What is the deal with the Model X 100D range ratings?

[lymex2018]

So I think Scan My Tesla has a bug.
I just ran it on my 90D with 11k miles. It shows 82.7 kWh as the pack size, and 78.7 kWh as usable after the buffer.

@wk057 looked at the fleet and says this:
"Average usable capacity for all ~65k "90" packs in the data: 81.3 kWh with an average odometer of only 11k miles."

My car has 12K miles. I really doubt that it has degraded that much, and the full charge mileage agrees, because I get 255 rated miles at full charge, which is only a few less than when it was new.

It appears Scan My Tesla under-reads by 4kWh.

Wouldn't the author of SMT structured the data according to wk057's deciphering?

Well, when wk057 talked about that 4kWh energy buffer two years ago, he was not very sure about the meaning either by saying "appears to be the antibrick buffer". However, he's not update that deciphering since.

May be Emon's created the term "Usable full pack" by subtracting "energyBuffer" from "nominalFullPackEnergy" because that term is none existence in either wk057's deciphering or Tesla Diagnostic Tool, therefore the meaning of this "Usable full pack" may be different that wk057's.

 

[wk057]

So I think Scan My Tesla has a bug.
I just ran it on my 90D with 11k miles. It shows 82.7 kWh as the pack size, and 78.7 kWh as usable after the buffer.

@wk057 looked at the fleet and says this:
"Average usable capacity for all ~65k "90" packs in the data: 81.3 kWh with an average odometer of only 11k miles."

My car has 12K miles. I really doubt that it has degraded that much, and the full charge mileage agrees, because I get 255 rated miles at full charge, which is only a few less than when it was new.

It appears Scan My Tesla under-reads by 4kWh.

255 miles at a full (100%) charge on a 90D is really bad. Like, really really bad. Unless you mean 90% charge, in which case you're doing pretty well and would be somewhere around 81.5kWh or so (top of my head math).

 

[gearchruncher]

255 miles at a full (100%) charge on a 90D is really bad.

It's a Model X, not a Model S. It was rated at 257 new, so dropping to 255 over 11K miles is only a drop of 0.8% since new, which seems pretty good.

The base question asked in this thread was really what is up with the 100D range vs the 90/75's. @wk057 says that the usable on a 90 is 81.8kWh and a 100 is 98.4 kWh. Scan My Tesla shows a 90 at 78.7 kWh and a 100 at 94.4 kWh usable.

Either way, a 100 pack is about 16 kWh bigger than a 90, which is about 20% larger. A Model X shows a range increase of 257 to 295, while an S goes from 294 to 335. Both are an increase of 14%. It sure seems like Tesla is under-rating the 100's vs the 90's (or over-rating the 90's)

 

[lymex2018]

Either way, a 100 pack is about 16 kWh bigger than a 90, which is about 20% larger.

A 100 pack is 86p, a 16% increase in number than a 90 which is 74p. Do you suggest that Tesla use different 18650 cells in 100D?

 

[animorph]

100 kWh pack has more weight to haul than a 90 since it is heavier. The RM's won't scale perfectly with usable KWh's.

 

[gearchruncher]

100 kWh pack has more weight to haul than a 90 since it is heavier. The RM's won't scale perfectly with usable KWh's.

From my second post:

Well, the 75D is 5,140 lbs, the 90D is 5,271, and the 100D is 5,421. Throw in another 200 lbs for the driver.

Thus, the 90D is 2.5% heavier than the 75D, and the 100D is another 2.5%.

The 90D uses 1% more per mile than the 75D, so I'd expect the 100D to be 1% above the 90D.

 

[gearchruncher]

A 100 pack is 86p, a 16% increase in number than a 90 which is 74p. Do you suggest that Tesla use different 18650 cells in 100D?

Well, all measurements of the 100 from the BMS show it as 20% more than a 90, so it does appear Tesla changed something about the cells.

 

[lymex2018]

Here are what I believe, I hope someone can prove me wrong by evidence:

1. There is no such item as "Usable full pack" or alike in the BMS report.
People say this are in their won term and should be defined before hand. What I regard this term is the energy gives out when dash SoC from 100% to 0%.

2. SMT has one, but that is always Nominal Full Pack Energy minus Energy Buffer.

3. When wk057 said usable capacity of a 100 is 98.4kWh, what he really meant was Nominal Full Pack Energy

4. The usable full pack energy of my car tested to be 93.5kWh last Dec. when the odometer is 2845km/1768mi.
I Started a trip of 314km with SoC 99% and arrived at a supercharger at 3.5% (20km of 566km) without stopping, and the energy consumption was 89.3km. The Nominal full pack at that time was 98.2kWh

 

[amund7]

Hi,

I can see that my 'usable full pack' calculation is causing some controversy. It is a calculation I created, to try to match the car's state of charge percentage figures. My 'usable full pack' and 'usable remaining' seem to come to 0 when the car's display % comes to 0. I am open for suggestions of different naming, to prevent confusion.

To match the car's displayed % I found that the following formula matches it perfectly:
soc = (nominalRemaining - buffer) / (nominalFullPackEnergy - buffer) * 100.0)

 

[amund7]

'usable full pack' is 'nominal full pack' minus 'buffer', I forgot to specify that in the previous post.

 

[mxnym]

I have a US MX100D with a slightly different energy experience than those described in this thread. I keep the dash display in energy (%) instead of miles, and I haven't learned how to enter diagnostic mode or used any third party apps to access any data like that often discussed in energy threads, but I have noticed the following:

1. For my MX, the rated range (per tesla.com while shopping) is 295 miles.
2. On the consumption chart, the rated line falls between 335 and 340 (337 and 338 both appear to be on the rated line for sure; 336 and 339 may as well, but I don't remember, so let's call it 337.5).
3. 100000 / 337.5 = 296.296 repeating, higher than the EPA range
4. 100000/295 = ~338.98, which may appear on the rated line per (2)

So, do I have 100 kWh usable, or am I missing something / screwing up the math?

 

[ABC2D]

I have a US MX100D with a slightly different energy experience than those described in this thread. I keep the dash display in energy (%) instead of miles, and I haven't learned how to enter diagnostic mode or used any third party apps to access any data like that often discussed in energy threads, but I have noticed the following:

1. For my MX, the rated range (per tesla.com while shopping) is 295 miles.
2. On the consumption chart, the rated line falls between 335 and 340 (337 and 338 both appear to be on the rated line for sure; 336 and 339 may as well, but I don't remember, so let's call it 337.5).
3. 100000 / 337.5 = 296.296 repeating, higher than the EPA range
4. 100000/295 = ~338.98, which may appear on the rated line per (2)

So, do I have 100 kWh usable, or am I missing something / screwing up the math?

From my prior reading, the 100 battery is $102.4 kWh total with 98.4 kWh usable.

 

[Jays200]

Here's some more data from a little test I did inspired by Tesla Bjorn. No toilet break for 5h45mins.

473.1kms 90.9kWh starting at 100%SOC driving at mostly highway speeds of 110kph with climate on. 8kms left was indicating 2%.

 

[lymex2018]

'usable full pack' is 'nominal full pack' minus 'buffer', I forgot to specify that in the previous post.

Thanks very much for the clarification. Since you are here, I'd like to ask how 'SOC' in SMT is calculated?
I learned that the BMS reports 'SOC Min' and 'SOC UI' but not reporting the one displayed on the dash. Someone said that 'SOC UI' was the one displayed on the dash before but Tesla modified it. I once drove my MX100D to 0 mile on the dash but SMT reported 'SOC' was 0.7% at that time.
My SMT is ver.1.1.0.build.23 bought 7th Dec. 2017 on Google play.

 

[amund7]

Thanks very much for the clarification. Since you are here, I'd like to ask how 'SOC' in SMT is calculated?
I learned that the BMS reports 'SOC Min' and 'SOC UI' but not reporting the one displayed on the dash. Someone said that 'SOC UI' was the one displayed on the dash before but Tesla modified it. I once drove my MX100D to 0 mile on the dash but SMT reported 'SOC' was 0.7% at that time.
My SMT is ver.1.1.0.build.23 bought 7th Dec. 2017 on Google play.

To match the car's displayed % I found that the following formula matches it perfectly:
soc = (nominalRemaining - buffer) / (nominalFullPackEnergy - buffer) * 100.0)

You should really update your SMT, we are now on 1.4.3

I removed SOC UI and SOC MIN, users were complaining that there were too many of them... didn't think anyone would need 3 different SOC measurements, 2 of which are wrong. They can be brought back, but I am reluctant to cause too much confusion for new users. Maybe I can make a separate 'legacy' page? It IS useful comparing older logs, or comparing data to what comes from other apps.

 

[mxnym]

From my prior reading, the 100 battery is $102.4 kWh total with 98.4 kWh usable.

Right, but why don't my numbers reflect that? Are you saying the IC won't say 295 at 100% even though that's the EPA rated mileage?

 

[Jays200]

From my above post #53 with a travelled distance of 473.1kms for 90.9kWh, it is easy to calculate that my 100 kWh pack has a usable capacity of 92.436kWh. This is based on mutiplying the remaining 8kms by the 192Wh/Km trip average and adding it to the total for the 473km trip.

473+8=481kms which is 298.88miles so everything checks out OK for me

 

[lymex2018]

You should really update your SMT, we are now on 1.4.3

I removed SOC UI and SOC MIN, users were complaining that there were too many of them... didn't think anyone would need 3 different SOC measurements, 2 of which are wrong. They can be brought back, but I am reluctant to cause too much confusion for new users. Maybe I can make a separate 'legacy' page? It IS useful comparing older logs, or comparing data to what comes from other apps.

Yes I will still use the old version since I had a lot of old logs to compare with, if I updated to the new version.