Range loss in cold weather

[ajdelange]

Merci pour ces belles précisions... I know that my son with model 3 has increase his range because of reducing his speed... (as his is md, specialist) sometimes he has to speed up...!!! But as we are retired (66) we will follow the distance of about 300 km from one supercharger to another one (we expected to get 300 km within 20 minutes...???).

Mon plaisir.
300 km is about 186 miles. My X would normally need about 55.9 kWh to cover that distance. If I were to get that in 1/3 hr the charger would have to deliver 167.7 kW. I have found that the Tesla super chargers deliver, on average, 72.9 kW. This includes the effects of taper. On my last Ogden to Brattleboro run I used 61.1 kWh (higher than normal because of he rain) and it took me 43 minutes to charge back up to 80%. On average I find Super Charger sessions last 28 minutes.

As I was in econometrics method for the largest financial institution in Québec, I would be happy to collect data and see my forecast... but M. Elon Musk should give that with the computer inside the car...

I think the forecast from the car's computer is pretty good. It knows how much energy you have used to drive the last 5 - 30 miles and it knows about all the hills in front of you. It can, and does, based on this come up with a pretty good estimate of how much charge you will have at the destination assuming that everything stays the same. As there is no way it can predict the onset of a storm or a quartering wind shifting to a head or tail wind or whether you will drop off a hefty passenger and his anvil it can't really do better. But if any of those things does happen it will sense that and readjust its forecast accordingly.

Advertisement

 

[Tonyk2034]

Thanks for some of the feedback EV enthusiasts, this is the reason I suggested the topic was to get some conversation and analysis on the topic. It seems to me that there is a fair amount of concern for people who are not familiar with the mode of traveling by electricity. What I was hoping to ascertain if there was a topic or something new occurring. This subject may well not be a concern for the majority of Cybertruck buyers who are affluent enough to purchase this vehicle but if the reason to change is for climatic reasons these vehicles have to be cheaper and with longer range to convince the world’s population to gravitate to electricity. I have heard some frightening statistics on incomes in the US over the previous year , that 44% of Americans make less than 20,000 dollars a year. So the market that Tesla is filling right now is the luxury segment. There a lot of folks out there that can’t even consider this purchase.Hopefully this will change in the very near future or we are just wandering down another rabbit hole.

 

[ajdelange]

Research is always going on along many avenues. Tesla has inched the mileage of the X with the 100 kWh battery up from 295 to 351 miles by a combination of motor efficiency improvement, inverter efficiency improvements, new software and other small tweaks in a little over a year. Expect some significant new technologies to be announced at the forthcoming "Battery Day". As the motors and drive electronics have efficiencies approaching 100% there isn't much opportunity for improvement there so the source of 400 + mile range BEVs will be the batteries.

Note also that the prices on Tesla's vehicles have come down. The more they make/sell the more they benefit from the economies of scale and the more they can lower the price and the larger the segment of the population they become accessible to.

Saving the planet is not what will drive people to BEVs. Nor is it the fact that BEVs are better technology than ICE. What will bring the masses to them is when they are cheaper to buy and operate than ICE. They are already cheaper to operate than ICE so all that remains is to get the purchase price down.

As median income in the US was $62K in 2018 it's pretty clear that the 44th %ile isn't at $20K. Are you getting your info from North Korea?

 

[Tonyk2034]

Statistics are a topic that is very difficult to qualify just like the information on the internet and from governments. Therefore it’s a pointless argument. I read an article from a US economist his last name is Wolfe. I can’t remember his fist name. I found the statistic to be remarkably disturbing and that’s why I remembered it and reiterated the same. So no it’s not North Korean and I don’t know if it’s a statement from a DNC or RNC affiliate. I did check your reference on median salaries. It was 63000 in 2019. Very subjective stat just on totals though. We don’t know how many jobs someone has to work to get to that median salary. From conversations that I have had there are some people working more than one job to make enough money to afford medical insurance, housing and trying to support a family. This is not a criticism just stating a stat that I found disturbing. I know the price of Tesla vehicles have come down but I still believe that the price fits the luxury car market. I believe that I am correct as to why EVS are being produced as an alternative to ice vehicles. Most of the latest information that I have read or watched have had dire warnings of what can happen over a very short period of time. So I don’t see the ongoing effort of EVS having much of an impact unless a much larger proportion of the world’s population are driving EVS. Also everything that I have read about Tesla’s products mandate for the improvement of the worlds environment and secondly to put a smile on your face when your behind the wheel.

 

[Tonyk2034]

Worlds environment should proof read before posting

 

[Saskateam]

Tesla started as a luxury brand and it is following them now. The CT is comparably priced to an other truck. The M3 is good value and comparably priced to many brands. On $20,000 or $63,000 a year, new vehicles are a stretch, either ICE or EV. If an EV has a higher price tag up front, but you finance it and your monthly cost to operate it is lower it could be a good deal. If you pay $200 more a month for the financing costs and save $300 on fuel and maintenance then it is good. If you pay $200 a month more for the vehicle but don’t drive a lot and only save $50 a month then it is not a good deal. However when the used EV market improves that is when you will see mass adoption.
A big reason for me to buy a CT is to help the environment however it is not the biggest reason. I have a lot of other cheaper options I can do to reduce my impact on the environment.

 

[ajdelange]

Statistics are a topic that is very difficult to qualify just like the information on the internet and from governments. Therefore it’s a pointless argument. I read an article from a US economist his last name is Wolfe. I can’t remember his fist name. I found the statistic to be remarkably disturbing and that’s why I remembered it and reiterated the same.

It's often said that there are Lies, damn lies and statistics and that figures don't lie but liars figure. Mr. Wolf, whoever he may be is a liar or at least he has used statistics to deceive you into thinking that 44% of the population has income less than $20k. Using "reliable" statistics i.e. statistics considered good enough that people in government and industry pay to get access to them, the fraction of the population with income less than $20K is about 17%. That's not good but it is a far cry from 44%. The income corresponding to 44% is around $54K. If you are interested in getting some other numbers the 2018 percentage below a given income (in thousands of dollars) is well fit by 104.04 -108.06*exp(-Income*0.010799) and the inverse is -ln( (104.04-percent)/108.06)/0.010799.

So no it’s not North Korean and I don’t know if it’s a statement from a DNC or RNC affiliate.

I've had numbers like this thrown at me before and they usually don't come from the right. They come from people who really hate the US (like the North Koreans and foaming at the mouth Birkenstock liberals progressives). I'm thinking in particular of the son of a friend who is a brilliant man with MD and PHD (math) degrees whose conversation switches back and forth between the Standard Model and what a horrible country this is.

Just noticed that you are posting from Canada. I don't have the stats for Canda but you guys are actually a little better off than we are here in the States.

I did check your reference on median salaries. It was 63000 in 2019. Very subjective stat just on totals though. We don’t know how many jobs someone has to work to get to that median salary. From conversations that I have had there are some people working more than one job to make enough money to afford medical insurance, housing and trying to support a family.This is not a criticism just stating a stat that I found disturbing.

Well that statistic would be disturbing were it true but it isn't. When you grasp a number that you like or supports an argument you are making and ignore other data you are said to be "cherry picking" and this is where the comment about liars figuring has its basis. Cherry picking usually implies evil intent but more likely you are simply another victim of "confirmation bias". You see that median income was $63K but in your mind that is a "very subjective stat" that leads to "pointless argument" but the "fact" that 44% of the population has income less than $20K is, in your mind an important statistic that leads to an argument that is not pointless. This is classic confirmation bias. We all suffer from it -even guys like me who make a great effort to be aware of it and rail against it given any opportunity.

I know the price of Tesla vehicles have come down but I still believe that the price fits the luxury car market.

When the consumer goes to the Whizzo dealer and the salesman shows him the WhizzoMICE and the WhizzoMEV he will buy the ICE version because it is cheaper, even if the lifetime cost is lower (fuel, maintenance, longevity,,,). On the day the WhizzoMEV becomes cheaper than the ICE he will buy that one. We are not there yet but the day is approaching. Obviously there are some headwinds. Every hour that time can be pushed back means an additional revenue of $1.9M for the oil industry. Yes, that's hour. How's that for a statistic?

I believe that I am correct as to why EVS are being produced as an alternative to ice vehicles.

I have no idea why you think they are being produced but they are, in fact, being produced because people are buying them and they are doing so for a variety of reasons the main one of which is that they are simply better cars in almost every way you look at them. The FUD is being largely dissipated. The only things that remain are Tesla's lousy service (and I haven't found it that bad) and the fact that it takes half an hour to top off.

Most of the latest information that I have read or watched have had dire warnings of what can happen over a very short period of time. So I don’t see the ongoing effort of EVS having much of an impact unless a much larger proportion of the world’s population are driving EVS. Also everything that I have read about Tesla’s products mandate for the improvement of the worlds environment and secondly to put a smile on your face when your behind the wheel.

People are buying the cars for the smile. Saving the world has little to do with it but it certainly sounds good in corporate literature and on web sites. Elon Musk wants to electrify the world not because he wants to save it (he wants to go to Mars) but because in his engineer's soul he realizes that electricity is a much better way to collect, distribute manage and store (still a bit of work to be done on this one) energy.

 

[Tonyk2034]

.
Here is a video for you to watch hopefully you will appreciate my perspective on EVs . I agree that the end game is to get to Mars so that some of our population has a chance to survive if earth doesn’t. Hopefully Musk has not given up believing that it is already too late. So I am going to believe that there still is some hope. So rapid deployment of EVS are necessary unless you are a denier. The only way for this deployment is cheaper prices. Strange thing to hear that a reduction of pollution does not appear to be a concern of yours. You must not have any kids and I can tell of your description of the left is quite slanted. Therefore it’s possible whatever I say is not going to resonate with you. I am not left nor am I right. I am not a follower but to judge everything that occurs from that moment. In other words I like to make up my own mind. The statistics that I wrote about were disturbing impossible for me to validate as you. I don’t know if you have completed any statistics course in university but #s are very easily slanted in one direction or another politically. Well the stat I remember reading was so many billions a day for companies that generate oil so the slower EVs come to fruition represents more profit. I don’t think that Tesla has a lousy service it’s a rapidly growing company with the usual problems. I believe most purchasers here care about the environment especially if they have kids.

 

[ajdelange]

Here is a video for you to watch hopefully you will appreciate my perspective on EVs .

I know what your perspective is. You are an alarmist and subscribe to alarmist dogma in the same way you accept the absurd statistic that 44% of the US population is below the poverty line.

I agree that the end game is to get to Mars so that some of our population has a chance to survive if earth doesn’t.

That is the stuff of science fiction. There is no way man will ever colonize Mars.

Hopefully Musk has not given up believing that it is already too late.

I don't think Musk really cares. He's enough of an engineer/scientist to be very skeptical of the global warming screed and what he really wants to do is neat engineering stuff. Converting the transportation industry to electric and automating it, moving traffic underground, interfacing the brain to machines, providing more renewable energy and smoothing demand, going to Mars... These all qualify.

So I am going to believe that there still is some hope.

There is, in fact, most probably nothing to worry about. Climate change has been going on since there was a climate and something or other has survived the most dramatic extremes.

So rapid deployment of EVS are necessary unless you are a denier.

Rapid deployment of EV's isn't necessary but it is definitely beneficial in so many ways that it will happen. I am not a denier. It could all turn out the way the alarmists predict. I am a skeptic. I am a scientist and so, by definition, must be a skeptic. Any "scientist" who tells you he isn't skeptical isn't a scientist.

The only way for this deployment is cheaper prices.

That's correct. The buyer doesn't care about climate change (with, the exception, of course, of the alarmists).

Strange thing to hear that a reduction of pollution does not appear to be a concern of yours.

What's strange about that.? IMO there is nothing to worry about. Unlike you, I accept that I might be wrong. What the future will bring is unknowable. I am smart enough to know that much. I drive electric cars, I fuel them with sunlight to the extent possible, I heat my house with a heatpump with a COP of 3-4 and it runs, to the extent possible, on solar (and I'm increasing my solar). None of these is going to have the slightest effect on what the climate looks like in 50 years and I didn't implement any of them out of concern for the planet. I did them because they represent the best (if not the cheapest) technology.

You must not have any kids and I can tell of your description of the left is quite slanted.

I do.

As to the politicians - those on the left I regard somewhat lower than child pornographers. Those on the right I hold in slightly higher esteem but I'm not sure they rank above child pornographers either.

Therefore it’s possible whatever I say is not going to resonate with you.

Probably not. I am with Aristotle ("The more I know the more I know I don't know") where as you seem to be more of the Dunning-Kruger school.

The statistics that I wrote about were disturbing impossible for me to validate as you.

Well I was able to validate the ones I gave because they came from a reliable source.

I don’t know if you have completed any statistics course in university but #s are very easily slanted in one direction or another politically.

No, I never did. But interestingly enough what put me off the global warming thing was the Mann curve. I was working at the time with PCA (Principal Components Analysis - that's a statistical technique) of spectra and becuase of that it was obvious what he had done. When MacIntyre and McKitrick challenged him on it he refused to release his data. Michael Mann is a "liar who figures". Even though the hockey stick curve was debunked the IPCC continued to publish it for years. From this I concluded that Climate Science isn't science at all it is a mix of poilitics and religion and I abhor both. That means that I will not participate any further in discussions of climate change. I am sure the admins and readers are relieved to hear that.

Well the stat I remember reading was so many billions a day for companies that generate oil so the slower EVs come to fruition represents more profit.

Yes. I gave the number in No. 22.

I don’t think that Tesla has a lousy service it’s a rapidly growing company with the usual problems.

Ah, didn't realize you have Tesla (not listed in your bio squibb). But yes, it is a problem and they really need to address it. Now that they own the field they can get by with it as is but when the competition comes on line it has to potential to hurt them. In Norway's February sales eTron clobbered Tesla, One of the reasons for this offered by some analysts is Tesla's horrid reputation with regard to service. That may or may not, in fact, be the reason but it is definitely something for Tesla to think about and I am sure that they are.

I believe most purchasers here care about the environment especially if they have kids.

If by here you mean the people on this forum I am sure most of them think that it is nice that they don't emit CO2 but I expect that this in not the main motivator. Technology/performance probably is with style perhaps second.

Let's look at the video for a second. Right now, it says, transportation uses 28% of the total energy consumed. Penetration of electric in the transportation sector is perhaps 1% so that means that we are saving 0.3% fossil fuel consumption. When 10% penetration is reached that will mean 3% (ignoring the fact that the electricity column will have to increase). BEV's are a drop in the bucket. I wouldn't count on BEVs to save the bacon. Now when all transportation (including airplanes) is electric and all the electric is from renewable sources we have saved 57%. That's significant. That will be a while.

 

[mggoulet]

Mon plaisir.
300 km is about 186 miles. My X would normally need about 55.9 kWh to cover that distance. If I were to get that in 1/3 hr the charger would have to deliver 167.7 kW. I have found that the Tesla super chargers deliver, on average, 72.9 kW. This includes the effects of taper. On my last Ogden to Brattleboro run I used 61.1 kWh (higher than normal because of he rain) and it took me 43 minutes to charge back up to 80%. On average I find Super Charger sessions last 28 minutes.


I think the forecast from the car's computer is pretty good. It knows how much energy you have used to drive the last 5 - 30 miles and it knows about all the hills in front of you. It can, and does, based on this come up with a pretty good estimate of how much charge you will have at the destination assuming that everything stays the same. As there is no way it can predict the onset of a storm or a quartering wind shifting to a head or tail wind or whether you will drop off a hefty passenger and his anvil it can't really do better. But if any of those things does happen it will sense that and readjust its forecast accordingly.

It seems to be good forecast especially with the topography of the next road... so, if I understand correctly, go charge for 300 km at supercharger, I might to figure out 30 minutes...And with a travelling of 2,500 km... I wish to stop for 2 nights... is there motel-hotel providing super charger... or we should stop at each of them after 300 km... ?

 

[ajdelange]

I strongly recommend trying various strategies in A Better Route Planner. Doing that for a trip down 95 shows that it is 318 km from Manoir Hovey to the Brattleboro SC and that if you depart with 90% charge you should arrive at Brattleboro with 14% remaining. I'm comfortable with that but should heavy rain or a headwind develop in the early part of the trip such that the prediction for Brattleboro is uncomfortably low or even negative then you can grab a quick supplemental charge at Lebanon. But you must make that decision before you get to Lebanon.

At Brattleboro ABRP suggest charging to 62% (24 minutes) in order to reach Fairfield (228 km) with 10% charge where they suggest you charge to 77% (34 minutes) in order to reach Newark, DE (295 km) with 10% charge. And so on. You monitor as you go and do whatever makes you comfortable. For example I would probably charge a little longer at each of these stations in order to have a little more margin at each subsequent stop.

Things are not quite the same as they are with ICE but they are getting there as SC and other chargers are so plentiful now that you can pretty much decide where you want to stop and arrange charging to fit that desire. For example, we like to spend the night in Bennington. There is no SC there but there is a CHAdeMO charger which is more than adequate to get us comfortably to the next SC. It is located near hotels and restaurants. If you decide to stop in a metropolitan area (Baltimore, DC, Richmond...) there are lots of SC's, restaurants and hotels. Some hotels have destination chargers. This is where PlugShare becomes useful.

 

[Buffel]

There is, in fact, most probably nothing to worry about. Climate change has been going on since there was a climate and something or other has survived the most dramatic extremes.

While I have a different opinion on climate change overall, I completely agree with the above. But do note that 'something or other' is much more likely to be scorpions and cockroaches than humans. Technologically advanced and all, we are nowhere near as adaptive to circumstances as some other species.

If you are only worried about 'the survival of life on earth' then there indeed is very little to worry about. If you care about 'the survival of humanity on earth' then it suddenly becomes much more important what model turns out to be a good prediction of climate over the coming 50-odd years.

 

[Prairiegirl62]

Thanks for some of the feedback EV enthusiasts, this is the reason I suggested the topic was to get some conversation and analysis on the topic. It seems to me that there is a fair amount of concern for people who are not familiar with the mode of traveling by electricity. What I was hoping to ascertain if there was a topic or something new occurring. This subject may well not be a concern for the majority of Cybertruck buyers who are affluent enough to purchase this vehicle but if the reason to change is for climatic reasons these vehicles have to be cheaper and with longer range to convince the world’s population to gravitate to electricity. I have heard some frightening statistics on incomes in the US over the previous year , that 44% of Americans make less than 20,000 dollars a year. So the market that Tesla is filling right now is the luxury segment. There a lot of folks out there that can’t even consider this purchase.Hopefully this will change in the very near future or we are just wandering down another rabbit hole.

This is a very interesting thought. We are far from affluent, we are just small-time farmers who also work off-farm to secure our retirement. But if you need a new truck for whatever reason, the purchase price isn't a whole lot different than a traditional pickup with less features from one of the Big 3. I've inquired locally about insurance costs and again... not a whole lot of difference. Then if you factor in the savings on fuel there is a noticeable net saving over time. I'd actually have to crunch the numbers to give a ballpark figure, but I think you get the idea. But one of the huge things for us was the warranty the Tesla provides on its current vehicles. They dance circles around the Big 3. I am going on the assumption that the Cybertruck will offer the same or similar warranty. All of this and I haven't even delved into the environmental impact issue. So now to the topic of convenience. Range and time to re-charge are of course a factors for most people, but in reality its just about shifting our paradigm a bit. I do a lot of travelling. When on a road trip my fuel stops are generally about 30 minutes by the time I fuel up, use the restroom, and purchase snacks or a coffee. So that's about the same amount of time it takes to recharge at a supercharge station. If you're travelling back and forth to work you just have to be more mindful of your time and plan ahead a little. I think as time goes on people in general will realize that its worth it to go EV.

 

[lslick23]

With the Y release it seems likely the Cybertruck will get the heat pump helping you folks in colder climate.

 

[alan auerbach]

Question (at least based on present Tesla models):

The most critical screen display, namely "Distance Remaining," is based on exactly what?

Battery voltage? Distance driven? Ambient temp? Load aboard? Recent driving pattern (e.g., hilly terrain, trailer towing, max acceleration)?

And does it show more readout-sensitivity when within, say, the last 20 miles?

Thanks.