MTL_HABS1909
Active Member
Same here. My 90% charge was 450km and is now 418km....
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
Same here. My 90% charge was 450km and is now 418km....
⚡️ELECTROMAN⚡️
Village Idiot
I've been following this thread closely and I haven't seen any sign of restriction removal. Maybe the whole thread is just made up by FUDsters, but I get the impression it's for real.
Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
I hope that's it because that complaint is a big nothing burger. Without more fires than what we've seen, it's on the fast track to the rubbish bin.
It was probably @DJRas or one of the other people in the Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software thread. (He is the one that started the class action law suit about the same issue.)
I think @Chaserr was pushing for the NHTSA to look into the issue as well.
I think the problem is more one of reputation, which is why the SP dropped the way it did.
If indeed Tesla issued this software update as a way to prevent battery instability issues (thermal runaway, etc.) and it resulted in significant range loss for owners, then they messed up expecting the owners wouldn't notice or, if they noticed, they wouldn't mind. As you so clearly pointed out, a recall and battery pack replacement would have been the more correct and probably cheaper option in the long run.
This whole story reminds me of the bad-tasting Apple iOS update which resulted in reduced performance in iPhones with aged batteries; at the time, Apple made no mention on the effect that update would have, they then got caught and lost significant revenue via 1) free battery replacements, and 2) delayed purchases of new iPhone models, as many people got fresh batteries in their ageing iPhones for free.
It would be regrettable if Tesla moved from the "let's issue a recall for this less-than-perfect product to make sure the owners' experience is great, stock price be damned!" attitude to a "recalls cause the company's valuation to drop, let's try to hide this problem and hope no-one will notice" approach. I will, however, reserve judgment on this matter until all the facts are revealed.
IMHO, I can't see how they'd remove the limit. The problems with this specific generation of packs have been known about for ages. The problems don't live up to a violation of the text of the warranty, but IMHO they live up to a moral obligation for Tesla to do something, at least something at-cost, to make up to the affected owners.
And it's not like they have the excuse of "no 18650 cell supply" at present.
Also IMHO, I don't think there would have been as much anger if Tesla had just been open about everything. But Tesla of course didn't want to give any ammo to lawsuits or shorts, so they did their usual "fix things quietly" approach...
SoGA Fan Club
Member
Yes, I agree with your points. And I also feel the same way. But the part you didn't address is the advantage of the battery pool/club where you don't actually buy a battery. Think what a Model 3 would cost (to buy the car that is) for someone who only drives 300 to 500 miles per month if the battery is not included.
A pay for use model for batteries would put EVs on par with gas cars as far as purchase price. Your cost of "fuel" (monthly swap pool charge, plus actual usage) would be more than owning your battery, but about the same as fueling your car. And to boot, there would be no degradation, nor depreciation of the battery. And you still have all the other cost advantages of an EV (no oil changes or other maintenance costs).
The ability to to swap fast on trips would just be an added benefit, but not the main purpose of the battery swapping stations. However, I can tell you there are times where I need to drive from Savannah (near Savannah that is) to Jacksonville, FL and make the trip as quickly as possible. Taking my S is out of the question because I simply can't spare the 15 minutes I need to charge to be able to make the trip (I have an 85, round trip is 304 miles). My gas vehicle can easily make the round trip - at any speed I drive. You may be able to make the trip in your 3, but it would be uncomfortable and close. I don't eat, and I use the restroom at my destination. So, charging in this situation simply isn't something I can take time to do. And, our next Tesla will be an X - with 325 miles of range. The situation won't change then either. So, in addition to the main purpose - which is to remove the need to own a degrading battery, the ability to swap in 1 minute would also be useful to many people. You have to understand that not all travel is pleasure where you stop and eat. Many times, I take a sandwich or something with me to eat in the car to save time.
" The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says it’s received a petition calling for an investigation of certain Tesla Inc. electric cars and is evaluating the complaint, according to a notice posted on regulator’s website.
The petition, filed by a law firm representing Tesla drivers, alleges that Tesla updated battery management software in response to a potential defect that could lead to battery fires, according to the notice.
NHTSA hasn’t opened a defect investigation but is reviewing whether to do so. Tesla shares fell on the news and were down 1.6% shortly after 11 a.m. in New York trading."
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
The petition, filed by a law firm representing Tesla drivers, alleges that Tesla updated battery management software in response to a potential defect that could lead to battery fires, according to the notice.
NHTSA hasn’t opened a defect investigation but is reviewing whether to do so. Tesla shares fell on the news and were down 1.6% shortly after 11 a.m. in New York trading."
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
It would be interesting to find out how widespread this problem is, i.e. are there only about 2000 cases of cars with severely degraded battery packs that needed to be "limited" to prevent potentially dangerous situations, or is this the case for all 85kWh packs between 2012-2018? Either way, Tesla might have been better off issuing a "voluntary recall" for pack replacement (if possible), or be upfront about the reduction in range and offer some sort of "store credit" for those who suffered significant range degradation as a result of the software update, things like free supercharging miles (where applicable; I think most cars affected already have free supercharging?) or a new set of wheels / tires, etc.
SoGA Fan Club
Member
I think the biggest problem with Musk and the "leaked" email, and the resulting "missed" or "disappointing" deliveries (as most of the media has termed it for the most part) is NOT the effect it's having on the stock price, but the general feeling the public has about Tesla and how they are doing as a company, and how well they are selling cars.
I have an older couple I have been selling Tesla on for a while. At first, they were like, "not interested". But as much as I can, I get them into my S. Every time, it grows on them a little. Lately, they have been talking about doing a test drive of the X. I was really feeling good abut the chances they'd buy a Tesla. Yesterday morning, I got a text from the husband saying, "Man, Tesla isn't selling any cars. I thought you said everyone wanted one. Are you sure they will be around to service my car if I buy one? I don't want to get into a situation where I buy it and 3 months later, they fold up".
So, I'm back to square one - maybe even worse. Of course I explained the truth to him, and he believed me, but did I remove ALL doubt - absolutely not.
Musk doesn't seem to understand (it doesn't appear anyway) the consequence of giving the haters and shorts this kind of unsubstantiated ammunition (essentially ammunition that is not true, but appears to be true to the uninformed). It isn't just the stock price these people are aiming for. Why do you think they blast every Tesla fire, and every AP wreck all over the internet and TV news when they happen? It's simple, to put fear in potential buyers' heads, and make them doubt their decision. It's no different with these sales figures.
I have an older couple I have been selling Tesla on for a while. At first, they were like, "not interested". But as much as I can, I get them into my S. Every time, it grows on them a little. Lately, they have been talking about doing a test drive of the X. I was really feeling good abut the chances they'd buy a Tesla. Yesterday morning, I got a text from the husband saying, "Man, Tesla isn't selling any cars. I thought you said everyone wanted one. Are you sure they will be around to service my car if I buy one? I don't want to get into a situation where I buy it and 3 months later, they fold up".
So, I'm back to square one - maybe even worse. Of course I explained the truth to him, and he believed me, but did I remove ALL doubt - absolutely not.
Musk doesn't seem to understand (it doesn't appear anyway) the consequence of giving the haters and shorts this kind of unsubstantiated ammunition (essentially ammunition that is not true, but appears to be true to the uninformed). It isn't just the stock price these people are aiming for. Why do you think they blast every Tesla fire, and every AP wreck all over the internet and TV news when they happen? It's simple, to put fear in potential buyers' heads, and make them doubt their decision. It's no different with these sales figures.
estimated capacity in "miles"=/real mileage achievable.
Heck, even if the capacity estimate is done in kWh is almost never real kWh used.
Electrical batteries are chemical devices and their capacity is subject to many conditions.
Good BMS can recover and use cells even with considerable internal resistance, but recovery comes with a lot of relevant use constrains. Extra Amper load->loss, high dynamics of the current flow->loss, etc.
What Tesla did this year is changing of the mileage estimation algorithm. There is no "reducing" or "buffering", "cutting" etc was done.
New mileage if anything is more realistic than old capacity known by many as quite "optimistic". Last 30km happen too often to fade into last 3 or even 0.
This lawsuit will die in boring silence just like all previous ones....
Heck, even if the capacity estimate is done in kWh is almost never real kWh used.
Electrical batteries are chemical devices and their capacity is subject to many conditions.
Good BMS can recover and use cells even with considerable internal resistance, but recovery comes with a lot of relevant use constrains. Extra Amper load->loss, high dynamics of the current flow->loss, etc.
What Tesla did this year is changing of the mileage estimation algorithm. There is no "reducing" or "buffering", "cutting" etc was done.
New mileage if anything is more realistic than old capacity known by many as quite "optimistic". Last 30km happen too often to fade into last 3 or even 0.
This lawsuit will die in boring silence just like all previous ones....
This issue does not affect all "85 kWh" vehicles. For a single data point, our 2012 Model S 85 still shows 250 rated miles at full charge and has never lost range suddenly. The battery pack is newer than 2012 (it Supercharges at up to 120 kW) and is older than 2017, as the original battery pack had a moisture intrusion issue that manifested in January 2017, and we ended up keeping the "loaner" pack. Still, we've put about 90K miles on the newer pack, and it wasn't a brand new pack when we got it.
Isn't this an old one being rehashed again?
Do you have a source for this? That would be significantly better than the already-good Union of Concerned Scientists figures from 2015.
I think a new at-cost battery swap (e.g. to a modern 100kWh pack) or even purchase of a whole new Tesla at-cost, would be a fair compensation. They certainly have the production capacity. Otherwise, sure, maybe some store credit / Supercharging / partial cash compensation for the range loss** / etc would be fair.
** - So if a new S/X pack is $20k (pure guesstimate; 3 LR packs are ~$10k), and you wanted to compensate for 10% range loss, that would be $2k... .. so maybe let people choose between an at-cost pack replacement, $2k cash, or $3k store/supercharging credits... something like that)
I know the warranty doesn't guarantee a minimum range. But come on... this is about reputation, to your early adopters. Don't break the bank and have to increase warranty reserves, and make clear that you're not establishing a precident, but... do something. Show that you care. Just my take.
That said, lawsuits and investigations sure make it hard for them to, because now, doing anything would seem like an admission that they did something wrong.
Elon has called himself an "Independent". He may be on the left on some issues, but at the same time, he doesn't seem thrilled with unions or excessive regulation.
DJRas
Member
I sent a request to investigate.
Ed Chen - our class action attorney filed the official petition!
One doesn't have to guess who he'd vote for - he's already said it. Yang.
False. Tesla applied a software cap to certain batteries, mine included , that limits charging to 4.1v instead of the normal 4.2v. 20 miles or so of range gone overnight w/ software update. This is the same method they used for software limited batteries. Everyone effected is quite mad, see the 200+ page Sudden Range loss thread.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
