-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
The Volt is irrelevant to this discussion. The rated range in a Tesla does not depend on how it's driven. "Rated" means the range on the EPA test cycle.
MarcG
Active Member
This makes sense for projected range. Makes no sense for RATED range, since it's based on a specific EPA cycle (if you drive exactly like the EPA tested the car and in the exact same environment conditions, you'll get the same range).
If you browse through posts in this thread by @rawn77, @BertL, me and a couple others you will see the "official" message from the technicians at the SvC's is that it's a miscalculation in the algorithm software that they say will be corrected in a future firmware update (no timeframe given). That explanation makes sense. It has nothing to do with your driving and weather, it's an EPA rating. You will see from our posts that we got all that in writing and are monitoring it. If yours starts dropping like a mile a week you will notice so keep track of what it is now new (guessing it's about 286-288 at 100% and 256-258 at 90%) and tell them to test your pack at the SvC next time and get written assurance. Hopefully it will be consistent with what we got.
I have several "official" messages in writing that say my Model X should be in my garage now. Last I checked, it's not.
Many people at Tesla have spread inconsistencies for several years now. I doubt that service techs at service centers are intimately familiar with the calculation used to calculate the rated range, and that's not a ding - because it's not their job in the first place. Meanwhile, I have good, hard data here:Displayed Range and Seasonality
I have data that shows that the rated range shown by my vehicle at any given SOC % correlates rather tightly with the ambient temperature of my car. No one has provided any other explanation to me as to why my rated range has, for 3 years now, gone up in the spring to summer and then down in autumn and winter again. If rated range did not vary by weather and was simply changed by algorithm in a firmware revision, it's quite a coincidence. Oh but wait, I have data there too! My data also has my software revision updates, and the increases you see in my rated range does not have any correlation with firmware updates at all. Again, I'm looking for an explanation for the increases in rated range that come with warm weather, which are not following firmware upgrades.
I do agree with you that driving style does not affect rated range, but the temperature seems, indeed, to have an impact on what your rated range is, statement from a service center technician or not. I would like to understand his explanation for my cyclic rated range at 90%, correlated with temp.
Now, it's clear to me that the 90D has a different problem than normal degradation. There are people here who are seeing very abnormal reductions in their rated range. It is something that Tesla will likely have to address. Hopefully that is a firmware element - whether BMS or whatever - and is not an intrinsic problem with the 90 kWh battery packs/cells used.
Last edited:
I have several "official" messages in writing that say my Model X will be in my garage by the end of 2015. Last I checked, it's not.
I have data that shows that the rated range shown by my vehicle at any given SOC % correlates rather tightly with the ambient temperature of my car. No one has provided any other explanation to me as to why my rated range has, for 3 years now, gone up in the spring to summer and then down in autumn and winter again. If rated range did not vary by weather and was simply a firmware revision, it's quite a coincidence. Oh but wait, I have data there too! My data also has my software revision updates, and the increases you see in my rated range does not have any correlation with firmware updates at all.
I do agree that driving style does not affect rated range, but the temperature seems, indeed, to have an impact on what your rated range is, statement from a service center technician or not. I would like to understand his explanation for my cyclic rated range at 90%, correlated with temp.
Now, it's clear to me that the 90D has a different problem than normal degradation. There are people here who are seeing very abnormal reductions in their rated range. It is something that Tesla will likely have to address. Hopefully that is a firmware element - whether BMS or whatever.
First of all, this is not in defense of Tesla or a repudiation of your data which I have read more than once.
The response I got was coming from a senior engineer at corporate according to my tech and it was consistent with others who have brought it to their attention (see copy of work order below and what they said). I don't fully understand the comment "terminations in the middle region" (maybe you can explain?) but this may be specific to 90D's not sure. I'm not holding my breath for a quick fix but I will hold them accountable and it is now documented that they tested and there is no real range loss. Me and others who have reported this live in Southern California and the temperatures during the biggest loss in displayed rated range was 80-90 degrees (Sept/Oct 2015) so for us temperature wasn't the reason. That doesn't mean your results aren't valid, I'm sure they are for your use case which includes temperature and your pack. Incidentally my current numbers are 278 @ 100% and 248 @ 90% which would be 10 miles gone in 12 weeks. The 90D was supposed to add 16 miles from the 85D so losing most of that was alarming.
Tesla Description of Work
"Concern: Customer states: When charging to 90% a full charge used to get 258 now only two months of driving is getting 251 (See Shop Service Manager)
Corrections: 12V Battery & Fuses General Diagnosis
Please inform the customer we have found nothing wrong with the hardware in this vehicle. The software range calculation for these packs is a feature new to EV's to provide accurate real time range information to the customer. This algorithm is continuously evolving and we are actively trying to improve its accuracy over every possible use case. Currently some State of Charge terminations in the middle region of the battery level may cause some range calculations that are less accurate than others but these will be fixed with upcoming over the air firmware for all vehicles."
Last edited:
"Terminations in the middle region" means ending trips and recharging only within the middle part of the SOC range, never taking the range down to lower SOC levels. If you never take the car down below 130 miles, for example, the car doesn't get a good sense of cell and pack voltages as the battery pack is being used. This is why, in past degradation threads, Tesla has asked its owners to drive the car down to less than 20% SOC, then charge back up completely, to reorient the algorithm.
There's no doubt in my mind that he's right when he says that range calculations may be off, that they're constantly working on the algorithm, and that they update it as part of software. Version 5 made a pretty major change that was noticeable in many cars. But that doesn't exclude the effects of ambient temperature, and for some Tesla employee to say that weather doesn't affect rated range is wrong, according to the data. Now, it's not an *instant* feedback loop - for example, I can't heat my freezing garage up to 80 degrees one day and instantly see the rated range jump a few miles; it just doesn't work like that and perhaps that's what your service center tech was thinking you were describing. Rather, over time, the effects of seasonal temperatures are making the algorithm report different numbers.
There's something else going on with the 90 packs - whether it's a calibration error or you have cell problems, we don't know and likely won't know until that software revision comes out, or Tesla does something else. I agree with you that the 90 kWh pack degradation you're reporting is not caused by the temperature (although this temperature effect may be reflected in the number). I hope that your range is still there and that it's just a matter of instrumentation, and that software fixes it.
There's no doubt in my mind that he's right when he says that range calculations may be off, that they're constantly working on the algorithm, and that they update it as part of software. Version 5 made a pretty major change that was noticeable in many cars. But that doesn't exclude the effects of ambient temperature, and for some Tesla employee to say that weather doesn't affect rated range is wrong, according to the data. Now, it's not an *instant* feedback loop - for example, I can't heat my freezing garage up to 80 degrees one day and instantly see the rated range jump a few miles; it just doesn't work like that and perhaps that's what your service center tech was thinking you were describing. Rather, over time, the effects of seasonal temperatures are making the algorithm report different numbers.
There's something else going on with the 90 packs - whether it's a calibration error or you have cell problems, we don't know and likely won't know until that software revision comes out, or Tesla does something else. I agree with you that the 90 kWh pack degradation you're reporting is not caused by the temperature (although this temperature effect may be reflected in the number). I hope that your range is still there and that it's just a matter of instrumentation, and that software fixes it.
On the contrary, comparing and contrasting different electric vehicles against the Tesla is entirely on-topic for this forum.
BertL
Active Member
I have several "official" messages in writing that say my Model X should be in my garage now. Last I checked, it's not.
Displayed Range and Seasonality
I have data that shows that the rated range shown by my vehicle at any given SOC % correlates rather tightly with the ambient temperature of my car. No one has provided any other explanation to me as to why my rated range has, for 3 years now, gone up in the spring to summer and then down in autumn and winter again. If rated range did not vary by weather and was simply changed by algorithm in a firmware revision, it's quite a coincidence. Oh but wait, I have data there too! My data also has my software revision updates, and the increases you see in my rated range does not have any correlation with firmware updates at all. Again, I'm looking for an explanation for the increases in rated range that come with warm weather, which are not following firmware upgrades.
I do agree with you that driving style does not affect rated range, but the temperature seems, indeed, to have an impact on what your rated range is, statement from a service center technician or not. I would like to understand his explanation for my cyclic rated range at 90%, correlated with temp.
Now, it's clear to me that the 90D has a different problem than normal degradation. There are people here who are seeing very abnormal reductions in their rated range. It is something that Tesla will likely have to address. Hopefully that is a firmware element - whether BMS or whatever - and is not an intrinsic problem with the 90 kWh battery packs/cells used.
I truly appreciate your solid advice on these forums. I continue to learn more than a lot. ...but, as I've said before, I agree there is perhaps some amount of seasonality to all this -- your data certainly shows it -- but your data is also for an S85 with different battery tech than the newer 90's some of us have, involves more dramatic temperature swings than some of us have ever yet put our S90 through, and perhaps S85 vs. S90 involves differences in the underlying algorithms Tesla uses to estimate Rated Range. The 90's are too new to have long term data from any owner, but my 90+ days of manual logging does not show sufficient correlation between temp and the changes in rated range I have experienced. I also have one example I reported here where Rated Range went up and down before my eyes by 1-2 miles within seconds of one another. I'm not sure others picked up on that in my long-winded post, but IMHO it is at the very least an ancillary data point that changes to overall ambient or battery temp are not the full answer as to what's going on with displayed Rated Range in a S90. Being the X-software guy that I am, that experience pushed me over the top suspecting the software algorithm is a likely part of the issue. We can all believe what we like. For me, as an S90 owner with this problem, having compared against some other S90 owners with similar symptoms (thank you TMC for this forum!), taking in all the comments and theories folks have provided, combined with now multiple documented instances from different Tesla Service Advisors and Techs in different SCs, I still believe that Tesla has a Rated Range calculation problem with the new S90 battery tech that first needs refinement -- it could be something more, but I've stopped loosing sleep over it as I did the first few days and weeks after this thread was started and I tried to form my own opinion.
Not directed at anyone in particular, but as advice for new or potential S90 owners reading this thread -- my personal opinion is this:
As is the case with many BEV subjects and where there is proprietary tech and code involved like it is with Tesla, there are lots of opinions. It's very easy to get yourself wound-up over all the various possibilities and (conspiracy) theories people put forth related to early S90 Rated Range degradation some owners seem to be having. Sorting out facts from supposition or speculation -- to someone posting a comment perhaps only in gest, or that has no practical experience with the subject, can be daunting for newbies or if you're caught up trying to understand or resolve something really bugging you, like this problem has been for some of us.
Me? As I said a couple weeks ago in this thread, I'm over being SO worried about what appears today as a loss of close to half of my 16 miles of extra Rated Range in the first 90 days of ownership, that I also discretely paid $3K for. I have now reported it officially to Tesla as a concern and it's logged as an issue against my VIN. I will report it again on each subsequent service visit for something else until I see a positive change or receive direct communication from Tesla. I just don't believe anyone here, as well-intended as their views may be, can add anything more than questions and perhaps concern as to what the true underlying issue on a S90 may be. Only Tesla Engineers that have access to the tech and code can know the whole facts, and hopefully create a solution to ease S90 owners long-term concerns -- once Tesla determines it's of enough priority to put their people on a resolution. ...so, if you also own a S90 with what appears as early Rated Range degradation, PLEASE, for all of us present and future owners, be sure you report and have it documented as a problem on your next visit to a SC. If you are considering purchase of an S90, bring up the concern with your Sales Associate at the Store or via phone. My hope being, only real cards and letters to Tesla will cause their Executives to prioritize and address this outstanding and acknowledged problem.
I agree it's too new. That said, it's extremely unlikely that Tesla is going to invent one algorithm for one battery and another algorithm for another. The coefficients may be different, but the overall algorithm is very likely going to remain the same for a given battery pack based on Lithium-Ion technology.
As for your data, I might suggest doing more than manual logging - by doing only manual logging you get only integer miles, as opposed to the API's resolution of hundredths of a mile for its calculations.
True, same here. In fact, at one point, the rated range would go up by 3 miles if the EVSE was energized, and down by 3 miles immediately after de-energizing. Tesla fixed that particular one.
I agree with you.
I was responding to the simple assertion that weather does not influence the rated range calculation in the car.
But there is something more going on with the 90 packs, and that's why I say so in two of the posts I wrote today in this thread.
A small amount of range degradation may be explainable through the change in ambient temperature -- it certainly explains why mine is cyclic. Others who have 90's in winter weather may have 3-4 miles of reduced range explained by weather, but most owners with the complaint here are seeing much more of that. You're less likely to have it because you have that beautiful year-round weather in SoCal. That means that, as you say so eloquently, there is something else going on in their estimation.
I concur with you, in part. It could also be a BMS pack management thing, too, related to keeping the modules or cells in balance.
You're doing the right thing in reporting it, and hopefully it's a software fix.
What do you mean by "documented response"? Have you gotten any documentation, or is it just the answer "It`s a software issue with range calculation"?
It seems as if usable kWh (the number of kWh reported used after a 100-0% continuous drive) is way lower than it should, which is in line with the rated range number being much lower than it should. In other words - both range presentation and usable kWh drops rapidly.
Today I was going to be going on a 200-ish mile roundtrip from a supercharger plus a few range reducing factors, so I wanted to leave the garage at 100% to minimize time at the supercharger beforehand.
Since this was only a couple weeks after a 1300mi road trip, I figured this would be a good datapoint for the survey since I lost 4mi off 90% after that trip (255mi when I left, 251mi the morning after returning)
However, I failed to get a 100% datapoint today for a couple reasons.
First, charging ceased at 6am PST. No interruption or charging complete notification from the app either. Usually, charging finishes well before 6am but since I was trying to time 100% as close as possible to departure, it was going to be this morning. This happened before the long road trip I mentioned too. I assumed it was a fluke that time, but twice I'm not so sure. I was able to squeeze another couple hours in after I woke up, but only got up to 89% (247mi) before heading out.
At the supercharger, it said 31min to 100%, which would work out perfectly for a quick bite. Ended up unintentionally killing over an hour, and only charged to 99%.
For the last 25min it said 5min remaining... When I got back to the car, gave it another 5min like the IC said, where it just sat at: 99% (276mi), 60mi/hr, 403V @ 3A
(This is also 2mi more than the 274mi @ 100% pre-road trip I recorded a month ago)
I ended up not stopping at the supercharger on the return trip to reduce the SoC as low as possible.
Ending SoC: 3% (10mi)
Since last charge: 220.8mi, 71.6kWh, 324Wh/mi
I've only taken the SoC down to non-green state 1 other time around 3 months ago, I think it was 30-something miles remaining and I don't remember the starting SoC (this was before I actually logged data)
Since this was only a couple weeks after a 1300mi road trip, I figured this would be a good datapoint for the survey since I lost 4mi off 90% after that trip (255mi when I left, 251mi the morning after returning)
However, I failed to get a 100% datapoint today for a couple reasons.
First, charging ceased at 6am PST. No interruption or charging complete notification from the app either. Usually, charging finishes well before 6am but since I was trying to time 100% as close as possible to departure, it was going to be this morning. This happened before the long road trip I mentioned too. I assumed it was a fluke that time, but twice I'm not so sure. I was able to squeeze another couple hours in after I woke up, but only got up to 89% (247mi) before heading out.
At the supercharger, it said 31min to 100%, which would work out perfectly for a quick bite. Ended up unintentionally killing over an hour, and only charged to 99%.
For the last 25min it said 5min remaining... When I got back to the car, gave it another 5min like the IC said, where it just sat at: 99% (276mi), 60mi/hr, 403V @ 3A
(This is also 2mi more than the 274mi @ 100% pre-road trip I recorded a month ago)
I ended up not stopping at the supercharger on the return trip to reduce the SoC as low as possible.
Ending SoC: 3% (10mi)
Since last charge: 220.8mi, 71.6kWh, 324Wh/mi
I've only taken the SoC down to non-green state 1 other time around 3 months ago, I think it was 30-something miles remaining and I don't remember the starting SoC (this was before I actually logged data)
BertL
Active Member
My definition of documentation in this case is what was provided to me on my Service Invoice:
Tesla was additionally provided my personal tracking log of dates, temperature, charge amount (90% or 100%), displayed rated range and miscellaneous notes which were attached to Tesla's copies of the service invoice.
---
...others can now chime in with missing technicalities or potential conspiracy theories those written words don't contain.
I didn't of course record my verbal discussions with the Tesla 800-number and SC that additionally add to my understanding.While I'm normally a detailed sorta guy, and I appreciate many are here, in this case since I'll never have access to the proprietary tech and code running my MS, I'm fine with some terminology generalization and simplification. In the end, I really don't care if the problem is software, firmware, the rated range algorithm itself, variables those algorithms use in their calculations that may be different between battery packs and/or types, if it's something with battery pack management, something else or some combination of all of the above.
As an S90 Owner, I just want both improved confidence I do not have early degradation of the battery pack and Range Option I purchased, and what Tesla represents as their estimate of Rated Range in my MS becomes a lot more consistent supporting that first point. (Rated Range is the measure Tesla elected to use as the marketing benefit and description of the Range Option and 90kWh battery, so it's what I'm using to hold Tesla to their commitment.) As volumes are ramping up and we're beyond the early adopter and enthusiast phase, the masses will expect the same from Tesla -- something simple and consistent that does not need a chemistry, physics, or English degree to interpret and understand.
My documentation is similar to what @BertL got. Written statement of problem, written statement from Tesla that there's no hardware/battery issue and written statement on what the solution is (software update). Had they provided me with reams of pages of tests they performed that got them to that conclusion I wouldn't have understood it anyway.
There's no way you can reasonably and safely drive from 100% to 0% to see if you used 90 kWh. You could drive to 5% and interpolate but since the battery keeps something in reserve that interpolation would be inaccurate and a waste of my time. I'm going to trust Tesla on this and wait a couple of months for the promised fix. If I don't get it I'll take it to another level but I doubt I'll need to.
FYI supercharging to 100% takes forever on the Tesla (non 90D here). Teslas indicator for time to 100% is wrong. It takes that long to get to 99%, and then a long time to rebalance.
It is possible though, I've done out once while waiting at the airport to pick up someone on a very very very delayed flight.
It is possible though, I've done out once while waiting at the airport to pick up someone on a very very very delayed flight.
Similar threads
- Locked
