TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC
  1. TMC is currently READ ONLY.
    Click here for more info.

Calculate usable battery capacity based on rated miles values

Discussion in 'Model S: Battery & Charging' started by wk057, Jan 15, 2017.

  1. randvegeta

    randvegeta Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2016
    Messages:
    160
    Location:
    Lithuania
    You say that but I am going by the 'rated' line on my graph, not by my average.

    I am able to drive slower or faster and get my average below or above the rated line. When I drive exactly ON THE LINE, so my average = rated, the number is usually 188wh/km (or 301wh/m). However, I have seen this number climb to 191wh/km (or 306wh/m).

    ** Sorry, in my previous post, I may have wrongly stated a wh/m of 313, but I was using a conversion of 60M per 100KM rather than 62 **

    In either case, my wh/m is higher than you suggested, and certainly is not a static figure.

    I may be located in Europe/Lithuania, but the vehicle is a US import. I'm not sure where the 'rated' figure comes from, or weather or not they update the figure to account for location or weather conditions. Certainly I do not find it particularly difficult to meet this estimate unless the road has a good deal of snow/slush on it. Even at -20c, not really difficult to hit that 188-191 range.

    Any way, it seems strange that you and others are saying this number is static and is the figure given by the EPA, and yet, my number is neither static, nor matches the number you or others have given.

    I'll take a picture next time! Since people seem not to believe me.
     
  2. randvegeta

    randvegeta Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2016
    Messages:
    160
    Location:
    Lithuania
    Interesting. If I take my 188wh/km and divide that number by 0.620934, I get 302.76969. So within 0.23wh of your rated 303wh/m reading. Mine is an older (2014) model so it may be the case that the original Model S's really had this higher consumption compare to newer ones.

    With 191wh/km, that would be 307.6wh/m. Perhaps the graph is not detailed enough to show if a difference of 1.5% is above or below the rated line?
     
  3. wk057

    wk057 Senior Tinkerer

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2014
    Messages:
    5,643
    Location:
    Hickory, NC, USA
    The rated line on the graph does not move. The only thing that can potentially make it move a hair is toggling range mode, but that's up in the air.

    And again, I'm unsure how this all plays out when converting from other regions or from km or whatever the case may be there. The numbers I provided are directly from the firmware. I don't know what, if any, modifiers are placed on these numbers when in another region, using kilometers vs miles, using range mode, etc.

    The value is "VAPI_ratedWattHourPerMile" in the firmware. I've checked it on real cars of various configurations as well as my bench MCU with simulated configurations. The only values that exist are the ones I provided. I suppose at some point I can try configuring a bench MCU for another region and testing again, but it's time consuming to do so. Also, as far as I can tell this is 295 Wh/mi for the RWD variants in every firmware version I have back to 4.x.
     
    • Like x 1
  4. ab26

    ab26 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2015
    Messages:
    353
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    I am interested in knowing more about this (X 75D) as well. It is really odd and I wondering if a rounding error really led to a huge over-estimate (and why we don't see it in the other packs).
     
  5. randvegeta

    randvegeta Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2016
    Messages:
    160
    Location:
    Lithuania
    Interesting.

    BTW, you wouldn't happen to know if if replacing the charger on a Model S would be a particularly difficult one? I'm thinking it would be best to change my charger to Euro spec one where I can make use of 3-phase charge points.
     
  6. nwdiver

    nwdiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2013
    Messages:
    7,360
    Location:
    United States
    Any incite into the calibration issues? Like why my rated range goes up when I'm on a long road trip with several deep cycles... I typically keep my SOC at 60% and my rated range has dropped to ~230 on my P85... I'm hoping that most of that is a calibration issue and not true degradation. That would suck.
     
  7. Oyvind.H

    Oyvind.H Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    373
    Location:
    Oslo, Norway
    Question: This is my 90D. It appears to me that it has 84,9+4kWh=88,9kWh pack size. Is that correct?
     

    Attached Files:

  8. Az_Rael

    Az_Rael Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,602
    Location:
    Palmdale, CA
    It appears my energy graph is displaying 300 for my wh/rated mile on my classic P85. I wonder if that is just for ease of display?

    20170116_104426.jpg 20170116_104521.jpg
     
    • Like x 1
  9. AWDtsla

    AWDtsla Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    4,262
    Location:
    NE
    I just tried this again. 235.59 miles vs 235.25 miles. So decent chance you wouldn't see it without using the API unless you get lucky.
     
  10. f-stop

    f-stop Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    1,458
    Location:
    Vancouver BC, Canada
    in my case the times I noted it was not from the API, it was always on the instrument cluster display. Just checked it again - I just stopped a charging session to 77% - rated range on the dash shows 298km. If I then turn on range mode setting and wait a few seconds, the display changes to 300km. Turn the setting off and it then goes back to 298.
     
    • Love x 1
  11. hacer

    hacer Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2016
    Messages:
    1,060
    Location:
    Clarksville, MD
    That's true. It also doesn't draw the line where it should. My refreshed 70D for example has the line exactly on 300 Wh/mi. So the line is pretty much useless.
     
  12. stopcrazypp

    stopcrazypp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2007
    Messages:
    9,830
    I'm going to play contrarian again, but as a sanity check, by my math, this suggests: 77.5kWh / (295Wh/Rated mile) = 263 miles rated range for a brand new S85 or P85.

    This does not jive with data here that says 265-269 (78.2-79.4 kWh usable) is typical when new, while the OP in the thread reported 274 (which works out to 80.83 usable).
    Already lost 4 miles of rated range… | Tesla Motors
    Another report of 269 miles at new:
    Realistic usable energy in 85kWh pack
    Another of 271 miles (79.9 kWh) at new:
    Degradation at 94.000 miles
    Another of 269-271 miles rated when new:
    (New Thread) 2012 Model S P85 - Signature Red - WARRANTY - 8K Miles On New Pack
    Another of 269 when new:
    One Year, 29K Miles, Still Grinning
    272 (80.2 kWh) when new:
    Decreasing rated range.
    273 (80.5 kWh) when new:
    Decreasing rated range.

    So either your sample of the ~77.5kWh usable (and thus also the ~81.5kWh) is not the typical/maximum number for a new 85kWh battery or your rated mile conversion is off.
     
  13. LargeHamCollider

    LargeHamCollider Battery cells != scalable

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2015
    Messages:
    939
    Location:
    United States
    I suspect that the capacity of recent 90 packs is slightly greater than the capacity of the original 90 packs. There were a number of cases where early 90 owners complained of rapid range loss just after buying, you don't see that anymore which also suggests one or more minor chemistry changes *after* the original launch of the 90 pack.
     
  14. bxr140

    bxr140 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2014
    Messages:
    2,607
    Location:
    Bay Area
    And...is there a way to reset the calibration?
     
  15. ohmman

    ohmman Plaid-ish Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2014
    Messages:
    9,876
    Location:
    North Bay, CA
    My 10 month old X90D charged to full at 250 rated yesterday. Rated 257 new. My P85 hasn't been charged to full in a long time, but it might be worth checking.
     
  16. wk057

    wk057 Senior Tinkerer

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2014
    Messages:
    5,643
    Location:
    Hickory, NC, USA
    Again, the rated range Wh numbers are *directly* from the firmware. They're not "my" numbers.

    Further, the BMS calibration is WAY off until a near 0% and near 100% charge is hit. It has no data to go on besides the base data, so when it uses it's base numbers and sees a pack taking slightly more energy than expected to reach a particular voltage or discharging slightly more energy than expected before hitting a particular voltage, it celebrates and bumps the cap artificially. Eventually this averages out, especially if you actually use the capacity of the pack. If you're only doing small DoD and never hitting 100% or 0% ... then I personally wouldn't even trust the range meter at all.

    With the 85 packs in particular, I've tested cells from what was basically a brand new pack in my testing. I stand by my findings. I would love to see an IC shot of an "85" showing 80 or more kWh used on a single charge.
     
    • Informative x 3
  17. stopcrazypp

    stopcrazypp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2007
    Messages:
    9,830
    If what you say is true, the data I gathered suggests that the baseline capacity of a brand new 85kWh pack is much closer to 85kWh than it is to 80kWh.

    Also, I mentioned previously that according to Panasonic's own chart, the NCR18650A loses 3.2% capacity vs max nameplate within 5 cycles (note I'm using this as a similar cell example, not saying this is the cell Tesla uses). So if it takes a full 0-100% cycle to get the capacity, by that time it likely would have gone through more than the equivalent of 5 cycles. Then it becomes impossible to know if the stabilized number is representative of a new cell (just the BMS needing to calibrate) or if it's actual capacity loss from the cycling. This also assumes Tesla/Panasonic haven't done any cycling before the car is delivered.
    Tesla's 85 kWh rating needs an asterisk (up to 81 kWh, with up to ~77 kWh usable)
     
  18. wk057

    wk057 Senior Tinkerer

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2014
    Messages:
    5,643
    Location:
    Hickory, NC, USA
    So now we're back to trying to say the 85 packs use cells that are most similar to NCR18650A cells (false) and that Tesla cycles the packs significantly before delivery (pure speculation, likely false as there is no evidence to support this). I'll note again that I've tested "85" pack cells from a pack that still had the majority of its original from-delivery charge with results that match my original findings.

    Keep in mind the rated range advertised for the "85"s: 265 miles ... 78.175 kWh usable new.

    Also, it's been noted that enabling/disabling range mode modifies the displayed range by some unknown amount. Did you check all of your examples for this particular case? Were these immediately after charging before actually starting the car? The display adjusts to the BMS values within a minute or so of actually enabling the drive rail when the estimated rated range during a charge is way off. I've personally had my old P85 say 272 miles at 100% at a supercharger at ~5k miles on the odo, then snap back to ~263 miles less than 3 miles down the road. In short, the end of charge number means very little, especially before some calibration has happened. Start the car.

    And I'll note, again, that this thread is about rated miles vs usable capacity, not cycle life or cell type or whatever. If you want to pick a stance and then cherry pick potentially unrelated data points that support your view, by all means. I'm sure other reasonable persons will realize this and weigh validity accordingly.
     
    • Like x 3
    • Informative x 1
  19. wk057

    wk057 Senior Tinkerer

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2014
    Messages:
    5,643
    Location:
    Hickory, NC, USA
    I suspect this may also be the case. I have data that shows an upward trend in usable capacity that correlates with VIN increases... but, it's not all that significant and could just be error from limited samples. The best 90 packs I've seen are still below 90 kWh in total capacity, including one I own that only has 301 miles on it.
     
    • Like x 1
  20. jeffro01

    jeffro01 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,676
    Location:
    Teller County CO
    Stupid question possibly but would I need to fully charge my 90D (pre-refresh) to 100% before I could do this math? I have always felt like I got screwed on paying for the upgrade from 85 to 90 while it was still out there but haven't felt personally wronged by it enough to make a fuss... Now that I see your math, it makes me VERY curious...

    Granted at this point with the car over a year old there isn't anything I can do about it now as Tesla, and they aren't wrong, would say that it's due to natural capacity loss...

    Oh and despite any previous postings that were defensive of Tesla and aggressive towards Jason, my perspective has changed a lot since then so please Jason, keep doing what you're doing...

    Jeff
     
    • Like x 2

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.
  • Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


    SUPPORT TMC