+/- I have seen 268 right after a max charge and 243 after a standard. Haven't waited on the max, but the standard will droop down to 238 after a couple of days.
SW 1.13.16
Yeah, quoting the official numbers. I get 274 rated on a range charge.
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
+/- I have seen 268 right after a max charge and 243 after a standard. Haven't waited on the max, but the standard will droop down to 238 after a couple of days.
SW 1.13.16
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.
Yeah, quoting the official numbers. I get 274 rated on a range charge.
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?
You need 310 Wh/mile to achieve rated range.
Actually, I think it is closer to 308 Wh/mi.
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?
roblab: Not clear on why you think "low regen cruise" enhances mileage?
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.
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.
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.