Proposed fuel display

[mknox]

When I took a loaner Model S out for the weekend, I just compared the 'miles left' display with the 'miles to destination' - served the same purpose.

Yeah, that's what I'll do on a trip. Bring up the Nav with my destination (miles to destination) and the Energy display with my projected range (miles left). The Rated Range number on the dash is really just a fuel gauge and, as such, I've just switched it over to %.

 

[RAW84]

The fuel gauge on an ICE vehicle has no numbers and people seem to understand how it works. The digital range estimates on newer vehicles is buried in a host of info screens.

The big difference being, of course, there's an abundance of refueling stations and refueling takes <10 minutes in an ICE.

That's drastically different than a Tesla, where the next supercharger may be 100+ miles away. Coupled with the charging speed dynamic, I need numbers in order to determine proper charging times.

 

[mknox]

The big difference being, of course, there's an abundance of refueling stations and refueling takes <10 minutes in an ICE.

That's drastically different than a Tesla, where the next supercharger may be 100+ miles away. Coupled with the charging speed dynamic, I need numbers in order to determine proper charging times.

That's why I've changed the "fuel gauge" to % and use the Energy app to tell me how far I can go. The display on the center dash, whether set to Rated, Ideal or % is just a linear extrapolation of how much energy is left in the battery, much like the fuel gauge on an ICE.

I would much prefer seeing the battery icon with simply a % number against it, but also have the Energy App's predicted range value up front and center too, so that I don't have to go over to the 17" to find it. In fact, I've often wondered why it doesn't show up on the small eneryy display that you can bring up on the left or right side of the speedo similar to how it does when you open it on the 17".

 

[RAW84]

That's why I've changed the "fuel gauge" to % and use the Energy app to tell me how far I can go. The display on the center dash, whether set to Rated, Ideal or % is just a linear extrapolation of how much energy is left in the battery, much like the fuel gauge on an ICE.

I would much prefer seeing the battery icon with simply a % number against it, but also have the Energy App's predicted range value up front and center too, so that I don't have to go over to the 17" to find it. In fact, I've often wondered why it doesn't show up on the small eneryy display that you can bring up on the left or right side of the speedo similar to how it does when you open it on the 17".

Whether you use % or rated miles or ideal miles is personal preference (I find rated miles to be the most useful...It's more granular than a percentage, more accurate than ideal, I've learned how to approximate that to actual expected range based on my driving conditions), I was just saying a number is needed on EV's even though it's not needed on an ICE.

 

[mknox]

Whether you use % or rated miles or ideal miles is personal preference (I find rated miles to be the most useful...It's more granular than a percentage, more accurate than ideal, I've learned how to approximate that to actual expected range based on my driving conditions), I was just saying a number is needed on EV's even though it's not needed on an ICE.

Due to this thread and the one on folks agonizing over running out of power at "zero miles", I've been thinking about this a fair bit.

My conclusion is that it was probably a dumb idea for Tesla (and BEV makers in general) to calibrate the battery meter in miles (or kilometers). I can't think of a single ICE car that does this with its fuel gauge, but it would be very easy to do. Just calculate how many miles a full tank of gas would go based on the EPA combined fuel efficiency rating and have the fuel gauge count down in miles. That's all Tesla is doing here, although they have done some tweaking to account for what a full charge gets you after some battery degredation. But after that, It's just a dumb linear scale down to zero. You could actually be drawing the battery down by 2 miles for every 1 mile you drive in the right circumstances.

But Tesla does have a pretty decent range estimate over on the Energy app on the 17" screen. This one does take into account how your car has been consuming energy in real time over a user configurable distance up to 30 miles.

My preference would be to have the green battery bar showing how much juice you have (just like a gas gauge in an ICE). Could be calibrated in %. But also throw that Estimated Range number that the car calculates in the Energy app right up front and center with the battery %. It seems to me that would be a lot more meaningful information in front of me as I drive.

 

[MileHighMotoring]

Many cars I've had display a miles to empty number, and I've always liked it.

 

[RDoc]

Many cars I've had display a miles to empty number, and I've always liked it.

Yes, our Caravan has that in the trip computer and it's reasonably accurate.

I also don't see why the dash display doesn't have an estimated range based on the energy usage of the last n miles as set. I'd also like to be able to calibrate the estimated range manually in wh/mi so I can deal with conditions such as weather the car isn't aware of.

 

[mknox]

Many cars I've had display a miles to empty number, and I've always liked it.

On the fuel gauge? I've had that too, but on a separate "trip computer" - type function depending on the car. I've never seen an ICE gas gauge calibrated in miles.

 

[MileHighMotoring]

Well, of course there is always a separate fuel gauge giving you some version of a 0-100% full display. But they aren't honest Just as the Tesla gives you miles as well as the 0-100% display on the charge.

 

[mknox]

Well, of course there is always a separate fuel gauge giving you some version of a 0-100% full display. But they aren't honest Just as the Tesla gives you miles as well as the 0-100% display on the charge.

And that's what I'm saying. The Rated/Ideal miles Tesla currently shows right on the fuel gauge aren't honest numbers. Why not just show % there, but put the "honest-to-goodness" accurate number from the Energy App there with the % instead?

 

[Saghost]

On the fuel gauge? I've had that too, but on a separate "trip computer" - type function depending on the car. I've never seen an ICE gas gauge calibrated in miles.

What do you consider to be an ICE car?

The Volt has a gas gauge that is calibrated in miles (though it is a live estimate not a direct mapping like Tesla.)

I'm pretty sure they did that to bridge the gap between the electric and gas does more than anything else, but they did it.
Walter

 

[mknox]

What do you consider to be an ICE car?

The Volt has a gas gauge that is calibrated in miles (though it is a live estimate not a direct mapping like Tesla.

You're right. We have a company Volt and it shows EV miles and Gas miles. I guess I was thinking of the more mainstream pure ICE cars when I said that.

 

[MileHighMotoring]

Because in an EV, it's more important to know the miles to empty.

 

[mknox]

Because in an EV, it's more important to know the miles to empty.

I think maybe I'm not being clear. I agree that miles to empty is important. As such, I think accuracy would be critical. Given that, showing the real-time calculated range to empty number from the Energy App makes a lot more sense to display front and center with the green battery bar than does the "dumb" Rated or Ideal Miles number which is not representative of how far you can really go in real-world situations (i.e. like winter).

 

[RAW84]

Due to this thread and the one on folks agonizing over running out of power at "zero miles", I've been thinking about this a fair bit.

My conclusion is that it was probably a dumb idea for Tesla (and BEV makers in general) to calibrate the battery meter in miles (or kilometers). I can't think of a single ICE car that does this with its fuel gauge, but it would be very easy to do. Just calculate how many miles a full tank of gas would go based on the EPA combined fuel efficiency rating and have the fuel gauge count down in miles. That's all Tesla is doing here, although they have done some tweaking to account for what a full charge gets you after some battery degredation. But after that, It's just a dumb linear scale down to zero. You could actually be drawing the battery down by 2 miles for every 1 mile you drive in the right circumstances.

But Tesla does have a pretty decent range estimate over on the Energy app on the 17" screen. This one does take into account how your car has been consuming energy in real time over a user configurable distance up to 30

I don't think it's a dumb idea at all. Again, the stakes are so much higher with properly gauging fuel remaining. If I arrive home from work and immediately have to leave for a dinner downtown (let's say a 30 mile roundtrip), knowing that I have 20% left is not nearly as helpful as saying I have 50 rated miles. Now, I know from driving the EV all day, that that 50 rated miles is more likely to be 40 miles, or maybe it's really cold out and that 50 rated miles is closer to 30 real miles, so maybe I should make other arrangements. Regardless, I'm going to have to translate that % level into mileage, why not let Tesla make the first stab at that translation?

With an ICE, even if I look at the gauge and think I can go 50 miles but guess wrong, chances are I'll pass several refueling stains on the way there and back, and I can completely refuel in less than 10 minutes. That's a major difference.

My preference would be to have the green battery bar showing how much juice you have (just like a gas gauge in an ICE). Could be calibrated in %. But also throw that Estimated Range number that the car calculates in the Energy app right up front and center with the battery %. It seems to me that would be a lot more meaningful information in front of me as I drive.

The problem with using "Projected Range" is that it's too noisy. It would be confusing to most to see their range increasing on portions of their trips. Context would have to be added there. That context is added in the energy app (it states whether that projected range is based on the last 5 miles, 15 miles, or 30 miles driven, and it shows a graph over that time period so if there's some peak or valley from 20 miles ago that's impacting the projected range it's evident)

 

[mknox]

If I arrive home from work and immediately have to leave for a dinner downtown (let's say a 30 mile roundtrip), knowing that I have 20% left is not nearly as helpful as saying I have 50 rated miles. Now, I know from driving the EV all day, that that 50 rated miles is more likely to be 40 miles, or maybe it's really cold out and that 50 rated miles is closer to 30 real miles, so maybe I should make other arrangements.

Maybe I'm all wet on this, but if you have to guess at what 50 Rated Miles means to you, how good is that? I'd rather have the car give me a "real" estimate as opposed to a gauge that is just calibrated linearly from 0 - 265.

The problem with using "Projected Range" is that it's too noisy. It would be confusing to most to see their range increasing on portions of their trips.

On the contrary, I thing that would actually be more meaningful to me than a number that has no bearing on reality. Sure it's "noisy" and sure it won't be 100% accurate, but it would be a better reflection, in real time, of how far I can go. If, for instance, terrain or weather takes a turn for the worse, you're going to see that start to be reflected in your remaining range number as opposed to the Rate Range number which will just keep on merrily counting down at the same pace. There's been lots of stories of people who "thought" they had lots of power to make it to their destination based on the Rated Range number only to be stuck somewhere out of juice... especially in the winter.

 

[RAW84]

Maybe I'm all wet on this, but if you have to guess at what 50 Rated Miles means to you, how good is that? I'd rather have the car give me a "real" estimate as opposed to a gauge that is just calibrated linearly from 0 - 265.



On the contrary, I thing that would actually be more meaningful to me than a number that has no bearing on reality. Sure it's "noisy" and sure it won't be 100% accurate, but it would be a better reflection, in real time, of how far I can go. If, for instance, terrain or weather takes a turn for the worse, you're going to see that start to be reflected in your remaining range number as opposed to the Rate Range number which will just keep on merrily counting down at the same pace. There's been lots of stories of people who "thought" they had lots of power to make it to their destination based on the Rated Range number only to be stuck somewhere out of juice... especially in the winter.

You have to guess regardless. Making that guess is much easier when you don't have to change units (from % to miles).

Regarding the projected range, it's not necessarily a better reflection, it's just a guess based on the last 5, 10, or 30 miles. Those previous miles may have been several different trips. If we're talking about a road trip, then I'd agree projected range would be more useful, but for city driving it's really not, it's too noisy.

Ultimately, the question isn't projected range vs rated range, it's % vs rated range (because I believed your suggestion is to have the % displayed instead of the rated range and add the projected range below). And to me, the % isn't useful at all (for real time driving). I couldn't readily guesstimate how far 29% would get me, whereas if presented with 73 rated miles I could reasonably guesstimate how far I could go on-the-go.

If I'm wrong and your suggestion is to have just the projected range under the image, then I really hate that idea. A gauge is supposed to reflect how much energy is left. If I go from city driving to the highway and drive for 20 minutes, I should see that number reduce. If the projected range increases or barely changes, that tells me no information on how much energy I'm really expending, and won't until it stabilizes.

 

[mknox]

You have to guess regardless. Making that guess is much easier when you don't have to change units (from % to miles)...

...If I'm wrong and your suggestion is to have just the projected range under the image, then I really hate that idea. A gauge is supposed to reflect how much energy is left.

Well, yes that is exactly what I was suggesting. Have the battery meter as a gauge (scale 1-100) and separately, but up in the same area, have the projected Range numbers shown.

A gauge is, as you say, supposed to reflect how much energy you have left, but I still fail to see how an arbitrary Rated Miles number does that. Technically, to show how much energy you have left it would have to be calibrated in kWh units. Since kWh is probably too "geeky" for most, just tell me "how full" the battery is and, separately, give me a good, real-time approximation of how far it will take me in current conditions.

But since everyone hasn't come around to my brilliant suggestion ( ) maybe a good compromise would be a bit more configuration in that area of the display. For instance, let me select Rated, Ideal, % or Projected instead of just the current first 3 options we have now.

 

[RAW84]

I'm always for more options!

 

[ArtInCT]

As a color challenged person, the design should incorporate a number. Also the use of green and red are NOT friendly to many color blind folks. This is especially true in line graphs of any kind, where the lines are THIN and in color. UI designers are always using red to show an error... BLINK it if you must but red alone is.... well... just another shade of black.

So my feedback on the initial graphs by the OP is NOT POSITIVE in any way. A for effort. F for color choice. F for no numerical digits.