Official Tesla Model 3 thread

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
scottf200 said:
It seems all the manufacturers are fairly steady except BMW. Them and Tesla are going opposite directions. There must be an explanation. Are there really that many BMW drivers changing their alliance?

Jks27iv.jpg

The 3 series has been referred to as market Tesla is shooting for.
However, correlation does not prove causality.

Right now I would suggest this is an interesting short term trend, which supports the hypothesis Model 3 sales are having an impact on other similar cars, especially the 3 series.

A further analysis of which companies had been offering incentives, sales, etc would be useful and may show other factors. Or, may just strengthen the hypothesis even more.
 
scottf200 said:
Jks27iv.jpg

...It seems all the manufacturers are fairly steady except BMW. Them and Tesla are going opposite directions. There must be an explanation. Are there really that many BMW drivers changing their alliance?
Yes they are, mostly from from BMW cars to BMW SUVs...

http://carsalesbase.com/us-car-sales-data/bmw/

The chart you reposted above primarily illustrates the tiny total demand currently existing for "mid-sized premium sedans" in the USA.

Obviously, TSLA will have to figure out how to somehow dramatically expand demand for this class of vehicles, if it ever reaches its projected model 3 production rates.

Meanwhile, TSLA claims that it is about two years behind Jaguar and all the major German manufactures with its first BEV entry in the "mid-sized premium SUV" class, the fabled Y model.
 
edatoakrun said:
Meanwhile, TSLA claims that it is about two years behind Jaguar and all the major German manufactures with its first BEV entry in the "mid-sized premium SUV" class, the fabled Y model.

Jaguar, maybe. German manufacturers? Can you be more specific? Which German manufacturers are producing BEV SUVs today?
 
Tesla representatives apparently told the drivers on the ~606 mile range/capacity test that the deficiencies of ~70 miles and ~nine available kWh from expected results were both due to the energy required to supply the 3 LR pack's cooling requirements.

Surprising to me, both in the very large amount of energy wasted by the model 3's ATM, and in Tesla's willingness to admit it.

Since you clearly cannot rely on TSLA's model 3 certification submission to the EPA for real-world efficiency and range, I'd suggest model 3 owners test their own 3s to find the actual efficiency/range capabilities.

edatoakrun said:
(page 261)... since the 3 probably requires a significant amount of energy for battery cooling during a full discharge (AND during the recharge) on a warm day, the optimum efficiency and range would certainly be achieved under cooler conditions, and higher speeds than for a BEV with a conductively cooled pack like a LEAF's, where the rule for both capacity and efficiency is simply, the hotter the better.

Hopefully, model 3 owners will eventually test for that.

I'd be willing to bet that the temperatures were close to optimum, whatever that is, for the discharge/recharge cycle the certification documents TSLA submitted to the EPA...
Skip to ~six minutes into the video for the nine missing kWh discussion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IChR1dcw7dQ
 
edatoakrun said:
Since you clearly cannot rely on TSLA's model 3 certification submission to the EPA for real-world efficiency and range, I'd suggest model 3 owners test their own 3s to find the actual efficiency/range capabilities.

I would recommend ANY vehicle owner (regardless of make, model or even drivetrain) do this. EPA efficiency/range numbers are only an attempt at providing a relative benchmark to be able to compare cars. Nothing more. Obviously ones own driving habits, terrain and use models will dictate range better than any EPA or WLTP or take your pick what standards body range estimate says.
 
lpickup said:
edatoakrun said:
Since you clearly cannot rely on TSLA's model 3 certification submission to the EPA for real-world efficiency and range, I'd suggest model 3 owners test their own 3s to find the actual efficiency/range capabilities.

I would recommend ANY vehicle owner (regardless of make, model or even drivetrain) do this. EPA efficiency/range numbers are only an attempt at providing a relative benchmark to be able to compare cars. Nothing more...
Well, something more, in that the manufacturer's certification is the source of the EPA ratings for range and efficiency shown on the Monroney stickers, when you shop for any electric vehicle.

What we know should suspect (absent more data on test standards) is that these numbers may be so susceptible to manipulation by unscrupulous manufactures (of both passively and actively thermally managed packs) that these numbers may be quite misleading.
 
edatoakrun said:
What we know should suspect (absent more data on test standards) is that these numbers may be so susceptible to manipulation by unscrupulous manufactures (of both passively and actively thermally managed packs) that these numbers may be quite misleading.

True. Although let me point out that the farther you diverge from the simulated norms of any of those test cycles (which are meant to mimic average behavior), the less accurate they become. The hypermiling example is a good case in point. It would appear that you are upset that the predicted range/capacity during the hypermiling test did not live up to the extrapolated estimate that the EPA test would have predicted, when actually there is a perfectly reasonable explanation. Nothing nefarious took place, just a higher than expected overhead due to the cooling system.

While it's a true statement that the numbers are "misleading" if you are using them to rely on predicting range/capacity for a highly atypical usage pattern (such as a hypermile run), but I would argue that it's more of a misuse of that data, which carries the disclaimer right on the label itself, that:

EPA said:
Actual results with vary for many reasons, including driving conditions and how you drive and maintain your vehicle.

As you said, it is up to the end user to determine their own actual range for their own vehicle and not to rely on the Monroney sticker. But you don't have to assume that the numbers of being manipulated (although it is good to have a healthy skepticism). In Tesla's case, under NORMAL driving patterns, for example, the numbers were manipulated, but the consensus is that Tesla actually sandbagged the numbers (to keep a separation between the Model 3 and Model S) and that reported ranges actually exceed the Monroney value.
 
First of all, the "answer" the hypermilers received was a MAYBE, and I doubt it was someone at Tesla with any particular insight.
Second, the intimation was that allowing the cabin to overheat lead to unintended consequences.

Left unanswered was why the Wh/mile meter was discordant.
There is still much to understand here, and I suspect that future attempts will make more sense and probably return better results.
 
SageBrush said:
First of all, the "answer" the hypermilers received was a MAYBE, and I doubt it was someone at Tesla with any particular insight.
Second, the intimation was that allowing the cabin to overheat lead to unintended consequences.

Left unanswered was why the Wh/mile meter was discordant.
There is still much to understand here, and I suspect that future attempts will make more sense and probably return better results.


True, and what do EPA numbers have to do with driving at low speeds for that long, any EV would suck more power due to parasitic loads and I doubt it's cooling for the obvious reasons. If you park a LEAF in a lot and leave it on as long as they drove watch how much energy is consumed without even driving it for 32 hours. Besides, everyone I know with a 3 is exceeding the EPA numbers. Lastly, who cares about this nonsense as no one drives like this and it's as stupid as asking why it could not charge after being drained down to zero. Since most Tesla drivers are getting fantastic range and high instrument accuracy they really don't care. Obscure crap like this is troll food and bait click.

300 Watts of parasitic load on an EV would be almost 10Kwh alone for that time period.
 
Yep ... this is just troll food insofar as the "missing kWh" story goes.
My read of the drive was ~ 130 Wh/mile for ~ 600 miles.

So left unanswered is why the Wh/meter is inaccurate for this kind of driving.
Not exactly the most important question in the world ... but interesting to Tesla nerds.
 
EVDRIVER said:
Since most Tesla drivers are getting fantastic range and high instrument accuracy they really don't care...
Satisfaction out of ignorance?

What the range attempt showed is that the model 3 instruments are definitely NOT accurate, and under warm conditions, will significantly underestimate energy use,

And according to TSLA, the principle reason is that thermal management (for the pack, and by implication, for the cab as well) is left unaccounted for by the energy use/efficiency displays.

And note these were only warm conditions, with daytime highs of only 93 to 94 F (and of course much lower night and average temperatures) according to the drivers.

Imagine the kW required in really hot temperatures (think Phoenix in August, instead of Denver in May) for pack cooling?

This is surprising because the reporting on TSLA thermal management on the S/X packs I've seen suggested modules were allowed to reach up to ~113 F during DC charges:

https://www.teslarati.com/watch-tesla-battery-thermal-management-action-supercharging/

And/or with the (lower) coolant temperature up to ~104 F during repeated charge/discharge cycles:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izUl28YtQbE

If model 3 packs were allowed to reach similar temperatures, there should be little to no energy required at all for cooling during such mild weather, and with as low kW demand, as during the 606 mile test.

So, the new cells used in model 3's may require lower temperatures and demand more energy for cooling, so the first thing to look into is probably, just what temperatures the model 3 packs are required to maintain, in high ambient temperatures.

Any easy way to monitor pack temperatures in a model 3?
 
edatoakrun said:
What the range attempt showed is that the model 3 instruments are definitely NOT accurate, and under warm conditions, will significantly underestimate energy use,
No. The hypermile trip did not use cabin cooling, leading to an atypical use profile

And according to TSLA, the principle reason is that thermal management (for the pack, and by implication, for the cab as well) is left unaccounted for by the energy use/efficiency displays.
Wrong. There is ZERO reason to think that cabin cooling is not correctly measured.

Are you grumpy from a bad stock day ? :lol:
 
edatoakrun said:
And note these were only warm conditions, with daytime highs of only 93 to 94 F (and of course much lower night and average temperatures) according to the drivers.
In my locale, 90s is hot conditions.
 
edatoakrun said:
What the range attempt showed is that the model 3 instruments are definitely NOT accurate, and under warm conditions, will significantly underestimate energy use,

You forgot to include "under hypermiling conditions" (or "low Wh/mile conditions:" if you prefer) to the list of caveats above.

If the overhead due to pack cooling (and I am completely making this up, but stick with me) is 1000W, and you are averaging 22 mph while achieving 130Wh/mile consumption for traction at this speed, then in one hour you will have consumed 2860 Wh traction + 1000Wh pack cooling, or 3860 Wh total. From the perspective of the traction consumption, you are using 35% more energy than the instrument (if it doesn't take pack cooling consumption into account).

But now assume you are driving a more typical 70mph and achieving 250Wh/mile at that speed. In an hour you will have consumed 17500Wh for traction and let's even say that the cooling requirements go up to 1500W at that consumption rate, for a total of 19000Wh used. Again, from the perspective of your reference (traction) consumption, you are only using an additional 8.6%.

Much different amount of overhead.

And like we've been saying, you're probably the only one that cares, because the rest of us quickly realize what our own driving styles are actually capable of achieving when it comes to range. And I'm pretty sure most of us aren't doing the math in our heads to calculate our remaining range is from the Wh/mile meter.

Not only that, but if it were a big deal and the meter was not counting pack heating/cooling requirements as part of it's display, that's yet another one of those things that can be fixed OTA.
 
lpickup said:
edatoakrun said:
...What the range attempt showed is that the model 3 instruments are definitely NOT accurate, and under warm conditions, will significantly underestimate energy use...
...If the overhead due to pack cooling (and I am completely making this up, but stick with me) is 1000W...
No need to make anything up, which can only confuse the issue.

Tesla submitted EPA certification showing the LR 3 pack will accept ~89.4 kWh from a full charge:

https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=42148&flag=1

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, and while it's true efficiency would be expected to have been better at higher speeds, it also certainly would have been much worse under hot (or even consistently warm) conditions, if you buy TSLA's explanation of cooling load being primarily responsible for the poor test results.

lpickup said:
... I'm pretty sure most of us aren't doing the math in our heads to calculate our remaining range is from the Wh/mile meter...
It's actually quite simple, and by doing so while I drive, and after correcting for my LEAF's LBC (BMS) reporting errors for both miles and kWh, I always know my remaining available kWh capacity while I drive, and also know the total actual available capacity remaining in my pack, at "80% and "100%" charge levels.

Resulting in little range anxiety, or degradation anxiety (as compared to those on this forum who rely on the inaccurate LBC reports) as I enter the eighth Hot North Valley/foothill Summer with my OE pack.

Seven year report, 2011 LEAF.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=25454
 
edatoakrun said:
Tesla submitted EPA certification showing the LR 3 pack will accept ~89.4 kWh from a full charge:

https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=42148&flag=1

If you're going to be disingenuous, don't be so obvious about it. Everyone who reads that document knows that's how much electricity was supplied from the wall and thus doesn't include charging losses. Better yet, just cover your short position and save yourself the headache.
 
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
edatoakrun said:
Tesla submitted EPA certification showing the LR 3 pack will accept ~89.4 kWh from a full charge:

https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=42148&flag=1
...Everyone who reads that document knows that's how much electricity was supplied from the wall and thus doesn't include charging losses...
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.

edatoakrun said:
...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/pdf/fsev/fact2014teslamodels.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...
 
edatoakrun said:
if you continue be as obnoxious in your replies as in the one above, you will join SageBrush in onanistic conversation...
Well now, that should be an offer no one other than shorting trolls should pass up.
 
Back
Top