teslamotorclub: Decreasing rated range. part 6

Two month old car, I see a consistent 232 on a 90% charge.

I know this has been discussed elsewhere, but when does re-balancing happen? Does a standard charge to 90% cause re-balancing? I am trying to decide whether to charge 50, 70 or 90 on a daily basis. Worried about imbalance if I live too long in the 50 range - and unsure how to re-balance.

I use about 10 - 20 KWh on a normal day.
�

ACDriveMotor said: ?

Two month old car, I see a consistent 232 on a 90% charge.

I know this has been discussed elsewhere, but when does re-balancing happen? Does a standard charge to 90% cause re-balancing? I am trying to decide whether to charge 50, 70 or 90 on a daily basis. Worried about imbalance if I live too long in the 50 range - and unsure how to re-balance.

I use about 10 - 20 KWh on a normal day.
Click to expand...

Rebalance happens when you do a 100% charge. What you'll see happening is that at the very end, it takes a long time to "top off".
�

Darn. I had thought that I heard that re-balance happened at Standard Charge and above. I think I heard that about the Roadster.

I am reluctant to do a Range charge just to re-balance. I guess there is no harm in re-balancing just as a side effect of Range charging when needed - kill two birds with one stone. Or am I thinking about it incorrectly?
�

ACDriveMotor said: ?

Darn. I had thought that I heard that re-balance happened at Standard Charge and above. I think I heard that about the Roadster.

I am reluctant to do a Range charge just to re-balance. I guess there is no harm in re-balancing just as a side effect of Range charging when needed - kill two birds with one stone. Or am I thinking about it incorrectly?
Click to expand...

The Model S is supposed to balance after a standard charge, but based on the experience in this thread it doesn't seem to do a very good job of it! I think Tesla still has work to do on their balancing algorithm, it performs much better on the Roadster.

I agree it's best to do the balancing when you actually need the range. If you're going to let the pack sit at 100%, do it in the winter. Cold temperatures will help protect the cells when they're at high SOC.
�

I have changed my view on this whole thing and I believe others are indeed correct that the pack is only balanced on a max range charge. This is evident by anyone who collects remote telemetry from charge sessions. Normally I charge to 80% and the car very quickly enters sleep mode upon charge completion. However, as others have pointed out, the car remains awake and reports "1 min remaining" for quite some time while doing a max range charge even though it has attained 100% SOC.

I don't understand the logic behind this. Why can't the BMS balance the pack at any other SOC? Why must it be set at 100%?
�

Perhaps the latest sleep mode has broken this, it's been too cold for me to be doing yard work while the car charges up so I can watch it. In the past, it did balance at other SOC's.

Peter

apacheguy said: ?

I have changed my view on this whole thing and I believe others are indeed correct that the pack is only balanced on a max range charge. This is evident by anyone who collects remote telemetry from charge sessions. Normally I charge to 80% and the car very quickly enters sleep mode upon charge completion. However, as others have pointed out, the car remains awake and reports "1 min remaining" for quite some time while doing a max range charge even though it has attained 100% SOC.

I don't understand the logic behind this. Why can't the BMS balance the pack at any other SOC? Why must it be set at 100%?
Click to expand...

�

apacheguy said: ?

I don't understand the logic behind this. Why can't the BMS balance the pack at any other SOC? Why must it be set at 100%?
Click to expand...

I don't know how sophisticated the Model S BMS is, but off-the-shelf BMS systems are often set up to start bypassing a cell when it reaches a predefined voltage. In the case of the Model S battery pack, that voltage would be set to the maximum cell voltage and thus at 100%.
�

apacheguy said: ?

I don't understand the logic behind this. Why can't the BMS balance the pack at any other SOC? Why must it be set at 100%?
Click to expand...

There is no reason the Model S can't balance on a lower SOC.

On the Roadster the BMS charges until the highest brick reaches a target SOC (about 87% for a Standard charge and 95% for a Range charge). It then bleeds off the highest bricks. Balancing happens faster after a Range charge, but it still happens after a Standard charge too.

My take is that the charge slider or sleep mode broke balancing on the Model S, and fixing it is low on Tesla's priority list. I expect a future firmware release will improve the balancing algorithm and help restore range for owners who are seeing a drop in their capacity estimates.
�

djp said: ?

My take is that the charge slider or sleep mode broke balancing on the Model S, and fixing it is low on Tesla's priority list. I expect a future firmware release will improve the balancing algorithm and help restore range for owners who are seeing a drop in their capacity estimates.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Just like the Roadster gets out of balance if you charge and drive in storage mode, the Model S seems to do a similar thing.
�

djp said: ?

My take is that the charge slider or sleep mode broke balancing on the Model S, and fixing it is low on Tesla's priority list. I expect a future firmware release will improve the balancing algorithm and help restore range for owners who are seeing a drop in their capacity estimates.
Click to expand...

I really hope you're right, and I believe that you probably are. Range charging from home is pretty useless to me as I live in the mountains, so I'm going downhill as soon as I leave my house. That means I'd have to actually use brakes to keep my speed down and wouldn't be getting the free electricity. In addition, it just means I'd be sitting at a high SOC for that much longer as I arrive at my normal destinations with only slightly less charge than I left home with.
�

djp said: ?

I expect a future firmware release will improve the balancing algorithm and help restore range for owners who are seeing a drop in their capacity estimates.
Click to expand...

Prediction: This will be called 6.1 and owners will rejoice. And then a day later some owner will discover that 6.1 disables something like cruise control or air conditioning. (Poison pill update syndrome.)
�

brianman said: ?

Prediction: This will be called 6.1 and owners will rejoice. And then a day later some owner will discover that 6.1 disables something like cruise control or air conditioning. (Poison pill update syndrome.)
Click to expand...

maybe it will add fake engine noises :tongue:
�

brianman said: ?

Prediction: This will be called 6.1 and owners will rejoice. And then a day later some owner will discover that 6.1 disables something like cruise control or air conditioning. (Poison pill update syndrome.)
Click to expand...

Wow, where is the more positive BrianMan? I remember when I was initially pretty down on the air suspension (and rumored regen/accel nerfs) of 5.8. You were a positive or at least objectively reasoned voice. That helped me choose to take a longer term view even as a new owner. Though I am still not happy air suspension was ~2% of my purchase price. Not happy about some of the short-term tactical moves by TM but still love my car.

Now you sound pretty...well jaded. What happened?
�

ACDriveMotor said: ?

Wow, where is the more positive BrianMan? I remember when I was initially pretty down on the air suspension (and rumored regen/accel nerfs) of 5.8. You were a positive or at least objectively reasoned voice. That helped me choose to take a longer term view even as a new owner. Though I am still not happy air suspension was ~2% of my purchase price. Not happy about some of the short-term tactical moves by TM but still love my car.

Now you sound pretty...well jaded. What happened?
Click to expand...

I think the "A" pack fallout killed a lot of love for Tesla among the Sig crowd.
�

Coming up on nine months - 19, 000 miles - range gets 255 - 90% gets 220. 'A' battery end of April delivery.
�

qwk said: ?

I think the "A" pack fallout killed a lot of love for Tesla among the Sig crowd.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Obviously I'd still buy a Tesla again, but definitely not a Sig and probably not even an early production model. This whole A pack debacle served as a reality check for me.
�

brianman said: ?

Prediction: This will be called 6.1 and owners will rejoice. And then a day later some owner will discover that 6.1 disables something like cruise control or air conditioning. (Poison pill update syndrome.)
Click to expand...

You must live somewhere near a big software company that tends to do these things. Surprised you didn't say it would be called 8.1 instead.

Did a group of full range charges the other day - delivery 11/26/12, 18000 miles, range charge hits 257. 'A' pack. 90% charge hits 228/229. Charging rate is nearly always 80A.
�

ACDriveMotor said: ?

Now you sound pretty...well jaded. What happened?
Click to expand...

qwk said: ?

I think the "A" pack fallout killed a lot of love for Tesla among the Sig crowd.
Click to expand...

It's a litany of things. It's difficult to see Tesla as the company that believes that it can and will solve the impossible these days. It has me a bit bummed because basically there's no other game in town, and I know how good the car can be (and future cars) -- but the company is stumbling on stuff that's completely avoidable. Unforced errors are not something you can afford when the deck is stacked against you in so many ways. And if Tesla makes a critical misstep (or a set of them that amount to the same damage) to the point of "game over" for the company, it might be game over for the EV experiment for another decade or two. That makes me disgruntled because I don't want to wait until I'm 90+ to buy a car better than a Model S.

I've been planning to write a "catalog of things that should have gone differently." email and send it to Jerome and Elon but haven't had the time. Not just could but should. Much of the missteps don't take "rocket science" to handle better than they did.

- - - Updated - - -

FlasherZ said: ?

Surprised you didn't say it would be called 8.1 instead.
Click to expand...

I already made that joke about renaming the X in another thread.
�

apacheguy said: ?

Indeed. Obviously I'd still buy a Tesla again, but definitely not a Sig and probably not even an early production model. This whole A pack debacle served as a reality check for me.
Click to expand...

Yep... 100% agree.
�

apacheguy said: ?

Indeed. Obviously I'd still buy a Tesla again, but definitely not a Sig and probably not even an early production model. This whole A pack debacle served as a reality check for me.
Click to expand...

Do you mean from a "trust in Tesla" perspective, or from a "dealing with beta/early products generally" perspective?
�

I see. As a relative newbie owner I think I kind of missed the "A pack" thing. Scanning TMC, this is the 90KW limit on SC usage? And something about battery life? What is the VIN cut-off for B packs and how can I tell if I have one other than SC?

@brianman - I kind of hear you. When I was researching TM before ordering there was a lot of love and loyalty reflecting back on TM from owners. That was part of what captivated me. Now as a result of a series of events TM seems to have lost some luster. Maybe this is what "reckless expansion" inevitably generates - but it seems potentially self-limiting on growth if you can't keep the early adopters happy. The area under the curve of their voice is huge.

Here is to hoping that we can move beyond this current stage to a better place post the NHTSA investigation.
�

ACDriveMotor said: ?

I see. As a relative newbie owner I think I kind of missed the "A pack" thing. Scanning TMC, this is the 90KW limit on SC usage? And something about battery life? What is the VIN cut-off for B packs and how can I tell if I have one other than SC?

@brianman - I kind of hear you. When I was researching TM before ordering there was a lot of love and loyalty reflecting back on TM from owners. That was part of what captivated me. Now as a result of a series of events TM seems to have lost some luster. Maybe this is what "reckless expansion" inevitably generates - but it seems potentially self-limiting on growth if you can't keep the early adopters happy. The area under the curve of their voice is huge.

Here is to hoping that we can move beyond this current stage to a better place post the NHTSA investigation.
Click to expand...

There's no real VIN cut-off, which is part of the problem. There's about a 4-5 month period between January and May 2013 where they were shipping both, so it was kind of luck of the draw between those dates. Since you just got yours a couple months ago, you're safe.
�

apacheguy said: ?

Indeed. Obviously I'd still buy a Tesla again, but definitely not a Sig and probably not even an early production model. This whole A pack debacle served as a reality check for me.
Click to expand...

+1 Amen, brother!
�

brianman said: ?

Do you mean from a "trust in Tesla" perspective, or from a "dealing with beta/early products generally" perspective?
Click to expand...

Mostly it boils down to a trust issue. The Sig promise of hardware upgrades and support failed to pull through here. I bought a service plan that includes hardware upgrades just as icing on the cake. I trusted my DS and Elon when they said they were working on better supercharging software for my car. No longer.

I put down 40 K for a reservation on a car that was years away because I believed in showing support for the mission of Tesla. That was my show of trust in the company. The loyalty and trust I got back in return was disappointing.
�

apacheguy said: ?

Mostly it boils down to a trust issue. The Sig promise of hardware upgrades and support failed to pull through here. I bought a service plan that includes hardware upgrades just as icing on the cake. I trusted my DS and Elon when they said they were working on better supercharging software for my car. No longer.

I put down 40 K for a reservation on a car that was years away because I believed in showing support for the mission of Tesla. That was my show of trust in the company. The loyalty and trust I got back in return was disappointing.
Click to expand...

This unfortunately will be increasingly the case as Tesla continues to grow
�

Quick break from the Sig Angst and the 85 kWh range numbers.

A new 60 kWh owner reported here that Standard gets him 180 miles. I'm at 173 miles after 1 year and 18,000 miles with no special efforts to rebalance.
�

My numbers have been the same for the last week -- 90% charge yields 169 rated miles (with my last range charge at 193 - done because I needed the extra charge for a lot of driving and not done to rebalance, although I did let the car complete charging). With Islandbayy at nearly twice my mileage and consistently yielding 205+ numbers at 100% SOC, either my battery pack has degraded or it has been severely out of balance forever and no sign of getting back to normal and no way to change that. As with other laments expressed in this thread, I simply wish to have better visibility into what is happening and not be told the mantra "driving conditions vary."
�

gg_got_a_tesla said: ?

Quick break from the Sig Angst and the 85 kWh range numbers.

A new 60 kWh owner reported here that Standard gets him 180 miles. I'm at 173 miles after 1 year and 18,000 miles with no special efforts to rebalance.
Click to expand...

My year old S60 with 12,000 miles on it gets 191 rated [email�protected]% SOC and 164 rated [email�protected]% SOC. I have it in for the annual service and specifically pointed out the degradation and the vampire loss (even with sleep mode on). I will let you know what they say when I get it back.
�

hans said: ?

My year old S60 with 12,000 miles on it gets 191 rated [email�protected]% SOC and 164 rated [email�protected]% SOC. I have it in for the annual service and specifically pointed out the degradation and the vampire loss (even with sleep mode on). I will let you know what they say when I get it back.
Click to expand...

An apparent 10% decrease in range on such a new car is concerning, please post a follow up. ?Have you seen this thread: http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/26330-Rated-Range-at-20-500-miles-on-60kW-battery-pack with the complete opposite experience
�

here is my 100% charge
If I remember right, the rated miles at 99% was 240 and that last 1% and more than 1 hour gained 2 miles
turned on heater @ 10:00 and ~ 11:00 and when done.
dark blue is mi/hr charge, lt blue is Amps -charging @ ~240V

I would think an hour at > 15mi/hr would add more than 2 mi
�

SFOTurtle said: ?

My numbers have been the same for the last week -- 90% charge yields 169 rated miles (with my last range charge at 193 - done because I needed the extra charge for a lot of driving and not done to rebalance, although I did let the car complete charging). With Islandbayy at nearly twice my mileage and consistently yielding 205+ numbers at 100% SOC, either my battery pack has degraded or it has been severely out of balance forever and no sign of getting back to normal and no way to change that. As with other laments expressed in this thread, I simply wish to have better visibility into what is happening and not be told the mantra "driving conditions vary."
Click to expand...

Since I've posted my range numbers at (now 21,000 miles), I've been getting hammered with messages how I keep my pack in such good shape despite my, we'll, not really abuse of my pack, but excessive use of my pack. because of this, I will be making one of my famous videos talking about charging habits, battery balancing, effects of a unbalanced pack, effects of range/100% charges etc... I do have extensive experience with lithium packs and even more so with lead battery packs in electric vehicles, and despite many differences I was able to carry the experiences with lead over to lithium with a few modifications

I will post the video in the video section for everyone and then post here. I hope that helps you all. I will almost guarantee that your lowered rand is not degradation. I almost guarantee that the range losses are from a few things, Temperature,
and Out if balance. Being out of balance can actually damage battery packs on the long run. I personally believe the battery management system in the MS will not let it get to that point, but I will talk about tips to help speed up the process and why a out of balance pack can be damaged. also, those of you experiencing a perceived sluggish acceleration, out if balance pack can cause that degradation in the acceleration crispness, and make it feel more spongy.

Video will ill be ready tomorrow.
�

islandbayy said: ?

Since I've posted my range numbers at (now 21,000 miles), I've been getting hammered with messages how I keep my pack in such good shape despite my, we'll, not really abuse of my pack, but excessive use of my pack. because of this, I will be making one of my famous videos talking about charging habits, battery balancing, effects of a unbalanced pack, effects of range/100% charges etc... I do have extensive experience with lithium packs and even more so with lead battery packs in electric vehicles, and despite many differences I was able to carry the experiences with lead over to lithium with a few modifications

I will post the video in the video section for everyone and then post here. I hope that helps you all. I will almost guarantee that your lowered rand is not degradation. I almost guarantee that the range losses are from a few things, Temperature,
and Out if balance. Being out of balance can actually damage battery packs on the long run. I personally believe the battery management system in the MS will not let it get to that point, but I will talk about tips to help speed up the process and why a out of balance pack can be damaged. also, those of you experiencing a perceived sluggish acceleration, out if balance pack can cause that degradation in the acceleration crispness, and make it feel more spongy.

Video will ill be ready tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your contribution to this forum!
�

gg_got_a_tesla said: ?

A new 60 kWh owner reported here that Standard gets him 180 miles. I'm at 173 miles after 1 year and 18,000 miles with no special efforts to rebalance.
Click to expand...

Same here. After 11 months and 8100 miles the standard is also 173. Range charge is ~ 193. Will have to balance the pack before summer. Last year I "squeezed" 221 miles out of it with 7 remaining. Still having vampire drain issues with 5.8.
�

85kw
230 standard / 262 range
6K miles on ODO
�

hans said: ?

My year old S60 with 12,000 miles on it gets 191 rated [email�protected]% SOC and 164 rated [email�protected]% SOC. I have it in for the annual service and specifically pointed out the degradation and the vampire loss (even with sleep mode on). I will let you know what they say when I get it back.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am very interested to hear what they say.
�

So any suggestions for a 40 owner (limited to 72% charge on a 60kwh battery) who has seen >15% range loss after 9000 miles?
�

markb said: ?

So any suggestions for a 40 owner (limited to 72% charge on a 60kwh battery) who has seen >15% range loss after 9000 miles?
Click to expand...

You should call the nearest service center. From the info gathered on the forums, you need to hit 100% to start the balancing function. Those of us who also limit charge are not seeing balanced battery packs.
�

markb said: ?

So any suggestions for a 40 owner (limited to 72% charge on a 60kwh battery) who has seen >15% range loss after 9000 miles?
Click to expand...

That is a conundrum... Do you get to select your charge %?,
�

islandbayy said: ?

That is a conundrum... Do you get to select your charge %?,
Click to expand...

66%.... max 0f a 60kW battery for only the 40kW, right?

oh he said 72%. my math is bad:smile:
I thought it was 2/3 maybe
�

Zextraterrestrial said: ?

66%.... max 0f a 60kW battery for only the 40kW, right?

oh he said 72%. my math is bad:smile:
I thought it was 2/3 maybe
Click to expand...

Yah, not sure what to say on this one. Drain it down to 0-5 miles, then do a slow charge back up to max, let it sit at your maximum for a day to let voltages equalize. Thats about all I can think of I will ponder this one more.
�

That is the problem with the 40kW if there is really 60kW of batteries and they only balance properly at a full charge. I think this may be the case for lithium batteries but only really have experience with 6 cell different chemistry batteries.
�

Zextraterrestrial said: ?

That is the problem with the 40kW if there is really 60kW of batteries and they only balance properly at a full charge. I think this may be the case for lithium batteries but only really have experience with 6 cell different chemistry batteries.
Click to expand...

Could Tesla's engineers really designed a battery pack that won't balance unless fully charged and yet still market the 40kWh pack? Can this really be?
�

SFOTurtle said: ?

Could Tesla's engineers really designed a battery pack that won't balance unless fully charged and yet still market the 40kWh pack? Can this really be?
Click to expand...

Sorry I'm not saying that it is like that for sure but it would suck if it was. There aren't very many 40 packs maybe we'll hear some more data soon
�

Zextraterrestrial said: ?

Sorry I'm not saying that it is like that for sure but it would suck if it was. There aren't very many 40 packs maybe we'll hear some more data soon
Click to expand...

the packs will balance when not at 100%, just that charging to full makes the process quicker. I'm at a loss as without knowing their software, I can only guess.
�

scaesare said: ?

My 90% charge level is about 220-221*

I'm at about 8 months old and just under 18K miles

*whatever it takes
Click to expand...

Our cars are from the same era, if you will (I was right behind you on the forums each of us eagerly waiting for our Model S' to arrive).

For me... 90% now = 220, 100% = 256 miles.
I'll cross 12,000 miles tomorrow. Almost 8 months.
4,046 total kW, 336 avg kW/miles

It is still winter months here (lows right now around 30, highs hitting 50 ish), and cold temps will hinder full output/range.

Otherwise flawless operation.
�

islandbayy said: ?

the packs will balance when not at 100%, just that charging to full makes the process quicker. I'm at a loss as without knowing their software, I can only guess.
Click to expand...

I welcome your guess as to why Hans and I have 60 packs with far fewer miles than you, far fewer deep cycles than you, charge in warmer temps than you, and we both are showing max rated miles anywhere from 13-15 rated miles fewer than you. The only thing Hans (among other 60 owners showing similar numbers to mine) and I don't do that you do is regularly range charge and have deep cycles.
�

islandbayy said: ?

the packs will balance when not at 100%, just that charging to full makes the process quicker. I'm at a loss as without knowing their software, I can only guess.
Click to expand...

Even with sleep mode? My car always seems to enter sleep mode immediately upon charge completion and I don't think it can balance while asleep. But really, how long should it take to balance? 30 minutes - an hour? Why doesn't it just stay awake during this period of balancing and then fall asleep? Can you address these points in your video guide, please?
�

apacheguy said: ?

Even with sleep mode? My car always seems to enter sleep mode immediately upon charge completion and I don't think it can balance while asleep. But really, how long should it take to balance? 30 minutes - an hour? Why doesn't it just stay awake during this period of balancing and then fall asleep? Can you address these points in your video guide, please?
Click to expand...

Videos already being uploaded, about 22 minutes long.
battery managment system should be independent of the rest of the vehicle (in my opinion). the pack must be monitored constantly, temperatures, discharge etc... once again the problem is partially that I don't know the in depth details of how the software is setup.

Now, I really wish we had a option we could hit in the touch screen to equalize (balance) the pack. on the ev's I used to build, I had 2 nice devices (mind you that these were all lead acid batteries but outcome is the same). one device was called a pack tracker, connected to each individual battery, and reported voltages of each, to list the driver monitor for bad or worn out batteries/ cells . the next, it's been a while but I think it was called batteryEQ. also connected to each battery, and worked constantly. it would nonstop shuffle charge from the higher voltage batteries to the lower volt ones, to equalize then. now, the Model S doesall of this automatically. however, as their system is proprietary, we just don't know how this system operates on the models, how often, his long it will run for at all etc ... all we do know is that when charging to 100% soc, the BMS actuvates and starts doing the balance, and that it can take multiple times to complete this.
�

I hate to add more complexity to this, but if anyone is really comparing, the mileage on the car is not adequate as a data point. You need to also use the average Wh/mi in order to measure degradation. The Panasonic charts relate to number of charging cycles. If possible, we should look at (odometer * (Wh per Mile / 1000)) to get kW used. These is a big difference in Wh/mi depending on driving style and where you live. Easily up to 100 Wh/mi average difference at the extreme. I baby my car in a warm climate and my lifetime average is around 317. I'm being a bit conservative with that number because I can't tell you exactly, because Tesla keeps resetting my trip computer.
�

SCW-Greg said: ?

Our cars are from the same era, if you will (I was right behind you on the forums each of us eagerly waiting for our Model S' to arrive).

For me... 90% now = 220, 100% = 256 miles.
I'll cross 12,000 miles tomorrow. Almost 8 months.

It is still winter months here (lows right now around 30, highs hitting 50 ish), and cold temps will hinder full output/range.

Otherwise flawless operation.
Click to expand...

Hey, good to hear from you.

Interesting, looks like our numbers for a given SOC are pretty close @ 90% (I think I'm in your ballpark for 100% too, but I've typically only gotten to ~97-98% for my last couple of range charges, due to time constraints... it takes a while to get those last few percentage points).

Interesting that I've about 50% greater mileage than you on my pack, but we ours are about the same age. So it would appear that age or number of charge cycles might be the governing factors.

As an FYI: I charge to 60-70% during the week (the greater SOC during the cold weather) and 90% on weekends.
�

aviators99 said: ?

I hate to add more complexity to this, but if anyone is really comparing, the mileage on the car is not adequate as a data point. You need to also use the average Wh/mi in order to measure degradation. The Panasonic charts relate to number of charging cycles. If possible, we should look at (odometer * (Wh per Mile / 1000)) to get kW used. These is a big difference in Wh/mi depending on driving style and where you live. Easily up to 100 Wh/mi average difference at the extreme. I baby my car in a warm climate and my lifetime average is around 317. I'm being a bit conservative with that number because I can't tell you exactly, because Tesla keeps resetting my trip computer.
Click to expand...

My lifetime Wh/mi is 315 as I have never reset my trip odometers. I live in a warm weather climate. I generally baby my battery. I would bet that Islandbayy has a Wh/mi far greater than mine since he is in Wisconsin and I believe does a lot of freeway driving and LOTS of deep cycles, as in every day. I don't see how this would impact the rated miles. Yobig also puts a lot of miles on his car, presumably freeway driving and high Wh/mi, in cold climate in NE and also lots of deep cycles.

It could be these are two outliers, but ironic that the two regular posters who have the most regular deep cycles and at least in IslandBay's case, numerous, frequent range charges, have the best numbers of anyone.
�

SFOTurtle said: ?

I would bet that Islandbayy has a Wh/mi far greater than mine since he is in Wisconsin and I believe does a lot of freeway driving and LOTS of deep cycles, as in every day. I don't see how this would impact the rated miles.
Click to expand...

It's the way batteries work. They degrade over their lifetime based on the kWh used (cycles). If person A has a Wh/mi of 300 and person B has a Wh/mi of 600, person B will have to charge their battery completely twice as many times as person A, given the same miles.
�

Zextraterrestrial said: ?

That is the problem with the 40kW if there is really 60kW of batteries and they only balance properly at a full charge. I think this may be the case for lithium batteries but only really have experience with 6 cell different chemistry batteries.
Click to expand...

do we know if it's limited on the lower side or the upper side? In other words, does the car only charge from 0% to max 66% and stop, or can you only discharge from 100% to 33% and it stops? In either case, given lithium ion chemistry, it's practically impossible to ever balance this pack and accurately calculate charge capacity. If you can't charge to 100%, you can't balance the pack, the cells will become very imbalanced, and you can't ever accurately calculate degradation. If you can't charge below 33%, then just the same you won't ever be able to accurately know remaining SOC. (I might be getting my terminology mixed up here, SOC, charge capacity, etc).

UNLESS they cycle the battery packs. (I think think this would be the ideal implementation). so in that case, if there are 12 packs, labeled 1-12 (making up numbers here), your current charge could be using packs 1-8, while 9-12 are unused. Therefore you can fully cycle packs 1-8 from 100% to 0%, and then at some point in it's charging cycle, Tesla might "deactivate" pack #1 and activate pack #9. This would at least allow full drain and full charge in order to accurately calculate charge capacity and rated range. Then again, what you're losing here is probably battery life, as well as performance.

If the 40kW is implemented such that the 66% that you use is between 17% and 83% of all battery packs, then your battery is going to last a VERY VERY long time at the cost of imbalanced packs and never really accurately knowing charge capacity. At least in this implementation you actually have more simultaneous power available. If I had a 40, I think I'd prefer this implementation. It's possible they would implement it this way, with some periodic charge to 100% for balancing (once per month or something) and the software just 'hiding' what it's actually doing.
�

Thanks for the replies, everybody.

@tdiggity - Tesla hasn't acknowledged that there is a problem. Based on my conversations with various employees, there is no way they are going to unlock the reamaining 20kwh on our batteries, even temporarily.

@islandbayy - Yes, we can set the charge level, but only to a maximum of 72%.

@SFOTurtle - Yes, I believe they would, perhaps without giving enough thought to the ramifications.

Two weeks ago, my service manager has told me that there is a new firmware upgrade coming within 2-3 weeks that will address loss of range. Perhaps a revised balancing algorithm? We'll see (I hope).

Until temperatures starting dropping here in the northeast a month or so ago, my lifetime average my lifetime kwh usage was 291 or so. Now with temperatures usually in the single digits or teens, it has risen to approximately 315 just in the last couple of thousand miles. Most of our trips are short (my wife has a 12 miles commute to work), so the battery never really has a chance to warm up thoroughly. KWh usage now usually averages over 400 for a charge.

When purchased, the car had 140 rated and 160 ideal miles, as promised. I was able to easily make a 115 mile trip with 40 or 50 projected miles remaining. Now at 118/136, I would never attempt that trip (especially during the winter) and the car is rapidly approaching not worth owning.
�

@yobigd20, we can charge to a maximum of 72% can go down to 0.
�

SCW-Greg said: ?

Our cars are from the same era, if you will (I was right behind you on the forums each of us eagerly waiting for our Model S' to arrive).

For me... 90% now = 220, 100% = 256 miles.
I'll cross 12,000 miles tomorrow. Almost 8 months.
4,046 total kW, 336 avg kW/miles

It is still winter months here (lows right now around 30, highs hitting 50 ish), and cold temps will hinder full output/range.

Otherwise flawless operation.
Click to expand...

I'm right there with you guys.
I have 32,000 miles on my S, with ave Wh/mi of 330 on 1 year of driving.

When I got my car a year ago my range charge was 264. Over the summer, after a few software updates, I was getting 252 on a range charge. This winter the best I can get is 248 and that's sitting at a SC for a while waiting for it to tick up those last couple of miles. Tesla tells me that my perceived loss of range this winter is do to the updated algorithms. So, I'm going to have to wait and see if my range returns with the good weather.

In the mean time, after reading some of the comments on balancing the battery pack, I've decided to try something. Since my car will be parked at the St Louis auto show all weekend, one of the rare times it will not be driven on a daily basis, I've decided to let it range change to max on the 110 it will be hooked up to at the show. I'm hoping that the trickle charge will help balance the pack and I will see some of my range return. Fingers crossed.
�

yobigd20 said: ?

do we know if it's limited on the lower side or the upper side? In other words, does the car only charge from 0% to max 66% and stop, or can you only discharge from 100% to 33% and it stops? In either case, given lithium ion chemistry, it's practically impossible to ever balance this pack and accurately calculate charge capacity. If you can't charge to 100%, you can't balance the pack, the cells will become very imbalanced, and you can't ever accurately calculate degradation. If you can't charge below 33%, then just the same you won't ever be able to accurately know remaining SOC. (I might be getting my terminology mixed up here, SOC, charge capacity, etc).

UNLESS they cycle the battery packs. (I think think this would be the ideal implementation). so in that case, if there are 12 packs, labeled 1-12 (making up numbers here), your current charge could be using packs 1-8, while 9-12 are unused. Therefore you can fully cycle packs 1-8 from 100% to 0%, and then at some point in it's charging cycle, Tesla might "deactivate" pack #1 and activate pack #9. This would at least allow full drain and full charge in order to accurately calculate charge capacity and rated range. Then again, what you're losing here is probably battery life, as well as performance.

If the 40kW is implemented such that the 66% that you use is between 17% and 83% of all battery packs, then your battery is going to last a VERY VERY long time at the cost of imbalanced packs and never really accurately knowing charge capacity. At least in this implementation you actually have more simultaneous power available. If I had a 40, I think I'd prefer this implementation. It's possible they would implement it this way, with some periodic charge to 100% for balancing (once per month or something) and the software just 'hiding' what it's actually doing.
Click to expand...

Based on what the slider on the software limited 60s show I'd say it is high side limited. Their slider tops out at about 70% of a 60 but shows the rest of the slider grayed out.

- - - Updated - - -

SFOTurtle said: ?

My lifetime Wh/mi is 315 as I have never reset my trip odometers. I live in a warm weather climate. I generally baby my battery. I would bet that Islandbayy has a Wh/mi far greater than mine since he is in Wisconsin and I believe does a lot of freeway driving and LOTS of deep cycles, as in every day. I don't see how this would impact the rated miles. Yobig also puts a lot of miles on his car, presumably freeway driving and high Wh/mi, in cold climate in NE and also lots of deep cycles.

It could be these are two outliers, but ironic that the two regular posters who have the most regular deep cycles and at least in IslandBay's case, numerous, frequent range charges, have the best numbers of anyone.
Click to expand...

I think a big part of it is that the people that have done full discharges and recharges 100-0% and 0-100% the battery management actually knows how much charge the batteries will take. Those cars without that data are just taking a "guess".
�

rlang59 said: ?

I think a big part of it is that the people that have done full discharges and recharges 100-0% and 0-100% the battery management actually knows how much charge the batteries will take. Those cars without that data are just taking a "guess".
Click to expand...

I don't think this is true. When doing a full charge to 100% the management should be able to tell that no more power is being taken by the batteries and heat is building up instead, at least that is what seems to happen in other systems
�

scaesare said: ?

Hey, good to hear from you.

Interesting, looks like our numbers for a given SOC are pretty close @ 90% (I think I'm in your ballpark for 100% too, but I've typically only gotten to ~97-98% for my last couple of range charges, due to time constraints... it takes a while to get those last few percentage points).

Interesting that I've about 50% greater mileage than you on my pack, but we ours are about the same age. So it would appear that age or number of charge cycles might be the governing factors.

As an FYI: I charge to 60-70% during the week (the greater SOC during the cold weather) and 90% on weekends.
Click to expand...

I'm driving about 60 -65 miles during the week, and maybe another 15 on the weekend. Usually charge to 80%, then after my commute, the pack sits at near 50%, until charge at 3am again. On the weekends it will usually sit for a day or two, not plugged in, at near 50% SOC.
�

SCW-Greg said: ?

I'm driving about 60 -65 miles during the week, and maybe another 15 on the weekend. Usually charge to 80%, then after my commute, the pack sits at near 50%, until charge at 3am again. On the weekends it will usually sit for a day or two, not plugged in, at near 50% SOC.
Click to expand...

I assume you mean 60-65 miles per day during the week? That makes the math for your total mileage work out about right. If so, that's about my commute as well. Another night or two during the week I add an extra 25 miles or so.

On weekends it varies from only 20 miles total, to a couple of hundred. When you say "another 15", is that total for the weekend... or 65+15=80 for each day?
�

yobigd20 said: ?

do we know if it's limited on the lower side or the upper side? In other words, does the car only charge from 0% to max 66% and stop, or can you only discharge from 100% to 33% and it stops?
Click to expand...

Unless someone can get access to pack voltages, or Tesla tells someone, no.

yobigd20 said: ?

In either case, given lithium ion chemistry, it's practically impossible to ever balance this pack and accurately calculate charge capacity. If you can't charge to 100%, you can't balance the pack, the cells will become very imbalanced, and you can't ever accurately calculate degradation. If you can't charge below 33%, then just the same you won't ever be able to accurately know remaining SOC. (I might be getting my terminology mixed up here, SOC, charge capacity, etc).
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it doesn't really matter that the pack isn't balanced all that well.

yobigd20 said: ?

UNLESS they cycle the battery packs. (I think think this would be the ideal implementation).
Click to expand...

That would be a crazy and expensive way of doing it. Much easier to simply cycle the pack somewhere in the middle by altering the cutoff voltages.

Zextraterrestrial said: ?

I don't think this is true. When doing a full charge to 100% the management should be able to tell that no more power is being taken by the batteries and heat is building up instead, at least that is what seems to happen in other systems
Click to expand...

Lithium batteries don't generate any significant heat if charged properly unless you are abusing them. That's why the charge rate tapers down as the pack reaches 100% SOC.
�

aviators99 said: ?

I hate to add more complexity to this, but if anyone is really comparing, the mileage on the car is not adequate as a data point. You need to also use the average Wh/mi in order to measure degradation. The Panasonic charts relate to number of charging cycles. If possible, we should look at (odometer * (Wh per Mile / 1000)) to get kW used. These is a big difference in Wh/mi depending on driving style and where you live. Easily up to 100 Wh/mi average difference at the extreme. I baby my car in a warm climate and my lifetime average is around 317. I'm being a bit conservative with that number because I can't tell you exactly, because Tesla keeps resetting my trip computer.
Click to expand...

Arizona here, lifetime usage is 293 Wh/m and dropping. Recent 100+ mile errand trips were done using 270 Wh/m or less. That's just how I drive.
�

At 8000 miles now and on a standard charge, we are at 232. Have not tried 100% yet.
�

AmpedRealtor said: ?

Arizona here, lifetime usage is 293 Wh/m and dropping. Recent 100+ mile errand trips were done using 270 Wh/m or less. That's just how I drive.
Click to expand...

Wait till your summer hits and you are forced to use the AC indiscriminately!
�

AmpedRealtor said: ?

Arizona here, lifetime usage is 293 Wh/m and dropping. Recent 100+ mile errand trips were done using 270 Wh/m or less. That's just how I drive.
Click to expand...

OK, so what is your 90% charge rated miles remaining come to then?
�

I posted earlier thanking those who responded to my query regarding my very significant loss of range on my 40, but I got a msg stating that it needed to be approved by a moderator and I'm not sure it will ever show up.

As others have said, I'm pretty sure the battery is never fully charged, maxing out at 72% of capacity. The slider lets me set any charge between 0 and 72.

My car as delivered charged to 140 rated and 160 ideal, as promised. I am now down to 118/136 after 9000 miles - far from what we were expecting.

Two weeks ago, my service mgr told me there would be firmware update in 2-3 weeks that would restore some of the lost rang. We'll see.
�

markb said: ?

I posted earlier thanking those who responded to my query regarding my very significant loss of range on my 40, but I got a msg stating that it needed to be approved by a moderator and I'm not sure it will ever show up.

As others have said, I'm pretty sure the battery is never fully charged, maxing out at 72% of capacity. The slider lets me set any charge between 0 and 72.

My car as delivered charged to 140 rated and 160 ideal, as promised. I am now down to 118/136 after 9000 miles - far from what we were expecting.

Two weeks ago, my service mgr told me there would be firmware update in 2-3 weeks that would restore some of the lost rang. We'll see.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, what's your normal charge routine like? What's your typical daily charge? How often do you charge to the "full" 72%?
�

@gear, ALways charge to 72%, every night, generally drive between 30 and 50 miles daily. Weekends sometimes more, rarely more than 80 miles a day, sometimes less. Until the cold winter hit in NY, I had a lifetime average of approx 290 wh/mile. Now we have a lifetime avg of approx 315.
�

drees said: ?

Yeah, but it doesn't really matter that the pack isn't balanced all that well.
Click to expand...

What is your source for this? From a technical level, I don't know and am not aware of anything Tesla has told us about whether a pack that is severely out of balance can cause harm in the short or long term.

From a practical standpoint, it does matter when we're talking 10-15 rated miles difference between what the car is telling us we have and what we might or might not have in terms of actual energy in the battery. If I need to take a 160 mile trip, and instead of my car showing 205 rated miles and having a lot of buffer, it shows 190 rated miles at full charge and having no or negative buffer (unless I drive 55 mph on the highway), then the car is forcing me to schedule a charging stop somewhere that I otherwise would not have to do if the battery was better balanced.
�

SFOTurtle said: ?

What is your source for this? From a technical level, I don't know and am not aware of anything Tesla has told us about whether a pack that is severely out of balance can cause harm in the short or long term.
Click to expand...

My statement was in reference to "40 kWh" cars where capacity is artificially limited (assuming that the proper logic is used when calculating SOC!).

If the SOC slider is limited to 72% it seems pretty clear that they Tesla is simply limiting the maximum charge voltage to limit the cars to ~40 kWh.

If markb's 40 kWh car is only getting 118 rated miles down from 140 rated miles, it's pretty clear that Tesla's balancing and SOC measurement has some bugs in it that are improperly causing the appearance of capacity loss. One possible cause is that they use the module with the highest voltage as the SOC and if there is a module out of balance with a higher voltage than the rest, it's stopping the charge prematurely. And then perhaps Tesla does not balance the pack much at 72% SOC much.

Simple solution for the 40 kWh cars would be to use the lowest module voltage to determine SOC and when to stop charging.
�

markb said: ?

I posted earlier thanking those who responded to my query regarding my very significant loss of range on my 40, but I got a msg stating that it needed to be approved by a moderator and I'm not sure it will ever show up.
Click to expand...

As a new member some of your posts were going automatically into moderation, that's just our proven strategy for preventing spam but sorry if we didn't get to them faster. I approved all of yours that were still queued and you should be good to go now.

A belated welcome to TMC!
�

scaesare said: ?

I assume you mean 60-65 miles per day during the week? That makes the math for your total mileage work out about right. If so, that's about my commute as well. Another night or two during the week I add an extra 25 miles or so.

On weekends it varies from only 20 miles total, to a couple of hundred. When you say "another 15", is that total for the weekend... or 65+15=80 for each day?
Click to expand...

Yes, good catch. 60-65 per day during the week. And about 15-20 over the weekend.

We've only range charged (100%) 4 or 5 times.
Last weekend being one of them. We did a 600 mile trek to family in Seattle, and then up to Bellingham and back, hitting two SCs along the way, and then each again on the way back.
�

Mod Note: some posts went here - Kman-s-Battery-Care-amp-Maintenance-Merge-Duplicate

@All members: please don't post the same item in multiple threads.
�

I have a 40 that thinks it is a 60. When I got it last May max charge got me 143 miles......now max charge only gives me about 130...sometimes then even reduces to 125.....I thought that if you leave it plugged in now it will use energy from the ground connection versus battery. Also why am I getting so many less miles in general? 10 may be nothing for the 60 and 85s out there, but I covet every mile!! ; )

New to TMC!! thanks
Veronika

- - - Updated - - -

I meant a 60 that thinks it is a 40.
�

Veronika said: ?

I have a 40 that thinks it is a 60. When I got it last May max charge got me 143 miles......now max charge only gives me about 130...sometimes then even reduces to 125.....I thought that if you leave it plugged in now it will use energy from the ground connection versus battery. Also why am I getting so many less miles in general? 10 may be nothing for the 60 and 85s out there, but I covet every mile!! ; )

New to TMC!! thanks
Veronika

- - - Updated - - -

I meant a 60 that thinks it is a 40.
Click to expand...

Veronika, watch the video referenced in the above thread. It will explain decreasing range, but won't make you happy.

- - - Updated - - -

NigelM said: ?

Mod Note: some posts went here - Kman-s-Battery-Care-amp-Maintenance-Merge-Duplicate

@All members: please don't post the same item in multiple threads.
Click to expand...

Veronica, I mean this one.
�

Hi Veronika,

Nice to see you on TMC. The issue that most people think is being seen on the 60's that that they never get to run through a full balance cycle as they should, and would, if set to the "60" mode. I don't think anyone has been able to prove this. A great way to verify this (and if true, get your mileage back), would be to have service (while in their care only I'm sure) set your car back to being a 60, and preform a full charge and balance, and then set it back to a 40 for you.

Has anyone with a 40 asked service to do this?

Peter

Veronika said: ?

I have a 40 that thinks it is a 60. When I got it last May max charge got me 143 miles......now max charge only gives me about 130...sometimes then even reduces to 125.....I thought that if you leave it plugged in now it will use energy from the ground connection versus battery. Also why am I getting so many less miles in general? 10 may be nothing for the 60 and 85s out there, but I covet every mile!! ; )

New to TMC!! thanks
Veronika

- - - Updated - - -

I meant a 60 that thinks it is a 40.
Click to expand...

�

I thank you before watching the video and my ensuing depression! ; )
�

markb said: ?

I posted earlier thanking those who responded to my query regarding my very significant loss of range on my 40, but I got a msg stating that it needed to be approved by a moderator and I'm not sure it will ever show up.

As others have said, I'm pretty sure the battery is never fully charged, maxing out at 72% of capacity. The slider lets me set any charge between 0 and 72.

My car as delivered charged to 140 rated and 160 ideal, as promised. I am now down to 118/136 after 9000 miles - far from what we were expecting.

Two weeks ago, my service mgr told me there would be firmware update in 2-3 weeks that would restore some of the lost rang. We'll see.
Click to expand...

I have a 40 as well and had a lifetime average of 270 Wh/m prior to the cold. Now I'm up to 296 wh/m and I'm finding that my range will fully charge and say I have 129 on a warmer day and 120 ish on a colder day but if the battery pack isn't nice and warm when I'm leaving the house I'd be lucky to get 100 to 110 miles on that charge. When I have the pack heating and the heat on in the car I see the wh/m jump up to max at times. I've tried setting the range mode option and it does keep the spike down but it also means the battery pack takes significantly longer to heat if it's even warm by the time I get to work 20ish miles each way.

That is a bit disappointing since as stated by others my 40 started out at full charge of 145 rated miles and I used to be able to get even better mileage than that. Pretty significant drop to lose roughly a third of my range in the extreme cold.
�

bluetinc said: ?

Hi Veronika,

Nice to see you on TMC. The issue that most people think is being seen on the 60's that that they never get to run through a full balance cycle as they should, and would, if set to the "60" mode. I don't think anyone has been able to prove this. A great way to verify this (and if true, get your mileage back), would be to have service (while in their care only I'm sure) set your car back to being a 60, and preform a full charge and balance, and then set it back to a 40 for you.

Has anyone with a 40 asked service to do this?

Peter
Click to expand...

That is a VERY good idea!!!!
�

bluetinc said: ?

Hi Veronika,

Nice to see you on TMC. The issue that most people think is being seen on the 60's that that they never get to run through a full balance cycle as they should, and would, if set to the "60" mode. I don't think anyone has been able to prove this. A great way to verify this (and if true, get your mileage back), would be to have service (while in their care only I'm sure) set your car back to being a 60, and preform a full charge and balance, and then set it back to a 40 for you.

Has anyone with a 40 asked service to do this?

Peter
Click to expand...

Peter, I know I haven't, and I have not heard of any 40 that has. Tesla has not yet admitted to anybody, as far as I know, that the range loss experienced by 40's is anything other than normal.

I agree tha it would be interesting to have them unlock a 40, charge to 100% and see what happens. Not sure why they would have to do it at a service centre, though. Unless they take a 60 mile joy ride afterwards, we'd still be getting a "free" 60 miles.

What might be nice, on a long term basis, is if they unlocked our car maybe once a month and allowed us to do one 100% charge. But again, first they have to admit there is a problem and that 100% charging would solve it.
�

Stats at one year: 100% = 192, 90% = 169
Have done around 10-20 max charges, and supercharged many times (perhaps 40? didn't keep track)
�

Kipernicus said: ?

Stats at one year: 100% = 192, 90% = 169
Have done around 10-20 max charges, and supercharged many times (perhaps 40? didn't keep track)
Click to expand...

car's mileage? Thx!
�

Kipernicus said: ?

Stats at one year: 100% = 192, 90% = 169
Have done around 10-20 max charges, and supercharged many times (perhaps 40? didn't keep track)
Click to expand...

Assuming you mean Rated Miles correct? Since rated miles have some component of driver history, and the algo for Rated miles has not been the same since the first deliveries, it's better to compare Ideal Miles (even though they are useless for just about everything else). At least that what my service advisor told me.
�

hans said: ?

snip... Since rated miles have some component of driver history, ...
Click to expand...

Rated miles have NO component of driver history. Anyone who has told you so is incorrect and should be corrected. Tesla engineering has confirmed this, as has all the data that everyone has collected. There have been some misinformed Tesla employees that have spread this misinformation, (which seems to keep popping up).

Peter
�

bluetinc said: ?

Rated miles have NO component of driver history. Anyone who has told you so is incorrect and should be corrected. Tesla engineering has confirmed this, as has all the data that everyone has collected. There have been some misinformed Tesla employees that have spread this misinformation, (which seems to keep popping up).

Peter
Click to expand...

I did challenge him on this and he promised to send me a email from engineering about it. Still waiting ;-)

Nevertheless, the Rated miles algo has not been consistent between all firmware releases so comparisons between different firmware releases can still be problematic.
�

hans said: ?

Nevertheless, the Rated miles algo has not been consistent between all firmware releases so comparisons between different firmware releases can still be problematic.
Click to expand...

Then how do you explain brand new cars with 5.8 still getting > 265 rated on a range charge? If we all compare our range charges I'm pretty certain that we're comparing apples to apples.
�

AmpedRealtor said: ?

Arizona here, lifetime usage is 293 Wh/m and dropping. Recent 100+ mile errand trips were done using 270 Wh/m or less. That's just how I drive.
Click to expand...

gg_got_a_tesla said: ?

Wait till your summer hits and you are forced to use the AC indiscriminately!
Click to expand...

I'm also in AZ, and took delivery at the beginning of last summer. My lifetime Wh/m is at 297. Since it cooled off, I've been averaging right around 293.

Summer started off averaging ~308 the first 2 months -- and I only noticed heavier battery drain when cooling the car down after being parked outside during the day. That would last about 10 min, and then returned to close to normal after the interior cooled down.

We had a cold spell in early December... Lows below freezing, highs in the mid 40s. Energy use was worse then than summer -- I averaged about 315 Wh/m over the first week or so in Dec...
�

hans said: ?

I
Nevertheless, the Rated miles algo has not been consistent between all firmware releases so comparisons between different firmware releases can still be problematic.
Click to expand...

It's good to understand the differences that have happened along the way. So far, I think all of these changes effect ideal miles along with rated miles, except #1.

1. The "rated mile" energy unit can be different on different cars. I have seen 306 and 302 Wh/mi.
2. Temperature "corrections" have been updated over time to account for cold differently. This will show up at cold temperatures (sub 50F).
3. "Standard" charges use to mean 93% SOC, which became 90% and now with a slider gives anywhere from 50% -> 90% SOC.
4. Adjustments have been made to charge termination voltages for non 100% SOC charges to improve charge termination.
5. For the first time, with software 5.8, it "appears" that some capacity was moved to below 0 miles, (0 miles now equals 320V instead of 316V on a 85kWh A battery), but I can't confirm that this isn't part of the new temperature compensation until it warms up this spring.

I'm not sure why "Rated Miles" is thought to be less consistent than "ideal miles", but regardless none of these changes explain the 30+ mile drops in displayed miles owners have seen.

I now feel that Tesla Corporate would prefer to keep the FUD flying than really explain what's going on to those of us that show the largest drops and why it's so different between particular cars. Consistently suggesting that there are changes in mileage calculation and charging without details serve this well. Somehow, no matter what changes have taken place, if you walk over to a new car with the same software, they seem to show 267-275 "rated miles" just like my car did when new.

Peter
�

apacheguy said: ?

Then how do you explain brand new cars with 5.8 still getting > 265 rated on a range charge? If we all compare our range charges I'm pretty certain that we're comparing apples to apples.
Click to expand...

You are comparing apples to apples, and I can not explain it. That is exactly what I am asking Tesla to explain with my car. All I am saying is do not compare the rated miles you got with 4.x when you bought your car to the rated miles you get with 5.x now. If for no other reason other than that you are playing into their corporate FUD.
�

On a visit to the Fremont SpC for Flat Stanley's sake, clocked 174 miles Rated at Standard today. Car's at 18,349 miles.

�

Was talking to Kipernicus earlier today about the difference in range degradation for our 60s (I've done 50% more miles than him lifetime); I theorized that my car may have benefited a bit from being plugged into a 110V outlet for 8-9 hours on all weekdays while I'm at work?! Don't know if that theory has any legs...
�

Anybody else notice different range for different profiles? When charged under my wife's profile the car usually finishes with about 5 more rated miles compared to when charged under my profile.
�

hans said: ?

Nevertheless, the Rated miles algo has not been consistent between all firmware releases so comparisons between different firmware releases can still be problematic.
Click to expand...

apacheguy said: ?

Then how do you explain brand new cars with 5.8 still getting > 265 rated on a range charge? If we all compare our range charges I'm pretty certain that we're comparing apples to apples.
Click to expand...

Firstly, he doesn't have to explain it. Secondly, many owners (myself included) on TMC have reported on numerous occasions that across a firmware transition the rated miles has decreased -- both instantly, and comparing "before week" and "after week" even with consistent weather. Now that that's been set straight...

To your question: One explanation is newer chemistry. Another explanation is that the rating algorithm has a time component -- regardless of actual cell capacity. There are many possibilities.
�

brianman said: ?

Firstly, he doesn't have to explain it. Secondly, many owners (myself included) on TMC have reported on numerous occasions that across a firmware transition the rated miles has decreased -- both instantly, and comparing "before week" and "after week" even with consistent weather. Now that that's been set straight...

To your question: One explanation is newer chemistry. Another explanation is that the rating algorithm has a time component -- regardless of actual cell capacity. There are many possibilities.
Click to expand...

My guess is that it has somebody to do with balancing. Maybe the older firmware versions were more optimistic when the pack was imbalanced. Since the pack would be balanced when the car is brand new, it'd read the full 265 on either. Of course, as you said, it could be any number of things.
�

brianman said: ?

Firstly, he doesn't have to explain it. Secondly, many owners (myself included) on TMC have reported on numerous occasions that across a firmware transition the rated miles has decreased -- both instantly, and comparing "before week" and "after week" even with consistent weather. Now that that's been set straight...
Click to expand...

Right, but what I was saying is that if we compare range charges on the same version (I.e. 5.8) then we are comparing apples to apples. We don't have to concern ourselves with the "improved" algorithms.

Gear said: ?

My guess is that it has somebody to do with balancing. Maybe the older firmware versions were more optimistic when the pack was imbalanced. Since the pack would be balanced when the car is brand new, it'd read the full 265 on either. Of course, as you said, it could be any number of things.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but then this would beg the question as to why the newer firmwares don't simply correct the issue by balancing the pack.
�

apacheguy said: ?

Right, but what I was saying is that if we compare range charges on the same version (I.e. 5.8) then we are comparing apples to apples. We don't have to concern ourselves with the "improved" algorithms.
Click to expand...

Maybe. But how long of a balancing period do you allow for? An hour? An hour for 3 weeks straight? Range charge every day starting last November? Unfortunately, it's not quite as simple (IMO) as you suggest.
�

apacheguy said: ?

Maybe, but then this would beg the question as to why the newer firmwares don't simply correct the issue by balancing the pack.
Click to expand...

It's probably not a good idea to trigger a balance cycle with a firmware update. The car might not be charging while it's updating (or owner might unplug to soon for a balance cycle to finish), so it'll need a mechanism to pre-schedule a balance cycle for the next charge. And for the Model S, it seems it doesn't balance without doing a full charge, so you might also need to force a full charge (which the owner might not want to do).
�

brianman said: ?

many owners (myself included) on TMC have reported on numerous occasions that across a firmware transition the rated miles has decreased -- both instantly, and comparing "before week" and "after week" even with consistent weather.
Click to expand...

That's because they changed the standard charge level %. "Standard" used to be 93% charge. Then with the new slider bar, what we are calling "standard" now (that little line) is 90%. So the jump from 245 "standard charge" to 231 "standard charge" is simple because I'm only charging to 90 percent now instead of 93%. Aside from that, I haven't noticed any degradation between software firmware updates. My range charge is still > 255 and i am at 36k miles.
�

> how long of a balancing period do you allow for? An hour? An hour for 3 weeks straight? Range charge every day starting last November? Unfortunately, it's not quite as simple (IMO) as you suggest. [brianman]

Which is why I was surprised to hear that during a 'quick' balancing charge at a Service Center the owner was told that all strings were 'within one millivolt' of each other. I still can't believe it.
--
�

strengthcoach4 said: ?

Anybody else notice different range for different profiles? When charged under my wife's profile the car usually finishes with about 5 more rated miles compared to when charged under my profile.
Click to expand...

This is very interesting and I would like to know more. I am going to charge under my wife's profile tonight to see if it makes a difference.
�

nrcooled said: ?

This is very interesting and I would like to know more. I am going to charge under my wife's profile tonight to see if it makes a difference.
Click to expand...

If it's any different, I'll eat my hat.
�

Why do you think this is so unbelievable? Because if true then some of us really are seeing degradation? I actually think there are pictures somewhere on this forum that show cars with nearly that.

Peter

wycolo said: ?

> how long of a balancing period do you allow for? An hour? An hour for 3 weeks straight? Range charge every day starting last November? Unfortunately, it's not quite as simple (IMO) as you suggest. [brianman]

Which is why I was surprised to hear that during a 'quick' balancing charge at a Service Center the owner was told that all strings were 'within one millivolt' of each other. I still can't believe it.
--
Click to expand...

�

aviators99 said: ?

If it's any different, I'll eat my hat.
Click to expand...

Perhaps one of these with apples and oranges on it?

Seriously though, I wouldn't expect different profiles to have different range estimates for any reason other than the usual stuff we have all talked about like the temperature or the timing of exactly when you look at the range estimate (i.e. the second after charge completion vs minutes later vs hours later)
�

wycolo said: ?

> how long of a balancing period do you allow for? An hour? An hour for 3 weeks straight? Range charge every day starting last November? Unfortunately, it's not quite as simple (IMO) as you suggest. [brianman]

Which is why I was surprised to hear that during a 'quick' balancing charge at a Service Center the owner was told that all strings were 'within one millivolt' of each other. I still can't believe it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, just trying to measure module voltages down to the mV is no easy task.

I know that on the LEAF at least, 20 mV spreads between min/max voltage are pretty typical when the pack isn't extremely low on charge. It's pretty rare that you will see a pack under 10 mV between the min/max when charged to 100% and it's also pretty clear that one hits a point of diminishing returns if trying to balance the pack with the goal of maximizing usable capacity.
�

yobigd20 said: ?

That's because they changed the standard charge level %. "Standard" used to be 93% charge. Then with the new slider bar, what we are calling "standard" now (that little line) is 90%. So the jump from 245 "standard charge" to 231 "standard charge" is simple because I'm only charging to 90 percent now instead of 93%. Aside from that, I haven't noticed any degradation between software firmware updates. My range charge is still > 255 and i am at 36k miles.
Click to expand...

That's one of the cases, yes. There have been other dip-transitions besides that specific firmware change.
�

Sig #833 P85, 19.5k miles, HPWC, garaged every night, northern CA mild climate.

Following advice on this thread, I set my baby to range charge and then let it sit in the garage for a week.

Friday I started driving it again, but have left it on range charge each nite.

Results so far... rated range unchanged. Still 244, was 267 in the early months of ownership.

I'm starting to be glad that the battery warranty is so long and wondering what might trigger it.
�

sfriedrich said: ?

Following advice on this thread, I set my baby to range charge and then let it sit in the garage for a week.

Friday I started driving it again, but have left it on range charge each nite.
Click to expand...

Guys, I would not recommend charging to max and then letting it sit for extended periods. I don't care who it is that is giving this advice, but it is clearly wrong and it will damage the pack.

Tesla needs to come out and clearly define what is going on with balancing, degradation, etc. Otherwise, there are going to be a lot of unintended consequences with people being misinformed.
�

Also, @sfriedrich, the battery warranty covers pack failure but, not degradation.
�

gg_got_a_tesla said: ?

Also, @sfriedrich, the battery warranty covers pack failure but, not degradation.
Click to expand...

It does cover degradation, but only degradation beyond what is considered Normal. Problem being, Tesla will not define what normal is.
�

islandbayy said: ?

It does cover degradation, but only degradation beyond what is considered Normal. Problem being, Tesla will not define what normal is.
Click to expand...

True, but they are certainly good at telling me what is "not abnormal". So I guess by process of elimination, maybe we'll eventually be able to define what's normal.
�

Ok, another weird data point to add to this discussion.

This morning I woke up and had roughly 152 miles of charge. As usually, I started my car warming while I got ready for the gym but left it plugged in. When I got into my car I had 157 miles of rated range. I drove to the gym which is 3.4 miles away. I was paying close attention to my range because I forgot to account for some extra driving I was going to do today so was trying to figure out if I would have enough range. I noticed I was loosing about 2 miles of rated range per mile. Which was strange, because I was on city streets 30-40mph. When I got to the gym I was down to 151 rated miles, which obviously concerned me a bit.

So after my work out, I came out to the car and I had gained range. I now had 155 miles of rated range. Again strange. So, I drove home trying to figure out what was going on. I'd never noticed this before but then I don't often pay that much attention to my range on short trips around town. I thought maybe it had something to do with the cold, it was 4 degrees F, but wasn't sure as again I had never noticed this strange behavior before. Anyways, so drove home and when I got home I had 150 miles of rated range.

So, over the course of the entire trip to and from the gym, I used about what was expected, maybe a bit more (7 miles of rated range for a 6.8 mile round trip). But it was still weird.

I'm going to see if I can repeat this tomorrow.

But would love to hear on thoughts on what you think may be occurring.
�

Liz G said: ?

Ok, another weird data point to add to this discussion.

This morning I woke up and had roughly 152 miles of charge. As usually, I started my car warming while I got ready for the gym but left it plugged in. When I got into my car I had 157 miles of rated range. I drove to the gym which is 3.4 miles away. I was paying close attention to my range because I forgot to account for some extra driving I was going to do today so was trying to figure out if I would have enough range. I noticed I was loosing about 2 miles of rated range per mile. Which was strange, because I was on city streets 30-40mph. When I got to the gym I was down to 151 rated miles, which obviously concerned me a bit.

So after my work out, I came out to the car and I had gained range. I now had 155 miles of rated range. Again strange. So, I drove home trying to figure out what was going on. I'd never noticed this before but then I don't often pay that much attention to my range on short trips around town. I thought maybe it had something to do with the cold, it was 4 degrees F, but wasn't sure as again I had never noticed this strange behavior before. Anyways, so drove home and when I got home I had 150 miles of rated range.

So, over the course of the entire trip to and from the gym, I used about what was expected, maybe a bit more (7 miles of rated range for a 6.8 mile round trip). But it was still weird.

I'm going to see if I can repeat this tomorrow.

But would love to hear on thoughts on what you think may be occurring.
Click to expand...

Must have been the magic charging fairy. Only she can grant the mysterious return of disappearing rated range.
�

Liz G said: ?

Ok, another weird data point to add to this discussion.

This morning I woke up and had roughly 152 miles of charge. As usually, I started my car warming while I got ready for the gym but left it plugged in. When I got into my car I had 157 miles of rated range. I drove to the gym which is 3.4 miles away. I was paying close attention to my range because I forgot to account for some extra driving I was going to do today so was trying to figure out if I would have enough range. I noticed I was loosing about 2 miles of rated range per mile. Which was strange, because I was on city streets 30-40mph. When I got to the gym I was down to 151 rated miles, which obviously concerned me a bit.

So after my work out, I came out to the car and I had gained range. I now had 155 miles of rated range. Again strange. So, I drove home trying to figure out what was going on. I'd never noticed this before but then I don't often pay that much attention to my range on short trips around town. I thought maybe it had something to do with the cold, it was 4 degrees F, but wasn't sure as again I had never noticed this strange behavior before. Anyways, so drove home and when I got home I had 150 miles of rated range.

So, over the course of the entire trip to and from the gym, I used about what was expected, maybe a bit more (7 miles of rated range for a 6.8 mile round trip). But it was still weird.

I'm going to see if I can repeat this tomorrow.

But would love to hear on thoughts on what you think may be occurring.
Click to expand...

Affected by outside temps - as 'battery' warmed range improved. My guess, anyway. We rarely see that here in moderate climes in CA, but last winter it was noted by others.
�

yobigd20 said: ?

Must have been the magic charging fairy. Only she can grant the mysterious return of disappearing rated range.
Click to expand...

Apparently that fairy is stealing from my battery and giving it to Liz!
�

smartypnz said: ?

Affected by outside temps - as 'battery' warmed range improved. My guess, anyway. We rarely see that here in moderate climes in CA, but last winter it was noted by others.
Click to expand...

I see that kind of behavior even in California. It's a combination of the ambient temperature increasing and the internal battery pack temperature increasing. Both effect the range reported. The ambient temp increases in the morning without the use of energy from the pack so it's always net positive. The battery temperature increases either via the use of battery warming (which also uses energy) but also just because the ambient temperature causes the pack to warm too. That means that pack temps might net a positive or a negative range value. Add all these influencers together and you get the very confusing and up and down estimates that you are seeing.
�

efusco said: ?

Apparently that fairy is stealing from my battery and giving it to Liz!
Click to expand...

Guess you need to be kinder to her.
�

I have a 60 kWh pack that was showing ~ 170 on a standard charge. Tried several range charges over the past several weeks and it charged to 193. It was somewhat disconcerting. Today, I took it to the supercharger in Greenwich CT and sat there for 1.5 hours. Interestingly, the pack is now balanced. Did a range charge and it went to 206 rated miles. Probably would have gone to 210 - but charging slows considerably as the pack reaches capacity. Have had the vehicle since March 1 2013. With the exception of several campgrounds and supercharger visits, it is charged at 12 amps/110 v. At the SC, it was charging at or above 120 kWh at times.

Thanks for all your contributions. Now, if they can only fix the �vampire drain� issue on the 60 kWh�.
�

smartypnz said: ?

Affected by outside temps - as 'battery' warmed range improved. My guess, anyway. We rarely see that here in moderate climes in CA, but last winter it was noted by others.
Click to expand...

I have never seen that in my car, ever, even in ambient temps down to -15 F. I charge to a value that is pretty much identical to what I get in the summer, and it begins to decrease (albeit more quickly in the winter) as I drive.
�

Iz said: ?

I have a 60 kWh pack that was showing ~ 170 on a standard charge. Tried several range charges over the past several weeks and it charged to 193. It was somewhat disconcerting. Today, I took it to the supercharger in Greenwich CT and sat there for 1.5 hours. Interestingly, the pack is now balanced. Did a range charge and it went to 206 rated miles. Probably would have gone to 210 - but charging slows considerably as the pack reaches capacity. Have had the vehicle since March 1 2013. With the exception of several campgrounds and supercharger visits, it is charged at 12 amps/110 v. At the SC, it was charging at or above 120 kWh at times.

Thanks for all your contributions. Now, if they can only fix the �vampire drain� issue on the 60 kWh�.
Click to expand...

Are you sure it was charging at 120kW and not 105kW?
�

On many occasions, during the first drive of the morning (with the car not plugged in all night), I've seen the rated range tick down more slowly than it should have in theory based on the distance traveled and the Wh/mile that I was doing at that time. And, yes, there was one occasion wherein I did a short 3-mile drive in the morning and after I got back into the car an hour or so later, I had indeed "gained" miles over what I saw after the short drive. It's definitely the battery temp at work, I guess.
�

teslamotorclub

Thứ Bảy, 5 tháng 11, 2016

Decreasing rated range. part 6

Không có nhận xét nào:

Đăng nhận xét