Dec 9, 2015
Oyvind.H I`ve started a thread at the norwegian EV forum to get input from norwegian 90D owners. So far the only experience is one guy who has lost about 1 kilometer every week the last two months.
And a 85D owner has posted his numbers with no decrease in range after 8 months/44.000km.
If I this much for extra range that disappears after a year compared to the 85D I`ll be quite mad. But hopefully the car will perform fine.�
Dec 9, 2015
msnow Thanks Art, what's the link for the FlasherZ article?�
Dec 9, 2015
msnow Even if it doesn't I'm sure Tesla will take care of it.�
Dec 9, 2015
Oyvind.H I`m not interrested in buying a car with major flaws, and if it turns out to be a problem the waiting list for service here in Norway is half a year.
But if several 90D owners post calming degradation numbers the issue might turn out to be no issue at all (or at least isolated to just a few cases).
Edit: another S85D post in the norwegian thread. 11km down in 9 months/38.000km. That`s about what I would expect from an unbalanced pack with that age/mileage.�
Dec 9, 2015
ArtInCT Here is the link to FLASHERZ's thread on Range and Seasonality.... -> Displayed Range and Seasonality
I do hope many of you will take the time to give it a read.
As you may or may not know, FLASHERZ is the author of the Charging and Infrastructure WIKI here on TMC and as such he really applies himself to all things charging and electric.
You will notice that rated range goes DOWN and UP in a rhythmic manner according to his data.�
Dec 9, 2015
msnow Ok great, thanks for the link. I remember reading this before. For me, living in Southern California, temperature isn't a factor for my loss of rated range. I've also read wd057's posts on battery leveling and calibration and tried his methods of charging >93% and running it down <20% to balance and recalibrate and although it helped somewhat it was just temporary. I'm pretty sure it's either the battery or the algorithm or perhaps a combination of both. Will keep everyone informed on what I hear from the Service Center.�
Dec 9, 2015
rawn77 OK, so here's the results of my Service (non-Service) visit.
My SA called me early morning on the day I was supposed to bring in my car to have my battery checked and possibly changed.
He said that Tesla engineers had informed him that the battery/range/declining of the S90 is a known issue with many S90 owners report having the same problem.
He went on to say that he was told nothing was wrong with the batteries but that a future firmware update will solve it; but that he wasn't sure when that would happen.
In the end, he said there was no reason to bring in my car for the battery issue as there is nothing he could do; be patient.
So I am now being patient.
On a good note; my battery has seemed to stabilize; most of my 90% charges are 245, on rare occasions it's reached 246 miles.
I leave to Miami, FL this Sunday...hopefully the Montreal-Albany trip will happen uneventful as it has before during early autumn.
I still love my car, and will sleep in the confidence that Tesla will make it right, sooner rather than later.
Just don't quote my serenity if Spring comes around and still no fix.
Best regards
Ron�
Dec 9, 2015
apacheguy Why don't they simply email the engineering memo to all affected 90 kWh owners to give them peace of mind? If I were a 90 kWh owner I'd want to have a basic understanding of the cause and the assurance that it is merely a software glitch.�
Dec 9, 2015
Canuck Probably because the vast majority of 90 owners likely have no idea about this issue, let alone any concern regarding this issue. Sending out a memo on an issue that is not an issue to many only creates more problems, rather than solving it.
This isn't like putting a float in a gas container to determine volume. This is what is involved in determining the state of charge of a lithium ion battery:
Battery State of Charge Determination
It's certainly not an easy process and the surprise should be when it can be accurately predicted. The Nissan Leaf is an absolute joke when it comes to this issue and it's "guess-o-meter".�
Dec 9, 2015
msnow There's also the question of why there are people (some in this forum and thread) who have been monitoring this but still only have lost 1 or 2 miles of rated range with the same model, mileage and time of ownership. Why are some impacted more than others? My sense is that Tesla may know there's an issue if people are reporting it but don't know yet what it is. I guess the good news is they're saying there's really no range loss, it's just software.�
Dec 9, 2015
apacheguy Tesla has access to loads of uploaded diagnostic logs. They know precisely which 90 kWh cars are affected and which are not and could easily tailor the email campaign. If the concern is unnecessarily alarming folks who had no idea about the issue, then they should simply post to this thread. I know, heaven forbid that Tesla has any interaction with a mere Internet forum but it is not unprecedented. George B used to be an active member and posted directly from TM.�
Dec 9, 2015
BertL FWIW, I'm one of those new S90D owners where 251 miles appears to have become my new daily 90% charge just 2 months after delivery (which should be 257), and it's not because of dramatic seasonal variation here in SoCal where it was 74F in my backyard this afternoon (not rubbing that in too much!).
Yes, I'm concerned. Yes, I keep daily logs of temps and rated range that I check every morning when I awake -- that I really don't want to maintain, but I acknowledge may be needed because I accepted being part of a new brand with new technology that is pushing the envelope when I ordered my new MS. Yes, I've done a bunch of research and try to keep up with these threads -- including all their speculation and sometimes off-beat and sarcastic comments that could cause perhaps less-informed owners or potential owners additional concern ...but I'm still staying rational, and trying to deal with facts. That's what I'd recommend other S90 owners do as well.
As a couple other enthusiasts here have done, I too will be providing my data points to Tesla upon my next SC visit later this month. For now, I remain confident Tesla will get their act together resolving a hardware, software, and/or data presentation problem that appears to exist for some of us with this newer 90kWh technology -- hopefully they will also explain what's going on when it's resolved for those of us with an issue. I would not be happy or have confidence instilled in me as an owner (that paid $3K for 16 miles of additional rated range), to magically have a higher rated range appear after my next firmware release without some official words of why a change was made to go along with it. IMHO, Tesla has generally done a good job in the past stepping up to the plate and doing the right thing for their owners. I have no reason to suspect something different and remain confident Tesla will figure this out, assuming Elon and Tesla have not already moved on to other priorities they deem more important or interesting. I frankly am more worried about that, than in Tesla's ability to resolve my early range degradation problem.�
Dec 9, 2015
apacheguy I guarantee there will be no remarks in the release notes when the change is made. I've been following Tesla for too long to know that it is wishful thinking to expect them to convey an engineering memo, but that doesn't stop me from hoping and calling them out on it. Let's hope I'm wrong, but I know I won't be.�
Dec 9, 2015
Canuck But I bet that even many owners of affected cars have no idea of this issue. Unless you are keeping track, you wouldn't know, and if you have it on percentage, rather than miles, it's not possible to know.
And reps posting in forums is a no-win situation. I know it's not unprecedented but that's in the past, not only here, but also on other forums. I haven't seen a Nissan rep post on the Leaf forum for as long as a Tesla rep hasn't posted here. And that makes complete sense to me. It surprised me more when they did post.�
Dec 10, 2015
Oyvind.H I feel there`s too few report to draw a final conclusion about the S90D range development. But what I know this far is:
a) The S90D has by far the quickest indicated range degradation in the beginning. I haven�t seen a S85D with this kind of indicated degradation.
b) The indicated range might be incorrect, need of balancing etc. but that`s been said for years about all models. Why hasn�t any S85D owners experienced anything close to what S90D owners experience?
c) The risk of getting a S90D with quick range indicated range degradation isn`t known. We don`t know if it`s 1/10, 1/100 or 1/1000. But several reports of quick indicated degradation both here and in Norway makes it quite possible that a significant part of the S90Ds have this problem
d) It`s been said that 90kWh pack uses Silicone, which I now read that is known for quicker degradation. But I don�t know if silicone is used.
Based on the above I`ve sent an email to service here in Norway, asking for a decent explanation of this issue. I don`t believe Tesla have no idea as to why the S90D range is falling so quickly for some owners. They must know something. After all � they made the software.
Maybe the voltage isn`t as stable with this chemistry? Maybe the degradation is much quicker in the beginning, but slower later on compared to the old chemistry?
There are many explanations that would make my purchase a great experience
The reply from service might be confidential, but if it`s ok to repost the basics I`ll do so!�
Dec 10, 2015
apacheguy Hmm. Not sure about that. Many owners are concerned about an issue with their car and the issue has attracted enough attention to raise eyebrows of some prospective buyers who peruse the forums. A simple statement of reassurance from engineering giving a technical explanation would but everyone at ease. Win, win, IMO.�
Dec 10, 2015
ArtInCT In the world of Cobra replicas, there is a forum called clubcobra.com. Therein there is a manufacturer's sub forum and ERA Cobras has a sub-forum called Speak With Bob Putnam who is the lead engineer of ERA Cobras. Bob fields all sorts of questions for current and prospective owners.... His insights and expertise are highly valued and as such ERA maintains their leadership in that niche. It works well for ERA and is a competitive advantage IMHO.�
Dec 10, 2015
Canuck Yes, especially since this is the first vehicle manufacturer ever, worldwide, who has made a long range EV, and this is the first 90 battery ever made. No one else has even come anywhere close to attempting that. The biggest battery any other car maker has made is less than 1/3 the size. Plus, it's been out for under a year now. And, besides that, it's not reliable at all. I mean how dare I be able to drive long distances but have to look at a software error of declining range that really makes no difference if it is a software error. I mean, look at what I paid! How dare they! It's easy to estimate range. Put a float in the tank like the one in my Lamborghini!
And when that same rep doesn't post in the hp thread? Surely, there's a simple answer to that issue. Or, they just post where they can, and no adverse inference will be drawn from not posting in other forums?
Yes, because we know there are threads in clubcobra.com of owners threatening lawsuits. How many views has that forum had last month?�
Dec 10, 2015
sorka You mean like with the supercharger for long distance email�
Dec 11, 2015
apacheguy Well in that instance the code logic that determined who got the email was fouled up. It's much simpler to see which 90 owners have less than x miles at 90%, or better yet if they know the precise cause then query directly for that. I think it's a good idea to maintain good rapport with customers, something which is clearly lacking here. Folks go into their SvC and are either told there is nothing wrong or that some future update somewhere along the line is going to fix it somehow. Neither are good responses, IMO.�
Dec 11, 2015
msnow I think the SvC response would be fine if it was consistent and with a little more specificity. If they acknowledge its an issue and are committed to fixing it within a certain timeframe I would trust that.�
Dec 11, 2015
apacheguy So you'd be fine waking up one day to see the range number is magically back up to 257 at 90% without any idea what was done? Ok, interesting. Guess we have different perceptions on this issue.�
Dec 11, 2015
msnow No, I didn't mean to imply that. If there's a problem with the battery chemistry as I think you have put out there as a possibility a few weeks ago, they aren't going to be able to fix that with firmware. If, on the other hand, they say it's a software issue (algorithm, app, etc) that's specific to this pack and they can recalibrate w/software yeah I would be fine with seeing 257 and 287 again. Maybe you could help us find a way to verify its not BS. [emoji3]�
Dec 11, 2015
brkaus The thing is the amount of time and usage currently on these packs could have easily been tested in the lab under accelerated cycle testing. Even real lifetime should have been tested as the batteries have been in development for quite some time.
Likely either a software problem if the curves aren't exactly same as other batteries or a manufacturing problem.�
Dec 11, 2015
TheTank I have a P90D which I got Sept 8. I had an S85 before that. The S85 after 30 months and 97,000 km had only 16 kilometers degraded. My P90D started with 393km 90% range. It currently sits with 353km with 90% range. Tesla is looking into it but its been a couple of months. They do not believe its the battery, but how they calculate range or something like that. Has anyone else had this much degrade in their battery? It continues to go down. Still its the best car I have ever had and I have no complaints about service or anything like that, I am just concerned when the cold hits, I will really miss those extra KM's on the regular long drives.�
Dec 11, 2015
MarcG My P85D is currently at the service center for the 25,000-mile service (which is much more comprehensive than the 1-year/12.5k service) and I asked them to look into my recent and major rated miles decline.
I don't have the car back yet, but when I spoke to them yesterday they did confirm that they looked into the battery degradation and said nothing looks out of the ordinary.
My service advisor also mentioned that it's likely that the software algorithm in recent releases updates the rated range differently than it used it.
Apparently even service center techs don't really know how new algorithms are implemented, which I find disturbing as they are not equipped by the mothership to answer their customers' concerns...�
Dec 11, 2015
msnow Mines down about 3.5% so far.�
Dec 11, 2015
msnow It concerns me that the answers from the service centers are not consistent which makes me feel like they're making it up. My service center tech told me that he spoke with the engineers and I'm supposed to get 6% more than the 85D which has a rated range of 270 therefore my current ~278/279 is right where it should be and normal. Unfortunately his math was wrong; 6% increase is 286.2 not 278.�
Dec 11, 2015
MorrisonHiker I think they just rounded to 6% as 5/90 = 0.0555555 = 5.5%. Adding 1 and multiplying that by 270, I would think the S90 should get right around 285...which is pretty close to the 286.2 that you calculated.
If 278 is 'normal' then I think I'll probably just save $3000 and get an 85D over a 90D if I end up with an S.�
Dec 11, 2015
msnow Right but he was off by 8 miles which is about half of the additional range 80D people paid for. But my point was I felt he would say anything to make me go away.�
Dec 11, 2015
jerry33 Unfortunately, Tesla's source of service people is the same pool as the dealers' (for the most part). Some of them have the "get them through quickly" mentality so engrained in them, that they continue to operate the same way. It will take a long time before Tesla gets that mentality out of their system. Remember that in their previous job they could get a pay decrease or even fired if they didn't put through their quota of customers per day. This leads to saying anything so that the customer will settle. My experience is that those people are in the minority and most Tesla service people go way beyond the call of duty to make it right. (But it doesn't help that Tesla's internal communication isn't a whole lot better than their external communication.)�
Dec 11, 2015
msnow Completely agree which is why I'm sure TM will make it right. I'm just not sure how to escalate.�
Dec 11, 2015
apacheguy Guys, you're going to have to ask specific questions. What's my CAC? How many kWh remain at x%? Otherwise they will always give you the "everything's normal" response. Just my friendly advice.�
Dec 11, 2015
msnow What should the Calculated amp-hour Capacity be on the 90D, what number am I looking for? Same question on kWh, what number should it be and what percentages, 50, 90, 100%?
I'm afraid battery tech is beyond my knowledge and I would like to understand what I'm asking and the answers I'm given (if they give it to me).�
Dec 11, 2015
apacheguy For CAC, I defer to AmpedRealtor:
Of course, that is for an 85 kWh. You will have to scale it accordingly. Same goes for kWh remaining. For an 85 kWh at 100%, I'm pretty certain the kWh remaining would read ~77 when brand new. This is the total kWh available to the driver. The remainder is only seen by the BMS.�
Dec 17, 2015
msnow I just got back from my local SvC and the good news is they gave me almost the same exact response as you got Ron regarding the range loss so I'm happy that it's consistent. They seemed to know all about it and sat down with me to explain what they knew.
Here's a summary:
1. I'm not really losing range. It's the way the software is interpreting what it's reading from "certain 90D" batteries.
2. It's correctable with a firmware update that they are working on now. (Can't give me an ETA but will note all of this on my service paperwork).
I feel a lot better now!
Mike�
Dec 17, 2015
Jool Just wanted to check in and mention that my 90% has stuck around 245 rated miles since last month. Not really worried about it, but it's good to know that it's basically a software issue. Thanks for looking into this stuff guys!�
Dec 17, 2015
BertL Good to hear, and I'm happy you're happy. I go in next Tuesday for a couple of other things. This topic is already on my list, as well as my bringing along a printout of my log and "85D->90D 6% Increase Marketing Numbers"->"My 90D IC-presented numbers with an apparent 40% loss of my $3k 16-mile upgrade in the first 60 days" chart.�
Dec 17, 2015
eye.surgeon So the service people that told you it was normal, which you felt was them just trying to get rid of you, were in fact completely correct.�
Dec 17, 2015
msnow No, you read my post incorrectly. It is in fact NOT normal and will be corrected. It did not affect all 90D's as I was told. The Service technician that told me it was normal apologized for telling me that today.�
Dec 18, 2015
AmpedRealtor My 3 year old P85 w/ almost 38,000 miles shows 226 miles at 90%, sometimes 227. It charges to 252 miles at 100% with range mode OFF. What you are reporting seems awfully steep loss for an essentially new car.�
Dec 18, 2015
msnow Here's the comments from the SvC regarding my range issue. Although I am confident they will follow through I was hoping one of the battery experts here can explain the part in bold below.
"Tesla Description of Work"
"Concern: Customer states: When charging to 90% a full charge used to get 258 now only two months of driving is getting 251 (See Shop Service Manager)
Corrections: 12V Battery & Fuses General Diagnosis
Please inform the customer we have found nothing wrong with the hardware in this vehicle. The software range calculation for these packs is a feature new to EV's to provide accurate real time range information to the customer. This algorithm is continuously evolving and we are actively trying to improve its accuracy over every possible use case. Currently some State of Charge terminations in the middle region of the battery level may cause some range calculations that are less accurate than others but these will be fixed with upcoming over the air firmware for all vehicles."�
Dec 18, 2015
Canuck I'm no battery expert but I think this has something to do with it:
The discharge voltage curves of Li-manganese, Li-phosphate and NMC are very flat and 80 percent of the stored energy remains in the flat voltage profile. While this characteristic is desirable as an energy source, it presents a challenge for voltage-based fuel gauging as it only indicates full charge and low charge; the large and important middle section is difficult to estimate. Figure 1 reveals the flat voltage profile of Li-phosphate (LiFePO) batteries.
Figure 1: Discharge voltage of lithium iron phosphate
Li-phosphate has one of the flattest discharge profiles of Li-ion, making voltage estimations for SoC estimation difficult.
Measuring State-of-charge - Battery University
I think the Nissan Leaf uses lithium manganese oxide and the Model S (pre-90's) uses lithium nickel cobalt aluminium oxide but I may be wrong. Perhaps there is (more) Li-manganese and/or Li-phosphate in the 90's that is causing the middle section estimation difficulties.
All just guesses. Hopefully someone with knowledge of this issue can weigh in.
�
Dec 18, 2015
JRP3 NCA discharge curve is not as flat as LiFePO4, I don't know if the addition of small amounts of Silicon to NCA would change that curve, but I doubt it.
It sounds as if the software has trouble with partial charge/discharge cycles with the new packs. One might try a few deep discharge and full charge cycles to see if range recalculation takes place, or just wait for the software update.�
Dec 18, 2015
MarcG Thanks for posting the response from your service center. It sounds like the updated range calculations in the latest firmware versions do indeed take other factors into account, namely temperature.
This would well explain my recent drop of posted rated range due to colder than usual temperatures (stable 249-250 miles at 100% for several months down to 242 in the last 6 weeks or so) and is consistent with what my service center is telling me as well.�
Dec 19, 2015
Oyvind.H After 4600km one guy reports 100% just above what a s85d has when new. (418km typical, which equals ideal in the us I think )�
Dec 22, 2015
BertL Had my S90D in for a couple service items today. Provided my charge log and concern about loss of Rated Range after 2 months of ownership (see my previous posts in this thread for detail). As others have recently reported, net is, I was reassured there is no problem with my S90 battery itself; The issue is what I call a "data presentation" problem -- Rated Range just isn't being displayed properly under all conditions and requires further refinement by Tesla in future firmware release(s). There is no impact to how far I can drive or what my S90 battery pack can actually deliver. As to when the firmware updates will come to resolve some of our concerns, there is no official ETA. For those wanting the official corrective statement on my service invoice, it follows:
What was interesting to me is my SA mentioned he has had more than one customer that has complained when they've seen a single mile drop in rated range. WOW. I guess I'm just a push-over, or maybe I try to be a bit more informed and reasonable than some ...but it reminded me how happy I am retired these days, and no longer have Customer Service responsibilities needing to put on the good face and dealing with sometimes challenging customers.�
Dec 22, 2015
msnow Thanks Bert. Down to 247 @ 90% here. Colder weather could be a factor.�
Dec 22, 2015
BertL Perhaps. At least with my pretty mild temp swings (probably not a lot different than you just north of me), I couldn't say there is any direct correlation to temp except perhaps in a very broad sense. Temp is likely a component to the challenge, but with my just two months of data, I see nothing coming close to the correlation some 85kWh owners have... and my finding Rated Range even changing within seconds up-and-down when the MS is parked and plugged-in, but not charging, is hard for anyone to explain.
I remain of the opinion Tesla's algorithms attempting to continuously estimate Rated Range are very complex, where temp is only part of the equation, and some of us with the new 90kWh battery tech are just going to have to live with these flawed algorithms until Tesla prioritizes resolving or at least beginning to improve the discrepancies. My personal hope is S90 owners seeing this drop are taking the time to officially report it, and not just grouse here on TMC... I have got to believe formal reporting will do more good to eventually cause resolution.�
Dec 23, 2015
BertL I was not expecting any difference, but simply to keep this thread current: Last night I installed firmware 7.0 2.9.68 to replace 2.7.56 I've been running the last few weeks. Rated Range is reporting the same number (251) this morning after a 90% charge, just as it did with the previous firmware level day before yesterday.�
Dec 27, 2015
Oyvind.H But where does the driver find the rest of the capacity? We know that ideal (called typical in Norway) is a fixed number (some cars have 189Wh/km, some have 200Wh/km per typical km).
In other words, if a car shows 430tkm (typical km) the car (0,189Wh/km x 430tkm = 81,27kWh available.
When charging to 100%/430tkm and stopping at 0%/0tkm, where in the process does lost tkm reappear?
Lets say the car after a couple of months just show 415tkm at 100%. When driving to 0%/0tkm, where will the lost tkm reappear? Below zero?
The first thing I`ll do when I get the car is charge to 100% and log tkm, and how many kWh I get from 100%-0%. If range miscalculation has no effect on the battery capacity, after a few months I should be able to get the same amount of kWh out of the battery even if the range shows a lower number. Not feeling confident....�
Dec 28, 2015
RJ Dibble Yes thanks Bert.
Down to 242 @ 90% here in Northern California. Our ~16 miles are now totally gone...unless of course they are not really gone but just part of a "data presentation" problem!
RJ�
Dec 28, 2015
msnow I just drained my 90D to 8% in preparation for a 100% range charge tonight to balance it. What I found interesting is that it showed 29 miles with 10% left which is exactly where it should be and was when I brought it home on 9/15. Fingers crossed.�
Dec 28, 2015
sorka How many kWh had you used to get to that point? The only way anyone is going to know for sure is to drive it down to 0 miles and record how many kWh were used to get there. It should be something like 81 before it hits the 0 mile buffer.�
Dec 28, 2015
msnow Is that number in the Trips app? I'm at 5% now what should the kWh number be at 5%?
Last charge was 90% 247 miles.�
Dec 28, 2015
sorka It should be around 68 or 69 kWh but you had to have charged since your 90% since it shows 96 mils since your last charge wtih 36 kWh consumed.
- - - Updated - - -
Also, it's not going to be accurate unless you pretty much do it all in one shot. Letting it sit for a long time consumes a small amount of power not counted in the meter so if you're only charging once a week and letting it sit overnight multiple nights, that will consume power. I just went skiing and it was 9F overnight and my P85D consumed 3% of the battery power to keep the battery warm. I also believe non drive train power is not counted as well so heating, cooling, lights, etc. The last time I did this with everything turned off, it was within 1% of what it should be for the battery capacity.�
Dec 28, 2015
msnow Now that you mention it I did accidentally start a charge for a couple of minutes so those numbers don't count.�
Dec 30, 2015
Mike Tuccelli Interesting. At pickup Nov 12 had 90% at 256. Now, after 2,600 miles it is 258. It had gone down slowly to 251 until last week. No updates, no temperature changes, no driving modifications
No rhyme or reason.�
Dec 30, 2015
BertL Yes, while mine has had a general decline since taking delivery, it goes up or down by 1-2 miles most days after a 90% charge, and as reported earlier, I've had it also change up and down a couple of miles within seconds of one another, one time when I happened to catch it on my Tesla App. My 40-some data points in a fairly moderate climate do not seem correlated to temperature change as some others have reported with their 85s and many more months of data with a bit more extreme temperature swings.
After a few of us 90D owners here on TMC have now reported this to Tesla, and received the same documented response, I've stopped trying to scratch my head and worry with this as much, although I still keep my log of rated range and daily temps after most overnight charges just-in-case I need the reference one day. I will also be reporting the problem again when I go in for annual service next Fall if I've seen no resolution by then. Lots of well meaning folks here can speculate whats going on, but it can also make my (and I suspect others) head spin when I am seeing this issue on my new 90D where I paid a hefty premium for additional "rated range" (or so said the marketing materials). Having been a software programmer years ago, IMHO, no one except the engineers that have access to the rated range calculation code and actual science/tech related to the battery and it's management can really know for a fact the underlying issues, and then possibly resolve the (data presentation) problem once Tesla Management prioritizes this as something to be worked on.
If this is important to you, please report it to Tesla next time you are at a SC so it's documented as an open issue on your MS. As I say, discussing here is good for the soul, but does not guarantee the concern gets to Tesla. My hope is official reporting in sufficient numbers by different owners (not just one person sending repeated cards and letters) will eventually raise this concern over others. At least in my former business, it did when my team and I prioritized our own IT investments and what needed to be worked next, having limited budget and resources as I'm sure Tesla does.�
Dec 30, 2015
boofagle I don't have a model S but I do have a Volt and I can tell you that these range calculations vary greatly based on drivers. I bought a used volt with 20k miles on it and when I picked it up the battery said it had 24 miles on it at full charge. Now this summer I averaged 48/49 miles per charge and have about 32k on it. I think the person before me had a lead foot. I don't go above the speed limit and take care when accelerating. I noticed the range starting to go up a few weeks after I bought it.�
Dec 30, 2015
msnow +1000 @BertL
People who have this issue should report this to Tesla and make sure it's documented in their work order. Comments in this forum are interesting but are speculation.�
Dec 30, 2015
TexasEV The Volt is irrelevant to this discussion. The rated range in a Tesla does not depend on how it's driven. "Rated" means the range on the EPA test cycle.�
Jan 7, 2016
jimmy82abn Funny Yesterday at the SC the Manager noted this could happen and most likely will but I should not be alarmed as the car was trying to learn how I drive and make adjustments.�
Jan 7, 2016
gaswalla No need for volt and leaf owners to chime in about their cars algorithms. You have your own forums for that.�
Jan 7, 2016
MarcG This makes sense for projected range. Makes no sense for RATED range, since it's based on a specific EPA cycle (if you drive exactly like the EPA tested the car and in the exact same environment conditions, you'll get the same range).�
Jan 7, 2016
msnow If you browse through posts in this thread by @rawn77, @BertL, me and a couple others you will see the "official" message from the technicians at the SvC's is that it's a miscalculation in the algorithm software that they say will be corrected in a future firmware update (no timeframe given). That explanation makes sense. It has nothing to do with your driving and weather, it's an EPA rating. You will see from our posts that we got all that in writing and are monitoring it. If yours starts dropping like a mile a week you will notice so keep track of what it is now new (guessing it's about 286-288 at 100% and 256-258 at 90%) and tell them to test your pack at the SvC next time and get written assurance. Hopefully it will be consistent with what we got.�
Jan 7, 2016
FlasherZ I have several "official" messages in writing that say my Model X should be in my garage now. Last I checked, it's not.
Displayed Range and Seasonality
I have data that shows that the rated range shown by my vehicle at any given SOC % correlates rather tightly with the ambient temperature of my car. No one has provided any other explanation to me as to why my rated range has, for 3 years now, gone up in the spring to summer and then down in autumn and winter again. If rated range did not vary by weather and was simply changed by algorithm in a firmware revision, it's quite a coincidence. Oh but wait, I have data there too! My data also has my software revision updates, and the increases you see in my rated range does not have any correlation with firmware updates at all. Again, I'm looking for an explanation for the increases in rated range that come with warm weather, which are not following firmware upgrades.
I do agree with you that driving style does not affect rated range, but the temperature seems, indeed, to have an impact on what your rated range is, statement from a service center technician or not. I would like to understand his explanation for my cyclic rated range at 90%, correlated with temp.
Now, it's clear to me that the 90D has a different problem than normal degradation. There are people here who are seeing very abnormal reductions in their rated range. It is something that Tesla will likely have to address. Hopefully that is a firmware element - whether BMS or whatever - and is not an intrinsic problem with the 90 kWh battery packs/cells used.�
Jan 7, 2016
msnow First of all, this is not in defense of Tesla or a repudiation of your data which I have read more than once.
The response I got was coming from a senior engineer at corporate according to my tech and it was consistent with others who have brought it to their attention (see copy of work order below and what they said). I don't fully understand the comment "terminations in the middle region" (maybe you can explain?) but this may be specific to 90D's not sure. I'm not holding my breath for a quick fix but I will hold them accountable and it is now documented that they tested and there is no real range loss. Me and others who have reported this live in Southern California and the temperatures during the biggest loss in displayed rated range was 80-90 degrees (Sept/Oct 2015) so for us temperature wasn't the reason. That doesn't mean your results aren't valid, I'm sure they are for your use case which includes temperature and your pack. Incidentally my current numbers are 278 @ 100% and 248 @ 90% which would be 10 miles gone in 12 weeks. The 90D was supposed to add 16 miles from the 85D so losing most of that was alarming.
Tesla Description of Work
"Concern: Customer states: When charging to 90% a full charge used to get 258 now only two months of driving is getting 251 (See Shop Service Manager)
Corrections: 12V Battery & Fuses General Diagnosis
Please inform the customer we have found nothing wrong with the hardware in this vehicle. The software range calculation for these packs is a feature new to EV's to provide accurate real time range information to the customer. This algorithm is continuously evolving and we are actively trying to improve its accuracy over every possible use case. Currently some State of Charge terminations in the middle region of the battery level may cause some range calculations that are less accurate than others but these will be fixed with upcoming over the air firmware for all vehicles."�
Jan 7, 2016
FlasherZ "Terminations in the middle region" means ending trips and recharging only within the middle part of the SOC range, never taking the range down to lower SOC levels. If you never take the car down below 130 miles, for example, the car doesn't get a good sense of cell and pack voltages as the battery pack is being used. This is why, in past degradation threads, Tesla has asked its owners to drive the car down to less than 20% SOC, then charge back up completely, to reorient the algorithm.
There's no doubt in my mind that he's right when he says that range calculations may be off, that they're constantly working on the algorithm, and that they update it as part of software. Version 5 made a pretty major change that was noticeable in many cars. But that doesn't exclude the effects of ambient temperature, and for some Tesla employee to say that weather doesn't affect rated range is wrong, according to the data. Now, it's not an *instant* feedback loop - for example, I can't heat my freezing garage up to 80 degrees one day and instantly see the rated range jump a few miles; it just doesn't work like that and perhaps that's what your service center tech was thinking you were describing. Rather, over time, the effects of seasonal temperatures are making the algorithm report different numbers.
There's something else going on with the 90 packs - whether it's a calibration error or you have cell problems, we don't know and likely won't know until that software revision comes out, or Tesla does something else. I agree with you that the 90 kWh pack degradation you're reporting is not caused by the temperature (although this temperature effect may be reflected in the number). I hope that your range is still there and that it's just a matter of instrumentation, and that software fixes it.�
Jan 7, 2016
msnow @FlasherZ, yes that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.�
Jan 7, 2016
Doug_G On the contrary, comparing and contrasting different electric vehicles against the Tesla is entirely on-topic for this forum.�
Jan 7, 2016
BertL I truly appreciate your solid advice on these forums. I continue to learn more than a lot. ...but, as I've said before, I agree there is perhaps some amount of seasonality to all this -- your data certainly shows it -- but your data is also for an S85 with different battery tech than the newer 90's some of us have, involves more dramatic temperature swings than some of us have ever yet put our S90 through, and perhaps S85 vs. S90 involves differences in the underlying algorithms Tesla uses to estimate Rated Range. The 90's are too new to have long term data from any owner, but my 90+ days of manual logging does not show sufficient correlation between temp and the changes in rated range I have experienced. I also have one example I reported here where Rated Range went up and down before my eyes by 1-2 miles within seconds of one another. I'm not sure others picked up on that in my long-winded post, but IMHO it is at the very least an ancillary data point that changes to overall ambient or battery temp are not the full answer as to what's going on with displayed Rated Range in a S90. Being the X-software guy that I am, that experience pushed me over the top suspecting the software algorithm is a likely part of the issue. We can all believe what we like. For me, as an S90 owner with this problem, having compared against some other S90 owners with similar symptoms (thank you TMC for this forum!), taking in all the comments and theories folks have provided, combined with now multiple documented instances from different Tesla Service Advisors and Techs in different SCs, I still believe that Tesla has a Rated Range calculation problem with the new S90 battery tech that first needs refinement -- it could be something more, but I've stopped loosing sleep over it as I did the first few days and weeks after this thread was started and I tried to form my own opinion.
Not directed at anyone in particular, but as advice for new or potential S90 owners reading this thread -- my personal opinion is this:
As is the case with many BEV subjects and where there is proprietary tech and code involved like it is with Tesla, there are lots of opinions. It's very easy to get yourself wound-up over all the various possibilities and (conspiracy) theories people put forth related to early S90 Rated Range degradation some owners seem to be having. Sorting out facts from supposition or speculation -- to someone posting a comment perhaps only in gest, or that has no practical experience with the subject, can be daunting for newbies or if you're caught up trying to understand or resolve something really bugging you, like this problem has been for some of us.
Me? As I said a couple weeks ago in this thread, I'm over being SO worried about what appears today as a loss of close to half of my 16 miles of extra Rated Range in the first 90 days of ownership, that I also discretely paid $3K for. I have now reported it officially to Tesla as a concern and it's logged as an issue against my VIN. I will report it again on each subsequent service visit for something else until I see a positive change or receive direct communication from Tesla. I just don't believe anyone here, as well-intended as their views may be, can add anything more than questions and perhaps concern as to what the true underlying issue on a S90 may be. Only Tesla Engineers that have access to the tech and code can know the whole facts, and hopefully create a solution to ease S90 owners long-term concerns -- once Tesla determines it's of enough priority to put their people on a resolution. ...so, if you also own a S90 with what appears as early Rated Range degradation, PLEASE, for all of us present and future owners, be sure you report and have it documented as a problem on your next visit to a SC. If you are considering purchase of an S90, bring up the concern with your Sales Associate at the Store or via phone. My hope being, only real cards and letters to Tesla will cause their Executives to prioritize and address this outstanding and acknowledged problem.?�
Jan 7, 2016
kort677 the data for Leafs and volts are relevant only if you like comparing apples to oranges. those cars have completely different battery technology than the Tesla has.�
Jan 7, 2016
FlasherZ I agree it's too new. That said, it's extremely unlikely that Tesla is going to invent one algorithm for one battery and another algorithm for another. The coefficients may be different, but the overall algorithm is very likely going to remain the same for a given battery pack based on Lithium-Ion technology.
As for your data, I might suggest doing more than manual logging - by doing only manual logging you get only integer miles, as opposed to the API's resolution of hundredths of a mile for its calculations.
True, same here. In fact, at one point, the rated range would go up by 3 miles if the EVSE was energized, and down by 3 miles immediately after de-energizing. Tesla fixed that particular one.
I agree with you.
I was responding to the simple assertion that weather does not influence the rated range calculation in the car.
But there is something more going on with the 90 packs, and that's why I say so in two of the posts I wrote today in this thread.
A small amount of range degradation may be explainable through the change in ambient temperature -- it certainly explains why mine is cyclic. Others who have 90's in winter weather may have 3-4 miles of reduced range explained by weather, but most owners with the complaint here are seeing much more of that. You're less likely to have it because you have that beautiful year-round weather in SoCal. That means that, as you say so eloquently, there is something else going on in their estimation.
I concur with you, in part. It could also be a BMS pack management thing, too, related to keeping the modules or cells in balance.
You're doing the right thing in reporting it, and hopefully it's a software fix.�
Jan 10, 2016
Oyvind.H What do you mean by "documented response"? Have you gotten any documentation, or is it just the answer "It`s a software issue with range calculation"?
It seems as if usable kWh (the number of kWh reported used after a 100-0% continuous drive) is way lower than it should, which is in line with the rated range number being much lower than it should. In other words - both range presentation and usable kWh drops rapidly.�
Jan 10, 2016
wizputer Today I was going to be going on a 200-ish mile roundtrip from a supercharger plus a few range reducing factors, so I wanted to leave the garage at 100% to minimize time at the supercharger beforehand.
Since this was only a couple weeks after a 1300mi road trip, I figured this would be a good datapoint for the survey since I lost 4mi off 90% after that trip (255mi when I left, 251mi the morning after returning)
However, I failed to get a 100% datapoint today for a couple reasons.
First, charging ceased at 6am PST. No interruption or charging complete notification from the app either. Usually, charging finishes well before 6am but since I was trying to time 100% as close as possible to departure, it was going to be this morning. This happened before the long road trip I mentioned too. I assumed it was a fluke that time, but twice I'm not so sure. I was able to squeeze another couple hours in after I woke up, but only got up to 89% (247mi) before heading out.
At the supercharger, it said 31min to 100%, which would work out perfectly for a quick bite. Ended up unintentionally killing over an hour, and only charged to 99%.
For the last 25min it said 5min remaining... When I got back to the car, gave it another 5min like the IC said, where it just sat at: 99% (276mi), 60mi/hr, 403V @ 3A
(This is also 2mi more than the 274mi @ 100% pre-road trip I recorded a month ago)
I ended up not stopping at the supercharger on the return trip to reduce the SoC as low as possible.
Ending SoC: 3% (10mi)
Since last charge: 220.8mi, 71.6kWh, 324Wh/mi
I've only taken the SoC down to non-green state 1 other time around 3 months ago, I think it was 30-something miles remaining and I don't remember the starting SoC (this was before I actually logged data)�
Jan 10, 2016
BertL My definition of documentation in this case is what was provided to me on my Service Invoice:
Tesla was additionally provided my personal tracking log of dates, temperature, charge amount (90% or 100%), displayed rated range and miscellaneous notes which were attached to Tesla's copies of the service invoice.
---
...others can now chime in with missing technicalities or potential conspiracy theories those written words don't contain.
While I'm normally a detailed sorta guy, and I appreciate many are here, in this case since I'll never have access to the proprietary tech and code running my MS, I'm fine with some terminology generalization and simplification. In the end, I really don't care if the problem is software, firmware, the rated range algorithm itself, variables those algorithms use in their calculations that may be different between battery packs and/or types, if it's something with battery pack management, something else or some combination of all of the above.
As an S90 Owner, I just want both improved confidence I do not have early degradation of the battery pack and Range Option I purchased, and what Tesla represents as their estimate of Rated Range in my MS becomes a lot more consistent supporting that first point. (Rated Range is the measure Tesla elected to use as the marketing benefit and description of the Range Option and 90kWh battery, so it's what I'm using to hold Tesla to their commitment.) As volumes are ramping up and we're beyond the early adopter and enthusiast phase, the masses will expect the same from Tesla -- something simple and consistent that does not need a chemistry, physics, or English degree to interpret and understand.�
Jan 10, 2016
msnow My documentation is similar to what @BertL got. Written statement of problem, written statement from Tesla that there's no hardware/battery issue and written statement on what the solution is (software update). Had they provided me with reams of pages of tests they performed that got them to that conclusion I wouldn't have understood it anyway.
There's no way you can reasonably and safely drive from 100% to 0% to see if you used 90 kWh. You could drive to 5% and interpolate but since the battery keeps something in reserve that interpolation would be inaccurate and a waste of my time. I'm going to trust Tesla on this and wait a couple of months for the promised fix. If I don't get it I'll take it to another level but I doubt I'll need to.�
Jan 10, 2016
Max* FYI supercharging to 100% takes forever on the Tesla (non 90D here). Teslas indicator for time to 100% is wrong. It takes that long to get to 99%, and then a long time to rebalance.
It is possible though, I've done out once while waiting at the airport to pick up someone on a very very very delayed flight.�
Jan 10, 2016
msnow Agreed, the rebalancing stage (or whatever it's doing) is another 25-30 minutes.�
Jan 10, 2016
BertL Simply as another data point with what @Max* and @msnow have stated, MS also has extended duration for that last 1% when charging to 100% on a HPWC, which I've done here at home. I don't believe use of a SuperCharger has anything to do with it -- it's just the way the battery management works today.�
Jan 10, 2016
msnow On my 14-50 it *says* "100%" but it also says "charging" so it's apparently different than the way the HPWC and SpC display it.�
Jan 10, 2016
sorka Which would have been 74 kWh at 0% which is not quite the capacity of a an 85 kWh battery *not* including the 17 miles of 0 mile buffer or so.
Someone's going to need to drive it from 100% down to stopped by either driving around the block for the last few miles and risking having to push or tow, or carrying a generator in the back to charge up a few miles over an hour before limping home.
The 85 model will stop with 3.9 kWh of 85 kWh left.�
Jan 10, 2016
msnow Sorka, can he have confidence in his "since last charge" numbers? Aren't they based on the same calculations that Tesla has stated are incorrect for his pack?�
Jan 10, 2016
roblab I love the title of this thread: My range is dropping!
My car got smooshed a week ago. Every day when I check the app, my battery shows decreased range. Right on! I ought to take them my charger, but I still have over 220 miles.
Yeah, I know you didn't mean that, but the battery range is supposed to drop.�
Jan 10, 2016
msnow For many of us it was 10 miles in just 8 weeks. It's not supposed to drop like that and Tesla agrees something is wrong. Sorry about your car.�
Jan 10, 2016
sorka They stated that the Killowatt meter is incorrect? I don't think so. I think they're referring to calculating rated miles based on the current charge state.�
Jan 10, 2016
msnow Yes you are correct. So the only way to verify is to charge to 100 and run it till it stops then that number should be 90 kWh? What about the reserve, is that included in the 90?
Sounds pretty extreme (and risky) right?�
Jan 10, 2016
LargeHamCollider Absolutely no way you will get 90kWh, Tesla doesn't let you use the top ~5% and bottom ~5% of the cell... and for good reason, doing so roughly doubles the rate at which you lose capacity with NCA cells. Given the available energy in an 85kWh pack (typically about 74kWh) I'd expect the 90 pack to have about 78kWh available.
Here's a decent resource on battery degradation:
Battery Deterioration - Endless Sphere Wiki�
Jan 10, 2016
apacheguy Tesla does allow you to use the top 5% based on cell voltages. Also, the 85 kWh pack has been shown to provide 77 kWh. The 90 kWh pack should definitely show over 80 kWh from full to empty.�
Jan 10, 2016
sorka The reserve is an unknown quantity and we don't even know they've kept it the same. But if someone goes from 100 to 0% with lights, audio, and climate off, they should be able to hit *at least* 81 kWh before the car shuts down which is what the 85 can by the time it's used up it's zero mile buffer.�
Jan 10, 2016
apacheguy Sometimes there *may* exist a zero mile buffer, but don't count on it in your calculations.�
Jan 10, 2016
LargeHamCollider Never heard of an 85 using 81kwh, the most I'm aware of is the father-son team that set the 550 mile single charge range record at 76.8kwh. But this was unusual as their ~25mph speed resulted in <.05C discharge rate and corresponding higher voltage throughout discharge.�
Jan 10, 2016
sorka I'm sure they didn't drive it until it died. 76 kWh is what a non degraded battery should show once it gets from 100 to 0%.
�
Jan 10, 2016
LargeHamCollider This is not an official Tesla Graphic, whoever made it was just guessing, there have been a number of TMC members who have taken their rides from 100% to 0% and most got ~74kwh, the only other instance of someone getting close to 76kwh was Bjorn Nyland who hit 75 point something on his ~25mph record attempt.�
Jan 10, 2016
sorka I hit 74 with 6 miles of rated range left but only with climate, lights, and sound system off and that was obviously before digging into the zero mile buffer. The point is that the 90 should be able to do 6% better than that.�
Jan 11, 2016
msnow These tests don't have a lot of precision because there are too many unknowns. Tesla must have a way to test the battery cell by cell.�
Jan 11, 2016
Oyvind.H Not sure what you mean by "no way you can reasonably and safely drive from 100% to 0%"
Since we cannot use the full 90kWh you`re right - there`s no way to drive from 100% to absolute zero.
However, it`s no problem to drive from 100-0% reported by the car. I`ve several times driven until the car says "charge now", and I know that when the kW meter reaches about 20kW max power output, the car is about to stop (based on several zero mile tests done in Europe/US).
Therefore, I know quite precisely when the car will stop. And with easy access to a good highway nearby, all i need to do is enter the highway, use about 45-50% and turn back home (I`ll do just that when my car arrives i march!)
After using the car from reported 100% to 0%, monitoring the kW meter max output, I get a good view of available kWh. Not accurate, but with a couple kWh margin. Then I`ll compare it to added energy when charging 0-100%.
And these numbers will be compared to a similar test a cople of months later. Of course, if the car reports no change in range, I won`t do a new test�
Jan 11, 2016
msnow Great, better you than me [emoji3]. My concern would be a) I'd be stuck waiting for a tow b) driving to 0% just can't be good for the battery c) due to the lack of precision I wouldn't get accurate results (I'm guessing "a couple kWh margin" would be a few miles of range).
In any case hopefully they will fix the algorithm but I'm looking forward to your test. Are you getting the 90 or 85?�
Jan 11, 2016
JRP3 Not without opening up the pack and pulling out individual cells.
It's not really 0% because there is always capacity the car will not let you access.�
Jan 11, 2016
msnow JRP, so when Tesla tells customers they tested and it's fine how do think they are doing that?�
Jan 11, 2016
JRP3 Cells connected in parallel act as a single large cell. Tesla may be able to check the capacity of that parallel cell group. Others know more about how the actual BMS functions and what data it provides.�
Jan 11, 2016
sorka
I suspect it's simpler than that. I suspect they're charging and discharging to known SOCs and comparing the voltages at each and correlating the known SOC vs voltage charge for that cell.�
Jan 11, 2016
JRP3 I assume you mean parallel cell group, since all cells in parallel show the same voltage.�
Jan 11, 2016
msnow I was monitoring them on my phone while it was at the SvC and I noticed twice they charged, drove, charged and drove. Maybe that's what they were doing in diag mode?�
Jan 12, 2016
ArtInCT I am wondering if THE FIX is in... 7.1? See this thread guys ->>7.1 - range algorithm updated�
Jan 12, 2016
msnow Saw it and fingers crossed. Still waiting for 7.1 here on the West Coast.�
Jan 12, 2016
BertL I'm hoping too while I'm still waiting for my download.
...although I'm now preparing myself for some of the very techie, conspiracy theory, or almost-always sarcastic posters around here that will ask "How do you trust this new number vs the old one is fact, and Tesla isn't just hiding something having changed what is displayed to shut you-all up?" or say there could still be underlying problems this change may not resolve.�
Jan 13, 2016
BertL Updated to V7.1 2.9.154 on my S90D just now. Began with a just-completed 90% charge and 250 Rated Range, performed the update while plugged into my HPWC, still 250 after the update. I will not have the opportunity to trip charge and use that for at least a few days. I will continue to log numbers and report back here if I begin to see any future improvement should any change take time to show itself.
Of note, with a first glance, there are no specifics regarding Rated Range or S90 called-out in my release notes. The notes are the same as what others have shared with 7.1 here in the US.�
Jan 13, 2016
msnow Also installed the 7.1 update last night. So far no change to rated range. Still 248 at 90%. I will charge to 100% next week to test those numbers and let the BMS do its thing.�
Jan 13, 2016
BertL FWIW, from a 90% overnight charge, after installing 7.1, I did a few quick errands, returned home, and just finished trip charging to 100% on my S90D, resulting in 279 Rated Range miles. I would hope to have something closer to 286 as a calculated 3-month-old S90 at 100% Charge, so we'll just have to see as time goes on if there were in fact any noticeable longer-term effects with 7.1 on a S90 or not. With these early indicators, I doubt it.
Going out now to burn off 10% of the charge (...and no, I don't plan to try to bring the charge down to close-to-nothing, to then bring it back up to 100% as some suspect we have to do. It is very evident something is going on under the covers for the last 25 minutes of that charge on an 80A circuit to get from 278 to 279 Rated Range miles.�
Jan 15, 2016
Beryl This is a nit but may be a helpful data point:
Since installing 7.1, my daily 90% charge appeared to decrease by 1. The notification on my iPhone states 254 for completion but the 90D display states 255 (the number I used to receive on my phone).
It may be nothing more than the anticipated range decline after one month. The iPhone notification that used to be 255 might have displayed 256 on the car. I never looked.�
Jan 15, 2016
msnow ^^ same here. Range in the app is the same but the notification was one mile less. No biggie.�
Jan 15, 2016
BertL I consider it all rounding errors. My Tesla App and MS IC sometimes vary by 1 mile, and actually, the Tesla App may have gone up or down by 1 mile if I check it a second time a minute later. To me, it's just part of the screwy estimations Tesla is presenting in multiple places -- that hopefully one day become consistent no matter where you look at them, and they don't change within seconds of one another.�
Jan 15, 2016
msnow True. Not sure if you have the iOS app called Remote S. He's not updating it anymore (long story) but it's much more precise in its measurement of things like this.�
Jan 15, 2016
BertL Yes, and have Remote S on my Apple Watch -- one touch and I'm there.�
Jan 17, 2016
wizputer No help from 7.1 for me.
Down to 248mi
About right for the -3mi/month I've been seeing.�
Jan 17, 2016
msnow Yes it is. Even so, you should ask your SvC to check it out during your next visit there so you have it on record.�
Jan 20, 2016
BertL FWIW: It's now been a week with 7.1 2.9.154. I declare this code did nothing for my S90D in terms of resolving the inaccurate S90 Rated Range display. I tried a single 100% charge as noted above, but even with last night's 90% charge after several days off the HPWC (just to see if that made a difference), I'm back at 250 rated range miles this morning ...and yes, our temperatures here have remained consistently moderate: daily mean 52-56F and low 45-51F.�
Feb 15, 2016
chriSharek I'd be thrilled if it settled in at the 94-95% your graph shows . . . but I doubt it's that asymptotic . . .�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét