Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Tesla rigged the dashboard readouts in its electric cars to provide “rosy” [range] projections

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
www.reuters.com

Tesla’s secret team to suppress thousands of driving range complaints

About a decade ago, Tesla rigged the dashboard readouts in its electric cars to provide “rosy” projections of how far owners can drive before needing to recharge, a source told Reuters.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com

Interesting.

TL;DR

1. Above 50% SOC the cars over state range, and under 50% they become more realistic.

2. Tesla had or has a team in Nevada and now moved to Utah solely dedicated to cancelling Service requests for range complaints, as they are deluged with them.

3. EPA ratings: Tesla aggressively uses all options to get the most rosy estimates (we knew that)

4. No comment from Tesla or any mfg on range for the story, some old comments.

So this feels about the same as almost every ICE car I've owned. The fuel gauge drops slower for the first 2/3 of a tank, then drops quicker at the end.

48609212538_27e61bc4e1_b.jpg

"Supercharging-Batterieanzeige auf dem Display, während der Elektroauto-Ladung an einer Tesla Supercharger Ladestation" by verchmarco is licensed under CC BY 2.0.
Admin note: Image added for Blog Feed thumbnail
 
Last edited:
  • Disagree
  • Like
Reactions: GOVA, Silicon Desert and alexgr
Click to expand...
#84
Maxpilot said:
Even in stop and go traffic? These test results look like a commute type drive to me.
Click to expand...
stop and (no) go traffic really happens when we have accidents or serious construction only on 80 mph highways. I agree, the test pattern looks like a rush hour downtown highway traffic. We have 50 mph speed limit on some city roads for god sake!
 
#85
Maxpilot said:
The 48mph average is based on using some city and highway driving speeds in their test. Not that they drive for the entire duration of the test at 48mph. I believe the trip information screen shows your average speed since a trip was reset. Look at yours, it's probably close to 48mph.
Click to expand...

No, you are mistaken.

The 48 mph average is not across city+highway.

Here is a link to the EXACT profile of JUST the EPA highway test: Emission Test Cycles: EPA Highway Fuel Economy Test Cycle

It's a bit more than 10 miles long, averages 48 MPH, and momentarily touches a top speed of 60 MPH on 3 tiny intervals of a second or two each.

THIS is why the EPA highway number comes out too high compared to actual cars driving 70 or 80 mph down the road.

Period. The end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MP3Mike and zoomer0056
#86
ZenRockGarden said:
No, you are mistaken.

The 48 mph average is not across city+highway.

Here is a link to the EXACT profile of JUST the EPA highway test: Emission Test Cycles: EPA Highway Fuel Economy Test Cycle

It's a bit more than 10 miles long, averages 48 MPH, and momentarily touches a top speed of 60 MPH on 3 tiny intervals of a second or two each.

THIS is why the EPA highway number comes out too high compared to actual cars driving 70 or 80 mph down the road.

Period. The end.
Click to expand...
I'm not mistaken. The tests clearly show they do not hold a steady 48mph. The graphs clearly show a modulation of speed, not a steady state speed that you would see on a clear highway stretch. We don't have to call it city/highway, but it is clearly not steady state highway. I think the designers of these EPA tests are trying to simulate a commute type drive on highways in densly populated areas.
 
#87
Maxpilot said:
I'm not mistaken. The tests clearly show they do not hold a steady 48mph. The graphs clearly show a modulation of speed, not a steady state speed that you would see on a clear highway stretch. We don't have to call it city/highway, but it is clearly not steady state highway. I think the designers of these EPA tests are trying to simulate a commute type drive on highways in densly populated areas.
Click to expand...

The two original tests were also designed in the 1970s, when cars and highway speed limits were slower.

But that is why they use derating factors for the numbers shown on window stickers.
 
#88
Maxpilot said:
I'm not mistaken. The tests clearly show they do not hold a steady 48mph. The graphs clearly show a modulation of speed, not a steady state speed that you would see on a clear highway stretch. We don't have to call it city/highway, but it is clearly not steady state highway. I think the designers of these EPA tests are trying to simulate a commute type drive on highways in densly populated areas.
Click to expand...

You said it was an average of 48 MPH because it included city+hwy. That was simply wrong. Take the L

No one claimed it was a steady 48 mph, just that this was the average speed of the highway test and that it doesn't remotely resemble actual highway driving behavior.
 
#89
strider said:
Agree that they should include the temps in the chart. But the fact of the matter is that the error is consistent for all Teslas they test so it's not due to weather.

I'm not accusing Tesla of anything nefarious - the EPA tests should be made real world. However, it is a fact that I tell anyone who asks is that you will not get rated range in a Tesla. Tesla lists the biggest number they can for marketing purposes but is not realistic unless you only drive on city streets or in heavy traffic. Back in the day (Roadster and early MS) Tesla displayed "Ideal" range which was even more optimistic than Rated. That was downright laughable. It caused a ruckus when they switched to Rated.

Here's my personal data. MXP has 95kWh battery and 333 rated range. That means 287Wh/mi. Over the past 18,000 miles I average 349Wh/mi. That means my real world range is 272 miles which is 18% less than rated. My driving is a mix of city street and highway and on the highway I never go over 74. IMO a pretty normal usage pattern.

Now the trip planner works perfectly and it's predications are accurate. This thread and my post is about rated range. Further, I think something has changed in recent years. I was able to get rated range in out 2012 MSP and am able to get rated range in our 2018 MS100D but as stated above I am nowhere close in my MXP. I think it has something to do w/ the switch to EPM and other things are that more efficient at slower speeds and less efficient at higher speeds than the old AC Async motors. So that means the newer cars do better on the EPA test and worse in the real world.
Click to expand...
Not me. My “real world” Wh/ mi is 206 over 5000 miles. That includes about 50% of the time on highways with at least 65 MPH speed limits, 30% of the time on roads with speed limits between 45-60 and 20% of the time on city streets with speed limits of 35 and traffic lights. I’m always over the EPA rated range. The EPA simply cannot test range doing 80 on the freeway or jackrabbit starts or AC blasting at 65.
 
#90
KenBlub said:
Not me. My “real world” Wh/ mi is 206 over 5000 miles. That includes about 50% of the time on highways with at least 65 MPH speed limits, 30% of the time on roads with speed limits between 45-60 and 20% of the time on city streets with speed limits of 35 and traffic lights. I’m always over the EPA rated range. The EPA simply cannot test range doing 80 on the freeway or jackrabbit starts or AC blasting at 65.
Click to expand...

Yeah, my real-world overall consumption is 236 Wh/mi which is a mix of around-town and 65 mph highway. The thing easily hits EPA rated numbers when driven moderately in mild weather.

The problem continues to be that a lot of people spend time in either extreme temps, or hammering down the highway at 80 mph - both of which ruin the otherwise amazing efficiency of the Tesla. The car is mostly guilty of being really good at the slow-and-boring EPA test speeds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KenBlub
#91
ZenRockGarden said:
The problem continues to be that a lot of people spend time in either extreme temps, or hammering down the highway at 80 mph - both of which ruin the otherwise amazing efficiency of the Tesla. The car is mostly guilty of being really good at the slow-and-boring EPA test speeds.
Click to expand...
Note that this occurs with ICEVs and other EVs as well. But maybe ICEV drivers complain less about more frequent or expensive refueling stops that result from such driving habits.

Teslas do seem to have a relatively lead-footed driver demographic compared to some other EVs like the Chevrolet Bolt.
 
#92
3sr+buyer said:
Note that this occurs with ICEVs and other EVs as well. But maybe ICEV drivers complain less about more frequent or expensive refueling stops that result from such driving habits.

Teslas do seem to have a relatively lead-footed driver demographic compared to some other EVs like the Chevrolet Bolt.
Click to expand...

Gas cars experience the same losses of efficiency under these conditions yes, but they're already SO inefficient that they're carrying 10x the fuel load of an electric car. Teslas have roughly 2 "gallons" of fuel in the form of battery. Gas car tanks run in the 15 to 25 gallon region. Burning an extra gallon heating the car or driving fast hurts far more in a Tesla since it wasn't bringing along 13 extra gallons for ineffiency-compensation.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: OxBrew, IronCoffee_Max and Mullermn
#96
KenBlub said:
Not me. My “real world” Wh/ mi is 206 over 5000 miles. That includes about 50% of the time on highways with at least 65 MPH speed limits, 30% of the time on roads with speed limits between 45-60 and 20% of the time on city streets with speed limits of 35 and traffic lights. I’m always over the EPA rated range. The EPA simply cannot test range doing 80 on the freeway or jackrabbit starts or AC blasting at 65.
Click to expand...
I don't know what model you have but my focus is on the Refresh MS/MX. I routinely get Rated in my wife's 2018 MS (with actual 100kWh battery) but I never get it in my MXP. In the Refresh models they shrunk the battery to 95kWh and then claimed "efficiency" to keep the range numbers as high as before. I think this was not done in good faith and instead was done purely to increase the margins on their already highest margin models. Par for the course for Tesla lately.
 
#97
strider said:
I don't know what model you have but my focus is on the Refresh MS/MX. I routinely get Rated in my wife's 2018 MS (with actual 100kWh battery) but I never get it in my MXP. In the Refresh models they shrunk the battery to 95kWh and then claimed "efficiency" to keep the range numbers as high as before. I think this was not done in good faith and instead was done purely to increase the margins on their already highest margin models. Par for the course for Tesla lately.
Click to expand...
Sorry to hear that. I have a 2023 Minute del 3 RWD. 270 mile range
 
#98
beatle said:
The guess-o-meter range estimate in any vehicle is pretty much useless as the car has no idea where you're going or how fast you plan to get there. Weather, elevation, and speed all play a part. The navigation estimate works pretty well most of the time though which is what really counts. I changed the display to a percentage long ago.

Agreed that the EPA tests are a poor measure of how people will actually use the cars.
Click to expand...
I was just about to post something that amounted to what you have said in your first paragraph. Asking the car to predict range is asking it to speculate about how fast you're going to drive, how strong the headwinds will be, how much AC you're going to use, what the elevation of your destination will be, whether you'll have the windows rolled down, and other things the car can't possibly know. I changed the battery display to percentage the day I got the car.

The EPA mileage and range estimates have never been about predicting what mileage or range you're going to get (the way you drive your car), but for comparison between cars. I.e. you can expect to get more range out of a car rated at 300 miles than one rated at 250 miles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: beatle
#99
Lost Petrol said:
I was just about to post something that amounted to what you have said in your first paragraph. Asking the car to predict range is asking it to speculate about how fast you're going to drive, how strong the headwinds will be, how much AC you're going to use, what the elevation of your destination will be, whether you'll have the windows rolled down, and other things the car can't possibly know. I changed the battery display to percentage the day I got the car.

The EPA mileage and range estimates have never been about predicting what mileage or range you're going to get (the way you drive your car), but for comparison between cars. I.e. you can expect to get more range out of a car rated at 300 miles than one rated at 250 miles.
Click to expand...

Agreed - and the answer is trivial - just default the battery display on the main screen to percent instead of EPA-miles. That's gonna work better for 90% of all customers.
 
#100
ZenRockGarden said:
Agreed - and the answer is trivial - just default the battery display on the main screen to percent instead of EPA-miles. That's gonna work better for 90% of all customers.
Click to expand...
It would be most useful if there were the user option to display any or all of the following at the top of the main screen:
  • Percentage -- as may be currently displayed.
  • Rated miles remaining (labeled "Rated") -- as may be currently displayed (but with the added label)
  • Estimated miles remaining (labeled "Estimated") -- same as from the energy screen
The estimated miles remaining is most equivalent to the "guess-o-meter" display on other EVs or the distance to empty on ICEVs. But "guess-o-meter" displays can lead drivers to different types of confusion, as shown on other EV forums.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Back
Blog
New
Forum list
Marketplace
Menu