The day I charged to 100%, I was taking a ~140 mile trip and figured I’d try charging to 100% like all the cool kids do. It was a mild day, but started raining on the return trip. I don’t recall the exact numbers, but I averaged something like 260wh/mi over the trip with heat on the way back driving 80mph. The way there I was getting very low 200’s while drafting semis and the energy graph was showing some absurd range that was likely achievable. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the car, and I don’t believe the cars indicated range is terribly accurate. Up until that point the battery was never above 80% and I never discharged it below the mid 50’s, so maybe it just has no clue and starts ticking off miles.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Anyone LR AWDs Showing 322 Miles Fully Charged?
- Thread starter diezel_dave
- Start date
- Status
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
So out of curiosity, was your 100% charge when this picture was taken about 300 rated miles?
(73.6kWh-3.3kWh ) / 234Wh/rmi = 300.5rmi
Just looking for datapoints...
315 miles is what the charging screen showed. It is down a bit from the 324 I used to get after the upgrade, but not as low as I thought it had gotten (308 max) after a couple 100% charges.
Isn't the warranty 70% of 310..... aka 217 miles? You are nowhere near a warranty claim.... I'm at 283 calculated 100% after 27k miles(July '18 build, I think)
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Ah...whoops thought you had AWD (even though it says 2017 right in the signature...)
So should be:
70.3kWh/223Wh/rmi = 315rmi
(Source: Lines & Constants)
So it all checks out!
So, based on 315 miles and 73.6 kWh at 100%, that would be a charge constant of 73.6/315 = 233.7, or probably 234 whole number constant. If the constant for 310 miles rated range is 245, then 245/234 = 1.047. Multiplying 310 x 1.047 gives 324.6, or rounded to 325 rated miles.
So, your numbers do seem to add up for a car with a 325 mile rated range baseline.
I didn't see your post before I posted mine.
We got to the same conclusion, although using different math. Coincidence? I don't think so. I think Tesla knows what they are doing with their numbers.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
I don’t think it works that way. The buffer is not included in the rated miles calculation. See my link above. So you subtract the buffer first. Easy enough to determine with a partial charge data point for the same car. Only one solution will work (meaning same formula used and matches the displayed rated miles). I have no CAN bus reader so I can only speculate based on posted data.
EDIT: I think your math works at 100% because the buffer is about 4.7% of the overall battery capacity. But at a partial charge you would likely find that the calculation using the formula you used no longer worked to provide a match to the displayed rated miles. But happy to edit my understanding in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.
Last edited:
I do have CAN data and it works exactly that way at all percentages, at least from 30% or so SOC, since I don't go below that.
I can post some data to back up what I am saying.
I agree that the buffer is not used in the calculation. I say that because for the above case, if he charged from 0% to 100% (buffer not touched because he didn't go below zero), then he would show 315 miles added x .234 kWh per rated mile = 73.7 kWh. The 73.7 kWh does not include the buffer because he never used it, so he didn't add it back.
At least that is what makes sense based on my numbers on my Model S. But I know the math certainly works in all cases for me.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
This is pretty typical for the August ‘18 vintage. That was a rough month at the Giga! I have a friend with a car from that month at 285. Similar miles at 100%.
Means about 3.3kWh + 282rmi * 234Wh/rmi = 69.2kWh available at 100%.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
I’d be interested in seeing that.
The thing is for the case above you mention we would be adding 70.3kWh per the CAN bus. (Going from 3.3kWh to 73.6kWh per the CAN bus.). But the charging screen would definitely show 234Wh/rmi * 315rmi = 73.7kWh added. I agree with that.
You can PM me data though...no need to derail this discussion.
Wvapoker
Member
Sherlo
Member
Bloomberg recently conducted a model 3 owner survey:
"The Bloomberg survey found the Model 3’s charging capacity declined less than 1% for every 10,000 miles of driving. For comparison, a previous generation of Nissan Leaf batteries was found to degrade more than three times faster."
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
SilverSp33d3r
No Longer Silver
Wow it’s still charging at 7kW at 100? You started charging from a pretty high state of charge, was your battery cold soaked?
I'm not sure I'd want to be sitting in that car as it takes in 7kw at 100%, unless I was wearing asbestos pajamas... Actually, I'm sure I wouldn't want to wear asbestos pajamas, either......
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
Lol, no. Of course it’s “optimal” to leave the first leg of a long trip at 100%. It will always save you time.
Scenario 1: leave your house for a long trip charged to 100%. Arrive at first charging stop with 40%. Need 80% to reach next charging stop, so you charge your car from 40 to 80% then head out.
Scenario 2: Leave your house for a long trip charged to 80%. Arrive at first charging stop with 20%. Need 80% to reach next charging stop, so you charge your car from 20 to 80% then head out.
Which charging session is shorter?
- Status
Similar threads
