It is under standard CA conditions, but driving long distances at 5-10 degrees F makes "rated range" about 30-40% way to optimistic (400-420Wh/mi @65mph). It would be really nice to be able to display that somewhere on the dash.
Peter
Peter
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Rated vs Ideal vs Projected and how to use them
- Thread starter Al Sherman
- Start date
Interesting how this thread becomes active each winter, and how there is a difference of opinion between those that experience temperate winters vs those that do not, and those that are willing to mentally do the gymnastics to take the rated range and then figure out the true range vs those that just want to drive and have the car accurately predict it.
One big problem in trying to predict a realistic range is related to starting out with the car and battery preheated in a warm garage. Any software will think it's springtime and predicts a decent range when you back out. Head out into below 0 weather with 6" of snow on the ground. Park outside at the office, preheat the car before leaving that evening, jump in, and watch your jaw drop when you look at the remaining range. Happens to me every trip, and I've been driving the Leaf for 2 years and the MS for over a year now.
Wouldn't it be nice if the software querried NOAA for the outside temp, factored in battery & cabin heat needed for departure & return leg transition to normal operating cabin & battery temps, and queried a table of your average watts/mile at the ambient temp so as to give a realistic range.
As an aside, if our ICE cars only carried 4 gallons of gasoline, we would hear the same complaints from those drivers. I can park the Audi with 100 miles of range remaining, and see that shrink to 10 miles the next morning since the calculation is made using a near instantaneous reading of fuel flow and fuel level.
30 miles is too short?
- - - Updated - - -
The topic was pretty active last winter because "projected on the instrument cluster" was excellent, and newer firmware killed it. I still miss the old behavior, FAR more than I miss the loss of the Low suspension setting.
Yes, far too short. To be useful, it needs to be over a long enough cycle to actually show an average that could be used to compare against the rated range. A one day commute for me is a bit over 50 miles if I make no side trips (happens occasionally). Because the going-to-work is more downhill than the coming-home direction, 30 miles only covers one way and a bit so the App's numbers say more about the time of day I look at it than it does about how I drive. On a trip it's even worse as it's easy to have a bad 30 mile stretch followed by a good 30 mile stretch. 50/100/200 miles is a far better selection.
Interesting that almost half the range of a Leaf is not considered "useful" for making estimate. Maybe that's why the guess-o-meter was/is doomed to fail.
That said, I must disagree. Original projected was great. I miss it terribly. "Rated math gymnastics" is an acquired skill for people in climate and/or geography where rated is not at all accurate for typical consumption. With a computer that can "run for months" it seems absolutely absurd that humans are forced to do such mental gymnastics because some folks at Tesla decided to pull a feature that many of us relied on and were happy with.
At the very least, that's why I don't have a Leaf.
I had thought that the original projected range was based on something other than 30 miles. I agree it should be a selection.
Okay, I never had the original in my car. I use the since-last-charge in the trip metre. It doesn't give a number, but it does tell me if the rated range is optimistic or pessimistic.
I agree that projected was much better than rated since it did factor in actual conditions as well as how heavy your foot is.
The Leaf at least has a basic SOC meter, but it still allows you to drive too far if you start with a pre heated car and stop midway.
I wish Tesla would make Ideal scale from 1 -100 and throw out rated. Anyone with an EV who lives in a cold climate knows that the EPA is doing these owners a disservice by publishing overly optimistic winter cycle values. With such a small energy supply, EV owners really need to know what is the worst case scenario, and compare this to the length of their commute before purchasing their EV.
The discreptancy between the EPA average and actual range in below zero temps is what gives us much to grumble about.
The Leaf at least has a basic SOC meter, but it still allows you to drive too far if you start with a pre heated car and stop midway.
I wish Tesla would make Ideal scale from 1 -100 and throw out rated. Anyone with an EV who lives in a cold climate knows that the EPA is doing these owners a disservice by publishing overly optimistic winter cycle values. With such a small energy supply, EV owners really need to know what is the worst case scenario, and compare this to the length of their commute before purchasing their EV.
The discreptancy between the EPA average and actual range in below zero temps is what gives us much to grumble about.
ThosEM
Space Weatherman
The Tesla Model S manual stipulates that one should not read the touch screen display while driving, admonishing that "all the information you need to drive is on the instrument panel". Yet, the only place a projected range can be found is on the touch screen.
It would be a a trivial change for the instrument panel copy of the energy app plot to also include the projected range and be annotated with the available options selected (instantaneous default or averaged over 50, 25, or 10 km). Ideally the projected range would be displayed with prominence at least equal to the (irrelevant) EPA rated range on the energy guage under the speedometer/power meter.
This situation is hypocritical at best, and Tesla would seem to be obligated to make the above change for safety reasons alone.
It would be a a trivial change for the instrument panel copy of the energy app plot to also include the projected range and be annotated with the available options selected (instantaneous default or averaged over 50, 25, or 10 km). Ideally the projected range would be displayed with prominence at least equal to the (irrelevant) EPA rated range on the energy guage under the speedometer/power meter.
This situation is hypocritical at best, and Tesla would seem to be obligated to make the above change for safety reasons alone.
L@urens
Family, Racing, Karting, MTBing
+1 give me the lowest value of average projected 10, 25, 50km averages in the drivers dash please
That would be unpleasant for significant up/down hill situations. My first preference is to use the Energy app setting (after they fix the "revert to instantaneous" bug). Second in line is "just bring back the old 30 mile projected". There's really no real good excuse for having deprived owners of the latter for this long -- it was a feature they already had implemented but took away.
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
Never ever use ideal for anything.
The only thing it’s good for is fooling naive buyers into thinking they’re buying a car with more range than they actually are when you go to sell it.
Similar threads
- Poll
