53 miles Sherman Oaks to Mt. Waterman (+6000 ft) = 22 kWh
53 miles Mt. Waterman to Sherman Oaks (-6000 ft) = 2 kWh
These jibe reasonably well with calculations I did on Model S years ago along Sherwin Grade near Mammoth
Putting those numbers to use today:
53 miles Mt. Waterman to Sherman Oaks (-6000 ft) = 2 kWh
Implies 53 miles flat would be about 12 kWh
Implies roughly 10 kWh to gain 6000 ft = Roughly 1.67 kWh per 1000 ft
Overall energy use was 227 Wh/mi ... or roughly 4.5 mi/Wh
Implies roughly 1.67 x 4.5 or about 7 extra range miles to climb 1000 ft ... or about 7 recouped when descending 1000 ft
Because regen isn’t perfectly efficient, actual numbers may be more like 8 to climb and 6 upon descent
Implies roughly 10 kWh to gain 6000 ft = Roughly 1.67 kWh per 1000 ft
Overall energy use was 227 Wh/mi ... or roughly 4.5 mi/Wh
Implies roughly 1.67 x 4.5 or about 7 extra range miles to climb 1000 ft ... or about 7 recouped when descending 1000 ft
Because regen isn’t perfectly efficient, actual numbers may be more like 8 to climb and 6 upon descent
These jibe reasonably well with calculations I did on Model S years ago along Sherwin Grade near Mammoth
Putting those numbers to use today:
We used 375 range miles to go 297 miles Sherman Oaks to Mammoth Lakes (7000 ft gain)
Back out 55 miles for the gain (at 8 kWh/1000 ft), and you’ve got 320 RM used to go 297 actual miles.
Used 140 RM to go 100 miles Lone Pine —> Mammoth Lakes.
Back out 30 - 35 RM for this 4000 ft climb, and you’ve got 105 - 110 RM to cover 100 actual miles.
This implies a flatland equivalent use of 255 Wh/mi at our autopilot speeds of 72- 74 mph. Compares with about 300 in our Model S. Impressive.
Five-sixths the energy usage —> sixth-fifths the efficiency. 20% more range per kWh.
Where this really becomes impressive is that ...Back out 55 miles for the gain (at 8 kWh/1000 ft), and you’ve got 320 RM used to go 297 actual miles.
Used 140 RM to go 100 miles Lone Pine —> Mammoth Lakes.
Back out 30 - 35 RM for this 4000 ft climb, and you’ve got 105 - 110 RM to cover 100 actual miles.
This implies a flatland equivalent use of 255 Wh/mi at our autopilot speeds of 72- 74 mph. Compares with about 300 in our Model S. Impressive.
Five-sixths the energy usage —> sixth-fifths the efficiency. 20% more range per kWh.
The 3 seems able to pull as many kWh Supercharging as the S.
That means that it adds miles 20% faster.
And, for us, moving from an 85D (265 Mile range after three years) to a 3LR (at least 310), one can add more miles at this faster rate before succumbing to the charging taper.
The practical difference:That means that it adds miles 20% faster.
And, for us, moving from an 85D (265 Mile range after three years) to a 3LR (at least 310), one can add more miles at this faster rate before succumbing to the charging taper.
No Mojave charging stop necessary to complete the uphill, headwind 200-mile run to Lone Pine (arrived with 78 RM).
Much shorter stop in Lone Pine. No walk to McDonalds, eat, wait around, and then walk back. Stay at Supercharger, eat sandwich, and return to the road. Arrive in Mammoth with 70 miles still in tank.
Very impressed with Model 3 as road trip car.Much shorter stop in Lone Pine. No walk to McDonalds, eat, wait around, and then walk back. Stay at Supercharger, eat sandwich, and return to the road. Arrive in Mammoth with 70 miles still in tank.