-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Sugacookie
Member
Screwbal
Member
2015 85D update, 15,500 miles... 90% = 241.8 miles. I did try to charge to 100% today but didn't have time for the very top to finish and the charge had tampered down in amps and it was at 266 miles when I unplugged (probably around 98 - 99%). This week I'll be doing a full 100% for a road trip then possibly again in 2 weeks so maybe letting the cells all get to 100% will help the range come back up.
Boatguy
Active Member
Yes, quite seriously. Forget the "rated miles", that's a fabrication created by Tesla. Your Tesla may have only lost 3.5% of it's rated miles, but it wasn't able to be driven normally and achieve the rated miles when it was brand new. All I (and other mainstream car buyers) care about are real miles that I can drive my EV.
When I bought my i3, BMW said I could get 80miles of "range on a full charge". Two years later I can regularly get 85 miles of real world driving; a mix of freeway at 70mph and around town. I drove home from the airport last night, heat and headlights on, about 50/50 freeway and city driving and got 4.6mi/kWh which translates to 86 miles of real world driving. That's an increase of 7.5% over the advertised range when I bought the car after two years of ownership.
When I bought my 2016 S90D, they said 294 miles of "EPA range". Tesla knew that range could never be achieved in real world driving, yet advertised that number and continues to advertise it. How did they know? Tesla replied to a thread on the Tesla official forums with:
"Rated range = the car’s estimate of remaining energy / a fixed whpm. The fixed whpm is different for different vehicles (85kWh / 60kWh) and in different markets based on the regulatory test for that vehicle in that market."
Apparently the "fixed whpm" for the S90D is 273 because my S90D loses 1 rated mile for every 273W consumed. Read this thread, or look at your own trip meters, and see how many watts you consume per mile. It's going to be in the range of 290 - 320. Nobody who does any amount of freeway driving can get near 273W/mi. My average for 5,000 miles is 303W/mi. Tesla has massive amounts of data regarding our car's performance, they know the real world consumption, but they hide behind the "regulatory test" because it allows them to advertise a misleadingly high range.
BMW did not hide behind the EPA. Amazingly, while Chevrolet quotes the EPA number, the first independent reviews are in on the Bolt and many testers exceeded the 238mi EPA advertised range. The LA Times reviewer got almost 300mi of range. Car and Driver (not known for being light on the "go" pedal") drove 238mi and still showed 34mi of range. Tesla cannot achieve the EPA rating in normal driving.
So here's the final math on the S90D:
Advertised range = 294mi
100% rated miles after 5,000 miles = 284
Real world miles versus rated miles = 273W/mi / 303W/mi = .9 real world miles for each rated mile
Real world range after 5,000 miles = 256mi
Real world range versus advertised range = 256 / 294 = 87%
Difference between advertised range and real world range after 5,000 miles = - 13%
Tesla has the data, they know what an average or even median owner can achieve in the real world, but that number is not as attractive as the EPA number so they don't advertise it.
Yes, Tesla over commits and under delivers on range. And if they continue that practice with the M3, the market will quickly realize the emperor has no clothes...
Very informative. Since the "EPA Rated Range" is coming from the EPA's 5-stage test city/highway driving and not from Tesla there's certain test criteria they use for speed, temperature etc.. for both city and highway to achieve those results. Are you sure they got it wrong using their criteria? Personally I pay more attention to estimated rather than rated range for a trip. I generally keep track of rated range to track degradation or when to balance.
I LOVE Tesla but as the owner of an i3 I've made this same argument, though not as well. Tesla's rated range is a joke. Range isn't a static number on any other car but a Tesla yet people here accept it as gospel. I wish some of those that have had too much of the koolaid would understand that admitting that the car (and the company) both have some very real shortcomings does not mean you're saying they are horrible in general.
You bring up a interesting philosophical question. Would the average EV buyer rather pay for an extra 10% capacity above advertised max in order to avoid the appearance of degradation or would they prefer to have the price reduced incrementally and know that the day they take delivery is the best their range will ever be? Obviously Tesla, Nissan etc feel one way and BMW the other. Interesting marketing dilemma.
On that second line I quoted, I suspect Tesla, if asked, would say that using the EPA numbers give apples to apples comparisons to all other manufacturers using the same driving cycle, regardless of actual owner habits. Sort of like how ICE manufacturers were getting grief a few years ago over how no one seemed to get the same fuel economy numbers on the window sticker even though no one actually drives a pure FTP-75 driving cycle (what the rated fuel econ numbers are based off of, I think).
And on a completely unrelated note, I swear I've seen your avatar picture somewhere else. You wouldn't happen to be on cuisersforum.com would you?
Sorry to interrupt the chain but adding a data point to the conversation.
I've had my CPO S85 for a little over a month now. My 90% is 228mi, with 100% (in the few cases I've put it there) being 256mi. I'm unsure of my battery pack revision, I'll check in a bit, but the car as a whole has 63k miles.
For a single trip between Nashville and Memphis I was showing 266 possible miles (based on miles remaining added to what I'd already traveled), admittedly I was driving conservatively since I was heading out of range of a supercharger.
I've had my CPO S85 for a little over a month now. My 90% is 228mi, with 100% (in the few cases I've put it there) being 256mi. I'm unsure of my battery pack revision, I'll check in a bit, but the car as a whole has 63k miles.
For a single trip between Nashville and Memphis I was showing 266 possible miles (based on miles remaining added to what I'd already traveled), admittedly I was driving conservatively since I was heading out of range of a supercharger.
Boatguy
Active Member
I guess the EPA got it wrong, especially when compared to the Bolt estimate and reported actual performance.
It's easy to measure for your own car. Take a trip of at least 20mi, record the rated miles at the start and finish and then compare to the miles driven. Then divide the power consumed for the trip by the odometer miles to compute the W/mi. Since you also have an S90D I think it's going to be very close to 273 W/mi. But do the math and let us know, more data points are good.
Alex Van Ness
Member
My October 2015 85D has 245mi range at 90% and had 273mi last time I charged full. It has about 6200 miles.
Boatguy
Active Member
Degradation and reported range are two separate issues. I'm mystified, but happy, that the BMW does not show some degradation after two years.
Yes, EPA to EPA is useful for comparison shopping, but when Tesla knows that the buyer is not going to achieve that range then things start getting a little dodgy. The ICE guys were all underperforming, what's confusing here is that some mfgs are delivering more than EPA, while Tesla is way under.
I think buyers want to know what to fairly expect and Tesla is doing themselves a disservice by publishing the EPA number and then staying silent on what they know is reality. Just like the Bolt got a boost by journalists saying they got more range than expected in real world driving, if Tesla continues the current practice, they will get hammered by the press and public if the M3 delivers 90% of what they promise.
Yes, I used to be on several cruiser forums and we were on the cover of some sailing magazines in 2009-2010. Small world!
EPA range: 265, 90% 239, Ideal range: 300
90% at 75K: Rated: 229, Ideal: 264, Wh/mi: 247
Real world range for usable of 81 kWh: 81K/247 = 328
Real world range for usable of 75 kWh: 76K/247 = 307
90% at 75K: Rated: 229, Ideal: 264, Wh/mi: 247
Real world range for usable of 81 kWh: 81K/247 = 328
Real world range for usable of 75 kWh: 76K/247 = 307
Boatguy
Active Member
247 W/mi is great!
What kind of driving do you normally do (freeway, local, speed, etc.)?
I think your looking at EPA the wrong way. On an ICE it's also rarely achievable same as Tesla. Your EPA ratings on both an ICE and Tesla is static because it's based on a defined testing procedure. In other words you CAN reach it but conditions have to be the same or similar to what EPA used. A more realistic metric is to use expected range (which is based on your driving style and conditions) or what @Boatguy suggests.
You're right. My beef with them is using this number rather than a realistic number based on average wh/mi for recent driving, similar to how an ICE vehicle displays range as a measure of how far you can go based on recent fuel consumption/ driving habits. If every time we filled our ICE vehicles with gas they told us that they have exactly the EPA rated amount of range we'd all say they were lying liars but with Teslas most accept that and many vehemently defend it as being infallible.
It's split about 50/50 between road trips and urban commuting. To work is on surface streets, from work is on the freeway. Speeds vary, though on trips I tend to be between 60-65 mph.
roblab
Active Member
Amazing. Tesla tries to give us a number that can be used to compare apples to apples, and everyone complains that it doesn't reflect "real world" miles. So, let's say that I get 275 miles per charge on my 90D. I live on a mountain. Someone else says they "can" get 315. Someone else who likes to drive at 90 mph across Montana only gets 200. Which one do you want published? Which one are you going to compare to Bolt or Leaf?
EPA range is for comparison. If you follow EPA driving cycle you will get durned near the EPA range. How hard is that? And why is Tesla damned for using a known metric? They are not trying to obfuscate, but clarify. So, what should they do? "Real world" is a bell shaped curve, and you can't pick the one number you like to represent it.
EPA range is for comparison. If you follow EPA driving cycle you will get durned near the EPA range. How hard is that? And why is Tesla damned for using a known metric? They are not trying to obfuscate, but clarify. So, what should they do? "Real world" is a bell shaped curve, and you can't pick the one number you like to represent it.
Correct. No matter what number is used, there will be folks that complain. The EPA Five Cycle evaluation may not be the best possible choice, but it's standardized and repeatable. Ideal range is also repeatable, but it's specific to Tesla, and so not standardized.
If an ICE is EPA rated at 25 MPG it's always going to be 25 MPG whether you can get that or not. Instead of MPG my 90D is rated at 286 miles completely "full" of fuel whether I can realistically get that or not. It's just for planning purposes anyway because in the ICE you'll be watching your gas gauge and in the Tesla your watching your range indicator. @jerry33 has always advocated for just switching that "gauge" to "energy" percentage rather than Rated Miles and stop worrying about it while your driving which gives you the more familiar "gas tank" look and feel. That seems to make sense.
Boatguy
Active Member
Tesla knows the shape of the curve, location of the median, standard deviation, etc. etc. Why not publish EPA and median with a description of how the median driver drives since Tesla knows their average speed, mix of freeway versus local, etc.?
If M3 owners get 13% less than the EPA number, there is going to be an uproar. It's in Tesla's interest to be as transparent as possible.
We know the S90D EPA number is 273 W/mi. I'll start a poll and see what the curve looks like. We'll let the numbers do the talking.
Here is the poll.
Last edited:
Similar threads
