mknox
Well-Known Member
Yes, I should have mentioned I was running 4.4, although this was pretty consistent from 4.2 on for me. I just installed 4.5 (1.33.44) today after work.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Yes, I should have mentioned I was running 4.4, although this was pretty consistent from 4.2 on for me. I just installed 4.5 (1.33.44) today after work.
I have a 60 and have noticed my peak of rated miles at the formerly standard charge (I'm now on 4.5) went from consistently 189-90 down to 185-86 in the past month. I received 4.5 two days ago.
After reading this thread, last night I dialed down my amps on my 14-50 to 30. Just after completing charging this morning at what I assume is 90%, I only got 183 miles. I did do a lot of high speed charging this past weekend with a couple stops at the Gilroy SC and a number of other 70A stations along 101. I guess I can try to slow charge using a 110 next time for a day to see if that makes any difference. Hoping 183 for my 60 isn't the new normal.
After reading this thread, last night I dialed down my amps on my 14-50 to 30. Just after completing charging this morning at what I assume is 90%, I only got 183 miles. I did do a lot of high speed charging this past weekend with a couple stops at the Gilroy SC and a number of other 70A stations along 101. I guess I can try to slow charge using a 110 next time for a day to see if that makes any difference. Hoping 183 for my 60 isn't the new normal.
Last edited:
hans
P631
4.4 charged to 93% while 4.5 defaults to 90% SOC. That is the difference you are seeing.
The new 'normal' is a little lower. 232. But it instantly showed 235 when I switch to a range charge.
I think slow charging gives the batteries a tad bit better balance but high speed charging isn't bad.
I think slow charging gives the batteries a tad bit better balance but high speed charging isn't bad.
At a certain point focusing on if it goes a mile up or down with charging will just drive you nuts. It's worth keeping an eye on but a few miles here or there can just be normal I believe. Of course if you see the pack go down 10% in one year you likely have a serious issue and should get it checked out.
Ahhh, I see. Thanks for pointing that out. I wasn't aware of that difference. That helps explain the most recent drop. I was not concerned with the drop from 188-90 to 185-86 as I assume that was normal. I agree that minor differences here and there are to be expected, but I was a bit more concerned this morning to see 183. But now not concerned at all.
Last edited:
Very cool! I think some people are claiming 242 with 4.4 software with material miles. Wondering about the variances.
- - - Updated - - -
Also wondering why TM is moving the percentages? More battery protection? Are they seeing something they don't like?
There are multiple tick marks along the battery icon (middle which is likely 50% then what appears to be 60-100%). The last mark at the right end of the 'daily range' area is 90%. The old standard charge was 92 or 93% (I thought it was 92% but others are saying 93%). You can still move the slider to 92 or 93% if you want.
hans
P631
If you slide the limit up and down with your finger pressed down continuously and moving very slowly, it will go up and down in 1% increments. I even counted 10 separate steps between the standard 90% and 100% full and verified each step numerally with the REST API.
If you tap on the right or left arrows on either side of the slider then it moves the limit up and down in ~5% increments. I say "~" approximately because it's very easy to slide and tap and get 6% or to accidentally double tap and get 10%.
I just played with it. I counted 10 back and then hit it twice and got different outcomes. Why doesn't it give the actual percentage? Also, is there consensus that the new standard charge is 232?
hans
P631
I agree that the slider bar thing is very finicky and they should also display the numerical % so people don't have to guess.
Even if you set it at 90% it is hard to say what the consensus "new standard charge" is because when the car is new it has extra capacity and will have more than what is considered normal. After a few months it will go down quickly and 90% SOC will yield several miles less, but will still be perfectly normal, nothing to worry about. Then as you drive the car a lot it will slowly degrade a bit and 90% will 1 mile less from time to time (as compared with what it did after the initial settling in period). Again, nothing to worry about.
I would like to know if I am even setting it the new standard. Honestly this is pissing me off. I want to simply drive the car and not worry if I am setting it at 90% or 89% or whatever. If I need to take a trip set to maximum. This is annoying because I cannot compare my battery charge to to where it was before the update. Finally 232 is not 90% of 265. So, where it's at is not 90% I am tired of worrying about this and would like and option for standard and max like it was before. For other people that want to ticker with it, let them choose the rest.
hans
P631
You will never find that 232 is 90% of 265. The range estimates when a battery is almost full or almost empty are always way off. If you ever drive the car down to almost 0% you will see that you can drive 5-10 miles at 1% SOC. Battery range estimation has always been problematic at the high and low ends and this why some people prefer to know the %SOC. It's like gas cars used to be. 1/4 tank is a 1/4 tank, no idea how far that will get you, but it's still useful to know you have 1/4 tank.
bollar
Disgruntled Member
I think you're like "most people" and I hope we'll see a simpler interface in a future version (perhaps with the 4.5 or similar interface for "advanced users").
Similar threads
