100% range on new Model Y LR with 3 miles on it calculates to 301 miles

[AlanSubie4Life]

As stated above and shown with me posting my new 2024 Model Y (Tesla Spy info) it appears (My Opinion) that Tesla is soft locking the battery to have a Nominal Full pack of 79.6 ish out of the factory. It's also my opinion that it's not a real concern because I think it's by design (I didn't see this in my older Model S or my 2021 Model Y) This seems like they are trying something new. I'm not sure of the problem they are trying to avoid, time will tell.

Yeah it’s a little different. If 2024 numbers ever post then maybe there will be clarity. But anyway the energy degradation threshold actually is higher than prior years for MYLR.

 

[QtownTaxiGreg]

From what I am reading I should charge my MYLR taxi overnight by custom timer setting each evening before bed.

I could work out the charge required to bring back to 90% just as I am setting off in the morning.

Setting out with a 55% battery wouldn't work out too well getting into the last 10% before lunch if I have a busy morning.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

From what I am reading I should charge my MYLR taxi overnight by custom timer setting each evening before bed.

I could work out the charge required to bring back to 90% just as I am setting off in the morning.

Setting out with a 55% battery wouldn't work out too well getting into the last 10% before lunch if I have a busy morning.

Wouldn’t worry about it. Just charge so it is ready an hour or two before you need it. Likely an 80% solution.
Also just charge to close to 100%. Seems more convenient.

 

[QtownTaxiGreg]

Wouldn’t worry about it. Just charge so it is ready an hour or two before you need it. Likely an 80% solution.
Also just charge to close to 100%. Seems more convenient.

I read 100% is bad every which way, except range when heading out on a big trip.

Most mornings it's 10 to 20km max before parking up and having breakfast.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I read 100% is bad every which way, except range when heading out on a big trip.

It’s really not a problem. You live in a hot place though so it’s possible the risk it might have to sit at that level for a number of hours might offset that. But I still would not worry about it. Just don’t leave it there.

I suggested it because getting down to just 20% is much more convenient and gives more margin than the 10% you mentioned.

The other risk is you might forget to modify your charge level on days when no travel is planned. Unfortunately there are limited options for scheduling with Tesla’s UI. But that risk is there even at 90%, which is basically nearly as bad.

 

[QtownTaxiGreg]

It’s really not a problem. You live in a hot place though so it’s possible the risk it might have to sit at that level for a number of hours might offset that. But I still would not worry about it. Just don’t leave it there.

I suggested it because getting down to just 20% is much more convenient and gives more margin than the 10% you mentioned.

The other risk is you might forget to modify your charge level on days when no travel is planned. Unfortunately there are limited options for scheduling with Tesla’s Ui. But that risk is there even at 90%, which is basically nearly as bad.

Often well below freezing overnight in winter here, nearly always up to 9 or 10°C by the afternoon. Garage is heated by the cemtral heating boiler operations to maintain 8 or 9 deg overnight I estimate.

I have been reading up on charging. I guess I will get familiar with the charger by using it. As I understand it the only set and forget option involves Sat Sun weekends. Such dickheads in Tesla design HQ. I work 6 days including Sat and Sun.

Depending on how big of a shift I have each day I would have to custom set the start time of the charger.

Aims being twofold. Spending the minimum time sitting at fullish SOC before heading off next morning. Giving it max sleep opportunities at varying SOC to maintain battery.

I assume all that applies to.the LR battery?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Giving it max sleep opportunities at varying SOC to maintain battery.

Completely unnecessary for battery health.

Spending the minimum time sitting at fullish SOC before heading off next morning.

A good goal, but I wouldn't stress about it. The available options should allow the charge to complete at your desired time in any case.

Think about time-averaged SOC and keep it low. With your use case it's not going to be able to be as low as some owners. You have to maintain full utility - none of this stuff makes any sense if you're stressing about your charge level as a result of contortions.

As a taxi, you're going to be getting HUGE miles out of the pack, so your capacity loss per mile is going to be low anyway. And the car is going to be wearing out anyway, so does capacity loss really matter much? You may also have actual cycle losses which start to get closer to calendar aging losses (not typical), and there's nothing to be done about that.

Just seems like you should maximize your utility as a taxi since that's hopefully going to make more money than any value impact to the pack because it degraded a few more % than it should have.

This applies to LR battery.

Often well below freezing overnight in winter here,

Cold is great. Heat is not. It affects the rate of capacity loss due to storage (calendar aging).

 

[QtownTaxiGreg]

I'd like to retire in ten years with a useful cross country range left and still on the original battery. Maybe 300000 miles on it by then. It won't be worth much., it won't owe me anything and I won't owe IRD anything much GST taking it over privately buying it off myself.

Quite different financially if I have to replace the battery at 8 years because it's shagged.

Whatever I can do, ie 'baby it' without putting myself out, ie keep the wheels turning, be available for work, I will do.

 

[QtownTaxiGreg]

If it is chilly outside it's going to get chilly sitting on a taxi stand PDQ with the glass roof. I think that is going to need to get insulated and bugger the view.

Re cold is good for the battery. You mean cold storage is good for a battery? Doesn't compute when cold is the enemy of range. I could put my charger outside if cold was good. Def not computing...

You need to use up juice to warm the battery for best efficiency afaik.

If I know I am up for 3/4 to an hour of sitting around in below freezing temps what's the best strategy? I don't mind rugging up if the A/C and heated seat can warm things up quickly for a customer. A warm backside is a warm you.

If the range can handle heating my backside while I am literally chilling on the stand I would like to do that, if it wouldn't impact the longevity too badly. It would mean a deeper charging cycle each day of winter.

Ten years of freezing my ass off for hours at a time is not worth saving worrying about unnecessarily doing the battery to death though. It could still happen. I should probably start a savings plan labelled `Warm Bottom' for battery replacement / slapup retirement holiday and do everything else right.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Opened a ticket with Tesla service (twice) for a brand new car in San Diego Best Service Center (for this issue and few other observations/issues unacceptable for brand new car), I was told nothing wrong with the car, no error found after battery testing and BMS etc tests.

Definitely best to come here for information! But yes, the service centers should just tell people how to see how much energy there is in their pack. Should be in the manual, really.

Both calculated, and actual after charged to 100%

Let us know how the energy calculation works out! You should get 79.5kWh or so. Which means you're in good shape.

 

[thefrog1394]

My new 2024 is doing this too. I thought they just changed the efficiency factor. But apparently batteries are being delivered with 79kWh instead of 82 as previously? AND this is less than the quoted 310 miles of EPA range, with all cars actually being delivered at about 2% less? How is that even legal?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

My new 2024 is doing this too. I thought they just changed the efficiency factor. But apparently batteries are being delivered with 79kWh instead of 82 as previously? AND this is less than the quoted 310 miles of EPA range, with all cars actually being delivered at about 2% less? How is that even legal?

Prior 2023 cars were delivered with up to about 80kWh-81kWh. Often just below 80kWh initially.

EPA depletion test energy was 81kWh-82kWh (approx).

Degradation threshold was around 79kWh for those cars IIRC. (Performance higher).

Now 2024 many are showing at least 79.5kWh. CAN bus readback showed 79.6kWh on one car (may have gone up since; sometimes they do).

EPA depletion test energy is 79kWh (a mystery, since it is thought the pack is the same! But maybe it is 45p, )

this is less than the quoted 310 miles of EPA range, with all cars actually being delivered at about 2% less? How is that even legal?

As has been said many times, this is irrelevant unless you also state the units (which convert miles to total energy).

The EPA only cares about the total energy and the efficiency and reproducing Tesla’s claimed results on a new vehicle. What the car displays is irrelevant.

 

[thefrog1394]

Prior 2023 cars were delivered with up to about 80kWh-81kWh. Often just below 80kWh initially.

EPA depletion test energy was 81kWh-82kWh (approx).

Degradation threshold was around 79kWh for those cars IIRC. (Performance higher).

Now 2024 many are showing at least 79.5kWh. CAN bus readback showed 79.6kWh on one car (may have gone up since; sometimes they do).

EPA depletion test energy is 79kWh (a mystery, since it is thought the pack is the same! But maybe it is 45p, )


As has been said many times, this is irrelevant unless you also state the units (which convert miles to total energy).

The EPA only cares about the total energy and the efficiency and reproducing Tesla’s claimed results. What the car displays is irrelevant.

Degradation threshold is the point at which full charge range begins decreasing, correct? Do we know what that is yet for the 2024 models?

So if I understand correctly, for 2023 LR, 330=79kWh. For 2024, 304? = 79kWh?

 

[thefrog1394]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1782294492676288921

Wes (Tesla engineer) seemingly confirming that battery size is the same between 2023 and 2024 FWIW

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Do we know what that is yet for the 2024 models?

Seems to be 79.5kWh since I have never seen the energy method produce a higher value.

for 2023 LR, 330=79kWh. For 2024, 304? = 79kWh?

For 2024 it is 79.5kWh.

Yeah I guess I made a mistake upthread - new degradation threshold is equivalent to 332 of the old 2023 miles. But presumably the pack is the same.

Wes did not answer your question.

 

[thefrog1394]

Seems to be 79.5kWh since I have never seen the energy method produce a higher value.


For 2024 it is 79.5kWh.

Yeah I guess I made a mistake upthread - new degradation threshold is equivalent to 332 of the old 2023 miles. But presumably the pack is the same.

Wes did not answer your question.

Huh, ok. So degradation threshold is higher despite EPA tested capacity being lower & initial capacity potentially being a little lower as well? And the 302? max displayed range appears to be at the degradation threshold, meaning that the lower than expected rated range is unrelated to initial capacity being lower than 81 (because, were initial capacity greater than 79.5, we'd still be capped at 302).

Is it possible the missing 8 miles of range = the below zero buffer and Tesla has eliminated the non-liner percentage below 50% thing they used to do to hide the buffer while still indicating EPA max range when full? Back of the napkin math indicates this would be close but maybe not exactly right. (I don't have the OBD breakout cable yet, so can't run ScanMyTesla on my car to confirm buffer kwh)

EDIT: Using 255 wh/mi as the assumed range constant (79 kWh / 310 mi). 302 miles = almost exactly 77 kWh. That would leave 2.5kWh buffer against the 79.5 kWh degradation threshold. Note that does not match the 3.58 kWh indicated buffer on the screenshot from earlier in this thread, although the numbers are suspiciously round.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

So degradation threshold is higher despite EPA tested capacity being lower & initial capacity potentially being a little lower as well?

Seems that way. 2023 owner would have to confirm the threshold for sure but I am pretty sure that was 79kWh. (Just need the constant determined accurately (easy) and then multiply by 330 miles.)

And the 302? max displayed

304 miles currently corresponds to 79.5kWh.

Is it possible the missing 8 miles of range = the below zero buffer and Tesla has eliminated the non-liner percentage below 50% thing they used to do to hide the buffer while still indicating EPA max range when full? Back of the napkin math indicates this would be close but maybe not exactly right.

No, I don’t think so. Look at @N..8 captures posted here earlier.

79.5 kWh degradation threshold. Note that does not match the 3.58 kWh indicated buffer on the screenshot from earlier in this thread,

3.58kWh is 4.5% of 79.6kWh.

Using 255 wh/mi as the assumed range constant (79 kWh / 310 mi)

The 2024 range constant is 79.5kWh/304mi = 261.5Wh/mi. This can be easily verified by any owner via the ~four different methods. So the line on the energy screen will disappear when efficiency is 266Wh/mi or 267Wh/mi (+5Wh/mi)

And on the energy screen just switch to miles and perform the same math as the capacity method to give you the same ~262Wh/mi.

Again, this stuff can easily be verified or refuted by any owner. They just have to use what the car tells them.

Corrections welcome. I just go by what people have posted.

has eliminated the non-liner percentage below 50% thing they used to do to hide the buffer

They don’t do this. It’s just linear. Each displayed rated mile has 4.5% less energy content than the charging/range constant. Then it all works out. Been this way for at least 5-6 years.

CAN bus software is super useful for the details (like actual energy in pack when above the threshold, brick voltages, etc.) but it is not necessary for the basics of determining what is happening with the pack. I have never used those tools. So far we have been able to observe what the car does and figure out all the details (with CAN bus providing a valuable crosscheck).

 

[QtownTaxiGreg]

I was looking at the sales page and doing sums.

Advertised range of MYLR Dual Motor is 533 km = 331 miles.

This number does not gel with USA numbers I have been reading.

I saw the report from the guy with the P @ six months well above the average for capacity retention for miles. He is doing a lot of miles so his calendar loss is small but he is so fat above the curve I think he is either a simple outlier or he is doing something right.

His routine is SC a little and often keeping to 60% max SOC. No home charging.

I could easy enough do that but half my power would cost 3x and possibly 6x as much as my home charging. Doubtful economy there...

A quickish 25kWh over lunch @80c/kW would cost $20. Same power at night at home ~7 bucks or 3.50 if I get night rate organised. @$13 donated daily it's well over half the cost of a new car in ten years time.

Still cheaper than diesel but not by nearly as much!

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

His routine is SC a little and often keeping to 60% max SOC. No home charging.

Yeah may as well charge at home, won’t impact results. It would likely improve them.

Anyway that owner is just following the simple guidance which seems to work. Where he is above the curve makes perfect sense and is what you’d expect.