Here's How Tesla Managed To Increase Model 3 Range Rating

[TMC Staff]

There was no change to the battery, yet the range went up. How does Tesla explain this? The Tesla Model 3 recently got a bump in electric range. However, the battery didn’t change, so how did this range increase happen? Let’s take a look. First off, we should note that the range increase we’re focused...
[WPURI="https://teslamotorsclub.com/blog/2019/10/24/tesla-model-3-range-increase/"]READ FULL ARTICLE[/WPURI]

 

[khorton]

You left out the part of the article where you tell us how Tesla was able to increase the range. Where exactly did they manage to find the increased efficiency?

 

[vickh]

SR+ is now 250. Did the SR get a bump too? to...?

 

[Erik E]

Yes, but what is the "real world" range? My Model S85D is rated at 270, but would NEVER make it that far on a full charge. More like 200 at most. The range rating system needs to be shifted toward reality.

 

[Briggie]

Yes, but what is the "real world" range? My Model S85D is rated at 270, but would NEVER make it that far on a full charge. More like 200 at most. The range rating system needs to be shifted toward reality.

 

[Briggie]

The model 3 is apparently more efficient than your vehicle because my real world range is oftentimes very close to my stated range. This varies based upon driving style and temperature which, other than the winter, I would achieve anywhere from 80 to 95% correlation between real world and stated range

 

[EA500]

If an article title start with "Here is How" at least tell us something slightly useful....Like Here is how...

 

[mswlogo]

Yes, but what is the "real world" range? My Model S85D is rated at 270, but would NEVER make it that far on a full charge. More like 200 at most. The range rating system needs to be shifted toward reality.

Read one of the other 100 threads on that topic. This one ain’t that.

For the record I beat rated range on both Model 3 and Model X by about 7% (not including winter). It’s all how you drive and what conditions you drive in that determine actual range.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

If an article title start with "Here is How" at least tell us something slightly useful....Like Here is how...

The article told you: "by more efficient energy use".

Tchoh! Detail-oriented people are so picky!

 

[lampcord]

The model 3 is apparently more efficient than your vehicle because my real world range is oftentimes very close to my stated range. This varies based upon driving style and temperature which, other than the winter, I would achieve anywhere from 80 to 95% correlation between real world and stated range

I have the same experience with my Model 3. 42 EXCEPT when I go on long drives on the interstate where speeds are often in the > 75 mph range. Then I do experience some noticeable range loss. But that is to be expected with the extra drag. Its hard to get used to because ICE cars were always more efficient on the freeway but EV's are the opposite.

 

[Tessaract]

...Its hard to get used to because ICE cars were always more efficient on the freeway but EV's are the opposite.

ICE cars are perhaps more efficient at 80 km/h than at 50 km/h (mostly because of how inefficient they are at low speeds), but if you increase speed above 80 km/h (50mph) ICE vehicles are subject to the very same laws of aerodynamics as BEVs. Do careful measurements and you'll find that ICEV have reduced range (or higher consumption) at high speeds as well.

 

[srs5694]

I have the same experience with my Model 3. 42 EXCEPT when I go on long drives on the interstate where speeds are often in the > 75 mph range. Then I do experience some noticeable range loss. But that is to be expected with the extra drag. Its hard to get used to because ICE cars were always more efficient on the freeway but EV's are the opposite.

Not all ICE vehicles are more efficient on highways; hybrids are ICE vehicles, too, and they, like EVs, are generally more efficient in city driving. The EPA ratings for the 2019 Toyota Prius (54 city, 50 highway), 2019 Prius C (48 city, 43 highway), and 2017 Ford C-MAX (42 city, 38 highway) are all like that, for example. The reasons are the same in both cases: Highway driving is at higher speed, which increases wind resistance. Non-hybrid ICE vehicles also experience this effect, but in city driving, they lose even more energy to non-regenerative braking in stop-and-go traffic. Hybrids, like EVs, have regenerative brakes, which means they can recapture much of the energy that non-hybrid ICE vehicles lose to braking in stop-and-go traffic, thus equalizing or flipping the numbers.

 

[EA500]

+

The article told you: "by more efficient energy use".

Tchoh! Detail-oriented people are so picky!

Slower acceleration? Better regen? larger cables? lighter wheels? What is it?

 

[VT_EE]

Yes, but what is the "real world" range? My Model S85D is rated at 270, but would NEVER make it that far on a full charge. More like 200 at most. The range rating system needs to be shifted toward reality.

I can easily beat the rated range at 70mph on warm sunny days in my RWD 3.

 

[davidu406]

What software update is the increased range coming out in?

 

[CharleyBC]

What software update is the increased range coming out in?

I believe the standard Tesla answer would be “soon”.

 

[Tessaract]

+

Slower acceleration? Better regen? larger cables? lighter wheels? What is it?

Although I'm not aware that Tesla has provided the detailed answer, we can do some informed speculation here: It's not larger cables or lighter wheels, since the increased range came through a Software (not hardware) update. It's not slower acceleration, since this would imply reduced power, and that was not mentioned, nor would that be well-received by vehicle owners. Better regen is a possible explanation, but then not only would the SR+ would be improved, but also the LR and P.

Elsewhere, it's been reported that both a power (for all models) and range increase (for M3LR) was to be expected with the next SW release. My speculation is that the precise waveforms used in the motor controller/ inverter have been optimized and improved so that there is less power wastage (resulting in hight motor mechanical power output) and also increase resultant range. Since Tesla controls the invertor waveforms by means of a programmable digital signal processor (DSP), which generates required waveforms in SW, they have cleverly designed the motor electronics to be very flexible, and are able to optimize this SW. Optimizing the motor drive waveforms to reduce power lost in harmonics would be one way to get both increased efficiency and power.

 

[jgs]

ICE cars are perhaps more efficient at 80 km/h than at 50 km/h (mostly because of how inefficient they are at low speeds), but if you increase speed above 80 km/h (50mph) ICE vehicles are subject to the very same laws of aerodynamics as BEVs. Do careful measurements and you'll find that ICEV have reduced range (or higher consumption) at high speeds as well.

Right. This should be burned into the memory of anyone who lived through the 1970s and the "drive 55" campaign in the USA. That was all about trying to get people to drive in the sweet spot of fuel efficiency in order to weather the OPEC embargo. (It worked predictably well, of course.)

 

[jgs]

Slower acceleration?

I've seen it claimed elsewhere, and have no reason to doubt it, that hard acceleration is in fact not more energy-hungry than mild acceleration. You just get to your target speed faster -- you're consuming more power, but for a shorter time, so energy can be a wash. Of course speeding up and then slowing down and then speeding up again is the enemy of economy, and since that kind of thing is often associated with hard acceleration, it can be hard to tease them apart.

Same said to be true of ICE, broadly speaking. Caveat, all hearsay and no I don't have a reference, but it sounds plausible to me.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I've seen it claimed elsewhere, and have no reason to doubt it, that hard acceleration is in fact not more energy-hungry than mild acceleration. You just get to your target speed faster -- you're consuming more power, but for a shorter time, so energy can be a wash. Of course speeding up and then slowing down and then speeding up again is the enemy of economy, and since that kind of thing is often associated with hard acceleration, it can be hard to tease them apart.

Same said to be true of ICE, broadly speaking. Caveat, all hearsay and no I don't have a reference, but it sounds plausible to me.

Energy = power x time, but it's also force x distance.
So maximizing efficiency is about efficient force generation, but balanced by time-based overheads.

ICEV efficiency depends on keeping the engine revs in a sweet spot, being in top gear, and, for traditional automatics, locking the torque converter so the transmission is operating efficiently. That combination is why brisk acceleration from a stop is more efficient in an ICEV than slow acceleration.

EVs have fixed gearing, and generally the motors will be more efficient at lower rpms, so slower acceleration will be better for the drivetrain efficiency.

But drivetrain efficiency isn't everything. More power is better, as long as the "time-saving power" (extra energy used/time-saved) is less than other power overhead, such as climate control.