-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
The thing that matters most is that the advertised range matches a controlled test that is repeatable on new vehicles.
It does not matter if the car is powered by 72 magic bunnies, or 10 liters of grape juice, or nuclear fusion reactor. If you can repeat the test and go as far, you're good. These two factors put together are the efficiency, with regulations like EPA governing it.
Stripping out one factor (e.g. arguing if 72 bunnies are equally strong, or what's the actual purptane of your grape juice) and calling out "foul" is an unbalanced equation, both energy and distance together are required for efficiency. Distance and driving pattern are carefully controllable factors in the defined test.
Real people don't drive like controlled tests. We don't achieve an EPA number all the time. But if you're calling into doubt a test result, then be prepared to repeat the real test as a control. Here's the kicker though, for battery cars, batteries degrade and Tesla says so. You can expect reduced range over time, or less efficiency on the controlled test. EPA only applies for new cars leaving the factory.
I can over achieve the expected range that EPA rating suggests for my 2 year old model S. By changing the way I drive. And ICE cars can do this too.
Car manufacturing business is notorious about claims of horsepower, at the wheel, no, at the crank, no, brake horsepower... everyone knows there's "marketing" at play there. If its really important to you that a car has a specific horsepower, maybe you pay roadtax based on HP rating? Then get a dynotest done as part of your acceptance agreement of the sale.
And the acceleration is what it is. You can decide if it goes fast enough, and vote by keeping (accepting) the car, or not. There's no buyer protection regulations about how well a vehicle must accelerate. Attach any number system you like to acceleration, bunny hops squared per centimeter.. again, whose to say without extremely precise instruments on the bunnies inside? The power curves of the various motivational forces inside the power delivery factory are mysterious ... for real people who have no way of measuring it.
If it's really important to your acceptance of a car, specify a test the car must meet at time of delivery and do it. Decide to keep the car or not. Keeping the car and saying or doing nothing at that time is implied acceptance. After a reasonable amount of time (if not defined specifically in your contract or governed by consumer protection laws or other devices) ..... it's yours!
tl;dr: make sure you're happy with the car before you've paid all the money, and if your car doesn't seem to match the test driven one, let the manufacturer know right away! You are "owed" nothing if you don't.
It does not matter if the car is powered by 72 magic bunnies, or 10 liters of grape juice, or nuclear fusion reactor. If you can repeat the test and go as far, you're good. These two factors put together are the efficiency, with regulations like EPA governing it.
Stripping out one factor (e.g. arguing if 72 bunnies are equally strong, or what's the actual purptane of your grape juice) and calling out "foul" is an unbalanced equation, both energy and distance together are required for efficiency. Distance and driving pattern are carefully controllable factors in the defined test.
Real people don't drive like controlled tests. We don't achieve an EPA number all the time. But if you're calling into doubt a test result, then be prepared to repeat the real test as a control. Here's the kicker though, for battery cars, batteries degrade and Tesla says so. You can expect reduced range over time, or less efficiency on the controlled test. EPA only applies for new cars leaving the factory.
I can over achieve the expected range that EPA rating suggests for my 2 year old model S. By changing the way I drive. And ICE cars can do this too.
Car manufacturing business is notorious about claims of horsepower, at the wheel, no, at the crank, no, brake horsepower... everyone knows there's "marketing" at play there. If its really important to you that a car has a specific horsepower, maybe you pay roadtax based on HP rating? Then get a dynotest done as part of your acceptance agreement of the sale.
And the acceleration is what it is. You can decide if it goes fast enough, and vote by keeping (accepting) the car, or not. There's no buyer protection regulations about how well a vehicle must accelerate. Attach any number system you like to acceleration, bunny hops squared per centimeter.. again, whose to say without extremely precise instruments on the bunnies inside? The power curves of the various motivational forces inside the power delivery factory are mysterious ... for real people who have no way of measuring it.
If it's really important to your acceptance of a car, specify a test the car must meet at time of delivery and do it. Decide to keep the car or not. Keeping the car and saying or doing nothing at that time is implied acceptance. After a reasonable amount of time (if not defined specifically in your contract or governed by consumer protection laws or other devices) ..... it's yours!
tl;dr: make sure you're happy with the car before you've paid all the money, and if your car doesn't seem to match the test driven one, let the manufacturer know right away! You are "owed" nothing if you don't.
Last edited:
scottm: ++1
I am just a bit amused by this. It almost looks like bragging rights for a number that in the end does not matter.
Person A: Hey my car has 90kWh, but yours is only 85? is that right?
Person B: True, but your car can only go 250 miles, but mine can go 270..
Person A: Who cares? I have a bigger battery than yours.
I am just a bit amused by this. It almost looks like bragging rights for a number that in the end does not matter.
Person A: Hey my car has 90kWh, but yours is only 85? is that right?
Person B: True, but your car can only go 250 miles, but mine can go 270..
Person A: Who cares? I have a bigger battery than yours.
Oh, I just realised i put my comment about Norwegian rulings yesterday in the wrong "needs an asterix"-thread
Sorry for that!
Should of course have been in the 691hp-thread..... But I think Andy indirectly corrected my mistake by crossposting it into thecorrect one so thanks to him as well
Sorry for that!
Should of course have been in the 691hp-thread..... But I think Andy indirectly corrected my mistake by crossposting it into thecorrect one
so thanks to him as well
Oh, I just realised i put my comment about Norwegian rulings yesterday in the wrong "needs an asterix"-thread
Sorry for that!
Should of course have been in the 691hp-thread..... But I think Andy indirectly corrected my mistake by crossposting it into thecorrect one
Sad commentary ... so many asterisk threads ... as to be confusing ...
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
Just need to point out that the above would not be applicable to the early P85D adopters, as we had no test drive cars to compare our cars to when we took delivery.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
Should of course have been in the 691hp-thread..... But I think Andy indirectly corrected my mistake by crossposting it into thecorrect one
I had you covered!
I agree that range is what matters most. But that's not to say that (battery capacity) specs don't matter. After all, Tesla thinks battery capacity is important enough to name their cars after it.
What if the 85 were instead spec'd with 100kwh and named the 100? How about 1000? At what point is it sufficiently misleading to be considered false advertising?
The $10,000 70->85 upgrade appears to be overstated by ~50%. That is, instead of receiving 15kwh in additional usable capacity, one receives 10kwh. If so, is 50% misleading enough to be considered false advertising? The missing value is $3,333.
True. But when manufacturers (car or otherwise) get too egregious with the marketing, they get taken to task.
FlatSix911
Porsche 918 Hybrid
Can someone summarize the listed vs. actual kWh for the Tesla batteries?
Here is a wiki table to start ...Tesla Model S - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here is a wiki table to start ...Tesla Model S - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I thought I'd throw in a relevant number. After 128.7k miles, I only get about 61.7kWh usable on my 2013 P85. My 100% range charge is only 235. In reality I barely can get 200 miles which my daily commute is 195 so from this point forward I need to stop at a supercharger every day in order to make it home from work.
This attached photo is from today's commute. I 100% max range charged this morning (I must do this now just to be able to make it home )
This attached photo is from today's commute. I 100% max range charged this morning (I must do this now just to be able to make it home )
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
That's going to suck this winter. Have you tried leaving it plugged in after a 100% charge for an extended period for any potential extra cell balancing?
Sounds like about 6-8% degradation, if I've got my numbers right. How many rated miles were displayed range charge new?
Wow, that's a long commute. 11.5% degradation after about 3.5 years, but 36,000 miles a year. Presumably your pack is well balanced and calibrated because you've been doing full cycles lately. I'm curious, do you have a Rev A or Rev B pack?
Maybe it's time to trade up to a 90D with Autopilot. I know lots of people would still be happy with 235 rated miles of range.
jcaspar
Member
That seems very atypical. My 2013 P85 charges to 258 at 100%. which is a 2.6% degradation. I have 31.5k miles. I don't charge every day and let the battery drop to 60% or so before charging back to 80 or 90. Seems you may have a problem with your battery or it is not balanced. I have a Rev D pack.
P.S. Just saw your mileage and can imagine you must have charged to 100% uncountable times. That probably accounts for the excessive degradation.
The amount of energy used counted in the trip meter means almost nothing. That number is complete garbage. Jokes on all of us, apparently. At least looking at 100% range will tell you how many kWh the BMS thinks is in the pack. Now that I've started using TeslaFi, I'm getting more accurate consumption numbers than the retarded trip meter. It's higher than anyone using the trip meter thinks it is, and I don't have to calculate it by hand anymore.
Actual is dependent on weather and driving habits. It is not a benchmark. Frankly, if @yobigd20 wants to avoid a supercharge stop, slow down to extend range.
Similar threads
- Question
