My MS is supposed to be LR+. It came with tempest wheels and wireless phone charging, but when set to charge to 100% it claims to be full at 335 miles reported range. I ordered it 2/13, had it upgraded to LR+ soon after. They told me on the 28th that they were building it. It arrived at my house on 3/11. It has 2019.35.108. I don't know when to expect the update, but thought I would have 373 miles until the update, not 335.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Long Range Plus but only 335m Range?
- Thread starter mipmapped
- Start date
you should get the 2020.8.1.1 or 2020.12 in a week or two.....my 30 Jan 20 came with 2019.35.105
The tech explained to me that the 335 was the pack SOC (State of Charge) not the rated range. They did ask me at one point if the 2020.12 update changed my rated range on the display to 390 but there's nowhere in the settings that I could find the rated range displayed. I'm pretty sure the update took me close to the 370 mark and I still have the 390 coming. I'm not sure when I'll try a full charge again to be sure of it (working from home now).
This LR+ is half baked to say the least.
FYI I had my update option set to "Advanced". I think that gets you updates earlier.
Update: if I change the charge limit slider on my phone app I get 355m for full charge. This is severely messed up...
Last edited:
BozieBeMe2
May I have this dance?
Wow!, I've just spent a sleepless night worrying over this issue.
We picked up ours this saturday at the service center, (they wouldn't deliver this one at home like my last one)
and it is flawless and rides extremely smooth. The car is very quiet and overall, I am pleased with it.
That is until I did a Supercharge.
As noted here, my 100% is the range of a 2019 100D - 335 miles.
It isn't anywhere near the range of a LR-100D, 370mi, let alone the range of what I ordered, MS100DLR+ = 390mi
I didn't find out about the range till 9p last night and today is a Sunday.
The window sticker says it is, a MS100 long range, but no mention of the + designation.
I did question the sales team about the 'plus' option and outside of paying for it, how do I know I have it.
She said look at the software that was installed. If you have Firmware 2020.8.1 ae1963092ff8, you have it.
Well, I will take her to task on that, I have that iternaration and No, I am limited to 335, as noted here.
How will software unlock 60 miles??
BozieBeMe2
May I have this dance?
I did,,,, pay for the PLUS option and as noted, my 100% charge only gives me - 335 miles
It came with the Firmware 2020.8.1 ae1963092ff8, firmware installed but that's not the answer
BozieBeMe2
May I have this dance?
Well, I had to pay $4,999 for that LR+ and no, my LR+ still isn't here
Build Date: 2/2020
Firmware 2020.8.1 ae1963092ff8
FOLLOW UP TO MY PREVIOUS POST- I spoke with a Tesla tech who confirmed for me that the charging to a max of 335 is a known issue and has to do with the “number used for watt hours per mile used in the firmware to calculate range is not what the vehicle is rated at.” He further said that the vehicle can actually drive 390 miles on a full charge and that this would be addressed when the Long Range Plus update is sent.
I took delivery with 2019 software and got the 2020.8.1 sent shortly thereafter, but haven’t received any further updates.
I was further told that my vin was added to a list of deliveries of folks who ordered LR+ vehicles and took deliveries ahead of the update being rolled out. Still remains to be seen how quickly this gets resolved.
I took delivery with 2019 software and got the 2020.8.1 sent shortly thereafter, but haven’t received any further updates.
I was further told that my vin was added to a list of deliveries of folks who ordered LR+ vehicles and took deliveries ahead of the update being rolled out. Still remains to be seen how quickly this gets resolved.
'not what the vehicle is rated at' = 'not the new range figure Tesla have decided they can justify using'.
The whr/mile should be based on 'actual energy used to travel a specific distance'. No room for fudge factors there. A more efficient car will travel further on less energy and so use fewer whr per mile. This should also take into account use of auxiliary equipment, tire type, pressure & condition, driving style etc.
Either the range figure on the IC takes this stuff into account, or it doesn't. I'm not 100% sure on this yet. The energy graph can take real consumption into account for various distances and imo should be averaged over much longer periods to arrive at the range that shows on the IC. I believe that the IC reading is just like a fuel gauge and is not even weighted based on actual performance of your car.
If Tesla do make functional changes to car software that improves theoretical efficiency, it obviously does not guarantee any real world change as that is far more dictated by how you use the car. ICE cars generally dissapoint every time they tell you your range is 600 miles when you've just filled up, and then only give you 450-500 real world on a good day. Is this 'update' (and others of a similar nature) just like debating if the 600 miles in my ICE example is increased to 620 by the manufacturer based on theoretical tweeks and ideal driving patterns?
No it doesn't.
The 335 is likely a software calculation error and will be fixed in a subsequent OTA
I accept this may be the case (is the case), although I find it hard to believe, because if the car is not basing this 'range' figure on anything specific to my car, then it is little more than telling me the battery is full - ie: as other posters have pointed out, forget the actual miles reading, just switch to percentage display, as anything else is meaningless. All the 'range in miles' is telling you is that your car thinks it is fully charged. The actual distance you can travel has no relationship to the indicated range - except partly in the Energy display.
If the IC miles reading is based 100% on how the car interprets the SOC of the battery, then it is pretty well pointless obsessing over if the range has been increased (by Tesla). The only thing of interest would be what hardware or control software improvements are giving greater efficiency - and so far the best I have found is 'various small improvements over the past months' and that LR+ cars (must?) have the new wheel trims to meet the LR+ spec. A sensible / meaningful system would intrinsically take into account any efficiency improvement (better motors, careful driving, new wheel trims).
Which is more useful? How far Tesla would like us to think our cars might / should be able to go, or how far our cars actually go on a charge?
Last edited:
I haven’t heard anything about the LR+ requiring the new wheels exclusively. If that were the case, then changing wheels shouldn’t be an option, or should cause objections in the ordering system (ie trying to build a 7 series BMW with cloth seats that the software doesn’t show as an option or available). When I took delivery they said nothing of that whatsoever.
There was one thread before the LR+ was released in which the prospective owner was told that they had to have the new wheels, and as far as I know on Tesla's configurator you got the new wheels for LR+, but all that might have been just as they transitionned to the new model version.
imo it's a good thing if the LR+ does not need special wheel options.
It may be coincidence - especially if the range figure on the IC does not vary with real world conditions, but current Model S (probably 2019 Raven) shows 336 as the Teslike's range that should be quoted.
https://teslike.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/s-mi-912.png
https://teslike.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/s-mi-912.png
I just checked mine and it shows 391 for 100% charge.......but where do you see Long Range Plus
EDIT: I think I figures it out......my car was delivered on 30 Jan 2020 before the LR+ was announced.....I believe the only difference is the tempest wheels......I have the silver slipstream.....is there any other differences?
Last edited:
This has been discussed since 2012. This is the better way. Just drive and you will see.
I drive different EV's. For local / shooter journeys I find the Tesla approach is not relevant A) because usually ample capacity for local journeys and B) it doesn't work very accurately.
Over longer distances the Tesla approach is adequate / fine, especially if you use the energy graph.
Similar threads
