Range increase (split from Master Thread: 2019.40.2)

[AlanSubie4Life]

You would probably see 322 rated miles at a full charge with only 1500 miles.

So the new target Wh/m would be 234.

Not sure what you mean by target.

To get the actual rated range you need to get 241Wh/mi (to a completely dead battery).

However, due to the buffer, if you want mile for displayed rated mile rolloff you’ll need to get about 226Wh/mi, as displayed on the trip meter.

It would be AWESOME if someone with a new car could very very carefully measure that - I actually suspect that for new cars that one-for-one rolloff trip meter display could end up being closer to 231Wh/mi (each displayed rated mile contains about 231Wh rather than 226Wh, because they are inflated to start with). If it did inflate beyond 226Wh/rmi that would be confirming evidence of that inflation theory (I have no way to check myself since my car now has a loss of rated miles so no more inflation). 226Wh/rmi is the “endpoint” that you would see once your car starts showing rated mile loss. (It is 230Wh/rmi for my vehicle and older AWD vehicles with less than 310 rated miles at 100%.)

Math here is 77.6kWh/322rmi = 241Wh/rmi

But displayed rated miles contain only 95.5% of the pack energy (buffer is 4.5%), so:

0.955*77.6kWh/322rmi(display) = 230Wh/rmi(display), but there is usually a couple % heat loss/uncounted energy so you will see ~226Wh/rmi(display).

But if your pack actually starts at 79kWh (quite possible - most of the test vehicles did), then they have to fit more energy into those 322 miles, so all of these numbers get inflated until your capacity drops below 77.6kWh.

Can see the spreadsheet above with the summary. Basically all that division is being done behind the scenes there. I’ll publish it once I think it is mostly ok.

 

[diezel_dave]

Just checked the app again and now it's saying 322 miles after warming the battery a bit.

 

[KenC]

I know it's just a new coefficient, but it'll be nice to see a new higher range estimate. My download is going very slowly, only up to 8%.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I know it's just a new coefficient, but it'll be nice to see a new higher range estimate. My download is going very slowly, only up to 8%.

But you won't see the higher number - you don't have a 2020, IIRC. AFAIK, this 2020.4.1 change only affects 2020 vehicles (and that will probably remain the case, regardless of whether efficiency is improved (and the same) on all vehicles or not).

However, you can take solace in knowing your rated miles are more energetic (245Wh, perhaps inflated to as much as 256Wh (!!!) on a brand new car) than those newfangled 2020 rated miles (241Wh, perhaps inflated to as much as 245Wh on a brand new car).

 

[dandrewk]

But you won't see the higher number - you don't have a 2020, IIRC. AFAIK, this 2020.4.1 change only affects 2020 vehicles (and that will probably remain the case, regardless of whether efficiency is improved (and the same) on all vehicles or not).

However, you can take solace in knowing your rated miles are more energetic (245Wh, swelling to as much as 256Wh (!!!) on a brand new car) than those newfangled 2020 rated miles (241Wh, swelling to as much as 245Wh on a brand new car).

I believe that @diezel_dave has MY 2020, as do I. The 322 range is the same as the current LR/AWD range on order page.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I believe that @diezel_dave has MY 2020, as do I.

Yeah, I was speaking to @KenC; you guys both with 2020s obviously will see 322 miles (finally).

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Is the increase range anything to do with the increase in cold tyre pressures (42 to 45psi) found on some 2020 vehicle stickers?

Replying to your question from a different thread because it is more appropriate to address here.

No, it is not. The Tesla documents outlining their EPA compliance testing for 2020 indicate a 42PSI tire pressure for Tesla's Fremont dyno testing, just as it was in 2018/2019.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Interesting I thought that it would be an across the board update to anything with the same motor/battery/aero setup since there is no reason a 2019 wouldn't get the same EPA rati g as a 2020 right?

Can also confirm for my 2020 I flipped to range display before the update and it did go up after the update. Max at 100% also went from 309 to 319.

Not like that actually matters but interesting they would not also update on the exact same 2019 setup

Replying here so as not to hijack that other thread.

Remember the rated range numbers don't actually necessarily reflect the actual range! They are potentially decoupled from the efficiency of the vehicle. It's entirely possible the 2019 (and even 2018!) vehicles will have equal efficiency and range as the 2020 vehicles if the hardware allows it. They just won't show it - but a real world side-by-side test with no other variables might well result in equal range for a vehicle that shows 310 miles at a full charge vs. one that shows 322 miles.

As a specific example, if you switch your wheel configuration to 20" in the service menu, your rated range will go down to 299 @ 100%. But your actual range will not change at all! All that matters is available energy and the efficiency, and this is not necessarily reflected in the range number.

Increasing the displayed rated range of older vehicles would only upset people - because those with degradation who understand the meaning of it would say: "why are you hiding my degradation with a meaningless reduction of the constant that makes my rated miles @ 100% a higher value, but does not change my actual range?" So they stick with their original EPA rating regardless of whether it would have better results if it were retested.

 

[bizarro252]

Replying here so as not to hijack that other thread.

Remember the rated range numbers don't actually necessarily reflect the actual range! They are potentially decoupled from the efficiency of the vehicle. It's entirely possible the 2019 (and even 2018!) vehicles will have equal efficiency and range as the 2020 vehicles if the hardware allows it. They just won't show it - but a real world side-by-side test with no other variables might well result in equal range for a vehicle that shows 310 miles at a full charge vs. one that shows 322 miles.

As a specific example, if you switch your wheel configuration to 20" in the service menu, your rated range will go down to 299 @ 100%. But your actual range will not change at all! All that matters is available energy and the efficiency, and this is not necessarily reflected in the range number.

Increasing the displayed rated range of older vehicles would only upset people - because those with degradation who understand the meaning of it would say: "why are you hiding my degradation with a meaningless reduction of the constant that makes my rated miles @ 100% a higher value, but does not change my actual range?" So they stick with their original EPA rating regardless of whether it would have better results if it were retested.

That makes perfect sense thank you for the reply

 

[ran349]

But if your pack actually starts at 79kWh (quite possible - most of the test vehicles did), then they have to fit more energy into those 322 miles, so all of these numbers get inflated until your capacity drops below 77.6kWh.

Can see the spreadsheet above with the summary. Basically all that division is being done behind the scenes there. I’ll publish it once I think it is mostly ok.

We need someone with the 2020 range update to post Scan My Tesla or TM-Spy data to see what they are actually doing.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

We need someone with the 2020 range update to post Scan My Tesla or TM-Spy data to see what they are actually doing.

Yes, that would be cool to see. People have to hurry before their battery degrades to close to 77.6kWh, though! It is probably dropping like a rock when brand new...

The procedure would be to carefully observe remaining capacity vs rated miles remaining, for a battery at thermal equilibrium. Looking for just a couple percent (1-2%) difference here in the Wh/rmi, so the observations have to be made very carefully (wide range of SoC will make it easier).

I guess it would be sufficient to observe that a battery with 77.6kWh remaining (but not full) shows less than 322 (should about 316 for a full battery at 79kWh). And then a much later observation (degraded) showing that same battery at 77.6kWh with 322 rated miles.

 

[hmmwv]

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.

Yes I'm running 2020.4.1, however as I reported a month ago I'm already on the 210Wh/rmi constant. My rated range 202 miles at 81% (I can't seem to get 80% even), which translates to 249.4 at 100% SOC. This also proves your theory now all 2020 models will have their displayed rated range match EPA estimates.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Yes I'm running 2020.4.1, however as I reported a month ago I'm already on the 210Wh/rmi constant. My rated range 202 miles at 81% (I can't seem to get 80% even), which translates to 249.4 at 100% SOC. This also proves your theory now all 2020 models will have their displayed rated range match EPA estimates.
View attachment 506950

Cool. This means if you want to get 250 miles out of a 100% to 0% discharge you need to see about 199Wh/mi on the trip meter (due to having 95.5% of the energy to empty, and a little heat loss ). Can measure it if you want of course...would be interesting since you have high capacity.

 

[ran349]

I guess it would be sufficient to observe that a battery with 77.6kWh remaining (but not full) shows less than 322 (should about 316 for a full battery at 79kWh). And then a much later observation (degraded) showing that same battery at 77.6kWh with 322 rated miles.

By that scenario, if a new battery has 79 kWh and shows 322 rated miles, that would be a charge constant of 245, which is not consistent with the reported 241 value. And once the battery degrades to 77.6 kWh, if it then shows 322 miles, that would be a charge constant of 241.
Since the charge constant is a numeric value in the firmware, I don't see how it could or would change just because the battery degrades. It seems like it would require a firmware update to actually change the constant value.
It seems more likely that the new battery would show "only" 77.6 kWh at the beginning, which is 322 miles at a charge constant of 241, which is the value being reported.

If that was true, of course, then the discharge rate or "discharge constant" might be higher than you might normally predict, if the actual capacity of the battery was closer to 79 kWh, as the dyno test results reported.
What I said may be confusing, but regardless, we need to see some real numbers to figure out exactly what is happening.

Tesla could implement this in a number of ways, with the only real constraint on them being that the 322 miles value is a legitimate number from the EPA test. Because that is the only spec value they provide from this, other than the EPA kWh/100 miles value that includes charging efficiency losses.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

By that scenario, if a new battery has 79 kWh and shows 322 rated miles, that would be a charge constant of 245, which is not consistent with the reported 241 value. And once the battery degrades to 77.6 kWh, if it then shows 322 miles, that would be a charge constant of 241.
Since the charge constant is a numeric value in the firmware, I don't see how it could or would change just because the battery degrades.

I’ve posted about this before, and I am not wedded to my theory, but just trying to reconcile a variety of pieces of information:

1) EPA docs typically show around 79kWh for discharge event. Some vehicles do show as low as 78kWh but it is rare. These are vehicles with 1000-4000 miles.
2) SMT data shows readings from new cars at 78kWh. These 2018 AWD cars show 310 rated miles of range, not more.
3) For older cars with range 310, we know the constant math works out to 245Wh/rmi*310rmi = 76kWh. (It’s now, in 2020, 77.6kWh with no apparent increase in the EPA vehicle capacities.)
4) Vehicles don’t seem to lose range for the first 5-6k miles typically, when they should be degrading FASTEST.
5) Bjorn videos show that trip meter constant for new vehicles tends to be higher than expected (like 234Wh/rmi for a 2018 AWD rather than the steady state 230Wh/rmi). Suggests inflated rated miles...
6) Brand new vehicles charged to max miles don’t stay “pinned” at max miles when you start driving. They immediately start discharging the miles. There’s not a hidden amount above the max line.
7) We know vehicles (2018) start to show loss of miles when SMT data drops below about 75.8kWh (will be 77.4kWh for 2020 so I expect them to show earlier degradation).
8) We know from SMT that the buffer does not hide the excess - for a car with 78kWh it is still 4.5% of that 78kWh (not (4.5% of 76kWh) + 2kWh ). So the excess is not hidden in the buffer.
9) We know the nominal value on the charging screen for the charging constant appears to always be 245Wh/rmi (I never looked closely enough when my car was new, but no reason it really has to change).
Anyway we know this charging constant does not represent energy added to the battery in any case (we know each displayed rated mile is 234Wh, 4.5% less than 245Wh (the EPA quantity)). So it’s just a number on the screen. And the value that Tesla chooses to use.
10) Note that 245Wh/rmi does not represent the EPA value. It is just picked by Tesla probably to account for battery variation so that everyone still starts at max even with varying starting energy contents.
11) Batteries have varying initial capacities but (nearly) everyone still starts at the max rated miles.

So somehow all of these observations need to be reconciled, so I choose the theory that they inflate the rated miles, but don’t require changing the constant. I think the main motivation for this is to allow everyone to start with a battery with the same number of miles, even though there may be small variation (a couple %) in initial capacity.

Anyway, as far as the constant needing to be changed in software for this theory to work, it really doesn’t. You can use one constant value, with a conditional to cover the case of how to display the rated miles when the capacity exceeds the limit.

 

[Radman415]

Hi all - adding to the thread. I just purchased a M3 LR AWD March 2020 build and my rated (displayed) range is 310 miles vs. 322 on the website and car window sticker. I’ve spoken to Tesla service, my delivery person, and anyone else I could and they have no clue. When I called Service the women I spoke to checked my battery and she said it was perfect. She also said the new M3s she’s been seeing have 322 miles of range. They are going to try and push the latest software to my car (I’m on 2019.35.108) to see if that changes anything. Maybe I have a M3 Stealth?

I’m within my 7 days and might just return the car - though I’m also Shelter in Place in SF, so hopefully Tesla extends the return window.

No real answer needed, just adding a data point to the thread.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Hi all - adding to the thread. I just purchased a M3 LR AWD March 2020 build and my rated (displayed) range is 310 miles vs. 322 on the website and car window sticker. I’ve spoken to Tesla service, my delivery person, and anyone else I could and they have no clue. When I called Service the women I spoke to checked my battery and she said it was perfect. She also said the new M3s she’s been seeing have 322 miles of range. They are going to try and push the latest software to my car (I’m on 2019.35.108) to see if that changes anything. Maybe I have a M3 Stealth?

I’m within my 7 days and might just return the car - though I’m also Shelter in Place in SF, so hopefully Tesla extends the return window.

No real answer needed, just adding a data point to the thread.

As answered in the other thread, you have nothing to worry about - you are on the old software, and once you are upgraded to something newer, you'll be good, and upgraded to the new constant. No need to return the car!

 

[diezel_dave]

Hi all - adding to the thread. I just purchased a M3 LR AWD March 2020 build and my rated (displayed) range is 310 miles vs. 322 on the website and car window sticker. I’ve spoken to Tesla service, my delivery person, and anyone else I could and they have no clue. When I called Service the women I spoke to checked my battery and she said it was perfect. She also said the new M3s she’s been seeing have 322 miles of range. They are going to try and push the latest software to my car (I’m on 2019.35.108) to see if that changes anything. Maybe I have a M3 Stealth?

I’m within my 7 days and might just return the car - though I’m also Shelter in Place in SF, so hopefully Tesla extends the return window.

No real answer needed, just adding a data point to the thread.

My stealth shows 322 miles so that isn't it. It's definitely your old software version. You'll be GTG once it gets updated. Not sure why they send cars out with that super old version.

 

[Candleflame]

My stealth shows 322 miles so that isn't it. It's definitely your old software version. You'll be GTG once it gets updated. Not sure why they send cars out with that super old version.

really? the AWD afaik is just 310miles? I certainly dont have 322 miles on a stealth awd performance.
not that it matters - its just a multiplier

 

[diezel_dave]

really? the AWD afaik is just 310miles? I certainly dont have 322 miles on a stealth awd performance.
not that it matters - its just a multiplier

Yep! Maybe because mine is a 2020? The website showed 322 miles when I ordered the car but it took a few software updates until the range meter updated to show 322.