Nearly 400lb In Weight Reduction Makes The SR/+ Super Efficient

[Celledral]

So I don’t really hypermile the car to an extent, but I do like to gun it every so often. I noticed on my Drive down to Orange County from LA, my wh/mi is only 173 with only moderate traffic and speeds up to 70+.

I’m quite surprised at just how efficient the SR/+ is with normal driving. Without accounting for my canyon run, which spiked my usage from 700-900wh/mi, the 1000miles that I put on the car would be around 180wh/mi or so.

 

[Dogtone]

What 400 pounds?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

So I don’t really hypermile the car to an extent, but I do like to gun it every so often. I noticed on my Drive down to Orange County from LA, my wh/mi is only 173 with only moderate traffic and speeds up to 70+.

I’m quite surprised at just how efficient the SR/+ is with normal driving. Without accounting for my canyon run, which spiked my usage from 700-900wh/mi, the 1000miles that I put on the car would be around 180wh/mi or so.
View attachment 421754

Would be nice to know the exact route. If coming from up by the 210 that is a significant downhill (over 500 feet). LA to OC is probably closer to 100-200 feet descent. Depends on the exact endpoints of course.

In any case, the SR+ seems super efficient. The weight reduction vs. the LR helps a bit for sure.

You are on pace for nearly 300-mile range, (215Wh/rmi)/(173Wh/mi)*240rmi. Without even entering the reserve energy.

Too bad Alex on Autos was only able to get 192 miles out of it. Bizarre.

 

[MrMassTransit]

The SR+ is definitely very efficient. However, I haven’t been able to get close to 170 at 70 MPH driving. 170 is very doable in my normal highway driving, though. I just made a 400 mile trip (one way, return is tomorrow) in my SR+. I was able to sustain 70-72 MPH at about 190-200 Wh/mi by following tractor trailers. Even though I wasn’t following too closely (2-3 on autopilot) I was amazed at the efficiency gains. I was averaging 240-250 Wh/mi when not behind a truck. On shorter trips I’m happy to keep my speed down in exchange for higher efficiency but for longer drives I’m definitely going to be following trucks to increase speed without taking an efficiency hit.

 

[Big Earl]

The SR+ is definitely very efficient. However, I haven’t been able to get close to 170 at 70 MPH driving. 170 is very doable in my normal highway driving, though. I just made a 400 mile trip (one way, return is tomorrow) in my SR+. I was able to sustain 70-72 MPH at about 190-200 Wh/mi by following tractor trailers. Even though I wasn’t following too closely (2-3 on autopilot) I was amazed at the efficiency gains. I was averaging 240-250 Wh/mi when not behind a truck. On shorter trips I’m happy to keep my speed down in exchange for higher efficiency but for longer drives I’m definitely going to be following trucks to increase speed without taking an efficiency hit.

I hope you have paint protection film on the front of your car. The efficiency increase is great, but the rock chips aren't.

 

[MagnusMako]

What 400 pounds?

I assume he's comparing the curb weight to the LR AWD version.

 

[VT_EE]

What 400 pounds?

That's what I was thinking too. Did the OP lose a lot of weight?

 

[COrocket]

I hope you have paint protection film on the front of your car. The efficiency increase is great, but the rock chips aren't.

And I’m sure truck drivers will love getting tailgated...really not the demographic you want to piss of when Tesla is trying to launch the Semi soon.

 

[lolder]

You don't have to tailgate trucks or other vehicles to get an effect. Level 1 or 2 TACC settings are good enough for 10-20% improvements. Many years ago automatic caravan driving was investigated where 2 or more cars traveled 10 ft. apart. All the vehicles in the caravan had a 30 % efficiency improvement. This technology has the potential for vastly improving the capacity of our highways, reducing travel time, reducing energy use and last but not least reducing accidents. Thirty years from now it will become rare for someone to be killed in a vehicle accident.

 

[Celledral]

Yes. I should of clarified the weight alluded to LR vs SR+ In the post. Going from West Covina to Torrance I managed 180-190 wh/mi back and forth. Maybe the weather is ripe for maximum battery efficiency. It’s about 70-80 here in LA.

 

[MrMassTransit]

And I’m sure truck drivers will love getting tailgated...really not the demographic you want to piss of when Tesla is trying to launch the Semi soon.

Yeah, I’m not tailgating trucks my any means. I’m keeping a very healthy following distance, for safety as much as anything else. That’s what surprised me about how much of an impact that it had. I figured one would have to be pretty close to have a notable efficiency impact but that doesn’t seem to be the case.

I used to be a CDL-B holder (drove a bus) so I’m very respectful of big vehicles on the road.

 

[VT_EE]

Yeah, I’m not tailgating trucks my any means. I’m keeping a very healthy following distance, for safety as much as anything else. That’s what surprised me about how much of an impact that it had. I figured one would have to be pretty close to have a notable efficiency impact but that doesn’t seem to be the case.

I used to be a CDL-B holder (drove a bus) so I’m very respectful of big vehicles on the road.

I’ve done this too. Set Autopilot’s following distance to 1 while following a truck at 75mph, and you will experience a drastic reduction in energy usage. I was shocked.

 

[Imlkrsfn]

In my experience it's extremely inefficient in freeway driving. I used to drive 75-80 in my Prius and still get good mileage. Now I have to go 70-75 in my model 3. Alex on autos range video is accurate. It matches up with the numbers I'm seeing.

The biggest disappointment in owning a Tesla is the misleading range. 240 miles of range is nearly impossible unless I baby the car which gets tiring fast.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

In my experience it's extremely inefficient in freeway driving. I used to drive 75-80 in my Prius and still get good mileage. Now I have to go 70-75 in my model 3. Alex on autos range video is accurate. It matches up with the numbers I'm seeing.

Can you post some representative pictures of your results? I saw a post of someone in an SR+ doing mostly 78mph on a level drive with minimal traffic, and they were on target for about 207 miles. It was at 6000 feet so the thin air may have helped. To me that seemed pretty good. But it does not align with Alex on Autos’ result since he was generally going slower than 78mph! Different elevation though. Remember he reported 192 miles - that is REALLY low - implies 268Wh/mi consumption.

FWIW Alex did a follow up with crowdsourced data which came in at an average of 238Wh/mi (4.2mi/kWh). He says this means 210 miles of range (he inexplicably insists that battery is 50kWh ), but I calculated 215Wh/rmi / 238Wh/mi * 240 rmi = 217 miles without entering the battery reserve. The 215Wh/rmi constant is calculated from the video of the Colorado driver, who was nice enough to take video of the necessary information to calculate the constant. Somehow Alex on Autos uses this “210 mile average” to claim that his 192-mile range result is “accurate”. Clearly the range is less than some other vehicles, but claiming 192 miles is reasonable for a summer range test given the user data he gathered makes no sense. Of course there is variation and conditions impact range, but I think the relevant question here is whether the comparison to other vehicles really was done correctly, under the same conditions. I have my doubts.

With pictures of real world efficiency (with details on conditions and the specific route), like Alex gathered, maybe we could get a better idea of how people are actually doing.

I would expect at 70-75 without traffic you’d be in the 210-220 mile range. With traffic that could easily extend quite a bit.

 

[VT_EE]

Can you post some representative pictures of your results? I saw a post of someone in an SR+ doing mostly 78mph on a level drive with minimal traffic, and they were on target for about 207 miles. It was at 6000 feet so the thin air may have helped. To me that seemed pretty good. But it does not align with Alex on Autos’ result since he was generally going slower than 78mph! Different elevation though. Remember he reported 192 miles - that is REALLY low - implies 268Wh/mi consumption.

FWIW Alex did a follow up with crowdsourced data which came in at an average of 238Wh/mi (4.2mi/kWh). He says this means 210 miles of range (he inexplicably insists that battery is 50kWh ), but I calculated 215Wh/rmi / 238Wh/mi * 240 rmi = 217 miles without entering the battery reserve. The 215Wh/rmi constant is calculated from the video of the Colorado driver, who was nice enough to take video of the necessary information to calculate the constant. Somehow Alex on Autos uses this “210 mile average” to claim that his 192-mile range result is “accurate”. Clearly the range is less than some other vehicles, but claiming 192 miles is reasonable for a summer range test given the user data he gathered makes no sense. Of course there is variation and conditions impact range, but I think the relevant question here is whether the comparison to other vehicles really was done correctly, under the same conditions. I have my doubts.

With pictures of real world efficiency (with details on conditions and the specific route), like Alex gathered, maybe we could get a better idea of how people are actually doing.

I would expect at 70-75 without traffic you’d be in the 210-220 mile range. With traffic that could easily extend quite a bit.

Getting the same conditions is tough especially with regard to wind. Head or tail winds with really skew the data.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Getting the same conditions is tough especially with regard to wind. Head or tail winds with really skew the data.

Yeah, that is why the lifetime data on Wh/mi is important. Which he gathered...and it contradicted his data...of course, it is not a statistically valid sample. But still...