-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
I wonder if 5.6 computes the range based off the fleet average kW/m, rather than the old rated value. I know my average watts/mile is higher than rated; I can reach the rated value if I try, but normally I drive faster than that
The rated range is based of the EPA ratings. What's changed is the algorithm used to determine the state of charge (SOC) of the battery. It's hard to measure the battery directly, so an estimate is made.
dsmith2189
Active Member
balancing the pack or not, it won't pick up the 15 miles from 250 to 265 mile (100%) range that was lost with the v5.6 update from v4.5.
(or even the 10 miles lost with the 90% charge when it was updated. (230 down to 220))
dsmith2189
Active Member
I don't think we know if the word "lost" (implying degradation) really applies yet.
Just received 5.8 and I happen to be charged at 100%. My 60 now has 195 Rated and 226 Ideal.
If you read the firmware 5.8 release notes Tesla explained that they have changed the way they calculate the remaining miles in your battery to be more accurate. You have not ACTUALLY lost anything.
If the miles were there and now they are not and can not be found then they are lost. You can play semantics with the terminology if you need to but after each update we "lose" miles.
- - - Updated - - -
They put that in every single update.
[QUOTE
They put that in every single update.[/QUOTE]
Ummm, which is why you are seeing changes in your displayed miles???
They put that in every single update.[/QUOTE]
Ummm, which is why you are seeing changes in your displayed miles???
hans
P631
Miles are never there, only energy. If you have lost energy, you have lost "miles". If you haven't lost energy, it's ambiguous (possible misleading) to say that miles have been lost.
Ummm, which is why you are seeing changes in your displayed miles???[/QUOTE]
I would prefer it if the rated miles more accurately reflected 307whr/ml. I never achieve rated miles when averaging 307 and it is frustrating when trying to calculate range.
I disagree, given the fact that the only measurement that Tesla give us is range, once that goes down then something has been lost. Until they give us other units of measure, or actually tell us how they are coming up with the range number then these questions will continue. For me I don't care one way or another, and don't believe that any range has been truly lost, but the dismissive attitude that some members here have to other people concerns has gotten old.
Thanks, hans. Your wording is more helpful than mine, I think.
- - - Updated - - -
You got that impression from my post? Wow. I think I need to relearn English.
- - - Updated - - -
I think I loosely recall 286 being the "proposed, amended, accounting for buffer" number in that TLDR post a bit back. So yah, ~290.
hans
P631
Tesla should display the State of Charge (SOC) numerically rather than just as a green bar that leaves everyone guessing. The values are clearly there since myself and others can get the battery level (in percent) as well as many other metrics that are not displayed in the car or mobile apps. I understand the desire for simplicity but they could have more info buried in a menu somewhere that doesn't clutter the main screen or distract the driver. In the meantime, tools like Visible Tesla can really help people to better understand what is really going on with the capacity of their battery.
Agreed. REST already provides it, so it's just the in-car UI that's lacking this. They provide charging rate in energy (as an option), so it seems silly to only show state of charge in miles.
Thanks. Doesn't the graph with the dotted line show 307 as the rated range? If so, they should lower it to 290
Similar threads
- Question