# Model 3 LR RWD bumped to 325mi



## webdriverguy

so long range with premium interior is now 325miles ... wowww


----------



## webdriverguy

webdriverguy said:


> so long range with premium interior is now 325miles ... wowww


So ppl with long range premium interior have a software locked battery? How is this car going 325 miles


----------



## ATown312

Regarding the 325 miles: RWD LR has always been known to be more efficient than the AWD variants. I think they are just now reflecting that in the stated mileage.. no software locked battery.


----------



## Thorongil

webdriverguy said:


> So ppl with long range premium interior have a software locked battery? How is this car going 325 miles


Electrek mentions firmware update for 325 mi unlock...


----------



## 2Kap

So the website now shows a range of 325 for the Model 3 - Long Range - Rear Wheel Drive. 
Do you think thats a hardware adjustment for newer cars, or a software update allowing for more range?

As a LR-RWD owner i hope its a software thing.


----------



## PcGuy

Electrek.co indicated it was a "Firmware Upgrade", so software!


----------



## Bogdan

Looks like we will be getting some software update in the near future and get our 310 miles RWD up to 325 miles range. Love the OTA updates !!!


----------



## Derik

You're missing a point there.. "add an average of approximately 5% peak power to all Model 3 vehicles"
Where else do you gain power via an OTA update.


----------



## John

Plus 5% more peak power.


----------



## PcGuy

John said:


> Plus 5% more peak power.


So i believe it was originally listed from 0-60 at 5.1 seconds (or 5.2 I forget now), but initial firmware clocked it at 4.6 seconds. A few months later firmware changed and still now its clocked at 4.8 seconds. Does this mean we are going back down to 4.6?


----------



## SolanaModel3

From the PR:
"We’re also excited to announce that we’re implementing a number of firmware upgrades for both new and existing customers. These upgrades will increase the range of the Long Range Rear-Wheel Drive Model 3 to 325 miles"

It's firmware! YASSSSSSSSSSS!!


----------



## garsh

Source:
https://www.tesla.com/blog/35000-tesla-model-3-available-now


----------



## tencate

SolanaModel3 said:


> These upgrades will increase the range of the Long Range Rear-Wheel Drive Model 3 to 325 miles


Not sure what the big deal is.  I'm already getting better than that. This based on over 30k miles, over a full year of driving in all conditions, snowy cold winters on snow tires for 10,000 of those miles, my average overall range works out to 330 miles. But if they make Max even better, I'm even happier. Bravo Tesla.


----------



## Bigriver

To give more peak power, it sounds like something in the firmware may actually be changing how the car performs. But as it has been known that LR RWD is more efficient (lower Wh/mile) than the dual motor versions, it would seem that the firmware update would simply be revising the definition of a "rated mile" so that a battery at 100% SOC now states a range of 325 miles. I don't think anything is going to change that makes the car go further. Just acknowledging what already existed. That is my bet.


----------



## FF35

Bigriver said:


> To give more peak power, it sounds like something in the firmware may actually be changing how the car performs. But as it has been known that LR RWD is more efficient (lower Wh/mile) than the dual motor versions, it would seem that the firmware update would simply be revising the definition of a "rated mile" so that a battery at 100% SOC now states a range of 325 miles. I don't think anything is going to change that makes the car go further. Just acknowledging what already existed. That is my bet.


I agree except for one thing. If they allow more use of the buffer zone that would allow more range.


----------



## John

Sounds like they are de-nerfing the low end (0-30 mph). Just a guess.


----------



## SolanaModel3

tencate said:


> Not sure what the big deal is.  I'm already getting better than that. This based on over 30k miles, over a full year of driving in all conditions, snowy cold winters on snow tires for 10,000 of those miles, my average overall range works out to 330 miles. But if they make Max even better, I'm even happier. Bravo Tesla.


I don't know how you drive, but at the wheel of this little devil I barely get 280... So with the boost maybe I'll get 290? Wait. Forgot about the 5% power boost. Right. I'll probably get 270 now


----------



## cook_diesel

tencate said:


> Not sure what the big deal is.  I'm already getting better than that. This based on over 30k miles, over a full year of driving in all conditions, snowy cold winters on snow tires for 10,000 of those miles, my average overall range works out to 330 miles. But if they make Max even better, I'm even happier. Bravo Tesla.


IMO that extra range could come in handy if you're on a road trip & you're close to reaching your destination but don't want to stop at a supercharger. That extra 15 miles can make a huge difference. And it is a free range increase.


----------



## NEO

I've been on 2 long road trips. I definitely never got over 310 miles range and sometimes less depending on speed, wind, hills, etc


----------



## Kizzy

When the LR RWD car was first tested by the EPA in the U.S. it was given a range rating higher than 310 miles. Tesla lowered it to keep the AWD cars attractive (that’s my speculation on motive, but Tesla did lower the range) and are now being more open about it’s true range.


----------



## azentropy

cook_diesel said:


> IMO that extra range could come in handy if you're on a road trip & you're close to reaching your destination but don't want to stop at a supercharger. That extra 15 miles can make a huge difference. And it is a free range increase, what's not to love.


Yep. I'm making a trip next week from my house in Surprise AZ to Indio, CA (staying at a resort only a few miles from the supercharger there). The other times I've taken that route it has suggested I stop in Quartzsite (which I have) for ~10 minutes even though I'm pretty sure I would make it. So that extra 15 mile buffer might change that equation.


----------



## SR22pilot

Everyone please listen. I doubt you will get any extra range in real life. What will happen is that a LR-RWD will show 325 when at 100%. Right now it shows 310. In neither case does that reflect what you will actually get. It depends on a lot of factors. When the EPA tested the LR-RWD they got something like 334 (according to garsh). I forget the exact number but Tesla decided to ask the EPA to lower the rating. I think it was to avoid the M3 LR-RWD being the longest range Tesla and longer range than the AWD. Tesla has backed away from that since they now want the customer who is in a lower income demographic. If Tesla pulls some magic and frees up extra real storage I will be very surprised.

UPDATE: Corrected EPA tested range and made spelling corrections


----------



## Bigriver

FF35 said:


> I agree except for one thing. If they allow more use of the buffer zone that would allow more range.


If they were using the buffer zone, I don't think they would do that just for the LR RWD.


----------



## NJturtlePower

SR22pilot said:


> Everyone please listen. I doubt you will get any extra range in real life. What will happen is that a LR-RWD will show 325 when at 100%. Right now it shows 310. In neither case does that reflect what you will actually get. It depends on a lot of factors. When the EPA tested the LR-RWD they got something like 325. I forget the exact number but Tesla decided to ask the EPA to lower the rating. I think it was to avoid the M3 LR-RWD being the longest range Tesla and longer range than the AWD. Tesla has backed away form that since they now want the customer who is in a lower income demographic. If Tesla pulls soem majic and frees up extra real storage I will be very surprised.


I think any current owner realizes we'll never see a full 15mi added, not in actual road miles anyway, but its the 5% peak bump that's exciting.

The 0-60 will drop by at least 1/10's in response to this bump ( LR RWD now rated at 5.0s) which is most exciting for myself, but regardless this all coming from unlocking a certain amount of "buffer" in our packs that was being software limited.

I have no doubt there is more to unlock in the actual hardware, but it's a delicate balancing act of what are the limits and how hard do they want to push the warranty.


----------



## garsh

SR22pilot said:


> When the EPA tested the LR-RWD they got something like 325. I forget the exact number but Tesla decided to ask the EPA to lower the rating.


It was 334 miles.
link


----------



## SR22pilot

garsh said:


> It was 334 miles.
> link


Thanks!


----------



## Hugh_Jassol

I wonder why there wasn't an equivalent ~5% increase in the range of the Mid-Range (for us 'poor' people)? 260->272?


----------



## NJturtlePower

Hugh_Jassol said:


> I wonder why there wasn't an equivalent ~5% increase in the range of the Mid-Range (for us 'poor' people)? 260->272?


Maybe less buffer/overhead available due to less cells would be my guess....


----------



## jsmay311

Kizzy said:


> When the LR RWD car was first tested by the EPA in the U.S.[...]





SR22pilot said:


> When the EPA tested the LR-RWD[...]


People keep saying "when the EPA tested..."

The vast majority of "EPA tests" aren't done by the EPA. They are done by the automakers or testing firms contracted by the automakers to conform with EPA-mandated test procedures. (See the EPA explain this here: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml)

In the case of the Model 3, specifically, the documents available online show that the Model 3 was tested in Fremont on 6/16/2017, then Tesla sent the EPA the results on 6/21/2017 along with a letter _requesting _their certification, then the EPA issued the certification on 7/5/2017.


----------



## jsmay311

cook_diesel said:


> IMO that extra range could come in handy if you're on a road trip & you're close to reaching your destination but don't want to stop at a supercharger. That extra 15 miles can make a huge difference. And it is a free range increase.


Or, as others have already pointed out, they're possibly/probably just reducing the Wh/mile number used in the software to calculate a "rated" mile and you're not actually gaining any extra usable battery capacity or real-life range.


----------



## iChris93

Hugh_Jassol said:


> I wonder why there wasn't an equivalent ~5% increase in the range of the Mid-Range (for us 'poor' people)? 260->272?


You got a bigger drop in 0-60 instead!


----------



## SolanaModel3

jsmay311 said:


> Or, as others have already pointed out, they're possibly/probably just reducing the Wh/mile number used in the software to calculate a "rated" mile and you're not actually gaining any extra usable battery capacity or real-life range.


I strongly disagree with what's been pointed out by you and others...
If they are taking the time to tweak the motor output to supposedly add that power boost, it would just be silly to just change the guess-o-meter wh/mi ratio and not actually change the effective range...
And by silly, I mean it would make absolutely no sense whatsoever...


----------



## SR22pilot

SolanaModel3 said:


> I strongly disagree with what's been pointed out by you and others...
> If they are taking the time to tweak the motor output to supposedly add that power boost, it would just be silly to just change the guess-o-meter wh/mi ratio and not actually change the effective range...
> And by silly, I mean it would make absolutely no sense whatsoever...


Why is it silly? If the EPA test said 334, what is silly going from 310 to 325? With new competition entering the market it is imperative that Tesla push a range advantage when it has one.


----------



## SolanaModel3

SR22pilot said:


> Why is it silly? If the EPA test said 334, what is silly going from 310 to 325? With new competition entering the market it is imperative that Tesla push a range advantage when it has one.


Yeah, it's silly because the engineers worked on changing the motor output, so with the same battery capacity the real-life range cannot be unaffected.
It's not just fudging the guess-o-meter to get closer to the EPA estimate.


----------



## SR22pilot

SolanaModel3 said:


> Yeah, it's silly because the engineers worked on changing the motor output, so with the same battery capacity the real-life range cannot be unaffected.
> It's not just fudging the guess-o-meter to get closer to the EPA estimate.


Changing the max current draw allowed doesn't affect EPA test cycle range. It just affects max power to the motor and hence 0-60 times. Under normal driving you won't be doing max acceleration runs. The AWD and Performance (for example) will be accelerating the same and using the same current if on the same tires. Nothing indicates battery capacity (in KWH) has changed. For example, a Performance and a regular AWD get the same range IF you put the same wheels on them. In real life there is a much bigger hit going from LR-RWD with Aero wheels to the AWD with 19" wheels. I know. I own both.


----------



## slasher016

There's also a possibility there's a very small change in the motor algorithm that leads to more efficiency so it uses less energy to go the same distance as previous.


----------



## cook_diesel

I found a GM Press Release from some years back about the Chevy Volt where GM publicized an incremental battery range increase from 35 miles to 38 for the 2013 MY Volt and at the time this was a big deal considering this occurred during the mid-cycle period of the car. Throughout the article the engineers explained that they were able to slightly manipulate the battery cell chemistry and increase performance while achieving this new range. Although the tactics used to achieve a range increase would vary significantly for both GM vs. Tesla it stands to reason that this would indeed be possible using virtually the same battery packs. I could be wrong, but I just cannot quantify why Telsa would make an official announcement about a range increase without it translating into real world numbers.


----------



## Leggers

I feel left out of the Tesla love. Having an AWD non performance I got no range increase and no reduction in quoted 0-60 still 310 and 4.5 sec. All the other versions got something. Come on Elon send some love my way.

Greg.


----------



## iChris93

cook_diesel said:


> slightly manipulate the battery cell chemistry


This seems impossible without changing the battery.


----------



## SR22pilot

slasher016 said:


> There's also a possibility there's a very small change in the motor algorithm that leads to more efficiency so it uses less energy to go the same distance as previous.


That's possible. However, since previous testing on the EPA cycle gave a range of 334 and they have just moved it from 310 to 325 then I'm going with just an advertised range change. Notice that other cars kept the 310. That's because they test at 310 or lower. (yes lower if not on 18" Aero wheels). WHy not all the way to 334? I'm guessing so it doesn't make the Model S 100D look too bad or draw people away form the AWD Model 3. If they really made the motor mere efficient then why not change the AWD Model 3? It has the same rear motor as the RWD. I think the 5% is a 5% increase in max allowed current which means slightly more power which means a better 0-60. You do realize I hope that an AWD can be changed to a performance with software (neglecting difference in brakes. tires and suspension). My AWD would do 0-60 in about 3.2 seconds if the software was tweaked. No hardware change needed.


----------



## cook_diesel

iChris93 said:


> This seems impossible without changing the battery.


Quote taken directly from the article:

_"The best way to explain what we've done at the cell level is to compare it to a cake batter recipe. Sometimes if you use more sugar and less vanilla you get a better tasting cake. We've done some work at the cell level to modify the 'ingredients' to make a better end result," said Bill Wallace, GM director of Global Battery Systems Engineering._

_In addition, the total storage capacity of the Volt battery has been increased from 16 kWh of energy to 16.5 kWh, and engineers have expanded the state-of-charge window to use 10.8 kWh of the total battery energy - up from 10.3 kWh used in the 2012 model. The battery system maintains a buffer to ensure battery life, but that buffer has been reduced."_


----------



## SR22pilot

Leggers said:


> I feel left out of the Tesla love. Having an AWD non performance I got no range increase and no reduction in quoted 0-60 still 310 and 4.5 sec. All the other versions got something. Come on Elon send some love my way.
> 
> Greg.


Man, am I with you. There is plenty of room between AWD and Performance. How about a drop to 0-60 to 3.9 sec? When you could buy the Performance without the brake/tire/suspension upgrade there was a Performance delivered as an AWD. After the buyer pointed it out the delivery guy made a phone call and a little bit later it was a Performance.


----------



## jsmay311

slasher016 said:


> There's also a possibility there's a very small change in the motor algorithm that leads to more efficiency so it uses less energy to go the same distance as previous.


It's all just guesses and conjecture at this point. But the simplest explanation is usual the correct one, and IMO the simplest explanation is that they're just allowing a few extra amps to go through the motor to get a tiny acceleration improvement and reducing the Wh/mile number in the software that calculates the range since Tesla previously voluntarily derated the RWD rated range.

Tweaking software for an existing motor to increase efficiency by 5% _without any hardware changes_ would be one heckuva achievement, and unlikely in my view.

Either way, until we have more info clarifying the situation, anyone speculating on the subject should be clear that they are in fact speculating and not stating fact so readers don't get the wrong idea. (My $0.02.)


----------



## iChris93

cook_diesel said:


> Quote taken directly from the article:
> 
> _"The best way to explain what we've done at the cell level is to compare it to a cake batter recipe. Sometimes if you use more sugar and less vanilla you get a better tasting cake. We've done some work at the cell level to modify the 'ingredients' to make a better end result," said Bill Wallace, GM director of Global Battery Systems Engineering._
> 
> _In addition, the total storage capacity of the Volt battery has been increased from 16 kWh of energy to 16.5 kWh, and engineers have expanded the state-of-charge window to use 10.8 kWh of the total battery energy - up from 10.3 kWh used in the 2012 model. The battery system maintains a buffer to ensure battery life, but that buffer has been reduced."_


Must've been on new cars then.


----------



## tencate

garsh said:


> It was 334 miles.


Interesting I didn't know that. Just checked the math on my car, assuming I can access the whole 75 kWh and am willing to drive the car from full charge to zero _and_ assuming the current overall-average-since-new efficiency number on the display is accurate---after 30,000+ miles, more than a year of driving, and some winter driving with snow tires no less I get *75000 Wh / 226 Wh/mile = 332 miles of range. *

Edit: I actually hope we do get more real range, can't wait to see! In spite of being quite happy with what I do get, more is always better. Also fixed the math typo, it's a divide, not a multiply


----------



## fsKotte

2Kap said:


> So the website now shows a range of 325 for the Model 3 - Long Range - Rear Wheel Drive.
> Do you think thats a hardware adjustment for newer cars, or a software update allowing for more range?
> 
> As a LR-RWD owner i hope its a software thing.
> View attachment 22617


Until I see reliable info that states otherwise, it's likely that this bump to 325 mi range is simply a change to the wh/mi rated range constant used.

At 310 miles rated range, the car assumes 242 wh/mi consumption. Since the EPA rated the LR RWD at 334 miles, all Tesla has to do is change that wh/mi constant from 242 down to 230.8, and viola, 325 miles rated range. Literally just a change in one number in the calculation of Rated Range. And since 325 is still less than the 334 miles EPA rated it, Tesla is likely within it's rights, so to speak, to just adjust the constant wh/mi assumption down to 230.8, and still get a number lower than the 334 miles range the EPA got.

I hope I'm wrong. I hope there are real efficiencies that are being added/unlocked. But until I see a better explanation of just exactly how they're getting to 325, I'm skeptical it's anything more than just a change in the denominator value of the formula used to calculate rated range. . . .

(and so that means, for those of us who have been averaging around 265-ish wh/mi for the life of the car, which is where I am, if all they do is reduce the assumed constant consumption from 242 4o 230.8m, then that means only that my remaining rated range displayed next to the speedo will simply drop a bit more quickly . . . . )


----------



## fsKotte

Bigriver said:


> To give more peak power, it sounds like something in the firmware may actually be changing how the car performs. But as it has been known that LR RWD is more efficient (lower Wh/mile) than the dual motor versions, it would seem that the firmware update would simply be revising the definition of a "rated mile" so that a battery at 100% SOC now states a range of 325 miles. I don't think anything is going to change that makes the car go further. Just acknowledging what already existed. That is my bet.


I fear you're exactly right, but I hope you're wrong . . . .Still, I can only assume it's simply a change in the rated wh/mi. If they take wh/mi from the current 242 wh/mi for LR RWD's, and just change it to 230.8 wh/mi - voila, a 325 mile range car.

I hope it's more than this, though I have yet to see anything that suggests otherwise.


----------



## fsKotte

SolanaModel3 said:


> I strongly disagree with what's been pointed out by you and others...
> If they are taking the time to tweak the motor output to supposedly add that power boost, it would just be silly to just change the guess-o-meter wh/mi ratio and not actually change the effective range...
> And by silly, I mean it would make absolutely no sense whatsoever...


Well, it's not a guess-o-meter (like it is in other EV's); it's a "Rated Range-o-Meter" that uses, in RWD LR cars, an assumed constant of 242 wh/mi to get to the rated 310 miles.

Why is it silly for Tesla to simply change that 242 wh/mi reading to 230.8, which gets you a new rated range of 325, which 325 is still less than the EPA initially rated the car (334 miles)? Tesla would essentially be within their rights to do this, as it doesn't conflict/inflate the range vis-a-vis the EPA rated range, so why not just take advantage of some of that headroom the EPA number provides?

I hope I'm wrong, but I'll need to understand more about how they're getting to 325 to convince me.


----------



## fsKotte

SolanaModel3 said:


> Yeah, it's silly because the engineers worked on changing the motor output, so with the same battery capacity the real-life range cannot be unaffected.
> It's not just fudging the guess-o-meter to get closer to the EPA estimate.


Show me how then. I want you to be right . . . . but saying "they worked on changing the motor output, [so therefore range must be going up]." just doesn't cut it. How? What did they do, exactly?


----------



## tencate

fsKotte said:


> Show me how then. I want you to be right . . . . but saying "they worked on changing the motor output, [so therefore range must be going up]." just doesn't cut it. How? What did they do, exactly?


As one who hopes I actually get more real range, I can imagine software tweaking and optimization could eek out more range than the original car got. After all, they can tweak things so that our 0-60 mph times go up to exactly the advertised 5.1 s; they can also tweak things down to 5.0 s. They _do_ take lots of data on how we drive after all. Why isn't it possible they found a weigh to eek out more range? Fingers crossed.


----------



## Midnit3

Does anyone know why the dual motors did not go up in range? The P3D went up in speed and in my logical mind it seems the range should go up 30 based on dual.


----------



## FF35

Midnit3 said:


> Does anyone know why the dual motors did not go up in range? The P3D went up in speed and in my logical mind it seems the range should go up 30 based on dual.


Range go up 30 on a dual motor?


----------



## Kizzy

Midnit3 said:


> Does anyone know why the dual motors did not go up in range? The P3D went up in speed and in my logical mind it seems the range should go up 30 based on dual.


The original rated range for the RWD was 334 miles, but Tesla reduced it to 310. I believe Tesla is upping the range again (possible to tempt folks looking at cheaper cars to go for the LR). The AWD cars actually had to have a tweak to increase their rates range to 310 (I believe they would otherwise be closer to 308 miles).


----------



## SolanaModel3

fsKotte said:


> Show me how then. I want you to be right . . . . but saying "they worked on changing the motor output, [so therefore range must be going up]." just doesn't cut it. How? What did they do, exactly?


Nobody outside of Tesla knows exactly what they did yet. We'll know soon enough when the updates come out.
If I had to guess, I'd say they added power at low speed to boost acceleration and lower the 0-60 time, and optimize the cruising speed power to increase overall efficiency. Therefore upping the actual real-world range. 
But we'll see soon enough...


----------



## garsh

Kizzy said:


> The original rated range for the RWD was 334 miles, but Tesla reduced it to 310.


Likewise, the EPA testing gave a result of 307 miles for dual motor, and Tesla asked for an exception to advertise it as 310. Given how close it is to 310, and a desire to just advertise a single range value for all versions of the Model 3, that seemed reasonable. I don't know why they've decided to differentiate RWD/AWD range again.

So the LR RWD can get a range bump to 325 miles with no additional testing and no battery changes. But the AWD version doesn't have any "overhead" in the test results to allow that.


----------



## iChris93

garsh said:


> So the LR RWD can get a range bump to 325 miles with no additional testing and no battery changes. But the AWD version doesn't have any "overhead" in the test results to allow that.


So if they really tweaked something, besides the Wh/mi, maybe the AWD versions would get a bump after additional testing?


----------



## garsh

iChris93 said:


> So if they really tweaked something, besides the Wh/mi, maybe the AWD versions would get a bump after additional testing?


That's possible. Supposedly, the cars being produced now have a new battery pack compared to the ones made in 2017 and 2018. But that doesn't help existing vehicles.

Ref: https://www.fool.com/earnings/call-...-q2-2018-earnings-conference-call-transc.aspx

_We came up with a new design that achieves the same outcome, that's actually lighter, better, cheaper and will be introducing that around the end of this year, probably reach volume production on that in Q1 (2019) or something. That will make the car lighter, better, and cheaper and achieve a higher range. That line is under construction, will be active in about six months (ie - now)._​


----------



## SR22pilot

Midnit3 said:


> Does anyone know why the dual motors did not go up in range? The P3D went up in speed and in my logical mind it seems the range should go up 30 based on dual.


The rear motor on the Model 3 has permanent magnets. It isn't a pure induction motor like on the S and X. That means the AWD gets less range than the RWD since the rear motor can't be turned off. The AWD is already at the top end (slightly over) the tested range. The RWD isn't. By the way, the 310 is ONLY with the Aero wheels. Since the Performance only comes with 20" wheels now, its range rating is actually quite bogus and should be lowered more into the 270-280 range.


----------



## SR22pilot

tencate said:


> As one who hopes I actually get more real range, I can imagine software tweaking and optimization could eek out more range than the original car got. After all, they can tweak things so that our 0-60 mph times go up to exactly the advertised 5.1 s; they can also tweak things down to 5.0 s. They _do_ take lots of data on how we drive after all. Why isn't it possible they found a weigh to eek out more range? Fingers crossed.


Much more difficult to tweak for range. The tweak mentioned by Musk is just to allow a 5% increase in current. When you press the accelerator you vary the current to the motors. With that you get a certain speed. The change mentioned by Musk just means that when the pedal is fully depressed you will get more current than before and hence greater power out of the motor. I think you are engaging in very wishful thinking. Since you modulate the current when you drive, even if Tesla got a change under the EPA cycle it probably wouldn't change what you get. If you want longer range, change the way you drive. As for me, I have AWD with 19" wheels so I already get way less than rated range. My other car is RWD with 18" Aeros. It will get rated range on a nice day (dry 70 degree temp, smooth road, little stop and go) with my partner driving in chill mode.


----------



## tivoboy

There has always been talk at least that there is ~5kWh reserve of un-addressable power in the pack. At about 240w/mile, they would only have to expose or make 3kWh o that amount to be at least available to the user to get the extra 15 mile of indicated range. I WOULD like a tad bit more umpf though as it used to be.


----------



## dozenne

It's because it's rear wheel drive only and not the AWD. Less weight and battery draw equals about 15 miles total on a full charge. Personally I would rather have the AWD and hit chill mode if I need to conserve energy. I can understand the cost savings though for some.
Great option Elon! Thanks for bringing these to the masses as stated. Now just need more Superchargers! hahaha


----------



## tencate

SR22pilot said:


> If you want longer range, change the way you drive.


Point taken. But a counter point, replacing a mechanical distributor on an old ICE car (Triumph) I have with an electronic/programmable one netted me 2 more mpg highway mileage. I felt zero difference in the way the car drove, which was disappointing, but I did get an mpg bump as a result which pleased me. Isn't M3 drive by wire anyway? In a sense, the way I "drive" can be adjusted with software I think. That GO pedal is just a potentiometer or something? I suspect software and optimization routines can do a lot. I'll therefore continue on with my wishful thinking unless someone inside Tesla gives us the real skinny. Me? I do a lot of long distance trips and arriving at the Supercharger with a bit more range headroom would _always_ be welcome.


----------



## fsKotte

tencate said:


> As one who hopes I actually get more real range, I can imagine software tweaking and optimization could eek out more range than the original car got. After all, they can tweak things so that our 0-60 mph times go up to exactly the advertised 5.1 s; they can also tweak things down to 5.0 s. They _do_ take lots of data on how we drive after all. Why isn't it possible they found a weigh to eek out more range? Fingers crossed.


Hey, I hope - truly hope - that I'm wrong about them just tweaking the wh/mi numbers. I'd love some actual, real range increase. We're all just speculating now.

What's clear, though, is that if they wanted to, they really could just change that wh/mi number from 242 down to 230.8, and instantly get "325 miles range" on an otherwise unchanged 75 kwh battery (LR). There's no doubt that's fully do-able and would do the trick, and still keep the advertised range lower than what the EPA got. It's just that for everybody with such a LR battery, this route is the least desirable for the obvious reason that it really doesn't change your real range at all, per whatever your personal wh/mi ave. rate is on your car.

What we all are hoping for, is some other way they might do it than just a math adjustment. I'd love to learn more about whatever it is they're actually doing to get to 325. As you say - Fingers crossed.


----------



## fsKotte

SR22pilot said:


> If you want longer range, change the way you drive.


Yep, that's what "chill" mode can do for you, or just drive in a more "chill" manner, right? Hyper-miling always increases range, if you can stand to go 45 mph for your entire trip . . . . Even just coming off the line like the archetypal LittleOldLadyFromPasadena can help increase range. All well and good. Until Elon tweeted that we're all (LR folks) gonna get a 15 mile increase in range.

Now everybody expects that the *car* is going to go further, with any given way one drives. So now we're all ruminating and trying to figure out how he'll pull that off.

The easiest, though also 100% unsatisfying, way to do it is to just tweak the Rated Range equation and push wh/mi from 242 down to 230.8. Of course, that's a meaningless change for everyone (I already average 265 wh/mi, so what do I care, if the Rated wh/mi is 242 or 230.8? I still don't come close to hitting that).

And, really, if that's all they're going to do, then they shouldn't have said they're going to do anything, and just left it at 310 rated range. (I heard that the very newest Mod3's have a better/more efficient/lighter/cheaper battery pack that actually does have real increased range over 310 - good on all the new buyers, but don't tell us "old-timers" that we're going to get that, too, if really you're just going to tweak the rated range equation. Don't do me any favors like that.)

But the reality is that Elon/Tesla is/are the one(s) who put this whole 325 mile range tweak into play, and it's not unreasonable to think that he wouldn't have done that if he didn't have a way to actually achieve higher efficiencies, or tap some Kwh reserves in the battery - something real and not just a "trick" tweak of the rated range equation. I hope Tesla comes out with an explanation, though.

In the meantime, I'm assuming no real increase in range in my car, and I'll continue to simply enjoy driving it, which I do every time I get in it - regardless of 310 or 325 miles range showing on my screen.


----------



## SR22pilot

tencate said:


> Point taken. But a counter point, replacing a mechanical distributor on an old ICE car (Triumph) I have with an electronic/programmable one netted me 2 more mpg highway mileage. I felt zero difference in the way the car drove, which was disappointing, but I did get an mpg bump as a result which pleased me. Isn't M3 drive by wire anyway? In a sense, the way I "drive" can be adjusted with software I think. That GO pedal is just a potentiometer or something? I suspect software and optimization routines can do a lot. I'll therefore continue on with my wishful thinking unless someone inside Tesla gives us the real skinny. Me? I do a lot of long distance trips and arriving at the Supercharger with a bit more range headroom would _always_ be welcome.


You may be correct. In fact space aliens might have shown m\Musk how to cycle the battery in such a way that there is a permanent chemistry change for the better. I guess I tend to follow Occam's Razor and will until proven otherwise. We'll see. On a more serious note we could get into phasing on the motor but I suspect that would affect the AWD too.


----------



## ummgood

Another possibility is they worked hard to tweak the algorithms used to apply power to the motors on the AWD to get it to 310 miles of range and didn't apply those efficiencies to the LR RWD cars. They didn't sell them for awhile when the AWD and MR models were out so they didn't bother and the early 310 mile LR RWD owners didn't care. (I know I didn't). Now that the LR RWD is back out they might be applying the same algorithms they used for the AWD cars to the RWD cars to get more actual range using algorithm tweaking.

This would explain why the MR and AWD cars are not getting a bump but the LR RWD is. Tesla might have bumped those prior to releasing so they could get the rated range for AWD or use less battery capacity for MR.

Anyway I really hope it isn't just changing the calculation used for stated range. I disagree they can't make power delivery more efficient in firmware but what do I know?


----------



## BlueMeanie

I believe they may be unlocking a very small amount of the battery reserve, and applying software shenanigans at the same time.


----------



## fsKotte

BlueMeanie said:


> I believe they may be unlocking a very small amount of the battery reserve, and applying software shenanigans at the same time.


That would be Great. Anything to effect a real change in the range, versus just changing the Rated Range equation numbers, would be awesome.


----------



## SR22pilot

Since the EPA number was already 334, I think the idea of real range improvements is just wishful thinking. Hope I am wrong since I own a LR RWD but I doubt I am.


----------



## Bokonon

We seem to have confirmation that firmware 2019.5.15 includes the range adjustment for LR RWD. See this post:



> Went from 2019.5.4 to 2019.5.15 this morning. No new release notes and no AP as others have noted.
> HOWEVER, I did notice my range went from 255 miles before the update to 265 right afterwards (car not plugged in)! Currently reading 260 at 80%, which equates to 325 miles at 100%!! :sunglasses:


----------



## Spiffywerks

I don't care about more range. I care about the 5% power boost.  It's like free Cold Air Intake/Cat-back exhaust.


----------



## Vin

Bokonon said:


> We seem to have confirmation that firmware 2019.5.15 includes the range adjustment for LR RWD. See this post:


When can I get my update  I'm still on 50.6 and I'm in EAP lol I was one of the unlucky who prepaid for EAP and FSD in 2018 and was already in early access so I get nothing extra. I just want my update at least. I don't even
have the blind spot update yet. Ok I'm done whining, thx for listening.


----------



## ummgood

Vin said:


> When can I get my update  I'm still on 50.6 and I'm in EAP lol I was one of the unlucky who prepaid for EAP and FSD in 2018 and was already in early access so I get nothing extra. I just want my update at least. I don't even
> have the blind spot update yet. Ok I'm done whining, thx for listening.


I'm on 49.20 still so don't feel bad


----------



## fsKotte

SR22pilot said:


> Since the EPA number was already 334, I think the idea of real range improvements is just wishful thinking. Hope I am wrong since I own a LR RWD but I doubt I am.


Yeah, I know. But really, how stupid does Elon think we are, if all he does is just tweak the wh/mi from 242 down to 230.8, to get the new rated range of 325? That will not be fooling anybody, or at least not you and me . . . .


----------



## NJturtlePower

Bokonon said:


> We seem to have confirmation that firmware 2019.5.15 includes the range adjustment for LR RWD. See this post:


Interesting... I charge to 85% daily which usually puts me at 261-262mi of range... Will report back with what I see tonight or tomorrow morning post charge now on 2019.5.15.


----------



## fsKotte

Bokonon said:


> We seem to have confirmation that firmware 2019.5.15 includes the range adjustment for LR RWD. See this post:


Can you estimate what the rated wh/mi now is, with this range update? Folks have been able to do this by going to the 5/15/30 mile trailing estimated miles remaining app and noting the rated range line there . . . . Since I'm very likely getting this same update tonight, I'll check as well tomorrow . . .

The base theory is all they did is lower the wh/mi rated range number from 242 wh/mi (for LR) down to 230.8 wh/mi, which is the number you'd need to have, given no change in the battery capacity.


----------



## iChris93

fsKotte said:


> Since I'm very likely getting this same update tonight, I'll check as well tomorrow . . .


Do you have an update available you have not installed yet?


----------



## fsKotte

iChris93 said:


> Do you have an update available you have not installed yet?


Yes. When I got in my car this morning to go to work, I got the familiar OTA update screen, telling me an update was available and when would I like to schedule it to be downloaded/installed. I chose tonight, midnight . . . . that's just when I do these things because the car is in the garage, it's connected to my wifi, and charging doesn't start until 2, 2:30 am per my settings.

UPDATE: So, just now via the app I changed the install time to NOW, while the car is sitting in my work parking lot, not charging. Says it'll take 45 minutes. Will take a late lunch and check in about an hour, and let you know what happened . . . .


----------



## Bokonon

fsKotte said:


> Can you estimate what the rated wh/mi now is, with this range update? Folks have been able to do this by going to the 5/15/30 mile trailing estimated miles remaining app and noting the rated range line there . . . . Since I'm very likely getting this same update tonight, I'll check as well tomorrow . . .
> 
> The base theory is all they did is lower the wh/mi rated range number from 242 wh/mi (for LR) down to 230.8 wh/mi, which is the number you'd need to have, given no change in the battery capacity.


Interestingly, prior to this update, there was already a discrepancy between RWD and AWD with respect to the energy graph's "rated efficiency" line. The line was drawn around 250-252 for AWD (see here) around 240-241 for RWD (see here), despite the fact that both cars were rated at 310 miles of range. This always seemed strangely inconsistent to me.

But check this out: the ratio between those rated efficiencies is between 1.0373 and 1.050. If you multiply that ratio by AWD's 310 miles of rated range, you get a rated range of ~321.5 - 325.5 for RWD. This seems inline with Tesla's new rated range for RWD.

So, putting it all together: I think the "new" rated efficiency for RWD is simply the same ~240 Wh/mi shown on the energy screen. In other words, the rated efficiency in the energy screen already had already been updated in a prior firmware version, and all 2019.5.15 does is update the rated range calculation to match it.


----------



## fsKotte

Bokonon said:


> Interestingly, prior to this update, there was already a discrepancy between RWD and AWD with respect to the energy graph's "rated efficiency" line. The line was drawn around 250-252 for AWD (see here) around 240-241 for RWD (see here), despite the fact that both cars were rated at 310 miles of range. This always seemed strangely inconsistent to me.
> 
> But check this out: the ratio between those rated efficiencies is between 1.0373 and 1.050. If you multiply that ratio by AWD's 310 miles of rated range, you get a rated range of ~321.5 - 325.5 for RWD. This seems inline with Tesla's new rated range for RWD.
> 
> So, putting it all together: I think the "new" rated efficiency for RWD is simply the same ~240 Wh/mi shown on the energy screen. In other words, the rated efficiency in the energy screen already had already been updated in a prior firmware version, and all 2019.15 does is update the rated range calculation to match it.


Interesting stuff - thanks for taking the time to lay this out. I too always wondered how both the AWD and the RWD could have the same range, when their wh/mi rated rate was different. I guess we'll all find out soon enough if they keep the RWD LR at 242-ish wh/mi after the update to 325 miles.

In the meantime, here's why I think they'd have to drop that number down to around 230.8. Let me know what you think:

Assuming a 75kwh capacity, when you divide 75 kwh by 242 wh/mi, you get 310 miles range. I'm presuming, then, this is their basic Rated Range calculation:

Capacity (75kwh) Divided By wh/mi (242) = Rated Range (75000/242 = 310, or 309.917355)

So, my thinking is that there's only two ways to increase range, if that's the basic formula used (and maybe I'm wrong about that, maybe it's more sophisticated). First, increase capacity, or Second decrease wh/mi rate.

So they could unlock some secret unknown amount of capacity to do this (and if this is all they did, then they'd need to up the capacity to 78.65 kwh, and that sounds like a lot).

Or they could release one or two kwh, and then claim the rest is due to increased efficiencies of the firmware update . . . .

Or they could just decrease wh/mi to 230.8 (which gets you to 325 mi range - 75000/230.8 = 325), and declare that, via software updates that tweak how the motor runs and how the car otherwise consumes energy, they've actually managed to increase the real efficiency of the car somehow (seems like a huge jump in efficiency though).

At any rate, it would be really nice to hear from Tesla what exactly they're doing to get us "old-timer" first production LR RWD's to 325.


----------



## cengel

Got 2019.5.15 firmware overnight, and I'm now showing 260 miles at 80% charge (used to be 248), equating to 325 miles at 100%!

Let the discussion/investigation about how much the actual real-world range increases begin!


----------



## NJturtlePower

Similar reports already in the dedicated thread: https://teslaownersonline.com/threads/model-3-lr-rwd-bumped-to-325mi.11506/page-4#post-212310


----------



## fsKotte

cengel said:


> Got 2019.5.15 firmware overnight, and I'm now showing 260 miles at 80% charge (used to be 248), equating to 325 miles at 100%!
> 
> Let the discussion/investigation about how much the actual real-world range increases begin!


Indeed - me, too, just now. I had the car update to 2019.5.15 while in the work parking lot literally just about an hour ago, and here's what I have to report:

- Extrapolated Rated Range at 100% jumped ten miles to 320. I charge to 90% daily, so I expect this to level out right at the 325 range. So this update definitely re-jiggers the range to the promised 325. I couldn't tell if I got an extra 5% of power, though the car seems as peppy as ever. I assume they did increase it, but I'm just not sophisticated enough to notice the difference.

- I drove the car around, looking at the trailing 5-mile estimated range display, and found that the car *STILL TRACKS A RATED WH/MI OF 242 - UNCHANGED FROM BEFORE THE UPDATE*. So, the expected range gain comes from elsewhere and not just changing the wh/mi number. The interesting question now is, of course - How'd they do it?? Bokonon said the 242 wh/mi might be already baked in versus the AWD 252 wh/mi number, and what I see supports this, but my question is still - what'd they do? What changed exactly? 325 miles at wh/mi of 242 works out to a capacity of slightly over 78 kwh. So maybe that's just what it's always been? Mebbe. But here's the thing: If all they've done is somehow rearrange some numbers, and the car, all things being equal, goes no further than it did before the update, then meh. This is meaningless to me. Would be nice to know what's up tho, what'd they do.

- And lastly, alas, *no AP update*. Bummer.

- And Truly Lastly - This update also gave me dog-mode and gps-related folding mirrors. Whoopee.


----------



## Long Ranger

fsKotte said:


> 325 miles at wh/mi of 242 works out to a capacity of slightly over 78 kwh. So maybe that's just what it's always been?


My understanding is that the EPA numbers have always shown that the usable capacity is 78.27 kWh. I see a lot of people quote 75 kWh, but I'm not sure what that's based on.

@Troy has quoted the footnote on page 6 of this EPA document as the source of the 78.27 kWh number.
https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=39792&flag=1

Note that he has also stated that the total battery capacity including buffer is 80.5 kWh.
https://teslike.com/2018/12/06/model-3-mid-range-has-251-miles-highway-range-according-to-epa/


----------



## fsKotte

Long Ranger said:


> My understanding is that the EPA numbers have always shown that the usable capacity is 78.27 kWh. I see a lot of people quote 75 kWh, but I'm not sure what that's based on.
> 
> @Troy has quoted the footnote on page 6 of this EPA document as the source of the 78.27 kWh number.
> https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=39792&flag=1
> 
> Note that he has also stated that the total battery capacity including buffer is 80.5 kWh.
> https://teslike.com/2018/12/06/model-3-mid-range-has-251-miles-highway-range-according-to-epa/


Good stuff - thanks.

Yes, I was just assuming 75kwh, not even sure any more where I got that. But it did fit nicely with the 310 range number, seeing that 75kwh / 242 = 309.91.

So if really the capacity is 78.27 Kwh, which the docs you link to fully support, then we get this equation, which is where we've been all along anyway:

78.27kwh / 242 = 323.43 miles.

So . . . . before they were just "hiding" about 13-15 miles buffer, and now they're tossing that out and going with the full calculation.

In the end, then, what this means is that "secretly" we've had 325 miles rated range all along. This software update doesn't add one inch of range, it just now more accurately states what we've all had from the beginning.

That's somewhat disappointing, since the update is advertised to "increase" the range of the car, when in actuality it's not at all increasing the range, it's just more accurately showing the range (the Rated Range) you've always had since day one. This means that, indeed, now that the same amount of energy is shown as giving you 325 miles range, the only practical effect is that your remaining Rated Range miles will now drop down a tad bit faster as you drive the car. Honestly, if this is all that's really happening, I wish they'd just left it at 310, since I don't get 242 wh/mi ave anyway . . . . (more like 260-265), and so I never achieve even the 310 rated range anyway (I'm pretty sure most don't either).

So, I'm now officially done with this whole range thing. Mystery solved, no real range is added at all - thanks for helping me get there.

Hopefully at least the 5% power bump is a real change.


----------



## cengel

After Tesla announced that the range increase was coming, I was also curious about how they were pulling it off, so I'm running an experiment to determine if they did in fact unlock a bit of battery energy reserves vs just changing accounting or eeking out more efficiency. I've captured data on how many kWh it takes to charge a specified % SOC, based on data from our ChargePoint chargers at work to get a baseline "battery capacity" (acknowledging charger efficiency isn't 100%). Now that I have the 325 range update, I'm going to repeat the test (controlling for as many factors as possible) to compare the calculated battery capacity before and after. I'll post results here once the 'after' test is completed, likely early-mid next week.


----------



## tencate

fsKotte said:


> Yes, I was just assuming 75kwh, not even sure any more where I got that. But it did fit nicely with the 310 range number, seeing that 75kwh / 242 = 309.91.
> So if really the capacity is 78.27 Kwh, which the docs you link to fully support, then we get this equation, which is where we've been all along anyway:
> 78.27kwh / 242 = 323.43 miles.
> So . . . . before they were just "hiding" about 13-15 miles buffer, and now they're tossing that out and going with the full calculation.


Or, perhaps the car was software limited to 75 kWh and the car read "Empty" based on that 75 kWh. After millions of real world miles from all of us, they realize very few of us drive down below 5% remaining charge and decided to unlock the extra 3 kWh or so to give us more flexibility. I'm reminded of Tesla software unlocking more of the battery for MS and MX folks fleeing hurricanes. I'm OK with that  and in addition they somehow tweaked the power too which is another plus in my mind.


----------



## tencate

EvanLin said:


> You can see from MPGe that LR(RWD) is better than P.


and if I recall correctly, the MPGe rating is different from 2017 models to 2018 models too right? 2018 models were rated higher as I recall. But perhaps I don't have that right? Someone here surely knows 

[edit] fueleconomy.gov lists the 2017 at 126 MPGe and 2018 at 130 MPGe


----------



## fsKotte

cengel said:


> After Tesla announced that the range increase was coming, I was also curious about how they were pulling it off, so I'm running an experiment to determine if they did in fact unlock a bit of battery energy reserves vs just changing accounting or eeking out more efficiency. I've captured data on how many kWh it takes to charge a specified % SOC, based on data from our ChargePoint chargers at work to get a baseline "battery capacity" (acknowledging charger efficiency isn't 100%). Now that I have the 325 range update, I'm going to repeat the test (controlling for as many factors as possible) to compare the calculated battery capacity before and after. I'll post results here once the 'after' test is completed, likely early-mid next week.


Definitely looking forward to your results! Keep us posted!


----------



## littlD

Some LR RWD cars (like my Middie) didn't see any uptick after installing 2019.5.15.

Expecting that to happen after driving a little perhaps... we'll see.


----------



## tivoboy

going from 5.4 (might have been 5.6) to 5.15 just took the available range at whatever SOC was current from 158 to 168 miles. That was AFTER what seemed to be a pretty long SW install. 

Is there any place where one can find consolidate release notes for each software version. I have the feeling that the software really has forked at this point.


----------



## LUXMAN

fsKotte said:


> Indeed - me, too, just now. I had the car update to 2019.5.15 while in the work parking lot literally just about an hour ago, and here's what I have to report:
> 
> - Extrapolated Rated Range at 100% jumped ten miles to 320. I charge to 90% daily, so I expect this to level out right at the 325 range. So this update definitely re-jiggers the range to the promised 325. I couldn't tell if I got an extra 5% of power, though the car seems as peppy as ever. I assume they did increase it, but I'm just not sophisticated enough to notice the difference.
> 
> - I drove the car around, looking at the trailing 5-mile estimated range display, and found that the car *STILL TRACKS A RATED WH/MI OF 242 - UNCHANGED FROM BEFORE THE UPDATE*. So, the expected range gain comes from elsewhere and not just changing the wh/mi number. The interesting question now is, of course - How'd they do it?? Bokonon said the 242 wh/mi might be already baked in versus the AWD 252 wh/mi number, and what I see supports this, but my question is still - what'd they do? What changed exactly? 325 miles at wh/mi of 242 works out to a capacity of slightly over 78 kwh. So maybe that's just what it's always been? Mebbe. But here's the thing: If all they've done is somehow rearrange some numbers, and the car, all things being equal, goes no further than it did before the update, then meh. This is meaningless to me. Would be nice to know what's up tho, what'd they do.
> 
> - And lastly, alas, *no AP update*. Bummer.
> 
> - And Truly Lastly - This update also gave me dog-mode and gps-related folding mirrors. Whoopee.


And Blind Spot alerts?


----------



## Nautilus

LUXMAN said:


> And Blind Spot alerts?


I received Blind Spot alerts with 2019.5.4, and it actually beeped at me once during a "live" situation. I've got it detailed in another thread somewhere.

EDIT: Found it! In the 2019.5.4 thread.


----------



## fsKotte

LUXMAN said:


> And Blind Spot alerts?


I had the blind spot audible alarm feature already, before this update, though it seems to only go off if the car gets really close. It doesn't go off unless you actually start to go into the lane with the other car. I get that there's probably a fine line between having the alarm go off all the time versus only when you're really about to make contact, but I think they erred a little too much closer to impact. I'm fine with the alarm sounding as soon as I flip the blinker, if there's a car in the way in the blind spot. I haven't seen where you can adjust this, either.


----------



## ummgood

Ok I charged my car to 100% on 2019.5.15 and I am only getting 317 Miles of range. I wonder if the age of the car matters (maybe there are battery differences) or if it is now accounting for wheel type? A couple of us on facebook have tried this (very limited sample) and both cars with sport wheels all seem to be getting 316-317 (both are a year or more old) and a few with aeros are getting 325. I need more data.


----------



## fsKotte

ummgood said:


> Ok I charged my car to 100% on 2019.5.15 and I am only getting 317 Miles of range. I wonder if the age of the car matters (maybe there are battery differences) or if it is now accounting for wheel type? A couple of us on facebook have tried this (very limited sample) and both cars with sport wheels all seem to be getting 316-317 (both are a year or more old) and a few with aeros are getting 325. I need more data.


I'm getting around 320-ish extrapolated 100% SOC (both when I do the calculations by hand, and what the Stats App tells me). I think the highest I've seen in mine since the upgrade was around 322. Never hit the 325, but that could be because I have almost 12,000 miles on the car, and maybe 3-5 miles degradation is what's happening.

(that would equate to 1.5% battery capacity degradation after 12,000 miles. Not that bad, really.)


----------



## ummgood

fsKotte said:


> I'm getting around 320-ish extrapolated 100% SOC (both when I do the calculations by hand, and what the Stats App tells me). I think the highest I've seen in mine since the upgrade was around 322. Never hit the 325, but that could be because I have almost 12,000 miles on the car, and maybe 3-5 miles degradation is what's happening (that would equate to 1.5% battery capacity degradation after 12,000 miles.
> 
> Not that bad, really.


The part that is strange is the other sport wheel car had also 316 and it has 31k miles. So while your idea makes sense I am wondering if the actual car is reporting 316 at a full charge with sport wheels and 325 with aero wheels. Every aero wheel car I have seen posted with a full charge is 325 (5 or 6) and every sport wheel car I have seen (2) has been 316 or 317.

I am talking about the number on this screen:


----------



## timtesla

I got the bump a couple days ago, also noticed me wh/mile didnt really change. I wasn't getting close to the rated range anyways, so I probably wont notice a difference. I didn't buy a Tesla to accelerate slowly


----------



## fsKotte

ummgood said:


> The part that is strange is the other sport wheel car had also 316 and it has 31k miles. So while your idea makes sense I am wondering if the actual car is reporting 316 at a full charge with sport wheels and 325 with aero wheels. Every aero wheel car I have seen posted with a full charge is 325 (5 or 6) and every sport wheel car I have seen (2) has been 316 or 317.


Well, what doesn't quite fit for me, with this explanation, is that the Stats app (and Teslafi, and I think any other app that's looking to extrapolate your 100% SOC total range), is that they don't know if you've got aeros, or 19", or aero wheels with the aeros removed (like me). The car has no idea, so far as I know, and neither does the Stats app I use.

So, I don't think that matters, what wheels you have.

Well, to be specific, it may matter in the sense that your *actual* range would end up being the longest/best probably with Aero wheels, with the Aero caps on, versus 19" or with aero caps off.

But, I don't see the wheel type/etc. being taken into account for the purposes of range at 100% SOC< and estimates thereof.

Also, when I do my manual calculations, I *know* wheels are not taken into account, because it's just on my calculator, looking at remaining miles rated range and the percentage battery remaining. This is what I do:

I set the display to show miles, note the rated range miles remaining, then switch to percentage battery, and note that. Then I divide the rated range miles remaining by the percentage battery remaining, to get the extrapolated rated range at 100% SOC. Example:

Miles Remaining (rated): 288
Switching display to percentage battery remaining, and it shows: 90%

So: 288/.9 = 320

This manual calculation is within a mile or so of whatever the Stats app is doing to extrapolate rated range, so I suspect that's what the Stats app is also doing, making the above calculation.


----------



## fsKotte

timtesla said:


> I got the bump a couple days ago, also noticed me wh/mile didnt really change. I wasn't getting close to the rated range anyways, so I probably wont notice a difference. I didn't buy a Tesla to accelerate slowly


Yeah, my wh/mi did not budge, after the update. Still right around 242 wh/mi (for my LR RWD). That's what was a little confusing at first. But what did happen is instantly after the update, my Stats app showed my extrapolated 100% SOC rated range at 320. And when I did my little calculation of Miles Remaining Divided By Percentage Battery Remaining, I indeed got 320 also. Before the update, my calculations would regularly/consistently fall between 308 and 312, mostly spot-on 310.

Nobody knows for sure exactly what Tesla did to add this extra supposedly 15 miles (ten for me) range. Extra capacity unlocked? Fudging some numbers? Just finally revealing what range we've all been getting all along (rated range that is)?? Nobody knows, but everybody has an opinion, that's for sure.

I'm like you. I never got the rated range anyway, because my wh/mi usage always was above the rated/assumed wh/mi of 242 (more like 265 wh/mi), so I'm always going to get less actual range than the rated range shown . . . . . too much fun to pop off the line right quick . . . .


----------



## BigBri

No change to mine. Tried charging to 90. I've been needing a 10-90 cycle for awhile anyway.


----------



## ummgood

fsKotte said:


> Well, what doesn't quite fit for me, with this explanation, is that the Stats app (and Teslafi, and I think any other app that's looking to extrapolate your 100% SOC total range), is that they don't know if you've got aeros, or 19", or aero wheels with the aeros removed (like me). The car has no idea, so far as I know, and neither does the Stats app I use.


The car definitely knows because it displays the appropriate wheel on all avatars on the car screen. For example my car shows 19" wheels on the info screen when you click the "T" on the touch screen as well as on the app. I think it gets transmitted around because the app also displays the appropriate wheels. When I see the screen capture I posted above with "325" miles shown on the app the picture of the car always has had the aero wheels on it.


----------



## ummgood

BigBri said:


> No change to mine. Tried charging to 90. I've been needing a 10-90 cycle for awhile anyway.


What mileage did your car show when charged to 90%? That is what I am trying to figure out. I haven't been watching my new consumption because my driving is too unpredictable.


----------



## fsKotte

ummgood said:


> The car definitely knows because it displays the appropriate wheel on all avatars on the car screen. For example my car shows 19" wheels on the info screen when you click the "T" on the touch screen as well as on the app. I think it gets transmitted around because the app also displays the appropriate wheels. When I see the screen capture I posted above with "325" miles shown on the app the picture of the car always has had the aero wheels on it.


Okay, but here's the problem. If you look at my picture to the left, you see I'm running the 18" wheels with aeros off. Yet my car avatar indeed shows me with 18" on my Tesla Account page, BUT there is no way to indicate that you've taken off the aeros, so my avatar on my Tesla Account page has me with the aero caps on, which has never been the case for my car. Yet, according to you, my Tesla thinks I have 18" wheels with the aeros on (which is not the actual case).

So, if Tesla thinks I'm running 18" Aeros, WITH the caps on, which is exactly what my avatar picture shows, then why am I not getting the 325 miles you're saying cars with Aeros should get?

I see the above as a significant problem with your theory.


----------



## fsKotte

ummgood said:


> What mileage did your car show when charged to 90%? That is what I am trying to figure out. I haven't been watching my new consumption because my driving is too unpredictable.





ummgood said:


> What mileage did your car show when charged to 90%? That is what I am trying to figure out. I haven't been watching my new consumption because my driving is too unpredictable.


I'd suggest just taking whatever your exact current miles remaining, as it's displayed right now, and then switching your display to battery percentage remaining, and then doing that calculation I do - it works, it's airtight . . . . .

e.g., you show 50% battery charge remaining, and when you switch to miles remaining, it shows 162. So then:

162 / .50 = 324

324 would be your extrapolated range at 100% SOC.

I will say this, you should do this calculation a few different times, at different remaining charge/miles. You'll soon see most likely a pattern/consistency. I do the calculation in the morning, when I'm charged up to 90%. Then I do it sometimes as I get in my car for my return commute. And when I get home. The numbers will vary a bit, but you'll start to see some consistency after awhile.


----------



## ummgood

fsKotte said:


> Okay, but here's the problem. If you look at my picture to the left, you see I'm running the 18" wheels with aeros off. Yet my car avatar indeed shows me with 18" on my Tesla Account page, BUT there is no way to indicate that you've taken off the aeros, so my avatar on my Tesla Account page has me with the aero caps on, which has never been the case for my car. Yet, according to you, my Tesla thinks I have 18" wheels with the aeros on (which is not the actual case).
> 
> So, if Tesla thinks I'm running 18" Aeros, WITH the caps on, which is exactly what my avatar picture shows, then why am I not getting the 325 miles you're saying cars with Aeros should get?
> 
> I see the above as a significant problem with your theory.


That is not what I am saying. What I am asking is if you charge your car to 100% what does it show on your screen or app? 325 or 316 or 310 or something else. I am saying that I have seen a pattern of posts on facebook where if the car shows aero wheels on the app it will charge to 325 miles of stated range and if the car has sport wheels it charges to 316. That is all. Now I definitely know that I won't get 316 miles of range because I drive too fast and too aggressive. You might be seeing the same. I also didn't know that you meant aero caps and yes I agree the car doesn't know that. I am trying to figure out if anyone with 19" wheels on a LR RWD has gotten their car to indicate 325 miles when fully charging. I haven't seen it yet. If the car thinks it has 19" wheels they might be showing 316 to try to account for some of the loss of the bigger wheel.

Here is what all the aero posts I have seen look like. While all the sport wheel posts I have seen look like mine above:


----------



## ummgood

fsKotte said:


> I'd suggest just taking whatever your exact current miles remaining, as it's displayed right now, and then switching your display to battery percentage remaining, and then doing that calculation I do - it works, it's airtight . . . . .
> 
> e.g., you show 50% battery charge remaining, and when you switch to miles remaining, it shows 162. So then:
> 
> 162 / .50 = 324
> 
> 324 would be your extrapolated range at 100% SOC.
> 
> I will say this, you should do this calculation a few different times, at different remaining charge/miles. You'll soon see most likely a pattern/consistency. I do the calculation in the morning, when I'm charged up to 90%. Then I do it sometimes as I get in my car for my return commute. And when I get home. The numbers will vary a bit, but you'll start to see some consistency after awhile.


Right I know all this I found something weird and I am trying to figure out if it is due to wheels or something else. There are cars reporting different numbers for a full charge when miles are displayed and not percent. Why is that? The only correlation I have seen that I can go off of right now is either wheels or age of car (mileage on the car doesn't seem to matter at this point). So while switching to percentage might be good for my sanity I am trying to figure out why there is a difference. That is all.


----------



## ummgood

Ok someone posted with sport wheels that their car is reporting 296 miles at 90% charge so it isn't the wheels but their car is newer than the other cars I saw. Anyone with cars with build dates before July of 2018 have a car that is reporting anything other than 325 miles at a full charge? Is it possible that something changed with the drivetrain between March of 2018 and July of 2018 that limits the max mileage to 216-217?


----------



## fsKotte

ummgood said:


> That is not what I am saying. What I am asking is if you charge your car to 100% what does it show on your screen or app? 325 or 316 or 310 or something else. I am saying that I have seen a pattern of posts on facebook where if the car shows aero wheels on the app it will charge to 325 miles of stated range and if the car has sport wheels it charges to 316. That is all. Now I definitely know that I won't get 316 miles of range because I drive too fast and too aggressive. You might be seeing the same. I also didn't know that you meant aero caps and yes I agree the car doesn't know that. I am trying to figure out if anyone with 19" wheels on a LR RWD has gotten their car to indicate 325 miles when fully charging. I haven't seen it yet. If the car thinks it has 19" wheels they might be showing 316 to try to account for some of the loss of the bigger wheel.
> 
> Here is what all the aero posts I have seen look like. While all the sport wheel posts I have seen look like mine above:


Well, I don't charge to 100% very often. I rely on the extrapolation calculations (which also the apps like Stats also do), and find them to be pretty accurate, and definitely fine for my purposes (comparing the few times I did charge to 100%, the extrapolated numbers were pretty much the same, give or take a mile or two).

That said, I may charge to 100% this Friday because we've got a long trip planned for this weekend. If so, I'm happy to post what I actually show with 100% SOC.

It's an interesting theory, that the rated range might be only 316 when the car thinks you have 19", and 325 miles if it thinks you have 18" with the aero caps installed. I still have a concern that this doesn't explain at least my situation, using the extrapolated range calculation, because it thinks I have Aeros with caps (that's my avatar), but I only get 320 miles.


----------



## fsKotte

ummgood said:


> Right I know all this I found something weird and I am trying to figure out if it is due to wheels or something else. There are cars reporting different numbers for a full charge when miles are displayed and not percent. Why is that? The only correlation I have seen that I can go off of right now is either wheels or age of car (mileage on the car doesn't seem to matter at this point). So while switching to percentage might be good for my sanity I am trying to figure out why there is a difference. That is all.


I'm not saying that you should switch to battery percentage. AT all. I'm just explaining how I calculate my total range via this extrapolation calculation, without having to actually charge my battery to 100%. You don't need to literally charge to 100% to get an idea of what your 100% SOC rated range will be, you just run the numbers like I describe, and you get a pretty decent estimate of that 100% SOC range. So long as you make the calculation at various times, and at various actual SOC %'s, then you can build up a good set of data points that can help you understand what you're very likely getting at 100% SOC, without stressing your battery by continually actually charging to 100%.

I like to keep my display as rated miles remaining; not battery percentage. But to perform the extrapolation calculation I momentarily switch to battery percentage just to get that number, and then switch back to remaining miles. Battery percentage display is just to get that percentage number, to plug into this very basic equation.


----------



## fsKotte

ummgood said:


> Ok someone posted with sport wheels that their car is reporting 296 miles at 90% charge so it isn't the wheels but their car is newer than the other cars I saw. Anyone with cars with build dates before July of 2018 have a car that is reporting anything other than 325 miles at a full charge? Is it possible that something changed with the drivetrain between March of 2018 and July of 2018 that limits the max mileage to 216-217?


I know someone: Me.

My car was delivered to me on 5/30/18, so it was necessarily built before July 2018. I consistently see an extrapolated 100% SOC rated range of 320. I have 18" aeros, but with the caps off (though the car does not know this, of course).


----------



## fsKotte

ummgood said:


> Ok someone posted with sport wheels that their car is reporting 296 miles at 90% charge so it isn't the wheels but their car is newer than the other cars I saw. Anyone with cars with build dates before July of 2018 have a car that is reporting anything other than 325 miles at a full charge? Is it possible that something changed with the drivetrain between March of 2018 and July of 2018 that limits the max mileage to 216-217?


Also, I think you might also look at mileage, because as great as Tesla Model 3's are, they still have Li-Ion batteries, and Li-Ion batteries will have some amount of degradation over time and also over the number of cycles a car has gone through.

So, not just age/build date, but actual mileage might account for some of this difference. As a point of reference, I've got 11,500 miles on mine at the moment. Maybe if you track mileage v. 100% SOC range, that might show a decrease in full range, the more miles on the car (where more miles should = more cycles run on the battery).

Conventional wisdom with the S and X models is that one loses about 5% of battery degradation after about a year, and 12,000 miles per year is a pretty average yearly amount to drive. The Model 3's I hear have newer and probably better battery tech than the S and X's. Maybe then my approximate 1.5% lower total range shown (320 miles v. 325 mies = about 1.5% decrease) could be battery degradation?


----------



## Jasonh4451

May 2018 build LR RD and no difference in rated miles before and after the update. Going to run it down to 10% and then up to 90% to see if something changes.


----------



## pptm32018

Jasonh4451 said:


> May 2018 build LR RD and no difference in rated miles before and after the update.


Did you do the calculation? At first, I thought the same after the update for me, as its only a small number difference in miles. Then I decided to double check by going into the car and switch from mile to percentage to calculate (247mi @ 76% = 247/.76 = 325). Lo and behold... My LR was delivered August 2018.


----------



## FRC

If your range really increases(which I doubt), from 310 to 325 using the same amount of electricity, I figure you're saving about 40c. Is that really worth all this angst? If you can make your round trip back to home, or make it to the next SC, why does it matter? This dead horse has been mangled. Let's move on.


----------



## roflwaffle

Jasonh4451 said:


> May 2018 build LR RD and no difference in rated miles before and after the update. Going to run it down to 10% and then up to 90% to see if something changes.


Ditto. I also have a May build and it's still showing a max of 306 miles of rated range.


----------



## FF35

roflwaffle said:


> Ditto. I also have a May build and it's still showing a max of 306 miles of rated range.


I have a June build and it's showing 324 miles for a full charge.


----------



## ummgood

FRC said:


> If your range really increases(which I doubt), from 310 to 325 using the same amount of electricity, I figure you're saving about 40c. Is that really worth all this angst? If you can make your round trip back to home, or make it to the next SC, why does it matter? This dead horse has been mangled. Let's move on.


I wouldn't say this is angst on my part it is more of trying to figure out why we are seeing different numbers. I personally am curious and wondering why there are differences. Because of the range unlock on the LR RWD (or whatever you want to call it) there are a lot of people on the interwebs posting photos of their cars fully charged and it got me curious. Before this very few people were posting their car at 100% charge so we didn't have all these data points. The extra range might come in handy some day so finding out what Tesla is doing and if it is an actual real range boost or nice is good to know. If it is a simple recalculation then my car really isn't changing.

Anyway back to the data points some are also posting 306 miles when charged to 100%. I have only seen this reported once before 2019 when someone was complaining about it. I am beginning to think that maybe Tesla unlocked something in the firmware that shows the real capacity of certain runs of the batteries (I could be wrong). Maybe they'll flip another switch in a future revision that actually does the 325 for everyone?

Also I think it is funny that a bunch of people are saying their cars are faster but I think that might be people charging to 100% and then driving to see if they got more power and thinking their car is faster because of the software update but in reality it is because of the full charge.


----------



## ummgood

FF35 said:


> I have a June build and it's showing 324 miles for a full charge.


Aero or Sport wheels?


----------



## SR22pilot

I posted this in the 2019.5.15 thread.

The 5% is power which is not the same as range. It just means they increased the maximum allowed current to the motor by 5%. For example, there is no difference between the motor in a Performance vs. an AWD. An AWD can be made to accelerate like a Performance via software. There are other differences such as brakes, suspension and wheels but the motors are the same. This 5% change doesn't affect range but should affect max acceleration. I am not even sure the 5% is in this update. The "range" for the LR RWD cars is. Both of my cars have the update now (one LR RWD the other AWD on 19").

Now to range. The range increase is only for the LR RWD. It is just a difference in the number shown on the screen and is not a real range increase. If Tesla had unlocked battery capacity then it would affect all LR battery cars. It does not. If the motor was being driven in a more efficient manner it would affect all cars. It does not. The EPA test on the LR RWD came out at 334 and Tesla sandbagged down to 310 for marketing reasons. Those marketing reasons have changed so they have upped the number to 325. They could have gone to 334. However, that would make not only the AWD and Performance (higher margins) look bad but even the Model S 100D.

For those getting 318 etc. my LR RWD has always gone to 310 previously but my AWD initially went to 308 and has sometimes calculated out more like 305. It may need calibrating. It hasn't been enough of a difference to be a problem. There is a Like Tesla video on range loss due to battery miscalbration. 

I'll ad one thing to the above. If you have an LR RWD and didn't see a "reported" range increase on the main display then I suspect a software bug or the need for a reboot.


----------



## fsKotte

FRC said:


> If your range really increases(which I doubt), from 310 to 325 using the same amount of electricity, I figure you're saving about 40c. Is that really worth all this angst? If you can make your round trip back to home, or make it to the next SC, why does it matter? This dead horse has been mangled. Let's move on.


Not sure what you're talking about. Most threads on most forums (esp around these parts) feature dead, mangled horses, being repeatedly beaten. I see no reason to stop ruminating over this dead horse, versus all the others.


----------



## slasher016

According to the recent electrek article, there are efficiency improvements: https://electrek.co/2019/03/13/tesla-model-3-range-increase-software-update/


----------



## fsKotte

slasher016 said:


> According to the recent electrek article, there are efficiency improvements: https://electrek.co/2019/03/13/tesla-model-3-range-increase-software-update/


Welll . . . . . Maybe. Even the Electrek.co author of this article is skeptical, and he essentially has the same suspicion many of us have - that the range was always there, since the EPA rated it at 335, so they're just now expanding the range as-is, to 325. Big Quote from the article:

"I am skeptical of this being about Tesla finding more efficiencies or simply deciding to advertise the higher range on the Long Range RWD Model 3 now that they are selling even less expensive versions."


----------



## slasher016

fsKotte said:


> Welll . . . . . Maybe. Even the Electrek.co author of this article is skeptical, and he essentially has the same suspicion many of us have - that the range was always there, since the EPA rated it at 335, so they're just now expanding the range as-is, to 325. Big Quote from the article:
> 
> "I am skeptical of this being about Tesla finding more efficiencies or simply deciding to advertise the higher range on the Long Range RWD Model 3 now that they are selling even less expensive versions."


Agreed, but why make the comment that you found efficiencies if you didn't? Musk makes bad choices as time but I'm not sure we've ever seen him intentionally mislead.


----------



## fsKotte

slasher016 said:


> Agreed, but why make the comment that you found efficiencies if you didn't? Musk makes bad choices as time but I'm not sure we've ever seen him intentionally mislead.


I get it that Elon's intentions are good, but he has exhibited reckless disregard for truth in the past. Just ask the SEC, esp. regarding the whole "going private" fiasco . . . . . "funding secured" Elon said . . . . . but nope, not actually the case. If anybody should have known if "funding" was truly "secured," it would have been Elon. So, there is at least an Exhibit A to support the contention that Elon is at the very least capable of negligently misrepresenting stuff, even with the best of intentions.

Look, I love my car, and I have immense respect for what Elon/Tesla has done and is doing. So I hope you're right, that it's a true range gain. I have a LR RWD, my rated range at 100% went up by just around 10 miles (to 320, not an inch more for some reason - maybe I lost the other 5 miles to battery degradation after 11,500 miles), and I'd love to think it's a real range gain.

But in the end, without more detail, I don't think we'll really know for sure.

All things being equal, I think it's fair to think about and view this claim critically. Can't hurt to want real proof of a real range gain.

In the meantime, I sprung for the $2k AP deal and I'm continuing to love driving/riding in this car, every second I'm in it. . . . .


----------



## Bokonon

Technically-minded readers may find this post in the CAN bus thread interesting and relevant to this discussion.

TL;DR/English translation -- @fast_like_electric examined his car's internal drivetrain/battery data before and after updating to 2019.5.15, and found no change in usable battery capacity or power output. The app and screen did change, however, and displayed an additional 11 miles available at 81%. Conclusion:



> So it is pretty clear that 5.15 does not dip into the battery more to get more range. Still unknown if some unnecessary load is being turned off for better efficiency, or if this is just a rescale of the displayed mileage estimate vs. % charge.


----------



## Nautilus

ummgood said:


> Aero or Sport wheels?


@ummgood, I'm the one who agreed with FF35, I can't speak for him, but I have June-2018 build LR RWD with 18" wheels. I only have the Aero covers on for long road trips (2 so far), not for daily use. Here is my Battery "degradation" (gradation? undegradation?) chart from TeslaFi. You can see the jump in reported range after I received 2019.5.15 around 4300 miles last week:


----------



## ummgood

Nautilus said:


> @ummgood, I'm the one who agreed with FF35, I can't speak for him, but I have June-2018 build LR RWD with 18" wheels. I only have the Aero covers on for long road trips (2 so far), not for daily use. Here is my Battery "degradation" (gradation? undegradation?) chart from TeslaFi. You can see the jump in reported range after I received 2019.5.15 around 4300 miles last week:
> View attachment 23242
> View attachment 23242


Thanks that's a cool chart. Part of me wants to sign up for TeslaFi but I just can't get myself to pay for it.


----------



## fsKotte

Nautilus said:


> @ummgood, I'm the one who agreed with FF35, I can't speak for him, but I have June-2018 build LR RWD with 18" wheels. I only have the Aero covers on for long road trips (2 so far), not for daily use. Here is my Battery "degradation" (gradation? undegradation?) chart from TeslaFi. You can see the jump in reported range after I received 2019.5.15 around 4300 miles last week:
> View attachment 23242
> View attachment 23242


Interesting chart. I have opted to use Stats for reporting out my Mod 3 info. At 11,500 miles, Stats shows the same type of jump at the moment I upgraded, but mine jumped only to 320, and ever since, the spot-measurements show 318-320. Never 325, or even 321. Mine is a late April 2018 build LR RWD, 18" wheels, mostly with aeros off (though as we've determined, the car doesn't know if the aeros are on or off, so caps on/off can't affect the car's calculation of rated range).

My guess is that I may be looking at some slight battery degradation - around 5 miles of range. 5/325 = 1.54% degradation after almost 12,000 miles. I find that acceptable and quite good, actually.

As I think Teslafi does, the Stats app extrapolates your total range, without one having to actually charge to 100%. Since it does this at least once a day, you end up with quite a few data points after awhile. That said, since I'm going on a long-ish trip tomorrow, I'm planning on charging to actual 100% at some point tomorrow. Will post what I get . . . .


----------



## ummgood

fsKotte said:


> My guess is that I may be looking at some slight battery degradation - around 5 miles of range. 5/325 = 1.54% degradation after almost 12,000 miles. I find that acceptable and quite good, actually.


What's weird for me is my car is 316-317 when charged full. My car is 1 year old (Mar 2018) and has 12k miles. Another person I know with a very early car (Aug 2017) also has 316 but has 31k miles. So if it is battery degradation why would mine have the same as someone with 30k miles? It's strange. I haven't been abusing my battery pack. I used to only charge it to 80% every day until this year because I saw where Elon recommended 90% all the time and that is when I changed my behavior.


----------



## Towerman

Kizzy said:


> When the LR RWD car was first tested by the EPA in the U.S. it was given a range rating higher than 310 miles. Tesla lowered it to keep the AWD cars attractive (that's my speculation on motive, but Tesla did lower the range) and are now being more open about it's true range.


That is a plausible explanation. So if we continue along these lines of thought, it might also have something to do with new competition coming out who are claiming 300 plus range. Just a thought.


----------



## fsKotte

ummgood said:


> What's weird for me is my car is 316-317 when charged full. My car is 1 year old (Mar 2018) and has 12k miles. Another person I know with a very early car (Aug 2017) also has 316 but has 31k miles. So if it is battery degradation why would mine have the same as someone with 30k miles? It's strange. I haven't been abusing my battery pack. I used to only charge it to 80% every day until this year because I saw where Elon recommended 90% all the time and that is when I changed my behavior.


I was sort of the same - actually for the first 6k miles I charged just to 70%, which actually skewed my Rated Range estimate way down (to about 287 at its lowest, at extrapolated 100% SOC). When I too saw Elon's 90% recommendation, within a week of doing so my 100% SOC extrapolate went right back up to 310.

I can't explain why yours at 12k miles is 316, and someone else at 31k miles also has 316 (or why mine at 11.5k is at 318-320). That is odd. I wonder how much of it might just be "natural" variation between mass-produced batteries? That's just a thought, speculation really. It's all I can think of.


----------



## fsKotte

Towerman said:


> That is a plausible explanation. So if we continue along these lines of thought, it might also have something to do with new competition coming out who are claiming 300 plus range. Just a thought.


Yes, I agree - plausible explanation. It may also explain why so many, under the 310-mile range regime, were reporting "no degradation" after even 20,000 miles and touting that they still showed 310 miles at 100% SOC. Basically, since the real range was 325, then the car/battery has 15 miles of degradation to give, before starting to go under 310.

But now, since they re-jiggered the range to 325, much closer to the EPA estimate and no doubt closer to the real maximum, folks such as myself, who used to always top out at 310, are getting 318-320; five to seven miles less than the 325 range touted with the update.

My theory is that, because they're now giving a range that's a bit closer to the bone, there's no miles/range to give, so that any battery degradation is going to now show up, as something less than the 325.


----------



## fsKotte

ummgood said:


> What's weird for me is my car is 316-317 when charged full. My car is 1 year old (Mar 2018) and has 12k miles. Another person I know with a very early car (Aug 2017) also has 316 but has 31k miles. So if it is battery degradation why would mine have the same as someone with 30k miles? It's strange. I haven't been abusing my battery pack. I used to only charge it to 80% every day until this year because I saw where Elon recommended 90% all the time and that is when I changed my behavior.


I just thought of another explanation as to why your car at 12k miles has similar 100% SOC range (316) as someone with 31k (and also why both are below the newly stated max range of 325).

Basically, it's this: Conventional wisdom on the Model S/X forums is that there is a steeper degradation over the first "year" of the car, and then it flattens out. I think there's some articles about this as well, no time to find them right now but if pressed I could probably dig something up off the internets. I think that Ben Sullins guy did something on battery degradation that showed an initial steep drop-off of about 5%, followed by then a much flatter/slower degradation after that.

So . . . . Perhaps your drop to 316-ish at 12k miles is what the other guy who's at 31k miles experienced also at 12k miles, but didn't know it, since back then the stated range was 310. In other words, you (and me) at around 12k miles are at some point (hopefully near the end) of the initial steeper drop-off in degradation, such that for the next 15-20k miles we might see little additional degradation and/or change to our rated range at 100% SOC.

Just a theory, but I do know there is some amount of info/data out there that shows that, at least for S/X models, the degradation drops off more steeply for the first "year", and then significantly slows after that.


----------



## Towerman

fsKotte said:


> Yes, I agree - plausible explanation. It may also explain why so many, under the 310-mile range regime, were reporting "no degradation" after even 20,000 miles and touting that they still showed 310 miles at 100% SOC. Basically, since the real range was 325, then the car/battery has 15 miles of degradation to give, before starting to go under 310.
> 
> But now, since they re-jiggered the range to 325, much closer to the EPA estimate and no doubt closer to the real maximum, folks such as myself, who used to always top out at 310, are getting 318-320; five to seven miles less than the 325 range touted with the update.
> 
> My theory is that, because they're now giving a range that's a bit closer to the bone, there's no miles/range to give, so that any battery degradation is going to now show up, as something less than the 325.


Walking a tightrope; show better mileage but reveal degradation vs. just better mileage. I'd probably vote for the latter if i was Tesla - Not that any of this means much to me with an AWD anyway.


----------



## fsKotte

Towerman said:


> Walking a tightrope; show better mileage but reveal degradation vs. just better mileage. I'd probably vote for the latter if i was Tesla - Not that any of this means much to me with an AWD anyway.


I'm ok with the unlocking/revealing the true range, even if it means I can start to see a touch of degradation. It's batteries; they're gonna degrade. It's what they do, over time and with use/cycles. I'd rather have the more accurate range indication than an artificially low one anyway.


----------



## fsKotte

fsKotte said:


> I just thought of another explanation as to why your car at 12k miles has similar 100% SOC range (316) as someone with 31k (and also why both are below the newly stated max range of 325).
> 
> Basically, it's this: Conventional wisdom on the Model S/X forums is that there is a steeper degradation over the first "year" of the car, and then it flattens out. I think there's some articles about this as well, no time to find them right now but if pressed I could probably dig something up off the internets. I think that Ben Sullins guy did something on battery degradation that showed an initial steep drop-off of about 5%, followed by then a much flatter/slower degradation after that.
> 
> So . . . . Perhaps your drop to 316-ish at 12k miles is what the other guy who's at 31k miles experienced also at 12k miles, but didn't know it, since back then the stated range was 310. In other words, you (and me) at around 12k miles are at some point (hopefully near the end) of the initial steeper drop-off in degradation, such that for the next 15-20k miles we might see little additional degradation and/or change to our rated range at 100% SOC.
> 
> Just a theory, but I do know there is some amount of info/data out there that shows that, at least for S/X models, the degradation drops off more steeply for the first "year", and then significantly slows after that.


@ummgood, Here's one of the articles I was thinking about:

https://electrek.co/2018/04/14/tesla-battery-degradation-data/

The two graphs, especially the one scaled to accentuate the initial degradation, offers an explanation as to why you/me at 12k-ish might have the same degradation/range as that other guy at 31k miles, for two reasons:

1. Indeed the rate of degradation slows significantly after around 30,000 Km (18,600 miles approx).

2. The data points are in a cloud and vary significantly. There are plenty of comparisons to be found where someone with 100,000 Km on their car reports the same 100% SOC range as someone with just 50,000 Km. So maybe that other guy with 31,000 miles who is getting 316, versus you/me at around 12,000 miles is just an example of a few data points per the above.


----------



## ummgood

fsKotte said:


> I just thought of another explanation as to why your car at 12k miles has similar 100% SOC range (316) as someone with 31k (and also why both are below the newly stated max range of 325).
> 
> Basically, it's this: Conventional wisdom on the Model S/X forums is that there is a steeper degradation over the first "year" of the car, and then it flattens out. I think there's some articles about this as well, no time to find them right now but if pressed I could probably dig something up off the internets. I think that Ben Sullins guy did something on battery degradation that showed an initial steep drop-off of about 5%, followed by then a much flatter/slower degradation after that.
> 
> So . . . . Perhaps your drop to 316-ish at 12k miles is what the other guy who's at 31k miles experienced also at 12k miles, but didn't know it, since back then the stated range was 310. In other words, you (and me) at around 12k miles are at some point (hopefully near the end) of the initial steeper drop-off in degradation, such that for the next 15-20k miles we might see little additional degradation and/or change to our rated range at 100% SOC.
> 
> Just a theory, but I do know there is some amount of info/data out there that shows that, at least for S/X models, the degradation drops off more steeply for the first "year", and then significantly slows after that.


Thanks this is the best theory I have seen yet. The only potential weird thing is there are cars getting 325 and are made in June/July and have the same mileage as mine. Hmmm.


----------



## tencate

fsKotte said:


> I can't explain why yours at 12k miles is 316, and someone else at 31k miles also has 316 (or why mine at 11.5k is at 318-320). That is odd. I wonder how much of it might just be "natural" variation between mass-produced batteries? That's just a thought, speculation really. It's all I can think of.


I've got 31k miles on mine too and since getting the upgrade, I've been checking at various SOC and I see from around 307 before the upgrade to variously 310 to maybe 317, it's kinda random actually. Wonder what the "error bars" are on this calculation? I don't expect my battery to be like new, my car is over a year old too. YMMV. Someone said earlier that the differences we're talking about are almost in the noise and not worth discussing. I agree but it's fun to speculate anyway.


----------



## cengel

Here are the results for my 2019.5.4 vs 2019.5.15 battery capacity test I mentioned I was working on earlier in this thread.

*TL/DR:* No notable change in usable battery capacity with the increase in reported range.

Background: ChargePoint chargers report the energy delivered during every charge session. I recorded the starting and ending SOC along with the energy added. This provides the calculated battery capacity, assuming 100% charger efficiency. We know there are some losses so this calculation is higher than reality, but what's important here is the comparison between tests, not the actual capacity.

2019.5.4 test on 3/1/19 (baseline) 
41%-90% SOC 
38.49 kWh add per ChargePoint = 78.55 kWh "capacity" (not including charging losses)

2019.5.15 on 3/11/19
32%-70% SOC
29.94 kWh added = 78.79 kWh "capacity"

2019.5.15 on 3/14/19
~24.5%-90% SOC
51.89 kWh added = 79.2 kWh "capacity"

So we're looking at just ~0.5kWh (0.6%) capacity change if there was no error in my measurements. For a 13 mile range increase (309 to 322 for my car), we'd expect 3.1 kWh increase, assuming no change in Wh/mi accounting or system efficiency improvements.

There are a number of sources of error and variability in the measurements, such as battery temperature, accuracy in SOC estimate, and SOC readout precision (for example, 0.5% SOC error equates to ~0.4kWh). I tried to take out what variability I could by doing these charges after at least 30 minutes of driving after a starting battery temp that was likely within 10 degrees for all 3 tests (overnight cold-soak in Bay Area, CA), but I'm sure they weren't perfect comparisons. Based on the very small measured difference and demonstrated variability of the 3/11 and 3/14 tests themselves (0.4kWh), my conclusion is the measured difference is very likely within the error bars of the test, so no notable capacity change.

If there are future firmware updates that have indications of changes to the usable battery capacity, I'll repeat the test to see if I find any changes.


----------



## Long Ranger

Here's another data point which indicates that there is likely no real range increase in the LR RWD:

The EPA just updated their 2019 spreadsheet to show the 325 mile range. However, it still shows the exact same actual range of 330.01 miles as it did previously. No improvement in the actual EPA numbers. Just a change in the statement which now says "Combined range voluntarily lowered to 325 miles" (used to say 310), and the correction factor in the spreadsheet is now 325/330.0101 instead of 310/330.0101.

Minor note, a lot of folks here have been quoting an EPA range of 334 miles. That is the number in the original 2017 spreadsheet (333.83 miles). It was updated to 330.01 miles in the 2018 and 2019 files.

Data source:
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/download.shtml
See Fuel Economy Guide Datafiles


----------



## Bokonon

Long Ranger said:


> Minor note, a lot of folks here have been quoting an EPA range of 334 miles. That is the number in the original 2017 spreadsheet (333.83 miles). It was updated to 330.01 miles in the 2018 and 2019 files.


Thanks for pointing this out... I was unaware that the 334 had been changed to 330 for 2018.


----------



## scaots

Just more input that there is no real change...
I received 5.15 with the range bump last week and then took a road trip. 100% charge 3x and every time charged to 320. When my car was new 9 months ago it was 314, but most recently (but really been a while since I charged to 100%) was around 308. The 320 number falls quickly if it is cool and you let it sit a little. I did discharge down to 5% and 9% then charged back up to 100% and let the pack balance a little this morning and no change, so I think that is all I can get now. 

In my driving of regular commute and the trip that I have done before, I see no change in efficiencies or usable battery. So yeah this is not any real gain. Also the usable pack rating based on my kWh used appears to be 72kWh, so if the pack is actually closer to 80kWh there is likely some reserve that could be pulled on still. I didn't bother to try to figure out usable pack based on that before the update but can't imagine that it would have been less then 72kWh


----------



## Nirvana

I just got the update yesterday and only went from 307 to 314 on the range at 100%? Has anyone else getting similar results? I do have about 22k miles so I know I will not get the full 325 but thought it would be around 322 or 323. Temperatures where I am at is around 50’s low and 70’s high so ideal temperatures for battery and I drive pretty slow. I normally charge to 90% about every 3rd day.


----------



## iChris93

Nirvana said:


> I just got the update yesterday and only went from 307 to 314 on the range at 100%? Has anyone else getting similar results? I do have about 22k miles so I know I will not get the full 325 but thought it would be around 322 or 323. Temperatures where I am at is around 50's low and 70's high so ideal temperatures for battery and I drive pretty slow. I normally charge to 90% about every 3rd day.


Normal, look at the poll here.


----------



## tivoboy

I haven’t done a full charge since the update but at 80% today and 262 miles that’s right about 325. Last time charged to full the car showed 311


----------

