Performance not getting 310 miles promised

[AlanSubie4Life]

So I believe the rated range is achievable. The EPA highway average speed is 48mph and maxing out at 60.

Good to know. Did not realize the highway test cycle was that low an average speed.

I still don’t think we’ll see any reports of greater than 290-mile range achieved on a single charge though (with PS4S, no elevation loss), unless the average speed is lower than 48mph. Guess we’ll see! Someone should post it here if they do it! Pictures or it didn’t happen.

 

[Paddy3101]

I still don’t think we’ll see any reports of greater than 290-mile range achieved on a single charge though (with PS4S, no elevation loss), unless the average speed is lower than 48mph. Guess we’ll see! Someone should post it here if they do it! Pictures or it didn’t happen.

That sounds like an interesting challenge, at least to see how close. Need to do a loop, with convenient chargers not too far apart, and should take about 4.5 hours.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

That sounds like an interesting challenge, at least to see how close. Need to do a loop, with convenient chargers not too far apart, and should take about 4.5 hours.

Ha! I certainly don't have the patience for it ,but if you choose to accept the "challenge," you can't recharge! That would invalidate the experiment since BMS estimation may be non-linear (just like gas gauges). Just have to make sure your loop is carefully calibrated so you don't accidentally get stuck. Need to have a backup charging plan 20-30 miles from the destination/start point, I would say.

If you do:
1) Set a trip meter (so you can see the time it takes). Picture of this.
2) Picture of starting state of charge and ending state of charge.
3) Picture of the stats from "since last charge".
4) Picture of the stats from "since starting drive" if relevant.

If any ambiguity would still be present, I would take pictures to eliminate as necessary.

I personally would plan to log the route on an external GPS device (like a phone running Gaia GPS or something) so I could log average & min/max speed and elevation profile, and time spent. (Output could be a GPX file, and/or just a screen shot with the data, if location privacy is a concern.)

Towing (of the Tesla) is not allowed.

 

[mswlogo]

So I believe the rated range is achievable. The EPA highway average speed is 48mph and maxing out at 60. The City section averages at 20mph. So the 41.4 mph average is somewhat comparable to the EPA average speed.

Gosh if I did that, I'd hit 200 wh/mi. (P3D with 19" OEM Wheels [not OEM tires])

If I recall EPA used to add a load to ICE cars for mpg. Like 4 Passengers.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Gosh if I did that, I'd hit 200 wh/mi. (P3D with 19" OEM Wheels [not OEM tires])

If I recall EPA used to add a load to ICE cars for mpg. Like 4 Passengers.

Yes. The EPA test is conducted with 300 pounds of weight, with loaded vehicle weight of 4399 pounds. I guess I should have specified that but I doubt it will make much difference for this sort of highway test.

Another EDIT: 4500 pounds. It appears. (So about 400 pounds of weight.) Lots of numbers, sorry. It sounds like it is a guess? Which is odd. But anyway, very clearly loaded.

EDIT:

Curb Weight, 33%, lbs 4099
Loaded Vehicle Weight 4399
ETW or Test Weight, lbs 4500 (4376 ‐4625)

 

[GolanB]

I'm using a C2 device, plugged into my debug port on the model 3, and I've been monitoring my consumption over the seasons. This is influenced by two main issues in my case:

The weather, and therefore the use of HVAC, AND the tires I have mounted (factory installed 20 inch summer performance, and winter 18 inch tires I bought aftermarket).

While driving to and from work, I generally keep my acceleration and braking roughly within range (This is also monitored). I drive approximately 32 miles per day, and with an average speed of 12 mph (I know, its terrible - but thats life in the city).

For the month of :

- March: 304.3 Wh/mi (Winter Tires, moderate use of heat)
- April: 238.8 Wh/mi (Winter Tires, minimal use of heat)
- May: 386.8 Wh/mi (Summer Tires, mix moderate use of HVAC)

My lowest registered in a drive over 5 miles was just around 185 Wh/mi, but that was so rare I captured it in an image.

 

[Paddy3101]

And the reverse trip, slightly faster, including parking in my garage etc. run,Type Clear this and take pic. trying to reduce consumption, but road was clearer. Was at 45 mins when I stopped.

207 Wh/mi

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

And the reverse trip, slightly faster, including parking in my garage etc. run,Type Clear this and take pic. trying to reduce consumption, but road was clearer. Was at 45 mins when I stopped.

207 Wh/mi

That is incredibly good. Presumably it was slightly downhill, you’d have to check the elevation and see if there is a few hundred feet difference. Can’t explain how else it would be considerably better.

Impressive anyway since it means a roundtrip of about 230Wh/mi in a P3D+ with stock tires roundtrip. I assume HVAC was off or minimal.

Maybe everything will be awesome for my trip tomorrow! Conditions seem like they will be ideal. No need for HVAC.

 

[Paddy3101]

Ha! I certainly don't have the patience for it ,but if you choose to accept the "challenge," you can't recharge! That would invalidate the experiment since BMS estimation may be non-linear (just like gas gauges). Just have to make sure your loop is carefully calibrated so you don't accidentally get stuck. Need to have a backup charging plan 20-30 miles from the destination/start point, I would say.

If you do:
1) Set a trip meter (so you can see the time it takes). Picture of this.
2) Picture of starting state of charge and ending state of charge.
3) Picture of the stats from "since last charge".
4) Picture of the stats from "since starting drive" if relevant.

If any ambiguity would still be present, I would take pictures to eliminate as necessary.

I personally would plan to log the route on an external GPS device (like a phone running Gaia GPS or something) so I could log average & min/max speed and elevation profile, and time spent. (Output could be a GPX file, and/or just a screen shot with the data, if location privacy is a concern.)

Towing (of the Tesla) is not allowed.

Thought about a loop of 78,15,8,805,5 which is about 74.3 miles per loop. 4 loops is 297.2 miles + a few local miles close to a charger.
4 Superchargers on (or just off) the loop, and 2 other charging opportunities with some easy diverts to cut it short.

Start at a supercharger, and aim to finish at the same place. (4 loops + some local loops). Last loop, set the destination as the end Supercharger, and car should tell me if I need to divert.

Will probably capture data on TeslaFI, and export that. Also capture route on Phone app as a backup.
Take picture of car, show got standard 20" wheels/tires, and tire pressure.
Aim to do it at a sensible speed (average approx 60mph over 5hrs). Will need to do it one evening, so the roads are clear.
Music will be on, HVAC will be on auto(but weather is mild, so probably not doing much), Lights will be on. Pick a day it's not raining.
Just need to plan the time.

 

[Paddy3101]

That is incredibly good. Presumably it was slightly downhill, you’d have to check the elevation and see if there is a few hundred feet difference. Can’t explain how else it would be considerably better.

Impressive anyway since it means a roundtrip of about 230Wh/mi in a P3D+ with stock tires roundtrip. I assume HVAC was off or minimal.

Maybe everything will be awesome for my trip tomorrow! Conditions seem like they will be ideal. No need for HVAC.

HVAC on auto, but set to outside temp. Elevation change is -96ft on way back (according to old teslafi log).
On the way back I drove manually, rather than handing it over to NoA for 30miles. Also traffic was mostly clear, so no start/stop/accelerate/brake

 

[Jedi2155]

In order to get the EPA value, you would need to drive for at least 6 miles past “zero”, because that is what they do in the EPA test. They drive until it is unable to comply with the test. So that is part of the discrepancy.

Otherwise, In the EPA test they put current clamps in 3 places (though not sure more than one is necessary). For the in-car meter, it’s actually pretty hard to measure current; I don’t think they use a current clamp though I could be wrong. Not sure exactly how they come up with the number, but I suspect the meter is part of the BMS system, so in the end it’s an estimate. Maybe someone more knowledgeable here could comment. Of course, it does not include any losses when in park, or vampire losses, so that is another source of error.

From Ingineerix video there was 3 different SOC gauges within the CAN (displayed SOC, min SOC, max SOC, and actual SOC). In regards to measurement, they could be using a DC shunt to measure current for the battery energy calculation. Clamp meters are more common but less accurate.

I am always amused at people complaining about EV range. Someone even tried to sue Tesla over observed range.
That never seams to be a "thing" with ICE cars. I've never heard of anyone complaining that their cars go too short on a gas tank, or their MPG is way lower than advertised while spanking the car on track.

I think this is a function of human pyschology if you give them too much information. If Tesla started reporting capacity in terms of # of bars with only 10 bars, people would be like yeah, 7 years later, I still have 10 bars of range! Zero degradation! Versus zomg my car now has 309 miles of range versus advertised 310 miles (when it was 309.49 etc.) *SUE TESLA* etc.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

DC shunt to measure current for the battery energy calculation

If so, I do wonder about car-to-car variation of the accuracy of the shunt resistor, which would directly impact the accuracy of the measurement. It doesn't affect the actual range of course, but it would affect the reported efficiency in the car.

Elevation change is -96ft on way back (according to old teslafi log).

So that is 150Wh over 36 miles. Or just an adder of 4Wh/mi. An incredible result. 211Wh/mi. At 48mph average. A true hypermiler!

Given my comment above, I would suggest that perhaps tomorrow you report rated miles used, door-to-door. I'm curious how consistent the rated miles use is with your Wh/mi result. There is no reason to think they will be consistent (the SoC estimation is presumably based on battery voltage and other factors and I haven't found that it seems to align with the SoC particularly well - in addition there are different SoCs available as mentioned above). I have found my usage meter seems to be a few % lower than what I would expect based on my SoC change (using the 242Wh/mi constant...which may not be correct, but still...). I wonder how consistent this % error is from car-to-car - even if we use the wrong constant we should still be able to detect differences in the scaling from car to car if they exist.

Meanwhile, elsewhere in San Diego:
I did a PERFECT drive home today. I was super careful to coast and make minimal use of regen (had a nearly full battery anyway for my trip so regen was pretty limited at first) and didn't use the brakes at all (except at stops since I have creep on). I'm reasonably sure it would not be possible for anyone to do significantly better. It was uphill ~500ft though, or 800Wh over 10.3mi, for an adder of ~80Wh/mi. No HVAC. (BTW, There's some noise on the speed profile - I wouldn't pay too much attention to it except as an approximate guide. There was no brisk acceleration. And Gaia GPS is apparently broken when it comes to displaying the altitude profile of a track...I also started it after I started driving which is why the distance does not line up.)

An awesome result. Though not quite as good. 313Wh/mi. 233Wh/mi (adjusted) @ 25mph. (I got about 160Wh/mi on the way to work which makes sense.) It was a super boring drive though.

Maybe things are better than I thought! Perhaps the warmer temps (though it is not warm) help more than I thought - even though I wasn't using HVAC earlier this year in winter.

Maybe it is possible to make the rated range? My trip to LA this week is going to be super interesting. I'd really be able to tell, except the vampire drain over 4 days is going to totally kill me, and require me to find a place to charge, probably. It will make it impossible to get the rated range (although maintaining the range over 4 days is arguably not relevant to range...unless it means you have to think about finding a place to charge conveniently...which I am...I figure the Superchargers will be completely useless as they always have lines, and I can't wait for them - Santa Ana or Buena Park are the only options on route for me in LA anyway and I assume they are both always full, and thus useless).

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Thought about a loop of 78,15,8,805,5 which is about 74.3 miles per loop. 4 loops is 297.2 miles + a few local miles close to a charger.
4 Superchargers on (or just off) the loop, and 2 other charging opportunities with some easy diverts to cut it short.

Start at a supercharger, and aim to finish at the same place. (4 loops + some local loops). Last loop, set the destination as the end Supercharger, and car should tell me if I need to divert.

Will probably capture data on TeslaFI, and export that. Also capture route on Phone app as a backup.
Take picture of car, show got standard 20" wheels/tires, and tire pressure.
Aim to do it at a sensible speed (average approx 60mph over 5hrs). Will need to do it one evening, so the roads are clear.
Music will be on, HVAC will be on auto(but weather is mild, so probably not doing much), Lights will be on. Pick a day it's not raining.
Just need to plan the time.

Hmm. Definitely would not wish that on anyone. Probably not worth it. So many miles for so little purpose...I can’t bear it.
I would wait for next week! I may convince myself that the range is awesome after my trip to LA and back this week. I should be able to give an update by Sunday. I’ll keep track of vampire. It won’t be a valid test as I have proposed it, and it will be considerably faster than 48mph, but if the efficiency and rated mile use is awesome, that will be good enough for me.

 

[N54TT]

This is my first EV and Have learned that there can be a huge difference in wh/mile depending on driving style, mph and conditions....each one having a big impact. My commute to work is 40mile round trip, ~85% highway, some variation in elevation..not huge but some. Mild accelerations, Trying to keep the energy bar as close to the middle as I can and driving 65-70 on the highway...this is what I get with my 20” VS forged 235/275 ps4s tires. 60deg , no rain, mild breeze, ac off temp set to 60.

I didn’t get to drive too much with my stock 20’s so can’t say for sure whether the wh/mile is much different than the VS08’s...but I do believe ~240wh/mile to get the rated 310 is feasible with the oem 20’s.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

First segment complete.

110 rated miles.

93.3 real miles, 271Wh/mi, 25.28kWh, 63mph average, freeway with modest traffic mostly at 75-80mph. Peak speed xx mph. Downhill 800 feet, so really closer to perhaps 280Wh/mi adjusted. But I had full battery so probably lost a small amount of that regen (I was careful though...)

HVAC (ac/heat) on, but with AC off, cabin temp set well below ambient to ensure no heat use.

This was a well-driven, extremely efficient drive. I did not use the brakes except a little at the very beginning due to lack of regen (but it was minor). The only demerits I am aware of are the speed (keeping up with traffic), and I should have drafted more. Problem is everyone drives a pickup without mud flaps.

View attachment 407704

 

[Jedi2155]

If so, I do wonder about car-to-car variation of the accuracy of the shunt resistor, which would directly impact the accuracy of the measurement. It doesn't affect the actual range of course, but it would affect the reported efficiency in the car.

Oh I meant the EPA could've used a shunt resister but I'm sure Tesla probably uses something much more accurate.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Here is the picture missing in above post...summary of the trip. Was trying to hide some of the data and ran out of time.

 

[UngaBunga1989]

First segment complete.

110 rated miles.

93.3 real miles, 271Wh/mi, 25.28kWh, 63mph average, freeway with modest traffic mostly at 75-80mph. Peak speed xx mph. Downhill 800 feet, so really closer to perhaps 280Wh/mi adjusted. But I had full battery so probably lost a small amount of that regen (I was careful though...)

HVAC (ac/heat) on, but with AC off, cabin temp set well below ambient to ensure no heat use.

This was a well-driven, extremely efficient drive. I did not use the brakes except a little at the very beginning due to lack of regen (but it was minor). The only demerits I am aware of are the speed (keeping up with traffic), and I should have drafted more. Problem is everyone drives a pickup without mud flaps.

View attachment 407703

View attachment 407704

So if you were at 75-80 mph with climate control on and figure you averaged 280 Wh/mi, 250 should be no problem without climate control at 60-65 mph...

 

[alexGS]

For the month of :

- March: 304.3 Wh/mi (Winter Tires, moderate use of heat)
- April: 238.8 Wh/mi (Winter Tires, minimal use of heat)
- May: 386.8 Wh/mi (Summer Tires, mix moderate use of HVAC)

My lowest registered in a drive over 5 miles was just around 185 Wh/mi, but that was so rare I captured it in an image.

April looks really good!
I would guess when averaging 12mph, it wouldn’t make a lot of difference which tyres were fitted?

-Alex

 

[GolanB]

April looks really good!
I would guess when averaging 12mph, it wouldn’t make a lot of difference which tyres were fitted?

-Alex

Yes, this is true- I tend to see a difference mostly when traveling at higher speeds, or while driving in wet rainy roads. My sport wheels are also a bit heavier - equivalent to carrying an additional child in the car.