Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[Battpower]

Can anyone explain how the issue in this thread is in any way congruent to VW's scandal? I honestly don't see it, but it's possible I'm missing something.

I have no idea what constitutes an issue that would interest EPA, but I am assuming their interest is in the testing applied to a new vehicle being representative of the true performance of the vehicle in normal use.

Hence my earlier comment about the situation being different between VW and the 85 packs. It would be more like the software update removed the cheat rather than apply it.

I understood (2nd hand info) that when Tesla announced the 2020 Raven LR+, there was some issue likely related to EPA testing that stopped them from (.... I momentarily forget what the problem was) something like applying retrospective software update to display the revised EPA figure. It seemed critical that the EPA rules be followed before cars could be sold with the new claimed range, so the range display update followed later. (what didn't make sense was the LR model also getting a range update presumably making the original EPA claimed / tested figure no longer match that model of car)

So surely, it would be a retrospective EPA issue if software subsequently reached into a car and modified the original as tested parameters, since with the new parameters the car would not have met the same performance level.

IMO it depends on your perspective as to how you view that. If it's a 'very few effected, one off issue' then hardly EPA related. If it was a systematic deceit in many cars that eventually had to be handled by software downgrade then that would be different. Or put another way, if the pre-cap software allowed the car to give better performance (because you chose to take the view that the software is 'cheating' what the hardware is actually capable of and in need of correction in many similar spec cars) then there could be a similarity to some parts of VW gate.

 

[Battpower]

Random thought: I wonder if Tesla can argue that no one forced people to install the updates that prolonged the life of the pack and reduced usable range... which would technically be true (with the exception of one unconfirmed example I've heard of in this thread).

Not saying it's a great argument, just crossed my mind.

That almost deserves 'funny'! I suppose they don't force me to supercharge either - although if I do, they do force me to charge at the speed they dictate. No option to dial in my own charge rate.

You have to work pretty hard to dodge updates. If they had proper change logs and notified all significant 'features' prior to installation, I'd probably accept that you had a choice of sorts.

 

[Chaserr]

They did force updates. There's a thread for people who were remotely force updated without consent or permision. Computer fraud and abuse act is named in the class action and that's probably why Tesla is afraid to force updates any more.

 

[bhzmark]

So not a safety issue, just warranty fraud. Got it.

Can you quote the exact language of the warranty that you think is breached or otherwise relevant to this allegation of "warranty fraud"?

There were definitely laws broken here(only those with a financial stake in Tesla would disagree).

Can you quote the exact language and give citations of the laws that you think were "definitely broken"?

the usual suspects are causing trouble for the moderators, baselessly reporting my posts for imagined rules violations.

Hilarious. If they would actually read your posts with care they would see that you are sort of on their side in imagining that the affected parties have a legal remedy. Their inability to see that in your posts suggests the level of cognitive resources at their disposal. Hopefully the moderators have more than those reporting you. I guess we will see.

 

[sdoorex]

The following text was added to the Tesla New Vehicle Limited Warranty after this software update was released when they updated the warranty in January of 2020. The Wayback Machine has archives of December 2019 and February 2020 where you can see the change.

Your vehicle updates its software wirelessly, constantly providing new features and improvements for your vehicle, including updates to protect and improve Battery longevity. Any noticeable changes to the performance of the Battery due to these software updates are NOT covered under this Battery and Drive Unit Limited Warranty.

Why would they need to add such a limitation to the warranty? Further, before January of 2020, the battery warranty also did not have a minimum retention benchmark for the Model S and Model X, only that the warranty was for a total of 8 years with the exception of pre-2015 60 kWh batteries. I think that modifying the BMS to avoid replacing batteries under warranty constitutes fraud, similar to the actions Apple took when they performance capped iPhones.

Between this and the other myriad of issues I've encountered with my S P85, I will be happy when I sell this car and never have to deal with Tesla and their BS again.

 

[VT_EE]

You can't ask people to cite things here. You'll get reprimanded! /s



Yeah, I do believe Tesla is in the wrong here, but I don't think there's a whole lot anyone can or will do about it that will result in anything positive at this point.

The loudest in the thread will keep the noise level high, pushing all manner of imagined legal issues, unfortunately. At some point I'll have to stop wasting time here (either from being banned, or actually needing to do other things)... but for the moment I'd prefer the noise makers not win the day.

----

O/T: Fun stats I compiled about this thread as of this post (yes, I wasted time on this while waiting on a firmware update issue):

• The user with the most posts in this thread has 1,717 posts in this thread alone... almost 13% of the thread. (Good lord...)
• The top two users in the thread make up nearly a full 20% (1 in 5) posts in the thread.
• Top top few users were not who I figured they'd be...
• I'm actually only the #22 poster by count in this thread with 137 posts, just over 1% of the thread (but #6 ranked by positive ratings count).
• The user with the most dislikes has 3x more than the #2 user (I'm actually #6 for dislikes thanks to only 3 users, only 2 of which are in the top 30 for posts here).
• Coincidentally, the user with the most dislikes has the most positive ratings as well. (Eliminating ratings from only the same 3 users as noted above drops them out of the top 30 for positive ratings, however... lol)
• 485 unique users have posted at least once here.
• 146 users have posted 10 or more times here.
• 46,169 ratings have been given to posts in this thread (43,094 were not "dislikes")
• Edit: Forgot to add some fun word counts:
  • update: 3,728 mentions
  • warranty: 3501 mentions
  • voltage: 2755 mentions
  • NHTSA: 1,091 mentions
  • EPA: 706 mentions
  • condition z: 397 mentions
    
  • lawsuit: 541 mentions
  • 4.2 volts: 149 mentions
  • dieselgate: 137 mentions
  • condition x: 129 mentions

Tons of other cool data. It's definitely pretty clear who makes noise and who contributes when you do some basic parsing and analysis of the data. For example, using post count vs ratings, combined with recursively weighting and balancing ratings from, for example, users who continuously give positive or negative ratings to the same people (regardless of the ratings of others), you basically get a list of users weighted by merit, and a second list of clear troublemakers. lol.

This reminds me of that Black Mirror episode where one's status in society was dictated by how many 5 star ratings they received in a day.

 

[Florian500]

Random thought: I wonder if Tesla can argue that no one forced people to install the updates that prolonged the life of the pack and reduced usable range... which would technically be true (with the exception of one unconfirmed example I've heard of in this thread).

Not saying it's a great argument, just crossed my mind.

Well, not actually forced, but with 2019.40.x it was "install this update or lose connectivity".

 

[Chaserr]

And not actually true either. They made some changes but it doesn't break connectivity like they said. It was a scare tactic to try and make more people people install Gated updates with the improved diagnistics without resorting to more unauthorized computer access. People downgrading to 2019.11 for full speed charging and range still have connectivity and only lose sleeping overnight. It's actually speculated that no sleeping was intentional to monitor the problem before they took action with 2019.16.

Those of you that did this downgrade should upgrade back again and lose those things again for safety. If you are in the USA you will receive official government mail soon informing you of the recall but if you aren't in the US it could be a while before your government is notified. By Tesla depending on whether they are actively investigating already.

 

[Battpower]

• update: 3,728 mentions

• warranty: 3501 mentions

• voltage: 2755 mentions

• NHTSA: 1,091 mentions

• EPA: 706 mentions

• condition z: 397 mentions

• lawsuit: 541 mentions

• 4.2 volts: 149 mentions

• dieselgate: 137 mentions

• condition x: 129 mentions

I guess we are staying on topic better than I realized!

 

[wk057]

I have maybe a dumb question.

I wonder how many affected folks would void their battery warranty entirely and install a third party device (probably for a few hundred bucks) that unlocks original range and supercharge speeds?

 

[Gixx1300R]

I have maybe a dumb question.

I wonder how many affected folks would void their battery warranty entirely and install a third party device (probably for a few hundred bucks) that unlocks original range and supercharge speeds?

It would depend on the price and if Tesla can lock you out of Supercharging if the device can be detected

 

[maximizese]

I have maybe a dumb question.

I wonder how many affected folks would void their warranty entirely and install a third party device (probably for a few hundred bucks) that unlocks original range and charge speeds?

You could easily conduct a poll to see who would say what they would do, but who knows what they'll do in the real world. I know I would like to have my original range and charge speed restored to what it was back in April 2019, but I would also like to live out the remainder of my warranty. Those beyond their warranty would have less to lose, but there are many folks (myself included) who believe the software update to diminish range, power, & charge speed are related in some part to safety and I wouldn't feel right altering that. I'll wait for a better solution..and I'll probably be waiting awhile.

On a positive note, I've noticed a bunch of new V3 Supercharger lots that have seemingly popped out of nowhere that I will greatly benefit from by decongesting popular stops and giving me greater flexibility in when and where to charge. Additionally, there are many more under construction and/or in the permitting process. So I can live with my 240 rated mile range S85 a lot longer. Besides, 90% of my miles have been from home charging so I don't frequently Supercharging.

 

[raphy3]

I have maybe a dumb question.

I wonder how many affected folks would void their battery warranty entirely and install a third party device (probably for a few hundred bucks) that unlocks original range and supercharge speeds?

It would be an easy answer for me a year from now when the warranty is up! That would be a reasonable solution, as long as SC is still possible. I have other aftermarket things in my car that unlock certain potential, which Tesla so far has no problem with.

 

[BigNick]

I have maybe a dumb question.

I wonder how many affected folks would void their battery warranty entirely and install a third party device (probably for a few hundred bucks) that unlocks original range and supercharge speeds?

If I'm going to void the warranty, I'd rather just swap in a low-mileage 100kWh battery. More of everything.
Unfortunately that "everything" includes expense.

 

[Battpower]

I have maybe a dumb question.

I wonder how many affected folks would void their battery warranty entirely and install a third party device (probably for a few hundred bucks) that unlocks original range and supercharge speeds?

Well, that's a tough offer. Pay to trash the remaining warranty in order to get back something already purchased and taken away by Tesla.

Tesla on the other hand should jump at such a device if it would fix the few problem cars for them.

But then may be they could do the same by a regular software update..... unless it might present a..... ... no, I can't suggest that.

Any way, if only a few owners are aware of the problem, then not a big market, unless the issue became more widely known / explained, but that would doubtless have other consequences!

Outside warranty and once given up on class action, sounds like worthwhile option as long as it didn't create other potential issues. Once out of warranty, you'd likely want to focus on longevity maybe.

 

[wk057]

I mean... It's definitely doable. I've reverse engineered virtually the entirety of the Tesla BMS... to the point where I was able to "supercharge" a Tesla that was running fine on a Chevy Volt battery in the trunk (with no Tesla battery installed at all). I limited it to 80kW peak... 5C charge rate lol. So making a modification that adjusts whatever parameters I want is perfectly doable.

^ Look at that range! (Full uncapped 2013 Chevy Volt pack)

(#3 module is in the underneath section)

Oh, and the car was too light... so added 360 lbs of concrete to the frunk to balance it out a bit.... still rode too high.

Suffice it to say, I can make these cars do what I want.

 

[gaswalla]

If the software is prolonging the battery life to avoid warranty claims (a rationale pushed hard here), then why would one undo the software outside of warranty?

 

[wk057]

If the software is prolonging the battery life to avoid warranty claims (a rationale pushed hard here), then why would one undo the software outside of warranty?

Dunno. An affected car would be pretty useless to me personally, since I couldn't take it on trips without headaches and extending the trip time substantially (due to lower range and slower charging). So, an option to recover that to normal for a few hundred bucks, and just roll the dice on a failure... would probably be an option I'd consider.

 

[Gixx1300R]

Dunno. An affected car would be pretty useless to me personally, since I couldn't take it on trips without headaches and extending the trip time substantially (due to lower range and slower charging). So, an option to recover that to normal for a few hundred bucks, and just roll the dice on a failure... would probably be an option I'd consider.

I would consider this, still waiting (and hoping) for a resolution from the class action lawsuit, if that fails I would wait until my warranty it up

 

[Battpower]

I would pay for a device that allowed me to dial back Supercharging speed! Give me chance to eat and keep charging longer at a slower rate.