# EPA Certification Data



## MelindaV

Reddit user omgwtfbyobbq uncovered Tesla's EPA certification doc for the Model 3 long range

lots of good stuff in there (like 258HP, 350volt, 495miles/89kWh), albeit a little raw

for comparison:
Model S 75
Model S P90D
Model X 60D


----------



## Sandy

This is very interesting. The main thing I picked up here is that the MS and MX list an *AC Induction motor* and the M3 lists an *AC* *3 phase Permanent Magnet motor. *I was under the impression that it was going to be an AC induction motor.


----------



## MelindaV

comparing to the Model S 75, the battery calculates down to a 70kWh.
@Sandy - agree, thought induction was Tesla's 'thing' and would always go with that over the permanent magnet style.


----------



## victor

_Test Procedure 
81 - Charge Depleting UDDS

PHEV/EV TEST INFO
Recharge Event Voltage 208
Recharge Event Energy (kiloWatt-hours) *89.404*
Charge Depleting Range (Calculated miles) *495.11*
Charge Depleting Range (Actual miles) 495.04
Equivalent All Electric Range (miles) 495.11
_
Holy batman!_ _


----------



## Mike

Is there a subject matter expert out there that can provide some context for this raw data please?

Thanks.


----------



## 3Victoria

Yes, this is a puzzle. I am hoping it is a hybrid, with smaller permanent magnets, so that they achieve good low speed efficiency and good high speed effeciency.


----------



## Sandy

MelindaV said:


> comparing to the Model S 75, the battery calculates down to a 70kWh.
> @Sandy - agree, thought induction was Tesla's 'thing' and would always go with that over the permanent magnet style.


Hey Melinda. I agree but its right there in black and white. It's at the bottom of page 3 left side. It's a certification document and has to be accurate:

S and X AC Induction
Model 3 AC 3 Phase Permanent Magnet


----------



## Roderick80

Sandy said:


> Hey Melinda. I agree but its right there in black and white. It's at the bottom of page 3 left side. It's a certification document and has to be accurate:
> 
> S and X AC Induction
> Model 3 AC 3 Phase Permanent Magnet


Interesting. This was rumored last year:
https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/might-model-3-use-different-motor-technology


----------



## Kizzy

It reads to me that they did this range testing in a lab (4 wheel drive dynamometer). So if we lived in a vacuum, a 400+ mile range at freeway speed sounds doable.


----------



## Kizzy

Roderick80 said:


> Interesting. This was rumored last year:
> https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/might-model-3-use-different-motor-technology


Oh. Magnets. With this information, I can understand a bit more why dual motor and performance come later (if we consider sourcing enough magnets to be a potential bottleneck in producing vehicles).


----------



## TrevP

I read the EPA docs. Model 3 is a monster of a car. 80kWh, 258HP on the rear motor, really efficient. 

Nice!


----------



## Sandy

TrevP said:


> I read the EPA docs. Model 3 is a monster of a car. 80kWh, 258HP on the rear motor, really efficient.
> 
> Nice!


Very cool! Rumored for a long time. And by cooI mean it. Motor runs cooler. Still 3 phase AC just using magnets instead of windings. Probably cheaper to produce as well.


----------



## Sandy

Model 3 Long Range window sticker says 126 MPGe.
Model S 75 RWD sticker for comparison is 98 MPGe.
Not due to weight and aero alone. More efficient motor.


----------



## Mike

TrevP said:


> I read the EPA docs. Model 3 is a monster of a car. 80kWh, 258HP on the rear motor, really efficient.
> 
> Nice!


Am I reading the raw data correctly, about 7 kW (10 hp) to propel the vehicle thru the test regimen?

I am not familiar with this raw data, hope a decode of all the data can be part of your next video.


----------



## garsh

victor said:


> _Recharge Event Energy (kiloWatt-hours) *89.404*
> Charge Depleting Range (Calculated miles) *495.11*_


Wait a minute.... was I correct???


garsh said:


> Assuming it could hold 46% more energy, that would give us a 90.5kWh pack. So I think it will be quite reasonable to *expect an 85kWh pack - maybe even a 90kWh pack - to be offered as the top option for the Model 3*.


----------



## MelindaV

sorry @garsh - I don't think those numbers line up with the actual battery size


----------



## Kbm3

garsh said:


> Wait a minute.... was I correct???


That is coming from the wall.


----------



## Jethrometro

Here's the Bolt's CSI for comparison.


----------



## Gary Moore

Holy L13, I'm hallucinating they're naming shocking engines after me!


----------



## EValuatED

The ever analytical Troy has posted a summation here on TMC. Seems the usable battery is around 78.3 kWh and the pack is a few kWh larger at 80.5 kWh... and larger than the S75*!

"1. The Model 3 large battery is 80 kWh. To be precise, the actual capacity is 80.5 kWh based on this calculation:

Total pack capacity = 350 V * 230 Ah= 80,500 Wh = 80.5 kWh

Total Voltage of Battery Packs: 350 Volt (source is page 3 here)

Battery Energy Capacity: 230 Ah (source is page 3 here)

The document doesn't say that 230 is 230 Ah, however, I found another example here from another car that shows the unit for "Battery Energy Capacity" is Ah.

2. Model 3 LR usable capacity is more than Model S 85/85D/P85D.

Usable capacity is 78.3 kWh (source: page 6 footer). This is more than the usable capacity of the Model S 85, 85D, P85D. Those have 77.5 kWh usable capacity (source). At that time Tesla was over advertising battery pack sizes. This problem only affected the 85 and 90 kWh packs. Both of these packs have less than advertised capacity. Tesla later corrected this problem with the 75 and 100 kWh packs.

Tesla doesn't want to remind people that the Model 3 LR has more battery capacity than the 75 and 85 kWh Model S versions. That seems to be the reason why they are not using the Model 3 80/80D/P80D name scheme anymore. However, I don't know how this will work because Model 3 LR or Model 3 Standard will be very confusing when they upgrade the battery sizes."

* Recent interweb posting included a picture of a new S75 car with a battery label indicating an 85kWh pack.


----------



## Model34mePlease

EValuatED said:


> The ever analytical Troy has posted a summation here on TMC. Seems the usable battery is around 78.3 kWh and the pack is a few kWh larger at 80.5 kWh... and larger than the S75*!
> 
> "1. The Model 3 large battery is 80 kWh. To be precise, the actual capacity is 80.5 kWh based on this calculation:
> 
> Total pack capacity = 350 V * 230 Ah= 80,500 Wh = 80.5 kWh
> 
> Total Voltage of Battery Packs: 350 Volt (source is page 3 here)
> 
> Battery Energy Capacity: 230 Ah (source is page 3 here)
> 
> The document doesn't say that 230 is 230 Ah, however, I found another example here from another car that shows the unit for "Battery Energy Capacity" is Ah.
> 
> 2. Model 3 LR usable capacity is more than Model S 85/85D/P85D.
> 
> Usable capacity is 78.3 kWh (source: page 6 footer). This is more than the usable capacity of the Model S 85, 85D, P85D. Those have 77.5 kWh usable capacity (source). At that time Tesla was over advertising battery pack sizes. This problem only affected the 85 and 90 kWh packs. Both of these packs have less than advertised capacity. Tesla later corrected this problem with the 75 and 100 kWh packs.
> 
> Tesla doesn't want to remind people that the Model 3 LR has more battery capacity than the 75 and 85 kWh Model S versions. That seems to be the reason why they are not using the Model 3 80/80D/P80D name scheme anymore. However, I don't know how this will work because Model 3 LR or Model 3 Standard will be very confusing when they upgrade the battery sizes."
> 
> * Recent interweb posting included a picture of a new S75 car with a battery label indicating an 85kWh pack.


That makes sense. I noticed that the charging efficiency for the M3LR was pretty bad if the battery pack is 70kWh or 75kWh. The EPA recharge was about 89.4kWh. By comparison, all the S models lose only between 7% and 13% from their named capacity (i.e. 90kWh for a P90D).


----------



## EValuatED

garsh said:


> Wait a minute.... was I correct???





EValuatED said:


> The ever analytical Troy has posted a summation here on TMC. Seems the usable battery is around 78.3 kWh and the pack is a few kWh larger at 80.5 kWh... and larger than the S75*!
> 
> "1. The Model 3 large battery is 80 kWh. To be precise, the actual capacity is 80.5 kWh based on this calculation:
> 
> Total pack capacity = 350 V * 230 Ah= 80,500 Wh = 80.5 kWh
> 
> Total Voltage of Battery Packs: 350 Volt (source is page 3 here)
> 
> Battery Energy Capacity: 230 Ah (source is page 3 here)
> 
> The document doesn't say that 230 is 230 Ah, however, I found another example here from another car that shows the unit for "Battery Energy Capacity" is Ah.
> 
> 2. Model 3 LR usable capacity is more than Model S 85/85D/P85D.
> 
> Usable capacity is 78.3 kWh (source: page 6 footer). This is more than the usable capacity of the Model S 85, 85D, P85D. Those have 77.5 kWh usable capacity (source). At that time Tesla was over advertising battery pack sizes. This problem only affected the 85 and 90 kWh packs. Both of these packs have less than advertised capacity. Tesla later corrected this problem with the 75 and 100 kWh packs.
> 
> Tesla doesn't want to remind people that the Model 3 LR has more battery capacity than the 75 and 85 kWh Model S versions. That seems to be the reason why they are not using the Model 3 80/80D/P80D name scheme anymore. However, I don't know how this will work because Model 3 LR or Model 3 Standard will be very confusing when they upgrade the battery sizes."
> 
> * Recent interweb posting included a picture of a new S75 car with a battery label indicating an 85kWh pack.


But most importantly @garsh was (basically) RIGHT!


----------



## Model34mePlease

I have a feeling that as soon as Elon thinks M3 production is out of hell, the S & X are going to get a big battery pack upgrade based on the new cells he is using in the M3


----------



## Mike

garsh said:


> Wait a minute.... was I correct???


Kind of why I'm asking for a subject matter expert (SME) on this type of report....because to my untrained eye it sure looks like near 90 kWh


----------



## EValuatED

Model34mePlease said:


> I have a feeling that as soon as Elon thinks M3 production is out of hell, the S & X are going to get a big battery pack upgrade based on the new cells he is using in the M3


One of the stats refers to energy needed to fully charge which includes losses, so is a higher kWh than the calculated pack size. But agree, SME validation would be great!

That said, it looks promising for a great range performance and kWh per mile performance by our future M3!


----------



## John

I suggested this on TMC as well, but if the EPA document gets you interested in feeling good about Tesla motor tech, you can reread this interview with Tesla's chief motor engineer, Konstantinos Laskaris:

https://chargedevs.com/features/tes...ential-of-next-generation-motor-technologies/


----------



## JWardell

Anyone else a little disappointed that the motor is only rated 258hp vs 375-400hp of the S/X?

I was surprised to see permanent magnet at first, but I think it does make sense. The material might be slightly rarer, but cost of copper is very high, so it is probably still cheaper than the cost of the copper windings they replace in the rotor. Furthermore it makes a significantly simpler motor to assemble, replacing lots of windings with chunks of magnets. @John 's article above also states they are more efficient as well due to less efficiency loss from windings.
Also, the inverter electronics would also be much simpler, as they only need 3 phase AC for the stator and not an additional 3 phases for the rotor.
Down side is that you can't control and vary the magnetic charge of the rotor, which allows for some 3D torque curve maps and electromagnetic trickery.
The biggest point is that the permanent magnet is _simpler_ and that's what everything needs to be to make the Model 3 mass producible.


----------



## Mike

JWardell said:


> Anyone else a little disappointed that the motor is only rated 258hp vs 375-


Actually no. If the torque is there, that's what counts.


----------



## garsh

JWardell said:


> ...than the cost of the copper windings they replace in the rotor.
> ...an additional 3 phases for the rotor.


There are no windings on an AC induction motor rotor. And neither is it powered (that's where the "induction" part of the name comes from - a current is induced in the rotor, not supplied to it).

http://d3i5bpxkxvwmz.cloudfront.net/articles/2011/03/14/induction-motor-basics-1300142395.pdf


----------



## Sandy

Mike said:


> Actually no. If the torque is there, that's what counts.


I agree. HP means very little when you have 100% torque at 1 rpm.


----------



## EValuatED

Sandy said:


> I agree. HP means very little when you have 100% torque at 1 rpm.


I'm betting @ModFather has an emoji/gif for this!


----------



## ModFather

JWardell said:


> Anyone else a little disappointed that the motor is only rated 258hp vs 375-400hp of the S/X?


No!







First, the T3 is 1000 pounds lighter than the MS/X and second, anything in the 5 second range for 0-60 is going to be more car than the average driver has ever handled.


----------



## EValuatED

Mike said:


> Actually no. If the torque is there, that's what counts.


From the Motor Trend article: 235-hp/317-ft-lb rear (MT est)

Based on weight and performance, presumably.

Edit: So the actual torque may be higher. And managed. (Otherwise you could explode the LRR tires in a car well under 4K lbs where max torque comes on so fast.)


----------



## ModFather

Sandy said:


> I agree. HP means very little when you have 100% torque at 1 rpm.





EValuatED said:


> I'm betting @ModFather has an emoji/gif for this!


----------



## TrevP

EValuatED said:


> The ever analytical Troy has posted a summation here on TMC. Seems the usable battery is around 78.3 kWh and the pack is a few kWh larger at 80.5 kWh... and larger than the S75*!
> 
> "1. The Model 3 large battery is 80 kWh. To be precise, the actual capacity is 80.5 kWh based on this calculation:
> 
> Total pack capacity = 350 V * 230 Ah= 80,500 Wh = 80.5 kWh
> 
> Total Voltage of Battery Packs: 350 Volt (source is page 3 here)
> 
> Battery Energy Capacity: 230 Ah (source is page 3 here)
> 
> The document doesn't say that 230 is 230 Ah, however, I found another example here from another car that shows the unit for "Battery Energy Capacity" is Ah.
> 
> 2. Model 3 LR usable capacity is more than Model S 85/85D/P85D.
> 
> Usable capacity is 78.3 kWh (source: page 6 footer). This is more than the usable capacity of the Model S 85, 85D, P85D. Those have 77.5 kWh usable capacity (source). At that time Tesla was over advertising battery pack sizes. This problem only affected the 85 and 90 kWh packs. Both of these packs have less than advertised capacity. Tesla later corrected this problem with the 75 and 100 kWh packs.
> 
> Tesla doesn't want to remind people that the Model 3 LR has more battery capacity than the 75 and 85 kWh Model S versions. That seems to be the reason why they are not using the Model 3 80/80D/P80D name scheme anymore. However, I don't know how this will work because Model 3 LR or Model 3 Standard will be very confusing when they upgrade the battery sizes."
> 
> * Recent interweb posting included a picture of a new S75 car with a battery label indicating an 85kWh pack.


If the new Model S 75D that have the upgraded performance will indeed come with software locked 85kWh pack then I'll be super excited if we jump into one early next year. The possibility of a future unlock is nice but more importantly being able to charge to 100% at the same constant rate is really welcome for longer trips. Makes the slightly more frequent SC stops shorter!! Fingers crossed


----------



## JWardell

garsh said:


> There are no windings on an AC induction motor rotor. And neither is it powered (that's where the "induction" part of the name comes from - a current is induced in the rotor, not supplied to it).
> 
> http://d3i5bpxkxvwmz.cloudfront.net/articles/2011/03/14/induction-motor-basics-1300142395.pdf


Thanks, I was meshing my DC motor knowledge with AC and thinking field windings in a SEM.


----------



## Brokedoc

I wonder if a variation of the new model 3 motors are used in the newer Model S/X to account for the improved performance numbers? Elon said the performance boost in MS/MX was attributable to both hardware and software updates.

An interesting thing I just saw when I was looking at the new MS configurator is that the S75 and S75D no longer have a large performance gap. 4.3sec vs 4.2sec in 0-60 times. If this holds true for M3 also, we won't get a huge performance boost and may make a difference for those deciding to hold out for the dual motor M3.


----------



## Peter Egan

MelindaV said:


> comparing to the Model S 75, the battery calculates down to a 70kWh.
> @Sandy - agree, thought induction was Tesla's 'thing' and would always go with that over the permanent magnet style.


other figures in the test report suggest 78.27 kWh battery. The pack has a low 150 Wh/kg. Lower than the 170 Wh for the MS/MX. New cells must be NMC not the usual NCA. Motor is more efficient, but the battery is heavier than we expected. battery may weigh 522 kg - leaving the rest of the car to weigh 1219 kg. Elon is very proud of the vehicle weight - know we know what he is was up against. Change of chemistry appears to have added 61 kg to large battery and 41 kg to standard battery. NMC chemistry is more robust against high charge/discharge and number of charging cycles. It is also cheaper with good prospects for further cost reduction.


----------



## Model34mePlease

Peter Egan said:


> other figures in the test report suggest 78.27 kWh battery. The pack has a low 150 Wh/kg. Lower than the 170 Wh for the MS/MX. New cells must be NMC not the usual NCA. Motor is more efficient, but the battery is heavier than we expected. battery may weigh 522 kg - leaving the rest of the car to weigh 1219 kg. Elon is very proud of the vehicle weight - know we know what he is was up against. Change of chemistry appears to have added 61 kg to large battery and 41 kg to standard battery. NMC chemistry is more robust against high charge/discharge and number of charging cycles. It is also cheaper with good prospects for further cost reduction.


What is your calculation that gives that number, and is that 78.27 usable capacity?


----------



## Badback

Sandy said:


> Very cool! Rumored for a long time. And by cooI mean it. Motor runs cooler. Still 3 phase AC just using magnets instead of windings. Probably cheaper to produce as well.


The magnets go on the rotor, it still has windings in the stator.


----------



## Model34mePlease

One thing that I don't think has been commented on here is the M3LR seems to have *front axle regenerative breaking*. This is totally unexpected and HUGE. I think it is why the EPA M3 city miles are way MORE than the highway miles. It is the only Tesla that has this characteristic. Even though all current S/Xs have dual motor and have front axle regen, they measure fewer city miles than highway miles.

This car keeps getting better!


----------



## Mad Hungarian

Model34mePlease said:


> One thing that I don't think has been commented on here is the M3LR seems to have *front axle regenerative breaking*. This is totally unexpected and HUGE. I think it is why the EPA M3 city miles are way MORE than the highway miles. It is the only Tesla that has this characteristic. Even though all current S/Xs have dual motor and have front axle regen, they measure fewer city miles than highway miles.
> 
> This car keeps getting better!


????
That's only possible if it has a front motor.
And I don't see anything on the doc that suggests they tested a Dual Motor variant. Or did I miss something?
As to why the M3 might be able to eek out more city miles compared to highway, that may be more a function of how much lighter it is compared to the S and X. Although the 3 offers both less weight and less aero drag compared to an S, if the weight improvement is comparatively better than the aero improvement then we should see a disproportionately better improvement in city range. Of course there may also be all sorts of other efficiency improvements in the drivetrain and electronics that help as well. I'll let the AC/DC experts chime in on that part...


----------



## John

To save time, they may have tested an engineering sample of the dual motor version, even though that's not what they are shipping right now. I kinda remember that they were giving rides at the original reveal in dual motor versions...


----------



## tracksyde

Here's where the speculation of front axle regen comes from:

Model 3 paperwork










Model S 75 paperwork


----------



## garsh

tracksyde said:


> Here's where the speculation of front axle regen comes from:
> Model 3 paperwork


Oh, weird. I would guess that this is most likely a typo.
That last line specifically says that this is the RWD car.
But... now I'm having visions of the "dual motor" option being software-unlockable.


----------



## garsh

Mad Hungarian said:


> As to why the M3 might be able to eek out more city miles compared to highway,


Pretty much every electric car gets better mileage in the city cycle than the highway cycle.


----------



## Model34mePlease

I may have gone off a little quick. It certainly would be possible to have a small generator up front, well short of AWD, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence beyond that one item in the EPA report. Since all other Teslas have AWD and regeneration on all wheels, it may well be a cut and paste error. Anyway, it is remarkable how much better the EPA City millage is then the Highway and the 3 does seem to be the only Tesla that has this, and I'm sure there probably is an interesting explanation.


----------



## Model34mePlease

garsh said:


> Pretty much every electric car gets better mileage in the city cycle than the highway cycle.


I was referring to the Charge Depletion Range in the EPA report, and no other Tesla has better City than Highway.


----------



## John

If the info is correct, they were probably testing a dual-motor variant, not the one shipping now.


----------



## Sandy

The reveal Alphas were dual motor according to one of that nights test drive videos. Possibly one of those was used.


----------



## Model34mePlease

John said:


> If the info is correct, they were probably testing a dual-motor variant, not the one shipping now.


The EPA document clearly states they were testing the Long Range Rear Wheel Drive model.


----------



## garsh

Model34mePlease said:


> no other Tesla has better City than Highway.


I'm guessing that's because the "steady-state" battery drain for a Model S (and X) is pretty high compared to all other electric vehicles. It would appear that Tesla has fixed that minor flaw for the Model 3.


----------



## Model34mePlease

garsh said:


> I'm guessing that's because the "steady-state" battery drain for a Model S (and X) is pretty high compared to all other electric vehicles. It would appear that Tesla has fixed that minor flaw for the Model 3.


I wouldn't think that would show up on an EPA dynamometer test. I doubt it is of long duration.


----------



## Mad Hungarian

garsh said:


> Pretty much every electric car gets better mileage in the city cycle than the highway cycle.


Oh yes, I realize this is true of most of them just from the short time I've had my Volt. However @model34me was saying that the Model 3 had significantly higher city numbers and the S and X had higher highway numbers so I was trying to work out why that might be.


----------



## KennethK

Mad Hungarian said:


> ????
> That's only possible if it has a front motor.
> And I don't see anything on the doc that suggests they tested a Dual Motor variant. Or did I miss something?
> As to why the M3 might be able to eek out more city miles compared to highway, that may be more a function of how much lighter it is compared to the S and X. Although the 3 offers both less weight and less aero drag compared to an S, if the weight improvement is comparatively better than the aero improvement then we should see a disproportionately better improvement in city range. Of course there may also be all sorts of other efficiency improvements in the drivetrain and electronics that help as well. I'll let the AC/DC experts chime in on that part...


I don't think there is any drive shaft or motor up front, probably just a typo on the forms. See the image below.


----------



## John

KennethK said:


> I don't think there is any drive shaft or motor up front, probably just a typo on the forms. See the image below.
> View attachment 2782


Assuming that was the same as the model used for EPA testing. The "RWD" and regeneration= "both" parts of the results don't really jibe. Unless for some crazy reason the RWD testing models had a front motor used only for regen, but that's crazy, because it's all of the cost and only part of the benefit (same motors, same electronics as dual drive).


----------



## Thomas Mikl

You do not need a motor or big generator for regen breaking as the system would never be used to drive the car. They use such tech for busses for over 20 years (but waste the energy mostly). In theory you could make this as small and integrate it in the breaking calipers (which they wont do, as that would make replacement a pain). All you need is a small permanent magnet and an induction coil, it even does not need to wrap around the whole axle. Of course efficiency would suffer a bit, but if you do it in a good way, it might not be much and the benefit could still be high.


----------



## garsh

Good points, @Thomas Mikl . From a manufacturing perspective, I wouldn't think that Tesla would bother developing that system. It's not applicable to the dual-motor variant, since that car has a front motor to perform the same task. And it would add complexity to the RWD version. Furthermore, some of the test-ride reviews from the delivery day commented on the regen braking not being as strong as on the S. Perhaps that was due to a low setting.

But it would explain that EPA certification! I hope you're right - that would make me feel even better about getting a RWD model.


----------



## garsh

I'm trying to better understand these documents. I managed to track down what UDDS stands for - Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (aka "the city test").
https://www.epa.gov/vehicle-and-fuel-emissions-testing/dynamometer-drive-schedules

For electric cars, the test procedure is to run each of the highway & city tests in succession until the battery completely runs out. The results are then multiplied by 0.7 to come up with the numbers on the sticker.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/EPA test procedure for EVs-PHEVs-7-5-2012.pdf

So, given the certification report for the Long Range Model 3, I would expect to see:
*City Range =* 495.04 * .7 = *347 miles
Highway Range =* 454.64 * .7 = *318 miles
*
Holy Crap!!! The Standard Battery might end up beating the Bolt's EPA range after all!


----------



## MelindaV

garsh said:


> I'm guessing that's because the "steady-state" battery drain for a Model S (and X) is pretty high compared to all other electric vehicles. It would appear that Tesla has fixed that minor flaw for the Model 3.


there's comments also that the new magnet style motor is more efficient at the lower speed stop/start vs the induction better at highway speed travel (or did I flip the two? totally second guessing my memory now....)


----------



## MelindaV

garsh said:


> I'm trying to better understand these documents. I managed to track down what UDDS stands for - Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (aka "the city test").
> https://www.epa.gov/vehicle-and-fuel-emissions-testing/dynamometer-drive-schedules
> 
> For electric cars, the test procedure is to run each of the highway & city tests in succession until the battery completely runs out. The results are then multiplied by 0.7 to come up with the numbers on the sticker.
> https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/EPA test procedure for EVs-PHEVs-7-5-2012.pdf
> 
> So, given the certification report for the Long Range Model 3, I would expect to see:
> *City Range =* 495.04 * .7 = *347 miles
> Highway Range =* 454.64 * .7 = *318 miles
> *
> Holy Crap!!! The Standard Battery might end up beating the Bolt's EPA range after all!


so is the .7 for air resistance that would not be an issue on a dyno?


----------



## garsh

MelindaV said:


> so is the .7 for air resistance that would not be an issue on a dyno?


That could be part of the reason. And given that the testing is performed on a dyno, low Cd values don't help with the mileage estimates. I guess that's why the EPA allows some other options besides the 0.7 "fudge factor":

*Electric Vehicle - Adjustment Procedure used to Derive FE Label (Window Sticker) Estimates* -
EPA regulations require fuel economy, energy consumption, CO2 and driving range values listed on the FE Label (window sticker) to be adjusted to more accurately reflect the values that customers can expect to achieve in the real world. EPA currently allows fuel economy, energy consumption, CO2 values, and range values listed on the FE Label (window sticker) for electric vehicles to be adjusted using one of the following methods:

 by multiplying city/highway fuel economy and range values by 0.7 and dividing city/highway energy consumption and CO2 values by 0.7;
 using the vehicle specific 5-cycle method described in 40 CFR 600.210-12(a)(1);
 using a method which is equivalent to the vehicle specific 5-cycle method described in 40 CFR 600.210-12(a)(1) (with prior EPA approval);
 using adjustment factors which are based on in-use data (with prior EPA approval).
Currently, most EVs use the first method (the 0.7 factor).​


----------



## garsh

In the Model S document that @MelindaV posted, I found the values for the 100D. When I apply the same 0.7 fudge factor to those values, I get:
*City Range = *414.45 * .7 =* 290 miles
Highway Range = *469.99 * .7 =* 329 miles*

That doesn't match the official EPA values of 331 city / 337 highway. But it's interesting that the official EPA results are even *better* than what I calculated from the certification document.


----------



## Model34mePlease

We may be setting ourselves up for disappointment again, but I think we are going to find the real-world range of the M3 to be really good.

On the one hand, we are seeing dynamometer range numbers that are pretty over-the-top, especially for simulated city driving (495 miles). On the other hand, there is this:









These curves are based on the EPA ramp test that derives parameters that model friction and air resistance. As you can see, the M3 is only ok at the very bottom, but becomes one of the best above 20 or 30 mph, so should be really good on the highway, where the dyanamometer test was 'only' 455 miles. It should be noted that the ONLY Teslas that equal or exceed the dynamometer milage of the M3 are the S 100D and S P100D, and then only on the highway (and only by a little - 470 miles).

Time will tell....


----------



## Badback

JWardell said:


> Anyone else a little disappointed that the motor is only rated 258hp vs 375-400hp of the S/X?
> 
> I was surprised to see permanent magnet at first, but I think it does make sense. The material might be slightly rarer, but cost of copper is very high, so it is probably still cheaper than the cost of the copper windings they replace in the rotor. Furthermore it makes a significantly simpler motor to assemble, replacing lots of windings with chunks of magnets. @John 's article above also states they are more efficient as well due to less efficiency loss from windings.
> Also, the inverter electronics would also be much simpler, as they only need 3 phase AC for the stator and not an additional 3 phases for the rotor.
> Down side is that you can't control and vary the magnetic charge of the rotor, which allows for some 3D torque curve maps and electromagnetic trickery.
> The biggest point is that the permanent magnet is _simpler_ and that's what everything needs to be to make the Model 3 mass producible.


In an induction motor, the rotor does not have copper windings, they are instead aluminum, cast into the rotor stack.
The permanent magnet AC motor replaces the aluminum windings with magnets.

Here is a very good video on the subject:






Here is a diagram:


----------



## Badback

Sandy said:


> I agree. HP means very little when you have 100% torque at 1 rpm.


HP affects top speed, torque affects acceleration.


----------



## garsh

Here's a Google search to find all published Tesla EPA certification reports.
We should run this search periodically to determine when the Standard Battery Model 3 report is available.
https://www.google.com/search?q=site:epa.gov+tesla+"Certification+Summary+Information+Report"


----------



## garsh

MelindaV said:


> there's comments also that the new magnet style motor is more efficient at the lower speed stop/start vs the induction better at highway speed travel (or did I flip the two? totally second guessing my memory now....)


It looks like, in general

permanent magnet motors are more efficient, at any speed
permanent magnet motors are smaller for a given power.
permanent magnet motors tend to be more expensive, due to the magnets.
http://empoweringpumps.com/ac-induction-motors-versus-permanent-magnet-synchronous-motors-fuji/


----------



## Topher

MelindaV said:


> thought induction was Tesla's 'thing' and would always go with that over the permanent magnet style.


Tesla doesn't have 'things'; it has engineers.

Thank you kindly.


----------



## Guest

Badback said:


> HP affects top speed, torque affects acceleration.


Close, but no cigar.


----------



## Topher

Model34mePlease said:


> I have a feeling that as soon as Elon thinks M3 production is out of hell, the S & X are going to get a big battery pack upgrade based on the new cells he is using in the M3


Tesla has a contract with Panasonic to provide the cells for the Model S and X. They won't switch over to 2170s until that contract expires. Or until the savings exceed the early cancellation penalty (plus the conversion costs).

Thank you kindly.


----------



## Badback

arnis said:


> Close, but no cigar.


I don't smoke cigars. Are you calling me an idiot?


----------



## Guest

There is no need to switch to 2170 on S/X.
2170 is optimized for best-bang-for-a-buck (best performance for any given price).
21850 is much more leaning towards performance. Cylinder is thinner, easier to keep chemistry temperature homogeneous.
Harry-Potter book sized slates Leaf/Bolt have lean toward best price, sacrificing everything else.

It's a misunderstanding that 2170 offers more performance per kWh of capacity. Including charge/discharge capability.



Badback said:


> I don't smoke cigars. Are you calling me an idiot?


I have some hair left on my head. Therefore it's not me on the picture.


----------



## JRP3

Badback said:


> In an induction motor, the rotor does not have copper windings, they are instead aluminum, cast into the rotor stack.


Model S/X induction motors use a copper rotor










https://cleantechnica.com/2016/05/3...motor-ideal-choice-21st-century-electric-car/


----------



## JRP3

garsh said:


> It looks like, in general
> 
> permanent magnet motors are more efficient, at any speed
> permanent magnet motors are smaller for a given power.


Tesla disagrees somewhat https://www.tesla.com/blog/induction-versus-dc-brushless-motors



> Thus, the induction machine when operated with a smart inverter has an advantage over a DC brushless machine - magnetic and conduction losses can be traded such that efficiency is optimized. This advantage becomes increasingly important as performance is increased. With DC brushless, as machine size grows, the magnetic losses increase proportionately and part load efficiency drops. With induction, as machine size grows, losses do not necessarily grow. *Thus, induction drives may be the favored approach where high-performance is desired; peak efficiency will be a little less than with DC brushless, but average efficiency may actually be better.*


My guess is Tesla felt the lower powered Model 3 motor would be better using a PM design over induction.


----------



## Kizzy

JRP3 said:


> Tesla disagrees somewhat https://www.tesla.com/blog/induction-versus-dc-brushless-motors
> 
> My guess is Tesla felt the lower powered Model 3 motor would be better using a PM design over induction.


But the Model 3 uses permanent magnet with 3-phase AC.


----------



## JRP3

Not sure of your point. PMAC/BLDC motors are a different motor architecture than AC induction motors.


----------



## garsh

Kizzy said:


> But the Model 3 uses permanent magnet with 3-phase AC.





JRP3 said:


> Not sure of your point. PMAC/BLDC motors are a different motor architecture than AC induction motors.


My guess is that @Kizzy is wondering why you posted an article comparing AC induction motors to brushless DC motors, when the Model three has a permanent magnet AC motor.

The answer is that a Permanent Magnet AC motor _is the same thing_ as a Brushless DC motor. 

Mechanically, they are the same. The only difference is how they are run. Historically, brushless DC motors use a sensor to determine rotor position. The sensor then controls the waveform sent to the stator windings. And that waveform tends to be rectangular (well, trapezoidal).








Once high-power control electronics started being manufactured (late 80s), high-power variable-speed AC induction motors started to become more practical, since we could now send sinusoidal waveforms through the stator windings. Those same waveforms work perfectly well in a brushless DC motor - even better than the old trapezoidal waveforms. So at this point, brushless DC motors started to also be called Permanent Magnet AC motors when they were being driven similarly to AC induction motors.

Ah, it feels good to make use of that EE degree I earned so long ago.


----------



## JRP3

garsh said:


> The answer is that a Permanent Magnet AC motor _is the same thing_ as a Brushless DC motor.


I forget that not everyone knows this  Excellent explanation.


----------



## MelindaV

not sure how this article may relate to Tesla's induction vs PM motors, but lays out the basic differences between the two types of motors. 
My big takeaways from this article is the PM is smaller and lighter than the IM, the magnets are more expensive than the copper that would go into a IM, 2x as efficient at low speed, equally efficient at mid and highway speed. Maybe one of you that have that EE degree can take a look and give your opinion  (since I'm still wrapping my head around @garsh's last comment that a brushless DC is the same as an AC PM motor...)

induction









permanent magnet


----------



## Badback

JRP3 said:


> Model S/X induction motors use a copper rotor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://cleantechnica.com/2016/05/3...motor-ideal-choice-21st-century-electric-car/


I was speaking in general terms, but yes, Tesla motors do inderd have copper conductors in the rotor.


----------



## JRP3

MelindaV said:


> not sure how this article may relate to Tesla's induction vs PM motors, but lays out the basic differences between the two types of motors.
> My big takeaways from this article is the PM is smaller and lighter than the IM, the magnets are more expensive than the copper that would go into a IM, 2x as efficient at low speed, equally efficient at mid and highway speed. Maybe one of you that have that EE degree can take a look and give your opinion  (since I'm still wrapping my head around @garsh's last comment that a brushless DC is the same as an AC PM motor...)


I think the Tesla blog post I linked and quoted above is probably a more accurate and relevant comparison. It explains why they might have gone with a PMAC instead of induction in the lower powered Model 3 application.


----------



## Kizzy

JRP3 said:


> I think the Tesla blog post I linked and quoted above is probably a more accurate and relevant comparison. It explains why they might have gone with a PMAC instead of induction in the lower powered Model 3 application.


Mm. That blog post also gives more reason to only use a single PMAC motor to start since cost is a factor (at least in materials). Now I wonder a bit about what the dual motor and performance setups will be.


----------



## Troy

garsh said:


> So, given the certification report for the Long Range Model 3, I would expect to see:
> *City Range =* 495.04 * .7 = *347 miles
> Highway Range =* 454.64 * .7 = *318 miles
> *
> Holy Crap!!! The Standard Battery might end up beating the Bolt's EPA range after all!


@garsh, your numbers were correct. Also, I think your idea that the Model 3 55 should beat Bolt's 238 mi EPA was also correct. Unfortunately, EPA allows voluntary range reductions by car manufacturers. Therefore the 220 mi and 310 mi range numbers were less than expected.

I don't know why Tesla voluntarily lowered the Model 3 55's EPA rated range from 239 mi (my estimate) to 220 and the Model 3 80's EPA rated range from 334 mi (this is what the calculation shows) to 310, but I do have many data points that show that this actually happened. The EPA doesn't try to hide voluntary reductions. In fact, there is an EPA document that shows all 2017 MS and MX range numbers before and after the voluntary reductions.

However, the EPA wants to keep the data consistent. Therefore after the manufacturer decides to voluntarily lower the range, they change the city and highway range numbers to what they need to be to match the voluntarily lowered combined range. That means, it's even more difficult to spot voluntary reductions. However, here is the most interesting part: voluntary reductions don't affect MPGe numbers and those are also calculated from the original city and highway range.

You already have the correct city and highway range numbers before the voluntary reductions. You can calculate the city MPGe and highway MPGe numbers from the 347 and 318 miles. For example, the same EPA document here says that the wall consumption was 89.41 kWh. MPGe means range per 33.7 kWh wall consumption (see the screenshot here).

If city range is 346.528 miles per 89.404 kWh
Then, city range is X miles per 33.7 kWh
X= 33.7*346.528/ 89.404= 130.62 miles per 33.7 kWh = 131 MPGe for city

Similarly, if highway range is 318.248 miles per 89.41 kWh
Then, highway range is X miles per 33.7 kWh
X= 33.7*318.248/ 89.41= 119.95 miles per 33.7 kWh = 120 MPGe for highway

Because we can calculate the 131 and 120 MPGe numbers on Monroney sticker (link) from the 346.528 and 318.248 city and highway range numbers, this proves that the city and highway range numbers are correct and the combined range should be 334 miles before voluntary reductions (55% city and 45% highway).

346.528*0.55 + 318.248*0.45= 190.59 + 143.21 = 333.8 mi combined range (EPA rated range)

I want more people to understand this topic in detail, therefore I will post a calculation exercise for the Nissan Leaf shortly.


----------



## Troy

Hi, everybody. With the Model 3, we have an interesting case of sandbagging by Tesla. What I call sandbagging is officially called a voluntary reduction by the EPA. The EPA allows car manufacturers to voluntarily lower the combined range (the EPA rated range). However, they don't try to hide this. In fact, they have published yearly documents that say "Combined range voluntarily lowered". Below is a screenshot from an actual EPA document which you can download here. I found that file on this page under the first column called Datafile1.











The screenshot is from the 2017 file. In the formula bar, you can see the original combined range before the voluntary reduction. What they are doing here is, they are adjusting the city and highway range retroactively to match the new voluntarily reduced range. In other words, the Model S P100D scored 324.3 mi EPA rated range (aka combined range where city range has 55% weight and the highway has 45%). When it scored 324.3 mi EPA, the city range was 305.9 mi but they are now reducing it at the rate the combined range was reduced. I don't think the EPA is trying to hide voluntary reductions. They are just trying to have consistent city, highway and combined range numbers where all of them are voluntarily reduced.

What is interesting is that the MPGe numbers still use the original city and highway range. If this file didn't exist, we would still be able to calculate what the original EPA rated range should be. For example, it is possible to calculate the 324.3 mi Model S P100D EPA combined range from dyno scores. What this file does is, it confirms that the non-sandbagged range numbers we can calculate from dyno scores are correct.

This 2017 file is very valuable because the EPA doesn't normally leave the original range numbers in the formula cells. Normally, this file should show 297.1 mi as static text and that's it. They were supposed to convert formula cells to static text. In Excel you do that by copying the cells and then right click to same cells > paste special > paste values. They forgot to do that in the 2017 file but they have done it in all previous years.

Anyway, the story behind the sandbagging is quite amazing. I hope more people will understand all these details. I quite like talking about these. What is happening here is actually quite simple. They are calculating EPA rated range and MPGe numbers from two dyno scores. To understand this better, I will post a calculation exercise for the Nissan Leaf. The Nissan Leaf's scores are not sandbagged. Therefore the calculations are straightforward.

After you do the Nissan Leaf calculations, if you apply the same calculation to the Model 3, the MPGe numbers you calculate will match the published numbers but the EPA rated range won't match because your calculation will show the pre voluntary reduction range.

*Summary:*
1. The Model 3 80 scored 334 miles EPA rated range but Tesla voluntarily lowered it to 310 miles. The reason is unknown.
2. When the Model 3 scored 334 miles EPA, it was using the 0.7 multiplier but the Model S/X use higher multipliers. The reason is unknown.


----------



## Bokonon

Troy said:


> @garsh, your numbers were correct. Also, I think your idea that the Model 3 55 should beat Bolt's 238 mi EPA was also correct. Unfortunately, EPA allows voluntary range reductions by car manufacturers. Therefore the 220 mi and 310 mi range numbers were less than expected.
> 
> I don't know why Tesla voluntarily lowered the Model 3 55's EPA rated range from 239 mi (my estimate) to 220 and the Model 3 80's EPA rated range from 334 mi (this is what the calculation shows) to 310, but I do have many data points that show that this actually happened. The EPA doesn't try to hide voluntary reductions. In fact, there is an EPA document that shows all 2017 MS and MX range numbers before and after the voluntary reductions.
> 
> However, the EPA wants to keep data consistent. Therefore after the manufacturer decides to voluntarily lower the range, the EPA changes the city and highway range numbers to what they need to be to match the voluntarily lowered combined range. That means, it is even more difficult to spot voluntary reductions. However, here is the most interesting part: voluntary reductions don't affect MPGe numbers and those are also calculated from the original city and highway range.
> 
> You already have the correct city and highway range numbers before the voluntary reductions. You can calculate the city MPGe and highway MPGe numbers from the 347 and 318 miles. For example, the same EPA document here says that the wall consumption was 89.41 kWh. MPGe means range per 33.7 kWh wall consumption (see the screenshot here).
> 
> If city range is 346.528 miles per 89.404 kWh
> Then, city range is X miles per 33.7 kWh
> X= 33.7*346.528/ 89.404= 130.62 miles per 33.7 kWh = 131 MPGe
> 
> Because we can get to the MPGe numbers on the Model 3 80 Monroney sticker (link), this proves that the city and highway range numbers were correct and combined range should be 334 miles before voluntary reductions (55% city and 45% highway).
> 
> I want more people to understand this topic in detail, therefore I will post a calculation exercise for the Nissan Leaf shortly.


Informative and intriguing analysis, as always... Welcome to M3OC!


----------



## Troy

OK. here is the Nissan Leaf calculation exercise: In EPA dyno tests, the Nissan Leaf 30 kWh scored these 4 numbers. Source.

31.78 kWh wall consumption in city dyno test
166.41 mi city score
31.78 kWh wall consumption in highway dyno test
136.4 mi highway score
How did they calculate the following 3 numbers from those 4 numbers? Can you show the calculation?

107 mi EPA rated range (combined range)
124 MPGe city fuel economy
101 MPGe highway fuel economy
These 3 numbers are published on Monroney stickers and on the fueleconomy.gov website here. See the last screenshot below. 2016 and 2017 Nissan Leaf 30 kWh have the same scores. The Nissan Leaf uses the 0.7 multiplier to convert dyno scores to city/highway range like almost all EVs including the Model 3 but excluding the Model S/X. Then you take 55% of city range and 45% of highway range to calculate the combined range. MPGe means range per 33.7 kWh wall consumption.

The calculation works the same way for the Model 3 and the results will show the following three numbers:
334 mi combined range (334 was not published by the EPA but 310 mi was.)
131 MPGe fuel economy (Published by the EPA)
120 MPGe fuel economy (Published by the EPA)

After that, if people are interested, we could go over the Model S P100D and the results will show 3 numbers:
324 mi combined range (Both 324 mi and 315 mi was published by the EPA.)
92 MPGe fuel economy (Published by the EPA)
105 MPGe fuel economy (Published by the EPA)

Here is an analogy to explain what's happening here: Imagine we are able to tell a person's birthdate by processing some data. The birthdate we can calculate is their actual birthdate and not necessarily what their ID shows. We know that a few people have ID's that show a different birthdate than the actual day they were born.

When we do the calculation for Dolores, the date we calculate is different than what her ID shows. We ask the reason but she doesn't say anything. Some people suggest that maybe the calculation is wrong. Then we do the calculation for Maeve and it matches what her ID shows. Then we do it for Clementine but again the date doesn't match her ID. However, Clementine pulls out another document that shows her actual birthdate and it matches.

In this analogy, Clementine represents the Model S P100D, Maeve the Nissan Leaf and Dolores the Model 3.


----------



## Kizzy

Troy said:


> […] Below is a screenshot from an actual EPA document which you can download here. I found that file on this page under the first column called Datafile1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> […]


Cool, cool. I'm on my phone, so can't check the file, but I'm curious if the Chevrolet Bolt's numbers were voluntarily lowered.


----------



## Troy

Hi, @Kizzy. No, the Bolt's range was not voluntarily lowered. Here are Bolt's EPA dyno test results. Source.

67.420 kWh wall consumption in city dyno test
364.40 mi city score
66.508 kWh wall consumption in highway dyno test
310.63 mi highway score
From those 4 numbers, you can calculate the following 3 numbers shown on this page. Because Bolt's range was not voluntarily lowered, the calculation will be an exact match for all 3 numbers, just like the Leaf.

238 mi EPA rated range (combined range)
128 MPGe city fuel economy
110 MPGe highway fuel economy
By the way, here is a list of all voluntary reductions on that file:

Pre, After voluntary reduction. Model
68 mi, 58 mi. 2017 Mercedes Smart Fortwo Electric Drive Coupe (source for 68 mi)
126 mi, 124 mi. 2017 Hyundai Ioniq Electric
211 mi, 210 mi. 2017 Tesla Model S (60 kW-hr battery pack)
223 mi, 218 mi. 2017 Tesla Model S AWD - 60D
297 mi. 294 mi. 2017 Tesla Model S AWD - 90D
273 mi. 270 mi. 2017 Tesla Model S AWD - P90D
341 mi, 335 mi. 2017 Tesla Model S AWD - 100D
324 mi, 315 mi. 2017 Tesla Model S AWD - P100D


----------



## MelindaV

Couple thoughts...
my understanding was the .70 was the air resist multiplier. Over compensating, but typical air resistance.
If the S and X have been using .90 have their numbers been real-world accurate? Seems they have been close.
I’ve always heard Nissan’s epa estimates are overly optimistic - if they are also using .70, what is the miss there?(assuming their battery is still fresh)
And lastly, anti-selling

(Unless I misunderstood the .70/.90 and it is above/beyond the aerodynamic factor)


----------



## Troy

Hi, @MelindaV.

The dyno test scores are unrealistically high for all EVs and they need a multiplier to convert them to realistic range numbers. Initially, I also assumed the reason they were so high must be the missing air drag but then I did more research and it appears air drag is included. The way they include the air drag is by letting the car coast on actual roads and they measure how much it drives while coasting from around 75 mph to 10 mph. Then they set the dyno settings so that it coasts the same distance on the dyno. I think the reason the dyno scores are high is that the test is performed at low speeds compared to real-world speeds. The EPA highway dyno test is performed at 48.3 mph and the city test at 21.2 mph average speed. See the test details tab here.

Here is a list of all multipliers for all EVs since 2012. See the column "Multiplier (combined)". I extracted those from an EPA document. I don't know why the Model S has different multipliers for different variants but here are some details about this topic:

1. Almost all EVs except Teslas have used the 70% multiplier
2. Model 3 also uses 70%
3. Model S or Model X was never 70%
4. In 2012, the Model S multiplier was 79.6%
5. In 2017, two of the Model S variants used the 75.40% multiplier while 5 used 73.80%
6. In 2017, all 5 Model X variants used the 73.40% multiplier
7. After the Model S 85 used the 79.6% in 2012, this multiplier stuck with the S85 and was never updated.
8. All of the 79.6% multipliers are RWD Model S
9. All of the 75.4% multipliers are AWD Model S
10. Some of the 73.8% are RWD Model S and some are AWD Model S.


----------



## TrevP

Troy said:


> Hi, everybody. With the Model 3, we have an interesting case of sandbagging by Tesla. What I call sandbagging is officially called a voluntary reduction by the EPA. The EPA allows car manufacturers to voluntarily lower the combined range (the EPA rated range). However, they don't try to hide this. In fact, they have published yearly documents that say "Combined range voluntarily lowered". Below is a screenshot from an actual EPA document which you can download here. I found that file on this page under the first column called Datafile1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The screenshot is from the 2017 file. In the formula bar, you can see the original combined range before the voluntary reduction. What they are doing here is, they are adjusting the city and highway range retroactively to match the new voluntarily reduced range. In other words, the Model S P100D scored 324.3 mi EPA rated range (aka combined range where city range has 55% weight and the highway has 45%). When it scored 324.3 mi EPA, the city range was 305.9 mi but they are now reducing it at the rate the combined range was reduced. I don't think the EPA is trying to hide voluntary reductions. They are just trying to have consistent city, highway and combined range numbers where all of them are voluntarily reduced.
> 
> What is interesting is that the MPGe numbers still use the original city and highway range. If this file didn't exist, we would still be able to calculate what the original EPA rated range should be. For example, it is possible to calculate the 324.3 mi Model S P100D EPA combined range from dyno scores. What this file does is, it confirms that the non-sandbagged range numbers we can calculate from dyno scores are correct.
> 
> This 2017 file is very valuable because the EPA doesn't normally leave the original range numbers in the formula cells. Normally, this file should show 297.1 mi as static text and that's it. They were supposed to convert formula cells to static text. In Excel you do that by copying the cells and then right click to same cells > paste special > paste values. They forgot to do that in the 2017 file but they have done it in all previous years.
> 
> Anyway, the story behind the sandbagging is quite amazing. I hope more people will understand all these details. I quite like talking about these. What is happening here is actually quite simple. They are calculating EPA rated range and MPGe numbers from two dyno scores. To understand this better, I will post a calculation exercise for the Nissan Leaf. The Nissan Leaf's scores are not sandbagged. Therefore the calculations are straightforward.
> 
> After you do the Nissan Leaf calculations, if you apply the same calculation to the Model 3, the MPGe numbers you calculate will match the published numbers but the EPA rated range won't match because your calculation will show the pre voluntary reduction range.
> 
> *Summary:*
> 1. The Model 3 80 scored 334 miles EPA rated range but Tesla voluntarily lowered it to 310 miles. The reason is unknown.
> 2. When the Model 3 scored 334 miles EPA, it was using the 0.7 multiplier but the Model S/X use higher multipliers. The reason is unknown.


First, I want to say a HUGE Welcome to @Troy to the forum. Troy has been data guy over at TMC for years so we trust his numbers and efforts!

Thanks for the info, I have no much on my hands that I can't possibly track everything so we welcome your input and your calculators


----------



## John

While one theory may be that Tesla is "positioning" the cars versus one another to herd customers in a certain direction, that's a little cynical, no?

Another theory that I'll put out there is that Tesla more and more adjusts to produce a more "real world" number. That might explain why they would reduce the P100D's stated range from 337 to 315 miles. Because honestly: who's going to buy a P100D and "drive it like it was on an EPA dyno"?

I think Tesla has learned that people get bitter when they don't get at least the stated range most of the time. Once you're "selling every car you can produce," do you really need to claim every mile of range you can get, or do you start thinking ahead to how people will feel when their car never quite gets the range you could get on a dyno?


----------



## Troy

Hi, @TrevP. Thanks. I like the fact that I can edit my messages in this forum. That's my favorite feature here. Also, no dislikes. That's my second favorite feature.

Hi, @John. The voluntary reductions before the Model 3 have been minimal. The largest was 9 miles with the Model S P100D when they reduced it from 324 to 315 miles. I'm not exactly sure why the voluntary reductions happened but they have only happened to the Model S and never to any Model X. Therefore my theory is that Tesla wanted to keep the gap between MS/MX reasonably small. Here is a table that shows the MS/MX range gap before and after voluntary reductions. If you look at the last two columns, the range gaps look more reasonable after voluntary reductions.


----------



## SSonnentag

Perhaps Tesla is compensating for the expected range of a used battery where the battery had degraded to roughly 93% of it's capacity when new.


----------



## TSLAholic

@SSonnentag I was thinking along those same lines... As the battery experiences its initial degradation where the loss curve is rather steep, this could serve as a cushion to keep the general public from freaking out over their car seemingly losing range faster than expected. This would go hand in hand with the car being marketed to the masses as opposed to a more understanding crown of early adopters. 
Of course, the idea of anti-selling was the other thing that crossed my mind. 
I can't help but wonder how much range the dual motor car would gain on top of all this.


----------



## SSonnentag

TSLAholic said:


> I can't help but wonder how much range the dual motor car would gain on top of all this.


Yep, if dual motors were available at launch, I'd definitely get it, but in my case I'd have to wait an estimated 8 more months. It's too long to wait for what I'm guessing to be 10 miles of additional range and 0.1 second faster 0-60 time.


----------



## SSonnentag

I wouldn't be surprised to see the dual motor option packaged with the performance option. This would be in line with keeping the options to a minimum. The price for dual motor/performance would then be quite large by my estimate.


----------



## Kbm3

I wonder if the reason for the lowering is the EPA test was done with aero wheels?


----------



## JRP3

Referencing this thread http://www.teslarati.com/tesla-model-3-epa-rating-334-miles-long-range/


----------



## Guest

It appears Tesla (and some others) want EPA numbers to be "more correct". 
They want customers to actually be able to achieve EPA ranges with little effort.
And if Tesla own tests said that it appears to be slightly too optimistic (needs more effort than expected) why not compensate.

I do not think that voluntary reduction is to keep S/X closer to each other.
My theory is that Tesla is happy with Model X ranges. Likely EPA calculations are "pessimistic enough" due to extra drag/weight.



Kbm3 said:


> I wonder if the reason for the lowering is the EPA test was done with aero wheels?


Yes, definitely. If those covers come as standard (no extra fee and on the vehicle while delivered) then they must be on while tested by EPA.


----------



## Cloxxki

So what is the real pack size, now?
I've been theorizing for awhile that the rated and GOM range would be kept at 310 mi as the battery degrades. Rather than charging to 96% and discharging to 0% (whichever voltages correspond to that), it would over time dig deeper into its overpromise reserves to keep delivering claimed range when new. 7-8% could be good for 5 years of use, right? Especially when not using the full capacity of the battery and never fully depleting it. Similar to the 60(75) trick, but to a lesser degree and with fixed range rather than diminishing. After a while of course, 310 mi can't be kept up unless changing the typical consumption figure.


----------



## Model34mePlease

Cloxxki said:


> So what is the real pack size, now?
> I've been theorizing for awhile that the rated and GOM range would be kept at 310 mi as the battery degrades. Rather than charging to 96% and discharging to 0% (whichever voltages correspond to that), it would over time dig deeper into its overpromise reserves to keep delivering claimed range when new. 7-8% could be good for 5 years of use, right? Especially when not using the full capacity of the battery and never fully depleting it. Similar to the 60(75) trick, but to a lesser degree and with fixed range rather than diminishing. After a while of course, 310 mi can't be kept up unless changing the typical consumption figure.


The last thing Tesla needs a year from now, when lots of 3s have been delivered, but still many back-ordered and production just meeting the top of the ramp-up, is headlines saying that Model 3 owners aren't getting the range they were promised.


----------



## Cloxxki

Model34mePlease said:


> The last thing Tesla needs a year from now, when lots of 3s have been delivered, but still many back-ordered and production just meeting the top of the ramp-up, is headlines saying that Model 3 owners aren't getting the range they were promised.


Exactly what I think. You can publish oh so many studies on how little degradation there is, but how would that inpire customers? ICE cars lose power, but they don't display it the moment you switch the car on. Seems wise to go about it this way, if indeed that's the case.
And if the reserve were to be mostly at the bottom voltage, the car could have very significant sub-zero limp range. Very helpful to prevent getting stranded with 14km still left on the GOM as happened to Bjorn Nyland recently. Very uncool thing to happen, and costly to be towed for 5km to a charger.
Once you have the car for a few years, and most of the presumed reserve has degraded away, you are less likely to get yourself in charging trouble. Especially if there are more chargers along the road to choose from, a convenient one will always be located closer to the safe 20% mark.


----------



## Ken Voss

The EPA increased its efficiency rating for the 2018 M3 over the 2017. 2017 was rated at 126e combined and the 2018 is now rated at 130e.

Interesting wonder if there was retesting involved or if the efficiency has actually improved
https://electrek.co/2018/01/16/tesla-model-3-efficiency-improved-2018-version/


----------



## Marcumar

Ken Voss said:


> The EPA increased its efficiency rating for the 2018 M3 over the 2017. 2017 was rated at 126e combined and the 2018 is now rated at 130e.
> 
> Interesting wonder if there was retesting involved or if the efficiency has actually improved
> https://electrek.co/2018/01/16/tesla-model-3-efficiency-improved-2018-version/


Maybe it's because of the new headliner material


----------

