Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Performance not getting 310 miles promised

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’d be very happy with 236Wh per mile on a trip including speeds as high as 75mph, as that works out to 6.82km/kWh (the units we seem to use with our Japanese import cars).

To achieve that in a Nissan Leaf, you have to drive no faster than 90km/h (56mph). Going over 100km/h/62mph forces efficiency down to below 6km/kWh. I know this because I’ve had to drive disappointingly slowly in Leafs from work to make it home :)

Fuel consumption in cars has historically been measured at 90km/h, a kind of sweet-spot, as beyond that aerodynamic drag increases substantially to outweigh rolling resistance etc. (being related to velocity squared as already noted).

I imagine for peak efficiency, that optimum speed of 90km/h/56mph would still apply, even to a slippery shape like the Tesla. Clearly, there’s less drag with the Tesla, but that drag must still build up at a similar rate of increase (air being the same density etc.) unless there was some really special boundary-layer-separation going on (e.g. breaking though the sound barrier!) :)

So just to be clear, the efficiency of a Model 3 clearly beats a Leaf (more efficient motor(s) and less aerodynamic drag even at higher speeds), but I’m suggesting that the drag increases with speed at a similar rate, such that the minimum-drag cruising speed is similar for all vehicles.

-Alex
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Seattle
I’d be very happy with 236Wh per mile on a trip including speeds as high as 75mph, as that works out to 6.82km/kWh (the units we seem to use with our Japanese import cars).

To achieve that in a Nissan Leaf, you have to drive no faster than 90km/h (56mph). Going over 100km/h/62mph forces efficiency down to below 6km/kWh. I know this because I’ve had to drive disappointingly slowly in Leafs from work to make it home :)

Fuel consumption in cars has historically been measured at 90km/h, a kind of sweet-spot, as beyond that aerodynamic drag increases substantially to outweigh rolling resistance etc. (being related to velocity squared as already noted).

I imagine for peak efficiency, that optimum speed of 90km/h/56mph would still apply, even to a slippery shape like the Tesla. Clearly, there’s less drag with the Tesla, but that drag must still build up at a similar rate of increase (air being the same density etc.) unless there was some really special boundary-layer-separation going on (e.g. breaking though the sound barrier!) :)

So just to be clear, the efficiency of a Model 3 clearly beats a Leaf (more efficient motor(s) and less aerodynamic drag even at higher speeds), but I’m suggesting that the drag increases with speed at a similar rate, such that the minimum-drag cruising speed is similar for all vehicles.

-Alex

It's probably close to the same for most cars, but that's likely due to the fact that most cars are designed to do (basically) the same thing. It's an optimization problem with more than one variable, the most relevant (at 60+ mph) being drivetrain efficiency and aerodynamic drag. The most efficient spot will be where those two curves cross, and that is something that can be controlled (to a certain extent, within the laws of physics) by the design engineering team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: alexGS
Unplugged Performance did a pretty in-depth study of drag on the Tesla Model 3: Independent Aerodynamic Study of Tesla Model 3 by Unplugged Performance

Thank you - that’s very interesting - I would never have believed that the rear spoiler could be proved to have such a significant effect!

However, their line chart concentrates on range improvement vs. speed for their front lip, rear wing, and lowering modification set. I think it would still be nice to see a chart of mechanical drag and aerodynamic drag vs. speed. Perhaps I should write to them :)

-Alex
 
Got 24.4 firmware update yesterday and just had a 112 mile roundtrip today. When I got home I was shocked at the efficiency numbers. 232 Wh/mi with zero net elevation change. Average speed was roughly 48 mph with 75 mph cruising when traffic permitted.

20190725_221036.jpg


TeslaFi pull.

View attachment 434299

Sounds like a different than normal route so you have no reference point, right?

If you have any benchmark routes can you compare before and after software results on that?

Is there really is a difference in software, it should show up soon in fleet-wide efficiency stats for P3D in either TeslaFi or Stats.
 
Wouldn't "just increasing downforce" run the risk of upsetting the handling of the car, at high speeds?

If the 3P is balanced, at high speeds now, increasing downforce, disproportionately, especially on the rear, seems perilous.

When I was young, and crazy, and racing cars (just autocross, and some rallys) - I drove cars where the back end would go light, and others where the front end would go light.

Both were scary as all heck. Two actually settled back down, if you pushed through, but it wasn't a stable experience.
 
I came back from a camping trip last week where I ended up burning about 50 miles of range more than I anticipated (I bailed, and camped out in the car with the AC on due to the high humidity). The result was an estimate of arriving under 10% estimated range to the SC about 75 miles away. I kept to the speed limit, tried by best to trail trucks, and arrived with 15%. It was well over 90 degrees out that day, and I had the AC running the entire way. I did install non-OEM sunshades on the middle and rear glass panels to sun keep temperatures down.

This is a Performance Model 3 with Stock 20 in summer tires.

Screen Shot 2019-07-26 at 11.42.36 AM.png
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Dan_LA and Jedi2155
I came back from a camping trip last week where I ended up burning about 50 miles of range more than I anticipated (I bailed, and camped out in the car with the AC on due to the high humidity). The result was an estimate of arriving under 10% estimated range to the SC about 75 miles away. I kept to the speed limit, tried by best to trail trucks, and arrived with 15%. It was well over 90 degrees out that day, and I had the AC running the entire way. I did install non-OEM sunshades on the middle and rear glass panels to sun keep temperatures down.

This is a Performance Model 3 with Stock 20 in summer tires.

View attachment 434399
Riding in another vehicle's wake is an enormous help, roughly similar range as 10-15mph slower. Also as little as 5mph tail wind makes a very noticeable difference.

With heat block film, I’m finding the AC doesn’t have much impact as long as I keep the temp towards the top end on hot days. I usually have it around 26C (about 80F?) driving alone, a bit lower with multiple passengers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jdw
Sounds like a different than normal route so you have no reference point, right?

If you have any benchmark routes can you compare before and after software results on that?

Is there really is a difference in software, it should show up soon in fleet-wide efficiency stats for P3D in either TeslaFi or Stats.

True that its an abnormal route. Start/End points were the same though (home ending location with several hills).

For the normal daily work route, average speed is higher than some previous routes. The higher efficiency could also be due to higher temperatures (impacting tire pressure but hurts HVAC consumption) and more wear from the tires lowering RR (but doubtful a few hundred miles makes a difference)
 

Attachments

  • Compiled.png
    Compiled.png
    334 KB · Views: 47
Status
Not open for further replies.