Oct 25, 2013
brianman Let me fix this for you.
How quickly people moved from "drive it like you stole it, it's a real car!" to "drive it like a hypermiler Prius" when they got their batteries and went into nanny state mode.
Hell, even Elon told us to use the damn things without reading the manual. "Sir, yes sir!" I say.�
Oct 25, 2013
aaron.s qwk
I know both MD owners personally and can say they both drive their cars in similar manners....
Aaron�
Oct 25, 2013
dave I don't have a swing. My lost miles have never come back, and I don't even have variance of more than a mile in my daily numbers - despite trying to shake it up with deeper charge cycles and lower amperage charging.
No, but I'm on the same firmware as everyone else, wouldn't the calculation be the same for everyone?
That's the trouble - I baby mine. Other than occasionally flooring her on an onramp, I am quite conservative, only charge to 80%, and have only gone below 50 miles of charge once (last night) to see if made a difference in my mileage numbers.
I respect you guys a lot, as many of you have obviously spent much more time on this board and in Tesla research than I. However, it starts to feel sometimes like I'm trying to argue science with a deeply religious person. Whenever a conflict comes up, the answer is that it is a great mystery we can't understand, and we just have to have faith. Personally, I like to know how things work.
�
Oct 25, 2013
yobigd20 actually it's impossible for us to control the batteries. thats what Tesla's complex battery management system is for. The only thing we should be doing is having fun driving it. Driving it fast or slow makes absolutely no difference to battery life. There is only 2 things we can control. 1-> don't let your battery go to 0 and leave it sit there and 2) don't range charge it in hot climates and leave it sit there. Those are the only 2 outside influences we have on the battery pack. Also, battery management system + heating/cooling system "normalizes" the charging. So the rate we charge (5a/110v vs 300A/400V supercharge) also makes absolutely no difference to the battery life. The only effect that may have is on the individual cell balancing within each pack, but over time that will also be normalized, aka "re-balanced", by the battery pack management system.
So I drive it like it's meant to be driven. I don't baby my car. And I have 27k miles and a range charge of 265 about a month ago. No degradation at all and I enjoy it every day with no worries about how my "driving style" will affect the batteries.�
Oct 25, 2013
Todd Burch Not a swing for a given car....I meant from one car to the next. There are so many different environments and operating conditions that different cars experience that it's not surprising the numbers vary by a few miles. Nobody's saying there hasn't been any degredation. We don't have the means to quantify it accurately, though. Using the range estimate probably doesn't give the whole picture.�
Oct 25, 2013
qwk FYI, you can still drive the car like you stole it, and be nice to your battery. One example would be to keep the charge level above 50%, if you are going to lay into it at every stoplight.�
Oct 25, 2013
Doug_G I really don't think that's going to change.
The Rated Range is an estimate! The car doesn't know exactly how much energy is available from the battery, because this is very hard to measure precisely. In fact Tesla seems to measure it more accurately than anyone. Regardless, it is only an estimate of how much energy is in there. And even if it were perfectly accurate, your range is going to be affected by real world conditions anyway - such as temperature, speed, wind, rain and snow, elevation, etc.
Regardless of all that, the gauge as it stands is incredibly useful. It does correlate fairly well with the vehicle's actual range. Also it really helps you monitor how well you're doing on a road trip. What I do is periodically mentally subtract the Rated Range from the GPS distance-to-go. If that number comes out larger than my margin (typically 30 km) I'm happy. If it starts trending down then I back off my speed slightly. If I have lots left then I might speed up, especially towards the end of the trip.�
Oct 25, 2013
ecarfan Well said. Just because the dash display gives an exact number doesn't mean the number is precise.�
Oct 25, 2013
cinergi Update on my situation ... If you don't recall, I had a huge sudden drop to 219 a few months ago at 13.5k miles. See my prior post here.
Since then, it has slowly increased -- though my firmware has changed since then. I'm now at 222 for 90% (don't know about 100%).
Tesla has refused to provide me an answer thus far (I haven't exactly been pressing for it, either) but from what I understand, *they* were unable to agree on the answer and thus I haven't been provided one.
Here's what I think we need from Tesla:
- Public statement on what rated range is (clarify whether it's based on driving history)
- Update the energy graph's horizonal line and projected range estimation so that 290 lines up with rated range, not 310
- Explain the sudden changes in rated range
- Answer whether 219 rated after 13k miles and/or 9 months is normal
�
Oct 25, 2013
bluetinc Yobigd20,
It's great that your car is still charging up to 265 after 27k miles. The reason a number of us are so interested in this is that our mileage is below yours, yet we charge to ~250. If we were simply speaking of a couple of miles, I would totally agree with the no-worries approach. Perhaps there are a couple of bad battery packs out there, or perhaps we are simply in the normal degradation variance, but with a difference of almost 6%, it is enough to want to understand it better.
I've mentioned much of this before, but as a recap: My car charged to 275 miles when new. It now charges to ~250 miles. I have verified that this drop is not effected by the various software versions that my car has been on (I am only up to 4.5 currently so I can't speak to 5.0/5.6). The amount of "reserve" below 0 has not changed since the car was new. I have shown that this change is real, the amount of energy that I can use to drive from full charge to ~0 miles has in fact reduced by ~7.5kWh or ~9%.
I also want to be clear that we should expect degradation, it is a natural and unpreventable effect of age and use of batteries. Because battery capacity can not be easily measured and is in constant flux (at times going both up and down), Tesla has taken to hiding this as much as possible from all involved. They have decided that the best value, which was accessible in the Roadster (CAC) either through the software, or from Service, is not available to either (I have asked). This is, I believe, an unfortunate effect of the need to provide simple answers to very complex questions, when moving a technical product to the mass market.
Peter�
Oct 25, 2013
Odenator Or we could be seeing reduced range because the internal mechanism that limits the rate of charge at higher SOC and ends the charging process is mistakenly stopping the charge process too soon thinking it is at 100% at least that's what a SC tech told me after he spoke to the HQ engineers regarding my drop in rated mileage.�
Oct 25, 2013
bluetinc Is this explanation attached to a specific software version? If this were happening, I would expect that to be shown by the pack voltage at 100% to be low. Up to version 4.5, I have not seen the max pack voltage to vary.
Peter�
Oct 25, 2013
bigsmooth125 I never understood the point of dismissive arguments like this that are made whenever someone has a concern/complaint about the car. It reminds of the people who belch, "Well if you don't like the US of A, just move to another country!"
No one in this thread has said that he doesn't enjoy the car. People are simply and reasonably concerned that their down-trending rated miles might reflect higher than expected degradation of their batteries. No one knows for sure; that's why people are submitting their data (fwiw) and discussing the issue. I suspect that for most people, a drop of 5-15 rated miles by itself is not a big deal. The concern is that this drop might be the start of larger trend going forward.
- - - Updated - - -
I'm getting identical numbers as you. Only difference is I got my car in March and am at 12K miles now.
- - - Updated - - -
You must be my twin. I treat my battery the same and have the same thoughts.�
Oct 26, 2013
ChriZ For what it's worth, I have a 60kwh and I've seen my 90% charge go from 181 to 177 now. Forgot what it was when I got it but I swear it was in the 190s. I have about 6k miles on the car running 4.5.�
Oct 26, 2013
mkjayakumar I have seen folks go through a similar gyrations in Nissan Leaf forums about 20 months ago. When an owner brought up the possibility of heavy degradation many were dismissive and gave several possible explanations on the same lines I see here. But in a few months when the warm weather returned it was apparent that batteries were indeed degrading at a faster rate.�
Oct 26, 2013
gaswalla I was thinking the exact same thing. The software changes are being way overplayed, and now Tesla is even mentioning range in the software release notes. Next summer will be interesting to see how our ranges are holding up.�
Oct 26, 2013
Kraken I do think there is some degradation and I'm not dismissive of it like some people here. I'm not as worried about it as others, because I know that I never get that number anyway. I tell most people that I expect 200 miles range max out of my 85 when they ask. Anytime I'm driving that far, I'm definitely driving faster than 55 mph, I'm playing the radio, and using the air. Tis estimate hasn't changed even though the number has slowly and steadily decreased under similar conditions. I don't drive it crazy, but I do use the accelerator occasionally and I don't drive slow just to drive slow.
i think some of this range will eventually come back when the battery rebalances itself. I noticed about a mile or two increase (not nearly as much as I've lost) by going down to under 20 miles and charging with about 25% less amperage. It was the only time I've ever seen the range go up.�
Oct 26, 2013
jerry33 The difference is that there is solid data that the Roadster's battery degradation isn't affected by ambient temperature. Now I suppose it's possible that Tesla got it wrong in the Model S, but I really doubt it.�
Oct 26, 2013
brianman Is this within a specific range (say -20F to 120F) or generally (like 0K to infinity)?�
Oct 26, 2013
qwk That, and Tesla actually cares about their customers. I'm sure that if someone experiences real degredation this soon, the pack will be swapped out for a new one because that is a likely indication that one of the modules has failed. They did this for roadsters quite a bit.
On the other hand, if someone loses 10 rated miles over the course of a year, I doubt that Tesla is going to do anything about it because the car is still way over 200 miles of range. That is the equivalent of a leaf losing about 3 miles of range, which could be done by sneezing wrong near the car.�
Oct 26, 2013
jerry33 It's from owners who've reported so -20F to 120F would cover the conditions that owners generally face. I would post the link to the post with the graph, but now that I'm searching for it, I can't find it.�
Oct 26, 2013
cinergi is 6.5% in 9 months / 13k miles excessive?�
Oct 26, 2013
William13 No, cinergi but another 6.5% each of the next three years might be too much. The Panasonic battery table shows a lot of loss at first and much less later. Let us hope they are accurate for the model S.�
Oct 28, 2013
Zextraterrestrial I did my first full charge since I've been on 5.6 and it was 248mi @ 15600mi (11 months) 90% is at 225-8�
Oct 28, 2013
brianman Thanks for the data, Zex.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: We should remove the word "full" from our vocabulary.
=100%: Trip charge (new name) / Range charge (old name)
<=90%: Daily charge (new name) / Standard charge (old name)
Saying "full charge" just introduces confusion and is almost always followed by a number because nobody knows what you actually mean. As such the "full" qualifier has negative to zero value, IMO.�
Oct 28, 2013
SFOTurtle Since I'm likely to forget this nomenclature, if I post again on this topic with my data, I'm just going to the include the % of SOC rather than give a name to a any level of charge.�
Oct 28, 2013
J in MN I normally charge to 60% SOC. Back in July when the car was new, I got 185 km rated range after a charge. Now it is down to 165 km.
However, after analysing my recorded telemetry data (end of August onwards), I believe it is mostly a result of reduced battery pack temperature, in other words, the rated range estimate takes battery pack temperature into account to account for the reduced capacity of a colder pack.
Since I cannot measure pack temperature, I used the outside temperature reading. There is a strong correlation between temperature and range. The high outlier at 10 ?C is the charge after I did more driving than usual in one day (possibly warmer pack?) while the two low outliers at 7.0 and 7.5 ?C are charges after the car was sitting unused for 2 days (possibly cooler pack).
Hopefully the battery heater will kick on long before -20 ?C
�
Oct 28, 2013
SFOTurtle Interesting, but I'm trying extrapolate to my car and a lot of others 60s that were delivered in the winter, and saw consistently higher numbers than we did over the warmer summer months. Temperature might explain some of the numbers, but it doesn't seem to be the dominant factor.�
Oct 28, 2013
hans My 60 was delivered in January but that was several firmware versions ago and I'm sure the range calculations where quite different. For one, a max charge never ever showed more than 197 miles for some weird reason. Also I remember getting concerned once when my range seemingly went down 32 miles overnight due to cold weather. I just don't think you can extrapolate anything from the older firmware to the newer versions.�
Oct 28, 2013
brianman The names I recommend are in the UI from the car. The word "full" isn't in that UI. Hopefully this helps.�
Oct 29, 2013
SFOTurtle True enough re firmware versions and old bug that maxed out rated miles at 197. OTOH, I've been on 4.5 for several months and rated miles have consistently decreased over the warm summer months. Nothing huge, but no upward movement and maybe 1 rated mile less per month until the last couple weeks which now seems to have gone down a bit more. Perhaps the latter decrease is weather related, but the earlier decreases during warmest months doesn't fit with that. Nothing that I lose sleep over, but also not something I'm totally ignoring since more data is better than less for us lowly 60 owners.�
Oct 29, 2013
hans Yup, I see the same thing.
I did a 90% charge on my S60 last night at got 171 miles range, as measured 1 minute after charge completion.
The temperature was 57 F. This is on firmware 4.5 (1.33.61), 9,400 miles, 9 months old.�
Oct 29, 2013
gg_got_a_tesla 90% today at around 63 deg F yielded 178 miles. S60, 9 months, 13,600 miles. Same 4.5 fw.�
Oct 30, 2013
mnx Just a thought... Someone who has put 40k miles on their car would have an average SOC quite a bit lower than someone who has only driven a few thousand miles in the same time frame. (assuming their car sits at 90% SOC in their garage the rest of the time). The effects of higher SOC could possibly outweigh the wear and tear of driving more miles.
�
Oct 30, 2013
mknox I certainly hope so. 7 months of ownership and over 14,000 miles / 22,500 km already�
Oct 30, 2013
islandbayy Finally caught up with you mknox, 5 months 1 week and 14,000 miles�
Oct 31, 2013
mknox I'm seeing the same type of thing. It has been speculated that 50 degrees F is the line between better summer range and worsening cold weather range. My admittedly anecdotal evidence would seem to bear that out. The last few days around here have crept a bit above 50 F and I'm also seeing summer-like numbers returning. I drive about 80 - 100 miles a day (long commute) and in summer usually see energy at or below 300 Wh/mi. With the colder weather of last week (high 30's to low 50's) it was looking more like 350 to 400 Wh/mi at the end of the day.�
Nov 1, 2013
andrewket Range charged for the first time in months. App showed 255 miles of range but then switched to 258 after it was done charging for an hour (balancing?). My recollection was that I was getting 272 when the car was new (firmware 4.3?) and 268 on 4.5.
3% loss. 5600 miles on the car. Usually daily charge to 60% and run down to 40%.
A�
Nov 1, 2013
efusco Any of those recently upgraded to Firmware v5.6 have a chance to range charge yet? Any difference in the rated ranges? I haven't gotten the update yet and am curious to see if they did anything to more accurately calculate range. I drove, literally, 9 miles on my last range charge before the rated range dropped from the 258 down to 257 and another 3 miles at 257 before it began showing more accurate drops for distance.�
Nov 1, 2013
Zextraterrestrial I did a full charge last weekend and was at 248mi. (v5.6) 11 mo,@15650mi & 45-48F. I think there were a couple of miles before it dropped but not many.
there is something different about range calcs but I haven't figured it out yet. Sometimes I will get to work and my rated miles will go up 1 or 2 miles after an hour or so of being parked and the temp hasn't changed much either. Also the 'vampire' miles that you lose when parked will come back sometimes when you start to drive. the Whr/mi seems like it might be a little more in sync with to the rated mile use now.�
Nov 1, 2013
brianman Just a data point...
With 4.5 my 90% peak was in the [224,227].
With 5.6 thus far, my 90% peak is 218.
Literally overnight, which suggests to me another change in the algorithm.�
Nov 1, 2013
efusco Hmmm, wow, I was thinking (hoping) for a drift upward....apparently not so much.�
Nov 1, 2013
SFOTurtle Oh boy, I can only imagine the onslaught of emails and posts to Tesla and TMC if this is the new standard. Tesla really needs to communicate something before hundreds if not thousands of people start to freak out that their battery's have significantly degraded.�
Nov 1, 2013
gaswalla it's on the release notes for 5.6�
Nov 1, 2013
hans Wouldn't you hope for a drift toward a more accurate estimate? The actual number of miles the car will go doesn't change with the upgrade. If it were possible to load firmware and get more actual range then I would agree than a higher number is better.�
Nov 1, 2013
SFOTurtle Thanks for pointing that out, although I note that the release notes say "slightly different" range numbers. I'll reserve judgment until I get the update, but if it drops by 10 rated miles or more, I would say that is more than "slightly different."�
Nov 1, 2013
bhuwan Still on 4.5 :\�
Nov 1, 2013
viet658 I'm on 5.6 and my 90% charge is the same as it was on 4.5 (180 miles on 60kwh).�
Nov 1, 2013
nwdiver @Brianman
When did you get 5.6? I'm still in 4.5�
Nov 1, 2013
SFOTurtle Slightly off topic, what is your vampire drain like since you've been on 5.6? How many rated miles are you losing overnight or during long periods of sleep?�
Nov 1, 2013
Odenator My vampire drain has gone down to 2-3 rated miles overnight. I estimate I lose 1 mile for every 3-4hrs the car sits idle at a range charge.�
Nov 2, 2013
viet658 I lost three miles over an eight hour period on 5.6. Doesn't seem like much of an improvement. I'll keep tracking it to see if the losses get lower.�
Nov 2, 2013
yobigd20 why would you range charge your car and leave it sit there for hours? That's the one thing you're told by Telsa exactly *NOT* to do.�
Nov 2, 2013
FredTMC I agree. Unless maybe we misunderstood. With me, I never leave my car at a high SOC for long.�
Nov 2, 2013
AmpedRealtor Others have pointed this out as well, but you should not be "range" or "max" charging your Model S and then letting it sit at that high state of charge. That is the best way to reduce the long term life of your battery. If you are going to max charge, you should complete the charge as close to your long range drive as possible so that you can immediately discharge the battery and reduce its overall state of charge. Letting your car sit at either end of the charging spectrum is not good.�
Nov 2, 2013
yobigd20 Quoted "I estimate I lose 1 mile for every 3-4hrs the car sits idle at a *range* charge."�
Nov 2, 2013
SFOTurtle Others in the 5.6 thread have reported some issues with getting the car to go to sleep. Make sure your car is actually on sleep mode as that loss seems a bit high unless the temps were very cold, which I doubt is the case in Pomona right now.�
Nov 3, 2013
mcornwell 4.5 90% charge was about 228 miles
5.6 90% charge is now about 222 miles
13,000 miles on my 10 month old P85
Regarding Vampire, I lost 1 mile overnight (14 hours)...�
Nov 3, 2013
digitaltim I cannot comment on my top speed on the NJ turnpike on my weekly commute from MD. ;-)
That said, I did get pulled over for 83mph but walked away with a ticket for "impeding traffic" given my clean record. All it cost was 15' talking about the car...
I will check my 90% and full charge range this week.
I range charge frequently just before my commute and supercharge twice per week in DE.�
Nov 3, 2013
joer00 Almost exact the same for me. 229 with 4.5 and 224 with 5.0. This night I GAINED one mile in 12 hours, negative vampire load hahah
15200 miles, 7 month old. Not to happy with 10 %!! range loss in 7 month. I hope it wont go on at that speed.�
Nov 3, 2013
islandbayy With the cold temps, at 14,500 miles, my range charge this morning with no vampire losses, I was down to 198 on 4.5
At about 13,000 miles, I had a 208 range charge with about 15 degree warmer temps. I am really hopeing this is not permanent, and only temperature related (though, I thought thats why we had pack warmers so that temps did NOT effect us like this). A 10 mile loss in 1,500 miles is not acceptable. I have been babying my pack!
Ownership is 5 months 1 week and 3 days, 14,500 miles.
I am attempting a balance charge tonight. I am charging to range at 5 amps 240v. 8 hr 48 minutes to go, hopefully it will be done before 8 amp as I have a 170 mile drive in the morning. It will be very difficult to do a road trip this winter when it gets colder if the range keeps dropping like this. I'm going to need to find someone with a heated garage to see if that makes a difference and how much of a difference.�
Nov 4, 2013
Odenator Actually I am range charging every night (for the last 1-2 weeks) - specifically on the advice of Tesla engineers to see if that will allow my displayed range when charge to 100% to increase. As I have posted before, I was on v5.6, now v5.8 and my 100% charge only shows 235 rated miles every time. That's a 12-15% lose of range from when the battery was new. The Tesla engineers think that if I keep the car fully charged, then it will recalibrate the computer so that it will not stop the charging early and show that it is full. At least that is what they think is going on, but I'm starting to have my doubts since the top range has not increased since I have left it on range mode.�
Nov 4, 2013
Cottonwood I had something like this happen on my Roadster when they did a warranty replacement of the battery; car refused to move; they never told me what the error code meant. The new battery that had been stored for a while showed something like 25% less range. They advised several range charges. What finally worked was to do a few almost complete cycles, drive down to 10-20%, then charge back to full. I chalk this up to rebalancing the stored battery. Your mileage may vary... :wink:�
Nov 4, 2013
hans Keeping in mind that the displayed range is an estimate and not a directly measured value; it is easier to make more accurate estimates when the battery is charged from near empty to full. The estimation algorithm uses the total amount of energy put into the battery in it's calculations.
I am not discounting that the pack also gets rebalanced, nor am I saying that this is what caused the increase on your Roadster. I am just pointing out some other factors that effect "perceived" range so that people don't start full cycle charging their packs and mistakenly see the positive reenforcement of the resulting better range estimate. It's quite possible to be damaging your battery, reducing the real range, and think you have actually improved it.�
Nov 4, 2013
Cottonwood Exactly!
That is why I did 20%-30% (10% to 20% normal display in a Roadster) to 90% (100% normal display in a Roadster) most of the time.�
Nov 4, 2013
brianman I mentioned it on another thread (I think...). I was at the service center on Wed/Thu last week right after they "unleashed the hounds" .. i.e. lucky timing.�
Nov 4, 2013
digitaltim My range charge this morning got to 259 miles - it dropped to 256 miles when I opened the door.
Still running v4.5 and ~33k miles on the car (~22k on the current battery).�
Nov 4, 2013
DriverOne Thanks ChriZ. I was looking for someone to validate my numbers. I have about 7K miles driven in a 60. Originally after delivery, a night's charge would result in 184 miles (firmware 4.x). Now it's 175 (on firmware 5.6). If this is truly 90%,, a range charge won't be close to over 200 miles, let alone the claimed 208
Hopefully just a firmware change or mis-measurement - or it charges by default to 85%. Otherwise this is rather eyebrow-raising.�
Nov 4, 2013
bluetinc Just a quick note, the % you are referring to is the Battery Packs SOC (State of Charge). This is not a percentage of your total miles available. It's a finer detail, but it is in part why the numbers don't make any sense.
Peter
�
Nov 5, 2013
mknox I'm still on 4.5.
I did a 90% charge on a 120 volt connection over about 20 hours. That's all the hotel/conference center I was at had. I saw it stop in real time on the VisibleTesla app that I just happened to launch with about 1 minute left. I got 223 miles.�
Nov 5, 2013
gaswalla just a thought: has anyone taken the car down to near zero miles and then charge back up to range while changing the charging units to kw/hr's: then we could compare the actual capacity of the battery without looking at algorithms for miles or losses due to vampires.�
Nov 6, 2013
bigsmooth125 My first range charge on v.5.6 yielded 253 miles of rated range. Previously, I was getting 255 miles. My car has 13k miles on it.�
Nov 6, 2013
islandbayy Just did, 0 miles to 203 miles and it was still charging when I had to leave. 58kW used (60kw pack). Previous range charge yielded 196 miles. My pack was VERY out of balance.
Last night, I did another (so 2 range charges 2 days in a row), and yielded a 206 mile range.
14,600 miles on pack in 5 months 1 week 5 days of ownership.
�
Nov 7, 2013
aaron.s All -
Did my first supercharger test since getting 5.6 - charged to 90% and only got 223 miles where I had last gotten 227 miles at 90% on firmware 4.5.....
Was surprised - although I know in the release notes they have tweaked Range calculations.
Aaron�
Nov 7, 2013
tdiggity I think I win for the lowest numbers:
85kwH with v5.6, 11k miles, 90%=218 miles.
I live in Northern California, so I don't believe that weather is causing the lower numbers. Noticed these low numbers since v4.5/4 months. Probably started happening right when I started lowering my charge limit to 60-70%.�
Nov 7, 2013
hans My range estimates got lower after I started babying my pack and only charging to 67% most days. I think this is just a long term drift caused by the Coulomb Counting method of estimating SOC. In English that means that it hasn't seen 100% in so long its estimate is lower than it should be.�
Nov 7, 2013
SFOTurtle Very interesting.�
Nov 7, 2013
brianman With 5.6, my peak @ 90% so far is 219. So we're about at the same spot. 19.2k miles here.�
Nov 7, 2013
viet658 I've tracked the vampire losses over the week and it appears I'm losing about 3 miles over eight hours on 5.6 consistently. The car is going to sleep because when I get in the car it takes a while for the screen to boot up. Not sure why I'm not seeing the reduction in vampire losses as others are reporting. The car is parked overnight in the garage where temps are in the 60's.�
Nov 7, 2013
Zextraterrestrial
My 5.6 90% at 16k miles is 218 / 100% 248
anyone care to interpret these: at least 5 data points per firmware since the ability to change charge %
v4.5(13k mi) y= 2.95x - 33
v5 .0(14.5k) y= 2.89x - 33.95
v5.6(16k) y= 2.77x - 30.9
loaner car on 5.6 (4800mi) y=2.97x - 32.6
Slope seems to change with age and use?�
Nov 8, 2013
Denarius I'm at 9.2k miles or so and was getting concerned because my normal 80% charge has dropped down to 190 from 210. I just did a "standard" charge to 90% and I show 222 miles. It looks like I'm doing better than I thought.�
Nov 8, 2013
jed-99aggie tdiggity, I am bummed to say I think I have beaten you.
My 90% standard full charge has came in low at 207miles - late last month. Prior to this time, I too was babying the battery with regular ~66% SOC slider setting.
I have since performed a few slow "trickle" charges dropping amperage down to 6amps on the UMC. I have now bounced up to 215miles on a 90% standard full charge. I have not done a full range charge since late spring, so I believe based on others here that the battery has become unbalanced.
BTW = odometer @ 15K and SW v5.6.
If others have seen similar I would appreciate your insight or further confirmation that I am not an outlier.
�
Nov 8, 2013
Kipernicus Upgraded to 5.6 (1.45.45) the other day and now my 90% charge is 171 miles (was 175 on 4.5)
11k miles, 60kWh, Jan delivery.
Haven't done 100% in a while, but will do so for winter break run to LA.
During the week I tend to do 60% charges but go up to 80 or 90 on weekends�
Nov 8, 2013
nanimac Any other range-limited 40/60 owners on 5.6 yet? I upgraded last night...my rated range range at full charge was 134 on 4.5 and is now 127 on 5.6. End of June delivery and 5,400 miles. Wondering if there are similar changes being experienced out there.�
Nov 11, 2013
SFOTurtle islandbayy, how many times have you charged to 90% SOC on 5.6 and what were your numbers after re-balancing and all of your range charges? I saw you had one at 182. Any others?�
Nov 11, 2013
islandbayy they're all hovering around 182, plus or minus 5 to 10 miles depending on how cold it is. The 90% charge is for the most part the same as it was on firmware 4.5. I am however, experiencing major vampire losses now that I did not have before. on 4.5, I would lose approximately 10 miles in 24 hours. On version 5.6, I am losing 10 to 16 miles in 6 to 10 hours. I just got off the phone with Tesla, and they're sending this to the engineers. They are downloading my logs and will return a call to me within a few days.�
Nov 12, 2013
viet658 Please keep us updated on what Tesla tells you. I've been on 5.6 for almost two weeks now and haven't noticed any decrease on vampire draw. My vampire losses are about 3 miles over eight hours or about 9-10 miles a day.�
Nov 12, 2013
mkjayakumar For the software limited 40kWh cars, how and when will the balancing happen? because the battery never gets full and at most gets charged 67% only on a full charge. Don't they run the risk of getting severely out of balance with no possibility of balancing ?�
Nov 12, 2013
Eeyago Just got my upgrade a couple of days ago. Charged to max of 130 on 5.6, when it used to be 134 on 4.5. It also might be due to the extreme cold that fell at the same time I got the update.�
Nov 12, 2013
DaveVa Add in my data point. I have 18.3K miles - 90% charge was 216 this morning after an upgrade to 5.6 yesterday. Was previously getting 224-225 prior to the upgrade, however we also had a temperature drop at the same time of the upgrade.�
Nov 12, 2013
nanimac You're lucky you're still at 130. Am curious why mine dropped so much. No cold issues here in Hawaii. And temp range hasn't really changed since summer. Will be interesting to see what other 40/60 owners are getting for rated range after the update.�
Nov 12, 2013
get_amped I got my 5.6 update last Thursday. Standard charge is 181, vs. 182 with version 5.0.�
Nov 12, 2013
qwk Since Tesla top balances their packs, I can't see any way that the 40/60kwh cars are being balanced, especially since the limiting firmware seemed rushed.
The good news is that these packs don't get hurt be being out of balance.�
Nov 13, 2013
SFOTurtle Are there other packs that might get "hurt" (I assume you mean degradation or damage) if they are out of balance? I'm obviously speaking of 60 kWh and 85 kWh packs. I'm guessing my 60 (and reading the 5.6 thread many other 60 owners) may be a bit out of balance now but wondering if there is any cause for concern if it is.�
Nov 13, 2013
islandbayy Don't be too concerned with the battery balancing. When the pack gets to a certain point of being out of balance, it will automatically start balancing. You will only get as much power as the lowest cell/brick of cells will provide, so worst case scenario, you temporarily loose some range. If you are bent up at getting the most range per charge, or absolutely need the range, running your pack down low, and charging it to maximum range charge will initiate a balance. Though, do not do this too often, or it may cause more harm then good.�
Nov 14, 2013
get_amped Tried a full charge last night for only the second time since I've got the car. With v5.0 I was getting 215. With v5.6 I am now getting 207. Anyone else out there with a 60 kWh pack that has experienced this?�
Nov 14, 2013
hans
I wish! I'm getting 191-193 rated miles on a full (100%) charge and I'm on 4.5 which should report higher numbers.�
Nov 14, 2013
islandbayy Hans, what is the outside temp? And are you charging in a heated garage, or a garage that is for the most part, same as outside temps.�
Nov 14, 2013
hans The charge was overnight so the nighttime low was ~45F and the charge finished about 8am when it was ~51F. This is outside in the driveway.�
Nov 14, 2013
dsmith2189 I tried a full charge the other night (w/v5.6) and only got to 250 miles with v4.5 (and before) I was getting 265 miles with a full 100% charge.
It was still charging but after I waited for 20 minutes it was still at 250 miles.
My 90% range is now about 220 miles with v5.6.
My 90% range was about 230 miles with v4.5.
My Standard range was about 240 with v4.2.
Like Nanimac says temperature here in Hawaii is... predictable.�
Nov 14, 2013
SFOTurtle That is the lowest I've seen on TMC for a full 100% SOC for a 60.�
Nov 15, 2013
jerry33 That means it was trying to balance the pack. If possible, you should just let it continue until it completes. It might take over an hour.�
Nov 15, 2013
DriverOne I wonder if 5.6 computes the range based off the fleet average kW/m, rather than the old rated value. I know my average watts/mile is higher than rated; I can reach the rated value if I try, but normally I drive faster than that�
Nov 15, 2013
jerry33 The rated range is based of the EPA ratings. What's changed is the algorithm used to determine the state of charge (SOC) of the battery. It's hard to measure the battery directly, so an estimate is made.�
Nov 15, 2013
dsmith2189 balancing the pack or not, it won't pick up the 15 miles from 250 to 265 mile (100%) range that was lost with the v5.6 update from v4.5.
(or even the 10 miles lost with the 90% charge when it was updated. (230 down to 220))�
Nov 15, 2013
brianman I'm troubled by this word choice.�
Nov 15, 2013
dsmith2189 troubled that I used it or what it says about the new "formula"�
Nov 16, 2013
brianman I don't think we know if the word "lost" (implying degradation) really applies yet.�
Nov 16, 2013
giants2001 Just received 5.8 and I happen to be charged at 100%. My 60 now has 195 Rated and 226 Ideal.�
Nov 16, 2013
Lloyd If you read the firmware 5.8 release notes Tesla explained that they have changed the way they calculate the remaining miles in your battery to be more accurate. You have not ACTUALLY lost anything.
�
Nov 16, 2013
rlang59 If the miles were there and now they are not and can not be found then they are lost. You can play semantics with the terminology if you need to but after each update we "lose" miles.
- - - Updated - - -
They put that in every single update.�
Nov 16, 2013
Lloyd [QUOTE
They put that in every single update.[/QUOTE]
Ummm, which is why you are seeing changes in your displayed miles???�
Nov 16, 2013
hans Miles are never there, only energy. If you have lost energy, you have lost "miles". If you haven't lost energy, it's ambiguous (possible misleading) to say that miles have been lost.�
Nov 16, 2013
dgmanny Ummm, which is why you are seeing changes in your displayed miles???[/QUOTE]
I would prefer it if the rated miles more accurately reflected 307whr/ml. I never achieve rated miles when averaging 307 and it is frustrating when trying to calculate range.�
Nov 16, 2013
rlang59 I disagree, given the fact that the only measurement that Tesla give us is range, once that goes down then something has been lost. Until they give us other units of measure, or actually tell us how they are coming up with the range number then these questions will continue. For me I don't care one way or another, and don't believe that any range has been truly lost, but the dismissive attitude that some members here have to other people concerns has gotten old.�
Nov 16, 2013
cinergi You have to average ~290 to achieve rated range.�
Nov 16, 2013
brianman Thanks, hans. Your wording is more helpful than mine, I think.
- - - Updated - - -
You got that impression from my post? Wow. I think I need to relearn English.
- - - Updated - - -
I think I loosely recall 286 being the "proposed, amended, accounting for buffer" number in that TLDR post a bit back. So yah, ~290.�
Nov 16, 2013
hans Tesla should display the State of Charge (SOC) numerically rather than just as a green bar that leaves everyone guessing. The values are clearly there since myself and others can get the battery level (in percent) as well as many other metrics that are not displayed in the car or mobile apps. I understand the desire for simplicity but they could have more info buried in a menu somewhere that doesn't clutter the main screen or distract the driver. In the meantime, tools like Visible Tesla can really help people to better understand what is really going on with the capacity of their battery.�
Nov 16, 2013
brianman Agreed. REST already provides it, so it's just the in-car UI that's lacking this. They provide charging rate in energy (as an option), so it seems silly to only show state of charge in miles.�
Nov 16, 2013
dgmanny Thanks. Doesn't the graph with the dotted line show 307 as the rated range? If so, they should lower it to 290�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét