What is the deal with the Model X 100D range ratings?

[gearchruncher]

@wk057 has done an amazing job showing the real energy in the various packs. But when you use them against rated miles, they don't make contiguous sense:

75 pack: 72.6 usable. 237 rated range, so 306 wh/mi
90 pack: 81.8 usable. 265 rated range, so 309 wh/mi (weighs a bit more, makes sense)
100 pack: 98.4 usable. 295 rated range, so 334 wh/mi

Why does the 100D use so much more power per mile? Or is it actually under rated against the 75 and 90?

 

[verygreen]

@wk057 has done an amazing job showing the real energy in the various packs. But when you use them against rated miles, they don't make contiguous sense:

75 pack: 72.6 usable. 237 rated range, so 306 wh/mi
90 pack: 81.8 usable. 265 rated range, so 309 wh/mi (weighs a bit more, makes sense)
100 pack: 98.4 usable. 295 rated range, so 334 wh/mi

Why does the 100D use so much more power per mile? Or is it actually under rated against the 75 and 90?

100kWh pack is heavier again, but no idea why a disproportionate impact like this.

Actually they used to have it at 324 (or was it 326?) so 100D would show 300+ miles, but then revised it lower.

 

[gearchruncher]

Well, the 75D is 5,140 lbs, the 90D is 5,271, and the 100D is 5,421. Throw in another 200 lbs for the driver.

Thus, the 90D is 2.5% heavier than the 75D, and the 100D is another 2.5%.

The 90D uses 1% more per mile than the 75D, so I'd expect the 100D to be 1% above the 90D.

My math shows the 100D should be 315 miles based on all of that, not 295 (312wh/mi @ 98.4 kWh)

I wonder if the 100 packs have higher IR losses?

 

[_jmk]

@wk057
75 pack: 72.6 usable. 237 rated range, so 306 wh/mi
90 pack: 81.8 usable. 265 rated range, so 309 wh/mi (weighs a bit more, makes sense)
100 pack: 98.4 usable. 295 rated range, so 334 wh/mi

Why does the 100D use so much more power per mile? Or is it actually under rated against the 75 and 90?

Those numbers are now pretty old, do we know new cars are anything like this? Meaning both the consumption and the battery size details.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

It was previously noted that Tesla was very linear on most packs but not on some non-P big packs which were lowballed. The speculation was it was done so not to make the higher premium P-models less lucrative by the non-P range of the same pack looking "too good".

Speculation of course but there are threads about it on the forum with the math. Here's one from the 90 kWh era:

Could EPA Range approximations for 90D be low to help sell more P90D ?

 

[gearchruncher]

Those numbers are now pretty old, do we know new cars are anything like this? Meaning both the consumption and the battery size details.

Not sure what you mean. The 75 and 100 ranges are off the Tesla site right now. The battery size details are from wk057 back in December. The consumption rates are just math.

 

[_jmk]

Not sure what you mean. The 75 and 100 ranges are off the Tesla site right now. The battery size details are from wk057 back in December. The consumption rates are just math.

'Usable kWh' numbers are from some leaked post concerning batteries produced in 2015. Rated ranges are also from the initial EPA certification, also 2015. Cars change every week. Tesla has to advertise numbers based on the latest certification and the worst possible number.

 

[chillaban]

I’m an S owner but I find that compared to my S75D, my S100D always outperforms the initial trip planner estimates since the softwsr update that downrevved the range. The S75D would always arrive a few percent lower than estimated.

If anything I drive faster and more aggressively on m S100D. There might be some kind of underrating going on.

 

[rush6410]

@wk057 has done an amazing job showing the real energy in the various packs. But when you use them against rated miles, they don't make contiguous sense:

75 pack: 72.6 usable. 237 rated range, so 306 wh/mi
90 pack: 81.8 usable. 265 rated range, so 309 wh/mi (weighs a bit more, makes sense)
100 pack: 98.4 usable. 295 rated range, so 334 wh/mi

Why does the 100D use so much more power per mile? Or is it actually under rated against the 75 and 90?

My 90D was rated at 257. 81.6 usable. 257 rated range, so 318 wh/mi

But, the Energy app in the car says rated is 332 wh/mi. The user guide says that is based on EPA testing.

 

[verygreen]

Usable kWh' numbers are from some leaked post concerning batteries produced in 2015

Nope. You (Anybody) can connect to a car and read battery status, including what BMS believes is the "max possible" for this particular battery and so on.

 

[_jmk]

Nope. You (Anybody) can connect to a car and read battery status, including what BMS believes is the "max possible" for this particular battery and so on.

I thought that was some generic fleet data number, an average. So what do the new (say Dec 17) batteries show? Same as in 2015, really? Besides, even if the battery was unchanged, rest of the car for sure has. Take for example the drive unit change..

 

[verygreen]

I thought that was some generic fleet data number, an average. So what do the new (say Dec 17) batteries show? Same as in 2015, really? Besides, even if the battery was unchanged, rest of the car for sure has. Take for example the drive unit change..

I am not sure there were 100kWh batteries in 2015. Dec 2017 100kWh batteries show same stuff as March 2017. They no longer make 90kWh batteries and 75kWh batteries did change in several ways, reportedly.

The leaked fleet data is "current" - ie there is no history in that data, only remaining capacity. But new battery capacities were real close between new cars, I think, at least of the modern batteries.

 

[John in LB]

I have a Dec. 2017 X 100D with about 2000 miles on it.. 100% charged battery shows 295 or 297 (varies with the charge). My practical day in / day out range in the Los Angeles basin is about 230-240 miles (that's all the way down to ZERO charge). I drive at traffic speeds with a 1 or 2 person load (AC and other accessories on as I would with my IC engine car).

In terms of Wh/mile: I am seeing average numbers between 350 and 450.

Overall, I am a little bit disappointed with the range - would have liked to see a practical range that is close to 300 miles. Either less weight, more efficient motors or a bigger battery pack...

 

[_jmk]

I am not sure there were 100kWh batteries in 2015. Dec 2017 100kWh batteries show same stuff as March 2017. They no longer make 90kWh batteries and 75kWh batteries did change in several ways, reportedly.

Ok, so since 100 pack is new, it is still the same it ever was. But no-one here has read the real usable of the latest 75 packs?

Remember the EPA certification paper about the new 75 config? Would be nice to understand if that ever got to be the new default since that would make a lot of manufacturing sense.

EPA documents reveal a Model S/X battery called the 80P pack • r/teslamotors

 

[lymex2018]

My 'Scan my tesla' shows 94.4kWh as the usable full pack on my X 100D, therefore it's 320Wh/mi.
That 98.4kWh is the Nominal full pack, with 4kWh Energy buffer below SOC zero.

 

[verygreen]

My 'Scan my tesla' shows 94.4kWh as the usable full pack on my X 100D, therefore it's 320Wh/mi.
That 98.4kWh is the Nominal full pack, with 4kWh Energy buffer below SOC zero.
View attachment 278024

Is this new battery? Your assumption (and your app display) is off that you think the full-full pack is nominalfull and usable is nobinalfull - buffer.
I was told the buffer is not included in the nominal full.

When I got my car in March I had:

lv BMS_nominalFullPackEnergyRemaining
"98.100"
lv BMS_energyBuffer
"4.000"

The two added were 102.1kWh which made the full battery.

 

[gearchruncher]

My 'Scan my tesla' shows 94.4kWh as the usable full pack on my X 100D, therefore it's 320Wh/mi.
That 98.4kWh is the Nominal full pack, with 4kWh Energy buffer below SOC zero.

When WK057 got his hands on a P100 pack, he said this:

"As for real capacity, the BMS reports usable capacity at a whopping 98.4 kWh. It also reports a 4 kWh unusable bottom charge, so that's 102.4 kWh total pack capacity! Congratulations, Tesla. A high capacity pack that meets its nameplate rating!"

So did Tesla change the 100 pack in the last year since WK057 got one, is the P100 pack different, or was the BMS wrong in one of the cases?

 

[lymex2018]

When WK057 got his hands on a P100 pack, he said this:

"As for real capacity, the BMS reports usable capacity at a whopping 98.4 kWh. It also reports a 4 kWh unusable bottom charge, so that's 102.4 kWh total pack capacity! Congratulations, Tesla. A high capacity pack that meets its nameplate rating!"

So did Tesla change the 100 pack in the last year since WK057 got one, is the P100 pack different, or was the BMS wrong in one of the cases?

I don't think wk057 was wrong, and I don't think Tesla changed anything either.

There are two energy buffers for the pack, one is from 94.4kWh to 98.4kWh (or a bit more) which is below SOC=0%, but actually can be used. 98.4kW discharged is the internal SOC zero (SOC UI in the term of SMT).
If you watch Kman's video on draining the battery:

At the beginning of the video, the dash already shows 0% for SOC, but his iPad shows 4.0% (which is an internal SOC, SOC UI in term of SMT). At 0:24:58, the SOC has reached 0.0%, but the car was still drivable although the power is limited to 6.9kW. Only at 0:31:22 when he stopped the test he has used up almost all the first buffer, and I estimate that SOC at that point is -0.9% (the display refuses below zero). Therefore, that 4.9% buffer is actually usable and is equivalent to about 4.2kWh for his 90D. However, when Tesla says the range of X 100D is 295 rated, it must be uses the energy from 100% to 0% according to the dash, which is 94.4kWh.

The other buffer is from 98.4kWh to the very end(may be 102.4kWh or a bit less), which used as the battery protection, and cannot be used by the driver. What @wk057 may be slightly wrong was about this second buffer, which by my estimate is about 3kW, making the total energy of the 100D 101.4kWh.

 

[lymex2018]

When I got my car in March I had:

lv BMS_nominalFullPackEnergyRemaining
"98.100"
lv BMS_energyBuffer
"4.000"

The two added were 102.1kWh which made the full battery.

The issue here is whether the BMS_energyBuffer should be add to or subtract from the BMS_nominalFullPackEnergyRemaining.

Add: at one point, the Usable full pack of my car was 94.3, 0.1kWh less, and so was Nominal full pack. The difference of the two items is always 4.0kWh.

 

[verygreen]

Let's get to it the other way around.
The rated mile on X 100D is currently 332 Watt/mile (changed in 17.26.76, used to be 324 before that). Multiply your 100% charge rated range by 332 and you have roughly your usable capacity, +4kWh for the buffer will give you 100% battery capacity.