Real range on Lightning better than CT dual motor!?

CoyoteJim

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 19, 2019
Messages
61
Reaction score
144
Location
Carmichael
Vehicles
Model 3, BMW i3, Zero DS, Ford F250 Powerstroke
Occupation
Oracle Database Developer
Country flag
Real range on Lightning extended version 459 miles!? (At about the 8:40 mark)





Advertisement

 

Crissa

Well-known member
First Name
Crissa
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Messages
4,368
Reaction score
5,079
Location
Santa Cruz
Vehicles
2014 Zero S, 2013 Mazda 3
Country flag
I doubt it. But I have pointed put if you're off the highway, you can get incredible range... that's probably it.

-Crissa
 

ajdelange

Well-known member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Dec 8, 2019
Messages
2,364
Reaction score
2,560
Location
Virginia/Quebec
Vehicles
Tesla X LR+, Lexus SUV, Toyota SR5, Toyota Landcruiser
Occupation
EE (Retired)
Country flag
One of Ford's earliest OTA updates will be correction of the weight factor algorithm used in its range estimation software. The payload does, of course, have an effect on the consumption as it increases tire and bearing friction and, of course, it must be accelerated and hauled up any hills. The frictional loads aren't trivial but they aren't that big either compared to drag and with regen much of the energy expended in accelerating and going up hill will be returned when decelerating and going down hill. The weight algorithm in ABRP estimates that adding 1000 pounds to the load in a Model X traveling between two points with elevations with in a couple of hundred feet of one another, even though there are many and substantial hills on the route, adds 2.4 kWh out of 281 kWh i.e. a bit less than 1%. We presume, therefore, that reducing load by 1000 lbs would increase our range by 1% of 351 (the EPA range for the X) which is 3.5 miles.

The gentleman in the video probably does not understand how range estimating software works. My X's rated range at its current charge is 237 miles but its estimated range is 260. The extra 23 mile is there because when the car was driven last it got better than rated consumption and the algorithm projects using recent data. I have seen estimated ranges of 999 mi, the maximum that the display can indicate, when the trip ended at the bottom of a long down hill run.

So no, you can't conclude from this video that the 150 will best the CT in range on average. Of course there will be times when a 150 will have lower consumption (down hill, tail wind, warm weather) than a CT (up hill, headwind, wet or snow covered roadbed, cold weather).
 

Diehard

Well-known member
First Name
D
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
712
Reaction score
1,260
Location
U.S.A.
Vehicles
Olds Aurora V8, Saturn Sky redline, Frontier, CT2
Country flag
My X's rated range at its current charge is 237 miles but its estimated range is 260. The extra 23 mile is there because when the car was driven last it got better than rated consumption and the algorithm projects using recent data. I have seen estimated ranges of 999 mi, the maximum that the display can indicate, when the trip ended at the bottom of a long down hill run.
How does your X’s real world power consumption compare to Tesla’s advertised range? On Tesla motor club site and most car reviews I have seen, it looks like Tesla’s advertised range has been on a very optimistic side compare to a lot of other EVs. Is that your experience as well?

p.s. This weekend I got 650 miles out of one tank of my wife’s outback and spent around 5 minutes at the gas station. I wonder which one we will pick on a long distance vacation after I get my EV truck (when the environmental police is not watching).
 
Last edited:

firsttruck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2020
Messages
536
Reaction score
574
Location
mx
Vehicles
none
Country flag
Over and over again the media & undecerning reviewers say has 5.5ft bed and this is great. If Tesla had only put a 5.5ft bed in Cybertruck the media would never miss an opportunity to lament that Tesla does not understand "real" truck buyers because of course 6.5ft beds is the minimum requirement.

He and others now talk about how F-150 Lightning is in every way better than the F-150 ICE.
But again and again the Cybertruck is derided because range when towing will drop significantly. We are told towing range is one of the most important metric of a "real" truck. Yet with the F-150 Lightning that has lower non-towing range, towing range is not mentioned as a concern.

Another one, I keep hearing/reading F-150 Lightning is lowest price pickup EV. How did
$39,974 MSRP (commercial-oriented) become less than $39,900 Cybertruck?
Also
1. $39,974 MSRP (commercial-oriented) F-150 Lightning would lead many to assume the retail version might be higher price.
2. It is touted that F-150 Lightning will have all these thousands of service locations with not a single mention that for the next year or two those same locations (dealers) will probably be charging an extra price for the privilege of buying a model that is in short supply relative to demand. Next summer we will see how many real world buyers can get F-150 Lightning for lower price than Cyber truck (my guess is none or very few).
 
Last edited:

ajdelange

Well-known member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Dec 8, 2019
Messages
2,364
Reaction score
2,560
Location
Virginia/Quebec
Vehicles
Tesla X LR+, Lexus SUV, Toyota SR5, Toyota Landcruiser
Occupation
EE (Retired)
Country flag
How does your X’s real world power consumption compare to Tesla’s advertised range?
I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record but as I say over and over again "It depends". First off my rated consumption is 282 Wh/mi. Driving around home with some on freeway I get 252 Wh/mi average. Looking back at some road trips I have seen consumption as poor as 383 Wh/mi on one leg where, I distinctly remembered, it was raining quite hard most during of it. A wet roadbed will increase consumption quite a lot. On legs of that same trip where the road was dry I saw consumptions of 303, 300 and 293. These were mostly on freeway but average speed logged was 60 mph with maximum speeds of 70 - 85 mph.

On this same trip going in the opposite direction I saw consumptions of 269, 277 and 310. Same kind of speed ranges but no rain that day.

So sometimes you do better than rated and sometimes worse. Sometimes it is apparent why such as if the road is wet or if you have a strong head or tail wind. Sometimes it isn't.


On Tesla motor club site and most car reviews I have seen, it looks like Tesla’s advertised range has been on a very optimistic side compare to a lot of other EVs.
People who haven't driven BEV are not, in general, attuned to the factors that can change energy consumption. They had no reason to be with ICE. Now all of a sudden they are expected to pay attention to and understand something they have never thought about before. Sometimes things turn out better than expected. Sometimes they don't. It is definitely human nature to preferentially seize on an opportunity to bellyache about something that is displeasing rather than point out something that went well. And it especially tempting to do so if one thinks he has the opportunity to prove that Elon Musk is really cheating all of us by adding buffer to EPA range or fudging the fudge factors or doing any of the absurd suggestions one sees on these sites.


Is that your experience as well?
I'd have to say "no". I'd say the EPA rating tells me exactly what it is intended to. i can use it to predict the range i will realize with fair accuracy if I, based on my experience with the car, take into account the factors that cause deviations. The EPA rating is a guideline. Nothing more. It's real purpose is to allow consumers to have a more or less consistent basis for comparison between various BEV. It's a pretty good system if not a perfect one.



p.s. This weekend I got 650 miles out of one tank of my wife’s outback and spent around 5 minutes at the gas station. I wonder which one we will pick on a long distance vacation after I get my EV truck (when the environmental police is not watching).
I predict that you will take the BEV. Once you have driven it your desire to drive an ICE vehicle of any sort will most probably decline very quickly.
 
Last edited:

Diehard

Well-known member
First Name
D
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
712
Reaction score
1,260
Location
U.S.A.
Vehicles
Olds Aurora V8, Saturn Sky redline, Frontier, CT2
Country flag
I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record but as I say over and over again "It depends". First off my rated consumption is 282 Wh/mi. Driving around home with some on freeway I get 252 Wh/mi average. Looking back at some road trips I have seen consumption as poor as 383 Wh/mi on one leg where, I distinctly remembered, I was raining quite hard most of the trip. A wet roadbed will increase consumption auite a lot. On legs of that same trip where the road was dry I saw consumptions of 303, 300 and 293. These were mostly on freeway but average speed logged was 60 mph with maximum speeds of 70 - 85 mph.
I really appreciate you taking the time to share the inside scoop. Even driving an ICE, I do have a feel for what you mean by it depends. Cruising on flat country roads at 45-50 mph, I can get around 50 mpg on a car that is rated at 30.

The only EV I have driven was an old first gen Kia Soul for 5 minutes. Even that made me look forward to owning one. I can’t wait. Thanks again.
 

Crissa

Well-known member
First Name
Crissa
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Messages
4,368
Reaction score
5,079
Location
Santa Cruz
Vehicles
2014 Zero S, 2013 Mazda 3
Country flag
Weight can also make regen interesting: Because you only actually are able to store a certain amount of regen, and the lowest levels of regen are lost or less efficient (because of internal resistance and voltage levels), adding weight can increase your ability to store regen.

On my Zero, that means adding a passenger actually makes the bike more efficient, because regen is saved more efficiently.

(There's also a max amount of regen that can be stored, but you need a pretty steep slope or hard braking to hit it. Normal driving won't.)

-Crissa
 

ajdelange

Well-known member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Dec 8, 2019
Messages
2,364
Reaction score
2,560
Location
Virginia/Quebec
Vehicles
Tesla X LR+, Lexus SUV, Toyota SR5, Toyota Landcruiser
Occupation
EE (Retired)
Country flag
Even driving an ICE, I do have a feel for what you mean by it depends. Cruising on flat country roads at 45-50 mph...
Having noticed the effects with ICE you will be better prepared for your new BEV than most.
 

Diehard

Well-known member
First Name
D
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
712
Reaction score
1,260
Location
U.S.A.
Vehicles
Olds Aurora V8, Saturn Sky redline, Frontier, CT2
Country flag
Weight can also make regen interesting: Because you only actually are able to store a certain amount of regen, and the lowest levels of regen are lost or less efficient (because of internal resistance and voltage levels), adding weight can increase your ability to store regen.

On my Zero, that means adding a passenger actually makes the bike more efficient, because regen is saved more efficiently.

(There's also a max amount of regen that can be stored, but you need a pretty steep slope or hard braking to hit it. Normal driving won't.)

-Crissa
More of a case for having a spare tire ;)
 

Crissa

Well-known member
First Name
Crissa
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Messages
4,368
Reaction score
5,079
Location
Santa Cruz
Vehicles
2014 Zero S, 2013 Mazda 3
Country flag
I haven't had a flat in fifteen years. I have never used the spare since the 20th century.

i used to carry a full-sized spare. Now I wonder if it's at all useful. My last 200+k have been without incident, at least none that I couldn't limp away from.

-Crissa
 

Tinker71

Well-known member
First Name
Ray
Joined
Aug 8, 2020
Messages
197
Reaction score
206
Location
Utah
Vehicles
1976 electric conversion bus
Occupation
Project Manager
Country flag
More of a case for having a spare tire ;)
Diehard - Some 3rd party will make you an awesome hitch mounted spare tire mount that will articulate out of the way for you. Between Kevlar sidewalls, foam goo, and an onboard compressor I thinks someone will make really good repair kit for even the worst blowouts in the wild. For most of us full size spares are a waste of space and weight. They are hard to fit in the rotation and end up wasted after 10 years of non use.
 

Diehard

Well-known member
First Name
D
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
712
Reaction score
1,260
Location
U.S.A.
Vehicles
Olds Aurora V8, Saturn Sky redline, Frontier, CT2
Country flag
I haven't had a flat in fifteen years. I have never used the spare since the 20th century.

i used to carry a full-sized spare. Now I wonder if it's at all useful. My last 200+k have been without incident, at least none that I couldn't limp away from.

-Crissa
If during that flat free fifteen years, you have had a spare, it is likely that the spare is your lucky charm. More of a reason to have one.

If you didn’t have a spare with you and you didn’t have a flat, that means you are due to have one soon so you better get one.

Universe is all about balance; for every one of you, there is one of me (two blowouts in one year). I wonder, if we went out for a ride together, how would the tire do.

Spare tire thing is more of an issue of religion than it is of science. Some people just have more “faith“ that they will be OK. I on the other hand have a fairly pessimistic outlook on life. Like an entropy thing. I see disorder, death and destruction waiting with every revolution of the tire. That combined with my control freak nature makes my travels a lot less stressful with a spare in the back.

If CT does not come with one and does not have a good place to keep it, I may convert and become a man of faith (at least for the first few months)
 

ajdelange

Well-known member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Dec 8, 2019
Messages
2,364
Reaction score
2,560
Location
Virginia/Quebec
Vehicles
Tesla X LR+, Lexus SUV, Toyota SR5, Toyota Landcruiser
Occupation
EE (Retired)
Country flag
When I got my first Tesla I bought a spare. I only take it on long trips. I've had flats but not in the Tesla. Haven't had a blowout in 45 years. One can buy, from Tesla and others, small compressors that plug into the "cigarette lighter" and goo that will supposedly seal most puncture type flats. With these and traveling on normal roads the odds of getting stranded because you don't have a spare are pretty low. But if you are a belt and suspenders type of guy you can always buy a traveling spare kit. They take up space in the back and, of course, the weight detracts from mileage some but not appreciably,
 

Diehard

Well-known member
First Name
D
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
712
Reaction score
1,260
Location
U.S.A.
Vehicles
Olds Aurora V8, Saturn Sky redline, Frontier, CT2
Country flag
When I got my first Tesla I bought a spare. I only take it on long trips. I've had flats but not in the Tesla. Haven't had a blowout in 45 years. One can buy, from Tesla and others, small compressors that plug into the "cigarette lighter" and goo that will supposedly seal most puncture type flats. With these and traveling on normal roads the odds of getting stranded because you don't have a spare are pretty low. But if you are a belt and suspenders type of guy you can always buy a traveling spare kit. They take up space in the back and, of course, the weight detracts from mileage some but not appreciably,
Sounds like something I may have to do. I carry a compressor and a plug kit and have been able to take care of many flats without even using the spare. Not a big fan of the goo getting on the rim. Both of my blowouts happened because someone who didn’t see me was driving right at me so I had to chose between getting hit and running into the curb. I have never had a blow out with my truck which has meaty tires. It feels like my sport car with low profile tires can have a blowout at drop of a hat. So unless Elon put sport car tires on CT, I expect to do OK with it. I certainly won’t have the issue of not being seen like I did with my sport car. But I still may take a full size with me on longer trips.
 

Advertisement





 


Advertisement
Top