Range and cost calculator

[Discoducky]

Actually, it's this pic: http://zooi.widodh.nl/ev/tesla/model-s/range-cost-calc/IMG_5227.jpg

So I'm guessing that you want something more like 0 degrees or into the negatives. Oh, and I had a Freudian slip typo above, meant to say "Farenheit". I wish everything was metric though. Damn you Reagan!!! :biggrin:

 

[dpeilow]

Well to be fair, the American EPA figure for the LEAF seems to be what people actually get in the real world. I therefore take EPA numbers for comparable cars rather than the joke NEDC ones.

 

[dsm363]

Why can't these organizations come up with a test that's actually accurate? I don't think it would be that difficult. Would there be someway to incorporate real world driving data too (maybe a year later after the model has been out)?

 

[jerry33]

Why can't these organizations come up with a test that's actually accurate? I don't think it would be that difficult. Would there be someway to incorporate real world driving data too (maybe a year later after the model has been out)?

The tests are designed to be repeatable and provide a baseline for comparison. They are not designed to reflect what an individual driver might achieve--there are just too many variables to do that. See my earlier post about how you are supposed to use the tests.

 

[dsm363]

I understand there is a huge variability and the tests need to be repeatable but I would think that if the test results are almost only achievable by a small percentage of drivers then maybe the test should be reconfigured to be representative of what at least a decent percentage of drivers can expect. I don't know how accurate the EPA numbers are but for the Roadster they seem to apply only for very sedate driving at lower than normal highway speeds.

 

[AnOutsider]

I understand there is a huge variability and the tests need to be repeatable but I would think that if the test results are almost only achievable by a small percentage of drivers then maybe the test should be reconfigured to be representative of what at least a decent percentage of drivers can expect. I don't know how accurate the EPA numbers are but for the Roadster they seem to apply only for very sedate driving at lower than normal highway speeds.

Wasn't the Roadster done on an older test, while the Leaf's 70 mile range (which most seem to think is accurate) comes from a newer test? If that's the case, then the Roadster would get in the 170s on the new EPA test, which seems to be around what people report here.

 

[jerry33]

I understand there is a huge variability and the tests need to be repeatable but I would think that if the test results are almost only achievable by a small percentage of drivers then maybe the test should be reconfigured to be representative of what at least a decent percentage of drivers can expect. I don't know how accurate the EPA numbers are but for the Roadster they seem to apply only for very sedate driving at lower than normal highway speeds.

The problem is that there would have to be many tests: Low speed, high speed, sedate, aggressive, each with heating, a/c variants, tire size varients, a further set of topographical variants, and road surface variants. You'd end up with 50 to 100 or more tests and there would still be people who complained that they didn't achieve the results. It would probably cost more than the car design to implement and by the time they were all finished the model year would be over.

It's very unfortunate that they used mpg (l/100km) as the number to report rather than an index because it leads people to think that the number is what they should get rather than that the number is just a basis for comparison with other cars. Had they used an index it would be obvious to everyone that a car with a 100 index would get about twice as much as a car with a 50 index.

Here in Texas I get this:

2004 Prius MPG from the logbook. (Complete years only):
2003-2004 -- 50.8 mpg 17,628 miles
2005 -- 52.6 mpg 14,688 miles
2006 -- 56.3 mpg 16,174 miles
2007 -- 57.3 mpg 18,384 miles
2008 -- 59.9 mpg 21,755 miles
2009 -- 61.4 mpg 16,177 miles
2010 -- 65.2 mpg 12,134 miles
2011 -- 66.9 mpg 11,272 miles

Now not everybody gets this kind of MPG, but I could complain the test numbers are too low.

 

[jerry33]

Wasn't the Roadster done on an older test, while the Leaf's 70 mile range (which most seem to think is accurate) comes from a newer test? If that's the case, then the Roadster would get in the 170s on the new EPA test, which seems to be around what people report here.

The test is the same, the change was that the fudge factor was altered. Remember that the test is run without heat or a/c and is very specific so that it can give repeatable results. The new fudge factor is no more "accurate" than the old fudge factor. The difference is that the new fudge factor makes the result so low that if you don't hit it you are doing something very wrong or the vehicle is broken in some way.

Giving a person a Stradivarius does not make them a virtuoso. However, a virtuoso can make wonderful music on a Stradivarius, but they had to practice a lot to get there.

 

[ggr]

The problem is that there would have to be many tests: Low speed, high speed, sedate, aggressive, each with heating, a/c variants, tire size varients, a further set of topographical variants, and road surface variants. You'd end up with 50 to 100 or more tests and there would still be people who complained that they didn't achieve the results. It would probably cost more than the car design to implement and by the time they were all finished the model year would be over.

It's very unfortunate that they used mpg (l/100km) as the number to report rather than an index because it leads people to think that the number is what they should get rather than that the number is just a basis for comparison with other cars. Had they used an index it would be obvious to everyone that a car with a 100 index would get about twice as much as a car with a 50 index.

Here in Texas I get this:

2004 Prius MPG from the logbook. (Complete years only):
2003-2004 -- 50.8 mpg 17,628 miles
2005 -- 52.6 mpg 14,688 miles
2006 -- 56.3 mpg 16,174 miles
2007 -- 57.3 mpg 18,384 miles
2008 -- 59.9 mpg 21,755 miles
2009 -- 61.4 mpg 16,177 miles
2010 -- 65.2 mpg 12,134 miles
2011 -- 66.9 mpg 11,272 miles

Now not everybody gets this kind of MPG, but I could complain the test numbers are too low.

I'm confused. I have some friends who do serious hypermiling in their priuses, and they have never reported more then 55 mpg. And why is your car doing 30% better now that it's 8 years old, than when it was new?

 

[Trnsl8r]

So it's not the fault of the car companies per se, but the entire structure of the system that they are forced to work within. The possible exception is Vauxhall, who have steadfastly stuck to saying 25-40 miles EV range on the Ampera in their marketing, despite the NEDC range being 52 miles (in fact they blogged about this very topic).

That's kind of classy of them. Have a link?

 

[jerry33]

I'm confused. I have some friends who do serious hypermiling in their priuses, and they have never reported more then 55 mpg. And why is your car doing 30% better now that it's 8 years old, than when it was new?

I can list every fill of gas that I've done--all 262 of them--but it's kind of a long list so I am hesitant to post them in the forum. I also have a PDF that presents "Effective Driving". As to why the number got better:

1. New car break in
2. Tires have improved
3. Auxiliary instrumentation (cost a whopping $165)
4. Practice

There are also factors outside of the driver's control:

1. Weather
2. Roads
3. Terrain
4. Length of commute.

 

[Andrew Wolfe]

The 73 mile (~115km) EPA range on the Leaf is pretty accurate for a temperate climate and 60-65 mph. It will do much better with low speed driving - definitely 100 miles. Using AC/heater can cut that up to 10%.

In my normal 65mph highway driving I see closer to .165 kwh/km (from the battery - from the wall is about 20% more). That is pretty much right on with the numbers Tesla promises at 55mph. Heavier car but also more aerodynamic.

 

[dmckinstry]

I can list every fill of gas that I've done--all 262 of them--but it's kind of a long list so I am hesitant to post them in the forum. I also have a PDF that presents "Effective Driving". As to why the number got better:

1. New car break in
2. Tires have improved
3. Auxiliary instrumentation (cost a whopping $165)
4. Practice

There are also factors outside of the driver's control:

1. Weather
2. Roads
3. Terrain
4. Length of commute.

And you left out speed. I've gotten as high as 80 mpg on a round trip that was about 20 miles. It was city driving, where speed didn't exceed 35 mph, and the car had already warmed up for at least 15 miles before resetting the mileage. I did manage one 700 mile tank (about 10.5 gallons) that involved careful driving on roads where I didn't have to go over 45 mph. If you do 55 mpg over the lifetime of your driving, you're doing great.

 

[jerry33]

And you left out speed. I've gotten as high as 80 mpg on a round trip that was about 20 miles. It was city driving, where speed didn't exceed 35 mph, and the car had already warmed up for at least 15 miles before resetting the mileage. I did manage one 700 mile tank (about 10.5 gallons) that involved careful driving on roads where I didn't have to go over 45 mph. If you do 55 mpg over the lifetime of your driving, you're doing great.

About 25% of the miles on my Prius are vacation miles. It's important to speed and slow down at the "right times" so that you don't waste energy. It's also important to follow the instrumentation. So far this is the most efficient trip I've done.

--- Trip to NE starts here
DATE__________ODO____INC_____AVG
-- 100 F here
08/13/10____111690____625____59.8 (3.9)
08/14/10____112308____618____60.0 (3.9)
08/20/10____112972____663____64.2 (3.7)
08/22/10____113411____438____58.9 (4.0)
08/31/10____113922____510____61.8 (3.8)
--- Trip to NE ends here

Most are more like this:
--- Trip to NE starts here
01/07/12____128603____481____56.6 (4.2)
-- 13 F here
01/12/12____129042____438____52.7 (4.5)
01/15/12____129420____378____50.3 (4.7)
01/20/12____129094____481____56.2 (4.2)
--- Trip to NE ends here





Unlike an old fashioned car, the engine RPM is only loosely coupled to the vehicle speed, so it's not the best indicator of efficiency. Driving to the ignition timing helps keep you at the most efficient point.

 

[dpeilow]

That's kind of classy of them. Have a link?

Really important numbers | Opel Ampera Blog

Combined and weighted | Opel Ampera Blog

and

Moving along | Opel Ampera Blog

Even though the Ampera’s range in the relevant driving cycle NEDC is 83 km, we state its typical range as 40 to 80 km. By doing this we give our customers a realistic idea of the potential their car has. We want enthusiastic Ampera customers, not disappointed ones.

The main problem with NEDC's highway test is that it averages 38mph. It briefly touches a peak of 75mph at the end before stopping. Totally unrealistic.

 

[brianman]

Hi!

Welcome to the forums.

 

[Fredrik S]

Welcome to the forums.

Thank you!

 

[GSP]

........ Driving to the ignition timing helps keep you at the most efficient point.

Interesting. Do you just watch the spark advance, and drive to maximize the degrees of advance?

Do you try to minimize RPM, and maintain a minimum torque or BMEP, or just let the hybrid control do that?

Thanks,

GSP

 

[jerry33]

Interesting. Do you just watch the spark advance, and drive to maximize the degrees of advance?
Do you try to minimize RPM, and maintain a minimum torque or BMEP, or just let the hybrid control do that?

The Scangauge reads the ignition timing from the CAN bus. For areas with lower speed limits (under 45 mph), I target 14 but use a range of 13 to 16. For higher speed limits I target 17 but use a range of 16 to 19. Any ignition timing over 20 uses a lot of gas. Also during the first couple of minutes the ignition timing is negative indicating that, although the engine is running, the Prius is really only using the motor/generators (MG) to move and the engine is just spinning to warm up. (Note that this isn't indicated on the Prius' display--which lies sometimes). I try to not use much power during this time because battery operation on the Prius is often less efficient than gas operation--there are a couple of exceptions. Some people recommend to not move the Prius until the ignition timing goes positive, but I have found that practice reduces my mpg.

I don't have a a way of reading the torque, so the hybrid system takes care of that.

I don't watch the RPMs all that much. RPMs are mostly entertainment value because the number fluctuates even when the speed isn't changing.

 

[mlascano]

Not the "official" Tesla range calculator (still waiting for TM to have this available on their website), but I came across this neat range calculator http://www.jurassictest.ch/GR/ via Green Car Reports. Green Race Website Helps Electric-Car Drives Plan Range

You can add the Model S (all three battery sizes) and modify certain vehicle parameters including number of passengers (multiples of 75 kg).

One very cool thing is that the tool takes into account the topography of the route you choose.

Not sure if the vehicle parameters listed for the Model S are accurate (transaxle performance, rolling resistance coefficient, recup, etc.), maybe some of the more knowledgeable on this forum can tell us the precise values.

It would be great route topography was included in the app/on-board calculator made available by TM.