MP/kWh seems a lot easier for me (most people?) to understand because it correlates well with MPGs. Thoughts?
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
MP/kWh seems a lot easier for me (most people?) to understand because it correlates well with MPGs. Thoughts?
except L/100km was always a ridiculous measurement anyway. It should have been km/L However I suspect L/100km came about because way back when we first went metric people didn't like that the numbers for km/L looked significantly worse than the mpg they were used to, so they came up with this ridiculous system to make numbers that felt more comfortable.Wh/km is easier for me because it correlates with l/100km
Decimal places are a possibility, just sayin'....The thing that makes Wh/mi nice though is it's far more granular a measurement. 333Wh/mi is 3mi/kWh. 250 is 4. 200 is 5. 500 is 2. Big jumps. A measure more granular is good.
When I do a day at 292Wh/mi, I know that's better than rated 303. And in winter when I see 350s pretty regularly, I know its cold outside. All of those round to 3mi/kWh. But they are all quite different.
I am with the OP on this one. "Miles per the-thing-you-buy" seems like it would be so much easier as a standard. Miles per Gallon or miles per kWh.
The thing that makes Wh/mi nice though is it's far more granular a measurement. 333Wh/mi is 3mi/kWh. 250 is 4. 200 is 5. 500 is 2. Big jumps. A measure more granular is good.
When I do a day at 292Wh/mi, I know that's better than rated 303. And in winter when I see 350s pretty regularly, I know its cold outside. All of those round to 3mi/kWh. But they are all quite different.
Why would M/kWh need to be integers? One or two decimal places would make the units comparable in granularity.
This makes sense. I'm coming from a leaf so it's hard for me to make sense of the way Tesla represents "MP-thing", but in the defense of mi/kWh it is always represented with one decimal place so you'd see 3.5, 2.9 etcI am with the OP on this one. "Miles per the-thing-you-buy" seems like it would be so much easier as a standard. Miles per Gallon or miles per kWh.
The thing that makes Wh/mi nice though is it's far more granular a measurement. 333Wh/mi is 3mi/kWh. 250 is 4. 200 is 5. 500 is 2. Big jumps. A measure more granular is good.
When I do a day at 292Wh/mi, I know that's better than rated 303. And in winter when I see 350s pretty regularly, I know its cold outside. All of those round to 3mi/kWh. But they are all quite different.
except L/100km was always a ridiculous measurement anyway. It should have been km/L However I suspect L/100km came about because way back when we first went metric people didn't like that the numbers for km/L looked significantly worse than the mpg they were used to, so they came up with this ridiculous system to make numbers that felt more comfortable.
km/kwh would be much more convenient being that we fill in kwh and usually want to know how far that will take us.
Except the more common question is "I have X kwh, how far can I go" rather than "I have to go X distance, how many kwh do I need?" This is due to the fact that the car holds a set number of kwh, whereas the distance they take you varies.L/100km is likely used so that you aren't having to use leading zeroes, as you would with L/km.
l/100km is used in European countries, because they're rational, and figure that a measure of consumption is better for comparison than a measure of range.
Except the more common question is "I have X kwh, how far can I go" rather than "I have to go X distance, how many kwh do I need?" This is due to the fact that the car holds a set number of kwh, whereas the distance they take you varies.
Meaning that I want to know distance per energy (km/kwh), not the other way around (wh/mi)
Tesla is kind of inconsistent here. Energy usage is shown in Wh per miles, but nowhere is the amount of energy you have available shown. You can see the remaining capacity only as a percentage or as 'rated/ideal miles', but not as energy (kWh). I know they avoid it because the amount available to you varies depending on battery condition. It would be very confusing when the car shows 50 kWh and later, when it gets cold, all of a sudden it's less.
When Traveling, Wh/Mile is more useful for me. I need to go X miles, so how much charge (i.e. how much time at the supercharger) do I need.Except the more common question is "I have X kwh, how far can I go" rather than "I have to go X distance, how many kwh do I need?" This is due to the fact that the car holds a set number of kwh, whereas the distance they take you varies.
Meaning that I want to know distance per energy (km/kwh), not the other way around (wh/mi)
Except the more common question is "I have X kwh, how far can I go" rather than "I have to go X distance, how many kwh do I need?"