There is a SC in Mauston??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? How about some photos???
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
There is a SC in Mauston??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? How about some photos???
ChadS
Last tank of gas: March 2009
37 degrees will probably consume about 12% more energy than 77 degrees - see THIS thread for details. If you start with 251 miles, that means you lose about 30 miles to the temperature. If you get there with 30 miles to spare at 77 degrees...yeah, that's going to be a close call. Going 75 takes off 26% of your range, so slowing down to 60 would give you a decent buffer. If you plan an as-needed charging stop 30 miles before Normal; then you won't have to slow down or turn down the HVAC. That will leave more buffer for rain, winds, etc as well.
You said temperatures were in the mid-teens on the way home. That will consume 25% of your energy, taking over 60 miles off your range (assuming you were using the HVAC normally - you can save about 40 of those miles by not using cabin HVAC).
You said temperatures were in the mid-teens on the way home. That will consume 25% of your energy, taking over 60 miles off your range (assuming you were using the HVAC normally - you can save about 40 of those miles by not using cabin HVAC).
Last edited:
SCW-Greg
Active Member
^ I love Chad. 
His early road/mileage research has proven invaluable in calculating real world range estimates for me. Thinking about elevation change, and these references above as well.
Thanks!
His early road/mileage research has proven invaluable in calculating real world range estimates for me. Thinking about elevation change, and these references above as well.
Thanks!
Speaking of which...^ I love Chad.
Chad, have you considered writing a phone app or working with someone to do so? Or perhaps chatted up Tesla to make sure that their new firmware navigation work has enough knobs so that people like you can set it to make your real-world experience rather than limiting us to EPA and Fantasy (I mean, Imaginary, I mean "Ideal") estimates?
purplewalt
Active Member
islandbayy has actually posted a video about his sleuthing in Mauston.
Many, many images to review and absorb.
It is also listed on the Supercharger Progress Wiki page.
Don't sleep or even take a nap, things are happening on many fronts!
kevincwelch
Active Member
Could someone point me to the thread/post/website that shows evidence that the lowering of the car makes a significant difference and the relationship among height, temperature and range (vis-a-vis kWh)?
ChadS
Last tank of gas: March 2009
Thanks Greg; I got your flowers.
- - - Updated - - -
I have given more than one Tesla employee detailed feedback, but communication with Tesla is sort of a one-way street. I believe they are working on upgrading the nav system to take some environmental considerations in to account, but of course I have no idea when it will be available or what will be included.
I did think about writing an app, but others were already working on it and I didn't want to duplicate things. I haven't looked in a while because I really have been happy with the charge-to-150%-of-your-next-destination rule, but last time I checked around Cliff Hannel's project looked very promising.
- - - Updated - - -
I have never seen any evidence for this. I think the only thing we have is Tesla's marketing materials, which when describing the active suspension says "as Model S accelerates, it lowers the vehicle for optimized aerodynamics and increased range." I doubt the effect is very large, though I am sure it does "help" a little.
I'm not sure anyone other than Tesla has done the analysis. The problem is that it's subtle so to get a reasonably accurate measure, at a minimum, two identical 5.6 cars would be required. The plan would be to do two runs then upgrade both cars to 5.8 and do two more runs. The reason that you do two runs is that each car needs to take the lead once during each pair of runs to reduce the aerodynamic advantage and the yoyo disadvantage the following car has. Even that might not be totally accurate because of other differences between the firmware versions. More sets of runs at various speeds would give you an even better handle.
I would expect a significant difference at speeds above 70 mph.
SCW-Greg
Active Member
Let me just throw it out there... Can you imagine if google maps, or the like, was also terrain aware?!
I'm sure they're working on it. Combine that with weather conditions (wind speed/direction, temp, and rain), would be the ultimate in range calculation. Likely only a year or two way.
purplewalt
Active Member
Liz,
Glad to hear you made it home.
When driving great distances out in the Wild, I typically try to keep about 30 miles (minimum) of range as my buffer.
IF I know I am NOT keeping my adequate buffer, and I am in cruise control, I adjust my speed down a click or two on the lever.
Voila, was cruising at 60 MPH, now at 58 MPH.
(If conditions are really bad, might take it to 55 MPH.)
It may seem to not be a bunch, but those extra (precious!) kWh saved = additional range = less range anxiety.
Should you feel traffic is bottling up behind you, maybe you take a break off the road, and then re-continue your journey, or touch your throttle pedal for just a bit to ease out of it.
When you have full access to Supercharger Network, this driving strategy probably won't be (as) necessary.
Until then, you gotta be able to adjust to weather, temperature, terrain, and other conditions in order to arrive, with a little buffer in your pack.
Good luck with your Service Center visit and resolution for your window.
kevincwelch
Active Member
I understand the scientific method.
My point is that there are people up in arms about 5.8 and petitions to roll back, etc. without any real data to show that lowering the car makes any significant difference when all the plethora of variables come into play.
Show me the data...
@kevincwelch: Here's the data. They took away something from my car. Something I paid for. Something Elon called the "coolest thing about the car". They did so without my permission or knowledge. They did so in an underhanded manner that I find sneaky and despicable. I am a little concerned about the performance drain, but more so about the manner in which it was performed. They promise they will return functionality in January, but were I a betting man I would put odds on it not being returned to the same level as previously. They may "make it better" by making it user definable. GREAT! But why break it in the first place? What purpose was served? Their updates previously have been upgrades (or at least intended as such). This was a purposeful downgrade and the only reason for it seems to be to appease the press.
I think this particular thread is about the impact of cold weather on the car...not the debate on the 5.8 software
....let's keep this thread on point Show me the data that it does not.
- - - Updated - - -
I saw his video on Madison, where is it for Mauston?
kevincwelch
Active Member
Woah.
Settle down, there. This is a debate about the effect the car lowering has on energy consumption and range.
God forbid Tesla do something temporary until they figure out what is going on or - gasp - save a life in the process.
People are making claims without evidence that removing the low suspension is adversely affecting performance. No data to support that. This is where the debate started.
No data support the contrary either, but people here started the argument after the mechanism to lower the car was removed.
Last edited:
It might be coincidence, but i experienced a drastic increase in consumption as of the beginning of early winter/and update to 5.8. Before update to 5.8 my average consumption was 200-220 Wh/km. Now with 5.8 and temperatures around 35-40F (0-5°C) i can't get any lower than 300Wh/km. Is this normal ? Anybody experiencing the same ? I have all the energy-saving features on.
kevincwelch
Active Member
This is what I experienced last winter: average consumption in the 450 range and in the summer around 375. I keep the cabin at 68 as much as possible; that's where I am most comfortable. I have 3500 miles on the car in 10 months since my route is always the same.
Now that it's 20 degreed again, consumption is back up to the 450 range. Before 5.8 and after 5.8.
I use no energy saving features and preheat/precool the cabin.
The cold weather is the biggest drain in my experience.
Now that it's 20 degreed again, consumption is back up to the 450 range. Before 5.8 and after 5.8.
I use no energy saving features and preheat/precool the cabin.
The cold weather is the biggest drain in my experience.
I'm with Brianman, but it's just a gut feel. It's impossible for me to sort out all the variables, because a week ago I put new snow tires on my S, updated to 5.8, and watched the temperatures plummet from 60 F. to 15 F., all at about the same time.
What I do know is that at the end of last winter my car had a lifetime average of 338 Wh/mi on OEM 19" Goodyears; between about May 1 and November 10, I averaged 282 Wh/mi on the same tires. Since putting on the Michelin Xi3 snows nine days ago, I've averaged 343 Wh/mi.
What I do know is that at the end of last winter my car had a lifetime average of 338 Wh/mi on OEM 19" Goodyears; between about May 1 and November 10, I averaged 282 Wh/mi on the same tires. Since putting on the Michelin Xi3 snows nine days ago, I've averaged 343 Wh/mi.
Similar threads
