him to confirm, and I'll update.
These Tesla engineer think they are sneaky or smart but we ain't stupid. I have had my car for years and know what's normal noise coming from the car and what's not.
Actually, in my case, it stops humming at 73%, not 80%. That is worse.
Similar threads
