TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker or making a Paypal contribution here: paypal.me/SupportTMC

"Rated Range" = 260Wh/mile on 5.9? Also, reduced capacity?

Discussion in 'Model S: Battery & Charging' started by theapple, Apr 2, 2014.

  1. theapple

    theapple Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2013
    Messages:
    20
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    Had my S60 serviced on 3/27. Got a new drive unit and the 5.9 upgrade. Since then, I've noticed an increase in displayed range but an apparent decrease in actual battery capacity. For example, I used 19.1kWh of battery today, but my capacity indicator dropped from 80% to 40%, suggesting I only have ~50kWh total (after 8600 miles). I also averaged just 257Wh/mile but watched rated range drop from 155 to 83 while driving 74 miles. I also limped into a charger on empty ("CHARGE NOW") the other night after charging to 90% then burning just 47.5kWh. From this zero point I did a full 100% charge (to refresh the battery capacity measurement), but it doesn't seem to have helped. Capacity was fine before the service. And yes, I made sure my display is not on 'ideal' range (which would still suggest loss of capacity).

    Any thoughts/suggestions before I make ANOTHER call to service? Thanks.
     
  2. Rodolfo Paiz

    Rodolfo Paiz P85 "Plug and Play"

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2012
    Messages:
    681
    Location:
    Miami, FL
    No, I think this is precisely the kind of curiosity/concern that warrants a conversation with service, so they can answer your questions and educate you while figuring out if there's a problem... and if there is, solving it.
     
  3. Kraken

    Kraken Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    799
    Location:
    Voltageville, CA
    i think they adjusted a lot, but further hid the portion below zero (both useable and Unuseable) so it really looks like zero at zero miles, even if there is more left for safety. I think the goal was to get people to stop looking for what is below zero and treat it like zero. I don't know about the rated though...
     
  4. ckessel

    ckessel Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2011
    Messages:
    4,266
    I don't think it'd be legal for Tesla to arbitrarily change the rated range as that's EPA determined. Tesla can't just say "Eh, we'll call it 260Wh/mile for this release".
     
  5. AmpedRealtor

    AmpedRealtor Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,688
    Location:
    Buckeye, AZ
    I'm pretty sure the rated range display has nothing to do with EPA other than the fact that Tesla initially wrote their algorithm to reflect the EPA number, but there is certainly no requirement for Tesla to do so. The range estimate is determined by an algorithm of Tesla's choosing. An ICE vehicle's range estimate is in no way tied to its EPA estimate. Tesla simply mirrored the EPA estimate in its rated range algorithm, but obviously has decided to change it over time. The car is still EPA rated at 265 miles for 85 kWh regardless of what the dashboard displays. Range estimate (dashboard) and EPA estimate are different things. Things have changed based upon user feedback and actual field data. The purpose for this estimate is to provide a realistic range estimate to drivers, which has nothing to do with EPA.
     
  6. brianman

    brianman Burrito Founder

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    15,487
    I wouldn't be surprised to see Rated renamed in a future firmware to avoid any risk of legal association of this metric with the EPA numbers.
     
  7. dirkhh

    dirkhh Middle-aged Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2013
    Messages:
    3,645
    Location:
    Portland, OR, USA
    Don't they call it "typical" in the German localization?
     
  8. brianman

    brianman Burrito Founder

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    15,487
    Yup.
     
  9. zdre

    zdre 40kWh Model S P6415

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2010
    Messages:
    268
    Location:
    St. Louis
    I have a 40, and my actual range seems to have improved with 5.9. The Ideal range shows 160mi once again, and I seem to be able to match this estimate when I am getting 260Wh/mi. With 5.8 firmware, the car was only charging to 140mi Ideal range, and I was not able to get over that stated range. I only have a few data points for this apparent improvement, so I need some more time to verify.
     
  10. kendallpb

    kendallpb Model S: P 8061

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,185
    Location:
    MD, USA
    Why? It's not like the EPA has a trademark on the word "rated"...if it says EPA anywhere they can simply remove it and call it "Rated" instead of "EPA Rated" if they want, or even "Tesla rated." (I don't recall if the UI actually says who rates it however many miles I see.)
     
  11. AmpedRealtor

    AmpedRealtor Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,688
    Location:
    Buckeye, AZ
    I like the word "typical" instead of "rated". Typical and Ideal.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Or "Realistic" and "Optimistic"...
     
  12. brianman

    brianman Burrito Founder

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    15,487
    I kind of prefer California ("Rated") and Jerry ("Ideal").

    To be clear: This is a compliment to Jerry.

    - - - Updated - - -

    The issue is that it's completely reasonable for mere mortals to assume that "Rated" (displayed in the car UI) consumption would be identical to the Wh/mi metric reported for the official EPA test. This interpretation removes any flexibility for Tesla to "adjust" this number across vehicles, across time, etc.
     
  13. SarahsDad

    SarahsDad Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2013
    Messages:
    181
    Location:
    NC
    First long drive on 5.9 on my P85+ shows my rated range right around 300 Wh/mi. In other words when I average 299 Wh/mi over 30 min, the average "projected" range (76mi) matches the "rated" range (77mi) in the attached photos (sorry for the fingerprints).

    IMG_2991.JPG IMG_2993.JPG

    Also, I got much better range on this trip overall - This was a spirited drive up to the mountains and back, 3,000ft elevation change each way, 70-75mph on the highway, 80 degrees, full A/C. My lifetime average Wh/mi is 362 and on this trip got 310! Is this all due to lowering (mine's set to lower at 55MPH) or a software tweak (or just warmer weather)?

    IMG_2994.JPG
     

Share This Page