What would you do? Get LE version (300+) or wait for MaxPack (400+)?

[Babbuino]

But you should be. Water on the roadbed increases consumption quite a bit. Head winds in a T'storm (which, as I recall, Florida has more of than any other states) or hurricane can also steal quite a lot of range.

I guess I'm not adventurous enough to drive in a middle of a hurricane lol, but I see your point

Sponsored

 

[DuckTruck]

As always, you are most welcome. It is gratifying to know that there are at least some here who are benefiting from it. Of course I am one of those people. When I start a post I often don't how it will end because I don't know the answer to the question being asked. I have gained so much insight by having to figure that out.

It is really no different with an ICE vehicle. It is just that you now care a lot more about the details of your fuel flow because you can't just pull over anywhere to fill up.

Reminded me of my crusty old mechanic whose favorite expression seemed to be "He ran out of airspeed, altitude and ideas."


You are not the kind of driver I am worried about.


There are a number of practical problems with this but it is, of course, something you want to know and it is possible to figure it out. You have probably noted that I never mention rated range in any of my posts but I am always talking about rated consumption and consumption in general. The two are tied together through the battery's discharge capacity. Thus if my car has rated consumption of 282 Wh/mi and rated range of 351 miles it's battery must be able to deliver 351*.282 = 98.982 kWh and everyone accepts that my cars battery is 100 kWh (it has actually lost a bit over time - another thing you have to accept). One of the first things you will want to do is determine your new truck's "rated" range. I put "rated" in quotes because the manufacturer may make it so hard to determine that you will have to determine for your self, by observing consumption, what it is. Tesla hides it on one of its displays. Rivian may come right out and put it in the manual. It is now found on the Monroney sticker but heavily quantized e.g. "32 kW per hundred miles". We want at least 3 significant digits e.g. 323 Wh/mi. As noted in earlier posts the first thing you'll want to do is find out what your actual nominal consumption is. Call it your baseline. If you can discover what the rated consumption is you can then compare your baseline to the rated and see how you are doing relative to it. You will also discover biases.

With out too much difficulty you should be able to find out what the consumption is on a dry level road at 65 mph. Just drive that a half dozen times and take the average. While doing this record the percentage of the battery you use. It's a simple matter from there to extrapolate to how far you can go on 100% of the battery and that is the range for the vehicle at 65 mph.

AJ,

Thanks again. That's all very sound advice. Your comment about making a dozen of those 65 MPH runs and averaging and extrapolating all data makes total sense. Not only does it incorporate different real world conditions and average those out, it keeps me from really running the charge to zero for no good reason.

On the dark side of aviation humor, a friend who skydives often once said, when asked about how to react to a failure of the chute to open: "No reason to panic, you have the rest of your life to figure it out. "

Take care.

 

[SANZC02]

Ya sorry. I don't believe it.

That above statement probably says a lot more about you then others...

Honesty is king.....

EPA is 340 Watts per mile for this Model S (see below from the EPA site), in the last 44K miles we have averaged 321 watt per mile, in the last 4K mostly my wife driving averaged 293 watts per mile.
In 44K miles we are below EPA by 5.6% In the last 4K miles with my wife mostly driving she has beat EPA by 13.8%. I will add when I am on the highway I usually drive between 75 and 80

 

[Big_Ike]

Electrify America, in cooperation with APS, are installing fast chargers in Payson, Show Low, and Globe. Expected completion is spring 2022. Not sure if that changes your mind. We travel to our favorite camping location just south of Big Lake and that area was a concern for me also.

Thanks Waid, I did read about that, but in these kooky times I'm really skeptical about timing.

 

[SeaGeo]

No you won’t. And if you have never owned a electric vehicle your in for a big surprise.

I meet the rated range with my ID.4 without a problem.

 

[ajdelange]

If this thread has taught us anything it is that some of our fellow members don't have, or if they do, don't choose to exercise, the basic math skills necessary to understand what EPA range of 350 miles and or rated range of 320 Wh/mi mean and therefore cannot interpret them in a way that is meaningful to them. They think that if the Moroney sticker says 350 miles the car is supposed to go 350 miles and when it doesn't they think they are being cheated somehow (can't be anything they are doing). The problem is that they loudly communicate that they are being cheated misleading others into thinking that Tesla cheats in its ratings. Equally naive are those who see an EPA range of 220 miles and often get better than that. They go about proclaiming what a great car the Taycan is because they give you more than they promise. This is equally foolish and equally misleading (but who has the cleverer marketing department?).

While there are those who cannot, or will not, ever understand this there are plenty who will and I think one of the most valuable services a forum like this one can do is to set new and prospective BEV drivers straight on this.

I think we should probably note that the people doing the explaining often list some sort of technical occupation where as those making the naive comments don't.

[EDIT]Forgot to add that those who have trouble with all this can set their SoC gauge to read % and interpret it in exactly the same way they used to interpret their gas gauges in their ICE cars.

 

[electrictaco]

If this thread has taught us anything it is that some of our fellow members don't have, or if they do, don't choose to exercise the basic math skills necessary to understand what EPA range of 350 miles and or rated range of 320 Wh/mi mean and therefore cannot interpret them in a way that is meaningful to them. They think that if the Moroney sticker says 350 miles the car is supposed to go 350 miles and when it doesn't they think they are being cheated somehow (can't be anything they are doing). The problem is that they loudly communicate that they are being cheated misleading others into thinking that Tesla cheats in its ratings. Equally naive are those who see an EPA range of 220 miles and often get better than that. They go about proclaiming what a great car the Taycan is because they give you more than they promise. This is equally foolish and equally misleading (but who has the cleverer marketing department?).

While there are those who cannot, or will not, ever understand this there are plenty who will and I think one of the most valuable services a forum like this one can do is to set new and prospective BEV drivers straight on this.

I think, if anything, this thread has shown that you are very patronizing.

I think that most people on here understand that the EPA numbers aren't the gospel. You aren't going to hit them every time and certain manufacturers find ways of inflating them (ahem... Tesla), while others choose to provide an estimate with their most conservative configuration (Porsche). I think the latter is a better customer experience (underpromise, overdeliver!).

Just running through this list of EVs tested by Edmunds, you can see why people don't trust Tesla's numbers:
https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/electric-car-range-and-consumption-epa-vs-edmunds.html

And if you want to go more extreme, you can see them get worse at highway speed:
https://insideevs.com/reviews/443791/ev-range-test-results/

 

[Trekkie]

for me it's about towing. 400 range = 200 towing (roughly). I've found at least with Tesla that the superchargers tend to be around 150-200 miles apart. I won't be towing 11000 but for example I need to go pickup my Dad's woodworking shop and move it 1100 miles to my house and towing a UHAUL with a Model X I'm not going to make it (Short Range, so 245 miles on paper, 180-200 max in practice, with a trailer? 100 miles)

That's my thought process on the max pack.

 

[ajdelange]

I think, if anything, this thread has shown that you are very patronizing.

You are, pf course, entitled to your opinions.

I think that most people on here understand that the EPA numbers aren't the gospel. You aren't going to hit them every time and certain manufacturers find ways of inflating them (ahem... Tesla), while others choose to provide an estimate with their most conservative configuration (Porsche). I think the latter is a better customer experience (underpromise, overdeliver!).

I wonder about that. Are you going to buy a car that advertises pretty poor range based on the assurance by some guy on the internet that it is really much better than that and shun a car by a manufacturer (ahem_Tesla) that inflates its numbers? Yes, if you are naive as many here are. The savvy person would want to test the hypothesis that Tesla really inflates their numbers.

Just running through this list of EVs tested by Edmunds, you can see why people don't trust Tesla's numbers:
https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/electric-car-range-and-consumption-epa-vs-edmunds.html

Yes, I can see why the naive might conclude from this piece that Tesla is fudging. But the wise man, especially the one rendered somewhat cynical by too much TOE, would look at the actual numbers there and say wait a minute!

Time to introduce this rather dapper looking Englishman from the last century.

How many recognize him?
Not too many probably. His name was William Sealey Gosset. Does that help? How about his employer's name: Arthur Guiness. Getting warmer? Now a couple of you already know where I am going with this though you may not recognize his picture or know that he worked for Guiness but will probably know who he is from his nom de plume: Student. To cut to the chase he invented a test, called, appropriately enough "Student's t" to test whether there is a significant difference in two sets of data, here the EPA numbers and the Edmund's numbers. This is one of the first things every student of statistics is taught. If you have ever studied statistics as related to any discipline from brewing to psychology you will know Student's t. Here's what it says about the Edmond's and EPA data for the Teslas

•statsTTest/alph = .05 epa,edmuds
Sample 1: EPA
Number of Points=7
Mean=309.571
Stdv=38.6732
Degrees of Freedom=6

Sample 2: Edmunds
Number of Points=7
Mean=288.714
Stdv=41.3752
Degrees of Freedom=6

Combined effective degrees of freedom: 11.95
T-Test Statistic: 0.974359
Lower Critical Value: -2.17991
Upper Critical Value: 2.17991
H0: avg1=avg2 H0 Acceptance range (0.025000,0.975000) ==> H0 Accepted


What this means is that that we cannot reject the hypothesis that there is no difference in Tesla range as determined by the EPA or as determined by Edmunds. Were this article submitted to a peer reviewed technical journal it would be rejected. That the article strongly implies that there is a significant difference is, IMO, irresponsible whether it be from ignorance or be done intentionally.

If it's not obvious, this is just another illustration of the problem. People here read the Edmonds article and draw a conclusion they really shouldn't draw. To point this out you have to use language they don't speak and are deemed patronizing.

 

[DucRider]

Yes, I can see why the naive might conclude from this piece that Tesla is fudging.

I don't know of anyone here claiming Tesla is fudging.
Only that their real world results (as a % of the EPA numbers) are not as good as many other manufacturers. Speculation abounds as to the reason.

 

[ajdelange]

I don't know of anyone here claiming Tesla is fudging.
Only that their real world results (as a % of the EPA numbers) are not as good as many other manufacturers. Speculation abounds as to the reason.

Putting nefarious intent aside you are saying that a bias error is one direction is somehow preferable to bias error in the other. Putting nefarious intent back in you are saying that sandbagging is better than exaggerating. If that is your way of thinking well, OK, that's your way of thinking. I think most people are aware that bias error obscures the truth equally whatever its sign. Better limit that to people who know what bias error is.

Let's go a bit further. Assuming that Edmunds really knows better than Tesla and the EPA how to conduct range testing then looking at their Tesla results and applying the t test we see that there is no statistically significant bias error in Tesla's EPA numbers and the question to you then is "Do you feel bias error in the sandbagging direction is to preferable to no bias error?" The use of "not as good" above suggests that you do.

 

[UT Rivian]

I think, if anything, this thread has shown that you are very patronizing.

Whenever a thread devolves into an @ajdelange and @DucRider tit for tat exchange, it becomes ’skimmable’.

 

[ajdelange]

for me it's about towing. 400 range = 200 towing (roughly).

That's one application where the bigger battery is a "must have". The other is going off pavement.

 

[CommodoreAmiga]

Ahhhh! I did not know that. Toyota has such a great record of quality. I'll bet that was a great embarrassment for them.

That’s the funny thing, in my eye…. Toyota‘s frame issues were widespread and lasted for YEARS, across multiple models and multiple generations. For some reason the average consumer doesn’t really care, but had it been GM/Ford I bet people would be talking about it for decades.

People look at Toyota with rose-colored glasses. Back in the 80’s-90’s they were way better than the domestics. But honestly, they’ve gone downhill and the competition has really upped their game. But consumer opinion is slow to change to such things.

 

[ajdelange]

I realized that sandabagging does have an obvious advantage relative the more honest approach. A sandbagger is less likely to hear from Dewey, Cheatham and Howe than a manufacturer who publishes accurate range info.

Thanks to Duck for bringing back fond memories of that trio. Wonder if Peecap and Drapov are still in business.

Sponsored