315 Mile Model Y...new battery pack with more kWh?

[AlanSubie4Life]

I hope 90% - 10% isn’t the typical charging strategy beyond the initial leg of a road trip, as charging to 90% is very slow. I run 10% - 60% or less whenever possible, giving me a leg distance of 110 - 140 miles depending on weather.

I probably should have picked 80%. There are plenty of routes where you have to do something close to that to have margin and flexibility. And usually not too bad to get to 80%. Modify numbers above according to preference!

We’ll see...maybe the Model Y will somehow be much better than the above. Maybe it’ll be the Porsche Taycan of Teslas?

 

[iustin]

For more typical 90% to 10% discharge, you're looking at about 190 miles between charging stops with Model Y on the freeway (you'd get about 220-230 miles from a Model 3 with 18").

Thank you. That is around 300km, and if one takes cold into account, probably much less (random guess then 200-220km, given some extra reserve).

That is small enough to make even one-day skiing trips problematic, or at least more complex (in need of some planning).

By the time the Y will be available in Europe, better (clearer) numbers will be available, so I just have to be patient. In the meantime, my Subaru is enjoying winter driving

 

[leodoggie]

Agreed, the following is misinformation:

"Heat pump would have no impact on measured results, even if using 5-cycle testing - the 5-cycle testing only engages A/C in the hot test and never turns on cabin heat in the cold temp test (there is no reason to, since that would have no significant impact on results in an ICE vehicle)."


Thanks for the info. This has been pretty confusing for me to track down - I was reading a publication from the EPA (but I guess it was quite dated) indicating that it wasn't needed. Thank you for your link.

But this makes a lot more sense...looking at some cold weather test data from Teslas and it does look like it significantly impacts the efficiency...which is great as at least it means 5-cycle testing might actually have some significant impact on the results...

Here is the erroneous table I was looking at in an old document:

View attachment 509776

But doing a search for "heater" in that document...

View attachment 509775



Sorry for misinforming you. As you can see above, I was going off this table, which is apparently dated...

I guess it remains to be seen whether the Model Y has a heat pump? I'm having a hard time understanding how that scalar of 0.756 could have gotten so large without one, but who knows. I'm stumbling around like a blind man on this stuff, gradually learning my way as I go.

Sadly, even the "Test Details" tab in this EPA link is ambiguous/does not speak about heat - but I will trust the link provided above in @bhtooefr's post.

Detailed Test Information

Agreed, the following is misinformation:

"Heat pump would have no impact on measured results, even if using 5-cycle testing - the 5-cycle testing only engages A/C in the hot test and never turns on cabin heat in the cold temp test (there is no reason to, since that would have no significant impact on results in an ICE vehicle)."


Thanks for the info. This has been pretty confusing for me to track down - I was reading a publication from the EPA (but I guess it was quite dated) indicating that it wasn't needed. Thank you for your link.

But this makes a lot more sense...looking at some cold weather test data from Teslas and it does look like it significantly impacts the efficiency...which is great as at least it means 5-cycle testing might actually have some significant impact on the results...

Here is the erroneous table I was looking at in an old document:

View attachment 509776

But doing a search for "heater" in that document...

View attachment 509775



Sorry for misinforming you. As you can see above, I was going off this table, which is apparently dated...

I guess it remains to be seen whether the Model Y has a heat pump? I'm having a hard time understanding how that scalar of 0.756 could have gotten so large without one, but who knows. I'm stumbling around like a blind man on this stuff, gradually learning my way as I go.

Sadly, even the "Test Details" tab in this EPA link is ambiguous/does not speak about heat - but I will trust the link provided above in @bhtooefr's post.

Detailed Test Information

could you explain for us neophytes what 2 cycle testing and 5 cycle testing are.Also you mention scalar of .70 and .75 as being significant, what is a scalar.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

could you explain for us neophytes what 2 cycle testing and 5 cycle testing are.Also you mention scalar of .70 and .75 as being significant, what is a scalar.

All testing is done by Tesla on a dyno set up with coefficients to mimic the correct resisting force at different speeds. Two cycle is just a city test (FTP/UDDS avg 21mph) and a highway test (HWFET, max 57mph, avg 48mph) conforming to some standard, at roughly room temp. They are weighted 55% city and 45% highway. FTP = Federal Test Procedure. HWFET = Highway Fuel Economy Test (I think). UDDS - Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule

The 5 cycle adds a high speed aggressive test (US06, max ~80mph, avg 48mph), a hot test with AC use (SC03 avg 21mph), and a cold city cycle test (20F) (Cold FTP).

The scalar is just a multiplier applied to the results of the two cycle test. The two cycle tests often have very high range values relative to what one could normally accomplish, due to various factors (tests are low speed, very non-aggressive, etc.) - certainly it is possible to achieve those ranges but it requires optimal conditions and a very careful driver. The scalar brings the value down to something more reasonable, based on fitting to historical data, etc. So a higher scalar (whatever the rationale) leads to a higher EPA range.

Detailed Test Information

 

[leodoggie]

All testing is done by Tesla on a dyno set up with coefficients to mimic the correct resisting force at different speeds. Two cycle is just a city test (FTP/UDDS avg 21mph) and a highway test (HWFET, max 57mph, avg 48mph) conforming to some standard, at roughly room temp. They are weighted 55% city and 45% highway. FTP = Federal Test Procedure. HWFET = Highway Fuel Economy Test (I think). UDDS - Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule

The 5 cycle adds a high speed aggressive test (US06, max ~80mph, avg 48mph), a hot test with AC use (SC03 avg 21mph), and a cold city cycle test (20F) (Cold FTP).

The scalar is just a multiplier applied to the results of the two cycle test. The two cycle tests often have very high range values relative to what one could normally accomplish, due to various factors (tests are low speed, very non-aggressive, etc.) - certainly it is possible to achieve those ranges but it requires optimal conditions and a very careful driver. The scalar brings the value down to something more reasonable, based on fitting to historical data, etc. So a higher scalar (whatever the rationale) leads to a higher EPA range.

Detailed Test Information

Thanks for the explanations. So by using the .75 scalar instead of the traditional .70 for MY is Tesla exaggerating the the range?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Thanks for the explanations. So by using the .75 scalar instead of the traditional .70 for MY is Tesla exaggerating the the range?

I would not quite say that, though effectively they might be, depending on what matters to you. It just means that the EPA numbers can’t be directly compared. The EPA number is a (scaled) reflection of how vehicles do on the HWFET and FTP/UDDS. But if a different scalar is used that means that you can’t directly compare those results.

For example, a higher scalar could mean that the Model Y does really well in cold temperatures relative to Model 3. So that would have zero impact in summer time and Model Y would be worse than you would expect based on simple comparison of the ratings. Just an example - not saying this is what is going on - we will know soon when we see the 5-cycle results.

 

[leodoggie]

Excellent diplomatic answer. My curiosity on the range issue is fueled by the 1000 km (620 mile) challenge, which a certain you tuber has popularized. He managed the 1000 km in 10 hours driving a model 3 long range performance. The idea behind this challenge is to show that an ev can perform as well as an ice during long distance driving.
Having ordered a model y long range awd I am expecting to do road trips like that but with more joie de vivre.

 

[Daniel in SD]

Excellent diplomatic answer. My curiosity on the range issue is fueled by the 1000 km (620 mile) challenge, which a certain you tuber has popularized. He managed the 1000 km in 10 hours driving a model 3 long range performance. The idea behind this challenge is to show that an ev can perform as well as an ice during long distance driving.
Having ordered a model y long range awd I am expecting to do road trips like that but with more joie de vivre.

The 24 hour record for the Model 3 is 1728 miles (which is 72mph average speed ). 620 miles in 10 hours should be achievable in a Model Y.

 

[bhtooefr]

And, for additional context: FTP is based on city driving in Los Angeles in 1969, HWFET is based on rural driving in Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana in the 1970s (which is why the speed is so low).

Both test cycles had their maximum acceleration rates reduced to 3.3 mph/s, due to the limitations of 1970s dynamometer technology... but that of course reduced power used during the test cycle...

 

[ElectricIAC]

We all know by now that the production AWD Model Y will have a rated range of 315 miles from the prototype's 280 miles. I don't believe there is any way that this is possible unless the Model Y has a new battery pack with greater capacity. I just don't think it's possible for the Y's aerodynamics or motor efficiency to be so greatly improved over the 3 for it to only lose 7 miles vs the 3 AWD's 322 miles.

My guess is that Tesla has gone away from the 3's four modules and filled the excess space with more cells which has gained around 5kWh of usable capacity. I think this new pack will be used in the Model 3 starting in Q2 2020 which will boost the AWD Model 3's range to about 350 miles rated range.

Thoughts and opinions?

Like a new generation 85kWh pack? I suppose the price premium over a similarly equipped 3 would cover that..

In this instance though I have to say “Nah” I fully expect rated range is a cheeky estimate just as much as it is on the rest of the lineup.

 

[ratsbew]

It's kind of a bummer to see the responses here. What I really need/want is real world highway range at 70mph constant and 70-90 degrees. Sounds like it's going to be closer to 250 for 100%-5%. Can't wait for the reviews to come out to see how it really does.

 

[ElectricIAC]

I don’t expect it to be much better than a P3D+ or ~200mi.

 

[smcginnis]

I’m glad to see the above numbers. At my age I only get 190 miles to the bladder.