M3P 2021 w 60k miles lost almost 20% range, unusual?

[ay221]

Wonder what a good catchy phrase for electric vehicles would be instead of running on fumes.

What's the electric car's version of "I'm running on fumes"?

Answer (1 of 5): Just to reinforce the point of the others, I did have some range anxiety at first, despite my car being very long range (310 miles). Mostly it was really just fear of the unknown - I didn’t know what the limits were. I didn’t know what the consequences were of the unforeseen. Wh...

www.quora.com

I personally like the "we're running on static".

 

[Candleflame]

There is zero difference between the two display options in terms of practicality or the ability to complete a trip. None. It’s entirely personal preference. The nav telling me I’ll arrive at my destination with 2% left or 6 miles left is completely inconsequential. My reaction in either scenario is exactly the same.

I’ve driven 150,000 miles across 11 states all over the western US in a 75kwh Model S with an effective range in 2022 of about 190 miles. Coasted into a supercharger or final destination on fumes more than once. Never once thought “whew better switch my display to miles instead of % or I won’t make it!”

its not personal preference. When my car was new it would essentiallly have 520km rated range. Whereas now its 440km. So in % it can fool you and decrease your range quicker than what youd think. A friend of mine has only 400km rated range now instead of 520km on delivery.

I also leave my car in % most of the time but when i do long range trips while discharging the battery from 100% to 0% it should always be in km.

Nope. Not sure what your point is here.

All I am saying is that rated miles tell you more than percentage and whether your ability to make trips has changed, but in the end you just use the trip planner if it’s going to be a question.

Rated miles are better when you skim off 0% on the battery Reason being that once you get to low range you can see how much your rated miles decrease compared to actual miles being driven (even better in kms). If your miles decrease too quickly you need to slow down.

 

[Regaj]

I have to laugh at the notion that watching rated miles is somehow predictive of whether I'll make it somewhere or not. Between the idealized EPA test suite that determined that rating, and the multitude of environmental factors that affect it out in the real world... and "rated miles" ends up being useful as a tool for comparing inherent range across different vehicles, and little else.

What does work, predictably and accurately, out in the real world... is the nav system in conjunction with the energy app.

 

[Candleflame]

I have to laugh at the notion that watching rated miles is somehow predictive of whether I'll make it somewhere or not. Between the idealized EPA test suite that determined that rating, and the multitude of environmental factors that affect it out in the real world... and "rated miles" ends up being useful as a tool for comparing inherent range across different vehicles, and little else.

What does work, predictably and accurately, out in the real world... is the nav system in conjunction with the energy app.

rated range is a unit of energy, % is not.
When you start skimming to 0% its important to see how many RATED kms (i.e. energy) is left if the pack. if it decreases too quickly and starts undertaking how many kms you have left to your destination you have to slow down. It works reliably everytime when you hypermile between charging spots or outlets.

i would not rely on predicted range with changing winds and conditions etc.
I know this is a hard concept to grasp when you are in the USA and have superchargers and dc fast chargers left right and centre but this isnt the norm in other countries where EVs still occasionally have to drive at i.e. 80km/h to hypermile to make it between slow and midspeed chargers.

 

[ucmndd]

i would not rely on predicted range with changing winds and conditions etc.

But you would rely on a static and baseline unrealistic measurement of range in a lab because that’s somehow more useful? Come on.

I know you want to make this a “you don’t understand because Canada” issue, but again, there’s zero practical difference. It’s entirely personal preference, end of story.

 

[AAKEE]

The % vs not % is a never ending discussion. Its more a matter of taste than right or wrong.

 

[teslin_zemljak]

Hi everyone. I have a question about the displayed Total Energy. I am sure it was asked and ansered many times, but not sure how to find it. Is that number the total energy measured at the battery ports, or it is only portion of it, that was spent on drive train?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Hi everyone. I have a question about the displayed Total Energy. I am sure it was asked and ansered many times, but not sure how to find it. Is that number the total energy measured at the battery ports, or it is only portion of it, that was spent on drive train?

The one on the trip meter displays the total energy consumed by anything in the vehicle, while the car is in not in Park. If in Park, usage is not counted; you can use kWh of energy and nothing shows up.

It’s possible there are heat losses of a fraction of a percent not counted, but overall it’s nearly a perfect indicator of capacity as long as you never enter Park.

 

[AAKEE]

The one on the trip meter displays the total energy consumed by anything in the vehicle, while the car is in not in Park. If in Park, usage is not counted; you can use kWh of energy and nothing shows up.

It’s possible there are heat losses of a fraction of a percent not counted, but overall it’s nearly a perfect indicator of capacity as long as you never enter Park.

Yep.

The heat losses: only heat losses before the energy meetering device (Volts and Amphs) could affect this.
The heat loss inside the cabling from the connectors at the battery to the energy meetering system should by definition be quite small, otherwise the cabling dimensions probably is wrong. A one percent loss is close to 1kWh. Its more expensive and heavy to add 1kWh extra battery than using cabling with minimal loss.

The heat loss inside the battery should’nt be accounted for as it is electric energy that is the capacity of a battery, and a part of the loss in a degraded battery is increased heat losses due to increased internal resistance.

If the car is driven with a current close to 0.2C which is a kind of branch standard for discharge( = 100-0% in 5hrs or about 15-20kW) for example a 75kWh battery should deliver 75kWh electricity.

Driving harder/faster induce more heat loss and a reduced electrical energy output. It would be hard to be sure how much higher the heat loss is because internal resistance inrease with battery age, and increase more if the battery have been at high SOC, and also the temperature of the battery affect this quite much. A hot battery has lower internal resistance.

 

[teslin_zemljak]

The one on the trip meter displays the total energy consumed by anything in the vehicle, while the car is in not in Park. If in Park, usage is not counted; you can use kWh of energy and nothing shows up.

It’s possible there are heat losses of a fraction of a percent not counted, but overall it’s nearly a perfect indicator of capacity as long as you never enter Park.

Thanks Alan.

So, my wife's Tesla (March 2021, Dual Motor) shows that energy expenditure from 100% charged baterry to <1% (I got it down to less then 10 miles) is ~65kWh. Range was exactly 300 miles. The range seems normal to me, as this includes usual daily comute to work (~25 miles total) and running errands. We are in Colorado, but the driving is on flat roads in the prairy. I think that the car has 75kWh battery, and I know that it is never charged to that energy level, even if it is set to 100%. But I do see that actual energy that gets to the car (measured on our house system that monitors solar panels, we use eGauge, and tesla charger is on separate circuit) is around 80kWh or little bit more. So it seems to me that something doesn't quite add up here.

It is reasonable what you are saying that some kWh are spend when parked (we don't run Centry at home, but it is on at my wife's work), it just feels little bit too much. Of course, I can be totally wrong.

Does anyone know what is the actual max charge for this model? I unfertunatelly have no hystorical data, this is first time that I measured this, just out of curiosity.

Other then this, the car runs fine, and it has ~17kmiles on it. My wife loves it, and I enjoy driving, when she lets me! ) I hope I am not just opsessing here!

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Thanks Alan.

So, my wife's Tesla (March 2021, Dual Motor) shows that energy expenditure from 100% charged baterry to <1% (I got it down to less then 10 miles) is ~65kWh. Range was exactly 300 miles. The range seems normal to me, as this includes usual daily comute to work (~25 miles total) and running errands. We are in Colorado, but the driving is on flat roads in the prairy. I think that the car has 75kWh battery, and I know that it is never charged to that energy level, even if it is set to 100%. But I do see that actual energy that gets to the car (measured on our house system that monitors solar panels, we use eGauge, and tesla charger is on separate circuit) is around 80kWh or little bit more. So it seems to me that something doesn't quite add up here.

It is reasonable what you are saying that some kWh are spend when parked (we don't run Centry at home, but it is on at my wife's work), it just feels little bit too much. Of course, I can be totally wrong.

Does anyone know what is the actual max charge for this model? I unfertunatelly have no hystorical data, this is first time that I measured this, just out of curiosity.

Other then this, the car runs fine, and it has ~17kmiles on it. My wife loves it, and I enjoy driving, when she lets me! ) I hope I am not just opsessing here!

It’s not clear what your rated miles display is at 100%, which is missing from above (you say the range was 300 miles but that was presumably actually range on a continuous drive - lots of little trips totally invalidate this).

10 miles is 3%. So I assume you got it to 2%, not 1%. And I assume that 65kWh was measured on a single drive with minimal short stops in a single day. (Big assumption.)

So that would give:
65kWh/(0.99*0.955*0.98) = 70kWh.

This would yield about 70kWh/77.8kWh*353rmi = 318 rated miles at 100%.

The 80kWh is normal. Just divide the capacity by 0.9 or so if you use a high power charging circuit.

This model has either a 77.8kWh battery or 82.1kWh battery when new. You are right on the dividing line for when that changed. I’d guess you have the 77.8kWh just based on your stated data (with significant potentially invalidating assumptions).

Anyway you don’t need to do any driving to figure out where you are at. Just extrapolate the rated range to 100% from a 90% charge and you are good. It’s all you need. Then multiply that value by 77.8kWh/353rmi and you are done (doesn’t matter if you started with 82.1kWh battery in this case). Easy-peasy, rock solid result for the best estimate in the world of your battery’s capacity. There is literally nothing that comes closer (to two sig figs).

Or use the energy screen method, same thing.

 

[teslin_zemljak]

It’s not clear what your rated miles display is at 100%, which is missing from above (you say the range was 300 miles but that was presumably actually range on a continuous drive - lots of little trips totally invalidate this).

10 miles is 3%. So I assume you got it to 2%, not 1%. And I assume that 65kWh was measured on a single drive with minimal short stops in a single day. (Big assumption.)

So that would give:
65kWh/(0.99*0.955*0.98) = 70kWh.

This would yield about 70kWh/77.8kWh*353rmi = 318 rated miles at 100%.

The 80kWh is normal. Just divide the capacity by 0.9 or so if you use a high power charging circuit.

This model has either a 77.8kWh battery or 82.1kWh battery when new. You are right on the dividing line for when that changed. I’d guess you have the 77.8kWh just based on your stated data (with significant potentially invalidating assumptions).

Anyway you don’t need to do any driving to figure out where you are at. Just extrapolate the rated range to 100% from a 90% charge and you are good. It’s all you need. Then multiply that value by 77.8kWh/353rmi and you are done (doesn’t matter if you started with 82.1kWh battery in this case). Easy-peasy, rock solid result for the best estimate in the world of your battery’s capacity. There is literally nothing that comes closer (to two sig figs).

Or use the energy screen method, same thing.

Thanks, again! I appreaciate the time you took to answer.

Just to clarify - I wrote <10miles, and the miles since last charge was 300 flat. Now I remeber I took a picture of the scren after the drive (attached), so I got it down to 2 miles (on the screen), which is less then 1%. For the battery size, I am not sure where the 75kWh numbere is coming from. I think I've seen it online. But I am pretty sure you are right: I don't think it is 82kWh, because on that EPA sheet that car came with the range was ~320 or so (I could be wrong about this, I don't know where I put that sheet). The car is bought in March 2021, but I think it was earlied build.

I don't think that extrapolation method would be better then what I was doing, but it is certainly easier. I was only expecting that the recorded spent energy will be close to nominal batery capacity, and it is not.


Thanks anyway, Alan.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I was only expecting that the recorded spent energy will be close to nominal batery capacity, and it is not.

Definitely should not expect this unless it is a single continuous drive without stopping (will be within about 1% in that case usually). Doesn’t count any of the energy use while in Park!

Just use the methods (energy screen). They’re extremely robust and well proven, there is no question. Everything lines up great nearly always.

You can look up your original range on fueleconomy.gov. Probably 353 unless it is P (it is not based on the avatar) then it is 315.

 

[teslin_zemljak]

Definitely should not expect this unless it is a single continuous drive without stopping (will be within about 1% in that case usually). Doesn’t count any of the energy use while in Park!

Just use the methods (energy screen). They’re extremely robust and well proven, there is no question. Everything lines up great nearly always.

You can look up your original range on fueleconomy.gov. Probably 353 unless it is P (it is not based on the avatar) then it is 315.

No, it is just ordinary LR. Thanks Alan!

 

[JulienWA77]

rated range is a unit of energy, % is not.
When you start skimming to 0% its important to see how many RATED kms (i.e. energy) is left if the pack. if it decreases too quickly and starts undertaking how many kms you have left to your destination you have to slow down. It works reliably everytime when you hypermile between charging spots or outlets.

i would not rely on predicted range with changing winds and conditions etc.
I know this is a hard concept to grasp when you are in the USA and have superchargers and dc fast chargers left right and centre but this isnt the norm in other countries where EVs still occasionally have to drive at i.e. 80km/h to hypermile to make it between slow and midspeed chargers.

is it really THAT bad in Australia?

 

[Candleflame]

is it really THAT bad in Australia?

yap, many people still partially travel with AC charging at some older Model S' with their 22kw AC charger still rule.