Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

M3 straight line in the energy graph shows "Typical" instead of "Rated"

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
My car is consistently reporting a range loss of 5%.

But then I found out something interesting after a discussion with @TimothyHW3 (Charging everyday?).

The solid straight line in my (European) M3 shows "Typical" range instead of "Rated" range in the Energy Graph screen.

Does anyone else have "Typical" range?

That's weird. All the pictures I found in Google Images show "Rated" for all Model 3s.
Maybe it was "Rated" before V10? Or maybe only some cars show "Typical"? Why?

In addition I measured my "Typical" consumption and it is 156 Wh/km (around 251Wh/mile). You can measure it by taking a picture to the screen and using Rule of Three.

Also, if I multiply 156 Wh/km x 500 km (310 miles) = 78 kWh which does not make sense as the car only has 75kWh (74kWh usable).
 

Attachments

  • typical.jpg
    typical.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 2,634
It says typical in mine and always has been,v9, v10.
Rated or typical is the same, just different words.

As for the second part, the lines merge at 153 or I believe 15.25 to be more precise.
This is on AWD and P, different cars have different ratings.
As to why you don't get your kWh, I explained everything in this video. It has something to do with a hidden degradation when the car is new and a buffer that is used for rated km, but not for %. Make sure to watch it without skipping.

 
It says typical in mine and always has been,v9, v10.
Rated or typical is the same, just different words.
That's not completely correct. In fact, on X and S you can choose between "Rated" and "Typical" and "Typical" shows less range than "Rated".
"Rated" is based on "EPA" but "Typical" is more realistic.
Also, go to google images and see how many cars show "Rated" instead of "Typical":
Google Image Result for https://fsmedia.imgix.net/60/ba/c0/2e/fe95/4963/9f75/55bdefa7a244/one-mile-of-towing-resulted-in-128-miles-of-driving-at-18mph.png?auto=format%2Ccompress&dpr=2&w=650
As to why you don't get your kWh, I explained everything in this video. It has something to do with a hidden degradation when the car is new and a buffer that is used for rated km, but not for %. Make sure to watch it without skipping.
Ok, I'll take a look. I read many posts from you claiming probably most problems were due to the way people charged (BMS miscalibration).

BTW, my Typical Line is at 156 Wh/km (perhaps 155). I consistently measured it a few times. Will measure it later with more precision.
 
Last edited:
BTW, my Typical Line is at 156 Wh/km (perhaps 155). I consistently measured it a few times. Will measure it later with more precision.

Honestly, it is pretty annoying to see exactly where it is- you have to select a short averaging interval and then drive slightly above and slightly below the line and take pictures, all while driving.

In my AWD car (and every picture of an AWD car I have seen), it is definitely at 156Wh/km/250Wh/mi. Maybe it will change with 36.1 though...

In any case it does not use this line position for the calculations anyway (easy enough to verify yourself by taking the three numbers, rated km, current efficiency, and projected range, and back calculating). Mine says “rated” in the US FWIW. And the line is at 250Wh/mi, but very obviously ~245Wh/mi is used for the calculations on the consumption screen (again, solve for the single unknown at ANY time and that’s what you’ll get).

Furthermore the projected ranges are basically useless for any purpose anyway (use the Trip page instead), so this is all just an exercise in pedantry.

Lines and “Constants” Pre 36.1
 
Last edited:
Everyone: there is an unfortunate terminology difference here that should clear all of this up.

On the Model S and X, you can change the setting between a higher and a lower amount of distance, based on different efficiency constants. There part that makes this really confusing is that Tesla used different words for them in North America versus Europe and even more confusing is that they re-used the word "rated" to mean opposite things in the two places:

Higher range:
North America calls this "Ideal"
Europe calls this "Rated"

Lower range:
North America calls this "Rated"
Europe calls this "Typical"

So when people on these different continents are cross-talking and using the term "rated", they are definitely going to be confusing each other, because they mean different things.

I think the underlying reason for this is that the word "rated" should mean that it is relevant to a government automotive rating agency, right? The U.S. uses the EPA, which has a lower, more realistic rating. Europe uses NEDC, which has higher, very unrealistic ratings that are not very "typical".

Apparently the Model 3 just removed the feature to be able to switch between them and always uses the lower more realistic one, which is called "rated" in North America and "typical" in Europe.
 
That's not completely correct. In fact, on X and S you can choose between "Rated" and "Typical" and "Typical" shows less range than "Rated".
"Rated" is based on "EPA" but "Typical" is more realistic.
Also, go to google images and see how many cars show "Rated" instead of "Typical":
Google Image Result for https://fsmedia.imgix.net/60/ba/c0/2e/fe95/4963/9f75/55bdefa7a244/one-mile-of-towing-resulted-in-128-miles-of-driving-at-18mph.png?auto=format%2Ccompress&dpr=2&w=650

Ok, I'll take a look. I read many posts from you claiming probably most problems were due to the way people charged (BMS miscalibration).

BTW, my Typical Line is at 156 Wh/km (perhaps 155). I consistently measured it a few times. Will measure it later with more precision.
Well, we are talking about 3. The S and X have different representations.

Ok, maybe there is a difference between the US and European translations, but I doubt the value will be different. Just drive down your avg and match the lines, it will tell you, no need to measure anything.

Looking at some of my older screenshots it does look like it is at 155-56. But the energy projected range and the gauge, def meet at 15.25 or 153.

So at least the battery indicator is using 153 for sure.
 
Here the screenshot where the energy projected and km gauge battery meet at 153Wh/km. So this proofs that the battery is using 153 for the calculation. The small difference in 2km between 347 and 345km is due to the energy graph updating more frequently.
IMG_20191103_171225.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: UlrA
My car is consistently reporting a range loss of 5%

Circling back to why you are looking at this line position (which has now been shown pretty clearly above, and also shown that the position is not used for the calculation)...

This loss of available energy being reported by your car is not related to this line. What it is related to, no one here really knows. It may be at least partially actual capacity loss in your battery (5% is within the range of “normal” after a year, though higher than one would hope). Could be partially software. Could be BMS confusion. We’ll see.

For now, it does very likely represent a real loss of available energy, which has real world impact. (Meaning, a single continuous drive likely would show less energy used to get to 0 rated miles than it did when the car was new.)
 
I think the underlying reason for this is that the word "rated" should mean that it is relevant to a government automotive rating agency, right? The U.S. uses the EPA, which has a lower, more realistic rating. Europe uses NEDC, which has higher, very unrealistic ratings that are not very "typical".
That was my read as well.

Perhaps they could use Rated_EU and Rated_EPA if they wanted to make it clearer by aesthetically awful.