gg_got_a_tesla
Model S: VIN 65513, Model 3: VIN 1913
A very relevant parallel thread has been started here:
A senior tesla executive's comforting answer to concerns re:
A senior tesla executive's comforting answer to concerns re:
Last edited:
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Kraken
Member
To further my theory, run the math on the energy used. I used 58.9 kwh. I had charge to 90%, but I lost 3 miles over night and stopped with 2 miles left. So 5 miles of that were unused (under the conservative assumption that the 3 miles lost aren't included in the 58.9kwh used). That's about 2% unused. So, I used 88% of the available SOC.
doing the math, that makes 100% SOC the equivalent of 66.2kwh leaving 18.8 kwh unaccounted for. Surely a few kwh, say 10kwh are left to keep from bricking (that's probably a high assumption, but assume 5 at the top and 5 at the bottom of the range). There are still 8.8kwh left unaccounted for. Likely some of that is actually below 0% SOC and provides the ability to go past 0 and not be stuck at 0. Some might be degradation/unbalanced pack... But hopefully not over 10% of my pack.
i just think they changed it so 0 LOOKS like 0% SOC, but it isn't truly 0% SOC.
part of it is probably get people to start treating 0 as 0 and also to keep us from guessing what we can do.
doing the math, that makes 100% SOC the equivalent of 66.2kwh leaving 18.8 kwh unaccounted for. Surely a few kwh, say 10kwh are left to keep from bricking (that's probably a high assumption, but assume 5 at the top and 5 at the bottom of the range). There are still 8.8kwh left unaccounted for. Likely some of that is actually below 0% SOC and provides the ability to go past 0 and not be stuck at 0. Some might be degradation/unbalanced pack... But hopefully not over 10% of my pack.
i just think they changed it so 0 LOOKS like 0% SOC, but it isn't truly 0% SOC.
part of it is probably get people to start treating 0 as 0 and also to keep us from guessing what we can do.
mnx
2018 M3P
hans
P631
Yes, and possibly 100% SOC may have changed at various points too. Without knowing the actual voltages these numbers are arbitrary.
Kipernicus
Model S Res#P1440
Seems like 5.9 was a tide that floated all the boats. My 90% went from 167 to 175, but GG's went from 174 to 182.
Will be interested to see how others are doing at both 90% and 100% and whether "balancing" shows any further improvements.
Will be interested to see how others are doing at both 90% and 100% and whether "balancing" shows any further improvements.
Yes, this is true. All that has happened now is that the number shown is different, which makes it slightly more difficult for us to show the types of trends we've been discussing here. The state of the battery is obviously the same, and the degradation versus other batteries has not changed (A vs B, for example).
Well, this is interesting. Got my S85 back from the service center with 5.9 (the .88 flavor) on it. Did my first two 90% charges this weekend (I typically charge to 60-70% during the week).
I'm seeing 225-226 miles of rated range. This isn't too much more than I had seen before (typically 221-222). Also, if I do the math, that extrapolates out to a full 100% charge of 251 miles. While I know the top end may not be linear like that... the last 100% charge I did a month ago with 5.8 net me 253 miles.
I'm not sure I'm seeing the same amount of range "shuffled from under zero" that other folks here have.
I'm not particularly worried about it... as this is all reporting and estimating... the electrons my pack can hold is still about the same. I'm just wondering exactly what is being reported these days... and what the buffer(s) may be...
I'm seeing 225-226 miles of rated range. This isn't too much more than I had seen before (typically 221-222). Also, if I do the math, that extrapolates out to a full 100% charge of 251 miles. While I know the top end may not be linear like that... the last 100% charge I did a month ago with 5.8 net me 253 miles.
I'm not sure I'm seeing the same amount of range "shuffled from under zero" that other folks here have.
I'm not particularly worried about it... as this is all reporting and estimating... the electrons my pack can hold is still about the same. I'm just wondering exactly what is being reported these days... and what the buffer(s) may be...
Last edited:
Right, so why doesn't TM just show kWh remaining in the pack? This would eliminate all of our speculation and complaints regarding the rated range calculation. kWh remaining is something Tesla keeps track of on the diagnostic screens, but is not something they expose to the user (among other things).
Partially, I suspect, because kWh are the types of units that might make many people's eyes glaze over.
And that, for battery health, that full 85kW isn't usable, and while a subset of folks here may realize that's rightly so, folks at large might gripe about "not getting their money's worth!!!11!one!!"
Yep. I think it'd just invite more problems as people unfamiliar with how batteries work would be asking why it doesn't show 85kWh or 60kWh on a full charge, or on the other end why it still shows X amount of kWh but they're stranded on the side of the road with a dead battery. Miles is the easiest for most people to understand.
Ok, those are all fair points. I just feel like every time we start this discussion we are bound to begin delving into deciphering "complex algorithms" that change with every iteration of the firmware. It'd be nice to have a simple unit to gauge capacity that is purely based on SOC and pack voltages that is uniform across the entire fleet. I'm thinking like GID values (Nissan Leaf) or CAC.
My first 90% charge after receiving 5.9 was 177, up about 8 rated miles from what I was consistently seeing 169 on 5.8.10 and prior versions.
Using VisibleTesla, I charged to 93% SOC before driving up to SF last night, and rated was 183. That seems pretty close to what I was seeing when I first got the car before the firmware change that dropped the SOC from 93 to 90. I thought about charging to 100% yesterday before heading up to the city to get another data point for us 60 owners, but with the PG&E EV plan, I would have been at peak rates over the last 7% of the charge and to completion, so decided I could wait for my next road trip.
I just crossed over 17k miles on the car this morning.
That's not really true though....
Rated miles is an estimate that varies based on the energy efficiency of the car. But kWH is the absolute capacity of the battery that is independent of how efficient the car is. How much energy you have left (within ~1% for measurement accuracy) isn't a guess.
dennis
Model S Plaid
Rated range is needed to estimate how much farther we can drive without charging. Absolute KWH is needed to measure battery degradation. Neither metric works well for the other purpose.
Similar threads
- Question