Having road tripped from Florida to Washington and back in a big circle around the country, it is my firm belief that every single person complaining about the range estimates in a Tesla is speeding.
By altering my driving style, I can get more range than the estimate. It's extremely predictable and accurate, to the point where I can notice the power drain from the self driving computers/cameras, arrive at the next supercharger at exactly the 3% I aim for, etc.
There was a point in my road trip when I was on top of a mountain, and it said I would reach the next charger 100km away with 20km of range remaining, but I was only at 90km at the time. I made it with 17km of range remaining.
The estimates are really good and useful if you don't speed.
When you understand how the EPA actually test this, it makes sense. "Highway" isn't anything like what most people think it is. It's not cruising at 75mph with no traffic on a major interstate. It's more like busy country road driving.
> The "highway" program, on the other hand, is created to emulate rural and interstate freeway driving with a warmed-up engine, making no stops (both of which ensure maximum fuel economy). The vehicle is driven for 10 miles over a period of 12.5 minutes with an average speed of 48 mph and a top speed of 60 mph
Further, the force of drag grows exponentially with speed. Going 75mph on the interstate is massively less fuel efficient than 48mph.
As a German, I love how you call 75mph speeding. There is a huge discussion going on in Germany of introducing a 80mph speed limit on the highway and many people claim that that does not work for them as they regularly drive 100mph average.
You don't drive 100mph average on German motorways. Especially with the trucks not giving a damn and forcing themselves through to the left lane to pass their colleagues driving 2 kph slower, arriving traffic be damned.
The reality of driving in Germany is that a lot of federal states have maximum speeds on the highway now. And thanks to years of neglect there is a lot of road construction everywhere in the country which means reduced speeds. Speeds are also reduced around cities, around major junctions. And that's usually also where the traffic jams are.
A journey from Berlin to my parents in the Netherlands (525km) would probably take me at least 6 hours normally. That's including stops for lunch, bathroom, fueling, etc. That averages out to about 80-90 km/hour. Only about a fifth or less of the distance allows for driving faster than 130km/h; and usually not for more than 10-20km before you have to slow down for some reason. Driving fast is fun but also stressful because there is always a jerk with a faster car behind you flashing their lights because you are "only" doing 160km/h (100 miles per hour). And high speeds also means accidents are fatal, fairly frequent, and typically result in very long traffic jams.
My experience driving around in different countries in Europe is that you don't get to your destination faster in Germany. Probably France is the most efficient to cover long distances. They have nice, good quality toll roads and you can maintain an average of 120-130 there on long stretches. Spain is pretty decent as well. Roads in Germany are garbage in comparison. There's a reason people are complaining about the state of infrastructure here.
I don't actually own a car and rent cars. Usually, I prefer taking the train, which is not a high speed train even but does that same journey in a bit under four hours. Cheaper, more comfortable, and I can take a nap/relax a bit. Sadly, rail infrastructure is also not in a great state here.
Sounds like you'd be in favour of tolls for german Autobahns. Otherwise, perfect comment, so some clueless about german roads might now be scared off and thus not further crowd them.
Depends on time, weekday and which highway. But in general you are correct, which doesn't stop people from claiming that they do and that a 130kph speed limit would be horrible.
Gp didn't call it speeding though. Interstates in the US often do have an 80mph limit, which is in turn routinely exceeded. That doesn't change the fact that 80mph is vastly less fuel efficient than 50mph, which is a typical speed for a two lane highway. Americans (and Germans?) simply don't want to acknowledge that speed kills efficiency, just as incessant speed changes kill efficiency, although the latter is mitigated by regenerative braking.
I'm sorry but this is a pet peeve of mine: drag force does not scale exponentially with velocity, it scales with the square of velocity. Your point stands, of course.
I’ve gotten use to saying this incorrectly because most people aren’t trained on (or at least don’t remember) the difference between various types of growth functions. Exponential registers much more clearly in everyday conversation.
The article is talking not about the route planner, which I agree usually gives very accurate estimates for specific routes, but the advertised theoretical driving "EPA ranges", which are quite inflated.
However, from what I can tell, the EPA numbers from all manufacturers are quite unrealistic, because the methodology doesn't match real-world driving.
Yes, this is certainly true for ICE vehicles. The measurement methodology is spelled out in exacting detail, and yields highly repeatable results. Realistic? Nope, not at all. Nobody could claim that. But, it is repeatable and comparable, so that you can compare car A to car B. It gives you a strict rank order for vehicles that are driven exactly the same way, it just so happens that no person drives exactly that particular way. The utility is in providing a repeatable point of comparison. Is that useful?... forgive me for saying it, but YMMV.
The problem with EPA range is that it's a compromise between highway range and city range, so it's almost guaranteed to poorly match your driving unless your daily driving mix equals the averages. This is a consequence of insisting on one number, not inflation.
Inb4 "just pick highway range and be conservative" -- no, because then you will buy a car with great aerodynamics and terrible regen and spend all day driving it around the city using the terrible regen and not using the great aerodynamics.
I have an old toyota camry hybrid. The estimated range is calculated based on the trip mpg, and as such is accurate when I'm going like a speed demon or cruising along at 90kph.
Displaying a marketing number on the dash is inexcusable, regardless of how fast or slow drivers are going.
It's a valid point. The drag doesn't go up linearly as you accelerate but exponentially. So driving 5, 10, or 20 miles per hour faster at highway speeds has a huge impact. Your speed goes up by a few percent but the drag goes up a lot more. Also nice to keep in mind if you are driving a petrol car. Because the difference comes out of your pocket and the physics works the same way.
The estimate the car gives you adjusts to what you are actually doing. So if you drive uphill very quickly (which is tempting because of all that wonderful torque you have), that number will get very low quickly. If you drive a really heavy car, physics dictates that you will use up a lot of kwh. The estimate will recover a bit if you level off for the remaining kwh. And you might even get a few kwh back if you go downhill via regenerative braking. But not all of it. It's probably merely reducing the number of kwh you lose rather than adding a lot back.
A more useful metric than range is miles per kwh at different speeds or under different conditions. The amount of kwh your battery has is a constant; but miles you get per kwh will vary depending on what you are doing. Teslas are normally around 3.5-4 miles per kwh on highways, which is pretty good for cars that size. But of course it matters how fast you are going. That puts them around the 200-250 miles range many people are reportedly getting; if you account for battery degradation, temperature, etc. and assume a 65kwh battery. Some recent cars are getting a lot of gains from improved aerodynamics and battery management. E.g. Kia is doing some great stuff on that front.
Also having less battery actually improves the miles per kwh number because there's less mass to drag around. Shoving 200kwh in a big truck makes it really heavy and combined with poor aerodynamics probably would make for less than stellar range than you might hope for. Probably you're getting less than 2 miles per kwh. So, more than triple the battery but nowhere near triple the range. And it makes the truck really expensive too. And you'll have to buy a lot more kwh to go the same distance.
Energy needed for elecation gain when going uphill is independent of speed (to first order, losses in drivetrain are probably a bit higher when driving with higher power).
Available max and continuous torque of electric vehicles isn't necessarily that high compared to ICE vehicles, whats really different is that torque is available instantly and from near 0 RPM and the motor reacts more or less "instantly".
BTW, combining "miles" and "kWh" is strange, shouldn't that be pound*mile²/h ?
> There was a point in my road trip when I was on top of a mountain, and it said I would reach the next charger 100km away with 20km of range remaining, but I was only at 90km at the time. I made it with 17km of range remaining.
Correct, my point is the software prediction knew almost exactly how much energy would be recovered by it. Supporting my thesis that it is a very accurate system.
I don't think it is a necessity. People just don't generally have patience.
Generally people driving classic/collectible cars usually run at or below speed limits and...they are fine. You just have to embrace being overtaken by everyone.
It is especially hard for people suffering with fragile masculinity though.
Agree completely. People think they are being safer by going fast "with the flow" while in reality statistics refute this perspective entirely. Slower is safer periodt.
By altering my driving style, I can get more range than the estimate. It's extremely predictable and accurate, to the point where I can notice the power drain from the self driving computers/cameras, arrive at the next supercharger at exactly the 3% I aim for, etc.
There was a point in my road trip when I was on top of a mountain, and it said I would reach the next charger 100km away with 20km of range remaining, but I was only at 90km at the time. I made it with 17km of range remaining.
The estimates are really good and useful if you don't speed.