SucreTease
Teslarian
This thread has been hijacked for discussions completely unrelated to the topic of this thread. Please take such discussions to their own thread.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
2024 Plaid rated range displayed is 347 vs EPA 359
- Thread starter sorka
- Start date
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Some of the topics have been marginal for sure, like the standard EPA range & method complaints, but I think generally discussions about capacity are still in the ballpark of the OP:
Commute to work this morning. 1/3rd of the route was on a single lane highway driven at 60 mph (55 zone). The rest was 70 mph in a 65 zone. There was stop and go traffic in San Jose on 101 for about 5 miles which took about 20 minutes to get through which was the biggest factor decreasing average speed. I was mostly in the middle lane going faster than traffic on the right and going mostly slower than traffic on the left i.e I drove with the flow of traffic.
Lost some due to headwinds. Also, this route goes over Pacheco Pass which is a 1300 foot climb and then decent. The decent on the coastal side is a much shorter distance than the ascent so regen braking was required for the entire decent.
The 227 wh/mile in my Plaid is better than the 335 wh/mile I got on the same route in the MSLR loaner but the temps were warmer today (in the low 80s the entire way).
This is equivalent to 427 miles from 100% to dead.
Lost some due to headwinds. Also, this route goes over Pacheco Pass which is a 1300 foot climb and then decent. The decent on the coastal side is a much shorter distance than the ascent so regen braking was required for the entire decent.
The 227 wh/mile in my Plaid is better than the 335 wh/mile I got on the same route in the MSLR loaner but the temps were warmer today (in the low 80s the entire way).
This is equivalent to 427 miles from 100% to dead.
That is pretty impressive. Even your lifetime of 271 Wh/mi gets you almost exactly the official EPA rated range estimate of 359 miles.
You bought this Plaid so you could coast it and squeeze best possible mileage like the early Prius owners?
aerodyne
2 of 3 EV's - Defect Free!
Well I do own 2 Prii. But my Plaid gets WOT from every stop in the lowest suspension setting. My previous P85DL hit the 2500 max WOT count which throws BMS error 159 (Maximum Wide Open Throttle Count Exceeded. Avoid hard acceleration). I thought I was going to get a new battery out of it but they had just updated the software to ignore that BMS error and stopped replacing P85DL batteries that exceeded the count.
Just for kicks, I might commute once in Chill mode just to see being sedate improves it. I wasn't trying to be efficient. I just had meetings all morning on the way to the office and just sort of drove on auto pilot (me, not the car).
aerodyne
2 of 3 EV's - Defect Free!
What is your method(s) for calculating or otherwise obtaining the 97kwh number?
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Energy app but not sure requisite info is available in Model S.
Could provide pics of all screens to see if the info is there.
But failing that can use long charge session to calculate constant (toggle percent/distance while plugged in, use ratio). Or a couple other means.
Anyway once you have the constant multiply by the max displayed range (usually EPA but recently things have gone off the rails) to get the degradation threshold.
Will match @AAKEE numbers above.
As we do not have the energy screen with average and calculated range, we can use SMT.
As my car was above the theshold, each mile or km has been having more energy, so my numbers was not showing the Wh/km of the degradation threshold.
This is numbers from another swedish MSP, that is below the threshold.
Nominal Energy / (637/didplsyed range = energy at 637 km.
96.7-96.8 kWh for these numbers.
I did check during a charge one week ago and then I had 96.2kWh when the range showed 632 km (at 99% SOC), this points to 97.1-97.2 kWh but that was also the nominal full pack and my car hadn’t degraded to the threshold yet then.
I think my nominal full pack was below the treshold yesterday but I updated the car to 2024.20.1, and now SMT shows 60811 km as full range, so my number seems a little high
Maybe an update of SMT is needed to adjust the SMT values.
I think 96.7-96.8 kWh is close to the truth.
I drive in chill all winter to save the studded winter tyres.
I did some tests last summer, as the manual states ”lowest consumption in chill” I decided to test chill on a couple of repeated longer drives (250km to work).
One of the drives I had the consumption was identical (down to the Wh/km). I thought I was in chill, but when driving on the ramp to another highway I floored it to get a head of a truck, and found the car to be in Plaid mode. (While it is easy to feel the difference, I had been on AP or cruise control 99,9% of the drive to be able to drive exactly the same speeds etc.)
The thing I could expect is that Plaid mode could have had higher battery temps to make the car ready to deliver more power but so far I haven’t seen even the slightest difference.
It might still be possible that the heat punp uses less of the battery heat in Plaid mode to heat the cabin in very cold conditions, to end up with a less cooled battery and more power available.
I haven’t really tested this, in so cold conditions the stock wheels would not be able to transfer the power anyway just from the cold tyres/cold surface.
I bought a second couple of summer tyres besides the 21” arachnid to have long range and tyres that doesnt wear very fast.
I have been driving with these for one month in chill and tested to use Plaid a few days back, I saw no difference at all in cell temps of consumption.
I drive with a tablet with Scan My Tesla accessible from the center console so I can see all SMT/BMS values live during a drive (when i had my M3P I had it mounted in front of the steering wheel.) I also log all SMT data with teslalogger.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
To clarify the method for a (very) large charge then for @aerodyne :
Add ~400km of range. Get exact km added.
Swap to % display. Read off the kWh added. If you are careful you can see where it switches numbers and get the 0.5 portion.
Divide kWh/range added, this is the constant.
Will likely only give two significant digits, unless you are careful. Can play around with it and figure it out.
Other methods:
You can also meter rated mile usage and divide energy content by 0.955? (Some issues here but can get close.)
Don’t know of other methods not involving Energy App. Aren’t there some screens? Maybe there is something useful there.
Perhaps the
aerodyne
2 of 3 EV's - Defect Free!
Some things to consider in determining what constant should be used to calculate rated range.
1) EPA tests based on just one or two cars, with several thousand miles on them. Not exactly representative to the car you might have.
2) Using the EPA data of KwH drawn from the pack, I get rated consumption of 98.267 KwH /405 miles = 242.26 wh/mi. This does not agree with either Teslafi, SMT, or by calculating energy used on a drive, and comparing to nominal on the energy screen.
Using those methods, my rated consumption is about 238-239 wh/mi. ('22 MSLR)
3) It appears the rated consumption, at least in my case, is based on nominal full pack of just under 97 KwH, as stated by others.
It is rational to assume the Tesla deliberately used a lower number for pack capacity to calculate consumption than the EPA test data suggests, to account for tolerances in manufacturing, hence a higher rated consumption.
The older palladium cars reported to have a non usable buffer of approximately 1.5 KwH. This would be about the same as 99.4 - 97 kwh.
Because of the first two points, I would use SMT to divide the nominal remaining capacity by the remaining range over a period of time, to get the rated consumption.
Not having a newer plaid, not sure if this answers the question posed by the thread title.
1) EPA tests based on just one or two cars, with several thousand miles on them. Not exactly representative to the car you might have.
2) Using the EPA data of KwH drawn from the pack, I get rated consumption of 98.267 KwH /405 miles = 242.26 wh/mi. This does not agree with either Teslafi, SMT, or by calculating energy used on a drive, and comparing to nominal on the energy screen.
Using those methods, my rated consumption is about 238-239 wh/mi. ('22 MSLR)
3) It appears the rated consumption, at least in my case, is based on nominal full pack of just under 97 KwH, as stated by others.
It is rational to assume the Tesla deliberately used a lower number for pack capacity to calculate consumption than the EPA test data suggests, to account for tolerances in manufacturing, hence a higher rated consumption.
The older palladium cars reported to have a non usable buffer of approximately 1.5 KwH. This would be about the same as 99.4 - 97 kwh.
Because of the first two points, I would use SMT to divide the nominal remaining capacity by the remaining range over a period of time, to get the rated consumption.
Not having a newer plaid, not sure if this answers the question posed by the thread title.
SucreTease
Teslarian
The primary question posed by this thread is this:
Has any owner of a 2024 Plaid with 19" wheels seen their car display a range of 359 miles (as advertised) at 100% charge (equivalent to 287 miles at 80% charge)?
All people with the above car that we know of show only 347 miles of range. This implies that Tesla used the wrong constant in the firmware for the exact vehicle described above. This thread was created to discuss this exact problem and very little of the discussion has been about this problem.
Has any owner of a 2024 Plaid with 19" wheels seen their car display a range of 359 miles (as advertised) at 100% charge (equivalent to 287 miles at 80% charge)?
All people with the above car that we know of show only 347 miles of range. This implies that Tesla used the wrong constant in the firmware for the exact vehicle described above. This thread was created to discuss this exact problem and very little of the discussion has been about this problem.
I think your rated constant is probably like what you say, around 239 Wh/mi. Because if we assume that is correct, then your threshold value would be .239x405 = 96.8 kWh, which is consistent with what others are saying here.
However, to get actual miles roll off to match rated miles roll off, you would have to drive at .955x239 = 228 Wh/mi. Is that about what you are seeing?
Is your current pack capacity below 96.8 kWh now? In other words, are you seeing degradation in rated miles?
Is the old original energy screen that shows projected miles remaining not available on the display anymore?
There probably will be very minor differences between two different cars in the manufacturing line.
Most prominent difference is perhaps the wheel aligment as Tesla slams the cars together with not very good alignment.
From memory, the manufacturer need to set the test vehicle with the outer limitation for alignment causing the most losses in the wheels (might be that I remember this from the WLTP regulations).
There will be a slight difference from time to time when it comes to delivered energy in the test. Both EPA and WLTP make the testers charge full, have it standing overnight and then pergorm the test.
Depending on the imbalance we habe different losses during the night from this.
That calc is off. They did get a lot more than 405 miles range in the test, they got 554.7 miles.
Tesla often use ~ 70% of the tested range, in this case 73% or so.
So, you probably have around 96.7kWh as well, but split on 405 miles. That would give us around 238 Wh/mi.
Well, for the kWh number, the battery starts it calendar aging as soon as the car is built and this rate is quite fast initially, so to make it possible to ship the car, deliver it and getting the owner to be able to see anything close to the full range at least once there need to be a margin for the degradation that happens.
It has mostly been be a couple of percent.
Tesla doesnt do top buffers to hide the degradation like some others do.
No.
Before palladium Tesla used a fixed buffer on S/X.
2.4, 4 and 5 kWh is the ones I have seen. These have been fixed in kWh, and the smaller om the smaller pack.
From Palladium and on I have only seen the buffer number that matches 4.5% of the nominal full pack. And the buffer is always in bottom. Tesla doesn't use top buffer, except in some rare cases to equal out the different range between different batteries in the same model (they used this in Eu around 2021 in the 3LR)
I would be very surprised if they used anything else. If you have data, show it
So the degradation treshold is not linked to the buffer.
We have 99.4kWh that all can be used to drive on in a brand new S, inkluding the buffer.
Of these, 95.5% is above 0% on the screen.
The car shows full range until the degradation threshold is trespassed
SYes, if you have SMT. This seem to set the number at 96.7-96.8 kWh, just like another Swedish Plaid in post #91
I guess there will be an update with new firmware, like my M3P 2021 had the old 499km/310 miles for the first months until it was changed to 315kmi/507km like the EPA.
Do we have any SMT reading of those cars, for nominal full pack?
I understand. And those people with 2024 Plaids are free to weigh in on that issue here, but for some reason they are not. Maybe not many people are buying 2024 Plaids, or they just put the display on percent and don't pay any attention to the rated miles.
The way I'm looking at it now, now that I'm convinced the range wasn't actually reduced in 2024 over 2023, is that they gave me a car that is 3.3% into the 30% degradation threshold without and actual range reduction. I'll take it because I'll get a new battery (if before 8 years and 150K miles) if the displayed rated range drops to 251.
Similar threads
