Jan 5, 2013
Al Sherman Can someone "dumb it down" for me and explain Rated, Ideal, and Projected Range? I know Projected isn't a choice for display anymore. Is it still available somewhere? Thanks?�
Jan 5, 2013
Doug_G Ideal - how far the car will go if driven at a steady 55 mph on level ground at moderate temperatures.
Rated - how far the EPA says the car will go given their tests. Equals 88% of Ideal. Just a slightly more conservative version of Ideal.
Projected - how far the car calculates you will go if you keep consuming power at the rate you are currently. The distance it is calculated over can be adjusted by changing the graph settings. This is useful on long trips when you are driving in a consistent fashion (e.g. highway). If Projected is greater than the distance remaining on the GPS, then you are going to make it to your destination. If not, either slow down or stop and charge!
Both Ideal and Rated give an indication of how much power remains in your battery. Projected depends on how you've been driving, weather, heater use, etc.�
Jan 5, 2013
AnOutsider Wow, so Projected was removed in 4.0? I thought it was the ideal that was removed. That's a huge bummer.�
Jan 5, 2013
kishdude The other issue I've seen is that for projected there are two settings average and instantaneous. Instantaneous is basically worthless but average will give you the projected range over the past 5/15/30 miles depending on what setting your energy graph is set for. The problem is that whenever you select average, this setting is not remembered and every time the car turns off, you have to re-select average. Hopefully this will be fixed by a future update.�
Jan 5, 2013
Al Sherman Thanks Doug. So, where do we view projected now?�
Jan 5, 2013
GeekGirls What gave you that impression? I'm on 4.0 and I can switch the primary display between rated and ideal, but the energy display continues to show projected. This can be shown either on the full touchscreen or as either of the side displays on the instrument panel.�
Jan 5, 2013
jerry33 It was just removed from the one display to make way for rated. I suspect that some later version will allow switching between all three systems but that for 4.x they had to get the rated to show up somewhere and that was the easiest and most fool proof way to do it.�
Jan 5, 2013
dsm363 Projected is still part of the new energy app, isn't it? Can select either instanteous or average for 5,15,30 miles.�
Jan 5, 2013
cinergi Yes projected has been removed from the instrument cluster. If they added it back to the version of the energy app in instrument cluster, I would no longer miss it because then I could get both rated and projected on the IC like I used to. I've suggested to Tesla that they put the projected # on the IC version like they do on the touchscreen version.
I was first upset with this change (which also removes the rated/projected range app on the IC) but gave myself time to adapt to it, and have come to like it; if they put the projected number in the IC app, it will actually save screen real-estate since I could then get those two numbers and the energy app all on the IC (using just one of the two customizable spots).�
Jan 5, 2013
Doug_G As others have said, the Energy app. It appears on a floating widget on the right side of the graph.
I've sent in a request to Tesla to include it on the version of the energy graph that is on the console screen. That way I can keep the rear view camera and the GPS on the touchscreen while driving. Otherwise I have to drop the rear view camera (so I can easily keep track of Projected versus distance-to-go), and I rather like having it when driving in traffic.�
Jan 5, 2013
brianman In reference to the big range number below the speedometer, yes -- you can no longer have Projected displayed there as of 4.0 version.�
Jan 5, 2013
contaygious Yeah it's really lame since my rated is like 50 miles above projected it gives me false security�
Jan 5, 2013
AnOutsider Well, as long as it's still available SOMEWHERE, that's good then.�
Jan 5, 2013
Zextraterrestrial Just assume 2/3 of your rated for what you will really get�
Jan 5, 2013
contaygious It's also annoying how when you go to energy screen it says instant Nd you have to toggle it to average projected each time.�
Jan 6, 2013
Psullivan 
I also miss seeing rated but sometimes it could give me a false sense of security. I thought you all might get a kick out of this.�
Jan 6, 2013
patp Yes, this really annoying. Ideal is so useless. Even "rated" is quite not that useful in cold climate. I need to drive with the big "Projected" number.�
Jan 6, 2013
ChadS Well, it all depends on the conditions. I almost never use Projected, because it has no idea how I'm going to be driving. It's just the Rated miles number complicated by dividing it by some factor based on how I have been driving. The only time I ever use Projected is when I've been driving at least several miles on the highway and expect to continue driving a very long time at the same speed on the same highway (without changing elevation, winds, etc). And when it's a road I'm not familiar with, because otherwise I'd already know the numbers. I rarely find all of those conditions lining up.
While I agree Ideal and Rated aren't always good mileage estimates, I don't use them that way. I use them as a measure of how much energy is in the batteries, just like the gas gauge on an ICE. I'd rather see a percentage of energy left, but you get used to the "miles" number fairly quickly.
But frankly, all of this number watching is really only important on short-range EVs. With long-range EVs like our Teslas, I very rarely watch the battery gauges at all. Driving around town, there's no way I'll hit the limit before I'm home for the day. And on a road trip, well, same thing really - I know where the next charger is, and I didn't plan for it to be anywhere near the end of my range. The only exception is that occasional trip away from the charging network where you'd like to take the EV, but it happens to be near the car's range. Of course all of this requires that you be familiar and comfortable with your EV's capabilities; that takes a while. I sure watched the gauges the first few months I had the Roadster!�
Jan 6, 2013
rbergquist Agree, I think Tesla should really think through the dash display. I'd like it tied into the Nav system and display Miles Remaining and then show the Projected, Rated and Ideal. When Nav is being used, display range with some sort of color coding scheme for each mileage range shown. (e.g. Red: you won't make it home - find a charger; Yellow: Will make it with <10% battery to spare; Green - Should not be a problem.) It could even get smarter and suggest a strategy for making it home(e.g. slow down to XX mph) or show charging stations available on map (my current ICE does this when Low Fuel indicator comes on). Longer term, it could even calculate the Projected miles based on the route and elevation gain/loss, and even consider temperature. An ideal candidate for improvements over time...�
Jan 6, 2013
GeekGirls The problem with "projected" is what to use as the basis for estimation. The energy displays make it obvious what the estimate is based on (prior momentary, 5, 15, or 30 miles.) With the extremely limited display space under your speed there's not enough room to explain the provenance of the number.
I do think there's value in bringing a projection back if they can fine-tune the algorithm to require less interpretation. Here's my suggestion:
a) Use only the driving history for the current driver profile in projecting range. If the current profile doesn't have that much history, assume the rated range for the missing miles.
b) Use an average of the prior N miles, where N starts as the rated range for the remaining charge. Iterate using the result for N until the results converge. This will tell you, in essence: you can go N miles further presuming you drive the same way you over the last N miles.
This approach will avoid the sudden changes in projected that are common with too small a historical window � except when you're extremely low on charge as changes in driving habits and conditions really do have significant impact at this point.�
Jan 6, 2013
patp Great idea.�
Jan 6, 2013
Al Sherman Floating color coded range arcs right on the map would be very cool. Don't know how feasible it is though.�
Jan 6, 2013
joshuaeven My Leaf has a little range map. It's feasible :smile:�
Jan 6, 2013
strider Think of Ideal as your "battery meter". Each "mile" is .33% of your battery or conversely, every 3 miles is 1% of your battery. This is the only way to know how much battery your truly have left. As others have said, projected is based on how you've been driving so if your trip is all downhill in one direction and uphill in the other then projected is hard to understand. For an example, read about how the Leaf battery gauge works.
On the Roadster I have it display Ideal on the touchscreen and Projected on the instrument panel and find that works well for me. I can glance down to the touchscreen to see my absolute battery remaining and look on the IP to see if I'm being a leadfoot. On the Model S I leave it in Ideal on the IC and if I'm taking a trip where I need to watch my consumption I have the Energy app up on the touchscreen and have it display the 5-mile average (lots of hills around me - if you live in flatter terrain you could use 15 or 30 miles)�
Jan 7, 2013
vfx I think that's exactly what average is supposed to do. When I saw that feature added, it made perfect sense to the way I use both readouts on the Roadster.�
Jan 7, 2013
wycolo I like that graphic to the left of the speedometer. I've left it at 'last 30 miles'. I have NO TECH so does that mean TM can't alter/remove anything remotely?? I.e. for me to get an upgrade I'll have to have TM email a file & I can then apply it using the USB port?? Not that I'm in any rush, just asking.
--�
Jan 7, 2013
mattjn I know it's been said before, but Model S needs a battery life remaining display. It'd be a lot better going distances if you could see that you have 25% or so of battery life remaining without having to break out a graphing calculator with these energy charts.�
Jan 7, 2013
strider But that is exactly what the Ideal readout is giving you, just with more granularity. If you set the dash display to read out Ideal, you can quickly see what 300 miles = 100%, 200 miles = 66%, 150 miles = 50%, etc. Rated works the same but I like round numbers :biggrin: It becomes second nature very soon to use the miles remaining instead of a %.�
Jan 7, 2013
EchoDelta Hmm. There is no need for the algorithms to be so limited. tesla will start having driving data for vehicles, vehicle config, running settings (windows, climate),SOC, exact roads driven, their altitude profiles, driving patterns (accel & braking) weather conditions, etc.
if they are smart -and I think they are- they should be collecting all this data (in an anonymized/de-identified way, with final trip endpoints deleted yadda yadda). For everyone.
Then take good statistical approaches to weigh live car range estimates based on how your particular car/conditions/style/itinerary clusters.
As someone said- it can't know how you WILL be driving. But given how you are driving and are likely to be driving a lot can be done for you. Especially in those few situations when one cares. Early model S adopters I feel will need this less than latter adopters and Gen3.
X1188. Sorry if this is terse, sent from my phone.�
Jan 7, 2013
brianman Agreed. When some of us have said "we miss Projected", some have chimed in with "but it's not accurate" (or something like that). I believe they are missing the point. For many of us it's far more accurate than Rated or Ideal. If you're worried about even Projected "overestimating", then fine - add a customer knob in the settings that says "assume 25% worse than Projected used to show" where the 25 is adjustable. This isn't rocket science.�
Jan 7, 2013
AnOutsider I've found projected to be very accurate pre 4.0�
Jan 8, 2013
brianman Same.�
Jan 8, 2013
patp You're lucky that's an even number for you. But what about other battery packs? Or like me when you're in km?
If we really want a %, lets put a %.
Putting ideal miles is a fake sense of security and dangerous.
For example, right now my true range for a standard charge in the cold winter is more 135 miles.�
Jan 8, 2013
dsm363 Good point. It's something they could easily do. Until then, you can tap on the battery icon and see how far down the green area is but that's not an exact percentage.�
Jan 23, 2013
ckessel Seemed as close a match for a thread as I could find for this questions.
After 1200 miles, I'm nowhere even close to the 300 wh/mile energy usage. I'm averaging 430 wh/mile. It's Oregon and a bit chilly, but nothing crazy cold. My driving is mostly 30-50mph city streets, about 35 miles a day, so I wouldn't expect that should be too far off the EPA "city mileage". I'm starting to wonder if the car has an issue or if real city usage isn't even close to the rated range.�
Jan 23, 2013
joshuaeven Do you have climate control on? It's been COLD in Portland! Even if it's not 'crazy cold', having the heat on is having the heat on. My Leaf (Model S arrives in the spring) doesn't like the cold, and there is a huge difference in energy usage when the heat is on. Gloves, coat and scarf are always on in the Leaf.�
Jan 23, 2013
ckessel Yep, I've got climate control on, but Tesla's webpage says such things have about a 10% impact. I'm seeing closer to 40% (430/300 ~= 143%).
Tesla's quote from their "Facts" page on accessory usage:
�
Jan 23, 2013
joshuaeven Gut feeling is that climate control is a much larger draw during normal city driving. If you were cruising at 55 and looked at the effect of climate control, it may be 10%. If you are stopped and have the climate control on, it's close to 100% of energy usage.�
Jan 23, 2013
ElSupreme I just got my car and am getting between 450 Wh/mile and 400 Wh/mile on my normal driving trips. This is much more than I expected also. I have noticed that hills are much rougher on energy usage than I imagined, and I do not have the hang of gauging my regen properly yet.
I don't know how hilly your part of Oregon is but Atlanta is VERY hilly (and my part especially so). And I think heat power usage is understated by Tesla. Heat is going to take a good amount of power.
And apparently driving 85 sucks down 400+wH/mile even on flat stretches.�
Jan 23, 2013
ChadS I just got back from a 3,000-mile trip where temps were below freezing every night, and usually only 40's or 50's during the day (although it did hit 70 one day). I've played with Tesla's calculator and compared it to my notes on energy usage, and here's my conclusions FOR LONG TRIPS:
The Model S HVAC, at full blast takes about 7.5kW. What % hit that is depends on how fast you are going. And of course you may not have it on full blast. AC takes less than heat (at 90 degrees Tesla says the range is the same as 70; Model S batteries must like it a little warmer than Roadster batteries). But at 60 � 70mph freeway speeds, it appears to take off 7% at 50 degrees (or 100 if you're driving in heat, although I didn't get to measure that), 13% for 32 or 120, 25% for 15. It appears about 1/3 of this hit happens even with HVAC off, so that�s the portion to manage the batteries vs 2/3 to keep the cabin comfortable.
So for a long highway trip at 32 degrees, expect a 13% hit for HVAC. That would change the nominal 60mph 308Wh/mi consumption to 348. Of course there are lots of other hits too, like faster speed, generous acceleration, heavier or sticker tires and wheels, wet roads, wind, hills, etc. I'm trying to tease the numbers all out and hope to post something soon.
Note that the "average" energy usage is much worse for short city trips for two reasons. One is that a constant draw is a larger percentage hit at slower speeds (see graph below to get a feel for the relative hit). Another is that a lot of the energy to get the car bits warm comes at the very beginning. It's the same reason why my old Honda Insight only got 46mpg in the winter until I put on a block heater, even though I averaged 60mpg overall and could get over 80 in the summer.
�
Jan 23, 2013
GeekGirls I don't think hills are as big a deal as I originally expected. My daily drive involves climbing 1500ft and descending again, both to and from work, plus incidental hills. It's not a high speed drive, so I manage to achieve better-than-EPA-rated efficiency on a frequent basis. My drive in this morning averaged 274wH/mi, which is even better than "ideal." I was using seat heat rather than forced air, and I almost never used the brake. Learning to rely on standard regen to slow the car is one key, but I also found turning off creep made a surprisingly large difference.
Air resistance increases with the square of velocity, so the amount of energy you use per mile overcoming air resistance has a linear relationship with speed. Tesla's 300mi ideal range represents about 283wH/mi at 55mph, so I'd expect numbers in the low 400s at 85mph.�
Jan 31, 2013
wycolo > The setting formerly allowing you to choose between Projected and Rated now lets you choose between Rated and Ideal. [brianman]
Goodbye Projected Range. R.I.P.
�
Jan 31, 2013
ggr OK, assume I change my terminology to "projected", I still can't get it to display on the instrument cluster... only on the big screen. That's what I care about.�
Jan 31, 2013
tomas Hypothesis regarding the whole range kerfluffle: If I had a new car company with a new fuel technology, and the largest fear of the buying public was range of this new technology, I would want to make sure that the primary range displayed on the dash was somewhat controlled by me, not by someone's aggressive driving habits, the subzero temps that day, or whatever. So, I'd show range as a fixed "approved" factor (such as what I'd tested it at under good conditions) and optionally show a secondary projected range based upon actual performance that day averaged over some distance.
As a driver, I might want something different, but since I have a huge stake in Tesla Motors success and I want to see the public get beyond EV range anxiety, I'm gonna just use the tools they gave me to calculate my expected range.�
Jan 31, 2013
brianman Right and we (at least a half dozen of us) moaned about this on the forum months ago. : |
- - - Updated - - -
And this is where they have the opportunity to show that the customer comes first, rather than the PR.
They had a feature many of us preferred, and took it away from us. They gave us something different, and less useful than what we had.
For the instrument cluster.
The changes to the Energy App on the 17" I don't find troubling.�
Jan 31, 2013
dflye I'd be happy if it had an option to just display the kWh remaining in the battery (not taking into account any charge set aside for when you get to 0 miles of range).
That would be a consistently computed value, regardless of driving habits, it just declines with use, whether from driving or accessory use or battery warming or whatever else consumes watts.�
Jan 31, 2013
brianman I've got a workaround for you:
1. Set your Rated/Ideal setting to Ideal
2. On post-it note #1, write "/4" and position it below the numeric portion of the range gauge below the speedometer
3. On post-it note #2, write "kWh" and position it so that it covers up the "mi." of the range gauge below the speedometer
You'll have to do the division by 4 in your head, but that'll get you a pretty decent guess at the kWh you have left in the tank.
�
Jan 31, 2013
dflye Doh, too true! I feel like I'm in that comic strip where Mr. Obviousman flies in and saves the day.
I guess I'd rather have the number of kWh that requires mental computation vs some number of miles that the Neanderthal part of my brain reads early in a long trip as meaning "Durrh, you have plenty of range, floor it!" and then I get stuck limping into some Nissan dealership in the middle of the night on the way home as there isn't diddly-squat other than that for the non-metropolis parts of NC.�
Jan 31, 2013
brianman Hehe. It's fun playing that role, but it doesn't pay well and tends to .. not .. win friends and influence people.�
Jan 31, 2013
ggr Yeah, pity there isn't a computer in there somewhere that could do the computation for us...
Oh. Yeah.
�
Jan 31, 2013
Norbert The "custom efficiency factor"...�
Jan 31, 2013
brianman I should probably formally follow-up with Tesla. Something like...
- Tesla Service, how can I help you?
- This rated range thing isn't working out for me. I keep risking warranty violations because I'm pretty close to zero miles whenever I go on a trip...anywhere.
- Hm. Why do you say it's a "rated" range problem?
- Because you took away my Projected range setting for the instrument cluster.
- You mean the Rated range is hard for you to obtain? What's your lifetime Wh/mi.? It can't be that different...
- 426 Wh/mi.
- No, not when you're going uphill in the wind and stuff...your average. Whichever of your trip meters has the longest distance. What does that one say?
- Yah, both my trip meters were zero'd when I took delivery and have never been reset. 426 Wh/mi.
- Oh.
(pause)- Yah, so can we get a setting or something to control the scale factor used for the range meter below the speedometer?
- I'll pass that request up the chain.
- Thanks. BTW, love the Perf. Wouldn't trade it even if the instrument cluster's range meter was invisible. Cheers.
- Heh. Ok, I'll pass that up too. Have a good night.
�
Jan 31, 2013
bonnie You're using sock puppets to act this out, aren't you?�
Jan 31, 2013
brianman No, but great idea!�
Jan 31, 2013
dtich yeah, great scene, but... i don't really see how you have such a big problem and are getting to 0 miles. look at your rated range. look at your actual miles driven. do 300ms of mental math and get a good idea of how much battery you use compared to the stated range. works. projected can help you plan. where's the issue? really?�
Jan 31, 2013
brianman The issue is distance planning. Rated miles are just as fantasy as Ideal for me lately.
It's weather combined with non-flat terrain, neither of which are really "adjustable" to the point where even at cruise control @ 55mph you can't trust the range indicator. And, no, the answer isn't "drive 35 mph on a 60 mph freeway". Not for me at least.
And I didn't say it's a big problem, just that it's a self-inflicted degradation in the Model S offering -- newer firmware is worse for the customer than older firmware. One of the core philosophies of the upgrade process for Tesla vehicles should be that a newer firmware version should be equal to or better than the previous version. In this particular aspect, they took a step backwards. The size of the step backwards is less the point, than the direction of the step.
Edit: Additional note...
When the "Projected is gone from the instrument cluster" was first reported, it made me seriously consider not upgrading the firmware. I eventually just plodded forward anyway, but any feature change that makes people consider not wanting your newest firmware should be a warning shot that you made a questionable decision.�
Feb 1, 2013
Todd Burch The Energy app shows projected range over 5, 15, or 30 miles.
The console battery meter must do it for the entire battery energy remaining.
Perhaps--just maybe--they took it out temporarily to work on the algorithm and improve it. For example, we know when the pack's cold reported range is less than actual. Maybe they realized the existing algorithm would give people a false sense of security and took it out until they could correct it?�
Feb 1, 2013
dsm363 ........And scene!�
Feb 1, 2013
patp Imagine how useless rated is for me: I'm at an average of 540 wh/miles since I got the car. Try explaining to your wife you have to cut your rated miles in half.
I think we're not helping Tesla when we say this not important and that you just have to do the math in your head... For normal people (non early adopter) it is. My wife Volt's auto adjust the range so you can trust the big projected range display - this is what people expect. In an electric only car you need to be ultra conservative on range - quite the opposite of what Tesla is doing right now.�
Feb 1, 2013
FlasherZ It's a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation.
I consume ~425-450 Wh/mile on 10 mile trips to the local town (store, bowling alley, post office, etc.) because of my 2 mile multi-hill, multi-turn route to the highway. I consume ~325 Wh/mile on 100 mile shopping trips to the "local" shopping metroplexes. Projected was just as meaningless to me.
I use "rated" as a relative fuel gauge. I'd be happy to solve this argument by changing the "rated miles" to % of battery left.�
Feb 1, 2013
patp Yes, a % would be better as it would not create a false sense of available range.
However, on my Roadster, I had the choice to use "rated" or "projected" and I was using projected all the time because it was much more realistic. Also kept the ideal range on the computer screen. This way I never had bad surprises.�
Feb 1, 2013
wycolo @sockpuppet #1: Don't you have a base of operations that consists of repeated trips, i.e. commuting? Or do you begin each day like Bill Gates: "where oh where will I go today?". If the former, then you should have a good sense of where your remaining range is at, at any point on the map/ in time regardless of whatever new guageing scheme is presented on your dash. If the latter, then I'm jealous since I'm restricted to, at most, a handful of possible paved routes to choose from. Yeah, same old same old, but still fun to record the MILES at each waypoint looking for differences in the new algorithms. Or driving mode - today: NO HEAT!!
--�
Feb 1, 2013
tomas Easy.... if you put the trip odometer display on left on your dash, it will always show statistics since last charge on top. Including kWh used since last charge. Rather than all that long division, all you have to do is subtract that from 85 to know what's left.�
Feb 1, 2013
buzzbuzz I'm in the same boat (although I use "ideal" as my gauge). I simply have my "since last charge" trip meter which has told me how far I've driven coupled with a visual representation of the charge left in the battery. For example, if I've driven 50 miles and have used 1/4 of the battery bar, I know that I roughly have 150 miles left (200 miles total), if I keep driving the way I have been. It's no different than a fuel gauge in an ICE (I've gone 50 miles on a tank, have 3/4 of a tank left, so I'll get about 200 miles on the tank). The gas gauge never told us how many miles we had until empty. I take all the range numbers with a large grain of salt. Even the projected value is only an average over your last 30 miles so, personally, I have no issue with the projected being displayed on the 17-inch screen only. I find the average Wh/mi and overall energy use far more enlightening as to how much further I can drive on a tank of electrons
Just my 2 cents.�
Feb 1, 2013
Trnsl8r Doesn't work exactly. First, on a standard charge the battery holds about 90% of 85kwh. Second, I have found that the battery will lose mileage even when plugged in. Sometimes my battery is charged full in the evening (242 miles shown), but the next morning it can be down to about 235 and my garage will usually keep about 55 degrees. I think the car lets the SOC drop quite a bit before it tops it off again.
And once you get going, the trip meter only shows the energy consumed from the point you unplug.�
Feb 3, 2013
Mayhemm I find the projected range to be most useful of the three because I almost always drive faster than 55mph (on the highway) and don't really do much to reduce energy usage. For example, I set my climate control to "comfortable", not to "efficient".
I'll very rarely ever achieve ideal or rated ranges, so I find them bordering on useless. Projected at least gives a closer approximation of real-world range for lead-foots like me. They could maybe add a 50-mile or 100-mile option to the average calculation though (in addition to the 5/15/30 already in place). This would cover most people's day-to-day errands and give them a good approximate energy requirement figure.
Needless to say, I'm in favor of Tesla putting the Projected Range back on the instrument cluster somewhere.�
Feb 3, 2013
smorgasbord I keep thinking there's a huge opportunity for crowd-sourcing actual kWh consumed on a given stretch of road at a given speed at a given temperature. That could then be tied into the Nav system, which could then tell you what speed will get you to your destination given your current SOC.�
Feb 4, 2013
patp My friend who bought a Model S just sent me an email he sent to Tesla. He thought is battery was defective as he arrived with 1km left at his destination (240 km). I explained to him to never trust the range displayed especially in winter time. He doesn't understand why the car is not showing the true range.
He's a perfect example of a normal user. This confirms my theory that showing a BIG ideal/rated range is not appropriate for non early adopters.
This is not a minor issue. Also delivery specialist should spend more time explaining this to customers (especially in cold climate)�
Feb 4, 2013
tomas Judging from both forums and from other communications I've had with Tesla owners, the "normal" Tesla user has reasonably high degree of technical aptitude, understanding that they are early adopter, sensitivity to range issue, and curiosity about influences on range (temperature, driving habits, vampire load, etc.), frustration that "projected" is not on dash, but knowledgeable enough to display it on center screen. I think that so far, Tesla Motors has designed their offer to this crowd, not to the mass market.
The person who would drive 240km, arrive with 1km rated, and wonder why is probably more indicative of the mass market that Tesla will need to understand better and cater to if they are to broaden their customer base.
I believe the right answer to this is better documentation and - as patp says above - better-trained delivery specialists. Tesla has GOT to know that range anxiety is the biggest obstacle to success - and most of it is psychological.
Example: My last car was Jaguar XF-S. There was a normal gas gauge, and one could optionally display remaining range (as one can on Tesla as well, if instructed how) but with absolutely no transparency as to formula. Had the Jag 5 years and 50k miles. Throughout, projected range was very optimistic on full tank (usually overstating by 50%), and became more accurate as tank emptied. I'd guess that with 1k left, it would be extremely accurate: +/- 1k. Never got there though, and never worried about it, because there's a petrol station on every corner.
With Tesla, I find the projected range much more useful than on the jag - as long as I display energy app on center screen so I can see projected, and use "average" vs. "instant". I almost always have it up, because there isn't a level 3 charger on every corner, and I don't want to be caught short on electrons.
So, Tesla has given us better tools than we ever had with ICE cars regarding range, but shown little sensitivity at delivery and in documentation regarding instruction about using it. So, the curious figure out how, and the less curious get to the destination with 1k rated left and freak out.
Yes, tweak the displays. I'd like projected on dash and default to "average" vs. "instant. But first priority is better handover and documentation, please!�
Feb 10, 2013
patp Unfortunately the New York Times article is a perfect example of why using rated range is a really bad idea. Tesla will pay the price for this mistake for a long time.
I repeat myself, but its crucial Tesla stops being so California centric. They need to haven a team on the east coast that LIVES in the cold weather.�
Feb 15, 2013
dadaleus I was logging on to make a post about this only to discover my exact thoughts are already covered.
Others may not be aware that an early version of the S software ALREADY HAD projected range as an option on the above steering wheel display, and it used what is now called average. I too think it was a mistake for Tesla to move this to only being available in a complex app for the 17" display. Personally, that was my preferred view of range. If projected had been a default for the center display, maybe the New York Times issue could have been avoided (but maybe not--there was more at play here, mainly the overnight after a minimum charge to theoretically achieve his needed range).�
Feb 15, 2013
patp The Consumer Reports article conclude with:
"One additional takeaway: Perhaps it's the "projected range" that needs to display more prominently than the "rated range."
Winter chills limit range of the Tesla Model S electric car�
Feb 16, 2013
Mayhemm Yeah, I would definitely prefer Tesla put the projected range back on the instrument cluster. I don't want to use up half of the touchscreen with the energy app. I'd prefer to use it to display media sources, maps, or the rear camera.�
Feb 16, 2013
brianman +1
I disagree. I'm convinced Mr. Broder would remain "confused" after "accidentally" changing the units to kilometers because "a voice in his head told him to".�
Feb 16, 2013
neroden I'd prefer a version which displayed "kWh" and let me estimate what my mileage was going to be...
- - - Updated - - -
Aha, good workaround.
- - - Updated - - -
Or not a good workaround, I guess.
- - - Updated - - -
At least that's a simple computation! For planning purposes, I've just decided "half of rated" is a good rule of thumb up here in the Frozen North.
I agree. I think it would be more helpful to everyone to put up kWh and a *conservative* projection of kWh/mile.
- - - Updated - - -
Tesla needs to correct that, since it's plainly wrong. Heating can easily have a 50% impact or more.
California engineers, sheesh! They don't know what cold is. :biggrin:
- - - Updated - - -
Thank you for this data. This is a key piece of information which was previously lacking....�
Feb 17, 2013
tomas I live in Chicago. My early experience after December delivery and mainly city driving was putting car to bed most nights significantly underachieving rated. I found that, still winter, when I started taking longer drives with high proportion highway, I was extremely close to rated. On one unseasonably warm 50 degree day, I beat the crap out of rated over about 90 miles. About 280 wh per mile! So, this is all about learning for each of us but I'm guessing over course of a year, given reasonable city/hwy split, I should be at rated, even in Chicago. Just have to be realistic in cold and know the temperature standard deviation is high. That can be helped by staying plugged in in a heated garage.�
Feb 18, 2013
jerry33 In Florida�
Mar 20, 2013
LazMan I think the car uses a lot of energy initially to warms itself and then much less to maintain the heat. For multiple short trips where the car cools down in between, energy use can be twice rated. But I also found that as soon as the car has heated up, energy use drops dramatically.�
Jan 4, 2014
ThosEM Any other comparable car, ICE, hybrid, or EV, is set up to provide a remaining range estimate based on recent history. Unless one knows the mind of the driver and the future of the route topography and weather, there is no better estimate available. What were Tesla thinking when they consigned this to only appear in the energy app?
�
Jan 4, 2014
jerry33 I don't quite understand. The rated range on the speedometer is generally pretty accurate--if a bit conservative. Using the trip meter you can easily tell if you are gaining or losing miles compared to the rated range. The energy app is 99% for entertainment because it covers too short a distance to be useful.�
Jan 4, 2014
bluetinc 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
�
Jan 4, 2014
tezco 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.�
Jan 4, 2014
brianman 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.�
Jan 5, 2014
jerry33 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.�
Jan 5, 2014
brianman 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.�
Jan 5, 2014
jerry33 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.�
Jan 5, 2014
cinergi Nope, it was the last 30 miles. And while maybe not the best/most accurate, it was far better than relying on rated.
I, too, sorely miss being able to show projected in the IC.�
Jan 5, 2014
jerry33 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.�
Jan 5, 2014
tezco 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.�
Jan 6, 2014
ThosEM 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.�
Jan 6, 2014
brianman +1 give me the lowest value of average projected 10, 25, 50km averages in the drivers dash please�
1/1/2015
guest 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.�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét