LTLFTcomposite
Well-known member
You can really screw up a diesel engine by running it out of fuel, but somehow people keep using them. (IDK if newer diesel engines digital controls protect against this, Tesla probably can too with an OTA update)
More BS and FUD from the resident Tesla troll.edatoakrun said:What's the running hypothesis for the low available capacity reported, which looks to have been (roughly) confirmed by the shorter-than-expected driving range?
It is highly improbable that the model 3 on this test actually had such poor efficiency that it got only 606 miles on a full charge. What went wrong, should be of interest to anyone who wants to know the entire available capacity of a model 3.GRA said:Who knows? What's the running hypothesis for why anyone other than the people who did this would care about such a 'completely unrelated to practical purposes' record?...edatoakrun said:What's the running hypothesis for the low available capacity reported, which looks to have been (roughly) confirmed by the shorter-than-expected driving range?
https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=42148&flag=1Charge Depleting UDDS...
Recharge Event Energy (kiloWatt-hours) 89.404
Charge Depleting Range (Actual miles) 495.04
edatoakrun said:It is highly improbable that the model 3 on this test actually had such poor efficiency that it got only 606 miles on a full charge. What went wrong, should be of interest to anyone who wants to know the entire available capacity of a model 3.GRA said:Who knows? What's the running hypothesis for why anyone other than the people who did this would care about such a 'completely unrelated to practical purposes' record?...edatoakrun said:What's the running hypothesis for the low available capacity reported, which looks to have been (roughly) confirmed by the shorter-than-expected driving range?
The certification document that TSLA submitted to the EPA reported almost 500 miles of range, and almost 90 kWh of recharge accepted, on the much-less-efficient UDDS (city) test cycle:
https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=42148&flag=1Charge Depleting UDDS...
Recharge Event Energy (kiloWatt-hours) 89.404
Charge Depleting Range (Actual miles) 495.04
So, assuming TSLA is no more than slightly optimistic in its submission to the EPA...
At very low speeds (22 mph mentioned once, "32 hours driving" implies an even lower average speed) and high temperatures of this drive, it's hard to explain any range results outside of about 650 to 700 miles, if the entire available pack capacity (as reported by TSLA) is utilized.
So it's almost certain the available capacity on this trip was well below spec, and the ~9 kWh deficit reported by the 3s instruments is certainly plausible.
Not a possible explanation. The same (unlikely) kWh use should have shown up on the EPA documentation, above.Oils4AsphaultOnly said:...Have you considered 2nd order power consumption from the meter measuring the battery voltages themselves or even increased resistive loses from the inverter? If there are enough to add up to 300watts of consumption (versus the 300,000watts from the traction motor), over the span of 32 hours, that would be 9.6kwh of consumption that may/may-not be accounted for...edatoakrun said:The certification document that TSLA submitted to the EPA reported almost 500 miles of range, and almost 90 kWh of recharge accepted, on the much-less-efficient UDDS (city) test cycle:
https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=42148&flag=1Charge Depleting UDDS...
Recharge Event Energy (kiloWatt-hours) 89.404
Charge Depleting Range (Actual miles) 495.04
So, assuming TSLA is no more than slightly optimistic in its submission to the EPA...
At very low speeds (22 mph mentioned once, "32 hours driving" implies an even lower average speed) and high temperatures of this drive, it's hard to explain any range results outside of about 650 to 700 miles, if the entire available pack capacity (as reported by TSLA) is utilized.
So it's almost certain the available capacity on this trip was well below spec, and the ~9 kWh deficit reported by the 3s instruments is certainly plausible.
The drivers in the ~606 mile model 3 test were unprepared to monitor the recharge, and since the 3 had an additional/further malfunction preventing a recharge, it seems unlikely we will ever get accurate data.Oils4AsphaultOnly said:How about waiting for the recharge number before jumping to conclusions?
edatoakrun said:Not a possible explanation. The same (unlikely) kWh use should have shown up on the EPA documentation, above.Oils4AsphaultOnly said:...Have you considered 2nd order power consumption from the meter measuring the battery voltages themselves or even increased resistive loses from the inverter? If there are enough to add up to 300watts of consumption (versus the 300,000watts from the traction motor), over the span of 32 hours, that would be 9.6kwh of consumption that may/may-not be accounted for...edatoakrun said:The certification document that TSLA submitted to the EPA reported almost 500 miles of range, and almost 90 kWh of recharge accepted, on the much-less-efficient UDDS (city) test cycle:
https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=42148&flag=1
So, assuming TSLA is no more than slightly optimistic in its submission to the EPA...
At very low speeds (22 mph mentioned once, "32 hours driving" implies an even lower average speed) and high temperatures of this drive, it's hard to explain any range results outside of about 650 to 700 miles, if the entire available pack capacity (as reported by TSLA) is utilized.
So it's almost certain the available capacity on this trip was well below spec, and the ~9 kWh deficit reported by the 3s instruments is certainly plausible.
Of course it's metered from the grid, which is the only right way to measure a BEV's total energy consumption.Oils4AsphaultOnly said:...You're reading it wrong. The 89kwh reading was how much power was pulled form the wall outlet...
No, it was level 2.Oils4AsphaultOnly said:If you look at the bottom of the page, you'll see that the battery only had a capacity for 78kwh. The rest were charger losses (considering how high it was, they were probably charging off a nema 5-15 outlet - L1)...
https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=42148&flag=1Recharge Event Voltage 208 Recharge Event Energy (kiloWatt-hours) 89.404
Yes, if some mysterious load existed which you insist on incorrectly calling unaccounted, and you also could alter the dimension of time so that you could somehow drive nearly 500 miles on the city cycle in ~6 hours...Oils4AsphaultOnly said:...And nowhere in that report do they account for 2nd order consumption. Re-read my comment, I used my units correctly. A 6-hr test (with a 300-watt unaccounted load) would only have those losses account for 1.5kwh of consumption versus 9kwh over a 30-hr test...
Obviously false, in referring to a car with ~1/2 the range of a cheap ICEV that costs ~a quarter as much, and has maybe and (?) hundreds of times as many faster fuel stations in the USA.palmermd said:...The car has a sufficiency large pafk and supercharging available that you can drive it like any other gas or diesel car and not worry about range...
Range will be much more limited of course, when and if the SR 3 is ever actually offered for sale...palmermd said:...I won't even have to stop and charge at all with a standard rang pack in the model 3.
edatoakrun said:Obviously false, in referring to a car with ~1/2 the range of a cheap ICEV that costs ~a quarter as much, and has maybe and (?) hundreds of times as many faster fuel stations in the USA.palmermd said:...The car has a sufficiency large pafk and supercharging available that you can drive it like any other gas or diesel car and not worry about range...
Range will be much more limited of course, when and if the SR 3 is ever actually offered for sale...palmermd said:...I won't even have to stop and charge at all with a standard rang pack in the model 3.
In the meantime, it looks like the opportunity for configuration of the ~$100k model 3, is very close:
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/so-who-actually-has-configured-their-p-or-awd.115789/
At that price, it still will only have ~1/2 the range of a cheap ICEV that costs ~an eighth as much, and has maybe and (?) hundreds of times as many faster fuel stations in the USA.
edatoakrun said:Obviously false, in referring to a car with ~1/2 the range of a cheap ICEV that costs ~a quarter as much, and has maybe and (?) hundreds of times as many faster fuel stations in the USA.palmermd said:...The car has a sufficiency large pafk and supercharging available that you can drive it like any other gas or diesel car and not worry about range...
Range will be much more limited of course, when and if the SR 3 is ever actually offered for sale...palmermd said:...I won't even have to stop and charge at all with a standard rang pack in the model 3.
In the meantime, it looks like the opportunity for configuration of the ~$100k model 3, is very close:
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/so-who-actually-has-configured-their-p-or-awd.115789/
At that price, it still will only have ~1/2 the range of a cheap ICEV that costs ~an eighth as much, and has maybe and (?) hundreds of times as many faster fuel stations in the USA.
Well, in answering your several questions to me yesterday on the previous page, I was trying to help you (and others) understand how to determine model 3 efficiency from a range/capacity test.Oils4AsphaultOnly said:...Why are you even on this thread?!?!...
https://twitter.com/seanmmitchell?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finsideevs.com%2Ftesla-model-3-sets-new-range-record-at-606-2-miles%2F...I think we showed a pretty unbiased view. Tesla goes 606 miles by driving 25 mph in 1 mile loop. Runs out of battery at 66 kWh instead of the full 75 kWh. After battery dies it doesn’t take a charge when it should. Finally is towed to service center because it’s unresponsive...
edatoakrun said:Well, in answering your several questions to me yesterday on the previous page, I was trying to help you (and others) understand how to determine model 3 efficiency from a range/capacity test.Oils4AsphaultOnly said:...Why are you even on this thread?!?!...
To summarize, you seemed to be arguing that the ~606 mile ~32 hour trip under discussion used a full charge from the grid, ~89 kWh (as per Tesla's EPA certification) resulting in efficiency of about 6.8 m/kWh.
Tesla Model 3 Gets CR Recommendation After Braking Updatescottf200 said:I'm sure in the next several days there will be a ton of emergency brake testing ... probably for many it will be the first time as normal and even hard braking is not that same as true emergency braking
scottf200 said:Tesla Model 3 Gets CR Recommendation After Braking Updatescottf200 said:I'm sure in the next several days there will be a ton of emergency brake testing ... probably for many it will be the first time as normal and even hard braking is not that same as true emergency braking
Automaker responds to Consumer Reports test results and reduces stopping distance by nearly 20 feet
By Patrick Olsen May 30, 2018
https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/tesla-model-3-gets-cr-recommendation-after-braking-update/
lorenfb said:Those are basic UI re-flashes, e,g, minor tweaks (typically called re-coding mods) which differ from a re-flash of the overall firmware.
Most ECU suppliers usually provide some flash memory area allowing each end-customer some end-use tweaking. Remember, Tesla like
most automotive OEMs doesn't design or produce all the ECUs in its vehicles, e.g. each ECU may have a unique micro-controller with
a unique instruction set, possibly designed by that supplier or a custom chip design, e.g. from MicroChip. Mostly importantly, for example,
you as an ABS/traction controller supplier wouldn't provide access to all the ECU's firmware, i.e. your mission critical design, and then become liable for deaths that resulted from an end-user's (Tesla's) re-flash. I really doubt that any systems supplier's legal department would allow an end user (Tesla) to have access to the full source code and the necessary compiler to do a total re-flash of any propriety design.
lpickup said:scottf200 said:Tesla Model 3 Gets CR Recommendation After Braking Updatescottf200 said:I'm sure in the next several days there will be a ton of emergency brake testing ... probably for many it will be the first time as normal and even hard braking is not that same as true emergency braking
Automaker responds to Consumer Reports test results and reduces stopping distance by nearly 20 feet
By Patrick Olsen May 30, 2018
https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/tesla-model-3-gets-cr-recommendation-after-braking-update/
Oh dear...looks like Loren might have to eat his words:
lorenfb said:Those are basic UI re-flashes, e,g, minor tweaks (typically called re-coding mods) which differ from a re-flash of the overall firmware.
Most ECU suppliers usually provide some flash memory area allowing each end-customer some end-use tweaking. Remember, Tesla like
most automotive OEMs doesn't design or produce all the ECUs in its vehicles, e.g. each ECU may have a unique micro-controller with
a unique instruction set, possibly designed by that supplier or a custom chip design, e.g. from MicroChip. Mostly importantly, for example,
you as an ABS/traction controller supplier wouldn't provide access to all the ECU's firmware, i.e. your mission critical design, and then become liable for deaths that resulted from an end-user's (Tesla's) re-flash. I really doubt that any systems supplier's legal department would allow an end user (Tesla) to have access to the full source code and the necessary compiler to do a total re-flash of any propriety design.
Emphasis mine
lorenfb said:lpickup said:scottf200 said:Tesla Model 3 Gets CR Recommendation After Braking Update
Automaker responds to Consumer Reports test results and reduces stopping distance by nearly 20 feet
By Patrick Olsen May 30, 2018
https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/tesla-model-3-gets-cr-recommendation-after-braking-update/
Oh dear...looks like Loren might have to eat his words:
lorenfb said:Those are basic UI re-flashes, e,g, minor tweaks (typically called re-coding mods) which differ from a re-flash of the overall firmware.
Most ECU suppliers usually provide some flash memory area allowing each end-customer some end-use tweaking. Remember, Tesla like
most automotive OEMs doesn't design or produce all the ECUs in its vehicles, e.g. each ECU may have a unique micro-controller with
a unique instruction set, possibly designed by that supplier or a custom chip design, e.g. from MicroChip. Mostly importantly, for example,
you as an ABS/traction controller supplier wouldn't provide access to all the ECU's firmware, i.e. your mission critical design, and then become liable for deaths that resulted from an end-user's (Tesla's) re-flash. I really doubt that any systems supplier's legal department would allow an end user (Tesla) to have access to the full source code and the necessary compiler to do a total re-flash of any propriety design.
Emphasis mine
Hardly! As has been indicated before, there're different levels of firmware updates, e.g. minor functional changes - rate of change of wheel
velocity before lockup, that can be made versus changes to the overall stability control system algorithm that only the ABS supplier
has access to. Allowing a vehicle manufacturer small tweaks to an ABS system while still in beta production, i.e. which the M3 is now in,
would be common today in the automotive industry. Please re-read the bolden text in the quote of the original post.
Yep.LTLFTcomposite said:^ I always assumed it was because he [Ed] had a short position or puts on TSLA.
Enter your email address to join: