Rated consumption

[brianman]

We should probably pull the various speculation into a single thread. Perhaps this thread will be that thread, perhaps not.

Some have pegged Rated consumption at 308 Wh/mi. Some have put it at 300 Wh/mi.

The car says somewhere in the (309, 321) Wh/mi range. See images below from .61 firmware.

1. < 321 Wh/mi (17" chart)
The poor photography (mea culpa) doesn't capture it well, but what it showed in person was 321 (dashed) line above the Rated (thick solid) line.

2a. > 309 Wh/mi (17" chart)

2b. > 309 Wh/mi (instrument cluster)

 

[bluetinc]

Hi Brianman,

I would also suggest two additional things. The comparison on a car can be done by recoding the Avg. Wh/mi when the projected range is identical to the rated range on the car.

Also, it would be great to have the multiplier numbers between rated range and ideal range for a number of cars. This does not appear to be the same by a significant amount. If people report the nearly fully charged cars range in both rated and ideal, we should be able to crunch the numbers.

My car has a rated mile energy usage = 306Wh/mi
My carr has a ideal energy usage = 267 Wh/mi
rated range = 87 mi when ideal range = 102 mi


My loaner (P12767) has a rated energy usage = 302 Wh/mi
My loaner (P12767) has a ideal energy usage = 267 Wh/mi

And as a new loaner car with 300 miles on it, a max range charge =
rated range = 275mi and ideal range = 311mi


Peter

 

[scaesare]

Seeing as how this appears to have been spawned from my "Energy Accounting" thread, I'll post my observations from there:

The "Rated" miles line appears to be just above the 300 line on the "Energy App" graph. As a matter of fact, looking closely at my display, I can see the thicker "Rated" line is actually slightly separated from the 300Wh graph line... by about one blank pixel's width. What's more, you can see that the heavier Rated line runs in to the numbers along the left hand vertical axis slightly off center more so than the other lines.

So... if the likely choices for the Rated value are 300 or 308, I'm going to go with 308. Now... I'd love to find that officially documented somewhere...

 

[brianman]

So... if the likely choices for the Rated value are 300 or 308, I'm going to go with 308. Now... I'd love to find that officially documented somewhere...

I'm guessing you only skimmed the OP, because you should have seen...

The car says somewhere in the (309, 321) Wh/mi range.

... with images that illustrate that.

 

[scaesare]

I'm guessing you only skimmed the OP, because you should have seen...

... with images that illustrate that.

I should have expanded I guess.... when I said "if the likely choices for the Rated value are 300 or 308", I did so because 308 seems to be a value I've seen many times online as the "standard rated Wh" used per mile for the Model S. The "300" choice came from another member here looking at what the energy graph and estimating.

I don't think there's enough resolution in the display to really get accurate down to the individual Wh. There's only about an inch or so between the to graph lines that are 300 units apart, and the display is nowhere near 300 dpi.

So of the values "alleged", for the standard 308 seems likely.

Of course it could be something else completely... but that's why I'd like to see it somewhere official...

 

[cinergi]

For what it's worth on mine (FW .61)

 

[brianman]

I don't think there's enough resolution in the display to really get accurate down to the individual Wh. There's only about an inch or so between the to graph lines that are 300 units apart, and the display is nowhere near 300 dpi.

Again, you must not be able to see the images I posted (or your computer has a small screen). From the three images I posted, I'm certain that the displayed line is in the (309, 321) Wh/mi range.

Similarly, cinergi's picture confirms it's in the (307, infinity) range of which my range is a subset.

 

[brianman]

Update: The rated line is above 311.

(311, 321)

 

[scaesare]

I actually did not look too carefully at the "321" pic on my cell phone, a it was rather blurry for the smaller screen.

I'm simply suggesting that the difference of a couple of Wh/mi is going to be difficult to ascertain given the relative imprecision of hte grid resolution. I think it's more than 300, but I doubt we could say for certain it's 309 as opposed to 308.

The 321 pic is interesting though. Does that imply evidence that "Rated" is indeed a sliding scale?

 

[cinergi]

 

[brianman]

Both interesting and troubling, cinergi. Thanks for the pics.

 

[bluetinc]

I'll summarize from the cars that I have looked at, and the pictures here from others, different cars quite definitely have different "rated mile" energy metrics that we have seen vary from 303 Wh/mi up.

Two questions for the group:


Is everyone's "Ideal Mile" energy number the same?

Does a "Rated Mile" energy number change over time, or with software?

Peter

 

[cinergi]

I'll summarize from the cars that I have looked at, and the pictures here from others, different cars quite definitely have different "rated mile" energy metrics that we have seen vary from 303 Wh/mi up.

Mind digging up a couple pics? So far from the *pix* in this thread it's below 315 and above 309 (above 311 based on Brian's earlier comment). I know you said your loaner had 302, but where did that number come from?

Both interesting and troubling, cinergi. Thanks for the pics.

Feeling a little dumb here ... what's troubling?

 

[bluetinc]

Mind digging up a couple pics? So far from the *pix* in this thread it's below 315 and above 309 (above 311 based on Brian's earlier comment). I know you said your loaner had 302, but where did that number come from?

Hey Cinergi,

I don't have pic's, I tried to take some while I was doing my testing yesterday but managing traffic, speed, energy usage, and getting a clear picture all at the same time was too much for me.

On my loaner, the "Rated" line was clearly next to the 300 Wh/mi line, much much closer than on my car.

For testing, I did the following:

Drove with the energy graph up, 30 mile averaging on (other settings would work just as well), I slowly raised my Wh/mi while watching the projected miles remaining. When my projected miles remaining equaled my miles remaining on my speedo, I knew I was very close. Generally I found that there was a little rounding error at times, so at times for example 303 Wh/mi and 301 Wh/mi would both show the identical mileages also, the more full the battery is the less this will happen. I did this with Ideal miles then Rated miles as it's much easier to raise my energy consumption than lower it .

Peter

 

[brianman]

Feeling a little dumb here ... what's troubling?

I misread one of your pictures, thinking it was showing rated above 315. Ignoring that mental detour...

We're at (311,315) it seems?

- - - Updated - - -

I don't have pic's, I tried to take some while I was doing my testing yesterday but managing traffic, speed, energy usage, and getting a clear picture all at the same time was too much for me.

I had better luck with 5 mi chart and finding unoccupied low speed limit areas to "rev" up and down (hence the spikes in my pictures).

 

[Owner]

My survey results should be out this morning....

 

[cinergi]

Hrm, the solid line is closer? Closer than this?

As for the testing -- I think we'll need to stick to getting the dotted line on top of the solid line; because I've noticed my projected matching rated when the lines weren't occupying the same pixels and that comparison (mileage) gets more and more inaccurate the less range you have left. I've observed 307-308 as being a dead-on match and then later 313 ...

On my loaner, the "Rated" line was clearly next to the 300 Wh/mi line, much much closer than on my car.

For testing, I did the following:

- - - Updated - - -

 

[cinergi]

So according to my pix on my car, it's either 312, 313, or possibly 314 (haven't gotten a pic of 314 yet).

 

[brianman]

Interesting UI design flaw shown in 312 / 313 -- the rated line needs to be partially transparent, or it needs to be drawn below and a different color from the average line.

 

[bluetinc]

Yes, much much closer. I'll swing by the service center a couple of times and see if I can catch up with the car again for a minute and take a picture. It looked just like another that I've seen on this forum... I'll try to find the link.

I'm not sure why you think that the graphical representation is so accurate, all over the dashboard it seems like the graphicals are never quite the right spots, take for instance the power and regen limits.

It's very true that as you approach an empty battery the window of average energy/mi that will round out to the same correct number displayed widens, but if your battery is more than half full, there should only be about 2.5 Wh/mi error bar, and by the time you are fully charged that error bar should only be just over 1.

I'm very confident we have various cars with various rated range energy "units", but I'm still pondering what this means.

Peter

Hrm, the solid line is closer? Closer than this?

As for the testing -- I think we'll need to stick to getting the dotted line on top of the solid line; because I've noticed my projected matching rated when the lines weren't occupying the same pixels and that comparison (mileage) gets more and more inaccurate the less range you have left. I've observed 307-308 as being a dead-on match and then later 313 ...


- - - Updated - - -