Decreasing rated range.

[gg_got_a_tesla]

It's a testament to the pathbreaking job that Tesla has done with the Battery Management System that the precipitous, first-year "degradation" (that was predicted based on Li-ion battery studies) just hasn't happened to that extent, if at all. It's mostly been software algorithm roulette but, hardly anything permanent, it appears. If you believe the range numbers with v5.9, that is Most of us who regularly charge to 90% seem well off indeed.

 

[nwdiver]

I think this has been covered somewhere but short term repeated MAX RANGE charging does seem to increase rated range. My friend got married ~80 miles from where I live so I MAX charged to go to his bachelor party (Rated Range 243); MAX charged to go to a BBQ the next day (Rated Range 245) and MAX charged to go to the wedding (Rated Range 247). I was tempted to MAX charge a forth time just to see if I could get to 250 . Undoubtedly MAX range charging damages the battery in the long run but I think it's the duration that matters not really the fact that you went to 100%. From what I understand going to 100% then immediately driving and going back <90% limits the damage.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

The evidence so far doesn't seem to back that up. I think the real damage comes from the car sitting in either of the aforementioned states for long periods. I really don't think charging to 100% and starting your journey shortly after or arriving at home with 5 miles and then charging immediately are all that bad for the battery.

I suspect that negative impacts, if any, will be noticed over years of use. Model S has not been out in the wild long enough to know for sure.

 

[walla2]

It's a testament to the pathbreaking job that Tesla has done with the Battery Management System that the precipitous, first-year "degradation" (that was predicted based on Li-ion battery studies) just hasn't happened to that extent, if at all.

I do not agree. Max range charge on my Dec 2012 P85 is 258 on 5.9. This isn't my original battery (refurb), but still I do have detectable ~4% degradation at only 6000 miles and that is with limited range charges, no supercharging, and an attempt to balance the battery that really didn't do anything. Also real world range even at below 300 W/mi isn't 300 miles. It's not bad, but the car doesn't really get the rated of sub-265 or ideal range of 300 unless you super hypermile with no heat or air conditioning with no head winds on flat roads at normal temperatures. 300 is marketing. 265 isn't real. 265 isn't possible at a little over 1 year. 220 is easy and realistic.

 

[WarpedOne]

islandbayy:

Am I lucky? Maybe. I just use my car for what Tesla says I should. If I need the range, do the 100%. If I dont, I charge to 90%. When I'm not using my car, I plug it in

If I had to bet on anything I'd bet your usage pattern is such that minimizes or even eliminates 'artifacts' of range estimation algorithm. Your car "resets" its Empty and Full thresholds so often that inaccuracies of measuring/estimating SOC cannot add up into whole miles.
People that only cycle between ~90 and ~40 and never go lower toward the bottom don't have that 'privilege' and are open to misrepresent methodology weaknesses with real degradation.

Tesla's battery tech is guaranteed for 8 years. We have their word that anything below 80% of "new range" before 8 years is considered "failed battery" and due for replacement.
Obsessing on x% lower (single digit miles) ESTIMATION and calling it degradation is simply ridiculous.
Degradation starts when your range charge gives you less than ~90% of "new" range in as similar conditions as possible. At ~80% your battery can be called "a bit worn" and at 70% "failed". All of you guys still have have perfect batteries. Enjoy your drive and warranty.

 

[rlang59]

islandbayy:

If I had to bet on anything I'd bet your usage pattern is such that minimizes or even eliminates 'artifacts' of range estimation algorithm. Your car "resets" its Empty and Full thresholds so often that inaccuracies of measuring/estimating SOC cannot add up into whole miles.
People that only cycle between ~90 and ~40 and never go lower toward the bottom don't have that 'privilege' and are open to misrepresent methodology weaknesses with real degradation.

Tesla's battery tech is guaranteed for 8 years. We have their word that anything below 80% of "new range" before 8 years is considered "failed battery" and due for replacement.
Obsessing on x% lower (single digit miles) ESTIMATION and calling it degradation is simply ridiculous.
Degradation starts when your range charge gives you less than ~90% of "new" range in as similar conditions as possible. At ~80% your battery can be called "a bit worn" and at 70% "failed". All of you guys still have have perfect batteries. Enjoy your drive and warranty.

People keep throwing this around but I don't think I have ever seen anything official on that.

 

[djp]

We have their word that anything below 80% of "new range" before 8 years is considered "failed battery" and due for replacement.

Do you have a reference for that? The warranty says that Tesla isn't responsible for degradation from use, but as far as I know they've never defined the point where degradation would be considered abnormal.

 

[scaesare]

...the car doesn't really get the rated of sub-265 or ideal range of 300 unless you super hypermile with no heat or air conditioning with no head winds on flat roads at normal temperatures.

That's not the case with me. I'm coming up on 11 months and 23K miles, and I can drive in a reasonably spirited fashion keeping up with the flow of traffic at 70-75 on moderate terrain with the A/C on and hit sub-300 number for energy consumption pretty easily. Particularly on longer trips.

Of course, that's not to say it's always possible... very strong headwinds, significant elevation change, or cold temps affect this. But under typically mild conditions it's achievable without have to resort to "hypermiling", much less "super hypermiling".

 

[SeminoleFSU]

That's not the case with me. I'm coming up on 11 months and 23K miles, and I can drive in a reasonably spirited fashion keeping up with the flow of traffic at 70-75 on moderate terrain with the A/C on and hit sub-300 number for energy consumption pretty easily. Particularly on longer trips.

Of course, that's not to say it's always possible... very strong headwinds, significant elevation change, or cold temps affect this. But under typically mild conditions it's achievable without have to resort to "hypermiling", much less "super hypermiling".

In my experience, if it is warm outside and you stay at or below 65 you'll get the #'s you should... Harder to do with 21's... but 19's should deliver that fairly consistently.

 

[Gear]

In my experience, if it is warm outside and you stay at or below 65 you'll get the #'s you should... Harder to do with 21's... but 19's should deliver that fairly consistently.

Same here. I live in the mountains, too, so I don't even get full regen leaving my house (cold temps in the morning and 90% charge) and I still manage sub 300's pretty easily. If I lived somewhere where I'd be discharging leaving my house instead of charging, I'd do even better. Nobody should expect the 300 mile number on an 85. Tesla has made it pretty clear that the 300 mile range number is flat terrain, ideal conditions, and cruise at 55. They call it "ideal" range for a reason.

 

[islandbayy]

islandbayy:

If I had to bet on anything I'd bet your usage pattern is such that minimizes or even eliminates 'artifacts' of range estimation algorithm. Your car "resets" its Empty and Full thresholds so often that inaccuracies of measuring/estimating SOC cannot add up into whole miles.
People that only cycle between ~90 and ~40 and never go lower toward the bottom don't have that 'privilege' and are open to misrepresent methodology weaknesses with real degradation.

Tesla's battery tech is guaranteed for 8 years. We have their word that anything below 80% of "new range" before 8 years is considered "failed battery" and due for replacement.
Obsessing on x% lower (single digit miles) ESTIMATION and calling it degradation is simply ridiculous.
Degradation starts when your range charge gives you less than ~90% of "new" range in as similar conditions as possible. At ~80% your battery can be called "a bit worn" and at 70% "failed". All of you guys still have have perfect batteries. Enjoy your drive and warranty.

you forget, us with the 60kW packs get 125k or 8 years whichever is first. given that, my warranty will be over in 2 years for the battery, and end of 2014 for the rest if the car whole car.
Guven my mileage, it may be possible though to beat the countdown clock if age of the batteries though. I will just need to keep reporting my findings with my 60 pack as I go. I am still being told by the service centers I have one of the highest mileage 60 packs, let's see what this lil bugger can do

 

[Andrew]

Perhaps rated range does include past driving performance

I've read every post in this thread, and there's something that still doesn't add up. The reported rated miles at 90%/100% seem to fall into two camps: A lot of 85 owners are reporting around 240 to 245 rated miles when they charge to 100%. But a lot of owners--especially those that have very high mileage--are reporting they still have 260-265 rated miles at 100%. Similarly, at 90%, a lot of owners are around 210-215 rated miles, and a lot of others are around 225-235.

With v5.8 and v5.9 the differences seem to follow a similar pattern, even if the difference is less severe at 90% (it seems 100% hasn't changed much, if at all).

So I propose that we reconsider that "rated miles" might actually consider past driving behavior, after all. I have actually been told this several times by Tesla employees, and have always shrugged it off because the TMC forum users were so emphatic that it does not.

But consider this: The folks that have very high mileage are likely doing much more freeway driving (long commutes or road trips), and the car tends to have lower overall Wh/mi on longer trips. I recognize that the super-high-mileage owners may also be 100% charging more often (thus keeping the algorithm steady), but even when other owners do a few 100% charges they don't seem to be gaining back many of those ~20 rated miles. (ie, repeated range charges can get someone from 240 back up to around 250...but not to 260+).

So, I think when we're looking at data points, we also need to consider (lifetime? recent?) Wh/mi as part of the data points, to see if we can find a correlation there.

We have ~11,700 miles on the car in 13 months, and have averaged about 335 Wh/mi, fairly consistently. Still on 5.8, 90% = 214 rated miles, and 100% = 243. Can other folks chime in with their Wh/mi info? Should we start a spreadsheet?

 

[qwk]

16.5k miles, average wh/mi 344, last 90% charge was 228, last range charge was 262. You would think that if driving history had anything to do with it, my rated range would be lower.

 

[tomas]

I've read every post in this thread, and there's something that still doesn't add up. The reported rated miles at 90%/100% seem to fall into two camps: A lot of 85 owners are reporting around 240 to 245 rated miles when they charge to 100%. But a lot of owners--especially those that have very high mileage--are reporting they still have 260-265 rated miles at 100%. Similarly, at 90%, a lot of owners are around 210-215 rated miles, and a lot of others are around 225-235.

With v5.8 and v5.9 the differences seem to follow a similar pattern, even if the difference is less severe at 90% (it seems 100% hasn't changed much, if at all).

So I propose that we reconsider that "rated miles" might actually consider past driving behavior, after all. I have actually been told this several times by Tesla employees, and have always shrugged it off because the TMC forum users were so emphatic that it does not.

But consider this: The folks that have very high mileage are likely doing much more freeway driving (long commutes or road trips), and the car tends to have lower overall Wh/mi on longer trips. I recognize that the super-high-mileage owners may also be 100% charging more often (thus keeping the algorithm steady), but even when other owners do a few 100% charges they don't seem to be gaining back many of those ~20 rated miles. (ie, repeated range charges can get someone from 240 back up to around 250...but not to 260+).

So, I think when we're looking at data points, we also need to consider (lifetime? recent?) Wh/mi as part of the data points, to see if we can find a correlation there.

We have ~11,700 miles on the car in 13 months, and have averaged about 335 Wh/mi, fairly consistently. Still on 5.8, 90% = 214 rated miles, and 100% = 243. Can other folks chime in with their Wh/mi info? Should we start a spreadsheet?

Andrew, this is why I have suggested that people all take the trouble to put their 5.9 100% charge information into the battery table

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showwiki.php?title=Battery+table

So we can find out if/what the correlations are. Right now there is a lot of conjecture and a bunch of people putting single data points out there. Getting all of the data in one place makes it far easier to analyze.

PS I have added average lifetime Wh/mi to table to test your suggested correlation

 

[brianman]

300 is marketing. 265 isn't real. 265 isn't possible at a little over 1 year. 220 is easy and realistic.

I think for WA state you are correct. I think for some regions (FL and parts of CA) you may be incorrect.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

I do not agree. Max range charge on my Dec 2012 P85 is 258 on 5.9. This isn't my original battery (refurb), but still I do have detectable ~4% degradation at only 6000 miles and that is with limited range charges, no supercharging, and an attempt to balance the battery that really didn't do anything. Also real world range even at below 300 W/mi isn't 300 miles. It's not bad, but the car doesn't really get the rated of sub-265 or ideal range of 300 unless you super hypermile with no heat or air conditioning with no head winds on flat roads at normal temperatures. 300 is marketing. 265 isn't real. 265 isn't possible at a little over 1 year. 220 is easy and realistic.

Actually your perceived degradation is only 2.6%, not 4%. 258 miles out of 265 miles is 97.4%, or 2.6% loss. Also, the EPA range is achieved by driving the car from 100% to 0%, past zero until the car stops moving. Have you done that?

I get ideal range here in Arizona. That means 300 miles per full charge. Yesterday's errands netted me 264 Wh/mi. I drive a P85 with 19" wheels. With AC on I get around 288 Wh/mi. In my case, 300 isn't just marketing - it's reality.

- - - Updated - - -

Tesla's battery tech is guaranteed for 8 years. We have their word that anything below 80% of "new range" before 8 years is considered "failed battery" and due for replacement.

With respect, this is total nonsense. Tesla specifically EXCLUDES battery degradation from its battery warranty. There is absolutely no stated threshold of 80% anywhere. In fact, per Tesla's battery warranty (which you should read), even if your battery dropped to 50% it would not be considered defective.

 

[Gear]

I've read every post in this thread, and there's something that still doesn't add up. The reported rated miles at 90%/100% seem to fall into two camps: A lot of 85 owners are reporting around 240 to 245 rated miles when they charge to 100%. But a lot of owners--especially those that have very high mileage--are reporting they still have 260-265 rated miles at 100%. Similarly, at 90%, a lot of owners are around 210-215 rated miles, and a lot of others are around 225-235.

With v5.8 and v5.9 the differences seem to follow a similar pattern, even if the difference is less severe at 90% (it seems 100% hasn't changed much, if at all).

So I propose that we reconsider that "rated miles" might actually consider past driving behavior, after all. I have actually been told this several times by Tesla employees, and have always shrugged it off because the TMC forum users were so emphatic that it does not.

But consider this: The folks that have very high mileage are likely doing much more freeway driving (long commutes or road trips), and the car tends to have lower overall Wh/mi on longer trips. I recognize that the super-high-mileage owners may also be 100% charging more often (thus keeping the algorithm steady), but even when other owners do a few 100% charges they don't seem to be gaining back many of those ~20 rated miles. (ie, repeated range charges can get someone from 240 back up to around 250...but not to 260+).

So, I think when we're looking at data points, we also need to consider (lifetime? recent?) Wh/mi as part of the data points, to see if we can find a correlation there.

We have ~11,700 miles on the car in 13 months, and have averaged about 335 Wh/mi, fairly consistently. Still on 5.8, 90% = 214 rated miles, and 100% = 243. Can other folks chime in with their Wh/mi info? Should we start a spreadsheet?

It seems to me that the only way past driving affects rated range is the accuracy of the measurement. This might be where some of the confusion comes in. People that regularly use the full range of the battery seem to have higher readings. I was away from home for 3 months and my range at given percentages steadily went down as my car was sitting in the garage plugged in. After I got home and started using the full range of the battery somewhat frequently, the range display went up pretty steadily. I don't think wh/mi has anything to do with anything.

 

[Zythryn]

I do not agree. Max range charge on my Dec 2012 P85 is 258 on 5.9. This isn't my original battery (refurb), but still I do have detectable ~4% degradation at only 6000 miles and that is with limited range charges, no supercharging, and an attempt to balance the battery that really didn't do anything. Also real world range even at below 300 W/mi isn't 300 miles. It's not bad, but the car doesn't really get the rated of sub-265 or ideal range of 300 unless you super hypermile with no heat or air conditioning with no head winds on flat roads at normal temperatures. 300 is marketing. 265 isn't real. 265 isn't possible at a little over 1 year. 220 is easy and realistic.

We have a 5% loss after 18 months and 28,000 miles.
We regularly get 300 miles in MN summers, no hypermileing involved. In the winter we get around 200.

 

[WarpedOne]

I've been called out on my statement that:

We have their word that anything below 80% of "new range" before 8 years is considered "failed battery" and due for replacement.

I was writting on memory, here are my original sources:
First: i got told from a tesla sales rep that 3% per year is an acceptable loss. according to excel that is 78.37% of original capacity at year 8.
Second and the main one - I cannot find that post any more It was here on TMC from a guy that specificaly asked tesla rep what if his capacity drops to 70% before age of 8 years and he got the word "replacement".

Dancing on "the warranty does not state anything regarding range" is giving tesla excuse to not cover excessive range loss if it should happen.
We are better off if we expect them to replace the battery as they will feel the comunity pressure. Giving up in advance doesn't serve us any good.

 

[dirkhh]

I've been called out on my statement that:


I was writting on memory, here are my original sources:
First: i got told from a tesla sales rep that 3% per year is an acceptable loss. according to excel that is 78.37% of original capacity at year 8.
Second and the main one - I cannot find that post any more It was here on TMC from a guy that specificaly asked tesla rep what if his capacity drops to 70% before age of 8 years and he got the word "replacement".

Dancing on "the warranty does not state anything regarding range" is giving tesla excuse to not cover excessive range loss if it should happen.
We are better off if we expect them to replace the battery as they will feel the comunity pressure. Giving up in advance doesn't serve us any good.

So making up an alleged promise that Tesla will replace once the battery falls below 80% is better?
I admit that I fail to see your logic. I prefer to live in a reality based world.