Getting Full Range on the X?

The best advice I can give you is to use the energy usage prediction graph displayed on the center screen (tap the Energy icon) after you enter a nav destination. Watch it occasionally during your trip. If it appears you are using more energy than predicted, slow down.
Increasing speed uses more energy. Plus 10mph is significant. Minus 10 really helps. Minus 30 makes a huge difference.
It uses about an additional 10 miles of range for every 1,000 feet of elevation gain.
Rain, even light rain, takes extra energy.
The more you drive the car the better sense you will have of these things.

What would really help in determining your actual energy usage is to look at the wh/mi for the trip and maybe segments of the trip. You could compare this to the EPA ratings to get a feel as to where you use energy most. You can use one of the trip settings to save some of that info and/or the center display trip info.

vangogh said:

Thanks...I will watch and build experience...Just want to know under what conditions I can expect 250mile range...

Click to expand...

also don't forget that temperature makes a big difference as well. When it's cold, as it has been here in the Bay Area especially at night, range can drop as the car heats the batteries to maintain optimal operating temperature.

ecarfan said:

The best advice I can give you is to use the energy usage prediction graph displayed on the center screen (tap the Energy icon) after you enter a nav destination. Watch it occasionally during your trip. If it appears you are using more energy than predicted, slow down.
Increasing speed uses more energy. Plus 10mph is significant. Minus 10 really helps. Minus 30 makes a huge difference.
It uses about an additional 10 miles of range for every 1,000 feet of elevation gain.
Rain, even light rain, takes extra energy.
The more you drive the car the better sense you will have of these things.

Click to expand...

I have found after a lot of Colorado mountain driving that the correction factor for the Model S is 6-7 rated miles per 1,000 feet. Except for extreme conditions, that nets out up and down.

Is the Model X really that much heavier that the elevation factor goes to 10 rated mile per 1,000 feet, or are you rounding up?

vangogh said:

Thanks...I will watch and build experience...Just want to know under what conditions I can expect 250mile range...

Click to expand...

After 70k miles in my S I still find it hard to predict range. I use EVTripPlanner.com to get an idea when I drive longer trips where I need to charge on the road. It doesn't support the X yet, but you can still use it and just add maybe 5-10% to account for the X's higher drag and weight.
The very same conditions that apply to any car also apply to the X. Dry roads allow more ranger than wet or snow roads. Cold weather shortens range. Rain, head wind, higher speeds, up hill all reduce range. How much exactly is really hard to calculate.

As others have said, the best thing is the trip energy graph. It shows you the best prediction you can get on a trip. Once you started driving in the conditions you are in, the car had time to factor all of it in and make a pretty good prediction. But here is the thing, you have no control over weather or road conditions. The only thing you can do to influence range is speed.

David99 said:

...Dry roads allow more range than wet or snow roads. Cold weather shortens range. Rain, head wind, higher speeds, up hill all reduce range. How much exactly is really hard to calculate.

Click to expand...

Can someone chime in on why rain reduces range? I would have thought that wet roads would increase range (less friction) but humid air may reduce range (more dense/air friction). Obviously, people experience less range overall, so is because of the humid air or something else I haven't thought about?

Rain reduces range because you have to push water out of your way, both in the air, and on the road. Multiply contact patch of tires x depth of water (even a mm) and suddenly you are pushing gallons and gallons of water out of your way every mile.

trils0n said:

Rain reduces range because you have to push water out of your way, both in the air, and on the road. Multiply contact patch of tires x depth of water (even a mm) and suddenly you are pushing gallons and gallons of water out of your way every mile.

Click to expand...

I guess I can see that if there is a lot of rain on the road. If there is only a little, I wonder if the rain would act more like a lubricant. Anyway, I guess if you drive fast enough, you can ride on top of the rain to increase range, with less steering ability (hydroplaning). Joking, not recommended.

Thanks trils0n for your response.

A great calculator for this is on Tesla's website:

Model S | Tesla Motors

Scroll down to where it says "Range Per Charge". When you change the speed and outside temp, etc. it shows the total range. This gives you an idea of the impact of those things.

Cottonwood said:

I have found after a lot of Colorado mountain driving that the correction factor for the Model S is 6-7 rated miles per 1,000 feet. Except for extreme conditions, that nets out up and down.

Is the Model X really that much heavier that the elevation factor goes to 10 rated mile per 1,000 feet, or are you rounding up?

Click to expand...

In the past others on TMC have posted the figure of about 10 extra miles of range lost for every 1,000 ft. of gain. Note I said "about 10". ;-)
So far I have not seen any post a figure specifically for the X.

ohmman said:

I don't think it'll ever reduce friction. There's also the surface tension of the water, which is constantly being broken at the front and rear of the wheel (I'm not exactly sure how much that contributes, but my intuition says that it has some aggregate effect). The airborne drops also have the negative side effect of breaking up the surface of the vehicle/windshield, etc. and creating a much less aerodynamic shape to the car.

I always notice a big decrease in range while driving in wet conditions. I had a long drive once going from Bend, OR to the Mt. Shasta Supercharger - I hit a patch of heavy rain and was forced to stop at a public charger along the way. It killed any chance I had of making that distance, even at the slow speed I was going.

Click to expand...

Thanks, that's good to know. My first year of driving an EV should be quite the learning experience. Still no invite to configure for us poor Canadian regular production folk. Looks like I'll miss winter driving in the X for this season.

vandacca said:

I guess I can see that if there is a lot of rain on the road. If there is only a little, I wonder if the rain would act more like a lubricant.

Click to expand...

There are two different types of friction: static friction (not sliding) and dynamic friction (sliding), and materials have a different coefficient of friction for each of those. What you are thinking of about water being a lubricant would be correct for sliding. So if you have the tires completely locked up, and the car is skidding, then yes, it’s correct that the car would move more easily on wet pavement than on dry pavement. Hopefully, you are not doing most of your trip in that mode. :wink:

Besides the force of displacing the water, even with smaller amounts of water, I think the surface tension of water is creating a low level of attraction of sticking the tires and pavement together. So when the back part of the tire tread needs to lift off the pavement to roll around the top of the tire again, it has to unstick from the surface tension connection. So I think that plays a very tiny role too.

As far as in this thread trying to predict and document numbers ahead of time, that won’t be able to be very precise because wind and temperature varies on the day you drive and while you’re driving. Sure, speeding up by 5 or 10 mph will be bad for your range, but the wind speed outside may change 5 or 10 mph without you even knowing, and it has the same effect. You need to watch how it’s going as you drive, and adjust however you need to.

vandacca said:

Can someone chime in on why rain reduces range? I would have thought that wet roads would increase range (less friction) but humid air may reduce range (more dense/air friction). Obviously, people experience less range overall, so is because of the humid air or something else I haven't thought about?

Click to expand...

As @trils0n has stated, pushing the water on the road, and the drops coming at you out of the way takes power. The worst that I have experienced is thick slush on the road. A light rain storm has very little effect.

High humidity actually reduces the density of the air and the aerodynamic drag, but that effect is tiny. H[SUB]2[/SUB]O is weighs less per molecule than O[SUB]2[/SUB] or N[SUB]2[/SUB]. Feed that into the Gas equation and you see that humid air is less dense than dry air.

It's the pumping of the water out from under the tire. That dry-ish tire track behind you? Energy. The spray coming off the tires? Energy. Maybe it's only 0.5mm of water, but it's 275mm wide (or however wide your tires are), times two. About a quarter liter per meter. 275 liters per kilometer. A metric ton every 2 1/4 miles. That adds up!

Took a weekend trip from Seattle to Portland and back this weekend. Conditions were not favorable for efficiency. Lots of standing water on the roads, driving rain and temps in the low 40's. For the whole trip, including time in the city driving here are the results: Also the tires are still new and breaking in, so that also was a negative in terms of efficiency. In the stretches where the speed limit was 60MPH I usually set Autopilot to 64 mph. For stretches where is was 70MPH I set it for 74 MPH.

'Since last charge' represents the stretch from Centralia to Redmond

Trip A is the return journey from Portland to Redmond

Trip B is the entire trip - Conditions were much worse on the way to Portland, thus the worse efficiency total.



Also for reference, here are some pictures for the 5 miles and 15 miles driving into Centralia, going north from Portland. There the speed limit drops to 60 MPH and the roads are relatively level - you can see efficiency was much greater (which it should be):



Also here is a fun shot of the kids at the Centralia Supercharger:

Blurry_Eyed said:

Also here is a fun shot of the kids at the Centralia Supercharger:
View attachment 108492

Click to expand...

Cute! How are they liking the X? We're waiting for a Blue 90D and my 10 and 12 year old are pretty excited (more so than my wife...).