Range increase (split from Master Thread: 2019.40.2)

[Daffer]

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:
View attachment 488365

I took delivery of my 2019 LR AWD in October and am on latest software (40.2.1).
My range is now 309.

A friend took delivery this week of the same car, but model year 2020. He is on the same software update as I am. His range is 310.

From what I’ve read, both 2019 and 2020 should be at 322 range. A Tesla employee said that the range increase hasn’t come through yet- but offered nothing more. Doesn’t make sense since 322 is the figure being published.

I know a lot has been written on this, but there doesn’t seem to be any final conclusion.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

From what I’ve read, both 2019 and 2020 should be at 322 range

I don't know what evidence there is for this, really. There's no reason 2019 needs to change. It might, but definitely also might not.

Doesn’t make sense since 322 is the figure being published.

I agree it doesn't make a lot of sense - but I think it's likely just a delay on the 2020 software. But remember the number displayed also doesn't matter, at all. All that matters is if your vehicle can match Tesla's result on the dyno, which it may well already do. The rest is just accounting and scaling (redefinition of how much energy is in a rated mile). There is some question, of course, that if your software doesn't show 322 miles at 100%, does it have the efficiency improvements required to match the EPA test? That's very hard to say, and impossible to measure without replicating the EPA test.

 

[hmmwv]

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

I just realized when I used this formula to calculate my constant it came out to be around 210, that's really low compared to before.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I just realized when I used this formula to calculate my constant it came out to be around 210, that's really low compared to before.

Just saw your post above...SR+ 2020 with 248 rated miles at 100%. Just remember that you need to have three significant figures in all of the inputs to the formula for the result to be reasonably accurate. You can also swap between 5/15/30 miles and get three different calculations (which should all give the same value approximately). But in all cases you need to have three significant digits on all three inputs. It is best to do it in Park when nothing is changing.

Swap to km if necessary (and for best precision). The result will be in Wh/rkm which can be multiplied by 1.609 to get Wh/rmi.

The higher your SoC at the time of calculation, the better precision you'll have.

 

[dandrewk]

The energy app is showing 310 range, so no increase yet.

However, Elon was very cryptic about the purported range increase. And he did say "future software update". He didn't say when.

 

[Wreckless316]

Just saw your post above...SR+ 2020 with 248 rated miles at 100%. Just remember that you need to have three significant figures in all of the inputs to the formula for the result to be reasonably accurate. You can also swap between 5/15/30 miles and get three different calculations (which should all give the same value approximately). But in all cases you need to have three significant digits on all three inputs. It is best to do it in Park when nothing is changing.

Swap to km if necessary (and for best precision). The result will be in Wh/rkm which can be multiplied by 1.609 to get Wh/rmi.

The higher your SoC at the time of calculation, the better precision you'll have.

2020 SR+ charge constant is definitely 213 wh/mi. Calculated it almost 6 times now. Varying but average is right around 213.

 

[Wreckless316]

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?

I happen to hit the rated line today. 217 wh/mi.

I still don't understand the purpose of the rated line. Perhaps the rated line includes the buffer? I thought that's what charge constant was for...

 

[dandrewk]

I happen to hit the rated line today. 217 wh/mi.

I still don't understand the purpose of the rated line. Perhaps the rated line includes the buffer? I thought that's what charge constant was for...

It’s the rating the EPA gives for that trim. If you maintain that rate (kWH/hr) you would get the stated range.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

happen to hit the rated line today. 217 wh/mi.

I still don't understand the purpose of the rated line. Perhaps the rated line includes the buffer? I thought that's what charge constant was for...

Would be cool to see the picture of that. Are you sure it wasn't just below when it said 217Wh/mi? It doesn't really matter obviously...218Wh/mi vs. 217Wh/mi makes no real difference.

Honestly, I am not sure. To hit the EPA rating you do have to exhaust the buffer, so let's start there.

Let's assume that your battery contains the 54.5kWh indicated by Tesla's EPA-compliant test. (Not quite equivalent to your 250mi*213Wh/mi value of 53.25kWh, but close).

If you used 218Wh/mi for 250miles, you'd use: 54.5kWh. Those are true Wh and kWh. So it's true that if you use a true 218Wh/mi, you would get the rated range, I suppose.

But this will NOT align with what the meter shows - we know that about 203Wh will deplete one rated mile for a 2020 SR+. If you get about 203Wh/mi (I'm guessing at this value for your car) consumption for 250 miles, you'll be at 0% (50.75kWh used). You could confirm this with appropriate long enough continuous drives. Then you'd have an additional (to be confirmed by CAN bus) 2.5kWh of buffer to use below 0% (which you'd never want to try to use). So adjusting consumption upwards...you'd have to do (2.5+50.75)/50.75 * 203Wh/mi = 1.049*203Wh/mi = 213Wh/mi as indicated by the trip meter, to completely exhaust the battery in 250 miles (250mi * 213Wh/mi = 53.25kWh). Again, these may not be "true" kWh - it's possible the CAN bus readbacks (the kWh delta) will not align with the display kWh used (I don't know).

If the buffer is 2.5kWh for SR+, in our trip meter numbers, that's 2.5kWh/203Wh/rmi = 12.3 rated miles below 0%. So you actually have 12+250 = 262 rated miles to completely dead.

If you used 218Wh/mi (per the trip meter), it definitely wouldn't work over 250 miles, because that would consume: 218Wh/mi / (203Wh/rmi) * 250 mi = 268.5 rated miles (and you don't have that).

In addition, for further confusion, note that the projected range number uses the 213Wh/mi constant to calculate, but assumes zero energy left at 0%, and furthermore uses the trip meter Wh/mi value (which seems to not align with the charging Wh/mi) . So it's actually accurate at 100% SoC, but as you get closer and closer to 0% it becomes more and more pessimistic (for example at 1% it'll say something like 2.5 miles assuming 213Wh/mi consumption, but you'll actually be able to travel (perhaps, if you are careful) maybe 7-8 miles (technically 2.5+12 = 14.5 (rated) miles but you'd probably have to drive exceedingly slowly to accomplish that and use all the energy without forcing an automatic shutdown).

It’s the rating the EPA gives for that trim. If you maintain that rate (kWH/hr) you would get the stated range.

This does appear to be true (aside from your unit issues), but it's worth noting that when you get this true efficiency, your actually displayed efficiency on the trip meter will look better (if you are seeing 213Wh/mi displayed, you're actually getting truly 218Wh/mi). Otherwise the numbers don't work out. It does seem to be true that 54.5kWh/250mi = 218Wh/mi. I'm just saying you can't rely on the trip meter to tell you when you're on target for that. You have to do better (about 213Wh/mi).

 

[Candleflame]

Do you have a source for this?

Stealth performance has always been the same as AWD just with supposidly a bigger fuse or smth to draw more power (or just a software gimping for the AWD). In Australia they even sold the stealth performance for 2 months as a All Wheel Drive Performance with optional performance tires.

My 2019 stealth performance had 311 miles on 100% charge when it was delivered and now with 6000km on it 310.

1 rated mile on the stealth performance is about 241W (150W/Km)

 

[SteveG3]

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.

Just found this thread yesterday. Alan thanks for sharing all the context and the helpful technique for finding the charging constant currently used in our particular cars.

I picked up a stealth P a few months ago in August.

Up until about October it would charge to 309-310 miles (in most cases, extrapolating from 80% or 90% charges). The car then dropped what it showed as the maximum range by about 10 miles, more or less overnight. Reading a few threads the past few days, I seem to have company re a drop about that size around October. It does seem reasonably likely that this drop in what's displayed came with a software update.

(disclaimer: I do realize there are much bigger concerns in the world, and the car is great either way, but, hey I'm human and I've been wondering... is the car nerfed ~10 miles? being a stealth built this July, am I perhaps going to see an increase beyond the original 310 miles as 2020 stealth's have 322 EPA rating (and I understand even better range with Tesla voluntarily underreporting the EPA number for the stealth)?)

So, I did a run over 50 km according to the protocol you posted here, and my car's constant came out to 245.6 : )

Now, from what you wrote in the post I'm replying to, you view a 245 wh/mile constant as consistent with the car really having 310 miles of EPA range available. I thought I also read that the constant Tesla uses for these calculations is 234 wh/miles. If you have a chance, can you explain whether both numbers are correct, and if so, in which context each applies?

 

[Candleflame]

Just found this thread yesterday. Alan thanks for sharing all the context and the helpful technique for finding the charging constant currently used in our particular cars.

I picked up a stealth P a few months ago in August.

Up until about October it would charge to 309-310 miles (in most cases, extrapolating from 80% or 90% charges). The car then dropped what it showed as the maximum range by about 10 miles, more or less overnight. Reading a few threads the past few days, I seem to have company re a drop about that size around October. It does seem reasonably likely that this drop in what's displayed came with a software update.

(disclaimer: I do realize there are much bigger concerns in the world, and the car is great either way, but, hey I'm human and I've been wondering... is the car nerfed ~10 miles? being a stealth built this July, am I perhaps going to see an increase beyond the original 310 miles as 2020 stealth's have 322 EPA rating (and I understand even better range with Tesla voluntarily underreporting the EPA number for the stealth)?)

So, I did a run over 50 km according to the protocol you posted here, and my car's constant came out to 245.6 : )

Now, from what you wrote in the post I'm replying to, you view a 245 wh/mile constant as consistent with the car really having 310 miles of EPA range available. I thought I also read that the constant Tesla uses for these calculations is 234 wh/miles. If you have a chance, can you explain whether both numbers are correct, and if so, in which context each applies?

sudden 10 mile drop sounds like needs to be charged to 100% to see the true range. the displayed range of the car is using 150w/km for the typical range calculation.

if you run the car over 50km and use the rwnge/energy display this uses actual energy used and that has nothing to do with the typical range. theres also lots of factors affecting energy consumption i. e. ac, wind etc

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

So, I did a run over 50 km according to the protocol you posted here, and my car's constant came out to 245.6 : )

Yes that is consistent with your 100% charge being 310 (at least it use to be!). Thanks for confirming with a 2020 Stealth.

I thought I also read that the constant Tesla uses for these calculations is 234 wh/miles

That is the discharge “constant.” It is not truly perfectly constant. For whatever reason it is different than the charging constant. If you look at the Lines & Constants post I link to periodically, it explains the differences.

 

[SteveG3]

Yes that is consistent with your 100% charge being 310 (at least it use to be!). Thanks for confirming with a 2020 Stealth.



That is the discharge “constant.” It is not truly perfectly constant. For whatever reason it is different than the charging constant. If you look at the Lines & Constants post I link to periodically, it explains the differences.

great and appreciate the reply. will see if I can understand the difference between those constants by looking at that thread.

 

[SteveG3]

sudden 10 mile drop sounds like needs to be charged to 100% to see the true range. the displayed range of the car is using 150w/km for the typical range calculation.

if you run the car over 50km and use the rwnge/energy display this uses actual energy used and that has nothing to do with the typical range. theres also lots of factors affecting energy consumption i. e. ac, wind etc

Thanks. I did charge to 100% three times. I also did a couple of cycles of over 90% and under 20% and let the car sit for a few hours after each.

The over 90% under 20% cycles didn’t seem to do anything.


Some interesting results with the 100% charges. Car would charge to 301 or 302, and from there miles would not go up, but, my sceen showed the energy coming in at over 20 miles an hour (kw in the high 20s). I’d let the car sit like that for 10 to 20 minutes. The rate of displayed incoming charge would work its way down but, it wasn’t nil.

The first time I was hoping I’d drive off and that 301 miles of range that didn’t budge for 15 or so minutes of charging would stay put for a few miles of driving to account for what my screen implied was additional added energy. Didn’t happen. Second time I did this, that’s exactly what happened. I drove for about 5 miles be for the range ticked down 1 mile on the cars display. 3rd time I did this I got the same results as the first time.

 

[hmmwv]

Just saw your post above...SR+ 2020 with 248 rated miles at 100%. Just remember that you need to have three significant figures in all of the inputs to the formula for the result to be reasonably accurate. You can also swap between 5/15/30 miles and get three different calculations (which should all give the same value approximately). But in all cases you need to have three significant digits on all three inputs. It is best to do it in Park when nothing is changing.

Swap to km if necessary (and for best precision). The result will be in Wh/rkm which can be multiplied by 1.609 to get Wh/rmi.

The higher your SoC at the time of calculation, the better precision you'll have.

I just did another calculation as this is the first time I charged the car from a fairly low state of charge (10% to 81%). My average is 225wh/mi, projected miles is 189mi, rated range is 202mi, which again gave me a constant of 210Wh/rmi. I changed to 5 and 15 mileage average and the results are almost identical. Probably my number still has some errors, but I think it's safe to say 2020 SR+ definitely has a constant that's at or below 213Wh/rmi.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I just did another calculation as this is the first time I charged the car from a fairly low state of charge (10% to 81%). My average is 225wh/mi, projected miles is 189mi, rated range is 202mi, which again gave me a constant of 210Wh/rmi. I changed to 5 and 15 mileage average and the results are almost identical. Probably my number still has some errors, but I think it's safe to say 2020 SR+ definitely has a constant that's at or below 213Wh/rmi.

This isn't entirely surprising. If you use an available energy of ~52.6kWh (that's what the 2019 SR+ used), which is actually very close to what the Tesla test SR+ actually had (it seemed to have an unusually wimpy battery in the test, containing only 52.7kWh - the 2019 had 54.5kWh!), then it works out to the EPA result being 52.6kWh used to go 250 EPA miles, which is 210Wh/rmi.

There have been reports of a higher value (213Wh/rmi), but that was with prior software. Are you running 2020.4.1? Does your 100% projected range now solidly sit at 250 rated miles? (These prior reports showed 100% at 248 rated miles...and 248rmi*213Wh/rmi is relatively close to 250rmi*210Wh/rmi...not a coincidence...) I would expect it now does go to 250 rated miles rather than 248 rated miles.

In my tracking spreadsheet - this is still a work in progress - I made adjustments to available energy to "fit" people's reported constant - and for the SR+ it was weird (wrong) because I had to ADD energy, but again there may have been an intermediate stage which did not match the EPA results (that's what happened for the Performance 2020 constants until 2020.4.1, and looks like it happened here too).

Would be good to get more 2020 owners to chime in with their values but this seems like a pretty solid report. There was a pretty clear picture reported previously showing a 213Wh/rmi value, though - so again to me it seems like there was some sort of middle step, where the rated miles at 100% didn't align with the 250 rated number...but with 2020.4.1 perhaps that is finally resolved.

 

[diezel_dave]

My charging screen in the app estimates 320 mile range now that I am on 2020.4.1. Before this software, it never went above 310.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

My charging screen in the app estimates 320 mile range now that I am on 2020.4.1. Before this software, it never went above 310.

Yep, as expected. No changes really (except perhaps efficiency changes but you probably already had those). Just a new constant, 241Wh/rmi rather than your previous 245Wh/rmi.

Updated my tracking spreadsheet, now that everything is matching EPA results.

 

[dandrewk]

My charging screen in the app estimates 320 mile range now that I am on 2020.4.1. Before this software, it never went above 310.

Got update last night, but wife has car, so can't immediately check is same with mine.

However, looking at the "battery health" in Stats app, I see a ton of dots around the 310 line, and a single dot (today) on the 320 line. Checking with TeslaFi, I see this:

So it looks like 320 is the new rating. The latest range estimate on the order page shows 322. But I'm not complaining. So the new target Wh/m (based on 75 kW/h) would be 234.