Rated Range (at least in North America) is based on the EPA number (a fixed number). I never said it was based on the energy display, that's projected range.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
- Thread starter Dutchmeeuw
- Start date
DJRas
Member
Sorry... i misread something.
I hsve never seen anyone else with that efficient driving on an S.
No problem. I do that frequently too. And yes, many people don't get Ideal Range, but it's not unobtainable. About half the miles in the photo are road trip miles (up to 5,000 miles/trip, most are 1,500-2,000) which are more energy intensive than urban driving, so the overall average is slightly more than 240 Wh/mi.
DJRas
Member
The Rated Range WAS based on the EPA rating at some point. But, that has been manipulated with various updates at least twice in the last 2 years.
Originally based on 295 Wh/mi.
Now 276 Wh/mi
That's another reason why I don't use it. Ideal Range hasn't been manipulated from the original, as far as I know.
Rated range and ideal/ typical range are based on WLTP and EPA. They rename them for localizations but they're based on different official constants. "Rated" is your local official government rating, the other changes depending on whether you are in the US to be either more or less optimistic.
how old are you? How on earth are you driving 245wh/m on an old 85? I mean this can't be any fun at all
I am in the Chicagoland area where it's mostly flat. I use the tollway a lot and the speed depending on traffic and time of day is usually around 75mph. During mid fall and mid spring I get close to the rated 276 wh/mi sometimes more and sometimes less. I am currently at 320 wh/mi as the temperature is dropping. For me temperature makes a big difference in the rating.
DJRas
Member
I have dropped another couple of miles too. But it seems to have maybe continued normal degradation
BigNick
Infamous Fat Sweaty Guy
Under 240 Wh/mi is possible. I managed it exactly once driving to work in my P85D.
231 Wh/mile on an early summer morning, not running the AC, battery likely didn’t need heat or cooling, favorable traffic patterns, no Ludicrous, etc. Next best was 247 Wh/mi.
Edit: without using Ludicrous, I average 290 to 300 Wh/mi on my commute. April through October. I’m sure that will increase soon.
Winter is Coming.
231 Wh/mile on an early summer morning, not running the AC, battery likely didn’t need heat or cooling, favorable traffic patterns, no Ludicrous, etc. Next best was 247 Wh/mi.
Edit: without using Ludicrous, I average 290 to 300 Wh/mi on my commute. April through October. I’m sure that will increase soon.
Winter is Coming.
Last edited:
DJRas
Member
True... and with the cap we shouldn't have any more normal degradation.
The 295 number is based on energy added to the battery. As far as I know, that has never been changed for the S 85. It doesn't mean Tesla has not ever changed it; I know in some cases for the model 3 it appears that they have.
@wk057 could verify if it has ever changed.
DJRas
Member
No, 380 Wh/mi is the EPA energy put into the battery. 295 was discovered early 2017 by wk057. That is no longer the case.
The 380 number includes charging losses, that is why it is so high. The 295 number is not an EPA number, and never was.
Similar threads
