edatoakrun wrote:Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:...Everyone who reads that document knows that's how much electricity was supplied from the wall and thus doesn't include charging losses...edatoakrun wrote:Tesla submitted EPA certification showing the LR 3 pack will accept ~89.4 kWh from a full charge:
https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_ ... 148&flag=1
Actually, the energy accepted on recharge comes from the grid, as supplied by the EVSE.
I used the term grid-to-road efficiency rather than Overall Trip Efficiency as I thought it more self-explanatory.
I'm surprised you would be that considerate to Tesla when using such a worthless metric. Had the EPA charged the model 3 and then let it sit there for a week, the vampire drain would've failed miserably against your grid-to-road efficiency.
After 4 weeks with my model 3, my monthly electricity consumption has only risen by ~90kwh, which is exactly how much electricity is consumed from my wife using the leaf to commute to work, since she no longer drives her gas car. This means that my model 3 is using roughly the same amount of electricity as the leaf to drive the same number of miles (despite the vampire drain AND higher consumption from driving faster!), yielding effectively the same grid-to-road efficiency.
Your narrative does not fit reality.
edatoakrun wrote:edatoakrun wrote:...The range test results are consistent with only about 66 kWh being available for traction before shutdown, which also happens to be what the 3's BMS reportedly stated.
~66/~89.4= ~74% grid-to-road efficiency, which is quite frankly terrible...
For example, in AVTA testing a 2014 Tesla Model S 85 kWh averaged ~89% efficiency over three test cycles:2014 Tesla Model S 85 kWh
Advanced Vehicle Testing – Baseline Vehicle Testing Results...
(A+/C) Overall Trip Efficiency 15: 90% 88% 89%...
15. Overall Vehicle Efficiency is calculated by dividing the DC energy out of the battery (A+) by the AC energy from the EVSE (C).
https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files ... models.pdf
BTW, while I don't mind explaining things to you, if you continue be as obnoxious in your replies as in the one above, you will join SageBrush in onanistic conversation...
The only reason I'm even responding to you is that I don't want you to think that you've made some sort of profound point that has left the opposition speechless.
Your use of AVTA test results and ignoring of other's explanations of 2nd order losses having 1st order impact on energy consumption shows you don't fully understand the material you're referencing. So you'll have to excuse me if I'm thrilled to hear you withhold your explanations so that I may participate "in onanistic conversation".