Model 3

Temps, Precondition, Regen data with GRAPHS

1235710

Comments

  • edited November -1
    Boy that cried wolf is Fish. No one believes him anymore. Bravo FISH, greatest Tesla promoter of all times!
  • edited January 16
    @Bighorn...maybe you missed it because of all the crap...would you mind looking up in this thread to the first Jan 16th post(mine) and respond?

    Or maybe you ignored it on purpose, haha.
  • edited January 16
    "Flagging helps him get away with his lies because the proof goes poof"@Bighorn

    It is certainly worked for you deleting all those other Preconditioning threads that had your 7kw dedicated resistive heater clanger.

    But back to actual Preconditioning facts in real world. Those "studying" it via the raw data don't seem to match up to what the car is actually doing. That two of you came to blows over it and two more had their "interpretations" of the data so different they thought they had different cars.

    Those of who see it in real word situations daily see Preconditioning come on about 10 miles from SC and using 10-20 miles of range depending on temp. This matches what we see from the more credible testers like Bjorn Nyland or Teslanomics.

    Tesla doesn't document the software fixes very well but from some of the media/forums it looked like they might have added a "Preconditioning" toggle that owners can use when not going to Tesla SC.

    Would Preconditioning have come on with just 7% battery and Projected Range saying 3 miles to dead?
  • edited January 16
    @guppy
    [Shall we continue?]
    “You bet...but links would be good vs. chopped up "recovered memories".”

    As you wish.

    https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-Zp9H332/0/XL/i-Zp9H332-XL.jpg
  • edited January 16
    @derotam
    Wasn’t awake enough to give it adequate thought. First pass was that it wasn’t a valid approach comparing acceleration with deceleration. I’ve also seen regen efficiency experiments recently closer to 95% using classical physics.
  • edited January 16
    FISHEV is evil.

    Not here to learn or help promote EV's at all, just here to spread misinformation and cause confusion.
  • edited January 16
    @MAB1980: It's always funny when you catch him in a lie from one of his threads and he goes right back and deletes the thread to try and destroy the evidence.

    It's also funny that he will claim that the "delete gang" got his thread deleted, but if the "delete gang" could do that, they would just have all his posts deleted, not just his self-incriminating threads.
  • edited January 16
    Didn’t he say the battery indicator isn’t accurate? Not sure why he relied and trusted it yday when he thought he had like 20 miles left before finding out it was actually 3, 6, or 8. Can’t keep up.

    Or why he didn’t look at his energy graphs during his drive to work cuz it would’ve triggered him to charge up before.

    Too funny.
  • edited January 16
    @Bighorn: Well the ONLY thing I am looking at with that was the efficiency of regen vs an accelerator to the floor 0-69.5mph. I am NOT trying to say that that is the specific regen efficiency. Punching the accelerator is different than gently accelerating as the efficiency vs acceleration is not a flat line.
  • edited January 16
    @derotam,
    For sure. Another precious tactic is the tendency to post numbers which are outlandish, but a wee bit of algebra is required to reveal the outlandishness, as which point they become ‘someone else’s’ numbers (i.e., the one evaluating the maths).
  • edited January 16
    More interesting is the efficiency coming up to speed. There’s a lot of debate and misunderstanding about the best way to get up to speed. Prius vs jack rabbit-like. It’s slightly complicated to quantify and many aren’t willing to reassess lifelong assumptions. Still not exactly clear what you’re trying to solve.
  • edited November -1
    "As you wish"

    Thanks for that...it did prove your comments wrong but why no links to actual threads with actual comments?

    When you get more experience with the car at low capacity in the cold you'll see the ranges, both Rated and Projected, change as the temp changes. Even just looking at the range changes it when you get down that low as communicating with the car uses power.
  • edited January 16
    I guess Fish ain't gonna comment on his lies? Classic
  • edited January 16
    Pinocchio fish.
  • edited January 16
    Not your first rodeo in cold climate. Stop playing stupid.
  • edited January 16
    @Bighorn: Wasn't trying to solve anything, just wanted to see if the 80% efficiency was a reasonable value for the specific scenario. Was not trying to equate it to anything else.

    I have had the same thought about efficiency vs acceleration to get up to a certain speed. I could get data that while not vary granular on the acceleration could POSSIBLY get results where a statement could be made that flooring the accelerator is *clearly* less efficient.....I already have the flooring data, just have to get data for a gradual acceleration.
  • edited January 16
    He has allegedly owned his Model 3 since 2018. Should be very familiar with it by now with little to zero surprises. Unless his hippocampus is suffering from low bandwidth and sector failure.
  • edited January 16
    Brains deteriorating at a rapid rate it seems.
  • edited January 16
    He should have worn aluminum foil hat to preserve sectors and mitigate EMR interference.
  • edited January 16
    Derotam,

    Sorry, it may be time to delete and re-constitute your thread. This one smells of rotting fishy.
  • edited January 16
    @MAB1980: Yeah I had that thought but the data in the OP stands unless someone has better data. I do plan on splitting the thread into more focused topics at some point but for now I haven't posted enough data to really warrant doing that.
  • edited January 16
    “He has allegedly owned his Model 3 since 2018.”

    Yikes another crazy clanger from the delete gang. Have the link to that or are you, like @MAB1980, linkless in Seattle?

    And this is about Preconditioning which I use just about every day now in the cold weather being public charger dependent.

    “35KTSLA”...just saw that plate at SC. Historical artifact? Looks like $40k is cheapest Tesla. Can’t be many out $35k’a out there. Tesla should “unlock” everything on those cars as an “Early Adopter Reward”. Young couple got out of the car...after having to move it due to low power charger.
  • edited January 16
    @derotam: how are you calculating regen efficiency? When I looked at your regen numbers I got 96.7%. I got that by integrating regen power over time and comparing to kinetic energy loss in bringing the car from 70mph to 0.
  • edited January 16
    @majassow: My comment is limited to a very specific dataset. I don't know exactly what time period you were looking at, and you also you were looking at a graph without the underlying data. If you are that interested I can get you the data. Message me on TMC, or I can try and get the raw data spreadsheet posted somewhere.
  • edited January 16
    When you get more experience with the car at low capacity in the cold you'll see the ranges, both Rated and Projected, change as the temp changes -fish

    It isn't the cold that makes your "Rated Range" number lower, it is all battery degradation.

    Or another fun math puzzle you can do.... you LOST 17 miles of range in a 0 mile drive. so how much energy did your car consume??
Sign In or Register to comment.