New model y range issues

[Reisinger]

I just got my Model Y on December 26. My first trip out of town, Sarasota to Disney. 90 miles all interstate. Driving 90 miles and it drained 50% of my battery. Is something wrong? Should I take in to be looked at?

 

[ajstan]

nope. there’s no free lunch. just misunderstood data.

I'm not sure what strawman you've created in your mind to argue against, but your reply has nothing to do with my post. Never said anything about "free".

 

[jjrandorin]

A note for anyone following along....

It appears the OP of this thread posted, then logged off and never logged back in, so this post seems to be one of those designed, for lack of a better term to "get conversation going" on a topic.

If you actually are interfacing with a website, you dont join on friday at 7:08pm, then post a new thread, then log off, and never log back in to even see if there are responses.

 

[advocate8]

I'm not sure what strawman you've created in your mind to argue against, but your reply has nothing to do with my post. Never said anything about "free".

Those things are nice, and worth maybe 5mpg. They aren’t going to make the car 50 percent more efficient than an M3 at 80-90mph. That’s my point. Our two Priuses, one Honda HRV and one Honda Fit were set up that way. And that is about what those two things are worth in mpg from deep, deep experience.

 

[thesmokingman]

A note for anyone following along....

It appears the OP of this thread posted, then logged off and never logged back in, so this post seems to be one of those designed, for lack of a better term to "get conversation going" on a topic.

View attachment 754634

If you actually are interfacing with a website, you dont join on friday at 7:08pm, then post a new thread, then log off, and never log back in to even see if there are responses.

This happens quite often from what I've seen.

 

[jjrandorin]

This happens quite often from what I've seen.

its pretty normal on a website this large for this to happen, especially on hot button issues. Its usually either someone creating a sockpuppet account, or a driveby posting.

With that being said, the topic itself is one that is covered a lot here (a lot lot lot), and one that people love to give "feedback" on. I see it in the model 3 subforum as well, but because I put all battery / range posts ("I dont get rated range" / "I drove 30 miles but 40 came off the car", "My battery only shows 290 instead of 305", etc) into one thread, people can search that thread for answers and the topic doesnt overwhelm the subforum.

 

[alexgr]

If you want to go further then flip on the "enegy" panel and make your changes to your driving against that. Make your adjustments against the "instant" or "average" WH/mile (or per KM). That display gives you the estimated range remaining in the battery and won't you get the same satisfaction out of making that number go as high as possible?

The reason I advocate for removing the EPA range from the UI is because people see the number when they get in and think they can actually travel that distance. It comes up over and over on the forums "I have a defective battery - I can't go 525Km like the display says"

I got that. Ford did the opposite to Tesla in their Mach-E. Instead of displaying some rated range, the car displays the range guessed based on the outside conditions and driving habits. I, and many actual Mach-E owners find this approach problematic. First, the car does not know if you are going to drive on a highway at 140 km/h for the next 2 hours, or sit in the city traffic moving at 40 km/h average speed. Second, without rated range the Mach-E owners have absolutely no clue if anything is wrong with the battery or if there is a significant capacity loss (which will be important in a few years). Right now you can see on Mach-E forums a stream of new posts "my car only displays XX miles of range, but it is XXX miles EPA range; what is wrong with my car?"

What is your solution?

 

[jjrandorin]

I got that. Ford did the opposite to Tesla in their Mach-E. Instead of displaying some rated range, the car displays the range guessed based on the outside conditions and driving habits. I, and many actual Mach-E owners find this approach problematic. First, the car does not know if you are going to drive on a highway at 140 km/h for the next 2 hours, or sit in the city traffic moving at 40 km/h average speed. Second, without rated range the Mach-E owners have absolutely no clue if anything is wrong with the battery or if there is a significant capacity loss (which will be important in a few years). Right now you can see on Mach-E forums a stream of new posts "my car only displays XX miles of range, but it is XXX miles EPA range; what is wrong with my car?"

What is your solution?

The solution is for the regulatory bodies to develop a better test, that the manufacturers then have to adhere to.

I dont fault any manufacturer for displaying the range the tests indicate, I fault the tests for not being designed in such a way as to simulate actual real driving for "most people".

The point on this topic I tend to agree with the people who are complaining about it on, is that the EPA tests (or WLTP) do not reflect "real" driving for "most". Where I tend to disagree with them, though, is directing all that ire at the manufacturers of the cars. People need to fight for the test to be changed, not yell at the manufacturer of the car for using the tests given to them.

 

[alexgr]

The solution is for the regulatory bodies to develop a better test, that the manufacturers then have to adhere to.

I dont fault any manufacturer for displaying the range the tests indicate, I fault the tests for not being designed in such a way as to simulate actual real driving for "most people".

The point on this topic I tend to agree with the people who are complaining about it on, is that the EPA tests (or WLTP) do not reflect "real" driving for "most". Where I tend to disagree with them, though, is directing all that ire at the manufacturers of the cars. People need to fight for the test to be changed, not yell at the manufacturer of the car for using the tests given to them.

You know that "most people", "average Joe", etc. constructs don't work well, especially here in the US. The EPA range is already giving one of the shortest ranges out of the cycles used around the globe. I thought that the idea of the range figure is to inform the drivers about the maximum achievable range under reasonable conditions. I understand that you are for revising what is "reasonable" for the EPA test. I'd argue that driving 90 mph in a 70 mpg zone is NOT a reasonable expectation of a driver that I consider reasonable, but I know that even Sandy Munro may disagree with this. I understand that on average a US driver is an uneducated brainless jerk. And here comes an ethical/safety question: should we set our standards based on uneducated brainless jerks or on the conditions that are scientifically demosnstrated to be reasonable for safety and economy (which may very well be not the current EPA conditions)?

 

[damonbrodie]

I got that. Ford did the opposite to Tesla in their Mach-E. Instead of displaying some rated range, the car displays the range guessed based on the outside conditions and driving habits. I, and many actual Mach-E owners find this approach problematic. First, the car does not know if you are going to drive on a highway at 140 km/h for the next 2 hours, or sit in the city traffic moving at 40 km/h average speed. Second, without rated range the Mach-E owners have absolutely no clue if anything is wrong with the battery or if there is a significant capacity loss (which will be important in a few years). Right now you can see on Mach-E forums a stream of new posts "my car only displays XX miles of range, but it is XXX miles EPA range; what is wrong with my car?"

What is your solution?

The built in navigation in the Tesla is a great solution. If I'm thinking about range (i.e on a roadtrip) I set the navigation to my final destination. The car will estimate (and continuously update) the estimated battery level when you reach the destination (or next charging stop). The car maintains the wh/km (or wh/mile) and adjusts the estimated battery remaining upon reaching the destination. Watching this number as you drive along you can make changes in your comfort/speed/etc to make sure you have enough range to get to your destination. This estimate is currently buried in the navigation summary, and Tesla should make it more visible/promote it to the main screen.

Other than navigating the best estimate to range is in the "energy" tab. Its using current wh/km usage to determine the estimated range remaining. This is ALWAYS going to be a better guess than the EPA rated range formulas which are static. And they will be continuously updated as you keep driving.

 

[damonbrodie]

You know that "most people", "average Joe", etc. constructs don't work well, especially here in the US. The EPA range is already giving one of the shortest ranges out of the cycles used around the globe. I thought that the idea of the range figure is to inform the drivers about the maximum achievable range under reasonable conditions. I understand that you are for revising what is "reasonable" for the EPA test. I'd argue that driving 90 mph in a 70 mpg zone is NOT a reasonable expectation of a driver that I consider reasonable, but I know that even Sandy Munro may disagree with this. I understand that on average a US driver is an uneducated brainless jerk. And here comes an ethical/safety question: should we set our standards based on uneducated brainless jerks or on the conditions that are scientifically demosnstrated to be reasonable for safety and economy (which may very well be not the current EPA conditions)?

To me the purpose of a nation's testing for range (say EPA) should only be used in the car buying stage. Comparing car A vs. car B. That value has very little to do with how far you are going to get TODAY in your car where conditions like:

• # occupants
• towing
• cargo
• temperature
• cabin HVAC
• headwinds
• elevation changes
• dry/wet roads

and more will impact your range so much so that any comparison to the RATED RANGE of the vehicle is a trap that will only lead to confusion, and possibly a stranded driver.

 

[EmbersDC]

A note for anyone following along....

It appears the OP of this thread posted, then logged off and never logged back in, so this post seems to be one of those designed, for lack of a better term to "get conversation going" on a topic.

View attachment 754634

If you actually are interfacing with a website, you dont join on friday at 7:08pm, then post a new thread, then log off, and never log back in to even see if there are responses.

In other words - troll. That said, may be better off locking the thread.

 

[jjrandorin]

In other words - troll. That said, may be better off locking the thread.

That would be up to a moderator for the model Y subforum (I moderate model 3 and tesla energy). With that being said, as I mentioned a few posts ago, this is a topic that a lot (lot lot lot) of people like to comment on and from a moderation perspective there isnt anything wrong with the OPs post.

If this were in model 3, I wouldnt lock it, though, but as I said its up to a mod for this subforum. TMC is very large and moderation is broken up amongst quite a few different people.

 

[alexgr]

In other words - troll. That said, may be better off locking the thread.

Not necessarily so. It was just a few days back, OP may return. Then, the topic is important and can live its own life without the OP. That said, this is just yet another "Range Discussion" topic out of last 1001 identical topics...

 

[alexgr]

TMC is very large and moderation is broken up amongst quite a few different people.

I noticed that we may even find subcommunities on TMC with very different opinions on Tesla, range, FSD, etc. I remember when I posted something in a subforum that I hadn't visited much before, and I've got a Ford fanboy-ish reaction to my big surprise.

That said, I guess this topic would better be moved to Model Y charging/range.

 

[kindofblue]

I got that. Ford did the opposite to Tesla in their Mach-E. Instead of displaying some rated range, the car displays the range guessed based on the outside conditions and driving habits. I, and many actual Mach-E owners find this approach problematic. First, the car does not know if you are going to drive on a highway at 140 km/h for the next 2 hours, or sit in the city traffic moving at 40 km/h average speed. Second, without rated range the Mach-E owners have absolutely no clue if anything is wrong with the battery or if there is a significant capacity loss (which will be important in a few years). Right now you can see on Mach-E forums a stream of new posts "my car only displays XX miles of range, but it is XXX miles EPA range; what is wrong with my car?"

What is your solution?

The range displayed on the Mach e is referred to at the GOM (guess-o-meter).

 

[dino007]

This is one of those never ending things but tbh from what i gather i bet if the actual real world range of Ev was 300+ actual(can't wait for this to happen so i stop seeing the same threads every week) then the average joe probably wouldn't bat an eye as much of this

i just wish there was a way to drive thru the thought that if a 2018 accord or camry or w.e had the efficiency of an EV their Ice would get 900 miles on a full tanks instead of 350ish etc or w.e

 

[Gadmandu]

Just got a Model Y performance a week ago and tried for a quick state park camping trip. Two super chargers on the way. The gap between the first supercharger and second was 155 miles. Charged to 80% at the first and it said I was good to go and would arrive at the next with 30% battery. Had to turn around because 50 miles in it said we wouldn’t make it. Driving 75 on clear easy rural highway.

If that is “how it’s supposed to work” then unfortunately the car won’t work for me and I’ll have to sell it.

 

[damonbrodie]

Just got a Model Y performance a week ago and tried for a quick state park camping trip. Two super chargers on the way. The gap between the first supercharger and second was 155 miles. Charged to 80% at the first and it said I was good to go and would arrive at the next with 30% battery. Had to turn around because 50 miles in it said we wouldn’t make it. Driving 75 on clear easy rural highway.

If that is “how it’s supposed to work” then unfortunately the car won’t work for me and I’ll have to sell it.

Trailer? Roof Racks with luggage box? We're missing some details here when you say 155 miles between super chargers and not enough range.

 

[Gadmandu]

Trailer? Roof Racks with luggage box? We're missing some details here when you say 155 miles between super chargers and not enough range.

No trailer, nothing on top, pretty light packing. Normal driving conditions - the only thing could be that it’s 100F here in Texas and we didn’t want to die so our AC was at 74 - not unreasonable. What’s the point of a Nav that recommends charging stops if it can’t remotely project a realistic outcome?

Again - maybe it can be rationalized that this is “how it’s supposed to work” - but then the Nav is trash, the projections are unreliable, and the car isn’t remotely worth its price tag.

Hopefully when they inspect it at the service center next week they don’t dick me around.

 

[ucmndd]

Hopefully when they inspect it at the service center next week they don’t dick me around.

If you’re taking it in solely for this “issue” you are 100% wasting your time.

The only data point that matters here hasn’t been provided. What was your wh/mi consumption on this trip?