# Temps, Precondition, Regen data with GRAPHS

• edited January 16
"It isn't the cold that makes your "Rated Range" number lower, it is all battery degradation"

Who knows anymore as Rated Range keeps changing with each bug fix.

It looks like the blue snowflake cold battery removes miles/per cent from battery capacity and Rated Range which it will "release" as car warms up that why you see Rated Range go from 2 to 6 to 8 miles even though battery per cent never changes. Battery is warming up.

Projected Range is the only number that has any real grounding where the rubber meets the road.
• edited January 16
I was using this graph:
https://imgur.com/a/Z7R88ge

There were ~146301 pixels under the regen line.
The X axis is 1036 pixels for 21.05 sec.
The Y axis is 346 pixels for 100kW.

So...
1kW = 3.46px
1hr = 177178.1 px
and
1kWh = 613036.4 px^2

making the power under the regen curve: 0.23865 kWh

Now calculate energy stored in kene
Ke = 1/2mv^2

m = 3994 lbs (3814 lb curb weight + 150 lb + 30 lbs cargo)
= 1815.455 kg

v = 70mph = 31.2928 m/s

Ke = 888882.2 j = 0.246912 kWh

Ke recovered through regen:
0.23865 / 0.246912 =

96.7%

I'm not on TMC: not entertaining enough :-), but if you can post the data I can get a more accurate regen integration.

Two effects I don't have accounted for:
1) There is some Ke losses due to drag. I'm working on that, but it would only serve to increase the apparent efficiency. A stiff tailwind would, however decrease the real regen efficiency.
2) I don't know how level the road was during the data collection. If there was a slight downhill slope during regen, that would increase the apparent regen efficiency, as some of the potential energy of the vehicle would be adding to the regen curve.
• edited January 16
Who knows anymore as Rated Range keeps changing with each bug fix. -fish

Not you, that's for sure. But you are the one that tells us it is "rated range" and not estimated range. As proof you point to third party apps that use this number to calculate battery degradation. You did hundreds of posts where you explained this all to us and now you argue that it isn't "Rated range" at all.

that why you see Rated Range go from 2 to 6 to 8 miles even though battery per cent never changes. Battery is warming up.-fish

What possible definition of "Rated Range" can be given when the range changes "even though the battery per cent never changes"?

And you are the guy that calculated the energy used for BP, by doing math when the range changes. So now you show the range dropping and gaining. So calculate the energy consumed and produced. But can't you see, changes in range predictions do not indicate changes in energy consumed or produced. Your whole BP argument is predicated on changes in range estimates.
• edited January 16
BTW: a 1m drop in elevation over the regen distance (~300m) represents 5Wh of potential energy change, and would reduce the calculated regen efficiency by 2%. So at the precision we are trying to account for here, even small elevation changes matter.
• edited January 16
" But you are the one that tells us it is "rated range" and not estimated range."

No that would be Tesla telling you that the Rated ideal range we see on the Energy graph and next to the battery icon on main screen is not the same as the Projected Range we see on the Energy Graph.

You can see it here where Rated ideal range is 85 miles but Projected actual range is 58 miles.

https://imgur.com/JfOju4d
• edited January 16
@majassow: We are doing two different things. You were looking at the efficiency of the regeneration vs possibly kinetic energy. I was doing a comparison of the regen captured vs energy expended. Completely different things.

What you looked at is far more useful than what I was looking at, but I was just interested at my specific comparison.
• edited January 16
...as for your unaccounted for effects, I would never be able to get you appropriate data for that, especially for past data as I don't have it, and I wouldn't be able to figure out even a rough idea as to which specific stretch of road that was done on. There was no "drastic" elevation change but I couldn't say more than that.
• edited January 16
No that would be Tesla telling you that the Rated ideal range we see on the Energy graph and next to the battery icon on main screen is not the same as the Projected Range we see on the Energy Graph. -fish

You don't even know what you are trying to say anymore.
• edited January 16
"You don't even know what you are trying to say anymore."

Well I do but I'll break it down for you.

"Rated ideal range we see on the Energy graph." You see the word "Rated" on the rated Wh/mi range line on the Energy graph.

"and next to the battery icon on main screen"

The miles number on the main screen is the same number from the Rated Wh/mi on the Energy graph.

". the Projected Range we see on the Energy Graph."

We see Projected Range, actual range, also on the Energy Graph.

https://imgur.com/JfOju4d
• edited January 16
sigh...well at least my data is staying on the front page for people's reference.
• edited January 16
LOL, now the fish is saying rated ideal range.

Back when tesla use the term “rated range” in manuals, it specifically distinct from “ideal range.” You could display one or the other.
• edited January 16
Rated: based on personalized city and freeway driving cycles as specified by EPA

Ideal: based on the ideal conditions (optimal ambient temperature, speed and terrain)
• edited January 16
"Rated ideal range we see on the Energy graph." - jack

Not correct. It isn't "Rated" because that is a fixed number from the EPA. It isn't ideal, because the ideal case would be much better than "rated". There are no "ranges" on the "Energy graph", because, well, it is an energy graph with an X-axis of energy. You can't plot data on a graph that has different units then the x-axis.

The miles number on the main screen is the same number from the Rated Wh/mi on the Energy graph.-jack

It isn't the same number because one is in miles and one is Wh/mi, and well one number changes and the other one is fixed (always the same value), and the numbers are almost always different numbers.

". the Projected Range we see on the Energy Graph." -jack

No we don't, same reason as above, you can't plot range on a graph that has energy as the x-axis.

We see Projected Range, actual range, also on the Energy Graph. - jack

Projected range is in a box to the side of the graph. That's because they couldn't put it ON the graph because it has different units than the x-axis of the graph.
And I have no clue where you came up with the new term "actual range". It isn't in the manual, or on the displays either next to the battery icon, on the energy graph, or beside the energy graph.
• edited January 16
"Projected range is in a box to the side of the graph. That's because they couldn't put it ON the graph because it has different units than the x-axis of the graph."

Projected Range is in legend box telling you what the graph is showing you since the Wh/mi is the same as Projected Range.
• edited January 16
Projected Range is in legend box telling you what the graph is showing you since the Wh/mi is the same as Projected Range. - jack

Ok. My energy graph currently shows 286 wh/mi. What is my projected range? What is my range on my energy bar?
• edited January 16
"My energy graph currently shows 286 wh/mi. What is my projected range?"

It's your Projected Range on the Energy Graph, see graph for where to find it. Note the legend box points to and followed the graph to make it easy.

https://imgur.com/JfOju4d
• edited January 16
@derotam: No problem... much of the noise is auto filtered from my view ;-).
I think the regen vs. acceleration could be answered by a similar chart showing both the regen and acceleration periods. Ideally over the same stretch of road (to nullify potential energy deltas).
However, you'd still need to account for drag. If you are seeing a 20% difference between regen energy and acceleration energy, it might be due to drag losses in both. Drag would bleed of energy from the regen curve, and would also increase the energy required for acceleration. So in effect, the real regen efficiency is higher than just the ratio of the regen energy to the acceleration energy.
• edited January 16
@majassow: I'm not trying to get so precise.
• edited January 16
Projected Range is in legend box telling you what the graph is showing you since the Wh/mi is the same as Projected Range. - jack

If the are the same then if I tell you one, you should be able to tell me what the projected range is without the box.
You can't, because they aren't the same. They have to do a calculation to get one from the other.
• edited January 16
"If the are the same then if I tell you one, you should be able to tell me what the projected range is without the box."

Sure...show me the pic of the Energy graph. I can tell you your Rated Range and your Projected Range. They are both on the Energy Graph screen.
• edited January 17
New or would-be tesla drivers, ignore the above.

The energy app graph shows efficiency expressed in energy consumed per unit distance. The solid gray rated line corresponds to the EPA rated efficiency, while the dotted gray average line corresponds to the average efficiency derived from the current view.

If you want to convert the projected range from that screen to what it would be at rated efficiency, you merely need ratio it to the two efficiency figures.

Mine now says 106mi, avg 302wh/mi, and rated is something like 280wh/mi. So if I drove with EPA test conditions, my projected range would be 114mi.
• edited January 17
@MAB1980: that's why I added a "new reader" note to the beginning of my OP.
• edited November -1
Nice. You know, it's funny when the simple things slip by. The fish has recently stated very emphatically that range for electric vehicles is expressed in wh/mi. One would wonder, then, why he's so concerned with spikes in the wh/mi chart; the higher the number, the better!
• edited January 17
Yeah, a of my data threads will be like that. Any discussion will either be accounted for in the OP or not. Either way, no anyone coming across the thread will only need to read the OP and they will be told right away to not bother with the comments.
• edited January 17
"Either way, no anyone coming across the thread will only need to read the OP and they will be told right away to not bother with the comments."

Since purpose of forums is comments you should probably start your own blog if want to avoid comments. Plus it's fun to watch the battling data masters interpretations.