But the rated miles are just as consistent as they're based on a fixed Wh/mi and don't change based on past driving.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
But the rated miles are just as consistent as they're based on a fixed Wh/mi and don't change based on past driving.
First range charge on 5.9. "A" battery pack, ~12,000 miles and 15 months on car.
Have now also done 70%, 80%, 90% SOC (measured by tick on charging bar, not VisibleTesla).
Here are values (as close as possible to end of charge):
Soooo… With 5.9, less than full is now tracking pretty darned close to linear % of max.
BUT, range charge is still exactly the same. I think that is pretty close to Tesla's explanation, they "fixed" algorithm at the midpoints so it doesn't "lose" range.
The 251 max means one of 3 things:
1) The "balancers" are right, and I've lost some range to imbalanced battery (I seldom range charge).
2) I've lost ~5% of battery capacity.
3) Other factors in constantly evolving algorithm are causing a new range charge max.
None of which is going to keep me up at night!
Have now also done 70%, 80%, 90% SOC (measured by tick on charging bar, not VisibleTesla).
Here are values (as close as possible to end of charge):
| % Charge | 5.8.x rated miles | 5.9 rated miles |
| 100 | 251 | 251 |
| 90 | 218 | 226 |
| 80 | 192 | 202 |
| 70 | 165 | 178 |
BUT, range charge is still exactly the same. I think that is pretty close to Tesla's explanation, they "fixed" algorithm at the midpoints so it doesn't "lose" range.
The 251 max means one of 3 things:
1) The "balancers" are right, and I've lost some range to imbalanced battery (I seldom range charge).
2) I've lost ~5% of battery capacity.
3) Other factors in constantly evolving algorithm are causing a new range charge max.
None of which is going to keep me up at night!
If they can measure kWh hours remaining within 1% you're right. However, they and others have said many times that the only way to measure the kWh capacity is to balance the pack, do a range charge, and run it to zero. Anything else is just an estimate.
I'm seeing almost exactly the same miles pre/post 5.9 on a "B" pack at 18,000 miles (owned the car 9 months). I charge to 80% daily.
- - - Updated - - -
Also, after performing the update my ranger was doing other work and I was able to pull up the BMS diagnostic screen. One of my cells was out of balance.
I recently had a reason to range charge and drive and range charge again and drive.
Last December when the car was just over 2 months old, I was able to range charge to 267. The other week I range charged to 260 at home. Drove to Blacksburg, arriving with 13 rated miles left. Range charged again and got 264, but it was still topping off when I left, so 265 is definitely possible.
So basically, in 6 months/5000 miles, I probably saw 2 rated miles lost. I usually keep the SoC between 40 and 70% I'll have need to range charge again this week and I will see if I get back to 267.
Last December when the car was just over 2 months old, I was able to range charge to 267. The other week I range charged to 260 at home. Drove to Blacksburg, arriving with 13 rated miles left. Range charged again and got 264, but it was still topping off when I left, so 265 is definitely possible.
So basically, in 6 months/5000 miles, I probably saw 2 rated miles lost. I usually keep the SoC between 40 and 70% I'll have need to range charge again this week and I will see if I get back to 267.
hans
P631
KWh remaining is an estimate (based on the measured voltage)
Rated range is and estimate based on the estimate above.
All,
With the weather turning warmer, I've finally been able to re-verify the Battery Pack Voltage at 0 miles of range left. I was running 5.8.8 (1.49.90), so I also took the opportunity to chart the Pack/Cell voltage vs. SOC(State of Charge) vs. the rated range of my car. I then reran the set of tests the next day with 5.9 installed. First and foremost, I can now unequivocally state that since the third day that I had my car (it was running 4.0 software) to today running 5.9 (.88) the point at which 0 miles is shown on the dashboard has NOT changed (other than battery degradation). The full pack voltage then and now at 0 rated miles left is ~316V. Below are some quick charts that I made from my data. Combining the info from islandbayy on when his car shut down, I think it's safe to say some key cell states of charge are:
4.15 Fully charged, 85% SOC 4.0V (5.8) and 83% 5.9, 3.7V ~50% SOC charged on 5.8 and ~40% on 5.9, 3.3V = 0 rated range, 3.1V = car stops moving (Not tested by me!).
On my car, it is clear that 5.9 has changed a few things:
1. My rated range energy unit has been reduced from ~306 Wh/mi to ~300Wh/mi. This has inflated my displayed range by ~2%.
2. The battery SOC has been modified to no longer show the “reserve miles”. Doing this has inflated the displayed range. This is most noticeable at lower SOC’s and has no effect at 100% SOC.
Even with this, my Ideal miles energy unit (265 Wh/mi) does not seem to have changed at all.
A few testing notes,
5.8:
5.8.8 1.49.90
51F after 50 miles
29,639 odo
energy eff off
Heater off radio off/down .7 → .8A draw idle
7-45 attempted to terminate myself near the low end of the %
50% + let the car terminate at set percentage
seems tp terminate at exactly %.0 on the dot
5.9:
5.9 1.50.88
51F after 100 miles
29,875 odo
energy eff off
Heater off radio off/down .7 → .8A draw idle
7-45 attempted to terminate myself near the low end of the %
50% + let the car terminate at set percentage
Car seems to terminate after %.0
Below is a graph of Pack Voltage, Rated and Ideal miles, all normalized to the actual amount of drivable energy in the battery. The reduction in Pack Voltage (5.9) between 50-80% is due to other cars sharing my Supercharger, and the increased settling time between those measurements:
Here is the raw data vs. SOC before the normalization:
And here is a nice Pack and Cell Voltage vs. Displayed SOC under 5.9:
Peter
With the weather turning warmer, I've finally been able to re-verify the Battery Pack Voltage at 0 miles of range left. I was running 5.8.8 (1.49.90), so I also took the opportunity to chart the Pack/Cell voltage vs. SOC(State of Charge) vs. the rated range of my car. I then reran the set of tests the next day with 5.9 installed. First and foremost, I can now unequivocally state that since the third day that I had my car (it was running 4.0 software) to today running 5.9 (.88) the point at which 0 miles is shown on the dashboard has NOT changed (other than battery degradation). The full pack voltage then and now at 0 rated miles left is ~316V. Below are some quick charts that I made from my data. Combining the info from islandbayy on when his car shut down, I think it's safe to say some key cell states of charge are:
4.15 Fully charged, 85% SOC 4.0V (5.8) and 83% 5.9, 3.7V ~50% SOC charged on 5.8 and ~40% on 5.9, 3.3V = 0 rated range, 3.1V = car stops moving (Not tested by me!).
On my car, it is clear that 5.9 has changed a few things:
1. My rated range energy unit has been reduced from ~306 Wh/mi to ~300Wh/mi. This has inflated my displayed range by ~2%.
2. The battery SOC has been modified to no longer show the “reserve miles”. Doing this has inflated the displayed range. This is most noticeable at lower SOC’s and has no effect at 100% SOC.
Even with this, my Ideal miles energy unit (265 Wh/mi) does not seem to have changed at all.
A few testing notes,
5.8:
5.8.8 1.49.90
51F after 50 miles
29,639 odo
energy eff off
Heater off radio off/down .7 → .8A draw idle
7-45 attempted to terminate myself near the low end of the %
50% + let the car terminate at set percentage
seems tp terminate at exactly %.0 on the dot
5.9:
5.9 1.50.88
51F after 100 miles
29,875 odo
energy eff off
Heater off radio off/down .7 → .8A draw idle
7-45 attempted to terminate myself near the low end of the %
50% + let the car terminate at set percentage
Car seems to terminate after %.0
Below is a graph of Pack Voltage, Rated and Ideal miles, all normalized to the actual amount of drivable energy in the battery. The reduction in Pack Voltage (5.9) between 50-80% is due to other cars sharing my Supercharger, and the increased settling time between those measurements:
Here is the raw data vs. SOC before the normalization:
And here is a nice Pack and Cell Voltage vs. Displayed SOC under 5.9:
Peter
OK if people are going to just report stuff, let's do it in a useful manner. The battery table @ http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showwiki.php?title=Battery+table was integral in determining the correlation between A batteries and 90 kW charging limitation. Because it accumulated data, was fact vs. anecdote.
I've added several columns:
If you are already in table, please add your data. 5.9 reports only please, so we don't have potential of firmware version variance.
Intended to figure out if age, mileage, pack version, geography, range charging (balancing) have any correlation to rated miles.
If you are not in table, easy enough to add… trying to keep in VIN sequence, so please insert your row in right place. If that's not clear, lemme know.
I've added several columns:
| 5.9 Miles Rated @ 100% | Odometer <@ | Locale | RangeChg Freq (often/seldom) |
If you are already in table, please add your data. 5.9 reports only please, so we don't have potential of firmware version variance.
Intended to figure out if age, mileage, pack version, geography, range charging (balancing) have any correlation to rated miles.
If you are not in table, easy enough to add… trying to keep in VIN sequence, so please insert your row in right place. If that's not clear, lemme know.
Last edited:
With that rationale, why do they display kW prominently on the right arc in the center of the instrument cluster?
As others have stated, two levels of estimation is worse than one.
- - - Updated - - -
We have many posts on TMC and some statements from Tesla employees saying otherwise. Both that it would vary across driver and that it changes across firmware releases.
One possible reason: The instantaneous power draw you refer to is unique to an electric vehicle, and is a method to reflect not only the power consumed, but also that regenerated. There is no real direct analogous metric on an ICE vehicle that people would need to adapt from in order to understand.
kWH as a unit of "fuel" remaining has very little meaning ot most people, I'd bet, unlike "gallons" or "miles".
I'm not saying that choosing to display the remaining charge as an estimate of mileage is what I'd prefer, but suggest that may be the rationale behind choosing to use it for the vast public. I'd like the choice to optionally display it as kWh or percentage...
Data point for 60KWh, all on v5.8 with 90% charge.
14000 miles, 13 months, typically charges to 173 miles.
1000 miles, age ? (loaner), charged to 181 miles.
A loss of 8 miles after a year, or about 4%.
However... while mine has been charging to 173 miles for quite some time, recently I did a couple of range charges (which apparently changed nothing), then a supercharge, which took it up to 176! Actual loss somewhere between 2 and 4% then?
14000 miles, 13 months, typically charges to 173 miles.
1000 miles, age ? (loaner), charged to 181 miles.
A loss of 8 miles after a year, or about 4%.
However... while mine has been charging to 173 miles for quite some time, recently I did a couple of range charges (which apparently changed nothing), then a supercharge, which took it up to 176! Actual loss somewhere between 2 and 4% then?
No, remember range displays are estimates and do not necessarily mean actual changes in the battery. Sometimes it's the estimate that changes even on the same firmware version, and that can vary depending on how the battery has been charged lately and also the temperature. This data does not tell you if there is an actual loss or how much it is.
Here's mine:
I was given a P85+ loaner with ~5000 miles while my car was in for service. On SW v. 5.9 the 90% SOC rated range was 241 miles. When I got my car back (28,500 miles) with 5.9 the 90% SOC rated range was 233 (was 221 miles on 5.8). Looks like I've lost around 8 miles (maybe 10 on a full charge?) over the last 16 months. I originally got 242 miles rated (obviously previous firmware), so 3.8% loss (assuming the calculation of range is similar to my original firmware--which is a huge assumption to make).
Rated range changed BEFORE I upgraded to v5.9
Ok so my 90% charge on v5.8 was always around 221-223 miles. Now, the other day when I was getting ready to go to work I was going to preheat my car and I noticed the rated range was showing 229 miles. Awesome jump I thought! So as I went out to my car that morning, I got the pop up to install v5.9. As I didn't have time to install, I hit the 'X' and went to work. @work I recharged back to 229 again. "awesome" I was thinking again. That night, I installed v5.9. The next morning, 229 miles again. And every 90% charge since - 229 miles.
So my point of this is that it seems they changed the rated range algorithm as soon as the software was downloaded , but not "installed" yet. I guess they pre-install some things as soon as it's downloaded. Not really relevant too much, just an observation that I thought I'd point that out.
Ok so my 90% charge on v5.8 was always around 221-223 miles. Now, the other day when I was getting ready to go to work I was going to preheat my car and I noticed the rated range was showing 229 miles. Awesome jump I thought! So as I went out to my car that morning, I got the pop up to install v5.9. As I didn't have time to install, I hit the 'X' and went to work. @work I recharged back to 229 again. "awesome" I was thinking again. That night, I installed v5.9. The next morning, 229 miles again. And every 90% charge since - 229 miles.
So my point of this is that it seems they changed the rated range algorithm as soon as the software was downloaded , but not "installed" yet. I guess they pre-install some things as soon as it's downloaded. Not really relevant too much, just an observation that I thought I'd point that out.
IIRC, the "rated miles" does change based on driving pattern. The "ideal miles" option doesn't, which is the same as displaying kWH. But I'd rather not have to do that conversion in my head.
Similar threads
- Question