I'll have to second that. I have the white seats and I think they are fantastic. Very comfortable for me and just as comfortable as my 2018 Dodge Charger seats. I've did a few long drives, up to 800 miles each time, and so far no complaints. Now, on the other hand, my wife's 2010 Ford Mustang GT Premium seats are not very comfortable at all. Even though they are all leather, and supposedly the high ends seats, I cringed every time I have to travel long distance in those.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
LR AWD now rated by Tesla at 322 miles of range
- Thread starter jbed1203
- Start date
Here we have a LR RWD car with the increased range showing 244 Wh/mile is higher than the rated consumption, and 237 Wh/mile is lower than the rated consumption. This tells us that the range increase is not due to a lowering of the rated consumption per mile to 230 Wh/mi as was claimed above and that the rated consumption matches the cars that have lost, or never received the range increase. This, as well as the lack of change in the miles per hour charge rate (no increase from 38 miles/hour of charge to 39 miles/hour as we would expect to see if the consumption rating had been lowered) are evidence that the claims of "no range increase occurred, the Wh/mile constant was just changed" is not correct.
I thought this was a forum for Tesla owners? Does that mean not expressing one's opinions negative or positive. I saw the first seats specified fo the 3 and they were scaled back to not erode S sales. The present seats are pretty cheap and poorly made, I'm on my second passenger seat. Tesla CS is the worst I have ever experienced and if not for their sneaky arbitration clause they would have many law suits, in fact they step on many sales because of this and it is not just a growth issue. I have delivery promises in writing they will not honor because delivery and sales don't care and hide behind arbitration and their "no contact" wall. I have owned may Teslas but I don't feel the need to hide reality which this forum often does by pushing away those with real issues and becoming a bubble for group think. I can assure you Tesla has done some really underhanded things to many people and they really don't care as you have to force them to do the right thing in many cases.
They are not proportionate. Yes there is but not in linear fashion.
M109Rider
Active Member
If you read my post again, I stated it’s an open forum, so anything goes. I never implied there should be no negative opinions. Nor do I believe there should be no negative views.
I did however, imply that he clearly is focused on just the negative.
I personally don’t want to see the same people, posting the exact same negative rants over and over and over.
His concerns were stated, he made his points, he’s even been validated by many. I don’t even disagree with some of them.
And yet, the exact same negative rants go on and on and on.
Some people need to do that. I just wish they didn’t. I personally think the continuous negative rants are not good for any forum.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Remember for your 2019 you may never see the actual rated range increase (it doesn't sound like it will show in this update, from what I read elsewhere, anyway - so not yet). What you really have to focus on is the actual efficiency of your car on a chosen benchmark route. Really hard to do accurately though. Especially when it is just potentially a 3-4% difference.
Either there is no efficiency improvement yet, or they have not changed the constants yet (I think they would have to in this case to display a rated range increase - though for prior updates they did not - see below).
Here we have a LR RWD car with the increased range showing 244 Wh/mile is higher than the rated consumption, and 237 Wh/mile is lower than the rated consumption. This tells us that the range increase is not due to a lowering of the rated consumption per mile to 230 Wh/mi as was claimed above and that the rated consumption matches the cars that have lost, or never received the range increase. This, as well as the lack of change in the miles per hour charge rate (no increase from 38 miles/hour of charge to 39 miles/hour as we would expect to see if the consumption rating had been lowered) are evidence that the claims of "no range increase occurred, the Wh/mile constant was just changed" is not correct.
You can always take the three numbers and calculate approximately the constant (which is always about 5Wh/mi lower than the line position) used:
Constant = Projected Range (Right Hand Number) * Avg (Left Hand Number) / Rated Miles remaining (battery gauge)
You can do all three ranges and cross check the value. Switch to km for better accuracy.
Line = Constant + 5Wh/mi
I believe the Charging Constant is 234Wh/rmi for the LR RWD and 239Wh/rmi for the line position.
Interesting that it has always been that way, supposedly.. However, these lines are already lower than that of the LR AWD, so after the unlock, it wouldn't have been necessary to move them to show the efficiency difference between AWD & LR assuming the same available battery size (it works out nearly exactly correctly - 325rmi*234Wh/rmi ~= 310rm*245Wh/rmi ~= 76kWh). The actual available energy of the two vehicles is close to the same (check out the EPA document submissions - 79.2kWh for AWD, 78.2kWh for RWD ). But remember a lot of that original RWD EPA test could have been completed well after the RWD vehicle showed 0 rated miles (it might have driven for another 25 EPA miles (so maybe 35-40 dyno miles) after reaching 0 rated miles on the display).
So: it may be that they unlocked an additional 1kWh (78.2kWh=>79.2kWh) when they went to 325 rated miles from 310, but 1kWh would not explain a 15 rated mile improvement.
I suspect what they did is they initially had a very large buffer on the LR RWD. (Maybe 6kWh or so)
So, two changes, perhaps:
1) They then reduced this buffer and added about 11 rated miles...
2) They increased the amount of discharge allowed by about 1kWh. That converted to an additional 4 rated miles.
3) They may or may not have made actual efficiency improvements - it doesn't really matter (from the perspective of constants, etc.) if they did or not, TBH. That would just change how easy it is to hit the rated consumption.
So before update they had:
5.7kWh (buffer) + 310rmi*234Wh/rmi = 78.2kWh (matches EPA document)
After, maybe, they had:
3.3kWh (buffer) + 325rmi*234Wh/rmi = 79.3kWh (matches available energy from the AWD EPA test)
If there are new 2020 LR RWD documents posted soon in addition to new AWD documents, it'll be interesting to see how they look.
Lines & Constants Pre 36.1
LR RWD EPA Result:
https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=46584&flag=1
AWD EPA Result:
https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=46585&flag=1
Anyway, this is my guess for what happened and why the line didn't move. Just a guess. I don't have an LR RWD so I really have no way to know. Do we have data that doesn't fit this hypothesis? (Anyone have LR RWD CAN bus data before and after the early 2019 range increase???)
Last edited:
Mine has gone from 276 to 285 miles. Hooray. 
We’ll see if it continues to increase. It dropped from the 290s to the high 270s with V10.
We’ll see if it continues to increase. It dropped from the 290s to the high 270s with V10.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Mine has gone from 276 to 285 miles. Hooray.
We’ll see if it continues to increase. It dropped from the 290s to the high 270s with V10.
Was that increase coincident with the 36.2 (V10.1) software update, or just happened to be where it ended up today?
Coincident with 36.2 and a 500 mile road trip.
We’ve put about 4,000 miles on V10 and it was a steady decline in rated range during that time until Friday night when 36.2 installed.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
