Decreasing rated range.

[islandbayy]

I did a range charge today on my S60. It lingered at 209 miles for about 20 minutes and was still charging. Most likely it was balancing the pack. I had to unplug before it was complete to get to work. I drove at a uncompleted range charge, showing 209 miles. I went 4 Miles before it dropped to 208 and used exactly 1kw to go the 4 miles. 209 has always been my maximum rated range for a range charge, so this was just a bit astonishing. I have now just a hair under 6,000 miles on my MS60.

 

[SFOTurtle]

I did a range charge today on my S60. It lingered at 209 miles for about 20 minutes and was still charging. Most likely it was balancing the pack. I had to unplug before it was complete to get to work. I drove at a uncompleted range charge, showing 209 miles. I went 4 Miles before it dropped to 208 and used exactly 1kw to go the 4 miles. 209 has always been my maximum rated range for a range charge, so this was just a bit astonishing. I have now just a hair under 6,000 miles on my MS60.

Wow, that's great for you. Looks like you've had no loss at all after 6,000 miles. I'm probably a good 5 rated miles less than you with another 1300 miles on the car.

 

[bigsmooth125]

I did another range charge today, my third ever, and got 257 miles. My conclusions thus far: 1) the calculated rated miles at various partial charges are clearly not linear; 2) I'm not as concerned about degradation of my battery as I was before.

 

[qwk]

Just as a reference point, my loaner charges to 241 miles on a 90% standard charge (FW 4.5). Car has 240 miles.

 

[mdh]

Just as a reference point, my loaner charges to 241 miles on a 90% standard charge (FW 4.5). Car has 240 miles.

Interesting... my car has 10k miles... i get about 232 at 90%. Very slight degradation.

 

[qwk]

Interesting... my car has 10k miles... i can get about 232 at 90%. Very slight degradation.

It might not be degradation. From the info we have so far, pack balance and percentage pack calculations are somewhat of a factor when looking at the different rated range values.

 

[xray]

Interesting... my car has 10k miles... i get about 232 at 90%. Very slight degradation.

also for reference, on 4.5, just passed 11136 miles, I'm getting 233-234 rated miles at 90% and 265 miles for a recent max range charge. 265 has been my max for a range charge since the beginning (I think I might have gotten 267 early on, once).

 

[johndoe74]

Another reference, on 4.5 firmware, 7900 miles in 6 months of ownership. I did a max range charge last night and got 254 miles. I live in Phoenix so the degradation may be higher than normal.

 

[gaswalla]

It might not be degradation. From the info we have so far, pack balance and percentage pack calculations are somewhat of a factor when looking at the different rated range values.

It does appear that the only way to compare batteries fairly is based on a range charge that has completed (battery balancing has finished also)

 

[rlawson4]

I am at 19930 miles. Version is 4.5. Standard charge is 232. Opinions how I am doing?

 

[bhuwan]

I am at 19930 miles. Version is 4.5. Standard charge is 232. Opinions how I am doing?

Sounds excellent to me.

 

[aviators99]

I am at 19930 miles. Version is 4.5. Standard charge is 232. Opinions how I am doing?

Much better than I. But let us know what you get at the very end of a range charge for a more useful comparison, especially before 5.0 if you can.

 

[mdh]

I am at 19930 miles. Version is 4.5. Standard charge is 232. Opinions how I am doing?

I am exactly the same as you.. with 10K miles

 

[Eeyago]

I have an interesting situation with mine, maybe someone can shed some light on. In my 40, with only about 4k miles and the latest 4.5 firmware, I've been charging full to around 140-142 each night. Recently went on vacation and set the car to charge at 15a while gone. When I came back after a week, the car will only charge now to about 136-138. It's not a huge difference, but perplexing as to why the change. Any ideas??

 

[strengthcoach4]

I have an interesting situation with mine, maybe someone can shed some light on. In my 40, with only about 4k miles and the latest 4.5 firmware, I've been charging full to around 140-142 each night. Recently went on vacation and set the car to charge at 15a while gone. When I came back after a week, the car will only charge now to about 136-138. It's not a huge difference, but perplexing as to why the change. Any ideas??

It appears that several owners, myself included have lost about 4 miles of range after the latest 4.5 update ending in .61. I also noticed this after coming home from a week vacation.

 

[texex91]

This is very disappointing to hear about all of these losses. What happens over time you lose 50 miles or more? Is this covered under battery warranty? Anyone taken to SC and asked them??

 

[djp]

This is very disappointing to hear about all of these losses. What happens over time you lose 50 miles or more? Is this covered under battery warranty? Anyone taken to SC and asked them??

Battery degradation is to be expected with Li-Ion batteries, the good news is the Roadster is doing better than initial estimates.

Green Car Congress: Plug In America study projects Tesla Roadster packs will retain 80-85% capacity after 100K miles

I think most of the changes seen on this thread are noise in the measurements, calibration or balancing and not true degradation - the Model S is too new to see capacity loss yet.

On my three year old Roadster the Standard charge range dropped to 294km a few months back and then slowly recovered to 301km. The range estimates aren't an exact science.

 

[Zextraterrestrial]

I haven't done a full charge on 5.0 yet but my S shows 225 mi at 90% where in 4.5 it was at ~232 on the last version
I think Tesla is adding a bigger lower end buffer maybe and the software is getting better w/ the matching of the shown rated and what is actually used when driving @ rated on the energy screen.

 

[Odenator]

I haven't done a full charge on 5.0 yet but my S shows 225 mi at 90% where in 4.5 it was at ~232 on the last version
I think Tesla is adding a bigger lower end buffer maybe and the software is getting better w/ the matching of the shown rated and what is actually used when driving @ rated on the energy screen.

Yup same here. I get 225 rated miles on a standard 90% charge with v5.0

 

[cinergi]

What's interesting (may or may not be related to my measly 220 at 90 and 250 at 100) is that I have to drive 290 Wh/mi in order to achieve rated range. I won't get 220@90 if I'm averaging ~312 (matching the energy graph bar for rated range).