jelloslug
Active Member
We have a 2013 Model S at work that has ~80k miles on it that has not been babied and it has a normal amount of degradation also.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Long range Model 3 has 334 miles range according to EPA
- Thread starter diplomat33
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Model 3
Canuck
Well-Known Member
I really get sick of reading about how much a better deal the Model 3 is than the S. Surely, people must realize that Tesla told us Model S purchasers a long time ago that by buying the Model S we are funding the development and eventual sale of the mass market, affordable, Model 3. Also, many people buying a S financially stretched to do so, believing that they were not only buying a vehicle, but also investing in helping to change the future of transportation for future generations, or at least accelerating that change -- and we don't have much time to spare according to climate science. While I didn't need to stretch to buy my S, I still never would have paid over $100k for a vehicle were it not for Tesla. It allowed me to justify spending money that will otherwise be left to my kids, and I can even tell them I am doing it for their benefit!
We all know the 3 is a better deal than the S. There's no need to state it except to thank the S/X purchasers for that.
Is there any more compelling evidence than that? Please don't tell me that you're another one who believes that science is not compelling evidence?
I guess like global warming, you can use samples and the current state of the environment to say things are fine but I'm interested in making my battery last long term, while still getting the most use of it, and not worrying about it. So I do short cycles around 50% for my daily driving and charge to 100% most weekends going to and from my cabin where I also use superchargers. But I drive right after I charge to 100%. So far my 85 numbers are:
431 km new (March 2014)
424 km at 4,700km
412 km Aug 2017 approx 76k km
We know lithium ions batteries degrade the fastest in the first few months, which proved true in my case. Since then, the degradation has been nominal. Sure, someone charging to 100% daily can perhaps say the same but I'd say speak to me in a few years -- the oldest S is only 5 years old so it's far too early to find out about degradation. It makes sense that the cathode damage may not be affecting the numbers now -- but when the warranty ends? If you lease, or plan to upgrade in a few years, or just don't care, fine, but let's not ignore the science based on "everything's fine today" and mislead others in doing so. There's a very good reason Tesla has a "Daily Driving" slider.
My 2012 Leaf still has 11 bars -- it has the "long life" 80% mode that Nissan had to drop in 2013 for greater EPA ratings. Nissan sure taught us how heat and high charge rates can degrade a battery, especially with no thermal cooling like Tesla.
Last edited:
larmor
Active Member
Better battery cells in m3? Longer range in M3 and claim MS/X will always be ahead. Mobile battery swap station patent... Pure speculation, but i sniff a battery upgrade for existing MS/X! just sayin'
Part 5: Clementine
In the analogy, Clementine was the girl who could document two different birth dates and I said she represented the Model S P100D. Here is the document for the Model S P100D. I found that 2017 file on this page under the first column called Datafile1. Here is a screenshot:
This EPA document says "Combined range voluntarily lowered to 315 miles" and when you select city range, you can see the original range in the formula bar. What they are doing here is, they are reducing the city and highway range retroactively at the same rate the combined range was reduced. In other words, the Model S P100D scored 324.3 mi EPA rated range and it was voluntarily lowered to 315 miles. The ratio of this reduction is 315/324.3. The city range originally was 305.9 miles but they want to reduce it by the same rate. That's why they are multiplying it by 315/324.3. The EPA is not trying to hide voluntary reductions. They are just trying to have consistent city, highway and combined range numbers where all of them are voluntarily reduced.
This 2017 file is very valuable because the EPA doesn't normally leave the original range numbers in the formula cells. Normally, this file should show 297.1 mi as static text and that's it. They were supposed to convert formula cells to static text. In Excel you do that by copying the cells and then right click to same cells > paste special > paste values. They forgot to do that in the 2017 file but they have done it in all previous years.
These 3 numbers were published for the Model S P100D:
Screenshot source: EPA
Here are the 4 numbers from the dyno test we will use as input data:
City range = 414.45 mi * 0.738= 305.8641 mi
Highway range = 469.99 mi * 0.738= 346.85262 mi
Step 2: Combined range: This is the EPA rated range. It is calculated from 55% of city range and 45% of highway range.
Combined range = 0.55*305.8641 + 0.45*346.85262= 168.225255 +156.083679 = 324.3089 mi EPA rated range
Step 3: MPGe numbers: MPGe means miles per 33.7 kWh wall consumption.
If city range is 305.8641 miles per 111.47 kWh wall consumption,
then city range is X miles per 33.7 kWh wall consumption
X= 305.8641 mi * 33.7 kWh / 111.47 kWh= 92.47 mi per 33.7 kWh wall consumption = 92 MPGe city fuel economy
If highway range is 346.85262 miles per 111.88 kWh wall consumption,
then highway range is X miles per 33.7 kWh wall consumption
X= 346.85262 mi * 33.7 kWh / 111.88 kWh= 104.477 mi per 33.7 kWh wall consumption rounded to 115 MPGe highway fuel economy
Similar to the Part 4, this calculation also ended up with a different EPA rated range number than advertised however we can see that the method is correct and the calculated number is the original number before the voluntary reduction because, the calculated 324.3089 matches exactly what the document shows.
In the analogy, Clementine was the girl who could document two different birth dates and I said she represented the Model S P100D. Here is the document for the Model S P100D. I found that 2017 file on this page under the first column called Datafile1. Here is a screenshot:
This EPA document says "Combined range voluntarily lowered to 315 miles" and when you select city range, you can see the original range in the formula bar. What they are doing here is, they are reducing the city and highway range retroactively at the same rate the combined range was reduced. In other words, the Model S P100D scored 324.3 mi EPA rated range and it was voluntarily lowered to 315 miles. The ratio of this reduction is 315/324.3. The city range originally was 305.9 miles but they want to reduce it by the same rate. That's why they are multiplying it by 315/324.3. The EPA is not trying to hide voluntary reductions. They are just trying to have consistent city, highway and combined range numbers where all of them are voluntarily reduced.
This 2017 file is very valuable because the EPA doesn't normally leave the original range numbers in the formula cells. Normally, this file should show 297.1 mi as static text and that's it. They were supposed to convert formula cells to static text. In Excel you do that by copying the cells and then right click to same cells > paste special > paste values. They forgot to do that in the 2017 file but they have done it in all previous years.
These 3 numbers were published for the Model S P100D:
- 315 mi EPA rated range
- 92 MPGe city fuel economy
- 105 MPGe highway fuel economy
Screenshot source: EPA
Here are the 4 numbers from the dyno test we will use as input data:
- 111.47 kWh wall consumption in city dyno test (see page 10 here)
- 414.45 mi in city dyno score (see page 10 here)
- 111.88 kWh wall consumption in highway dyno test (see page 11 here)
- 469.99 mi in highway dyno score (see page 11 here)
City range = 414.45 mi * 0.738= 305.8641 mi
Highway range = 469.99 mi * 0.738= 346.85262 mi
Step 2: Combined range: This is the EPA rated range. It is calculated from 55% of city range and 45% of highway range.
Combined range = 0.55*305.8641 + 0.45*346.85262= 168.225255 +156.083679 = 324.3089 mi EPA rated range
Step 3: MPGe numbers: MPGe means miles per 33.7 kWh wall consumption.
If city range is 305.8641 miles per 111.47 kWh wall consumption,
then city range is X miles per 33.7 kWh wall consumption
X= 305.8641 mi * 33.7 kWh / 111.47 kWh= 92.47 mi per 33.7 kWh wall consumption = 92 MPGe city fuel economy
If highway range is 346.85262 miles per 111.88 kWh wall consumption,
then highway range is X miles per 33.7 kWh wall consumption
X= 346.85262 mi * 33.7 kWh / 111.88 kWh= 104.477 mi per 33.7 kWh wall consumption rounded to 115 MPGe highway fuel economy
Similar to the Part 4, this calculation also ended up with a different EPA rated range number than advertised however we can see that the method is correct and the calculated number is the original number before the voluntary reduction because, the calculated 324.3089 matches exactly what the document shows.
Last edited:
jelloslug
Active Member
Show me a Tesla with abnormal degradation that is not linked to a direct failure of battery cells/modules. That's the cool part of science, you make your hypothesis and then you prove it with evidence. The Tesla fleet is starting to get old now and I have yet to see a flood of cars with severe range reductions because of battery aging issues.I really get sick of reading about how much a better deal the Model 3 is than the S. Surely, people must realize that Tesla told us Model S purchasers a long time ago that by buying the Model S we are funding the development and eventual sale of the mass market, affordable, Model 3. Also, many people buying a S financially stretched to do so, believing that they were not only buying a vehicle, but also investing in helping to change the future of transportation for future generations, or at least accelerating that change -- and we don't have much time to spare according to climate science. While I didn't need to stretch to buy my S, I still never would have paid over $100k for a vehicle were it not for Tesla. It allowed me to justify spending money that will otherwise be left to my kids, and I can even tell them I am doing it for their benefit!
We all know the 3 is a better deal than the S. There's no need to state it except to thank the S/X purchasers for that.
Is there any more compelling evidence than that? Please don't tell me that you're another one who believes that science is not compelling evidence?
I guess like global warming, you can use samples and the current state of the environment to say things are fine but I'm interested in making my battery last long term, while still getting the most use of it, and not worrying about it. So I do short cycles around 50% for my daily driving and charge to 100% most weekends going to and from my cabin where I also use superchargers. But I drive right after I charge to 100%. So far my 85 numbers are:
431 km new (March 2014)
424 km at 4,700km
412 km Aug 2017 approx 76k km
We know lithium ions batteries degrade the fastest in the first few months, which proved true in my case. Since then, the degradation has been nominal. Sure, someone charging to 100% daily can perhaps say the same but I'd say speak to me in a few years -- the oldest S is only 5 years old so it's far too early to find out about degradation. It makes sense that the cathode damage may not be affecting the numbers now -- but when the warranty ends? If you lease, or plan to upgrade in a few years, or just don't care, fine, but let's not ignore the science based on "everything's fine today" and mislead others in doing so. There's a very good reason Tesla has a "Daily Driving" slider.
My 2012 Leaf still has 11 bars -- it has the "long life" 80% mode that Nissan had to drop in 2013 for greater EPA ratings. Nissan sure taught us how heat and high charge rates can degrade a battery, especially with no thermal cooling like Tesla.
Makes sense for me, because if I'm doing any driving where range matters it's going to be on highways. In a day driving around the region where I live no way am I going to come close to driving 300 miles.
Critical to my wife letting me get the 3, because she's going to be driving it more than I am and she's range paranoid and she can exceed 200 miles going store to store, mall to mall, in a single day.
Mo City
Active Member
My question is: Will the lid be blown on this when Model 3s are sold to the general public without NDAs or will Tesla use software to limit the range to their stated numbers (until some future date)?
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Mo City
Active Member
OK. In 6-8 weeks, we will know the true range and if Tesla is hiding other goodies about the Model 3.
Good grief - what do you do for a living and how do you have the energy and attention span left over to write us this epic? lol seriously. it's great but - wow.Part 5: Clementine
In the analogy, Clementine was the girl who could document two different birth dates and I said she represented the Model S P100D. Here is the document for the Model S P100D. I found that 2017 file on this page under the first column called Datafile1. Here is a screenshot:
This EPA document says "Combined range voluntarily lowered to 315 miles" and when you select city range, you can see the original range in the formula bar. What they are doing here is, they are reducing the city and highway range retroactively at the same rate the combined range was reduced. In other words, the Model S P100D scored 324.3 mi EPA rated range and it was voluntarily lowered to 315 miles. The ratio of this reduction is 315/324.3. The city range originally was 305.9 miles but they want to reduce it by the same rate. That's why they are multiplying it by 315/324.3. The EPA is not trying to hide voluntary reductions. They are just trying to have consistent city, highway and combined range numbers where all of them are voluntarily reduced.
This 2017 file is very valuable because the EPA doesn't normally leave the original range numbers in the formula cells. Normally, this file should show 297.1 mi as static text and that's it. They were supposed to convert formula cells to static text. In Excel you do that by copying the cells and then right click to same cells > paste special > paste values. They forgot to do that in the 2017 file but they have done it in all previous years.
These 3 numbers were published for the Model S P100D:
- 315 mi EPA rated range
- 92 MPGe city fuel economy
- 105 MPGe highway fuel economy
Screenshot source: EPA
Here are the 4 numbers from the dyno test we will use as input data:
Step 1: City and highway range: To calculate these, you multiply the dyno scores by 0.738. The Model S and X use different multipliers. There are 3 different multipliers for different Model S trim levels. These are published in another EPA document.
- 111.47 kWh wall consumption in city dyno test (see page 10 here)
- 414.45 mi in city dyno score (see page 10 here)
- 111.88 kWh wall consumption in highway dyno test (see page 11 here)
- 469.99 mi in highway dyno score (see page 11 here)
City range = 414.45 mi * 0.738= 305.8641 mi
Highway range = 469.99 mi * 0.738= 346.85262 mi
Step 2: Combined range: This is the EPA rated range. It is calculated from 55% of city range and 45% of highway range.
Combined range = 0.55*305.8641 + 0.45*346.85262= 168.225255 +156.083679 = 324.3089 mi EPA rated range
Step 3: MPGe numbers: MPGe means miles per 33.7 kWh wall consumption.
If city range is 305.8641 miles per 111.47 kWh wall consumption,
then city range is X miles per 33.7 kWh wall consumption
X= 305.8641 mi * 33.7 kWh / 111.47 kWh= 92.47 mi per 33.7 kWh wall consumption = 92 MPGe city fuel economy
If highway range is 346.85262 miles per 111.88 kWh wall consumption,
then highway range is X miles per 33.7 kWh wall consumption
X= 346.85262 mi * 33.7 kWh / 111.88 kWh= 104.477 mi per 33.7 kWh wall consumption rounded to 115 MPGe highway fuel economy
Similar to the Part 4, this calculation also ended up with a different EPA rated range number than advertised however we can see that the method is correct and the calculated number is the original number before the voluntary reduction because, the calculated 324.3089 matches exactly what the document shows.
This is incredibly interesting. Tesla will be under some major pressure to do something with the S; either a new battery, new interior, lower price, or something.
@calisnow, thanks. I actually started writing about this a month ago here. In that thread, if you continue reading from there you can find the calculations, the formulas, the screenshots, the Bolt example etc. Then recently I wrote a few more messages in Trev's Tesla forum here. That's when I came up with the analogy. I guess that helped more people understand the topic. Then Teslarati picked up on the issue and I wanted to improve the presentation and wrote the messages in this thread.
The biggest problem for me is actually not being able to edit my messages and the fear that I will make a mistake that's going to bother me. In Trev's forum, I can edit my messages. I really like that. I wish @doug would give me the ability to edit my messages here.
The biggest problem for me is actually not being able to edit my messages and the fear that I will make a mistake that's going to bother me. In Trev's forum, I can edit my messages. I really like that. I wish @doug would give me the ability to edit my messages here.
Last edited:
ratsbew
Active Member
Undoubtedly. I think everyone is expecting some kind of major refresh of the S/X within the next 12 months. Probably a new interior that is much more "premium" along with a larger pack and maybe new exterior styling. At this point, there is almost no reason to buy the S over the 3.
timk225
Active Member
It is always the smart move for Tesla to advertise less range than you really get.
If Tesla says 310 and you get 334, no one is complaining.
But if Tesla says 330 and you get 329.8 in one range test, everyone will be wailing like crazy about it.
So it is just a whole lot easier to under promise and over deliver. And even with degradation over a few years, the 310 is still being exceeded.
And if the small battery is advertised at 220 and you get 235, that is good too.
If Tesla says 310 and you get 334, no one is complaining.
But if Tesla says 330 and you get 329.8 in one range test, everyone will be wailing like crazy about it.
So it is just a whole lot easier to under promise and over deliver. And even with degradation over a few years, the 310 is still being exceeded.
And if the small battery is advertised at 220 and you get 235, that is good too.
jelloslug
Active Member
I think Tesla learned this lesson from the original 85 cars. I also think that for the same reason you stated, they have opted to not refer to the battery size at all.
Why do people keep talking about 334, as if combined mileage is what matters for almost anyone? I don't get this.
Highway mileage is what matters. The difference is 318 vs. 310, not 334 vs. 310. If Tesla had been out there plugging combined mileage figures, people would be really mad when they got their cars, got on the highway, and found they couldn't actually go that far.
Highway mileage is what matters. The difference is 318 vs. 310, not 334 vs. 310. If Tesla had been out there plugging combined mileage figures, people would be really mad when they got their cars, got on the highway, and found they couldn't actually go that far.
It is possible that the new chemistry of the gigafactory cells has a rapid initial capacity loss. If you look at the data coming out of the Roadster v3 battery pack (which is yet another type of cell), you'll see rapid initial capacity loss. So maybe that's why Tesla is under reporting range.
3.0 Battery Longevity
3.0 Battery Longevity
Similar threads
