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...
#21
Do people not look at the estimated battery left given by the navigation system? There are so many variables it's difficult to give a one size fit all range estimate, the navigation system range estimate is about as close as you can get.

Most cars (ICE or EV) won't get their rated efficiency at 70+MPH.
 
#24
OxBrew said:
1. Above 50% SOC the cars over state range, and under 50% they become more realistic.
Click to expand...

This. I want to drill into this, because I think it's the most questionable item in the entire article. I want to see some corroboration. I want the details of exactly how this worked, when it was done, what cars had it. I'm skeptical because it doesn't jibe with what I've seen, and it doesn't entirely seem to make sense.

When charged to 100% the car pretty much has to show the EPA rated range, because that's what customers expect when they buy it. If they bought a car rated 300 miles, they expect to take it home, charge it full, and see 300 miles readout on the dash.

When the car is depleted to zero, it has to show zero. It might show zero a little before you get there, before the car stops moving under its own power, but there isn't a whole lot of room for fudging numbers and pulling the wool over anyone at this end.

So, what exactly is the article accusing here? Is the readout starting accurate at 100% and then becoming overly optimistic in some range below 100 but above 50 and then becoming realistic again? That seems awfully complicated. Or are they really just saying that the 100% charge number is overly rosy because it's the EPA rating and the EPA rating is overly rosy? Because if that's all they've got, then this seems like a non-story.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gtg465x
#25
tonybelding said:
This. I want to drill into this, because I think it's the most questionable item in the entire article. I want to see some corroboration. I want the details of exactly how this worked, when it was done, what cars had it. I'm skeptical because it doesn't jibe with what I've seen, and it doesn't entirely seem to make sense.

When charged to 100% the car pretty much has to show the EPA rated range, because that's what customers expect when they buy it. If they bought a car rated 300 miles, they expect to take it home, charge it full, and see 300 miles readout on the dash.

When the car is depleted to zero, it has to show zero. It might show zero a little before you get there, before the car stops moving under its own power, but there isn't a whole lot of room for fudging numbers and pulling the wool over anyone at this end.

So, what exactly is the article accusing here? Is the readout starting accurate at 100% and then becoming overly optimistic in some range below 100 but above 50 and then becoming realistic again? That seems awfully complicated. Or are they really just saying that the 100% charge number is overly rosy because it's the EPA rating and the EPA rating is overly rosy? Because if that's all they've got, then this seems like a non-story.
Click to expand...
Did you read the article?
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: gtg465x
#26
OxBrew said:
The only thing really new to me in the article is overstating the range above 50% SOC, or what you called 5% buffer.

Really weird, I've seen ours drop suddenly right around 50%; a 2 mile round trip I do all the time takes 1%, except if it straddles the 50%, then it takes 5-7%. I wondered what the hell was going on.
Click to expand...
Wow your post struck a note with me.
I had read the no need to charge much over 50% for short town trips and I noticed the same. Get home and used a larger % than it should have.

Then I switched to charging to mid / high70% charge and the % use seems more reasonable for the same route.
Then again I should add a few updates have also been installed over that time .

Oh well just going to enjoy the car and not get to hung up on any of this as long as the Performance continues to Perform. :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: OxBrew
#28
  • Like
Reactions: zoomer0056
#29
tonybelding said:
This. I want to drill into this, because I think it's the most questionable item in the entire article. I want to see some corroboration. I want the details of exactly how this worked, when it was done, what cars had it. I'm skeptical because it doesn't jibe with what I've seen, and it doesn't entirely seem to make sense.

When charged to 100% the car pretty much has to show the EPA rated range, because that's what customers expect when they buy it. If they bought a car rated 300 miles, they expect to take it home, charge it full, and see 300 miles readout on the dash.

When the car is depleted to zero, it has to show zero. It might show zero a little before you get there, before the car stops moving under its own power, but there isn't a whole lot of room for fudging numbers and pulling the wool over anyone at this end.

So, what exactly is the article accusing here? Is the readout starting accurate at 100% and then becoming overly optimistic in some range below 100 but above 50 and then becoming realistic again? That seems awfully complicated. Or are they really just saying that the 100% charge number is overly rosy because it's the EPA rating and the EPA rating is overly rosy? Because if that's all they've got, then this seems like a non-story.
Click to expand...
Really good points. I will try to summarize.

How else would they achieve both of the following?
  • Show full EPA range when at 100%
  • Add a buffer when approaching 0%

They seem to lop off 5% around 50% SOC. Maybe they could try to blend the reduction over a longer range, but that would add a whole bunch of other problems (the blend zone would have different kw/mi readings, arbitrarily?)

Other companies seem to just build the buffer into their overall range rating, which is more in line with an under promise over deliver philosophy.

It might be good if they were transparent about it, and showed the shift in real time, or let you toggle it yourself.

But in the end, ehhh, it's close enough. It makes way more difference if you drive with a lead foot, or in mountains or headwinds. If you care that much, flip on the energy chart page and watch the real time predictions fluctuate all over the map as you speed up, slow down, go up and down mountains.
 
#30
Dr. J said:
That is a really useful chart...until you get to this part:

We don't (yet) control the weather, so the worst-performing examples, including a 2018 Model 3 that only managed 65 percent of its range rating, took place with outside temperatures hovering around freezing.

So the 2018 Model 3 Performance went 10% farther than a 2018 Model 3 LR. Reality is probably the opposite. They have the right idea, but this chart is not that useful for comparison purposes. Providing the test ambient temperature would help.
Click to expand...
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.
 
#31
From my personal experience, Tesla has a huge communication problem. Whether it’s their service or the in car estimations or the FSD beta. They are not transparent when it comes to things that a regular consumer might worry about and expect people to figure it out.

The forums don’t help either. There’s just too much information and it varies a lot. Not everyone enjoys learning about battery configuration and degradation but expecting a person who’s trying to save a few bucks on gas by switching to electric car to go on a research bender is not reasonable.

I think it would be better if Tesla as a company communicated proactively about these things instead of shutting down PR departments. I usually never get the range estimates I see on the navigation even driving conservatively and tend to stick with ABRP for trip planning. It might cost them a few sales to display lower range but will improve the overall experience for new and existing customers.
 
#33
This kind of thing happens every once in a while in the auto industry. I remember in the 80’s cars routinely saying they got in 40’s for MPG. Or much higher Horsepower ratings. The EPA usually gets around to adjusting things. They never talked about range before EVs came around. In my opinion it’s a non-issue, my car shows full battery every morning no matter how much I drove the preceding day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OxBrew
#36
LostVector said:
The videos i watched seemed to show the EPA range testing on a dyno like setup, not on a fixed loop track. Unclear to me how they even take air resistance into account like that, which is a massive component of a Tesla's real world range.
Click to expand...

Yeah the EPA process is decades out of date, focused almost purely on gasoline engine performance with an unrealistic fixed pattern of simulated speeds and loads and then some math to approximate wind resistance. It was fine in... the 1950's.

But since it's a "standard" upon which lots of money and laws and regulations rely, it's really hard to change it.

EPA did add a "high speed" test to their suite... which of course is not used when making the formal EPA numbers that go on the window sticker. Bleh. There's actually very few people at the EPA who actually do this "work" - just some specification-mavens who outsource the actual tests to the manufacturers in a very "close" partnership that feels ripe for abuse (hello VW dieselgate)
 
  • Informative
Reactions: zoomer0056
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Back
Blog
New
Forum list
Marketplace
Menu