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

90D Range slowly declining

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
If you look at his logs you will see it was only the last two weeks that he got that higher number. Previous to that he was only getting half of what he paid for and he's doing better than most of us early 90D buyers. For me I was down 12 of the promised 16 miles, the OP has signifucantly less (down 27 miles), and on and on. Obviously I don't expect you to read every post in this thread but there are dozens and dozens of people in this situation. I appreciate the spirit of your last sentence but it's more than "unfortunate" it is wrong and it wasn't that we didn't receive a "satisfactory response" we received no response.

Understood, I was really only commenting on his particular situation, and that his range seems to have increased to very near what it should be. I fully agree that those of you with much greater losses actually have a strong case against Tesla and that they should actively be addressing the problem. They have no excuse not to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: msnow
I suspect that each model, with different propulsion configurations has a different factor for each mile. So my P90DL probably has a factor nearer to 300Wh of power for each RM. I wonder what the procedure is to arrive at the factor? Charge to 100% then drive to 0 and then divide the miles into the kWh used? Of course that does not account for the vampire drain, and the 12V recharge usage by all the 12V sub-systems.

Most recently, I have been a 12V abuser, running the HVAC with fan on higher than normal (due to the summer heat) and also noticing that the automatic ventilation system has been running at times when the car was in the sun on very hot days.
Agree and I also never have heard anything authoritative (other than speculation) about the reserve anti-brick kWh.
 
Agree and I also never have heard anything authoritative (other than speculation) about the reserve anti-brick kWh.

Yah, the so called "anti-bricking" buffer is a debatable topic. Without an authoritative white paper from Tesla, we can only wonder if it really exists. I for one am very skeptical about bringing my traction batter to near zero or near 100%. I have been to 95% only once in fact and that was on a 4 day spoke trip off of the main Supercharger routes up in Maine. We charged to 95% at a SuperCharger in Augusta, ME and then headed to Camden, ME for 4 days. I did not look ahead well enough to be frank. Me bad. There was an Inn that we could have stayed at which had a Tesla HPWC. They were part of the "destination" charging program. I learned from this to look for such places before making reservations. None the less, this is where the large battery shines and takes the anxiety out of the equation. I just could not see myself with a 60 kWh battery, especially in the winter where range is really pessimistic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: msnow
I suspect that each model, with different propulsion configurations has a different factor for each mile. So my P90DL probably has a factor nearer to 300Wh of power for each RM. I wonder what the procedure is to arrive at the factor?
The procedure is very simple. On some reasonably long trip, say at least 40-50mi, reset your Trip A and note the starting RM. When you arrive, divide the kWh used by the RM consumed. Repeat that 4-5 times and you'll find the values for Wh/RM cluster within a couple of Wh.

At least on my car, Tesla uses 290Wh/RM for the Projected Miles calculation on the Energy display, which is quite misleading when they tick off an RM every 273Wh.
 
Last edited:
Yah, the so called "anti-bricking" buffer is a debatable topic. Without an authoritative white paper from Tesla, we can only wonder if it really exists. I for one am very skeptical about bringing my traction batter to near zero or near 100%.

I don't think there is any question that the buffer exists. BMW is quite explicit about the battery in the i3. The car has a 22kWh battery, of which only 19kWh is available for driving. That's 13% of total battery capacity which is pretty high.

My S90D loses one RM every 273Wh. At delivery the 100% was 294RM. So 294RM * 273Wh/RM = 80.2kWh. Assuming the battery is actually 90kWh, then the "anti brick" or whatever we want to call it, is about 10kWh.
 
1) His S90D has substantially less range than he expected when he made his purchase. He got about 10% less than they represented and than he paid for. .

I think that we need to define "substantially less range" then, because based on his chart he is 2 miles short of 90% (that is 0.778 % difference) and 3 miles short of 100%

Also, I'm with @JRP3
Really? Because after 17 months he has the same range as he did when the car was delivered. I think most people would be quite happy with that "curve".
 
I think that we need to define "substantially less range" then, because based on his chart he is 2 miles short of 90% (that is 0.778 % difference) and 3 miles short of 100%

Also, I'm with @JRP3
Because you missed the point. For 9 of those 10 months he wasn't getting near that so he didn't get the benefit of his $3k. Read his log file, in the first few weeks he lost 3% or 8 of his promised 16 miles. That was very, very fast and he was better than most. If you've been following this thread you will see most lost about 5% in 8 weeks while waiting for the promised fix which still hasn't materialized.
 
Last edited:
Because you missed the point. For 9 of those 10 months he wasn't getting near that so he didn't get the benefit of his $3k. Read his log file, in the first few weeks he lost 3% or 8 of his promised 16 miles. That was very, very fast and he was better than most. If you've been following this thread you will see most lost about 5% in 8 weeks while waiting for the promised fix which still hasn't materialized.
What I see from the log is it started 2 miles short and ended 2 miles short of 90%...
 
The procedure is very simple. On some reasonably long trip, say at least 40-50mi, reset your Trip A and note the starting RM. When you arrive, divide the kWh used by the RM consumed. Repeat that 4-5 times and you'll find the values for Wh/RM cluster within a couple of Wh.

At least on my car, Tesla uses 290Wh/RM for the Projected Miles calculation on the Energy display, which is quite misleading when they tick off an RM every 273Wh.

Thanks for that procedure:

I have been logging my trips since then.

294, 276, 300, 302, 294, 300 are the resultant factors.
The longer trips settle in at 300 as the factor.
The shorter trips as you can see are all over and usually lower.
Most of my shorter trips are 35 MPH back roads, the longer trips being 65 MPH highway cruising.
Yesterday, on a 120 Mile trip it was dead nuts on 300 as the resultant factor.
So for the P90D in this type of weather (80F with air on) I can use the 300 as my factor.

Art
 
Rated Range is based on EPA Rated Range. It displays how many miles you can theoretically drive on the remaining battery charge if you drove it like the EPA test cycle.

Mike
Yes Mike.. but.. as I pointed out..
How that range is calculated.. i.e. the only way the car actually has to make that calculation.. is to take the amount of charge at mile segments and then make a calculation over a given distance to show a number. This number is a calculation based largely on the system's "experience". There are MANY examples of this on Youtube that highlight this. This is the reason that if you habitually charge to 80% and then suddenly charge to 100% a couple times and deplete to 10-20% ish.. that number changes.

If this were purely based on the power.. that wouldn't be the case. The idea is that the car is smarter than that and it's designed not to be "wrong" for any individual driver.
I usually drive mine around like a lunatic. I'm here in CA where superchargers are everywhere and I have lots of charging options both at home and at my many destinations. Because of this, I basically drive it like a Ferrari.
As a result, my max range decreased. My father came for a visit and I spent a long weekend following him around in his Prius. As I did so, around day 2, I noticed something curious happen. I would drive for many miles near the 70% mark and notice that my estimated miles seemed to be having difficulty. When I initially picked up the car, it showed 288 miles at full charge. Prior to my father's visit, it was down to around 272 at about 12K miles. After he left... it was at 278-280. And now? Well it's back to 272-275 at 37,000 miles now.

Probably time to try this again.
My initial mistake was not recording the "ideal" miles when I got the car new. Any new 90D owners care to share what their cars are showing as the ideal miles?
 
Yes Mike.. but.. as I pointed out..
How that range is calculated.. i.e. the only way the car actually has to make that calculation.. is to take the amount of charge at mile segments and then make a calculation over a given distance to show a number. This number is a calculation based largely on the system's "experience". There are MANY examples of this on Youtube that highlight this. This is the reason that if you habitually charge to 80% and then suddenly charge to 100% a couple times and deplete to 10-20% ish.. that number changes.

If this were purely based on the power.. that wouldn't be the case. The idea is that the car is smarter than that and it's designed not to be "wrong" for any individual driver.
I usually drive mine around like a lunatic. I'm here in CA where superchargers are everywhere and I have lots of charging options both at home and at my many destinations. Because of this, I basically drive it like a Ferrari.
As a result, my max range decreased. My father came for a visit and I spent a long weekend following him around in his Prius. As I did so, around day 2, I noticed something curious happen. I would drive for many miles near the 70% mark and notice that my estimated miles seemed to be having difficulty. When I initially picked up the car, it showed 288 miles at full charge. Prior to my father's visit, it was down to around 272 at about 12K miles. After he left... it was at 278-280. And now? Well it's back to 272-275 at 37,000 miles now.

Probably time to try this again.
My initial mistake was not recording the "ideal" miles when I got the car new. Any new 90D owners care to share what their cars are showing as the ideal miles?
Rated Range is NOT based on your driving style. Driving it like a Ferrari or a Prius won't impact the algorithm used to calculate RR. Driving style will impact "Estimated Range" only. Charging style will affect the displayed range until you balance/calibrate the pack. EPA Rated Range is a 5 stage test based on many factors so if you drive using the metrics they use such as ideal temperature, combination city and highway, ideal speed, etc, etc, you can achieve the EPA rating until or unless the battery degrades.
 
Rated Range is NOT based on your driving style. Driving it like a Ferrari or a Prius won't impact the algorithm used to calculate RR. Driving style will impact "Estimated Range" only. Charging style will affect the displayed range until you balance/calibrate the pack. EPA Rated Range is a 5 stage test based on many factors so if you drive using the metrics they use such as ideal temperature, combination city and highway, ideal speed, etc, etc, you can achieve the EPA rating until or unless the battery degrades.

We disagree... not sure where you are getting your information from.. but what you describe does not jive with my experiences and the experiences of others.
The calculation seems to be at least partially based on the rate of depletion. As you pointed out, however, it is based on the car's "experience" with the battery. If it wasn't then there would be no need to calibrate at all. It would simply use the amount of energy stored in the battery to make the calculation. So what you are saying doesn't pass the sniff test.

Their is not AI involved here.. just calculation. What you are saying is that the depletion rate is a fixed amount. Say 300wh per mile.. or some other arbitrary figure. What I believe to be the truth is that the car has the ability to "fudge" this number over time to more accurately project the rated number. Otherwise.. it wouldn't change.

I agree that the lion's share of the calculation is based on the amount of energy put into the battery.. but there again.. it's depletion isn't evenly distributed.
For example.. charge your car to 100%. Then drive one mile.. and look at your range. If you charged to 180 at a full charge.. by the end of one mile I can guarantee you it will be about 176. By your reasoning.. why would that be?
In the account I gave.. that was equally true.. but.. it also sat there at freeway speeds and I watched it.. consuming 290-310wh per mile. It got to about 210-212.. and sat there.. for about 15 miles before starting to once again follow counting the miles more or less appropriately.

So no.. there is more to that calculation I think. So unless you are getting this information straight from the programmer.. it doesn't seem to fit the real world model of how the rated mileage is displayed.
If you said you were talking about the ideal number.. then you would have an argument... and that was my point all along. I am kicking myself for not looking at what the ideal range was when I first got the car. That number.. changes with the total amount of energy in the battery registered by the car.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: hiroshiy
We disagree... not sure where you are getting your information from.. but what you describe does not jive with my experiences and the experiences of others.
The calculation seems to be at least partially based on the rate of depletion. As you pointed out, however, it is based on the car's "experience" with the battery. If it wasn't then there would be no need to calibrate at all. It would simply use the amount of energy stored in the battery to make the calculation. So what you are saying doesn't pass the sniff test.

Their is not AI involved here.. just calculation. What you are saying is that the depletion rate is a fixed amount. Say 300wh per mile.. or some other arbitrary figure. What I believe to be the truth is that the car has the ability to "fudge" this number over time to more accurately project the rated number. Otherwise.. it wouldn't change.

I agree that the lion's share of the calculation is based on the amount of energy put into the battery.. but there again.. it's depletion isn't evenly distributed.
For example.. charge your car to 100%. Then drive one mile.. and look at your range. If you charged to 180 at a full charge.. by the end of one mile I can guarantee you it will be about 176. By your reasoning.. why would that be?
In the account I gave.. that was equally true.. but.. it also sat there at freeway speeds and I watched it.. consuming 290-310wh per mile. It got to about 210-212.. and sat there.. for about 15 miles before starting to once again follow counting the miles more or less appropriately.

So no.. there is more to that calculation I think. So unless you are getting this information straight from the programmer.. it doesn't seem to fit the real world model of how the rated mileage is displayed.
If you said you were talking about the ideal number.. then you would have an argument... and that was my point all along. I am kicking myself for not looking at what the ideal range was when I first got the car. That number.. changes with the total amount of energy in the battery registered by the car.
Over time and a little research you will see that is not correct. EPA is in fact a fixed tested number, it doesn't change. The EPA RR number displayed on your instrument cluster will change when the algorithm gets confused by charging habits or real battery degradation. If you bought an ICE car and the sticker said it had an EPA rating of 30 MPG that rating isn't going to change based on the way you drive but your ability to achieve or exceed it will. What you're talking about is the Estmated Range on the Energy App which is based on your past 5/15/30 miles of driving experience. Hope that makes sense.
 
Last edited:
I'm consistently now hitting 255 at 90%.

BTW there are threads covering what rated range as displayed by the car is. It is not purely based on energy in the pack; it does include driver behavior as well as environmental factors. There's not only plenty of evidence to support this but I have it straight from Tesla engineering's (not sales or service) mouth.
 
I'm consistently now hitting 255 at 90%.

BTW there are threads covering what rated range as displayed by the car is. It is not purely based on energy in the pack; it does include driver behavior as well as environmental factors. There's not only plenty of evidence to support this but I have it straight from Tesla engineering's (not sales or service) mouth.
Upthread we have written documentation from work orders as to the cause of this problem. EPA is EPA. What do you have? You and the previous poster refer to links and "YouTube videos" let's see it.
 
Upthread we have written documentation from work orders as to the cause of this problem. EPA is EPA. What do you have? You and the previous poster refer to links and "YouTube videos" let's see it.
While I agree that mostly RR is EPA, but there are some things that affect the fixed number, be that temperature and driving style. I thought @jerry33 recorded every day 90% charge RR numbers for a few years now and his data clearly showed some seasonal trends.

That said after D models are introduced RR number seems to be too low, 273Wh. Previously Classic cars had 300. And European/Japanese Classic as 320, so my Classic had only 246 miles RR at delivery. It seems Euro/Japanese D models have something like 290.
 
While I agree that mostly RR is EPA, but there are some things that affect the fixed number, be that temperature and driving style. I thought @jerry33 recorded every day 90% charge RR numbers for a few years now and his data clearly showed some seasonal trends.

That said after D models are introduced RR number seems to be too low, 273Wh. Previously Classic cars had 300. And European/Japanese Classic as 320, so my Classic had only 246 miles RR at delivery. It seems Euro/Japanese D models have something like 290.
Yes, I have also seen evidence that temperature can affect it temporarily but not driving style. Coincidentally I was at the Service Center today and I talked to both the Service Manager and Shop Forman while I was waiting for a firmware update and both said how you drive as zero to do with any variation of Rated Range. They also said many people confuse Rated Range, Estimated Range and Ideal Range. Tesla should put out a white paper on this so there isn't so much confusion.
@hiroshiy all of the 90D's since at least March/April of this year are getting 294-296 at 100%. The battery part number also changed from my version.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hiroshiy