HUH??? 250 miles isnt up to standard? wow

[HotIce]

It's because the 250 isn't real. Just like the 326 for the LR isn't real.

You sure? I've gotten pretty darn close to 326, and I probably would have gotten it there weren't so many elevation changes.

 

[fokap888]

Audi sells a 85k E-Tron to people who want the badge. That 250 isn't 250 once the battery degrades and the weather cools down. You're looking at about a 30% to 40% loss in range.

And still enough for daily driving!

And when you get range loss 30% to 40% with your LR are you going to say it is still good for road trips? I dont think so.

People are making stories here like only SR will get range loss.
But what about their $11k more expensive car, when they get that loss are they still going to say it is good car for long trips?

 

[Automobilist]

And still enough for daily driving!

And when you get range loss 30% to 40% with your LR are you going to say it is still good for road trips? I dont think so.

People are making stories here like only SR will get range loss.
But what about their $11k more expensive car, when they get that loss are they still going to say it is good car for long trips?

I think it may be important to note the intended market for the Model Y is much different than the market for the Model S. It is supposed to be a mainstream car (whereas the audience for the Model S and many of the other more expensive and/or limited EVs are more likely to be EV enthusiasts).

The mainstream buyers who are flocking to the Model 3/Y may not be as forgiving of some of the considerations that may need to be made when dealing long-term with an EV with shorter range. Having a larger buffer between max range and what is needed mitigates that.

BTW, I'm coming from an i3 with 120 mi range (170 with range extender) and that was perfectly adequate for our around town needs, so I'm not saying that the SR would not be perfectly adequate for a good number potential owners out there.

 

[patnshan]

You sure? I've gotten pretty darn close to 326, and I probably would have gotten it there weren't so many elevation changes.

If you drive slow, it isn't cold outside, you don't use the climate control and it's mostly flat it seems obtainable.

 

[Tedkidd]

So I test drove the SRY today, it's awesome!

It costs so much less than my 3 I'm not comparing it the way I was comparing the LR, and P. It flipped a switch in my head.
And I think my girlfriend is probably gonna want to take this car most of the time, she doesn't care about sub 4 sec. (or fsd)
Now, Hmmmm...

What to do with the extra $35k in my bank account......! (HEY, $2k will make my 3 feel like a new car!)

 

[HotIce]

If you drive slow, it isn't cold outside, you don't use the climate control and it's mostly flat it seems obtainable.

I had climate set at 68 and was cruising around 65 - 70. Cars computer in the energy section says I can go 300 miles at 80% charge. Hmm.

And still enough for daily driving!

And when you get range loss 30% to 40% with your LR are you going to say it is still good for road trips? I dont think so.

People are making stories here like only SR will get range loss.
But what about their $11k more expensive car, when they get that loss are they still going to say it is good car for long trips?

That's kind of the point. It's not enough range, even for daily driving. Probably getting something closer to 120-150 miles and having to charge when you go somewhere. New consumers have range anxiety and the range isn't enough. Audi had to give $20,000 discounts on the E-Tron to move them last summer for a reason.

 

[CPisHere]

BS
So they decide to sell cheaper car and there is no demand now? Really?

Range to low?

So Audi sells 75k car with 230 miles range to who ?
Tesla sells used 6 year old MS for 50k with 250 miles range (now 210 with degradation) and nobody complains about that.
Tesla sells 4 years old MX with 210 miles range and its perfect car for families .Nobody is complaining about range.

But now when Tesla decide to sell 39.999 brand NEW car with premium features all of a sudden there is no demand ?

Just to be honest, if SR was available since beginning many LR owners would buy it and save 11k including tax. Rural areas are perfect for its range and 80% of people are using it for daily driving.

LR owners please don`t try to talk bad about SR, we know if it was available back then you would get one and invest your 11k in Tesla stocks !

”Low demand” is not “no demand”.

And low is a relative term, it was (perhaps) low compared to their expectations as many, including myself, opted for Long Range instead.

but I am only reporting what a Rep told me and what makes sense to me. I have to see any other explanation for a price drop followed by removing it that is coherent.

 

[MrTuna]

We have a LRY as our main and road trip car. A SRY is a great second car for around town, and we are thinking about it. Our max range is like 40 miles a day. Could even go a smaller battery.

and we live in Indiana so it gets plenty cold.

 

[acentre]

In practical range the Standard Range RWD Model Y is not that different from the SR Plus Model 3. Owners of SR Model 3 vehicles seem to manage driving a Tesla vehicle with more limited range just fine.

driving down to Sarasota from NY with my M3SR was no problem. I am getting my MYSR from Tampa on Monday....so many superchargers, with more coming online every day!

 

[mswlogo]

I can see the Model Y being more sensitive to range concerns than a similar Model 3. The Model Y is going to be heavier and larger. More weight and probably more wind drag. The Model Y uses 270 Wh/mi vs the Model 3's 251. (This take from a chart of EVs I found on Inside EVs. It compares the LR AWD of each as they didn't have the Wh/mi ratings for the SRs.)

Actually the larger, heavier, less efficient should be LESS influenced by external influences. That inefficiency is already accounted for in its lower range rating.

Which is easier to influence with wind. A feather or a rock? ICE isn’t influenced so much because they are grossly inefficient in the first place.

Sorry, your argument doesn’t work.

 

[captanzuelo]

Actually the larger, heavier, less efficient should be LESS influenced by external influences. That inefficiency is already accounted for in its lower range rating.

Which is easier to influence with wind. A feather or a rock? ICE isn’t influenced so much because they are grossly inefficient in the first place.

Sorry, your argument doesn’t work.

I think its a valid argument with real world data to support it. Try driving around at 55mph and you might make that 326 rated range on a MY.

Parasitic drag increases exponentially with speed. A MY going 40mph might generate a little more drag than a M3 going 40mph. But I can guarantee you the MY will be generating a helluva lot more drag at 80mph than a sleeker M3. Its just aerodynamics.

 

[GeorgeC1]

it took away sales from the Long range Dual motor version. Simple as that. Glad we were able to snag one before they axed it.

That’s not correct at all. The problem was the SR was barely selling at all. Take a look at what is available in stock built on the Tesla website. In NC there are 13 SR’s you can have today. I never saw more than 4 Y’s available in NC prior. Someone posted the nationwide numbers in another thread. There is a giant glut of SR’s sitting in the US right now.

 

[Tedkidd]

I grabbed one. It's midblowing.

Love getting some experience with basic AP.
With the $35k sitting in my bank account (was going to buy a P) I may add boost to my 3.

Not getting a P now unless it gets air or adaptive suspension.

 

[mswlogo]

I think its a valid argument with real world data to support it. Try driving around at 55mph and you might make that 326 rated range on a MY.

Parasitic drag increases exponentially with speed. A MY going 40mph might generate a little more drag than a M3 going 40mph. But I can guarantee you the MY will be generating a helluva lot more drag at 80mph than a sleeker M3. Its just aerodynamics.

That’s true of all Tesla’s, for that matter all things that move through air. The argument was the Y was disproportionately worse than what it’s rated for than the 3. Which is B.S.

For the record I had Model 3 and X and they both got similar range relative to their rating. I do 10% better than spec in Summer and 20% worse in winter. I expect Y is no different. I’ve had both extremes.

 

[ftmaybe]

That's likely closer to 150 to 160 miles in the winter with some rain or wind. My SR+ (240 miles rated) was around 150 in the winter. Of course you also don't usually supercharge to 100% because of how long 80% to 100% takes and most people would be nervous pulling in under 5% battery at home. So if you assume a 50kWh battery (we haven't been told yet that it's larger) and maybe 325 wh/mi (not a rare number for the Y at winter highway speeds) and then only use 75% of the battery (80% down to 5%) that would be a range of 115 miles from supercharger to supercharger....

This is not far off from what I saw on my SR+ before I traded the Model 3 in. I had rain on the road, 65 mph, some wind, and 34 F temps and my usage jumped to about 305 wh/mi. I charged for 45 minutes to 91% and was 140 miles from home. At 91% with that usage I had a range of 149 miles and I did get home with just a handful of miles left before dead. It's not fun... honestly waiting 45 minutes to charge from like 40% to 91% isn't fun either, especially late at night when a 200 mile trip turned into 400 miles because mountain passes were closed at the last minute due to weather.

Just for reference, as I have put about 3000 miles on my SR Y at this point:

1. Using @AlanSubie4Life 's generalized method for calc'ing battery size (using the consumption graph), doing this weekly with both my SR Y and my wife's Model 3 SR+, the SR Y is consistently registering almost 4kwh more energy capacity than the model 3. I've been taking these measurements for the past five weeks. Shouldn't be degradation related because at this point the Y has more miles than the 3 (I drive a lot more than my wife does). I just did another entry in teh spreadsheet and the Y still comes up at around ~53.5kwh and the model 3 is ~49kwh. It seems like the Y does have a larger battery but could be only that my wife has the "250 mile" SR+ instead of the "newer" one that claims 263. Maybe the SR Y has the same battery as the 263 mile 3?

2. I have done three separate test runs examining consumption at freeway speed, and they were all pretty consistent. the freeway I use is relatively flat so that shouldn't be a factor, and it was during very nominal weather here in CA. Falling in line with your perspective above, my estimation is that you can only rely on 140 miles range in between superchargers with the SR Y, *in nominal weather*, driving 75mph .. basically running the 10-85% range between stops. Each stop would be about a 40 minute charge back up to 85%. Another thing of note was that once you start dropping below 10%, the car really starts bringing down teh acceleration limit .. I would run it down to 5% but at that point you would not be able to accelerate to freeway speed very quickly if you had to, you'd only have enough power to drive on city streets normally. Which IMO adds more stress to the range anxiety of being low on battery. Mostly makes it where you want to plan to arrive with 10% left instead of going lower. All that of course will be much worse once you add in teh weather items you mentioned...

Once you start charging, I think another thing shows up on why the LR is better for people that take a lot of trips: the charge curve isn't that great with the smaller battery. Not only would you charge quicker on an LR, but the range that you charged would get you farther. with the smaller battery you only get 100+ kw speeds until around 30%, and then it will start dropping quickly down to maybe 60kw or lower for the tail end of the charge. None of that bothers me because I don't really drive out of town, but I can see where that would be a huge negative for people unprepared for it or people who just don't want to deal with stopping every two hours for 40+ minutes.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

my SR Y and my wife's Model 3 SR+, the SR Y is consistently registering almost 4kwh more energy capacity than the model 3. I've been taking these measurements for the past five weeks. Shouldn't be degradation related because at this point the Y has more miles than the 3 (I drive a lot more than my wife does). I just did another entry in teh spreadsheet and the Y still comes up at around ~53.5kwh and the model 3 is ~49kwh. It seems like the Y does have a larger battery but could be only that my wife has the "250 mile" SR+ instead of the "newer" one that claims 263

You'd have to refresh my memory on exactly which model you have for each vehicle, purchase date, mileage, etc. Since I don't know any of that data.

I would say there's a lot of variability from vehicle to vehicle on how capacity degrades over time. There's definitely an element of luck. And both mileage and age matter. And of course starting capacity (which may well be different between 2020 and 2021).

. Maybe the SR Y has the same battery as the 263 mile 3?

I get the general impression that the Model Y and the Model 3 SR+ for 2021 both have the new 2170L cells. But don't take that as gospel. I think we know pretty well for the Model 3 SR+ 2021 that that is the case (I think we have SMT captures showing 53.5kWh for full pack when new?), but I have no idea on Model Y, since I don't pay attention. Was 52.5kWh in 2020. Now something like 53.5kWh.

why the LR is better for people that take a lot of trips

Yeah I wouldn't get an SR for road trips! That extra time to charge sufficiently to make the extra distance to the next supercharger really matters. If they reduce Supercharger spacing to every 75-100 miles it wouldn't be as much of an issue, though of course more overhead then. It's mostly just a question of how long you are willing to wait. In normal conditions, an SR+ can make all the segments that an LR can make on a trip optimized for speed (in an LR). But it will take a lot longer, due to much longer stops (~1 hour vs. 20 minutes). Totally fine if you're very patient.

For the uninitiated to EVs, the real issue is translating that ~250-mile range to a real-world road trip segment length of about 100 miles with ~30-minute charging stops (very rough estimates here but it's in the ballpark). As long as buyers really internalize that before purchasing, everyone will probably be happy.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Actually the larger, heavier, less efficient should be LESS influenced by external influences.

The argument was the Y was disproportionately worse than what it’s rated for than the 3

It's likely true that Y will be disproportionately worse if the aero losses are a larger proportion of overall energy use at the speeds tested. Which seems quite possible with a larger cross section.

However, I can't find any data on the Model Y SR in EPA databases (it's like it doesn't exist, and I know nothing about the history since I pay no attention to Model Y!), so it's really hard to draw any conclusions for the SR.

However, you could look at relative performance on of a different trim level Model Y and Model 3 on the different drive cycles to get an idea of how that aero loss is scaling.

The Model Y AWD gets 87% of the distance in HWYFET vs. UDDS (386 miles vs. 444 miles). While the Model 3 gets 90% (447 miles vs. 494 miles). So that suggests a bit of an aero penalty, and that will most definitely be further accentuated at higher speed (if you can dig up all the other US06, etc., drive cycle data you might be able to see it).

Cybertruck's gonna need a big battery, lol.

 

[ftmaybe]

You'd have to refresh my memory on exactly which model you have for each vehicle, purchase date, mileage, etc. Since I don't know any of that data.

I would say there's a lot of variability from vehicle to vehicle on how capacity degrades over time. There's definitely an element of luck. And both mileage and age matter. And of course starting capacity (which may well be different between 2020 and 2021).



I get the general impression that the Model Y and the Model 3 SR+ for 2021 both have the new 2170L cells. But don't take that as gospel. I think we know pretty well for the Model 3 SR+ 2021 that that is the case (I think we have SMT captures showing 53.5kWh for full pack when new?), but I have no idea on Model Y, since I don't pay attention. Was 52.5kWh in 2020. Now something like 53.5kWh.

the model 3 is an SR+ delivered in sep 2020 with 2500 miles on it. The Y is an SR delivered jan 2021 with 3600 miles on it.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

the model 3 is an SR+ delivered in sep 2020 with 2500 miles on it. The Y is an SR delivered jan 2021 with 3600 miles on it.

Yeah, I'd say this is likely a combination of a few factors:
1) Difference in initial capacity due to design (2170L vs 2170(C?) ). Applies to Model 3 SR+; no idea for Model Y SR.
2) Difference in initial capacity due to luck of the draw.
3) Difference in age.
4) Difference in rate of capacity loss, due to luck.
5) Difference in the quality of the capacity estimate (obviously plenty of discussion about that elsewhere, but it could be off by maybe 1kWh depending on vehicle use patterns and how often/deeply it gets discharged).

 

[mswlogo]

It's likely true that Y will be disproportionately worse if the aero losses are a larger proportion of overall energy use at the speeds tested. Which seems quite possible with a larger cross section.

However, I can't find any data on the Model Y SR in EPA databases (it's like it doesn't exist, and I know nothing about the history since I pay no attention to Model Y!), so it's really hard to draw any conclusions for the SR.

However, you could look at relative performance on of a different trim level Model Y and Model 3 on the different drive cycles to get an idea of how that aero loss is scaling.

The Model Y AWD gets 87% of the distance in HWYFET vs. UDDS (386 miles vs. 444 miles). While the Model 3 gets 90% (447 miles vs. 494 miles). So that suggests a bit of an aero penalty, and that will most definitely be further accentuated at higher speed (if you can dig up all the other US06, etc., drive cycle data you might be able to see it).

Cybertruck's gonna need a big battery, lol.

I just looked up the drag coefficient for model 3 vs Y. They are the same, which is pretty impressive.

Maybe a tail wind is disproportionally helping the 3, because it's lighter

I would never buy an SR trim on any Tesla Model. 250-ish is just too short when have all the other factors.

One thing that folks forget is, Tesla allows the user to charge to 100% and deplete it to 0% to get that range figure.
Other manufacturers have inaccessible buffers on each end and rate it within those (more realistic) buffers.

A Tesla range of 250 is more like a 185 from many other manufacturers.
Tesla can get away with it, partly because of SuperCharging Network.
An expensive Small-SUV with 185 real miles just doesn't cut it.
And that's before you even factor in temperature, wind, speed etc.

Also with the Y being a utility vehicle (used for family trips) and the 3 more of a commuter vehicle (different customer base).
And the hit the Y takes for it's added weight just crosses a threshold of it (Y SR) is not selling enough to bother offering it.
Or they decided lower Y volumes than they expected means they need more higher mark up trims.
Could be they don't want it to compete with some other "SR" thing they are planning.

Tesla needs to focus on 500 miles range (in Tesla units) for better adoption.