Tesla Semi efficiency = Lightning cold weather efficiency?

[RainorshinePNW]

Not that I really believe anything Elon says, but if true, not sure how I feel about this.

Sponsored

 

[drummer]

Ford talks miles per kWh and Tesla talks kWh/mile. Our model S is rated at .34 kWh/mi, the semi at almost 6 times that of 1.7 kWh/mi. The lightning is rated at .48 kWh/mi.

 

[RainorshinePNW]

 

[AdmiralYamo]

Things like this reminds me of all the points I got off in college for not putting units behind my answers.

 

[Halbach]

Things like this reminds me of all the points I got off in college for not putting units behind my answers.

I had one professor who gave you no points on the whole question if you forgot units anywhere in your work, whether you had the answer with them or not. I think that class gave me the school equivalent of PTSD.

 

[drummer]

I wish you could change the Ford to show wh/mile. After watching my Tesla's performance for years I have a good sense for how temperature, wind, rain, speed, etc. affect my energy consumption. I also am able to learn how good each version of the energy consumption algorithm is. It's made much easier with the energy consumption graph, a feature I have not found in the Ford yet. I get that miles/kwh is much more like miles/gallon so it might be easier to translate from an ICE but I guess I'm more concerned about how accurate the energy prediction is. So far I've found the energy prediction in the Ford to be totally unbelievable but that is based on a limited amount of data.

 

[GDN]

I wish you could change the Ford to show wh/mile. After watching my Tesla's performance for years I have a good sense for how temperature, wind, rain, speed, etc. affect my energy consumption. I also am able to learn how good each version of the energy consumption algorithm is. It's made much easier with the energy consumption graph, a feature I have not found in the Ford yet. I get that miles/kwh is much more like miles/gallon so it might be easier to translate from an ICE but I guess I'm more concerned about how accurate the energy prediction is. So far I've found the energy prediction in the Ford to be totally unbelievable but that is based on a limited amount of data.

Oddly this is likely one of the only things I like about Fords SW/interface better than Tesla. I never got the wh/mile - it makes no sense. The mi/kW is so easy to understand and calculate immediately when I'm charging. Knowing my current average I know exactly how far the next charge should get me. I do wish they provided more energy graphs to supplement this, but the mi/kW is very intuitive.

 

[vandy1981]

Not that I really believe anything Elon says, but if true, not sure how I feel about this.

I totally got tripped up on this when they announced efficiency numbers. I tend to think of efficiency in mi/kwh. Our I-pace displays in wh/mi and the Lightning does mi/kwh and I much prefer the Lightning's way of displaying it. That said, there's no reason why this shouldn't be user configurable.

 

[lightspeed]

Wh/mile is a really unintuitive and awkward unit that's hard to quickly mentally convert to anything useful.

mile/kWh is just the inverse of Wh/mile times 1000 and it's a lot more intuitive IMO.

mile/kWh = (Wh/mile)^-1 * 1000 (for the math people)

 

[sotek2345]

Wh/mile is a really unintuitive and awkward unit that's hard to quickly mentally convert to anything useful.

mile/kWh is just the inverse of Wh/mile times 1000 and it's a lot more intuitive IMO.

mile/kWh = (Wh/mile)^-1 * 1000 (for the math people)

On the flip side, wh/mi makes understanding differences in efficiency more intuitive.

Look at going from 2 mi /kWh to 4, and then 4 to 6. Those look like about the same level of improvement in that metric.

Now lets do wh/mi.

0.5, 0.25, and 0.17. from this metric it is clear that going from 2 mi/kWh to 4 is a much bigger improvement than 4 to 6.

 

[Firestop]

Wh/mile is a really unintuitive and awkward unit that's hard to quickly mentally convert to anything useful.

mile/kWh is just the inverse of Wh/mile times 1000 and it's a lot more intuitive IMO.

mile/kWh = (Wh/mile)^-1 * 1000 (for the math people)

On the flip side, wh/mi makes understanding differences in efficiency more intuitive.

Look at going from 2 mi /kWh to 4, and then 4 to 6. Those look like about the same level of improvement in that metric.

Now lets do wh/mi.

0.5, 0.25, and 0.17. from this metric it is clear that going from 2 mi/kWh to 4 is a much bigger improvement than 4 to 6.

For ABRP users, you can just tap the screen (area circled) on their calibration of your Milage and the app will toggle the conversion for you

mi./kWh

Wh/mi

 

[COrocket]

Its still impressive efficency from the Semi. A lightning towing 10,000 lbs and weighs around 17,000 truck/trailer combined uses around 1 kWh/mile, whereas the Semi can be loaded to 80,000 truck/trailer combined and use 2 kWh/mile

 

[Tony Burgh]

On your ICE vehicles, what’s your gallons per mile? Or litres per km?

 

[Maquis]

On your ICE vehicles, what’s your gallons per mile? Or litres per km?

Everywhere except North America used liters per 100 km.

 

[Tony Burgh]

Everywhere except North America used liters per 100 km.

The metric battles have been fought and lost 50 years ago. I learned both systems and can handle ft-#f to ft-#m. But mpg and now mpkwh are in my head.

Sponsored