-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Model S only 222 miles of range?
- Thread starter dewittbo
- Start date
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
They drove 100 miles at a steady 75 mph on a banked track, then extrapolated the observed consumption to estimate total range.
There are a lot of potential problems with this method but the main things to consider are:
First, this is far from a “EPA test” but rather meant to mimic real world freeway driving and thus observed range will be lower.
Second, they were testing a performance model which has lower efficiency and EPA rating (348 miles)than the LR you’re quoting is now 390 (was 373).
There are a lot of potential problems with this method but the main things to consider are:
First, this is far from a “EPA test” but rather meant to mimic real world freeway driving and thus observed range will be lower.
Second, they were testing a performance model which has lower efficiency and EPA rating (348 miles)than the LR you’re quoting is now 390 (was 373).
tonybelding
Active Member
As a general rule (with most EVs, not only Tesla), you can get very close to EPA range by driving at 60 MPH, or you can get about ⅔ of EPA range by driving at 75 MPH. That’s just the laws of aerodynamics at work. Car & Driver conducted their test at 75 MPH. If you figure 373 miles × ⅔ then you get 248 miles expected range. However, based on the photos with the article, it looks like the Tesla had 21-inch wheels, which lose some efficiency compared with the standard 19-inch wheels and tires that the EPA rating is based on. So, that should get somewhat less than 248.
As a result, their range results with that car were almost exactly in line with my expectations.
The only mystery is what’s going on with the Taycan and its EPA range.
I should also mention that the new European WLTP standard is probably a lot more dependable and well-grounded than EPA. WLTP does notoriously skew range numbers high, but you can easily correct for that, and it provides a better basis for comparing any two different vehicles, IMHO.
EDIT: Then I noticed that they actually tested a Model S Performance rather than Long Range, which actually makes the Tesla results look even better than I expected. However, I suspect the EPA rating also exaggerates the range penalty of the Performance car, so that’s another possible explanation.
Last edited:
How long did they drive? "Extrapolating" exploits Tesla's BMS tendency to condition battery at the start of a drive, trading lower efficiency now for better efficiency later and longer battery lifetime. I get deplorable efficiency if I drive under 3 miles and extrapolating range from a short trip would give me something like 100 miles per full battery
I drive at 77mph and only during rain or winter cold do I fail to get rated (or exceed it).
Something is wrong if you get 2/3 range at 75mph.
Something is wrong if you get 2/3 range at 75mph.
AMPd
Well-Known Member
I’m gonna have to call BS on this. No way are you getting rated range at 77 mph
Tesomega
Member
It's not hard on road trips, particularly during good weather.
You can believe what you want.
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
tonybelding
Active Member
Another issue with this test is regen… The Taycan reputedly has much less aggressive regen than the Model S. But if you are running a steady speed on a closed course, then there is no braking, there is no regen on either car. It just underscores how pointless the C&D test was, if you were looking for anything applicable to real-world driving.
Just different type of testing scenarios. Motor Trend demonstrated last year that they could get approximately 400 miles of range driving from SF to LA in a Long Range Raven S (373 rated).
I am more shocked at how well the Taycan did in Car and Driver's test. They should have ran the batteries all the way down rather than extrapolate the numbers. Oh well.
I am more shocked at how well the Taycan did in Car and Driver's test. They should have ran the batteries all the way down rather than extrapolate the numbers. Oh well.
A lot depends on the road, conditions, and driver, but I typically get rated range at 75mph. Doubt the extra 2 is making that totally impossible.
Ah, the more I hear about this, the more it makes sense. Run the car cold-soaked in 55 degree weather, and run it for only 100 miles and extrapolate the rest. All kinds of issues with this type of testing. Look to Bjorn’s testing of the EQC to see how that can also skew in the opposite direction.
Interesting replies. I was primarily asking this because it seems that by publishing this 'data' in a respected automotive magazine, the publishers are being somewhat irresponsible in downplaying the capabilities of the Tesla S brand compared to the Taycan, making it seem like there isn't really much difference in the range of the two cars, despite what Tesla claims. It seems like Car & Driver is claiming that if you took the S out on the highway, you could only really get less than 2/3 the mileage that Musk claims. Call me biased, but it just seems like more Tesla-bashing to me....
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
Consider the bias of the “respected” publication you reference. C&D has much more interest in keeping Porsche happy. They regularly pretend Tesla doesn’t exist when it suits them.
Then he needs to average it going both ways, can't just post best scenario cases. I was on the freeway today, flat ground, pleasant 65 degree weather and was getting 250 Wh/m at a steady 65 MPH -- matching EPA efficiency. No way I could get that while doing another 10-12 MPH.
I actually believe that you believe your car does, but unfortunately I don't believe your math is correct.
