Real Range Display Option

[AdamMacDon]

I can't be the only one who finds the "Distance" energy display option nearly useless. Living in a hilly part of Canada it is often off by a factor of 50-100% in the winter. Does anyone else think it'd be nice to have a third option for energy display besides % and EPA rated distance? I'd propose a "real world" range option that looks at your last 500kms of driving and uses an average to display that information on the main screen. Yes I know about the Energy Graph display, but it maxes out at averaging over the last 50km and it isn't convenient to drive around with that open all the time. The only real use I personally see for the EPA distance is to roughly gauge how much battery degradation I have.

 

[RTPEV]

I think what you want is the Energy Graph display in trip mode (even though you said you didn't think it worked for you). If you are driving some distance, this will give you a better way to track your actual estimated range and estimated arrival state of charge at your destination. I don't know how well it does in the winter, but it does work fairly accurately even on hilly terrain. I don't find it that difficult to pop it up occasionally while on a trip.

As for daily use, I don't usually care too much about what the display says. I just plug it in when I get home and it's about 100 miles or less.

 

[coconutboy84]

Yeah I’m Canada the rates range display is bull crap. Totally useless. The energy graph is helpful but would like that number to replace the rates range number. So I don’t ha be to always have the energy graph up.

 

[ewoodrick]

I can't be the only one who finds the "Distance" energy display option nearly useless. Living in a hilly part of Canada it is often off by a factor of 50-100% in the winter. Does anyone else think it'd be nice to have a third option for energy display besides % and EPA rated distance? I'd propose a "real world" range option that looks at your last 500kms of driving and uses an average to display that information on the main screen. Yes I know about the Energy Graph display, but it maxes out at averaging over the last 50km and it isn't convenient to drive around with that open all the time. The only real use I personally see for the EPA distance is to roughly gauge how much battery degradation I have.

Just assume that the rated range is off by 30% or so. Or flip to percent and don't worry about it.

Now the big question, is how many times are you really needing to worry about this? I mean, how many times will inaction or inaccurate information result in you skipping a trip or needing to make an extra charging stop?

The reason I ask, it sounds as if you still may have range anxiety and you are just worrying about it.

 

[jmaddr]

I just use percent, just like in a gas car. If I get 300 miles to a tank and I’m at halfway on the guage, I have 250 miles left on the gas car.

For my TM3P, I have 50% left, I know I have about 120 miles left...or...25%, I have about 60 miles left. I get about 240 miles out of a 100% charge (extrapolated). I don’t overthink it. It’s the same as I as been doing for 20 years with a gas gauge. If I want to get more precise, the energy app is there.

 

[OCJoe]

I agree, when the displayed range is off 50%-100% it makes sense to seek something something better.

The suggestion to scale back the miles displayed by an appropriate factor is practical but... when the variability is as great as OP has observed, there's a significant difference between scaling back by 50% (real range of 160 miles on a 240 mile "full charge") or 100% (real range of 120 miles on a 240 mile "full charge")

Since all estimates are prone to inaccuracies, why not just display hard data, ie, number of KWh remaining? KWh is hard number, not an estimate. That would allow me to estimate range using mile/KWh factor that's appropriate to my situation (temperature, hilly terrain, leadfoot/lightfoot). Right now, the system applies a very optimistic factor for mile/KWh (control panel display) or assumes recent history will reflect the future situation (Energy Graph). Both OP and I find these options insufficient.

 

[jmaddr]

KWh is hard number, not an estimate.

This is just not true. By its nature, capacity KWhr (or SoC) is only measured though a full charge and discharge and intermediate capacity is a extrapolation of battery voltage levels. Further, “This method is not precise because the mapping between voltage and SoC is not exactly static and it can change based on temperature and several other factors. ”
Tesla Battery Longevity
That’s the issue here with everyone obsessed with range and / or degradation. All these numbers are estimations unless you measure by going from 100-0. It’s also why the range seems to fluctuate by software release as Tesla tweaks this estimation.
Stick with percent and just get close like you have doing for years with gas gauges.

 

[AdamMacDon]

Just assume that the rated range is off by 30% or so. Or flip to percent and don't worry about it.

Now the big question, is how many times are you really needing to worry about this? I mean, how many times will inaction or inaccurate information result in you skipping a trip or needing to make an extra charging stop?

The reason I ask, it sounds as if you still may have range anxiety and you are just worrying about it.

I currently only use percent, but my nitpick stems more from a software designer perspective where something so easy to program seems oddly absent. Range anxiety is not a thing for me, I only charge to 70% and my condo recently got level 2 charging, so I never worry about it. On road trips I honestly cut it closer than I do in gas cars, going as low as 5% sometimes. Honestly I trust the % gauge more than I do the dumb fuel gauges in my ICE cars. I'll admit this feature is more about my OCD regarding smart UI design than necessity.

 

[ElectricIAC]

I use % and multiply that by 2 for range purposes (miles). In extreme situations this may actually need to be closer to 1.5 however.

 

[ewoodrick]

I currently only use percent, but my nitpick stems more from a software designer perspective where something so easy to program seems oddly absent. Range anxiety is not a thing for me, I only charge to 70% and my condo recently got level 2 charging, so I never worry about it. On road trips I honestly cut it closer than I do in gas cars, going as low as 5% sometimes. Honestly I trust the % gauge more than I do the dumb fuel gauges in my ICE cars. I'll admit this feature is more about my OCD regarding smart UI design than necessity.

So, from a UI perspective, think of it this way. Tesla really doesn't even want to show you the number. It's only a stopgap display until FSD is in place. Like a Lyft or Taxi, that's the car's responsibility.

 

[cypho]

Where is the option in the poll for yes

 

[thefortunes]

While I don't seem to have the same problem as the OP (I can easily "do the math" and, seriously, how often do you drive >200 miles in a day and truly need to) I just have to comment on the "off by a factor of 50-100% in the winter" line.

I have > 150k miles of driving Teslas in Wisconsin (climate not too different from BC) with extensive data about range loss and:
1) Max efficiency loss I have experienced is about 50% at -10F.
2) It is impossible to have 100% loss due to weather/hills - your car would not drive.

 

[ElectricIAC]

I’d like to see a third user adjustable “GOM” option that uses data from the energy usage display. Have it default to percentage until a preset amount of driving Is done.

 

[AdamMacDon]

While I don't seem to have the same problem as the OP (I can easily "do the math" and, seriously, how often do you drive >200 miles in a day and truly need to) I just have to comment on the "off by a factor of 50-100% in the winter" line.

I have > 150k miles of driving Teslas in Wisconsin (climate not too different from BC) with extensive data about range loss and:
1) Max efficiency loss I have experienced is about 50% at -10F.
2) It is impossible to have 100% loss due to weather/hills - your car would not drive.

It should be fairly obvious I mean the consumption variable is off by 50-100%, that means it consumes 50-100% more energy per KM than quoted by Tesla. This is not hypothetical, this is my real situation. I can show you a picture of my car's energy graph if you don't believe me. Average wh/km is about 220 most days and I have a 50kWh battery. This means from 0-100% SoC I would get theoretically 227km (of course nobody would actually utilize 0-100% SoC on their battery). This is significantly less than the ~400km Tesla rates the SR+ for. Also I can "do the math" just fine, dividing my range by 2 isn't exactly complex mathematics. The fact that I have to in a luxury $60,000 car is my problem. As a programmer, I know how easy it would be to put this feature in, the hardest part would be updating the UI.

So, from a UI perspective, think of it this way. Tesla really doesn't even want to show you the number. It's only a stopgap display until FSD is in place. Like a Lyft or Taxi, that's the car's responsibility.

A stopgap that will need to be in place for probably over a decade, which is more than 2x longer than the average North American keeps their car. The chance of FSD being a thing in the next 4 years is insanity, here in Canada the cars don't even have driving visualizations for things like stoplights, nor any code to even attempt reacting to them. I know Tesla likes hiding numbers, but as a tech guy, I like to see what my tech is doing, I monitor temps on my PC to give you an idea. I don't see how hiding this from your customer could be seen as a good design decision. If they really don't want to see it they don't have to look (maybe there could be a no range display option as well later)?