Surprising Impact to Range

[AlanSubie4Life]

So essentially when we pay $15 at the SC for say 200 miles, in reality one is getting 120-140.
Cost per mile is much higher than what we actually receive.

It’s like paying $60 for say 400 miles on an ice vehicle but receiving 250 actual.

That’s insane if you think abt it.

You pay per kWh not for miles traveled. (Or time spent charging in some jurisdictions I guess?)

What’s insane is that if you drive a steady 20mph you’ll get at least 250 miles out of the 200 “miles” you paid for! Amazing deal, really, nearly insane.

 

[3sr+buyer]

So essentially when we pay $15 at the SC for say 200 miles, in reality one is getting 120-140.
Cost per mile is much higher than what we actually receive.

It’s like paying $60 for say 400 miles on an ice vehicle but receiving 250 actual.

That’s insane if you think abt it.

Drivers of ICEVs commonly complain about getting worse fuel economy than the EPA ratings. Doing so tends to be coincident with inefficient driving habits like driving 75+mph on freeways, racing up to red lights to slam on the brakes, etc..

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I'd rather poop my pants or get stung by a hornet than wait in line to charge at a supercharger.

If you stopped having Oreo BBQs you’d have neither of these problems.

 

[Destiny1701]

Drivers of ICEVs commonly complain about getting worse fuel economy than the EPA ratings. Doing so tends to be coincident with inefficient driving habits like driving 75+mph on freeways, racing up to red lights to slam on the brakes, etc..

Not sure abt you but when I drove an ice at 75 or 120kph, my gas mileage would be not so far off epa for highway.

My tank says 600km, I’ll get 575-580 real world Km.

With Tesla it’s grossly off.

 

[Destiny1701]

You pay per kWh not for miles traveled. (Or time spent charging in some jurisdictions I guess?)

What’s insane is that if you drive a steady 20mph you’ll get at least 250 miles out of the 200 “miles” you paid for! Amazing deal, really, nearly insane.

Ha…good one Except 20mph is impractical for any driving period. Let’s just say I’m getting annoyed with ‘filling up 50kw only to get the real world range of 30-35kw. Pick any metric…the bottom line is too many are experiencing Teslas ‘way overstated’ range estimates.

Seems more and more a 150km trip requires at MIN 250km range avail….probably 275 to be safe.

 

[dfwatt]

I did not take a picture....should have done that. And maybe I did read the screen wrong, I am on the other side of needing reading glasses, so maybe I got the numbers wrong. But, still a bit surprised (again, not disappointed) that I had to stop for a short recharge on a 226 mile round trip.

I do track my mileage / energy usage every week. Last week, I drove 464 miles (inc the trip to Edwards), used 127 kWh, at a rate of 274 Wh/mi.

Anyway, did my normal 88 mile roundtrip to work today, a combination of 75-80 when no traffic (about 1/2 the time), and some creeping when it was stop and go. Elevation change is about 850 feet (I live at about 950, my office is right next to LAX, so probably about 50-100). I started at 81%, arrived back home at 47%. Average energy use was 242 Wh/mi, using 21 kWh of electricity. This fits right in with my lifetime useage of 243 Wh/mi.

Appreciate all of the insight and comments. Again, not unhappy by any stretch, just curious and surprised. And, no, the aero covers aren't going back on, they are way too ugly!!!

Keith

See the lightweight 18 inch Aero Wheels sponsored by The Mad Hungarian on the other forum. They are better looking and they get you the aero benefits, and cuz they are forged they are not cheap but you will get ride benefits because of dropped unsprung weight and range benefits because they are just as aerodynamic as the stock wheels with the covers.

 

[dfwatt]

You pay per kWh not for miles traveled. (Or time spent charging in some jurisdictions I guess?)

What’s insane is that if you drive a steady 20mph you’ll get at least 250 miles out of the 200 “miles” you paid for! Amazing deal, really, nearly insane.

Hey you know Alan some people are just concrete. You know like bricks and stone.

 

[BigNick]

Yah. That. But, I'm betting our man did 70+ mph the whole way there and back.

I'm in NJ. There's sections of the Garden State Parkway down near the southern part of the state where, based upon experience, the minimum speed is 70 mph and people go much faster. But most of the state is far too congested for that kind of thing, unless one has a death wish. As a result (and I'm not a crazy driver), I really do get that 250 W-hr/mile range on my 2018 M3 LR; sometimes less, sometimes more.

I've driven around CA. When the roads open up, so do the drivers . To the OP: Just how fast were you going, sir?

Back in 1998, I drove a large section of the Garden State Parkway through NJ.

It was the closest thing to NASCAR at Talladega that I have ever experienced. 75-85 MPH with some cars going 100+. Drafting the vehicle in front of you with another vehicle a couple feet off your back bumper (and possibly more behind that one.) Plus a handful of Kamikaze-style triple-lane changers seeking the smallest gap in traffic with no blinkers.

It felt like I had just driven an entire 500-mile race by the time I got onto surface roads. Pretty sure it wasn't even 100 actual miles though.

Finally: If you think the EPA is 'way off, you should check out the EU entity that does mileage numbers. They overestimate things by so much it's silly. Did you know that that EU body allows manufacturers to (a) do their own testing all the time and (b) allows manufacturers to put tape over door handles and panel gaps?

WLTP ratings are completely insane (374 miles for a M3LR.) EPA ratings can be achievable if you average 55 MPH or less. You'd probably have to do 35 or under to hit the WLTP ratings.

 

[dfwatt]

Back in 1998, I drove a large section of the Garden State Parkway through NJ.

It was the closest thing to NASCAR at Talladega that I have ever experienced. 75-85 MPH with some cars going 100+. Drafting the vehicle in front of you with another vehicle a couple feet off your back bumper (and possibly more behind that one.) Plus a handful of Kamikaze-style triple-lane changers seeking the smallest gap in traffic with no blinkers.

It felt like I had just driven an entire 500-mile race by the time I got onto surface roads. Pretty sure it wasn't even 100 actual miles though.



WLTP ratings are completely insane (374 miles for a M3LR.) EPA ratings can be achievable if you average 55 MPH or less. You'd probably have to do 35 or under to hit the WLTP ratings.

That description of driving on the New Jersey Turnpike feels pretty much like a description of driving in the United States everywhere these days. Relentless tailgating, 20 plus mile an hour or more speeding over the limit, and aggressive Lane surfing. It's amazing that more people are not dying.

 

[roblab]

That's no secret. I expected it. Nevertheless, when it first happened to me in 2012 with my Model S, it's still quite a shock.

Some don't think EVs need more range but I take that any day.

This is partly why I bought my Model S Long Range. I have 400 miles to play with, and extra passengers, extra load, and extra speed are not near as worrying.

 

[Destiny1701]

This is partly why I bought my Model S Long Range. I have 400 miles to play with, and extra passengers, extra load, and extra speed are not near as worrying.

You mean 330-350 actual miles

 

[3sr+buyer]

Ha…good one Except 20mph is impractical for any driving period.

In my common traffic limited commute (typically around 45mph), I see consumption of about 180 Wh/mi, considerably lower than the rated 227 Wh/mi.

Driving at 65mph on flat roads seems to give consumption a little better than the rated consumption.

 

[KenC]

Ha…good one Except 20mph is impractical for any driving period. Let’s just say I’m getting annoyed with ‘filling up 50kw only to get the real world range of 30-35kw. Pick any metric…the bottom line is too many are experiencing Teslas ‘way overstated’ range estimates.

Seems more and more a 150km trip requires at MIN 250km range avail….probably 275 to be safe.

I made a 4400 mile roadtrip last Fall. I signed up for ABRP's free trial, so I have all my trip data. The data I pulled tells me that my 65mph reference efficiency was 237Wh/mile, which is better than EPA-rated, for my vehicle. At highway speeds, that's pretty impressive. However, I don't drive 65mph on the highway, I drive 115% of the speed limit, which means as high as 86mph, where the limits are posted as 75mph. Driving 2300 miles home, I averaged 274Wh/mile. Seems pretty good to me.

The thing is, I don't even think about Tesla's EPA range estimates. Why?

Fast roadtripping strategy means driving as fast as you are comfortable with, and charging at the lowest SOCs you are comfortable with. When you run simulations in ABRP, you'll find that charging when you get down to 10-15% SOC, and up to 65%-70%, will give you about 150miles of range, which is enough for 2hrs of driving to your next stop.

I think most normal people need or should stop after 2hrs or 150miles of driving for safety and bladder reasons. My average stop was 17mins to supercharge. In other words, I never think about what the EPA estimates for 100% of my battery is, because I never use it. It's time inefficient to try to stretch out my range. Far better to drive fast and make fast short charging stops.

When people complain about the range or the cost I just don't get it. What other EV can roadtrip as fast as a Tesla, and have they seen gas prices lately? Sure, superchargers won't save you money, because prices are now market-driven, but they make it possible to go where other EVs have a hard time going. I save money charging at home. When I'm roadtripping, I'm in vacation mode, and you just have to suck it up. Time is money too!

 

[The Other Dan]

I recently did a trip from Portland to Seattle. Done it several times the past coulple months in the car, usually average about 310 wh/mi. This time I averaged about 380 wh/mi. Only difference was bringing my 120lb wife and about 100lbs of junk in the trunk.
I was surprised by that efficiency change. I'm wondering if the weight of the stuff in the trunk changed the cars angle of attack to make it less efficient. It was in the lower portion so well behind the rear axle.
That may also explain why when people lower the car they see efficiency increase a bit.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I recently did a trip from Portland to Seattle. Done it several times the past coulple months in the car, usually average about 310 wh/mi. This time I averaged about 380 wh/mi. Only difference was bringing my 120lb wife and about 100lbs of junk in the trunk.
I was surprised by that efficiency change. I'm wondering if the weight of the stuff in the trunk changed the cars angle of attack to make it less efficient. It was in the lower portion so well behind the rear axle.
That may also explain why when people lower the car they see efficiency increase a bit.

Never noticed anything like this much impact on heavily loaded road trips. Just seems to plug along nearly exactly the same way, all else being equal.

Much more likely to be due to tire inflation, persistent headwinds (can be both ways on a road trip if you are unlucky!), or different temperatures requiring different climate control use. Or simply rain or wet roads - that REALLY makes a big difference (not the case here presumably since it has not rained there for months).

Definitely 380Wh/mi is super high for this perfectly flat trip so if it was dry I would guess it was headwinds. At 70-80mph it’s hard for climate control to make that big a difference.

I’ve got 380-400Wh/mi on that trip on wet roads in periodic downpours around 40 degrees, with the heat blasting at 78 degrees.

 

[The Other Dan]

Yep, fortunately/unfortunately none of those factors were in the equation. I actually inflated the tires a bit more just for the trip. Speeds were the same as previous trips, 80mph(ish), weather, temps, etc, all about the same. Drive up and back down next day had same Wh/mi.
Take the car the day after, same conditions, and the wh/mi dropped to normal. That's why I believe the weight in the trunk had something to do with it.

Only time so far I've seen environmental impacts to wh/mi was when it was 100+ out and the AC was blowing like crazy. I just picked it up in May, already have 9k mi on it.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Yep, fortunately/unfortunately none of those factors were in the equation. I actually inflated the tires a bit more just for the trip. Speeds were the same as previous trips, 80mph(ish), weather, temps, etc, all about the same. Drive up and back down next day had same Wh/mi.
Take the car the day after, same conditions, and the wh/mi dropped to normal. That's why I believe the weight in the trunk had something to do with it.

Only time so far I've seen environmental impacts to wh/mi was when it was 100+ out and the AC was blowing like crazy. I just picked it up in May, already have 9k mi on it.

One other thing I forgot - if you precondition for supercharging (vs. not doing so and just doing this drive without stopping), that can drive up consumption considerably (something like 3-6kW so at 80mph that is 37-75Wh/mi). It can precondition for a long time especially if you are starting from a cold pack.

Anyway you could look up the winds for the day you traveled (and the way back). Even a 10mph headwind makes a huge difference at those speeds.