Firmware 7.0

[MarcG]

Has anyone else noticed that their rated range at 100% (or 90%, or 80%, or whatever you usually choose) dropped significantly recently?

After upgrading to 2.7.077, my 100% rated range dropped from a consistent 249 or 250 miles over the last couple of months to 246 today... doubt it's battery degradation given I was on 2.7.056 until this past Saturday and my previous 100% charge a week earlier was 249.03 (per VisibleTesla). Today I'm only getting 245.81, which is worryingly low.

 

[GOPJEW]

I apologize if this question has been asked and answered - searched before posting - but I have noticed that after upgrading to V.7.0 that my regenerative braking is A LOT LESS effective - I need to use my brakes much more often.

I verified my settings are still correct - is anyone else noticing this? Is there a thread somewhere so that I can verify it's not just me?

Thanks all.

 

[TexasEV]

Has anyone else noticed that their rated range at 100% (or 90%, or 80%, or whatever you usually choose) dropped significantly recently?

After upgrading to 2.7.077, my 100% rated range dropped from a consistent 249 or 250 miles over the last couple of months to 246 today... doubt it's battery degradation given I was on 2.7.056 until this past Saturday and my previous 100% charge a week earlier was 249.03 (per VisibleTesla). Today I'm only getting 245.81, which is worryingly low.

Different versions have had slightly different algorithms for estimating rated range. The number displayed is only an estimate based on estimated state of charge. It's not exactly to the mile, much less to two decimal points! Nothing to be worried about.

- - - Updated - - -

I apologize if this question has been asked and answered - searched before posting - but I have noticed that after upgrading to V.7.0 that my regenerative braking is A LOT LESS effective - I need to use my brakes much more often.

I verified my settings are still correct - is anyone else noticing this? Is there a thread somewhere so that I can verify it's not just me?

Thanks all.

You must be new here. After every update, a few people post that their regenerative breaking is less effective. It's never true.

 

[MarcG]

Different versions have had slightly different algorithms for estimating rated range. The number displayed is only an estimate based on estimated state of charge. It's not exactly to the mile, much less to two decimal points! Nothing to be worried about.

I've been around long enough to know this, and have kept track of my range readings at 90% and 100% charges since I was able to get VisibleTesla working 10 months ago.

But this is the first time that I see such a significant drop (3 miles!) since getting the car. The graph below should give you a sense of what I'm talking about:

 

[Andyw2100]

Has anyone else noticed that their rated range at 100% (or 90%, or 80%, or whatever you usually choose) dropped significantly recently?

After upgrading to 2.7.077, my 100% rated range dropped from a consistent 249 or 250 miles over the last couple of months to 246 today... doubt it's battery degradation given I was on 2.7.056 until this past Saturday and my previous 100% charge a week earlier was 249.03 (per VisibleTesla). Today I'm only getting 245.81, which is worryingly low.

Are those numbers with range mode on or off?

I almost never do range charges, but I did one on Sunday. I'm still on version 2.7.56. VT showed the rated range as 246.8 when the charge completed, but that was with range mode off. I expect with range mode turned on it would have been about three miles higher. (I charge with range mode off because I want to be able to preheat the battery when I preheat the cabin.)

 

[Soolim]

I apologize if this question has been asked and answered - searched before posting - but I have noticed that after upgrading to V.7.0 that my regenerative braking is A LOT LESS effective - I need to use my brakes much more often.

I verified my settings are still correct - is anyone else noticing this? Is there a thread somewhere so that I can verify it's not just me?

Thanks all.

You are correct. Tesla reduced the regen to have smoother drive, but we need to use the brake pedal more. I am just allowing for that with earlier release of power pedal. I wish they give us a choice as in Low - Medium - High for regen setting instead of the current Low - Standard selection.

 

[Stoneymonster]

You are correct. Tesla reduced the regen to have smoother drive, but we need to use the brake pedal more. I am just allowing for that with earlier release of power pedal. I wish they give us a choice as in Low - Medium - High for regen setting instead of the current Low - Standard selection.

First I've heard of it. Where is this documented? For the record, my car has always felt exactly the same since March and through many releases.

 

[Soolim]

I've been around long enough to know this, and have kept track of my range readings at 90% and 100% charges since I was able to get VisibleTesla working 10 months ago.

But this is the first time that I see such a significant drop (3 miles!) since getting the car. The graph below should give you a sense of what I'm talking about:

View attachment 100656

Isn't the battery power hence estimated range affected by ambient temperature?

- - - Updated - - -

First I've heard of it. Where is this documented? For the record, my car has always felt exactly the same since March and through many releases.

Cannot find the exact document, but I thought I read it in one of the update release note that described improved TACC. FWIW, I swear that regen has been significantly reduced (recently) for my car on my daily commute on a fixed route, and it is not due to low battery temperature because I don't see the dash line (limiting regen) on the regen dial.

 

[MarcG]

Are those numbers with range mode on or off?

Always ON. I've had it on since the firmware update that allowed both INSANE mode AND range mode = ON at the same time (I think it was 2.2.139 which I installed in early-February 2015).

- - - Updated - - -

Isn't the battery power hence estimated range affected by ambient temperature?

Could be, and it's been relatively cool in the last few weeks - but nothing below 10ºC (50ºF). Besides I've charged in much colder temperatures in the past and those data points are in the graph.

I'm telling you, something odd is going on. I have not seen such a drop in range in the 11 months of ownership so far.

And FYI, here's a plot of all the 100% charges only (not 90% charges) that I've logged since installing VT - that last data point is way lower than expected:

 

[TexasEV]

I've been around long enough to know this, and have kept track of my range readings at 90% and 100% charges since I was able to get VisibleTesla working 10 months ago.

But this is the first time that I see such a significant drop (3 miles!) since getting the car. The graph below should give you a sense of what I'm talking about:

View attachment 100656

That's where we differ. I wouldn't call a drop of 3 miles in the estimate of rated range "significant". It's little more than 1% of the rated range from an algorithm that estimates range based on an estimate of the battery state of charge, which can't be measured directly. There's just too much going on here to assume that this difference in the reported rated range is anything more than noise.

 

[msnow]

Always ON. I've had it on since the firmware update that allowed both INSANE mode AND range mode = ON at the same time (I think it was 2.2.139 which I installed in early-February 2015).

- - - Updated - - -



Could be, and it's been relatively cool in the last few weeks - but nothing below 10ºC (50ºF). Besides I've charged in much colder temperatures in the past and those data points are in the graph.

I'm telling you, something odd is going on. I have not seen such a drop in range in the 11 months of ownership so far.

And FYI, here's a plot of all the 100% charges only (not 90% charges) that I've logged since installing VT - that last data point is way lower than expected:

View attachment 100664

Marc, there's a few 90D people in another thread (about a dozen or so including me) that are tracking an unexpected and recent range number loss of about 2%-3% at both 90% and 100% over the past few weeks. I think most of us are on the previous 7.0 (.56?) firmware so it may be a different issue. Have you tried looking at the range drop since 56 rather than 70? In any case it's hard for us to tell whether it's real loss or just the algorithm of the app but either way it's worth tracking. If it's just the algorithm as I'm starting to believe I'm hoping that can be corrected. Need to have confidence in the number.

 

[MarcG]

Marc, there's a few 90D people in another thread (about a dozen or so including me) that are tracking an unexpected and recent range number loss of about 2%-3% at both 90% and 100% over the past few weeks. I think most of us are on the previous 7.0 (.56?) firmware so it may be a different issue. Have you tried looking at the range drop since 56 rather than 70? In any case it's hard for us to tell whether it's real loss or just the algorithm of the app but either way it's worth tracking. If it's just the algorithm as I'm starting to believe I'm hoping that can be corrected. Need to have confidence in the number.

You know what, looking over all my data it seems this did start on 2.7.056 a week ago - see all my 90% and 100% (in bold) charge data below.

Can you please send me the link to the 90D thread so I can leave this one alone with my range drop issue? Thanks!

 

[msnow]

Here you go.

90D Range slowly declining

 

[Andyw2100]

Always ON.

That's what I figured.

I think my numbers are probably pretty close to your 2.7.56 numbers then. For example, this morning the car charged to 221.7 at 90% with range mode off. My wife left an hour later with range mode on, and the rated range showing as 224. I'll let you know if we see a significant change when we get 2.7.077.

 

[Pilot_51]

It shows power used, but not just for driving. I also calcs vampire drain and any preconditioning use, etc. The battery must maintain a certain buffer to keep stable and healthy. So we don't get that total rating in energy to be used. I think it is something around 95%. There are other threads by much more intelligent people than me who explain this quite well.

My data suggests that this is not true, unless it changed in v7 (I only logged trips for about a month with 6.2). Admittedly, I haven't read the threads on the matter and I may be missing something, but at least I have some hard data. See for yourself here, in August and September.

Out of 20 charge sessions where I had both the "since last charge" and VT's "energyAdded" logged, SLC was between 93.23% (12.4kWh SLC, 13.3kWh added) and 63.83% (13.1kWh SLC, 19.9kWh added). I verified that the kWh added as reported by VT is very close to the usage reported at the utility meter. If the trips were including usage while parked, I shouldn't be starting my morning drive at 0.0kWh every time and I should see a spike after the car loses ~5 miles (1.5kWh) from sitting for 24 hours without charging. I suspect the high Wh/mi at the beginning of a trip is mostly attributable to the acceleration before cruise brings the average down.

 

[GOPJEW]

Different versions have had slightly different algorithms for estimating rated range. The number displayed is only an estimate based on estimated state of charge. It's not exactly to the mile, much less to two decimal points! Nothing to be worried about.

- - - Updated - - -


You must be new here. After every update, a few people post that their regenerative breaking is less effective. It's never true.

Not quite a NOOB - took delivery in August and have been through several updates and only after 7 did I notice a MUCH smoother regen and not quite as aggressive. With 6,000 miles on my car in a little under 3 months I drive it ALOT and am pretty attuned to it - it is DEFINITELY a smoother regen and NOT as aggressive as before - definitely braking more.

 

[Soolim]

You must be new here. After every update, a few people post that their regenerative breaking is less effective. It's never true.

Never? Pretty strong conviction. Do you have any scientific proof to dispute the observations of others?

 

[Stoneymonster]

Never? Pretty strong conviction. Do you have any scientific proof to dispute the observations of others?

Because after this many reports after every version the regen would be at zero :tongue:

 

[Soolim]

Because after this many reports after every version the regen would be at zero :tongue:

Really? What if the reduction is small enough just to be perceived?:tongue: v.7.106 regen smoothness has been the most noticeable by some of us. Like GOPJEW reported, the regen is not as aggressive, I now have to use the brake pedal more. In my daily commute, there is a downhill, after v.7, I definitely have to apply more brake.

And another member's experience collaborated and better described here.

 

[Cyclone]

My car is still on 6.2, but I've driven 7.0 loners. The big difference in regen that made me use the brake was not actually regen at all, but a more graceful engagement of regen when cruise is turned off. So when comparing no-AP when I wouldn't be in cruise to turning off AP and engaging regen, there is a delay before the regen begins and thus, I have to hit the brake more often. I have not found the regen itself to be any different when in manual control and letting off of the go-pedal at above 20 mph.