Tesla created secret team to suppress thousands of driving range complaints

Post by sib » Thu, Jul 27, 2023, 4:13 PM UTC

dinom wrote: post #259

malwrar wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually got stranded once for some hours because of the mileage indicator! Was driving back from a campsite that I turned out to not have charging compatibility with, but thought I had plenty of margin to get to the nearest charger. As I drove through the mountains however, I began noticing that a.) my battery was depleting much faster than expected and b.) I wasn’t seeing any houses and very few motorists. I watc…

> able to get a tow truck capable of transporting my car (turns out you need one that has a full bed because of the regenerative breaking Sounds incredibly short-sighted that the regenerative braking can't be temporarily disabled by the driver... two people can push a "regular" car to a nearby gas station in a pinch. Even one person can push a smaller car around a parking lot if necessary. That said, they often send…

Post by stetrain » Thu, Jul 27, 2023, 4:14 PM UTC

vel0city wrote: post #293

stetrain wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regen braking is not 100% efficient, closer to 70-80%. So climbing a mountain and then going down the other side does cost more net energy than driving the same distance on flat ground. Also if the elevation change is such that you don’t have enough to get to the top, the amount you would regen on the way down doesn’t matter.

This isn't a question of regen braking through. > climbing a mountain and then going down the other side does cost more net energy than driving the same distance on flat ground. You say this, but your reasoning is regen braking? What if you never had to brake the entire way? Where did all the energy going going up the hill go? If I carry a sack of sand up a hill and drop it, the amount of energy it has falling is equ…

Post by stetrain » Thu, Jul 27, 2023, 4:16 PM UTC

vel0city wrote: post #375

CorrectHorseBat wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without any resistance or breaking you are correct, but in real life you do have to break. Non constant speed also makes it worse because resistance is not linear.

Resistance is the same as on flat ground. It shouldn't be making an impact in the whole going up and down the mountain. The amount of resistance you get going 10mi at 60mph is the same going up as going down as going flat. So we're still at you spent some extra energy going up, and now you have that extra energy going down. I do get if you're needing to ride the brakes a lot you'll get a pretty big impact on range, b…

Post by marcosdumay » Thu, Jul 27, 2023, 4:16 PM UTC

bigdang wrote: post #29

Giving optimistic estimates based on generalized vehicle information, then giving more precise estimates after the 50% mark—and after having collected usage information based on the user’s actual environment—sounds to me like a decent algorithmic solution to a hard problem.

Post by tshaddox » Thu, Jul 27, 2023, 4:18 PM UTC

brazzledazzle wrote: post #215

tekla wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that any different from a ICE car? How is the car supposed to know how much energy you might be using in the future? Last time I checked, no ICE car has the ability to predict the future.

The distance left in the tank is closer to the Tesla's more accurate estimate because it's constantly adjusting based on both your current gas level as well as your current energy efficiency. It may not accurately convey the distance available at the start of a trip but you're going to know well ahead of time if you're burn rate is too high. If the non-navigation distance estimate in a Tesla is always padded you coul…