Range reduced after firmware updates

I have a MS85. For the past two months I have been using the " slider Bar " on the set charge rate
and setting it to ~ 50 to ~60% SOC or about 130 to 145 mile rang. Prior to version 4.5 ( no slider )
just Standard and Max charge levels I would most days charge " standard " and that would always bring my range to 243 miles. When I charge to Max for a trip it would end up at a range of 272. Even in Version 4.5
with the slider set to the top of the daily limit it would charge to 242/243.
Now after the last two updates 4.5 to 5.6 and then 5.6 to 5.8 and I set the charge rate up from the 50% point I was using for the last month or so to the standard setting ( slider at the end of the " daily " section of the bar ) and it now only charges up to a range of 229. Have driven twice now and run it down to ~ 175 mile range, then charged back up twice and both times stops charging at 229 range.
Have not charged to max yet but will try that in the AM. to see if it will charge up to 272 like it did in the past but I am thinking it will not reach 272 as the 10% difference between standard and Max would be 27 miles added to the current 229 for a total of 256.

Any one else noticed the drop in range of ~ 14 miles after charging up to standard level (243-229=14)after version 4.5 upgrades?
Thanks in advance..

Numerous threads on this, use to search. Summary is that they changed the algorithm for rated miles, but ideal range (that is, actual battery capacity) has not changed.

A lot of people seem worked up over this, not sure why. In most cars all you get is a vague idea of how much gas you have left but no one seems to care. Whenever I get my S I will most likely keep it set to display ideal miles since I already have a good idea how far I can go on a charge. The rated number is just an estimate anyway, and it includes an idiot reserve.

Except for the fact that for some (many?), ideal range has indeed dropped in tandem with rated range. If, @mrspaghetti, you believe that ideal range is a representation of actual battery capacity, maybe you can learn to be somewhat less dismissive of those who get so "worked up over this".

I'm on 5.8 and I got 263 rated miles on yesterdays max charge. My ms85 is 3 1/2 months old, 5000 miles. That's better than I expected.

I was also surprised to get only 251 miles on max charge after the 5.8 update. I'm about 11 mos into MS85 ownership with ~14k miles. And I don't recall ever getting any less than 260 on max charge.

Could Tesla be factoring in the wind resistance from higher ride at highway speeds?

I'm down to 251 miles also. However, when I divide the actual capacity of the battery (75.9 for an 85kW, dropping the capacity allowing for 17 miles south of 0 plus the unusable "bricking" insurance amount)by my lifetime wH/mi of 302, I get 251 miles.

I'm thinking that Tesla is just tightening up the calculations so that the readout number on the screen is based on individual driving habits, thus giving us a much more accurate, individualized number of "miles to go" on the instrument panel. At least that's my theory. . .

Same issue - dropped from 267 max range to 247 with 5.8. Recalibration aside, when I'm on the road and charge at supercharging stations, I used to get to 255 range in 1 and 10 minutes or less now to get to 240 max range it takes 1 and 50 minutes --- slowwwww! for what was advertised. I leave a buffer of some 40 to 50 rated miles (wind, excess speed) so in effect at least for planning purposes, I have lost south of 9% of range and added an additional 50 minutes of supercharging time over 4.5.

Am I missing something?

3-G did not mention how many miles he has upon arrival at the Supercharger. Hopefully more of the 85kw owners will weigh in on this issue. These type of stories show a pattern of consistent reduction in range based on mysterious changes to the algorithms. We 60kw owners really get punched in the nose with reductions in range. I just received 5.8 and I lost 6 miles on my normal charge when plugged in overnight. The thing that annoys me most about Tesla is the silence after they reduce range and fail to deliver on options like the upgraded stereo that was supposed to store 3,000 songs and integrate with mp3 players. No consideration is offered to the 2012 faithful owners that bought the upgraded system primarily for this feature. It's just not offered any longer....Wonderful. As for the Supercharger option for 60kw buyers...they better come up with a Pay-As-You-Go option, otherwise Model X sales goals will fail. Consumer data will rule...most new buyers and (in my opinion) most 60kw owners will not buy the $2,000 option given the menu of options that have more everyday benefit. As for the additional 50 minute full charge. It sounds like another "ugly".

I also noticed a drop in range for my MS60, from about 130miles for a 70% charge to about 125. I have noticed however that it is now very easy to beat rated range. On 4.5 I had to drive at about 270Whr /mile to beat the rated range, it now appears that I can beat rated range if I stay below about 285Whr per mile. All in all, in terms of actual achievable driving range it seems like a wash.

A standard charge on 4.5 was 93%. The new slider bar is in 10% increments. If your ideal miles are still the same then there hasn't been a real loss in range capability. It may seem like it though because weather is getting colder and that does impact range significantly.

@Captain_Zap - 4.0 was 93%. 4.5 was 90%.

Agree with you otherwise...

Contrary to some irate owners, rated range is a calculated field per the 5.6/5.8 release note.

@mbergman - For anyone whose ideal range has dropped, that is a different issue than what is being asked about in this thread. This thread is about "reduced range after firmware updates". Unless you believe that Tesla has sent updates that actually reduce the amount of charge your battery can hold, and thus the actual amount of miles you can drive, then there is indeed nothing to get worked up over, IMO. I see it as no different than changing the gas level at which your idiot light comes on in an ICE car. But the tank is still the same size and you can still drive just as far as you could before. The difference is just that we all have an intuitive grasp of when we need to fill up our ICE, but are not necessarily comfortable about that yet with the Model S.

I think part of the confusion is that the 265/208 rated range was originally based on the EPA 5-cycle test. It appears that this is no longer the case although we have not heard any oficial confirmation from Tesla on this.

On my 60 the 90% is now 174 rated on 5.8. When I first got 4.5 2 or 3 months ago it was 178. I have not looked at ideal.

@create - You made me think of another reason the whole issue of rated (i.e., estimated) range is a little overblown. The EPA rated the car at 265 miles without regard to Tesla's calculation for 'rated range'. Whatever Tesla does to manipulate the number they display on your dash does not change the EPA rating.

I have the P85+ and my daily range dropped from 235 to 231 when upgraded from 5.0 to 5.8. I don't see any perceptible difference in the wh/mile in actual driving (I get 346 wh/mile - guess a heavy right foot is the culprit). I had chalked this up to Tesla changing the algorithm for rated miles.

Yup I think think my observed change in Whr/mile vs rated range was due to battery temp changes.
This morning I made rated range with 320 Whr/mile, but the battery was cold (about 9C) when I started, so battery warming probably skewed the result.

I had my car in for service and they told me the new range is calculated on your last 100 mile avg wh/mile. So if you drive fast you will have a lower range, if you drive slow you'll have higher range. Straight from the service center in Van Nuys, CA

Again, why isn't Tesla chiming in, communication on this issue properly, explaining to users why the numbers are changing. Tesla, start addressing
topics with so many users, so they don't speculate. Even two properly
worded sentences can put people's minds at ease.

My P85 now only charges to 220 on a standard charge after 5.8. With some vampire loss overnight(energy saving mode disabled), I woke up to see a range of only 215 this morning. That is an eye-opener, for sure. Not the way I wanted to start the day.

I will do a max charge tonight and see what happens.

I took a short drive this morning and plugged back in when I returned. Again, a standard charge only goes to 220 Rated miles (216 estimated, 253 ideal)

I emailed ownership the other day to ask if this was a normal change for the new software, since others are reporting higher numbers. Interestingly, my car was in for service (another issue) at the time of the email. Ownership didn't respond, but my invoice that was returned with the car had a response to the email inquiry.

found normal battery degradation for the amount of miles, current CAC of 225 is with in spec considering that a new pack is about 229 to 232 CAC

I took delivery in March and have 13,000 miles on the car. If I am doing the math correctly (?), the range is 4-5% less than a new battery. Is this the expected amount of range loss for the age/mileage of my battery?

I didn't want to wait so I just did my first ever range (max) charge. It charged to 251.5 rated, 248.4 estimated and 289.4 ideal. This is similar to what others have posted, so I guess (hope) the battery is still OK.

Everyone is talking about range calculations (which is an estimate of mileage left based on some assumptions). Has the actual distance you travel based on actual driving changed? I would suspect not (although this may be harder to track).


You would have to drive until the car shutdown and record the actual miles traveled? Anything short of that leaves you with a range calculation estimate.

note that battery degradation is greatest early on, and then tapers off for the long haul.

16500 miles 7 months. 222 new standard charge down from 229. Range charge 255 rated, didn't check ideal. A few days before my range charge was 252 rated, 287 ideal. Seems consistent with what you see.

I would be interested in the battery decay chart of the early delivered S cars from >year ago.

LBL claims they developed a Li/S batt. that the decay was only 0.04% with each charging cycle, data was charted over 1500 charging cycles.

S85, 13,500 miles, 4,000 on new battery. Received 5.8 last week. Am currently on a road trip so range charging every day, including two Florida superchargers. Range charge is giving us 269 to 276 rated miles.

How Tesla calculates things remains a mystery, but for what it's worth, version 5.8 is closer to real-world results. This includes initial rated range after a charge and, from what I've seen, higher measurements of Wh/mile (the prior readings were NOT counting all energy use). The current measurements are much closer to what we've been estimating at with the Planner, which has been much more accurate than any Tesla estimates.

@Brian H

note that battery degradation is greatest early on, and then tapers off for the long haul.

I have seen this type of information repeated often in the forums. Is this just general information concerning lithium ion batteries or is this what Tesla says about our batteries? I can't find any information from Tesla concerning the expected battery amount or rate of degradation. My emails to Ownership go unanswered. (except for the one response in my last invoice from service.)

@brianh - check out the Roadster forums here and TMC for data on this point. Now all are assuming the MS behaves similarly.


I have a distinguished EE in my pocket that works on things like that and we are very familiar with the battery pack design concept. That is one of the reasons we were able to confidently buy the car before it existed.

Earlier I posted My emails to Ownership go unanswered.

Shortly after that post, I received a call from Tesla offering to answer my questions about the battery and its warranty.

Unfortunately, they had no answers yet, but the rep was very nice and he promised to research it and get back to me.

X Deutschland Site Besuchen