Lifetime Average Wh/mi

[AWDtsla]

The 262 number comes from my data from the car. I achieve rated miles when I drive at 262 Wh/mi, which is usually only on the freeway. The value of 290 is the line on the energy graph, but it is incorrect. I don't achieve close to rated miles at that rate. That number would only make sense if I was able to use the full 70 kWh of my battery, but usable is less than that. I figure my usable, based on my numbers is around 60 to 62 kWh, and that is consistent with my 262 number (262x240 rated miles) = 60 kWh.

The chart shows that I usually achieve 80 -90 % of rated miles. Those are my actual numbers. Many others have reported wall efficiencies close to mine. Although vampire loss is a factor in the efficiency, it doesn't change the numbers that much.

Ahh you've made an error here. The 70kWh has more kWh per claimed kWh than the 85 or 90. So yes you should calculate a usable number at 70 kWh or even slightly higher. So 290 is right, you're underestimating a lot. Just think about it for a minute, what's really the difference between your car and an 85 or greater? 150lbs? 200lbs? Do you think it really makes that much difference in Wh/mi? Forget usable, due to the inaccuracies of the trip meter, you will never be able to get an accurate consumed useable number, it can only be calculated.

More games Tesla has played with the numbers here.

 

[ran349]

Ahh you've made an error here. The 70kWh has more kWh per claimed kWh than the 85 or 90. So yes you should calculate a usable number at 70 kWh or even slightly higher. So 290 is right, you're underestimating a lot. Just think about it for a minute, what's really the difference between your car and an 85 or greater? 150lbs? 200lbs? Do you think it really makes that much difference in Wh/mi? Forget usable, due to the inaccuracies of the trip meter, you will never be able to get an accurate consumed useable number, it can only be calculated.

More games Tesla has played with the numbers here.

Well, the real number for me that matters is how much I am using from the wall. That is the true measure of energy use. When I achieve rated miles, I am using about 32 kWh/100 miles, vs. the EPA value of 33 kWh/100 miles. And since I usually get between 80-90 % of rated miles performance, and 100 % occasionally, I think my car is performing as advertised.

 

[AWDtsla]

Well, the real number for me that matters is how much I am using from the wall. That is the true measure of energy use. When I achieve rated miles, I am using about 32 kWh/100 miles, vs. the EPA value of 33 kWh/100 miles. And since I usually get between 80-90 % of rated miles performance, and 100 % occasionally, I think my car is performing as advertised.

So then we agree the trip meter is crap.

 

[ran349]

So then we agree the trip meter is crap.

I wouldn't quite word it that way, but I agree there is uncertainty there, since the actual battery energy is not provided.

 

[Missile Toad]

@AWDtsla I'm looking at the data collected. Car reported is blue, calculated values (in a nice line) green. So if green is 'real' and blue is the trip meter's estimate, I think you are saying that the scattering of blue data falls within +-%5 of the actual -- and therefor is 'crap'. So, from that perspective, it is crap, that is useful, except if you are North Korea launching a nuke to hit Los Angeles, and you fall about 310 miles short of your target (5%), and LA gets an extra sunset that is just barely visible, and everyone just laughs at North Korea after all the world powers say, "we've had enough of this crap".

So now I'm really thinking on this. If there really, truly is 68.8 kWhr usable in a S 70 (see extensive postings by @wk057 ) Then seeing the Trip Meter read that I've used 65.4 kWhr tells me that I'm quite likely to hit the 'anti-brick' buffer, and the car will cease operating. So, @ran349 's error figures tell me that I'm taking serious chances trying to test the 'bottom of the battery' in reliance on Trip Meter kWhrs consumed.

 

[Missile Toad]

@ran349 The December reports from @wk057 indicated that the S 70D has 68.8 usable kWhr and another 2.4 kWhr held in reserve as an 'anti-brick'. As I understand it @wk057 has done extensive testing of the S 70, and five other Tesla models. Why are you thinking the S 70 has only 62 usable kWhr?

 

[AWDtsla]

@AWDtsla I'm looking at the data collected. Car reported is blue, calculated values (in a nice line) green. So if green is 'real' and blue is the trip meter's estimate, I think you are saying that the scattering of blue data falls within +-%5 of the actual -- and therefor is 'crap'. So, from that perspective, it is crap, that is useful, except if you are North Korea launching a nuke to hit Los Angeles, and you fall about 310 miles short of your target (5%), and LA gets an extra sunset that is just barely visible, and everyone just laughs at North Korea after all the world powers say, "we've had enough of this crap".

So now I'm really thinking on this. If there really, truly is 68.8 kWhr usable in a S 70 (see extensive postings by @wk057 ) Then seeing the Trip Meter read that I've used 65.4 kWhr tells me that I'm quite likely to hit the 'anti-brick' buffer, and the car will cease operating. So, @ran349 's error figures tell me that I'm taking serious chances trying to test the 'bottom of the battery' in reliance on Trip Meter kWhrs consumed.

I can't vouch for the data. Nor is my point is about usable kWh in the pack, that's a separate thread. Personally my car's trip meter underestimates at a mean (by random sampling) of around 15%, with high's in the mid 30%'s, and lows at around 3%, none of my sample have ever gone to overestimation. That's simply the difference from the energy the car claims it spent, and the energy it actually did, nothing else. My point is simply if you think that the number on your trip meter represents an actual consumption value over any period of time, then you should change your mind.

I recently re-enabled my teslafi.com account so I have a hard number versus my random sampling. It's bad, it's bad everywhere, all the time. Unfortunately I still have to manually log the reported consumption to compare per trip, but at least I have the running total.

 

[ran349]

@ran349 The December reports from @wk057 indicated that the S 70D has 68.8 usable kWhr and another 2.4 kWhr held in reserve as an 'anti-brick'. As I understand it @wk057 has done extensive testing of the S 70, and five other Tesla models. Why are you thinking the S 70 has only 62 usable kWhr?

When driving, my car consumes rated miles at 262 Wh/mi. There is variation in that number, but that is a reasonable average from all my logged data and observations. Since my car is rated at 240 miles (my car shows 230 miles based on 100%), then the total useable battery energy would be 262 x 240= 62.88 kWh. A more accurate estimate would be to charge your car to 100%, and then immediately start driving until your rated miles goes to zero. Then read what your car shows as energy consumed. The lowest I have gone to is about 30 miles remaining, but in those few cases, the numbers being reported were consistent with usable energy around 62 kWh, when taking into account the unused rated miles.
Apparently you also have a 70D. What kind of numbers are you getting compared to mine? What is your rated mile consumption?

 

[Missile Toad]

@ran349 In the first 3 months, owning the car, I would make 3-6 trips in the car and divide the delta RM in the Instrument CLuster (IC) by the kWhr consumed in the trip meter. That was sloppy because I was unaware of the vampire drain that occurs over several nights. Still, the numbers, I got at the time seemed to be consistently 256 Wh/mi. Then I noticed that the Trip Graph will tell you what its forecast range is, based on the exact speeds I was operating at. So it was reporting that at speeds of 69 MPH I would have predicted range = RM in the IC -- corresponding to about 289 Wh/mi in the display.

Lately, I've divided my 240 mile range into 6 segments of 40 miles each, and tried a single trip that covers one of those 40 rated mile segments. So focusing on the IC RM reading, I've measured between 10.5 and 10.7 kWhr matching with the 40 mi segment. So 267 Whr/mi on the higher of these two.

Now, on Trip Meter errors, in the process of watching the Trip Meter, I saw the Trip-meter-reported kWhr, instead of increasing, actually decreased... which, of course, coincided with me on a deceleration ramp. So, one source for error on the Trip Meter could be our constantly fluctuating kinetic energy. In each trial of the Watt-hour to 40 RM measurement, I started my data logging while the car was at least running at 30 MPH, but tended to end my logging as the car was running at 60+ MPH. So, if there is an error in my measuring, it is in overestimating the numerator by failing to account for a delta in kinetic energy:

Watt-hours,,,,,10,700
-----------,,,,------
Range Miles,,,,,40

 

[Missile Toad]

Reposting from Tesla Motors: PLEASE stop lying about specifications (60 to 75 upgrade)

...1 kWh is 3.6 megajoules. And here is what I've gathered so far:

• Original 60 - ~61 kWh total capacity, ~58.5 kWh usable.
• 85/P85/85D/P85D - ~81.5 kWh total capacity, ~77.5 kWh usable
• 90D/P90D - ~85.8 kWh total capacity, 81.8 kWh usable
• Original 70 - ~71.2 kWh total capacity, 68.8 kWh usable
• 75/75D - 75 kWh total capacity, 72.6 kWh usable
• Software limited 60/60D - 62.4 kWh usable
• Software limited 70/70D - 65.9 kWh usable

Edit: For clarification, the larger packs use a 4 kWh bottom lockout and the smaller packs use a 2.4 kWh bottom lockout. This capacity (included in the "total capacity" numbers above) is NOT usable for driving or other purposes..

 

[ran349]

@ran349 In the first 3 months, owning the car, I would make 3-6 trips in the car and divide the delta RM in the Instrument CLuster (IC) by the kWhr consumed in the trip meter. That was sloppy because I was unaware of the vampire drain that occurs over several nights. Still, the numbers, I got at the time seemed to be consistently 256 Wh/mi. Then I noticed that the Trip Graph will tell you what its forecast range is, based on the exact speeds I was operating at. So it was reporting that at speeds of 69 MPH I would have predicted range = RM in the IC -- corresponding to about 289 Wh/mi in the display.

Lately, I've divided my 240 mile range into 6 segments of 40 miles each, and tried a single trip that covers one of those 40 rated mile segments. So focusing on the IC RM reading, I've measured between 10.5 and 10.7 kWhr matching with the 40 mi segment. So 267 Whr/mi on the higher of these two.

Now, on Trip Meter errors, in the process of watching the Trip Meter, I saw the Trip-meter-reported kWhr, instead of increasing, actually decreased... which, of course, coincided with me on a deceleration ramp. So, one source for error on the Trip Meter could be our constantly fluctuating kinetic energy. In each trial of the Watt-hour to 40 RM measurement, I started my data logging while the car was at least running at 30 MPH, but tended to end my logging as the car was running at 60+ MPH. So, if there is an error in my measuring, it is in overestimating the numerator by failing to account for a delta in kinetic energy:

Watt-hours,,,,,10,700
-----------,,,,------
Range Miles,,,,,40

So your numbers of 262 and 267 Wh/mi for rated miles consumption are very similar to mine. It's good to have that validation from another owner of the same car.

 

[Missile Toad]

@ran349 but bear in mind, how I got to 267 Wh/mi. a) I'm still collecting data; and b) I got to that number like a drunk man finds his car keys lying in the street. I might be on this side of the yellow lines now, but I might be looking on the other side of the yellow lines later.

 

[ran349]

Reposting from Tesla Motors: PLEASE stop lying about specifications (60 to 75 upgrade)

I don't know who wk057 is, but I would be interested to know how he measures those values for the batteries with precision to 0.1 kWh for both capacity and usable. For the original 70D, he says usable is 68.8 kWh, which only leaves around 2 kWh reserve margin. Sure seems like that would be cutting it very close with all the uncertainties involved.

 

[jerry33]

I don't know who wk057 is, but I would be interested to know how he measures those values for the batteries with precision to 0.1 kWh for both capacity and usable. For the original 70D, he says usable is 68.8 kWh, which only leaves around 2 kWh reserve margin. Sure seems like that would be cutting it very close with all the uncertainties involved.

Read this thread.

 

[ran349]

Read this thread.

Ok, I get it now, thanks. I definitely have to read thru that thread.

 

[hacer]

@ran349 but bear in mind, how I got to 267 Wh/mi. a) I'm still collecting data; and b) I got to that number like a drunk man finds his car keys lying in the street. I might be on this side of the yellow lines now, but I might be looking on the other side of the yellow lines later.

You may want to read Rated miles vs Wh/mi where in my early Tesla experience I tried to figure some of this stuff out. I think the bottom line is that the SOC estimator is good at the very high end and the very low end and not so good in between. In between it tends to underestimate SOC which I think was done on purpose to be "conservative". On the one hand, it provokes range anxiety since you think you have less energy than you probably do, on the other because of that you're less likely to push it to the point where you run out of charge without charging.

 

[EdA]

Four years in today!
Lifetime 325Wh/mi.
Full charge of 248 miles (not 100% sure the setting was at 100% since I still had some regen!), full charge is something I rarely do since there are a plethora of superchargers out there.
64,426.4 miles (23k the first year, and less and less since my wife got her car and my commute was cut in half)

 

[FlatSix911]

Four years in today!
Lifetime 325Wh/mi.
Full charge of 248 miles (not 100% sure the setting was at 100% since I still had some regen!), full charge is something I rarely do since there are a plethora of superchargers out there.
64,426.4 miles (23k the first year, and less and less since my wife got her car and my commute was cut in half)

Congratulations on 4 years of ownership with only 6.5% range reduction (248/265)

 

[herbvdh]

I have done almost 15,000 miles with 305 watt hours average, which surprised me. I use my power only if needed or I am sick of somebodies flaunting of power such as my Charger can do this as he slammed into second I pulled out wiped him GOOD. I stopped at 65 MPH looked for him.....Where is he missing....then I realize he is on my left rear fender dejectedly looking at my Tesla I let him pass me and saw he was trying to hide looking my car over...

 

[EdA]

On my 4 year anniversary (Jan 8) my car read lifetime 325Wh/mi and 64,4xx miles.
This is in a northern climate. We had single digit temperatures on by the 10th I was
reading 326Wh/mi! :-(