Battery and range issues

[Vicj]

Again, i don't think you're understanding my point. I'm not trying to say the 70mph test and the EPA claims should be the same. But... when other EV manufacturers can get their cars to hit the claimed EPA range at a steady 70mph, and Tesla cannot even get close, then one must wonder about their purchasing decision.

At this point, you and I should just agree to disagree.

Let's see what the future brings to Tesla's range claims.

I do believe you'll see them come down as EPA tightens up is rules, and actually starts testing themselves. Other manufacturers won't have to change their estimated ranges. ... which is kind of the entire point.

 

[exxxviii]

Again, i don't think you're understanding my point. I'm not trying to say the 70mph test and the EPA claims should be the same. But... when other EV manufacturers can get their cars to hit the claimed EPA range at a steady 70mph, and Tesla cannot even get close, then one must wonder about their purchasing decision.....

I do believe you'll see them come down as EPA tightens up is rules, and actually starts testing themselves. Other manufacturers won't have to change their estimated ranges. ... which is kind of the entire point.

I do think I understand your points, and your last statement is based on a false premise, factually incorrect, and leads to the false conclusion you state as your point. Tesla's EPA ranges are the most accurate (based on Edmunds' external tests), and if anything, other manufactures should be forced to publish accurate numbers. Tesla is the only one of 2 automakers using the 5-cycle protocol and not manipulating their EPA numbers.

Read this article without an anti-Tesla bias to understand how two extremes calculate and publish their EPA range. The Taycan is a joke. As a control, when Edmunds did their EPA range test of a 2020 Tesla Model S Performance, they got 318 miles. The car is rated for 326. That is only a 2.5% variance. That is the 4th most accurate car of all the cars Edmunds tested. 4 of the top 5 are Teslas. The Taycan has the dubious honor of being the very worst in Edmunds' test.

The Secret Adjustment Factor Tesla Uses to Get Its Big EPA Range Numbers

How Tesla puts distance between itself and the competition while still playing by the EPA's rules.

www.caranddriver.com

 

[Vicj]

You're comparing two DIFFERENT tests.

The one where the Tesla numbers are the most accurate was the Edmunds EPA cycle test. Yes. Accurate. Very accurate. For test on a closed loop, at a steady 45mph.

What I'm talking about are "real world" tests, where tests are being done at highway speeds, like the one Electrek just conducted and that Consumer Reports just conducted. It's in these real world driving tests that Tesla comes back to the pack. They're no better than the competition on Range in real world driving (which is why I said you could blame the methodology, if you chose to).

I don't know about you, but in MD, where most driving is done on the highway, and the posted speed is 65, driving 70MPH in the slow lane, still makes me a road rage target. I'm for more interested in real world driving range than carefully constructed tests to ensure the highest possible number.

 

[Mike728]

You're comparing two DIFFERENT tests.

The one where the Tesla numbers are the most accurate was the Edmunds EPA cycle test. Yes. Accurate. Very accurate. For test on a closed loop, at a steady 45mph.

What I'm talking about are "real world" tests, where tests are being done at highway speeds, like the one Electrek just conducted and that Consumer Reports just conducted. It's in these real world driving tests that Tesla comes back to the pack. They're no better than the competition on Range in real world driving (which is why I said you could blame the methodology, if you chose to).

I don't know about you, but in MD, where most driving is done on the highway, and the posted speed is 65, driving 70MPH in the slow lane, still makes me a road rage target. I'm for more interested in real world driving range than carefully constructed tests to ensure the highest possible number.

It seems like you have more of an issue with the EPA, than Tesla. Have you contacted them with your concerns?

 

[exxxviii]

You're comparing two DIFFERENT tests.

The one where the Tesla numbers are the most accurate was the Edmunds EPA cycle test. Yes. Accurate. Very accurate. For test on a closed loop, at a steady 45mph.

What I'm talking about are "real world" tests, where tests are being done at highway speeds, like the one Electrek just conducted and that Consumer Reports just conducted. It's in these real world driving tests that Tesla comes back to the pack. They're no better than the competition on Range in real world driving (which is why I said you could blame the methodology, if you chose to).

I don't know about you, but in MD, where most driving is done on the highway, and the posted speed is 65, driving 70MPH in the slow lane, still makes me a road rage target. I'm for more interested in real world driving range than carefully constructed tests to ensure the highest possible number.

Nope. Edmunds' test is explicitly designed to mimic the EPA range test. From their website: "Edmunds begins with full battery charge and drives an electric vehicle on a mix of city and highway roads (approximately 60% city, 40% highway) until the battery is almost entirely empty. (We target 10 miles of remaining range for safety.) The miles traveled and the indicated remaining range are added together for the Edmunds total tested range figure. We prefer to use a higher percentage of city road driving because we believe it's more representative of typical EV use."

All those other tests (Electrek, Car and Driver, InsideEVs, Recurrent Auto, etc.), which you call real world, are different and there is no meaningful comparison to published EPA numbers when we know the EPA numbers are manipulated by most automakers.

To paraphrase your last sentence, what you want is that the EPA change its requirements and direct automakers to publish a range number based on steady highway driving at something like 70 MPH, rather than a range based on 55% 50 MPH highway and 45% 21 MPH city driving.

 

[Rocky_H]

Again, i don't think you're understanding my point.

We are, but your point doesn't make sense. There is this:

I'm not trying to say the 70mph test and the EPA claims should be the same. But... when other EV manufacturers can get their cars to hit the claimed EPA range at a steady 70mph, and Tesla cannot even get close,

So you say this, declaring "Tesla=BAD" and "other brands=GOOD" versus what you describe as one single thing: "the claimed EPA range".

But in that case, you are not recognizing this fact, which is the reason for the discrepancy:

You're comparing two DIFFERENT tests.

Yes! This--exactly!

That's why the other brands can beat their numbers so consistently. They are using a totally different rating method that is more vague and very artificially sandbag lowered. So there just isn't any point in trying to equate car brands when their EPA methods are so different and unrelated. Gas cars only have one EPA testing method. They need to fix that for electric cars.

 

[Goobers]

Today, I started driving my older ICE car, a 2010 Honda Fit Sport w/Sprintex supercharger. More of my family is visiting, so I figured I’d let them use the MYP, while I go to my backup. So, after driving a bit, I had some more thoughts.

It’s sooooo much easier to maintain speed in my Fit. There’s no regen braking to instantly slow me down and the ”go” pedal isn’t anywhere near as sensitive as the Tesla and it’s instant torque. Obviously, this sound sarcastic, but it is a fact.

One thing I think is an issue with EVs… at least as far as efficiency testing goes, is that it’s way too easy to vary your speed. It’s too easy to have any bias affect having a slightly more (or less) aggressive driving. Unless they start using programmable robots to do the driving, all tests should really only be used as reference of the driver(s) in question (biases included)... not any kind of ”this one did bad, the brand is a lie” proof of anything.

 

[CaseyL]

One thing I think is an issue with EVs… at least as far as efficiency testing goes, is that it’s way too easy to vary your speed. It’s too easy to have any bias affect having a slightly more (or less) aggressive driving. Unless they start using programmable robots to do the driving, all tests should really only be used as reference of the driver(s) in question (biases included)... not any kind of ”this one did bad, the brand is a lie” proof of anything.

If only there was some sort of "Autopilot" robot thingie to do the driving ....

 

[Goobers]

If only there was some sort of "Autopilot" robot thingie to do the driving ....

If only.

 

[exxxviii]

Today, I started driving my older ICE car, a 2010 Honda Fit Sport w/Sprintex supercharger. More of my family is visiting, so I figured I’d let them use the MYP, while I go to my backup. So, after driving a bit, I had some more thoughts.

It’s sooooo much easier to maintain speed in my Fit. There’s no regen braking to instantly slow me down and the ”go” pedal isn’t anywhere near as sensitive as the Tesla and it’s instant torque. Obviously, this sound sarcastic, but it is a fact.

One thing I think is an issue with EVs… at least as far as efficiency testing goes, is that it’s way too easy to vary your speed. It’s too easy to have any bias affect having a slightly more (or less) aggressive driving. Unless they start using programmable robots to do the driving, all tests should really only be used as reference of the driver(s) in question (biases included)... not any kind of ”this one did bad, the brand is a lie” proof of anything.

IMHO, this is one of Tesla’s biggest weaknesses. I don’t like that you cannot dial back regen on highways. Makes highway driving much more tedious.

Hyundai is one of the best - it is super easy to move between OPD and various levels of regen. Makes real driving a breeze.

 

[LostVector]

It's important to remember that the more efficient a device (or car) is, the more drastic the impact of a heavier load is on that device's battery life. Other cars are less (often much less) efficient and simply get to their range numbers with larger batteries. Air resistance, cooling or heating, etc ... all represent less of a hit on a larger battery than a smaller one, all other things being equal. The EPA testing cycle is pretty inadequate when it comes to comparing Tesla's to other cars and I think it could do with some changes.

 

[Vicj]

I realize I've been very unpopular with my opinion about the Tesla range. And for that, I do apologize to those who so vehemently defend Tesla, despite the fact that I think they also know, deep down, there's no way they were getting the range they paid for.

However, as I said, the class action lawsuits will come. And they've already started. Here's the very first, just three days after the Tesla "gaming" of the EPA standard was exposed...

Tesla's range being exposed is already leading to a class action lawsuit

Tesla is now facing another class action lawsuit, and this time, it is related to its overstating of the range...

electrek.co

Obviously, there will be more. And, two republican congressman calling for hearings, as well.

 

[exxxviii]

I realize I've been very unpopular with my opinion about the Tesla range. And for that, I do apologize to those who so vehemently defend Tesla, despite the fact that I think they also know, deep down, there's no way they were getting the range they paid for.

However, as I said, the class action lawsuits will come. And they've already started. Here's the very first, just three days after the Tesla "gaming" of the EPA standard was exposed...

Not liking something because they are ignorant is not the same as doing something wrong. Nobody has pointed out where Tesla did something wrong. This is just one collective rant about not liking something they don't understand.

Deep down, the people who understand what EPA range actually is, and how it's calculated, know they are getting precisely what they paid for.

I hope this all leads to a revamp of the whole EPA BEV specification. It is complete nonsense.

• Get rid of MPGe - Only report efficiency in Wh/mile (not the miles/kWh tied to legacy ICE ratings and 33.7 kWh)
• Redefine the combined range - At a minimum, flip it to 60% highway and 40% city
• Be consistent across all the metrics - the MPGe ratings include charging losses while the range numbers do not
• Show city and highway ranges separately - not the stupid MPGe numbers that cannot be converted to range
• Create new cold weather and hot weather tests & ranges that show the temperature impacts on range (shows efficiency of HVAC and battery management)

As we reported last week, a lot of what was in the Reuters report were things that Tesla is allowed to do based on how the EPA calculates range.

The EPA range is what automakers are allowed to advertise.

While Tesla is known to take advantage of the EPA’s system to advertise the most optimistic version of the range of its vehicles, it appears to be within the bounds of the regulator.

 

[Rocky_H]

just three days after the Tesla "gaming" of the EPA standard was exposed...

This is what makes us not take you seriously. It's dishonest to call it "gaming". Tesla is one of the few companies who is stringently, literally, and precisely following the detailed EPA testing procedure to the letter. What do you want them to do? NOT follow the test?! LIE about the results of the test?! That would be "gaming".

It is the other version of EPA test that involves fudge factors and unfounded lowering by amounts not based on anything. So that test is the one that is less objective and could be described as "gaming" in a more realistic sense.

despite the fact that I think they also know, deep down, there's no way they were getting the range they paid for.

But look at the way this is happening. It's like if companies were intentionally lying about the amounts in their soda bottles, labeling them 16 ounces, while intentionally putting 20 ounces in every bottle. Sure, the public would be pleased and amazed and praising them for "beating the estimates" consistently. OK. But that's just by falsely claiming below reality. You can fudge and game the number that way if you want to get praise instead of trying to be accurate with the data.

 

[Vicj]

This is what makes us not take you seriously. It's dishonest to call it "gaming". Tesla is one of the few companies who is stringently, literally, and precisely following the detailed EPA testing procedure to the letter. What do you want them to do? NOT follow the test?! LIE about the results of the test?! That would be "gaming".

It is the other version of EPA test that involves fudge factors and unfounded lowering by amounts not based on anything. So that test is the one that is less objective and could be described as "gaming" in a more realistic sense.


But look at the way this is happening. It's like if companies were intentionally lying about the amounts in their soda bottles, labeling them 16 ounces, while intentionally putting 20 ounces in every bottle. Sure, the public would be pleased and amazed and praising them for "beating the estimates" consistently. OK. But that's just by falsely claiming below reality. You can fudge and game the number that way if you want to get praise instead of trying to be accurate with the data.

I'm simply quoting the article.
Their words. From a pro-tesla magazine.
Don't shoot the messenger.

 

[OHM-Y]

The thing that upset me has nothing to do with the EPA. I’ve aired those grievances (and will continue doing so!).

What irks me is Musk’s behavior, instructing staff to algorithmically rig the readouts to provide inaccurate projections of distance and remaining battery life, particularly when customers are operating vehicles with >50% SOC. He clearly knows his cars “can’t go the distance” he’s eager to claim to boost sales, yet proceeded to instruct service centers to provide knowingly inaccurate information to battery-concerned customers and to cancel their appointments. That’s called fraud (and gaslighting, too).

A lot of Tesla/Musk fans here are quick to say “your issue is with the EPA.” Sorry, it’s not. I've read through a mountain of materials on the tests various agencies and organizations do, and I think we can all agree that a different approach is needed for EVs with the EPA (and several others). The fact remains that Musk committed fraud - not a minor case, but on the company’s best-selling vehicle.

A little Tesla Festivus “airing of grievances” because, hey, it triggers the fanboys: I did three 226 mile RT site visits in the last week, 70-77F doing 55-65 MPH, 90% flat roads, no fan/AC running, starting at 95% SOC, ending at 10%-11% SOC. Pretty ideal conditions, but do the math: that’s a max range of 265 miles. Is my issue with the EPA here? No, it’s with Musk whose algorithm currently tells me on departure that I’ll be able to complete that trip with 26% SOC remaining, yet that 26% plummets when I’m driving and get below ~45% SOC. Happens all the time, and now we know why – and it has nothing to do with the EPA.

 

[LostVector]

The thing that upset me has nothing to do with the EPA. I’ve aired those grievances (and will continue doing so!).

What irks me is Musk’s behavior, instructing staff to algorithmically rig the readouts to provide inaccurate projections of distance and remaining battery life, particularly when customers are operating vehicles with >50% SOC. He clearly knows his cars “can’t go the distance” he’s eager to claim to boost sales, yet proceeded to instruct service centers to provide knowingly inaccurate information to battery-concerned customers and to cancel their appointments. That’s called fraud (and gaslighting, too).

A lot of Tesla/Musk fans here are quick to say “your issue is with the EPA.” Sorry, it’s not. I've read through a mountain of materials on the tests various agencies and organizations do, and I think we can all agree that a different approach is needed for EVs with the EPA (and several others). The fact remains that Musk committed fraud - not a minor case, but on the company’s best-selling vehicle.

A little Tesla Festivus “airing of grievances” because, hey, it triggers the fanboys: I did three 226 mile RT site visits in the last week, 70-77F doing 55-65 MPH, 90% flat roads, no fan/AC running, starting at 95% SOC, ending at 10%-11% SOC. Pretty ideal conditions, but do the math: that’s a max range of 265 miles. Is my issue with the EPA here? No, it’s with Musk whose algorithm currently tells me on departure that I’ll be able to complete that trip with 26% SOC remaining, yet that 26% plummets when I’m driving and get below ~45% SOC. Happens all the time, and now we know why – and it has nothing to do with the EPA.

So is what's happening to you that you put the destination in the car's nav, it says you'll arrive with 26% SOC, but you actually arrive with 10%?

There are so many places that range estimation behaves differently that I feel like the article is a bit vague on what the actual algorithm issue is. I can't tell where this thing that Elon said to do is actually happening. Or maybe this was in a very old version of the car software.