Range increase (split from Master Thread: 2019.40.2)

[AlanSubie4Life]

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.

@Wreckless316
I should add the following caveats: 1) Probably best to choose a 30-mile averaging interval as there will be the least variation on the projected range and efficiency so any "lag" in updating the numbers is of minimal impact. (You had this.)
2) Setting the units to km gives even better resolution.
3) Not ideal to do this after a large regen event, because rated miles are not instantly added back during regen events. That would result in potential error (depending on how things are implemented). So ideally you do this picture when you've been at positive consumption for the last few miles.

Summary:
Conditions:
1) Charge greater than 50-60% to maximize chance of 3 significant digits on all numbers
2) Set units to km if desired for better accuracy.
3) Choose 30-mile interval (or longest km interval), Using "Average Range", not "Instant Range"
4) Avoid recent large regen events which would have added rated miles.
5) Projected range needs to be less than 999 of course.

Numbers (all captured in the same picture at the same time):
1) Rated miles/km
2) Avg Wh/mi on left side of Energy Consumption screen
3) Projected Range in miles on right side of Energy Consumption Screen

Charging Constant = Avg Wh/mi (on left side of graph) * Projected Range (right side of graph) / Rated Miles (or km if km being used)

 

[tren01t]

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.

Take a look at this one. I have had the vehicle for a week as of today. Did not establish a baseline before the update to the latest version. Vehicle has been charged to 100% once and I plan a trip tomorrow and will charge to 100% again for comparison to the 90% daily charge. This picture is from a 90% charge last night and I commuted 65 miles to work this morning. Let me know if this helps.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Take a look at this one. I have had the vehicle for a week as of today. Did not establish a baseline before the update to the latest version. Vehicle has been charged to 100% once and I plan a trip tomorrow and will charge to 100% again for comparison to the 90% daily charge. This picture is from a 90% charge last night and I commuted 65 miles to work this morning. Let me know if this helps.

Thanks. That calculates out to 212.5Wh/rmi. What is your extrapolated 100% charge miles? It seems like it would be around 250 rated miles with that constant.

 

[tren01t]

Thanks. That calculates out to 212.5Wh/rmi. What is your extrapolated 100% charge miles? It seems like it would be around 250 rated miles with that constant.

I extrapolated to 246 miles. Pretty close to expected

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I extrapolated to 246 miles. Pretty close to expected

Yes, I would say you are in the group of people who have the modified constant and have close to 250 rated miles. When you charge again to 100% let us know what it ends up being (assuming it completes the charge to 100% - sometimes it stops at 99%...).

Remains to be seen whether @Wreckless316 has reverted to the older 219Wh/rmi constant along with his "reduced" range (there would be no appreciable actual change in available energy).

 

[Wreckless316]

Yes, I would say you are in the group of people who have the modified constant and have close to 250 rated miles. When you charge again to 100% let us know what it ends up being (assuming it completes the charge to 100% - sometimes it stops at 99%...).

Remains to be seen whether @Wreckless316 has reverted to the older 219Wh/rmi constant along with his "reduced" range (there would be no appreciable actual change in available energy).

Take a look at this one. Hope it has everything you need.

I should mention my rated range drop I mentioned previously was taken from “stats” app. It shows 240 on there now as maximum . Though im not sure how accurately that reflects what a real world charge to 100% would look like.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Take a look at this one. Hope it has everything you need.

I should mention my rated range drop I mentioned previously was taken from “stats” app. It shows 240 on there now as maximum . Though im not sure how accurately that reflects what a real world charge to 100% would look like.

You're still at 213Wh/rmi based on that data (181mi * 159Wh/mi /135rmi = 213Wh/rmi). (You should find the rated line is at 218Wh/mi if you happen to hit it exactly.)

The Stats app could have some error, depending on what it is using under the hood for calculations, but I doubt it. Did Stats say 250 max before?

 

[Wreckless316]

You're still at 213Wh/rmi based on that data (181mi * 159Wh/mi /135rmi = 213Wh/rmi). (You'll find the rated line is at 218Wh/mi if you happen to hit it correctly.)

The Stats app could have some error, depending on what it is using under the hood for calculations, but I doubt it. Did Stats say 250 max before?

It’s weird because it has said 246-248 all week. Then after update 40.2.1 it went down to 242. After a while I checked again and down to 232 which really made me frown. I just checked again now and back to 247. What gives ????

 

[Wreckless316]

It’s weird because it has said 246-248 all week. Then after update 40.2.1 it went down to 242. After a while I checked again and down to 232 which really made me frown. I just checked again now and back to 247. What gives ????

Now showing 250 for the very first time. This is the first time I’ve seen it change so wildly

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Now showing 250 for the very first time. This is the first time I’ve seen it change so wildly

Would not worry about it. It could be off due to rounding errors in the internal calculation, which will have more extreme results for lower values of SoC. For example, switching from 135 @ 54% SoC to 136 @55% SoC would give 250 in one case and 247 in the other.

In the end I'd only look at things when you're closer to 80-90% SoC.

which really made me frown

So turn that frown upside down!

 

[vasuvius]

I just upgraded to 40.2.1
The battery range went down to 306 @100% (the number on the charger setting).
I set to charge up to 90% and it shows as 275

Long Range AWD

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I just upgraded to 40.2.1
The battery range went down to 306 @100% (the number on the charger setting).
I set to charge up to 90% and it shows as 275

Long Range AWD

I assume you mean a 2020 LR AWD. Anyway, feel free to capture a picture of that Energy -> Consumption screen as a baseline as outlined above. (Link provides all the details needed)

Do it with the car in Park. I think you’ll still be at the standard 245Wh/rmi baseline, but probably should get a capture from someone with a 2020 prior to your potential upcoming “Christmas Present” range increase (that you paid for). I don’t think I have seen an Energy screen capture from a 2020 AWD.

Then we’ll be able to capture the new constant (if they change it) after the update.

 

[jjrandorin]

This thread seems to me to be the same discussions on rated range, distance etc that were moved into the master thread. Why was this discussion "split out"? Its the same discussion about "not getting rated range" as the other threads, with the small exception that people want to also complain that new cars show an EPA range that their car does not.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

This thread seems to me to be the same discussions on rated range, distance etc that were moved into the master thread. Why was this discussion "split out"? Its the same discussion about "not getting rated range" as the other threads, with the small exception that people want to also complain that new cars show an EPA range that their car does not.

I think it is specifically supposed to be a discussion about the maximum displayed rated range on 2020 new vehicles and whether they will match the EPA numbers when new. Currently is not the case for most 2020 owners (apparently). Obviously whether this is actually important depends on underlying vehicle efficiency.

The only thing people can do right now is to calculate their charge constant from the Energy Consumption screen. Then they can be assured that they have the correct total energy available (should calculate out to about 76kWh for LRs). (E.g. 245Wh/rmi * 310rmi)

Then if there is any future update they can recalculate using the same method.

This will also allow them to track estimated capacity loss for their vehicle separately without confusion, if the constant is changed with a future update.

 

[diezel_dave]

This thread seems to me to be the same discussions on rated range, distance etc that were moved into the master thread. Why was this discussion "split out"? Its the same discussion about "not getting rated range" as the other threads, with the small exception that people want to also complain that new cars show an EPA range that their car does not.

As far as I have seen around here, NO 2020 cars are showing the new 322 mile EPA rated range.

 

[Wreckless316]

I think it is specifically supposed to be a discussion about the maximum displayed rated range on 2020 new vehicles and whether they will match the EPA numbers when new. Currently is not the case for most 2020 owners (apparently). Obviously whether this is actually important depends on underlying vehicle efficiency.

The only thing people can do right now is to calculate their charge constant from the Energy Consumption screen. Then they can be assured that they have the correct total energy available (should calculate out to about 76kWh for LRs). (E.g. 245Wh/rmi * 310rmi)

Then if there is any future update they can recalculate using the same method.

This will also allow them to track estimated capacity loss for their vehicle separately without confusion, if the constant is changed with a future update.

So does that mean because my charging constant is 213 wh/mi and my rated range is about 247, I have a 53kwh battery? I thought these were 50kwh batteries on the SR+?

Do you mind explaining the whole battery capacity thing? At first it seemed that the battery was 55kwh from other threads I read. Then 50kwh. Can you explain SR+ battery capacity and the whole buffer thing? You've explained it before in other threads but I can't seem to wrap my head around it and connect the dots between all the other things we've discussed.

Thanks in advance! You are super helpful!

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

So does that mean because my charging constant is 213 wh/mi and my rated range is about 247, I have a 53kwh battery? I thought these were 50kwh batteries on the SR+?

Basically, yes. That being said, the "kWh" measured by these units is not necessarily a "true" kWh. It might represent an energy quantity slightly larger than a kWh. Officially, Tesla measured the capacity of the SR+ battery (on a vehicle with around 4000 miles on it I think - though it's not mentioned in this SR document) in their Fremont lab to be 54.5kWh, and the SR to be 50kWh. Those are the official EPA numbers and represent true calibrated kWh:

https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=48305&flag=1

So, nominally 213Wh/rmi*250rmi = 53.3kWh. (It used to be 219Wh/rmi*240rmi = 52.6kWh - not sure what to make of that small discrepancy - it's possible that Tesla decided to leave a little extra buffer on prior versions of the SR+ which can be used but would not show in these calculations (since the prior EPA rating was actually 246 miles or so, not 240).) The way they handle this is not completely clear to me. Again, though, these may not represent exact true kWh, so there's no reason to panic about the discrepancy with the EPA submitted values. All that matters is if your vehicle when at the same odometer value as the EPA test article can perform the same in the Tesla lab...which you'll never know.

Unfortunately, Tesla complicates it a bit because charging Wh/rmi are not the same as discharging Wh/rmi. This does make things pretty confusing, because it means you'll never see close to this value on the trip meter, unless (perhaps) you fully exhaust the "buffer" that exists below 0 rated miles.

The post above explains the rest of my current understanding (subject to correction if it is proven incorrect).

 

[GOOCHY]

I just upgraded to 40.2.1
The battery range went down to 306 @100% (the number on the charger setting).
I set to charge up to 90% and it shows as 275

Long Range AWD

Same here. My M3P+ has always had a 279 mile charge at 90%. With 40.2.1 its now 275.

 

[hmmwv]

Just want to add another data point, I charged my newly delivered SR+ (~200 miles on the odometer) to 100% for the first time this morning and it displayed 248 miles of rated range. After a day of driving here are my numbers:

 

[Daffer]

Got 2019.40.2.1 last night and no sight of the range increases for AWD model 3s I’m very curious about that.

in other news, this is most likely out last update for the year! As a mass roll out.