Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Mid-range changes in range or battery degradation

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Well, if you read the SR+ posts, SR+ people who have experienced similiar BMS decalibration are reporting 210-220 range at 100% so you are still good:)

I am wondering what the typical consumption of the Mid range is - could you please pull up the energy graph and try to match the typical with the avg (should be about 145Wh/km) and please change to km and post the screenshot? The energy graph should be set to average and not instant and you can set whatever the miles/km option you like as long as you can match both dotted and straight lines and record the digits displayed under "avg Wh/km" on the left side.

This will give you an indication of how many kWh the BMS thinks you have.

I have done a bunch of drives where I have matched such that my average and rated are the on top of each other. This past weekend I did a continuous drive of 62.32 mi and used 62.55 mi of 'rated range'. During that drive, I used 13.84 kWh. That all boils down to 222 Wh/mi (139 Wh/km). Sorry I don't have a screen shot.

The Mid Range, I believe, is supposed to have a 62 kWh pack. (which, if I take my 243 mi @ 100% - it thinks I have about 54 kWh usable).
 
Yeah, it should be closer to 145Wh/km, but who knows. This is why I needed the screenshot to be sure.
It was probably indeed 62kWh total, usable is 62 minus around 3.5.

The usable is from 0-100%, the extra 3.5kWh is below 0%.
So you actually have 59kWh from 0-100%, but the rated range is calculated with the full capacity of 62kWh. Confusing, but Tesla;)

I doubt that you have 20 miles real degradation, it is more likely that "charge at 70%-90% daily BMS issue" problem that almost everyone doing those 70-90 stunts in this Model 3 forum is experiencing.
 
62.32 mi and used 62.55 mi of 'rated range'. During that drive, I used 13.84 kWh. That all boils down to 222 Wh/mi (139 Wh/km). Sorry I don't have a screen shot.

These sound like they might be TeslaFi numbers (I don't know). For reasons unknown, the "used kWh" from TeslaFi cannot be trusted. The miles traveled and miles of rated range used and % used can be trusted (within the rounding error). The kWh used can be scaled in TeslaFi via a configuration setting if you wish.

I'd expect that you'd see a constant of closer to 226Wh/rmi rather than the ~221Wh/rmi that you got (though it is within the range of what could be observed), and I suspect TeslaFi data issues. This will screw up your projections of your pack capacity.

It's easy to check the kWh used data in TeslaFi of course - just take a picture of your trip meter and compare to TeslaFi next time.


List of current constants (prior to 2019.36.1 range increase update), and the position of the solid line on the Energy Consumption graph:

AWD: 250Wh/rmi solid "rated" line, 245Wh/rmi charging, ~230Wh/rmi discharge (228-234Wh/mi observed), CAN bus BMS 234Wh/rmi

LR RWD: ~239Wh/rmi solid "rated" line, 234Wh/rmi charging, ~223Wh/rmi discharge (?), CAN bus BMS ? (223Wh/rmi?)

LEMR: 242Wh/rmi solid "rated" line, 237Wh/rmi charging, ~226Wh/rmi discharge (?), CAN bus BMS ? (226Wh/rmi?)

SR+/SR: 224Wh/rmi solid "rated" line, 219Wh/rmi charging, ~209Wh/rmi discharge (?), CAN bus BMS ? (209Wh/rmi?)

"?" Indicates unknown/guesses. Discharge constants do have small variation due to environmental and discharge conditions and other factors, but are generally predictable enough to be useful.

Again, these constants may well CHANGE with 2019.36.1, especially with the latest efficiency improvements, if the "100% charge" rated range changes as a result of the software update.


My best current understanding of the formulas (subject to revision upon provided solid evidence):

Range Projection Formula on Energy Screen:

Projected Range = (Rated Miles Available * Charging Constant) / (Current Selected Efficiency Metric) (When in averaging mode)

Actual Achievable Range (to 0 rated miles, not using any reserve) at a Given Consumption:

Range = Starting Rated Miles Available * Discharge Constant / (Average Wh/mi Achieved on Trip Meter)

Full Battery Capacity (CAN Bus):


Battery Full kWh = Rated Miles @ 100% * BMS Constant + Buffer Size (Wh) (Buffer Size only available via CAN read, typically 3.3-3.5kWh for AWD)

Current Battery Energy (CAN Bus):

Battery Available kWh = Rated Miles * BMS Constant + Buffer Size (Wh)

Available Energy Before 0 Rated Miles (CAN Bus):

Avail kWh Above 0 Rated Miles = Rated Miles * BMS Constant

Available Energy Before 0 Rated Miles (Trip Meter):

Trip Meter Avail kWh = Rated Miles * Discharge "Constant" (Note this may be somewhat less than battery available energy)

Energy Required to charge vehicle as shown on charging screen:

Charge Energy = Rated Miles Added * Charge Constant (Note this is considerably higher than the "used" energy)
 
Last edited:
(which, if I take my 243 mi @ 100% - it thinks I have about 54 kWh usable).

Ignoring the kWh used (presumably from TeslaFi):

243rmi * 226Wh/rmi = 54.9kWh (not including the buffer).

Do note that when comparing to the EPA 63.8kWh discharge number for the MR, these "kWh" are not necessarily directly comparable - and the EPA number includes a lot of the buffer. These are only approximate available kWh on the trip meter, which may not represent "true" kWh for various reasons.

But since your car is rated at 264rmi new, this means a new vehicle has 59.6kWh when comparing "equivalent" kWh (apples-to-apples).

So loss of available usable (not including buffer) capacity is 54.9/59.6 = 0.92 (8%). Or you can just take the ratio of your 100% rated miles to the original rated miles for a new MR (264).
 
So loss of available usable (not including buffer) capacity is 54.9/59.6 = 0.92 (8%). Or you can just take the ratio of your 100% rated miles to the original rated miles for a new MR (264).

Right... I wish there was an easy way to figure out whether or not this was a BMS issue or "real" loss. If I got the OBD/Scan-my-Tesla reader would the "nominal full pack" still be BMS-reported or would that be the "actual"
 
I guess a followup question is... for Tesla's battery warranty... how do they define the 70% degradation? Seems to me if there is no user-verifiable way to know, they can can just always tell you whatever they want (it's a bug in the display, the car says it's fine, etc.).
 
Right... I wish there was an easy way to figure out whether or not this was a BMS issue or "real" loss. If I got the OBD/Scan-my-Tesla reader would the "nominal full pack" still be BMS-reported or would that be the "actual"

There is no big advantage to the Scan my Tesla (AFAIK) for this particular issue. The rated miles tells nearly the full story of what the BMS thinks (you can see the link I provided above which gives the formulas for calculating "fullkWh" for your battery).

I don't know what the buffer size is on the MR, but assuming it is something like 3kWh (it could be 2.8kWh, could be 3.5kWh, could be 2.5kWh - someone would have tell us), the BMS would probably tell you the fullkWh is:

3kWh + 243rmi*226Wh/rmi = 57.9kWh

vs. something like

3.2kWh + 264rmi*226Wh/rmi = 62.8kWh (when new)

(Buffer tends to be a little bigger for new batteries.)

Again, making up the buffer size here - I'm assuming it is slightly smaller than a buffer on an AWD. But no idea. I guess figuring out this buffer size might be the main advantage to having Scan-my-Tesla. But seems unnecessary.

Now, WHY the system has decided this is your "fullkWh" is another level - not easily fully determined via the CAN I do not think. They could change the high and low level voltages a little (can probably see this on the CAN), or maybe even parameters regarding balancing, and that could change available kWh from a pack that is functionally unchanged. That gets into topics of pure speculation as far as I am concerned.
 
how do they define the 70% degradation? Seems to me if there is no user-verifiable way to know, they can can just always tell you whatever they want (it's a bug in the display, the car says it's fine, etc.).

Sure, they could. I would suspect that if you get to 0.7*264 = 185 rated miles at 100% you would start to have a good argument for a battery replacement.
 
Last edited:
@AlanSubie4Life - so I guess I just "keep monitoring"? Since you've been following (or I assume so) do you think this "it's a BMS 'bug'" explanation some have been getting from Tesla is actually the case? At what point would you advise I contact Tesla?

I wouldn't contact Tesla. I have no idea why your numbers have gone down. In general the loss seems too large and too quick to be real (when you take the number of similar cases in aggregate), and they appear correlated with software updates, but they could be real (maybe prior software was ignoring degradation!).

I would not bother contacting Tesla. It's annoying, but 8% loss of capacity is just something you have to live with. Maybe it will come back at some point, maybe it won't. I would contact Tesla when it gets to 25-30% loss of capacity.
 
I would not bother contacting Tesla. It's annoying, but 8% loss of capacity is just something you have to live with. Maybe it will come back at some point, maybe it won't. I would contact Tesla when it gets to 25-30% loss of capacity.
I guess the good news (?) is that at my current loss rate (about 3% per month), that should be in the Spring :p
 
  • Funny
Reactions: AlanSubie4Life
Right... I wish there was an easy way to figure out whether or not this was a BMS issue or "real" loss. If I got the OBD/Scan-my-Tesla reader would the "nominal full pack" still be BMS-reported or would that be the "actual"
ScanMyTesla reads what the BMS sees.

There is one advantage though - you can see cell imbalance. If the cells are imbalanced(at 100%) at more than 20mV this might be an indication of something wrong.
Also you can see the buffer size and capacity in kWh. I would get it if I were you.
 
fair enough. Are they similar install enough to where the packs can be interchanged as an upgrade in the future? or is the car hardware too different

Technically...the pack footprint is the same. Its whats inside the pack that makes all the magic in miles. Vehicle firmware and some fancy porogramming are the differences. Could it be changed? Yes. How easy? Thats difficult.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: vickh
Technically...the pack footprint is the same. Its whats inside the pack that makes all the magic in miles. Vehicle firmware and some fancy porogramming are the differences. Could it be changed? Yes. How easy? Thats difficult.
Let me clarify. You would have to have an entire SR or LR pack complete, penthouse brains included, AND the ability to change vehicle firmware/software to make the new pack and vehicle operate. Also, the drivetrain (RWD/AWD) would have to be the same. A RWD pack has penthouse and the cabling for a RWD setup only.
 
Let me clarify. You would have to have an entire SR or LR pack complete, penthouse brains included, AND the ability to change vehicle firmware/software to make the new pack and vehicle operate. Also, the drivetrain (RWD/AWD) would have to be the same. A RWD pack has penthouse and the cabling for a RWD setup only.

Thx. I'm only asking about technical capability IF Tesla would have to replace a MR/SR pack. NOT hacking...
 
The battery range is being limited by software, mine included. That's why we're all getting around 250 miles at 100% charge.

Tesla added the software limitation to ensure battery longevity, so that they don't have to replace too many batteries under warranty.

The LR, AWD, P models are seeing much less degradation - only ~10 miles total according to this survey:

Battery degradation on Model 3 - only with long range battery pack

I would assume the SR+ degradation would also be small, since the battery pack was specifically designed for that car.

At the end of the day, we are getting nearly the same range as a SR+, which itself has 250 miles range brand new.

If the midrange battery degradation gets worse, or the SW limitation needs to increase, then our car's range may even fall below that of the SR+ !
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: GigaGrunt