Decreasing rated range.

[Kraken]

It doesn't come from anywhere because it's always been there the whole time. The algorithm has been underreporting range, especially to those who don't use the full range of the battery's charge on a regular basis. The number on the screen is the result of a calculation that has now been changed to better show the true state of charge. So the estimate shows more miles now than it did before. They've always been there.

I've always considered these battery balancing theories and protocols to be essentially nonsense. It's always been the algorithm and now we have confirmation. I do feel bad for those who have been range charging, running their batteries down close to zero, then range charging again hoping to recover range that was never lost to begin with. What those owners have done is put their battery through unnecessarily stressful deep cycles and possibly lowered the pack's long term life. Of course that won't be apparent for a few years, so time will tell.

I did it, and I don't regret it. I didn't gain much, but I was pretty much planning on driving a full charges worth of range all 3 days, so why not try it? The car can be range charged on occasion... I've done it 6 times total (3 in that experiment). That isn't that much really, for 9 months of ownership.

 

[nanimac]

I updated to 5.9 tonight and my rated range on my 40kwh has increased from 124 to 136 miles.

 

[tdiggity]

I updated to 5.9 tonight and my rated range on my 40kwh has increased from 124 to 136 miles.

Good stuff. Next question: Do you believe it? If you drive around efficiently, does your real world mileage reflect rated range?

 

[nanimac]

Good stuff. Next question: Do you believe it? If you drive around efficiently, does your real world mileage reflect rated range?

Not sure what to believe anymore when it comes to rated range...will track it over the next few days and report back.

 

[dennis]

I'm still on 5.8.10. I just completed a range charge and it showed 282 ideal miles, a 6% degradation. When I switched to rated, it indicated 245, which would be a 7.5% degradation. So there is one data point that shows the impact of the rated algorithm in 5.8. It will be interesting to see how this changes with 5.9.

'A' battery, 12K miles, 17 months. Most charging to 80% since the slider was introduced, about a dozen range charges in total. The last 4 range charges (over a 3 month period) have all shown 245 rated miles.

 

[Cottonwood]

Sig 37, P85, 18,000 miles in 18 months. Was getting 252 rated, did the balance dance to get to 254 rated miles before I left, then several 100% charges on my recent trip from Colorado to California and back. The latest 99.7% charge (still charging at 403 Volts, 4 Amps on a Supercharger when I disconnected) on the way back was to 254 miles, but the car went 4 miles, 1.3 kWh, before dropping to 253. I count that as 257 rated miles, you could call it 254. 257 is a loss of 3%, 254 is a loss of 4%.

Version 5.8.10, usually charge to 80% since slider. Many range and 100% charges, but always drive away within an hour or so of 100% charge completion. Have driven to 0 or "Charge Now" a few times and below 20 rated miles several times, but charged soon after.

 

[aviators99]

My range has gone up with 5.9, but the buffer at the bottom has gone down to ZERO. So where before, 0 rated miles was 9-10% still left, now it is 0%. Can anyone confirm if it is the same for "B" packs?

 

[ecarfan]

@aviators99, How did you determine that you have no battery reserve at 0 rated miles! Did you drive the car down to zero rated and then could go no further?

 

[apacheguy]

My range has gone up with 5.9, but the buffer at the bottom has gone down to ZERO. So where before, 0 rated miles was 9-10% still left, now it is 0%. Can anyone confirm if it is the same for "B" packs?

This is what I suspected they had done, so no surprise. Did they also eliminate bricking protections? IIRC, they are activated at 4% SOC, but if 0 miles = 0% then this would suggest they have been removed.

 

[Cottonwood]

This is what I suspected they had done, so no surprise. Did they also eliminate bricking protections? IIRC, they are activated at 4% SOC, but if 0 miles = 0% then this would suggest they have been removed.

I cannot imagine that they would remove those hidden, below-zero miles, but making the display go to 0% at 0 rated miles would be better visual warning that you need to get a charge. Who is going to do the test to check "below 0" in 5.9? I don't have 5.9 yet.

 

[aaron0k]

I updated to 5.9 tonight and my rated range on my 40kwh has increased from 124 to 136 miles.

Similar result, I went from 126 to 135 the first night after the upgrade. Still trying to determine if this increased range is 'actual' capacity or just a different calculation (psychological).

 

[Jeff Miller]

@aviators99, How did you determine that you have no battery reserve at 0 rated miles! Did you drive the car down to zero rated and then could go no further?

I have the same question...

 

[SFOTurtle]

I cannot imagine that they would remove those hidden, below-zero miles, but making the display go to 0% at 0 rated miles would be better visual warning that you need to get a charge. Who is going to do the test to check "below 0" in 5.9? I don't have 5.9 yet.

Yeah, it would be hard to believe that Tesla would eliminate the reserve for bricking protection just to increase the rated number a little bit.

I also would like to hear from new 60 and 85 owners who have 5.9 what rated numbers they are showing. I would think the apples to apples comparision would be numbers from a brand new 60 or 85 on 5.9 to those of us who have had our cars for a while also on 5.9. Shifting the reserve around would affect the cars equally, one would think, so if the algorithm has now been "fixed," if there are discrepancies, can we not finally attribute those to degradation?

 

[dennis]

I also would like to hear from new 60 and 85 owners who have 5.9 what rated numbers they are showing. I would think the apples to apples comparision would be numbers from a brand new 60 or 85 on 5.9 to those of us who have had our cars for a while also on 5.9. Shifting the reserve around would affect the cars equally, one would think, so if the algorithm has now been "fixed," if there are discrepancies, can we not finally attribute those to degradation?

If we are calculating actual degradation, does it make more sense to use Ideal miles and compare to 300?

 

[jerry33]

If we are calculating actual degradation, does it make more sense to use Ideal miles and compare to 300?

I don't think there's enough of a difference to matter--both are just an estimate. Mine shows 2.33% for Ideal and 2.26% for rated at 20,000 miles. I'm not convinced that any degradation measured this way is accurate within 3% let alone 0.03%.

 

[scaesare]

Yeah, it would be hard to believe that Tesla would eliminate the reserve for bricking protection just to increase the rated number a little bit.

A point of clarification: there is a "below 0 buffer" that you CAN use (~15-17 miles for an 85) before shutdown, and a separate "anti-brick" buffer that you CAN'T use after shutdown.

I too would like to know what is making folks draw the conclusion that one of these has been eliminated. Especially because it appears that the range estimates at 100% INCLUDES the below zero buffer even though dash counts down to zero range "faster" than the actual charge had been depleted.

I, for one, doubt Tesla has eliminated this without more warning.

 

[nanimac]

Similar result, I went from 126 to 135 the first night after the upgrade. Still trying to determine if this increased range is 'actual' capacity or just a different calculation (psychological).

Same here. But living on an island, i'm not too worried about running out of juice

 

[cinergi]

Yeah, it would be hard to believe that Tesla would eliminate the reserve for bricking protection just to increase the rated number a little bit.

I also would like to hear from new 60 and 85 owners who have 5.9 what rated numbers they are showing. I would think the apples to apples comparision would be numbers from a brand new 60 or 85 on 5.9 to those of us who have had our cars for a while also on 5.9. Shifting the reserve around would affect the cars equally, one would think, so if the algorithm has now been "fixed," if there are discrepancies, can we not finally attribute those to degradation?

The 5.9 thread has some numbers. Mine went from 219 to 229 rates miles at 90% and 248 to 257 at 100.

 

[FlasherZ]

The 5.9 thread has some numbers. Mine went from 219 to 229 rates miles at 90% and 248 to 257 at 100.

They're reading this thread and installing a per-VIN "correction table" to make people feel better.

 

[SFOTurtle]

They're reading this thread and installing a per-VIN "correction table" to make people feel better.

Yeah, half of me thinks that they just wanted to come up with some "fix" so we'd stop talking about balancing and degradation on TMC.

That's why I'm curious what a new 60 or 85 shows at 90% and 100% SOC with 5.9. If they just shifted up the 10 or so rated miles that were below 0 with version 5.8.x, then one would expect the new cars to show a similar increase. But if now there's little or no delta between a new car and one that's a year old at 90% and 100%, then the new algorithm really did do something more than just shift the rated range above the 0 line.

- - - Updated - - -

The 5.9 thread has some numbers. Mine went from 219 to 229 rates miles at 90% and 248 to 257 at 100.

That's all good. Anyone who has just taken delivery with 5.9 -- what are your numbers showing?

I'm hoping to a little bump in my numbers once I get 5.9 only just to make road tripping a little easier -- right now with 193-95 rated, there are a couple of trips that are right on the edge. If I had another 5-10 rated miles, these trips would have the buffer in order to forego an extra charging stop.