Model 3

Temps, Precondition, Regen data with GRAPHS

1457910

Comments

  • edited November -1
    Go ahead and comment, doesn't matter.
  • edited January 17
    The comments are really the best part. Especially when someone tries to make the analogy that 48kW instantaneous power not used to move the vehicle, can be extrapolated from energy used over a distance. Talk about "data masters interpretations"!
  • edited November -1
    Yeah, he has revised down his claim though. He went down to about 20kW, then ~15kW. It's almost as though there is some variable that is being missed that is causing those wild swings...maybe it is varying SPEEDS!

    15kW is still too high, twice the current programmed max capable on an AWD vehicle(~7.5kW)...at a standstill.
  • edited January 17
    Its almost as though when you make an absurd lie, you are willing to adjust your numbers to appeal to the crowd who is listening until they think it sounds reasonable.
  • edited January 17
    ...though I think the real limiting factor is the rate of heat transfer between the motor and coolant, and or heat transfer between coolant and battery.

    I did notice this morning that the Motor and coolant had a hard time maintaining temperature while driving in ~0C weather. Motor got up to ~32C but would drop 1-2C during slowdowns/stops. And the coolant temp at the battery inlet sensor did not want to go up too much compared to when I started driving.
  • edited January 17
    Too bad he still uses the same energy app graph for all three claims that are from at least 2 different trips.
  • edited January 17
    Someone who does zero math to explain something can only maintain the lie until the crowd listening either does not believe what is being said, or until someone actually proves it wrong with math. The latter results in less comments and typically causes him to flee.
  • edited January 17
    “Yeah, he has revised down his claim though. He went down to about 20kW, then ~15kW.”

    The last one was nearly 30kW, and he suggested PC gobbled up twice the energy as everything else the car does, including a 14 minute drive.
  • edited January 17
    Anyone can make the claim their car uses X amount of energy by sitting in one spot without moving for an unknown amount of time running the cabin heater at maximum, so that their 'Past 15 miles' graph shows "off the charts" wh/mi.
  • edited January 17
    @andy
    This is why a lot of service centers get accused of Ferris Bueller type antics. People don't have a clue about how you get poor efficiency spikes from sitting still.
  • edited January 17
    “ so that their 'Past 15 miles' graph shows "off the charts" wh/mi.”


    But remember, EV range is universally expressed in Wh/mi, so being off the charts is a wonderful thing.
  • edited January 18
    derotam | January 17, 2020
    ...though I think the real limiting factor is the rate of heat transfer between the motor and coolant, and or heat transfer between coolant and battery.


    Any ideas what is being used? Glycol? PAO?
  • edited January 18
    I presume it's still ethylene glycol
  • edited November -1
    " Especially when someone tries to make the analogy that 48kW instantaneous power not used to move the vehicle"

    Now don't keep beating up on poor @Bighorn on his "48kW" clanger. He just miscalculated the data.
  • edited January 18
    deflection attempt flagged!
  • edited January 18
    @guppy
    “ Now don't keep beating up on poor @Bighorn on his "48kW" clanger. He just miscalculated the data.”

    You misspelled “correctly calculated the data erroneously collected.”
  • edited January 18
    Nope no miscalculation by Bighorn...

    FISHEV Oct 20, 2019 in his OP "Battery Pre-conditioning uses how much power?"
    "The Preconditioning message was on for the 11 mile, 10 minute trip. Taking out the 11 miles for the trip, the Pre-Conditioning looks to have used 34 miles of range, 8kWh of
    power."

    8kWh in 10 minutes = 48kW power draw.
  • edited January 18
    @MAB1980: I think you can look up the coolant in the parts catalog. I know it was spec'd somewhere I just can't remember where right now.
  • edited November -1
    "Nope no miscalculation by Bighorn..."

    Glad you admitted the "48kW" was not my number but someone else's.

    Sorry all the "data" interpretation from the boys furious calcs don't match the actual car performance owner's see but in fairness, they are flying blind trying to reverse engineer what the car is doing from raw numbers without knowing how it is integrated in the car.

    The calc's are easy.

    Car used 43 miles of range to go 10 miles with Preconditioning on. If @Bighorn's calcs don't match the car, I'm going with the car.
  • edited January 18
    Car used 43 miles of range to go 10 miles with Preconditioning on." "10 minute trip"

    What do you think the draw was then?
  • edited January 18
    And you are right the 48kW number wasn't yours, it was MATH that determined the value based on YOUR bad data.
  • edited November -1
    Stay in school kids!
  • edited January 18
    "Car used 43 miles of range to go 10 miles with Preconditioning on." "10 minute trip""

    As you saw from the Start and Finish energy graphs, it used 43 miles of range for 10 miles. Just a fact. That YOU can't explain it doesn't change the facts. Facts EVERY Model 3 owner will see in similar conditions, battery 38F and heading to SC 10 miles away.

    If you look at the energy graphs you were provided, you can see the huge spike. The car uses miles not time on the Energy Graph. The spikes are literally off the chart in energy use, something your "numbers" claim is "impossible" but there it is on the car's Energy graph.

    Looking at trends, the Preconditioning seems to turn on about 10-20 miles out from SC's. In all the graphs. You should probably look at what the car is actually doing vs. looking at the raw data and misinterpreting it.
  • edited January 18
    Hey I am just saying that YOUR numbers calculate out to a 48kW power draw over the 10 minutes. If you split that between both motors that is 24kW per motor just for heating. That is not even in the realm of possibility.

    And then you come up with two other scenarios that provide wildly different answers that you can't explain.

    But thanks for allowing me to point out the flaw in your statements in another thread for everyone to see.
  • edited January 18
    Next lesson: Apostrophes.
Sign In or Register to comment.