5 ms·

Whats annoying is Tesla internally knows the real range. On a trip, it picks a charging stop 180 miles away and says I will be at 5% charge when I arrive. But t

Whats annoying is Tesla internally knows the real range. On a trip, it picks a charging stop 180 miles away and says I will be at 5% charge when I arrive. But the mileage still says "310". If they actually adjusted the mileage display to be the real number, it would be SO much more helpful.

jpgvm 3y ago
That is because the "range" and the "energy use for this route" are two different things. Really you -always- want the latter but people seem to think that it can be simplified to the former, it just can't. Spherical cows in a vacuum and all of that. Telsa puts a bunch of work into estimating energy use for a given route using elevation data etc, it's why they have their own route planner (that you can also tweak the behavior of). From memory the only thing that goes into the "range" calc is current temperature, it otherwise just has to assume averages for everything else without knowing the route a priori.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- lupire 3y ago
  Ok but it knows the route you are on and the mileage.
  - _ea1k 3y ago
    Yes, and you can view that in both the nav (on screen all the time) and the energy screen.
- campbel 3y ago
  This would be easier to believe if their display numbers weren't always larger than the real numbers
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    In city driving I routinely get better range than the top number.
  - tekla 3y ago
    I drove 3000 miles in my first Time ever in a Tesla in a week and found the numbers to be incredibly accurate.
- billjings 3y ago
  Of course they are different things. But the choice to define "range" as the highest possible number is misleading: people ask the range so that they can know how many stops are required at a highway speed trip. Using surface street numbers for that is....unhelpful, at best. It certainly doesn't help the Windows computer hoi polloi feel as if they have gotten what they paid for.
  - jpgvm 3y ago
    I think they should just delete that number and just show energy and energy remaining at destination. It will annoy some luddites but it's the only reasonable way to display the actually important information, i.e will I make it and how much juice will I have when I get there.
    - bryanlarsen 3y ago
      Yup. There's a preference to show percentage rather than theoretical range. The latter is much more useful IMO, but percentage should probably be the default because theoretical range is misleading until you understand it.
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    > Using surface street numbers for that is....unhelpful, at best. Strong disagree here. When doing a trip we always use the nav computer so we always have the real number. (If only so the kids can look at the computer to see the number rather than asking "how much longer" continuously). OTOH, in town we generally don't, so the top number being accurate for in town driving is very helpful.
  - Retric 3y ago
    There’s really 3 distinct numbers that are all useful today. “Charge” = total energy which is useful for charging but not specific route planning. “Range” = charge * temperature which is a useful benchmark for known trips and drivers. The specific number isn’t as important vs knowing you can do regular trips between known locations in X units. ie you can commute 4 more days without charging. “Remaining charge at destination” = most accurate route planning but requires a specific route and external temperature.
bryanlarsen 3y ago
Why would it be more helpful? You already explained that the nav computer is displaying the real number. It's not more helpful to have the real number in two places rather than one. It's more helpful to have two different numbers because there really are two different numbers. The nav computer is displaying the real number for that specific route. If your plans change and you take a detour, the computer can't give you an exact number for that since it doesn't know that route and it could be vastly different. For example, if you add an extra 50 miles city driving to explore a city on your trip you will get much different milage than the highway driving your trip computer is showing you. If it bothers you so much, go into your app and change the settings to show percentage on the top rather than range. Myself I find it much easier to mentally convert theoretical range than battery percentage (heuristics like subtract 20% for cold, etc).
leesec 3y ago
Think of it like 310 is your general mileage and the estimated is the real estimate for your specific trip.
- ahahahahah 3y ago
  Except that there is no trip where 310 would be the real estimate for that trip. So how is it in any way useful? Tesla just takes the real range, multiplies by some made up factor and pretends that's your range.
  - leesec 3y ago
    Except it would be if you just drove it around a city. So which number should they use
jmisavage 3y ago
This was reported on a few months ago. This was a quote from an unnamed employee in the article “...when the battery fell below 50% of its maximum charge, the algorithm would show drivers more realistic projections for their remaining driving range...” https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tesla-batteries-range/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tesla-ba...

jpgvm 3y ago

That is because the "range" and the "energy use for this route" are two different things. Really you -always- want the latter but people seem to think that it can be simplified to the former, it just can't. Spherical cows in a vacuum and all of that. Telsa puts a bunch of work into estimating energy use for a given route using elevation data etc, it's why they have their own route planner (that you can also tweak the behavior of). From memory the only thing that goes into the "range" calc is current temperature, it otherwise just has to assume averages for everything else without knowing the route a priori.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
lupire 3y ago
Ok but it knows the route you are on and the mileage.
- _ea1k 3y ago
  Yes, and you can view that in both the nav (on screen all the time) and the energy screen.
campbel 3y ago
This would be easier to believe if their display numbers weren't always larger than the real numbers
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  In city driving I routinely get better range than the top number.
- tekla 3y ago
  I drove 3000 miles in my first Time ever in a Tesla in a week and found the numbers to be incredibly accurate.
billjings 3y ago
Of course they are different things. But the choice to define "range" as the highest possible number is misleading: people ask the range so that they can know how many stops are required at a highway speed trip. Using surface street numbers for that is....unhelpful, at best. It certainly doesn't help the Windows computer hoi polloi feel as if they have gotten what they paid for.
- jpgvm 3y ago
  I think they should just delete that number and just show energy and energy remaining at destination. It will annoy some luddites but it's the only reasonable way to display the actually important information, i.e will I make it and how much juice will I have when I get there.
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    Yup. There's a preference to show percentage rather than theoretical range. The latter is much more useful IMO, but percentage should probably be the default because theoretical range is misleading until you understand it.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  > Using surface street numbers for that is....unhelpful, at best. Strong disagree here. When doing a trip we always use the nav computer so we always have the real number. (If only so the kids can look at the computer to see the number rather than asking "how much longer" continuously). OTOH, in town we generally don't, so the top number being accurate for in town driving is very helpful.
- Retric 3y ago
  There’s really 3 distinct numbers that are all useful today. “Charge” = total energy which is useful for charging but not specific route planning. “Range” = charge * temperature which is a useful benchmark for known trips and drivers. The specific number isn’t as important vs knowing you can do regular trips between known locations in X units. ie you can commute 4 more days without charging. “Remaining charge at destination” = most accurate route planning but requires a specific route and external temperature.

bryanlarsen 3y ago

Why would it be more helpful? You already explained that the nav computer is displaying the real number. It's not more helpful to have the real number in two places rather than one. It's more helpful to have two different numbers because there really are two different numbers. The nav computer is displaying the real number for that specific route. If your plans change and you take a detour, the computer can't give you an exact number for that since it doesn't know that route and it could be vastly different. For example, if you add an extra 50 miles city driving to explore a city on your trip you will get much different milage than the highway driving your trip computer is showing you. If it bothers you so much, go into your app and change the settings to show percentage on the top rather than range. Myself I find it much easier to mentally convert theoretical range than battery percentage (heuristics like subtract 20% for cold, etc).

leesec 3y ago

Think of it like 310 is your general mileage and the estimated is the real estimate for your specific trip.

ahahahahah 3y ago
Except that there is no trip where 310 would be the real estimate for that trip. So how is it in any way useful? Tesla just takes the real range, multiplies by some made up factor and pretends that's your range.
- leesec 3y ago
  Except it would be if you just drove it around a city. So which number should they use

jmisavage 3y ago

This was reported on a few months ago. This was a quote from an unnamed employee in the article “...when the battery fell below 50% of its maximum charge, the algorithm would show drivers more realistic projections for their remaining driving range...” https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tesla-batteries-range/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tesla-ba...