Does anyone know if Recurrent is still waking the vehicle around three times a day to retrieve the data? This should NOT be necessary, retrieve the data when the vehicle is awake for some other reason (charging, driving, topping off the low voltage battery, firmware download, etc). Our 2023 Model 3 Standard range can sleep for over six days while parked waking it several times a day would impact the range and add unneeded wear and tear to the HV contactors.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Recurrent: Model 3 drivers got 72% of EPA range with new cars, 64% after three years
- Thread starter 3sr+buyer
- Start date
That is a great battery life! Mine chart doesn't look nearly as good as yours.
That article is meant to be confusing and the data is confusing.
If I drive 80 MPH of course I'm only going to get 75 - 80% of the rated EPA range. I live with that, that's fine. The NCA battery has a degradation rate of up to 5-7% the first year. Then is levels off to about 1% a year after that. If you add my 75% range reduction and my 7% degradation, it would seem like i'm only getting 68% of my EPA range, OMG! (Example data)
If I drive 80 MPH of course I'm only going to get 75 - 80% of the rated EPA range. I live with that, that's fine. The NCA battery has a degradation rate of up to 5-7% the first year. Then is levels off to about 1% a year after that. If you add my 75% range reduction and my 7% degradation, it would seem like i'm only getting 68% of my EPA range, OMG! (Example data)
It's not waking your car to get this data. They are not like the other products that grab a lot of other data in almost real time.
Because it generates a much more negative and sensational headline to grab attention.
My car is at 25k miles and has 3.2% degradation, as calculated by Tessie, slightly better than fleet average. And with my typical driving patterns, I get about the rated efficiency.
Kelculate
Member
To be a bit fair to Recurrent, other media outlets took the article and made a lot of sensational headlines and articles out of that. I can see why Recurrent want to use their own data to show degradation, but their choice of Y axis label was either deliberately chosen to generate headlines or chosen without care to focus on the article’s purpose
The EPA doesn’t “get it wrong” when measuring range, the Recurrent author does not seem to understand the purpose of the EPA test. The EPA provides a range comparison for all EVs under identical conditions so that prospective buyers can compare ranges before recharging before buying an EV.These charts attempt to include everything (charging, preheating, etc.).
.png)
Interesting that you use powerwalls as an example, at least to me. I actually have had my first set of (2) powerwalls replaced under the battery warranty, and the replacement ones were brand new still in the shrinkwrap devices.
I know they dont have to replace batteries with new, and on vehicles it seems far more likely someone will get refurbished, but at least there is one example of someone getting new powerwalls for ones that were replaced under warranty (mine).
I also have not heard anything at all about "70% of fleet average "or any such thing. I dont follow model S or X closely though so perhaps the person who said that is speaking about those? Shrug, not sure, but would love for them to point out examples of this, in model 3s or Ys, which are much closer to each other than they are to anything S / X related.
FUD article.
First : Recurrent doesn't get the range from the cars, it only compares the battery degradation between cars and then it tells you were you are compared to everyone else.
Second : The article forgets to state that Tesla owners charge their battery to 80% in the daily driving, thus, their range is 80% or less than the EPA range
Third : The graphs posted in the article show a battery degradation from 72% to 63% over 1500 days : that's 4 years, not 3 years.
Fourth : My Tesla Model 3 LR AWD, over almost one year of ownership and my driving conditions, has these numbers :
Based on my driving habits and experience, my Tesla, in average, gets 11% less range vs EPA over the lifetime ownership.
So, unless Recurrent is talking about Tesla driving in very cold temperatures, the 70% range number cited is a BS number. The numbers above are from teslafi.com. I do lack about 2000 km of readings, because I didn't register my car from the start.
Lifetime average : 167 Wh/km / 269 Wh/mi
First : Recurrent doesn't get the range from the cars, it only compares the battery degradation between cars and then it tells you were you are compared to everyone else.
Second : The article forgets to state that Tesla owners charge their battery to 80% in the daily driving, thus, their range is 80% or less than the EPA range
Third : The graphs posted in the article show a battery degradation from 72% to 63% over 1500 days : that's 4 years, not 3 years.
Fourth : My Tesla Model 3 LR AWD, over almost one year of ownership and my driving conditions, has these numbers :
Based on my driving habits and experience, my Tesla, in average, gets 11% less range vs EPA over the lifetime ownership.
So, unless Recurrent is talking about Tesla driving in very cold temperatures, the 70% range number cited is a BS number. The numbers above are from teslafi.com. I do lack about 2000 km of readings, because I didn't register my car from the start.
Lifetime average : 167 Wh/km / 269 Wh/mi
Last edited:
I'd say this is really accurate. Our new model 3 will give us 220 miles in extremely favorable conditions. More like 170ish in poor conditions. Granted both of these favorable/unfavorable are also mainly highway driving, but I'm referring to temps and wind and rain.
It still gets it wrong. It serves a value because it is a standard methodology against which to compare other cars, but it's no secret that since the invention of the EPA EV range the vast majority of people have significantly failed to meet its numbers. It needs to be changed. Some vehicles drastically underperform it (like the nissan leafs I've had do just hideously in the winter).
Last edited:
The reality is that EPA is wrong on a single number : the range number.
If you look at the kWh/100 miles number, it is pretty much spot on.
And the EPA numbers in ICEV world is based on mpg, not miles.
I fail to understand why EPA doesn't use the kWh/100 miles number to base it's range number. Put the burden on the EV makers to state the realistic battery capacity. Don't try to be a smartass, because it bites you in the ass in the end.
Considering the fact that the battery is around 82 kWh, the range, based on the kWh/mi would be :
- Tesla Model Y LR AWD : 293 miles | EPA : 330 miles
- Tesla Model Y P : 273 miles | EPA : 303 miles
- Tesla Model 3 LR : 315 miles | EPA : 333 miles (358 was 2022, EPA didn't modify the number for 2023)
- Tesla Model 3 LR 2021 : 328 miles | EPA : 353 miles
The numbers above are a lot more realistic than the numbers indicated by EPA in the "range" column, being 5 to 11% less. And this is what I seen in my car in normal driving, posted above.
My Michelins were worn out at 24000 miles on my 2021 M3 LR. I called Michelins Customer Service and got them to pro rate the OEM tires. I saved over $500 on a new pair on Michelins.Current battery degradation is between 2.9 and 3.4% at 19,500 mi on a 2022 Model 3 LR AWD. Tesla rounds to the nearest mile on the display, so can't get any closer than that. I mostly charge at home at around 7.5 kW but have Supercharged on two 1000-mi trips (1 in 2022, 1 in 2023) and one 2300-mile trip in 2024. Only 29 Supercharger sessions since the car was new. Lots of around town, which is probably why my original tires are already worn out (Michelin Primacy MXM4 AC P235/45R18 98W XL).Shopping for new ones now.
The EPA consumption number accounts for charging losses, while the EPA range number does not.
Tesla efficiency numbers in the car don't account for the energy used by the car when at a red light, right ? Any energy used by the car when still it is not computed. So yeah, although I know the EPA kWh/100 mi is a number that takes into account the charging loses (between 5 and 12% from my experience and data I have from teslafi), one can very well consider those numbers the real ones without a problem to compute the real range. It would not be far fetch from the reality, as I could see it in my one year ownership of a Tesla.
It does account for all auxiliary energy while the car is running, but not drain while the car is off like sentry mode, software updates, or other wakeups. The charging losses play a factor but the main problem is the EPA highway test cycle averages <50 MPH as you can see from here: Detailed Test Information.
EPA should just perform an 80 MPH highway range/efficiency test (as many independent reviewers are starting to do) and post those figures as "highway range" and be done with this endless nonsense.
Not quite true. It doesn't account the energy used as you are waiting at a stop either. For exemple, watch the efficiency number while you wait at a red light. Or just stop for 5 minutes, with the car running. It doesn't change at all, although the car uses energy at 0 mph. Every other EV will register this energy and it will be reflected in the Wk/mi number. Not the Tesla. This is why Tesla efficiency numbers are great when driving long trips, continuous driving. Not in the stop and go.
Last edited:
Here is one of the EPA test cycles: they don't "turn off the car" during simulated stops/red lights, and they have no way of separately disabling the A/C, computer draw while "keeping the engine running". The EPA range figure incorporates simulated stop and go traffic.
You are talking about something else: whether the efficiency on the your tesla's screen goes up or down while at a red light. The number shown on the screen could be negative infinity but that doesn't change the fact that the EPA range figure incorporates energy consumed at stops.
The last several months have seen a never ending onslaught on EVs, Tesla, and Musk. It is insane.
Over our first 500 mi with our MY, we are getting exactly 4 miles to the kW, so right inline with expected range in town driving.
If one must drive like they are on a track, well, whatever. Who cares about their efficiency? How well does an ICE car do when pushed? Does it meet its EPA ratings?
Too many people are trying to make a cent or two by creating "content" of one type or another.
Then again there is no bad publicity. Tesla is constantly in everyone's face and that's a great thing. Around here in Phoenix adoption is, anecdotally, progressing pretty darn well over the last couple years.
Over our first 500 mi with our MY, we are getting exactly 4 miles to the kW, so right inline with expected range in town driving.
If one must drive like they are on a track, well, whatever. Who cares about their efficiency? How well does an ICE car do when pushed? Does it meet its EPA ratings?
Too many people are trying to make a cent or two by creating "content" of one type or another.
Then again there is no bad publicity. Tesla is constantly in everyone's face and that's a great thing. Around here in Phoenix adoption is, anecdotally, progressing pretty darn well over the last couple years.
If I could "+ 1,000,000" this, I would do so.
Similar threads
