Jul 30, 2016
NOLA_Mike I think you need to find a way to get over this. I know you feel slighted by Tesla but it's just not worth letting this minor issue ruin your otherwise enjoyment of the car.
Take this in to consideration - you could've been delivered a car that displayed the EPA (or promised or whatever) rated range upon delivery but then degraded quickly in the first year and lost 10 miles in the first year. Or, you could've been delivered a car that was always shy 8 miles of what you expected it to be but only lost 2 miles during the course of the first year. Either way you are in the same position at the end of year 1 and Tesla isn't going to do anything about either case.
It's just not worth letting it interfere with the enjoyment of the car. If you let stuff like this eat at you to the point where you don't want a Tesla anymore what would you get to replace it?
Mike
EDIT: I did not mean this post in any way berate or otherwise minimize any concerns you guys have just saying that IMO it is likely Tesla will never do anything about it.�
Jul 30, 2016
BertL I won't get into food fights, so suggest you may want to read background from a umber of folks actually encountering this problem up thread. My net is this:
- Unlike people who buy an S90D today, we "early" owners bought a Range Upgrade option that cost $3K for effectively 16 more miles at 100% charge. That was Tesla's choice to market their option like that, not mine. Any loss against those miles on the day of delivery is easy to essentially equate to having paid for something one didn't receive. You can draw your own comparative analogies... (e.g. a package of something that says there is 16 inside, but upon opening it, and only 12 are there, what would you expect as a consumer?). I already personally feel there is enough "donation" in the price of an MS to help further the cause, than having given more when I was not expecting to. Tesla not prioritizing resolution (especially if it is firmware) the same way they have with other high profile hardware-only issues, compounds some of our concern. Some other early owners as I said have a much worse problem than I... where those 16 miles are still nearly all absent or they are running with RR lower than that, yet are being told like me that all is well, and there are firmware updates still coming (but no ETA) to resolve their issue.
- I'm personally careful to keep my expectations on what specs Tesla stated when I ordered and took delivery of my specific MS... but it's anecdotally interesting from many posts here that Tesla implemented what appears to be some sort of update to the S90D battery within a few weeks or months of at least mine and some others being shipped that both allowed final EPA ratings to be higher than what it was when I and other early owners ordered or have ever achieved. I get that Tesla is always making engineering updates, but changes like that, that sort of sneek into the game when improved RR is generally such a big deal promoted to the public and press, while some number of earlier S90D can't quite get to even the original lower number does make one question what's going on.
- ...and then the question remains for me: Tesla has told and documented to me three things to resolve my concerns that are different from one another. Which am I to believe and implement to protect my investment and maximize enjoyment of my MS? Tesla has elected not to answer that. Again, it's anecdotal, and Inhate to be suspicious, but it makes at least me ask "why no reply?" I appreciate people's constructive ideas here and have read every one in this thread since its inception -- implementing several when Tesla has lacked clarity, but like others I suspect, I believe I deserve a straight single answer from my manufacturer because of the confusion they have created for me, their customer and MS Owner. I also believe there are others that may not be high mileage drivers, and even more out there that don't frequent threads like this, so wouldn't it be helpful to all of them if Tesla provided manual/video/orientation clarity how often manual cycling is necessary or not. Certainly when M3 comes into the game, there will be even more people like me that would benefit from updates to either firmware to handle the low-mileage situation some way, or perhaps notify owners they have to manually intervene with a deeper cycle at some interval.
�
Jul 30, 2016
BertL Thanks ...and I get it. It's why I have been factual and business like with Tesla from the outset -- Never a threat or loud word. I tried my last major step of writing to Tesla asking for help clarifying their varying direction -- to help me; perhaps others given the generally nebulous nature Tesla has with minimal and elusive documentation; and in hope that Tesla would use a formal letter like that as feedback and a reason to improve (as my team and I used to with customer complaints). When a month passed and I had no reply, I got more |>��~'d off about Tesla's failed Customer Service, but settled in to just live with what has evolved to be lesser problem than it was weeks and months ago.
I will always feel slighted because of the "$3K Option that should have provided 16 miles", but have moved on. I simply wanted to close my part of this thread out as I feel like one of originators some 30+ pages ago beginning last Fall when we first were identifying the problem. Lots of people jump in with opinions which is fine, but I do believe owners encountering the exact problem have a different POV others may not be able to completely understand. I do remain passionate for my fellow early S90D owners that have more severe problems than I -- still hoping Tesla comes through, but loosing hope as time progresses.
I'm outta here with feedback on my last post. Thx again to those that have been helpful along the way.�
Jul 30, 2016
msnow Just thought I would chime in here that the OP is at around 240 and 260 (90% & 100%) or 27 rated miles off of what was promised. He has also sent a letter and not received a response. He may be one of the worst cases but all of us are upset that Tesla didn't keep their word either on the range we would get or the promised fix and to not even respond to customers letters just isn't right. All of us love driving our cars but the lack of communication, transparency, and keeping promises just doesn't feel right.�
Jul 30, 2016
fallen888 I'm sorry if I'm asking something dumb and obvious, but I'm still new here (just placed my order for MS a week ago). I see a lot of people taking about charging up to 90%. Why not fully to 100%? Is that bad for the battery or something?
Thanks in advance.�
Jul 30, 2016
msnow For day to day driving Tesla recommends 70-90%. It doesn't hurt your battery to charge to 100% but it will be better for the battery to do that just when you need to such as a long trip.�
Jul 30, 2016
fallen888 That's good to know, thanks msnow. But I'm wondering how it's better for the battery? Do you have some article you can point me to?
Thanks.�
Jul 30, 2016
Boatguy @BertL has a reasonable complaint on at least two points:
1) His S90D has substantially less range than he expected when he made his purchase. He got about 10% less than they represented and than he paid for. Let me repeat that "and paid for". In any other product category this problem would be addressed by the vendor. If you buy a case of wine and one of the bottles is "corked", the winery sends you a replacement bottle (at least in my experience with any reputable winery). A $100K is sort of like a $1K case of wine, it's reasonable to expect to receive what you paid for.
My BMW i3 BEV, now two years old, has not lost a mile of range, certainly not 10%, so while Tesla's "don't bother me, suck it up" attitude may have convinced many owners, this is not something that is necessarily inherent in EVs. It is however an excellent example of "if you repeat a falsehood enough times, it starts to sound like the truth".
My S90D delivered in April (pre-refresh) has declined from 294 (EPA rated at time of purchase), to 288. It gets drained to < 20% and charged to 100% about once a month in the normal course of driving. I, and I suspect many other S90D owners, hope that we are not on the same curve as @BertL.
2) Tesla's customer service (not vehicle service) is awful. I dare to say that even Comcast, and cable companies were once the low water mark for service, has better customer service. I had several issues with my car at purchase, ranging from the most amazingly fouled up lease you can imagine, to some product issues with the car. Tesla was beyond inept. There effectively is no customer service organization, they all point fingers at someone else, ask for patience, beg for time, promise to do something, and eventually deliver "half a loaf" if you scream and shout and threaten and cajole. None of the individuals are bad people, or harbor ill intent, they are just laboring under totally inept customer service management.
This lack of customer service will spawn a crisis if the factory is able to produce even half the volume of Model 3's that Tesla is promising to produce. M3 customers will not be as generous as MS/MX customers, many of whom have used these forums to admit and accept that they are paying too much, and being too patient (whether it's loss of range, or broken promises to update software) in order to subsidize Elon's "cause". M3 customers are buying transportation, not donating to a cause. Moreever they think they are doing business with a "premium" company so their expectations are going to be higher than if they were buying a Bolt. I see no indication that Tesla is preparing for the tsunami of demands that will be placed on the customer service organization when they start shipping in volume. They do not have the organizational or information infrastructure to deal with customers, they rely on Elon's charm and the driving experience.
Tesla owes @BertL the courtesy of a reply, if it's just to tell him "too bad".
As he has expressed, he enjoys his car, but Tesla should understand that such generosity by owners is not a bottomless well. The press is poised to pounce, as we've seen with one AP death. When Tesla takes its inept customer service to the masses with the first 50,000 M3 owners, expect to see the press, both motor and press, roast them alive.
@BertL is the tip of the iceberg, not an outlier.�
Jul 31, 2016
JRP3 True, and if you look at it as paying $187.50 per mile then you were shorted $375 of product at delivery. (Going by the 90% charge since it doesn't appear as if you did a 100% charge until 40 days later). So yes, I understand that you did not get what you paid for and I understand how that could bother you, and it's unfortunate that Tesla did not provide a satisfactory response.�
Jul 31, 2016
JRP3 Really? Because after 17 months he has the same range as he did when the car was delivered. I think most people would be quite happy with that "curve".�
Jul 31, 2016
JRP3 Holding a battery at full charge for extended periods can accelerate the degradation of the electrolyte. In practice we have not really seen that effect with Tesla packs, but if you don't need a full charge you might as well avoid it most of the time. The caveat is that not charging to 100% can cause the pack capacity algorithm to under report actual pack capacity, so repeated partial charges may make the pack appear to have less capacity than it actually has.�
Jul 31, 2016
lolder Does the charged range display vary depending on past usage? For instance, the "Distance to Empty" of my 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid is based on an algorithm that includes the past 500 miles fuel usage. That can vary 50 miles.�
Jul 31, 2016
PtG62901 As an experiment, drive the speed limit for a couple of weeks, and see if it goes back up? Slow way down, drive like you have a 4 banger ICE. lol.�
Jul 31, 2016
182RG ^ slow clap ^
I could not have said it better. The faithful will quickly become outnumbered by the masses.�
Jul 31, 2016
msnow If you look at his logs you will see it was only the last two weeks that he got that higher number. Previous to that he was only getting half of what he paid for and he's doing better than most of us early 90D buyers. For me I was down 12 of the promised 16 miles, the OP has signifucantly less (down 27 miles), and on and on. Obviously I don't expect you to read every post in this thread but there are dozens and dozens of people in this situation. I appreciate the spirit of your last sentence but it's more than "unfortunate" it is wrong and it wasn't that we didn't receive a "satisfactory response" we received no response.�
Jul 31, 2016
msnow The real issue is that if you charge to 100% and let it sit (don't drive it) the heat from that kind of a charge will put strain on the cells. Most people here will time their "Trip" charge (100%) to coincide with when they leave in order to offset the heat issue. There's some study's in this forum on that topic you can search for.�
Jul 31, 2016
TexasEV No. It's the EPA rated range. This is different than the trip display which predicts range based on recent usage.�
Jul 31, 2016
Boatguy In "Settings" you can toggle between battery percentage and rated miles (RM). My S90D loses one RM for each 273Wh of power consumed so my belief is that the RM on the display is their best estimate of the kWh available for driving divided by 273Wh.
As @TexasEV points out, it has nothing to past driving.�
Jul 31, 2016
Boatguy Your intent was clearly positive, no concerns there.
However, my hope, and perhaps the hope of others in these forums, is that by surfacing the issues that are most important to us, and voicing our concerns on a continual basis in a rational, factual and well documented manner, maybe Tesla will do something about them.�
Jul 31, 2016
ArtInCT I suspect that each model, with different propulsion configurations has a different factor for each mile. So my P90DL probably has a factor nearer to 300Wh of power for each RM. I wonder what the procedure is to arrive at the factor? Charge to 100% then drive to 0 and then divide the miles into the kWh used? Of course that does not account for the vampire drain, and the 12V recharge usage by all the 12V sub-systems.
Most recently, I have been a 12V abuser, running the HVAC with fan on higher than normal (due to the summer heat) and also noticing that the automatic ventilation system has been running at times when the car was in the sun on very hot days.�
Jul 31, 2016
JRP3 Understood, I was really only commenting on his particular situation, and that his range seems to have increased to very near what it should be. I fully agree that those of you with much greater losses actually have a strong case against Tesla and that they should actively be addressing the problem. They have no excuse not to do so.�
Jul 31, 2016
msnow Agree and I also never have heard anything authoritative (other than speculation) about the reserve anti-brick kWh.�
Jul 31, 2016
ArtInCT Yah, the so called "anti-bricking" buffer is a debatable topic. Without an authoritative white paper from Tesla, we can only wonder if it really exists. I for one am very skeptical about bringing my traction batter to near zero or near 100%. I have been to 95% only once in fact and that was on a 4 day spoke trip off of the main Supercharger routes up in Maine. We charged to 95% at a SuperCharger in Augusta, ME and then headed to Camden, ME for 4 days. I did not look ahead well enough to be frank. Me bad. There was an Inn that we could have stayed at which had a Tesla HPWC. They were part of the "destination" charging program. I learned from this to look for such places before making reservations. None the less, this is where the large battery shines and takes the anxiety out of the equation. I just could not see myself with a 60 kWh battery, especially in the winter where range is really pessimistic.�
Jul 31, 2016
Boatguy The procedure is very simple. On some reasonably long trip, say at least 40-50mi, reset your Trip A and note the starting RM. When you arrive, divide the kWh used by the RM consumed. Repeat that 4-5 times and you'll find the values for Wh/RM cluster within a couple of Wh.
At least on my car, Tesla uses 290Wh/RM for the Projected Miles calculation on the Energy display, which is quite misleading when they tick off an RM every 273Wh.�
Jul 31, 2016
Boatguy I don't think there is any question that the buffer exists. BMW is quite explicit about the battery in the i3. The car has a 22kWh battery, of which only 19kWh is available for driving. That's 13% of total battery capacity which is pretty high.
My S90D loses one RM every 273Wh. At delivery the 100% was 294RM. So 294RM * 273Wh/RM = 80.2kWh. Assuming the battery is actually 90kWh, then the "anti brick" or whatever we want to call it, is about 10kWh.�
Jul 31, 2016
lolder The Whr/mile is very dependent on speed. If you drive slowly it goes way down. If you drive 80 it will probably be over 350.�
Jul 31, 2016
Boatguy That's true for Wh / odometer mile, it's not true for Wh / Rated Mile.�
Jul 31, 2016
apacheguy For my 85, this number appears to be right around 300 Wh/mi�
Aug 5, 2016
mspisars I think that we need to define "substantially less range" then, because based on his chart he is 2 miles short of 90% (that is 0.778 % difference) and 3 miles short of 100%
Also, I'm with @JRP3
�
Aug 5, 2016
msnow Because you missed the point. For 9 of those 10 months he wasn't getting near that so he didn't get the benefit of his $3k. Read his log file, in the first few weeks he lost 3% or 8 of his promised 16 miles. That was very, very fast and he was better than most. If you've been following this thread you will see most lost about 5% in 8 weeks while waiting for the promised fix which still hasn't materialized.�
Aug 5, 2016
mspisars What I see from the log is it started 2 miles short and ended 2 miles short of 90%...�
Aug 5, 2016
ArtInCT Thanks for that procedure:
I have been logging my trips since then.
294, 276, 300, 302, 294, 300 are the resultant factors.
The longer trips settle in at 300 as the factor.
The shorter trips as you can see are all over and usually lower.
Most of my shorter trips are 35 MPH back roads, the longer trips being 65 MPH highway cruising.
Yesterday, on a 120 Mile trip it was dead nuts on 300 as the resultant factor.
So for the P90D in this type of weather (80F with air on) I can use the 300 as my factor.
Art�
Aug 5, 2016
Pale Hearse Yes Mike.. but.. as I pointed out..
How that range is calculated.. i.e. the only way the car actually has to make that calculation.. is to take the amount of charge at mile segments and then make a calculation over a given distance to show a number. This number is a calculation based largely on the system's "experience". There are MANY examples of this on Youtube that highlight this. This is the reason that if you habitually charge to 80% and then suddenly charge to 100% a couple times and deplete to 10-20% ish.. that number changes.
If this were purely based on the power.. that wouldn't be the case. The idea is that the car is smarter than that and it's designed not to be "wrong" for any individual driver.
I usually drive mine around like a lunatic. I'm here in CA where superchargers are everywhere and I have lots of charging options both at home and at my many destinations. Because of this, I basically drive it like a Ferrari.
As a result, my max range decreased. My father came for a visit and I spent a long weekend following him around in his Prius. As I did so, around day 2, I noticed something curious happen. I would drive for many miles near the 70% mark and notice that my estimated miles seemed to be having difficulty. When I initially picked up the car, it showed 288 miles at full charge. Prior to my father's visit, it was down to around 272 at about 12K miles. After he left... it was at 278-280. And now? Well it's back to 272-275 at 37,000 miles now.
Probably time to try this again.
My initial mistake was not recording the "ideal" miles when I got the car new. Any new 90D owners care to share what their cars are showing as the ideal miles?�
Aug 5, 2016
msnow Rated Range is NOT based on your driving style. Driving it like a Ferrari or a Prius won't impact the algorithm used to calculate RR. Driving style will impact "Estimated Range" only. Charging style will affect the displayed range until you balance/calibrate the pack. EPA Rated Range is a 5 stage test based on many factors so if you drive using the metrics they use such as ideal temperature, combination city and highway, ideal speed, etc, etc, you can achieve the EPA rating until or unless the battery degrades.�
Aug 5, 2016
Pale Hearse We disagree... not sure where you are getting your information from.. but what you describe does not jive with my experiences and the experiences of others.
The calculation seems to be at least partially based on the rate of depletion. As you pointed out, however, it is based on the car's "experience" with the battery. If it wasn't then there would be no need to calibrate at all. It would simply use the amount of energy stored in the battery to make the calculation. So what you are saying doesn't pass the sniff test.
Their is not AI involved here.. just calculation. What you are saying is that the depletion rate is a fixed amount. Say 300wh per mile.. or some other arbitrary figure. What I believe to be the truth is that the car has the ability to "fudge" this number over time to more accurately project the rated number. Otherwise.. it wouldn't change.
I agree that the lion's share of the calculation is based on the amount of energy put into the battery.. but there again.. it's depletion isn't evenly distributed.
For example.. charge your car to 100%. Then drive one mile.. and look at your range. If you charged to 180 at a full charge.. by the end of one mile I can guarantee you it will be about 176. By your reasoning.. why would that be?
In the account I gave.. that was equally true.. but.. it also sat there at freeway speeds and I watched it.. consuming 290-310wh per mile. It got to about 210-212.. and sat there.. for about 15 miles before starting to once again follow counting the miles more or less appropriately.
So no.. there is more to that calculation I think. So unless you are getting this information straight from the programmer.. it doesn't seem to fit the real world model of how the rated mileage is displayed.
If you said you were talking about the ideal number.. then you would have an argument... and that was my point all along. I am kicking myself for not looking at what the ideal range was when I first got the car. That number.. changes with the total amount of energy in the battery registered by the car.�
Aug 6, 2016
msnow Over time and a little research you will see that is not correct. EPA is in fact a fixed tested number, it doesn't change. The EPA RR number displayed on your instrument cluster will change when the algorithm gets confused by charging habits or real battery degradation. If you bought an ICE car and the sticker said it had an EPA rating of 30 MPG that rating isn't going to change based on the way you drive but your ability to achieve or exceed it will. What you're talking about is the Estmated Range on the Energy App which is based on your past 5/15/30 miles of driving experience. Hope that makes sense.�
Aug 6, 2016
cinergi I'm consistently now hitting 255 at 90%.
BTW there are threads covering what rated range as displayed by the car is. It is not purely based on energy in the pack; it does include driver behavior as well as environmental factors. There's not only plenty of evidence to support this but I have it straight from Tesla engineering's (not sales or service) mouth.�
Aug 6, 2016
msnow Upthread we have written documentation from work orders as to the cause of this problem. EPA is EPA. What do you have? You and the previous poster refer to links and "YouTube videos" let's see it.�
Aug 6, 2016
hiroshiy While I agree that mostly RR is EPA, but there are some things that affect the fixed number, be that temperature and driving style. I thought @jerry33 recorded every day 90% charge RR numbers for a few years now and his data clearly showed some seasonal trends.
That said after D models are introduced RR number seems to be too low, 273Wh. Previously Classic cars had 300. And European/Japanese Classic as 320, so my Classic had only 246 miles RR at delivery. It seems Euro/Japanese D models have something like 290.�
Aug 6, 2016
msnow Yes, I have also seen evidence that temperature can affect it temporarily but not driving style. Coincidentally I was at the Service Center today and I talked to both the Service Manager and Shop Forman while I was waiting for a firmware update and both said how you drive as zero to do with any variation of Rated Range. They also said many people confuse Rated Range, Estimated Range and Ideal Range. Tesla should put out a white paper on this so there isn't so much confusion.
@hiroshiy all of the 90D's since at least March/April of this year are getting 294-296 at 100%. The battery part number also changed from my version.�
Aug 6, 2016
apacheguy We have it from @wk057 that the rated range calculation is simply pack capcity divided by a constant. For my pack that constant is ~302 Wh/mi�
Aug 6, 2016
TexasEV The definition of rated range is the range on the EPA test cycle. Period. Full stop. The rated range that is displayed may vary at times because it's not possible to calculate the state of charge of the battery exactly, but that doesn't change the actual rated range. If anyone has written documentation from an authoritative source that says otherwise, please share it. What someone heard from someone doesn't qualify.�
Aug 6, 2016
hiroshiy Thanks, @msnow for further explanation.
BTW I didn't include units so my post wasn't clear enough. I wanted to mention the RR constant is different from models and vintage:
"after D models are introduced RR constant number seems to be too lower, 273Wh/mile. Previously Classic cars had 300Wh/mile. And European/Japanese Classic as 320Wh/mile, so my Classic had only 246 miles RR at delivery, @320Wh/mile, so equivalent to 262 miles of RR. It seems Euro/Japanese D models have something like 290Wh/mile, even though PD models consume more energy than Classic RWD models, so it is harder with PD models to reach RR than with Classic RWDs.�
Aug 6, 2016
Boatguy I think the Tesla personnel confused Estimated Range with Projected Range. And I agree that a Tesla white paper would be useful. I think I've basically reverse engineered what's happening with RM vs Projected Miles.
The displayed RM is battery capacity available for driving divided by a constant. In the case of the S90D, that constant is 273 Wh/RM.
Projected Miles is an adjustment to RM based on driving style/conditions for the last 5/15/30 miles (or the appropriate km). However, for reasons known only to Tesla, on my S90D the constant used is 290Wh/mi. So for example if your consumption over the last 30 miles was 310 Wh/mi, then Projected miles will be 290/310 = 6.5% less than RM. It's an essentially useless number since it doesn't use the same 273 Wh/mi as is used to calculate the displayed RM.
Ideal Range is some marketing fantasy land that I believe is of no use to an owner.
Seasonally could affect RM by changing available battery capacity. Cold weather does reduce available battery capacity and I see this in my i3 each year, so I would not be surprised to see Tesla RM reduced in winter, but obviously a function of how cold it is where you live. Worse in Finland than Santa Monica!�
Aug 6, 2016
Mike Tuccelli FYI. 10,500 miles .... Stopped charging to 90% at 5,000 miles, charging to 80% and get 282 mile range projection. Steady at 282 for the past 6 months. I'm happy.�
Aug 6, 2016
Boatguy Just to clarify, you get 282 rated miles @ 80% charge? That translates to 352 RM at 100%. I think that's a record and certainly a good reason to be happy!�
Aug 6, 2016
msnow I think he means he "projects" 282 RM at 100% which is about normal for a 2015 90D. It also means 253 at 90% and 225 at 80%.�
Aug 7, 2016
Boatguy Ah yes, I missed the word "projection". Thanks!�
Aug 7, 2016
Pale Hearse
That matches up with my own experience on the matter as well.�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét