P85D - 310 wh/mi not good enough to make rated any more?

[beatle]

When charged to 100%, 2015 P85D with 53k on the clock reads 251 miles of rated range. That's pretty good from what I've read. However, when I drive at the rated consumption of 310wh/mi, I am still not able to get 251 miles. In fact, I'm only able to reach rated range when my consumption is 292wh/mi. Is 292 the new 310? The car still thinks 310 is what is needed to make rated range as that is where they meet in the trip calculation on the car. TeslaFi still shows consumption as higher than rated unless I get down to 292wh/mi. If I were a posting in the battery gate thread, I'd say it seems that this is a clever way to "hide" degradation. To think I only have 2 miles (less than 1%) of degradation after 53k is pretty optimistic. Apparent degradation seems to be more like 5.7% when judging by the new consumption norm. I think 5.7% seems pretty normal to me so I am not complaining, but I would like it better if the rated range were more accurate and not inflated to 251.

 

[glide]

That’s just Tesla borking your battery.

Nothing to see here.

 

[beatle]

That's not very helpful. Most of what I've read has been a specific cut to the rated range. Mine remains pretty high. Has anyone else seen a reduction in the wh/mi needed to make rated range?

 

[Alysashley79]

Do you see this in the summer months or now? My car detests the cold. I can charge my car to max of 243 and in the summer can get around actual used miles of 227. Now with my heater running couldn’t even get close to that.

oddly enough my wh/mi down the freeway average mid 200’s with autopilot and engaged and speed set to 65

 

[beatle]

I've only had the car a little over 2 months, but this isn't really a temperature issue. I realize consumption should be higher (and is) with the heat on, driving at higher speeds, increasing elevation, ludicrious+ mode, etc. That all checks out, but I noticed that my efficiency in TeslaFi was less than 100% even with my consumption below 310 wh/mi.

On a nonstop trip of 190 miles yesterday, I managed 302 wh/mi on the highway without the climate control and I was still only at 96.2% efficiency. At 302wh/mi, I'd consider that 102.6% efficient. When my average consumption is 310wh/mi, my projected range (calculated by the car) and rated range are equal.

I suppose I should have asked "what wh/mi does your car need to make projected range = rated range?"

 

[ran349]

When charged to 100%, 2015 P85D with 53k on the clock reads 251 miles of rated range. That's pretty good from what I've read. However, when I drive at the rated consumption of 310wh/mi, I am still not able to get 251 miles. In fact, I'm only able to reach rated range when my consumption is 292wh/mi. Is 292 the new 310?

No, it's always been like that. The rated number 310 is what is calculated from the energy used in charging the battery. What efficiency you need to drive to actually achieve rated miles is usually around 94% of that number which is right around your 292. No, it doesn't really make sense, but that is the reality, and always has been.

If you get 251 rated miles at 100% charge, and can drive at 292 Wh/mi or close, or even at 310 Wh/mi, you are in great shape with your car.

 

[beatle]

Hmm, that's reassuring the car is still in good shape, but still a bit frustrating in calculating just how far I can go. If I achieved 292wh/mi, think my car would project my range to be 266 miles.

I may see what the projected percentage remaining is on a given trip. I always thought it was unusually low. When I started out yesterday, it said I would reach home with 5% left and I would need to drive at 65mph or less. I averaged 55, though with a lot of stop and go in the last 60 miles. I started with 91% and arrived with 13%. 8% is a pretty big margin to "win" by, though I still did not have 100% efficiency. My guess is that I would have arrived with 5% had I achieved 310wh/mi consumption.

Ultimately I just want to be able to plan my trips effectively, whatever the range may be. I realize there are things that can affect range beyond the car's ability to forecast, but I see the car should use 292wh/mi as its target for meeting rated range.

 

[ran349]

Yes, you've realized you can't use the energy graph as a method to determine how many miles you can go. However, I think the nav arrival percentage calculation is pretty good, whatever method it uses to calculate the number. In your case, it seems very conservative.
If you know your driving Wh/mi, then you can just scale vs. the 292 number and get a pretty accurate mileage value.
I think that is what you are saying.

 

[beatle]

Yes, for the purposes of my car, I just need to multiply by 0.9419354838709677.

I have a trip in the spring that is 214 miles without a supercharger. I think it should be doable since most of it is below 65, and I will not likely need to use the heat, but it's still surprising that my rated range is not attainable even at 310wh/mi. I guess that has always been my benchmark. It would be nice if I could re-baseline my car to coincide with the 292wh/mi standard so I could have the car do the estimating, but that does not appear to be possible.

 

[Doanster1]

251 miles @ 100% is spectacular for a ‘15!!!
At pick up, my ‘14 (also a P85D) was at 241. With the subsequent neutering updates, I’m now at 234.
214 miles with no SuC would be a no-go for me. You should be fine, but def need to plan (weather, lead foot, etc.).

 

[Peter Lucas]

When charged to 100%, 2015 P85D with 53k on the clock reads 251 miles of rated range. That's pretty good from what I've read. However, when I drive at the rated consumption of 310wh/mi, I am still not able to get 251 miles. In fact, I'm only able to reach rated range when my consumption is 292wh/mi. Is 292 the new 310? The car still thinks 310 is what is needed to make rated range as that is where they meet in the trip calculation on the car. TeslaFi still shows consumption as higher than rated unless I get down to 292wh/mi. If I were a posting in the battery gate thread, I'd say it seems that this is a clever way to "hide" degradation. To think I only have 2 miles (less than 1%) of degradation after 53k is pretty optimistic. Apparent degradation seems to be more like 5.7% when judging by the new consumption norm. I think 5.7% seems pretty normal to me so I am not complaining, but I would like it better if the rated range were more accurate and not inflated to 251.

I would be really interested in what your usable battery capacity is. Your car has the information to calculate this without needing any OBD device. The trips page shows kWh used since last charge. If you divide that by change of SOC for that trip you get the full charge battery capacity. Of course you will want to do a fairly long trip. For example, on my 90D if I do a trip that takes the battery from 80% to 30% the trips page will show 36 kWh used. 36 divided by (80% minus 30%) is 72 kWh. I have done this calculation many times over a wide range of SOC readings. The result is remarkably consistent. Of note, my cars full charge display of range is just as if the car were brand new at 280-285 miles. The cars display of range is complete fiction.
By the way, I think that this calculation of usable battery capacity is useful because it cuts past any issues of driving efficiency. It gets directly to battery degradation.

 

[beatle]

TeslaFi does this as well, though it is not 100% consistent. This is from my recent (and longest!) one-leg trip from 12/26 which was 190 miles:
78% used (57.35 kWh) = 73.52 kWh total

This is from 12/24, only 157 miles though):
75% used (54.19 kWh) = 72.25 kWh total

I'll check and see what nominal full pack is via ScanMyTesla when I drive the car again. While you are correct that battery degradation is important, I find that it is only important in as much as it changes how far I predict I can go on a charge. I suppose if I wanted to get in on a lawsuit I would also need some historical data for degradation, but that has not happened.

I do find it interesting that according to predicted range, I have only lost 2 miles from new, but I believe the 85kwh pack had more than 72-72kwh usable when it was new. I would estimate it to be 78.43 kwh usable. 253 miles rated * 310 wh/mi = 78,430 wh (78.43kwh). This is on par with what I have read: cars have 10% of their packs taken off the top to allow for better longevity. This 10% is irrelevant for the purposes of degradation, however, as original range when new accounts for this overhead, and it is just built into the advertised range.

 

[Peter Lucas]

251 miles @ 100% is spectacular for a ‘15!!!
At pick up, my ‘14 (also a P85D) was at 241. With the subsequent neutering updates, I’m now at 234.
214 miles with no SuC would be a no-go for me. You should be fine, but def need to plan (weather, lead foot, etc.).

251 miles would be great - if it were real. Or even close to real. But I have come to realize that the cars display of range may be total fiction. Useless information. My 2016 90D displays the same full charge range that is always has; 280-285 miles. The actual range is about 200-220 miles. And the battery capacity is down to about 72 kWh.

 

[beatle]

Yes, that is basically why I started this thread - to get an idea of what others were seeing for their benchmark and actual consumption numbers, and if they ever change. I realize that a high rated range number will make people feel good (I felt great when I saw 251 for the first time!) but if it's baloney because of the abnormally low consumption needed then I would just chalk up my degradation as normal (I estimate 235 miles if I get 310wh/mi.)

What do your numbers say for consumption and projected range benchmark?

 

[Peter Lucas]

TeslaFi does this as well, though it is not 100% consistent. This is from my recent (and longest!) one-leg trip from 12/26 which was 190 miles:
78% used (57.35 kWh) = 73.52 kWh total

This is from 12/24, only 157 miles though):
75% used (54.19 kWh) = 72.25 kWh total

I'll check and see what nominal full pack is via ScanMyTesla when I drive the car again. While you are correct that battery degradation is important, I find that it is only important in as much as it changes how far I predict I can go on a charge. I suppose if I wanted to get in on a lawsuit I would also need some historical data for degradation, but that has not happened.

I do find it interesting that according to predicted range, I have only lost 2 miles from new, but I believe the 85kwh pack had more than 72-72kwh usable when it was new. I would estimate it to be 78.43 kwh usable. 253 miles rated * 310 wh/mi = 78,430 wh (78.43kwh). This is on par with what I have read: cars have 10% of their packs taken off the top to allow for better longevity. This 10% is irrelevant for the purposes of degradation, however, as original range when new accounts for this overhead, and it is just built into the advertised range.

You mentioned TeslaFi. I have not been able to understand what goes into that app's calculation of "Efficiency". Is it simply wH/mile rated divided by wHmi actual?. And how did you pull battery capacity from the apps output?

 

[Peter Lucas]

Yes, that is basically why I started this thread - to get an idea of what others were seeing for their benchmark and actual consumption numbers, and if they ever change. I realize that a high rated range number will make people feel good (I felt great when I saw 251 for the first time!) but if it's baloney because of the abnormally low consumption needed then I would just chalk up my degradation as normal (I estimate 235 miles if I get 310wh/mi.)

What do your numbers say for consumption and projected range benchmark?

My car is an early 2016 Model S, 90D. I bought it as a dealer demo, "inventory" car with 7,500 miles in 6 months on it. From day one (my day one) it has displayed a full charge range of 280-285 miles. Just like the new 90D that I test drove. From day one, my actual range has been about 200 miles when driving consuming 350 wh/mile (my long term average is 351 wh/mi). I did a test drive of just under 200 miles in ideal conditions trying to maximize driving efficiency. I used 305 wh/mile on that drive and had about 220 miles of range (extrapolated from about 90% of battery usage).
There is a topic here on this site where an owner called for reports of wh/mile. While many owners of early single motor cars reported sub 300 wh/mile values, most reports from Dual motor cars seemed to be around 350. Maybe 330-350. A few were much higher. A few were somewhat lower.
The other question that you have raised is; what should the usable capacity be? Though I have lost the reference, an authoritative source reported that the 90 kWh battery pack should have 83 kWh available. I'll leave it to you to extrapolate for a nominal 85 kWh battery pack.

 

[Doanster1]

251 miles would be great - if it were real. Or even close to real. But I have come to realize that the cars display of range may be total fiction. Useless information. My 2016 90D displays the same full charge range that is always has; 280-285 miles. The actual range is about 200-220 miles. And the battery capacity is down to about 72 kWh.

Agreed. I never chime in on those threads where people worry about not getting actual real-world rated miles. Too many variables. Just using the baseline reported 100% gives you at least an indication of relative battery health compared to others. In your case, your battery is “healthier” than mine by a decent amount.

 

[beatle]

You mentioned TeslaFi. I have not been able to understand what goes into that app's calculation of "Efficiency". Is it simply wH/mile rated divided by wHmi actual?. And how did you pull battery capacity from the apps output?

TeslaFi calculates efficiency as actual miles driven / rated miles used. The fact that I could not reach 100% efficiency even with my wh/mil under 310 made me start digging into this. Note: if you use TeslaFi, there is a wh/mi "factor" that you should put in to get the best calculation possible by measuring consumption with the car and then dividing by what TeslaFi reports "out of the box." Also, TeslaFi will not tell you the nominal and usable full pack capacity - you need a scanner for that. ScanMyTesla, a bluetooth OBD2 adapter, and a diagnostic cable will get you there.

BTW, I was wrong saying my "nominal full pack" rating was 72-73kwh. That reads 77.8kwh. My usable full pack is 73.8kwh. From there I could calculate my degradation as about 5.5%. This is pretty darn close to the "error" read on projected vs. actual consumption.

My car is an early 2016 Model S, 90D. I bought it as a dealer demo, "inventory" car with 7,500 miles in 6 months on it. From day one (my day one) it has displayed a full charge range of 280-285 miles. Just like the new 90D that I test drove. From day one, my actual range has been about 200 miles when driving consuming 350 wh/mile (my long term average is 351 wh/mi). I did a test drive of just under 200 miles in ideal conditions trying to maximize driving efficiency. I used 305 wh/mile on that drive and had about 220 miles of range (extrapolated from about 90% of battery usage).
There is a topic here on this site where an owner called for reports of wh/mile. While many owners of early single motor cars reported sub 300 wh/mile values, most reports from Dual motor cars seemed to be around 350. Maybe 330-350. A few were much higher. A few were somewhat lower.
The other question that you have raised is; what should the usable capacity be? Though I have lost the reference, an authoritative source reported that the 90 kWh battery pack should have 83 kWh available. I'll leave it to you to extrapolate for a nominal 85 kWh battery pack.

I am thinking a normal 85kwh pack would be 77.8kwh as mine says, but I could be wrong. I am curious what other people have for a usable full pack. My lifetime (just over 4k miles) consumption is 347wh/mi, though that is mostly cool/cold weather. Wheel/tire choice also has a noticeable impact. I have 19" cyclones and MXM4s which are pretty good from an efficiency standpoint.

 

[Spacey73]

The 85kwh packs are actually 81kwh minus 4kwh headroom are they not?

 

[beatle]

Yes, according to Jason Hughes:

https://electrek.co/2016/02/03/tesla-battery-tear-down-85-kwh/