2024 Plaid rated range displayed is 347 vs EPA 359

[terranx]

Why do you say it is not 4.5%? I mean you might be right but do you have an SMT capture showing this?

Sure, around 99kWh is when new. All calculations done in the vehicle (I don’t know that energy app exists in Model S but there are other methods) will show about 97kWh when it has 99kWh. Because of the degradation threshold. Of course if you use SMT this extra capacity is not hidden.

All these values include 4.5% buffer. The 97kWh emulates 99kWh, meaning each rated mile has more energy than the standard constant, which can be calculated in the car by various means. So this means of course the buffer is whatever % of 99kWh, when showing 97kWh via calculation.

4.5% less than 99kWh would be ~94.5 kWh

 

[sorka]

Why do you say it is not 4.5%? I mean you might be right but do you have an SMT capture showing this?

Sure, around 99kWh is when new. All calculations done in the vehicle (I don’t know that energy app exists in Model S but there are other methods) will show about 97kWh when it has 99kWh. Because of the degradation threshold. Of course if you use SMT this extra capacity is not hidden.

All these values include 4.5% buffer. The 97kWh emulates 99kWh, meaning each rated mile has more energy than the standard constant, which can be calculated in the car by various means. So this means of course the buffer is whatever % of 99kWh, when showing 97kWh via calculation.

See my previous screenshots.

Tesla used to have a much stricter anti brick buffer but recent SMT logs in the last few years since refresh show folks above to use a bit more than the nominal charge amount. 99.4 kwh is the physical capacity (smaller than the previous 100 kwh which was physically 103 kwh).

Tesla used to do this trick where 0% was not actually 0% of the usable amount so when you hit 0, you weren't even into the buffer yet. As the battery degraded, they'd give some of this back so 0% was closer to 0% to make it look like you're battery hadn't degraded as much.

But the bottom line currently is the physical battery is 99.4 kwh and folks have posted SMT logs showing using the actual nominal amount + a little more in 100% to dead run runs. i.e. Out of Spec Reviews is one such example.

 

[AAKEE]

This isn’t how it works. 99.4 includes 4.5% buffer. ~97kWh as the maximum you can calculate is just the degradation threshold. Even if you calculate 97kWh for a new car, it will have more energy as demonstrated by SMT. And of course whatever the number is, it always includes 4.5% buffer.

And you can use that buffer, but it is at a high risk.

Word!

 

[sorka]

Drove home last night from Sebastopol to Merced. 75% of the drive was 70 mph in a 65. A small amount was 75 in a 70. About 10% of the drive was in 50 to 55 zones (driving 55 to 60). 5 miles of it was stop and go traffic in Berkeley. 6 miles was stop and go in Merced. Displayed 240 before I got off the freeway. The stop and go at the beginning, and, and the slow traffic in Berkeley all contribute to higher averages. The MSLR would have been 225 to 227 under the same drive.

View attachment 1055247

Forgot to mention 182 miles at 244 wh/mile was 46% of the battery which comes out to just about 396 miles traveled from 100% to 0% before any sketchy buffer use which just so happens to be the old rated range.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

4.5% less than 99kWh would be ~94.5 kWh

Yep, that is what I am saying.

See my previous screenshots.

Looked, not sure what you are referring to exactly. You can link it if you want.

But the bottom line currently is the physical battery is 99.4 kwh and folks have posted SMT logs showing using the actual nominal amount + a little more in 100% to dead run runs. i.e. Out of Spec Reviews is one such example.

Sure. That is what I am saying.

The point is that at 99kWh you’ll see 97kWh in the car if you are not using the CAN bus. Everything is just scaled directly in a straightforward way, of course you still have the 99kWh; it just does not display that way.

99.4 kwh is the physical capacity (smaller than the previous 100 kwh which was physically 103 kwh).

Yes, sure. Agreed, when new. That is what I am saying. It will look like 97kWh and the buffer will be 4.5% of 99kWh and the usable will be 95.5% of 99kWh.

You’ll start losing miles as usual below the degradation threshold which I am told is about 97kWh (see @AAKEE for more info).

Tesla used to do this trick where 0% was not actually 0% of the usable amount so when you hit 0, you weren't even into the buffer yet. As the battery degraded, they'd give some of this back so 0% was closer to 0% to make it look like your battery hadn't degraded as much.

I don’t know what they used to do but they don’t do this now. 0% is ~4.5% of the capacity remaining AFAIK. Right at the buffer.

 

[terranx]

Yep, that is what I am saying.

Last I checked 94.5 kwh is a smaller number than 97 kwh?

 

[AAKEE]

That's what I said although it's no longer 4.5%. The 99.4 is the actual physical capacity when new.

The full pack when new is 99.4 kWh.
The buffer is always 4.5% (since palladium, before it was a fixed number).
You can drive up all the buffer.
Buffer is only the part of the (actually) usable capacity below 0% on the display.

This is my car a couple of months in.

Nomimal Full pack sets the buffer. It is always 4.5% of that, so 4.5% of 98.4 is 4.43.

”Usable remaining” is Scan My Tesla term for the part above 0% displayed, so nominal remaining - the buffer.

 

[sorka]

Yep, that is what I am saying.

Looked, not sure what you are referring to exactly. You can link it if you want.

Sure. That is what I am saying.

The point is that at 99kWh you’ll see 97kWh in the car if you are not using the CAN bus. Everything is just scaled directly in a straightforward way, of course you still have the 99kWh; it just does not display that way.

Yes, sure. Agreed, when new. That is what I am saying. It will look like 97kWh and the buffer will be 4.5% of 99kWh and the usable will be 95.5% of 99kWh.

You’ll start losing miles as usual below the degradation threshold which I am told is about 97kWh (see @AAKEE for more info).

I don’t know what they used to do but they don’t do this now. 0% is ~4.5% of the capacity remaining AFAIK. Right at the buffer.

I think we're all in agreement except you keep saying 4.5% which if true would leave you with 94 something, not 97kwh.

 

[sorka]

The full pack when new is 99.4 kWh.
The buffer is always 4.5% (since palladium, before it was a fixed number).
You can drive up all the buffer.
Buffer is only the part of the (actually) usable capacity below 0% on the display.

View attachment 1055329

This is my car a couple of months in.

Nomimal Full pack sets the buffer. It is always 4.5% of that, so 4.5% of 98.4 is 4.43.

”Usable remaining” is Scan My Tesla term for the part above 0% displayed, so nominal remaining - the buffer.

I think what you're saying is that it displays/hits 0% when you've used up that 94.6 of usuable remaining. If so, then they're still still playing the trick showing you 0% early. Out of Spec Reviews clearly showed you could use the nominal full pack amount. BTW, my MXP on day 0 showed 97.2 kwh nominal full and the MSP showed 96.9 kwh nominal full. 98.4 is quite impressive.

 

[AAKEE]

Last I checked 94.5 kwh is a smaller number than 97 kwh?

A new pack withouth degradation would deliver 99.4 kWh (as it did on the S Plaid EPA test, 99.3 respective 99.4 fir 21” and 19” wheels).

Lets play with that the nominal full pack reaches 99.4 (it most probably doesnt, as the pack degrades from the factory and the BMS seems sluggish to reach the top number).
So, NFP = 99.4 will make the buffer 4.47kWh.
The ”usable” per the usual forum term would be 99.4-4.47 so 94.9kWh.

Still, a drive from 100% to the car stops will deliver close to 99.4 kWh.

The normal degradation for normal average ambient temps is around 5.5% for the first year. Even if we live in a slightly chiller climate, charging and driving keeps the aversge cell temp up a bit.

5.5% the first year will be 5.5 x square root (3) after three years = ~ 9.5%.
Cyclic aging will have a slight impact so around 10% degradation is expected and normal.

 

[AAKEE]

I think what you're saying is that it displays/hits 0% when you've used up that 94.6 of usuable remaining. If so, then they're still still playing the trick showing you 0% early. Out of Spec Reviews clearly showed you could use the nominal full pack amount. BTW, my MXP on day 0 showed 97.2 kwh nominal full and the MSP showed 96.9 kwh nominal full. 98.4 is quite impressive.

They arent playing a trick on that.
As the buffer is 4.5% of the nominal full pack it decreases in size when the pack degrades. Using a fixed percentage of the actual capacity sounds sound to me.

Nominal remaining is 99kWh on that picture. Subtract the buffer 4.43, and round it, then you have 94.6.

My pack still is at 97-97.1 kWh nominal full pack. Last full charge reached 97.6 nominal remaining.
One year since delivery and 21K km.

(I have less degradation than *virtually all others* as I use low SOC for daily use, which cut the degradstion in half. Cold climate also helps).

 

[AAKEE]

Out of Spec Reviews clearly showed you could use the nominal full pack amount. BTW, my MXP on day 0 showed 97.2 kwh nominal full and the MSP showed 96.9 kwh nominal full. 98.4 is quite impressive.

Yes, it is very (extremely) clear that we can drive up all the nominal remaining or the nominal full pack, which includes the buffer.

The term *usable* as most people use it, abd as Scan My Tesla use it is not really correct.
The EPA test/certification states that the ”usable” is the energy from a full charge until the car stops. So the real usable is actually including the buffer in this case. But we can not change how people use the term.

All EPA tests shows that the hole battery capacity can be used to drive on, including the buffer.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I think we're all in agreement except you keep saying 4.5% which if true would leave you with 94 something, not 97kwh.

I think we are mostly saying the same thing but the degradation threshold I think is a concept that I may not be communicating clearly, but is quite straightforward and important to understand if you don’t use SMT.


97kWh is the degradation threshold. This is what the car displays (via various means which may be harder to access on cars that do not have the Energy App) when it has 99.4kWh.

97kWh is the threshold below which the car starts losing range. So EPA Range * Charging Constant = ~97kWh for this vehicle (I have been told).

If you carefully look at the trip meter, you should register about 94.5kWh for a battery with 99kWh capacity on a drive from 100% to 0% (with no stops of course!). Yet the calculations in the car for your capacity using the charging constant and miles will suggest you have 97kWh*0.955 = 92.6kWh usable. But that is just a number and it doesn’t reflect reality because the car inflates the energy content of the rated miles when your actual energy is above 97kWh threshold so for example inflated by 99kWh/97kWh, or 2%, when the pack is 99kWh. So you get 94.6kWh usable rather than 92.6kWh you would expect.

Last I checked 94.5 kwh is a smaller number than 97 kwh?

Yes. 94.5kWh is what you’d have above 0% if you had a 99kWh nominal full pack per SMT. Since the degradation threshold is 97kWh (again, I have been told this), each rated mile (displayed) would contain 99kWh/97kWh*0.955 = 0.975, 97.5%, of the charging constant (charging constant is degradation threshold/EPA range, and can be derived from in-car displays in several ways), rather than the normal 95.5% they will contain when your total energy drops below the degradation threshold.

So you can see it all works out. The 97kWh usable (to 0%) actually ends up being 0.955 *97kWh *99kWh/97kWh = 94.5kWh.

The charging constant can be calculated via various means described elsewhere. Energy App is the easiest but not sure it exists for you.

Out of Spec Reviews clearly showed you could use the nominal full pack amount.

Yeah they drive til it stops so they use everything and keep driving after hitting 0%.

I think what you're saying is that it displays/hits 0% when you've used up that 94.6 of usuable remaining. If so, then they're still still playing the trick showing you 0% early.

There is not a trick here, they just show 0% when you have 4.5% of your energy left. It’s a buffer to reduce the chance of premature shutdown. In the EPA test they drive until it stops which does not represent a real-world situation that people would normally do because they like to not be stuck in the middle of the road, it is embarrassing but not so bad when it is on a dyno. Still, you can try, and the energy is usually there (not always!) if you try to use it.

 

[AAKEE]

Since the degradation threshold is 97kWh (again, I have been told this), each rated mile (displayed) would contain 99kWh/97kWh*0.955 = 0.975, 97.5%, of the charging constant (charging constant is degradation threshold/EPA range, and can be derived from in-car displays in several ways), rather than the normal 95.5% they will contain when your total energy drops below the degradation threshold.

Yes, everything points to the degradation threshold beeing 96.9-97kWh.

Edit, I got these numbers from another owner, that is below the threshold:

Nominal remaining vs displayed range:

95,2 kWh 627km
95,0 kWh 626km
94,8 kWh 624km
94,5 kWh 622km

That calculates to a 96.7 kWh threshold, I think.


I have got me another very light rolling resistance 20” wheels set, so I currently use the 19” setting (not to c*** *p the 21” data, as I use these also).

Charging full for a longer drive a few days ago I saw 632 km range when the nominal remaining was 96200, chsrging not done.

This calls for 637/632 x 96200 = 96.961 Wh energy to see full range.
As my nomimal full pack was 97.1 at that time, I guess my ”constant” was slightly denser in Wh/km than we see on a car that is below the degradation threshold.

152.2Wh/km is ~ 245 Wh/mile so if 244Wh/mile is the constant below the threshold we are looking at a 96.6 kWh threshold ?

So you can see it all works out. The 97kWh usable (to 0%) actually ends up being 0.955 *97kWh *99kWh/97kWh = 94.5kWh.

The charging constant can be calculated via various means described elsewhere. Energy App is the easiest but not sure it exists for you.


Yeah they drive til it stops so they use everything and keep driving after hitting 0%.

There is not a trick here, they just show 0% when you have 4.5% of your energy left. It’s a buffer to reduce the chance of premature shutdown. In the EPA test they drive until it stops which does not represent a real-world situation that people would normally do because they like to not be stuck on the middle of the road. Still, you can try, and the energy is usually there (not always!) if you try to use it.

 

[terranx]

There is not a trick here, they just show 0% when you have 4.5% of your energy left. It’s a buffer to reduce the chance of premature shutdown. In the EPA test they drive until it stops which does not represent a real-world situation that people would normally do because they like to not be stuck in the middle of the road, it is embarrassing but not so bad when it is on a dyno. Still, you can try, and the energy is usually there (not always!) if you try to use it.

I suppose this is but another reason teslas are perceived as having worse range than listed on the tin. The rated range is based on the EPA test numbers, but the if 4.5 kWh is hidden, the displayed number will count down even faster than it “should”. In this cars 4.5 kWh translates to another 15-20 miles, so can make a decent difference to perception

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

152.2Wh/km is ~ 245 Wh/mile so if 244Wh/mile is the constant below the threshold we are looking at a 96.6 kWh threshold ?

I have no idea what the exact numbers are but it seems your data points to the threshold being ~96.9kWh. And that would put the constant at 96.9kWh/637km ~= 152.1 Wh/km. Is 637km (396mi) the max display?

Anyway the constant can be calculated from the charging screen during a very large charge event, or whatever. No Energy Screen for the plebeian Model S owners?

I suppose this is but another reason teslas are perceived as having worse range than listed on the tin.

Yeah, other manufacturers deal with it various ways. In range tests Tesla says to use the buffer which is what Out of Spec did, as they should.

Potentially doing it this way results in fewer stranded vehicles than other manufacturers. I have run down my Spark EV. 0 means zero. Didn’t quite make it.

 

[AAKEE]

I suppose this is but another reason teslas are perceived as having worse range than listed on the tin. The rated range is based on the EPA test numbers, but the if 4.5 kWh is hidden, the displayed number will count down even faster than it “should”. In this cars 4.5 kWh translates to another 15-20 miles, so can make a decent difference to perception

The EPA test clearly states to drive the car from full to it stops. Its the same with the WLTP test for other parts of the world.
The range test will include the buffer in Teslas case.
In the EPA test the manufacturer can do a volontary reduction of the range. Different manufacturers reduces different amounts, which makes it differ.

I know several of the range tests done by media in Europe (knows this) and drives until the car stops.

 

[sorka]

(I have less degradation than *virtually all others* as I use low SOC for daily use, which cut the degradstion in half. Cold climate also helps).

Well technically I don't have any degradation yet since my pack at 5 miles showed 96.9 Nominal Full Pack and still shows that same number today at 3,650 miles. I think yours just started out higher than everyone else. I'm not surprised mine hasn't budged either since I only ever charged to 100% that one time just to prove rated showed 347 when new on the 2024. Other than that, I store the car at 50% and only charge right before driving to whatever the range I need.

The thing has so much power compared to my P85DL that I don't feel I need to charge high just to have enough to play. It pulls more than enough for me even me at 50%.

 

[terranx]

The EPA test clearly states to drive the car from full to it stops. Its the same with the WLTP test for other parts of the world.
The range test will include the buffer in Teslas case.
In the EPA test the manufacturer can do a volontary reduction of the range. Different manufacturers reduces different amounts, which makes it differ.

I know several of the range tests done by media in Europe (knows this) and drives until the car stops.

I know that's what the EPA test is. But the dash display shows the EPA rated range at 100% when new. But it really should be showing EPA range - 4.5% if they want that last 4.5% to represent a reserve.

 

[AAKEE]

I know that's what the EPA test is. But the dash display shows the EPA rated range at 100% when new. But it really should be showing EPA range - 4.5% if they want that last 4.5% to represent a reserve.

The range at 100% includes the complete battery but the reserve is made up by showing each 0.955% of the battery as 1%, ending up in having 4.5% buffer when 0% is displayed.
Most people doesn’t drive below 0% displayed so I guess it works well.
(But we need to drive 4.5% more efficient than EPA to reach the EPA range.)