The new 2020 85 packs are just 14 module packs using 100-type modules. 100% charge on these packs still results in a CV charge stage at ~4.2V for the highest cell. These new "85" packs are actually almost identical to the original 90 packs in actual capacity. They're not "capping" them as far as I can tell.
My speculation is that the modules used for these packs are lower-binned modules that they're not putting in 100 packs, since all of the ones I've seen data from so far have slightly less capacity than similar 100 packs using the basic 14x/16 calculation method. CAC is a few Ah less on average, too. This is based on a small set of new-85 pack data points, though, so within the margin of error of my speculation being wrong here.
---
Moving on, I still find the comparisons to "diesel gate" amusing... especially when people are still trying to push that this is a safety issue the NHTSA will have to handle. In case it wasn't obvious, EPA != NHTSA.
For a refresher, in the VW scandal, my understanding is that they produced cars from the factory that had built-in software hacks specifically designed to cheat the EPA tests to be able to claim lower emissions values than they really were, resulting in the scandal when people realized this was the case.
In Tesla's case, they released a software update, 3+ years after the EPA had anything to do with these vehicles, which causes a loss in usable capacity in some percentage of vehicles. Yeah, that sucks, but I don't see how this is cheating the EPA a la DieselGate.
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.
---
Don't get me wrong, as I noted quite a few times, Tesla is pretty clearly in the wrong here, and should make things right one way or another. I don't think anyone here would disagree with that.
Cue the usual Disagrees from people who don't even read the posts!