teslamotorclub: Decreasing rated range. part 10

It's a testament to the pathbreaking job that Tesla has done with the Battery Management System that the precipitous, first-year "degradation" (that was predicted based on Li-ion battery studies) just hasn't happened to that extent, if at all. It's mostly been software algorithm roulette but, hardly anything permanent, it appears. If you believe the range numbers with v5.9, that is Most of us who regularly charge to 90% seem well off indeed.
�

I think this has been covered somewhere but short term repeated MAX RANGE charging does seem to increase rated range. My friend got married ~80 miles from where I live so I MAX charged to go to his bachelor party (Rated Range 243); MAX charged to go to a BBQ the next day (Rated Range 245) and MAX charged to go to the wedding (Rated Range 247). I was tempted to MAX charge a forth time just to see if I could get to 250 . Undoubtedly MAX range charging damages the battery in the long run but I think it's the duration that matters not really the fact that you went to 100%. From what I understand going to 100% then immediately driving and going back <90% limits the damage.
�

Gear said: ?

The evidence so far doesn't seem to back that up. I think the real damage comes from the car sitting in either of the aforementioned states for long periods. I really don't think charging to 100% and starting your journey shortly after or arriving at home with 5 miles and then charging immediately are all that bad for the battery.
Click to expand...

I suspect that negative impacts, if any, will be noticed over years of use. Model S has not been out in the wild long enough to know for sure.
�

gg_got_a_tesla said: ?

It's a testament to the pathbreaking job that Tesla has done with the Battery Management System that the precipitous, first-year "degradation" (that was predicted based on Li-ion battery studies) just hasn't happened to that extent, if at all.
Click to expand...

I do not agree. Max range charge on my Dec 2012 P85 is 258 on 5.9. This isn't my original battery (refurb), but still I do have detectable ~4% degradation at only 6000 miles and that is with limited range charges, no supercharging, and an attempt to balance the battery that really didn't do anything. Also real world range even at below 300 W/mi isn't 300 miles. It's not bad, but the car doesn't really get the rated of sub-265 or ideal range of 300 unless you super hypermile with no heat or air conditioning with no head winds on flat roads at normal temperatures. 300 is marketing. 265 isn't real. 265 isn't possible at a little over 1 year. 220 is easy and realistic.
�

islandbayy:

Am I lucky? Maybe. I just use my car for what Tesla says I should. If I need the range, do the 100%. If I dont, I charge to 90%. When I'm not using my car, I plug it in
Click to expand...

If I had to bet on anything I'd bet your usage pattern is such that minimizes or even eliminates 'artifacts' of range estimation algorithm. Your car "resets" its Empty and Full thresholds so often that inaccuracies of measuring/estimating SOC cannot add up into whole miles.
People that only cycle between ~90 and ~40 and never go lower toward the bottom don't have that 'privilege' and are open to misrepresent methodology weaknesses with real degradation.

Tesla's battery tech is guaranteed for 8 years. We have their word that anything below 80% of "new range" before 8 years is considered "failed battery" and due for replacement.
Obsessing on x% lower (single digit miles) ESTIMATION and calling it degradation is simply ridiculous.
Degradation starts when your range charge gives you less than ~90% of "new" range in as similar conditions as possible. At ~80% your battery can be called "a bit worn" and at 70% "failed". All of you guys still have have perfect batteries. Enjoy your drive and warranty.
�

WarpedOne said: ?

islandbayy:

If I had to bet on anything I'd bet your usage pattern is such that minimizes or even eliminates 'artifacts' of range estimation algorithm. Your car "resets" its Empty and Full thresholds so often that inaccuracies of measuring/estimating SOC cannot add up into whole miles.
People that only cycle between ~90 and ~40 and never go lower toward the bottom don't have that 'privilege' and are open to misrepresent methodology weaknesses with real degradation.

Tesla's battery tech is guaranteed for 8 years. We have their word that anything below 80% of "new range" before 8 years is considered "failed battery" and due for replacement.
Obsessing on x% lower (single digit miles) ESTIMATION and calling it degradation is simply ridiculous.
Degradation starts when your range charge gives you less than ~90% of "new" range in as similar conditions as possible. At ~80% your battery can be called "a bit worn" and at 70% "failed". All of you guys still have have perfect batteries. Enjoy your drive and warranty.
Click to expand...

People keep throwing this around but I don't think I have ever seen anything official on that.
�

WarpedOne said: ?

We have their word that anything below 80% of "new range" before 8 years is considered "failed battery" and due for replacement.
Click to expand...

Do you have a reference for that? The warranty says that Tesla isn't responsible for degradation from use, but as far as I know they've never defined the point where degradation would be considered abnormal.
�

walla2 said: ?

...the car doesn't really get the rated of sub-265 or ideal range of 300 unless you super hypermile with no heat or air conditioning with no head winds on flat roads at normal temperatures.
Click to expand...

That's not the case with me. I'm coming up on 11 months and 23K miles, and I can drive in a reasonably spirited fashion keeping up with the flow of traffic at 70-75 on moderate terrain with the A/C on and hit sub-300 number for energy consumption pretty easily. Particularly on longer trips.

Of course, that's not to say it's always possible... very strong headwinds, significant elevation change, or cold temps affect this. But under typically mild conditions it's achievable without have to resort to "hypermiling", much less "super hypermiling".
�

scaesare said: ?

That's not the case with me. I'm coming up on 11 months and 23K miles, and I can drive in a reasonably spirited fashion keeping up with the flow of traffic at 70-75 on moderate terrain with the A/C on and hit sub-300 number for energy consumption pretty easily. Particularly on longer trips.

Of course, that's not to say it's always possible... very strong headwinds, significant elevation change, or cold temps affect this. But under typically mild conditions it's achievable without have to resort to "hypermiling", much less "super hypermiling".
Click to expand...

In my experience, if it is warm outside and you stay at or below 65 you'll get the #'s you should... Harder to do with 21's... but 19's should deliver that fairly consistently.
�

SeminoleFSU said: ?

In my experience, if it is warm outside and you stay at or below 65 you'll get the #'s you should... Harder to do with 21's... but 19's should deliver that fairly consistently.
Click to expand...

Same here. I live in the mountains, too, so I don't even get full regen leaving my house (cold temps in the morning and 90% charge) and I still manage sub 300's pretty easily. If I lived somewhere where I'd be discharging leaving my house instead of charging, I'd do even better. Nobody should expect the 300 mile number on an 85. Tesla has made it pretty clear that the 300 mile range number is flat terrain, ideal conditions, and cruise at 55. They call it "ideal" range for a reason.
�

WarpedOne said: ?

islandbayy:

If I had to bet on anything I'd bet your usage pattern is such that minimizes or even eliminates 'artifacts' of range estimation algorithm. Your car "resets" its Empty and Full thresholds so often that inaccuracies of measuring/estimating SOC cannot add up into whole miles.
People that only cycle between ~90 and ~40 and never go lower toward the bottom don't have that 'privilege' and are open to misrepresent methodology weaknesses with real degradation.

Tesla's battery tech is guaranteed for 8 years. We have their word that anything below 80% of "new range" before 8 years is considered "failed battery" and due for replacement.
Obsessing on x% lower (single digit miles) ESTIMATION and calling it degradation is simply ridiculous.
Degradation starts when your range charge gives you less than ~90% of "new" range in as similar conditions as possible. At ~80% your battery can be called "a bit worn" and at 70% "failed". All of you guys still have have perfect batteries. Enjoy your drive and warranty.
Click to expand...

you forget, us with the 60kW packs get 125k or 8 years whichever is first. given that, my warranty will be over in 2 years for the battery, and end of 2014 for the rest if the car whole car.
Guven my mileage, it may be possible though to beat the countdown clock if age of the batteries though. I will just need to keep reporting my findings with my 60 pack as I go. I am still being told by the service centers I have one of the highest mileage 60 packs, let's see what this lil bugger can do
�

Perhaps rated range does include past driving performance

I've read every post in this thread, and there's something that still doesn't add up. The reported rated miles at 90%/100% seem to fall into two camps: A lot of 85 owners are reporting around 240 to 245 rated miles when they charge to 100%. But a lot of owners--especially those that have very high mileage--are reporting they still have 260-265 rated miles at 100%. Similarly, at 90%, a lot of owners are around 210-215 rated miles, and a lot of others are around 225-235.

With v5.8 and v5.9 the differences seem to follow a similar pattern, even if the difference is less severe at 90% (it seems 100% hasn't changed much, if at all).

So I propose that we reconsider that "rated miles" might actually consider past driving behavior, after all. I have actually been told this several times by Tesla employees, and have always shrugged it off because the TMC forum users were so emphatic that it does not.

But consider this: The folks that have very high mileage are likely doing much more freeway driving (long commutes or road trips), and the car tends to have lower overall Wh/mi on longer trips. I recognize that the super-high-mileage owners may also be 100% charging more often (thus keeping the algorithm steady), but even when other owners do a few 100% charges they don't seem to be gaining back many of those ~20 rated miles. (ie, repeated range charges can get someone from 240 back up to around 250...but not to 260+).

So, I think when we're looking at data points, we also need to consider (lifetime? recent?) Wh/mi as part of the data points, to see if we can find a correlation there.

We have ~11,700 miles on the car in 13 months, and have averaged about 335 Wh/mi, fairly consistently. Still on 5.8, 90% = 214 rated miles, and 100% = 243. Can other folks chime in with their Wh/mi info? Should we start a spreadsheet?
�

16.5k miles, average wh/mi 344, last 90% charge was 228, last range charge was 262. You would think that if driving history had anything to do with it, my rated range would be lower.
�

Andrew said: ?

I've read every post in this thread, and there's something that still doesn't add up. The reported rated miles at 90%/100% seem to fall into two camps: A lot of 85 owners are reporting around 240 to 245 rated miles when they charge to 100%. But a lot of owners--especially those that have very high mileage--are reporting they still have 260-265 rated miles at 100%. Similarly, at 90%, a lot of owners are around 210-215 rated miles, and a lot of others are around 225-235.

With v5.8 and v5.9 the differences seem to follow a similar pattern, even if the difference is less severe at 90% (it seems 100% hasn't changed much, if at all).

So I propose that we reconsider that "rated miles" might actually consider past driving behavior, after all. I have actually been told this several times by Tesla employees, and have always shrugged it off because the TMC forum users were so emphatic that it does not.

But consider this: The folks that have very high mileage are likely doing much more freeway driving (long commutes or road trips), and the car tends to have lower overall Wh/mi on longer trips. I recognize that the super-high-mileage owners may also be 100% charging more often (thus keeping the algorithm steady), but even when other owners do a few 100% charges they don't seem to be gaining back many of those ~20 rated miles. (ie, repeated range charges can get someone from 240 back up to around 250...but not to 260+).

So, I think when we're looking at data points, we also need to consider (lifetime? recent?) Wh/mi as part of the data points, to see if we can find a correlation there.

We have ~11,700 miles on the car in 13 months, and have averaged about 335 Wh/mi, fairly consistently. Still on 5.8, 90% = 214 rated miles, and 100% = 243. Can other folks chime in with their Wh/mi info? Should we start a spreadsheet?
Click to expand...

Andrew, this is why I have suggested that people all take the trouble to put their 5.9 100% charge information into the battery table

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showwiki.php?title=Battery+table

So we can find out if/what the correlations are. Right now there is a lot of conjecture and a bunch of people putting single data points out there. Getting all of the data in one place makes it far easier to analyze.

PS I have added average lifetime Wh/mi to table to test your suggested correlation
�

walla2 said: ?

300 is marketing. 265 isn't real. 265 isn't possible at a little over 1 year. 220 is easy and realistic.
Click to expand...

I think for WA state you are correct. I think for some regions (FL and parts of CA) you may be incorrect.
�

walla2 said: ?

I do not agree. Max range charge on my Dec 2012 P85 is 258 on 5.9. This isn't my original battery (refurb), but still I do have detectable ~4% degradation at only 6000 miles and that is with limited range charges, no supercharging, and an attempt to balance the battery that really didn't do anything. Also real world range even at below 300 W/mi isn't 300 miles. It's not bad, but the car doesn't really get the rated of sub-265 or ideal range of 300 unless you super hypermile with no heat or air conditioning with no head winds on flat roads at normal temperatures. 300 is marketing. 265 isn't real. 265 isn't possible at a little over 1 year. 220 is easy and realistic.
Click to expand...

Actually your perceived degradation is only 2.6%, not 4%. 258 miles out of 265 miles is 97.4%, or 2.6% loss. Also, the EPA range is achieved by driving the car from 100% to 0%, past zero until the car stops moving. Have you done that?

I get ideal range here in Arizona. That means 300 miles per full charge. Yesterday's errands netted me 264 Wh/mi. I drive a P85 with 19" wheels. With AC on I get around 288 Wh/mi. In my case, 300 isn't just marketing - it's reality.

- - - Updated - - -

WarpedOne said: ?

Tesla's battery tech is guaranteed for 8 years. We have their word that anything below 80% of "new range" before 8 years is considered "failed battery" and due for replacement.
Click to expand...

With respect, this is total nonsense. Tesla specifically EXCLUDES battery degradation from its battery warranty. There is absolutely no stated threshold of 80% anywhere. In fact, per Tesla's battery warranty (which you should read), even if your battery dropped to 50% it would not be considered defective.
�

Andrew said: ?

I've read every post in this thread, and there's something that still doesn't add up. The reported rated miles at 90%/100% seem to fall into two camps: A lot of 85 owners are reporting around 240 to 245 rated miles when they charge to 100%. But a lot of owners--especially those that have very high mileage--are reporting they still have 260-265 rated miles at 100%. Similarly, at 90%, a lot of owners are around 210-215 rated miles, and a lot of others are around 225-235.

With v5.8 and v5.9 the differences seem to follow a similar pattern, even if the difference is less severe at 90% (it seems 100% hasn't changed much, if at all).

So I propose that we reconsider that "rated miles" might actually consider past driving behavior, after all. I have actually been told this several times by Tesla employees, and have always shrugged it off because the TMC forum users were so emphatic that it does not.

But consider this: The folks that have very high mileage are likely doing much more freeway driving (long commutes or road trips), and the car tends to have lower overall Wh/mi on longer trips. I recognize that the super-high-mileage owners may also be 100% charging more often (thus keeping the algorithm steady), but even when other owners do a few 100% charges they don't seem to be gaining back many of those ~20 rated miles. (ie, repeated range charges can get someone from 240 back up to around 250...but not to 260+).

So, I think when we're looking at data points, we also need to consider (lifetime? recent?) Wh/mi as part of the data points, to see if we can find a correlation there.

We have ~11,700 miles on the car in 13 months, and have averaged about 335 Wh/mi, fairly consistently. Still on 5.8, 90% = 214 rated miles, and 100% = 243. Can other folks chime in with their Wh/mi info? Should we start a spreadsheet?
Click to expand...

It seems to me that the only way past driving affects rated range is the accuracy of the measurement. This might be where some of the confusion comes in. People that regularly use the full range of the battery seem to have higher readings. I was away from home for 3 months and my range at given percentages steadily went down as my car was sitting in the garage plugged in. After I got home and started using the full range of the battery somewhat frequently, the range display went up pretty steadily. I don't think wh/mi has anything to do with anything.
�

walla2 said: ?

I do not agree. Max range charge on my Dec 2012 P85 is 258 on 5.9. This isn't my original battery (refurb), but still I do have detectable ~4% degradation at only 6000 miles and that is with limited range charges, no supercharging, and an attempt to balance the battery that really didn't do anything. Also real world range even at below 300 W/mi isn't 300 miles. It's not bad, but the car doesn't really get the rated of sub-265 or ideal range of 300 unless you super hypermile with no heat or air conditioning with no head winds on flat roads at normal temperatures. 300 is marketing. 265 isn't real. 265 isn't possible at a little over 1 year. 220 is easy and realistic.
Click to expand...

We have a 5% loss after 18 months and 28,000 miles.
We regularly get 300 miles in MN summers, no hypermileing involved. In the winter we get around 200.
�

I've been called out on my statement that:

We have their word that anything below 80% of "new range" before 8 years is considered "failed battery" and due for replacement.
Click to expand...

I was writting on memory, here are my original sources:
First: i got told from a tesla sales rep that 3% per year is an acceptable loss. according to excel that is 78.37% of original capacity at year 8.
Second and the main one - I cannot find that post any more It was here on TMC from a guy that specificaly asked tesla rep what if his capacity drops to 70% before age of 8 years and he got the word "replacement".

Dancing on "the warranty does not state anything regarding range" is giving tesla excuse to not cover excessive range loss if it should happen.
We are better off if we expect them to replace the battery as they will feel the comunity pressure. Giving up in advance doesn't serve us any good.
�

WarpedOne said: ?

I've been called out on my statement that:

I was writting on memory, here are my original sources:
First: i got told from a tesla sales rep that 3% per year is an acceptable loss. according to excel that is 78.37% of original capacity at year 8.
Second and the main one - I cannot find that post any more It was here on TMC from a guy that specificaly asked tesla rep what if his capacity drops to 70% before age of 8 years and he got the word "replacement".

Dancing on "the warranty does not state anything regarding range" is giving tesla excuse to not cover excessive range loss if it should happen.
We are better off if we expect them to replace the battery as they will feel the comunity pressure. Giving up in advance doesn't serve us any good.
Click to expand...

So making up an alleged promise that Tesla will replace once the battery falls below 80% is better?
I admit that I fail to see your logic. I prefer to live in a reality based world.
�

Where someone after few months of driving talks about 1% range degradation? Nothing real about that.
I really really wish I could quote that post ...
�

WarpedOne said: ?

I've been called out on my statement that:

I was writting on memory, here are my original sources:
First: i got told from a tesla sales rep that 3% per year is an acceptable loss. according to excel that is 78.37% of original capacity at year 8.
Second and the main one - I cannot find that post any more It was here on TMC from a guy that specificaly asked tesla rep what if his capacity drops to 70% before age of 8 years and he got the word "replacement".

Dancing on "the warranty does not state anything regarding range" is giving tesla excuse to not cover excessive range loss if it should happen.
We are better off if we expect them to replace the battery as they will feel the comunity pressure. Giving up in advance doesn't serve us any good.
Click to expand...

It's nice to think about Tesla being altruistic and giving us things they never promised or said they would, but that's not the reality. While I would like to think that you are correct, the battery pack costs over $45,000 to replace. I don't think Tesla is going to be in a very kumbaya mood when you ask them for a $45,000 part because your battery capacity dropped 30%. It just isn't going to happen.

As you can tell from my screen name, I work in real estate. Half of my job is ensuring contract compliance. If it's not in writing, forget it.
�

WarpedOne said: ?

I was writting on memory, here are my original sources:
First: i got told from a tesla sales rep that 3% per year is an acceptable loss. according to excel that is 78.37% of original capacity at year 8.
Second and the main one - I cannot find that post any more It was here on TMC from a guy that specificaly asked tesla rep what if his capacity drops to 70% before age of 8 years and he got the word "replacement".
Click to expand...

What a Tesla "sales rep" says about the battery warranty means nothing to me. What matters is the words in the written warranty AND how Tesla interprets those words (all words are subject to interpretation) and in some cases how a court of law interprets those words (hoping it never comes to that).

Everyone should know that the battery capacity will decrease over time. How much it will decrease, and how much is enough to trigger a battery replacement under warranty will of course be a matter of dispute.
�

WarpedOne said: ?

I've been called out on my statement that:

I was writting on memory, here are my original sources:
First: i got told from a tesla sales rep that 3% per year is an acceptable loss. according to excel that is 78.37% of original capacity at year 8.
Second and the main one - I cannot find that post any more It was here on TMC from a guy that specificaly asked tesla rep what if his capacity drops to 70% before age of 8 years and he got the word "replacement".

Dancing on "the warranty does not state anything regarding range" is giving tesla excuse to not cover excessive range loss if it should happen.
We are better off if we expect them to replace the battery as they will feel the comunity pressure. Giving up in advance doesn't serve us any good.
Click to expand...

It's not dancing on anything, the warranty specifically states that degradation is not covered so don't get your hopes up.
�

Andrew said: ?

I've read every post in this thread, and there's something that still doesn't add up. The reported rated miles at 90%/100% seem to fall into two camps: A lot of 85 owners are reporting around 240 to 245 rated miles when they charge to 100%. But a lot of owners--especially those that have very high mileage--are reporting they still have 260-265 rated miles at 100%. Similarly, at 90%, a lot of owners are around 210-215 rated miles, and a lot of others are around 225-235.
Click to expand...

In general cars do better with a lot of miles in a short period than a few miles over a long period. I don't expect EVs to be an exception to this.

I don't worry about 90% at all, and 100% is 259-260 (5.8, haven't done 100% of 5.9 yet). Seems about right for a year and 20K miles.
�

jerry33 said: ?

I don't worry about 90% at all, and 100% is 259-260 (5.8, haven't done 100% of 5.9 yet). Seems about right for a year and 20K miles.
Click to expand...

Agree, that does seem about right for a car with those numbers. But many of us with similar stats are only getting 240-245 on 100%, which seems rather low. Haven't done 100% on 5.9 yet.

Andrew said: ?

I've read every post in this thread, and there's something that still doesn't add up. The reported rated miles at 90%/100% seem to fall into two camps: A lot of 85 owners are reporting around 240 to 245 rated miles when they charge to 100%. But a lot of owners--especially those that have very high mileage--are reporting they still have 260-265 rated miles at 100%. Similarly, at 90%, a lot of owners are around 210-215 rated miles, and a lot of others are around 225-235.
Click to expand...

Ok, so you think that the lower W/mi owners show higher rated miles at 100%, correct? My lifetime W/mi = 333. Pretty low I think especially considering those that live in colder climates have substantially higher W/mi and get far more rated miles than me at 100%.
�

I am at 250 miles for a 100% charge on 5.9 with 15k miles, 16 months. This is maybe its fifth or sixth range charge. I usually charge to 80%.
�

AmpedRealtor said: ?

Actually your perceived degradation is only 2.6%, not 4%. 258 miles out of 265 miles is 97.4%, or 2.6% loss.
Click to expand...

Sorry I was averaging my 5.8 100% numbers with my 5.9 100% number but didn't make that clear. My loss is between 2.6 to 6.5% at 6K miles depending on which firmware you believe if you believe the numbers to be accurate at all. At 80,000 miles at the higher rate of loss, I will have a Signature paperweight on my hands. Obviously, I hope the numbers become more realistic over time and slow down.
�

My loss is between 2.6 to 6.5% at 6K miles depending on which firmware you believe if you believe the numbers to be accurate at all
Click to expand...

Those are the most important words of all.
walla2, I see you still have the Roadster. How is its battery doing? Degrading slower than your MS?
�

Just because the algorithm fix hasn't seem to change the 100%, doesn't mean here still aren't other issues with the algorithm that haven't been fixed. I think it is more likely that there is another issue with the algorithm than it is that were seeing much degradation. I say this because those who've used the battery the most are seeing the least change.... Where as with degradation you would expect the opposite.

It's still quite possible that charging to less than 100 makes the car struggle to calculate the full capability of the car, and the recent algorithm only helped calibrate charges of less than 100%.

Anyway these are all just estimates that tend to vary wildly from actual performance due to a lot of factors like driving style, weather, terrain, and road conditions. A mile is almost never a mile.
�

There is only one "reliable" way of measuring degradation - repeat the EPA cycle range measurement.
Everything else is judging the army size buy dust it raised.

What can Range-Estimation-Alghoritym know?
1. It can measure battery voltage at different power output/input (Current Out, Current In) - voltage sag
2. It can measure battery voltage when car is off and main battery is disconnected i.e. no current out - floating voltage
3. It can measure how much Wh went into the battery and how much Wh already came out - Wh accounting
4. It can measure how many miles where driven over those WhIn - WhOut - feet accounting
5. It can measure how "fast" battery voltage rises when charging - V/Wh ration
6. it can measure how "fast" battery voltage decreases when discharging - voltage sag is dilluting the correct result
7. It can measure how fast battery voltage changes with changes in power output - speed of voltage rise after decresing power output

Also keep in mind that voltage difference between completely full and empty battery is only about 20% of max voltage - voltage sag can be twice as large.
Add temperature effects on component resistance and its effect on battery voltage and resistance. Cold battery will have higher resistance hence. Battery at 10 degrees behaves differently as when at 20 degrees and different when at 30 etc.
All these things form a big complex pile of inter-dependant factors that all act on their own but are also dependant on others.
They can tell if battery is very good, good, poor or very poor. They cannot differentiate between "95%" and "96%" worn battery.

The most sure way of telling the end result is statistics - measure many different packs and then repeat the EPA range dance to determine how set of xx values translates into one single number precise to 0,3%.
All above measurements and results are also more precise with heavier deep-cycling therefore people who drive long distance have their REA perform better - less "calculation artifact accumulation". People who seldomly drive SOC from 100 close to 0 don't have that privilege. REA must live with what it has - differences of measurements at say 80% and 75% SOC.

And also don't forget that REA must by design err on the safe side - it must collect errors on 'degradation' side. It would be stupid and dangerous if it allowed for errors to show "improvement" i.e. higher range than new.

All these add into one simple fact: without doing a test in controled and repeatable conditions i.e. EPA test one cannot talk about battery degradation but only about Range-Estimation degradation.
�

For everyone here that is still on 5.8, or has their full charge numbers from 5.8 using the "ideal" setting. My cars data shows that my "ideal" miles at 100% has not changed at all. I am looking for others to either confirm this, or offer contradicting data as I am only a data set of 1

(reference my full data in post 1207 Decreasing rated range. - Page 121)

Peter
�

Just reporting numbers here and not ascribing to degradation or balancing: 60 battery, 17,200 miles, 5.9, 100% SOC yielded 196.7 rated in 70 degree weather with standard/non-range mode settting. Forgot to record the ideal miles. I have consistently been seeing 177 at 90% SOC since 5.9 was installed.
�

So if the average daily commute is 100 miles or more, it is beyond the recommended battery use and may result in short battery life?

Best charging strategy for battery life?? Alert says (paraphrase). | Forums | Tesla Motors
�

Since the 5.9 update my car has "gained" range. I just did a full range charge and got 410 km (256 mi) Rated. That's a 3% drop from brand-new. Car is coming up on 28,000 km (17,500 mi).
�

I'd roughen that to 1% per 10.000km. Nice!
�

Indeed, it's doing better than the Roadster.

This chemistry reportedly drops a bit at first then settles down. It will be interesting to see if that pans out.
�

Firmware 5.9 100% SOC 199 Rated and 227 Ideal. 27,700 miles on car
�

Andrew said: ?

I've read every post in this thread, and there's something that still doesn't add up. The reported rated miles at 90%/100% seem to fall into two camps: A lot of 85 owners are reporting around 240 to 245 rated miles when they charge to 100%. But a lot of owners--especially those that have very high mileage--are reporting they still have 260-265 rated miles at 100%. Similarly, at 90%, a lot of owners are around 210-215 rated miles, and a lot of others are around 225-235.
Click to expand...

it's actually very simple. those of us that use more of our battery packs on a daily basis (the highest mileage drivers) have more accurate battery capacity estimation numbers. To "guess" at battery capacity is actually a very complex process (it's not like a digital scale with highly accurate results). the calculation is algorithmic with a very small error deviation. To the drivers that aren't fully using the pack frequently (< 10% and >90%), that deviation grows and grows while those of us frequency going below 10% and above 90% simply have a more accurate usable capacity estimation. neither usage pattern accurately reflects actual battery degradation. So who really knows if someone with 5k miles has more capacity than someone with 50k miles. The actual battery capacity data they use in their algorithms is intentionally hidden from all of us.

- - - Updated - - -

strengthcoach4 said: ?

Firmware 5.9 100% SOC 199 Rated and 227 Ideal. 27,700 miles on car
Click to expand...

is that a 60 or 85?
�

Doug, On my car, the "rated mile" energy unit was reduced by about 2%, which has the effect of showing more miles when fully charged but is essentially an illusion, especially if comparing 5.9 numbers vs. old numbers. Do you happen to have ideal numbers for when the car was new, and now?

Peter

Doug_G said: ?

Since the 5.9 update my car has "gained" range. I just did a full range charge and got 410 km (256 mi) Rated. That's a 3% drop from brand-new. Car is coming up on 28,000 km (17,500 mi).
Click to expand...

�

Doug_G said: ?

Since the 5.9 update my car has "gained" range. I just did a full range charge and got 410 km (256 mi) Rated. That's a 3% drop from brand-new. Car is coming up on 28,000 km (17,500 mi).
Click to expand...

I haven't done a full range charge on 5.9 yet but have also noticed that my numbers for 70, 80 and 90% seem higher than before.
�

New Method to Assess Degradation

Apologies if this has been posted before in this massive thread. I have a rather simple idea that we can use to gauge the true capacity of our pack. I noticed while reviewing REST logs that my car gains charge at 10% SOC/hr. I also know that I charge at 240 V, 40 amps = 9.6 kW using my UMC. Assuming 88% efficiency, this works out to 8.45 kW added to my pack in 1 hr, which also tells me that 0.1(total capacity) = 8.45 kW. Therefore, total capacity = 84.5 kW.

I figure that a pack that has lost 50% capacity would gain 20% SOC/hr for the same charge rate, and so on and so forth.

Does this logic hold water?
�

apacheguy said: ?

Agree, that does seem about right for a car with those numbers. But many of us with similar stats are only getting 240-245 on 100%, which seems rather low. Haven't done 100% on 5.9 yet.
Click to expand...

Stoneymonster said: ?

I am at 250 miles for a 100% charge on 5.9 with 15k miles, 16 months. This is maybe its fifth or sixth range charge. I usually charge to 80%.
Click to expand...

I upgraded to 5.9 this week. Range charge went from 245 last time on 5.8 to 253 on 5.9. 'A' battery, 12,500 miles in 17 months, usually charge to 80%.
�

Any chance you have the Ideal miles numbers for the full charge 5.8 to 5.9 change over also?

dennis said: ?

I upgraded to 5.9 this week. Range charge went from 245 last time on 5.8 to 253 on 5.9. 'A' battery, 12,500 miles in 17 months, usually charge to 80%.
Click to expand...

�

bluetinc said: ?

Any chance you have the Ideal miles numbers for the full charge 5.8 to 5.9 change over also?
Click to expand...

why? Range charge of 253 is pretty consistent with other a batteries (rated range)
�

bluetinc said: ?

Any chance you have the Ideal miles numbers for the full charge 5.8 to 5.9 change over also?
Click to expand...

282 on 5.8. I will check Ideal on 5.9 next time I do a full charge.

I did a comparison between ideal and rated at 225 rated and the ratio was almost the same as 300/265. Extrapolating from that ratio my 253 rated on 5.9 equates to 286 ideal.
�

Just another data point: on 5.9 my first and only range charge yielded 246 rated miles. On 5.8 I was getting around 250. My rated miles on 5.9 at lower charge levels, however, are higher than they were on 5.8. Back when this thread first began I was concerned about battery degradation as my rated miles at various charge levels were decreasing steadily from month to month. Now I feel confident that those decreases were due to the different firmware versions and my typically charging only to 70-80%. Since November 2013 my max charge rated miles has leveled off and has been consistently between 246-251 on 5.8. I'm no longer concerned about battery degradation. I range charge maybe once a month at most. My overall W/mi is 298 and I have 20,000 miles on a B pack.
�

No, I would actually say 253 for his A car before 5.9 would be very good, I'm about 10 below that. But, on my car the rated range with 5.9 jumped because they changed the unit size for rated range, at the same time my ideal miles has remained the same as before the update. (Even with 5.9, I'm down from ~318 Ideal miles to ~281 miles). I'm looking for other cars to confirm this.

gaswalla said: ?

why? Range charge of 253 is pretty consistent with other a batteries (rated range)
Click to expand...

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, the basic idea is very sound. The only hiccup to this is how Tesla is doing their SOC. It is not perfectly linear, so for example the delta energy from 10-20% is not the same as 90-100%, which makes these calculations without all of Tesla's BMS data difficult.

Peter

apacheguy said: ?

Apologies if this has been posted before in this massive thread. I have a rather simple idea that we can use to gauge the true capacity of our pack. I noticed while reviewing REST logs that my car gains charge at 10% SOC/hr. I also know that I charge at 240 V, 40 amps = 9.6 kW using my UMC. Assuming 88% efficiency, this works out to 8.45 kW added to my pack in 1 hr, which also tells me that 0.1(total capacity) = 8.45 kW. Therefore, total capacity = 84.5 kW.

I figure that a pack that has lost 50% capacity would gain 20% SOC/hr for the same charge rate, and so on and so forth.

Does this logic hold water?
Click to expand...

�

10,000 mile data point.

Range charged to 266.2 rated miles.

SW v5.9 build .94

D battery pack

We have had the car 5 months. Almost all driving was done in sub freezing temps. Maybe 500 miles at temps above 70 and most of those miles were loaded down with 6 passengers and luggage.

We are extremely pleased with our car.

�

29k mile 16+ months. Range charge on 5.9 was 262mi, drove ~3 miles before it dropped to 261.

Drive 161 miles and had 100 miles rated range left (291 Wh/mi avg.).
�

Just did another 2,000 mile round trip. Supercharged 6 times (usually to 230 miles or so) and range charged at 30A twice. The last range charge was to 250 miles. I have an 'A' battery with 17,000 miles. 12 months old. My range charge has decreased from 268 on delivery to 254 last month to 250 with 5.9. I've range charged probably 30 times in the past 12 months.
�

Mod Note: we have lots of discussions on A packs vs B packs so the latest conversation got moved to Older-Teslas-limited-to-90kW-Supercharging
�

Just posted this on a different thread:

9,000 mi, 7 months, P85+
263 Rated, 308 Ideal (Max Charge)
5.9
Range mode on
Always plugged in to HPWC, 90% charge routinely, about a dozen max charges, occasional Supercharger use.

Rated range on your car - Page 5
�

SarahsDad said: ?

Just posted this on a different thread:

9,000 mi, 7 months, P85+
263 Rated, 308 Ideal (Max Charge)
5.9
Range mode on
Always plugged in to HPWC, 90% charge routinely, about a dozen max charges, occasional Supercharger use.

Rated range on your car - Page 5
Click to expand...

19,000 miles, P85, sig
19 months
5.9

258 rated miles. Got 265 long, long ago, loss of 2.6% if you believe that carries across so many versions.

Normally charge to 80% since had the choice. Many (~100) 100% charges for trips, but never left there for more than a couple of hours. Taken to 0, three times, below 20 several times, but charged almost immediately.

Correction:
Rethought the number of 100% charges. It's more like 20-25. Sorry.
�

efusco said: ?

29k mile 16+ months. Range charge on 5.9 was 262mi, drove ~3 miles before it dropped to 261.

Drive 161 miles and had 100 miles rated range left (291 Wh/mi avg.).
Click to expand...

Evan,

I find your numbers particularly interesting, because you and I have almost the same mileage (I have 28,000 miles), both have A packs, both have S85s, our cars are almost the same age (mine is 16 months), and we live at similar latitudes (summer heat, winter cold). Yet my range charge is in the low to mid 250s. Since our similar cars eliminate a lot of variables, your answers might give useful information that the "apparent" degredation I have compared to you is partially due to pack imbalance or just algorithmic reasons, since our car's characteristics are very similar.

Can you please share your typical charging habits? I'd like to see your answers to these questions, and I'll give my answers as well:

-What % SOC do you usually charge to when you leave for work? Usually 80%, when it started being possible via firmware.
-How do you typically charge? NEMA 14-50 @ 40 A.
-How far do you drive one-way to work? 35-40 miles
-What does your range sit at most of the day while you're at work? About 150-160 miles rated (Around 60% SOC)
-What %SOC does your car sit at at the end of the day until you recharge? About 40%ish (Around 100-130 miles rated)
-How many range charges per year do you do? About 4.
-How many lifetime supercharges on your pack? About 10.
-How aggressive a driver are you? I usually drive fairly benignly (About 287 Wh/mi lifetime average now), but punch it from time to time.
�

Cottonwood said: ?

19,000 miles, P85, sig
19 months
5.9

258 rated miles. Got 265 long, long ago, loss of 2.6% if you believe that carries across so many versions.
Click to expand...

Do you still have your original pack, Cottonwood?

@efusco, @Todd Burch - FWIW, also have an A pack at 27 K miles, 5.8 range charge = 245 miles. But, I live in a considerably warmer year round climate.
�

apacheguy said: ?

Do you still have your original pack, Cottonwood?

@efusco, @Todd Burch - FWIW, also have an A pack at 27 K miles, 5.8 range charge = 245 miles. But, I live in a considerably warmer year round climate.
Click to expand...

Still on my original "A" pack, max charge rate 90 kW.
�

I'm on v5.9 (1.51.94) and charged to 90% yesterday. I happened to be at the car when the charge cycle completed. I got 228 Rated Miles. My car has about 23,000 miles and an "A" battery pack.
�

Getting 228/231 on 90% charge (was 220/221) v5.9(1.51.94) "A" battery original, 1 year 1 day old, 25,500 miles. Many, many range charges - trips Monterey to Vallejo and Oakland area at least 1 to 2 times per week.
�

My 90% charge has been slowly increasing over the last week. From 5.8 to 5.9 it went from 221 to 228. Over the last week now it's been increasing each day. First 229, then 230, then 231, and now yesterday my 90% charge was 233. This is great! @46.5k miles
�

Just completed a 100% charge. 10,612 miles, 245 rated/283 ideal. "B" pack.

I've charged to 100% on ~10-12 occasions. Usually charge to 70%, and keep it at 50% when I'm traveling and the car is going to sit for awhile. The only thing I do that is somewhat "unusual" is I frequently charge at 80A.
�

Like everybody else, I've seen rated miles at end of <100% charges go up with 5.9. And, also increase over multiple charges. This implies that maybe the BMS was updated to improve balancing???

However, on the disturbing front, I've seen my "par" wh/mi go lower than I recall. Not sure this is conventional, but I compute by noting wh/mi used since last charge at the point where: miles since last charge + rated miles remaining = rated miles when I unplugged and departed. This only works on one "key turn", so if I don't reach that equilibrium on a single drive, I cannot compute.

Using that method, I'm now using between 285 and 290 wh/mi to achieve rated range. Problem is, I was not really tuned into this when the car was new, so I don't know what this number was previously. So, this may have always been "par" for my car, or maybe not! I was always under impression that "par" should be around 300 wh/mi, but a little difficult to compute when you know EPA 265 and 85 kWh, but don't know how much of 85 kWh battery was "hidden" (below zero + anti bricking + high charge cushion) when the car was EPA tested, and how that's been tinkered with over time.

So, don't know whether to be excited or not about apparent miles "returned" by 5.9. I know there are many on this site who know EE inside out, but y'all lose me when you get into coulombs. Any thoughts on whether the miles "returned" are likely real or memorex?
�

Tomas, par Wh/mile has always been around 290. I've used your technique to verify that pre-5.9 and with 5.9 as well. It doesn't appear to have changed.
�

tomas said: ?

However, on the disturbing front, I've seen my "par" wh/mi go lower than I recall. Not sure this is conventional, but I compute by noting wh/mi used since last charge at the point where: miles since last charge + rated miles remaining = rated miles when I unplugged and departed. This only works on one "key turn", so if I don't reach that equilibrium on a single drive, I cannot compute.

Using that method, I'm now using between 285 and 290 wh/mi to achieve rated range. Problem is, I was not really tuned into this when the car was new, so I don't know what this number was previously. So, this may have always been "par" for my car, or maybe not! I was always under impression that "par" should be around 300 wh/mi, but a little difficult to compute when you know EPA 265 and 85 kWh, but don't know how much of 85 kWh battery was "hidden" (below zero + anti bricking + high charge cushion) when the car was EPA tested, and how that's been tinkered with over time.
Click to expand...

Your "par" Wh/mi is what I call Wh per Rated Mile. For my 19-month-old, 19,000-mile, P85, I have consistently measured 290 Wh per Rated Mile using your technique or normalizing the actual Wh/mi to 290 Wh/mi. This has been true for me since I have been keeping track of things (at least the last 10,000 miles) through 5.9.

To be more specific, for me, there appear to be 290 Wh per Rated Mile for use from the battery, 300 Wh per Rated Mile for DC Charging from a Supercharger, and 333 Wh per Rated Mile for AC charging. These all make sense to me because there is a little loss (3%) in the battery charge/discharge cycle, and 300 Wh per Rated Mile gives you 300 mph charging from a 90 kW Supercharger and 400 mph charging from a 120 kW Supercharger matching Tesla's claimed Supercharger charge rates. For AC charging, Tesla has always claimed about 90% charger efficiency. 40 Amps at 240 Volts is 9.6 kW AC. Divide that by 333 Wh per Rated Mile and you get a charge rate of 28.8 mph, very close to the accepted number of 28 mph charge rate for a 240 Volt 14-50.

To summarize, here are the various energies per Rated Mile depending on where you measure:

290 Wh/mi - Used From the Battery - Reported in the Car

300 Wh/mi - DC into the Battery - Supercharging - 3% Charge/Discharge Loss

333 Wh/mi - AC into the Charger - Day to Day AC Charging - 90% Efficient AC to DC Charger

�

I've noticed my typical w/mile has gone down considerably this last couple of weeks. For quite some time, I was seeing 330-375. It would take going down a hill to see 300-310. Now I'm routinely seeing 290. I'm doing the same drive. It seems to be regardless of the weather.
�

Range charged for the first time in a while last night and got 247 rated miles. Strange (and pleasantly surprising) thing was that I drove 12 miles before the rated range budged. In my experience and the reported experiences of most others, typically after a range charge the car can be driven 4-6 miles before the rated range begins to drop.
�

bigsmooth125 said: ?

Range charged for the first time in a while last night and got 247 rated miles. Strange (and pleasantly surprising) thing was that I drove 12 miles before the rated range budged. In my experience and the reported experiences of most others, typically after a range charge the car can be driven 4-6 miles before the rated range begins to drop.
Click to expand...

It's probably more useful to know how many kWh were used before the rated range moves. For example, I can drive at least 20 miles before I'm below the range I started with because I start off driving downhill for 10-15 miles, plus different people drive differently in general.
�

bigsmooth125 said: ?

Range charged for the first time in a while last night and got 247 rated miles. Strange (and pleasantly surprising) thing was that I drove 12 miles before the rated range budged. In my experience and the reported experiences of most others, typically after a range charge the car can be driven 4-6 miles before the rated range begins to drop.
Click to expand...

Very similar experience this week. Full charge was 249 and then I drove 12 miles without it moving...
�

Odd, I've had one occurrence where I could drive 4km before it dropped, but in most cases the first few km consume far above the standard usage therefore dropping the range faster and not quite accounted for in kWh either. It seems even worse if there's been vampire drain after the range charge. I recently charged to 100% getting 396km typical range. Then it bled off overnight (was doing balancing to increase range as per Tesla instructions) 9km giving me 387km range when I started driving. Then after 3.8kWh and 15km I was at 359km remaining range (average usage 260Wh/km or ca 30% above typical range usage of 200Wh/km). The usage itself should have meant about 20km worth of range used, but instead I lost 28km of range. No clue where the 8km got to. Also, it seems the vampire drained 9km isn't accounted for in the kWh accounting that the car shows meaning that it's even more difficult to use the spent kWh as a way to estimate usable range as not all of it is accounted for.

In any case, for the statistics, I did get on 5.9 with the .94 flavor the ideal range of 505km @ 13500km about a week ago after multiple balancing charges (up from 496km before I did 3 balancing range charges). Then when .106 firmware came along the range max ideal charge dropped to 498km in an instant.
�

I was wondering if i can get some answers on SOC
I daily charge my MS to 90% unless i take road trip
Summer weekends we pretty much out of town and i have to trip charge the car
So, in most cases i would time my departure and do 100% right before i leave
The question is: What's better for baterry,
100% and immediate drive
98-99% and immediate drive
Does it even matter since my car is not sitting with 100 SOC?
�

AndreyATC said: ?

I was wondering if i can get some answers on SOC
I daily charge my MS to 90% unless i take road trip
Summer weekends we pretty much out of town and i have to trip charge the car
So, in most cases i would time my departure and do 100% right before i leave
The question is: What's better for baterry,
100% and immediate drive
98-99% and immediate drive
Does it even matter since my car is not sitting with 100 SOC?
Click to expand...

The difference between the two is so minimal as to not matter. The most important thing to do is what you're already doing, not giving it time to sit at the high SOC. Keep doing what you're doing.
�

AndreyATC said: ?

I was wondering if i can get some answers on SOC
I daily charge my MS to 90% unless i take road trip
Summer weekends we pretty much out of town and i have to trip charge the car
So, in most cases i would time my departure and do 100% right before i leave
The question is: What's better for baterry,
100% and immediate drive
98-99% and immediate drive
Does it even matter since my car is not sitting with 100 SOC?
Click to expand...

The only difference will be that the battery balances at 100%.
�

AndreyATC said: ?

I was wondering if i can get some answers on SOC
I daily charge my MS to 90% unless i take road trip
Summer weekends we pretty much out of town and i have to trip charge the car
So, in most cases i would time my departure and do 100% right before i leave
The question is: What's better for baterry,
100% and immediate drive
98-99% and immediate drive
Does it even matter since my car is not sitting with 100 SOC?
Click to expand...

The difference will be in balancing as already mentioned. Also, if you rarely charge to 100% the balancing might take a while so expect the car to sit on 99% for a longish time. I charge at home at a rate of 10% / hour approximately and while going 70% to 80% will be 1h and 70% to 90% will be 2h, the actual 70% to 100% will take 3.5-4h. So anticipate some extra 30-60 minutes for the balancing of the battery pack. And unless it's really hot outside, the balancing does more good for the battery than the extended high SOC state does. A battery that isn't balanced will get different cells cycling at different depths of charge and that isn't that great. I personally would like to see Tesla introduce balancing to every charging, no matter if you charge to 80%, 90% or 100%, but I guess technically it's easier to do it at the top.

Also, don't worry too much about sitting at 100%. It's not the true 100% of the battery anyway and Teslas own procedure to balance the pack is to let the car sit at 100% for 12+ hours. That was the recommendation I got from Tesla when they were investigating why I had lost range. And I did indeed gain back most of the range by doing a couple of days of range charging and letting the car sit overnight at 100%.
�

As promised, another update on my decreasing rated range...or lack there of:

At 24,000 miles I am still getting 208/209 rated range miles at 100%. For this weekend's road trip, my first range charge on a cold battery yielded 208 miles rate range. The second range charge yielded 209 at the supercharger and with a warm battery. I did not let it complete the range charge at the supercharger, pulled away after it was showing 209. Sorry I forgot to check ideal range during the range charge.

Warm battery @supercharger

Cold battery @ home

�

At nearly 25,500 miles, I'm at 203 miles rated, at 100%. 182 at 90%. Been at these numbers since 5.9.

As can be seen from our signatures, my car's about 7 months older than @glhs272's.
�

Since the 5.9 changes that "increased" range estimations, I've lost a mile or two still. Nothing dramatic though as I'm hovering around where it's been since close to the start of the year. My drive length has increased dramatically, and I'm using most of the battery every day. I think that along with some other things is helping re-calibrate my range slowly over time. It appears that the car is slowly adapting. When I get home, I now have about 40 miles remaining. Initially when I started making this drive (on 5.8) I was getting home with 30. As time went by, that number dropped down towards 20. Then 5.9 came out and I was back up to 30 due to the 10 mile increase we all saw. Now though my remaining amount is raising up to 40.

I think it must be slowly wiping out the bad estimation numbers it learned over the first half year of ownership. It would be nice to see the 90% charge actually go up as well.

Also, the numbers (especially when my wife drives) for our Avg watt/mile have dropped quite a bit. There is a huge difference when my wife drives cruise control 75 and when I do. We drive opposite directions, so I'm not sure if it is a setting thing or a elevation/wind thing.
�

I noticed something odd the other day: As I was driving along, my Rated Range was counting down from triple digits to double digits. Somewhere in the 90's. I stopped at a Starbucks for a half hour to 45 minutes and when I got underway again the rated Range was back up over 100. I was not plugged in, and the weather was a nice sunny 72 degrees. I've never noticed anything like that before, but it was very obvious this time because of going from somewhere in the 90's to something a bit over 100.

I've also noticed that often the Rated Range number on the dashboard will be a mile or two different than the Charging screen on the 17". Both of these seem to have started after 5.9.
�

mknox said: ?

I noticed something odd the other day: As I was driving along, my Rated Range was counting down from triple digits to double digits. Somewhere in the 90's. I stopped at a Starbucks for a half hour to 45 minutes and when I got underway again the rated Range was back up over 100. I was not plugged in, and the weather was a nice sunny 72 degrees. I've never noticed anything like that before, but it was very obvious this time because of going from somewhere in the 90's to something a bit over 100.

I've also noticed that often the Rated Range number on the dashboard will be a mile or two different than the Charging screen on the 17". Both of these seem to have started after 5.9.
Click to expand...

I've seen both before on earlier versions of the firmware. I think parking for long enough causes it to re estimate the range left. The biggest thing I've learned in a year of ownership is that every number related to charging and current charge is an estimate and can vary a bit from day to day even under the exact same situation.

This goes for the displayed range, the energy graph, the charge rate, the used kWh display, the trip information, the amount charges display.. all of those are estimated and aren't 100 percent consistent.
�

Kraken said: ?

I've seen both before on earlier versions of the firmware. I think parking for long enough causes it to re estimate the range left. The biggest thing I've learned in a year of ownership is that every number related to charging and current charge is an estimate and can vary a bit from day to day even under the exact same situation.

This goes for the displayed range, the energy graph, the charge rate, the used kWh display, the trip information, the amount charges display.. all of those are estimated and aren't 100 percent consistent.
Click to expand...

Estimating SOC is more accurate when the battery is not under load (i.e. charging or discharging).
That is why sometimes you will see the estimate drop after charging finishes, or rise when you stop driving.
�

gg_got_a_tesla said: ?

At nearly 25,500 miles, I'm at 203 miles rated, at 100%. 182 at 90%. Been at these numbers since 5.9.

As can be seen from our signatures, my car's about 7 months older than @glhs272's.
Click to expand...

Just as a data point, My car is 1 week old. 90% daily charge goes to 190-191. I'm on 5.11.

Have not done a max charge yet.
�

I think my pack is finally starting to show it's first real ware. At 31,000 miles. Though, when I updated to 5.11 firmware, it was overnight change in rated range. my 100% is now 200-202ish, and usually 199. I have tried 100% charging to balance out the pack, though it is no longer going up. 70*F weather. the day before and every day before that in recent time was 206-209. Will keep posted. A lot of driving to do today. I will be at Madison for a few hours, so will see what happens with a 100% supercharge.
Though, 5.11 has been EXTREMELY Flaky, and I have been getting a lot of charging errors and current reduction since getting the firmware. Current reduction is happening 50-90% MORE now, and happening in places I never had it before.
Ranger is coming this afternoon to change out a cooling pump, and try and reload the firmware, might make a difference. I will bug him about other things as well Will report back!
�

tiblot said: ?

Just as a data point, My car is 1 week old. 90% daily charge goes to 190-191. I'm on 5.11.

Have not done a max charge yet.
Click to expand...

Nice! Max would be 208-209, I'm guessing.

Not bad for me from a degradation point of view.
�

mknox said: ?

I noticed something odd the other day: As I was driving along, my Rated Range was counting down from triple digits to double digits. Somewhere in the 90's. I stopped at a Starbucks for a half hour to 45 minutes and when I got underway again the rated Range was back up over 100. I was not plugged in, and the weather was a nice sunny 72 degrees. I've never noticed anything like that before, but it was very obvious this time because of going from somewhere in the 90's to something a bit over 100.

I've also noticed that often the Rated Range number on the dashboard will be a mile or two different than the Charging screen on the 17". Both of these seem to have started after 5.9.
Click to expand...

If you switched your car into range mode around this same time, it will result in a higher estimate by a few miles and within a few minutes of making that change.
�

I range charged last Monday for a 426km trip I took. The car wasn't finished topping off but it hadn't increased in about 15mins of charging. It was at 408km. I began my trip and took about 1.8kWh out of the battery (~10km worth) before the rated range dropped. Much better than things were looking a few months ago.
�

AmpedRealtor said: ?

If you switched your car into range mode around this same time, it will result in a higher estimate by a few miles and within a few minutes of making that change.
Click to expand...

That makes sense, but was not the case in my situation. I use Range Mode all summer, mainly to keep the a/c compressor "roar" down, and use Normal mode all winter because I found Range Mode makes little difference with the heat and the longer drives I usually take.
�

S85 here: after 10k miles and 2.5 months I see the rated rage go down from 271 to 267. But when I charge 100% and drive, I can go 5 miles before it goes from 267 to 266. In other words the 4 miles that don't show up initially are still there. I think about 70% of my charging is at Superchargers. Just two days ago I did a long trip and got 76.5 kWh out of my battery when I arrived. I know 2.5 months and 10k miles isn't much compared to some others, but so far it's looking very good.
�

David99 said: ?

S85 here: after 10k miles and 2.5 months I see the rated rage go down from 271 to 267. But when I charge 100% and drive, I can go 5 miles before it goes from 267 to 266. In other words the 4 miles that don't show up initially are still there. I think about 70% of my charging is at Superchargers. Just two days ago I did a long trip and got 76.5 kWh out of my battery when I arrived. I know 2.5 months and 10k miles isn't much compared to some others, but so far it's looking very good.
Click to expand...

Holy. 10k miles in less than 3 mos!? You're on track to be the highest mileage / shortest ownership here
�

lloyds said: ?

Holy. 10k miles in less than 3 mos!? You're on track to be the highest mileage / shortest ownership here
Click to expand...

I wish I wouldn't have to drive as much, honestly. The ironic part is I don't even have a home charger. For now I depend 100% on public chargers.
�

Well after multiple attempts at balancing the best I can do is 401km of Typical range (505km rated). Can't really compare to new car as the firmware difference is substantial. In 5.8 I got 492km rated (394km typical) when I had 1700km on the odo. However newer cars with same firmware get 411km of typical range and ca 515-520km rated. So I seem to be missing ~10km typical range after 15000km and 6 months of ownership.
�

Mario Kadastik said: ?

Well after multiple attempts at balancing the best I can do is 401km of Typical range (505km rated). Can't really compare to new car as the firmware difference is substantial. In 5.8 I got 492km rated (394km typical) when I had 1700km on the odo. However newer cars with same firmware get 411km of typical range and ca 515-520km rated. So I seem to be missing ~10km typical range after 15000km and 6 months of ownership.
Click to expand...

Are those numbers correct?

490 km = 305 mi
505 km = 314 mi

Those numbers exceed Tesla's range specifications for the 85 kWh battery.
�

Just another data point:

I did a Range Charge this morning. First one in a long time. I got 247 miles. I have about 27,000 miles, an A-pack and it was about 65 degrees F at the time. I'm on the latest flavor of v5.9. Unlike others who have reported, my range started to drop almost immediately. I had lost 3 miles of range by the time I'd driven about a mile and a half.
�

AmpedRealtor said: ?

Are those numbers correct?

490 km = 305 mi
505 km = 314 mi

Those numbers exceed Tesla's range specifications for the 85 kWh battery.
Click to expand...

It looks like the European Model S rated range spec is 502 km for the 85 kWh battery:
Model S Features | Tesla Motors
This uses a different test (NEDC) than the EPA rated range used in the US: New European Driving Cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
�

glhs272 said: ?

At 24,000 miles I am still getting 208/209 rated range miles at 100%.
Click to expand...

gg_got_a_tesla said: ?

At nearly 25,500 miles, I'm at 203 miles rated, at 100%. 182 at 90%. Been at these numbers since 5.9.
Click to expand...

My car doesn't have quite the mileage -- I'm at ~17.5k. But I'm getting 193 or 194 rated at 100% based on my last 3 range charges (all on 5.9, including one this morning). I've been getting 174 at 90% recently also.

I've done 14 100% charges since getting the car. The first was last July and it showed 208 rated. Last Nov it was showing 204. In Feb it was 198/199. Now at 193/194.

Tesla says that my battery looks OK and gave me the instructions to force rebalance (although they didn't call it a "rebalance"). I told them that I normally charge to ~70%, and they suggested that it would be better to charge to 90% for daily use instead (which gives credence to it not balancing correctly at lower slider selections...).

Today's range charge was the first of a couple I'll do to see if I can get it to rebalance / reset... I'll take it down to <20 miles remaining before charging (had it down to 11 last night...).
�

AmpedRealtor said: ?

Are those numbers correct?

490 km = 305 mi
505 km = 314 mi

Those numbers exceed Tesla's range specifications for the 85 kWh battery.
Click to expand...

This is a recurring point of confusion. "Rated" in US means EPA rated. "Rated" in Europe is analogous to "Ideal" in the US. Dunno why Tesla chose to re-use the same word for a different thing... as if we don't talk to each other.
�

ZBB said: ?

My car doesn't have quite the mileage -- I'm at ~17.5k. But I'm getting 193 or 194 rated at 100% based on my last 3 range charges (all on 5.9, including one this morning). I've been getting 174 at 90% recently also.
Tesla says that my battery looks OK and gave me the instructions to force rebalance (although they didn't call it a "rebalance"). I told them that I normally charge to ~70%, and they suggested that it would be better to charge to 90% for daily use instead (which gives credence to it not balancing correctly at lower slider selections...).
Click to expand...

I have had my S85 for almost 6 months and have close to 10K miles on it. During that time I have charged almost every night using my HPWC to 85 - 90%, occasionally to 99% or so. My range numbers are within 1-2 miles of what the car showed when new. My daily driving mileage varies from 40 to 150, occasionally more but sometimes less than 10 (obviously I do not have a fixed commute). I have used Superchargers about 10 times.

It will be interesting to see if my range numbers hold up after a year and 20K miles.
�

mknox said: ?

Just another data point:

I did a Range Charge this morning. First one in a long time. I got 247 miles. I have about 27,000 miles, an A-pack and it was about 65 degrees F at the time. I'm on the latest flavor of v5.9. Unlike others who have reported, my range started to drop almost immediately. I had lost 3 miles of range by the time I'd driven about a mile and a half.
Click to expand...

You're similar to me, mknox. I have just over 30K miles and 18 months and range charged to 248 last week. Didn't have any extra "hidden" miles that didn't tick off when I first started driving. I usually charge to 80% and drive down to about 50% each day, rarely range charge (I've maybe done it 7 times), and don't supercharge often. Based on what folks are saying about 90% charging, I may start doing that. I'm fairly confident my pack has some imbalance because I range charge very infrequently and almost have never driven down below about 30 miles.
�

Todd Burch said: ?

... I'm fairly confident my pack has some imbalance because I range charge very infrequently and almost have never driven down below about 30 miles.
Click to expand...

Obviously I don't know in detail what Tesla is doing in terms of battery management, but from what I know about it and hear from other battery manufacturers, it is a challenge to predict the state of charge very accurately when partial charging and discharging is used for some time. The absolute energy that the battery can store is not possible to easily calculate. That's done by a mathematical model and can be off. The best way to get an accurate number is to charge to 100% and then discharge to the cut-off point. As far as I understand balancing only happens when doing a 100% charge. So I assume a full cycle (starting with 100%, driving to zero and then charging again to 100%) is what you need to do to determine the actual battery capacity and be able to make a call about how much the battery aged since it was new.
�

I've heard some people talking about having better cell balance by charging to 90% all the time instead of 80%. Would love to get some more official word on this (JB, perhaps a blog or two about battery care and maintenance please!) and why 90% is better than 80%.
�

Todd Burch said: ?

I've heard some people talking about having better cell balance by charging to 90% all the time instead of 80%. Would love to get some more official word on this (JB, perhaps a blog or two about battery care and maintenance please!) and why 90% is better than 80%.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've been charging to 70% and returning at the end of the day at about 30%. In the winter I'll do 80 or 90%. I had heard that the batteries like to play in the middle of their range and so figured 70 to 30 every day was the way to go.
�

mknox said: ?

Yeah, I've been charging to 70% and returning at the end of the day at about 30%. In the winter I'll do 80 or 90%. I had heard that the batteries like to play in the middle of their range and so figured 70 to 30 every day was the way to go.
Click to expand...

This is what I have been doing as well. If 90% daily is actually better at maintaining capacity, I don't understand why Tesla added the slider vs. the original daily/range options.
�

andrewket said: ?

This is what I have been doing as well. If 90% daily is actually better at maintaining capacity, I don't understand why Tesla added the slider vs. the original daily/range options.
Click to expand...

Charging to 90% might help the car report more accurately without actually being better for the battery.

First range charge in a long time this morning: 399km after 32000 km on the odometer. Very rarely charge above 80%. However, someone at the service centre (I forget who) told me that balancing occurs when the car is charged > 80%. I also had a long trip today and drove 440km with an average Wh/km of 170. Pretty good, I think.
�

This is straight from my local service center, from a senior service guy: You should charge to 90% everyday because it allows the battery to balance. No balancing occurs below 85%. By consistently charging to 90%, the battery will get balanced, and stay balanced. I asked why it is not simply stated as such, and why a slider was added: the slider was added due to the new methodology used by the EPA to state the range of a BEV: essentially averaging set points. The slider eliminates the possibility of averaging the miles at 100% and at 90% to get the EPA stated range. (note: the LEAF now only has the option to charge to 100% due to this same reason).

I've been charging to 90% now for 2 months and have seen my range at 90% increase from 212 to 228, so I do believe what I was told. (note: 212 was on FW 5.9 as is the 228)
�

gaswalla said: ?

... from a senior service guy: You should charge to 90% everyday because it allows the battery to balance. No balancing occurs below 85%. ...
Click to expand...

thanks! That's good info. Of course the fact that a lower state of charge is better for long term battery life is still true. Losing a few miles due to out of balance cells is easy to fix. Losing miles due to battery degradation is permanent.
�

@gaswalla, thanks for the info. Validates what I've been doing from day one.
�

Well, I am now going to confirm. I have FINALLY lost range at 31,000 miles.
Up and through 5.9 no real noticeable range loss. Charge to 205-209 Rated at 100%.
5.11, I finally after a few days of trying to balance things out hit 203, but after the car sits for 30 minutes, it drops to 199-200 miles. After sitting for a hour, I loose 1-2% of my battery capacity (As reported by Visual Tesla), though will not allow me to start charge again. Burned through my ENTIRE battery pack Monday (Planned my route like that). Arrived home with 1 mile rated left.
Started at 100%, and immediately started my day. My consumption average for that charge was ~280 w/mile. I only got about 185 miles on the charge, despite using less then the rated range calculation of 300w/mile. Ranger was out Last Friday evening to replace a cooling pump, and reload 5.11 as it has been severally buggy for me. He checked things out and said no problem with the car or my battery. So looks like my overnight degradation will be permanent Kinda sucks, as I was doing so darn good to have potential permanent degradation literally overnight
I still need to schedule a appointment to take it to the service center. I have the rear end clunk when starting and stopping and it's getting worse, and I want to get the titanium shield installed, and now my charge port even with nothing connected sometimes pops up that the car is plugged in, so have that looked at as well. Hah, I need to joke about this, all these little problems start popping up literally 2 weeks after my 1 year ownership and I loose my ability to lemon the car out. Not that I would, just irony. Good thing I will still have my warranty for another 6 months or so (`19,000 miles away from voiding my warranty. That was a fast 1 1/2 years... and only ~2 years away from voiding my battery warranty).
�

Maybe off topic but I noticed from your posts that the difference in the rated range between the S60 and the S80 is ~335km to ~403km! So we're talking about ~70km? For some reason I always thought the difference is 100km!
�

islandbayy said: ?

and only ~2 years away from voiding my battery warranty).
Click to expand...

Amazing, so you got your car in, what, 2008? How did you manage that?
�

tomas said: ?

Amazing, so you got your car in, what, 2008? How did you manage that?
Click to expand...

60kW pack has a mileage limitation on the warranty of 125,000 miles or 8 years, whichever comes first. I will have that within 2 years or less. The 85kW pack has unlimited mileage warranty 8 years.
�

islandbayy said: ?

Well, I am now going to confirm. I have FINALLY lost range at 31,000 miles.
Up and through 5.9 no real noticeable range loss. Charge to 205-209 Rated at 100%.
5.11, I finally after a few days of trying to balance things out hit 203, but after the car sits for 30 minutes, it drops to 199-200 miles. After sitting for a hour, I loose 1-2% of my battery capacity (As reported by Visual Tesla), though will not allow me to start charge again. Burned through my ENTIRE battery pack Monday (Planned my route like that). Arrived home with 1 mile rated left.
Started at 100%, and immediately started my day. My consumption average for that charge was ~280 w/mile. I only got about 185 miles on the charge, despite using less then the rated range calculation of 300w/mile. Ranger was out Last Friday evening to replace a cooling pump, and reload 5.11 as it has been severally buggy for me. He checked things out and said no problem with the car or my battery. So looks like my overnight degradation will be permanent Kinda sucks, as I was doing so darn good to have potential permanent degradation literally overnight
I still need to schedule a appointment to take it to the service center. I have the rear end clunk when starting and stopping and it's getting worse, and I want to get the titanium shield installed, and now my charge port even with nothing connected sometimes pops up that the car is plugged in, so have that looked at as well. Hah, I need to joke about this, all these little problems start popping up literally 2 weeks after my 1 year ownership and I loose my ability to lemon the car out. Not that I would, just irony. Good thing I will still have my warranty for another 6 months or so (`19,000 miles away from voiding my warranty. That was a fast 1 1/2 years... and only ~2 years away from voiding my battery warranty).
Click to expand...

A couple of things about your overnight degradation, do you think your cooling pump failure caused the battery to get too hot thereby degrading the cells? Or do you think that the range has been degrading over time and the software was just not getting a good read on that, therefore when you updated to 5.11 the range calc got more accurate? I too recently had a coolant pump fault (not sure if it outright failed or was just reporting to the computers improperly). However, I never did a range charge during the pump fault, also didn't drive the car hard either. When I had the SC fix the pump issue, they installed 5.11. As far as I can tell, 5.11 has not impacted my range, although I have yet to do a range charge.
�

glhs272 said: ?

A couple of things about your overnight degradation, do you think your cooling pump failure caused the battery to get too hot thereby degrading the cells? Or do you think that the range has been degrading over time and the software was just not getting a good read on that, therefore when you updated to 5.11 the range calc got more accurate? I too recently had a coolant pump fault (not sure if it outright failed or was just reporting to the computers improperly). However, I never did a range charge during the pump fault, also didn't drive the car hard either. When I had the SC fix the pump issue, they installed 5.11. As far as I can tell, 5.11 has not impacted my range, although I have yet to do a range charge.
Click to expand...

I do not think so. The car will temp limit everything if it gets to hot, from accel to regen to supercharging. It was still working, just threw up a fault. I'm sure the calculations changed in 5.11 again, however, I was having no problems hitting actual rated range on 5.9. This is where I will stress to Tesla to just make the battery ware % available to the owner.

�

David99 said: ?

thanks! That's good info. Of course the fact that a lower state of charge is better for long term battery life is still true. Losing a few miles due to out of balance cells is easy to fix. Losing miles due to battery degradation is permanent.
Click to expand...

100% agree. I keep my battery at lower SOC most of the time.
�

islandbayy said: ?

60kW pack has a mileage limitation on the warranty of 125,000 miles or 8 years, whichever comes first. I will have that within 2 years or less. The 85kW pack has unlimited mileage warranty 8 years.
Click to expand...

Ok, right.

Maybe you could do a ferris bueller, put it up on blocks and run in reverse for a few weeks.
�

tomas said: ?

Ok, right.

Maybe you could do a ferris bueller, put it up on blocks and run in reverse for a few weeks.
Click to expand...

If I could

I do know someone who only leased cars, and would just disconnect the speed sensor so it was always low mileage, that is, until manufacturers started changing all that up with electronics and what not.
�

How about increased rated range. I'm sitting at 214 miles right now in a 2.5 day old 60. Of course I'm taking it with a grain of salt. View attachment 51643
�

Sorry to be such a killjoy, but the extra capacity drops fast.

View attachment 27334
�

Matias said: ?

Sorry to be such a killjoy, but the extra capacity drops fast.
Click to expand...

Three problems with the chart:

1. That's not the Tesla battery chemistry. Tesla uses a proprietary blend of electrolyte additives which extend battery life.

2. The cycles are measured as full 100% to 0% and back. Tesla limits the SOC to 95% in range mode to avoid degradation at high SOC, and most owners do partial cycles below 85% which significantly extends battery life.

3. The data is from a lab test bench, not actual driver experience.

Why do Li-ion Batteries die? And how to improve the situation?

http://www.pluginamerica.org/surveys/batteries/tesla-roadster/PIA-Roadster-Battery-Study.pdf

The high mileage Model S packs seem to be holding up quite well based on reports from these forums.
�

FLDarren said: ?

How about increased rated range. I'm sitting at 214 miles right now in a 2.5 day old 60. Of course I'm taking it with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

Nice! Thanks, Steve...er...Darren. Seems inline with the increased rated range numbers since 5.9.
�

djp said: ?

The high mileage Model S packs seem to be holding up quite well based on reports from these forums.
Click to expand...

I have understood that the "extra" range (above spesifications) drops fast. I have thought that Tesla purposly puts some extra milage in battery because there's fast drop in the beginning. I don't see any problem with that. After few cycles degradation tapers.
�

I have been consistently getting 240 - 242 rated range on 90% Charge.
However, Yesterday, I plugged the car in with 230 miles rated range left.
I have scheduled charging and it starts at 3:30 AM at 22 miles/hour (I charge at 30 AMP)
Anyway, This morning, my car was at 230 miles rated range and it showed charging complete.
I was wondering, if I can somehow find out, whether it started charging or not?
Was this a Vampire loss from 3:30 AM to 7:30 AM?
OR Did I lose 10 miles of rated range overnight?

Can anyone help me understand this?
I have 4600 miles on the car and It is just shy of 1 and half month old.

Thanks
�

tslas said: ?

I have been consistently getting 240 - 242 rated range on 90% Charge.
However, Yesterday, I plugged the car in with 230 miles rated range left.
I have scheduled charging and it starts at 3:30 AM at 22 miles/hour (I charge at 30 AMP)
Anyway, This morning, my car was at 230 miles rated range and it showed charging complete.
I was wondering, if I can somehow find out, whether it started charging or not?
Was this a Vampire loss from 3:30 AM to 7:30 AM?
OR Did I lose 10 miles of rated range overnight?

Can anyone help me understand this?
I have 4600 miles on the car and It is just shy of 1 and half month old.

Thanks
Click to expand...

It could be the vampire charge, but 10 miles is pretty significant if your car finishes charging from a scheduled charge at 3:30 am. Perhaps the car didn't charge this morning? Tesla can tell you if you work with the service center, but it might be something you wait to determine until later.

Have you checked your charging level slider to determine whether it was accidentally set lower? Perhaps try a range charge to 100% to see where it ends up, if it seems to be set to the right amount?

A call to the service center would allow them to pull logs and look to see if there's a problem after you try those steps.
�

teslamotorclub

Thứ Bảy, 5 tháng 11, 2016

Decreasing rated range. part 10

Không có nhận xét nào:

Đăng nhận xét