You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think we might be viewing this all wrong....
You can pretty much guarantee that Tesla is already doing it's best to keep the pack as balanced as possible. Kraken's theory does make a lot of sense.Yeah, maybe, but what I would've really liked to see them do is incorporate a balance cycle at the end of each charge (or at least make it an option). Eliminating the below 0 mile buffer is just a quick fix for degradation concerns, even if it was placed there by accident, which I doubt.
What if there wasn't any serious balancing issues....? Maybe in most or almost all cases it was the continuation of the algorithm slowly causing more and more range to be hidden below zero, and we interpreted it as a lack of balancing occurring over time.Yeah, maybe, but what I would've really liked to see them do is incorporate a balance cycle at the end of each charge (or at least make it an option). Eliminating the below 0 mile buffer is just a quick fix for degradation concerns, even if it was placed there by accident, which I doubt.
has anybody with 5.9 driven down to (near) zero and checked what the SoC reported (via something like VisibleTesla)?
I'd really like to know if there's any validity to this idea of the below-zero-buffer being eliminated.
Yeah... Give it a couple days. Sometimes bound to wind up hitting 0 a few feet short of their driveway... They'll let us know when they get stranded.Geez, don't spoil this. Isn't it much more fun to just read all of the emotional responses and wild assed guesses?
Seriously, though… the "science" of this forum has advanced to the point where - given a couple of weeks for people to measure - we should see some pretty useful reporting. I'd discount anything reported within 14 days of 5.9 release unless it's from a beta tester who's had it a while. Good analysis requires more than 1 or 2 hasty data points.
SOC 10% at 26.7 miles left... that's as close as I've come... range charge is 268.4. (via REST data)
I think we might be viewing this all wrong....
i think they made a change to the algorithm sometime around 4.5 or 5.x that was having un foreseen consequences. I think the end result was that it was mis-estimating the range more and more over time due to not using the full battery. The unaccounted for range was increasingly being pushed essentially below zero. Because the car was guessing low, the amount it was missing by was going below zero.
So, what they did was correct it (or revert back to the old algorithm), so now it is more accurate, however there is less below zero than there was before because those miles were put back up at the top where they were intended to be.
so yes they did decrease the range below zero, but only because it wasn't supposed to be there in the first place.
alternatively, perhaps tesla is just moving numbers around into different combos to see which is customers prefer.... A bigger number with no buffer or a smaller number with more buffer. Initially they had the first and we complained. Then they moved to the latter, and others complained. Now they have moved back to their original because there is always a complaint.
i randomly gained back 9 miles today before installing the update. I got home with almost no miles and I didn't want to update with a low battery, so I hit the super charger. Got back to the house with 103. Then I remembered I had forgot to start the update, so I went back to start it and it said 112. No setting changes or anything. I hadn't done the update yet. I was going to see what the post update charge was... But the update reconfigured my charging settings and started charging instantly (during peak hours too)... So I was at 196 when I checked on it.... Or maybe I gained 84 miles!
has anybody with 5.9 driven down to (near) zero and checked what the SoC reported (via something like VisibleTesla)?
I'd really like to know if there's any validity to this idea of the below-zero-buffer being eliminated.
SOC 10% at 26.7 miles left... that's as close as I've come... range charge is 268.4. (via REST data)
You and your fancy new D pack. :tongue:
For those that have 5.9: When does your 30 mile average W/mi = rated consumption? Is it back up to 308 W/mi or is it the ~280 some such number reported in cinergi's thread?
FWIW a Leaf owner in Chicago is reporting zero degradation on his Leaf in 12 months and 16k miles. This measurement is using a CAN bus meter that captures data directly from the battery management system.
On the other hand there are many others from the same area who have reported anywhere between 5 and 10% loss.
Well now, that is interesting.
Assuming you could drive it those remaining 26.7 miles to 0 miles range, that would imply a 0% SoC as well, which is bricked battery territory.
So the possibilities as I see them are that the new firmware:
- Eliminates the below-zero buffer, as well as the anti-brick buffer, allowing you to drive to zero and make a $40,000 error
.- Eliminates the below-zero buffer, and suppresses reporting of the anti-brick buffer, allowing you to drive to zero and no farther, in essence "hiding" the bottom of the pack charge from things like Visible Tesla
.- Calibrated range such that there are no more hidden buffers, but you can no longer drive to 0 range, thus preserving the anti-brick buffer, but making the estimated range goofy on the bottom end.
Quite frankly, none of these scenarios seem likely as intentional to me... but #2 would seem the most plausible.
You and your fancy new D pack. :tongue:
For those that have 5.9: When does your 30 mile average W/mi = rated consumption? Is it back up to 308 W/mi or is it the ~280 some such number reported in cinergi's thread?
You and your fancy new D pack. :tongue:
For those that have 5.9: When does your 30 mile average W/mi = rated consumption? Is it back up to 308 W/mi or is it the ~280 some such number reported in cinergi's thread?