Since may software updates, i don't know the real reason why tesla limit my car's battery: maybe to shut off a single battery module like the one that caused a car to catch fire in shanghai (same year model as my car)... or decrease the battery voltage to reduce potential fire...but is it right and legal that i paid for a top of the line performance model s p85d and now tesla limited it to only 68-69 kwh? i would not mind if i paid for 70 kwh and be limited by tesla to 68 kwh, but my battery is 85 kwh and limited to only 68kwh! the power also seemed to be reduced and charging is taking much longer. what made me really mad is that tesla went behind my back and cheated like that using ota updates.
My car's charging speed was significantly reduced following a software update. i used to charge at 116kw until about 25% state of charge but now i barely get 90kw at that state of charge.
Starting with a software update in may 2019, tesla capped the max voltage the high voltage battery would charge to. they claim they did this "out of an abundance of caution" after several non-crash fires happened to these models. tesla took action to downgrade horsepower and range along with all other aspects of performance through a total voltage cap after claiming to be releasing a fire-safety update, but officially no safety update was released. this change happened while the car was parked in my garage and stationary. https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/16/18627746/tesla-fire-battery-software-update-model-s-x https://jalopnik.com/tesla-is-updating-battery-software-after-a-model-s-catc-1834794877
On may 20, 2019, this car was issued a forced, ota-update from tesla, versions 2019.16.1 and 2019.16.2 as a result of what is believed to be a response to the series of multiple battery fires worldwide involving tesla's electric vehicles. without disclosing what the software updates would do or what negative affects they would have, tesla forced these updates without telling my client and other affected owners that their batteries would be limited and charging speeds would be throttled, effectively and significantly decreasing the range and speed of charging for their cars. tesla advertised my client's specific year, make and model (2015 model s 70d) as having an approximate epa estimated 240 miles of range. this case has been filed as a class action which is already pending in the u.s. district court, northern district of ca, case number 5:19-cv-04596-vkd, by the named class plaintiff and representative david rasmussen. this office represents mr. rasmussen, as well as mr. lin and various additional owners of these affected vehicles, including residents in different states across the county. to date, tesla has proffered the explanation that the updates were done in order to promote the health and battery longevity for the vehicles, however, there is a correlation between the age of these cars, the recent fires, and any corresponding warranties with these cars by which tesla appears to try and avoid. thus, customers are left completely without any remedy to the issues caused by tesla, as ncds arbitrators across the u.s. are unable to come to terms with the fact that tesla has committed these illegal, unfair, deceptive, and fraudulent acts, or are unable to due to the limited scope and requirements by which ncds arbitrators are bound to.
Tl* the contact owns a 2015 tesla model s. the contact stated that the vehicle experienced unintended acceleration after making contact with a curb. it was discovered that the automatic transmission feature was turned off. the contact stated that the failure occurred without warning. no dealer the car is purchased directly from california. the manufacturer was contacted, but no further communication was initiated. the failure mileage was approximately 6,000. *tt *tr