# Battery Degradation - Rated Range calculation



## TeslaKiller (Oct 8, 2019)

I made a video explaining the difference between rated range in KM/Miles and 0-100% and why there is a difference.






Before the questions start coming, here is also a tweet from Elon Musk regarding the buffer, confirming my finding. He explains some of the things I measured with the BMS - there is a buffer that is being used for the rated range based on the total capacity including the buffer. But since you can also use the buffer below 0%, this means that the buffer is actually not accounted for when you drive in Percentage. Meaning 0-100% is actually around 95.5% to 96% of the rated range, and not the full rated range. If you still have any questions let me know.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1000456410944061440


----------



## TeslaKiller (Oct 8, 2019)

I don't know why my video was moved. It does contain a video, but the Video is there for a reason. Would be great if we can get it back to the charging forum.


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

TeslaKiller said:


> I don't know why my video was moved. It does contain a video, but the Video is there for a reason. Would be great if we can get it back to the charging forum.


The video is discussing battery capacity, not charging. It doesn't really belong in the charging forum. Disclosure: I was not the one who moved the post. I just agree with the decision.


----------



## TeslaKiller (Oct 8, 2019)

No, it actually discusses both. Did you watch it? There is a discrepancy between the charging rate expected, due to nominal full and nominal full - buffer and EPA ratings.

And since we don't have a battery capacity sub, most of the battery related things go there anyways. Maybe you should consider making a battery capacity sub for Model 3?

Here some examples from the charging sub that discuss battery capacity and degradation, which I also discuss in the video.

https://teslaownersonline.com/threads/battery-degradation-real-or-imagined.13088/

https://teslaownersonline.com/threads/tesla-model-3-battery-degradation-data.13785/

https://teslaownersonline.com/threads/lr-rwd-not-getting-325-mile-range-anymore.12892/

Some people have requested the video in my posts and this is why I made it. I think you should reconsider moving it there, because nobody will see it here. Or at least temporary until we have a Battery capacity sub.

This will save you a ton of "my range and capacity is not what it used to be", like we see in this sub "Charging"


----------



## MelindaV (Apr 2, 2016)

TeslaKiller said:


> I don't know why my video was moved. It does contain a video, but the Video is there for a reason. Would be great if we can get it back to the charging forum.


since the entire post was essentially duplicated from a post you made in another thread, it was locate it within the video section or delete it for being a duplicate. would you rather have it deleted?


----------



## TeslaKiller (Oct 8, 2019)

MelindaV said:


> since the entire post was essentially duplicated from a post you made in another thread, it was locate it within the video section or delete it for being a duplicate. would you rather have it deleted?


Well, I can link it from the post, would that make it better? First it was the wrong sub apparently, now it is a duplicate. I don't quite understand the intention - it is a very informative video that will help a lot of Tesla drivers who have less experience and are struggling with understanding what rated range is and how it is calculated + what does charging to 100% actually means.


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

TeslaKiller said:


> No, it actually discusses both. Did you watch it?


No, I couldn't get past the click-bait title.



TeslaKiller said:


> First it was the wrong sub apparently, now it is a duplicate.


Well, did you post it twice? If so, then it was always a duplicate.


----------



## TeslaKiller (Oct 8, 2019)

garsh said:


> No, I couldn't get past the click-bait title.
> 
> Well, did you post it twice? If so, then it was always a duplicate.


It is not a clickbait. And if you actually watch it, you will A) understand that it is not a clickbait, because Tesla does indeed advertise a range and an EPA rating, that can't be achieved from 0-100%
B) you certainly will understand a few things about the car you probably didn't know beforehand.

But c'est la vie


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

TeslaKiller said:


> It is not a clickbait. And if you actually watch it, you will A) understand that it is not a clickbait,


If you felt the need to state "this is not clickbait" as the very first thing shown in your video, then you must have known that it was going to come across exactly as being clickbait.


----------



## JWardell (May 9, 2016)

No device actually reports the true state of charge of the battery to the user. If your phone actually charged to 100% every day its battery would degrade significantly very quickly. Phone manufacturers probably call ~85% "100%" and stop charging there. Tesla actually does us a favor by giving us access to more of the battery and gambles on our intelligence to only charge above "90%" for an occasional trip or immediate use.

Also note the "SOC" reported in your video is NOT a value reported by the car but an internal calculation from ScanMyTesla. We don't actually have the SOC shown to the user on the display or app, which is often reported even lower to compensate for temperature. ScanMyTesla's SOC value is compensating for the buffer and found the equation is close to the displayed value in warmer temperatures.
Just like the phone manufacturers, Tesla is playing it safe and is sure to report a charge % closer to the worse case to the user.
On the CAN you can see several other SOC values calculated by the BMS including "UI SOC" which again, is not the actual SOC reported on the UI. The display has additional math going on.

Furthermore, we have a "Full pack energy" which you are claiming shows your battery degradation, this is not true either, as that value also changes over time, including going up. Yes, it is closest we have, but true battery degradation doesn't come back.

Calculating the state of charge % of a lithium ion battery is actually incredible difficult and involves a lot of proprietary math and a good helping of guessing as well. It is proprietary to each manufacturer, to each battery formula, and frankly is there to serve as a rough guide. Play it safe and don't gamble with the last few percent. Just like you don't want to drive an ICE with 5 miles of range left in the tank (which by the way, is much much easier to estimate liquid fuel levels than electrons in a battery). Tesla can also tweak those algorithms with any software update.


----------



## TeslaKiller (Oct 8, 2019)

Thank you for watching the video and participating in a meaningful conversation on the context and outside of forum subs and clickbait titles...



JWardell said:


> No device actually reports the true state of charge of the battery to the user. If your phone actually charged to 100% every day its battery would degrade significantly very quickly. Phone manufacturers probably call ~85% "100%" and stop charging there. Tesla actually does us a favor by giving us access to more of the battery and gambles on our intelligence to only charge above "90%" for an occasional trip or immediate use.


I didn't mention this inside the Video, but I linked to a tweet from Musk, where he explains that the buffer is usable (something which I discuss in the video) and that this will not hurt the battery. From this tweet I can conclude that there is another hidden buffer somewhere underneath.
But this is actually irrelevant to the rated range, since we or the BMS never sees that hidden buffer. I only explained the difference between SoC % and rated range.



JWardell said:


> Also note the "SOC" reported in your video is NOT a value reported by the car but an internal calculation from ScanMyTesla. We don't actually have the SOC shown to the user on the display or app, which is often reported even lower to compensate for temperature. ScanMyTesla's SOC value is compensating for the buffer and found the equation is close to the displayed value in warmer temperatures.


I am very well aware of that, the formula SMT uses is 
(nominal remaining - buffer) / (full pack - buffer) * 100.0

And this formula is very close to the actual SOC shown on the screen and this is what Tesla is using in their internal calculation. This is what I explain in my video. The fact, that the car can drive under 0% and eat the 3.5kWh (this changes too) buffer is a further indication that the formula is correct. It might deviate by 0.01kWh (I have seen that), but this is irrelevant, as it is still roughly 4% below the actual SoC in %.



JWardell said:


> Just like the phone manufacturers, Tesla is playing it safe and is sure to report a charge % closer to the worse case to the user.
> On the CAN you can see several other SOC values calculated by the BMS including "UI SOC" which again, is not the actual SOC reported on the UI. The display has additional math going on.


Exactly, I mention this around the 7:20 minutes mark. 
Tesla uses the UI SOC Min value reported by CAN to be on the safe side, like you said, because, yes, Tesla is guestimating as much as the next guy. Probably better than the next guy (next guy being VW for example)

So they think ok - we have X amount of kWh min (this we are "kind of certain" ), Y amount of kWh Max and Z is the avg. Let's play it safe, because we never know, and think we actually have the minimum, X SOC UI MIN.
Around the 7:20 mark I do the math.

And the SOC UI min is actually a higher number than shown in the screen SOC % (on the screen we have 0% and the SOC UI min reported by CAN, actual available capacity, is shown to be 4,20%), because it takes the buffer from the total capacity.

This is another indication that rated range displayed on the screen and % are two different things and not equal to eachother.



JWardell said:


> Furthermore, we have a "Full pack energy" which you are claiming shows your battery degradation, this is not true either, as that value also changes over time, including going up.


Where exactly do I say that in the video?! I specifically said that BMS calibration plays a role, but this is a topic for another video.

I actually said that you can't measure the degradation using the full pack, represented by rated range on screen, using apps like TeslaFi. You can guestimate, but you will have 4% margin of error if not more.

And yes, of course the value of the "full pack" goes up and down, but not by much. I have seen it go by 0.2-0.5kWh.
When the battery is colder it is smaller and when it is warm it gets better - this is again from the guestimation of the BMS.

You can easily observe this when you leave the car and have "vampire gain" when the weather gets warmer during the day (happens often in the autumn)

But! if the BMS is well calibrated, you can definetely see a "degradation" if you measure the state of full pack kWh reported by the car when NEW and the state after a X amount of miles. Wether this is a real "chemistry" degradation or BMS uncalibration is another topic and I actually mention that in the video.

If I went into further details, explaining battery deviations due to weather and chemistry, people would get even more confused. As you can see, some people have problems processing even this basic information...



JWardell said:


> Calculating the state of charge % of a lithium ion battery is actually incredible difficult and involves a lot of proprietary math and a good helping of guessing as well. It is proprietary to each manufacturer, to each battery formula, and frankly is there to serve as a rough guide. Play it safe and don't gamble with the last few percent. Just like you don't want to drive an ICE with 5 miles of range left in the tank (which by the way, is much much easier to estimate liquid fuel levels than electrons in a battery). Tesla can also tweak those algorithms with any software update.


I totally agree with that. But that doesn't change the fact, and the premises of my video, that Tesla is using two different state of charge informations to display two different things - the miles rated displayed in miles and %.

And that Tesla is indeed misleading, when they say you can drive from 0-100% in 310 miles with the EPA rated consumption. This is not the case.

What they should do is arrange the % indication to be 0-100%, but 100% taken from the whole capacity. Then the % will match the rated range.

But this will not be good for the battery though as people will most likely eat the buffer. Because now, when people go to 5%-10% they are actually at 10-14%. And if Tesla adjusts this, people will be at "true" 5% which is a bit less good for the battery.

Or, Tesla can display the actual available range of about EPA rated 290 miles and not 310 miles, from 0-100%. But this will be bad marketing for them.

I understand why they do these things, but yes, they are in fact, kind of, sort of, lying to people. Or at least not doing a very good job explaining things...


----------



## JWardell (May 9, 2016)

The EPA ratings were actually much much higher. Tesla voluntarily reduced them. It's all just an estimate.
My point is that you are accusing Tesla of lying, when in fact they can never predict the future or know exactly what range you have left. And no manufacturer of any battery product can possible do so either. So everyone is lying to you?
Do you think it would be better if the car instead displayed the highest possible range...well that could be 400+ miles if you drive slow enough...then millions of people are stranded when they unexpectedly hit zero, and sue the company out of business?


----------



## TeslaKiller (Oct 8, 2019)

JWardell said:


> The EPA ratings were actually much much higher. Tesla voluntarily reduced them. It's all just an estimate.


When did that happen and was this affected in the Energy bar? Do you have screenshots? And I am only talking about the AWD and P, not RWD, where they did change the EPA line, like they do now with the SR+ (it is miraculously 250 miles on the same battery)

The EPA ratings are "not estimates" - this is the hard coded value you get to see in your energy graph and this is the constant used to calculate your range. Tesla can change the value with an update, but you will still be able to see it and calculate your 100% range based on it.

The kWH available in the pack ARE "estimates". You are confusing the two...

I own the car for 6 months and nothing has changed ever since. I am talking about the current state of the AWD and P...The EPA straight line in your energy tab can change, but that doesn't affect what I am discussing in the video - because Tesla will just shift the numbers, they will still be only showing you 96% of your full battery state, the EPA consumption will not affect this nor the calculation of:

Full capacity kWh / (new) EPA rating.
whereas real usable from 0-100% will still be
Usable capacity kWh- buffer / (new) EPA rating

If they lower the EPA rating this will give you "more" range on the display, but it will not affect the fact that you still only have 96% of the 100% to use (unless you go below 0)



JWardell said:


> My point is that you are accusing Tesla of lying, when in fact they can never predict the future or know exactly what range you have left. And no manufacturer of any battery product can possible do so either. So everyone is lying to you?


I am not accusing anything and they are indeed lying. Those are the facts presented in the video, with evidence and confirmation from Elon Musk himself.

But now I just wonder if you actually watched the video, because it doesn't seem like it...Around the end I clearly said that Tesla is doing an incredible job of predicting the range, that they calculate elevation AND speed and are almost always only 1-2% off from their predictions. I also said that, if you have the information I present in the video - with the information Tesla is showing to you, you can fairly easy predict any range on any trip.

What Tesla DOESN'T accurately do is, translate the information they have (which is also pretty accurate, believe me, if anyone can do BMS, Tesla can), into the expected range when you charge the car.

And yes, they are indeed doing it on purpose and I can only speculate that it is for marketing purposes, much like the SR+ 250 miles I just mentioned, that got bumped without ever receiving new EPA rating, nor new battery. 
Because you can't just take capacity A and calculate the range when you charge the car.

And then use capacity B, which is A - buffer, and calculate the discharge rate.

*This is like having a glass which you fill in to the top and say - hey I have this amount of water in the glas. But when you start drinking it, Tesla says - "Yes, we said that there is this amount of water in the glas and this amount of water translates to this amount of miles, but you can only drink 96% from it, but nevertheless we will show you that you have 100%...*

I don't blame them, but the drivers should know how their estimates are calculated.



JWardell said:


> Do you think it would be better if the car instead displayed the highest possible range...well that could be 400+ miles if you drive slow enough...


Well, the car IS displaying the highest possible range, based on the EPA, that is EXACTLY the problem.

Did you watch the video?

The problem is not that they are displaying a hypothetical range they can't achieve - the range can be achieved even more, I mentioned that at the end of the video.

BUT the range CAN NOT be achieved at the EPA rating, if you drive from 0-100% - you have to drive from 0-104% to do so. That is all I am saying. Some people will not care, because they will just drive from charger to charger and some people will not understand (like they seem to be doing), and this is the reason we have a gazillion posts with "I can't achieve my range", "My battery degradet 10%" etc.

But I do feel like you did not watch the video, in its entirity, because the things you are accusing me of are never mentioned in the video...


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

TeslaKiller said:


> *This is like having a glass which you fill in to the top and say - hey I have this amount of water in the glas. But when you start drinking it, Tesla says - "Yes, we said that there is this amount of water in the glas and this amount of water translates to this amount of miles, but you can only drink 96% from it, but nevertheless we will show you that you have 100%...*


Batteries are not glasses. Batteries are not gas tanks. There is no well-defined notion of "full" or "empty" when it comes to a battery. This is where you are making a mistake in your assumptions.

This is not Tesla "lying". This is Tesla trying to balance two competing issues. The first is that allowing you to store and extract more energy to/from a battery is useful to the user. The second is that attempting to store too much energy in a battery, or extracting too much energy from a battery, damages the battery, which reduces its capacity in the future.


----------



## TeslaKiller (Oct 8, 2019)

garsh said:


> Batteries are not glasses. Batteries are not gas tanks.


Well, you haven't actually seen the video so you are attempting to catch some straws and find flaws, but it doesn't work quite well...

The gas tank was an allegory in attempting to explain the difference between kWh and rated range, laymens terms of basic math representation. It wasn't an exact comparison.



garsh said:


> There is no well-defined notion of "full" or "empty" when it comes to a battery. This is where you are making a mistake in your assumptions.


Yes, there is no "well-defined" notion (if you actually watch the video, I explain that the BMS is not exact science). So I can't really make mistake or false assumptions on something I never said...

But there is a "well-defined" notion of "full" according to the BMS and this is a "well-defined", mathematical algorithm, factoring different things. And this is the "well-defined" full Tesla is using to calculate things and this is what is being read by the CAN.



garsh said:


> This is not Tesla "lying". This is Tesla trying to balance two competing issues. The first is that allowing you to store and extract more energy to/from a battery is useful to the user. The second is that attempting to store too much energy in a battery, or extracting too much energy from a battery, damages the battery, which reduces its capacity in the future.


First of all, if you actually did watch the video, which you probably never will, but continue to comment, there is no damage to the battery - Elon Musk himself confirms that. Even if you go to 0, even if you go below 0% and use the visible buffer.

There is a hidden buffer (ontop of the visible buffer) which the car nor we have access to, to prevent exactly that - total damage.

And second: Tesla is not balancing anything - they are hiding something: the VISIBLE buffer below the 0% line (not the invisible Elon is talking about)

By calculating full range in miles INCLUDING the visble buffer (formula: FULL/EPA consumption of 245Wh/m) and by calculating the shown 0-100% on screen - EXCLUDING the visible buffer (actual real range: Full - buffer/EPA consumption) they are indeed "lying" (call it misleading, whatever word you like) the driver into beleving that the representation of the rated range on screen, is the same as the 0-100% SoC representation on the same exact screen.

We have 100% =!= 100%.

All they have to do to NOT mislead is to actualy show 100%==100%, which there are two ways to do exactly that:

Either show 297miles instead of 310 miles and continue to keep the buffer below 0% (which is the honest thing to do)

OR

Show 310 miles, keep 0-100% at the actual 310 miles, means the buffer is now above 0%. But this would be worst for the battery (even though there is something below 0%, still...)

So they can be honest and show less miles (bad for marketing) OR be factual and show the EPA rating, but then show 0-100% as it should be.

They decided to go a third road...

But I can only repeat myself so the only thing I can point you to at this point is to watch the video and ask specific questions based on the FACTS I stated in the video (actual FACTS reported by the car itself, FACTS confirmed by countless other S/X and 3 drivers)


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

TeslaKiller said:


> Well, you haven't actually seen the video so you are attempting to catch some straws and find flaws, but it doesn't work quite well...


I'm responding to what you type here, not to your video. I thought that quoting the part of your text to which I responded would have made that clear.



TeslaKiller said:


> There is a hidden buffer (ontop of the visible buffer) which the car nor we have access to, to prevent exactly that - total damage.


Batteries don't magically have hidden buffers with no consequences. There is still a tradeoff to using the battery below 0% - it will damage the battery. No, it won't be "total damage" - it will be degradation. This discourages users from continuing to drive the car below 0% battery (because humans are pretty hard-wired to panic when in that situation), while giving them a decent chance of still making it to the next charging station if they ever unexpectedly find themselves in that situation. It's a reasonable way of balancing the competing issues.

Your sensationalist use of "lying" to describe this is quite off-putting.


----------



## TeslaKiller (Oct 8, 2019)

garsh said:


> I'm responding to what you type here, not to your video. I thought that quoting the part of your text to which I responded would have made that clear.
> 
> Batteries don't magically have hidden buffers with no consequences. There is still a tradeoff to using the battery below 0% - it will damage the battery. No, it won't be "total damage" - it will be degradation.


Judging by that last part I have no interest in discussing this, just a waste of time. Shame really, that you are mod here and make decisions on topics...

But just to finish your last sentence off - they don't have "magical" hidden buffers - they have "humanly" placed buffers...

And if you go to actual 0%, like the zero zero of the battery, below the visible buffer and below the "invisible" buffer (hidden from the BMS), then you will almost certainly damage a Li-Ion to a point where it is basically totalled.

I can explain this in Voltage and Ampers (if you drop below a certain Voltage it could even short circuit) and point you to papers discussing this, but if you struggle to watch a 10 minute video and then comment on said video without watching it, that will be too much to ask from you...


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

TeslaKiller said:


> ...I have no interest in discussing this, just a waste of time.
> 
> *But...*


----------



## FRC (Aug 4, 2018)

garsh said:


> Your sensationalist use of "lying" to describe this is quite off-putting.


As is his tone and demeanor. Talking down isn't a great way to get folks to listen.


----------



## Mike (Apr 4, 2016)

I've watched the film a second time.

And I have repeatedly reviewed the data that one would see if one pauses at or about 9+20 (having to drive under the EPA consumption line by xx% to achieve actual EPA distance).

I find it a compelling argument and on my next long distance trip to Ottawa in November, I will be switching back and forth between % and range whilst driving at the EPA line to see if I can repeat what you are suggesting.

To confirm my understanding of the relationship between displayed % and distance: If I drive the EPA line, start at 100% and go to 0%, I will never achieve 499 kms. To achieve 499 kms, I must drive under/more efficient than the EPA line by a certain percentage. Said percentage below the EPA line is the "buffer" capacity size relative to the whole battery capacity.

Am I correctly understanding the concept that you have published here?

Edit: grammar.


----------



## TeslaKiller (Oct 8, 2019)

Mike said:


> I've watched the film a second time.
> 
> To confirm my understanding of the relationship between displayed % and distance: If I drive the EPA line, start at 100% and go to 0%, I will never achieve 499 kms. To achieve 499 kms, I must drive under/more efficient than the EPA line by a certain percentage. Said percentage below the EPA line is the "buffer" capacity size relative to the whole battery capacity.
> 
> Am I correctly understanding the concept that you have published here?


Yes, this is exactly it.

However, due to rounding errors (79.6% and 80.4% are 80%) and the fact that the difference is only 4% you will probably not start seeing the difference in the %- rated km until you go below 10%.

if you drive at EPA rated consumption which for you should be about 144 or something, at usable capacity of about 73kWh(which I still find too much) you should be able to achieve 507km. But the screen will project around 530km.

But I still doubt that you have 73kWh available, maybe it is still rounding errors. I'd say 72kWh or exactly 500km at 144Wh/km.

Would be great if you can reproduce it and also measure the kWh used to know how big your degradation is. This will also disprove Bjørn Nylands claim of reduced range with v10


----------



## Mike (Apr 4, 2016)

TeslaKiller said:


> Yes, this is exactly it.
> 
> However, due to rounding errors (79.6% and 80.4% are 80%) and the fact that the difference is only 4% you will probably not start seeing the difference in the %- rated km until you go below 10%.
> 
> ...


Agree with the rounding errors observations.

Any upload to the car that shows on the UI, such as 53 kWh, could be 52.50 or 53.49........and my 20% SOC could be 19.51 or 20.49 (thus my use of when it goes from green to yellow is a solid 20.0%.

The last time I topped the car up to 100% with no more input from the grid, IIRC my range said 508 km (or something very close to that).

My attitude: I took delivery of a car with an EPA rating of 499 kms.

My first 100% top up showed exactly 499 kms.

Almost 18 months later, the silly thing will show 508 kms.

At the end of the day, as long as my routine, non-stop travel legs still happen without stopping, I'm happy with that........


----------



## TeslaKiller (Oct 8, 2019)

That's probably the attitude for most people. Some people haven't even seen a Supercharger or a 3rd party plug.

But, unfortunately, from time to time they will deplete the range on a long trip and wonder why they don't get the advertised range even though they drive at advertised consumption that should give them the range advertised. And some of them even start suing

I just feel that if people were a little bit more informed, we would have a better overall experience. In the forum as well.

But I guess I was wrong...


----------



## M3OC Rules (Nov 18, 2016)

TeslaKiller said:


> So they can be honest and show less miles (bad for marketing) OR be factual and show the EPA rating, but then show 0-100% as it should be.


If I'm understanding you correctly you're saying the 0-100% doesn't include the buffer and Elon's tweet supports that. Ok, but can't you still use the buffer which means that's not dishonest in terms of the EPA rating?


----------



## TeslaKiller (Oct 8, 2019)

M3OC Rules said:


> If I'm understanding you correctly you're saying the 0-100% doesn't include the buffer and Elon's tweet supports that. Ok, but can't you still use the buffer which means that's not dishonest in terms of the EPA rating?


I am explaining it in the video.

You can still use it, but below 0%. But the 0-100% in rated range uses it ABOVE 0% for its calculation. They are just tricking people in the calculations, most if not all will never notice that they actually have less range available.

It is dishonest in the part that you actually need to go 104% to use it, even though the car reports that you can use it from 0-100%.

Basically you are left with 15 miles short from the 310 if you run the car from 0-100%, with EPA rated consumption.

Either they have to report 298 miles as the rated range from 0-100% and then give you the buffer below 0%. This is the honest thing to do and good for the battery.

Or still show 310 miles, but then display the 0-100% correctly and never go below 0%. They still have another buffer below 0%, so this will not entirely kill the battery.

Like I said - first one is bad for marketing. Some people have a psychological barrier at 300miles.


----------



## JWardell (May 9, 2016)

The EPA's range rating for the original 3 was 334 miles. Tesla voluntarily reduced it to 310. Many of us wondered why, then when dual motor and performance came out, Tesla rated them all 310 for simplicity. Then a few more months later, Tesla changed their mind and bumped up the long range rating to 325mi. 
I'm sure this all occurred before you got cars out in Germany, but you are making arguments about EPA ratings here but for some reason overlooking the actual history. At no point was it ever rated 299mi.

https://electrek.co/2018/07/24/tesla-model3-epa-ratings-advertise/

And again, this is all pointless because range ratings, state of charge, and consumption estimates are just that. Estimates. In some theoretical conditions. No one will get these actual ratings in their real driving, nor do they expect too. This is nothing new, same has been true with gas milage ratings for cars through history.


----------



## TeslaKiller (Oct 8, 2019)

JWardell said:


> I'm sure this all occurred before you got cars out in Germany, but you are making arguments about EPA ratings here but for some reason overlooking the actual history. At no point was it ever rated 299mi.


Nobody said anything about 299 miles nor EPA ratings being wrong. We are talking about basic principles and 2nd grade math representation of kWh in rated miles and the fact that 100% in rated miles is not 100% in percents.

A) Full capactiy/ typical rated consumption (it is not "EPA rating" per ce, it is whatever that might be at the time, whatever Tesla said it is in the update and it doesn't need to be any real number or EPA number or whatever PDF you are quoting...This is the number you see under Energy graph - typical and is set by Tesla) = 100% in "rated miles"

vs
B) Full capacity - buffer / same typical number for consumption

And that A=!=B even though A=100% and B=100%...

I honestly feel like you are the only person on the board that doesn't understand basic math, at least 5 people already perfectly explained the things I talk about in the video, there are tons of other videos and information on the topic and a 7 page forum post on another board. Just move on at this point if you are not able to understand it...

I will try to use "typical consumption" from now as some people hang to the word EPA too much.


----------



## iChris93 (Feb 3, 2017)

TeslaKiller said:


> I honestly feel like you are the only person on the board that doesn't understand basic math.


Let's cool it with the personal attacks.


----------



## JWardell (May 9, 2016)

TeslaKiller said:


> Nobody said anything about 299 miles nor EPA ratings being wrong. We are talking about basic principles and 2nd grade math representation of kWh in rated miles and the fact that 100% in rated miles is not 100% in percents.
> 
> A) Full capactiy/ typical rated consumption (it is not "EPA rating" per ce, it is whatever that might be at the time, whatever Tesla said it is in the update and it doesn't need to be any real number or EPA number or whatever PDF you are quoting...This is the number you see under Energy graph - typical and is set by Tesla) = 100% in "rated miles"
> 
> ...


I'm not arguing against your math. I'm arguing against your main point, and accusing Tesla of lying. 
Why make such an accusing video and post it in a Tesla forum...for people to discuss their thoughts...then attack everyone for doing so?


----------



## Long Ranger (Jun 1, 2018)

TeslaKiller said:


> I honestly feel like you are the only person on the board that doesn't understand basic math, at least 5 people already perfectly explained the things I talk about in the video, there are tons of other videos and information on the topic and a 7 page forum post on another board. Just move on at this point if you are not able to understand it...


Wow. Are you kidding me? Maybe you can throw around insults like that on other forums, but this one doesn't tolerate comments like that. Plus, I have no idea why you think @JWardell didn't understand your math. It looks like he gets it to me.

There are many of us who completely understand your math. It's not hard to understand. However, that doesn't mean that we agree with your conclusions that Tesla is lying and that they should show the miles remaining as 297 or 298 at 100% charge. That would just add far more confusion. "I bought a car with an EPA rating of 310 miles and it's only showing 297 brand new! It's defective!".



TeslaKiller said:


> I will try to use "typical consumption" from now as some people hang to the word EPA too much.


Thanks, that makes a huge difference. However, that's not what you've done up to this point. You repeatedly refer to the EPA rated consumption, and most of your argument seems to be based upon that 245 Wh/mi number. I don't think Tesla should show that line on their Energy graph, because in reality, as you state, you do have to drive at a lower average than that to get 310 miles of range over the displayed 0 to 100% range. However, there is nothing special about that 245 Wh/mi number and I think you give it way too much significance.

To be clear, the EPA 310 mile rating was not based upon this 245 Wh/mi number. The actual LR AWD EPA tests had raw numbers of 187.4 Wh/mi Hwy and 174 Wh/mi City, which are then derated to 266.5 Wh/mi Hwy and 247.5 City. They took a vehicle with 6649 miles on the odometer, drove it until it shut down, and actually measured 79.218 kWh of energy used. That's all per the EPA standards. I point that out just to make it clear to everyone that Tesla is not fudging any EPA numbers and to emphasize that there's more than one way to get 310 miles out of the battery.



TeslaKiller said:


> like they do now with the SR+ (it is miraculously 250 miles on the same battery)


FYI, the SR+ range in the EPA filings was voluntarily reduced from 247 miles to 240, just like the LR RWD was voluntarily reduced from 334 to 310. They didn't need to make a battery change to bump it up.

I think we all agree that reserving a battery buffer below the 0% reading on the display is the right thing to do. I also think that if you are going to display the range in miles/km instead of %, then having a new vehicle display a range matching the EPA rated range is the right thing to do. I don't think the scaling rate in Wh/mi or whether the zero point includes/excludes the buffer should be the determining factors in how this information is presented. There's no single correct Wh/mi scaling rate.


----------



## M3OC Rules (Nov 18, 2016)

TeslaKiller said:


> I am explaining it in the video.
> 
> You can still use it, but below 0%. But the 0-100% in rated range uses it ABOVE 0% for its calculation. They are just tricking people in the calculations, most if not all will never notice that they actually have less range available.
> It is dishonest in the part that you actually need to go 104% to use it, even though the car reports that you can use it from 0-100%.
> ...


If they can't predict it exactly they certainly don't want the car to stop at 1 to 3%. Elon's tweet shows they are definitely not trying to hide this. I think this is a perfectly reasonable, conservative design decision on how to display imperfect data and keep people from ending up on the side of the road with a dead battery. You may disagree with their decision but saying its dishonest is a bit much. If you couldn't use the buffer then that would be dishonest and the EPA would have an issue with it. In fact, I would guess most manufacturers do this. I've always thought there is a half to full gallon of gas left when the car shows empty. And I'm ok with that if I never use the last 5-15 miles. There is some human psychology to this right or wrong.

The difference with EV vs ICE is with people trying to figure out their battery capacity. That's not an easy calculation as you know. The intention of the display in the car is not to determine your battery capacity. The intention of the display in the car is so you know how far you have to go before the car stops. It's not perfect and never will be. You think they should NOT be conservative in what they display which is your opinion but it's just a design decision not some sort of conspiracy.


----------



## TeslaKiller (Oct 8, 2019)

Long Ranger said:


> Wow. Are you kidding me? Maybe you can throw around insults like that on other forums, but this one doesn't tolerate comments like that. Plus, I have no idea why you think @JWardell didn't understand your math. It looks like he gets it to me.
> 
> There are many of us who completely understand your math. It's not hard to understand. However, that doesn't mean that we agree with your conclusions that Tesla is lying and that they should show the miles remaining as 297 or 298 at 100% charge. That would just add far more confusion. "I bought a car with an EPA rating of 310 miles and it's only showing 297 brand new! It's defective!".
> 
> ...


Nobody is insulting anyone.

The only problem I see is that you guys hang to the "EPA" definition of rated consumption. I only used EPA as a word to describe what the typical consumption is called. It doesn't necessarily have to be straight from EPA. It is just the number Tesla uses to calculate range. That's it. Forget EPA...

And no, you are very wrong when you say that 245 has no significance, because this is exactly the number Tesla uses, on AWD and P to calculate the range. The formula is posted above...


----------



## FRC (Aug 4, 2018)

TeslaKiller said:


> I honestly feel like you are the only person on the board that doesn't understand basic math


And you're not insulting anyone??


----------



## TeslaKiller (Oct 8, 2019)

M3OC Rules said:


> If they can't predict it exactly they certainly don't want the car to stop at 1 to 3%. Elon's tweet shows they are definitely not trying to hide this. I think this is a perfectly reasonable, conservative design decision on how to display imperfect data and keep people from ending up on the side of the road with a dead battery. You may disagree with their decision but saying its dishonest is a bit much. If you couldn't use the buffer then that would be dishonest and the EPA would have an issue with it. In fact, I would guess most manufacturers do this. I've always thought there is a half to full gallon of gas left when the car shows empty. And I'm ok with that if I never use the last 5-15 miles. There is some human psychology to this right or wrong.
> 
> The difference with EV vs ICE is with people trying to figure out their battery capacity. That's not an easy calculation as you know. The intention of the display in the car is not to determine your battery capacity


You are just repeating things that I already explained. You are missing the point on what Tesla is actually doing, which I explained a couple of times.

And no, the problem is not wether Tesla knows or doesn't know "something" - the problem is that, given the information they have, they decide to display a number A to you, but the actual number is 96%*A.

Understand it or not, that is what is happening.

I am posting this here, so that people know about it and understand why they can't get their range even if they drive their cars at 245(which they absolutely MUST if the numbers wer correct)

And I also, if you watch the video, around the 10 minutes explain what you should do to measure your real range and how Tesla actually does a great deal by giving you most of the information and how Tesla's BMS is top of the line(I also mention misleading ICE CARS)- you just have to know how to use it and the video explained just that.

It is a positive video.



FRC said:


> And you're not insulting anyone??


How is that an insult?! When I do the research and the work to do a video and he goes on and on targeting either the title or things I never said in the video, and when 3 people before him, who actually DID watch the video and understood it perfectly, then yes, I can assume that...


----------



## M3OC Rules (Nov 18, 2016)

TeslaKiller said:


> You are just repeating things that I already explained.


No. I'm trying to explain why I am totally fine with what Tesla is doing and it's basically summarized in a tweet by Elon.


----------

