V10 and Battery "Degradation"

[AlanSubie4Life]

I park at night with 15% expecting to make it to the Supercharger along my way the next day only to wake up with only 9% on the battery because the temperature dropped 20 degrees and now its raining, etc., etc., etc.

As I said, there are obvious exceptions. The car will warn you about parking with a low state of charge in cold conditions. It is a better idea to Supercharge when the car is warm, before the next day; it results in faster charging. Annoying?, yes, the way it is?, yes. Sometimes obviously makes no sense to go past your destination and then come back.

I lost 55 miles in three days due to Summon Standby. That was annoying. The losses while parked are problematic, and it would be nice to have a single master switch in the UI to use to set to a minimum drain condition without compromising any essential car functions. Otherwise, you have to turn off 5-6 different features to get to that condition.

 

[PhantomX]

Sentry used about one mile per hour last I checked.

Does it vary by the number of triggered events? It seems to drain more battery when I noticed a high number of events detected.

 

[PhantomX]

As I said, there are obvious exceptions. The car will warn you about parking with a low state of charge in cold conditions. It is a better idea to Supercharge when the car is warm, before the next day; it results in faster charging. Annoying?, yes, the way it is?, yes. Sometimes obviously makes no sense to go past your destination and then come back.

I lost 55 miles in three days due to Summon Standby. That was annoying. The losses while parked are problematic, and it would be nice to have a single master switch in the UI to use to set to a minimum drain condition without compromising any essential car functions. Otherwise, you have to turn off 5-6 different features to get to that condition.

That would be nice. The question I have in the back of my head though is why is the drain so high compared to other EV's? My i3 can be accessed via an app as well, so it shouldn't be that. I just wish the drain is lower so we don't get surprised when we need to really count on the range the car is supposed to provide.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

The question I have in the back of my head though is why is the drain so high compared to other EV's?

No one knows. Bad design mostly is my opinion. It's just not a priority for Tesla. However, things like Sentry mode, etc., do not count - those are features.

Basically, if the car is not sleeping, it consumes 150-250W. That really adds up if the car is not sleeping. They provided no way to top off the 12V battery without also turning on the rest of the car systems. This really adds up. If they just had made the DC-DC buck converter sort of "self-aware", they probably could realize much better vampire numbers (assuming no features are being used).

If you turn off data-sharing, turn off Sentry, turn off Summon Standby, turn off your dashcam (unplugging not required), turn off data sharing, turn off cabin overheat protection, and turn off Wifi, you can get down to "reasonable" drain levels, but it's still not great (you might see one mile per day).

My i3 can be accessed via an app as well, so it shouldn't be that.

No, it's not. The remote access features do cost a few watts but it is probably less than 5W (which isn't great but is not the primary issue).

 

[txwoodchuck]

Hope I'm not off topic. Last month I celebrated 1 year with my m3. I have 6400 miles. I have charged to the MAX about 4 times and the first 3 yielded @308-310 miles if my memory is accurate. A couples of weeks ago was time #4

When I got in it it showed 320 miles . 100% charged. I'm feeling pretty good about my battery.

 

[earthwormjim]

If you had done a continuous drive to 17% your trip meter would have read ~39.4kWh (188.5rmi * 209Wh/mi). So you lost 1.4kWh while parked.

Your recharge event is within 1% of expected (0.83*227rmi*219Wh/mi = 41.3kWh).

Overall you have 13rmi*209Wh/rmi = 2.7kWh less energy available (to be used on trip meter) at 100%, above zero rated miles remaining, than you did originally.

By the way, where did you get the 209wh/mi constant? The "rated" line on my SR+'s energy consumption graph corresponds to 215wh/mi.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

By the way, where did you get the 209wh/mi constant? The "rated" line on my SR+'s energy consumption graph corresponds to 215wh/mi.

It’s from @darth_vad3r data. We have a thread where he provided the numbers. I can’t verify it myself.
However, easy enough to verify; just note used rated miles and kWh used on the trip meter (three significant figures) for a sufficiently long continuous drive.

I think I saw a post here a week ago or so which allowed me to verify it as well (it provided the correct information).

I’m surprised your rated line is at 215Wh/mi on the Energy Consumption graph. I would expect that line to be located at 220-225Wh/mi to be consistent with what I see on my car. (AWD P: Line is at 250Wh/rmi, calculation includes graph is done with 245Wh/rmi, charging is 245Wh/rmi, and discharge is 230Wh/rmi.)

Picture of my screen showing calculation uses 245Wh/rmi, and line is at 250Wh/rmi.

Again, rated miles tick off at 230Wh per rated mile.

 

[earthwormjim]

Hmm, I need to take pictures of it, I swear the line moved! Half way through my drive I was right at 215wh/mi, and that was centered on the rated line perfectly. Now with the car parked, I had 222wh/mi and the rated line is a few pixels above 222.

Is temperature factored into the line?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Hmm, I need to take pictures of it, I swear the line moved! Half way through my drive I was right at 215wh/mi, and that was centered on the rated line perfectly. Now with the car parked, I had 222wh/mi and the rated line is a few pixels above 222.

Is temperature factored into the line?

No, temperature does not affect it AFAIK. Something you can keep an eye on just in case.

Anyway from other posts here I gather the line is around 224/225Wh/rmi. Seems about right based on your picture. Anyway, if you back the picture out and capture the predicted range and your rated miles remaining, you will see that ~219Wh/rmi is used for the calculation. (And 209Wh/rmi is the actual value relating trip meter to rated miles use, but you have to do a drive to determine that.)

 

[ElectricOrgan]

As I said, there are obvious exceptions. The car will warn you about parking with a low state of charge in cold conditions. It is a better idea to Supercharge when the car is warm, before the next day; it results in faster charging. Annoying?, yes, the way it is?, yes. Sometimes obviously makes no sense to go past your destination and then come back.

Supercharge the day before??? Where would I do that exactly??? There is no charging for 25 miles from where I stay each weekend. I charge on the way there, about 55 miles away. I do about 100 miles local driving and have a hard time making it back to the same Supercharger. This last weekend I had to level 2 charge for about an hour just to make it to a closer urban charger. By then it was so late most restaurants were closing. I lucked out and found a place that was open and once I paid the check I only had to wait another 10 minutes for the car to be ready to go.

I lost 55 miles in three days due to Summon Standby. That was annoying. The losses while parked are problematic, and it would be nice to have a single master switch in the UI to use to set to a minimum drain condition without compromising any essential car functions. Otherwise, you have to turn off 5-6 different features to get to that condition.

Yes, but that would be too easy. Tesla might figure that out in a few more years. I think it was a user suggestion to turn on the battery heater in cold conditions so on reaching a Supercharger the battery would be ready to charge at full speed. I don't think Tesla did this to benefit car owners since it is not optional, there's no on/off switch. I think they did it to optimize utility of the Superchargers. I believe the cash crunch is a major factor in everything they do these days and this is an example of them optimizing Supercharger time rather than building a few more charger. At least I can bypass this by not setting the Supercharger as my destination.

 

[ElectricOrgan]

That would be nice. The question I have in the back of my head though is why is the drain so high compared to other EV's? My i3 can be accessed via an app as well, so it shouldn't be that. I just wish the drain is lower so we don't get surprised when we need to really count on the range the car is supposed to provide.

With time you will find charging to be more and more available. Even if you don't need a big top off, a level 2 charger can be useful to counter the various vampire drains. If you stop to shop you will be able to plug in for 5 kWh. If you stop to eat you can charge and get 5 kWh. While this might not be enough to replace a top off at a Supercharger, it will help stretch your range. But we need to be a bit more vocal with merchants.

I've never gotten a reply from putting a note in the Costco suggestion box (can you believe how 1960's that is?) but hope springs eternal. Periodically I drop them a note that they need to join the rest of us in the 21st century.

 

[Wilsonwww]

After 11500kms I did my first full charge 6% drop from new

 

[earthwormjim]

No, temperature does not affect it AFAIK. Something you can keep an eye on just in case.

Anyway from other posts here I gather the line is around 224/225Wh/rmi. Seems about right based on your picture. Anyway, if you back the picture out and capture the predicted range and your rated miles remaining, you will see that ~219Wh/rmi is used for the calculation. (And 209Wh/rmi is the actual value relating trip meter to rated miles use, but you have to do a drive to determine that.)

I'm still quite certain at some point the car showed the rated line as 215wh/mi, that number stuck in my head and I remember always aiming for 215wh/mi on my daily commutes. I don't have pictures of it though, so take this with a grain of salt.

That might explain my max range discrepancy too between post and pre V10. When I was reverse calculating what 100% full was, it was always between 237-240 miles (rounding errors). With my post V10 227 max range and 225wh/mi, that works out to 51kwh of battery capacity. 51kwh of battery capacity at 215wh/mi works out to 237 miles of range, my previous max range.

So possibly with V10, my car's constant number was adjusted to 225wh/mi. Thus I really don't have much of any battery degradation. My concern is not what the rated number shows, just what my actual battery capacity is.

I really wish Tesla would just display kwh of capacity, would immensely help with confusion. Plus that's directly relatable to ICE cars. They often display fuel capacity in volume, not just %, and they have a readily published fuel capacity in volume.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

So possibly with V10, my car's constant number was adjusted to 225wh/mi. Thus I really don't have much of any battery degradation. My concern is not what the rated number shows, just what my actual battery capacity is.

What we do know is that prior to V10, the SR/SR+ consumption and charging constants were 209Wh/mi and 219Wh/mi, respectively (that's documented elsewhere here). They have been that way for quite a few months at least (probably since the first SR+ car was delivered).

So, unless you can now accurately measure a new, higher consumption constant, using the methods suggested, nothing has changed as far as the Wh per rated mile.

EDIT: (Edited above to say the consumption constant would now need to be higher if your available energy was unchanged and you now have fewer rated miles available at 100%). As I say above, think it's pretty unlikely that it has changed, but only measurement can confirm that. The evidence of the line position and consistency vs. other vehicles (line is 5Wh/rmi too high, relative to the calculations) suggests no change.

 

[earthwormjim]

What we do know is that prior to V10, the SR/SR+ consumption and charging constants were 209Wh/mi and 219Wh/mi, respectively (that's documented elsewhere here). They have been that way for quite a few months at least (probably since the first SR+ car was delivered).

So, unless you can now accurately measure a new, higher consumption constant, using the methods suggested, nothing has changed as far as the Wh per rated mile.

EDIT: (Edited above to say the consumption constant would now need to be higher if your available energy was unchanged and you now have fewer rated miles available at 100%). As I say above, think it's pretty unlikely that it has changed, but only measurement can confirm that. The evidence of the line position and consistency vs. other vehicles (line is 5Wh/rmi too high, relative to the calculations) suggests no change.

When I'm on my way home today, I'll take a picture of the rated miles vs. calculated miles on the graph, when I'm right at 225wh/mi. See if they match or not.

I find it very odd that the rated line wouldn't match the rated miles constant though. What's the point in having the rated line?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I find it very odd that the rated line wouldn't match the rated miles constant though. What's the point in having the rated line?

Who knows. Based on other reports here, pretty sure you're going to find 219Wh/rmi is what is used for the calculation for the SR.

And again, note that ACTUAL ticks in the rated miles are at 209Wh/rmi for the SR.

 

[BE_M3]

I have found on my 2018 LR AWD that since the software update that downloaded last Monday, 2019.32.12.2, that my car looses 6 miles per day. before the download it was about 1-2 miles per day

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I have found on my 2018 LR AWD that since the software update that downloaded last Monday, 2019.32.12.2, that my car looses 6 miles per day. before the download it was about 1-2 miles per day

You have EAP. Make sure you have Smart Summon Standby Mode turned off. This will drain significantly everywhere except at home, your work, and your favorites (if they are defined). It drains at least 16 miles per day if it is left away from all of these locations all day.

 

[TomLee]

So update after doing a 3rd 100% charge, to 10% discharge and back to 100% charge. I'm left with 227 miles (100% charge) of displayed range after doing this on my SR+. Consumption meter shows that 100% down to 17% used 38kwh of energy, recharge display showed ~41kwh. This was not done in one drive, but over two days. This works out to a hypothetical battery capacity of 45.7 kwh. The car did not use 5kwh while sitting over night, lost at most 2% capacity according to battery % displayed.

Something definitely seems up with the battery, all 3 rounds of full charging and heavily discharging all work out to yield a theoretical battery capacity of 45kwh +/- 1kwh. Quite a bit lower than expected for an SR+, and certainly can't be accounted for by rounding errors.

Doing this has netted me 7 miles of increased displayed range, after being stuck at exactly 220 miles of range post V10 update. I suppose that's an improvement, but it definitely seems like I have lost capacity in some way. Debating setting up a service appointment. I think I'll wait a few more weeks, see what happens. Car has 6076 miles now, owned it since early June 2019.

Please don't reply with stating the range meter in miles doesn't mean actual miles you can drive, that's not how I'm using it. It is a meter of battery capacity, based on the wh/mi constant Tesla uses.

I have similar recordings for each charging session. The battery capacity you calculated was based on "used kWh", 38kWh / (100-17)% = 45.78kWh, if I understand it correctly. However, the battery used on that screen is only for driving. The energy it used while parking, more so when you said your log is between two days, was not included. The difference between charged and discharged energy (41 - 38 = 3kWh) was the loss while sitting idle. I would calculate the battery capacity using energy that put back into the battery, 41kWh in your case, 41kWh / (100-17)% = 49.4 kWh. This way, I have my battery calculated around 51kWh. The number does fluctuate from 49kWh to 52kWh from time to time. So I ended up using (added miles/rated miles) as a reference of % energy charged for the car. With the new method that I have, battery capacity shows 52.4 +-0.1 kWh. I know my calculation is still rough, but it serves my needs (to know the real consumption).

A very interesting fact of this is, when you look at the loss, 3kWh in your case, you can average out the power your Tesla is using while parked: 3kWh / 48hr = 62.5 Watts.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

the difference between charged and discharged energy (41 - 38 = 3kWh) was the loss while sitting idle.

Keep in mind that charging uses a different constant (219Wh/rmi) than discharging (209Wh/rmi). These are SR numbers.

A very interesting fact of this is, when you look at the loss, 3kWh in your case, you can average out the power your Tesla is using while parked: 3kWh / 48hr = 62.5 Watts.

It was likely lower in this case. 41kWh added is 187 rated miles (187rmi*219Wh/mi = 41kWh), which is 39.1kWh (187rmi*209Wh/rmi) in discharge energy.

So it's closer to 1.9kWh over 48 hours which is closer to 40W, 4.6 rated miles per day, which is a more typical vampire drain number (though still a bit high - could be due to USB stick being left recording or whatever of the several other vampire-minimizing options).

(These are just approximate numbers...there's a little bit of ambiguity in the data from the original post. But just a hypothetical example of the vampire, if the trip meter showed 38kWh and the charging event (to the same original level) showed 41kWh.)