A key factor for many who buy the Tesla MS is the total avoidance of any
contribution to continued use of fossil fuels, as is the case for many BEV buyers.
But those same Tesla MS buyers seem to forget how the majority of electric
energy in the USA is produced, i.e. via coal. As result, they typically don't even
consider energy efficiency when making their BEV purchase decision, and
thus fail to achieve a minimum resulting use of fossil fuel produced energy.
Furthermore, most MS buyers don't even have any idea of what the majority of
energy losses are of a moving vehicle contributing to energy inefficiency.
Energy losses for a vehicle result from the rolling resistance, i.e. the energy
required to keep a rolling vehicle moving against the resistance developed
between the tire and the road surface which is proportional to the weigh
of the vehicle. Additionally, the drag force of the vehicle as it moves through
the air contributes to an energy loss, but to a much lesser degree at speeds
typically used in city driving, i.e. less than 40-45 mph.
The good news for the Tesla MS, based on its' about 20% less drag coefficient
than other BEVs, is that its' drag efficiency is better than the typical BEV.
The key problem for the Tesla MS, though, is that it is inherently inefficient from
the standpoint of rolling resistance, given its' additional weight of over 1000 lbs
more than the other high selling BEVs, e.g. Volt, Fusion, or Leaf,. That additional
weight for city driving at less 40-45 mph contributes to an inefficient city BEV
vehicle. Rolling resistance power is not only wasted while cruising but also
when using the vehicle's kinetic energy to regenerate the battery, which
contributes to an additional inefficiency.
The key point is that the Tesla MS 'carries around' about 30% more weight
than the typical BEV, which contributes to vehicle inefficiencies and wasted
fossil fuel energy. Even at higher speeds where the MS has a 20% lower
coefficient of drag, that's not enough to over come the 30% increased weigh
affecting the rolling resistance power loss, expect at high speeds. These data
are supported by actual Tesla MS data posted on the Tesla Forum:
@AmpedRealtor: "Two days ago I drove 114 miles of errands and averaged
270 Wh/mi, or 315 miles per charge. I would say that Tesla's claims are quite
realistic and easily achieved."
A number of BEVs can easily achieve over 5 miles per kwh (200 wh/mi) for
city driving which compares to the above higher actual energy consumption
number of 270 wh/mile. Even without any actual data, it should be obvious
to anyone that a heavier vehicle, whether a BEV or ICE, is always less efficient
than a lighter vehicle. So when MS buyers claim that their purchase decision
was influenced buy a reduction of fossil fuel usage, they obviously didn't consider
the most efficient BEV to drive for the majority of driving that the typical driver does,
i.e. 40 - 45 mph city driving.