# Poll: 2019.5.15 or higher: Calculated Range



## RichEV (Sep 21, 2017)

We are seeing a lot of variation in the calculated range for LR 3's in the 15.5 thread.

No need to charge to 100%, just extrapolate from whatever charge level you like.

Also, are any AWD vehicles showing increased range?


----------



## gary in NY (Dec 2, 2018)

I just loaded 2019.5.15 today, so have not had time to evaluate any of the changes. I don't anticipate any additional range though (in my M3D).


----------



## md_m3 (Apr 15, 2018)

Extrapolated range from teslafi is 323.1. I believe its just taking actual range=291/0.9 = 323. This is fairly early (05/2018) rwd lr.


----------



## raptor (May 6, 2018)

I wonder if we should compare range at 80%, just so we can get more data? I can't imagine too many of us charging to 100% on a regular basis.


----------



## Frully (Aug 30, 2018)

RichEV said:


> We are seeing a lot of variation in the calculated range for LR 3's in the 15.5 thread.
> 
> Also, are any AWD vehicles showing increased range?


Like others, haven't tested yet but will try 100% tonight to see where it goes


----------



## iChris93 (Feb 3, 2017)

raptor said:


> I wonder if we should compare range at 80%, just so we can get more data? I can't imagine too many of us charging to 100% on a regular basis.


Oops. I voted based on 70% charge extrapolated.


----------



## Mike (Apr 4, 2016)

On a 3.5 hour trip today, I drove the first portion in a manner to have the (10 minute average energy graph) average Wh/km used line merge with the "rated range" line.

The dotted 149 Wh/km used line showed as perfect merge with the solid rated range line, the same figure I had prior to 5.15.

Same rated range as before, but more kms at 100% SOC than before.......now shows 516 km at 100% SOC (but battery was still accepting 1.7 KW of power and I had no more time).


----------



## RichEV (Sep 21, 2017)

iChris93 said:


> Oops. I voted based on 70% charge extrapolated.


No need to charge to 100%, just extrapolate from whatever charge level you like.


----------



## RichEV (Sep 21, 2017)

raptor said:


> I wonder if we should compare range at 80%, just so we can get more data? I can't imagine too many of us charging to 100% on a regular basis.


No need to charge to 100%, just extrapolate from whatever charge level you like.


----------



## mswlogo (Oct 8, 2018)

RichEV said:


> No need to charge to 100%, just extrapolate from whatever charge level you like.


The "predicted" miles left for any charge level will vary all over the map.

Take a close up picture of your Energy App Screen and figure out where the code is drawing the reference line for your model vehicle.

For

RWD (before 325 range upgrade) it was drawn at 241 wh/mi (which agrees with 310 mile range),
AWD it is drawn at 250 wh/mi (which comes to around 295 mile range)
RWD (after upgrade) it should be drawn around 230 wh/mi (to get 325 mile range).

The Scale I drew on top is the count of Pixels from 0 wh/mi. I cross checked my "pixel math" of where my current average is drawn. And it checks out with the "275 Label" Tesla provides.

This where my AWD reference line is drawn (250 wh/mi or 142 pixels from 0).
The Red Arrow is where a RWD reference line is drawn (pre 325 range) would draw it (251 wh/mi or 142 pixels from 0).
The RWD (post 325 range) reference line should be drawn about 5 pixels lower (230 wh/mi or ~132 pixels from 0).

Tesla does not share the actual number (with a label). But they are drawing the reference line according to what they think the wh/mi you need to drive in order to get the "official" range.


----------



## SingleTrackMinded (Jul 15, 2018)

Just tested - first time I've fully charges my Model 3 since taking delivery in August 2018: 314 mile range. So, either in 7 months I have 11 miles degradation on the battery pack, or the advertised increase in range is inaccurate, or something else is amiss.


----------



## mswlogo (Oct 8, 2018)

RichEV said:


> No need to charge to 100%, just extrapolate from whatever charge level you like.


Actually you could toggle back and forth between %Level and Miles Level on the battery to extrapolate exactly, I think.
But it would be curious to see where they move the reference line too.


----------



## mswlogo (Oct 8, 2018)

SingleTrackMinded said:


> Just tested - first time I've fully charges my Model 3 since taking delivery in August 2018: 314 mile range. So, either in 7 months I have 11 miles degradation on the battery pack, or the advertised increase in range is inaccurate, or something else is amiss.
> 
> View attachment 23233


Just try changing your display to show Battery in %. It will either be 101% or 97%. I'll let you figure which means what


----------



## SingleTrackMinded (Jul 15, 2018)

mswlogo said:


> Just try changing your display to show Battery in %. It will either be 101% or 97%. I'll let you figure which means what


100%


----------



## jmmdownhil (Sep 12, 2017)

After 5.15 download I charged to 90% and range was 292. Previously 90% = 279. So 100% is now 325. Also toggled battery range between miles and % to help confirm.


----------



## RichEV (Sep 21, 2017)

mswlogo said:


> The "predicted" miles left for any charge level will vary all over the map.


Uh, no. The predicted full charge mileage (miles/%charge) has been very consistent at all % charges, within a couple of miles.



mswlogo said:


> RWD (before 325 range upgrade) it was drawn at 241 wh/mi (which agrees with 310 mile range),
> RWD (after upgrade) it should be drawn around 230 wh/mi (to get 325 mile range).


Right, and my car still shows the reference line at 241, even after updating to 15.5. Thus the range of calculated miles shown in the poll.


----------



## mswlogo (Oct 8, 2018)

RichEV said:


> Uh, no. The predicted full charge mileage (miles/%charge) has been very consistent at all % charges, within a couple of miles.
> 
> Right, and my car still shows the reference line at 241, even after updating to 15.5. Thus the range of calculated miles shown in the poll.


Well we just had someone violate that with a post showing 4 miles high and I've seen folks post even higher. It's a useless metric in of itself. So uh, no to you too.


----------



## RichEV (Sep 21, 2017)

mswlogo said:


> Well we just had someone violate that with a post showing 4 miles high


Sorry to be dense but I'm not sure what you mean by "a post showing 4 miles high"?

Perhaps what you mean by "The "predicted" miles left for any charge level will vary all over the map." is that the predicted miles for a given charge level will vary from car to car? If so, then never mind my confused response.


----------



## mswlogo (Oct 8, 2018)

RichEV said:


> Sorry to be dense but I'm not sure what you mean by "a post showing 4 miles high"?
> 
> Perhaps what you mean by "The "predicted" miles left for any charge level will vary all over the map." is that the predicted miles for a given charge level will vary from car to car? If so, then never mind my confused response.


Yes, I think 

The meter of how full your battery is, alaways displayed in the left panel above the power meter. That can read % full or theoretical miles left. It is an estimate based on voltage. It's usually not far off but it can be off a lot sometimes depending on temps, charge patterns etc.


----------



## Vince3 (Mar 9, 2018)

5.15 no change on miles.still 279 at 90%. April 2018 lR RWD


----------



## Frully (Aug 30, 2018)

LR AWD numbers to extrapolate before charging:
312km = 63% = ~495km max range = same as before updateish.


----------



## Mike (Apr 4, 2016)

Mike said:


> On a 3.5 hour trip today, I drove the first portion in a manner to have the (10 minute average energy graph) average Wh/km used line merge with the "rated range" line.
> 
> The dotted 149 Wh/km used line showed as perfect merge with the solid rated range line, the same figure I had prior to 5.15.
> 
> Same rated range as before, but more kms at 100% SOC than before.......now shows 516 km at 100% SOC (but battery was still accepting 1.7 KW of power and I had no more time).


Prior to the version 5.15 range increase, partially based on data from my Eyedro monitoring system on my EVSE circuit, I had access to 74.3 kWh of battery capacity.

I'm currently on a road trip, but I'm now estimating I have access to (a theoretical maximum of) 78.5 kWh of battery capacity (although in my situation I have experienced some loss, yet to be determined).

Once I am home, I intend to recharge to 100% (until the car will no longer accept any more power) and have my Eyedro data for that uplift.

I'll publish that data on Monday.


----------



## Mike (Apr 4, 2016)

mswlogo said:


> The "predicted" miles left for any charge level will vary all over the map.
> 
> Take a close up picture of your Energy App Screen and figure out where the code is drawing the reference line for your model vehicle.
> 
> ...


Yesterday I purposely drove in a moderate fashion to have my average (dotted) energy use line merge (perfectly) with the solid rated range line.

My LR RWD has the same rated range line as before the update, that is 149 Wh/km.

I have access to more battery capacity than before as my 100% SOC reading has increased from 499 km to (about) 516 km.


----------



## Mike (Apr 4, 2016)

SingleTrackMinded said:


> Just tested - first time I've fully charges my Model 3 since taking delivery in August 2018: 314 mile range. So, either in 7 months I have 11 miles degradation on the battery pack, or the advertised increase in range is inaccurate, or something else is amiss.
> 
> View attachment 23233


My experience mirrors yours.

Prior to the update, my "range loss" was less than 1%. (0.2% to be exact).

Now, it works out to about 2.5%.

We all know that these batteries will have the greatest amount of loss in the first 12 months of service.

My car is 10 months old and there is no way my pac would only have 0.2% loss.

2.5% is a much more realistic (and palitable) result.

IMO, prior to this update, my true capacity loss was simply being hidden in an unused portion of the total capacity.

Now that that unused portion is unlocked, I only see so much of it because of realistic and expected first year capacity loss.

Your 314/325 figure indicates 3.4% capacity loss, well under the expected (via Model S and X historical data) 5% .

As always, YMMV.


----------



## BigBri (Jul 16, 2016)

Don't think I'm seeing any increase yet. 100% is usually 505-510km for me, it's always been above the advertised 499. I've not gone to 10-90% in awhile so I'm not charging for a few days and seeing what my results are after.


----------



## SR22pilot (Aug 16, 2018)

LR AWD 292 was 308 when I got my car last September

LR RWD 326 was 310 prior to 5.15. Car bought last November


----------



## wcorey (Oct 29, 2017)

RichEV said:


> We are seeing a lot of variation in the calculated range for LR 3's in the 15.5 thread.
> 
> No need to charge to 100%, just extrapolate from whatever charge level you like.
> 
> Also, are any AWD vehicles showing increased range?


Are we talking about two different things? 1) correcting an under-advertised range, LR_RWD was rated at 325 but Tesla asked EPA to underrate to 310 such that they'd exceed EPA rating? The LR-AWD was actually rated at 308. 2) Tesla was going to 'uncork' derated performance such that the cars would push the motor harder with less power. I have a 3-LR-AWD and charging to 80% is still 245miles advertised range. I have an extended trip coming up on Tues so I will see if the WH/miles is appreciably different. Although that would be completely unscientific as my mileage fluctuates all over the place depending on how hard the heater has to work.


----------



## njkode (Jul 6, 2018)

Charged to 100% to see what I got and it charged to 317 with 30 min left when my wife had to leave the house. So maybe it would have gotten to 325 however when I charge to 90% it only charged to 283 which would be 90% of 315. 

Hopefully Tesla figures it out so everyone gets there 325 because none of our cars is old enough yet to have serious degradation.


----------



## Chris350 (Aug 8, 2017)

Today, I charged at a SC from 40%-100%...

When I charged before to 100%, I was seeing 310

After getting the 5.15, today it charged to 314....

The interesting thing is when it hit 314 (100%), the car showed "Calculating" in the "Remaining Time" area of the screen...

It never went to "Supercharging Complete"...

I let the car continue to charge for about another 15 minutes.... It never went above 314 and it never indicated that charging was complete... The screen did show that it was still getting a charge as if the car was still charging but it also stopped charging me money...

Strange reaction.... I guess a service call is needed...


----------



## Long Ranger (Jun 1, 2018)

njkode said:


> Charged to 100% to see what I got and it charged to 317 with 30 min left when my wife had to leave the house. So maybe it would have gotten to 325 however when I charge to 90% it only charged to 283 which would be 90% of 315.
> 
> Hopefully Tesla figures it out so everyone gets there 325 because none of our cars is old enough yet to have serious degradation.


317/325 would be 2.5% battery degradation. That's not "serious degradation" and it's probably about what would be expected. Lithium batteries typically lose the first 5% or so of capacity pretty quickly, then level out. See this graph of Model S/X historical data. 

On that graph the average crosses 97.5% somewhere between 15-20 km. If the Model 3 battery performs similarly, that would mean we should see a lot of cars reporting a range of less than 320 miles.


----------



## Mistersandman (Sep 23, 2017)

Charged to 100% last night on my LR RWD and got 324. At 90% I got 290. My VIN is 8xxx and I have about 8k miles on it and I have had it about 11 months.


----------



## mswlogo (Oct 8, 2018)

Chris350 said:


> Today, I charged at a SC from 40%-100%...
> 
> When I charged before to 100%, I was seeing 310
> 
> ...


Boy people just love scheduling services.

If you just waited it would have finished. It was probably balancing the pack when you killed it. It can sit there a long time.


----------



## md_m3 (Apr 15, 2018)

njkode said:


> Hopefully Tesla figures it out so everyone gets there 325 because none of our cars is old enough yet to have serious degradation.


How many miles are on yours? I have about 6000 miles and still have 323 range after update.

Something else to keep in mind. Other company EV (leaf comes to mind) can lose 1/3 capacity in 3 years. Losing 2.5% in 6 months and unknown miles is not bad. Other data shows tesla follows one side of a bathtub curve where there is quite a bit of degradation in first year, then it slows way down in subsequent years. Miles may matter because it maps to charge/discharge cycles.


----------



## Chris350 (Aug 8, 2017)

mswlogo said:


> Boy people just love scheduling services.
> 
> If you just waited it would have finished. It was probably balancing the pack when you killed it. It can sit there a long time.


Yeah.... I waited 15 minutes.... But when you see that it says it's still charging yet you don't see the money meter going up, you can get a little gun shy.


----------



## njkode (Jul 6, 2018)

md_m3 said:


> How many miles are on yours? I have about 6000 miles and still have 323 range after update.
> 
> Something else to keep in mind. Other company EV (leaf comes to mind) can lose 1/3 capacity in 3 years. Losing 2.5% in 6 months and unknown miles is not bad. Other data shows tesla follows one side of a bathtub curve where there is quite a bit of degradation in first year, then it slows way down in subsequent years. Miles may matter because it maps to charge/discharge cycles.


I'll have 9500 miles on mine. That is a good point, I'm happy I've gained more range And maybe it will gain some more.


----------



## aronth5 (Dec 7, 2016)

RWD LR 10k miles, 1 year ownership.
First 80% charge after upgrading to 5.15 my range actually went down to 241 miles. Yesterday did a charge from 18% to 90% overnight.
This morning it showed 87% with 265 miles clearly not seeing a bump in range. I'm assuming some is battery degradation but that doesn't explain the full difference if the upgrade was supposed to be 325 miles.


----------



## TeslaM3-KT (Sep 30, 2018)

Noticed my 90% has been slowly increasing each day since the 5.15 update.

1st day - 280 miles | 2nd day - 281 miles | 3rd day (Today) - 282 miles


----------



## jimmyle1511 (Nov 27, 2018)

So the car needs to be plug in at 100% for couple days to readjust. Last night my 100% charge was 319miles then this morning when i wake up the car is up to 323 miles and check my stat app, it was recharge couple of times during night bc you plugged in and if the car awake or range lost it will top up and readjust the range and battery.


----------



## aronth5 (Dec 7, 2016)

jimmyle1511 said:


> So the car needs to be plug in at 100% for couple days to readjust. Last night my 100% charge was 319miles then this morning when i wake up the car is up to 323 miles and check my stat app, it was recharge couple of times during night bc you plugged in and if the car awake or range lost it will top up and readjust the range and battery.


Interesting, I have always read that you should never leave the car at 100% for very long as it is bad for the battery. Since that has been mentioned since the Model S first came out do you have a source that states there will be no battery degradation if plugged in at 100% for a long time?


----------



## jimmyle1511 (Nov 27, 2018)

aronth5 said:


> Interesting, I have always read that you should never leave the car at 100% for very long as it is bad for the battery. Since that has been mentioned since the Model S first came out do you have a source that states there will be no battery degradation if plugged in at 100% for a long time?


----------



## jimmyle1511 (Nov 27, 2018)

No. That is the old cells.
You should search in forum, backthen there were alot of ? But Elon tweeted that saying leave 100% charge plug after 100% few days to balance the cells or leave at 90% for few days unplug after 90%.

So what i did i left charged 100%, check the car couple hours to top up from 99% to 100% then it increased from 319 miles to 322 miles @99% so im sure couple of this will balance out the cells to 325.

Samething when i was around 308-309 then to 310 mile before the software upgrade.

My build was Jun 2018 and im 7k miles now.


----------



## iChris93 (Feb 3, 2017)

jimmyle1511 said:


> But Elon tweeted that saying leave 100% charge plug after 100% few days to balance the cells or leave at 90% for few days unplug after 90%.


That is not what he said.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1068745921079345152


----------



## mswlogo (Oct 8, 2018)

jimmyle1511 said:


> No. That is the old cells.
> You should search in forum, backthen there were alot of ? But Elon tweeted that saying leave 100% charge plug after 100% few days to balance the cells or leave at 90% for few days unplug after 90%.
> 
> So what i did i left charged 100%, check the car couple hours to top up from 99% to 100% then it increased from 319 miles to 322 miles @99% so im sure couple of this will balance out the cells to 325.
> ...


You're not gonna get a valid answer from doing that and you could be hurting your battery. But it's your car.

Like I mentioned in another post. You reference line in the energy app *should *move to around 230 wh/mi to reach 325 mile range.

Also for the record there was no mention of software opening up reserve power or anything.
The LR RWD was always "325" (or higher than 310) and all that the software is probably gonna do is adjust it's estimates to match that new "average/official" number.

Many will still beat the 325 range for sure.

Until that reference line moves, I highly suspect nothing has changed.

If you want to see bigger numbers change it to Kilometers.


----------



## Rye3 (Jun 22, 2018)

I just did a web chat with Tesla to ask why my car didn’t receive any extra range with 2019.5.15. She told me that not all eligible Model 3s received the range boost with the update. Another update will be coming out that will give me the range increase in the “coming weeks”. Maybe that’s why the range boost wasn’t in the release notes?


----------



## aronth5 (Dec 7, 2016)

jimmyle1511 said:


> View attachment 23334


I don't understand your response to my post. How does it answer my question?


----------



## rwsimon (Apr 16, 2018)

All of this fussing about the “new” range seems pointless. Is there any reason to believe that a full battery charge will allow you to drive further now than it did before the software update? I think there is not and therefore: who cares?


----------



## RichEV (Sep 21, 2017)

rwsimon said:


> All of this fussing about the "new" range seems pointless. Is there any reason to believe that a full battery charge will allow you to drive further now than it did before the software update? I think there is not and therefore: who cares?


Good point, unless somehow the car can go a little further after the magic is applied. Maybe eventually Tesla will clarify.

Also, the fussing isn't so much about the new range. It from those like me that didn't see any new range. Even if it is merely marketing range I want mine.


----------



## RichEV (Sep 21, 2017)

mswlogo said:


> Like I mentioned in another post. You reference line in the energy app *should *move to around 230 wh/mi to reach 325 mile range.


You can calculate your car's energy reference line in wh/mi. No need to count pixels.

From the energy graph: (Avg Wh/Mi * Projected Range / current range in miles) (or km if that's your thing).

You get slightly different values from the 3 different energy graphs due to rounding. Mine averages to 234.4. Even so, my calculated (miles/%charge) range is only about 308. That multiplies out to only 72.2Kwh in a full battery.


----------



## Unplugged (Apr 5, 2016)

As I noted in a software update post, my TeslaFi shows an increase, to around 325. But my question to Tesla is whether this resulted from decreasing the battery buffer? If so, I guess I would rather live with the bigger buffer and change the buffer after five years or so. Oh well. I just won't charge it to 80% as much.


----------



## TheMagician (Oct 15, 2018)

Got 325 first time I charged to 100%. Only had 2019.5.15 for 2 days. Car is Jan. '18 build with almost 10K. And yes, my dog is my wallpaper


----------



## SoFlaModel3 (Apr 15, 2017)

We have confirmation from Tesla that there is a bug and not all cars see the increased range. Of course I still see 310 😢


----------



## ig0p0g0 (Apr 27, 2018)

I’m at 313 after 10 months and 25k miles. I figure that’s about right.


----------



## Mike (Apr 4, 2016)

rwsimon said:


> All of this fussing about the "new" range seems pointless. Is there any reason to believe that a full battery charge will allow you to drive further now than it did before the software update? I think there is not and therefore: who cares?


I have reason to believe I will drive farther with this software update, based on the fact my rated range of 149 Wh/km on version 5.15 is the same as it was prior to this update.

Tomorrow when I get home from my road trip, I will top up my battery to 90% (from an anticipated 15%) via my Tesla Wall Connector EVSE circuit being monitored by my Eyedro monitoring system.

Assuming a 75% uplift, under the old software the figure would be about (74.3 x .75) 55.7 kWh uplift plus a small (about 5%) additional amount for conversion losses.

My expectations for tomorrow is the above, but using 78.5 versus 74.3 as the 100% SOC available kWh constant.

I'll report my results here.


----------



## Ken Voss (Feb 2, 2017)

Full 100% charge gives me 314 miles


----------



## iChris93 (Feb 3, 2017)

Full charge to 100% got me 323 miles yesterday. Over 17k miles on the car.


----------



## Mike (Apr 4, 2016)

Got back from Ottawa at 1330 today, arrived with 21%/108 km.

Injected 55.346 kWh into my car:









Charging complete a few minutes ago, car shows 90%/462 km.

69%/354 km gained with 55.346 drawn from the grid.

(100/69) x 55.346 = 80.2 kWh minus 4.5% (3.6 kWh) conversion loss (seen as low as 2% and as high as 7% over life of ownership) = 76.6 kWh.

EDIT: The 354 km gained, at .149 Wh/km rated range works out to a (theoretical) net uplift of 52.746 kWh.

(100/69) x 52.746 = 76.44 kWh

End edit.

-------------

Mathematically, the most capacity I could ever see prior to 5.15 is 74.3 kWh.

This single data point is telling me I may be seeing 76.6 kWh (76.44 kWh) capacity.

I still expect it will work out to 78.5 kWh of usable capacity, data confirmation later this spring via multiple Supercharger uses (no on board conversion losses to factor in).

--------------

If my 90% is 462 km, then 100% ((100/90) x 462) equals a theoretical 513.3 km at 100% SOC.

513.3/523 equals about 2% degradation (but I have yet to top it off at 100% with no more power draw).

Closing in on 10 months and 23,000 km.


----------



## TeslaM3-KT (Sep 30, 2018)

TeslaM3-KT said:


> Noticed my 90% has been slowly increasing each day since the 5.15 update.
> 
> 1st day - 280 miles | 2nd day - 281 miles | 3rd day (Today) - 282 miles


Just an update: The car now charges to 283 miles at 90%. I want to believe slowly but surely it'll get to 291/292 at 90%...


----------



## Chris350 (Aug 8, 2017)

mswlogo said:


> Boy people just love scheduling services.
> 
> If you just waited it would have finished. It was probably balancing the pack when you killed it. It can sit there a long time.


Guess it wasn't a good thing that I waited... and made the service appointment...

Seems the charge port needed to be replaced..... Now I wait for my car to exit "service".....


----------



## SimonMatthews (Apr 20, 2018)

Is there a conclusion on whether the increased range is an actual increase in range, or merely an increase in reported range?


----------



## Bokonon (Apr 13, 2017)

SimonMatthews said:


> Is there a conclusion on whether the increased range is an actual increase in range, or merely an increase in reported range?


Most likely the latter. This post compares some of the car's internal range-related metrics before and after the firmware update that provided the additional range for RWD configs, and observes that the only changes were to the number of miles reported on the car's touchscreen and in the app.


----------



## Mike (Apr 4, 2016)

SimonMatthews said:


> Is there a conclusion on whether the increased range is an actual increase in range, or merely an increase in reported range?


I have concluded it is actual, additional battery capacity that has been released for our use (LR RWD).

My argument: https://teslaownersonline.com/threads/poll-2019-5-15-calculated-range.11771/post-216430


----------



## MelindaV (Apr 2, 2016)

Mike said:


> I have concluded it is actual, additional battery capacity that has been released for our use (LR RWD).
> 
> My argument: https://teslaownersonline.com/threads/poll-2019-5-15-calculated-range.11771/post-216430


Please see the link in the post just prior.


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

MelindaV said:


> Please see the link in the post just prior.


Better yet, let's just inline it here:


fast_like_electric said:


> Just received the 2019.5.15 with the supposed range update. Did a 0-60 MPH run just before the update as well. Summary below...
> 
> - No change in 0x352 nominal full pack energy or energy buffer: 76.1 kWh and 3.4 kWh respectively
> - No change in 0x292 SOC numbers (had charged to 81% before and after update)
> ...


----------



## Mike (Apr 4, 2016)

garsh said:


> Better yet, let's just inline it here:


Okay, my next test will be the next six supercharger uploads sessions I will do later this spring.

Not being obtuse (although my wife would beg to differ), but if my Eyedro setup tells me I'm pumping more energy into the car for a given % increase compared to before, I can't ignore that......or the fact my rated range line is still 149 Wh/km.


----------



## bkgarceau (Aug 3, 2018)

ig0p0g0 said:


> I'm at 313 after 10 months and 25k miles. I figure that's about right.


Thats some mighty fine driving right there!


----------



## RichEV (Sep 21, 2017)

I finally got some range increase with the 8.3 firmware install. I went from 308 miles on 5.15 to 318 miles on 8.3, yeah!


----------



## Jasonh4451 (Apr 11, 2017)

Anyone else seeing a change with 8.3? I just got it but still seeing only 310 miles. I had 5.15 before


----------



## magglass1 (Apr 15, 2018)

Jasonh4451 said:


> Anyone else seeing a change with 8.3? I just got it but still seeing only 310 miles. I had 5.15 before


I'm also still seeing 310mi on my LR RWD 3 after updating to 8.3.


----------



## Defjukie (Sep 28, 2017)

magglass1 said:


> I'm also still seeing 310mi on my LR RWD 3 after updating to 8.3.


same boat


----------



## RichEV (Sep 21, 2017)

RichEV said:


> I finally got some range increase with the 8.3 firmware install. I went from 308 miles on 5.15 to 318 miles on 8.3, yeah!


Darn, that seems to have been a temporary glitch - or I miscalculated. Still 307


----------



## dannyskim (Nov 14, 2016)

Jasonh4451 said:


> Anyone else seeing a change with 8.3? I just got it but still seeing only 310 miles. I had 5.15 before


Same here, 310 on the dot at 100% still on 8.3.


----------



## tencate (Jan 11, 2018)

So I have a question about variations in range I've seen. I've been calculating my range the usual way, looking at miles left and dividing by the percentage of charge. Over the last few weeks that range number has varied from 303 miles today to a high of 318 miles a few days ago during an especially nice day. My charge state has been all over the map in that time, I usually plug in overnight to top up (80%) but lately I haven't been doing that and have been driving more, down to 25% and anywhere in between. Max has lots of miles now, I'm not sure I expect to see 325 miles of range anymore but the variation range (15 miles) is roughly 5%. Anyone else done this repeatedly and seen similar results? Methinks that folks worried over a handful of miles difference is "in the noise" but maybe not? Anyone else?

[edit: the most recent range calculation says 303 miles and I got 8.3 the other day]


----------



## Mike (Apr 4, 2016)

I just did another top-up this morning.

Started at: 50% (indicated) 256 km range (256/523 equals 48.95%)

Ended at: 90% (indicated) 463 km range (463/523 equals 88.53%)

A gain of 40% (indicated) 39.58% (via range gained method).

I injected 32 kWh into my car (via EVSE circuit monitor).

(100/39.58) x 32 kWh = 80.85 kWh minus 4.5% conversion loss (3.64 kWh) = estimated usable battery capacity of 77.2 kWh.

As I've stated before, prior to 5.15, the best (mathematically) capacity I used to come with was 74.3 kWh.


----------



## tivoboy (Mar 24, 2017)

Just did my first full fill up since this update and probably only the fifth or sixth since having the car 

Previous 3-4 showed 310/311

This latest one today showed 325


----------



## Mike (Apr 4, 2016)

tivoboy said:


> Just did my first full fill up since this update and probably only the fifth or sixth since having the car
> 
> Previous 3-4 showed 310/311
> 
> This latest one today showed 325


I'm in the process of trying to get to 100% and NO power draw prior to a road trip leaving in about 45 minutes.

It's currently reading 99% with 511 km rated range.

It's still drawing 2.6 kW:


----------



## scaots (Sep 13, 2017)

On 5.15 my range is reported as 320 at 100% and 160 at 50%. I did take a trip right after 5.15, charged to 100% three times. There was no noticable real range increase on the trip or better efficiency reported on my regular commute. Seems to get me the same as it would do before. Last 100% charge was about 308 so 320 would be in line with that for a little degradation.

Edit: also of note that on traveling, the kWh used seem to indicate that I still have only 72kWh available. I was at half that at 50% and it did go down if you are on a long hill so it is actually what is used from battery.


----------



## Mike (Apr 4, 2016)

Mike said:


> I'm in the process of trying to get to 100% and NO power draw prior to a road trip leaving in about 45 minutes.
> 
> It's currently reading 99% with 511 km rated range.
> 
> ...


Car says 515 km range and still pulling 1.5 kW of power. ..........

I don't think it will be topped up in 15 minutes and the boss is giving me the five minute warning........


----------



## Mike (Apr 4, 2016)

Back from my trip, will comment about 2019.8.3, NOA and rain in the appropriate thread.....

When I was leaving home yesterday, this was after pulling the plug (but car was still accepting power):









516 km/318.5 miles.


----------



## foo (Nov 21, 2018)

mswlogo said:


> The "predicted" miles left for any charge level will vary all over the map.
> 
> Take a close up picture of your Energy App Screen and figure out where the code is drawing the reference line for your model vehicle.
> 
> ...


I've got a LR AWD running 8.4 and I believe that the rated consumption is actually being calculated at 246Wh/mi (even though the line is at 250 as you say.) [the estimated range matches the calculated range when the running avg is 246... the dashed line shows as being just a little under the solid "rated" line.]

Is it possible that it is now allowing for tires as well (I'm running the 19" procontact)


----------



## jsmay311 (Oct 2, 2017)

I finally got around to charging to 100% and got 315 miles. 

Not sure which answer on the poll to choose tho.


----------



## RichEV (Sep 21, 2017)

jsmay311 said:


> I finally got around to charging to 100% and got 315 miles.
> 
> Not sure which answer on the poll to choose tho.


Guess I should have said 310-314.99


----------



## silvanojr (Jan 21, 2018)

2019.8.5 still seeing 310mi


----------



## Ken Voss (Feb 2, 2017)

From the survey it seems only 25% who responded get over 320 miles on a full charge, while 42% get under 315 miles. For a car that is advertised to get 325 mile range, that's not good! 

Since updating to 2019.8.5 on 2 different occasions I have run down the battery <4% and charged up to 100% in an attempt to help calibrate. But no luck, I only get 312 miles at 100%, that's 4% short of the advertised 325 mile range.

Over the year I have had the car, I have only charged to a full 100% one other time but in the last few weeks I have been paying close attention and there is another "full charge" behavior that I find odd. While I show 312 with a 100% charge, the battery consumption for the first few miles is drastic, it quickly drops from 312 down to 302 miles in the first 5 miles of normal driving and after that it battery depletion seems to level out and behaves normally. So really while it displays 312 at a full charge, it is realistically about 5 miles less than that or 307 miles, that's 5% short of the advertised 325 mile range.

I hope that a future release will help correct whatever is going on here...... thoughts?


----------



## iChris93 (Feb 3, 2017)

Ken Voss said:


> Over the year I have had the car, I have only charged to a full 100% one other time but in the last few weeks I have been paying close attention and there is another "full charge" behavior that I find odd. While I show 312 with a 100% charge, the battery consumption for the first few miles is drastic, it quickly drops from 312 down to 302 miles in the first 5 miles of normal driving and after that it battery depletion seems to level out and behaves normally. So really while it displays 312 at a full charge, it is realistically about 5 miles less than that or 307 miles, that's 5% short of the advertised 325 mile range.


Could this be because you have no regeneration at 100% charge?


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

Ken Voss said:


> From the survey it seems only 25% who responded get over 320 miles on a full charge, while 42% get under 315 miles. For a car that is advertised to get 325 mile range, that's not good!


People rarely get EPA-rated range in a combustion vehicle either. But people don't freak out over efficiency, just range. It's understandable.

If you want to get the rated range, drive at 55-60 mph.


----------



## Ken Voss (Feb 2, 2017)

garsh said:


> People rarely get EPA-rated range in a combustion vehicle either. But people don't freak out over efficiency, just range. It's understandable.
> 
> If you want to get the rated range, drive at 55-60 mph.


What I am talking about has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with driving style, if you are looking for an ICE comparison, it would be kind of like an advertised 20 gallon fuel tank that only holds 18 Gallons of fuel, it doesn't matter how you drive, your range will always be less than it would be if you could actually fill it with 20 gallons.


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

Ken Voss said:


> What I am talking about has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with driving style,


Oh, sorry. You're talking about what the car shows when charged to 100%.

I'm not sure what Tesla can do about this other than have a capacity warranty. Unlike gas tank capacity, batteries degrade with use.


----------



## PNWmisty (Aug 19, 2017)

Ken Voss said:


> Over the year I have had the car, I have only charged to a full 100% one other time but in the last few weeks I have been paying close attention and there is another "full charge" behavior that I find odd. While I show 312 with a 100% charge, the battery consumption for the first few miles is drastic, it quickly drops from 312 down to 302 miles in the first 5 miles of normal driving and after that it battery depletion seems to level out and behaves normally.


That's normal behavior if you have your cabin temperature set to above ambient. The electric heater core in the Model 3 draws the most current when it's cold (up to 7 kW). That's why many of us pre-heat briefly while it's still plugged into the wall (even when it's only cool 50's outside). When you pre-heat, even for two minutes, the heater core comes up to temperature using wall current and reduces the cycling of your battery (and increases your actual range by a few miles).


----------



## Ken Voss (Feb 2, 2017)

PNWmisty said:


> That's normal behavior if you have your cabin temperature set to above ambient. The electric heater core in the Model 3 draws the most current when it's cold (up to 7 kW). That's why many of us pre-heat briefly while it's still plugged into the wall (even when it's only cool 50's outside). When you pre-heat, even for two minutes, the heater core comes up to temperature using wall current and reduces the cycling of your battery (and increases your actual range by a few miles).


Thanks but that's definitely not the issue, I am California where it is in the low 70's, I am not using the heater or AC right now


----------



## RichEV (Sep 21, 2017)

garsh said:


> Oh, sorry. You're talking about what the car shows when charged to 100%.
> 
> I'm not sure what Tesla can do about this other than have a capacity warranty. Unlike gas tank capacity, batteries degrade with use.


Perhaps I should have created this poll asking "how much did your range increase with fw 5.15 or 8.5?" This particuar discussion isn't about battery degradation over time. It is about the fact that many vehicles have shown no, or little, increase from their pre-5.15 set point. Tesla support says "hmm, you should have gotten an increase, maybe try recalibrating the bms and get back to us if it doesn't improve eventually." I don't have a long commute so it is taking some time to find out if recalibration does the trick.


----------



## dannyskim (Nov 14, 2016)

RichEV said:


> Perhaps I should have created this poll asking "how much did your range increase with fw 5.15 or 8.5?" This particuar discussion isn't about battery degradation over time. It is about the fact that many vehicles have shown no, or little, increase from their pre-5.15 set point. Tesla support says "hmm, you should have gotten an increase, maybe try recalibrating the bms and get back to us if it doesn't improve eventually." I don't have a long commute so it is taking some time to find out if recalibration does the trick.


I work from home, it took me 1 1/2 weeks to drain the battery, haha.


----------



## PNWmisty (Aug 19, 2017)

Ken Voss said:


> Thanks but that's definitely not the issue, I am California where it is in the low 70's, I am not using the heater or AC right now


I brought up the possibility of the heater core consuming a burst of energy at the beginning of your drive because the only way to keep it off is to have the cabin temperature setpoint set to "LO". You said you have been noticing higher consumption at the beginning of your drive "for the last few weeks". The temperatures in San Francisco have only hit 70F during the daytime highs, the nighttime lows have been from high 40's to mid 50's as shown here:
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/usa/san-francisco/historic

My point is, even if you leave your house mid-day, when the temperature is climbing to the low 70's, the heater core could be cold-soaked from the night before.

There are a number of other factors that can cause higher consumption at the beginning of your drive, probably the biggest one is the tendency of the battery charge cycle to begin when you power the car up. This means the traction battery is being used to recharge the lead-acid battery and between voltage conversion and inherent losses in lead-acid battery charging, your consumption is higher at the start of your drive. Once the charge cycle is complete, the Wh/mile figure drops as all the 12V accessories (stereo, headlights, fans, etc.) are drawing down the 12V battery but it's not charging until the next cycle.

I think all of us have noticed the effect you speak of but what matters is the average efficiency overall, for all drive cycles. Of course, just like a gasoline car, if you take numerous short trips you will have higher consumption/mile than if your drives are longer.


----------



## Mike (Apr 4, 2016)

Ken Voss said:


> From the survey it seems only 25% who responded get over 320 miles on a full charge, while 42% get under 315 miles. For a car that is advertised to get 325 mile range, that's not good!
> 
> Since updating to 2019.8.5 on 2 different occasions I have run down the battery <4% and charged up to 100% in an attempt to help calibrate. But no luck, I only get 312 miles at 100%, that's 4% short of the advertised 325 mile range.
> 
> ...


My thoughts: we are seeing the "most degradation happens in the first year and then it levels off" phenomena.

I know the Model 3 is supposed to be very different, battery chemistry wise, than Model S and X.

I'm of the opinion that we are all experiencing "expected, historically normal" first year battery degradation......and all the software slight of hand tricks will not hide it anymore.

My two cents worth.


----------



## kknogas (Jul 25, 2018)

I have a May 2018 Model 3 LR with 32K miles. I used to get 310 miles extrapolated at 100% all the time until before 2019.5.15 update, which technically means no degradation(which is strange to me as I would expect at least a couple miles lower than 310 after 30K miles, even though I baby the battery). After that update, charging to 100% shows 316-317 miles and not 325. And after 2019.8.5 update, it went down to 313-314. I recently had a chat with Tesla support and explained that if I was getting 310 miles on 100% charge before 2019.5.15 update, which means technically no degradation, then I should be getting 325 after the update. After a while, the support representative after talking to his colleagues let me know that there is a bug in the range calculation in that update and that it will be resolved in 2019.12 update. I'll have to check again after getting the 2019.12 update. If anyone has the 2019.12 update, can they confirm what range they see at 100%, even extrapolated?

EDIT: They didn't confirm that the fix will be in 2019.12. The support said they are hoping for the fix to be in 2019.12 but that they can't confirm it will be. Initially, he had said it will be fixed in a future update.


----------



## dannyskim (Nov 14, 2016)

kknogas said:


> I have a May 2018 Model 3 LR with 32K miles. I used to get 310 miles extrapolated at 100% all the time until before 2019.5.15 update, which technically means no degradation(which is strange to me as I would expect at least a couple miles lower than 310 after 30K miles, even though I baby the battery). After that update, charging to 100% shows 316-317 miles and not 325. And after 2019.8.5 update, it went down to 313-314. I recently had a chat with Tesla support and explained that if I was getting 310 miles on 100% charge before 2019.5.15 update, which means technically no degradation, then I should be getting 325 after the update. After a while, the support representative after talking to his colleagues let me know that there is a bug in the range calculation in that update and that it will be resolved in 2019.12 update. I'll have to check again after getting the 2019.12 update. If anyone has the 2019.12 update, can they confirm what range they see at 100%, even extrapolated?


I call BS, support is lying. I have 2019.12 and was seeing 310 100% charge (have yet to get range increase, yes I have LR RWD) on 2019.8.5.

Now I see 306 at 100%. In comparison I only have 7k miles on my car.


----------



## tencate (Jan 11, 2018)

Mike said:


> I'm of the opinion that we are all experiencing "expected, historically normal" first year battery degradation......and all the software slight of hand tricks will not hide it anymore.


I've got a 2017 with 33k miles on it and since I'm travelling cross country with it at the moment, I got to fully charge the battery twice (and got a warning about doing that on the display). The stretch between Childress TX and Denton TX is quite a stretch even for an LR RWD, especially with the wind we had today so I juiced it all the way up. I got almost exactly 310 displayed miles of range after a full charge, this morning and at Childress. Battery degradation? I haven't been keeping track but I'd certainly have expected some in my car by now. Instead I'm reading exactly the range I had when it was new.


----------



## Mike (Apr 4, 2016)

tencate said:


> I've got a 2017 with 33k miles on it and since I'm travelling cross country with it at the moment, I got to fully charge the battery twice (and got a warning about doing that on the display). The stretch between Childress TX and Denton TX is quite a stretch even for an LR RWD, especially with the wind we had today so I juiced it all the way up. I got almost exactly 310 displayed miles of range after a full charge, this morning and at Childress. Battery degradation? I haven't been keeping track but I'd certainly have expected some in my car by now. Instead I'm reading exactly the range I had when it was new.


It's still my (very small minority) position that a small portion of previously protected battery capacity was released for our use with these recent updates.

Tesla learned from the Model S and X and they can hide the degradation within a small, protected battery capacity amount.

I'm planning long distance trips in three weeks that will be supercharger based.......as always, I will track kWh uploads with % energy uploads in the supercharger operations (no onboard charger losses to mathematically deal with).

This is one of the reasons I wish that the amont of kWh uploaded via a supercharger was captured on the UI (even after one unplugs and drives away).


----------



## kknogas (Jul 25, 2018)

dannyskim said:


> I call BS, support is lying. I have 2019.12 and was seeing 310 100% charge (have yet to get range increase, yes I have LR RWD) on 2019.8.5.
> 
> Now I see 306 at 100%. In comparison I only have 7k miles on my car.


They didn't confirm that the fix will be in 2019.12. The support said they are hoping for the fix to be in 2019.12 but that they can't confirm it will be. Initially, he had said it will be fixed in a future update.


----------



## RichEV (Sep 21, 2017)

Customer support said this on Apr 22

"My developers informed me that the recent firmware update had a slight bug which threw off the range algorithm. They are currently sending out a patch that will fix it, and you should be receiving that fix in the coming weeks. Thank you for your patience!"

Are those with 12.1.1 seeing an increase to something more like 325 miles of range? If you are, please change your vote in the poll.


----------



## RichEV (Sep 21, 2017)

Hooray! With 12.1.2 I'm finally showing 317! Running battery down to 7% and up to 93% again now to see if it might climb closer to 325.


----------



## Mike (Apr 4, 2016)

RichEV said:


> Hooray! With 12.1.2 I'm finally showing 317! Running battery down to 7% and up to 93% again now to see if it might climb closer to 325.


Any update?


----------



## DocScott (Mar 6, 2019)

First time I've charged full since just after I got the car last October. 3800 miles, 2019.16.2. Result? 325 miles on the nose!


----------



## RichEV (Sep 21, 2017)

DocScott said:


> First time I've charged full since just after I got the car last October. 3800 miles, 2019.16.2. Result? 325 miles on the nose!


Nice! I'm back down to 312 after being at 317 on 12.1.2


----------

