Mar 24, 2014
Kraken I did it, and I don't regret it. I didn't gain much, but I was pretty much planning on driving a full charges worth of range all 3 days, so why not try it? The car can be range charged on occasion... I've done it 6 times total (3 in that experiment). That isn't that much really, for 9 months of ownership.�
Mar 25, 2014
nanimac I updated to 5.9 tonight and my rated range on my 40kwh has increased from 124 to 136 miles.�
Mar 25, 2014
tdiggity Good stuff. Next question: Do you believe it? If you drive around efficiently, does your real world mileage reflect rated range?�
Mar 25, 2014
nanimac Not sure what to believe anymore when it comes to rated range...will track it over the next few days and report back.�
Mar 25, 2014
dennis I'm still on 5.8.10. I just completed a range charge and it showed 282 ideal miles, a 6% degradation. When I switched to rated, it indicated 245, which would be a 7.5% degradation. So there is one data point that shows the impact of the rated algorithm in 5.8. It will be interesting to see how this changes with 5.9.
'A' battery, 12K miles, 17 months. Most charging to 80% since the slider was introduced, about a dozen range charges in total. The last 4 range charges (over a 3 month period) have all shown 245 rated miles.�
Mar 25, 2014
Cottonwood Sig 37, P85, 18,000 miles in 18 months. Was getting 252 rated, did the balance dance to get to 254 rated miles before I left, then several 100% charges on my recent trip from Colorado to California and back. The latest 99.7% charge (still charging at 403 Volts, 4 Amps on a Supercharger when I disconnected) on the way back was to 254 miles, but the car went 4 miles, 1.3 kWh, before dropping to 253. I count that as 257 rated miles, you could call it 254. 257 is a loss of 3%, 254 is a loss of 4%.
Version 5.8.10, usually charge to 80% since slider. Many range and 100% charges, but always drive away within an hour or so of 100% charge completion. Have driven to 0 or "Charge Now" a few times and below 20 rated miles several times, but charged soon after.�
Mar 25, 2014
aviators99 My range has gone up with 5.9, but the buffer at the bottom has gone down to ZERO. So where before, 0 rated miles was 9-10% still left, now it is 0%. Can anyone confirm if it is the same for "B" packs?�
Mar 25, 2014
ecarfan @aviators99, How did you determine that you have no battery reserve at 0 rated miles! Did you drive the car down to zero rated and then could go no further?�
Mar 25, 2014
apacheguy This is what I suspected they had done, so no surprise. Did they also eliminate bricking protections? IIRC, they are activated at 4% SOC, but if 0 miles = 0% then this would suggest they have been removed.�
Mar 25, 2014
Cottonwood I cannot imagine that they would remove those hidden, below-zero miles, but making the display go to 0% at 0 rated miles would be better visual warning that you need to get a charge. Who is going to do the test to check "below 0" in 5.9? I don't have 5.9 yet.�
Mar 25, 2014
aaron0k Similar result, I went from 126 to 135 the first night after the upgrade. Still trying to determine if this increased range is 'actual' capacity or just a different calculation (psychological).�
Mar 25, 2014
Jeff Miller I have the same question...�
Mar 25, 2014
SFOTurtle Yeah, it would be hard to believe that Tesla would eliminate the reserve for bricking protection just to increase the rated number a little bit.
I also would like to hear from new 60 and 85 owners who have 5.9 what rated numbers they are showing. I would think the apples to apples comparision would be numbers from a brand new 60 or 85 on 5.9 to those of us who have had our cars for a while also on 5.9. Shifting the reserve around would affect the cars equally, one would think, so if the algorithm has now been "fixed," if there are discrepancies, can we not finally attribute those to degradation?�
Mar 25, 2014
dennis If we are calculating actual degradation, does it make more sense to use Ideal miles and compare to 300?�
Mar 25, 2014
jerry33 I don't think there's enough of a difference to matter--both are just an estimate. Mine shows 2.33% for Ideal and 2.26% for rated at 20,000 miles. I'm not convinced that any degradation measured this way is accurate within 3% let alone 0.03%.�
Mar 25, 2014
scaesare A point of clarification: there is a "below 0 buffer" that you CAN use (~15-17 miles for an 85) before shutdown, and a separate "anti-brick" buffer that you CAN'T use after shutdown.
I too would like to know what is making folks draw the conclusion that one of these has been eliminated. Especially because it appears that the range estimates at 100% INCLUDES the below zero buffer even though dash counts down to zero range "faster" than the actual charge had been depleted.
I, for one, doubt Tesla has eliminated this without more warning.�
Mar 25, 2014
nanimac Same here. But living on an island, i'm not too worried about running out of juice
�
Mar 25, 2014
cinergi The 5.9 thread has some numbers. Mine went from 219 to 229 rates miles at 90% and 248 to 257 at 100.�
Mar 25, 2014
FlasherZ They're reading this thread and installing a per-VIN "correction table" to make people feel better.�
Mar 25, 2014
SFOTurtle Yeah, half of me thinks that they just wanted to come up with some "fix" so we'd stop talking about balancing and degradation on TMC.
That's why I'm curious what a new 60 or 85 shows at 90% and 100% SOC with 5.9. If they just shifted up the 10 or so rated miles that were below 0 with version 5.8.x, then one would expect the new cars to show a similar increase. But if now there's little or no delta between a new car and one that's a year old at 90% and 100%, then the new algorithm really did do something more than just shift the rated range above the 0 line.
- - - Updated - - -
That's all good. Anyone who has just taken delivery with 5.9 -- what are your numbers showing?
I'm hoping to a little bump in my numbers once I get 5.9 only just to make road tripping a little easier -- right now with 193-95 rated, there are a couple of trips that are right on the edge. If I had another 5-10 rated miles, these trips would have the buffer in order to forego an extra charging stop.�
Mar 25, 2014
Vger Do we need a new thread, entitled "Increasing Rated Range"? :wink:�
Mar 25, 2014
Kraken I think we might be viewing this all wrong....
i think they made a change to the algorithm sometime around 4.5 or 5.x that was having un foreseen consequences. I think the end result was that it was mis-estimating the range more and more over time due to not using the full battery. The unaccounted for range was increasingly being pushed essentially below zero. Because the car was guessing low, the amount it was missing by was going below zero.
So, what they did was correct it (or revert back to the old algorithm), so now it is more accurate, however there is less below zero than there was before because those miles were put back up at the top where they were intended to be.
so yes they did decrease the range below zero, but only because it wasn't supposed to be there in the first place.
alternatively, perhaps tesla is just moving numbers around into different combos to see which is customers prefer.... A bigger number with no buffer or a smaller number with more buffer. Initially they had the first and we complained. Then they moved to the latter, and others complained. Now they have moved back to their original because there is always a complaint.
i randomly gained back 9 miles today before installing the update. I got home with almost no miles and I didn't want to update with a low battery, so I hit the super charger. Got back to the house with 103. Then I remembered I had forgot to start the update, so I went back to start it and it said 112. No setting changes or anything. I hadn't done the update yet. I was going to see what the post update charge was... But the update reconfigured my charging settings and started charging instantly (during peak hours too)... So I was at 196 when I checked on it.... Or maybe I gained 84 miles!�
Mar 25, 2014
apacheguy Yeah, maybe, but what I would've really liked to see them do is incorporate a balance cycle at the end of each charge (or at least make it an option). Eliminating the below 0 mile buffer is just a quick fix for degradation concerns, even if it was placed there by accident, which I doubt.�
Mar 25, 2014
drees You can pretty much guarantee that Tesla is already doing it's best to keep the pack as balanced as possible. Kraken's theory does make a lot of sense.�
Mar 26, 2014
Kraken What if there wasn't any serious balancing issues....? Maybe in most or almost all cases it was the continuation of the algorithm slowly causing more and more range to be hidden below zero, and we interpreted it as a lack of balancing occurring over time.
even our rebalancing methods might only have been having much success because those same techniques help teach the algorithm the batteries true potential (except for the rare cases where someone was truly far out of balance).
perhaps we we won't be talking about rebalancing much anymore because our packs will rarely "seem out of balance" because that wasn't the issue...
or perhaps it was a combo of mainly algorithm with a bit of out of balance and some minimal degradation. Maybe the balancing fix is more thorough and in V6
but for now maybe they are just putting back what wasn't supposed to be slowly sliding below zero. Say they originally intended for 15 miles below zero. Also assume that 2 months ago I was getting (90% charge) 225 rated with 20 below zero, but a month ago I was getting 220 with 25 miles below zero. now I'm getting 215 rated with 30 miles below zero. If they fix the algorithm so I'm back to getting 230 with 15 miles below zero which is hypothetically where I started, is that a bad thing for them to do? Maybe then I am 7 miles worth of out of balance and 5 miles degraded... Then the car naturally rebalances someday or they do improve that too in v6.0, and I'm able to get 237 with 15 miles below zero and 5 of degradation... That wouldn't be too bad. Maybe the start is just getting the algorithm to work the way it was intended to. (Note that all numbers and everything are hypothetical).�
Mar 26, 2014
scaesare has anybody with 5.9 driven down to (near) zero and checked what the SoC reported (via something like VisibleTesla)?
I'd really like to know if there's any validity to this idea of the below-zero-buffer being eliminated.�
Mar 26, 2014
LMB (LMB spouse)
LMB's car is a US S85 with a max rated range of about 252 miles using 5.8.x firmware after about 12,000 miles. Sometime last fall, we range charged the car, then drove about 80 miles and visited the local service center. They checked the battery and said that everything looked normal and also that the battery was well balanced.
We typically charge the car somewhere between 60 and 75% i.e. we try to "baby" the battery. This seems to be typical of those reporting similar max ranges. This suggests that the issue is algorithmic rather than balance related, assuming that lots of batteries are not experiencing substantial losses in the first year,�
Mar 26, 2014
tomas Geez, don't spoil this. Isn't it much more fun to just read all of the emotional responses and wild assed guesses?
Seriously, though� the "science" of this forum has advanced to the point where - given a couple of weeks for people to measure - we should see some pretty useful reporting. I'd discount anything reported within 14 days of 5.9 release unless it's from a beta tester who's had it a while. Good analysis requires more than 1 or 2 hasty data points.�
Mar 26, 2014
Kraken Yeah... Give it a couple days. Sometimes bound to wind up hitting 0 a few feet short of their driveway... They'll let us know when they get stranded.�
Mar 26, 2014
FlasherZ SOC 10% at 26.7 miles left... that's as close as I've come... range charge is 268.4. (via REST data)�
Mar 26, 2014
apacheguy You and your fancy new D pack. :tongue:
For those that have 5.9: When does your 30 mile average W/mi = rated consumption? Is it back up to 308 W/mi or is it the ~280 some such number reported in cinergi's thread?�
Mar 26, 2014
bluetinc If the range was being pushed below 0, I would expect that to show (to me) as an increasing pack voltage when 0 range was shown on the dash. Unfortunately, my 0 rated range pack voltage seems to be very consistent at 320V though there seems to have been a change from 4.X to 5.X where my 0 rated range pack voltage changed from 316V (Consistent since new) to 320V. Those 4V of potential are only worth a few miles at that point in the V-Wh curve.
Once I get 5.9 I'll recheck this and let you know.
Peter
�
Mar 26, 2014
aviators99 I brought it down to 8 miles. SOC was 3%. Hope this answers the others' questions.
- - - Updated - - -
I should add that previously it was over 10% for the same number of miles. I am wondering if "B" packs will see the same symptom, or if this is a fix for "A" packs to look more like "B" packs.�
Mar 26, 2014
scaesare Well now, that is interesting.
Assuming you could drive it those remaining 26.7 miles to 0 miles range, that would imply a 0% SoC as well, which is bricked battery territory.
So the possibilities as I see them are that the new firmware:
- Eliminates the below-zero buffer, as well as the anti-brick buffer, allowing you to drive to zero and make a $40,000 error
.- Eliminates the below-zero buffer, and suppresses reporting of the anti-brick buffer, allowing you to drive to zero and no farther, in essence "hiding" the bottom of the pack charge from things like Visible Tesla
.- Calibrated range such that there are no more hidden buffers, but you can no longer drive to 0 range, thus preserving the anti-brick buffer, but making the estimated range goofy on the bottom end.
Quite frankly, none of these scenarios seem likely as intentional to me... but #2 would seem the most plausible.�
Mar 26, 2014
markb I too am really interested in finding that out, as not only did my max rated (and ideal) range drop drastically, but based on the point at which projected miles matched rated miles, which dropped from 305 to 280, it became much more difficult to attain even that diminished range. If it has gone back to 305, I will be very happy.�
Mar 26, 2014
mkjayakumar FWIW a Leaf owner in Chicago is reporting zero degradation on his Leaf in 12 months and 16k miles. This measurement is using a CAN bus meter that captures data directly from the battery management system.
On the other hand there are many others from the same area who have reported anywhere between 5 and 10% loss.�
Mar 26, 2014
AmpedRealtor What does a Leaf have to do with this discussion?�
Mar 26, 2014
Kraken
I'm going to go with number two, which is sort of what I was leaving towards. I also wouldn't be surprised if they are masking the amount below zero that you can drive, thus making the reporting of 0% SOC to things like visible Tesla not inclusive of the hidden driving range or the brick protection amount. I don't they really wanted us knowing the actual numbers. It's better to have people playing out safe. I know people want the info, but from their perspective, some things are better if they aren't public knowledge, even if some people might make good use of it out prefer to have it.
�
Mar 26, 2014
cinergi Don't forget that this number varies by car -- some are ~280 and some are ~308 (and many others in between). However, I'll be sure to check to see if I still match my previous number.�
Mar 26, 2014
aviators99 My Wh/mi --> consumption has not changed with 5.9. It's around 288 to match rated.�
Mar 26, 2014
qwk Are you sure some are 280? I have yet to see a car that is below 300.�
Mar 26, 2014
rlang59 There is another thread on it somewhere but the numbers were all over the place. In my case the number 286.�
Mar 26, 2014
brianman This is the bigger problem that this thread and others are pointing out directly and indirectly. Tesla needs to get this under control.�
Mar 26, 2014
Zextraterrestrial 0 = 0%
90% = 242 mi
new(refurb?) battery on V5.9
- - - Updated - - -
296�
Mar 26, 2014
tomas OK, now if you are a real pal, zex, you'll drive around the block until your car dies and tell us how far you got below zero. Sorta kidding, but until someone does this, we won't know if Tesla has "hidden" any further driving (vs. bricking) buffer.�
Mar 26, 2014
scaesare And yet your battery is not bricked... the SoC reporting must be hiding the anti-brick buffer now.�
Mar 26, 2014
Zextraterrestrial when you hit 0 it shows no battery bar left at all, unlike how it used to show ~ 8% or whatever. The other day was the first time I have gone to 0 and stayed pretty local. I was hauling ass out to the hills in the morning w/ 4 people and had to drive the speed limit home + stop for 15 minutes to make it after dropping someone off.
I need to check my log and see how many kW I used from 95% to 0. It was something like 68, I think, must check... ... 66kW 95%-0%
...70kW charging back to 90% from 0%�
Mar 26, 2014
qwk This pretty much confirms that 5.9 took the rated miles under 0, and shuffled them back to where they used to be. The only question that remains is what new cars on 5.9 get for rated miles(before and after 5.9)?�
Mar 26, 2014
scaesare
Agreed. It also will be interesting to see what the "additional" rated miles now total, and then do the math to see what that equates to in "percent of capacity shuffled back up above 0".
This should also make it easier to determine what the Wh/mi number needs to be in order to make rated mileage = actual mileage.�
Mar 26, 2014
Cottonwood I have repeatedly confirmed 290 Wh/rated-mi over many versions in my MS...�
Mar 26, 2014
qwk Is this from the screen, or is it your own calculation?�
Mar 26, 2014
dsm363 I thought rated was 308 Wh/mile or something similar. 290 was ideal I think.�
Mar 26, 2014
Kraken Here come some pics.... Words later...
- - - Updated - - -
While I wasn't willing to needlessly push myself below zero, I did pull into the garage with 2 miles left on my daily drive today. I took some pictures to compare and contrast them to the past. There is some definite changes. The meter goes red with more miles remaining now.... Etc... You'll see. At 14 it was already red. I'd never even seen red before, and I'd been down to 6 miles.
im not sure why today had me getting back with only 2 miles. We had been getting back with about 20 before. We did go out of the way 10 miles, and drove a couple mph faster going to work, but I slowed down way earlier today as I saw the inevitable coming. I had been able to make it out and back at 75 mph... I was doing 65 for half of the trip back. As for starting charge, it was about 5 miles higher than before 5.9 (after losing 3 miles since finishing charging at 1 am).
the picture with 7 miles left was from a while ago and for comparison, one big thing to look at is the limiter. It's in almost the same spot. Where did the guys who ran out of battery say it was at before the car quit? Way lower than my pics. So there likely is still some below zero. My guess remains that they adjusted the algorithm and put some of the range that was slipping below zero back up top. They have also changed the way it reports SOC% so things like the display on the dash and the REST app and Visible tesla see 0% SOC as 0 miles remaining, even if there is still 10kwh remaining.�
Mar 26, 2014
FlasherZ Look at your pack sticker (front passenger wheel well). If part number starts with 102 or part description includes "reman", you have a remanufactured pack. If it's the original 101... part, you have a new pack.�
Mar 26, 2014
hans The yellow is for <20% SOC and the red is for <10% SOC. It may seem different but it's likely the same as before since the colors are triggered by the SOC value and not the range value. What is different is that 0 miles range is now 0% SOC and not ~7% or whatever is was before.�
Mar 26, 2014
cinergi Turns out it varies by car (the data is in another thread). My rated matches projected at 290. Now, the LINE on the graph is more like 300 but that's a different story�
Mar 26, 2014
Zextraterrestrial it is in the wiki.
it is remanufactured�
Mar 26, 2014
FlasherZ ah ok, I didn't check. It looked as if you had a question as to whether yours was new/refurb.�
Mar 26, 2014
Cottonwood Both, I have confirmed this a dozen or more times.�
Mar 26, 2014
Kraken Ok... So that furthers my theory that they have done some changing to how they report 0% SOC. I think 0% SOC doesn't mean what it used to. I think they have the car reporting 0% SOC well above a true 0% SOC.�
Mar 26, 2014
gg_got_a_tesla A very relevant parallel thread has been started here:
A senior tesla executive's comforting answer to concerns re:�
Mar 26, 2014
Kraken To further my theory, run the math on the energy used. I used 58.9 kwh. I had charge to 90%, but I lost 3 miles over night and stopped with 2 miles left. So 5 miles of that were unused (under the conservative assumption that the 3 miles lost aren't included in the 58.9kwh used). That's about 2% unused. So, I used 88% of the available SOC.
doing the math, that makes 100% SOC the equivalent of 66.2kwh leaving 18.8 kwh unaccounted for. Surely a few kwh, say 10kwh are left to keep from bricking (that's probably a high assumption, but assume 5 at the top and 5 at the bottom of the range). There are still 8.8kwh left unaccounted for. Likely some of that is actually below 0% SOC and provides the ability to go past 0 and not be stuck at 0. Some might be degradation/unbalanced pack... But hopefully not over 10% of my pack.
i just think they changed it so 0 LOOKS like 0% SOC, but it isn't truly 0% SOC.
part of it is probably get people to start treating 0 as 0 and also to keep us from guessing what we can do.�
Mar 27, 2014
AmpedRealtor Maybe Tesla never intended for there to be a buffer/reserve past zero, but the presence of such a buffer was simply a symptom of the confused algorithm pushing those missing miles below zero?�
Mar 27, 2014
mnx This makes me wonder, why didn't you do a range charge when you had so far to drive?
�
Mar 27, 2014
hans Yes, and possibly 100% SOC may have changed at various points too. Without knowing the actual voltages these numbers are arbitrary.�
Mar 27, 2014
Kraken It's the same drive I do daily and get home with 30 miles of range... Like today, I got back with 27 miles of range.�
Mar 30, 2014
Kipernicus Seems like 5.9 was a tide that floated all the boats. My 90% went from 167 to 175, but GG's went from 174 to 182.
Will be interested to see how others are doing at both 90% and 100% and whether "balancing" shows any further improvements.�
Mar 30, 2014
andrewket I think it always was (and still is) hiding the anti-bricking capacity.�
Mar 30, 2014
aviators99 Yes, this is true. All that has happened now is that the number shown is different, which makes it slightly more difficult for us to show the types of trends we've been discussing here. The state of the battery is obviously the same, and the degradation versus other batteries has not changed (A vs B, for example).�
Apr 6, 2014
scaesare Well, this is interesting. Got my S85 back from the service center with 5.9 (the .88 flavor) on it. Did my first two 90% charges this weekend (I typically charge to 60-70% during the week).
I'm seeing 225-226 miles of rated range. This isn't too much more than I had seen before (typically 221-222). Also, if I do the math, that extrapolates out to a full 100% charge of 251 miles. While I know the top end may not be linear like that... the last 100% charge I did a month ago with 5.8 net me 253 miles.
I'm not sure I'm seeing the same amount of range "shuffled from under zero" that other folks here have.
I'm not particularly worried about it... as this is all reporting and estimating... the electrons my pack can hold is still about the same. I'm just wondering exactly what is being reported these days... and what the buffer(s) may be...�
Apr 6, 2014
apacheguy Right, so why doesn't TM just show kWh remaining in the pack? This would eliminate all of our speculation and complaints regarding the rated range calculation. kWh remaining is something Tesla keeps track of on the diagnostic screens, but is not something they expose to the user (among other things).�
Apr 6, 2014
scaesare Partially, I suspect, because kWh are the types of units that might make many people's eyes glaze over.
And that, for battery health, that full 85kW isn't usable, and while a subset of folks here may realize that's rightly so, folks at large might gripe about "not getting their money's worth!!!11!one!!"�
Apr 6, 2014
jerry33 Whether you use miles, kWh, or atttojoules, it's still just an estimate based on an algorithm.�
Apr 6, 2014
Gear Yep. I think it'd just invite more problems as people unfamiliar with how batteries work would be asking why it doesn't show 85kWh or 60kWh on a full charge, or on the other end why it still shows X amount of kWh but they're stranded on the side of the road with a dead battery. Miles is the easiest for most people to understand.�
Apr 6, 2014
apacheguy Ok, those are all fair points. I just feel like every time we start this discussion we are bound to begin delving into deciphering "complex algorithms" that change with every iteration of the firmware. It'd be nice to have a simple unit to gauge capacity that is purely based on SOC and pack voltages that is uniform across the entire fleet. I'm thinking like GID values (Nissan Leaf) or CAC.�
Apr 6, 2014
jerry33 Isn't that the one they call the Guess-O-Metre?�
Apr 6, 2014
SFOTurtle My first 90% charge after receiving 5.9 was 177, up about 8 rated miles from what I was consistently seeing 169 on 5.8.10 and prior versions.
Using VisibleTesla, I charged to 93% SOC before driving up to SF last night, and rated was 183. That seems pretty close to what I was seeing when I first got the car before the firmware change that dropped the SOC from 93 to 90. I thought about charging to 100% yesterday before heading up to the city to get another data point for us 60 owners, but with the PG&E EV plan, I would have been at peak rates over the last 7% of the charge and to completion, so decided I could wait for my next road trip.
I just crossed over 17k miles on the car this morning.�
Apr 6, 2014
gaswalla No, the gom is the Nissan range predictor... Gids are actual energy units remaining.�
Apr 7, 2014
metafor That's not really true though....
Rated miles is an estimate that varies based on the energy efficiency of the car. But kWH is the absolute capacity of the battery that is independent of how efficient the car is. How much energy you have left (within ~1% for measurement accuracy) isn't a guess.�
Apr 7, 2014
dennis Rated range is needed to estimate how much farther we can drive without charging. Absolute KWH is needed to measure battery degradation. Neither metric works well for the other purpose.�
Apr 7, 2014
Gear But the rated miles are just as consistent as they're based on a fixed Wh/mi and don't change based on past driving.�
Apr 7, 2014
tomas First range charge on 5.9. "A" battery pack, ~12,000 miles and 15 months on car.
Have now also done 70%, 80%, 90% SOC (measured by tick on charging bar, not VisibleTesla).
Here are values (as close as possible to end of charge):
Soooo� With 5.9, less than full is now tracking pretty darned close to linear % of max.
% Charge 5.8.x rated miles 5.9 rated miles 100 251 251 90 218 226 80 192 202 70 165 178
BUT, range charge is still exactly the same. I think that is pretty close to Tesla's explanation, they "fixed" algorithm at the midpoints so it doesn't "lose" range.
The 251 max means one of 3 things:
1) The "balancers" are right, and I've lost some range to imbalanced battery (I seldom range charge).
2) I've lost ~5% of battery capacity.
3) Other factors in constantly evolving algorithm are causing a new range charge max.
None of which is going to keep me up at night!�
Apr 7, 2014
jerry33 If they can measure kWh hours remaining within 1% you're right. However, they and others have said many times that the only way to measure the kWh capacity is to balance the pack, do a range charge, and run it to zero. Anything else is just an estimate.�
Apr 7, 2014
Denarius I'm seeing almost exactly the same miles pre/post 5.9 on a "B" pack at 18,000 miles (owned the car 9 months). I charge to 80% daily.
- - - Updated - - -
Also, after performing the update my ranger was doing other work and I was able to pull up the BMS diagnostic screen. One of my cells was out of balance.�
Apr 7, 2014
techmaven I recently had a reason to range charge and drive and range charge again and drive.
Last December when the car was just over 2 months old, I was able to range charge to 267. The other week I range charged to 260 at home. Drove to Blacksburg, arriving with 13 rated miles left. Range charged again and got 264, but it was still topping off when I left, so 265 is definitely possible.
So basically, in 6 months/5000 miles, I probably saw 2 rated miles lost. I usually keep the SoC between 40 and 70% I'll have need to range charge again this week and I will see if I get back to 267.�
Apr 7, 2014
hans KWh remaining is an estimate (based on the measured voltage)
Rated range is and estimate based on the estimate above.�
Apr 9, 2014
bluetinc All,
With the weather turning warmer, I've finally been able to re-verify the Battery Pack Voltage at 0 miles of range left. I was running 5.8.8 (1.49.90), so I also took the opportunity to chart the Pack/Cell voltage vs. SOC(State of Charge) vs. the rated range of my car. I then reran the set of tests the next day with 5.9 installed. First and foremost, I can now unequivocally state that since the third day that I had my car (it was running 4.0 software) to today running 5.9 (.88) the point at which 0 miles is shown on the dashboard has NOT changed (other than battery degradation). The full pack voltage then and now at 0 rated miles left is ~316V. Below are some quick charts that I made from my data. Combining the info from islandbayy on when his car shut down, I think it's safe to say some key cell states of charge are:
4.15 Fully charged, 85% SOC 4.0V (5.8) and 83% 5.9, 3.7V ~50% SOC charged on 5.8 and ~40% on 5.9, 3.3V = 0 rated range, 3.1V = car stops moving (Not tested by me!).
On my car, it is clear that 5.9 has changed a few things:
1. My rated range energy unit has been reduced from ~306 Wh/mi to ~300Wh/mi. This has inflated my displayed range by ~2%.
2. The battery SOC has been modified to no longer show the �reserve miles�. Doing this has inflated the displayed range. This is most noticeable at lower SOC�s and has no effect at 100% SOC.
Even with this, my Ideal miles energy unit (265 Wh/mi) does not seem to have changed at all.
A few testing notes,
5.8:
5.8.8 1.49.90
51F after 50 miles
29,639 odo
energy eff off
Heater off radio off/down .7 ? .8A draw idle
7-45 attempted to terminate myself near the low end of the %
50% + let the car terminate at set percentage
seems tp terminate at exactly %.0 on the dot
5.9:
5.9 1.50.88
51F after 100 miles
29,875 odo
energy eff off
Heater off radio off/down .7 ? .8A draw idle
7-45 attempted to terminate myself near the low end of the %
50% + let the car terminate at set percentage
Car seems to terminate after %.0
Below is a graph of Pack Voltage, Rated and Ideal miles, all normalized to the actual amount of drivable energy in the battery. The reduction in Pack Voltage (5.9) between 50-80% is due to other cars sharing my Supercharger, and the increased settling time between those measurements:
Here is the raw data vs. SOC before the normalization:
And here is a nice Pack and Cell Voltage vs. Displayed SOC under 5.9:
Peter�
Apr 9, 2014
yobigd20 44.2k miles, 229 miles on 90% charge v5.8�
Apr 9, 2014
tomas And your point is????�
Apr 9, 2014
eepic I think you quoted it.. just another battery data point for a car that's done decent mileage.�
Apr 9, 2014
yobigd20 yep, just logging my stats as a data point.�
Apr 9, 2014
tomas OK if people are going to just report stuff, let's do it in a useful manner. The battery table @ http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showwiki.php?title=Battery+table was integral in determining the correlation between A batteries and 90 kW charging limitation. Because it accumulated data, was fact vs. anecdote.
I've added several columns:
5.9 Miles
Rated @ 100%Odometer
<@Locale RangeChg
Freq
(often/seldom)
If you are already in table, please add your data. 5.9 reports only please, so we don't have potential of firmware version variance.
Intended to figure out if age, mileage, pack version, geography, range charging (balancing) have any correlation to rated miles.
If you are not in table, easy enough to add� trying to keep in VIN sequence, so please insert your row in right place. If that's not clear, lemme know.�
Apr 9, 2014
brianman With that rationale, why do they display kW prominently on the right arc in the center of the instrument cluster?
As others have stated, two levels of estimation is worse than one.
- - - Updated - - -
We have many posts on TMC and some statements from Tesla employees saying otherwise. Both that it would vary across driver and that it changes across firmware releases.�
Apr 9, 2014
scaesare One possible reason: The instantaneous power draw you refer to is unique to an electric vehicle, and is a method to reflect not only the power consumed, but also that regenerated. There is no real direct analogous metric on an ICE vehicle that people would need to adapt from in order to understand.
kWH as a unit of "fuel" remaining has very little meaning ot most people, I'd bet, unlike "gallons" or "miles".
I'm not saying that choosing to display the remaining charge as an estimate of mileage is what I'd prefer, but suggest that may be the rationale behind choosing to use it for the vast public. I'd like the choice to optionally display it as kWh or percentage...�
Apr 10, 2014
DriverOne Data point for 60KWh, all on v5.8 with 90% charge.
14000 miles, 13 months, typically charges to 173 miles.
1000 miles, age ? (loaner), charged to 181 miles.
A loss of 8 miles after a year, or about 4%.
However... while mine has been charging to 173 miles for quite some time, recently I did a couple of range charges (which apparently changed nothing), then a supercharge, which took it up to 176! Actual loss somewhere between 2 and 4% then?�
Apr 10, 2014
TexasEV No, remember range displays are estimates and do not necessarily mean actual changes in the battery. Sometimes it's the estimate that changes even on the same firmware version, and that can vary depending on how the battery has been charged lately and also the temperature. This data does not tell you if there is an actual loss or how much it is.�
Apr 10, 2014
efusco Here's mine:
I was given a P85+ loaner with ~5000 miles while my car was in for service. On SW v. 5.9 the 90% SOC rated range was 241 miles. When I got my car back (28,500 miles) with 5.9 the 90% SOC rated range was 233 (was 221 miles on 5.8). Looks like I've lost around 8 miles (maybe 10 on a full charge?) over the last 16 months. I originally got 242 miles rated (obviously previous firmware), so 3.8% loss (assuming the calculation of range is similar to my original firmware--which is a huge assumption to make).�
Apr 11, 2014
yobigd20 Rated range changed BEFORE I upgraded to v5.9
Ok so my 90% charge on v5.8 was always around 221-223 miles. Now, the other day when I was getting ready to go to work I was going to preheat my car and I noticed the rated range was showing 229 miles. Awesome jump I thought! So as I went out to my car that morning, I got the pop up to install v5.9. As I didn't have time to install, I hit the 'X' and went to work. @work I recharged back to 229 again. "awesome" I was thinking again. That night, I installed v5.9. The next morning, 229 miles again. And every 90% charge since - 229 miles.
So my point of this is that it seems they changed the rated range algorithm as soon as the software was downloaded , but not "installed" yet. I guess they pre-install some things as soon as it's downloaded. Not really relevant too much, just an observation that I thought I'd point that out.�
Apr 11, 2014
metafor IIRC, the "rated miles" does change based on driving pattern. The "ideal miles" option doesn't, which is the same as displaying kWH. But I'd rather not have to do that conversion in my head.�
Apr 11, 2014
tomas i do not think this is fact and there is little evidence to support.�
Apr 11, 2014
qwk I have seen this phenomenon also, but it didn't make much sense, so I didn't post it here. Mine had to do with door handles when Tesla pinged the car with FW 4.5. As soon as the new FW was received but not installed, the drivers door handle wouldn't open the car. A fuse reset helped with the problem, and then the SC replaced handles.�
Apr 11, 2014
hans My S60 seems to be much better now with 5.9 (1.51.94)
It sleeps through the night without inexplicably waking up every few hours as before.
As a result, my vampire drain was down to ~1 mile overnight yesterday.
My "lost" range has returned to pretty much what it was when the car was new. 90% SOC is 177 rated miles, 93% SOC is 184 rated miles.
All this came without purposely trying to rebalance the pack or doing any deep cycles of the battery.
I just applied the firmware upgrade and did a single trip charge. Not once have I done a 100% charge.�
Apr 11, 2014
yobigd20 I wonder if their new rated range algorithm is: newRange = oldRange + 8;�
Apr 11, 2014
Lloyd except at full range charge at completion. That is the only stable point for comparison. Any other point can't be used for comparision as it varies by software algorithm.�
Apr 11, 2014
brianman I don't your example proves this conclusion, but regardless of that this is in an interesting theory to explore as we evaluate firmware rollouts going forward.
I wouldn't be surprised to see this is the case for some aspects of the update process -- whether it's "by design" or "by implementation". In short, software is complicated.�
Apr 11, 2014
jweinstein Peter,
Regarding #2 below, how has 5.9 impacted the "buffer" below a rated range of 0 miles? Is it still about 5.1 kWh or roughly 17 miles?
Thanks,
Josh
�
Apr 12, 2014
russman New Model S picked up 3/21 only about 1000 miles.
My standard charge 90% has been 240 miles.
Did my first range charge, it still said 5 mins left before I had to unplug and it said - 268 miles�
Apr 12, 2014
Cottonwood My car is an early Signature, VIN 000037, with 18,500 miles in 19 months and its original "A" battery.
With 5.8 last month, and after several balancing cycles, the best I could get on a 100% charge was 254 miles. I then did a lot of Supercharging and 4,500 miles of driving in 2 weeks, but the best I got was 254 Rated Miles even towards the end of the trip with 5.8.
Last night with 5.9, I did a 100% charge, but did not leave enough time to get to charge complete before a longish drive. Even with an 80 Amp HPWC, I have to remember to leave 2 hours to get to 100% from 90%; I had only given myself an hour or so. My MS got to 258 miles but was there for 20 minutes as the current ramped down from 14 to 8 Amps, totaling about 0.8 kW-hr of AC energy or maybe 0.7 kW-hr of DC energy. At that point, I had to unplug and start my drive. The energy/trip display showed that I used 1.5 kW-hr of energy before the Rated Miles dropped from 258 to 257. Obviously, the Rated Miles estimate at this end of a 100% charge is a fuzzy estimate. If I take the optimistic view that that 1.5 kW-hr used can be equated to about 5 Rated Miles, then I got to 257+5 or 262 Rated Miles on this 99.8% charge, not bad for 19 months and 18,500 miles... :wink:�
Apr 12, 2014
SarahsDad My 90% charge went from 231 to 236 when I upgraded to 5.9 (Range mode off).
What's more interesting is on 5.9, my max charge went from 263 to 266 just by turning on Range Mode.
(It had been sitting at 1 minute remaining for at least 10 minutes...)
8,600 miles so far.�
Apr 12, 2014
tdiggity 16,000 miles
90% on 5.8 = 214
90% on 5.9 = 220
100% on 5.8 = 233
100% on 5.9 = 244
10% degradation in since March 2013.�
Apr 13, 2014
WarpedOne You got those numbers by charging to 100% and then driving over some constant ground - like circling a covered stadium - until the car shut down i.e. stopped?
If not, those numbers really don't mean anything substantial. they are just predictions based on various measurements. Their 'error margin' is wll over 10%.�
Apr 13, 2014
Gear And losing 21 miles would be 8% degradation, not 10%.�
Apr 13, 2014
Kraken strange.. I have the same 90% numbers before and after 5.9, but my 100% was 253 on 5.8 and untested on 5.9�
Apr 13, 2014
Cottonwood Actually, I beg to differ.
If you use the Rated Miles as a unit of energy (290 Wh/mi for my S85) and correct for actual Wh/mi used, then I have the Rated Miles in the battery to be good to a percent or two of reality. For every trip where I actually did the accounting, in over 18,500 miles of driving, this has been correct.�
Apr 13, 2014
tdiggity Actually, I did go down to 5 miles remaining and did a 100% charge before reporting back. Also, as noted in this thread A senior tesla executive's comforting answer to concerns re:
The distance driven matched the rated miles for the drive with 306wh/mi.
I feel like we're quick to jump on people when they talk about degradation, but isn't this degradation supposed to be expected? Of course, I'm sad about it, but at the end of the day, i'm not really. I was able to make my journey with the superchargers with enough buffer range. I empathize with the 60kwH's more when I think about the 4+ year outlook on their range.�
Apr 13, 2014
dirkhh I think we have learned enough about the rated miles reading (err... estimate) in the 40-90% SOC range being way off. So that's why people ask to know if you went down "low enough" to have a good feeling if the rated miles reading was reasonably accurate.
I have driven my car down to single digits way too often (different story - I do own a 60), and with 5.8 the estimates actually were not so great. With 5.9 I haven't had the "opportunity" to run the battery that far down, so I can't say if the estimates have gotten better. My 90% charge has increased quite a bit (171 -> 181) and with that number I'd be down only a couple of miles from where I started 13k miles ago - so maybe 1% degradation. My last 100% charge was 201 - also about 1% down.�
Apr 13, 2014
AmpedRealtor Driving your battery down to single digits and charging it to 100% are both behaviors that will result in greater battery degradation over time. So those who are doing those things should not be surprised, at all, that they may have some degradation. Not only is it expected for everyone, but it would be expected to be slightly higher for those engaging in the described behavior.�
Apr 13, 2014
dirkhh Of course. I rarely charge to 100% - but with a 60 you end up having to do that more often than with an 85. All the drives down to single digits (and once past 0) were mostly, err, unintentional...�
Apr 13, 2014
Gear The evidence so far doesn't seem to back that up. I think the real damage comes from the car sitting in either of the aforementioned states for long periods. I really don't think charging to 100% and starting your journey shortly after or arriving at home with 5 miles and then charging immediately are all that bad for the battery.�
Apr 13, 2014
islandbayy I agree with my findings so far. Over 26,000 miles in 10 months on my 60 (and that number is going to start jumping rapidly now that summer is back!), and my full 100% charge is STILL 206-209 rated. My delivery range was 209.
I completly drain and do 100% charges more then 99.999% of drivers (Multiple drains below 10 miles remaining, and multiple 100% charges weekly). I estimate I'm around 150 full 100% charges and close to 200 drains below 10miles now since getting the vehicle. Am I lucky? Maybe. I just use my car for what Tesla says I should. If I need the range, do the 100%. If I dont, I charge to 90%. When I'm not using my car, I plug it in�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét