I agree. But start out with an estimate where one element of the equation is past consumption behavior (as a base line) and then adjust from there based on road conditions, terrain, and all other factors you mentioned. I don't think Tesla looks at that at all which I think is a flaw because in my case, and probably others, this parameter they are leaving out is the one that happens to be the most influential if the goal is a correct estimate.
I don't think it would be that hard. I am sure they start out with a seed base line consumption value in their equation upon which they apply their other variable calculations. It is obvious that this seed value is constant. All they would have to do is make that seed a variable instead based on life time consumption per user profile. Or if not life time, in case the user changes behavior or hardware, make it last 3000 miles. This simple value would take into account all behavioral and physical changes because it is one indicator that catches all.
It would not have been as bad if their base line seed consumption value to start the calculations from would have been 430Kwh and then calculated up or down from there based on terrain, weather, and all the other variables.
No I have not but it takes a lot of effort on my part and often I can't take certain routes because I am low and there are no SC stations in certain areas so it limits my driving.
Its an easy fix. I could fix it if they'd let me. I am a senior software engineer and work on things similar to this. It is an order of magnitude easier to fix this than doing silly things like the fart app and lame game ports I would never play in my car.
I don't think the focus is in the right place and that is making the car's basic operational roles function properly.
