Range increase (split from Master Thread: 2019.40.2)

[theeskimo]

The EPA website...

Okay...do you have a link..?

 

[diezel_dave]

Okay...do you have a link..?

Google EPA.

Haha JK, here you go: Download Fuel Economy Data

Download the one for 2020 and scroll wayyyy over to the right side and it says this: "Combined range voluntarily lowered from 332 miles"

Sooo for some reason the performance cars get better range but Tesla wanted to hide that fact and artificially limited the range to match the other AWD cars.

 

[diezel_dave]

But the new 2020 AWD cars are showing 322...

As far as I have seen, no new LR AWD cars are showing 322 mile ranges.

 

[diamond.g]

Google EPA.

Haha JK, here you go: Download Fuel Economy Data

Download the one for 2020 and scroll wayyyy over to the right side and it says this: "Combined range voluntarily lowered from 332 miles"

Sooo for some reason the performance cars get better range but Tesla wanted to hide that fact and artificially limited the range to match the other AWD cars.

Hey @Knightshade you think this is the first tangible difference between the 990’s and the 980’s?

 

[mmurphy]

I have a LR AWD 2020 and still at 310 miles with 40.2.1

 

[eladts]

Why do people car so much about the max range when the display is set to miles? It is decided by a trivial calculation and doesn't really mean anything. Tesla could make the car show 500 miles if they wanted to.

 

[Potpourri]

I wonder if in 40.2.1 the Range shown in miles increases if you have the regen set to Hold instead of Roll or Creep. I will check my M3 SR+ when I leave work and report back.

 

[KenC]

The did retroactively change the AWD range, from 310 to 322.

You asked if Tesla has ever said anything about increased range. I showed you the link. Musk said as much in his Q3 results conference call.

If you listen to the conference call, it seemed like he misspoke. They were talking about the 5% power increase. If you've heard Elon, he sometimes stumbles for words, as he thinks faster than he can talk, or the other way around. Either way, it seemed obvious that he misspoke.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

But the new 2020 AWD cars are showing 322...

@XLR82XS has not posted any pictures showing this to be true. I'm not saying I don't believe him, but his is the only report I have seen so far and I haven't seen pictures showing the new constant (pictures of the Energy->Consumption screen showing, in a single picture, rated miles remaining, projected range, and prior efficiency are sufficient to prove the new constant).

We HAVE seen such a picture for the SR+ - there is one person who reports ~250 miles at 100%, and his Energy screen shows that the constant/s has/have changed (the constant is lower than it was for earlier SR+ vehicles). (Previously the charging constant established with this method for the SR+ was 219Wh/rmi; now it is about 213Wh/rmi.)

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Why do people car so much about the max range when the display is set to miles?

I care about it because it shows me the car's best estimate of the energy available in the battery relative to when it was new, assuming the charging/BMS constant has not been changed (which can be determined independently, and if it has changed, used to scale the result appropriately).

Full Battery Capacity:

Battery Full kWh = Rated Miles @ 100% * Charging Constant

or...

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)

Lines & Constants

 

[diezel_dave]

And I care because if Tesla submitted a version of software to the EPA that has some kind of magic efficiency improvements that are supposed to be representative of model year 2020 cars, I want to know why my car does not have this more efficient software.

 

[Knightshade]

Hey @Knightshade you think this is the first tangible difference between the 990’s and the 980’s?

Maybe?

But then if the 990 is less efficient, how did the AWD suddenly go from 310 (last year

when they came with 980s) to 322 today with 990s in em?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Maybe?

But then if the 990 is less efficient, how did the AWD suddenly go from 310 (last year View attachment 487272 when they came with 980s) to 322 today with 990s in em?

Just remember that the Performance is voluntarily derated (from 332) to match the AWD. So it's a small difference but apparently it is there (obviously this is just in regards to the 980 vs. the 990 that are installed in 2020 vehicles - who knows what the differences are with the older 980 and 990 motor versions, if any. The front motor is identical (amongst the 2020 vehicles) per the EPA datafile).

 

[dandrewk]

If you listen to the conference call, it seemed like he misspoke. They were talking about the 5% power increase. If you've heard Elon, he sometimes stumbles for words, as he thinks faster than he can talk, or the other way around. Either way, it seemed obvious that he misspoke.

Agreed, he said something to the effect of "we should do better with a software update" while talking about increasing the Model S range. It's ambiguous, to say the least. It's not surprising that a couple of websites took that to mean a model/trim wide increase in range.

 

[Wreckless316]

@XLR82XS has not posted any pictures showing this to be true. I'm not saying I don't believe him, but his is the only report I have seen so far and I haven't seen pictures showing the new constant (pictures of the Energy->Consumption screen showing, in a single picture, rated miles remaining, projected range, and prior efficiency are sufficient to prove the new constant).

We HAVE seen such a picture for the SR+ - there is one person who reports ~250 miles at 100%, and his Energy screen shows that the constant/s has/have changed (the constant is lower than it was for earlier SR+ vehicles). (Previously the charging constant established with this method for the SR+ was 219Wh/rmi; now it is about 213Wh/rmi.)

Not anymore. My range just dropped to 243 with 40.2.1.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Not anymore. My range just dropped to 243 with 40.2.1.

Can you take another picture of that screen with the three relevant numbers? Curious if they have just limited your energy or whether they are playing around with constants.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

And I care because if Tesla submitted a version of software to the EPA that has some kind of magic efficiency improvements that are supposed to be representative of model year 2020 cars, I want to know why my car does not have this more efficient software.

I would be patient for now. As long as your car does not degrade in capacity too much before the range “increase” you will likely see the increased rated miles (and a reduced constant - so take a picture of that Energy -> Consumption screen with the three numbers - rated miles, projected range, and interval average efficiency for your records!) on your 2020 vehicle soon. Maybe it will be a Christmas present!

 

[Wreckless316]

Can you take another picture of that screen with the three relevant numbers? Curious if they have just limited your energy or whether they are playing around with constants.

 

[Wreckless316]

Oops here’s another one with lifetime

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Oops here’s another one with lifetime

Sorry man. Hard to get a good read on it with just two significant digits...maybe another time when you have more than 100 miles remaining, we can get a better estimate.

This calculates out to 216Wh/rmi, but it is only two significant digits. So it could be off by a lot.

Thanks for the pictures...maybe another one some other time...

EDIT: No need for the lifetime Wh/mi for this calculation. Just those three other numbers, and they all should have three digits. Set display to miles, make sure you have a good charge, pull up that energy screen, make sure it is not set to “instant range,” and take a picture - that’s all that is needed.