# V9 Features: Energy Display



## MelindaV (Apr 2, 2016)

for the big Version 9 release, we are going to have dedicated feature specific threads. Please use the MEGA thread for general fw discussion, using these for known specific features once the fw is being used.

Jump to a detailed post on the Energy app's 'trip' feature


----------



## fmcotton (Feb 5, 2017)

Someone please explain how this graph works. I never understood it when looking at images of it for the S and X. Now that I am the owner of a Model 3, I feel like I have to understand what this graph is saying.


----------



## JWardell (May 9, 2016)

This might be the feature I'm most excited about, and yet we've seen NO photos of what this looks like on Model 3. I hope some leak soon!


----------



## joelliot (Jan 25, 2018)

haven't had the chance to take it on a trip for the trip screen, but here is what the screen looks like


----------



## JWardell (May 9, 2016)

joelliot said:


> haven't had the chance to take it on a trip for the trip screen, but here is what the screen looks like
> View attachment 15531


Thank you! I will probably be requesting the option to have four graphs at a time, or maybe Kitt-Mode


----------



## Rich M (Jul 28, 2017)

I would love to have "performance" gauges on screen with more stats like:

coolant flow rate
inverter temperature
motor temperature
louvers open/closed
motor rpm
battery active heating/cooling


----------



## ER1C8 (Jan 1, 2018)

Rich M said:


> I would love to have "performance" gauges on screen with more stats like:
> 
> coolant flow rate
> inverter temperature
> ...


I would love this kind of info!!


----------



## kort677 (Sep 17, 2018)

joelliot said:


> haven't had the chance to take it on a trip for the trip screen, but here is what the screen looks like
> View attachment 15531


that is the one feature that is missing one the 3 that I miss the most, I hope it does return with the update


----------



## bottomsup (Aug 20, 2018)

joelliot said:


> haven't had the chance to take it on a trip for the trip screen, but here is what the screen looks like
> View attachment 15531


What is the solid line above the average line?


----------



## Doug Joubert (Jul 14, 2018)

joelliot said:


> haven't had the chance to take it on a trip for the trip screen, but here is what the screen looks like
> View attachment 15531


I'm with you, @joelliot . I'm trying to figure out what this all means, too.

Any teachers out there who'd like to fill us in?


----------



## joelliot (Jan 25, 2018)

Doug Joubert said:


> I'm with you, @joelliot . I'm trying to figure out what this all means, too.
> 
> Any teachers out there who'd like to fill us in?


After staring at the screen for a bit, I believe the solid line might be the rated Wh/mi. In other words, if you stayed at the line you would get your rated 310 mile range? So average for the time period selected, instant and rated Wh/mi. The trip is still blank, It would seem it is only active while you are on a trip and I didn't check it while driving.


----------



## Doug Joubert (Jul 14, 2018)

joelliot said:


> After staring at the screen for a bit, I believe the solid line might be the rated Wh/mi. In other words, if you stayed at the line you would get your rated 310 mile range? So average for the time period selected, instant and rated Wh/mi. The trip is still blank, It would seem it is only active while you are on a trip and I didn't check it while driving.


Thank you @joelliot !


----------



## Bokonon (Apr 13, 2017)

joelliot said:


> After staring at the screen for a bit, I believe the solid line might be the rated Wh/mi. In other words, if you stayed at the line you would get your rated 310 mile range? So average for the time period selected, instant and rated Wh/mi.


Yup! That's how the energy screen works on the Model S and X. The Model 3's energy screen basically looks like a straight-up port of the S/X version.

Minor correction, though: the X-axis of the energy graph is distance, not time. You can have the graph show you the energy consumption for the past 5, 15, or 30 miles.


----------



## actualsize (Jun 13, 2018)

Having spent a lot of time in the S and the X, I really miss not having this in the 3. Glad to see it's finally coming on line. Interesting to see the dark "range par" line at, what, about 250 Wh/mi? The data I've been keeping suggests it'd have to be lower than that to get the rated range. I was guessing 220 based on past experience. 

Anyway, this is really helpful on a long trip. It's also interesting to see how it rockets up to fill the entire screen when accelerating and climbining a grade, then dips way down to the bottom when descending. On flat ground this gives really good instant feedback to help you get more miles out of the car. Having had it before, I've really missed it.


----------



## Bokonon (Apr 13, 2017)

actualsize said:


> Interesting to see the dark "range par" line at, what, about 250 Wh/mi?


Yes, rated battery-to-wheels efficiency is about 252 Wh/mi (78,200 Wh / 310 mi). Those numbers are about accurate for the AWD variants, but are high for the RWD powertrain which was derated from 334 miles. (334 miles would get you about 234 Wh/mi.)

Random aside: Teslafi's default efficiency par is about 220 Wh/mi. I'm not sure how they came up with this number, so I used their efficiency multiplier setting to recalibrate it to around 252.


----------



## Bokonon (Apr 13, 2017)

I played around with the new Energy screen this morning on my 9-mile commute to work and took a few pictures of it in action. (Apologies in advance for the blurry/psychadelic cell-phone pics!)

But before I get into that, I just wanted to point out a couple of minor changes to the energy-efficiency *cards* (in the lower-left portion of the screen) in V9:

The order of the cards has changed. Previously, Trip A and Trip B were at the top, followed by Since Last Charge and Current Drive. The new order is: Current Drive, Since Last Charge, Trip A, and Trip B. (To everyone who made Trip A their "Lifetime" efficiency tracker because it was at one end of the deck and is now annoyed that it's second-to-the-end: I feel your pain! )

When you scroll vertically between the cards, the current card "snaps" to the top of the viewing pane when you let go. This makes it easier to flip from one consumption timeframe to another without micromanaging the precise position of the card.... *BUT* it also means you can no longer view more than one timeframe at a time. (I liked to view both Current Drive and Since Last Charge at the same time.) 
As for the Energy screen itself: as you saw in @joelliot's screenshot above, "Consumption" mode plots your car's energy consumption over the past 5, 15, or 30 miles, and projects your remaining range based on either your instantaneous consumption or average consumption over the selected time period. When you first update to V9, you'll find that this graph is already populated with consumption data that was recorded while you were still running V8.1 -- sweet!

To use "Trip" mode, you'll need to enter a destination in your car's navigation system. Once you do this, Trip mode will plot your battery's expected state of charge over the course of the trip. (For shorter trips, like my 9-mile commute, tap the "+" button to near the top of the graph to zoom in the Y-axis, otherwise you'll be staring at a flat line! )










As you embark upon your trip, the red "location" arrow at the bottom of the graph will move from left to right along the X-axis, and you'll be able to see a gray line on the graph as well. This gray line represents the original estimate for the trip, while the green line shows your actual state of charge for the distance you've covered plus an estimate for the remainder of the trip. In the picture below, I'm 1.3 miles into my trip, and I'm consuming slightly more energy than the car had projected, as indicated by the fact that the green line is below the gray line.










(Side-note: no, that car in my passenger-side blind spot did not actually side-swipe me! )

For this particular trip, my consumption was about 10-20% above the car's estimate for most of the way, but I ended up catching up at the end thanks to slower traffic and better luck with stoplights. Based on what you see in the "current drive" card in the picture below, the car seems to have estimated consumption of about 230-235 Wh/mi for this route, which includes two major hills and a net elevation loss of about 75 feet. That number strikes me as a little optimistic for an AWD Model 3, so I'd be curious to know whether rated powertrain efficiency factors into the estimate at all:










All said, though, I'm glad that the Energy screen is finally here! Looking forward to trying it out on a longer, 180-mile round-trip I have planned for this weekend.


----------



## Love (Sep 13, 2017)

Bokonon said:


> I played around with the new Energy screen this morning on my 9-mile commute to work and took a few pictures of it in action. (Apologies in advance for the blurry/psychadelic cell-phone pics!)
> 
> But before I get into that, I just wanted to point out a couple of minor changes to the energy-efficiency *cards* (in the lower-left portion of the screen) in V9:
> 
> ...


AMAZINGLY DETAILED POST, headless @Bokonon!!


----------



## kort677 (Sep 17, 2018)

fwiw: a 9 ,ile trip is not long enough to see the benefits of this app. in fact the first 15 minutes of driving are skewed by the initial accelerations


----------



## NOGA$4ME (Sep 30, 2016)

kort677 said:


> fwiw: a 9 ,ile trip is not long enough to see the benefits of this app. in fact the first 15 minutes of driving are skewed by the initial accelerations


Maybe, but I think it was more illustrative of the mode itself, which I did not even know existed, so thanks. I look forward to playing with this some more and hope that maybe it shows waypoints and such on longer trips.


----------



## Bokonon (Apr 13, 2017)

kort677 said:


> fwiw: a 9 ,ile trip is not long enough to see the benefits of this app. in fact the first 15 minutes of driving are skewed by the initial accelerations


Yep, this is a valid point when it comes to the car's reported efficiency stats in general. Battery and cabin conditioning will cause higher than usual consumption at the beginning of a trip, especially after the car has been sitting idle in the driveway overnight. Trip Mode's estimation likely doesn't take these two factors into account, which would explain why the projection for my relatively short commute seemed optimistic.


----------



## kort677 (Sep 17, 2018)

Bokonon said:


> Yep, this is a valid point when it comes to the car's reported efficiency stats in general. Battery and cabin conditioning will cause higher than usual consumption at the beginning of a trip, especially after the car has been sitting idle in the driveway overnight. Trip Mode's estimation likely doesn't take these two factors into account, which would explain why the projection for my relatively short commute seemed optimistic.


in my usage on longer trips I force a recalc by restarting the nav.


----------



## kort677 (Sep 17, 2018)

NOGA$4ME said:


> Maybe, but I think it was more illustrative of the mode itself, which I did not even know existed, so thanks. I look forward to playing with this some more and hope that maybe it shows waypoints and such on longer trips.


this app is feed info from the nav system so until waypoints is enabled in the nav system this app won't reflect waypoints. this app has always been in the s and x models. when I took my initial test drive I expressed my
disappointment with the app missing in the 3, I suppose many people expressed the same view and it filtered back to the mothership.


----------



## NOGA$4ME (Sep 30, 2016)

kort677 said:


> this app is feed info from the nav system so until waypoints is enabled in the nav system this app won't reflect waypoints. this app has always been in the s and x models. when I took my initial test drive I expressed my
> disappointment with the app missing in the 3, I suppose many people expressed the same view and it filtered back to the mothership.


Well maybe I shouldn't have used the term "waypoint" generically (although that is certianly something I'm looking forward to in the future). But if you input a trip with 1 or more Supercharger stops, can you see those reflected in the energy app in trip mode?


----------



## Bokonon (Apr 13, 2017)

NOGA$4ME said:


> Well maybe I shouldn't have used the term "waypoint" generically (although that is certianly something I'm looking forward to in the future). But if you input a trip with 1 or more Supercharger stops, can you see those reflected in the energy app in trip mode?


For S&Gs (and also because, as @Lovesword pointed out, I have no head) I just programmed a 3000+ mile trip to Voodoo Donuts in Portland, OR. In this case, both the navigation directions and Trip graph are scoped to the first supercharger stop only. Presumably, after reaching that stop, they would update to cover the next leg of the trip.


----------



## JWardell (May 9, 2016)

Awesome helpful posts @Bokonon !
I'm impressed that Tesla can predict battery usage so precisely, as if it is taking account detailed speed and elevation changes (from crowd-sourced data?), and your real usage almost follows it exactly.


----------



## Bokonon (Apr 13, 2017)

JWardell said:


> Awesome helpful posts @Bokonon !
> I'm impressed that Tesla can predict battery usage so precisely, as if it is taking account detailed speed and elevation changes (from crowd-sourced data?), and your real usage almost follows it exactly.


Well, I *may* have tried to game the graph toward the end of my commute...  ... I wanted to end the trip with the same SoC as the graph so that I could see the overall Wh/mi efficiency it had calculated for the route.

But yeah, the plot of the car's SoC estimate seems to suggest that it is a very detailed calculation. I imagine that the map data alone -- posted speed limit and net elevation change per unit length of road -- gets you sufficiently close to reality. I'll be curious to see to what extent temperature factors into the calculation, since cold temperatures should increase real-world consumption by 30-40%.


----------



## kort677 (Sep 17, 2018)

NOGA$4ME said:


> Well maybe I shouldn't have used the term "waypoint" generically (although that is certianly something I'm looking forward to in the future). But if you input a trip with 1 or more Supercharger stops, can you see those reflected in the energy app in trip mode?


yes the nav will plan the needed charging stops on your routes


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

Bokonon said:


> The order of the cards has changed. Previously, Trip A and Trip B were at the top, followed by Since Last Charge and Current Drive. The new order is: Current Drive, Since Last Charge, Trip A, and Trip B.


I'm happy about that. I'm always scrolling down to see Last and Current. It'll be nice to just have those shown by default.


----------



## Bokonon (Apr 13, 2017)

Minor addition: I confirmed this morning that if you're viewing the "Trip" energy graph, and the navigation system recalculates the current route (e.g. because you missed an exit or decided to take an alternate route), the green and gray lines for the remainder of your trip are also automatically recalculated after a second or two. The graph's axes will also automatically re-scale if needed.



garsh said:


> I'm happy about that. I'm always scrolling down to see Last and Current. It'll be nice to just have those shown by default.


That part is very convenient, especially when you're out running errands with a bunch of quick stops... No need to scroll all the way down every time you start the car!


----------



## plankeye (Oct 17, 2016)

Thanks, @Bokonon! I'll totally be geeking-out over this!  Some day!


----------



## MRinPDX (Jul 2, 2018)

Bokonon said:


> For S&Gs (and also because, as @Lovesword pointed out, I have no head) I just programmed a 3000+ mile trip to Voodoo Donuts in Portland, OR. In this case, both the navigation directions and Trip graph are scoped to the first supercharger stop only. Presumably, after reaching that stop, they would update to cover the next leg of the trip.
> 
> View attachment 15789


Let me know when you are getting close and I will meet you at Voodoo in Lucy! :doughnut:


----------



## Bokonon (Apr 13, 2017)

MRinPDX said:


> Let me know when you are getting close and I will meet you at Voodoo in Lucy! :doughnut:


I should arrive by Christmas, albeit in a non-Tesla vehicle with Alaska Airlines branding.


----------



## Bokonon (Apr 13, 2017)

Just wanted to share an observation about the green line on the Trip graph (actual state-of-charge %) and its relationship to the gray line (predicted SoC% over the course of the trip).

My commute includes a stretch of state highway with a steep downhill grade for 1/2 mile, 1/2 mile of mostly flat road, and then 1/2 mile of a steep uphill, all at 50mph. I've marked these stretches on the graph below.










As was noted upthread, the coarse bumps and dips shown on the gray line suggest that its underlying calculations have a high degree of precision. In contrast, the green line is relatively smooth, reflecting a lower degree of precision for the car's actual measured SoC over time. That relative lack of precision isn't the interesting part... Anyone who has looked at their raw TeslaFi data feed can tell you that, as you drive (or sit idle), the car's calculated SoC does not deplete continuously, but rather in small incremental steps. (For example, rather than seeing 60.00% -> 59.80% -> 59.60% -> 59.40% -> 59.20%, you'd see the car report 60.00% -> 60.00% -> 59.60% -> 59.60% -> 59.20%.)

The part I found interesting was that the green and gray lines started moving in opposite directions during the hilly stretch, as if the pack's SoC stayed constant or increased during the uphill while not recovering energy (or even expending energy) going downhill. This seems to suggest that the car's SoC (or at least its representation on the energy graph) is recalculated only a few times every minute, and there may be a small delay between the time it is calculated and reported. On a flat road with relatively constant consumption, it doesn't really make a difference, but when steep hills cause wild swings in energy consumed / recovered, the divergence of the two lines (and contrast in precision) provides a great illustration of how "fuzzy" the SoC calculation actually is.


----------



## Drhalo (Jul 12, 2018)

Bokonon said:


> Just wanted to share an observation about the green line on the Trip graph (actual state-of-charge %) and its relationship to the gray line (predicted SoC% over the course of the trip).
> 
> My commute includes a stretch of state highway with a steep downhill grade for 1/2 mile, 1/2 mile of mostly flat road, and then 1/2 mile of a steep uphill, all at 50mph. I've marked these stretches on the graph below.
> 
> ...


Bokonon, lets slap my Aeros on your car and redo your analysis 
Would be curious if you see a measurable difference.


----------



## Bokonon (Apr 13, 2017)

Drhalo said:


> Bokonon, lets slap my Aeros on your car and redo your analysis


...while you drive off into the sunset with my 19s? 

I have a better idea: when your car gets V9, enter a route that takes you through the big hills on Route 9, and see what happens for yourself. 



Drhalo said:


> Would be curious if you see a measurable difference.


I'd be curious to see whether a different wheel/tire configuration (as you have) would produce a different estimate for the same route. Since you have aero wheels and LRR tires, your actual energy consumption should be marginally lower than mine for the same route, speed, driving conditions, etc. But whether the car factors its own configuration (i.e. wheels and powertrain) into the energy estimate is an open question in my mind.

Random aside: after updating to 39.7 last night, the energy estimate for this morning's commute became a *lot* more pessimistic, probably something like 270 Wh/mi average consumption instead of 235 Wh/mi. Maybe the calculations changed in 39.7, or maybe the 15-degree difference in temperature this morning was a factor... hard to say at this point.


----------



## Drhalo (Jul 12, 2018)

Bok, what stretch of 9 are we talking. I go west bound to framingham from cedar st wellesley a couple times a week. 
Is that where you typically go? What times of day?


----------



## Bokonon (Apr 13, 2017)

Drhalo said:


> Bok, what stretch of 9 are we talking. I go west bound to framingham from cedar st wellesley a couple times a week.
> Is that where you typically go? What times of day?


Heading westbound, it's the stretch from the big hill after Eliot Street in Newton to the top of the hill by the RT 9/16 interchange in Wellesley. So, the start of your travel on 9 is the "uphill" part.

On any given workday I'm usually on 9 from Chestnut Hill to Natick sometime in the late morning (it varies widely), then to the various shopping centers along 9 for lunch and errands in the afternoon.


----------



## babula (Aug 26, 2018)

@Bokonon thank you! That was so detailed it should be pinned as the first post in this thread


----------



## Drhalo (Jul 12, 2018)

You do realize that of you live near Eliot Street we probably live about a mile from each other. We could meet up one day and do some testing. But I'll try that run this weekend.


----------



## AndrewF (Jul 3, 2018)

From my observations of the consumption graphs today, there appears to me a major flaw in how the data is being displayed when switching between the 10km, 25km and 50km views. 

The 3 different views change the scale of the x-axis of the graph, to show either 2, 5 or 10 kilometres per division respectively. The scale of the y-axis does not change. So when switching from the 10km to the 25km view, the graph previously shown in the 10km view should be scaled horizontally to fit into the right 2 divisions of the 25km graph. The data points should be the same and the vertical scaling should remain the same. 

When I switch between the 10 and 25km views, the graph in the first 2 divisions looks nothing like what was previously in the 10km graph, and the data is significantly compressed in the y-axis, yet the Y scale hasn't changed. 

Interested to hear if anyone else has observed the same.


----------



## MelindaV (Apr 2, 2016)

babula said:


> @Bokonon thank you! That was so detailed it should be pinned as the first post in this thread


have you looked at the first post in this thread lately? I linked to @Bokonon's fantastic post a few days ago


----------



## jsmay311 (Oct 2, 2017)

Andrew Foord said:


> From my observations of the consumption graphs today, there appears to me a major flaw in how the data is being displayed when switching between the 10km, 25km and 50km views.
> 
> The 3 different views change the scale of the x-axis of the graph, to show either 2, 5 or 10 kilometres per division respectively. The scale of the y-axis does not change. So when switching from the 10km to the 25km view, the graph previously shown in the 10km view should be scaled horizontally to fit into the right 2 divisions of the 25km graph. The data points should be the same and the vertical scaling should remain the same.
> 
> ...


What you're seeing is that they are averaging more data points together when you look at the graphs with wider x-axis ranges, so it smoothes out the plotted line.

For example, on the 10-km graph they might be displaying 10 data points (I just made up that number) per km, but in the 50-km graph they would only display 2 data points per mile, each of which is effectively an average of 5 data points from the 10-km graph. So you're typically going to see much higher peaks and valleys in the 10-km graph compared to the 50-km graph due to the finer resolution.


----------



## tivoboy (Mar 24, 2017)

I'm wondering what to make of this?

This is just a short drive. you can see that the trip meter is showing that my average wh/mi are 161 for this trip, and on the energy screen it says my "avg" is 180. I can understand that one would need a lot more data points for these two numbers to truly come into line. But, is that what one should expect to see? AVG on the energy graph over the same distances selected SHOULD be same/very similar to the indicated amount on a trip meter?..

The Project Range number on the right, in this case indicated at 801 miles. Obviously that is just wrong, but is that an indication based on CURRENT SOC / current wh/mile avg? or current exact wh/mi rate? I'm wondering if that number is based on 78.2 kWh, or is it based on SOC. In this example that would be about 60% total SOC.


----------



## 3V Pilot (Sep 15, 2017)

tivoboy said:


> I'm wondering what to make of this?
> 
> This is just a short drive. you can see that the trip meter is showing that my average wh/mi are 161 for this trip, and on the energy screen it says my "avg" is 180. I can understand that one would need a lot more data points for these two numbers to truly come into line. But, is that what one should expect to see? AVG on the energy graph over the same distances selected SHOULD be same/very similar to the indicated amount on a trip meter?..
> 
> ...


Your are showing the "instant" range numbers. Like in an ICE car when the instant MPG shows 99MPG when you let off the gas.


----------



## tivoboy (Mar 24, 2017)

3V Pilot said:


> Your are showing the "instant" range numbers. Like in an ICE car when the instant MPG shows 99MPG when you let off the gas.


well, duh, but that doesn't really answer the larger question. Should the Range miles be based on SOC or total kWh of the pack? I would say that that number on my car, bounces between about 480, 660, 801, 720, etc. So, it's clearly thinking something is positive from an energy consumption standpoint. of COURSE it isn't going to be actual range, I'm just trying to confirm if it is based on remaining SOC or SOC as spec'd for the current vehicle.


----------



## 3V Pilot (Sep 15, 2017)

tivoboy said:


> well, duh, but that doesn't really answer the larger question. Should the Range miles be based on SOC or total kWh of the pack? I would say that that number on my car, bounces between about 480, 660, 801, 720, etc. So, it's clearly thinking something is positive from an energy consumption standpoint. of COURSE it isn't going to be actual range, I'm just trying to confirm if it is based on remaining SOC or SOC as spec'd for the current vehicle.


The simple way to find out is run the SOC down to a few miles left and see what the number is at that point. As far as I know this energy chart is so new that nobody really knows.


----------



## Johnm6875 (Nov 14, 2016)

tivoboy said:


> well, duh, but that doesn't really answer the larger question. Should the Range miles be based on SOC or total kWh of the pack? I would say that that number on my car, bounces between about 480, 660, 801, 720, etc. So, it's clearly thinking something is positive from an energy consumption standpoint. of COURSE it isn't going to be actual range, I'm just trying to confirm if it is based on remaining SOC or SOC as spec'd for the current vehicle.


I believe the "Instant Range" graph is showing how far you could go, at your current state of charge, if you maintained the Wh/mi indicated for the entire distance until the battery was depleted.

Looking at your chart: Avg. of 180 is over the last 5 miles. the 161 is over the last 4 minutes (I'm guessing a mile or so). 183 miles on the battery is about 59kWh and the graph indicates approximately 75 Wh/mi so, 59 divided by .075 is 788. Close to the 801 mi for me to feel confident.


----------



## jsmay311 (Oct 2, 2017)

tivoboy said:


> I'm wondering what to make of this?
> 
> This is just a short drive. you can see that the trip meter is showing that my average wh/mi are 161 for this trip, and on the energy screen it says my "avg" is 180. I can understand that one would need a lot more data points for these two numbers to truly come into line. But, is that what one should expect to see? AVG on the energy graph over the same distances selected SHOULD be same/very similar to the indicated amount on a trip meter?..
> 
> ...


It's definitely based on your *remaining* range.

This had me confused on a recent roadtrip, cuz at first I assumed it was the total range assuming a 100% charged battery. But then I saw it dropping pretty steadily the longer I drove.

Also, I'd recommend changing from the "Instant Range" to "Average Range" (especially if using the "5-mile" range on the X-axis) so you don't end up with such silly looking projected range numbers. (Although I am curious to see what it would display when your Wh/mi goes negative. Maybe "∞ miles"?  )


----------



## Craig Bennett (Apr 6, 2016)

jsmay311 said:


> (Although I am curious to see what it would display when your Wh/mi goes negative. Maybe "∞ miles"?  )


Enough range to get to Mars!!!


----------



## PNWmisty (Aug 19, 2017)

jsmay311 said:


> It's definitely based on your *remaining* range.
> 
> This had me confused on a recent roadtrip, cuz at first I assumed it was the total range assuming a 100% charged battery. But then I saw it dropping pretty steadily the longer I drove.
> 
> Also, I'd recommend changing from the "Instant Range" to "Average Range" (especially if using the "5-mile" range on the X-axis) so you don't end up with such silly looking projected range numbers. (Although I am curious to see what it would display when your Wh/mi goes negative. Maybe "∞ miles"?  )


It just shows "999 miles" in the same manner an ICE car shows "99 MPG" when coasting down hills.


----------



## Bokonon (Apr 13, 2017)

... just like this:


----------



## Kizzy (Jul 25, 2016)

jsmay311 said:


> (Although I am curious to see what it would display when your Wh/mi goes negative. Maybe "∞ miles"?  )


To infinity, and beyond!

I'm so looking forward to having this. Did I say that already?


----------



## Bokonon (Apr 13, 2017)

So, I just had the most efficient commute ever... 










"But wait!" you protest. "Your trip card says you averaged 243 Wh/mile! How is this possible?"

Well... there appears to be a bug in the "Trip" graph when you start your drive in "snowflake mode" (i.e. limited battery capacity due to cold), but by the time you have reached your destination, your battery has warmed up enough to return to full capacity. The Trip graph doesn't seem to be aware that the battery's SoC % has been artificially reduced, and takes it at face value. So, as your battery warms over the course of your drive and frees up the reserved capacity, the Trip graph thinks your SoC is actually increasing as you're cruising along!

And the Trip graph isn't alone in being fooled. Check out TeslaFi's calculated efficiency and kWh used for this same drive...


----------



## Rich M (Jul 28, 2017)

Helluva bug find, nice!


----------



## Dr. J (Sep 1, 2017)

Bokonon said:


> <snip>
> And the Trip graph isn't alone in being fooled. Check out TeslaFi's calculated efficiency and kWh used for this same drive...
> 
> View attachment 16328


"Data Accuracy 100%"


----------



## PNWmisty (Aug 19, 2017)

Bokonon said:


> So, I just had the most efficient commute ever...
> 
> View attachment 16325
> 
> ...


Considering that the Y-axis is the state of charge, and you started at 34 1/2% and ended at 35% it would be more accurate to say the estimation of the state of charge is somewhat imprecise than to call it a "bug". I think the intended purpose of the trip energy meter is to assist with trip energy planning. So, as long as its showing its best estimation of "state of charge" at every stage of the trip, it's doing its job properly. Unless there is a more accurate way to estimate the state of charge, I don't see that there is any bug.

Look at it this way: 8.7 miles = only 2.8% of the 310 mile range. Add on 0.5% for the difference between the beginning and ending state of charge and the total error between the beginning/ending state of charge is only about 3.3% error (probably a little less since your trip was more efficient than rated efficiency). So, maybe a 3% error between the beginning and ending state of charge (which could be divided equally as 1.5% too low at the beginning and 1.5% too high at the end. This is within the natural variation I would expect in the cars estimation of state of charge.


----------



## Bokonon (Apr 13, 2017)

PNWmisty said:


> Considering that the Y-axis is the state of charge, and you started at 34 1/2% and ended at 35% it would be more accurate to say the estimation of the state of charge is somewhat imprecise than to call it a "bug". I think the intended purpose of the trip energy meter is to assist with trip energy planning. So, as long as its showing its best estimation of "state of charge" at every stage of the trip, it's doing its job properly. Unless there is a more accurate way to estimate the state of charge, I don't see that there is any bug.


That's a fair way to look at the trip graph. But from that viewpoint, I would expect the gray line's estimate to take into account the portion of the battery that has been reserved, and the approximate rate at which it would be released over the course of the drive (which it should be able to estimate from the ambient temperature and expected drivetrain load over the route). Put another way, in the picture above, I would have expected the gray line to be relatively flat over the course of the whole drive, similar to the green line, rather than sloping downward at the same rate as when the battery is warm.


----------



## PNWmisty (Aug 19, 2017)

Bokonon said:


> Put another way, in the picture above, I would have expected the gray line to be relatively flat over the course of the whole drive, similar to the green line, rather than sloping downward at the same rate as when the battery is warm.


I could be wrong because I've only just begun using the trip energy meter (two trips) and my attention was divided. So correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the grey line remain unchanged from the time the route is initiated (as long as the route is not recalculated for any reason)? It is the pre-calculated consumption of that route?
And the green line is the real-time state of the battery? Which is only an estimation based on various measurements. It's designed to get you where you are going by keeping you abreast of the cars best estimation of remaining energy at every moment. At any moment, it is taking the current state of the battery estimation and appending the remaining portion of the grey line to that estimated state of charge. But because that estimation of the state of charge can change as the trip progresses (independently of any energy actually consumed), the final green line may not follow the initial grey line.


----------



## Bokonon (Apr 13, 2017)

PNWmisty said:


> I could be wrong because I've only just begun using the trip energy meter (two trips) and my attention was divided. So correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the grey line remain unchanged from the time the route is initiated (as long as the route is not recalculated for any reason)? It is the pre-calculated consumption of that route?
> And the green line is the real-time state of the battery? Which is only an estimation based on various measurements. It's designed to get you where you are going by keeping you abreast of the cars best estimation of remaining energy at every moment. At any moment, it is taking the current state of the battery estimation and appending the remaining portion of the grey line to that estimated state of charge.


Yes, that's exactly how the Trip graph works, with the only minor caveat being that the green line isn't *exactly* real-time, since the state-of-charge calculations only seem to update a few times every minute. That's why, if you drive up and down some extended, steep grades at highway speed, the green line can appear to lag the gray line.



> But because that estimation of the state of charge can change as the trip progresses (independently of any energy actually consumed), the final green line may not follow the initial grey line.


Right, the green line almost never follows the gray line exactly. And, in my limited experience with longer drives (> 30 miles), it seems like the longer the trip, the greater the difference between the two lines when you reach your destination. This seems logical and expected to me, given that the trip estimate can't really factor in variables like road-surface conditions (dry/wet/snow) or wind speed/direction, all of which can significantly impact consumption on longer trips.

The part that I don't understand is why the trip estimate doesn't take into account how much of the battery is currently "off limits" due to the pack temperature being too low. We know that the car knows how much of the battery is being kept in reserve due to cold, because it renders that section of the battery in blue on the "charging" screen. The car also knows the current ambient temperature, and has a model for how much power will be flowing in and out of the battery over the course of a given route. So, from these known data points, as well as a few constants (e.g. waste-heat coefficients), shouldn't the car be able to estimate battery temperature along the route? And therefore allow the trip estimate to factor in the additional state-of-charge that becomes available as the battery warms up?


----------



## PNWmisty (Aug 19, 2017)

Bokonon said:


> The part that I don't understand is why the trip estimate doesn't take into account how much of the battery is currently "off limits" due to the pack temperature being too low. We know that the car knows how much of the battery is being kept in reserve due to cold, because it renders that section of the battery in blue on the "charging" screen.


I'll admit that I'm unfamiliar with the blue portion of the battery on the charging screen. But from what I know about batteries and cold temperatures, I'm thinking it might be a mistake to view the blue area as range that is "off-limits" or "in reserve" until the battery is warmer. Because, as you mentioned, that range (the blue area) will largely become available as you drive. I think the blue area is more likely to be the method by which Tesla communicates that the full torque that the car is capable of at any given moment is reduced until the battery warms up more. My understanding is that the blue area is not communicating reduced range, rather reduced torque (until the blue goes away). But I can see how this is confusing since the battery graph is normally displaying the remaining range.



> The car also knows the current ambient temperature, and has a model for how much power will be flowing in and out of the battery over the course of a given route. So, from these known data points, as well as a few constants (e.g. waste-heat coefficients), shouldn't the car be able to estimate battery temperature along the route? And therefore allow the trip estimate to factor in the additional state-of-charge that becomes available as the battery warms up?


I think the car does calculate the current state of charge using battery temperature as one of the inputs. I think it also uses the current battery voltage (including how that battery voltage has changed over time as it supplies a known quantity of energy to run the car). Every time you step on the accelerator it provides another opportunity for the car to reappraise the current state of charge according to algorithms that probably self adapt in each individual Model 3. I think the inaccuracies you have noted are _in spite_ of the car tracking all those factors. They are errors in addition to the errors that are already corrected for by taking into account all the known factors. This is why I say the battery's state of charge is only a somewhat rough estimate even after being corrected for known variables like battery temperature and how much the car has consumed as measured in real time and periodically updated.


----------



## R1Fast (Sep 18, 2018)

In the new energy app I am seeing severe spikes above 900 wh/m frequently. Some of this I would a.s.s.u.m.e. is normal, and due to smoothing it's usually only seen in the 5mi interval but I have seen it even in the 30 min interval (first pic).

But that said, it happens regularly. It almost always peaks over 900 when starting up and first pulling out from the garage which I attribute to warming the battery/powertrain. But the spike behavior also happens around town every 10-15 min on average and *not *just on big hills and/or when using accessories (heat, stereo, lights). I have seen it a few times sitting at a dead stop at a long stoplight.

For example, the second pic below was taken after about a 90s stoplight, followed by a short downhill and then a long uphill. I'd expect the green regen and second spike in that case, but not the longer first spike which was when the car was for the most part not under a known load.

Anyway, I have a SC appt on the 30th and will ask them for more info, but curious what others' thoughts are as well.

Is this anything to be concerned about in your opinion, or does every 3 / Tesla do this? If so, do any gurus know what would cause it while the car is *not* under apparent load?


----------



## Bokonon (Apr 13, 2017)

R1Fast said:


> But the spike behavior also happens around town every 10-15 min on average and *not *just on big hills and/or when using accessories (heat, stereo, lights). I have seen it a few times sitting at a dead stop at a long stoplight.


This can happen because the X-axis on the energy graph is distance, rather than time. While your car is sitting at a stop light, or inching forward in gridlock, the HVAC system and other on-board electronics are still consuming power, but your car is only moving a very small distance (if at all). As a result, your energy consumption per distance traveled can be much higher than if you were cruising along at a constant speed.

Example: suppose your car's overhead consumption (HVAC + electronics + etc) is 2 kW. You enter a 1/8-mile line for a traffic light that takes you 3 minutes to get through. Over the course of that wait, your car's overhead consumption is 2000 watts * 0.05 hours = 100 Wh, and your powertrain's consumption at low speed is something like 200 Wh/mi * (1/8 mile) = 25 Wh, making your total consumption 125 Wh over that 1/8-mile distance. However, the energy graph will plot that same distance as 125 Wh / (1/8 mi) = 1000 Wh/mi, or about 4 times the car's EPA-rated consumption, resulting in a huge spike.

So, unless these spikes are happening while you're driving at a relatively constant speed, I wouldn't worry too much about them. They are just a natural consequence of the energy graph's chosen axes.

EDIT TO ADD: As far as the spike pulling out of the garage, other members here have reported seeing very high reported consumption over the first few tenths of a mile in their trip-efficiency cards. Apart from the realities of basic math (i.e. dividing by a small number), some have speculated that these inflated initial consumption figures include energy that was used *before* shifting into Drive. Regardless of the cause, I think these initial spikes are simply a reflection of the car's (quirky?) efficiency calculations.


----------



## R1Fast (Sep 18, 2018)

Thanks Bokonon! That is an excellent explanation and makes sense if the x axis is distance. I guess I was thrown off a bit by the 5,15,30 min intervals thinking they related to X as well.

I won't worry about it with the above in mind. 

Also sorry for not asking originally in the V9 megathread, thanks for merging!


----------



## Bokonon (Apr 13, 2017)

R1Fast said:


> Thanks Bokonon! That is an excellent explanation and makes sense if the x axis is distance. I guess I was thrown off a bit by the 5,15,30 min intervals thinking they related to X as well.


The 5 / 15 / 30-mile intervals are tied to the X-axis, but you're not alone in seeing "min" there instead of "mi" there, since we humans are much more used to seeing charts where the X-axis represents time rather than distance. 



R1Fast said:


> Also sorry for not asking originally in the V9 megathread, thanks for merging!


No worries! Moved posts aren't a knock on the poster here. And FWIW, it wasn't me who moved it, I was too busy replying.


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

I'm starting to get comfortable with the Energy display now.

I wish it would actually display instantaneous power as a number. It's being graphed, but you can't just glance at it.

I also wish they could display the uses of power separately - motor, climate control, and miscellaneous, for example.


----------



## Rich M (Jul 28, 2017)

garsh said:


> I also wish they could display the uses of power separately - motor, climate control, and miscellaneous


I'd love to see this also. I think I saw the Leaf or Bolt breaks it down for you like that on the display.


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

Rich M said:


> I'd love to see this also. I think I saw the Leaf or Bolt breaks it down for you like that on the display.


Yep, the Leaf does. I always kept the energy screen on just so I can see all of this information.


----------



## FRC (Aug 4, 2018)

I have determined that my consumption graph shows the rated consumption rate as 250 wh/m. But if I drive in a way that produces a usage of 250, my total range on a full charge appears to be about 275 miles. Said another way, it appears that I would need to achieve an average consumption rate of about 220wh/m in order to achieve a range of 310 miles. My 90% charge shows a range of about 280 miles, which converts to a 310 mile full charge. Somewhere the numbers are exaggerated and/or misleading. The fact that I'm in a P3D- isn't the issue it still shows full charge range of 310, rated usage of 250wh/m, and my actual results show about a 15% poorer result. I'm not upset about this, I'm just curious how to balance these apparent anomalies. Any input anyone? I would especially love a response from @JWardell.


----------



## Bokonon (Apr 13, 2017)

FRC said:


> But if I drive in a way that produces a usage of 250, my total range on a full charge appears to be about 275 miles.


Can you clarify where you are getting the 275 miles from? Is that just what you see displayed on the right-hand side of the energy graph?


----------



## FRC (Aug 4, 2018)

After a charge, say 90% or 280 miles, the total range available in left side of main screen shows range bar at 280 miles. Now, If I drive 100 miles at average 250wh/m and look at since last charge #'s, it will say wh/m 250 miles driven 100. However, the range bar at top right of that same screen will show something like 165 miles of range remaining. It seems to me that if I'm driving at rated wh/m then range used since charge plus range remaining should be much closer to the total range I began with than the apparent 15% or so error I'm seeing. To answer your question more directly, the 275 is obtained by adding miles since charge to remaining range. Of course a bit of extrapolation is require since we never run remaining range to zero.


----------



## Leggers (Jul 1, 2018)

This is a problem I too am having. My AWD is essentially same as P3 for energy. If I drive very conservatively at the posted speed. I can never get the energy use to match the predicted i.e. I am always going to run out before predicted. 
This makes route planning very difficult as the maps in the car thinks you can reach place X with a good percentage of battery left. But unless I drive well below posted speed its imposible to match. In the Energy prediction chart I am always below the require line (to match predicted usage) even driving below the roads posted speed. This is causing me range anxiety that with the Model 3 I was hoping to avoid.

Is it possible that it is only using one value for all Model 3's for the predicted speed/power use. So all AWD and P's will never match range predicted as its based partly or wholly on RWD's lower power usage speeds?


----------



## Bokonon (Apr 13, 2017)

Leggers said:


> Is it possible that it is only using one value for all Model 3's for the predicted speed/power use. So all AWD and P's will never match range predicted as its based partly or wholly on RWD's lower power usage speeds?


As far as I'm aware, the rated consumption on the graph is the same (~250 Wh/m as of 42.x) for all Model 3 variants.

Can someone with a RWD Model 3 running firmware 42.x or later confirm that the rated efficiency line is drawn at about ~250 Wh/m? I have reason to believe the rated efficiency value changed ever so slightly in 42.x, and want to make sure this change was universal.



FRC said:


> After a charge, say 90% or 280 miles, the total range available in left side of main screen shows range bar at 280 miles. Now, If I drive 100 miles at average 250wh/m and look at since last charge #'s, it will say wh/m 250 miles driven 100. However, the range bar at top right of that same screen will show something like 165 miles of range remaining


Okay, thanks for clarifying -- I understand what you're describing now. One follow-up question, though: when you say you're driving 100 miles at an average of 250 Wh/m, are you driving those 100 miles all at once, or in segments?

The reason I ask is because my range numbers don't add up either, but that's because I'm only driving 25-30 miles at a time, and I lose a few miles each day to vampire drain. On average, I'd say charge about once every 5 days, and lose about 3-5 miles per day to vampire drain. So, over the course of the average charge cycle, if I drove at exactly rated efficiency, I'd expect to see a 15-25 mile difference between miles driven and the number or rated miles I "should have" been able to drive at rated efficiency. Could something similar be happening in your case?


----------



## FRC (Aug 4, 2018)

The 100 miles were driven all at once, on a road trip. Next time you drive more than a few miles immediately after unplugging try keeping your usage close to 250wh/m, thenaddmiles since charge to range remaining and see how it compares to rated range at start(be sure to make note of the rated range shown when you set out or all is for naught).


----------



## r-e-l (Dec 19, 2018)

I am new to this and still trying to figure this chart. I understand (I think) what the chart was meant to say however, something feels off. when I start the trip (haven't even moved) - I already have a green and gray lines charted. 

How was the gray calculated? Don't know if its stats from other drivers, theoretical based on hights mapping … somehow they got it. I tend to view this line as "planned" / "budget" line.
The green represents "actual" - I would expected it will not be plotted on the chart till the car actually drove the distance. Since its not the case, I assume the green line represents "actual driven" + projected for the remaining of the trip based on the last X miles/data points. 

That is fine and well as it used in many "time series" analysis. 

However, I don't get why … on mile 0 (as we start the drive) the gray and the green are not matching. they are running in parallel with X % difference. - why? why does it already assume I will do worse than the predicted? if they are that smart … why don't they adjust the gray line to be less to begin with?

Where is my mistake in reading the chart?


----------



## Bokonon (Apr 13, 2017)

Welcome!



r-e-l said:


> How was the gray calculated? Don't know if its stats from other drivers, theoretical based on hights mapping … somehow they got it. I tend to view this line as "planned" / "budget" line.


My sense is the gray line is derived solely from map-based data: distance, speed limit, elevation change. It doesn't change based on climate control settings, and I don't *think* it changes with ambient temperature, though I'm not 100% positive on that last one.



r-e-l said:


> However, I don't get why … on mile 0 (as we start the drive) the gray and the green are not matching. they are running in parallel with X % difference. - why?


That's very strange, I haven't seen the lines do that before. I have seen them diverge like that early in my trips (which are usually short, around 8-12 miles), but not at the outset.

A few questions.... How long are your trips? Do you precondition the cabin before leaving? And when you say you see the divergence on "mile 0", do you mean at the instant after you enter your destination, or the moment when you first turn onto a public road (i.e. out of a driveway)?

I'm wondering whether the car is calculating a very large Wh/mi consumption rate for the first < 0.1 mile of your trip due to some kind of stationary or low-speed energy consumption (the same reason why your trip efficiency cards sometimes show > 1000 Wh/mi), and that is throwing off the graph from the start.

I have also noticed that, for shorter trips especially, the green line tends to move up and down several pixels at a time, and usually ends up being far less detailed than the gray line. This is because the battery's charge % only seems to be recalculated a few times a minute, whereas the theoretical battery-level calculations that create the gray line have a much higher resolution. That kind of calculation error might be a factor in what you're seeing too, if the trip is short enough.

Either way, I don't think you're making any kind of "mistake" in reading the chart -- the lines *should* be perfectly matched the moment you engage navigation. If this is not the case, and there does not appear to be any plausible explanation for the difference, make sure the trip energy graph is visible and file a bug report with Tesla (hold down the right scroll wheel --> say something like "bug report, trip energy graph lines should be the same at the start of the trip").


----------



## r-e-l (Dec 19, 2018)

Bokonon said:


> A few questions.... How long are your trips? Do you precondition the cabin before leaving? And when you say you see the divergence on "mile 0", do you mean at the instant after you enter your destination, or the moment when you first turn onto a public road (i.e. out of a driveway)?
> 
> I'm wondering whether the car is calculating a very large Wh/mi consumption rate for the first < 0.1 mile of your trip due to some kind of stationary or low-speed energy consumption (the same reason why your trip efficiency cards sometimes show > 1000 Wh/mi), and that is throwing off the graph from the start.


I have the same theory as yours.

first, my drives are indeed very short , only few miles (5-7).
I need to double check it happens right after entering the data to the nav or like you said 0.1M …

I don't pre heat the car but I do turn it on before driving and that was kind of my theory that maybe the grey line is in ideal condition without any seat or car heating and the moment the green, already take that into account.

I will check next time when exactly it sets the line apart.


----------



## r-e-l (Dec 19, 2018)

ok,

finally got a chance to grab a picture. As you can see, its almost immediately changes the forecast. I wonder Tesla (once the car moves) detect car weight and then make adjustment to the plan.
But even if they were that smart.... I would have expected the "planned" will quickly adjust itself base on that new data rather then keep the initial chart.


----------



## kort677 (Sep 17, 2018)

r-e-l said:


> ok,
> 
> finally got a chance to grab a picture. As you can see, its almost immediately changes the forecast. I wonder Tesla (once the car moves) detect car weight and then make adjustment to the plan.
> But even if they were that smart.... I would have expected the "planned" will quickly adjust itself base on that new data rather then keep the initial chart.
> ...


it detects the wh/miles employed, nothing else


----------



## r-e-l (Dec 19, 2018)

Not exactly. 
Yes the green line measures the wh/miles employed. No doubt.

The gray line was supposed to be the "plan/forecast" and the discussion was - how accurate is the estimate and how its being calculated? On one hand I find the "forecast" to me amazingly detailed as if they either use historical data or geographic data (uphill/downhill) to give a lot of details (instead of a simple liner line) yet .. they somehow miss it. 
Am wondering if its weight, heating that is working in the car, can not regenerating via breaks as expected and maybe I see those deltas just because the drive is too short and on a longer drive its a wash ...


----------



## kort677 (Sep 17, 2018)

r-e-l said:


> Not exactly.
> Yes the green line measures the wh/miles employed. No doubt.


yes, EXACTLY. all it is doing is calculating your range based on the wh/miles used at selected preset intervals. the plotted line is what is programmed as usage in perfect conditions, the green line measures reality. there are many factors that have an effect on YOUR wh/mile used. there are many threads dedicated to discussions as to what affects your wh/miles, some of which include speed, climatic conditions amongst other factors.


----------



## JWardell (May 9, 2016)

r-e-l said:


> ok,
> 
> finally got a chance to grab a picture. As you can see, its almost immediately changes the forecast. I wonder Tesla (once the car moves) detect car weight and then make adjustment to the plan.
> But even if they were that smart.... I would have expected the "planned" will quickly adjust itself base on that new data rather then keep the initial chart.
> ...


It looks like you're doing a GREAT job driving as efficiently as predicted. It doesn't continue to get worse over time (like mine...). It's just worse for the beginning, which is no doubt when the cabin is being heated.


----------



## BostonPilot (Aug 14, 2018)

I'm really glad that Tesla added the energy graph, now we all have additions/changes we'd like them to make 

Unless I've sorely deceived myself, each time you leave the energy trip graph and come back, it resets the estimate. Unfortunately there are some other displays (music?) that cancel the energy display, so when you come back from changing the music, you've lost the original estimate. I'd actually like it to retain the estimate until I reach my destination or manually reset it... reason is because I want to make extrapolations about how I'm doing in terms of reaching my destination with sufficient energy... and when it resets I lose some of the data I want to take into consideration.

Like others have mentioned, on the non-trip energy display I'd like to have to option of plotting other uses of energy besides total usage... for instance to track how the use of the climate control is affecting total energy use. So maybe a total line, a motive line, a climate use line, and an "all the rest like headlights" line.. Or at least total, motive, climate which are probably the important ones.

Also, for the non-trip energy display I'd like to be able to reset it, rather than always having it plot the last 'n' miles... For instance, when I leave my house on a drive I'd like to be able to ignore energy usage from previous days... instead of having to keep track of how far I've driven and estimate which part of the graph represents that.. (why? because energy usage on one day can be radically different than another, mostly depending on temperature...).

I love the graphs, and look forward to even more data/customization in future releases...


----------



## tivoboy (Mar 24, 2017)

JWardell said:


> It looks like you're doing a GREAT job driving as efficiently as predicted. It doesn't continue to get worse over time (like mine...). It's just worse for the beginning, which is no doubt when the cabin is being heated.


so, if THEIR Green line is below the projected GREY line, that's worse, right? It's REMAINING energy displayed on the graph


----------



## Jay79 (Aug 18, 2018)

tivoboy said:


> so, if THEIR Green line is below the projected GREY line, that's worse, right? It's REMAINING energy displayed on the graph


Grey line is your cars prediction, the green line is reality


----------



## kort677 (Sep 17, 2018)

BostonPilot said:


> I'm really glad that Tesla added the energy graph, now we all have additions/changes we'd like them to make
> 
> Unless I've sorely deceived myself, each time you leave the energy trip graph and come back, it resets the estimate.


I think you're wrong, but I don't know for sure about the 3, this was an add on feature for the 3, it was always part of the S and in the S what you think happens, doesn't


----------



## tivoboy (Mar 24, 2017)

Jay79 said:


> Grey line is your cars prediction, the green line is reality


Indeed. And being UNDER the grey line doesn't that mean their energy usage is worse than the stock prediction. Since it means that it's LESS energy remaining than the stock (most likely 250 w/mi) would predict?


----------



## davidfv (Jan 2, 2019)

joelliot said:


> haven't had the chance to take it on a trip for the trip screen, but here is what the screen looks like
> View attachment 15531


How do you open the graphs?


----------



## Dr. J (Sep 1, 2017)

davidfv said:


> How do you open the graphs?


----------



## BostonPilot (Aug 14, 2018)

kort677 said:


> I think you're wrong, but I don't know for sure about the 3, this was an add on feature for the 3, it was always part of the S and in the S what you think happens, doesn't


Yeah, I tested it and I was wrong - it didn't reset. So, I don't know why I was thinking that it did..


----------



## ehendrix23 (Jan 30, 2019)

Hoping someone can answer this as I have not yet figured it out. On the energy screen there are the 3 ranges, understand those. They allow for the chart and averages to be displayed for 3 different distances.

Then there is the Instant range and the Average Range. Switching between them does not change anything on the chart lines, it also does not change the Avg Wh/m. Only thing it changes is projected range.

OK, still good. Instant shows projected range based on right now whereas average is average over chosen distance. Wish that Wh/m would show current as well and not average, but can get some idea based on where the line is.

Now to what I do not get, if instant range is based on current consumption, then why does the number change based on distance selection? Averages I get as it is a calculation. Current I do not.

Only reason I can think is that there are for example x number of data points per range. Let’s say 10 data (sure there are more) points. Then data point for 5 miles will mean every 0.5 miles, for 15 miles every 1.5 and 30 miles every 3 miles. And thus in reality when saying instant range it technically speaking then is still an average based on data point and not actual current. And to get closest to real time, the 5 mile instant would do it. 

Am I off on this? Any other explanations? Would love to understand what exactly instant range means as clearly it is not true instant otherwise it would not change based on range selected.

Thx.


----------



## Bokonon (Apr 13, 2017)

ehendrix23 said:


> Only reason I can think is that there are for example x number of data points per range. Let's say 10 data (sure there are more) points. Then data point for 5 miles will mean every 0.5 miles, for 15 miles every 1.5 and 30 miles every 3 miles. And thus in reality when saying instant range it technically speaking then is still an average based on data point and not actual current. And to get closest to real time, the 5 mile instant would do it.


I was wondering the same thing earlier this week and arrived at a similar conclusion. I can't think of any other reason why they'd be different, and from a software perspective, it would be the simplest implementation.


----------



## Reliev (Jun 3, 2017)

so im probably wrong on this but my number for average vs instant is never the same its always off by 5-10 miles (i noticed this coming back from the meetup). Im not even sure how it calculates.


----------

