-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
I may be in the minority, but I disagree. Rated is my expected distance under "standard" conditions. If I'm in worse than standard conditions ... headwind, cold, rain, uphill ... then I won't reach the number. This is useful to know. It's a number based on a formula that doesn't change based on how I drive. My 30/15/5 mile energy graph provides my projection based on most recent energy usage. With the nav running I know how much rated I have and how far I have to go. If it's 200 miles to my destination and I have 240 miles rated range then I can afford to spend 12 miles of rated range for every 10 miles I drive. If the gap between rated range and actual distance closes at the right rate then I'm in good shape. Others may say this is too complicated for most people; I find it very informative. If the dash showed projected, I'd have absolutely no idea what's happening because the hill I've been climbing the last 10 miles has dropped my range to 50 miles projected when I've got flat land ahead which will allow me to easily drive 100.
Agree with you here, though not with the hyperbole. I can easily get rated range in the right conditions ... 65-70mph, slightly rolling terrain, 65F.
This is also true in much of the South Island of New Zealand. Before my first visit, I was told that when my gas tank reached 1/2 empty and I saw a petrol station, I should fill up. I found that to be very sound advice especially while driving along the West Coast.
That's correct, but when it comes to range it only goes as the square. That's because going faster not only burns more power, it gets you there faster. So cube on the top divided by linear on the bottom equals square law.
Its even true (though to a lesser extent) in many places in the US. Consider the southwest: Once you venture outside the suburban outskirts of big cities like Los Angeles and Las Vegas, it's not too hard to find a stretch of desert interstate with 20 to 50 mile gaps between gas stations--and the gaps only grow bigger if you need a station that's open 24/7 or one near a smaller two-lane highway. Anyone who waits to fill up until the light turns on is going to be in for a rude surprise...
This doesn't apply to me or my car in my environment. Just because it's true for some environments for some people doesn't mean it applies to even most of the United States.
I can "easily" get negative consumption if I define "the right conditions" as downhill Mt. St. Helens.
Gizmotoy
Active Member
Perhaps it was, I don't think his point was that hitting rated range was important. For me, I'd like a fixed point. A static indication of how far the car thinks it can go under controlled conditions, whether those are achievable by my actual vehicle at this time or not (though preferably so). In my mind, this is preferable to a calculation that changes based on recent behavior of the driver. The former is the electric equivalent of the gas gauge in an ICE, while the latter is equivalent to an ICE computer's Distance Until Empty calculation.
Ideally, I'd like both. We have that now, but I do think it would be nice if the 15/30mi average's expected range made the center dash (I leave the energy graph up there).
Ideally, I'd like both. We have that now, but I do think it would be nice if the 15/30mi average's expected range made the center dash (I leave the energy graph up there).
I'd have been fine with a fixed rating that I have some control over -- maybe a setting slider between (Ideal+1Wh/mi) and 500 Wh/mi. Some Tesla-controlled number that varies between firmware is and overly optimistic for my driving conditions is the problem.
The other issue is that I've seen what Projected did in the old firmware. It was exactly what I want. And then they took it away with no explanation and no replacement.
Are you suggesting that, in conditions that exist 4-6 months of the year in the US, that the majority of people won't get within 10% of rated range if they drive at 65mph or less?
I haven't reviewed the May-October numbers on the Wh/mi thread but I may need to do that.
Duckjybe
Member
I would like this too. Displaying Projected range based on average lifetime Wh/mile would suit me. That would take the variability out of it once you drove a bit.
Last edited:
I love this example!
Here's how I see that same sign: gas stations are commonly held to be so prevalent that the government PAYS to put up a sign warning you that if you don't fuel up now, you won't get another chance for 167 miles! Compare that with Superchargers, which are almost never LESS than 120 miles apart and are commonly 160-170 miles apart but have NO signs! Heck, growing up in Colorado, Maryland and Massachusetts I saw plenty of examples in these very different states of signs warning of no gas for as little as the next *20* miles!
I'm going to wholeheartedly agree with the folks who made the good point that there are plenty of times in gas-powered vehicles where planning for re-fueling is important. But it's still the uncommon case compared to the behavior of the driving public across North America. And as a result, state governments across the country, as well as the federal government, pay for signs like the one captured by @Ssssly.
Expanding EV sales out to the masses has many challenges, of which one will be dealing with a public accustomed to "drive until the warning light comes on".
Alan
P.S. It seems unlikely to me that the TMC forum audience actually has much need of these signs even for their gas-powered vehicles. It's a very detail-oriented, execution-capable audience and as such unrepresentative of the wider public.
Here's how I see that same sign: gas stations are commonly held to be so prevalent that the government PAYS to put up a sign warning you that if you don't fuel up now, you won't get another chance for 167 miles! Compare that with Superchargers, which are almost never LESS than 120 miles apart and are commonly 160-170 miles apart but have NO signs! Heck, growing up in Colorado, Maryland and Massachusetts I saw plenty of examples in these very different states of signs warning of no gas for as little as the next *20* miles!
I'm going to wholeheartedly agree with the folks who made the good point that there are plenty of times in gas-powered vehicles where planning for re-fueling is important. But it's still the uncommon case compared to the behavior of the driving public across North America. And as a result, state governments across the country, as well as the federal government, pay for signs like the one captured by @Ssssly.
Expanding EV sales out to the masses has many challenges, of which one will be dealing with a public accustomed to "drive until the warning light comes on".
Alan
P.S. It seems unlikely to me that the TMC forum audience actually has much need of these signs even for their gas-powered vehicles. It's a very detail-oriented, execution-capable audience and as such unrepresentative of the wider public.
Yes. Wind is nasty. I've noticed a tendency to get slightly better range going eastbound than westbound. Prevailing winds.
unfortunately, that area is not even EV-drivable territory. Though, I can see how a journalist might attempt to drive the Model S in that area.:biggrin:
If a naive motorist runs out of fuel at the midpoint between Ely and Tonopah, then a rescue truck (with fuel) is faced with a 167 mile trip (@20 mpg max) to rescue the poor sob. To keep the franchise for providing roadside service the operator must agree to take ALL calls regardless of profitability. The cost of placing and maintaining such nanny signage is cheap compared to the much greater costs and risks of having travelers stranded in the outback.
Ely is the most isolated continental US city. One highway to it is called 'the loneliest road'. But fair game for the Tesla MS since RV Parks are located where needed.
--
Ely is the most isolated continental US city. One highway to it is called 'the loneliest road'. But fair game for the Tesla MS since RV Parks are located where needed.
--
Disagree. It's entirely doable with the RV parks in the area. I'd also imagine if you need to drive in this area, you most likely live nearby and have access to a base that could charge.
It would be a rather interesting photo of a MS in front of such a sign, but not enough for me to drive to Ely, NV.
Also note I did not take the photo, found it on the web.
green1
Active Member
There are many places where gas stations aren't abundant.
But more than that, other vehicles have exactly the same problem. Every time I fill my work truck (Ford F350) it shows me an estimated number of km remaining which is close to double what I'm actually going to get. Every single time. It knows my driving habits, it records my average fuel consumption, but it gets it wrong every time. If a journalist hopped in that truck, and tried to use the max range listed in the estimate they'd run in to exactly the same problem they did with the Tesla, but they'd never have written an article about it, they'd shrug their shoulders and continue. Only because they've heard of "range anxiety" and want to prove it's real, do they say anything.
This unfortunately will lead companies like Tesla to hide large amounts of range to satisfy these people, you'll have a 300kwh pack with a rated range of 200miles "just in case" (ok, that may be a bit exaggerated, but you get the idea) which will just make it that much harder to plan your actual usage.
But more than that, other vehicles have exactly the same problem. Every time I fill my work truck (Ford F350) it shows me an estimated number of km remaining which is close to double what I'm actually going to get. Every single time. It knows my driving habits, it records my average fuel consumption, but it gets it wrong every time. If a journalist hopped in that truck, and tried to use the max range listed in the estimate they'd run in to exactly the same problem they did with the Tesla, but they'd never have written an article about it, they'd shrug their shoulders and continue. Only because they've heard of "range anxiety" and want to prove it's real, do they say anything.
This unfortunately will lead companies like Tesla to hide large amounts of range to satisfy these people, you'll have a 300kwh pack with a rated range of 200miles "just in case" (ok, that may be a bit exaggerated, but you get the idea) which will just make it that much harder to plan your actual usage.
Last edited:
