New owners: Wh/mi of Aggressive vs Conservative driving challenge?

[Candleflame]

While I understand your interest in high speed energy consumption, those of us in the US can not, on a regular basis use these speeds and by testing at them are risking their own lives as well as the lives of those around them. These types of information need to be obtained in a controlled environment where nobody is going to get hurt in the process.

Oh, and just as a side note, to the person that threatened cancellation of their reservation if the Model 3 did indeed consume 600 watts per mile at 90 mph...you aren't going to get 40 miles to the gallon on your Honda going 90 mph either. Speed sucks up energy. Electric or gas...doesn't matter.

Dan

Particularly mid sized Diesels with overdrive gears run very, very efficient at such high speeds. They get better mpgs running at over 100mph then your typical american car at 55mph.

you will not get hurt driving 90mph on a good road. Speed limits are largely historical and political and now also create some nice extra income for the state.

 

[Dan Detweiler]

Particularly mid sized Diesels with overdrive gears run very, very efficient at such high speeds. They get better mpgs running at over 100mph then your typical american car at 55mph.

you will not get hurt driving 90mph on a good road. Speed limits are largely historical and political and now also create some nice extra income for the state.

What is dangerous is the speed differential among vehicles using the same space. With minimum speeds typically at 45 mph here in the US on highways, you create a 60-80 mph difference in traffic. That is a recipe for disaster. If you want to make a minimum speed of 70-80 mph then speed limits over 100 mph might work in some cases, but not all drivers are going to feel comfortable at those minimums and then you eliminate a segment of the driving population which will in no way be popular.

Just my thoughts of course.

Dan

 

[SteveG3]

The only accurate numbers are EPA. Real world accurate numbers will vary widely because of individual driving styles, climate, road conditions, condition of car (wheels/tires), driver bias will vary widely.

Yes, the EPA numbers chooses published set points for those variables, which is of some help vs. person X,Y,Z saying what range they get on average. That said, what the EPA chooses as a cycle is not necessarily any more realistic to the way you or I drive than how person X,Y, or Z drove when he/she collected some data.

As an example, I care by far most about range for driving about 75 mph on the interstate in the lower range of temperatures I will likely see (low 30s), with slow downs perhaps once an hour on average... but, when I try to match this to the EPA highway number (even the 5 cycles) it looks like a lost cause for me. So, I see value in trying to crowd source several different scenarios re range/efficiency so we each have a better chance to try to find a reasonably close match to the set of conditions we most want to know about.

 

[jerry33]

Yes, the EPA numbers chooses published set points for those variables, which is of some help vs. person X,Y,Z saying what range they get on average. That said, what the EPA chooses as a cycle is not necessarily any more realistic to the way you or I drive than how person X,Y, or Z drove when he/she collected some data.

True, but the EPA numbers were never intended to indicate how much anyone would get. They were intended to be a repeatable test so that car buyers could compare the numbers against their own numbers. So the idea is that you look at your App or logbook to see what mpg you are getting. Then you compare that to your car's EPA number. Dividing one by the other gives you a percentage. You then take the car that you are thinking about's EPA number and multiply by the percentage to see what you might get.

However, as a practical matter it doesn't really matter. What you do is use the trip graph to see if you are going under or over the estimate. If you are over, then you can speed up, if under, slow down. It's generally considered good practice to go slower at the start of the trip (this is mostly when you are new to the car until you get some experience) and then speed up later in the trip if the trip graph indicates you are doing well. Wind, cold, rain, and snow will make a difference and none of those are accounted for in the estimate.

 

[SteveG3]

True, but the EPA numbers were never intended to indicate how much anyone would get. They were intended to be a repeatable test so that car buyers could compare the numbers against their own numbers. So the idea is that you look at your App or logbook to see what mpg you are getting. Then you compare that to your car's EPA number. Dividing one by the other gives you a percentage. You then take the car that you are thinking about's EPA number and multiply by the percentage to see what you might get.

However, as a practical matter it doesn't really matter. What you do is use the trip graph to see if you are going under or over the estimate. If you are over, then you can speed up, if under, slow down. It's generally considered good practice to go slower at the start of the trip (this is mostly when you are new to the car until you get some experience) and then speed up later in the trip if the trip graph indicates you are doing well. Wind, cold, rain, and snow will make a difference and none of those are accounted for in the estimate.

Helpful point, re EPA numbers intent re comparison shopping rather than a claim they are not making (to match everyone’s driving conditions). My point was that trying to crowd source some info here does have added value. For those who’ve been driving an S or X, or arguably a Bolt, the approach you described would likely be quite helpful. For many of us, crowd sourcing re Mod3 data points can be a real help.

 

[jerry33]

Helpful point, re EPA numbers intent re comparison shopping rather than a claim they are not making (to match everyone’s driving conditions). My point was that trying to crowd source some info here does have added value. For those who’ve been driving an S or X, or arguably a Bolt, the approach you described would likely be quite helpful. For many of us, crowd sourcing re Mod3 data points can be a real help.

Crowd sourcing can give you an average, but it may or may not agree with what you get. In my S85 I get 245 wh/mi as a lifetime average, but not everyone gets that, and some get better.

 

[SteveG3]

Crowd sourcing can give you an average, but it may or may not agree with what you get. In my S85 I get 245 wh/mi as a lifetime average, but not everyone gets that, and some get better.

Oh, I’m not looking for an average. To me what’s useful is finding data point(s) that match the conditions where range concerns me the most.

 

[insaneoctane]

This thread went a little sideways from my original intention. Originally, I was less interested in high speed driving and more aggressive lower speed driving. Like rabbit starts and stops; quickly accelerating and breaking throughout a lot of "city" or urban driving vs driving miss daisy.....I know in ICE there are HUGE penalties to this and I'm curious how much penalty there is with the Model 3.....

 

[jerry33]

This thread went a little sideways from my original intention. Originally, I was less interested in high speed driving and more aggressive lower speed driving. Like rabbit starts and stops; quickly accelerating and breaking throughout a lot of "city" or urban driving vs driving miss daisy.....I know in ICE there are HUGE penalties to this and I'm curious how much penalty there is with the Model 3.....

Less than a similarly weighted ICE due to regen (assumes you mostly use regen for braking), but there is no way around the physics of acceleration. Jackrabbit starts and hard braking use lots of energy.

 

[jerry33]

Can't upload during editing.

 

[Skidmark]

Jackrabbit starts and hard braking use lots of energy.

Tires wear faster as well.

 

[insaneoctane]

I am not looking for citizen of the year award here. I know that aggressive driving is more wasteful. But, in reality I do it at times. I suspect that when I am piloting a model 3 that I might do it more than I do now. I am looking to feel warm and fuzzy because even driving like I stole it I might be getting like 70 MPGe.... Take that ICE!

 

[shrspeedblade]

I am not looking for citizen of the year award here. I know that aggressive driving is more wasteful. But, in reality I do it at times. I suspect that when I am piloting a model 3 that I might do it more than I do now. I am looking to feel warm and fuzzy because even driving like I stole it I might be getting like 70 MPGe.... Take that ICE!

It is all relative, For comparison, let's use my Mustang that is a little bit faster than a Model 3. I get low 20s in freeway cruising, probably average around 16mpg combined with some *ahem* spirited driving and could probably see under 10mpg without trying very hard although I've never been that profligate.

Now, take you're Model 3 and drive in the same profligate manner and you're seeing that 70 MPGe number. That's more efficient than a Prius on the freeway. At that point, especially combined with solar/other renewables for electricity like I have and it gets to the point if you're worried about it you're not "green" you're obsessing.

 

[insaneoctane]

So, the "data" I'm looking for is more or less mentioned in @shrspeedblade post.... Driving like a bat out of hell would get me 10 MPG vs 70 MPGe or 7x better than ICE. That's better than conservative driving (25 MPG vs 130 MPGe or 5x better than ICE). I am thrilled to think that as I drive more aggressively, my relative savings vs ICE only improve!

 

[Skidmark]

Doing the math on 70MPGe with aggressive driving, at 20 cents per kWh, your're paying 9.7 cents per mile.

A 25MPG car with $3.00/gallon gasoline costs 12 cents per mile.

You're only a little bit better with the 70MPGe given those energy price assumptions...

 

[insaneoctane]

Doing the math on 70MPGe with aggressive driving, at 20 cents per kWh, your're paying 9.7 cents per mile.

A 25MPG car with $3.00/gallon gasoline costs 12 cents per mile.

You're only a little bit better with the 70MPGe given those energy price assumptions...

Oh, contrar.... It's 130:25 or 70:10 NOT 70:25

 

[Skidmark]

Oh, contrar.... It's 130:25 or 70:10 NOT 70:25

My mistake...so assume 5 cents/mile for 130MPGe vs 12cents/mile for 25MPG...it's 2.4x better, not 5x better.

 

[shrspeedblade]

The real beauty of it- and the biggest advantage over an ICE vehicle from my perspective- is that you can kind of 'have your cake and eat it too' from a power perspective.

Any ICE car that can go 0-60 in less than 5 seconds is always going to be paying the penalty for that engine, so even when driven as fuel efficiently as possible it's going to struggle to hit 30mpg highway. A Model 3 can give you that kind of power and still give you 100+MPGe when not even trying to drive all that efficiently. The same P100DL cranking out 10s is more efficient than a Prius driven responsibly (but what fun is that!)
The downsides are the (relatively) slow refueling, it can't handle track work, and the sad lack of the glorious sound some engines make. I should know, I was just reveling in one of the best earlier today!

 

[NickFie]

If you seek high speed efficiency, then it may be worth waiting for the D model. My model S 100D has different gear ratio for front and rear motors. In Range mode, energy goes to the motor with most appropriate gearing. Thus more range than S 100.

Here's a video of Model X high-speed Autobahn run. Objective was to show sustained 200 Kilometer/hour cruise, above your stated target. If you skip to the middle, you'll see the Trip meter & energy gauge.

I think he had average 580 Wh/K, so that's an upper bound. Suspect 150 Kph cruise will be substantially more economical. Also, 3 may be more aerodynamic than X.

At the end, he raises his speed above 200 Kph, then is limited by battery heat.

 

[insaneoctane]

I'd still like some new owner's "worst" Wh/mi averaged over a minimum of 10 or 50 miles. Not so interested in absolute worst consumption for short bursts, as much as worst due to "aggressive" driving style....