[HN Gopher] Tesla has a range inflation problem
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Tesla has a range inflation problem
        
       Author : rntn
       Score  : 41 points
       Date   : 2023-07-27 20:07 UTC (2 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (techcrunch.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (techcrunch.com)
        
       | pkaye wrote:
       | How good are range estimates on ICE cars and other electric cars.
       | How do other electric cars handle cold weather estimates?
        
         | olyjohn wrote:
         | Range estimates are shit on ICE cars too. They're called
         | "estimates" for a reason. You can't predict the future. I'm not
         | a Tesla fan but this whole thing is nonsense.
        
       | acqbu wrote:
       | Always has. Nothing new under the sun
       | https://lemmy.world/post/1319083
        
         | dmonitor wrote:
         | i didn't realize buying a tesla was a moral failing. i guess
         | i'll but from an ethical company like GM instead
        
       | mtmail wrote:
       | related with 600 comments "Tesla created secret team to suppress
       | thousands of driving range complaints"
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36891642
        
       | zgluck wrote:
       | This is blogspam, the actual article is here:
       | 
       | https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tesla-ba...
        
       | Nonlin wrote:
       | I've always been concerned about the accuracy of the degradation
       | of the range/the range in general.
       | 
       | There is no real concrete way to tell if they are lying because
       | the source raw data is obfuscated.
        
       | diebeforei485 wrote:
       | This is a more complicated problem than it seems because even
       | determining the remaining battery percentage is non-trivial with
       | lithium-ion batteries. Apple has an entire team dedicated to
       | this.
       | 
       | Predicting the remaining range is another step of complexity. I'm
       | not saying it can't be done, but they should definitely sandbag
       | the estimate.
       | 
       | Some of the features using energy when parked, like sentry mode
       | and cabin temperature maintenance, probably consume power and add
       | to customer frustration as well.
        
       | tzm wrote:
       | Has or had? The Reuters article opens with: "About a decade
       | ago.."
        
       | Booktrope wrote:
       | Big news, automobile manufacturer inflates gas mileage! Really!
       | 
       | If anyone here has had a car that actually got the stated mileage
       | in real world conditions, please let me know.
       | 
       | I live on top of a hill and every single car I've ever owned,
       | including, Honda, Toyota, Ford, Nissan, Dodge, Volvo that I
       | recall right now has gotten oh, about 30% lower mileage than
       | advertised. due to that pesky law of gravity that requires energy
       | to be expended going up and down.
       | 
       | But even when I lived in leveller locales, cars never got the EPA
       | rated mileage, except once, when I drove a Honda with a CVCC
       | engine on a road trip through level countryside at about 45 miles
       | per hour all day. I got terrific mileage. I never did it again.
        
         | Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
         | > If anyone here has had a car that actually got the stated
         | mileage in real world conditions, please let me know.
         | 
         | I owned a 2016 Subaru BRZ, stickered at 24 mpg city/30 mpg
         | highway, and over the 3 years I owned it, I averaged 32 mpg.
         | 
         | My previous car was a 2000 Suzuki Esteem, stickered at I think
         | 27/32. I averaged 28 city, 35 highway.
         | 
         | I now have a Model 3 Performance, estimated 300 mile range. I
         | get 230-270 miles depending on the weather.
        
         | Marsymars wrote:
         | > If anyone here has had a car that actually got the stated
         | mileage in real world conditions, please let me know.
         | 
         | Depends on driving style. I drive a manual Ford Fiesta (with
         | worse specced fuel efficiency than the automatic) living in the
         | foothills of the Rocky Mountains, and it's abnormal for me not
         | to get better fuel economy than the automatic's spec.
        
         | kccqzy wrote:
         | Your comment is just publicly broadcasting your ineptitude at
         | efficient driving. I regularly beat EPA estimates in both the
         | EV I have and the ICE car I had.
         | 
         | You can read more about EPA mileage testing:
         | https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P100IENB.TXT I've
         | personally found it to be fair and reflects the real world
         | quite well.
        
       | jstarfish wrote:
       | > The Korea Fair Trade Commission also found that Tesla failed to
       | inform owners that cold weather can reduce its cars' range. The
       | commission cited tests showing Tesla cars lost up to 50.5% of the
       | company's claimed ranges in cold weather.
       | 
       | Ouch. I've had trouble with _cameras_ not working for long in the
       | bitter Korean cold.
       | 
       | I don't understand how this became a problem, much less one that
       | was discoverable.
       | 
       | If they're still selling extended-range batteries as DLC, just
       | give the customer the extra capacity for free but spread it out
       | over the service life of the battery (doesn't Apple do this to
       | keep battery capacity constant?). They won't be buying the
       | upgrade for a 10 year old battery anyway, so might as well use
       | the extra material for _something_ and avoid this sort of PR.
       | 
       | Or dynamically give/take away exactly enough of the unpaid-for
       | reserve capacity to be able to consistently deliver whatever the
       | promised range was. Unlock the remaining extra capacity as the
       | upgrade. By the time people start noticing the _extra_ range isn
       | 't working as advertised, you can gaslight everyone over
       | inconsistent usage patterns across aging cars.
        
       | machdiamonds wrote:
       | It's very easy to see how favorably or unfavorably Tesla's
       | claimed range compares to competitors based on independent tests
       | of multiple EVs in the same conditions:
       | 
       | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LWL90paufE
       | 
       | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynCaTDR4rDQ
       | 
       | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFB6hsYXDiA
       | 
       | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvwOa7TCd1E
       | 
       | Spoiler alert: Tesla models fare about as well, if not better,
       | than their EV cousins, hitting around 80% of the stated range in
       | the wild.
        
         | mlyle wrote:
         | We're not talking about how well they do compared to EPA range
         | estimates; we're talking about the car choosing to put the EPA
         | range estimate on the dash even when the car knows that number
         | is bunk.
         | 
         | Most ICE cars (and other electric cars) use driving history
         | averages to adjust the range estimate on the dash, and a touch
         | of pessimism. They're still not perfect, but better than
         | claiming EPA range for someone who you know never gets close to
         | it.
        
       | postmeta wrote:
       | Reuters' Steve Stecklow writing Tesla clickbait again in bad
       | faith, range can change 10-30% based on how fast you go and
       | weather: https://www.tesla.com/support/range
        
       | Thoeu388 wrote:
       | They also lied about C02 emissions. My country manufactures 30%
       | of electricity from coal. That is hardly zero emissions!
        
       | esotericimpl wrote:
       | [dead]
        
       | macintux wrote:
       | Active discussion today here:
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36891642
        
       | eagerpace wrote:
       | Tesla owner, not saying they didn't do this, but to consider...
       | 
       | The range in an EV is impacted by more variables than a gasoline
       | vehicle. I've seen so many sensationalized headlines the last
       | couple a weeks, in particular one about how the heat wave is
       | killing electric cars.
       | 
       | Look, as with any big change, people have to learn how the new
       | thing works and that takes time. I don't get the same range on a
       | 95 degree day as I do on a 75. The rain impacts it, charging my
       | phones impacts it, running the AC impacts it. I believe the
       | number provided in the vehicle is fairly accurate and considers a
       | handful of factors. But others like your driving style also have
       | a huge impact and there is no way to account for that.
       | 
       | Can the software get better and incorporate more variables in its
       | estimate? Yes. Do consumers also just assume the number displayed
       | is perfect? Also yes.
       | 
       | We had this same problem when GPS navigation became available.
       | There were stories of people who followed the guidance before
       | their common sense and ended up in strange places. Now we know to
       | use it as a guide and check for common sense.
        
         | interstice wrote:
         | I find it funny that a side effect of ICE cars being so
         | inefficient is that their range is much more predictable. If
         | ~50% of your petrol turns into heat no matter what you do then
         | using the AC doesn't make a lot of difference.
        
           | ht85 wrote:
           | I don't think they have to do with inefficiency.
           | 
           | Predictability is there because combustion engines operate
           | the same regardless of weather conditions.
           | 
           | AC / energy consumption anxiety doesn't exist because of said
           | predictability as well as your ability to refill 1000km worth
           | of fuel in a couple minutes.
           | 
           | The only difference if ICE were 100% efficient would be a
           | slightly smaller gas tank.
        
         | oxygen_crisis wrote:
         | Favoring optimistic predictions isn't a reasonable response to
         | large margins on complex probabilistic models. "Under-promise
         | and over-deliver."
         | 
         | Choosing the side of the margin that favors your marketing at
         | the risk of stranding the customer on the side of the road is
         | the unscrupulous choice.
        
         | therouwboat wrote:
         | Come on, tesla makes self driving cars and now they have
         | trouble estimating range?
        
         | PraetorianGourd wrote:
         | If this is the case, why is Tesla the outlier? Ford, Hyundai,
         | GM etc. all seem to be able to accurately estimate range. In
         | fact, as the article mentions, Hyundai is slightly inaccurate
         | in the opposite direction (though not by the same margin as
         | Tesla over-estimates).
         | 
         | If this is simply people getting used to a new technology,
         | wouldn't it be a similar story across the board?
        
       | retrocryptid wrote:
       | Hunh. Tesla lies to it's customers. Who'd of thunk it?
        
       | m463 wrote:
       | All EVs have this problem.
       | 
       | That said - drive conservatively and you can meet or exceed the
       | predicted range.
        
       | ericd wrote:
       | Really depends, if I blitz along at 80, then yeah. If I stick to
       | the speed limit, it's not a bad estimate, on mostly slow local
       | roads, we get substantially better. It's a great demonstration of
       | drag's nonlinear nature (the cube of the speed?).
        
         | jstarfish wrote:
         | > The National Maximum Speed Limit (NMSL) was a provision of
         | the federal government of the United States 1974 Emergency
         | Highway Energy Conservation Act that effectively prohibited
         | speed limits higher than 55 miles per hour (89 km/h). It was
         | drafted in response to oil price spikes and supply disruptions
         | during the 1973 oil crisis and remained the law until 1995.
         | 
         | I've always been under the impression 55 was the optimum speed
         | for (ICE) fuel efficiency.
         | 
         | Does this change at all for electrics (given regenerative
         | braking)?
        
           | olyjohn wrote:
           | No it's a tradeoff between speed and efficiency. If you went
           | 45mph, you'd get even better gas mileage. But people already
           | couldn't drive 55.
        
           | mirrorlake wrote:
           | The best MPG you can get on the highway is just the slowest
           | you can safely go without confusing other drivers, making
           | people angry, or getting pulled over by the police. Drag is
           | proportional to velocity squared, so every increase in mi/hr
           | wastes more energy pushing air out of the way of the car.
           | 
           | To answer your regenerative braking question: braking is
           | inefficient by default, so just avoid tapping the brakes in
           | situations where you could coast.
           | 
           | With regenerative braking, you'll never get back 100% the
           | energy because of thermodynamics. There's always wasted
           | energy any time energy is moved, transformed, stored, etc.
        
           | ht85 wrote:
           | Modern cars with variable valve timing and other goodies can
           | achieve very good combustion under low load. Looking around,
           | it seems ~30km/h would be the sweet spot.
           | 
           | It would be slightly higher if you run the AC on high,
           | increasing total consumption by ~10% and moving the dial a
           | bit.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-07-27 23:02 UTC)