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.
I've gone to zero propulsion in both the Leaf and the Tesla. One time with the Tesla and towing 7 thousand pounds, I got caught in rapidly dropping temperature along with sleet, rain and then snowstorm. The estimated range was thrown way off and I ran 5 miles short of the Supercharger. Another time though, not towing, I made it to the supercharger when the temps rapidly dropped and went successfully past zero by a couple of miles. I had slowed my speed to 25 mph. When I hooked up to charge, the battery would not initially charge for about 20 minutes until the battery heater warmed it up enough to accept charge. The car knew not to use energy to prep for charge ahead of time to conserve for the negative miles it was facing.
 
The 62 Leaf does in fact have significant range below 1%. Last night I drove 7-8 or so miles after dash went to 1% and never hit very low battery. Leafspy showed about a 16-18 mile range plus the 3% buffer I try to avoid using.
 
GRA posted:
GRA said:
IEVS: Insider Gives Some Battery Charging Tips For The Tesla Model 3
This is a link to an article about a Youtube video full of incorrect tips.

And this article is *WRONG*.
It is always better to check the total capacity of the Tesla Model 3 battery pack in percentage than in miles. You should always park it overnight with a 90% charge, at least. These are some of the tips the EVlectric YouTube channel claims to have obtained from a person that helped design the Model 3 battery packs.
And who is the "insider" that gave these bogus tips?
 
cwerdna said:
To add to what Sage said about Bjorn, there have been cases where Tesla drivers (I believe not with 3's) have run out with >0 showing on their "GOM".


One of the nice things about Tesla is that, unlike the LEAF, the range display is not a "GOM". It's the remaining battery capacity times the rated milage for the particular model (E.g,. a 3 RWD is different than a P3).
 
DougWantsALeaf said:
I would like a usable kWh remaining on the dash (or in a available center console view). That would basically negate the in travel need for LeafSpy.
Do you also want a gallons-remaining display in an ICE?
 
jlv said:
GRA posted:
GRA said:
IEVS: Insider Gives Some Battery Charging Tips For The Tesla Model 3
This is a link to an article about a Youtube video full of incorrect tips.

And this article is *WRONG*.
It is always better to check the total capacity of the Tesla Model 3 battery pack in percentage than in miles. You should always park it overnight with a 90% charge, at least. These are some of the tips the EVlectric YouTube channel claims to have obtained from a person that helped design the Model 3 battery packs.
And who is the "insider" that gave these bogus tips?
The article points out that there are questionable "tips" included, and suggests that the reader decide which ones they should follow.
 
GRA said:
IEVS:
Finnish Goods Inspection Finds Tesla Model 3 Paint Is Soft And Thin
https://insideevs.com/news/363399/tesla-model-3-paint-fragile/

Which leads to peeling and chipping marks after just one month of use. <snip>

Follow up IEVS article to above:
Impressed By The Finnish Tesla Model 3 Paint Problems? Hold My Beer
https://insideevs.com/news/363703/more-tesla-model-3-paint-problems/

When we first told you the sad story of Joni Savolainen with his brand-new Tesla Model 3, we knew he did not need the aid of the goods inspection of the Finnish Chamber of Commerce to realize how bad things were with his car. He just needed someone to attest that for courts. Savolainen had enough time to get the whole picture. And it is ugly.

That first video dates from May 18. On July 21st, Savolainen shot the video above presenting all the areas in his car that lacked proper painting. The video starts in Finnish, then he gives his only words in English explaining what is its purpose. All the rest is self-explanatory.

In this other video, Savolainen checks a friend’s car. Although it is entirely in Finnish, and has no subtitles, put it in mute in case you are not familiar with the language or simply feels it uncomfortable to listen. But don't miss the footage.

His friend’s luck is even lower than his. The rockers present rust signals and all the other problems his car had, but this video is more important due to its description than due to its images.

Savolainen says in the title his inspection is a clear proof that there is a “Tesla, Fremont robots’ failure on programming”. As an IT guy, he may know what he is talking about, but presents no evidence to support that. If you know Savolainen, ask him to get in touch with us.

The unhappy Finnish Model 3 owner also posts nine links of forum discussions, videos and even news regarding the problem. It seems to be much more serious in Canada, where the Model 3 units are not so recent as the ones delivered in Finland and, therefore, are more prone to rust. Check the video below and remember your French classes.

This news comes from TVA Nouvelles and was broadcasted last May 17. It tells the sad story of Roger-Pierre Gravel. He was one of the first Quebeckers to order a Model 3 and paid CND$60,000 ($45,200) for it. After only one year of use, his EV is as damaged as the images show. Pretty bad for such a new car, actually.

“The vehicle is poorly designed. It is the debris on the road that will hit the rear wing and make the paint peel," he said TVA Nouvelles. And that is confirmed by Guillaume André, one of the owners of Véhicules Électriques Simon André, an EV-specialized shop.

André does not know that solely by watching Model 3 units with this problem enter his shop. "It happened on my own vehicle after only 5,000 km. The problems are the shape and design. The wheels project the rocks over the entire length of the vehicle. The paint flakes and it makes the vehicle rust.”

His solution was fitting mudflaps to his Model 3. But that will not be enough for this client. At least not now. . . .

Savolainen and Gravel have created a Facebook group with affected owners – with 528 members, so far – and a group complaint at NoNoNo.com against the EV manufacturer. "Evidently, Tesla is claiming these issues are not within its warranty. We find this disrespectful towards customers," they say in the group complaint. . . .
 
jlv said:
cwerdna said:
To add to what Sage said about Bjorn, there have been cases where Tesla drivers (I believe not with 3's) have run out with >0 showing on their "GOM".


One of the nice things about Tesla is that, unlike the LEAF, the range display is not a "GOM". It's the remaining battery capacity times the rated milage for the particular model (E.g,. a 3 RWD is different than a P3).
That's why I put it in quotes. Although it doesn't behave like the GOMs on Leafs and Bolts, running out when a Tesla "GOM" reads above 0 makes it ummmm... GOM-like. And, if your efficiency if worse than whatever miles/kWh (or Wh/miles) constants Tesla chose, the range meter or whatever will decrease by more than the # of miles driven.

Having the Leaf GOM turn to --- miles and eventually the % SoC display to ---% I'd argue is somewhat preferable to running out w/a range estimator showing miles or sometimes double-digit miles supposedly available. The former at least creates a sense of urgency and can convey "all bets are off", you'd better charge now!
 
cwerdna said:
Having the Leaf GOM turn to --- miles and eventually the % SoC display to ---% I'd argue is somewhat preferable to running out w/a range estimator showing miles or sometimes double-digit miles supposedly available. The former at least creates a sense of urgency and can convey "all bets are off", you'd better charge now!
.
Bjorn's reports make it clear that no usable battery reserve exists below zero SoC. Mangling that observation into saying that the range remaining is "GOM-ish" is FUD. The meter displays SoC* and is highly accurate and occasionally imprecise to within a couple percent. Battery SoC is a derived quantity from coulomb counting and voltage measurement; neither are completely immune to environmental variables. That is the nature of batteries. The LEAF GOM is a different matter entirely since it relies on recent consumption rates.

* or EPA miles remaining = SoC multiplied by a constant -- user decides
 
SageBrush said:
cwerdna said:
Having the Leaf GOM turn to --- miles and eventually the % SoC display to ---% I'd argue is somewhat preferable to running out w/a range estimator showing miles or sometimes double-digit miles supposedly available. The former at least creates a sense of urgency and can convey "all bets are off", you'd better charge now!
.
Bjorn's reports make it clear that no usable battery reserve exists below zero SoC. Mangling that observation into saying that the range remaining is "GOM-ish" is FUD. The meter displays SoC* and is highly accurate. But not always. Battery SoC is a derived quantity from coulomb counting and voltage measurement; neither are completely immune to environmental variables. That is the nature of batteries.
You're contradicting yourself. We've already established that people have continued going past 0 (case A). And, we've established numerous cases of people running out despite whole numbers, sometimes double digits of miles showing being left (case B).

Sounds like a form of GOM to me. Yes, it works totally differently than Leaf's crap GOM but sounds like a GOM to me when near dead, and arguably worse in behavior near the bottom with case B.
 
cwerdna said:
Sounds like a form of GOM to me. Yes, it works totally differently than Leaf's crap GOM but sounds like a GOM to me when near dead, and arguably worse in behavior near the bottom with case B.
Do you call the LEAFspy display of Ahr and SoC a GOM ? They are affected by the same environmental variables as the SoC meter in the Tesla. Probably not, because GOM was coined to highlight the uncertainty of range remaining displayed in a LEAF that results from use of recent consumption. LEAFSpy reports SoC and Ahr, where SoC is a derived quantity. Tesla reports SoC in much the same fashion.

I suppose we could argue which SoC is more accurate and precise but they both strike me as pretty similar -- accurate over time and periodically imprecise to within ~ 3% in the Tesla and ~ 5% in the LEAF. Smaller batteries have less range discrepancy, all else being equal. So e.g. a Tesla Model 3 may be off by up to 10 miles (3% of 325 miles) while a degraded LEAF may be off "only" 3.0 miles (5% of 60 miles.)
 
SageBrush said:
Do you call the LEAFspy display of Ahr and SoC a GOM ? They are affected by the same environmental variables as the SoC meter in the Tesla. Probably not, because GOM was coined to highlight the uncertainty of range remaining displayed in a LEAF that results from use of recent consumption. LEAFSpy reports SoC and Ahr, where SoC is a derived quantity. Tesla reports SoC in much the same fashion.

GOM far predates the LEAF. I remember hearing the term in the 1970's, and have found web references to it from the 1990's. As the people that I heard it from were WW2 vets, I suspect it goes back to the 1945 or before.

http://www.renepotvin.com/cal.htm

The Tesla's range estimate is a GOM.
 
cwerdna said:
Having the Leaf GOM turn to --- miles and eventually the % SoC display to ---% I'd argue is somewhat preferable to running out w/a range estimator showing miles or sometimes double-digit miles supposedly available. The former at least creates a sense of urgency and can convey "all bets are off", you'd better charge now!
The sense of urgency is conveyed in the Tesla in a more meaningful way: as the displayed range turns to orange at about (I think) 20% SOC and then red at about 10% SOC. I'd rather see a red "20 miles" than a meaningless "---".
 
WetEV said:
The Tesla's range estimate is a GOM.
No, it isn't a range estimate or a GOM. As others have pointed out above, it is a fuel gauge and can be displayed in SOC percent or EPA rated miles times SOC, whichever one prefers. It doesn't vary with driving conditions but just reports SOC. SOC measurements are subject to some error so it isn't necessarily accurate, although it is generally good enough for most uses. I've been down to 2-3% but try not to go lower than that because I'm not interested in experimenting with how low I can really get. I always display my fuel gauge in percent rather than "rated miles."

cwerdna said:
That's why I put it in quotes. Although it doesn't behave like the GOMs on Leafs and Bolts, running out when a Tesla "GOM" reads above 0 makes it ummmm... GOM-like. And, if your efficiency if worse than whatever miles/kWh (or Wh/miles) constants Tesla chose, the range meter or whatever will decrease by more than the # of miles driven.

Having the Leaf GOM turn to --- miles and eventually the % SoC display to ---% I'd argue is somewhat preferable to running out w/a range estimator showing miles or sometimes double-digit miles supposedly available. The former at least creates a sense of urgency and can convey "all bets are off", you'd better charge now!
One big difference when using Navigation is that it gives the projected remaining energy at the destination — in percent SOC — and then updates this figure in real time as one drives. If the battery percent at the destination is dropping — from dealing with a headwind, for example — one can slow down early on in the trip until it stabilizes. Tesla Nav also advises a reduced speed ("Stay below 70 mph") if consumption becomes greater than projected for the route and the car might not make it. On my car this kicks in when the projected energy at the destination hits 5%. Navigation does factor in elevation changes and typical speeds for the initial route estimate but can't predict the weather — that's why the driver needs to keep an eye on the projected energy left at the destination.

With all these navigation aids, there isn't really any reason to drive down to 0% unless one just isn't paying attention. It happens but is uncommon. Much like running out of gas in an ICE car because one didn't remember to check the fuel gauge.
 
dgpcolorado said:
With all these navigation aids, there isn't really any reason to drive down to 0% unless one just isn't paying attention. It happens but is uncommon. Much like running out of gas in an ICE car because one didn't remember to check the fuel gauge.
.
EXACTLY. People who have not experienced Tesla just cannot grasp how well range matters are handled. My wife is a good test subject because she still struggles with basic energy units and would not volunteer for mental arithmetic ... yet she feels no range anxiety *at all* with our Tesla.

Why ?
1. She enters a destination
2. She stops at a supercharger if the car says so.

End of drama
 
dgpcolorado said:
WetEV said:
The Tesla's range estimate is a GOM.
No, it isn't a range estimate or a GOM. As others have pointed out above, it is a fuel gauge and can be displayed in SOC percent or EPA rated miles times SOC, whichever one prefers. It doesn't vary with driving conditions but just reports SOC. SOC measurements are subject to some error so it isn't necessarily accurate, although it is generally good enough for most uses.

I do agree that a percentage estimate is not a GOM. Rated miles, an estimate of how far the car can go under EPA conditions, is a GOM.

The original use of the term GOM had nothing to do with electric cars or driving conditions.

Tesla has a far better GOM than the LEAF. But that doesn't make it not a GOM.
 
WetEV said:
dgpcolorado said:
WetEV said:
The Tesla's range estimate is a GOM.
No, it isn't a range estimate or a GOM. As others have pointed out above, it is a fuel gauge and can be displayed in SOC percent or EPA rated miles times SOC, whichever one prefers. It doesn't vary with driving conditions but just reports SOC. SOC measurements are subject to some error so it isn't necessarily accurate, although it is generally good enough for most uses.

I do agree that a percentage estimate is not a GOM. Rated miles, an estimate of how far the car can go under EPA conditions, is a GOM..
.
The important difference is that it is trivial to calculate SoC from the Tesla range, while it is impossible in a LEAF

Tesla *does* have a GOM if you will (completely separate from the SoC/EPA-miles display) that attempts to estimate destination SoC. It is remarkably accurate because it knows topography and with driving takes speed and weather into account. The algorithm is brilliant -- try to not confuse it with the SoC gauge.
 
SageBrush said:
The important difference is that it is trivial to calculate SoC from the Tesla range, while it is impossible in a LEAF

Tesla *does* have a GOM if you will (completely separate from the SoC/EPA-miles display) that attempts to estimate destination SoC. It is remarkably accurate because it knows topography and with driving takes speed and weather into account. The algorithm is brilliant -- try to not confuse it with the SoC gauge.
This.

Several years ago the algorithm tended to underestimate actual energy use at highway speeds of 70 mph or higher (speed limits in the Intermountain West are 75 or 80 mph), then a firmware update improved it. Since the update it has been amazingly accurate for normal driving conditions. The real-time update of estimated SoC at the destination gives feedback to the driver about actual driving conditions (wind, snow, whatever). If it is dropping one slows down or selects a nearer charging stop. If it is stable or increasing, the usual scenario, there is nothing to worry about.

The algorithm also lets the driver know when he/she has charged enough and can continue on with the trip — it is faster to charge just enough to get to the next Supercharger Station, plus a small "buffer" (reserve), because the charge rate tapers as the battery fills. One can, of course, continue to charge longer to build a bigger buffer before leaving, if the weather looks unfavorable. Otherwise, the Tesla suggested leaving time is usually good enough. I often find that the car is ready to go before I am.


^ An example of the estimated SoC at destination in my S (the Model 3 can show much the same information on its horizontal screen). In this example I am doing a bit better than the originally estimated SoC at the destination because my green line actual is above the grey line original estimate. It isn't necessary to display this plot because the SoC percentage is also displayed in the navigation directions (upper left box). Again, this SoC estimate is updated in real time as one drives and is very helpful in tracking actual energy usage on a trip. [The vertical dashed line on the navigation map is the Utah/Colorado border.]
 
Back
Top