On European cars, the wording is different. 'Rated' is not what is 'rated in the US'. In Europe, 'rated' is what is called 'ideal' here in the US. On EU cars you need to look at 'typical' range.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
- Thread starter Dutchmeeuw
- Start date
On European cars, the wording is different. 'Rated' is not what is 'rated in the US'. In Europe, 'rated' is what is called 'ideal' here in the US. On EU cars you need to look at 'typical' range.
BigNick
Infamous Fat Sweaty Guy
4.188V average at 100% SOC, measured about 5 minutes after disconnecting charge cable.
After driving two miles immediately afterward, the regen limit disappeared from the IC.
After driving two miles immediately afterward, the regen limit disappeared from the IC.
Just a note about looking at CAN bus data. The cell difference is dependent on the state of charge. At a low state of charge the difference between the cells is usually higher. Approx double of what it is when the battery is 90% or higher charged.
Also, and this is very important, the cell voltages are measured sequentially and it takes aprox 2 seconds to get all cell groups updated. If you have the AC running that is known to take power at a varying rate, you get a bad reading. Same is true when you charge or drive the car. You are getting too much noise. To get a good reading, charge the car to 90% or higher, turn of charging, let the car sit for a 5 minutes, make sure the AC and fans are off, then check the balance.
One of the cars I looked at had great balance but just as Jason mentioned, one module was lower than the rest. My own car is unaffected so far so I can't provide that data. If anyone is affected and in the OC area, I can connect and get some data that will hopefully help make the case.
Also, and this is very important, the cell voltages are measured sequentially and it takes aprox 2 seconds to get all cell groups updated. If you have the AC running that is known to take power at a varying rate, you get a bad reading. Same is true when you charge or drive the car. You are getting too much noise. To get a good reading, charge the car to 90% or higher, turn of charging, let the car sit for a 5 minutes, make sure the AC and fans are off, then check the balance.
One of the cars I looked at had great balance but just as Jason mentioned, one module was lower than the rest. My own car is unaffected so far so I can't provide that data. If anyone is affected and in the OC area, I can connect and get some data that will hopefully help make the case.
jread
Member
An update on my situation. Last week drove 340 miles to spend a week at Lake Havasu in my 2014 P85DL. My original 252 range had gone down to 238 with normal degradation prior to the latest software. Now it is less than 209 as I tried to charge to 100% but it showed 10 minutes left for half an hour at 206 and down to 3kw. With the recommended 20 minutes charging time at Needles to reach 29 Palms I took off as there were 50 miles to spare. Right away it says I should drive below 75 mph which I ignored and drove 80. But as I neared 29 Palms and my trip remaining distance was the same as the estimated range left I slowed down. A few hundred feet from the Supercharger I was down to 0 but made it. The point is that my actual range has been reduced.
When I got home I sold my Tesla at a reduced price and reordered my Raven performance with ludicrous which I had canceled because I could not sell it. Luckily it was still available as they had turned it into a demo but it only had 58 miles on it. I will pick it up next week.
When I got home I sold my Tesla at a reduced price and reordered my Raven performance with ludicrous which I had canceled because I could not sell it. Luckily it was still available as they had turned it into a demo but it only had 58 miles on it. I will pick it up next week.
So that I understand correctly, when you bought the car it was factory rated for 232 miles, and prior to the update it was still 232, and now it is 205 or so since the update? Which would mean about 12% total degradation since new based on rated miles?
Also, your screen shot of the 170 miles charging doesn't tell much without showing the kWh added for those miles, which you get by switching the screen to percent.
DJRas
Member
I too can take readings from anybody interested in contributing data.
I live in Victorville, CA and work in Carlsbad, CA. I travel the I-15 corridor. So can meet at any supercharger along the way. It takes just a few minutes to get useful data.
I am interested in both affected cars an unaffected cars.
I live in Victorville, CA and work in Carlsbad, CA. I travel the I-15 corridor. So can meet at any supercharger along the way. It takes just a few minutes to get useful data.
I am interested in both affected cars an unaffected cars.
The photo shows that in December I had a rated (ideal) range of 229 miles at around 98% in December, roll in today and I get 205 at 100%. I also have photos of kWh gone in from 11% to 96%, before and after the update.
So I would say then you show about 12% degradation (205/232), but you took the whole hit in miles at one time, right after the update. Would you agree?
By the way, if the range calculation has changed in the meanwhile (as it seems to have?), wouldn’t the degradation (or range limitation as the case may be) be larger than shown?
I understand the difference, typical (US rated) dropped from 184 to 162 miles after update.
And that is 12% degradation, same as in rated miles. Do you have a before the update screen shot of scan my Tesla to share?
I had a chance to test out a non-urban supercharger today – first time since the Gimpening:
- Starting at a well-primed 30% charge (driven roughly 25 miles with the nav set to the supercharger, ambient temperature in the low-to-mid 70s°F), power delivery ramped up normally to ~86-87 kW (peak with this battery pack is 90 kW), held for a few seconds, then rapidly declined into the mid-to-upper 70s — settling to 72 kW around 32%, sloping off fairly normally from there.
- At 70% charge, power delivery was ~56 kW; at 80% ~48 kW, and at 90% ~25 kW — dropping off rather precipitously from there.
- At 100% charge, rated range was displayed at 221 miles with ~66.8 kWh stored in the battery (right in line with previous estimations), while power delivery trickled in at 2 kW.
- Power delivery continued between 1-2 kW until the charger finally cut itself off with 226 miles rated (256 ideal) and ~68 kWh stored; interestingly, because I had already programed my next destination, the energy gauge's trip estimation displayed this extra range with 100% easily for the first couple miles… I wish I'd taken a picture, because after canceling and reprograming the route, it recalculated with the "new" 100%.
- Even though available regen was displayed down to ~20 kW, I had zero regen available for the first ~1%; by 98% the hash marks had disappeared, but I continued to see reduced regen all the way down to 93% at least… not as bad as when the update was first loaded (before I'd lost the majority of capacity the update would eventually take), but still not exactly ideal.
- After driving 23.4 miles to the next destination — dropping 13%, consuming 8.6 kWh and averaging 367 Wh/mi, rated range was displayed at 195 miles, and again 100% charge calculated out to ~66.75 kWh (± .25 kWh).
Last edited:
The math may be more complicated than that, because at some point this may have been accompanied by Tesla changing the rated range calculation. If the before number comes from the 295 Wh/mile era and after number from 276 Wh/mile, the difference would be significantly larger than 12%.
See discussion earlier in the thread eg:
Well if the change from 295 Wh/mile to 276 Wh/mile is true, then certainly some ”masking” happened there?
Given how silently Tesla has affected performance specifications on several occasions (eg launch limitations and nerfing DC charging), it would not surprise me that would happen.
If they changed the rated range calculation such that they made the loss of range from the update “appear” less severe than it really was, that would be scandalous. But I don’t think Tesla did that.
Similar threads
