baton
Member
I charge to 90% as well and I still get 233 miles. Strange how the update worked for some MR cars and not for the others. Thanks for the info
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
264 miles not update from 256
- Thread starter seanQ6
- Start date
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
That a boy, please do
Hope the moderators don't allow trolls posting here and erase the false info, otherwise the whole forum will be a joke, just like the joke above which provided intentional false info on a software update from Tesla. If a topic is believed to not be appropriate or worthless just delete it and don't let trolls make a joke out of it, or the forums integrity will go down the drain. Just my 2cents worth. Thanks
May have been sarcasm... also the Tesla doesn’t necessarily always charge to exactly the same number of miles for a given charge level setpoint. So some variation would be expected (though 4 miles is on the high side, it still depends on several confounding factors like temperature, time since charge complete, etc.)
baton
Member
After reading the post few times wasn't sure if it was sarcasm or if pipestem was being serious so I just decided to delete the post. I have made $3,500 miles on my car and the battery has been charging pretty much at the same level give or take a mile above or below for the same %.
Last edited:
Take this for what it’s worth…
I heard this recently, but I can’t remember the source. The EPA is the one who rated it at 264, not Tesla. It is probably based on an EPA standardized track or route.
If so, this would not be the first time that Tesla has understated the range that EPA rated their vehicles.
I heard this recently, but I can’t remember the source. The EPA is the one who rated it at 264, not Tesla. It is probably based on an EPA standardized track or route.
If so, this would not be the first time that Tesla has understated the range that EPA rated their vehicles.
It’s actually not all that important. Unless you drive it in a very precise way, you aren’t going to get 256 or 264. What you will get is to drive until the battery is drained. He did not increase the size of your battery. So the distance you can drive that car has not changed.
Sorry
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
No one should be considering even 10 miles into their expected range calculations, much less 4. There are FAR too many variables at play to assume you can get that type of accuracy.
Personally, I use a margin of error of 10% when traveling...and even that is cutting it close when factoring in all the possible variables.
baton
Member
Nothing to disagree there or with posts above! The reply (where you quoted me) was after I was accused of trolling, We just wanted to know if the software update reflected the EPA rated change. That's what this topic is all about. Everything else here is irrelevant to me.Thanks.
Last edited:
Especially between other Model 3 variants with different wheels ...
No Mid Range though...
From: Plug Your Ride Podcast Site
Plug Your Ride Tesla Podcast
Podcast
Episode 103: 75s Go Away TOMORROW
Last edited:
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
I'd be careful about drawing too many conclusions from this. I'm not saying the software hasn't been updated (though if I had to bet, I would bet that it hasn't), but there are just too many factors that play into the number that it gives you. If it's exceedingly cold all the sensors that measure voltage/current/etc. into the battery may display some non-linearity with temperature (or even a linear dependence on temp) and the final answer, when they decide the battery is "done" at the desired charge level, might result in a different number of miles. State of Charge monitoring is pretty difficult, and getting it extremely consistent over a 100 degree temperature range does not make it an easier problem.
Keep in mind that % to miles is not always the same. For example, for a degraded pack, my understanding is that it will always show a 100% charge when it is 100% charged according to the charging system. But that same pack will NOT necessarily show the original "310 miles" that the pack originally had. (One of my arguments for using miles rather than %...) This is because the maximum usable capacity of the 100% charged pack has decreased with time. Temperature can have a similar effect, though exactly what will happen, I have no idea (certainly a cold pack has reduced energy available).
If everyone reports the same, well, then we know Tesla has updated the Wh/mi constant on the LEMR.
Yes, this is true, and people sometimes tend to forget it. It's still going to say 100% full, even if the capacity is down 10 or 20 rated miles later in its life. It's easy to think that it's converting % to rated miles because that's what you can see when you toggle the settings, but it's really converting between a measure of kWh (that it isn't displaying) and rated miles.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Thanks for confirming.
So: Percentage only shows the portion of your "full" energy (whatever that may be) remaining, while miles tells you the actual energy remaining in the pack (after multiplying by the appropriate Wh/mi constant - but this is really just a unit conversion so you can just think of miles as energy).
This is relevant to this thread, because for a given charge setpoint %, different cars at different temperatures will give a different number of miles when charged to that %, since the amount of energy in the pack is different at a given % for every car (though the difference may be small - in some cases less than a mile).
So: Percentage only shows the portion of your "full" energy (whatever that may be) remaining, while miles tells you the actual energy remaining in the pack (after multiplying by the appropriate Wh/mi constant - but this is really just a unit conversion so you can just think of miles as energy).
This is relevant to this thread, because for a given charge setpoint %, different cars at different temperatures will give a different number of miles when charged to that %, since the amount of energy in the pack is different at a given % for every car (though the difference may be small - in some cases less than a mile).
baton
Member
Could you please check on the info for latest software update on your car’s dashboard if it mentions anything about this? Thanks
Version 2018.50.5 c9323af, same as everyone else I believe. Nothing extra in the release notes. I'm not making any grand claims, just reporting interesting observations. As a software RnD director, I can tell you we don't put everything in the release notes.
Also, that whole conversation about degradation and car-to-car deviation is a bit oblique, the car only has 1052 miles right now. Most MR are probably similar. We're on the efficient frontier, man. Besides this is not a comparison of cars, but a comparison of before and after of one car.
Also, that whole conversation about degradation and car-to-car deviation is a bit oblique, the car only has 1052 miles right now. Most MR are probably similar. We're on the efficient frontier, man. Besides this is not a comparison of cars, but a comparison of before and after of one car.
intenost
Member
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
I didn’t rule out a software update modifying the Wh/mi constant! I have no idea! But, were all charges done at exactly the same temperature?
Just drive it. I went through this whole thing when I first got my car too. Just drive it, plug it in and charge it to something 90% or under. Learn how weather, temps (heater/AC) and most importantly speed impact your range for road trip or very long commutes. Otherwise, just plug it in and drive it and you will be a much less concerned tesla owner. I know because I"ve already come out the other side. 
baton
Member
Thanks for the info. I have version 2018.50 7e49f8a. It seems like I don't have the latest software release / update. I believe new software release should come up automatically. Perhaps it doesn't go to all the cars in US simultaneously. I have no idea why there is a discrepancy, but at least there is a clue.
of course not; you already know that; however, the fact that they all ended up at 233 or 232, despite a large temperature range that includes the post-upgrade charges probably eliminates external temp as a significant term; however, cannot go back in time for more trials.
Similar threads
