Tesla's display shows the EPA range. While this is probably a bad idea and that's why no other manufacturer does it, "nobody else does it" is nothing but an informal standard and it seems a bit awkward to claim the approved government standard, in use at government agencies, is so obviously wrong that it constitutes fraud.
Clearly Tesla knew the EPA range isn’t what customers commonly got in the real world. They’re famous for all their telematics.
If an example car can achieve 700 miles on the EPA test, but normal usage averages 150, is it fraud to advertise 700? To show 700 on the screen at full charge?
I agree it’s an interesting question. If the difference was 5% I’m not sure people would care. But at 25% off I think it is a very a fair question.
Porsche reportedly tends to outperform its EPA number significantly. They chose to lower it (a choice automakers have) to provide a more realistic picture given their customers seem more likely to use the performance at the cost of raw range.
I feel like your example uses numbers that are so aggressive one has suspect that they are not real. I don’t have a stake in this or knowledge beyond a quick Google but the EPA test does not look obviously flawed.
The more pertinent question to me would be whether the Tesla range can genuinely achieve those EPA numbers with a typical car.
That’s on the regulators to define a metric, lest EVs compete on made up numbers. EVs are so new of course that organizations are still figuring this out globally.
When you look at web page of Tesla (or any other EV manufacturer), when they describe the range it's always "est. EPA range".
This is 100% truth. It is an estimated EPA range.
What's more it's often actually measured by an EPA. The Reuters article that spurred this lawsuit said that EPA, not Tesla, tested 6 Tesla cars since 2020. That's at least half of them (Tesla has only 3 + 3 + 2 + 2 = 10 different models on sale in U.S. although they have to re-certify if they change the battery).
In my opinion if people responsible for the choice of such and not another metric realized it will mislead the clients, then it was a fraud. You can do a lot of philosophical gymnastics proving fraud or no-fraud, but in the end of the day you're communicating something to your clients, and if you deliberately confuse them to think your product is better than it really is, is a fraud.
So it probably was a fraud, by my standards.
I'm considering buying Starlink access, but now I have to rethink what it really offers - maybe they use some different than common metric, which is 'technically true' but miscommunicates the actual performance?
Tesla display that but also displays highly accurate estimates of any trip you plan. To me the real party at fault with EV range in the USA is the EPA, which combines city and highway range in a single number, which inflates the highway number. Every EV that is sold advertises this inflated EPA number. Nobody cares about city range, just publish highway range, or both, like we do with gas cars.
1. Tesla's estimates are not "highly accurate". They are alleged to use a deliberately optimistic estimate when the battery is near full, then gradually switch to a more realistic estimate as the battery drains. In particular they are alleged to incorrectly account for the weather. This means the car will always display nearly the advertised number at full charge (and on a test drive). Supposedly Tesla used to use a more accurate estimate but then got orders from on high to fudge the numbers.
2. For other car manufacturers, the range estimates are not terribly inflated. The report from Edmunds claim that most EV models meet or exceed their range estimates, and cars that miss their estimates don't miss by anywhere near as much as Teslas.
My memory from the first article I saw on this is that Tesla convinced the EPA to not use the EPA's measurement, and instead to trust Tesla's "measurement."
This take is a bit weird to me. It’s like saying because other companies aren’t lying that Tesla should be excused from lying. It sounds like Tesla has been displaying this number in car regardless of the accuracy; and in my opinion leaned into lying. From the article:
> The complaint cited testing that found three Tesla models fell short of their advertised ranges by an average of 26 percent. In addition to alleging false advertising, the lawsuit said that range estimates provided by Tesla vehicles during car trips fail to account for temperature and other factors that reduce range.
I’ve heard people on HN talk about this saying there are two separate values the car shows you and one is wildly and consistently wrong. The one that’s wrong, by the sounds of it aligns with their marketing materials.
I won’t buy a Tesla, but to me, their advantage is range. Right now their only competitors in range are more expensive (though quite a bit nicer imho). I imagine if I had bought a Tesla and the range wasn’t as good as it should be, I would be quite pissed…
Right, and the one that is accurate is what you get when you put in a destination. The car can't tell you how far you can go if it doesn't know where you are going, because of all these factors (altitude gain, direction of wind, speed limits on the various roads involved, etc) which have a very significant effect on the range.
The idea of a single value for "range" is fundamentally flawed. Is it Tesla's fault that people don't understand basic physics?
You can buy a Tesla, run the EPA test cycle, and get the exact same numbers.
You will get less than "the range" if you drive 90mph on the highway until the battery is depleted. Where is Tesla lying anywhere in there? The consumer was just ignorant of what the EPA rated range means.
Maybe we should also ask our selves, why is Tesla's EPA range so high in comparison to all others?
I recall reading over and over in car reviews how the other EVs had low EPA estimates and during tests got an avarage above the EPA range. Why is that?
Anecdata, but a few weeks ago I drove from LA to SF in my 2018 Model 3 (long range, single motor). It has a 75 kWh battery pack, my drive was 417 miles, and I drove 70 mph for probably 90-95% of the trip. I used a total of 95 kWh, which equates to ~329 miles on a full charge (100-0%). My efficiency was 226 Wh/mi.
There are absolutely other times when I'll get substantially less range, but it's understandably when I'm driving faster of more aggressive, or it's colder outside, or it's primarily uphill, or there's a strong headwind, etc.
There are a lot of different factors that can affect a car's range (regardless if it's an EV or ICE), and it seems like Tesla has decided to show the EPA range on the dashboard because there's no way they could magically know where you're driving if it's not entered in the navigation system. Once you start navigation however, it's able to factor in all these externalities and give a very accurate estimate. On the first leg of the above trip, I arrived to charge within 3% of Tesla's estimate.
Shouldn't the car know the current temperature (or at least the battery temperature), whether or not the AC is on, etc? Other EVs take those into account regardless of whether or not something is plugged into navigation.
Personally I just toggle to only show the percentage and ignore the battery range estimate. When on longer trips, the nav estimate is usually spot on, or at worst a couple of % off due to my not-predictable driving behavior.
My iPhone can send me alerts that I’m going to be late to work based on its tracking of my daily commute and you’re telling me that a machine that is constantly connected to a GPS network, sending data back to home base, and (almost?) capable of driving itself has “no way” of “magically knowing where you’re driving” unless you tell it?
If only they could use some of that data and processing power to back out someone’s standard commute, driving behavior, and local temperature.
On top of that, my car can remember the MPGs I got for the last tank (and every tank before that) and estimates my range off of that. Apparently that’s “magic” according to the comment you replied to. Tesla apologists always have some excuse.
That's exactly what the Tesla does. When I get into the car at 8AM, the car assumes I want to drive to my partner's workplace, and gives me directions to get there, taking into account current traffic and weather conditions, and a reliable estimate of what the battery will be when I get there.
Seems like a pretty weak claim to be honest. I think it is pretty obvious that maximum range refers to maxium range under ideal conditions and that using more eletronics in the car reduces the range.
Porsche isn't lying about their max speed either, just because you can't reach it with 300kg of load and bad weather.
Hypothetical Porsche didn't setup customer service teams to lie to customers on a mass-scale when the complaints came in though.
We have evidence of Tesla service-cancellation teams. We have evidence of Tesla's software purposefully being inaccurate when above 50% charge, and then slowly becoming more accurate when reaching 50% or less charge.
This is literally and precisely, a conspiracy perpetrated by Tesla and its executives to trick users into thinking Tesla cars have more range than they truly do.
Is that alleged? I saw only the support telling customers that this is expected. "There is nothing wrong with your car, don't bother comming. It is expected that sometimes your car gets galf the range." is not a lie at all. It seems absolutely truthful and in fact the total opposite of exaggerating the range of the car.
>We have evidence of Tesla service-cancellation teams. We have evidence of Tesla's software purposefully being inaccurate when above 50% charge, and then slowly becoming more accurate when reaching 50% or less charge.
The algorithm claim seems extremely weak. Unless you can get some actual developer to testify that he was explicitly ordered to build the algorithm to report a range which he knew was impossible to reach or something similar, this seems practically irrelevant.
The "service-cancellation teams" seem somewhat stranger. I don't think cancelling a service appointment is damning in any way, though.
I've worked tech support at a couple of different organizations early in my career. It does not seem at all unusual to create a team dedicated to a particular class of issue so other support staff can focus on a broader range of issues.
What lie to customers? A team to stop ignorant customers from wasting everyone's time isn't a conspiracy, there was nothing wrong with the car or performance, what would a service visit achieve?
Basically every other EV tries to give a realistic range based on the temperate and your driving habits.
Teslas appear to always show the EPA range at full and it sounds like they stay very optimistic for quite a long time, giving drivers a very unrealistic picture.
That’s lying to the customer. They’re not trying to be useful but to look good.
And in every EV range comparison I’ve ever seen, teslas are the ones that can’t meet their claimed range by a fair margin. Other brands are almost always close to accurate or in some cases do noticeably better than claimed.
Take a look for yourself. EPA range vs a "real world" test is all over the place depending on vendor, and even depending on the car. Rivian, Kia, Nissan all have ranges that are under by similar percentages as Tesla. Only Porsche seems to heavily sandbag here.
> in every EV range comparison I’ve ever seen, teslas are the ones that can’t meet their claimed range by a fair margin. Other brands are almost always close to accurate or in some cases do noticeably better than claimed.
What's your source? Cause I don't think that's true... [1][2]
I agree that reporting a maximum possible range is meaningless and might be misleading. But it is still a truthful metric making it a quite dubious legal claim.
>other EV tries to give a realistic range based on the temperate and your driving habits.
What I saw was specifying the test conditions under which the range was achieved and including disclaimers about possible factors which can reduce the range. Certainly more honest.
If you want the accurate range prediction, navigate to somewhere, the prediction is always spot on to the percent. Or view the energy screen, also extremely accurate. Just don't depend on the EPA range, go with what the car calculates when you navigate and you will never have an issue.
Bad example. Porsche's performance numbers are famously conservative. Most reviewers easily exceed what is advertised.
Take the 911 GT3, a car I picked at random. Car and Driver testing found the following:
>The GT3 offers both a seven-speed dual-clutch automatic (a.k.a. PDK) or a six-speed manual. ... At our test track, the automatic managed a 2.7-second 60-mph time while the six-speed manual test vehicle snapped off an impressive 3.3-second run to 60 mph.
Yeah, I've got no problem with the range on my Tesla. It's not difficult to achieve. Tesla gives you all the software tools you need to achieve it onboard. No, it's not the way most people would want to drive their car regularly, but it's definitely achievable if you're really in a pinch such as when we were driving through South Dakota in bad weather, very far from the next charger. It wasn't fun but we did make it, driving very carefully and doing exactly what the car said to do.
That's not to say there aren't other class actions that ought to be considered, such as the whole FSD debacle. Now that is one I would definitely join.
I think it’s a disingenuous to use this argument. Even if you drive at 25mph on a flat road on a day with moderate temperatures and no wind, Tesla’s range drops quite a lot more than a mile for every mile driven. Like yeah, if you’re using air conditioning and driving at 70 mph, it makes sense your range will drop more. The problem is that they’re pretending under ideal conditions, you can achieve that max range, but ideal conditions would literally require you to turn its computer off, which would not be possible to do as a consumer.
You're talking about hypermiling, and that isn't the condition under which the Tesla EPA ratings are achieved. I have done hypermiling from time to time (and Tesla's navigation will request you do it if your range runs low) and you can indeed get better results than the EPA rated figure.
No, the indicated range is no maximum range under ideal conditions! Its just a mix of city and highway driving, which is better than pure highway driving.
If you did ONLY low speed city driving you would do even better!
The issue is that the number displayed on the dash can be toggled between "% battery remaining" or "miles remaining". The "Miles remaining" is actually "EPA rated miles x % battery remaining", and NOT "miles remaining based on last 10 miles driven, or current navigation destination".
If they removed the 'Miles remaining' number and only showed a percentage, you would end up having to do the exact same conversion in your head anyways. "Oh I have 43% remaining of my 330 mile battery, how much is that?" so this is really just a quick shortcut.
Tesla has a separate screen with very clear range estimates that the user can toggle (based on last n miles or based on current exact 'instant' reading). In addition, when navigating to a destination, the nav tells you the estimated battery % on arrival, which is also based on current driving and is generally quite accurate. In addition, it will tell you during & after the trip exactly why the estimated and actual range differed. Eg "0.5% extra battery used due to a 5.6mph headwind, 2% extra battery used by driving over 70mph", etc.
Having a count-down 'Miles remaining' on the dashboard doesn't always make sense, particularly when you haven't entered a destination, or if you're switching between highways and back rounds a bunch. Either way, it's never going to actually be accurate down to the last mile. In reality, you just have to know that the miles on the dashboard are "EPA miles", meaning if you're driving on a flat surface in good conditions at ~55mph, that's what you'll get. If you change your speed, or conditions get worse, you know you'll need to adjust it in your head (or use the dedicated in-car screen to automatically figure it out for you!).
I don't know how it is done with EVs but my gas car usually underestimates my range despite me burning more fuel than what's written on the brochure.
It is common sense to take conservative estimates when you are missing data. The range indicator on the dashboard is a "will I make it" indicator. To help me decide if I need to plan a refuel/recharge. I don't want a best case scenario, not even an average, I want something like a 90 percentile.
In good conditions, the "enhanced" estimate (with nav) should be more than the baseline, as some of conservative estimates can now be replaced with more accurate data.
Lots of people here missing a part of the issue: Tesla receives carbon credits based on the range of the vehicle. If that range was exaggerated, they defrauded the government.
The biggest fail IMO is that if you use this range constantly, you'll basically degrade the battery heavily. These top ranges require a full 100% charge (bad for the battery) and a pretty low level of discharge (bad for any weak cells in the pack). So yes in a special case you have that range. Using it often will cause faster battery pack degradation.
My Chevy Volt has a 15kwh pack, and only lets you use 10kwh. The bottom 2 and the top 2 are never accessible. Which means the batteries are never depleted, and never fully charged. I bought it knowing I have 10kwh to use around town or on trips (afterward the gas engine turns on). I use those 10kwh every single day, for all 177k miles of the cars life so far. I still get the same 10.3kwh I got on day one I made my purchase decision based on.
Tesla should advertise their packs the same way, explaining that the outlier 10kw are for emergencies too.
As far as I know this isn't true, LFP batteries degrade more when charged to 100% than if they're charged to less, but the remaining charge can't be estimated accurately unless you do:
I think you could use the range and if the battery fails within the 8 year warranty they should give you a new one.
Many consumer goods work like this. Lots of cheap power tools are sold with the understanding that the consumer will use them a few times and no claims will be made during the warranty period. Many (most?) gym memberships are sold with the understanding that many clients will come a few times, then never return.
EV batteries are very expensive both to produce and to install.
No sane company wants to deal with the possibility of paying for battery replacement if they don't absolutely have to.
Using the "whole battery" at the expense of its lifespan is not only worse for manufacturers, but it's worse for the environment as well. I think responsible charging and usage is critical for current battery technology.
The EPA estimate is for 55mph driving in optimal conditions, and is fairly accurate in my experience.
It's very easy to exceed EPA estimates in the city. The optimal speed to drive a Tesla is about 15mph. At that speed a Tesla will exceed EPA range by about 20%.
I saw a YouTube video where some guys “maximalised” the range to see how far they could go on one charge, and by reducing weight and disabling cabin AC and going under 25 mph were able to travel I think over 600 miles. Good to know in a pinch.
Electric car range varies widely depending on how you use it and conditions, regardless of which car brand or model you use. Our family has a Nissan Leaf and a Tesla Model 3 and both ranges vary widely depending on how you drive.
Driving at 80mph on a highway will greatly reduce the range of any EV, compared to 45 mph. Using high-draw features like heating (also depends on the type of heating used) will also drain the battery faster.
Cold temperatures also reduce range, but it depends on the EV. Teslas cool or heat the battery to keep an optimal battery temperature. Nissan Leaf uses air cooling, which means repeated supercharging in hot weather overheats the battery, so they cannot make long trips. So Teslas are less affected by hot and cold temperatures than some other EVs. So it depends on the EV.
EV users need to educate themselves on how electric cars operate regarding range. It's not unique to Tesla by any means.
Readit News
If an example car can achieve 700 miles on the EPA test, but normal usage averages 150, is it fraud to advertise 700? To show 700 on the screen at full charge?
I agree it’s an interesting question. If the difference was 5% I’m not sure people would care. But at 25% off I think it is a very a fair question.
Porsche reportedly tends to outperform its EPA number significantly. They chose to lower it (a choice automakers have) to provide a more realistic picture given their customers seem more likely to use the performance at the cost of raw range.
I feel like your example uses numbers that are so aggressive one has suspect that they are not real. I don’t have a stake in this or knowledge beyond a quick Google but the EPA test does not look obviously flawed.
The more pertinent question to me would be whether the Tesla range can genuinely achieve those EPA numbers with a typical car.
This is 100% truth. It is an estimated EPA range.
What's more it's often actually measured by an EPA. The Reuters article that spurred this lawsuit said that EPA, not Tesla, tested 6 Tesla cars since 2020. That's at least half of them (Tesla has only 3 + 3 + 2 + 2 = 10 different models on sale in U.S. although they have to re-certify if they change the battery).
So it probably was a fraud, by my standards.
I'm considering buying Starlink access, but now I have to rethink what it really offers - maybe they use some different than common metric, which is 'technically true' but miscommunicates the actual performance?
Deleted Comment
1. Tesla's estimates are not "highly accurate". They are alleged to use a deliberately optimistic estimate when the battery is near full, then gradually switch to a more realistic estimate as the battery drains. In particular they are alleged to incorrectly account for the weather. This means the car will always display nearly the advertised number at full charge (and on a test drive). Supposedly Tesla used to use a more accurate estimate but then got orders from on high to fudge the numbers.
2. For other car manufacturers, the range estimates are not terribly inflated. The report from Edmunds claim that most EV models meet or exceed their range estimates, and cars that miss their estimates don't miss by anywhere near as much as Teslas.
I agree the test needs a redesign. No one drives 55, and speed has a big impact on EVs due to wind resistance.
> The complaint cited testing that found three Tesla models fell short of their advertised ranges by an average of 26 percent. In addition to alleging false advertising, the lawsuit said that range estimates provided by Tesla vehicles during car trips fail to account for temperature and other factors that reduce range.
I’ve heard people on HN talk about this saying there are two separate values the car shows you and one is wildly and consistently wrong. The one that’s wrong, by the sounds of it aligns with their marketing materials.
I won’t buy a Tesla, but to me, their advantage is range. Right now their only competitors in range are more expensive (though quite a bit nicer imho). I imagine if I had bought a Tesla and the range wasn’t as good as it should be, I would be quite pissed…
The idea of a single value for "range" is fundamentally flawed. Is it Tesla's fault that people don't understand basic physics?
You will get less than "the range" if you drive 90mph on the highway until the battery is depleted. Where is Tesla lying anywhere in there? The consumer was just ignorant of what the EPA rated range means.
At least, at some point.
I'll try to get the filing and paste from it, give me a few.
It's "Porter et al v. Tesla, Inc.", in case someone beats me to it.
Deleted Comment
I recall reading over and over in car reviews how the other EVs had low EPA estimates and during tests got an avarage above the EPA range. Why is that?
There are absolutely other times when I'll get substantially less range, but it's understandably when I'm driving faster of more aggressive, or it's colder outside, or it's primarily uphill, or there's a strong headwind, etc.
There are a lot of different factors that can affect a car's range (regardless if it's an EV or ICE), and it seems like Tesla has decided to show the EPA range on the dashboard because there's no way they could magically know where you're driving if it's not entered in the navigation system. Once you start navigation however, it's able to factor in all these externalities and give a very accurate estimate. On the first leg of the above trip, I arrived to charge within 3% of Tesla's estimate.
If only they could use some of that data and processing power to back out someone’s standard commute, driving behavior, and local temperature.
Porsche isn't lying about their max speed either, just because you can't reach it with 300kg of load and bad weather.
Hypothetical Porsche didn't setup customer service teams to lie to customers on a mass-scale when the complaints came in though.
We have evidence of Tesla service-cancellation teams. We have evidence of Tesla's software purposefully being inaccurate when above 50% charge, and then slowly becoming more accurate when reaching 50% or less charge.
This is literally and precisely, a conspiracy perpetrated by Tesla and its executives to trick users into thinking Tesla cars have more range than they truly do.
Is that alleged? I saw only the support telling customers that this is expected. "There is nothing wrong with your car, don't bother comming. It is expected that sometimes your car gets galf the range." is not a lie at all. It seems absolutely truthful and in fact the total opposite of exaggerating the range of the car.
>We have evidence of Tesla service-cancellation teams. We have evidence of Tesla's software purposefully being inaccurate when above 50% charge, and then slowly becoming more accurate when reaching 50% or less charge.
The algorithm claim seems extremely weak. Unless you can get some actual developer to testify that he was explicitly ordered to build the algorithm to report a range which he knew was impossible to reach or something similar, this seems practically irrelevant.
The "service-cancellation teams" seem somewhat stranger. I don't think cancelling a service appointment is damning in any way, though.
Teslas appear to always show the EPA range at full and it sounds like they stay very optimistic for quite a long time, giving drivers a very unrealistic picture.
That’s lying to the customer. They’re not trying to be useful but to look good.
And in every EV range comparison I’ve ever seen, teslas are the ones that can’t meet their claimed range by a fair margin. Other brands are almost always close to accurate or in some cases do noticeably better than claimed.
Only Tesla does this.
Take a look for yourself. EPA range vs a "real world" test is all over the place depending on vendor, and even depending on the car. Rivian, Kia, Nissan all have ranges that are under by similar percentages as Tesla. Only Porsche seems to heavily sandbag here.
What's your source? Cause I don't think that's true... [1][2]
[1]https://youtu.be/fvwOa7TCd1E?t=2233
[2]https://youtu.be/xg6-Vc9CSwk?t=2589
The question is if it is illegal.
I agree that reporting a maximum possible range is meaningless and might be misleading. But it is still a truthful metric making it a quite dubious legal claim.
>other EV tries to give a realistic range based on the temperate and your driving habits.
What I saw was specifying the test conditions under which the range was achieved and including disclaimers about possible factors which can reduce the range. Certainly more honest.
EDIT: wait, I don't see it. I think there was a setting in older software?
I swear there was a range calculation setting that was like "average" and "ideal"
Take the 911 GT3, a car I picked at random. Car and Driver testing found the following:
>The GT3 offers both a seven-speed dual-clutch automatic (a.k.a. PDK) or a six-speed manual. ... At our test track, the automatic managed a 2.7-second 60-mph time while the six-speed manual test vehicle snapped off an impressive 3.3-second run to 60 mph.
https://www.caranddriver.com/porsche/911-gt3-gt3-rs
Porsche advertises 0-60 times of 3.2 seconds for the PDK and 3.7 seconds for the manual. They undersold the car by 10-15%.
I'm more cynical than most, but it actually isn't normal to over-promise and under-deliver to the extent Tesla does.
That's not to say there aren't other class actions that ought to be considered, such as the whole FSD debacle. Now that is one I would definitely join.
If you did ONLY low speed city driving you would do even better!
If they removed the 'Miles remaining' number and only showed a percentage, you would end up having to do the exact same conversion in your head anyways. "Oh I have 43% remaining of my 330 mile battery, how much is that?" so this is really just a quick shortcut.
Tesla has a separate screen with very clear range estimates that the user can toggle (based on last n miles or based on current exact 'instant' reading). In addition, when navigating to a destination, the nav tells you the estimated battery % on arrival, which is also based on current driving and is generally quite accurate. In addition, it will tell you during & after the trip exactly why the estimated and actual range differed. Eg "0.5% extra battery used due to a 5.6mph headwind, 2% extra battery used by driving over 70mph", etc.
Having a count-down 'Miles remaining' on the dashboard doesn't always make sense, particularly when you haven't entered a destination, or if you're switching between highways and back rounds a bunch. Either way, it's never going to actually be accurate down to the last mile. In reality, you just have to know that the miles on the dashboard are "EPA miles", meaning if you're driving on a flat surface in good conditions at ~55mph, that's what you'll get. If you change your speed, or conditions get worse, you know you'll need to adjust it in your head (or use the dedicated in-car screen to automatically figure it out for you!).
It is common sense to take conservative estimates when you are missing data. The range indicator on the dashboard is a "will I make it" indicator. To help me decide if I need to plan a refuel/recharge. I don't want a best case scenario, not even an average, I want something like a 90 percentile.
In good conditions, the "enhanced" estimate (with nav) should be more than the baseline, as some of conservative estimates can now be replaced with more accurate data.
Good thing Tesla is not doing airplanes.
My Chevy Volt has a 15kwh pack, and only lets you use 10kwh. The bottom 2 and the top 2 are never accessible. Which means the batteries are never depleted, and never fully charged. I bought it knowing I have 10kwh to use around town or on trips (afterward the gas engine turns on). I use those 10kwh every single day, for all 177k miles of the cars life so far. I still get the same 10.3kwh I got on day one I made my purchase decision based on.
Tesla should advertise their packs the same way, explaining that the outlier 10kw are for emergencies too.
Indeed, Tesla recommends to charge to 100% at least once per week.
https://insideevs.com/news/557527/tesla-model3-lfp-charging-...
edit: read response below
https://www.torquenews.com/15475/battery-charging-behavior-t...
https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaModel3/comments/yh5ts5/m3_lfp_...
(They still degrade much less than the other kind of battery Tesla uses, however).
Many consumer goods work like this. Lots of cheap power tools are sold with the understanding that the consumer will use them a few times and no claims will be made during the warranty period. Many (most?) gym memberships are sold with the understanding that many clients will come a few times, then never return.
No sane company wants to deal with the possibility of paying for battery replacement if they don't absolutely have to.
Using the "whole battery" at the expense of its lifespan is not only worse for manufacturers, but it's worse for the environment as well. I think responsible charging and usage is critical for current battery technology.
It's very easy to exceed EPA estimates in the city. The optimal speed to drive a Tesla is about 15mph. At that speed a Tesla will exceed EPA range by about 20%.
Driving at 80mph on a highway will greatly reduce the range of any EV, compared to 45 mph. Using high-draw features like heating (also depends on the type of heating used) will also drain the battery faster.
Cold temperatures also reduce range, but it depends on the EV. Teslas cool or heat the battery to keep an optimal battery temperature. Nissan Leaf uses air cooling, which means repeated supercharging in hot weather overheats the battery, so they cannot make long trips. So Teslas are less affected by hot and cold temperatures than some other EVs. So it depends on the EV.
EV users need to educate themselves on how electric cars operate regarding range. It's not unique to Tesla by any means.
ICE, and hybrid ICE, can all be more efficient depending how well you match its optimal driving profile.