It's alive! [All spoiler, no speculation]

[Ulmo]

Do you have any source for the above?

I've seen nothing that indicates SOC factors in previous driving usage, nor anything that suggests range is calculated for "expected conditions".

Yes, me driving my Model S along some race tracks, and comparing to some TMC posters who also bring their cars to such usage. It’s not some supercalafragilistic magical thing, it’s just part of the effects, the way I understand it, but that doesn’t preclude that being incorporated into the calculation by other manufacturers (they are) or in the future.

Simply put, a strained battery has less capacity than an unstrained battery, across many factors, future and past.

The opposite can be true too: Model S is documented to run out before 0%. Obviously, Tesla avoids this; many reports of people driving far past 0% SOC.

I’m not sure what more attempts at trying to poke holes in that would accomplish.

 

[Don TLR]

Just wait until the legislature decides that superchargers are just like gas pumps and must have an attendant.

Go to San Diego, they have an attendant who plugs you in and sorts out who goes next..

 

[scaesare]

I’m talking about the maximum practices across all known electric vehicles; no specific model does all the maximum practices.

umm...

...including Model S & X

 

[scaesare]

But I was also speaking about the future

The way...
...they estimate...
Then, they calculate ...
Then, they do the same ...
...tell you...
...you have...

References regarding SOC & range-

Present tense: 6
Future tense: 0

You may want to make speculation more clear in future posts.

 

[scaesare]

it’s just part of the effects, the way I understand it, but that doesn’t preclude that being incorporated into the calculation

Perhaps you missed the part of your assertion I both bolded and quoted, namely that they calculate SOC/range from "use" and "expected conditions".

As you list those separately from voltage and temp, then I'm looking for some source that the factors you assert other than current voltage and current temp are somehow incorporated in to range (which by all accounts is a statically derived number) and reserves (which is a fixed margin by all reports).

(look, I'm not trying to jump down your throat here, but you are making assertions without any supporting evidence which are contrary to the understood operation of the vehicle. Such things then get run with by the in-initiated and disinformation spreads.

Then your claim that you weren't including S & X (you did), or that you were speaking of the future (you weren't), or to attempt to redefine the statements as "indirect" factors (you specifically listed them separately) doesn't help...)

 

[jbcarioca]

The "Trip Estimator" and trip energy graphs take into account past and future driving (elevation, etc), but the main "Rated Miles" left in the battery is a calculation based on a fixed constant, somewhere around 300 Wh/m depending on model or the %SOC left in the battery based on pack voltage.

I've never seen "Rated Miles" change based on anything past or future driving conditions (but of course, past driving conditions affect battery SOC%).

Of course, I did not mean to suggest otherwise. I did mean to say that the Tesla-sandbagged EPA rating probably has nothing whatsoever to do with "rated range" or any other range displayed in a Model 3. They could cap the display, but why? The reduced number was a PR sandbag, nothing more nor less, was it not?

 

[T34ME]

We'll see. It's a lot easier for Tesla to build out/expand the SC network than it will be to ship the M3 in "large numbers". Also, M3 SC won't be free, so that will definitely put a damper on the SC demand like we've seen for free-SC MS/MXs up until now.

I agree. "Free" as in terms of food at a buffet, plastic bags at supermarkets, SuC's, etc. often lead to excess and waste. As a future model 3 owner, I will rarely use an SuC and simply charge at home in the evening while I read TMC in my underwear with a beverage in hand. I think the SuC network is more threatened from building more MS/X with free and unlimited SuC use than from model 3s.

 

[insaneoctane]

Could you do the same with the SR version? 1,610 kg SR vs 1720 kg LR. With 67.4% of the battery capacity.

FYI I used 1740 kg for LR. I didn't check your math on the SR/LR battery capacity, I simply changed it to 0.674 of what I had. I also scaled the A coefficient with mass (1610/1720) * Original A coeff = A coeff for SR. I did this for both 18" and 19" and I made no other changes.....

 

[insaneoctane]

I was playing with my spreadsheet (after admitting defeat trying another method that might more accurately model the steady state loads), when I came across a neat graph. For anyone who thinks they might be able to eek out the same mileage (or more) as the EPA, pay attention to the throttle % that are positive and across the whole test (blue line) and see if you think you could be that reserved. FYI this parameter is NOT provided but calculated from my estimated torque curve vs what the EPA loads actually were. Also, for braking, I scaled it so that -100% throttle corresponds to 60kW. I find the HWY more interesting because the UDDS cycle is too busy.

 

[kwest2]

I love graphs! But have no idea what that last post means. LOL

 

[insaneoctane]

I love graphs! But have no idea what that last post means. LOL

Let me help. I've been buried in the data, so it's probably overly obvious to me... The blue graph shows how little throttle the EPA test requires to perform the test. If you compare the blue line to the left axis (throttle %), anything above 0 (zero) means the you have to push the accelerator a certain amount. It's how low it was that I was amazed at. Negative throttle corresponds to regen braking. The 2 graphs are for the 2 different EPA tests. The orange line just shows the vehicles's corresponding speed and the units are on the right axis (MPH). Hope that helps.

 

[kwest2]

In other words, they are driving like a grandma / hyper miler. Got it, thanks. That's why we'll all get much less mileage. Still, pretty promising numbers there.

 

[insaneoctane]

In other words, they are driving like a grandma / hyper miler. Got it, thanks. That's why we'll all get much less mileage. Still, pretty promising numbers there.

Yes. Like grandma. I guess I knew the cycles were low speeds, I just don't think I appreciated how sloth like they were getting to those low speeds!

Here's another graph that might tell the story better (this is for the M3 LR on the EPA HWY cycle):

• Half the test is either no throttle or braking
• 20% of the test is 5% or less throttle
• 17% of the test is 5% to 10% throttle
• Only 4% of the test is over 20% throttle
• NONE of the test exceed 22% throttle
• 87% of the test was below 10% throttle

Like I said in my earlier post, if you can match or exceed this you don't have a pulse!

 

[tomas]

... while I read TMC in my underwear ...

Better change your handle to T(34)MI

 

[SageBrush]

Speeds matter a whole lot more than throttle in determining fuel economy

 

[smartypnz]

I think the SuC network is more threatened from building more MS/X with free and unlimited SuC use than from model 3s.

Could be. Newer MS/X do not get 'free/unlimited' SuC usage.

During distance traveling, the M3's like all Teslas, will not have much choice but to use SuC's albeit they will most likely be paying to use. So M3's will add to the MS's and MX's that have free and paid usage. Being cheaper versions of Tesla, they will eventually outnumber on the road and at the SuC's.

 

[brkaus]

Could be. Newer MS/X do not get 'free/unlimited' SuC usage.

As long as someone has a referral, they still get free unlimited supercharging for S/X as long as they own the car.

 

[insaneoctane]

The link from the EPA in the first thread of this message is dead....
Anyone have the original PDF to share???

 

[GregRF]

The link from the EPA in the first thread of this message is dead....
Anyone have the original PDF to share???

Here you go.