All Tesla Models will get Range/Power increase (not just SR+) of 5%

[Wyman]

So is your SR+ saying 367 kms estimated range or rated range ? My 7.5 month old SR+ displays the rated range of 385 km at 100% however my estimated range is always lower because it's based on the my past driving style over distance. I'm reading this from the Stats app. I made several runs to Hope this summer in very nice weather driving at moderate speeds (110 km/h) and I was indeed trending 360-380 km's range. If my SR+ was only giving me a rated range of 367km, I would recalibrate the BMS and if the results are the same I might be tempted to contact Tesla service.

367km rated range. (252km at 69%). I've tried deep cycling (5%-95%) but still the same.

 

[ajdelange]

I scanned that document and found the number 54.523 System End State of Charge Watt Hours. That's the capacity of the battery?

I also found on the same page Recharge Event Energy (kilo Watt hours) 61.99.
That sort of makes sense but in fact I have no idea what it really means.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I scanned that document and found the number 54.523 System End State of Charge Watt Hours. That's the capacity of the battery?

I also found on the same page Recharge Event Energy (kilo Watt hours) 61.99.
That sort of makes sense but in fact I have no idea what it really means.

I don't know why they label it that way in the first document; it is confusing. In the second document it's more clear what they mean. The recharge event energy is the AC energy from the wall to fully recharge the depleted battery; about 88% efficiency. Not sure what charging rate they were using, but it seems like it might not have been at the full 32A, since 88% is a couple % lower than one gets with 32A charging, I think. Plugging into the (0.55*City+0.45*Hwy)*0.7 formula this gives 248 miles so Tesla's pretty close to 250 miles. Maybe they found a way to use a different formula; apparently they do have options other than the straight 0.7 scaling:

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/EPA test procedure for EVs-PHEVs-11-14-2017.pdf (see page 2).

 

[ebmcs03]

Yeah, if this is true, I'm a bit annoyed. So, now my MR is equivalent to a SR+? That'll kill resale value.

I'm at 252 on a full charge @ 9500 miles. I suppose that's in line with normal if it doesn't drop any more, but still.

Welcome to the annoyed club

 

[qdeathstar]

Wow.

 

[PhantmMenace]

Then what kind of battery does the mid-range have exactly?

I'm not an expert but this is what Tesla says via Google:

Long-range P AWD 75 kWh
Long-range AWD 75 kWh (same pack as the P but software limited)
Long-range RWD 75 kWh (same pack as the P but software limited)
Mid-range 62-kWh (same pack as LR minus battery cells on-board)
Standard-range + 50-kWh
Standard-range 50 kWh (same pack as SR+ but software limited)

 

[vickh]

I'm not an expert but this is what Tesla says via Google:

Long-range P AWD 75 kWh
Long-range AWD 75 kWh (same pack as the P but software limited)
Long-range RWD 75 kWh (same pack as the P but software limited)
Mid-range 62-kWh (same pack as LR minus battery cells on-board)
Standard-range + 50-kWh
Standard-range 50 kWh (same pack as SR+ but software limited)

@GigaGrunt is the resident factory insider and he confirmed this in another MR thread. I'm glad I didn't pay thousands extra for 12kwh. 25 would be worth it. Esp if Tesla doesn't increase the MR range as much?


Q:Will they keeping this the same battery sizes in the near future ?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

@GigaGrunt is the resident factory insider and he confirmed this in another MR thread. I'm glad I didn't pay thousands extra for 12kwh. 25 would be worth it. Esp if Tesla doesn't increase the MR range as much?


Q:Will they keeping this the same battery sizes in the near future ?

Just keep in mind these are "shorthand," "colloquial" capacities and don't represent the actual capacity.

 

[bearflag]

I'm not an expert but this is what Tesla says via Google:

Long-range P AWD 75 kWh
Long-range AWD 75 kWh (same pack as the P but software limited)
Long-range RWD 75 kWh (same pack as the P but software limited)
Mid-range 62-kWh (same pack as LR minus battery cells on-board)
Standard-range + 50-kWh
Standard-range 50 kWh (same pack as SR+ but software limited)

This is what confuses me. If the mid-range is 62kWh and the SR+ is 50kWh then why is there only around a 10-20 mile range difference now?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

This is what confuses me. If the mid-range is 62kWh and the SR+ is 50kWh then why is there only around a 10-20 mile range difference now?

The MR is 63.8kWh, and the SR+ is 54.5kWh. 15% less capacity...

The MR has/had ~264 miles of range, the SR+ has ~248 miles (it was voluntarily derated I think). That's a 6.1% difference in range. Part of the over-performance of the SR+ is due to the reduced weight I imagine. Also maybe they used substantially different coefficients for the dyno parameters? Even 240 miles is only 9.2% different, still higher than one would expect.

Definitely seems like there can be some funny business. Unless there are significant drivetrain efficiency differences between the two vehicles (seems like there wouldn't be - but not sure we know which drive unit was used), I'd expect the MR would be "easier" to make the rated range than the SR+ in the real world.

 

[vickh]

Color counts less than 0 for trade-in/resale valuation.

The MR is 63.8kWh, and the SR+ is 54.5kWh. 15% less capacity...

The MR has/had ~264 miles of range, the SR+ has ~248 miles (it was voluntarily derated I think). That's a 6.1% difference in range. Part of that is due to the weight I imagine. Also maybe they used substantially different coefficients for the dyno parameters? Even 240 miles is only 9.2% different, still higher than one would expect.

Definitely seems like there can be some funny business. Unless there are significant drivetrain efficiency differences between the two vehicles (seems like there wouldn't be - but not sure we know which drive unit was used), I'd expect the MR would be "easier" to make the rated range than the SR+ in the real world.

is regen with AWD a factor?

 

[ajdelange]

I'm still confused about your statement that the capacity of the battery is 54.5 kWh as the only place I can find those particular digits in the report are in
"54.523 System End State of Charge Watt Hours."

Can you point me to where it says 54.5 kWh? Thanks.

 

[ghsnick!]

Has anyone reached out to Tesla to ask if existing SR+ owners will get this estimated range of 250 miles? Since when we purchased it was 240 miles?

My SR+ battery has already degraded 9 miles in six months. It went from 240 miles on a full charge to 231 miles...that’s 3.75% degradation.

If this update applies to all SR+ (I’m not sure how they would differentiate multiple SR+ vehicles) and I have 231 miles on a full charge out of 250 miles...that’s 7.75% degradation.

Wondering if existing SR+ owners will see an increase of range, or if this only applies to new vehicles, or how future degradation will be rated.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I'm still confused about your statement that the capacity of the battery is 54.5 kWh as the only place I can find those particular digits in the report are in
"54.523 System End State of Charge Watt Hours."

Can you point me to where it says 54.5 kWh? Thanks.

The last page of the second linked document (page 25). You can see the various cycles that they ran and the charge-depleting "steady speed" cycles. And they sum up all the energy draws from each phase, until the car stops complying with the test. Unfortunately I can't access SAE J1634 with all the exact testing procedure to see how it all works out. But this sum is where that 54.523kWh number came from...

 

[willow_hiller]

Has anyone reached out to Tesla to ask if existing SR+ owners will get this estimated range of 250 miles? Since when we purchased it was 240 miles?

My SR+ battery has already degraded 9 miles in six months. It went from 240 miles on a full charge to 231 miles...that’s 3.75% degradation.

If this update applies to all SR+ (I’m not sure how they would differentiate multiple SR+ vehicles) and I have 231 miles on a full charge out of 250 miles...that’s 7.75% degradation.

Wondering if existing SR+ owners will see an increase of range, or if this only applies to new vehicles, or how future degradation will be rated.

Someone asked Customer Service chat whether it would be coming to existing owners and the answer was yes: T3SLA Life of Deenchik on Twitter

 

[scubastevo80]

Instead of Tesla figuring out how to “up” the stated range of the SR+, perhaps they could spend a little time helping all of us LRers who have stated ranges of less than 300 recover some amount less true degradation.

 

[zackmd1]

Question for everyone complaining about their "lost range"... Have any of you actually done a real world range test or are you just taking the number the car gives at 100% as hard fact? Ever stop to think that your range never decreased but the way the car calculates range did change? My SR routinely estimates range at 100% as 215 miles yet my actual consumption (wh/mi) sits around 200-210 on warm days and when I drive 20 miles at that consumption rate my mileage display changes only about 14-16 miles.

My guess/assumption is that no one here has lost range (unless some has done a real world controlled range test)... You are just seeing a change in the reported range in the energy display and assuming you have lost range...

On topic, I doubt Tesla changed anything hardware with the new SR+. If anything they likely found ways through software to make the car slightly more efficient or reduced some of the buffer they have built into the battery to allow for more range. That or they simply bumped the number to better reflect EPA numbers and look more competitive.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Have any of you actually done a real world range test or are you just taking the number the car gives at 100% as hard fact?

Typically that rated miles gauge (not the Energy Consumption graph) is extremely accurate - each rated mile represents 209Wh on the trip meter for the SR/SR+. There are some caveats regarding battery warming, etc., which might throw it off slightly. But for steady state temperature it's pretty consistent for most people.

So, if it's showing fewer rated miles, it does usually mean there is less energy available before you get to zero rated miles (as discussed elsewhere, they MAY have changed what "0" rated miles means - maybe there is a little more reserve when you get to zero...but that's pure speculation at this point; there has not been any good proof of that yet).

SR routinely estimates range at 100% as 215 miles yet my actual consumption (wh/mi) sits around 200-210 on warm days and when I drive 20 miles at that consumption rate my mileage display changes only about 14-16 miles.

I'd be interested in seeing a trip meter capture with before and after rated miles (and a picture of the trip meter) for the case you describe. I would expect that in an SR/SR+, for 20 miles at 210Wh/mi, you'd see 20 rated miles used, and for 20 miles at 200Wh/mi, you'd see 20mi * 200Wh/mi / 209Wh/rmi = 19.1 (19) rated miles used.

 

[zackmd1]

I'd be interested in seeing a trip meter capture with before and after rated miles (and a picture of the trip meter) for the case you describe. I would expect that for 20 miles at 210Wh/mi you'd see 20 rated miles used, and for 20 miles at 200Wh/mi, you'd see 20mi * 200Wh/mi / 209Wh/rmi = 19.1 (19) rated miles used.

I have seen consumption rates as low as 186 wh/mi for a ~30 mile round trip...

Unfortunately I am not going to see those numbers for another 6 months or so as the temperature has dropped into the 50-60s and will continue to decline... Just did a 90.3 mile commute today, 23kw used, 254 wh/mi. That was with cabin temp set to 70 in 55-51 degree weather, windy conditions, and an average speed around 70. That means with less than perfect conditions (but not terrible by any means) my SR could go ~196 miles (assuming a 50kw battery cap). At the cars rated 225 wh/mi (my current lifetime consumption rate is 227 which has gone up from 221 earlier in the month due to weather) that would be about 222 miles. My car has never reported this range as available at 100%. I understand the number might have been reliable before but it might not be now. The only real way to know would be to do a true range test and monitor consumption rate and kw used...

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I have seen consumption rates as low as 186 wh/mi for a ~30 mile round trip...

I don't doubt that; SR can be very efficient! I expect that trip would use: 186Wh/mi*30mi / 209Wh/rmi = 26.7 rated miles

Just did a 90.3 mile commute today, 23kw used, 254 wh/mi.

That round trip should have used: 90.3mi*254Wh/mi / 209Wh/rmi = 110 rated miles

And your actual range at this same average consumption (assuming your 100% is 240 miles - can't tell from your post what it actually is) would be:

240 rmi * 209Wh/rmi / 254Wh/mi = 197.5 miles. (Plug in a different value than 240 for your 100% if needed.)

Note I'm not talking about the estimated range on the Energy Consumption graph here: That is given by: Rated Miles remaining * 219Wh/rmi / (Current averaging Efficiency) (Doesn't use the 209Wh/rmi number for whatever reason.)

I'm talking about the rated miles shown on your battery gauge for all of the "rated miles" info above. If it shows less (at 100%, or extrapolated to 100%) than your original 240 rated miles (220 rated miles if you have an SR), then that means you very likely have less energy available, above 0 rated miles, than you had originally, for whatever reason.