NigelM
Recovering Member
I think you missed one point: 6) The charging pattern to deliver ideal balancing changes with some software iterations. To answer the original post then - there is no definitive answer.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
I think you missed one point: 6) The charging pattern to deliver ideal balancing changes with some software iterations. To answer the original post then - there is no definitive answer.
Good add! So I re-sequenced into a pretty comprehensive list of "Things that might cause apparent drop in range":
1) the estimating algorithm loses accuracy,
2) the estimating algorithm (or its inputs) change with software updates,
3) The charging pattern to deliver ideal balancing changes with some software iterations,
4) the estimating algorithm includes factors (such as outdoor temp averages),
5) the pack gets out of balance and therefore loses some charging capacity until rebalanced, and
6) the pack degrades (permanently loses capacity).
Anyone else?
djp
Model 3 Performance
Sure.
7) After a charge, the range estimate initially overshoots the range and then settles in to the correct number. The estimated range depends on when you look at the number. Vampire drain makes the estimate even more difficult to determine.
8) The charging current can change the range estimate, with low amp charges (especially 120V) giving higher estimates than high amp charges.
OP here. So I did a range charge last week on Wednesday. Car is on 5.8.8 and is about ~7 months old (new 
) with ~10,500 miles. Got 250 miles on the range charge - was getting 265 when new. After about 1 hr from range charge completion, I drove around 50 miles. Car was then driven for ~20 miles over Thursday and Friday. On Saturday I went for a leisurely drive (great weather here in the SF Bay Area ) and got down to 12 miles left on the battery indicator. I then did a standard (90%) charge and got 216 miles.
I am really perplexed with the results as I was expecting to get above 230 miles from the standard charge; worst case I should have got at least 225 miles on a standard charge after getting 250 miles on the range charge. 216 miles is way lower than I expected. Is this normal battery pack behavior or should I be worried and have service check out the battery pack?
Thanks in advance.
) with ~10,500 miles. Got 250 miles on the range charge - was getting 265 when new. After about 1 hr from range charge completion, I drove around 50 miles. Car was then driven for ~20 miles over Thursday and Friday. On Saturday I went for a leisurely drive (great weather here in the SF Bay Area ) and got down to 12 miles left on the battery indicator. I then did a standard (90%) charge and got 216 miles. I am really perplexed with the results as I was expecting to get above 230 miles from the standard charge; worst case I should have got at least 225 miles on a standard charge after getting 250 miles on the range charge. 216 miles is way lower than I expected. Is this normal battery pack behavior or should I be worried and have service check out the battery pack?
Thanks in advance.
OP here. So I did a range charge last week on Wednesday. Car is on 5.8.8 and is about ~7 months old (new
I am really perplexed with the results as I was expecting to get above 230 miles from the standard charge; worst case I should have got at least 225 miles on a standard charge after getting 250 miles on the range charge. 216 miles is way lower than I expected. Is this normal battery pack behavior or should I be worried and have service check out the battery pack?
Thanks in advance.
I cannot remember exactly who posted this, but they were able to ascertain that what appears to be 90% charge on slider is actually 87.5%. So, if you did "normal" charge at the 90 tick and got 216, that extrapolates to a full charge at 246, which is almost the 250 you got with range charge.
SO, I do not think you should be concerned. I also (after 15 months and 13k miles) get about 250 rated miles shown on a range charge (down from what used to be 265 when new), and when I do charges at 70%, 80%, or 90% tick on slider, they NEVER extrapolate all the way to 250… usually in the 230s. So, I do not believe in the accuracy of the ticks.
Also, as is probably clear from my prior posts, I do not believe religiously that the lower rated range charge is necessarily a "balancing" issue. May equally likely just be a weakness or change in the estimating algorithm.
(I think it was Doug_G.) While I "buy" that they might "play games with the UI", I don't think they'll play games with the REST data. My REST data suggests my "daily/max" charge is indeed 90%.
Code:
charging_state=Complete
charge_limit_soc=90
battery_range=212.46
est_battery_range=135.72
ideal_battery_range=244.53
battery_level=90
car_version=1.49.90Assuming it's 90%...
244.53 / 0.9 = 271.7
Assuming it's 87.5%...
244.53 / 0.875 = 279.5
Even if the 87.5% theory is correct, there's still 6.6...% less than the advertised 300 ideal miles being reported for my 85 kWh car.
Is that degradation, balancing, something else? I don't know. Nothing I can do about it other than follow some routine that might maybe give me a few back in the UI but probably is bad for my battery long term. So I'm just sitting pat at the default charging setting, plugging in nightly, and driving it. Maybe Tesla will follow-through with the Battery Replacement Plan, maybe they won't; it's not in my control.
For what it's worth... I normally charge to 50% and the displayed ideal miles is usually 128 miles. Yesterday I drove a lot and took the car down to about 40 ideal miles. I hardly ever run the battery that low, but needed to squeeze in a couple of extra trips. After charging back up to 50%, my range improved by 4 miles and the car charged to 132 ideal miles. So in my case there is definitely something going on with the algorithm that I don't think has anything to do with balancing.
A max charge a few weeks ago resulted in 301 ideal mile range.
A max charge a few weeks ago resulted in 301 ideal mile range.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
A pretty easy way to tell is to do a "balance cycle" and see the range number go up permanently as the car is balancing (and doing this without doing the range "recalibration" by driving the car down to below 20% SOC).
Kraken
Member
I wouldn't be worried. I tried the triple range charge balancing technique the other week because I was driving that much anyway.OP here. So I did a range charge last week on Wednesday. Car is on 5.8.8 and is about ~7 months old (new
I am really perplexed with the results as I was expecting to get above 230 miles from the standard charge; worst case I should have got at least 225 miles on a standard charge after getting 250 miles on the range charge. 216 miles is way lower than I expected. Is this normal battery pack behavior or should I be worried and have service check out the battery pack?
Thanks in advance.
i went from 251 to 255 range charge. I had 220 for standard charge both before and after. I originally only had about 263 max range and 238ish standard. Your numbers match close to mine. I wouldn't say there is anything atypical about your numbers.
We have a 40kWh Model S. Originally, the max I have seen the car charge was 143 rated / 165 ideal. This was in July, so it was 80F in the garage.
Over the winter, the highest I have seen was 124 rated / 143 ideal. This makes me uncomfortable as this is a 13% loss in range over only 10,000 miles.
There is no way for me to balance the pack, as the 40 model only charges the 60kWh pack to a max of ~72%, and I cannot force a full charge on the pack.
The service center told me that the range estimate algorithms have changed, and the estimate now accounts for the temperature of the battery. I believe this as I have seen evidence of this behavior in everyday charging.
However, the best charge I have seen in the winter was when the garage was at 70F, so the 13% loss is still unaccounted for. I expected to have only a 5-7% range reduction over the first 10,000 miles.
I guess I will see what it charges to this Thursday when it is supposed to be 77F outside.
Over the winter, the highest I have seen was 124 rated / 143 ideal. This makes me uncomfortable as this is a 13% loss in range over only 10,000 miles.
There is no way for me to balance the pack, as the 40 model only charges the 60kWh pack to a max of ~72%, and I cannot force a full charge on the pack.
The service center told me that the range estimate algorithms have changed, and the estimate now accounts for the temperature of the battery. I believe this as I have seen evidence of this behavior in everyday charging.
However, the best charge I have seen in the winter was when the garage was at 70F, so the 13% loss is still unaccounted for. I expected to have only a 5-7% range reduction over the first 10,000 miles.
I guess I will see what it charges to this Thursday when it is supposed to be 77F outside.
"Accounts for temp of battery" could mean many things. Doesn't necessarily mean temp at time it is charging in garage, could be some sort of average. Still not enough info to explain, let's see what community starts reporting in spring. I do suspect it's as much or more "algorithm" vs "balancing"
Not saying that couldn't be true.. but, that does not synch with my experiences. I've been getting pretty consistent results at end of charge this winter whether I charge in my heated IL garage (50F) or outdoors at my WI house. It would also mean that the reported range would change frequently while you are driving, after car warms up, when you restart after - say - having lunch for an hour. I have not experienced any of that. So, if in fact temp is factored in, I really believe it would be some sort of average that attempts to approximate normal operating temperature, not parked temperature.
Based both on my experience with SCs and in many reported experiences on this thread, I will not take anything I'm told at the SC to the bank without a huge grain of salt unless I see a written TSB explaining. So, while I am hopeful that what you have been told is true and we'll see range magically return in spring, I'm waiting for hard evidence.
Similar threads
- Article
