Official Tesla Model 3 thread

[LTLFTcomposite]

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)

 

[SageBrush]

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?

More BS and FUD from the resident Tesla troll.

The calc is based on the Wh/mile meter display that only considers consumption during driving, and we don't know its accuracy. Aren't you the goof who demands recharge energy data to believe LEAF battery capacity ? And by the way, the drivers hoped to hit 600 miles when they set out. They did *better* than they expected.

So with all respect due, piss off.

 

[edatoakrun]

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?

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?...

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.

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:

Charge Depleting UDDS...

Recharge Event Energy (kiloWatt-hours) 89.404

Charge Depleting Range (Actual miles) 495.04

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.

 

[Oils4AsphaultOnly]

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?

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?...

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.

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:

Charge Depleting UDDS...

Recharge Event Energy (kiloWatt-hours) 89.404

Charge Depleting Range (Actual miles) 495.04

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.

Wow, you're just bursting with hopeful cynacism aren't you? 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. How about waiting for the recharge number before jumping to conclusions?

 

[edatoakrun]

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:

Charge Depleting UDDS...

Recharge Event Energy (kiloWatt-hours) 89.404

Charge Depleting Range (Actual miles) 495.04

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.

...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...

Not a possible explanation. The same (unlikely) kWh use should have shown up on the EPA documentation, above.

How about waiting for the recharge number before jumping to conclusions?

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.

I would suggest that anyone trying to find total or available pack capacity on any BEV calculate it using recharge capacity.

Use a reliable external kWh meter and the same charge rate as used in EPA certification, or for most 2011-12015 BEVs, the often more extensive (and probably less susceptible to fudging by manufactures) AVTA testing.

https://avt.inl.gov/vehicle-type/all-powertrain-architecture

Whether you are testing capacity, range, or both, never rely on what any BEV's on-board instrumentation reports, unless you can confirm its accuracy from a reliable external source.

 

[Oils4AsphaultOnly]

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.

...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...

Not a possible explanation. The same (unlikely) kWh use should have shown up on the EPA documentation, above.

I was wondering where you got that from. You're reading it wrong. The 89kwh reading was how much power was pulled form the wall outlet. 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).

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.

 

[edatoakrun]

...You're reading it wrong. The 89kwh reading was how much power was pulled form the wall outlet...

Of course it's metered from the grid, which is the only right way to measure a BEV's total energy consumption.

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)...

No, it was level 2.

Recharge Event Voltage 208 Recharge Event Energy (kiloWatt-hours) 89.404

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

Interesting that TSLA used 208 V.

I wonder if 240 V charging is actually less efficient than 208 V for a 3?

...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...

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...

The fact is driving slower will increase range for any BEV down to very low speeds, since aerodynamic resistance requires so much energy to overcome, relative to the small load from other (excluding heating and cooling) requirements.

Now, 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...

 

[palmermd]

This entire argument is useless. 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. It only in your leaf that you have to drive on side roads at 30mph to make any distance to travel.

Right now I have to drive slow when I do any travel and discover a broken DCQC. When I get my Model 3 I won't have to do that again. Just drive and use the supercharger network. Simple! And any travel im talking about with dcqc in a leaf I won't even have to stop and charge at all with a standard rang pack in the model 3.

 

[edatoakrun]

...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...

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.

...I won't even have to stop and charge at all with a standard rang pack in the model 3.

Range will be much more limited of course, when and if the SR 3 is ever actually offered for sale...
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.

 

[Oils4AsphaultOnly]

...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...

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.

...I won't even have to stop and charge at all with a standard rang pack in the model 3.

Range will be much more limited of course, when and if the SR 3 is ever actually offered for sale...
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.

Why are you even on this thread?!?! Are you here to promote EV's or espouse how great the leaf is? Or are you trying to help people with issues with their EV's? Because you're doing none of that at this moment.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

^ I always assumed it was because he had a short position or puts on TSLA.

 

[webb14leafs]

...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...

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.

...I won't even have to stop and charge at all with a standard rang pack in the model 3.

Range will be much more limited of course, when and if the SR 3 is ever actually offered for sale...
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.

100 years ago people made the same types of arguments against cars and for horses.

Keep shorting the future. See how it works out.

 

[edatoakrun]

...Why are you even on this thread?!?!...

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.

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.

To put this into perspective, that is far lower efficiency than my 2011 LEAF with its OE eight capacity bar battery pack would achieve, under identical test conditions.

Sorry that I can't be more specific about exactly how much more efficiently my LEAF would test out, but I have never seen any reason to drive my LEAF for one hour that slowly to get those efficiency results, much less for ~32 hours...

I still believe it is far more likely that some malfunction prevented that 3 to use the full (design) available capacity from its pack, and the actual grid-to road efficiency of the model 3 during that trip was higher, more in-line with that implied by the EPA certification.

I really don't see why you, or anyone else would believe that that is an anti-TSLA point of view...

What really happened may be explained further by the driver, after the repairs are completed.

...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...

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

 

[Oils4AsphaultOnly]

...Why are you even on this thread?!?!...

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.

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.

I asked no such questions and did not make such a claim.

All I pointed out was that the descrepancy was _possibly_ due to an unaccounted for loss in the trip gauge, and that we should wait until the recharge results to draw any conclusions. You're the one who brought in EPA numbers. Take your red-colored lenses off and try to read what people are actually writing and not your narrative.

 

[edatoakrun]

Back from the shop and running again, said to be after only 12 V battery replacement.

No explanation of why depleting the traction battery fried the 12 V to the point it could not be jumped.

No explanation yet for the deficient range (and capacity ?) during the trip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLWK8heO2R8

 

[scottf200]

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

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/

 

[lpickup]

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

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:

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]

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

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:

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.

 

[EVDRIVER]

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:

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.

You are wrong. They can flash anything at any level even third party firmware. Want to make a wager on that? Not a pizza. What do you think they are doing when they increase braking distance? Specifically.

 

[SageBrush]

^ I always assumed it was because he [Ed] had a short position or puts on TSLA.

Yep.

I expect Ed to eat his shorts in a few weeks.
However, I'm a lot less certain how Tesla will fare when the tax credit expires. Fingers crossed for them.