Idle Battery Drain

[Jedi2155]

That explanation doesn't make much sense. My phone starts up way faster than my Model 3 and is connected to cellular, wifi, bluetooth and can take voice commands and has a standby power of less than 0.1Watts.

I've never had to wait for my Model 3 to boot? My phone takes forever to boot up (~1-2 minutes) but it seems your'e referring to standby loads.

I'd bet the car could have been more efficiently designed from a standby power draw perspective, but they simply didn't put the resources to think of it from that perspective and more focused on cost and simply getting the car out.

 

[Daniel in SD]

I've never had to wait for my Model 3 to boot? My phone takes forever to boot up (~1-2 minutes) but it seems your'e referring to standby loads.

I'd bet the car could have been more efficiently designed from a standby power draw perspective, but they simply didn't put the resources to think of it from that perspective and more focused on cost and simply getting the car out.

Yeah we're talking about standby power. Phone takes a fraction of a second to wake up and uses less than 0.1W. The delay on being able to open the door or put the car in drive seems to vary but it's definitely noticeable. I'm not complaining about that though, it's fine.
It's a shame because the Model S had absolutely absurd vampire drain when it was first released but it did get better over time. I'm not sure where it's at now. It would have been nice if Tesla learned from their mistakes and fixed it in the Model 3.
I'm actually fine with the vampire drain if it is performing some vital tasks, it just seems like it's a loophole in the EPA testing system if there is energy use not included in the MPGe rating in any way. The whole purpose of the MPGe rating is to let consumers know how much energy an EV will use relative to other EVs. Using significant energy outside of the test seems like cheating.

 

[Jedi2155]

Phone takes a fraction of a second to wake up and uses less than 0.1W. The delay on being able to open the door or put the car in drive seems to vary but it's definitely noticeable. I'm not complaining about that though, it's fine.

I'd say my phone might draw closer to 0.3 to 0.5W idle and maybe as much as (1 W if google keeps allowing that wifi-scanning in the background BS), but I get what you're saying. I wonder if the engineers got lazy because they feel that have a giant 80 kWh battery to draw from while traditional vehicles only have a puny 12v auxiliary battery (300-600 Wh).

The EPA does try to capture efficiency of the phantom loads/standby loads during a long drive or during charging by account for the inefficiencies there. A high standby load definitely impacts those numbers (in the case of a Model 3, it's close to a 10 hour test). Regardless, Tesla's standby load is well above industry norm.

 

[Daniel in SD]

I'd say my phone might draw closer to 0.3 to 0.5W idle and maybe as much as (1 W if google keeps allowing that wifi-scanning in the background BS), but I get what you're saying. I wonder if the engineers got lazy because they feel that have a giant 80 kWh battery to draw from while traditional vehicles only have a puny 12v auxiliary battery (300-600 Wh).

The EPA does try to capture efficiency of the phantom loads/standby loads during a long drive or during charging by account for the inefficiencies there. A high standby load definitely impacts those numbers (in the case of a Model 3, it's close to a 10 hour test). Regardless, Tesla's standby load is well above industry norm.

That would be horrible for a cellphone since the battery is only about 10Wh!
In 10 hours they're using 90kWh from the wall, so 40W vampire * 10 hr = 0.4kWh is only about half a percent so it's nowhere near what the average consumer would see. They should add a standby and temperature component to the test as well. Though I guess a potential downside would be if manufacturers skimp on battery management to do better on the test!

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Yesterday for the first time I got the warning that "Car systems are still booting, try again" or something along those lines as I slammed it into reverse. Getting comfortable with the car and I like to get going quickly. It's not as bad as my Hybrid Highlander though. Constantly tells me "Hybrid System is Halted" when I try to get going too quickly. Need a small delay between pressing the brake, start button, and putting it in drive in that car - I still haven't worked out exactly what I'm doing wrong/is required on the Highlander.

 

[Jedi2155]

That would be horrible for a cellphone since the battery is only about 10Wh!
In 10 hours they're using 90kWh from the wall, so 40W vampire * 10 hr = 0.4kWh is only about half a percent so it's nowhere near what the average consumer would see. They should add a standby and temperature component to the test as well. Though I guess a potential downside would be if manufacturers skimp on battery management to do better on the test!

Yeah, thus my hatred of Google's constantly forcing the background wifi-scanning function in almost everything that requests a function. My phone has a 12 Wh battery and if wifi scanning is running in the background, and i'm driving a lot i'm only getting about 12-18 hrs of battery life. If I turn it off, it'll easily jump to over 24 hours. This has been true for every google phone I've owned.

A 40W draw is significant, but have you ever measured an Asus router , those things also draw 40W a piece too (they're power hogs) and I have 2 of them setup in an AiMesh network so I can get wifi to my garage....

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

A 40W draw is significant, but have you ever measured an Asus router , those things also draw 40W a piece too (they're power hogs) and I have 2 of them setup in an AiMesh network so I can get wifi to my garage...

I would definitely return those. I always measure my stuff with the Kill-A-Watt when I get it. The Google mesh network access points were just a couple watts a piece (don’t have the exact number...at least I don’t keep a spreadsheet!), such that all three combined were far better than my Apple Time Bomb/Capsule I had before.

 

[Jedi2155]

I would definitely return those. I always measure my stuff with the Kill-A-Watt when I get it. The Google mesh network access points were just a couple watts a piece (don’t have the exact number...at least I don’t keep a spreadsheet!), such that all three combined were far better than my Apple Time Bomb/Capsule I had before.

Well, I've had the routers for years (so no refund here), and they still offer some powerful features which is why I find them valuable despite being power hogs.

 

[noicepls]

The whole purpose of the MPGe rating is to let consumers know how much energy an EV will use relative to other EVs. Using significant energy outside of the test seems like cheating.

Yes, the whole purpose of MPGe is to let consumers know what the energy/fuel consumption is WHEN THE CAR IS DRIVEN, not when the car is not driven. It is not RELATIVE to other EVs though, as it is but a COMPARATIVE indicator.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Well, I've had the routers for years (so no refund here), and they still offer some powerful features which is why I find them valuable despite being power hogs.

I see. An oldie but goodie.
With the exception of Teslas, standby power on electronics has come down a lot in the last ~10 years!

 

[Daniel in SD]

Yes, the whole purpose of MPGe is to let consumers know what the energy/fuel consumption is WHEN THE CAR IS DRIVEN, not when the car is not driven. It is not RELATIVE to other EVs though, as it is but a COMPARATIVE indicator.

Ok, it's to compare power consumption to other EVs...
Take a look at the Monroney sticker. It shows an "annual fuel cost." Is it reasonable for the consumer to expect that it doesn't include the "fuel" used when the car is not on? It's a huge loophole in the testing methodology.
40W*24*365*$0.13 is $46. So the "annual fuel cost" is off by nearly 10%.

 

[noicepls]

Ok, it's to compare power consumption to other EVs...
Take a look at the Monroney sticker. It shows an "annual fuel cost." Is it reasonable for the consumer to expect that it doesn't include the "fuel" used when the car is not on? It's a huge loophole in the testing methodology.
40W*24*365*$0.13 is $46. So the "annual fuel cost" is off by nearly 10%.

Agreed that these costs are hidden and the consumer should be made aware, with a consistent estimate, of things like phantom or vampire drain up front on the sticker. On the other hand until that is dealt with, under the present system it might make up for the fact that some of these extra energy/fuel usages cannot be accurately measured or determined, such as the fuel that ICE cars consume idling for hours in commuter traffic, and being serviced in the garage with the motor running, or non-essential "Sunday Drives" because in the mind of the ICE-owner, their cars have "limitless" range ("just gas up and go and refuel whenever required" mentality), idling the car in the driveway while warming up a cold car, and so forth...

 

[Jedi2155]

Ok, it's to compare power consumption to other EVs...
Take a look at the Monroney sticker. It shows an "annual fuel cost." Is it reasonable for the consumer to expect that it doesn't include the "fuel" used when the car is not on? It's a huge loophole in the testing methodology.
40W*24*365*$0.13 is $46. So the "annual fuel cost" is off by nearly 10%.
View attachment 360643

I suspect Tesla is the only company with serious vampire drain which makes it hard for them have to redesign the whole test due to 1 EV which now has become the mainstream standard...so they might do it in the future if they're forced too .

As for your calculation your mixing up your units with Watts and $/kWh, had to double check your math . I do agree that its a hidden cost I took into account when I got the car, but I figured free supercharging would take care of it....until recently.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

@kwest2 you ever figure out your problem?

It sounded like in another thread high ~1mi/hr drain can be due to the car trying to download an update continuously in the background. Allegedly...it sounds like that is perhaps a made-up answer from Tesla though.

There is some other theorizing over there about bad states and such with various proposed workarounds but no one seems to have the perfect solution yet. Not surprisingly.

Lost 51 miles of range in 53 hours?!

In any case, whatever the issue, it results in the car staying in idle mode. And this type of problem is likely the reason for your high drain. Somehow you have to find a way to kick it out of idle mode to sleep.

Someone in the other thread made me aware of the iOS Widget. It says the car is “Asleep” right now for me, rather than “Parked”. I don’t know how in sync this info really is (it has a refresh on the widget...which wakes the car up...it may be useless), but maybe (other than a 3rd party app) it would provide a means of seeing what mode the car is in?

Obviously can park near strong WiFi, keep it plugged in, etc. and hope for the best. (I know all may not be possible...if you could keep it plugged in you would care a lot less!)

While this is a particularly bloodthirsty vampire problem (and presumably a bug), I think this demonstrates that vampire drain is a completely solvable software problem, if Tesla would prioritize minimization of standby drain.

And if they get the sleep mode power down to solidly below 5W, and avoid idle mode, then I think there will be very few complaints. Should be possible! Just do it, Tesla! Almost there!

Aside:

On the other topic of rated range vs. ambient temp. @coleAK is helping gather some data, since I didn’t get a response here.

So far, rated range is not significantly impacted with the battery/ambient as low as 13F. Still ~310 miles. It’ll be much colder next week though.
Of course the car may be expending energy to condition the battery for that data (maybe battery is not at 13F), but there is no way to prevent that, so it’s valid. Final results will probably post to his thread.

We’ll see.

 

[Daniel in SD]

I suspect Tesla is the only company with serious vampire drain which makes it hard for them have to redesign the whole test due to 1 EV which now has become the mainstream standard...so they might do it in the future if they're forced too .

As for your calculation your mixing up your units with Watts and $/kWh, had to double check your math . I do agree that its a hidden cost I took into account when I got the car, but I figured free supercharging would take care of it....until recently.

Don't question my units!
40W * 24 hours/day * 365 days/year * 0.13 $/ (1000W*hour) = 45.552 $/year
Maybe HW3 will fix the vampire drain

 

[Dave EV]

I'd bet the car could have been more efficiently designed from a standby power draw perspective, but they simply didn't put the resources to think of it from that perspective and more focused on cost and simply getting the car out.

What's disappointing is that Tesla has had 7 years to get this right since the release of the Model S. This isn't a new problem as mentioned people have complained about this for years. One would have thought that they would have put more effort into this for their first high volume vehicle.

And if they get the sleep mode power down to solidly below 5W, and avoid idle mode, then I think there will be very few complaints. Should be possible! Just do it, Tesla! Almost there!

I don't know - 40W is a long ways from 5W. I'd settle for 10W which should be doable. Heck, I'd settle for 20W!

Don't question my units!
40W * 24 hours/day * 365 days/year * 0.13 $/ (1000W*hour) = 45.552 $/year

Well, in San Diego it depends on when you charge. On EV-TOU5 in super off-peak, it's $31-32/year, but on EV-TOU2 it's $73/year. If you have to pay for Supercharging, it's $91/year and if you have to pay on-peak pricing, it's $180/year.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I don't know - 40W is a long ways from 5W. I'd settle for 10W which should be doable. Heck, I'd settle for 20W!

Yes...it is a long way, however, the breakdown of that 40W average gives me some hope:

It appears that sleep mode takes around 12W, and @Jedi2155 has posted some data suggesting it can be even lower (I don’t use a monitoring app so I don’t know exactly the circumstances). So, the majority of the problem right now appears to be the period of time spent in idle mode (it’s pretty clear to me there is absolutely no reason for a car that has been left for a while to go to idle mode - or at least it should be a user option - would be confusing for users - or they can make those time periods in idle mode (can be 100W or more) short).

In any case, there is a straightforward path to ~12W. Remaining mystery is why some people have very low sleep power (1-3W?) and others don’t (12W). Seems like TeslaFi and others make it easy to do these calculations to see where a user stands.

So. I predict Tesla will have this mostly fixed in a year - probably will still be bugs that result in people being stuck in idle mode, though!

 

[kwest2]

@kwest2 you ever figure out your problem?

It sounded like in another thread high ~1mi/hr drain can be due to the car trying to download an update continuously in the background. Allegedly...it sounds like that is perhaps a made-up answer from Tesla though

...snip

Thanks for mentioning this! So I just got updated to 46.2 yesterday morning. I'm glad to report that since then, the idle drain has mostly stopped (I've lost 1 mile since being parked the past 6 hours - fairly normal). So perhaps you are right, It's been trying to download over the past couple weeks and wouldn't go to sleep. I haven't been on wifi hardly at all in the past couple months, nor expect to soon, so I'll keep an eye on this and see if this pattern repeats.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Looks to me like the iOS widget is a little useless. I opened the car door this morning, so definitely it woke up. But checked the widget just now and it was last updated 23:56 last night. In addition, I can't wake up the car using the widget...so the refresh doesn't do anything. Though that seems to be a problem mostly with my car's LTE or WiFi connectivity at home, since the app doesn't wake it up either with "Vehicle Connection Error". Guess they're using Verizon's network. It's odd that it doesn't preferentially use WiFi as far as I can tell, since the WiFi connection is strong (car is currently sitting in the garage). Looked at the data traffic logging on the Google WiFi; I guess this explains some of the irregular vampire drain (due to idle mode state) IF they are actually exiting sleep mode to go to idle mode to upload/download data.

 

[coleAK]

Today high was 9F. It was 4F when I got to Work and 5F when I left 11 hours later. I switched my gauge from Miles to battery percent as the miles are sort of meaning less since I’m getting at Best 400 W hours per mile. Anyway in those 11 hours I lost 5% battery. So that would be about 15 miles