Tesla Schenanigens

Looks like Tesla got caught being a bit "creative" and providing customers "un-service"

In addition to unrealistic range estimates and avoiding appointments for those who thought there was something wrong with their car.

There was  this:

....Tesla years ago began exaggerating its vehicles’ potential driving distance – by rigging their range-estimating software. The company decided about a decade ago, for marketing purposes, to write algorithms for its range meter that would show drivers “rosy” projections for the distance it could travel on a full battery, according to a person familiar with an early design of the software for its in-dash readouts.

Then, when the battery fell below 50% of its maximum charge, the algorithm would show drivers more realistic projections for their remaining driving range, this person said. To prevent drivers from getting stranded as their predicted range started declining more quickly, Teslas were designed with a “safety buffer,” allowing about 15 miles (24 km) of additional range even after the dash readout showed an empty battery, the source said...

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tesla-batteries-range/

Appleseed said:

Yeah.  That sounds about right.

Is anyone surprised?

In reply to aircooled :

I can't tell you how many times my buddies Lincoln said 0 miles left but still made it 8-10 miles to a gas station. Seems pretty normal for car ranges really. Hell the excursion tells me 300 miles left at half tank, while the first half  was gone in 100 miles.

In reply to RevRico :

There's a big difference between the inaccuracies of a float fuel gauge and an algorithm designed to deceive users to think the overall range is more than it is. 

Yeah, pretty much every "miles to empty" and mpg calculation in-dash that I've ever seen is a bit optimistic.  And fuel gauges are notoriously different for the first half of the tank versus the second half.  I also recall trying to determine my actual gas tank capacity in a vehicle - I think it was a Ford - and the owners manual simply said that it was an X gallon tank with a reserve.  No mention of how much of a reserve, just that it was some amount more than X.

That said, my favorite bit of that article was this gem:

“I’m not suggesting they’re cheating,” Pannone said of Tesla. “What they’re doing, at least minimally, is leveraging the current procedures more than the other manufacturers.”

In reply to Mr_Asa :

I know one person here who will be.....

Wait, the company that's been calling Level 2 autonomous "Full Self Driving" is misleading it's customers? I can't believe it!

Mr_Asa said:

Yeah.  That sounds about right.

Is anyone surprised?

Frenchy? He will defend it anyway.

In reply to SV reX :

So what do you think a miles to empty calculation is other than an algorithm that guesses what's left?

I'm just not seeing a difference, as it's been described, between the two scenarios. Unless the Tesla version takes into account every single bit of electronic usage in its calculation. "Oh 20 minutes of headlights, 1 hour of seat warmer, 45 minutes of air conditioning, long extended uphill, 5 minutes of turn signal clicking"

Telling me I have 300 miles to empty while there's only 200 miles of fuel in the tank seems to me to be about the same. 

In reply to Steve_Jones :

or ignore it like he does all the other inconvenient facts.

Yeah, I don't find the extra after empty offensive.  It's really more consumer idiot proofing.  It is also likely a bit of wanting to make sure any error is fully in one direction (more range), which I suspect is what the gas engine calculators are mostly are doing (since they are likely less accurate/ consistent)

Just like in a car race.  It far better to have a bot more fuel than you need, than a bit less.

In reply to RevRico :

Again, guessing what's left is different than intentionally lying about it.

RevRico said:

In reply to SV reX :

Unless the Tesla version takes into account every single bit of electronic usage in its calculation. "Oh 20 minutes of headlights, 1 hour of seat warmer, 45 minutes of air conditioning, long extended uphill, 5 minutes of turn signal clicking"

That is basically what EVs do.

FWIW, I've noticed the same thing. Teslas are optimistic, while other EVs are somewhere between accurate and pessimistic. I can usually beat the dash's range estimate by 10% or so on my Lightning.

RevRico said:

In reply to SV reX :

So what do you think a miles to empty calculation is other than an algorithm that guesses what's left?

I'm just not seeing a difference, as it's been described, between the two scenarios. Unless the Tesla version takes into account every single bit of electronic usage in its calculation. "Oh 20 minutes of headlights, 1 hour of seat warmer, 45 minutes of air conditioning, long extended uphill, 5 minutes of turn signal clicking"

Telling me I have 300 miles to empty while there's only 200 miles of fuel in the tank seems to me to be about the same. 

Honestly I don't know, because I can alter my model 3's estimated range by 5-8 miles by doing 65 on the highway instead of 70. If I had the blender wheel covers I know I'd gain another 3 miles, and if my upper sunshade was reflective I'd probably gain another 1-2 from not using AC as much. Hell, going stickier tires has an affect.

The "Extra" left even when empty is idiot proofing, but also protects the lithium battery from going too deep and having potential long-term affects.

Tom Suddard said:

FWIW, I've noticed the same thing. Teslas are optimistic, while other EVs are somewhere between accurate and pessimistic. I can usually beat the dash's range estimate by 10% or so on my Lightning.

Almost all of the non-Tesla EVs tend to outperform their official range in real world testing, while all of the Tesla's fall short:

Tom Suddard said:

FWIW, I've noticed the same thing. Teslas are optimistic, while other EVs are somewhere between accurate and pessimistic. I can usually beat the dash's range estimate by 10% or so on my Lightning.

I also find my Teslas range tracking to be aggressive as hell; like If I start repeatedly doing pulls and passing people on the highway I find it already is re-evaluating my range and actively dropping it.

In reply to STM317 :

Your chart notes EPA vs Tested ranges.   Is this implying Tesla is somehow "cheating" the EPA test?  (similar to what VW did)

I think the concern is that the range reported by the manufacturer is too optimistic.  Is that range always the EPA range?

IMO, who cares?

More non-news. Every automaker has been accused of inflated mpg numbers since they had to be put on the window sticker.

If you are getting from point A to point B, with or without charging/"filling up" somewhere inbetween, why does it matter? How many times have people crowed about some magical mileage distance to a tank of fuel? Most of the time they short fill the refuel amount because they filled up originally to the cap.

In reply to aircooled :

Apparently the EPA has at least two different methods that the manufacturer can use to compute and display range.  Tesla chooses the one that is more optimistic.

aircooled said:

In reply to STM317 :

Your chart notes EPA vs Tested ranges.   Is this implying Tesla is somehow "cheating" the EPA test?  (similar to what VW did)

I think the concern is that the range reported by the manufacturer is too optimistic.  Is that range always the EPA range?

Tesla (and Lucid) uses a tweaked testing approach for their range. It's perfectly legal and "by the book", but results in a higher "rated" range than real world.

So, if you're a new EV startup and want to claim a big range, you might certify like Tesla and Lucid do because you want to have something to hang your hat on. Range sells EVs (or at least it did as of a few years ago), and startups need those headline grabbing figures to generate sales and stay afloat. But if you're an established OEM that's got alternate revenue streams and an army of lawyers who have decades of experience being sued, fined, and pulled in front of Congress over this or that, etc then you just stick with the more conservative approach and let your customers be happily surprised instead of angrily surprised.

Upon it's release, the Porsche Taycan got hammered in the press for it's low rated range compared to a comparable Model S which cost several thousand less. And then they did some real world testing of them side to side and found that the Taycan and Model S had nearly identical range. And the Porsche had a more robust  battery that would allow more energy sapping performance driving before it would reign in the fun. The interior and build quality of the Porsche were far beyond the Model S as well,  which quieted the detractors who were initially upset Porsche had put out an inferior product while asking tens of thousand more.

In reply to Ranger50 :

This may be a non-news hype story (as the previous post tends to imply), but I am sure many "care" if they pay for something that is not as advertised.  This is especially true in the case of electric cars and range. 

If a gas car does not get the range expected, just stop at one of the many of millions of places that can refill the car. Currently, finding, and more importantly, getting to, such places for an electric car, especially on long range trip, cam be a significant concern in many cases.

In reply to aircooled :

That's what I am saying. Of the people who have bought electric, within my group of people, they are in the "OMG I don't have to buy gas again! I'm saving the planet!" group. Maybe they shopped for range but probably not, given either semi-affordable small crapbox or a largely expensive and expansive ride were the choices.