Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Available kWh in Standard and Range Mode for Model S?

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Column that says kWh added, should be Miles added.

Clarification on Charge Rates:
SC derived using 45 minutes to get standard charge of 239 miles
15-40 derived using 30 miles added per hour
Inefficiency factor - otherwise know as fudge factor.

Good Start!

I think that your spreadsheet is optimistic and may have a few errors. Here are some questions and comments:
  1. You state charge rate has units of hours. Hours to do what?
  2. I think that you mean a 14-50 (not a 15-40) connector that can source 40 Amps.
  3. Your Supercharger numbers are optimistic. See Supercharger - Tesla Motors Club Wiki. It looks like the fast rate for an 85kWh battery is 30 minutes empty to half full, then tapering off from there, getting much slower the last 10% of charge to Range capacity.
  4. When possible, (starting in Napa, or after the overnight in Blythe) why not charge to the full range mode? On a trip, it never hurts to have a few more miles in the bank.
  5. Remember Rated Miles can go away quickly with fast or spirited driving, or driving over high passes.

Good luck continuing your planning!
 
You state charge rate has units of hours. Hours to do what? - modified to miles per hour of charge

I think that you mean a 14-50 (not a 15-40) connector that can source 40 Amps. - corrected

Your Supercharger numbers are optimistic. See Supercharger - Tesla Motors Club Wiki. It looks like the fast rate for an 85kWh battery is 30 minutes empty to half full, then tapering off from there, getting much slower the last 10% of charge to Range capacity. - will modify once real-world SC numbers start coming in.

When possible, (starting in Napa, or after the overnight.
Remember Rated Miles can go away quickly with fast or spirited driving, or driving over high passes. - understand, and will likely do that.

Thanks for your comments.
 
I'd like to hear as well.

I am an experience electric car driver and have been driving in a quite restrained manner. I'm seeing about 350 W/mi which works out to a full-charge range around 225. Unlike my prior electric cars - low speed stop and start driving does not seem any better. I expected about 20% better than that.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, quoting the official numbers. I get 274 rated on a range charge.

But these are ideal miles - right? What kind of real mileage are you seeing?
 
I'd like to hear as well.

I am an experience electric car driver and have been driving in a quite restrained manner. I'm seeing about 350 W/mi which works out to a full-charge range around 225. Unlike my prior electric cars - low speed stop and start driving does not seem any better. I expected about 20% better than that.

- - - Updated - - -



But these are ideal miles - right? What kind of real mileage are you seeing?

Yes ideal miles (Model S terminology is "rated range"). My Project Range (and observed) on the highway at 65 MPH is 240 (after range mode charge). I'm finding city/secondary driving to consume more power because the car is relatively heavy. The Roadster fared MUCH better in secondary/city driving.

- - - Updated - - -

You need 310 Wh/mile to achieve rated range.
 
Curious... what kind of range are people seeing in the "standard" mode in the Bay Area (Silicon Valley), California? Mostly freeway driving. 65MPH type of thing.

thanks in advance,

I have found that driving the 100 miles to Fremont, if I set cruise at 60 mph and use Low Regen (which is simply less aggressive so less abrupt doing freeway cruise). I can run at 285 wh/mi, or 300 miles per charge. I have not driven at 65, so I can't tell you how that works. 60 is right lane, same speed as trucks, no hassle, no problems, and the rest of you can pass me. Of course, you'll take more time recharging. I also got close to 300 miles per charge going to Reno and back from Napa Valley. At 60 mph on low regen cruise. With air on. I don't understand the drama that one of the car mags had going to Las Vegas. Is it uphill from LA?
 
I have found that driving the 100 miles to Fremont, if I set cruise at 60 mph and use Low Regen (which is simply less aggressive so less abrupt doing freeway cruise). I can run at 285 wh/mi, or 300 miles per charge. I have not driven at 65, so I can't tell you how that works. 60 is right lane, same speed as trucks, no hassle, no problems, and the rest of you can pass me. Of course, you'll take more time recharging. I also got close to 300 miles per charge going to Reno and back from Napa Valley. At 60 mph on low regen cruise. With air on. I don't understand the drama that one of the car mags had going to Las Vegas. Is it uphill from LA?

Yes. You must travel through the high desert (Victorville is around 3000 ft elevation).
 
I have found that driving the 100 miles to Fremont, if I set cruise at 60 mph and use Low Regen (which is simply less aggressive so less abrupt doing freeway cruise). I can run at 285 wh/mi, or 300 miles per charge. I have not driven at 65, so I can't tell you how that works. 60 is right lane, same speed as trucks, no hassle, no problems, and the rest of you can pass me. Of course, you'll take more time recharging. I also got close to 300 miles per charge going to Reno and back from Napa Valley. At 60 mph on low regen cruise. With air on. I don't understand the drama that one of the car mags had going to Las Vegas. Is it uphill from LA?

Great! I assume this was on range mode :)... I would think 65MPH should be able to hit 260 miles in range and about 230 in standard mode?
 
roblab: Not clear on why you think "low regen cruise" enhances mileage?

My guess would be that it throws less energy away as heat (Regeneration takes the kinetic energy and converts it into electricity and heat. Heat does not add to range.). Cruise typically accelerates and brakes too hard in the process of keeping the speed at the setting so the lower regen setting may overcome some of the tendency for cruise to throw away energy. We need some independent verification here, sadly, I'm still "reserved" rather than "finalized".
 
roblab: Not clear on why you think "low regen cruise" enhances mileage? Did you use Folsom for the ride to Reno? There are two of us here down-valley at Silverado that have S's coming late November/December. Can't wait.

On a flat or continuous uphill drive the regen setting would be irrelevant. But in the real world there are uphill and downhill segments. On any downhill segment steep enough that cruise is not inducing power to the wheels the most efficient mode would be a free wheel coast. Because regen is not 100% efficient any energy recaptured is, by definition, less than the kinetic energy than was present. Simple conservation of momentum.

So, when highway cruising, the less 'off the accelerator' regen the better. Now, how measurable that will be probably depends a lot upon the particular road driven (steeper more frequent hills would seem the obvious to show benefit from lower regen). Even then the amount may not be terribly significant.


Evan, Via Tapatalk
 
On a flat or continuous uphill drive the regen setting would be irrelevant. But in the real world there are uphill and downhill segments. On any downhill segment steep enough that cruise is not inducing power to the wheels the most efficient mode would be a free wheel coast. Because regen is not 100% efficient any energy recaptured is, by definition, less than the kinetic energy than was present. Simple conservation of momentum.

You are probably right in practice, but the calculation is not as simple as that:

The energy here is coming from the potential energy change from higher to lower on the slope. The excess above that needed to keep the car going at the commanded 60mph can either be stored as excess kinetic energy (car going faster than commanded), or stored through regen in the battery - in both cases, then liberated from that storage when the slope decreases and the potential energy change isn't sufficient to sustain the forward speed. In the regen case, energy is lost through inefficiencies in the charge/discharge/motor process. In the excess speed case, energy is lost (compared to going at constant speed) because the drag increases proportional to at least the square of the speed. So it's not immediately obvious which is more efficient.

Consider a very long continuous slope where the terminal velocity (freewheeling) was 80mph. If you freewheeled down it, all you've got at the bottom is that you are doing 80: the deceleration from 60 to 80 on flat ground won't buy you very much range, wheras if the slope was very long you could have a significant amount of range saved up in the battery through regen. Conversely, a very stiff cruise control maintaining exactly 60.00 mph on an undulating slope where the freewheel wouldn't have gone much above 60 in the first place is almost certainly wasting power.
 
You are probably right in practice, but the calculation is not as simple as that:

The energy here is coming from the potential energy change from higher to lower on the slope. The excess above that needed to keep the car going at the commanded 60mph can either be stored as excess kinetic energy (car going faster than commanded), or stored through regen in the battery - in both cases, then liberated from that storage when the slope decreases and the potential energy change isn't sufficient to sustain the forward speed. In the regen case, energy is lost through inefficiencies in the charge/discharge/motor process. In the excess speed case, energy is lost (compared to going at constant speed) because the drag increases proportional to at least the square of the speed. So it's not immediately obvious which is more efficient.

Consider a very long continuous slope where the terminal velocity (freewheeling) was 80mph. If you freewheeled down it, all you've got at the bottom is that you are doing 80: the deceleration from 60 to 80 on flat ground won't buy you very much range, wheras if the slope was very long you could have a significant amount of range saved up in the battery through regen. Conversely, a very stiff cruise control maintaining exactly 60.00 mph on an undulating slope where the freewheel wouldn't have gone much above 60 in the first place is almost certainly wasting power.

Hear, hear! This is absolutely correct in practice. Living in Colorado, I get to experience long mountain up and downs and small rollers in the plains. On long mountain descents, you end up with way more energy in the battery regenning down. Its still a net loss from flat driving because of inefficiencies in the regen process, but better than no regen. In the rollers, short periods at higher speed have less loss to aerodynamic drag than the regen losses, so its better to freewheel, but once again worse than flat ground.

BTW, one other advantage to high altitude driving is that the thinner high altitude air offers less aerodynamic drag than thick sea level air. An electric car has no loss of power at altitude, but does lose cooling capacity.
 
> Cruise typically accelerates and brakes too hard in the process of keeping the speed at the setting so the lower regen setting may overcome some of the tendency for cruise to throw away energy. [jerry33]

Substitute 'regens' for 'brakes', no? If you have ever cruised in a Roadster this would not likely be your takeaway, IMO, since its style of Cruise is totally seamless- a thing of beauty. The Amps in/out gauge is not swinging back & forth at all. There is no slop. This absolute consistency must payoff in the long run to give better economy than one's right foot. It is certainly more relaxing than the alternative of second guessing the parameters involved with every hill or turn. I know, others have expressed their being able to 'beat their cruise' but that is probably due to the crudities & peculiarities of their particular cruise. The Roadster Cruise should be technically analyzed if it has not been already. Also too, it is altitude immune.
--
 
Hi, folks.

As to light regen, it is mostly less aggressive. It cuts in slower, goes out slower, so less abrupt. If it is able to keep you at the preset speed (and it is in almost every case, especially at freeway speeds), then high or low regen are the same as to saving power otherwise lost.

The talk about "freewheeling" is just what the car does when it is not putting power in or doing regen. The power gauge is on zero. You are freewheeling, just like in neutral on a car with a tranny.

After driving to Canada, with LOTS of mountainous roads and VERY cool temps, I felt that a lot of loss was due to the heat exchanger (climate control) Wish I knew exactly what heats the front window for defrost. Going up and down over and over lowers your range.

I did not necessarily charge in range mode before going to Fremont. I said I used 285 Wh/mi, which would give you 300 miles on a full charge, in range mode. When I went over the hill to Reno, over 7000' at the summit, I had charged to full in Rocklin (Sacramento) before going. I got 300 miles per charge, but it was 4 charges, with an average usage of about 285 Wh/mi, which is 300 miles per charge. I would never attempt to stretch it from full to empty hoping to get to another charger.

You in Napa would be 25 to 30 miles closer than me. The only problem is going up the hill and having your projected range drop so far that you can't make it over. Once over, you recoup a bunch of charge coming down into Reno.

And remember, I was doing 60, not 70 or 80, and my climate control use was minimal. In the winter or summer it would have been worse.

I plan to go over again in about a month. We will see how it makes it in less than ideal conditions.
spokane to ontario 026.JPG


- - - Updated - - -

One more real world comment. I find that cruise is MUCH better at keeping the car going smoothly. With my foot driving, the energy gauge looks like Tesla Stock. With cruise, it looks like gentle ripples on a lake. Driving with foot, I get closer to 310 - 350 Wh/mi. Cruise gets me down to 285. Slow and steady win the race. (Now where have I heard that before??)
 
So after checking various posts here and screenshots the available capacity of the 85kWh pack seems to be 75 ~ 78kWh in range mode, the rest is not usable to protect the battery from being fully drained?

I'm still calculating that I'll be doing an average of 230Wh/km on highway speeds (120km/h / 75mph)), so that would give me a range of somewhere about 330km (206m).

I saw this today in the Roadster as well, doing 122km/h on the cruise control, with:
* AC on (prevent fogging)
* Heater slightly on (4 degrees Celsius)
* Seat heater on
* Wet road
* Some wind
* Winter tires

That gave me an average of 230Wh/km and since Model S is heavier and bigger that's what I'm thinking about.

That brings me to:

Pack: 85kWh
Range: 78kWh
Standard: 68kWh


P.S.: We should REALLY have a Wiki about this when this is sorted. This is information people want to have to do their own math.
 
I've seen posted many times that the usable portion of the 85kWh battery is 81.5kWh.

Here is one such post: Lifetime Average Wh/mi - Page 2

So after checking various posts here and screenshots the available capacity of the 85kWh pack seems to be 75 ~ 78kWh in range mode, the rest is not usable to protect the battery from being fully drained?

I'm still calculating that I'll be doing an average of 230Wh/km on highway speeds (120km/h / 75mph)), so that would give me a range of somewhere about 330km (206m).

I saw this today in the Roadster as well, doing 122km/h on the cruise control, with:
* AC on (prevent fogging)
* Heater slightly on (4 degrees Celsius)
* Seat heater on
* Wet road
* Some wind
* Winter tires

That gave me an average of 230Wh/km and since Model S is heavier and bigger that's what I'm thinking about.

That brings me to:

Pack: 85kWh
Range: 78kWh
Standard: 68kWh


P.S.: We should REALLY have a Wiki about this when this is sorted. This is information people want to have to do their own math.