Tesla Phantom Battery Losses of 20%

[ucmndd]

I suppose in order to get the ideal mileage... we all have to drive our Teslas like an old lady in a Prius.... (which completely defeats the reason for even owning a Tesla - at least for me..)

You mean EPA rated mileage is dependent on a conservative driving style and often difficult to achieve in the real world?

/feigns shock

 

[jerry33]

You mean EPA rated mileage is dependent on a conservative driving style and often difficult to achieve in the real world?

/feigns shock

I wouldn't put it that way. It's a standardized test. It isn't supposed to represent real world, it's supposed to be repeatable and car neutral.

 

[dano-oly]

This is silliness. Some people get rated miles because they drive conservatively in a mild climate. Some don't even come close because of speed and weather. I'm one of the latter. I've averaged 326 Wh/mi the past 3 months. That's about average for me based on my last 4 years of ownership. Most on this thread are reacting to the phrase "phantom loss." There's nothing phantom about it. As pointed out by others, mpg in an ICE varies widely based on driving style and weather as well.

Your driving style gets you 80% of rated miles. So does mine because I drive 15-20 mph above the speed limit on highways. Someone else's style gets them 105%. Thus it ever was. If you want to get better range, just slow down. Other than temperature (which you can't control) nothing else has the same impact. But I'm guessing you don't want to do that ... nor do I. So we live with below rated range.

This sums it up nicely.

In my 70D, rated range is based on 270 Wh/mi, and my average lifetime usage (60K miles) is 264. I drive conservatively most of the time and live in a mild climate, and get almost ideal miles (about 20% better than rated) for most of my driving during the months of good weather. During the winter, it's typically about 10% worse than rated.

 

[SocalMS]

I've never gotten the ideal mileage, I don't know why they even quote it to be honest. I'm not sure though if you are mixing terminology - the person you responded to was speaking about rated mileage which is different. A number of people are able to get rated mileage and without driving like an old lady in a Prius.

As others have pointed out this is just like any car regardless of propulsion method. You will have mileage differences based on how you drive. Some of how you drive is about how spirited you drive and with hybrids and electric cars there are also other factors too like maximizing regen. There will also be a bigger difference in efficiency vs. temperature for electric vehicles for a variety of reasons.

I've almost never gotten the EPA rated mileage in any gas or gas/electric hybrid vehicle I've owned and even if I did it was only for short periods of time. I've come closer to the EPA rated performance in this car than any of the prior vehicles I've owned in 40+ years with the exception of a 1987 Toyota Camry I drove in college from 1992-1996 I have never done better than EPA ratings. I'm not entirely sure what exactly you are continuously upset about. You haven't directly responded to several people who have made reasonable suggestions and instead choose to just complain. Some of us are trying to help you achieve your goals somehow. It makes it seem like you really don't care and you are just venting when you don't seem to take what people say seriously.

** I'm not complaining, just stating an observation. Don't want other new buyers or current owners to be under the impression, that if the odometer read "200 miles available" that they think they're really going to get 200 miles. So they would need to plan accordingly. And wanted to get feedback from other owners to see what they experienced.



Read back through the 4 pages of responses to your original question. People put effort into trying to address your concerns. If you aren't happy call your service center and see what they can tell you.

** Calling the service center is not an option. They usually don't answer the phone. And most service reps don't own Teslas and have no clue.


If that doesn't work I'm not sure what to tell you to do but if you really don't care about what people have to say please don't waste everyone's time anymore. If you are still attempting to troubleshoot and figure this out I'm sure many of us are still happy to try to help.

** I do appreciate everyone's feedback and comments. (Waste everyone's time? - and how did I do that? -- with all due respect -- THAT'S RIDICULOUS...)

 

[brianman]

I wrote software to do this something like 7 years ago. Worked great. Took into account everything from terrain to weather forecasts to battery age to driver habits and about a hundred other things, calculated your range on my different routes at once and then fit a polygon around it. You could even pick a random date in the future and it would use historic data (climatology, etc) to figure out what conditions are most likely to be then, and you could tweak conditions yourself. The company I started ultimately went broke.

Of the auto manufacturers that we reached out to, the company that was most dismissive of our tool?

Tesla.

They were the only one that never even tried it. Said something like "We do all software inhouse and will develop our own range tools". My company had a joint development partnership with GM when it went under (and I really just burned out).

Still pretty bitter about it, because now as much as then it still seems pretty obvious to me that EVs should have an accurate range calculator embedded in them. Just stating EPA miles is stupid.

What happened to your source code?

 

[brianman]

1. You get your average energy use (AEU) from your logbook.

What's a logbook? Actually, what's a book?

 

[Qbenjamin]

You do realize that rated range (not "battery life") isn't based on driving 75 mph, right? You're not losing anything, you're appropriately using more energy the faster you drive. It's just physics.

Apparently you didn't understand the underlying point that I made when I identified my driving speed as being the main issue behind my degradation of range.

 

[clostridium]

When people have made suggestions or reported their own experiences you have at times questioned whether they were correctly assessing their own vehicles energy usage or said that they drive like an old lady driving a prius. That tends to leave the impression that you are not exactly open to responses.

If I was 100% certain that you were wasting people's time I would have just come out and said "Stop wasting our time." Or better yet, I would have just ducked out of the thread and ignored any posts of yours. I was pretty explicit in my statement that if you really don't care what people think that would be wasting people's time. You apparently took that to mean that I said you were wasting people's time. Not the same thing at all.

 

[SocalMS]

When people have made suggestions or reported their own experiences you have at times questioned whether they were correctly assessing their own vehicles energy usage or said that they drive like an old lady driving a prius. That tends to leave the impression that you are not exactly open to responses.

If I was 100% certain that you were wasting people's time I would have just come out and said "Stop wasting our time." Or better yet, I would have just ducked out of the thread and ignored any posts of yours. I was pretty explicit in my statement that if you really don't care what people think that would be wasting people's time. You apparently took that to mean that I said you were wasting people's time. Not the same thing at all.

Sorry for any misunderstanding...

When I expressed doubt in anyone's "claims".. it's because it sounds pretty far fetched....

But I can see how someone can get that kind of range... "DRIVE VERY SLOW AND EASY".

But that's not how I drive, and the way most people drive... you floor it when you have to... and go easy when you can.. REAL WORLD DRIVING...

And based on REAL WORLD driving.. I was definitely expressing my doubts...

But I suppose.. if you want to drive your rocket ship like a sail boat.. go ahead... and get better than the stated range...

But then if you really really cared about saving MONEY... then why even buy an expensive Tesla?

Don't see the point.. just buy a Prius...

I have noticed some Tesla vehicles on the road...driving..... very.............. slow...................

 

[clostridium]

Sorry for any misunderstanding...

When I expressed doubt in anyone's "claims".. it's because it sounds pretty far fetched....

But I can see how someone can get that kind of range... "DRIVE VERY SLOW AND EASY".

But that's not how I drive, and the way most people drive... you floor it when you have to... and go easy when you can.. REAL WORLD DRIVING...

And based on REAL WORLD driving.. I was definitely expressing my doubts...

But I suppose.. if you want to drive your rocket ship like a sail boat.. go ahead... and get better than the stated range...

But then if you really really cared about saving MONEY... then why even buy an expensive Tesla?

Don't see the point.. just buy a Prius...

I have noticed some Tesla vehicles on the road...driving..... very.............. slow...................

Maybe I can get a note from you that says I drive my car "REALLY SLOW AND EASY" to show my passengers and other drivers and most importantly law enforcement.

Its amusing that you are categorizing yourself in with "most people" yet you are the one spending a whole thread complaining about your poor range and while there are other similar threads they are not coming from "most people." Ponder that one for a little while.

 

[drklain]

@SocalMS, it's not just about how fast you drive, it as about how heavy you are on acceleration and deceleration. Are you pushing the brake pedal to slow down regularly or do you just ease off on the accelerator and let regenerative braking handle more of the deceleration? Same goes for acceleration -- do you floor it or do you push it in a bit and accelerate at a reasonable rate (hint -- if most of the time when you accelerate from a stop at a light and everyone who was next to you is soon in your rear view mirror, you are generally accelerating aggressively. That doesn't mean you don't stomp on the pedal when you need to (or stomp on the brakes when something unexpected occurs and you have to) but it does mean that is not the norm. My daily commute is a mixture of interstate and 2 lane highway driving (along with some suburban streets/neighborhoods/stop signs. On the highway (when traffic doesn't slow things down), my general speed is 65-70 mph (which I wouldn't consider "driving slow and easy" or "driving like a Prius" -- it's what I consider responsible driving keeping pace with the majority of traffic. The result -- I average anywhere between 265 and 295 wh/mile and my "estimated range" is almost always greater than my "rated range" (albeit by only 1 or 2 percent.

It sounds like you drive aggressively compared to the average driver and are concerned that you aren't getting rated range because the ratings are inaccurate. Guess what? If you owned a Porsche, BMW M-series or a Corvette (or a Camry or Accord) you also wouldn't be getting "rated range" as measured in MPG. The only difference is it wouldn't be obvious to you unless you are anal person like I was who closely tracked MPG based on miles between fill-ups and amount of gas added to the car....you'd only see your gas gauge get near "E" (or whatever level you use) and know it was time to add gas...

 

[SocalMS]

Maybe I can get a note from you that says I drive my car "REALLY SLOW AND EASY" to show my passengers and other drivers and most importantly law enforcement.

Its amusing that you are categorizing yourself in with "most people" yet you are the one spending a whole thread complaining about your poor range and while there are other similar threads they are not coming from "most people." Ponder that one for a little while.

I'm just sharing an observation... I'm not complaining.... The car is what it is...

Let's agree to disagree....

 

[SocalMS]

@SocalMS, it's not just about how fast you drive, it as about how heavy you are on acceleration and deceleration. Are you pushing the brake pedal to slow down regularly or do you just ease off on the accelerator and let regenerative braking handle more of the deceleration? Same goes for acceleration -- do you floor it or do you push it in a bit and accelerate at a reasonable rate (hint -- if most of the time when you accelerate from a stop at a light and everyone who was next to you is soon in your rear view mirror, you are generally accelerating aggressively. That doesn't mean you don't stomp on the pedal when you need to (or stomp on the brakes when something unexpected occurs and you have to) but it does mean that is not the norm. My daily commute is a mixture of interstate and 2 lane highway driving (along with some suburban streets/neighborhoods/stop signs. On the highway (when traffic doesn't slow things down), my general speed is 65-70 mph (which I wouldn't consider "driving slow and easy" or "driving like a Prius" -- it's what I consider responsible driving keeping pace with the majority of traffic. The result -- I average anywhere between 265 and 295 wh/mile and my "estimated range" is almost always greater than my "rated range" (albeit by only 1 or 2 percent.

It sounds like you drive aggressively compared to the average driver and are concerned that you aren't getting rated range because the ratings are inaccurate. Guess what? If you owned a Porsche, BMW M-series or a Corvette (or a Camry or Accord) you also wouldn't be getting "rated range" as measured in MPG. The only difference is it wouldn't be obvious to you unless you are anal person like I was who closely tracked MPG based on miles between fill-ups and amount of gas added to the car....you'd only see your gas gauge get near "E" (or whatever level you use) and know it was time to add gas...

it's not just about how fast you drive, it as about how heavy you are on acceleration and deceleration. Are you pushing the brake pedal to slow down regularly


** No. Use Regen alot..


or do you just ease off on the accelerator and let regenerative braking handle more of the deceleration? Same goes for acceleration -- do you floor it or do you push it in a bit and accelerate at a reasonable rate

** Very much easy on the acceleration - I drive it like a normal car.


(hint -- if most of the time when you accelerate from a stop at a light and everyone who was next to you is soon in your rear view mirror, you are generally accelerating aggressively.

** This could be true. I don't consciously drive FASTER or SLOWER. I just drive...


That doesn't mean you don't stomp on the pedal when you need to (or stomp on the brakes when something unexpected occurs and you have to) but it does mean that is not the norm. My daily commute is a mixture of interstate and 2 lane highway driving (along with some suburban streets/neighborhoods/stop signs. On the highway (when traffic doesn't slow things down), my general speed is 65-70 mph (which I wouldn't consider "driving slow and easy" or "driving like a Prius" -- it's what I consider responsible driving keeping pace with the majority of traffic. The result -- I average anywhere between 265 and 295 wh/mile and my "estimated range" is almost always greater than my "rated range" (albeit by only 1 or 2 percent.


** I've been averagaging 310 WH/Mile


It sounds like you drive aggressively compared to the average driver and are concerned that you aren't getting rated range because the ratings are inaccurate. Guess what? If you owned a Porsche, BMW M-series or a Corvette (or a Camry or Accord) you also wouldn't be getting "rated range" as measured in MPG.

** You're probably right.


The only difference is it wouldn't be obvious to you unless you are anal person like I was who closely tracked MPG based on miles between fill-ups and amount of gas added to the car....you'd only see your gas gauge get near "E" (or whatever level you use) and know it was time to add gas..

** I don't... I just assume that I'll lose up to 20% in range... problem solved.

 

[mmccord]

Wow, literally everyone that has responded to this thread has missed the point. He's getting close to or better than rated wh/mile and not getting rated range. I've noticed the same thing in my 85D. Rated wh/mile on an 85D is either 280 or 290 (I don't remember off the top of my head). Anyway, I can start a trip with 262 rm, average 270 wh/mile, travel 200 miles, and only have 25 miles of range left. The numbers just don't add up.

My understanding is that the computer samples the wh used on a regular basis and "misses" some along the way. In reality, your wh/mi usage is higher than the dash indicates. One of the engineering types here that has rooted a MS/MX can correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[clostridium]

Wow, literally everyone that has responded to this thread has missed the point. He's getting close to or better than rated wh/mile and not getting rated range. I've noticed the same thing in my 85D. Rated wh/mile on an 85D is either 280 or 290 (I don't remember off the top of my head). Anyway, I can start a trip with 262 rm, average 270 wh/mile, travel 200 miles, and only have 25 miles of range left. The numbers just don't add up.

My understanding is that the computer samples the wh used on a regular basis and "misses" some along the way. In reality, your wh/mi usage is higher than the dash indicates. One of the engineering types here that has rooted a MS/MX can correct me if I'm wrong.

Change your car display to percentage instead of rated miles. Do the same drive. Work out the numbers based on your Wh/mi efficiency and see if it works out meaning it correctly consumed the right amount of battery percentage and has the right amount remaining. My experience is that this works. I noticed that rated miles didn't always work out. I don't know why that is but I'm much happier with the percentage display combined with the efficiency display on the center console. I'm able to easily estimate range too because I know that 2.5 miles per 1% of battery is a reasonably conservative estimate for non-winter conditions on my 75d. That assumes about 300 wh/mi. I know that most of the time I will beat that since my non-winter efficiency runs more like 260-275 wh/mi overall. In the winter I assume 2 miles per 1% of battery which is equivalent to 375 wh/mi.

I've also been using teslafi.com which follows your performance in Wh/mi and also in how much rated mileage you consume vs. actual miles. The only thing peculiar that I've noticed is that it looks like rated miles actually is based on something close to 265 wh/mi based on how teslafi calculates it. That being said, the range still works out as I'd expect. You can download the raw API output from the website and see exactly what the car is reporting on a minute by minute basis including exactly what the rated range is, the ideal range, the odometer reading, the speed, etc.

 

[mmccord]

Change your car display to percentage instead of rated miles. Do the same drive. Work out the numbers based on your Wh/mi efficiency and see if it works out meaning it correctly consumed the right amount of battery percentage and has the right amount remaining. My experience is that this works. I noticed that rated miles didn't always work out. I don't know why that is but I'm much happier with the percentage display combined with the efficiency display on the center console. I'm able to easily estimate range too because I know that 2.5 miles per 1% of battery is a reasonably conservative estimate for non-winter conditions on my 75d. That assumes about 300 wh/mi. I know that most of the time I will beat that since my non-winter efficiency runs more like 260-275 wh/mi overall. In the winter I assume 2 miles per 1% of battery which is equivalent to 375 wh/mi.

I've also been using teslafi.com which follows your performance in Wh/mi and also in how much rated mileage you consume vs. actual miles. The only thing peculiar that I've noticed is that it looks like rated miles actually is based on something close to 265 wh/mi based on how teslafi calculates it. That being said, the range still works out as I'd expect. You can download the raw API output from the website and see exactly what the car is reporting on a minute by minute basis including exactly what the rated range is, the ideal range, the odometer reading, the speed, etc.

I don't have a problem figuring out my range. I've done 70k miles in just over two years so I've got it down pretty well. Just agreeing that there is a discrepancy between the RM and wh/mi displays.

 

[Doubletap67]

Wow, literally everyone that has responded to this thread has missed the point. He's getting close to or better than rated wh/mile and not getting rated range. I've noticed the same thing in my 85D. Rated wh/mile on an 85D is either 280 or 290 (I don't remember off the top of my head). Anyway, I can start a trip with 262 rm, average 270 wh/mile, travel 200 miles, and only have 25 miles of range left. The numbers just don't add up.

My understanding is that the computer samples the wh used on a regular basis and "misses" some along the way. In reality, your wh/mi usage is higher than the dash indicates. One of the engineering types here that has rooted a MS/MX can correct me if I'm wrong.

This....

Best explanation I've read for the issue I think the OP was describing (and which I've asked about in the past to no avail).

 

[Doubletap67]

Change your car display to percentage instead of rated miles. Do the same drive. Work out the numbers based on your Wh/mi efficiency and see if it works out meaning it correctly consumed the right amount of battery percentage and has the right amount remaining. My experience is that this works. I noticed that rated miles didn't always work out. I don't know why that is but I'm much happier with the percentage display combined with the efficiency display on the center console. I'm able to easily estimate range too because I know that 2.5 miles per 1% of battery is a reasonably conservative estimate for non-winter conditions on my 75d. That assumes about 300 wh/mi. I know that most of the time I will beat that since my non-winter efficiency runs more like 260-275 wh/mi overall. In the winter I assume 2 miles per 1% of battery which is equivalent to 375 wh/mi.

I've also been using teslafi.com which follows your performance in Wh/mi and also in how much rated mileage you consume vs. actual miles. The only thing peculiar that I've noticed is that it looks like rated miles actually is based on something close to 265 wh/mi based on how teslafi calculates it. That being said, the range still works out as I'd expect. You can download the raw API output from the website and see exactly what the car is reporting on a minute by minute basis including exactly what the rated range is, the ideal range, the odometer reading, the speed, etc.

Done it many times, and in my car it doesn't add up. There's energy use that's not accounted for in the Wh/mi displayed - either that or my battery is a lot smaller than advertised.

 

[jlarmstr]

Yes, I also have a Toyota Highlander that gets "27 miles per gallon" on the highway per the EPA but in the real world never sees above 22.

You're not quantifying phantom drain or battery loss. You're just finding that your driving style/conditions don't match up with the EPA estimates (which Tesla along with every other automaker is mandated to use when reporting on range or fuel economy).

As for me, it's more like 5-10% for my driving conditions and style. My "200 mile" MS 60 can go 180-190 miles between charges almost every single time.

I think this is the case here....

I have found to get rated range, the consumption has to be around 270-280 Wh/mi. Weather and topographical variations (steep grades) can also cause a hit on range.

 

[clostridium]

Done it many times, and in my car it doesn't add up. There's energy use that's not accounted for in the Wh/mi displayed - either that or my battery is a lot smaller than advertised.

I'm not sure why that is the case. It works out for me every time within a small amount of error on trips of more than really short ones. I have an S75D which may be a different pack than what you have. The other consideration is what distance you have it showing the Wh/mi consumption averaged over since that will impact things as well. The estimates of range in the car nav system are on target as are the estimates in the energy screen on the center console as are the calculations from teslafi.com for me.