I missed the "weather" part of your original sentence, which read "If you’re making any long trip, you plug in the destination and Tesla uses map data for grade and elevation, and weather forecasts". Supposedly the car does take into account driving speed and elevation:
View attachment 289041
However this it does so poorly that I've been meaning to write my own software to do it in my copious spare time. Trouble is, it's hardly worth it since once you have experience with your routes you know what you can do and can't do. I have often arrived at my destinations within 5km of my calculated remaining range after making the trip once or twice to learn how it goes.
It does
Do you have an evidence to support this? You really think it’s taking into account weather forecasts along your route? Or even elevation gain? I’d doubt that
- It does take into account elevation. Try it yourself, enter a destination, that includes up or down hills, then look at the return usage. Both trips have a different expected comsuption.
- It takes into acocunt weather, somehow:
- It does not look at the weather and adjusts estimates based on it
but
- It adjusts planned consumption on a trip / expected arrival power level based on your consumption since start..
How to check it:
Let's say you start a (flat monotonous for easy of calculation) trip that was supposed to take 30 KWH.
After 10 % of the trip you used 4 KWH instead of expected 3. It could be because of the weather, your speed, towing a boat. etc...
you cna see that tthe remaing trip is now expecting to take 36 kwh instead of 27.
IMHO, they should implement the temperature as a factor right away when calculating trip, it is too much of a guess game now. Otherwise, nav is much better than what people say, certainly not worth having a cell phone hangling on a vent with a power cord attached to it.