Range in app?

[LukeUK]

It is completely different to the question. That is "rated" vs. "real world" economy. Once again, this is a question of whether the app should report the rated range or a calculated range. The manual states rated, so mine should say 352 miles, but it in fact says 304 miles. Hence the question.

Which rated? EPA? WLTP?

The manual says 'based on' - it doesn't say 'equal to'.

Just as a heads-up, brace yourself for what the car will report to you during a drive on a cold winter morning, with the heating, heated seats on, etc. My experience so far is a loss of range of around 20-30%.

 

[Jibjab]

Already a thread on this as below...and probably a few others

2021 M3LR Range only 330

I fully agree with the OP though. It’s not a question of real world range, it’s a question of either the manual being incorrect or a fault with the car.

I’ve actually raised it as service request, the car isn’t operating as intended. I doubt very much anything will be fixed, possibly force an update to the most recent software, but nothing else.

If Tesla just stated “the range displayed IS subject to external conditions and driving behaviour”, rather than the other way round I think everyone would get that, whinge a bit about not getting the epa range (just as we all do/did about mpg) and move on.

At the end of the day it is what it is and once I’ve satisfied myself by logging it as service item I’ll move on. I think, looking at a couple of other threads, the update to 2020.48 does alter the displayed rated range too.

James.

 

[pghstochaj]

"It will show the rated range as per the manual, until the battery starts getting recalibrated/degrading in which case, it will display a figure based upon what the car thinks the range is determined from the EPA factor and estimated battery capacity. So if the usable battery was deemed to be 75kWh when new, but the car now thinks its max usable capacity is 65kWh, then the max range shows, assuming a 310mile range at 75kWh, will be 268miles. Other versions/models of the car will use different figures to the 310 miles and 75kWh battery, these were just examples."

Thank you. So despite what most other posters have said, there could be an issue if the app is displaying a significantly reduced range as it suggests that "usable capacity" is low. I will go through a few cycles and see where it comes out before my service appointment in January (for other cosmetic issues). I guess other people

I will look at TeslaFi.

 

[pghstochaj]

Already a thread on this as below...and probably a few others

2021 M3LR Range only 330

I fully agree with the OP though. It’s not a question of real world range, it’s a question of either the manual being incorrect or a fault with the car.

I’ve actually raised it as service request, the car isn’t operating as intended. I doubt very much anything will be fixed, possibly force an update to the most recent software, but nothing else.

If Tesla just stated “the range displayed IS subject to external conditions and driving behaviour”, rather than the other way round I think everyone would get that, whinge a bit about not getting the epa range (just as we all do/did about mpg) and move on.

At the end of the day it is what it is and once I’ve satisfied myself by logging it as service item I’ll move on. I think, looking at a couple of other threads, the update to 2020.48 does alter the displayed rated range too.

James.

Exactly, thank you.

And comments about EPA vs. WLTP are not the point, the result is roughly the same.

 

[Glan gluaisne]

The fact is that the car cannot ever exactly measure the battery pack SoC. It never knows EXACTLY how much energy is stored in the battery pack, for a host of good reasons, associated with the chemistry of the cells and the variations in losses and efficiency with temperature, charge rate, discharge rate, etc. SoC is only ever a guess, unlike a conventional car fuel gauge, where (in theory) it should be possible to exactly measure the amount of fuel in the tank.

 

[pghstochaj]

The fact is that the car cannot ever exactly measure the battery pack SoC. It never knows EXACTLY how much energy is stored in the battery pack, for a host of good reasons, associated with the chemistry of the cells and the variations in losses and efficiency with temperature, charge rate, discharge rate, etc. SoC is only ever a guess, unlike a conventional car fuel gauge, where (in theory) it should be possible to exactly measure the amount of fuel in the tank.

You cannot automatically then assume that the low range reported is a failure of the system to accurately calculate the capacity of the battery, it could be that the battery is not behaving correctly.

I think we have got beyond the confused posts trying to argue real range vs. rated range are different. It is evident that the rated range should be displayed after a charge and on a brand new car, this should be close to the EPA or WLTP range, not c. 50 miles less. Therefore, it seems reasonable to have this checked (which is also what Tesla Webchat said). It is clearly not right that Tesla states that the app should be reporting rated range (that is, close to the EPA or WLTP ranges) but I am miles (literally) off.

 

[Jibjab]

The fact is that the car cannot ever exactly measure the battery pack SoC. It never knows EXACTLY how much energy is stored in the battery pack, for a host of good reasons, associated with the chemistry of the cells and the variations in losses and efficiency with temperature, charge rate, discharge rate, etc. SoC is only ever a guess, unlike a conventional car fuel gauge, where (in theory) it should be possible to exactly measure the amount of fuel in the tank.

Agreed, that makes perfect sense. I’m not sure Tesla ‘have’ to, due to certain legislation, display the rated range? I assume it would be simple to have some ignorant logic to display the epa range regardless of battery health? Probably wouldn’t be helpful, but it would do as the manual says then

 

[Jibjab]

You cannot automatically then assume that the low range reported is a failure of the system to accurately calculate the capacity of the battery, it could be that the battery is not behaving correctly.

I think we have got beyond the confused posts trying to argue real range vs. rated range are different. It is evident that the rated range should be displayed after a charge and on a brand new car, this should be close to the EPA or WLTP range, not c. 50 miles less. Therefore, it seems reasonable to have this checked (which is also what Tesla Webchat said). It is clearly not right that Tesla states that the app should be reporting rated range (that is, close to the EPA or WLTP ranges) but I am miles (literally) off.

I have a Ranger visit on the 24th, I’ll post back what they diagnose. I imagine it will be “They all do that Sir”, but at least it’s been logged just incase I wake up one day with a full range of 28 mile

 

[spon88]

I haven't read the manual, maybe I should. My car, an M3P 2019, has a rated range of 310 miles (I think) but it's never showed that and I've never really expected it to. My expectation was based on what I learned from forums like this and a healthy disrespect of stuff like "rated range".

To give another example, my car slider at 100% suggested 292 miles last night when I checked (very cold outside). This morning after charging it suggested 297 miles - but I know it will fluctuate in that range. I also know that in reality on a cold day in winter I shouldn't really expect much more than around 210, possibly less. I'll also keep an eye on the energy graph if I have any concerns. For what it's worth I leave the display in miles (not %) but I have a very good handle on what that actually implies. I think it's just a case of the OP adjusting expectation and maybe if still worried, tackle Tesla and tell them to start communicating transparently (good luck with that )

 

[Glan gluaisne]

I've been building electric vehicles in one form or another for a bit over 15 years. In that time I've learned a lot about the art of the possible, when it comes to trying to estimate battery pack SoC. It can be estimated, using a lot of measurements and trying to compensate for charging losses, cell terminal voltage variation with temperature, errors in the charge voltage/current sensors, known dimensional changes within the cells (due mainly to temperature varying electrode spacing) but can never be accurately measured.

Tesla do a reasonable job of estimating SoC in the energy display screen view, taking account of as many parameters as can reasonably be measured, but for some reason they do not use that data in the always-on driving display range figure. I've never understood why they do this, it seems daft when the main energy display screen data is a bit more accurate most of the time.

Given the information that Tesla provide in the manual, one should expect that the always-on range in the driving display should be based on the EPA test cycle data. It'll be mythical, for sure, so not really any practical use, but a 2021 model year Model 3 Performance should display about 315 miles with the battery at (I think) 25°C and the car having just come off a charge to 100%. It's based on the EPA data, so is still adjusted according to the SoC estimate from the BMS, and that will include SoC variation with temperature, but not, I believe, driving history.

 

[MrBadger]

If Tesla just stated “the range displayed IS subject to external conditions and driving behaviour”, rather than the other way round I think everyone would get that, whinge a bit about not getting the epa range (just as we all do/did about mpg) and move on.

I can categorically say that it is not based upon driving behaviour.

TeslaFi reports both rated range and estimated range - estimated range IS based upon driving style of recent drives - it can fluctuate higher or lower than rated range depending on last few drives.

Guess what the app and car reports as range? the 214/215 discrepancy was the car updating its range between shots - not me cherry picking the results.

So the car and the app show the rated range for the current determined usable SoC % of the battery.

Not obvious from this, is the 1% usable discrepancy. 77% vs 76% 'cold' - figure in blue. Also note the theoretical 1% 'overcharge' from the 76% charge limit. But its not an overcharge, its the car stopping at 76% usable - see final image.

The app (and the car but I don't have that image) shows the usable/cold battery SoC %

This image below shows a request to charge to 100% - slider fully to the right. But because of the 1% discrepancy between usable/cold and actual, I am actually limited to a 99% charge request.

 

[Jibjab]

I've been building electric vehicles in one form or another for a bit over 15 years. In that time I've learned a lot about the art of the possible, when it comes to trying to estimate battery pack SoC. It can be estimated, using a lot of measurements and trying to compensate for charging losses, cell terminal voltage variation with temperature, errors in the charge voltage/current sensors, known dimensional changes within the cells (due mainly to temperature varying electrode spacing) but can never be accurately measured.

Tesla do a reasonable job of estimating SoC in the energy display screen view, taking account of as many parameters as can reasonably be measured, but for some reason they do not use that data in the always-on driving display range figure. I've never understood why they do this, it seems daft when the main energy display screen data is a bit more accurate most of the time.

Given the information that Tesla provide in the manual, one should expect that the always-on range in the driving display should be based on the EPA test cycle data. It'll be mythical, for sure, so not really any practical use, but a 2021 model year Model 3 Performance should display about 315 miles with the battery at (I think) 25°C and the car having just come off a charge to 100%. It's based on the EPA data, so is still adjusted according to the SoC estimate from the BMS, and that will include SoC variation with temperature, but not, I believe, driving history.

Thanks Glan. Personally I think it’s just the manual that is badly worded. It does say ‘based on’, but the the only published epa number is the end result I believe, 353 miles for a long range from memory.

As mentioned before I’d be very surprised if anyone expects to get 353 miles, for example, and then moan that it doesn’t. For us newbies, that have taken a little bit of time to read sections of the manual, it could appear there is a fault with the car though as it states that the driving range displayed is based on epa certification and doesn’t take into account personal driving patterns or external conditions.

Lots of talk of untapped capacity in the near future, which may not may not happen. I’ll watch this space and not worry about it too much.

 

[pghstochaj]

Thanks Glan. Personally I think it’s just the manual that is badly worded. It does say ‘based on’, but the the only published epa number is the end result I believe, 353 miles for a long range from memory.

As mentioned before I’d be very surprised if anyone expects to get 353 miles, for example, and then moan that it doesn’t. For us newbies, that have taken a little bit of time to read sections of the manual, it could appear there is a fault with the car though as it states that the driving range displayed is based on epa certification and doesn’t take into account personal driving patterns or external conditions.

Lots of talk of untapped capacity in the near future, which may not may not happen. I’ll watch this space and not worry about it too much.

I am a little worried in that the Webchat assistant said that it being less than the rated (by such an extent) is wrong. It will be interesting to see whether this is an issue or just bad wording/communication.

 

[Glan gluaisne]

The 2021 model year Model 3 LR AWD has an EPA range of 353 miles, the Performance has an EPA range of 315 miles. These numbers are not those used in the UK official data, that has to state WLTP numbers. The 2021 Model 3 LR AWD has a WLTP range of 367 miles, the Performance has a WLTP range of 352 miles. The car (and hence the app) use EPA data, not WLTP data, I believe.

All those figures are based on the battery pack being charged to exactly 100% SoC (not the SoC estimated by the BMS), under lab test conditions as specified in the standard. Any car that's sat in someone's garage or drive, being charged from a normal AC charge point, is unlikely to be charged to exactly 100% SoC in reality. The BMS can measure the charge current and voltage, and can measure the cell group terminal voltages, but it has no means of being able to directly measure SoC, it can only ever estimate what this might be, based on modelling things like capacity change and efficiency/internal resistance changes with temperature.

For the test, the battery packs are run down to zero %, then charged to cell cut-off, so the test is wholly unrealistic in terms of normal use. The BMS prevents the pack being discharged to zero % normally, plus charging will always start with an unknown (in exact terms) SoC, hence some of the uncertainty.

 

[MrBadger]

As mentioned before I’d be very surprised if anyone expects to get 353 miles, for example, and then moan that it doesn’t.

Certainly with our older Model 3, driving the vehicle with the efficiency that would be equivalent to the EPA is relatively easily doable. But there are lots of caveats such as you don't normally drive an EV from 100% to 0% (so maybe limit yourself to 75-85% of battery capacity) plus driving at the efficiency needed to get EPA efficiency without stopping (repeat stops will have a negative impact on range) would drive most people to insanity. The Model 3 really does not like short trips as it takes a while to claw back the so called 'departure tax'.

 

[Tann_man]

 

[Jeeves]

Crikey, what a debate this thread has sparked yet again!

It prompted me to look at what the Owners Manual says about these numbers again. It seems to make just a single reference to EPA certification (emphasis mine):

‘When fully charged, the driving range displayed in Tesla vehicles is based on EPA certification and does not account for your personal driving patterns or external conditions.’

I’ve noticed that the Owners Manual uses words very carefully indeed, and I’m sure this sentence is no exception. ‘based on’ must factor in the things @Glan gluaisne mentions, and the range is unlikely to match the adverts for those reasons. ‘fully charged’ seems to be significant too. I presume that its guesses are less accurate at partial charges (see below).

Everywhere else in the Owners Manual it refers to estimates only with no mention of EPA. For example, on explanation of the in-car range display (and by implication the app):

‘Total estimated driving distance (or energy) available.’

I can’t remember any longer, but when you set off after a charge, does the range indicator in the car switch to match what you see on some part of the energy graph?

I think the rated range is only really useful in assessing long-term battery health. This is what my battery health looks like in the iOS Stats app today:

The most striking thing about this graph for me is the variance of the orange dots indicating the wide spread in estimates of rated range that the app gets from the car. Any individual data point might therefore seem superficially significant and very misleading. What matters is that the trend isn’t falling off a cliff, and I can still easily drive for at least two hours to the next charge which is all that matters to me now.

 

[Glan gluaisne]

Perhaps also worth noting that the car has no way of knowing any state of charge other than 0% (when all cell groups are at the low voltage cut-off point and the car has shut down) or 100% (defined as being charged to the point where all cell groups are at the upper cut-off voltage at a defined battery pack temperature (I think this is 25°C).

The cat cannot know when the battery pack is at, say. 80%, or 90%, it can only guess this, based on trying to take account of cell terminal voltages when off-load and not charging, cell temperature, the history of charge and discharge of the pack, etc. These latter parameters may drift with time since the last charge to 100%. This is because cell terminal voltage is a very poor indicator of SoC, so the car assumes that the SoC at the start of a charge is correct, then adds the energy that flows into the battery pack during charge (it can measure this) making a correction for charging efficiency (always less than 100%, and varies with temperature and instantaneous SoC).

In an ideal world there would be a nice, linear, relationship between something like cell group open circuit terminal voltage and SoC. Sadly there isn't, it's a very non-linear, temperature and charge/discharge rate dependent characteristic. This is a typical set of charge/discharge curves, with depth of discharge (or inverse state of charge) on the x axis, cell terminal voltage on the y axis. The different curves represent variations with charge/discharge (C) rate. Hopefully these curves will show just how challenging it is for the car to estimate the SoC (and this is just the constant temperature characteristic, things get far more complex when temperature variation is factored in):

 

[Adopado]

I am a little worried in that the Webchat assistant said that it being less than the rated (by such an extent) is wrong. It will be interesting to see whether this is an issue or just bad wording/communication.

I will speculate that the web chat Tesla person might live in California where their batteries do not get properly cold in the way they do in the UK in winter. It is common to temporarily lose battery capacity due to low temperature. From my own experience the car does not include this "lost" range in it's totals ... but as the battery warms up through usage that lost range returns. When the battery gets seriously cold you will even see a snowflake symbol and an actual graphical representation of lost range/percentage in blue. To be fair the manual says the figure is "based" on EPA not that it will always show the EPA figure.

 

[ejvee]

The OP is not regarding range anxiety, but whether his battery is faulty.
I have a 2019 Model 3 LR, which should be 310 miles on full charge. After 1 year, I see a 6% attrition, when I toggle between % and miles after a full charge. I think that is an accepted fact of life. Otherwise, how would the battery warranty works, which states repair/replacement if it falls below 70% ?
OP has noted far more battery attrition in a brand new car.
Wouldn't any car's economy computer , be it ICE or EV, defaults to original/ideal mpg or % once you lock the car?