Forums

My misinterpretation re: latest update

My misinterpretation re: latest update

Last night I received 2019.36.2.1. I have a LR AWD. My questions are as I can verify and "feel" a difference in regen and I really have no reason to validate the power increase. The update notes indicate these changes. I have 2 questions...… Is there a range increase or is it just for "X" and "S"? Secondly, although I only read the notes re "charge by" a specific time the note talked about pre 6 AM charging to capture off-peak electric rates. My provider doesn't offer lower rates and if i.e., charge by 11:00 AM and it will be a 3 hr. cycle I would want it to begin ~ 8:AM. Can I do that and override the pre 6:00 AM approach? Yes, I will read more but good guidance is always found here,

rfpmoxie | 14. November 2019

Am I the only one with these questions?

Bighorn | 14. November 2019

I don't think anyone is seeing an official range increase.
Haven't looked at the charge to depart function, but I assume anything is possible. Surprised if it knows your TOU situation.

jebinc | 14. November 2019

-@rfpmoxie

I'll try.... No range increase yet (say, to 322 miles), but there are chat session replies from Tesla on TMC that indicate it will come in a future update. My electric company doesn't have lower rates for at night either, a flat .105 cents/kwH. I have used the new scheduler and it worked just fine. Set for 2:30am with a departure time of 9am. No issues.

TimbersThornsBlazers | 14. November 2019

I just looked on Tesla's site at Model 3, and the car is listed now as having a range of 322 (if purchasing the LR AWD)... in case that helps answer the "is there actually more range now?" question?

Pg3ibew | 14. November 2019

I could answer the 2nd part. You could set the CHARGE BY time to any time you want. That is how my car lets me do it. You could differentiate between the 5 weekdays and 7 days. It will also precondition the car.

Bighorn | 14. November 2019

I don’t think it helps since it’s not clear, or I haven’t investigated thoroughly, whether it’s retroactive.

Harvan Hunter | 14. November 2019

The release notes for my copy of the update just said the power (as in, acceleration) was increased by 5% but made no mention of increasing range. That said, I took delivery of my LR RWD (rear, not all) in July this year, and its 100% charge has always been 323 miles out of the box (90% is 291 miles). If that's the number they're targeting for everyone with a LR 3 to have soon, then it seems they've already "unlocked" it for newer cars.

Bighorn | 14. November 2019

@Harvan
LR RWD has been 325 for awhile. 322 relates to new AWD specs.

Harvan Hunter | 14. November 2019

Gotcha. I had thought this was just a "Long Range" thing, regardless of the distinction between RWD and AWD.

Bighorn | 14. November 2019

Nope. They have different efficiencies.

Harvan Hunter | 14. November 2019

Makes sense. Presumably, the RWD is more efficient than the AWD (this is how it was sold to me - I got the RWD specifically because range is more important to me than power, and I live in a climate where I won't get that much out of the AWD's superior handling and traction). My question then is, does the AWD simply only give you access to 90% or so of the total battery capacity, compared to 100% of it in the RWD, and the expected range increase being discussed here would be Tesla unlocking that last 10%? (Numbers are figurative and approximate, of course.)

Bighorn | 14. November 2019

RWD does have the best efficiency. I think all models access the same number of kWhs, ~73 kWh, but have variable rate constants to establish a rated range figure . The initial EPA figures from the LR RWD was 334 miles. They underreported it to match the less efficient models, using 310 miles for everything from the P3D to the RWD.

Harvan Hunter | 14. November 2019

Hmm. So then, that means for the AWD, the range increase would just be a simple recalibration of the rated consumption rate (e.g. dropping it from 270 to 250 Wh/mi). In other words, "We were underestimating it before". Would make sense given the amount of data collection they must be doing on all this.

Bighorn | 14. November 2019

There was a lot of discussion when the LR RWD was “granted” 15 additional miles via firmware. Consensus was that the rate constant was jiggered to up the rated range, but no additional kWhs were released.

Harvan Hunter | 14. November 2019

The 240 on my LR RWD seems to be a good benchmark - driven around 9000 miles since I took it in July and my "lifetime" average is 239 Wh/mi. :)

What is the rate on the LR AWD?

Bighorn | 14. November 2019

234-236Wh/m for 310 miles
I think ~218 for 334.
322 would be around 226 Wh/m

Harvan Hunter | 15. November 2019

Huh. My car reports 240 Wh/m, but still claims max 323 miles. The lower numbers on the AWD would seem to suggest it's a lot more efficient than the RWD.

SnowZA | 15. November 2019

Maybe I'm not seeing it, but on mine all I can find is "leave by", not "charge by". I tried it, set leave by 9am. It started charging at about 3am, finished charging at 5:47am, and then just sat there until it turned on the climate control to preheat it for a 9am departure. There was no charging till 9am, or even close to it.
I do have time based prices for charging at home, but the difference between high and low rate is tiny, not really worth worrying about. I'd much rather be able to set a end charge time rather than a leave by time for preconditioning.

kevin_rf | 15. November 2019

SnowZA +1. ^^^^^

Hopefully enough people complain so they fix it.