100D range disappointment and experience- 'range anxiety'?

[wp746911]

Just providing an update. So wife is coming around I think . She drove back alone at night from Memphis to Jackson and said she loved loved loved the autonav. She said she actually had a wreck occur a few cars ahead of her in heavy memphis traffic and the tesla did a great job of braking for her. She also loved autonav in heavy traffic, and said she really loved it for late night driving.

ALSO, she had it charged around 95% (charged at the memphis SC the night before she left). She was planning on stopping in grenada when she left memphis, but she made it back without stopping! The trick (which someone here mentioned) was that she looked at the estimated % remaining when she started the trip. It started at 5% and after driving 30 minutes (at 75) it had IMPROVED to 7-8%. So she ended up comfortably skipping the SC in Grenada and made it in great time. When she pulled in it showed ~30 miles remaining.

She's now singing the praise of Tesla- saying how she isn't sure she can drive anything else. Mission accomplished women and gentlemen! Thanks a ton for talking me through this all.

 

[EV-lutioin]

The Model X is a bit of a pig when it comes to energy consumption, any amount of speed over 60 mph or headwind will affect it's range. In comparison, my Model 3 is varies little with headwinds or speed... I suppose due to better aerodynamics.

 

[Electroman]

in Model 3 it is very easy to get 300 miles range above 70F, going with the traffic flow. But at sub-zero it is a completely different story.

 

[ajdelange]

The Model X is a bit of a pig when it comes to energy consumption, any amount of speed over 60 mph or headwind will affect it's range.

It's range depends strongly on speed at any speed. This is shown clearly in the consumption vs. speed graph in No. 13. Consumption increases (and range decreases) approximately proportionally to v^1.12 in the region above 50 mph.

In comparison, my Model 3 is varies little with headwinds or speed... I suppose due to better aerodynamics.

The curve for the X mentioned above comes from ABRP data collected from cars in normal operation. There is another curve for the S and it is very similar in form though the vertical axis numbers are different. For the X the average consumption at 65 mph is 380 Whr/mi. For the S it is 291 but they both vary with speed in the same manner.

Power demand is composed of several components. Some of them depend on the speed but the biggest one, drag, depends on the square of the speed. This is as true in the S as it is in the X. The X has larger cross section so drag force is going to be larger than in the S implying greater power consumption at any speed. But the X is also heavier than the S requiring more energy for acceleration and more energy to go up a hill of the same size.

The same laws of physics apply to the 3 as to the X and S. Thus the 3's consumption and range depend on speed in the same way that the X and S consumptions do. Your observation that 3 range doesn't vary with speed or headwind isn't accounting for some other driving factor. Look at the X or S ABRP data and you will see the wide scatter about the trend lines.

 

[SSonnentag]

Here's some of the worst efficiency I've gotten with my S 100D. We had 15 mph headwinds, it was fairly cool, we were running uphill and had the cruise set for 75-80 mph.

 

[ajdelange]

I've had worse than that. All for trips shorter than 11 miles though and all in relatively cold weather.