Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

2021 Model X, Monroney Sticker Range Increase

ElectricIAC

Devil’s Advocate
Dec 31, 2019
2,278
564
DFW
Tis indeed a mystery! Here’s my take: H has higher usable capacity around 105 kWh due to improved chemistry. But Tesla handled the change by decreasing the Wh efficiency number instead of changing the pack energy size. Either because they are lazy or don’t want to start a “capacity gate” and change the 100 kWh battery spec. If you think about it, this is an easy way to handle the larger capacity. Just change make the efficiency figure better, so SOC is depleted more slowly. I think Tesla increased the capacity instead of improved efficiency because the software update notes said “more accurately reflect the battery capacity”.

If Tesla in fact did this, then my long drive test won’t answer the question. The consumption numbers will be too low! For example it will show 10.0 kWh consumed when in fact it’s 10.5 kWh. If true, I am unhappy with this change since the energy meter is wrong, I am an engineer and numbers are sacred, I need to be able to trust my tech. I hope it’s a bug and they fix it. The only way we will know is to test a new cell or insert an energy meter between the battery and motors.
The P105D lives.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: BM3B

BM3B

“beaver”
Mar 8, 2019
772
920
Los Angeles, CA
I have one small data point on the pack size, I will try to get more data soon. The following data is from TeslaFi with no adjustments, I am not sure if the efficiency multiplier is correct, it may need to be updated.

98.63 mile continuous drive, consumed 122.79 rated miles, used 30.34 kWh battery or 33.0% of the battery.
This translates to 247 Wh/rated mile constant, and 91.9 kWh usable battery capacity.

I will try to do a long continuous drive and record the data both from the X trip and teslafi. I may need to change the rated mile constant, seems too low.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: ElectricIAC

_jmk

Member
Sep 4, 2017
319
216
Finland
I have one small data point on the pack size, I will try to get more data soon. The following data is from TeslaFi with no adjustments, I am not sure if the efficiency multiplier is correct, it may need to be updated.

98.63 mile continuous drive, consumed 122.79 rated miles, used 30.34 kWh battery or 33.0% of the battery.
This translates to 247 Wh/rated mile constant, and 91.9 kWh usable battery capacity.

I will try to do a long continuous drive and record the data both from the X trip and teslafi. I may need to change the rated mile constant, seems too low.

Too inaccurate for any meaningful data. The usable portion is 97.8kWh for the G pack (and probably F).
 
  • Informative
Reactions: ElectricIAC

BM3B

“beaver”
Mar 8, 2019
772
920
Los Angeles, CA
Too inaccurate for any meaningful data. The usable portion is 97.8kWh for the G pack (and probably F).
Can you share data (evidence) please? I have heard 92 kWh usable drive capacity from an expert, charging capacity (I measured 101 kWh) is higher due to electrical losses, and physical capacity (102-105 kWh not confirmed) is highest due to software-controlled buffer.

The datapoint is not the best, but it is a useful datapoint until people share more info.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ElectricIAC

_jmk

Member
Sep 4, 2017
319
216
Finland
Can you share data (evidence) please? I have heard 92 kWh usable drive capacity from an expert, charging capacity (I measured 101 kWh) is higher due to electrical losses, and physical capacity (102-105 kWh not confirmed) is highest due to software-controlled buffer.

The datapoint is not the best, but it is a useful datapoint until people share more info.

Evidence is on your consumption tab. Do the math: (consumption * range remaining) / soc. Number is most accurate if the soc is 100% immediately after long balancing. Result is Whs of energy in your pack.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: ElectricIAC

BM3B

“beaver”
Mar 8, 2019
772
920
Los Angeles, CA
Evidence is on your consumption tab. Do the math: (consumption * range remaining) / soc. Number is most accurate if the soc is 100% immediately after long balancing. Result is Whs of energy in your pack.
Yes, I am trying to find time for a 265 mile straight drive from 100% down to about 10%. I have the -H battery pack.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElectricIAC

BM3B

“beaver”
Mar 8, 2019
772
920
Los Angeles, CA
I did a long continuous drive yesterday from 100%.

Used 287/370 rated miles
Used 72.8 kWh from 100% to 22.4%
gives 93.8 kWh discharge capacity (72.8/287/370) and 254 Wh/rated mile.

Average speed 75 mph, peak 88 mph for an hour roughly. 2:40 drive
 

Attachments

  • 3BE2264F-607B-4EE5-A3F3-E1CA44AD1323.jpeg
    3BE2264F-607B-4EE5-A3F3-E1CA44AD1323.jpeg
    182.2 KB · Views: 27

ohmman

Plaid-ish Moderator
Feb 13, 2014
10,036
18,173
North Bay, CA
I did a long continuous drive yesterday from 100%.

Used 287/370 rated miles
Used 72.8 kWh from 100% to 22.4%
gives 93.8 kWh discharge capacity (72.8/287/370) and 254 Wh/rated mile.

Average speed 75 mph, peak 88 mph for an hour roughly. 2:40 drive
How did it compare to the MCU energy graph while driving? I have found a discrepancy between them and do not trust the IC numbers, even when continuously driving and not using auxiliary power.

Remember that rated consumption is 284Wh/mi, which is evidenced by the line on the energy graph.
 

BM3B

“beaver”
Mar 8, 2019
772
920
Los Angeles, CA
Yes the system rated mileage is 284 Wh/mile (dashed line). But I have been told by @Bighorn that it is well known to experienced testers that the actual rated Wh/mile is different than that line in all Tesla’s.

The system Wh/mile (360) matched TeslaFi (360) exactly. What do you mean by IC? Internal computer? Yes this matched. 202 actual miles using 72.8 kWh is 360 Wh/mi. No discrepancy apparent to me yet. The energy graph looked correct though I didn’t study it. @ohmman I am very curious to see your data from the long days with several long legs per day towing in your new LR++, can you post them here?

284 vs 250 is a big difference. I suspect that the 371 mile range is just EPA gaming/ tuning. And the reason why -H got the additional range and not -G is that -H got EPA official testing so they can use the longer range number. I think the extra range is due to removing low Regen, which my wife prefers to use!
 
Last edited:

BM3B

“beaver”
Mar 8, 2019
772
920
Los Angeles, CA
Anyone with -E or -G battery back willing to do the same long drive test from 100% and share the data? Then we can compare to see if there is any difference.

Also as you can see I charged to 100% and got 370 miles.
 

ohmman

Plaid-ish Moderator
Feb 13, 2014
10,036
18,173
North Bay, CA
Yes the system rated mileage is 284 Wh/mile (dashed line). But I have been told by @Bighorn that it is well known to experienced testers that the actual rated Wh/mile is different than that line in all Tesla’s.

The system Wh/mile (360) matched TeslaFi (360) exactly. What do you mean by IC? Internal computer? Yes this matched. 202 actual miles using 72.8 kWh is 360 Wh/mi. No discrepancy apparent to me yet. The energy graph looked correct though I didn’t study it. What do you think?

284 vs 250 is a big difference. I suspect that the 371 mile range is just EPA gaming/ tuning. And the reason why -H got the additional range and not -G is that -H got EPA official testing so they can use the longer range number. I think the extra range is due to removing low Regen, which my wife prefers to use!
IC = instrument cluster. I am talking about the trip app, which you used. It reports differently from the energy app, which appears to make more sense.

TeslaFi estimates energy consumption based on rates miles consumed with a 1/3 mile granularity.
 

BM3B

“beaver”
Mar 8, 2019
772
920
Los Angeles, CA
IC = instrument cluster. I am talking about the trip app, which you used. It reports differently from the energy app, which appears to make more sense.

TeslaFi estimates energy consumption based on rates miles consumed with a 1/3 mile granularity.
How can I get useful full-drive data from the energy app? It only shows efficiency for last 30 miles. Next drive I will compare the Wh/mi on IC to app. It was similar, I never noticed a discrepancy but I will check. Why would they be different? Which do you think is more accurate? IC should be accurate.
 

ColdWeatherEV

Member
Apr 14, 2020
39
131
Northwest Wyoming
I did a long continuous drive yesterday from 100%.

Used 287/370 rated miles
Used 72.8 kWh from 100% to 22.4%
gives 93.8 kWh discharge capacity (72.8/287/370) and 254 Wh/rated mile.

Average speed 75 mph, peak 88 mph for an hour roughly. 2:40 drive

Interesting. I've been looking at my data, but from the charging information. I charged from 38% to 80% yesterday and Tesla indicated 42.7 kwh added. So 42.7 kwh / 42% = 101.6 kwh. I plan to do this for the next few charging cycles and see how they compare. Any readers out there with a scan my tesla app and an OB2 adapter that can hook it up to a car with the H battery? I'm curious what the BMS is reporting as capacity.
 

_jmk

Member
Sep 4, 2017
319
216
Finland
Anyone with -E or -G battery back willing to do the same long drive test from 100% and share the data? Then we can compare to see if there is any difference.

Also as you can see I charged to 100% and got 370 miles.

It would be pointless comparison as those numbers depend on the discharge load, temperature, stops taken, ....
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: BM3B

BM3B

“beaver”
Mar 8, 2019
772
920
Los Angeles, CA
It would be pointless comparison as those numbers depend on the discharge load, temperature, stops taken, ....
Wrong. We are measuring usable battery discharge capacity. The Wh/mi will depend on all those factors you listed. But not the discharge capacity if you so your math correctly.
 

BM3B

“beaver”
Mar 8, 2019
772
920
Los Angeles, CA
Interesting. I've been looking at my data, but from the charging information. I charged from 38% to 80% yesterday and Tesla indicated 42.7 kwh added. So 42.7 kwh / 42% = 101.6 kwh. I plan to do this for the next few charging cycles and see how they compare. Any readers out there with a scan my tesla app and an OB2 adapter that can hook it up to a car with the H battery? I'm curious what the BMS is reporting as capacity.
You measured charging capacity, which is always larger than discharge by 6-10% due to drivetrain and motor losses. I measured 101.1 kWh charging capacity.
 

About Us

Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


SUPPORT TMC
Top