I was in Italy TX supercharger and the car was charging at 145 KWH. Went from 20 to 85% soc before we were done with charging ourselves up about 20 min
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Model 3 software super-thread
- Thread starter Enginerd
- Start date
I was in Italy TX supercharger and the car was charging at 145 KWH. Went from 20 to 85% soc before we were done with charging ourselves up about 20 min
ratsbew
Active Member
Thanks to @dhanson865 for setting me straight on the range increase to 325 mi for LR RWD (which has not arrived to my car with 2019.8.5). Also looking forward to enhanced summon with some future update.
| VERSION | 2019.12.1.1 4b1dd29 | 2019.12.1 d9eaf40 | 2019.12 cb68c3d | 2019.9 8282d10 | 2019.8.6 a0a6ece | 2019.8.5 3aaa23d | 2019.8.4 530d1d3 | 2019.8.3 da116a6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chrome-based web browser | YES | YES | NEW | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| On-route battery warmup | YES | YES | NEW | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| V3 Supercharger & 150 kW | YES | NEW | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| V3 Supercharger & 145 kW | YES | YES | no | no | no | no | no | no |
| Enhanced summon | no | no | no | NEW | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| NOA: remove stalk confirmation | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | NEW | n/a | n/a |
| 325 mi range (LR RWD) | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
golfpilot
Member
I just got back from a 1500 mile roadtrip. I could have really used that 140kw charging. I had it with version 7.11 then they took it away with 8.5.
BlueCarNut
Member
I bet your car's software is the same as ours, but NOA is disabled due to your region.
It does make me wonder, are features like NOA location-aware? Eg, if you were to drive your vehicle into a jurisdiction where NOA was permitted, would it activate? Realistically I think it might be tied to the owner's registered address instead, but I'm still curious to see.
TomB985
Member
Just thought I would chip in that my car was built on 4/1 and currently still has version 2019.7.102 82596dc.
I paid for regular autopilot, but not full self driving, but my car has summon and navigate on autopilot enabled. Sentry mode is present and functional as well. I'm a little confused because some posts imply that this software means HW3, but Teslafi says I have HW2.5.
NOA requires stalk confirmation to change lanes as well.
I paid for regular autopilot, but not full self driving, but my car has summon and navigate on autopilot enabled. Sentry mode is present and functional as well. I'm a little confused because some posts imply that this software means HW3, but Teslafi says I have HW2.5.
NOA requires stalk confirmation to change lanes as well.
Ignore TeslaFi. The Model 3 APIs report the same data for everyone - they are accurate for Model S/X, but *not* Model 3.
I read a Dutch guy reporting he had NOA in Holland, but crossing the border to France, it disappeared, so it would appear it is really location related. They possibly have already validated Holland's highways and their lane marking system. It changes from country to country.
When you have a continent-sized country like the US, and the lanes are marked the same way (Federal regulations, maybe?) it's easier to deploy over a big region.
But that doesn't make sense. The AWD and the RWD versions of the car have the same LR battery system: 4416 type 2170 cells. They would have the same 0% SOC critical voltage. The difference is in the efficiency of the two vehicles.
The AWD has an additional front motor, which adds weight, but which does not add regenerative braking (because of the type of motor.) The RWD has the same battery and rear motor, so it gets all the regenerative braking, but has less weight to actually move around. Ergo, it will get more miles out of the same amount of power.
If I have an AWD, and my friend has a RWD, and we both charged them to 100% last year, they would both indicate an estimated range of 310 miles. If we both drove them (gently) until 0%, I would have driven about 310 miles, but my friend would have driven about 325 miles, because my AWD is less efficient.
Now, if we both charge them to 100%, mine will estimate 310 miles, while my friend's will estimate 325 miles. They both have the same actual range as before.
This makes logical and consistent sense. If they had found a way to safely get power out of the battery to a deeper level, or more efficiency out of the inverters, there's no logical reason a range increase not to apply to the AWD versions, including the Performance. An improvement in the abilities of the batteries or inverter ought to apply across all models with those batteries or inverter: note that the same firmware upgrades that brought the change in estimated range also brought a 5% increase in peak power across all Model 3 vehicles - Performance, AWD, and RWD.
Note that your particular vehicle's estimated range will also changed based on your battery's current condition and environmental factors (which are reflected in the estimated battery capacity) and, perhaps, based on how you tend to drive (which may show different ranges for different driving styles; i have been unable to find any confirmation for this.)
TT97
Active Member
That was initially my belief as well (using the same logic), however, people have determined that Tesla actually increased the useable capacity on the RWD. Apparently, when they introduced the AWD it already had the larger useable capacity but was later increased on the RWD.
This thread (and Reddit reference) can explain much better than me.
3 LR RWD - 325 mile Test
It is more than just the extra weight hurting the AWD range... The rear motor is more efficient, so they use that exclusively when cruising, but it is saddled with the extra drag of the front motor having to spin it around. There is no clutch to disengage it.
TT97
Active Member
I thought the front motor does have regen (just not enough to compensate for the extra weight/drag)?
If AC induction motors couldn't regen, then the S/X wouldn't have any regen.
If AC induction motors couldn't regen, then the S/X wouldn't have any regen.
You're right, that was my error. Both motor types can be used for regenerative braking.
But in the dual motor car, the additional front motor is not used to produce additional regenerative braking. I suppose it's possible that the front motor is used for regenerative braking instead of the rear, or in tandem with the rear, but it's certainly the case that it's not used to produce more regenerative braking overall.
It may be because of limitations on how much heat can be dissipated or limitations on how quickly the battery can take the power being produced. Regardless the reason, since the dual motor is not doing more regenerative braking, it's not getting any extra efficiency out of the activity of the additional motor. But it does suffer the downside of having to carry the extra weight and potentially having to spin an unnecessary motor.
Thanks! I have 2019.7.105 - however, the API reported APH3 (HW2.5). I was pretty confused until I read your email.
Also - according to this thread 2019.12.1.1 has started rolling out to HW3 now - keeping my fingers crossed we get it soon.
TomB985
Member
Mine just updated yesterday morning to 2019.12.1.1 from 2019.7.102 after I poked service about the backup camera delay. Still unsure if I have HW3.0 or 2.5.
I think this was supposedly in 2019.8.5. I elected not to track it in the table because it's not something that can be easily or reliably verified. I very rarely drive at max power, so although it gives me a warm fuzzy to know (think) I have it, I couldn't objectively tell you whether I have it or not.
BlueCarNut
Member
Similar threads
