Tesla suppresses thousands of driving range complaints

[DevSecOps]

You can add all the conditions you want now, but your original statement "It's also illegal to go under the speed limit" is categorically false. It isn't illegal to go under the speed limit, it's illegal to impede the normal flow of traffic. The fact that impeding the normal flow of traffic can be accomplished by going under the speed limit doesn't make your statement true, and I'm not going to argue it further.

The penal code straight up says "slow speed". So if you are traveling at a "slow speed" impeding traffic that would be illegal. There's no conditions being added. I'm sorry, next time I'll cite the penal code verbatim so I don't trigger you. Please enlighten me... on what California freeway can you travel under the limit and not impede traffic?

Also the link you provided has an entire section that says the following:
"Vehicle Code 22400 (b) gives the Department of Transportation the authority to set minimum speed limits in the State of California. A driver violates the law if he drives at a slower speed than the established minimum speed limit. "

Also in California it's illegal for slow vehicles to NOT use turnouts on single lane roads. It's also illegal to drive in some left lanes unless passing, meaning you're going slow. There's multiple ways that you can get ticketed for driving under the limit in California.

Sponsored

 

[DevSecOps]

Look at that link in my post. It's called the Multi Cycle Test (MCT) and it combines the UDDS, HWFET, and constant speed cycles.

Highway range = (Usable battery Wh / HWFET Wh/mi) * 0.7
City range = (Usable battery Wh / UDDS Wh/mi) * 0.7

Combined range = (Highway range * 0.45) + (City range * 0.55)

The MPGe numbers on the sticker include charging losses, they use the raw results from the tests with the 70% factor to calculate the range.

I saw the link but my question was about the average speed. In the MCT CSC test they do stay at 65mph but it's just a fraction of the entire test. I understand the math you are trying to show as well, but that doesn't mean that they are doing highway testing. It's still a blended test and my original comment was about the average speed they use in the calculation. 65mph isn't the average used or am I misunderstanding something here?

 

[thekat03]

Dumb question:

It's illegal to travel under the limit, at the limit or even over the limit if impeding traffic. Most of the time this is done by going too slow. California has Vehicle Code 22400, the minimum speed law, to prohibit drivers from driving so slowly that they “impede the normal flow of traffic.”

And if you need some videos to help you understand how utterly nonsensical this is here you go. If you see someone tailgating you in a MachE or Rivian, I might just be in SoCal ... Please move over or speed up.










Should I keep going? There's hundreds of these videos from all over the country. I support 1000000x law enforcement doing their job with left lane campers. I don't support speeding tickets as much, you know, I purchased a GTPE for a reason.

OK, maybe I am just naive, coming from Maine, but if it is illegal to drive below the speed limit, at the speed limit, or above the speed limit in California if impeding traffic... How are there still traffic jams in California? Shouldn't everyone be trying to get out of everyone else's way or getting pulled over for driving in an impeding way?

 

[DevSecOps]

Dumb question:

OK, maybe I am just naive, coming from Maine, but if it is illegal to drive below the speed limit, at the speed limit, or above the speed limit in California if impeding traffic... How are there still traffic jams in California? Shouldn't everyone be trying to get out of everyone else's way or getting pulled over for driving in an impeding way?

The problem in California is that cops don't enforce 75% of traffic laws on the books. We have laws that you can't drive around in a bath robe, you can't have front window tint, you must have a front license plate, and the list goes on. The only thing they'll pull you over for is 10+ mph over the limit (excluding city cops who might use the license plate law etc). Unless you give them good reason to pull you over, then they'll use whatever they can. So, even though our laws say that you can't camp in the left lane and you SHALL yield to faster traffic, no one does it. In California you must stay to the right if moving slow. We just have a bunch of self centered Karen's here who think they are hall monitors and that they should decide how fast traffic flows. Yes, you can impede traffic at any speed, and there are laws against it.

Our traffic problem is not just law related. As an example, ever since I was a kid I5 has been 2 lanes throughout most of California. The population has close to doubled and it's still just 2 lanes. But hey, we've been building a super high speed rail (at a cost of 128B) right next to the freeway for 20 years and it still doesn't work or connect one city to another. It's one of the most beautiful states in the nation, but it's broken.

 

[Hammered]

You can add all the conditions you want now, but your original statement "It's also illegal to go under the speed limit" is categorically false. It isn't illegal to go under the speed limit, it's illegal to impede the normal flow of traffic. The fact that impeding the normal flow of traffic can be accomplished by going under the speed limit doesn't make your statement true, and I'm not going to argue it further.

There are 'minimum speed limits' FWIW, and yes, it's illegal to drive below them.

Our traffic problem is not just law related. As an example, ever since I was a kid I5 has been 2 lanes throughout most of California. The population has close to doubled and it's still just 2 lanes. But hey, we've been building a super high speed rail (at a cost of 128B) right next to the freeway for 20 years and it still doesn't work or connect one city to another. It's one of the most beautiful states in the nation, but it's broken.

HSR will always be a pipedream until they add vehicle carrying capabilities like the chunnel has. The US was built around the automobile and that's not going to change. CA's problem now is that since SF has turned into a hell hole, there won't be demand to make it viable. Before it's done we'll have several new high efficiency aircraft that will will be able to provide a faster service for the same price. It'll be china's roll out all over again. $1.8tril in debt with a daily operating loss of only $24mil. But hey, a lot of their buddies bought up some of the route and got a payout.

 

[Jferrari427]

The problem in California is that cops don't enforce 75% of traffic laws on the books. We have laws that you can't drive around in a bath robe, you can't have front window tint, you must have a front license plate, and the list goes on. The only thing they'll pull you over for is 10+ mph over the limit (excluding city cops who might use the license plate law etc). Unless you give them good reason to pull you over, then they'll use whatever they can. So, even though our laws say that you can't camp in the left lane and you SHALL yield to faster traffic, no one does it. In California you must stay to the right if moving slow. We just have a bunch of self centered Karen's here who think they are hall monitors and that they should decide how fast traffic flows. Yes, you can impede traffic at any speed, and there are laws against it.

Our traffic problem is not just law related. As an example, ever since I was a kid I5 has been 2 lanes throughout most of California. The population has close to doubled and it's still just 2 lanes. But hey, we've been building a super high speed rail (at a cost of 128B) right next to the freeway for 20 years and it still doesn't work or connect one city to another. It's one of the most beautiful states in the nation, but it's broken.

You sir just summed up California very well lol.
The far left politics don’t help Cali either one bit.

 

[Logal727]

This isn't exactly true for everyone. There's many of us, myself included, where we are always shown the EPA number for range. There is no adjustment for driving behavior. Ford supposedly did this to some of our vehicles to make the range more inline with Tesla. So, while some people still have adjusted range numbers others do not and it's no different than what Tesla does.

Ford has changed GOM calculations a number of times, including pilot programs (intelligent range) that many of us participated in. There's no telling what they will settle on in the end because it was announced just a couple weeks ago that they are going to try adjusting them again. They might end up pushing an update to make all MachEs just like Tesla in the end, full EPA.

All dealers and manufacturers deceive people on range. No one goes to the Ford dealership and is told "Knock off 30% during winter months". They will tell people "Oh sure, this thing gets 300 miles". It's all sales and deceit and a lack of education and understanding from potential buyers.

I've never owned a Tesla and never will, but it's funny these comments seem to forget the hundreds, if not thousands, of posts on this forum about range numbers. It's not just Tesla.

I think willingly participating in EA is a lot different than what’s happening with Tesla’s overall policy. Banning people from making other service appointments is shitty. They could just be more clear about what the number means, at least Ford has done that multiple times with FordPass messages when the temperature changes.

 

[Logal727]

The far left politics don’t help Cali either one bit.

Oh yeah it’s going so well in Florida, takes me twice as long now to traverse the state than it used to, and natives can no longer afford to live here due to property insurance hikes out the wazoo, definitely those dirty liberals in charge.

 

[Tha_Ape]

Ib

In 2021 I looked at both the Model Y Long Range and the Mach-E. I liked the styling of the Mach-E much more, but range was the deciding factor. With the Tesla at 330 miles and the Mach E (at the time) at 260 miles, it was a no brainer. I bought the Tesla.

With a 75 kWh battery, that 330 miles translated to 4.4 miles per kW. After 33k miles of driving, my average efficiency ended up being 3.7 miles per kW. That translates to 277 miles of range. (SIDE NOTE: Interestingly, Tesla doesn't use the standard miles per kWh as a measure of efficiency as all other EV manufacturers use. Instead they use watt hours per mile where the lower the number the better the efficiency)

One month and 1k miles in with my Mach-E and I am averaging 3.6 miles per kW in mixed highway/city driving and an average temp over that time of 81 degrees. With the 91 kWh battery, that's the equivalent of a 327 mile range.

When I compare that to last July (avg temp 79 degrees) my Tesla averaged 4.1 miles per kW. With the 75 kWh battery, that's a range of 307 miles.

Anecdotal evidence, but in my case Ford understated and Tesla overstated.

I recently got a Model 3 Performance. The fine print on the window sticker under fuel economy says it'll average 300Wh/mi which, with its battery, means ~270mi. You have to do the math yourself (and know it's a 82kWh battery) to find the range. I think that's pretty accurate. HOWEVER using that 5- cycle test, the EPA gives it a 315mi range, which is what is listed as well as the window sticker and likely what most people look at (especially since it's the number Tesla uses on their website)!

The issue is the 5-cycle test is realistic for mix/ city driving, but the reality is no one cares about range then. People care about range on long trips (highway driving). I think the EPA should do a standard 70mph test for range on EVs, that's what consumers really care about.

All that said, when you take a trip, it's ridiculously accurate. I often arrive at the predicted percentage battery +/- 1%. Last trip it told me I lost 0.2% range due to a 5.6mph wind from ENE.

As for the original post. I think 2 things. 1, when tesla was the only game in town they inflated their numbers to get people to accept EVs as viable transportation. Once others came along, they couldn't really deflate them because it would make the new cars look like they had less range than the old ones. 2, a lot of people new to EVs don't understand how optimistic those EPA estimates are so i imagine tons of people complain. In Teslas case it's ridiculously easy to do because it's only a few clicks in the Tesla app to do it.

It's messed up to cancel anyone's service request, no doubt about it. I'm not sure if there were calls to customers to explain or if they were just straight up canceled. It sounds like they were actually talking to people and convincing them it was normal (without actually checking!)

Tesla did build a self test mode for people to check their battery health at home, but it's a process!!! Basically you have to get the car to <50% charge, hook it up to a L2 charger or higher, then let the software do its thing... it'll generate heat to depleat the battery, then charge it up via the L2+ charger. This can take up to 24hrs(!!). After that's done it'll let you know if your battery is good or not.

 

[Bobbyg813]

Be careful assigning any credibility to a media report that doesn’t cite their source. People familiar with the matter doesn’t count. The Reuters article also references events, that if true, were 7 to 10 years old.

even the recurrent posting saying that Tesla’s get much less than rated range is flawed.

first, they don’t back out any non-driving battery usage, like preconditioning, dog mode, camp mode, keep climate on, or sentry mode. Other manufacturers don’t have these features, so they come out looking better.

Second thing about the recurrent posting is that the model esses that are part of their program are as much as 8 to 9 years old. It’s normal for a battery’s rated life to decrease 10 or even 15% in that time. So if you’re comparing range on those vehicles versus advertised range, of course they’re going to come out less.

you have to take anything that media publishes, about any vehicle, but especially Teslas, with a huge grain of salt.

 

[DevSecOps]

I think willingly participating in EA is a lot different than what’s happening with Tesla’s overall policy. Banning people from making other service appointments is shitty. They could just be more clear about what the number means, at least Ford has done that multiple times with FordPass messages when the temperature changes.

The EPA number that we currently see is not part of EAP. There's a lot of people who have it that are not and never have been in EAP.

I'm not sure that it's shitty to ban people from making range related service inquiries especially if remote diagnostics proved there's nothing wrong. Imagine if everyone on this forum made a service appointment for "incorrect battery". Ford would be intelligent if they checked remotely then called and said we cancelled your appointment there's nothing wrong. That would be a smart business move. My bet is that Ford would do the same if the dealership model (service) wasn't in the way. The media takes what is logic and smart and twists it into something nefarious. Nothing new there.

 

[ChicagoV]

None of this should be surprising. Tesla's are some of the worst when it comes to real world range versus EPA range. Multiple outlets have tested EVs and found this. It only makes sense then for the company to basically squash complaints that may damage that aura of leading in range.

 

[Logal727]

The EPA number that we currently see is not part of EAP. There's a lot of people who have it that are not and never have been in EAP.

I'm not sure that it's shitty to ban people from making range related service inquiries especially if remote diagnostics proved there's nothing wrong. Imagine if everyone on this forum made a service appointment for "incorrect battery". Ford would be intelligent if they checked remotely then called and said we cancelled your appointment there's nothing wrong. That would be a smart business move. My bet is that Ford would do the same if the dealership model (service) wasn't in the way. The media takes what is logic and smart and twists it into something nefarious. Nothing new there.

It’s shitty to cancel appointments and ban them
from making other service appts. I don’t think alienating customers is smart? Just be more upfront about what is what is all I’m saying. Then give a reason why the appointment is canceled. Not like I’m saying the current Ford service model is any better though. Both things can be bad and for different reasons.

 

[DevSecOps]

It’s shitty to cancel appointments and ban them
from making other service appts. I don’t think alienating customers is smart? Just be more upfront about what is what is all I’m saying. Then give a reason why the appointment is canceled. Not like I’m saying the current Ford service model is any better though. Both things can be bad and for different reasons.

If you've worked directly with consumers I'm sure you're aware that there are people who, despite being told nothing is wrong, will continually create new service tickets. My bet is that the bans are only going to those select people. I could be wrong, but I feel that if this was widespread, across the board, it would be a much bigger issue and surfaced a while back.

 

[Logal727]

If you've worked directly with consumers I'm sure you're aware that there are people who, despite being told nothing is wrong, will continually create new service tickets. My bet is that the bans are only going to those select people. I could be wrong, but I feel that if this was widespread, across the board, it would be a much bigger issue and surfaced a while back.

I assumed, and I’ll agree there’s some stuff left out of this article for some reason, that they were prevented from making tickets about other issues unrelated to estimated range. Just because I’ve read of similar shenanigans with Tesla and Tesla solar. But a lot of this stuff is hard to verify and they don’t have a media dept to respond to we’re all just left to assume.

Sponsored