Can you make sense of all this and explain it to me....
Sorry if there are duplicates. I'm just sitting at the supercharger waiting for my MX to finish..
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Understanding Wh/mi (or km)
- Thread starter SSD420
- Start date
Can you make sense of all this and explain it to me....
Sorry if there are duplicates. I'm just sitting at the supercharger waiting for my MX to finish..
Ooops... it posted too quickly. here is the rest
- regarding the 1st picture, this gives you the information on your average consumption for the last 30 miles. having 353wh/mile on average, it would compare to 3.53l/100mile of an ICE. It is a moving average counting the latest 30 miles.
- regarding the 2nd picture, the information displayed is on the left, the same as above, and on the right, the range you would have with the actual charging, assuming you would continue driving the same way as you are doing right now. So this value changes a lot.
- on the 3rd picture, you have the exact same information, except that on the right hand side, it gives you the range you would have with the actual charging, assuming you would continue driving the same way you drove the last 30 miles. So this value changes less and is more accurate.
- on the following 2 pictures, you have the same information as on the 3rd, except that it consider your driving habit over 5, resp. 15 miles.
- and on the latest pictures, you have the very same information, except that you are probably charging. So considering that the charging increases, your range increase too.
In reality, those screens are not very useful and the one showing your actual consumption vs. expected consumption on your trip (trip tab) is much more valuable, as it shows you how close you are to the expected overall range (displayed on the left hand side of the dashboard). If you are below the line, you consume more than what the car expects to consume. If you are above, you consume less and you can drive a little bit more than the displayed range.
Hope I have been clear, EN is not my mother language ;-)
- regarding the 1st picture, this gives you the information on your average consumption for the last 30 miles. having 353wh/mile on average, it would compare to 3.53l/100mile of an ICE. It is a moving average counting the latest 30 miles.
- regarding the 2nd picture, the information displayed is on the left, the same as above, and on the right, the range you would have with the actual charging, assuming you would continue driving the same way as you are doing right now. So this value changes a lot.
- on the 3rd picture, you have the exact same information, except that on the right hand side, it gives you the range you would have with the actual charging, assuming you would continue driving the same way you drove the last 30 miles. So this value changes less and is more accurate.
- on the following 2 pictures, you have the same information as on the 3rd, except that it consider your driving habit over 5, resp. 15 miles.
- and on the latest pictures, you have the very same information, except that you are probably charging. So considering that the charging increases, your range increase too.
In reality, those screens are not very useful and the one showing your actual consumption vs. expected consumption on your trip (trip tab) is much more valuable, as it shows you how close you are to the expected overall range (displayed on the left hand side of the dashboard). If you are below the line, you consume more than what the car expects to consume. If you are above, you consume less and you can drive a little bit more than the displayed range.
Hope I have been clear, EN is not my mother language ;-)
What exactly is it you don't understand?
wh/mile is your energy consumption in watts x hours / distance.
It is exactly the same concept as saying your car burns 8 litres of gas per 100km, except we are talking about quantity of energy instead of volume of gas, because when you fill up your tank, you are interested in the volume you put in it rather than its energy equivalent.
Also, Tesla uses wh/km when many people are used to litres per 100km. Just multiply by 100 and you have it.
The other pics show the energy consumption graphs. They show the way you used energy in the last 5, 15 and 30 miles and compute the moving average of your consumption. The "average range" is the range you can drive if you keep consuming energy the way you did in the last 5, 15 or 30 miles. The "instant range" is non-sense to me as it serves no useful purpose; it just show how far you can go if you consume energy the way you did in the very last seconds. And finally, the graphs also show the "rated" average, that is the average Tesla says is achievable in good driving conditions, and is around 200wh/km, depending on the model.
wh/mile is your energy consumption in watts x hours / distance.
It is exactly the same concept as saying your car burns 8 litres of gas per 100km, except we are talking about quantity of energy instead of volume of gas, because when you fill up your tank, you are interested in the volume you put in it rather than its energy equivalent.
Also, Tesla uses wh/km when many people are used to litres per 100km. Just multiply by 100 and you have it.
The other pics show the energy consumption graphs. They show the way you used energy in the last 5, 15 and 30 miles and compute the moving average of your consumption. The "average range" is the range you can drive if you keep consuming energy the way you did in the last 5, 15 or 30 miles. The "instant range" is non-sense to me as it serves no useful purpose; it just show how far you can go if you consume energy the way you did in the very last seconds. And finally, the graphs also show the "rated" average, that is the average Tesla says is achievable in good driving conditions, and is around 200wh/km, depending on the model.
You can choose to average energy use over 5, 10 or 15 miles or show the instantaneous estimate, based on very recent energy usage.
The Projected range is based on your choices above - if you average usage over 10 miles then the projection will be based on you driving the same way you have for the past 10 miles. The time frames are useful for comparing range in changing conditions. Example, you drive for 30 minutes then it starts pouring rain. You can then look at usage and projections for either instantaneous or average the last 5 minutes to project your range under the current conditions. If you set a trip, the trip panel will calculate a useful dynamic range estimate for you and plot it against your progress in the trip.
As to energy usage, 333Wh is 1/3 of a kWh, so it would be another way of saying "3 miles per kWh" or in metric, 200 Wh is 5 kilometres per kWh.
The Projected range is based on your choices above - if you average usage over 10 miles then the projection will be based on you driving the same way you have for the past 10 miles. The time frames are useful for comparing range in changing conditions. Example, you drive for 30 minutes then it starts pouring rain. You can then look at usage and projections for either instantaneous or average the last 5 minutes to project your range under the current conditions. If you set a trip, the trip panel will calculate a useful dynamic range estimate for you and plot it against your progress in the trip.
As to energy usage, 333Wh is 1/3 of a kWh, so it would be another way of saying "3 miles per kWh" or in metric, 200 Wh is 5 kilometres per kWh.
Well, good of you to follow Elon Musk's advice and not just waste your time sitting idly while supercharging, but instead posting to TMC.
Your charging power is 404V * 106 A = 43 kW, i.e. only about a 1/3 of the supercharger's maximum charging power.
What was your battery's State of Charge at that point?
Well, good of you to follow Elon Musk's advice and not just waste your time sitting idly while supercharging, but instead posting to TMC.
Your charging power is 404V * 106 A = 43 kW, i.e. only about a 1/3 of the supercharger's maximum charging power.
What was your battery's State of Charge at that point?
I was about 10 min away from hitting my 90%. I had already been there about 10 minutes whereas I felt I was getting a fast charge. I recall seeing I was getting 475 km/h and climbing. When I took
Those pics, it was declining dramatically as I was almost done charging
1l is 1 liter (we use liters and km over here too ;-)
Yes, post your pics in l and km, I will have them "translated" for you
The display of miles/hr (or km/hr) is almost entirely useless while supercharging, as it's an average over the session - hence at the beginning it's misleadingly low, while at the end it makes it look like you are still charging quite fast when in fact it has slowed to a trickle and you are probably wasting your time sitting there.
Setting the display for kW, or just looking at the figure for amps (and to a lesser extent, volts) gives you a much better idea of how fast you are charging at any given moment.
Yes-ish. Take the Wh/km figure, divide by 1000 to get kWh/km, then multiply by the price you pay for electricity in $/kWh. That will tell you how much it costs to drive in $/km (dollars per kilometer driven). If you want to know total cost and not just a rate, then multiply by how many kilometers you drove (or expect to drive, if you're doing a projection). That will tell you how much you spent in $ to drive that distance. At least sort of.
The problem is that the number the car reports for driving energy efficiency (Wh/km) doesn't include a bunch of other energy uses or losses, it's only the energy used by the car while driving from A to B. So, if you compare the figure for the total energy used driving the car to the actual amount you charged the car, the numbers wouldn't be the same. Things that aren't included in the efficiency value are energy losses due to the Round Trip Efficiency of charging the battery, vampire drain, energy used to heat up or cool down the car prior to driving, etc. Basically, there's a difference between the total energy used in owning and charging the car than there is in just considering the energy used while in motion. If you want a really accurate value for the costs that includes such things, you'll have to account for the stuff not included in the driving efficiency value.
A trick I learned at uni to work out most equations is to figure out what units your aiming for and set up the equation to have the units you don't want canceled out. That's essentially what mociaf9 is doing.
If you want $/KM and your electricity is sold in $/KWH, then you need an equation that cancels out the KWH and gets KM in there at the bottom. The car's trip meter shows you the efficiency in WH/KM. But a WH is the wrong unit. There are 1000 WH/KWH, so flip that over to 1/1000 KWH/WH and multiply.
1/1000 KWH/WH * WH/KM give you the KWH/KM. The WH on the bottom on one and on the top on the other cancel out, leaving you with KWH/KM.
Now multiply the KWH/KM with $/KWH and the result is in $/KM. Your actual cost will be a little bit higher, but that's only about 10% for energy wasted charging the car and energy lost from what people here call vampire drain while the car sits. If the car is going to sleep properly (there are some settings like Sentry Mode that leave the car awake), vampire drain with the most recent firmware is very minimal. I have an older Model S (2016) and over the last year it's sat for 4 or 5 days at a time. It usually loses about 4-8 KM of range doing that.
The car also has a quirk that when there is a firmware update it needs to spend the first night unplugged or the car won't go to sleep properly. Leave it unplugged for about 8 hours and it will go back to sleep when plugged in normally. I've talked to Tesla about it and they can't find the problem. I think it's something in the charger hardware that isn't signalling the MCU properly. I think the charger has changed since 2016, so it's no longer an issue for newer cars.
If you want $/KM and your electricity is sold in $/KWH, then you need an equation that cancels out the KWH and gets KM in there at the bottom. The car's trip meter shows you the efficiency in WH/KM. But a WH is the wrong unit. There are 1000 WH/KWH, so flip that over to 1/1000 KWH/WH and multiply.
1/1000 KWH/WH * WH/KM give you the KWH/KM. The WH on the bottom on one and on the top on the other cancel out, leaving you with KWH/KM.
Now multiply the KWH/KM with $/KWH and the result is in $/KM. Your actual cost will be a little bit higher, but that's only about 10% for energy wasted charging the car and energy lost from what people here call vampire drain while the car sits. If the car is going to sleep properly (there are some settings like Sentry Mode that leave the car awake), vampire drain with the most recent firmware is very minimal. I have an older Model S (2016) and over the last year it's sat for 4 or 5 days at a time. It usually loses about 4-8 KM of range doing that.
The car also has a quirk that when there is a firmware update it needs to spend the first night unplugged or the car won't go to sleep properly. Leave it unplugged for about 8 hours and it will go back to sleep when plugged in normally. I've talked to Tesla about it and they can't find the problem. I think it's something in the charger hardware that isn't signalling the MCU properly. I think the charger has changed since 2016, so it's no longer an issue for newer cars.
Similar threads
