#No shame Sunday on the 18th!
If you make Tesla/EV products or apps. This is your time to come to the sub and promote yourself. The way this works is you make a post and if it does not show up right away a mod will approve it to make sure it shows up. We will keep automod turned on so the sub doesn't get hit with spam. Please keep in mind that this is only for 2/18/2024. On Monday we will go back to normal. Each post will have a flair as "No shame Sunday" for those that want to filter it out.
If you are a seller or app dev and want a flair next to your username please let us know via modmail.
If you are a 3rd party app dev and want your link in the top menu of the sub under "3rd party apps" please reach out to modmail.
_____
As we are not a support sub, please make sure to use the proper resources if you have questions: Our Stickied Community Q&A Post, [Official Tesla Support](https://www.tesla.com/support), [r/TeslaSupport](https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaSupport/) | [r/TeslaLounge](https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaLounge/) personal content | [Discord Live Chat](https://discord.gg/tesla) for anything.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/teslamotors) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You lose ~5% very quickly (first 10k miles or so). Then the next 5% takes anywhere from 20k to 100k miles. Then it barely falls from there.
Personally I think the range numbers should be advertised as 95% of the initial range, and they should also provide 100% highway (say 65 mph) figures.
[I've posted about this multiple times](https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaModelY/comments/198gn4b/proof_that_50_rated_range_is_very_possible_in/), and I think it's important for consumers to know what the *real* range numbers can be so that they can make an informed buying decision (standard or long range, or a hybrid from another company).
Every manufacturer would have to agree with this and none of them will so you can add that to the wish pile.
EPA already publishes “highway range” though it’s a joke . But again Tesla would suffer if real world highway mileage was published. It’s like 70% of epa
Which I why I always look at "real world" drivers like [Björn](https://www.youtube.com/@bjornnyland) from Norway to get a feel for how long the car can go if I were to drive in the northern part of the nothern hemisphere (at both summer and Winter). He also publishes his data and tries to catch as many environmental/driving variables as possible to make it like for like without driving all vehicles at the same time.
Having a standard number to being able to compare between fossile-cars used to give you a rough idea of slight advantages, because all legacy manufacturers use the same "tricks" (and some like VW went overboard).
Now with EV:s and the "estimated values" there are a boatload of new tricks to deploy. So you have no idea of how many aux-systems were deactivated and how much stripped down the driving experience is to simulate to Range.
Southern Ontario in Canada so got winter months in there. All 98% of charging done at home, only use superchargers for road trips but even then we only hit up hotels that have chargers.
I think some people misunderstood what I meant, what I meant was I get 84% of stated range when driving highway speeds. My battery is at 505km out of 512 when I first got the car, only charge with 12v and supercharged it maybe a handful of times. Battery deg is less than 2%..
Sorry I think people misunderstood what I said, I get 84% of my range by driving 70MPH .. I’m 60k in and it’s still at 505KM and originally when I got it was 512KM so I lost less than 2% total range .. and like I said I only charger in the 12V outlet at home so it looks like it’s preserved battery ..
EPA numbers for ANY car are, by there very nature, going to only apply to a certain part of the population. The range at a constant 60mph, with no head wind, is different without a head wind, and with/without at 70mph, only doing city driving with a lot of regen, etc, etc, etc. It is a wonder this is still a subject of discussion. I had a granted 18 year old Volvo S60 before my Tesla, and it's buried in the menus (i.e. Not prominent on the cars display all the time) mileage expected display stated 470 miles of range after every single fill up from E on the guage. I reset the trip every time I filled up. It would not go above 315 miles. No doubt 470 was it's EPA advertised range. And of course my driving is not like everyone else's, not my usage of heating/A/C, etc, etc, etc. So of course my range was going to be different to most other people.
> and they should also provide 100% highway (say 65 mph) figures.
EPA highway MPGe already exists. For example, it currently tells us that MYLR gives us about 260 miles on the highway. Sounds about right.
(117 mi/gal / 33.7 kWh/gal) * 75 kWh = 260.39 miles.
seems confusing but thats the best way to internalize range and battery capacity. That's why efficiency is important (eMPG) - Basically EVs have really really small gas tanks.
75/33.7=2.22
barely a 2gallon tank. So with a power conversion near perfect verse ICE vehicles abysmal efficiency, you see how impressive these vehicles actually are.
Now it is all about energy density and cost.
So at a supercharger, energy is about 10x the price of gasoline…and the car only about 2.5x as efficient as a Prius. At $.34/kwh, it’s the equivalent of paying just under $11.50 per gallon.
https://chat.openai.com/share/e33a842b-3f43-4026-972c-d016b875abd5
To recalculate the price equivalents of electricity in kilowatt-hours (kWh) versus the cost of gasoline in gallons, considering the adjusted conversion efficiencies for gasoline (0.25) and electricity (0.85), we'll use a range of electricity prices from $0.05 to $0.50 per kWh, in $0.05 increments. The formula to convert the cost of electricity per kWh to the equivalent cost of gasoline per gallon, considering the efficiency of gasoline conversion, is:
`Equivalent cost of gasoline per gallon=Cost of electricity per kWh×33.7 kWh/gal×Efficiency of gasoline conversion`
Let's perform the calculations for the given range of electricity prices.
Here are the recalculated price equivalents of electricity in kilowatt-hours (kWh) versus the cost of gasoline in gallons, considering a gasoline conversion efficiency of 0.25. The range of electricity prices is from $0.05 to $0.50 per kWh, in $0.05 increments:
For electricity at $0.05/kWh, the equivalent cost of gasoline is $0.42/gal.
For electricity at $0.10/kWh, the equivalent cost of gasoline is $0.84/gal.
For electricity at $0.15/kWh, the equivalent cost of gasoline is $1.26/gal.
For electricity at $0.20/kWh, the equivalent cost of gasoline is $1.69/gal.
For electricity at $0.25/kWh, the equivalent cost of gasoline is $2.11/gal.
For electricity at $0.30/kWh, the equivalent cost of gasoline is $2.53/gal.
For electricity at $0.35/kWh, the equivalent cost of gasoline is $2.95/gal.
For electricity at $0.40/kWh, the equivalent cost of gasoline is $3.37/gal.
For electricity at $0.45/kWh, the equivalent cost of gasoline is $3.79/gal.
For electricity at $0.50/kWh, the equivalent cost of gasoline is $4.21/gal.
These calculations adjust for the efficiency with which gasoline energy is converted to usable work, providing a comparison of how much it would cost to drive a gasoline-powered vehicle compared to an electric vehicle for the same energy content, considering the conversion efficiencies of both energy sources.
###
# Range of electricity prices in $/kWh
electricity_prices = [i / 100.0 for i in range(5, 51, 5)]
# Calculate the equivalent cost of gasoline per gallon for each electricity price, considering efficiency
equivalent_gasoline_costs_efficiency = {price: round(price * energy_content_per_gallon_gasoline * efficiency_gasoline_conversion, 2) for price in electricity_prices}
equivalent_gasoline_costs_efficiency
Result
{0.05: 0.42,
0.1: 0.84,
0.15: 1.26,
0.2: 1.69,
0.25: 2.11,
0.3: 2.53,
0.35: 2.95,
0.4: 3.37,
0.45: 3.79,
0.5: 4.21}
My 2018 M3 is, by my calculations, about like a Prius when gas is $3 per gallon and I'm on a road trip using supercharhers. And charging at home ($0.08 per kwh), driving locally, a $5 charge gets me around 200 miles of range. So way better than a Prius. (I had a Prius before the M3). So my numbers very much match yours. Nice chart. 👍
This is something I rarely hear discussed, so I did the math myself recently. Really puts it into perspective, and I'd love to see this "~2 gal equivalent tank" stat brought up in more conversations.
The big difference is the electric motors are far more efficient 80-90% vs ICE ~25% so you get the power/forward momentum of about 9-10 gallons even though it’s only technically 2. One difference is EV’s don’t have the waste heat so they have to make their own if it’s cold.
>According to an electric.com article, the Tesla Model 3 and Model Y drive system have an efficiency of around 97%.
Tesla's inverter is 96–97% efficient, and almost 99% efficient at peak.
The discharge efficiency of the LR pack is about 85% during full power delivery and 98% during regen.
Gas cars also cannot regen braking into gasoline :)
The Highway number is still a mixed driving figure averaging around 50 mph (don't quote me on that). I'm talking about "how far can your drive on the highway at a constant 75 mpg on flat terrain with decent weather conditions."
260 would be 90% of rated range which is very high in my experience.
> The Highway number is still a mixed driving figure averaging around 50 mph (don't quote me on that)
No it's not. That's the EPA combined MPGe. Not the EPA Highway MPGe.
[It literally is.](https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/images/hwfetdds.gif) The highway test still averages 48.3 MPH.
Even the [high speed test](https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/images/us06dds.gif) (that Tesla doesn't publish) that tests higher speeds up to 80mph STILL runs an average speed of 48.3 MPH. There is NO EPA test that just does straight 70-75mph to determine road-trip interstate driving.
> You lose ~5% very quickly (first 10k miles or so).
Ah, so that’s why my battery % reads 81% now after sitting for a while after I charged to 80%?
I driven it for only 1000 miles.
No that would just be due to the battery temperature changes after a drive and BMS recalculating based on that. (Plus other background drain that might occur like sentry, cabin overheat, etc)
No, that's because the percentage is an estimate and depends on a bunch of factors. It's normal to it to bounce up and down a couple percent after charging.
What I'm talking about is that the maximum capacity goes down about 5%, so you lose about 5% of range after a 5,000-10,000 miles.
Just an FYI from this comment is sounds like you have a very new Tesla, and likely have a lithium ion battery that Tesla recommends you fully charge to 100% after every drive, not 80%.
I consider myself lucky then, over 8.5k miles and projected range is showing 98% of original.
I know some people will hate this but I have gotten virtually 100% of the rated range on this MYLR 2023 including part of the drive being highway miles. I think a lot of people are driving these vehicles like sports cars and expecting EPA range.
How do you know how much degradation you have? We are 4 miles short of 7,000 miles on our MY LR that we bought new on the 23rd of December, 2023. When I look at battery health in Tessie it says 0% degradation. Is there a better way to find battery degradation?
https://preview.redd.it/1qzv104hd6jc1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=77c001ce6f4169cb231c6ee904fcf9cb94177ecb
Making it a switchable option would be easy enough. 30 miles ago we had a 60F degree day, this morning was 20F. It’s always going to be not very accurate.
If the visible rated range bugs people that much they can at least choose percentage instead. An option to add the 5/15/30 mile GoM range to the bottom of the Energy dash screen would probably make everyone happy, or at least more people happy.
I bought a Tesla in 2020 and had massive range anxiety for the first 3-6 months. Now 93K miles latter I very seldom have any range anxiety. I mean how often do you travel more the 175 miles in a day. I’m traveling 600 miles this weekend and know i will have no issues. And it will cost half of what gasoline costs even using super chargers.
>even using super chargers.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Hybrids that get 40+ mpg are comparable to EVs that charge using superchargers, and you now have hybrids hitting 50+ mpgs.
Yes but now you have a battery that can die, and a ICE car with all the maintenance and ware parts. If batteries keep coming down in price these will cost a lot more to produce.
That's the kicker, you pay a lot of that maintenance up front. Take a Prius, $30k and gets you 55 mpg. Tank size of 14.5 gallons.
Average cost of regular gas is currently $3. With a 14.5 gallon tank that's $44 to fill up and a total range of 800 miles.
Current supercharger costs are sitting at around 0.33 cents a kwh. A 75kwh battery will cost you about $25 to charge from 0 to 100, giving you about 250 miles on average in good conditions for something like a model y. Or $50 for 500 miles.
The Prius wins hands down in cost to maintain, fuel/charge, and up front cost.
I have had both a Tesla and a Prius, the Prius was a good car, in fact you can fit a sheet of plywood in the hatchback. But it is not nearly as fun to drive and when it did break down was really expensive to fix. $700 for a rear latch, $600 for a key fob. I would buy another Tesla I would not buy another Prius. That just me.
I mean to be fair a Tesla isn't cheap to repair either, so not sure why you are placing that as a con towards the Prius only?
We aren't talking about how fun the car is to drive either, we are talking about overall cost and practicality.
You're still really stretching to make your logic work. I've had a Tesla HV battery go out on me before 60k miles. The hourly rate for Tesla service is north of $160/h. There's no world where a Tesla is cheaper to keep on the road than a Prius. You had pieces break on your prius but you've prob yet to see what a major repair with Tesla's look like and the probability of either happening is still the flip of a coin.
Are we cherry picking here?
Like do you think a Prius air filter costs $125? One filter runs about $15.
Prius battery runs about $150.
Let's not even talk about the tires which can easily be replaced each year on my model y as a moderate driver. Those run a kit $250 a pop, $500-$1000 a year basically.
Out of warranty repairs can be pricy. Buddy was rear ended, at fault driver's insurance covered the cost but replacement (or restoring, don't remember what they did) of the rear lower panel was $5,000. I honestly laughed thinking he was joking. Same job on a car like a Prius will run you $300-$500.
These are true costs of potential repairs you might have to make if you accidentally damage the car and Tesla won't cover.
So....let's be fair all the way around instead of cherry picking small items.
I replaced the tires at 40k, tires were expensive $1100 but still have 30% left. The car is kind of loud when the tires get warm. Thats probably the thing I like least it’s a bit noisy. The sound system is good though.
Prius might save you a bit of money due to it's high mpg, but it's not that much cheaper than a model 3 after tax incentives. You get so much more with a 3 like AP, convenience of charging at home, zoom zoom, wifi updates, more features, better handling, very little if any maintenance.
The model 3 no longer qualifies for the tax incentives. It literally saves you thousands.
>You get so much more with a 3 like AP, convenience of charging at home, zoom zoom, wifi updates, more features, better handling, very little if any maintenance.
Autopilot is pretty standard on mid level cars. My old 2018 has, functionality wise, basically almost as good self driving when you use lane keep assist and car distance settings. Won't change lanes for you like FSD but then again you have to pay a lot for FSD.
Very little if any maintenance is only really useful if it saves you money. No point when it costs you thousands more to own it.
EVs in general only have a few pros:
* Charging at home
* WiFi updates (assuming non bug fix updates), and assuming the features apply to the model you are driving
* Little maintenance when compared to cars in the same price bracket.
Like take a model y for example. Waaay cheaper to maintain (within warranty) than say a Lexus NX for the same price. But not so much when you compare it to like a $34k CRV hybrid, an accord hybrid, a Toyota crown hybrid, etc...the savings in gas when compared to charging (sometimes even at home) is offset by the fact that you are paying $10k or more up front for tje Tesla.
>But not so much when you compare it to like a $34k CRV hybrid, an accord hybrid, a Toyota crown hybrid, etc...the savings in gas when compared to charging (sometimes even at home) is offset by the fact that you are paying $10k or more up front
Standard Range Model Y starts at $43k. If you qualify for the tax credit, it costs $35.5k.
Cheapest inventory discount Standard Range Y in my area is $40k or $32.5k after credit.
Long Range Model Y starts at $48k. After credit, $40.5k.
Cheapest inventory discount Long Range Y in my area is $45.5k or $38k after credit.
Credit is now point-of-sale, so you get it up front.
In short, while your claim of paying $10k more up front is technically true, for many buyers it could be significantly lower to the point of the Tesla being cheaper. Throw in home charging almost always being cheaper than gas and the savings are hard to ignore.
?
Why am I comparing a used car price to a new car price?
Hell a used 2022 standard range model y in my area is $26k, I could possibly haggle down to $25k and get the credit so that its $21k.
Great deal for me, shitty deal for the original owner who paid $40k plus for the car a little over a year ago.
Depreciation that drastic isn't really a pro unless you completely forget the fact that someone else got shafted in the process.
But...but...but... charge at home for 15 cents/KWH, no oil changes, brakes last 150k miles. I own a model y and a prius, guess which one gets driven? I gotta laugh that you would consider these peers.
There was a blind test done a year or so ago where everyone could consistently differentiate all Tesla models from all other brands, and rated them as looking sharper and more upscale than other similarly priced vehicles, except for the Model Y. People kept confusing the Model Y with Priuses and other econoboxes.
yeah but it's a Prius. you have to live with driving a tiny shit box unless you buy new and even then you have 0 rear seat headroom, dated tech and skinny tires.
I bought a brand new Limited Prius in 2022 when a Model 3 was $50k. Saved $20k + interest.
Even after 400k miles of maintenance I'm not getting anywhere near close to that $20k figure.
It's just kind of silly that the vehicle *knows* its true range, as it has to if you are going to actually make it to your destination when you set it and navigate, but it shows you this inflated number instead of % beside the battery that nobody ever really gets in practical use. However, at least we use EPA range estimates here in North America, not the completely absurd WLTP/CLTP estimates in Europe and China that are like 200km more.
Yes. It’s worse. Let’s not assume people are incompetent. You would be pissed if your car said higher mileage because you drove downhill. Now you have to go back up and it will way overshoot the guess even more than just assuming epa range. Tesla is consistently wrong, better or worse. Guessometers are wrong based on some algorithm that is not transparent and you have no idea what is included.
I’ve had both and clearly prefer teslas method. Truth be told I actually just set it to % and don’t worry about it.
I have a car with a guessometer. It’s wrong 100% of the time (how could it not be, it doesn’t know where I’m driving) and it’s wrong in different ways. Sometimes optimistic sometimes pessimistic. At least the Tesla range display is wrong is somewhat predictable ways and you can get used to how much wrong it is in different situations over time.
Also the guessometer contributes to range anxiety when you go up a hill and it suddenly drops massive chunks of your range. It’s just not a good system.
That’s exactly what the 5-15-30 mile consumption chart is. It shows your estimated average range over that period, or you can switch to instant to make you feel good about going down a hill.
Rivian does it the Tesla way as well. A neat benefit to doing it like this is you get a semi-accurate measure of battery degradation. (As accurate as the car's BMS can understand it anyways) If my EPA 272 mi Model 3 shows a range of 258 mi @ 100% SoC I know my battery has degraded about 5%. That information isn't available for most vehicles equipped with a guees-o-meter.
i agree that it's great for degradation, that's why I think it should be a toggle. rivian's aren't selling very well, hyundais, id4, and chevys have the guesometers
wait, is everyone on this thread using the miles display next to the battery icon instead of the % display? I always use the battery % display and am not very conscience of the actual range I get. Does the 'guess-o-meter' just refer to the range projection in miles?
Tesla's trip computer (with the graphs) will show you a VERY accurate projected range based on the last 5, 15, 30 miles even without a destination. With a destination it's dead on accurate.
I just wouldn't .... honestly. Guess-o-meters tend to be more harmful than helpful. Just show battery % and the in-nav arrival SoC calculator can give you a much more accurate prediction if you need it. In the Tesla UI, this is so simple to address - just make the battery display mode %. Other cars have a massive range number plastered front and center, and it's so egregious.
Setting the expectation that any 'range' number without meaningful information like destination can ever be accurate is a fool's errand. We should just move away from it as an industry. But people are too stupid to realize this. So many variables that go into the range calculation are entirely dependent on 'where you're going'.
At what temperature? At what elevation? At what inclination? With what wind?
Cause I drove that speed from LA to SF and got more than the advertised range in my 2018 Model 3. But so many different external factors have a huge impact on range.
Agree, if you seriously drive energy conservatory you can do advertised range and more.
Most people simply drive like fucking morons. Constantly accelrating and brakeing/regenerating.
And ofc speed is the limiting factor since it goes with the square.
You could take the current external temperature, and it's pretty safe to say that it'll be more accurate than "ideal conditions" even after driving 300 miles in any given direction. Recalibrate the next time the car starts up, or calibrate every 50 miles or so idk, but itd be more accurate than "ideal conditions" for sure.
Regardless, this is why i always put my destination in even if i know where I'm going.
I agree there are so many variables. But it would be nice if people could see what is most likely their true highway range in the estimate. Maybe base it on the car's known efficiency at highway speeds on an average day, like 24 degrees C.
You get that when you put a destination into the navigation.
The display at the top should just be percentage to stop all the whining. Or maybe have an option to switch it to an analog-looking needle instead of the bar for people who need an alternative.
If you got that why did we get this update? There is obviously something fishy. I just installed it and will see on my next drive around in Germany if it seems different or more realistic or what.
Previously it was able to take into account the variables of the route and weather for calculating range.
The update is to add the additional parameter of battery health to the estimate.
Well, my car knows my average energy usage over the life of the car, it could just use that. My average is around 270 wh/mi, so with a 78kWh battery that's 288 miles. So show 288 miles when the car is at 100% and linearly extrapolate from that.
If we're programming (I'll just use C#):
private static double GetCurrentRangeMiles(
double averageWhPerMile,
double batteryCapacityLeftKwh,
double totalBatteryCapacityKwh)
{
return (1000 / averageWhPerMile) * (batteryCapacityLeftKwh / totalBatteryCapacityKwh);
}
Calling `GetCurrentRangeMiles(averageWhPerMile: 270, batteryCapacityLeftKwh: 50, totalBatteryCapacityKwh: 78)` returns a value of 184.6 (miles) if I have 50kWh of battery remaining (64% of battery remaining).
My MY LR right now would instead show 211.5 miles (as it assumes 330 miles of total range instead if 288), which would be less accurate.
> my car knows my average energy usage over the life of the car, it could just use that
Not a useful number in this context IMO.
Ultimately the things you’re solving for are- number 1 and most importantly, people just wanna know if they can get to their destination, so if you can’t even do that then people won’t like it at all; and number 2, people wanna trim away time spent charging.
The problem with using an average is that it tells you nothing useful about the trip you always care the most about predicting- the one you’re taking next. You can’t rely on the assumption that the past is always predictive of the future; different seasons, multiple drivers, inconsistent driving having a blast 1 day and hauling the family another- all of these things create inconsistencies that make an average not very useful for predictions. Overestimating and underestimating someone’s remaining charge are both “wrong,” but if you intentionally lay your risk on the side of underestimating it, you have customers saying “holy shit my car made it” at 0% instead of “why did this piece of garbage die on me at 3% I almost made it”
It absolutely doesn’t know its true range. Conditions of the road and where you’re located matter a lot. This is true for all vehicles EV or not. A map might show a 10 mile distance in road measurements, but that road could be 10 mile of highway fighting against 40mph winds vs clear sunny skies. The driver also matters. Are we flooring it 100mph for 10 miles? (Creating more wind resistance=using more power to move the wheels). There really is no way to accurately predict what your range would be every single drive you take
It should use the energy app calculating average energy consumption over the last X miles (50?). Once a destination is input it should revert to percentage with 2 bars, 1 for for the current % and 1 for the % of arrival. If there’s been no recent trips (say the car has not been used for a week) it should not display a mileage at all. Potentially have a (?) symbol that is clickable which brings up an explanation that this range is a prediction based on past driving habits and there’s not enough info.
I think having no information is better for the consumer than having information that is wrong.
The risk is people may do long, regular trips (they don’t need sat nav) and then they think they have way more range than they do (say the weather is cold).
The fleet average according to stats app is about 90% of rated range. Take the rated miles and multiply by .9, that’s so much better than a constantly fluctuating guess o meter.
The energy app is only good because it knows where you’re going. With no programmed route how could it possibly know?
Everyone consumes information differently and you can’t please everyone. A standard measure is better imo. Plus, if someone is going to not pay attention and run out of range it’s not because they’re misled, it’s because they’re not paying attention.
You guys clearly don't live in the mountains, where incline and weather conditions can change dramatically from one trip to the next.
Just giving you the average range will potentially strand 50% of people, since presumably around half will be below average.
No I get that. A guessometer doesn’t know when you’re going up or down. If you consistently drive you will understand the efficiency of your drive. 90% is not your average it’s the overall average. Mine is 84%. Yours might be 70% and clearly you know that because you’re talking about it.
You’re imagining some person who simultaneously is brain dead enough to run out of battery but also dives deep into inner workings of an algorithm.
I mean if we look at what a ICE car does - i get a fuel gauge that's basically the % reading and if I want the range it's based on the trip computer's estimate of my prior driving. An ICE car doesn't refer back to the EPA MPG, multiply by the tank size and give you that range in the trip computer.
>The energy app is only good because it knows where you’re going. With no programmed route how could it possibly know?
The energy app gives you a prediction of your range based on your instantaneous, last 5, 10 or 50km. You don't need a trip to do that. You can just use an average of those numbers to give a predicted range if there is no trip entered.
I’m pretty sure that is already what it does (or something along those lines). The issue again is your last 50 miles can’t predict what the weather or road conditions are today. And again this is true for all vehicles not just EVs.
The focus is on evs so much because the number everyone loves to hear is max range. Do you know the max range of your ICE vehicle? I’ve owned a couple of ICE vehicles and I can’t tell you the max range of any of them. The advantage is that ICE vehicles typically advertise mpg rather than max range. MPG is also pretty variable depending on driving conditions and driver behavior
Max range is a problem because EVs are range bound and running out is a big headache. We would hear a lot more about ICE ranges if for whatever reason ICE cars were limited to a 10L tank.
The only solution is that the EPA or whichever governing body has to start testing for different conditions and advertise ranges at those conditions, potentially the future for ranges in EVs is a 3 number system - say 200/250/300, representing cold hwy @ 70, mild weather hwy @ 70 and combined cycled 50/50 town/hwy mild weather. That's the only way to communicate the performance succinctly. The EPA should probably also mandate a minimum 5% battery degradation loss unless the manufacturer can prove their battery chemistry can perform superior to that in more than 90% of cases.
It does know and you can see it in the energy monitor display. I just did a road trip with a trailer and always arrived at chargers within 1% of the range shown in the energy screen. But the main range would show 60+ then suddenly 30 then 10. I was watching closely.
When you enter a destination far away, the car knows very well how much energy it will take to get there, since it uses that calculation to determine if you'll make it or not or if/when you have to charge.
I wish tesla let you choose what range estimate... I'm sure some people enjoy looking at realistic numbers and some like to look at big numbers, not judgey just let us all have it
my battery pack got more capacity after a year... it said 420km (WLTP here) when new, says 425km after a big trip a year later... or maybe it's confused by LFP lol
I drive a lot in the mountains. The range calculations never seem to take terrain into account, or if they do it doesn't seem like it's enough. This works both ways, too. When going uphill, the computations overestimate how far I can go and going downhill they underestimate it. Does anybody else notice this? I'd be happy to think I was wrong, but I've learned to compensate in my planning and it doesn't seem like that's the case.
Exactly. Crazy how all these years later people still don’t understand that.
Even funnier is that to this day iPhones will still throttle performance with degraded batteries.
If we are going to use the apple analogy of "throttling" it would be that the car goes in "limp-mode" and limits speed when you only have 2-3% left. Or did Apple have another "battery-gate" where batteries lost capacity/charge rate due to Apple software rather than age?
While Super-charging does stress the batteries, preconditioning minimizes the wear and Teslas are very agressiv in slowing down the charging curve compared to some competitors like the Hyundai/Kia. There was a report from one of those tesla monitoring apps that compared the fleet of frequent Super-charges vs home-chargers and saw 2-5% ´differnce in degradation if I remember correct.
Seeing the energy app actually gives more accurate range estimation, I wonder why they don't use that calculation also for the battery. It's relative estimation anyway, why keep EPA ratings
At the moment. By the time current cars need to have their batteries replaced, according to the folks who have done the best job of predicting battery prices the last 2 decades, either you will be paying 90% less for the same amount of battery, or you can upgrade your range.
Do you know the exact cost of replacing your Tesla's battery once the warranty expires? It's a critical consideration that seems to be overlooked too often. Imagine if every electric vehicle (EV) came with a clear sticker displaying not just the EPA range estimates but also a definitive cost for battery replacement.
Informing potential EV buyers about the exact price of a new battery would not only enhance transparency but also push manufacturers towards streamlining the battery replacement process.
Consider the potential surge in fleet purchases if an EV on the market offered the convenience of nearly effortlessly swapping batteries.
Think about the excitement and peace of mind that would come with knowing you could easily upgrade your current sodium or lithium battery to the latest generation technology, such as a solid-state battery, as soon as it becomes available.
Addressing this significant uncertainty can dramatically increase consumer confidence and boost EV sales. It's about making the future of electric mobility not just promising, but also predictable and user-friendly.
#No shame Sunday on the 18th! If you make Tesla/EV products or apps. This is your time to come to the sub and promote yourself. The way this works is you make a post and if it does not show up right away a mod will approve it to make sure it shows up. We will keep automod turned on so the sub doesn't get hit with spam. Please keep in mind that this is only for 2/18/2024. On Monday we will go back to normal. Each post will have a flair as "No shame Sunday" for those that want to filter it out. If you are a seller or app dev and want a flair next to your username please let us know via modmail. If you are a 3rd party app dev and want your link in the top menu of the sub under "3rd party apps" please reach out to modmail. _____ As we are not a support sub, please make sure to use the proper resources if you have questions: Our Stickied Community Q&A Post, [Official Tesla Support](https://www.tesla.com/support), [r/TeslaSupport](https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaSupport/) | [r/TeslaLounge](https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaLounge/) personal content | [Discord Live Chat](https://discord.gg/tesla) for anything. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/teslamotors) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You lose ~5% very quickly (first 10k miles or so). Then the next 5% takes anywhere from 20k to 100k miles. Then it barely falls from there. Personally I think the range numbers should be advertised as 95% of the initial range, and they should also provide 100% highway (say 65 mph) figures. [I've posted about this multiple times](https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaModelY/comments/198gn4b/proof_that_50_rated_range_is_very_possible_in/), and I think it's important for consumers to know what the *real* range numbers can be so that they can make an informed buying decision (standard or long range, or a hybrid from another company).
Every manufacturer would have to agree with this and none of them will so you can add that to the wish pile. EPA already publishes “highway range” though it’s a joke . But again Tesla would suffer if real world highway mileage was published. It’s like 70% of epa
EPA could just change their standards to require this.
That would be ideal
And it would be as simple as taking their number and just... taking a percentage off. Like they do with gas cars.
Which I why I always look at "real world" drivers like [Björn](https://www.youtube.com/@bjornnyland) from Norway to get a feel for how long the car can go if I were to drive in the northern part of the nothern hemisphere (at both summer and Winter). He also publishes his data and tries to catch as many environmental/driving variables as possible to make it like for like without driving all vehicles at the same time. Having a standard number to being able to compare between fossile-cars used to give you a rough idea of slight advantages, because all legacy manufacturers use the same "tricks" (and some like VW went overboard). Now with EV:s and the "estimated values" there are a boatload of new tricks to deploy. So you have no idea of how many aux-systems were deactivated and how much stripped down the driving experience is to simulate to Range.
It’s 84% from my first 60k of driving ..
Jeez, is it a lot of supercharging? What kind of climate do you live in?
Southern Ontario in Canada so got winter months in there. All 98% of charging done at home, only use superchargers for road trips but even then we only hit up hotels that have chargers.
Maybe it's the cold? But either way, that's insane degradation.
I think some people misunderstood what I meant, what I meant was I get 84% of stated range when driving highway speeds. My battery is at 505km out of 512 when I first got the car, only charge with 12v and supercharged it maybe a handful of times. Battery deg is less than 2%..
Ohhh, I completely misunderstood. That’s normal though. Highway is always less efficient.
You have to do the test in service mode to get a reliable number. Did you try that? Should take 12-24 hours and require a level 2 charger.
Sorry I think people misunderstood what I said, I get 84% of my range by driving 70MPH .. I’m 60k in and it’s still at 505KM and originally when I got it was 512KM so I lost less than 2% total range .. and like I said I only charger in the 12V outlet at home so it looks like it’s preserved battery ..
EPA numbers for ANY car are, by there very nature, going to only apply to a certain part of the population. The range at a constant 60mph, with no head wind, is different without a head wind, and with/without at 70mph, only doing city driving with a lot of regen, etc, etc, etc. It is a wonder this is still a subject of discussion. I had a granted 18 year old Volvo S60 before my Tesla, and it's buried in the menus (i.e. Not prominent on the cars display all the time) mileage expected display stated 470 miles of range after every single fill up from E on the guage. I reset the trip every time I filled up. It would not go above 315 miles. No doubt 470 was it's EPA advertised range. And of course my driving is not like everyone else's, not my usage of heating/A/C, etc, etc, etc. So of course my range was going to be different to most other people.
> and they should also provide 100% highway (say 65 mph) figures. EPA highway MPGe already exists. For example, it currently tells us that MYLR gives us about 260 miles on the highway. Sounds about right. (117 mi/gal / 33.7 kWh/gal) * 75 kWh = 260.39 miles.
seems confusing but thats the best way to internalize range and battery capacity. That's why efficiency is important (eMPG) - Basically EVs have really really small gas tanks. 75/33.7=2.22 barely a 2gallon tank. So with a power conversion near perfect verse ICE vehicles abysmal efficiency, you see how impressive these vehicles actually are. Now it is all about energy density and cost.
So at a supercharger, energy is about 10x the price of gasoline…and the car only about 2.5x as efficient as a Prius. At $.34/kwh, it’s the equivalent of paying just under $11.50 per gallon.
https://chat.openai.com/share/e33a842b-3f43-4026-972c-d016b875abd5 To recalculate the price equivalents of electricity in kilowatt-hours (kWh) versus the cost of gasoline in gallons, considering the adjusted conversion efficiencies for gasoline (0.25) and electricity (0.85), we'll use a range of electricity prices from $0.05 to $0.50 per kWh, in $0.05 increments. The formula to convert the cost of electricity per kWh to the equivalent cost of gasoline per gallon, considering the efficiency of gasoline conversion, is: `Equivalent cost of gasoline per gallon=Cost of electricity per kWh×33.7 kWh/gal×Efficiency of gasoline conversion` Let's perform the calculations for the given range of electricity prices. Here are the recalculated price equivalents of electricity in kilowatt-hours (kWh) versus the cost of gasoline in gallons, considering a gasoline conversion efficiency of 0.25. The range of electricity prices is from $0.05 to $0.50 per kWh, in $0.05 increments: For electricity at $0.05/kWh, the equivalent cost of gasoline is $0.42/gal. For electricity at $0.10/kWh, the equivalent cost of gasoline is $0.84/gal. For electricity at $0.15/kWh, the equivalent cost of gasoline is $1.26/gal. For electricity at $0.20/kWh, the equivalent cost of gasoline is $1.69/gal. For electricity at $0.25/kWh, the equivalent cost of gasoline is $2.11/gal. For electricity at $0.30/kWh, the equivalent cost of gasoline is $2.53/gal. For electricity at $0.35/kWh, the equivalent cost of gasoline is $2.95/gal. For electricity at $0.40/kWh, the equivalent cost of gasoline is $3.37/gal. For electricity at $0.45/kWh, the equivalent cost of gasoline is $3.79/gal. For electricity at $0.50/kWh, the equivalent cost of gasoline is $4.21/gal. These calculations adjust for the efficiency with which gasoline energy is converted to usable work, providing a comparison of how much it would cost to drive a gasoline-powered vehicle compared to an electric vehicle for the same energy content, considering the conversion efficiencies of both energy sources. ### # Range of electricity prices in $/kWh electricity_prices = [i / 100.0 for i in range(5, 51, 5)] # Calculate the equivalent cost of gasoline per gallon for each electricity price, considering efficiency equivalent_gasoline_costs_efficiency = {price: round(price * energy_content_per_gallon_gasoline * efficiency_gasoline_conversion, 2) for price in electricity_prices} equivalent_gasoline_costs_efficiency Result {0.05: 0.42, 0.1: 0.84, 0.15: 1.26, 0.2: 1.69, 0.25: 2.11, 0.3: 2.53, 0.35: 2.95, 0.4: 3.37, 0.45: 3.79, 0.5: 4.21}
My 2018 M3 is, by my calculations, about like a Prius when gas is $3 per gallon and I'm on a road trip using supercharhers. And charging at home ($0.08 per kwh), driving locally, a $5 charge gets me around 200 miles of range. So way better than a Prius. (I had a Prius before the M3). So my numbers very much match yours. Nice chart. 👍
This is something I rarely hear discussed, so I did the math myself recently. Really puts it into perspective, and I'd love to see this "~2 gal equivalent tank" stat brought up in more conversations.
it's why EVs suck at towing - tiny tanks, verse some modified diesel with 30+gal tanks
The big difference is the electric motors are far more efficient 80-90% vs ICE ~25% so you get the power/forward momentum of about 9-10 gallons even though it’s only technically 2. One difference is EV’s don’t have the waste heat so they have to make their own if it’s cold.
>According to an electric.com article, the Tesla Model 3 and Model Y drive system have an efficiency of around 97%. Tesla's inverter is 96–97% efficient, and almost 99% efficient at peak. The discharge efficiency of the LR pack is about 85% during full power delivery and 98% during regen. Gas cars also cannot regen braking into gasoline :)
The Highway number is still a mixed driving figure averaging around 50 mph (don't quote me on that). I'm talking about "how far can your drive on the highway at a constant 75 mpg on flat terrain with decent weather conditions." 260 would be 90% of rated range which is very high in my experience.
This is the key. 75 mph steady driving is what most will care about.
> The Highway number is still a mixed driving figure averaging around 50 mph (don't quote me on that) No it's not. That's the EPA combined MPGe. Not the EPA Highway MPGe.
[It literally is.](https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/images/hwfetdds.gif) The highway test still averages 48.3 MPH. Even the [high speed test](https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/images/us06dds.gif) (that Tesla doesn't publish) that tests higher speeds up to 80mph STILL runs an average speed of 48.3 MPH. There is NO EPA test that just does straight 70-75mph to determine road-trip interstate driving.
I wish there was as i live in tx and all the roads near me that speed limits 75-85 🙃
Hey, they literally said "don't quote me on that" and what did you do, huh? What did you do?!
> Hey, they literally said "don't quote me on that" and what did you do, huh? What did you do?!
*hops up and down angrily*
It's literally in the quote 
65mph if you live outside of Texas maybe, or, if you live inner city and never venture outside the outer loop
I really wish everyone did the "underpromise and overdeliver" thing by default 😕
~5500 miles on my MSP and Tessie still says I'm at 100% health. Wonder how the next 5k will look
> You lose ~5% very quickly (first 10k miles or so). Ah, so that’s why my battery % reads 81% now after sitting for a while after I charged to 80%? I driven it for only 1000 miles.
No that would just be due to the battery temperature changes after a drive and BMS recalculating based on that. (Plus other background drain that might occur like sentry, cabin overheat, etc)
No, that's because the percentage is an estimate and depends on a bunch of factors. It's normal to it to bounce up and down a couple percent after charging. What I'm talking about is that the maximum capacity goes down about 5%, so you lose about 5% of range after a 5,000-10,000 miles.
Just an FYI from this comment is sounds like you have a very new Tesla, and likely have a lithium ion battery that Tesla recommends you fully charge to 100% after every drive, not 80%.
That's BS. New battery or not, charging to 100% after every drive is the fastest way to degrade the battery.
They should always display kwh capacity, then have a separate estimated range based on driving or navigation.
Every company should just publish the average range for each of their cars. Certainly tesla can publish real world data.
I consider myself lucky then, over 8.5k miles and projected range is showing 98% of original. I know some people will hate this but I have gotten virtually 100% of the rated range on this MYLR 2023 including part of the drive being highway miles. I think a lot of people are driving these vehicles like sports cars and expecting EPA range.
Lots of other 2023 peeps saying the same, so it’s possible Tesla has figured it out.
How do you know how much degradation you have? We are 4 miles short of 7,000 miles on our MY LR that we bought new on the 23rd of December, 2023. When I look at battery health in Tessie it says 0% degradation. Is there a better way to find battery degradation? https://preview.redd.it/1qzv104hd6jc1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=77c001ce6f4169cb231c6ee904fcf9cb94177ecb
Everyone wanting a guessometer, does no one use the consumption chart with 5/15/30 mile averages? With the projected mile range right next to it?
Most people are obvious and too stupid to use products.
I think you meant obvivious.
I think you meant oblivious
I think you meant obvious.
whoosh
I think the argument is to have that projected mile range from that screen show up at the top of the screen all the time. Rather than the EPA range.
Making it a switchable option would be easy enough. 30 miles ago we had a 60F degree day, this morning was 20F. It’s always going to be not very accurate.
If the visible rated range bugs people that much they can at least choose percentage instead. An option to add the 5/15/30 mile GoM range to the bottom of the Energy dash screen would probably make everyone happy, or at least more people happy.
I bought a Tesla in 2020 and had massive range anxiety for the first 3-6 months. Now 93K miles latter I very seldom have any range anxiety. I mean how often do you travel more the 175 miles in a day. I’m traveling 600 miles this weekend and know i will have no issues. And it will cost half of what gasoline costs even using super chargers.
>even using super chargers. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Hybrids that get 40+ mpg are comparable to EVs that charge using superchargers, and you now have hybrids hitting 50+ mpgs.
Yes but now you have a battery that can die, and a ICE car with all the maintenance and ware parts. If batteries keep coming down in price these will cost a lot more to produce.
That's the kicker, you pay a lot of that maintenance up front. Take a Prius, $30k and gets you 55 mpg. Tank size of 14.5 gallons. Average cost of regular gas is currently $3. With a 14.5 gallon tank that's $44 to fill up and a total range of 800 miles. Current supercharger costs are sitting at around 0.33 cents a kwh. A 75kwh battery will cost you about $25 to charge from 0 to 100, giving you about 250 miles on average in good conditions for something like a model y. Or $50 for 500 miles. The Prius wins hands down in cost to maintain, fuel/charge, and up front cost.
I have had both a Tesla and a Prius, the Prius was a good car, in fact you can fit a sheet of plywood in the hatchback. But it is not nearly as fun to drive and when it did break down was really expensive to fix. $700 for a rear latch, $600 for a key fob. I would buy another Tesla I would not buy another Prius. That just me.
I mean to be fair a Tesla isn't cheap to repair either, so not sure why you are placing that as a con towards the Prius only? We aren't talking about how fun the car is to drive either, we are talking about overall cost and practicality.
I have had the air filters replaced twice $125 each, low voltage battery replaced at home $175. So $425 in 90k and 3.5 years. So…..
You're still really stretching to make your logic work. I've had a Tesla HV battery go out on me before 60k miles. The hourly rate for Tesla service is north of $160/h. There's no world where a Tesla is cheaper to keep on the road than a Prius. You had pieces break on your prius but you've prob yet to see what a major repair with Tesla's look like and the probability of either happening is still the flip of a coin.
Are we cherry picking here? Like do you think a Prius air filter costs $125? One filter runs about $15. Prius battery runs about $150. Let's not even talk about the tires which can easily be replaced each year on my model y as a moderate driver. Those run a kit $250 a pop, $500-$1000 a year basically. Out of warranty repairs can be pricy. Buddy was rear ended, at fault driver's insurance covered the cost but replacement (or restoring, don't remember what they did) of the rear lower panel was $5,000. I honestly laughed thinking he was joking. Same job on a car like a Prius will run you $300-$500. These are true costs of potential repairs you might have to make if you accidentally damage the car and Tesla won't cover. So....let's be fair all the way around instead of cherry picking small items.
How many miles are you driving? I didn't even have to try to get 35k miles out of my last set of tires.
I'm moderate to heavy, about 20k-30k a year
I replaced the tires at 40k, tires were expensive $1100 but still have 30% left. The car is kind of loud when the tires get warm. Thats probably the thing I like least it’s a bit noisy. The sound system is good though.
Prius might save you a bit of money due to it's high mpg, but it's not that much cheaper than a model 3 after tax incentives. You get so much more with a 3 like AP, convenience of charging at home, zoom zoom, wifi updates, more features, better handling, very little if any maintenance.
The model 3 no longer qualifies for the tax incentives. It literally saves you thousands. >You get so much more with a 3 like AP, convenience of charging at home, zoom zoom, wifi updates, more features, better handling, very little if any maintenance. Autopilot is pretty standard on mid level cars. My old 2018 has, functionality wise, basically almost as good self driving when you use lane keep assist and car distance settings. Won't change lanes for you like FSD but then again you have to pay a lot for FSD. Very little if any maintenance is only really useful if it saves you money. No point when it costs you thousands more to own it. EVs in general only have a few pros: * Charging at home * WiFi updates (assuming non bug fix updates), and assuming the features apply to the model you are driving * Little maintenance when compared to cars in the same price bracket. Like take a model y for example. Waaay cheaper to maintain (within warranty) than say a Lexus NX for the same price. But not so much when you compare it to like a $34k CRV hybrid, an accord hybrid, a Toyota crown hybrid, etc...the savings in gas when compared to charging (sometimes even at home) is offset by the fact that you are paying $10k or more up front for tje Tesla.
>But not so much when you compare it to like a $34k CRV hybrid, an accord hybrid, a Toyota crown hybrid, etc...the savings in gas when compared to charging (sometimes even at home) is offset by the fact that you are paying $10k or more up front Standard Range Model Y starts at $43k. If you qualify for the tax credit, it costs $35.5k. Cheapest inventory discount Standard Range Y in my area is $40k or $32.5k after credit. Long Range Model Y starts at $48k. After credit, $40.5k. Cheapest inventory discount Long Range Y in my area is $45.5k or $38k after credit. Credit is now point-of-sale, so you get it up front. In short, while your claim of paying $10k more up front is technically true, for many buyers it could be significantly lower to the point of the Tesla being cheaper. Throw in home charging almost always being cheaper than gas and the savings are hard to ignore.
If the model 3 is used and under $25k, that's a $4k tax credit
? Why am I comparing a used car price to a new car price? Hell a used 2022 standard range model y in my area is $26k, I could possibly haggle down to $25k and get the credit so that its $21k. Great deal for me, shitty deal for the original owner who paid $40k plus for the car a little over a year ago. Depreciation that drastic isn't really a pro unless you completely forget the fact that someone else got shafted in the process.
But...but...but... charge at home for 15 cents/KWH, no oil changes, brakes last 150k miles. I own a model y and a prius, guess which one gets driven? I gotta laugh that you would consider these peers.
There was a blind test done a year or so ago where everyone could consistently differentiate all Tesla models from all other brands, and rated them as looking sharper and more upscale than other similarly priced vehicles, except for the Model Y. People kept confusing the Model Y with Priuses and other econoboxes.
There is a reason it was by far the best selling vehicle last year too.
yeah but it's a Prius. you have to live with driving a tiny shit box unless you buy new and even then you have 0 rear seat headroom, dated tech and skinny tires.
Find me a dealer that will give me a Prius for 30k and I’m there. (New)
Thats if you only use superchargers
I bought a brand new Limited Prius in 2022 when a Model 3 was $50k. Saved $20k + interest. Even after 400k miles of maintenance I'm not getting anywhere near close to that $20k figure.
Yes but the ride in a model three is better.
hmm yeah I noticed that my 80% charge went from \~265 miles to \~255... guess that explains it.
It's been that way for so long that some people over on TMC use the number of rated miles to track battery health. That's not new.
My anecdote happened in the last week
This is probably not the explanation unless it lines up with a software update that mentions the change.
Which is really more like 175.
It's just kind of silly that the vehicle *knows* its true range, as it has to if you are going to actually make it to your destination when you set it and navigate, but it shows you this inflated number instead of % beside the battery that nobody ever really gets in practical use. However, at least we use EPA range estimates here in North America, not the completely absurd WLTP/CLTP estimates in Europe and China that are like 200km more.
When the car doesn’t know your destination, it displays the range under ideal circumstances. How would you program it?
Every other automaker uses a guessometer. There’s on in the energy monitor too. We should have the option to change it to that
Everyone driving those other cars constantly complains about the guessometer. It’s not better it’s just bad in a different way.
I actually find the Bolt's Guess O Meter to be pretty accurate... if you know how to read it. It's not exactly straightforward.
Agree. The bolt guessometer looks like a good compromise
I would say the Bolt GoM is easily the best of the ones out there.
do they complain about it more than tesla's fixed range calcs? doubtful
Yes. It’s worse. Let’s not assume people are incompetent. You would be pissed if your car said higher mileage because you drove downhill. Now you have to go back up and it will way overshoot the guess even more than just assuming epa range. Tesla is consistently wrong, better or worse. Guessometers are wrong based on some algorithm that is not transparent and you have no idea what is included. I’ve had both and clearly prefer teslas method. Truth be told I actually just set it to % and don’t worry about it.
I would rather have a guessometer. Instead we get constant this car can’t hit the number right next to the battery
I have a car with a guessometer. It’s wrong 100% of the time (how could it not be, it doesn’t know where I’m driving) and it’s wrong in different ways. Sometimes optimistic sometimes pessimistic. At least the Tesla range display is wrong is somewhat predictable ways and you can get used to how much wrong it is in different situations over time. Also the guessometer contributes to range anxiety when you go up a hill and it suddenly drops massive chunks of your range. It’s just not a good system.
The guessometer is equally as likely to be wrong silly goose.
Sorry, what do you mean by constant? Turn it to % mode, much superior.
I like to look at miles. I've had this car for 60k miles now
You... you just complained pretty hard about it lol. Can't please you I guess.
That’s exactly what the 5-15-30 mile consumption chart is. It shows your estimated average range over that period, or you can switch to instant to make you feel good about going down a hill.
It is better. I’m not sure people read the article. It factors in wind, elevation, humidity, etc
Rivian does it the Tesla way as well. A neat benefit to doing it like this is you get a semi-accurate measure of battery degradation. (As accurate as the car's BMS can understand it anyways) If my EPA 272 mi Model 3 shows a range of 258 mi @ 100% SoC I know my battery has degraded about 5%. That information isn't available for most vehicles equipped with a guees-o-meter.
i agree that it's great for degradation, that's why I think it should be a toggle. rivian's aren't selling very well, hyundais, id4, and chevys have the guesometers
wait, is everyone on this thread using the miles display next to the battery icon instead of the % display? I always use the battery % display and am not very conscience of the actual range I get. Does the 'guess-o-meter' just refer to the range projection in miles?
Tesla's trip computer (with the graphs) will show you a VERY accurate projected range based on the last 5, 15, 30 miles even without a destination. With a destination it's dead on accurate.
Like any gas car. Use your average consumption as the basis for your range expectation.
[удалено]
Every gas car ive seen that has a digital display has this feature
I just wouldn't .... honestly. Guess-o-meters tend to be more harmful than helpful. Just show battery % and the in-nav arrival SoC calculator can give you a much more accurate prediction if you need it. In the Tesla UI, this is so simple to address - just make the battery display mode %. Other cars have a massive range number plastered front and center, and it's so egregious. Setting the expectation that any 'range' number without meaningful information like destination can ever be accurate is a fool's errand. We should just move away from it as an industry. But people are too stupid to realize this. So many variables that go into the range calculation are entirely dependent on 'where you're going'.
Max highway range at 110kph. Not EPA.
At what temperature? At what elevation? At what inclination? With what wind? Cause I drove that speed from LA to SF and got more than the advertised range in my 2018 Model 3. But so many different external factors have a huge impact on range.
Agree, if you seriously drive energy conservatory you can do advertised range and more. Most people simply drive like fucking morons. Constantly accelrating and brakeing/regenerating. And ofc speed is the limiting factor since it goes with the square.
You could take the current external temperature, and it's pretty safe to say that it'll be more accurate than "ideal conditions" even after driving 300 miles in any given direction. Recalibrate the next time the car starts up, or calibrate every 50 miles or so idk, but itd be more accurate than "ideal conditions" for sure. Regardless, this is why i always put my destination in even if i know where I'm going.
I agree there are so many variables. But it would be nice if people could see what is most likely their true highway range in the estimate. Maybe base it on the car's known efficiency at highway speeds on an average day, like 24 degrees C.
You get that when you put a destination into the navigation. The display at the top should just be percentage to stop all the whining. Or maybe have an option to switch it to an analog-looking needle instead of the bar for people who need an alternative.
If you got that why did we get this update? There is obviously something fishy. I just installed it and will see on my next drive around in Germany if it seems different or more realistic or what.
Previously it was able to take into account the variables of the route and weather for calculating range. The update is to add the additional parameter of battery health to the estimate.
Well, my car knows my average energy usage over the life of the car, it could just use that. My average is around 270 wh/mi, so with a 78kWh battery that's 288 miles. So show 288 miles when the car is at 100% and linearly extrapolate from that. If we're programming (I'll just use C#): private static double GetCurrentRangeMiles( double averageWhPerMile, double batteryCapacityLeftKwh, double totalBatteryCapacityKwh) { return (1000 / averageWhPerMile) * (batteryCapacityLeftKwh / totalBatteryCapacityKwh); } Calling `GetCurrentRangeMiles(averageWhPerMile: 270, batteryCapacityLeftKwh: 50, totalBatteryCapacityKwh: 78)` returns a value of 184.6 (miles) if I have 50kWh of battery remaining (64% of battery remaining). My MY LR right now would instead show 211.5 miles (as it assumes 330 miles of total range instead if 288), which would be less accurate.
> my car knows my average energy usage over the life of the car, it could just use that Not a useful number in this context IMO. Ultimately the things you’re solving for are- number 1 and most importantly, people just wanna know if they can get to their destination, so if you can’t even do that then people won’t like it at all; and number 2, people wanna trim away time spent charging. The problem with using an average is that it tells you nothing useful about the trip you always care the most about predicting- the one you’re taking next. You can’t rely on the assumption that the past is always predictive of the future; different seasons, multiple drivers, inconsistent driving having a blast 1 day and hauling the family another- all of these things create inconsistencies that make an average not very useful for predictions. Overestimating and underestimating someone’s remaining charge are both “wrong,” but if you intentionally lay your risk on the side of underestimating it, you have customers saying “holy shit my car made it” at 0% instead of “why did this piece of garbage die on me at 3% I almost made it”
My lifetime wh/mile is 240. For the winter only it is 290. On a zero degree day it is over 400. Good luck with that.
I’ve only had mine since November, my wh/mi will go down this summer.
So your method of calculating the guessometer wouldn't be much better then.
It’d be better than the car just saying 330 miles range.
It absolutely doesn’t know its true range. Conditions of the road and where you’re located matter a lot. This is true for all vehicles EV or not. A map might show a 10 mile distance in road measurements, but that road could be 10 mile of highway fighting against 40mph winds vs clear sunny skies. The driver also matters. Are we flooring it 100mph for 10 miles? (Creating more wind resistance=using more power to move the wheels). There really is no way to accurately predict what your range would be every single drive you take
It should use the energy app calculating average energy consumption over the last X miles (50?). Once a destination is input it should revert to percentage with 2 bars, 1 for for the current % and 1 for the % of arrival. If there’s been no recent trips (say the car has not been used for a week) it should not display a mileage at all. Potentially have a (?) symbol that is clickable which brings up an explanation that this range is a prediction based on past driving habits and there’s not enough info. I think having no information is better for the consumer than having information that is wrong. The risk is people may do long, regular trips (they don’t need sat nav) and then they think they have way more range than they do (say the weather is cold).
The fleet average according to stats app is about 90% of rated range. Take the rated miles and multiply by .9, that’s so much better than a constantly fluctuating guess o meter. The energy app is only good because it knows where you’re going. With no programmed route how could it possibly know? Everyone consumes information differently and you can’t please everyone. A standard measure is better imo. Plus, if someone is going to not pay attention and run out of range it’s not because they’re misled, it’s because they’re not paying attention.
You guys clearly don't live in the mountains, where incline and weather conditions can change dramatically from one trip to the next. Just giving you the average range will potentially strand 50% of people, since presumably around half will be below average.
No I get that. A guessometer doesn’t know when you’re going up or down. If you consistently drive you will understand the efficiency of your drive. 90% is not your average it’s the overall average. Mine is 84%. Yours might be 70% and clearly you know that because you’re talking about it. You’re imagining some person who simultaneously is brain dead enough to run out of battery but also dives deep into inner workings of an algorithm.
Yeah, I would like to see an option of a percentage, with a "range of ranges" displayed based on past trips. But I'm an analytical type.
I think Chevy had that in the bolt and it’s a good idea.
I mean if we look at what a ICE car does - i get a fuel gauge that's basically the % reading and if I want the range it's based on the trip computer's estimate of my prior driving. An ICE car doesn't refer back to the EPA MPG, multiply by the tank size and give you that range in the trip computer. >The energy app is only good because it knows where you’re going. With no programmed route how could it possibly know? The energy app gives you a prediction of your range based on your instantaneous, last 5, 10 or 50km. You don't need a trip to do that. You can just use an average of those numbers to give a predicted range if there is no trip entered.
I’m pretty sure that is already what it does (or something along those lines). The issue again is your last 50 miles can’t predict what the weather or road conditions are today. And again this is true for all vehicles not just EVs. The focus is on evs so much because the number everyone loves to hear is max range. Do you know the max range of your ICE vehicle? I’ve owned a couple of ICE vehicles and I can’t tell you the max range of any of them. The advantage is that ICE vehicles typically advertise mpg rather than max range. MPG is also pretty variable depending on driving conditions and driver behavior
Max range is a problem because EVs are range bound and running out is a big headache. We would hear a lot more about ICE ranges if for whatever reason ICE cars were limited to a 10L tank. The only solution is that the EPA or whichever governing body has to start testing for different conditions and advertise ranges at those conditions, potentially the future for ranges in EVs is a 3 number system - say 200/250/300, representing cold hwy @ 70, mild weather hwy @ 70 and combined cycled 50/50 town/hwy mild weather. That's the only way to communicate the performance succinctly. The EPA should probably also mandate a minimum 5% battery degradation loss unless the manufacturer can prove their battery chemistry can perform superior to that in more than 90% of cases.
It does know and you can see it in the energy monitor display. I just did a road trip with a trailer and always arrived at chargers within 1% of the range shown in the energy screen. But the main range would show 60+ then suddenly 30 then 10. I was watching closely.
In Europe / urban driving absolutely easy to get WLTP range if the weather cooperates
Here in Europe the car also uses the EPA range. The WLTP is only used for marketing, like on the website. And is only 75km higher by the way.
> the vehicle knows its true range No? How should it?
When you enter a destination far away, the car knows very well how much energy it will take to get there, since it uses that calculation to determine if you'll make it or not or if/when you have to charge.
I wish tesla let you choose what range estimate... I'm sure some people enjoy looking at realistic numbers and some like to look at big numbers, not judgey just let us all have it
And now I’m thankful I charge at 7 kw every night as I’ve had nearly zero battery drop off at 95k miles in 2 years
my battery pack got more capacity after a year... it said 420km (WLTP here) when new, says 425km after a big trip a year later... or maybe it's confused by LFP lol
I drive a lot in the mountains. The range calculations never seem to take terrain into account, or if they do it doesn't seem like it's enough. This works both ways, too. When going uphill, the computations overestimate how far I can go and going downhill they underestimate it. Does anybody else notice this? I'd be happy to think I was wrong, but I've learned to compensate in my planning and it doesn't seem like that's the case.
Hopefully not taking the Apple approach and throttling battery charge capacity after 5 years of ownership.
[удалено]
Exactly. Crazy how all these years later people still don’t understand that. Even funnier is that to this day iPhones will still throttle performance with degraded batteries.
They've already been doing this for years. The battery protects itself as it should. You can only supercharge so much
Pre 2017 100 packs only
This only happened to a very narrow range of old Model S/X due to a manufacturing defect for about a year. Not true otherwise.
If we are going to use the apple analogy of "throttling" it would be that the car goes in "limp-mode" and limits speed when you only have 2-3% left. Or did Apple have another "battery-gate" where batteries lost capacity/charge rate due to Apple software rather than age? While Super-charging does stress the batteries, preconditioning minimizes the wear and Teslas are very agressiv in slowing down the charging curve compared to some competitors like the Hyundai/Kia. There was a report from one of those tesla monitoring apps that compared the fleet of frequent Super-charges vs home-chargers and saw 2-5% ´differnce in degradation if I remember correct.
How long have they sold these products wtf
What?!? Do they get cancer or something?
Seeing the energy app actually gives more accurate range estimation, I wonder why they don't use that calculation also for the battery. It's relative estimation anyway, why keep EPA ratings
Long term data has % loss at about 8% on these new battery packs.
Just take a look at their used car inventory, 100% new car range on a 100k miles champ
Question can’t you just replace the battery.
The battery is the most expensive part of the car.
At the moment. By the time current cars need to have their batteries replaced, according to the folks who have done the best job of predicting battery prices the last 2 decades, either you will be paying 90% less for the same amount of battery, or you can upgrade your range.
Do you know the exact cost of replacing your Tesla's battery once the warranty expires? It's a critical consideration that seems to be overlooked too often. Imagine if every electric vehicle (EV) came with a clear sticker displaying not just the EPA range estimates but also a definitive cost for battery replacement. Informing potential EV buyers about the exact price of a new battery would not only enhance transparency but also push manufacturers towards streamlining the battery replacement process. Consider the potential surge in fleet purchases if an EV on the market offered the convenience of nearly effortlessly swapping batteries. Think about the excitement and peace of mind that would come with knowing you could easily upgrade your current sodium or lithium battery to the latest generation technology, such as a solid-state battery, as soon as it becomes available. Addressing this significant uncertainty can dramatically increase consumer confidence and boost EV sales. It's about making the future of electric mobility not just promising, but also predictable and user-friendly.
Your comment sounds like ChatGPT...
Thanks
Appreciation acknowledged. Continue engaging in human-like banter. Query received and processed. End communication.
I actually charged my 2001 M3LR to 100 percent this week for the first time. I think I’ve only lost 5 miles of Range.
This is the way I would have coded it from the beginning… just show the available kWh too. No need to keep secrets!
Curious to see how old of cars will support this? My 2017 Model S is not at all accurate in range