Sep 26, 2013
cinergi Yes, it's a known issue (with any AC charging).
- - - Updated - - -
A single service manager doesn't know about all 15,000 cars on the road.�
Sep 26, 2013
youlikeadajuice Another data point:
201 miles range charge
177 miles standard charge (90% on 4.5.61)
13,000 miles driven
298 whm avg
I used to get 208 miles range charge and between 192-187 miles on standard charge (93% prior to 4.5). Balancing used to be a difference of 5 miles max. A 90% charge should top out at 187, so 177 is 10 miles under that. In addition to my range charge topping at 201, I think some of us are seeing real loss.�
Sep 26, 2013
brianman I see a similar effect on my HPWC (mostly at 60A because of 4.5's torturous dialog). Also of note: when I plug in it often jumps by 3 rated miles (before charging negotiation has completed).�
Sep 26, 2013
Chipper Sorry if this is answered elsewhere. I looked but could not find it. I just ordered my P85 so I am brand new to this but what is the difference between a "range charge" and a "regular charge"?�
Sep 26, 2013
Grendal Good question for a future owner. Regular charge is what you will use most of the time. It charges the pack to around 90% so you aren't putting unneeded strain on the batteries so they last a lot longer. When you know that you want to use the full charge and go the EPA 265 miles then you want to do a "range" or long range charge. There are lots of strategies that are talked about in other threads.
Here is one:
What should my ideal charge percentage be? (FWv4.5))�
Sep 26, 2013
Chipper Thanks Grendal! That was exactly what I was hoping for--a concise explanation with references. You are greatly appreciated!�
Sep 26, 2013
fluxemag I'd love to see one of these magical rebalancing things happen, because for me just about every other week the rated range ticks down 1 mile. I'm at 135 now and it's following a straight line down from 145. Doing the same drive to work and back every day, my remaining charge at the end of the day has also decreased by a similar amount, even though my Wh/mi has been decreasing as I drive more sensibly. I'm at 5k miles and I watch on the app as it finishes charging so it's not vampire or anything else. If I lose 10 miles of rated range every 5k miles I'll be in Leaf territory after two years. :scared:�
Sep 26, 2013
SFOTurtle I have a 60. This past weekend I did a roadtrip down to SoCal and used the SCs at Gilroy, Atascadero, and Buellton. I got full charges at Buellton on the return and also in SoCal before heading north to Buellton. I have just under 10K miles and my numbers were 203 when charging stopped. That is 1 mile less than when I did a slow charge for balancing a couple months ago. I did notice that although the number topped at 203, the number did not start to decrease until after about 5 miles of driving in one instance and maybe 3-4 miles in the second. So there is some charge available that was not reflected in the number displayed.
Hard to know what my original number was since with 4.0, the max number I ever saw when doing a full charge for road trips was 197.
Also, FWIW, my lifetime average is 317 wh/mile.�
Sep 26, 2013
FredTMC my stats are nearly identical for my 60:
199 miles range charge
177 miles standard charge (90% on 4.5.61)
13,700 miles driven
342 whm avg
Yes, I agree. We are seeing a real loss. I think this is completely normal. Not happy to see decreased range but it's to be expected. Keep in mind that the "rate of range loss" is supposed to slow down after a while. It's not linear.
Post from July on balancing technique:
I posted this battery balancing technique back in July. I still firmly believe that it's a correct way to balance (using trickle charge while doing a range charge)
I started this battery balance exercise by doing a std charge. I had 182 mi rated range after a standard charge on v4.4 using nema 14-50 @ 40a. In other words, in was a completely normal standard charge.
Then, I immediately began a "range" charge using 110v outlet (I unplugged nema and switched to 110v). During the range charge, it took many hours to get to 199mi from 182 starting point. It was charging at 3mi per hour. Yes, I was completely shocked to see 199 because previously I've only ever seen 197.
Once the range reached 199mi, the car continued to charge for over an hour and the charge port ring was solid green during this time. I concluded the battery was balancing during this time.�
Sep 26, 2013
Zythryn You can't really tell how much, if any of it is real loss and how much is additional factors that are used in calculations in the algorithm, or in changes to the algorithm between firmware updates.
What is really needed is battery capacity information, which simply isn't available by simply looking at the range as we don't know how the range is calculated.�
Sep 26, 2013
spaghetti Don't mean to go off topic, but why unplug the NEMA 14-50 and switch to 110v when you can simply dial down the current to 6A on the NEMA 14-50. In other words, charge at 240V / 6A instead of 120V / 12A. Saves you the hassle of unplugging and plugging.�
Sep 26, 2013
FredTMC Great question. I believe you are completely correct... It should make no difference at all. The only reason I switched to physical 110v outlet back during this July experiment was to eliminate 14-50 as a possible variable. Since July, I just dial down as you suggest.�
Sep 26, 2013
liuping I think it would be handy feature for the charging system to pick the lower amps automatically if there is time.
So if you select an 80% charge by 6am, and a 6 Amp charge rate will get you there in time (assuming starting after midnight for the best rate, etc), use that. Most weekdays I drive less than 50 miles, so charging can take it's time.�
Sep 26, 2013
ckessel I hope it's not normal or Tesla is going to fall way short of their advertised expectations on degradation. You're seeing 4% a year or 40% in 10 years. Tesla used to say something like 20-30%. You can still find references to it in their forums and the same numbers quoted to people by [email�protected].
4% a year should not be considered normal. I'd definitely consider it a failure on Tesla's part.
However, I don't think battery degradation is a straight line though. I think I recall somewhere that degradation was worst in the first year or two, then levels out for a number of years, then eventually starts to drop more rapidly again as the battery nears end of life. So, even with a 4% loss in the first year, you might see that 20-30% over a longer time period.�
Sep 26, 2013
bluetinc While I agree with some of the idea behind what you are saying, I think that when everyone uses the term "a year" in terms of battery life/degradation mass confusion and concern ensue.
Many of us are using our S's as our main vehicle and are putting a huge number of miles on them. I for example am working my way up to 25k miles, in the last 9 months, others are even higher than me. This would quickly have someone extrapolating my loss of 7% (9% a year) and say, in four years you are only going to have 74% or your battery left, discounting that I would also have 130k miles on the car, and that loss is nearly inline with the Roadster study.
I also agree that the degradation should be accelerated in the first 5k miles or so, and then slow down. I'm just waiting to see the data bear this out, and without Tesla giving any real guidance on what should be expected, puts everyone much more on edge.
Oh, one other thought, it's become clear that the 60kWh and the 85kWh batteries use difference cells. We should expect that they each have their own degradation profile.
Peter
�
Sep 26, 2013
scaesare Along these lines... I've seem most batteries rated for so many charge/discharge cycles. Thus, it may be a misnomer to compare care strictly on miles alone, assuming the SOC is kept within reasonable norms (i.e. not Range Charging to 100% all the time or driving past 0 miles capacity left).
For instance, One person may drive 40mi/day, and another nearly 200, both plug in in at night. Thus there's a 5X difference in miles on the car at the end of a given period, yet both packs have the same number of charge/discharge cycles.
I currently charge my 85 to about 60% every weekday night for my work commute of 65 miles round trip. That leaves me a ~65 mile buffer for additional/unexpected errands in the evening. I've wondered if I'd be better off charging instead to 80% every other day and living with a smaller buffer...�
Sep 26, 2013
djp You're better off charging to 60% every night rather than 80% every other night. Shallow cycles are easier on the battery than deep cycles. Most battery studies count a cycle as 100% down to 0% and back so don't reflect how EV batteries get used in the real world.�
Sep 26, 2013
evme One thing, batteries are based on cycles, not on miles. So things like say the vampire power issue probably drained almost 5000 miles worth in cycles over the course of a year? no?�
Sep 26, 2013
dsmith2189 I had heard about charging at 110V to increase the rated range, but I seem to remember that the increase was seen to slowly increase over multiple charging sessions, not from a single charge at 110V.�
Sep 26, 2013
ckessel I typically charge to 80% and don't plug in until about 40%. Plugging in every night is just enough hassle I'd rather go 3-4 nights between. I miss the 93% mark the car originally used, I only really need to charge on weekends. But I'm using 80% now since it's supposed to be nicer on the battery in the long term.�
Sep 26, 2013
youlikeadajuice While I still think I'm seeing some loss based on simple math, I completely agree that it is a complicated set of calculations and every firmware update changes what is displayed to me. It makes it next to impossible to get a baseline of what my car could do when it was new vs what it does now or in the future. I hope that there will soon be some consistency in this area as well as some specific battery capacity information.�
Sep 26, 2013
scaesare Any references for this?
Keeping the charge between 20 and 80% isn't significantly deeper a cycle as compared to my current 30-60%, yet it would cut the number of charging cycles in half.
I don't know definitively either, but I'm wondering what drives your assertion?�
Sep 26, 2013
yobigd20 This is what I was told by Tesla. 110V charging only for a few months will get the cells in perfect alignment again. Can't do it from a single charge nor a few charges. Needs much more than that for a prolonged period of time.�
Sep 26, 2013
bigsmooth125 My numbers are nearly identical to yours, except I have an S85, have 10k miles, and average 296 kWh.
�
Sep 26, 2013
artsci While I've been in China, with my Model S plugged in at home set for the highest level standard charge, I've been monitoring the state of charge on the phone app two or three times a day. It varies from a low of 222 to a high of 232.�
Sep 26, 2013
liuping I wonder why Telsa is saying to use 110v. It seems like just setting the normal 240V charger to low amps should do the same thing and it would be as easy as selecting the amps on the screen.
Has anyone with a decent number of miles tested a 110 charge for a month? to see if any range is recovered?�
Sep 26, 2013
yobigd20 wrong.
source: http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/how_to_prolong_lithium_based_batteries
translated for us: the best thing you can do for your battery is
(1) keep charges as shallow as possible (this means charging 30-60% twice as much as 20-80% is MUCH better for your battery). Avoid repeated deep discharges.
(2) never charge more than you really need, and especially don't range charge and let it sit there.
(3) don't live in hot climates (while this is serious, Tesla's battery cooling system should almost completely negate this one as demonstrated in the roadster where the average outside temperature had absolutely no effect on battery life according to research study...)
if you do 2+3, aka live in a hot climate and range charge to max and let it sit there, that is the worst possible scenario, this includes a slow trickle-charge since the battery pretty much sits there at max capacity.
however, take all of this is a grain of salt. Tesla has more experience than anyone else at this and has extremely sophisticated algorithms in their battery pack management system to prolong the life of the battery as well as their heating/liquid cooling system to keep the battery temps stable, even during so called "dangerous fast charging methods" aka the superchargers. They know what they are doing. Trust them, and stop worrying about what you *THINK* is 5 miles range loss.�
Sep 27, 2013
Eggplant You could also add:
4) Try to schedule a charge as close to departure as possible.�
Sep 27, 2013
dave Assuming that's true, and the decreasing range is just an "alignment" issue, I don't see how it's possible to charge only at 110v for a few months. Maybe if you don't drive your car much, but most of us are driving daily and only have maybe 12 hours a day max where it's sitting in the garage and can be charged.�
Sep 27, 2013
islandbayy Good news to report, after going about 1,500 miles thinking I had lost 5 miles of range, as I could not get them back. I had a fairly draining drive yesterday, from 100% range down to 6 miles left when I pulled into my driveway last night. I now have 11,000 miles on my 60kw battery pack in 4 months, 1 week and 1 day of ownership. After doing a range charge last night, as I will be draining my battery fairly low again today, I came out to my car to discover I was up to 207 rated miles and it was still charging. I am uploading a video on it right now. Will update post when complete.�
Sep 27, 2013
pilotSteve I was skeptical about low power (either 110V or 240V/6A) charging would balance the batteries and increase range..... however I gave it a try last month and worked for me! I want from 230 miles (left my Charge slider unchanged during all these charges!!!) and after eight over nights charges the range slowly went to 236 and remain there �3 miles each charge.
My personal belief is that 110 or 240V low amperage charging does the same thing: charges batteries slowly enough that most cells reach their charge voltage � tolerance after five or more slow charges.
I plan on doing this every few months because it feels good to see the higher range on the display
�
Sep 27, 2013
dave I'd be glad to have 230 back! I'm going to go dial her down to 240V/6A and try for subsequent nights. I only tried one night previously.�
Sep 27, 2013
liuping It's be nice to figure out how many nights in a row are needed to achieve the benefits. With a little planning, I could do it a few weeks before any planned long trips, when every mile counts...�
Sep 27, 2013
brianman This is yet another reason it would be nice to have REST access to the "max amperage" setting for the current charge location.�
Sep 27, 2013
islandbayy If you want the slowest charge, 120v with the lowest setting. Remember, turning 240 down to 6 amp, is the same as having 120 at 12 amps. so you CAN cut it down by half by using the 120v. I think the biggest difference is when going for the last bit (Standard to Range Charge). Use whatever speed you want up to about standard, then do the last little bit slowest possible.�
Sep 27, 2013
SFOTurtle I assume you were charging to 90% SOC all of these slow charges?�
Sep 27, 2013
liuping It would be nice to know if we need to use the lowest Amp 120V setting or is the 120V 12amp/240V 6Amp change slow enough to restore balance.
If we can charge to say 75% at relatively high speed, then switch to 110V 8Amp (or whatever is the lowest) for an hour or so in the morning before leaving for work, it might be manageable for a few weeks. If we have to charge the whole way at 120V 8 amps, it might take too long for many peopleto even try.
This sounds like a good thing to add to a future software update. sort of mimics the SC tapering, but at home...�
Sep 27, 2013
islandbayy Here's the current mileage and range video. Mind you, It was still charging at a reduced rate. Most likely would have went for another 20 minutes, though, I had to drive a client and my time of use was over.
�
Sep 28, 2013
pilotSteve Yes, I purposefully kept the range slider the same at roughly 90%.�
Sep 28, 2013
AmpedRealtor I don't understand the need to charge slowly. The car's systems and batteries are built to handle a 120 kW charge from a supercharger. That is 120,000 watts. Even an 80A HPWC running at full power only delivers about 20,000 watts, or only 16% of what the car is capable of utilizing at a supercharger. From the car's perspective, an 80A HPWC is considered pretty "low power" already.�
Sep 28, 2013
wycolo SCing is by original design a long-trip only event. Someday we may learn of what results from *only* SCing an MS, like an apt dweller w/o any charging at work, etc. We might be surprised by the results.
But SCing is free and by design time saving. When you pay at home for needlessly fast charge, the extra energy from AC cooling comes out of your pocket. Heavily loading the wiring on your side of the electric meter, if you have a long underground service cable for example, results in electrical losses (I*R) that you pay for. Charging at just enough amps so the car is ready next morning will save money.
--�
Sep 29, 2013
TeslaSinHR Any chance of starting a Wiki page to gather the latest "best practices" for battery care?�
Oct 1, 2013
AmpedRealtor Someone over at Teslamotors forum claims that charging at minimum amps killed his 12v battery. Just saying.�
Oct 1, 2013
Lloyd I don't believe that. Completely separated systems!!�
Oct 1, 2013
ZBB I also have a 60 and am seeing similar numbers -- although my car just passed 5k miles and a few days shy of 4 months. Car has been on 3 variants of 4.5 since delivery.
I've done 2 range charges -- one was about a month into ownership and it showed 208 miles when done. Second was yesterday and it showed 202 miles when done.
I normally charge to 75% on the slider. For the first 6 weeks, it would show ~152 in the mornings after charging and has been slowly decreasing from there. Its now showing 145. I've done some 90% charges too -- and am seeing 179 now (vs ~185 earlier). All numbers quoted are Rated...�
Oct 1, 2013
drees Yeah, if anything, slow charging should keep the DC-DC inverter active and thus keep the 12V battery topped off better.
Could easily verify this by watching 12V battery voltage during a charge.�
Oct 1, 2013
mnx Please try to remember where you read something and post a link. Posting something you read somewhere as fact only spreads rumours or false information... It was brianman who ran into trouble while charging @ 240/6A but it's by no means conclusive that charging @ 6A killed his 12V. It could have simply been coincidence.
You might consider charging slower - Page 8�
Oct 1, 2013
nanimac Any range-limited 40kwh/60's on this thread? I've had my car for 3 months now and started out at 138-140 miles rated and am now down to 132 miles rated. Since I actually have a 60kwh battery, shouldn't it make sense that the 40's would stay at the original rated range? Just wondering. Seems like a software fix, but wondering if other 40/60 owners are experiencing the same drain.�
Oct 1, 2013
fluxemag I started at 145 and now I'm at 134 after 5000 miles and 4 months. I'm bringing it in for them to investigate. Tried charging at 5A and it didn't make any difference (besides taking forever). It seems to drop 1 mile of rated range every 500 miles, which is about 2 weeks of driving for me. Not an encouraging trend. But I don't know if it's going to continue in such an established linear trend towards 0, or taper off.�
Oct 1, 2013
wraithnot I did a range charge Sunday morning before a day trip and I'm now at 260 rated miles after 15,132 total miles and a bit more than six months of driving. I just updated my data on the Plug in America Model S Survey: Plug In America and it looks like that is similar to many other 85 kWh packs with similar mileage. But one lucky owner still reports the full 265 rated miles after driving 32,756 miles!�
Oct 1, 2013
Sacrament055 Yes, my 40 started at 145 rated miles and now only gets to 138 after 4 months. I have my car in for the fog light retrofit and mentioned to them about the battery and they're going to look into it. The part that I found odd is that even if the pack were experiencing degradation it should still be able to hit 72%. I don't know how they do what they do but it seems like if each cell is being charged they can each individually hit 72% even after 4 months.�
Oct 1, 2013
bluetinc Hi Sacrament,
An interesting note is that the Software limited 40's are not able to balance their batteries at 100% like the 60's and 85's are. I've found that it seems that the lower my standard daily charge is set to, the more out of balance my pack becomes. (This isn't terribly surprising) I've seen my range at 50% vary by as much as 8 miles after balancing.
I don't quite follow your notes about hitting 72% no matter what. 72% is a 72% State of Charge (SOC), not 72% of 208 miles.
Peter
�
Oct 1, 2013
Eeyago I'm in the same boat with my 40. But getting only around 134 after 6000 miles. Still on firmware 4.5.�
Oct 1, 2013
mknox I've been charging at low amperage for over 6 months since I got the car. (Long story.... still haven't got my "permanent" wiring installed yet). I have had no issues with the 12v or any other system as a result.�
Oct 1, 2013
nanimac Wow..the highest my rated range reached was 141. Seems odd that it would be different if it's just a software thing limiting the range. Let me know what the SC says about the battery. I may bring mine in to get checked out too.�
Oct 2, 2013
brianman Are you sure this isn't an incorrect retelling of my post (on TMC)?�
Oct 2, 2013
Sacrament055 I guess I was looking at it like each cell should be hitting 72% charge which I wouldn't expect them to be unable to reach that charge level until the batteries had degraded significantly. Obviously I misunderstood the way the batteries work and as I've been following these forums I'm now given to understand that if a battery or batteries reaches the target level it stops charging that bank (even though some may not be at that charge level) hence the lower mileage and out of balance people are talking about.
I have noticed that if I start the charge from a lower level it gets to a higher number when it's done. Also I get a couple more miles of rated range if I charge at at 110 instead of 240.
- - - Updated - - -
Unfortunately all they said was that it's within their expected degradation for the battery type and number of miles.�
Oct 2, 2013
nanimac thanks for letting me know. At this rate, will have to fork over $$$ for the 60 range upgrade in a couple years when range will be less than a Leaf! Am not very happy about that!�
Oct 2, 2013
bluetinc
It sounds like you have a good understanding of the pack getting out of balance.
When thinking about the 72% SOC, it may be easier to think of a glass of water. The water in the glass representing how far you can drive. The percentage full is how full the glass is. As the batteries degrade, the width of the glass gets narrower. You will always be able to fill the glass up to the same height, but the amount of water the glass is holding will be less. This means even when the battery is very old, you will always be able to charge up to 72% SOC, but that will be a smaller total amount of energy storage than before.
Peter�
Oct 3, 2013
aaron.s All -
Not too long ago (after 4.5 came out) my 90% charge went from 231 to now 228/229. Did my first range charge in a long time yesterday at a supercharger and it ended at 258 (and was stuck there for a while before the car stopped charging)... Not thrilled, but in the past couple of days have started charging at 245 volts @ 6 Amps to see if I can get the pack balanced again.
I'm at 16,870 miles....
Aaron�
Oct 3, 2013
mknox I did my one and only ever Range Charge back in July when the car had a bit over 10,000 miles. It was at 260 miles and saying 3 minutes remaining (it had been stuck at "3 minutes remaining"for about 20 minutes) and I had to unplug and leave. Not sure if I would have got more than 260 if I let it finish, but that's my data point.�
Oct 3, 2013
Eggplant My 90% range dropped from 242 to 236 after a software update. When I asked Tesla about it, they said 236 was normal, and the algorithm had changed. They also told me to keep in mind that rated range changes with temperature and other factors.
If true, it seems like it would be really hard to compare numbers between a few months since conditions are likely to be very different. Could this be a factor in these lower numbers? Just the fact that we are getting into the colder months in NA?�
Oct 3, 2013
yobigd20 absolutely. there is MUCH variability in their calculations, which as I've mentioned before is an *ALGORITHMIC BEST GUESS* since actual lithium-ion battery capacity is impossible to accurately measure without fully draining the battery and fully charging it (which is BAD to do as that is a full cycle and really speeds up degradation). that's why I think this thread is a joke and a waste of everybody's time. what you think is decreasing rated range is NOT decreasing rated range. it's just variability in the factors used in their rated range GUESSING algorithm. this will fluctuate both up and down every day. could be down 5 miles one day, then up 8 miles the next. a total guesstimate based on dozens of factors that change daily.�
Oct 3, 2013
Eggplant I think I would agree. At best, you could compare a trend of readings under similar conditions. Comparing single charge numbers seems futile.�
Oct 3, 2013
SFOTurtle I agree with you that variations are to be expected and not in and of itself a source of concern. But if there are no "ups" to correspond with the "downs" and all of the data points across weather conditions, and with the same firmware version, are trending downward, then that's something I will keep an eye on, meaning loosely keep track of and not lose sleep over. I do check this thread because as a 60 owner, I like to hear from other 60 owners' experiences given how new this car is. I hope others continue to post their experiences because we are all beta testers and no one knows how the 60 curve will look over time. The more data points the better.
I have not seen *any* upward variability in my rated miles in about 8 weeks, i.e., 8 weeks ago I hit 182 rated miles on a 90% SOC and since then, it's only been less little by little. After doing quite a bit of long distance driving and deep cycles and two range charges on a roadtrip to SoCal two weeks ago (in the same weather conditions), I noticed my rated miles dropped by a little more so that I'm at 178 rated miles at 90% SOC at just under 10K miles.
Because my commute is only about 20 miles roundtrip, I'm going to start charging overnight and/or at work at 110/12A or 240/6A for a couple months to see if there is any upward *variability* (just to see if the top number bounces up even if just a little). I don't see any downside in testing this and if I can keep my rated miles at or about the same level, even better. If not, there was no harm in trying. It is painless either way.�
Oct 4, 2013
mnx Comparing my last 2 range charges, my range did go up. Last time it stopped @ 416km, this time it read 418km when it finished.
We really need access to the diagnostic mode where we can see the CAC of the battery (among all the other interesting stuff like temperatures). Then there would be no guessing if one's battery has decreasing capacity.�
Oct 4, 2013
dave Yobig, I appreciate your input on the matter, but do not appreciate you dismissing our opinions as a joke and waste of everybody's time.
My car has a display for rated range. That range has been decreasing since I bought the car. That means I have decreasing rated range. I'm not making it up, it is what it is, and I would like to understand why it is that way, and also why my loss appears to be greater than other folks. If there is an algorithm "guessing" my range, I'd like to know how it works and why it consistently displays mine as less then other peoples.
Your experience is obviously different than mine, as my maximum range does not variate at all. It has steadily gone down since I got the car in January. Certainly not fluctuating up and down on a daily basis as you are saying happens.
I have now done several range charges from a low SOC - one at 240/5A, and I have been charging solely on 240/5A for the last two weeks based on your (and others) advice. My top range has not improved by one mile.
- - - Updated - - -
2 km doesn't count. That's barely 1 mile.�
Oct 4, 2013
Gear No offense, but is it really fair to be upset with somebody dismissing your evidence, and to then dismiss somebody else's all in the same post?�
Oct 4, 2013
yobigd20 see my post here:
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/22101-Can-someone-PLEASE-explain-how-rated-range-is-calculated?p=454531&viewfull=1#post454531
but specifically, reading these two patents will give you more insight: http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20100138178 & http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20110156641�
Oct 4, 2013
Eggplant Nice! Thanks for the links!�
Oct 5, 2013
Gear I'm not sure why your quote got attributed to me, but I'm not the one who asked the question.�
Oct 5, 2013
yobigd20 Hmmm probably a copy paste error in my part. My bad.�
Oct 7, 2013
lloyds I'm at 9k miles now and no degration so far. Keeping my fingers crossed at this point since it's a bit scary to hear about these issues so early on.�
Oct 8, 2013
fluxemag The service center said my battery is operating normally, and went on to say that rated range decreases based on your driving habits. I'm not sure if that's true. Projected range using average mode is very effective at telling me how many miles range I can expect. Rated range displayed on the charging screen is still way higher than what I could actually get at 350 Wh/mi. So why is the rated range so ineffective at catching up to my driving style if it actually does try to do that. You would think it could do it faster than 1 mile lower every two weeks.
So my question for other "40" drivers is, if what is your Wh/mi and rated range on a full charge?�
Oct 8, 2013
Sacrament055 My 40 shows a rated range at full charge has gone down from 145 (new) to now showing 136 to 139 now (depending on the day). I've been very careful to drive efficiently and am now down to 270 wh/mile. Despite the 136 rated miles I can fairly easily drive 150 miles on a full charge. I suspect that will change when the winter weather hits.�
Oct 11, 2013
Kipernicus Just adding a datapoint.
10k miles, 60kWh, Jan 2013 delivery
90% charge today = 175 rated range�
Oct 11, 2013
nleggatt 60 with 22k miles still getting 200 miles on full charge�
Oct 12, 2013
Red Always keep in mind the season or date of when you look at the estimate. Cold or heat eat more energy than those points in between due to heating and cooling... And the car remembers recent consumption pattern and makes assumptions based on that.�
Oct 12, 2013
nanimac I'm at 4,000 miles, 291 wh/mi and 135 full charge�
Oct 12, 2013
mdh Is this true when looking at "rated" range and not projected?�
Oct 12, 2013
Eggplant Absolutely. The rated range algorithm is complex and takes into account ambient temp and driving history. In fact, telsa has some patents on the whole process.
I believe projected is based on recent kW/mi usage.�
Oct 12, 2013
bluetinc
Tesla Engineering has answered this question before. Rated Range does not take into account driving history. It is an EPA based number, with adjustments to compensate for the amount of energy in the battery (such as temperate). Please don't continue this mis-information, any Tesla employees stating that it does should be corrected.
Peter�
Oct 12, 2013
mdh This is what I recall. I was hoping, in one sense, that there were other variables.�
Oct 12, 2013
AmpedRealtor Not true.�
Oct 12, 2013
brianman My understanding has always matched what bluetinc said in #362.�
Oct 13, 2013
Eggplant Well, then, apologies if I've been misinformed about that. I wouldn't doubt that too much... unfortunately at times I've found Tesla support folks to be not as well informed as one might hope. Does anyone have an authoritative source for how these numbers are calculated?
The 5.6 firmware says things like 'Range calculations have changed (to be more accurate)' but doesn't state WHICH range number this refers to. There are at least three reported by the API (rate, ideal, and estimated) and maybe a fourth one called 'projected' contained in the energy graph. If rated is an EPA formula, then I doubt Tesla would be modifying that one, unless they had it wrong and were told to. However my rated number changed quite a bit (down) between firmware upgrades and Tesla support claims it was due to changes in that calculation.
There is also this patent:
http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20110156641
Wherein they say factors such as the measured efficiency of the vehicle in Wh/mi (basically your driving efficiency history) are used to determine how to charge the battery to a requested SOC. Turns out knowing the SOC of a battery is hard. And you have to know the SOC to know your range. Sure would be nice to know how they get from SOC to a rated/ideal/estimated/projected range number.�
Oct 13, 2013
islandbayy Lovely surprise at 12,500 miles!
�
Oct 13, 2013
strengthcoach4 That's encouraging! I've been seeing 201 lately with 11,500 miles.�
Oct 13, 2013
ZBB My last range charge was at just over 5k... Got 202...�
Oct 13, 2013
brianman My impression is that "estimated" in the REST API matches "Projected" in old firmware. I don't have any official information to support this, just an impression based on the numbers I've seen in my logs.�
Oct 14, 2013
bluetinc You need to be specific about which revisions of software you are talking about, and what type of charge. There have been major changes for charges that don't terminate at 100% full in software. They have changed where a "standard" charge completes, 93% vs 90%, and now a slider, along with a number of tweaks that change how and when the car terminates partial charges (i.e. charges that are set to end lower than 100%).
Tesla, like most major companies, has many many patents that are not implemented on their current products, in this case the S.
Peter�
Oct 14, 2013
Zextraterrestrial 5.6 update(2nd?) dropped 90% to 218mi (from 225 the day before)�
Oct 14, 2013
bluetinc Have you had a chance/reason to do a full range charge and see if that number has changed also?
Peter�
Oct 14, 2013
fluxemag So it appears that it has nothing to do with lifetime Wh/mi, since we both get 135 rated, and I'm at 345Wh/mi. I did a short road trip this weekend, and kept it around 300wh/mi, rated seems to be pretty accurate at that usage.�
Oct 14, 2013
SFOTurtle That's nice. Re your surprise, what were recent max range readings, and what kind of range are you seeing at 90% SOC assuming you're still running on 4.5?�
Oct 14, 2013
islandbayy It was ranging between 203 to 206. More frequently 203.
For 90% SOC, the numbers are ALL over the board. Imediately after 90% Charge (So no Vampire losses have taken place yet). I've been seeing anywhere from 175 to 187. No rhyme or reason for the large swing.
On the original factory firmware (What was it, 4.0? I think?), it was 190 on a Standard Charge, and that was fairly regular. few occasions it would drop to 189, but almost like clockwork 190. And on the original firmware, and on 4.5, my Range or Full charge was 209.�
Oct 14, 2013
SFOTurtle Interesting. So you've seen 187 at 90% SOC with 4.5? I've never seen anything close to that high since 4.5.�
Oct 14, 2013
islandbayy Like I said, fluctuates A LOT at the 90 for some reason, didnt fluctuate at all on the old firmware.�
Oct 14, 2013
Kraken Wait... I know this is off topic, but are you saying you've been updated from 4.x to 5.6?�
Oct 15, 2013
rlawson4 24600 Miles. Running 4.5. Did a range charge this morning and got 259 Rated range. My standard charge has been 228-230 lately. Thoughts?�
Oct 15, 2013
johnmodels Similarly, I have 12,000 miles on s85 and did a range charge this morning. It peaked right after completion at 262 and then fell to 259 after an hour. Then I drove 1 mile and it dropped to 255. It doesn't seem to like being that fully charged.....
Running 4.5�
Oct 15, 2013
gg_got_a_tesla Hmm... Kip's car and mine were produced in the same week. At 13,000 miles, 90% charge = 180 rated range and Max charge = 203 rated range for me.
FWIW, one difference between Kip's/SFOTurtle's and my car is that they both have done long roadtrips and several supercharges. I've only done extended Bay Area driving, 2 max charges and 3 (short) supercharges around here.�
Oct 15, 2013
islandbayy I do extensive long range driving. Though, have never supercharged as their have been none in range.�
Oct 25, 2013
Todd Burch Another datapoint:
S85 VIN 1653, delivered 12/31/12.
15,500 miles on the ODO. Never supercharged before. Almost always charge with a NEMA 14-50.
First full range charge: 255 mi rated.
My car's SOC is usually between the 100mi rated-->200 mi rated range. Prior to this charge, I'd never gone with less than about 65 mi remaining, so the relatively low range charge is probably due to a combination of pack imbalance, imperfect range estimation, and actual degredation.
I wonder, if I were to drive it down to near 0 range, then charge it back up, if I would get something closer to 260 mi rated. Either way, it's a 5 mi difference. I'm not going to get worked up about it.�
Oct 25, 2013
Benjamin Brooks You mean 10 mile difference right? Range charge is supposed to be 265mile on a new 85kWh pack according to the EPA rating...�
Oct 25, 2013
dave FYI, I've been charging at low amperage the last few weeks, and last night I deliberately took her down to 17 miles to see if it would make a difference. It didn't. I'm still hitting 224 at 90% and 254 on a full charge.
Based on various reports, I'm starting to think the degradation has more to due with age than mileage. It seems like the lower range numbers are coming from those of us that have had our cars longer and through last winter.�
Oct 25, 2013
viet658 I have about 7k miles on my S60 and I get 202 miles on a max range charge.
�
Oct 25, 2013
Benjamin Brooks 5.x firmware or older?�
Oct 25, 2013
tdiggity Vin 5000's - just hit 10,000 miles. car is 8 months old.
Been charging to 170 miles for the past few months (Ever since I got 4.5). Did a 90% charge yesterday and got 219 miles. Going on a road trip this weekend, so will be hitting 5 or 6 superchargers.�
Oct 25, 2013
dave 4.5�
Oct 25, 2013
aaron.s I'm VIN 3449 - got my car January 24th. Drove home from Richmond, VA (supercharger ribbon cutting) to NY and had 17/18 miles left when I got to Newark, DE. Did a 90% charge and got 227 (sometimes I get 228). A full Range charge for me is 258 miles. I have 18,800 miles on my car now.
Don't think this is necessarily age. Peculiar thing - a Model S owner from MD who has over 40,000 miles on his car (got it December) when driving down to FL and was in the mid 30's (mileage) was able to get 262 on a range charge!
Very confusing.....
Aaron�
Oct 25, 2013
brianman I think it's very simple actually. People are speaking as if you can just count the electrons and produce a scientific measurement of charge. It's far more complicated than that. The device is physically moving, the environmental conditions are constantly changing, the firmware is evolving, etc.
It's kind of like saying "Last month I measured the surface temperature of my mailman's forehead and did the same last night. The temperature is different. WTF."�
Oct 25, 2013
Todd Burch Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that I expected to be seeing something closer to about 260 mi rated at this point. I never fully range charged when I got my car, so don't know what it was initially showing.
- - - Updated - - -
That's what I was getting at. I think we all may just be reading too much into the range numbers. It's too complex a calculation to be concerned by swings of a few miles this way or that.
Actually, in the mailman case you're dealing with a value that can be measured directly by an instrument. It's more like "Last month I counted the drops of sweat I could squeeze out of the mailman's shirt and used that to determine how many mailboxes he delivered to. I checked again today and there were less sweat drops, but he tells me he went to more mailboxes. WTF?
OK, that was a bit of a nasty example...�
Oct 25, 2013
ecarfan I am hoping that Tesla will some day put out a statement saying something like "There is an inherent level of uncertainty in the displayed range values due to x, y, and z, and owners should be aware that displayed and real world range values may differ by +/- X%".
To me the bottom line is always leave yourself an approximately 20% safety buffer to make sure you reach your next charging destination.�
Oct 25, 2013
brianman I don't think they need to.
Also, I'm a little concerned that hullaballoo on forums might lead them to start showing us "fuzzier numbers" because "clearly you can't handle" the raw numbers. (I'm thinking about what GeorgeB said a bit back about people saying they want transparency but not being able to handle it.) I'm also thinking of the Nissan bubble/bauble/notch "creativity" w/r/t warranty etc. I don't want to see Tesla going this route or anywhere near it.
Continue giving me the raw data as best you can, Tesla, please.�
Oct 25, 2013
dave I get frustrated with folks dismissing our decreasing range with the reasoning that the results aren't exact and are variable.
The problem is that my results are NOT variable. I've had the same decreased range for a while now, despite going through different temperatures, humidity, length of charge cycles, etc. I still have the same lost mileage. It doesn't change like my mailman's forehead.�
Oct 25, 2013
aaron.s Brian
I hear ya - but we're all pretty much at 4.5 now (except for brand new owners) - and I am hearing quite a bit of variance in people's ranges with mileage on their cars all over the place. Why should 2 people that got their car the same month (December) with different amount of mileage get such a variance (opposite of what it should be based on mileage)?
MD owner 1 - mileage in the 20,000's - has lately been getting 250 on a range charge
MD owner 2 - mileage in the 36,000's - was able to range charge to 262 (now at 40,000+ miles but not sure what his max is)
I'm actually in the "norm" from what I'm reading in this thread and based on the miles I have on my car - but there still is way too much variance compared to the Winter/Spring when it seemed that all of us were reporting (basically) similar Standard/Range totals and all still running pretty much the same firmware...
Aaron�
Oct 25, 2013
brianman Speaking for myself, I'm not dismissing that there might be decreasing rated range nor that people have a right to be interested (and concerned, in some cases). But there's a lot of heuristics in those calculations. It's not like taking out a ruler and measuring that way.
Speaking to your example (a), you're seeing a different number in the UI. Do you know for certain they don't have a bug (or a design change) in firmware that grew the amount of reserve or changed the calculation based on telemetry data from the "fleet"?
I totally grant that the UI Tesla provides us is the only official numbers we have to go from, and thus are the language we have to speak when talking with Tesla about degradation concerns (esp. w/r/t warranty).
I just don't feel as "sure-footed" in making claims about what degradation I do or don't have because these numbers seem very "wiggly" to me.�
Oct 25, 2013
steve841 Maybe Tesla should just convert it from miles to percent of charge and then have the computer adjust to reflect percentage based on the charge level the owner sets the car to.
Would seem to alleviate the claims here (even though you all have seemingly valid claims).�
Oct 25, 2013
qwk You have to factor in that some people treat their battery like sh.., and some baby theirs. Different charging habits will also affect things. There are so many variables, it's no surprise that such a wide range of rated range posted here exist.�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét