but as a theoretical physicist (you brought it up not me) you know that real world non-thought experiment empirical measurements need to be modeled using the actual system one is studying…
My goodness! This is remarkably similar to
previous incorrect criticism of my post. Again, I was responding to someone who incorrectly claimed it was a law of physics that doing work faster requires more total energy than doing the same work more slowly.
1. we do not live in that perfect frictionless F=ma world
Nowhere do I say, assume, or imply that we live in a perfect frictionless world. I even talked about various losses in the post you quoted! And in my sig I say that we are imperfect beings in an imperfect world which seems to be especially true in this thread.
2. the battery connected to motor with computer control does not have to be linear with respect to energy usage…you used no parameters of the battery; motor; system that drives the wheels; wheels moving on pavement; suspension system to model your assertions
I honestly cannot understand what you are trying to say or how it would pertain to my post. I did mention heat losses which cover most of the points seem to imply I omitted. In addition, the power output from the motor and the heat losses in the wiring scale together over a large range of currents. I avoided saying they were "linear" because power and losses scale as the current squared and I didn't want to give some smart alec ammunition for further ridiculous nitpicking.
My only assertion (that you seem to have read or take issue with) is there is no fundamental law of physics that says doing work faster must be inherently less efficient. Having parameters for various parts of the car have nothing to do with this simple fact.
As I
said before: if my balance between being clear and being pedantic didn't suit you, I apologize.
antecdotally:
1. clearly driving fast with friction/wind mf resistance lowers efficiency
I totally agree. I even alluded to this in my post saying that one of the reasons faster acceleration slightly reduces efficiency is because you spend slightly more time at higher speeds.
2. i believe rapid acceleration def uses more energy than slow stead acceleration..,
I agree. This is what I said in the part of my quoted post that seems to be invisible to critics. I gave several reasons why in the real world faster acceleration will result in slightly lower efficiency.
i have ben using autopilot a lot and watching my Wh/mile
autopilot/chill accelerates slowly (sometimes embarrassing slow for cars behind me) and i get <215 Wh/mi through a range of conditions (no a/c or heat) and around town at 35mph autopilot i have gotten <200 wh/mi
but it a punch it and have a high rate of acceleration …260 wh/mi
i def think chill + autopilot/slow acceleration enhances range
Thanks for doing this research! I and others have given numerous reasons why this would be true. Even Tesla says there are some circumstances where using Chill Mode increases efficiency, which is why this thread was started. However my main point is, was, and will continue to be that there is no fundamental law of physics that says it must be this way.
As I
said before:
Believe it or not, even real physicists make mistakes. So I appreciate corrections. But I think the post you quoted is both correct and clear.
Finally, your post reminded me of another one of my favorite quotes. Thank you for that!
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice while in practice there is.