Tesla blog yesterday repeats 215 mile range estimate

[Model 3]

215 isn't really 215. first, you shouldn't charge to 100%. i've heard anything from 80-90% should be your real limit. After a year or two, you can expect degradation to take a few miles off that number. Then if you're in the northeast like me, a cold day will take a dozen or more miles off a long trip. Suddenly 215 turns into 165 miles.

True. And this is why Elon earlier said that the Model 3 - or it was known as Gen-III or Model E at that time - would come with "at least 200 REAL WORLD miles range". (Guessing he was not talking about winter-driving in snowstorm with headwind in -40°C ) He later added that to most people the rated range would not be equal real world range. He said something like "To most people that would be at least 20% more rated range then the real world range", indicating a rated range of at least 240 miles for the base version.

Mind: I do not say that the Model 3 base version will get an EPA range of 240 miles or more, but this is at least what Tesla has been working towards. But I do think it is pretty obvious that it will get well above 215 miles EPA rated range.

 

[WarpedOne]

What I have been disagreeing with is whether or not BEVs and ICEs are the same when it comes to effects of speed and weather. Clearly they are not.

Both are subject to same physics, how could they differ?

And while ICEs do suffer from increased consumption from high speed as well as cold weather, the effects are note quite as nearly as drastic as they are on a BEV. Increased consumption in cold is mostly related to the period when the engine is cold and will even out during range driving - and there is no loss of fuel during parking on an ICE. Also, regular motorway speeds on an ICE do not result in as dramatic increases in consumption as they do on a BEV. And of course, as a niche case, current BEVs are close to useless on autobahn speeds.

That ICE does not see so big drop in efficiency when going faster is because it sees that drop when going slower. By getting faster, ICE 'relative consumption' drops until it again starts to rise somewhere above 50mph.

ICE sucks at very low speeds therefore the ratio of high/low speed 'suckness' i.e. energy usage is not that big as with EV that shine at low speeds with very little parasitic loses and hence very low energy usage. When going fast they must overcome same drag but the ratio of high / low speed usage results in bigger number. This is not EV weakness but their strength.

 

[McRat]

We could probably make an educated guess by looking at the Hyundai Ionic numbers. It has the same 0.24 Cd as the Model S. The Model 3 is rumoured to have 0.21.

EPA ratings:

Hyundai Ioniq Electric becomes most efficient electric car ever rated by the EPA

That would imply that a 0.21 Cd 55 kWh Model 3 would have no problem beating the 0.32 CdA Bolt EPA. Also note that the difference between the Ionic and the much heavier Model S is low when you look at highway numbers only from Björn Nylands test:

View attachment 221781

Another data point from Bjorn is the Bolt at 121 Wh/km @ 90 kmh for 470 km at 10°C including rain with 3 people and some luggage and the front and rear seat heaters on.

With the Bolt's .32 Cd, the .21 Cd Model 3 55 kWh, I get .26 less total losses on the M3. So the M3 be 96 Wh/km. Assuming no buffer and 55 kWh. the M3 will have 573 km of 90 kmh range.

So the 55kWh Model 3 should have an EPA combined of 440 km based on Bjorn and your supplied Cd numbers. Somehow I doubt the Model S will be that close to the EPA range of the 90D.


I am puzzled why the Hyundai weighs as much as the Bolt when it has just over 1/2 as much battery. Does it come with 200kg of bricks in the trunk? It has a much smaller motor and inverter as well,

 

[Laban]

And while ICEs do suffer from increased consumption from high speed as well as cold weather, the effects are note quite as nearly as drastic as they are on a BEV. Increased consumption in cold is mostly related to the period when the engine is cold and will even out during range driving - and there is no loss of fuel during parking on an ICE.

The cold start problem won't "even out during range driving" if you take short trips on a regular basis:

95% Of All Trips Could Be Made In Electric Cars, Says Study

More astonishingly, around 98 percent of all single-trip journeys were under 50 miles in length, with trips over 70 miles in length accounting for just one percent of all single-trip journeys.

The average single-trip distance? Just 5.95 miles. And while rural respondents naturally traveled further on average than their urban counterparts, 95 percent of all rural-based trips were still under 50 miles.

 

[Laban]

ICE sucks at very low speeds therefore the ratio of high/low speed 'suckness' i.e. energy usage is not that big as with EV that shine at low speeds with very little parasitic loses and hence very low energy usage. When going fast they must overcome same drag but the ratio of high / low speed usage results in bigger number. This is not EV weakness but their strength.

Exactly. The difference between high/low speeds might be comparably low for certain ICE vehicles for the reasons you mention. An ICE with a CVT gearbox should in theory have the same consumption vs speed curve as an BEV.

But saying (AnxietyRanger) that they won't get a "dramatic increase in fuel consumption" is perhaps not correct:

Note that this seems to support my theory about the CVT gearbox (Prius).

 

[AnxietyRanger]

The cold start problem won't "even out during range driving" if you take short trips on a regular basis:

95% Of All Trips Could Be Made In Electric Cars, Says Study

Of course, ICE cold weather range evens out on longer ranges. Then again, in short ranges BEV suffers from losses during parking in the cold, as well as driving in the cold. I still expect ICE to have better range in freezing temperatures than a current BEV, most, if not even all of the time, but I get it there are stuff to be studied there with more nuance for sure.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Both are subject to same physics, how could they differ?

Because they are different technologies with different physical features? For example, fuel will not diminish in a tank while parked in the cold. A battery will lose energy while parked in the cold. That is just physics affecting different types of containers and liquids inside them differently based on their properties.

That ICE does not see so big drop in efficiency when going faster is because it sees that drop when going slower. By getting faster, ICE 'relative consumption' drops until it again starts to rise somewhere above 50mph.

ICE sucks at very low speeds therefore the ratio of high/low speed 'suckness' i.e. energy usage is not that big as with EV that shine at low speeds with very little parasitic loses and hence very low energy usage. When going fast they must overcome same drag but the ratio of high / low speed usage results in bigger number. This is not EV weakness but their strength.

You certainly make reasonable points about some of the strengths and weaknesses of different drivetrain technologies. Certainly BEV has some benefits over ICE (I already mentioned the high-altitude driving as one). @Laban as well, I am not disputing that there aren't effects of speend and weather on ICE as well.

That said, in practice, over the course of three winters, certainly the range losses for me were more severe in a Tesla, than they ever have been in an ICE - especially when driving longer ranges at motorway speeds. They are not the same effects - and that is something that one needs to take into consideration. After all, it is that long range, high speed driving that will lead to anxiety sooner than daily roundabouting with nightly charging at the base...

 

[Topher]

but since they are close to production why would they even mention the 215 number again in yesterday's blog if it isn't accurate?

Perhaps they haven't run an EPA test yet.

As for speed, a motorway speed in practice lessens Tesla range at rapid clip.

Range on a track is always 0. You end exactly where you started and you accomplish nothing in the meantime. Why should anyone care?

Thank you kindly.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Range on a track is always 0. You end exactly where you started and you accomplish nothing in the meantime. Why should anyone care?

By motorway I meant what I guess Americans call highway. I did not mean track.

List of motorways in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

 

[Qbenjamin]

If the 3 has range like my S60, then 200 rated miles = 140 miles of highway range...

 

[Sonny Daze]

Every car manufacturer knows new models attract attention away from old models, even between classes. Audi A6 customers can become high-end Audi A4 customers, when a new model arrives of the latter. Or at the very least it can delay purchase decisions, as new versions of lower-end models give hints of the future upgrades of higher-end models.

If they are concerned about potential S buyers delaying because they have one eye on the potential of the 3, and the 3 really is as "inferior" as Elon is hinting, why not just have a reveal and announce option prices? They may draw more attention from the general population but potential S buyers will have the facts they need and proceed.

 

[deonb]

If the 3 has range like my S60, then 200 rated miles = 140 miles of highway range...

I think that has less to do with your S60 and more to do with your S60 driver...

 

[Qbenjamin]

I think that has less to do with your S60 and more to do with your S60 driver...

Oh, care to elaborate? My post was based off of my road trip summary @ 75 mph. While it was the one and only road trip that I've done, the results were exactly the same on the way to my destination and back. I don't take off like a maniac, and use AP pretty much every chance that I get.

 

[deonb]

If they are concerned about potential S buyers delaying because they have one eye on the potential of the 3, and the 3 really is as "inferior" as Elon is hinting, why not just have a reveal and announce option prices? They may draw more attention from the general population buy potential S buyers will have the facts they need and proceed.

So basically a: "Hey competitors, this is what we're going to release 6 months from now. You can't copy us, because we have dibs.", announcement?

 

[TexasEV]

Oh, care to elaborate? My post was based off of my road trip summary @ 75 mph. While it was the one and only road trip that I've done, the results were exactly the same on the way to my destination and back. I don't take off like a maniac, and use AP pretty much every chance that I get.

His point was if you didn't drive averaging 75 mph you would have greater range.

 

[Qbenjamin]

His point was if you didn't drive averaging 75 mph you would have greater range.

Guess I should travel at or below the posted highway speed limit of 70 then...

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Guess I should travel at or below the posted highway speed limit of 70 then...

By the way:

In Europe motorway/highway speed limits of 75-81 mph are normal and a significant hit on the battery compared to 10 mph less.

 

[deonb]

Guess I should travel at or below the posted highway speed limit of 70 then...

Blame the EPA for not using a rated range that's in line with how people drive. Or even with what speed limits are.

Well, if you can get hold of them... Soon the EPA will just be "That guy, Bob, with the lazy eye who sits in the corner and nobody likes to talk to".

It is what it is - more of a measurement to compare cars against each other, than to set expectations for driving. They should have used a measurement that's not directly meaningful to people. Maybe specified range in KM's instead. Most American's can't tell the difference between a KM and a Parsec.

 

[Model 3]

Range on a track is always 0. You end exactly where you started and you accomplish nothing in the meantime.

Not if the car shuts down halfway on the track for an empty battery Hmm... In that case a lower range will give you a longer range? :O ?!?

 

[Qbenjamin]

Blame the EPA for not using a rated range that's in line with how people drive. Or even with what speed limits are.

Well, if you can get hold of them... Soon the EPA will just be "That guy, Bob, with the lazy eye who sits in the corner and nobody likes to talk to".

It is what it is - more of a measurement to compare cars against each other, than to set expectations for driving. They should have used a measurement that's not directly meaningful to people. Maybe specified range in KM's instead. Most American's can't tell the difference between a KM and a Parsec.

Your feedback would be better received if you cut out the sarcasm and get to your point. All you had to say in the first post was that the range would decrease dramatically if you drive above XX mph. Thank you.