My Tesla long range gets about 60% of advertised range in real world conditions. I'm talking stop signs every block, mountains you need to drive across, insanely hot days, i.e. the real world.
I knew that would be the case, but I really wish there was a crackdown on this. Advertised range should be the mean of the distribution, not the max.
In fact EV manufacturers should be required to publish the distribution and they should have to pay a KL divergence penalty on it that will be distributed to EV buyers as rebates. It would also require the courts to learn about KL divergence, which I would really love to happen. We need countries run by engineers, not clowns.
> Advertised range should be the mean of the distribution, not the max.
Distribution of what? Assuming you mean the distribution of driving range achieved 'in the real world', how would that work before a car is sold? How often would it have to be updated in their advertising material? Over what sort of area would the distribution be calculated? How would anyone know if the advertised range of two different cars was even comparable?
Whilst the standardised tests could be improved, they are still the best way to compare products.
> should have to pay a KL divergence penalty on it that will be distributed to EV buyers as rebates
I get about 15% more range than advertised, should I have to pay a penalty for this?
This really sounds like 'but think about a poor car vendor!'. And a poor car vendor definitely can't build at least 10 pre-production cars, run them with both a lightest and heaviest loads and different patterns and calculate the mean and use it instead of the one with the maximum distance with a minimal load, right?
> This really sounds like 'but think about a poor car vendor!'.
It was absolutely not meant to come across that way. I just think it wasn't thought all the way through.
> And a poor car vendor definitely can't build at least 10 pre-production cars, run them with both a lightest and heaviest loads and different patterns and calculate the mean and use it instead of the one with the maximum distance with a minimal load, right?
This just sounds like vendor controlled slightly-less-standardised testing, not the real world based system they seemed to be arguing for.
> I get about 15% more range than advertised, should I have to pay a penalty for this?
No. You are just one datapoint within the distribution. If the distribution aligns with manufacturer's advertised distribution, nobody gets a rebate. If distribution is not aligned, manufacturer is penalized and everyone gets a rebate for being misled.
There are many variables and scenarios, yes.
This, however, is not an excuse not to provide some more data points that help people estimate what they are really getting...
Anyway Tesla has data from all their cars, they could use that.
That’s wild with that range (560 miles) it probably gets atleast 300 miles in the worst case scenario. That’s game over for ICE. What a dream. I wish we could have them in the US but my patriotism also tells me that would be the death of almost all US auto companies.
Recently, because of BYD’s fast-charging technology, I started paying attention to charging speed. Charging to 80% is actually not very difficult, so manufacturers usually like to highlight that number since it’s easier to make it fast. The difficult part is after 80%. Normally, a different charging mode is needed, and the speed has to be reduced. So charging from 80% to nearly 100% usually takes almost as long as charging from low battery to 80%. Only BYD’s selling point is that it can charge up to 97% much faster than other manufacturers.
(xiaomi cars are not bad but they are also famous for marketing skills)
Interesting that they prominently feature Lidar as an upgrade over whatever Tesla has. Sheds some light on the whole drama with lidar vs camera in self-driving.
Was anyone able to discern from this (or official sources) what the actual battery capacity, and estimated efficiency / consumption is under ideal conditions?
(e.g. 100 kWh, 400 miles -> 10 kWh / 100 miles or 4 miles / kWh)
109 comments
It's an impressive range number, but don't try to compare it directly to range numbers for other EVs.
The current gen SU7 is available with an 830km CLTC range. If you drive one on real roads, you will not get 830km of range. :)
My Tesla long range gets about 60% of advertised range in real world conditions. I'm talking stop signs every block, mountains you need to drive across, insanely hot days, i.e. the real world.
I knew that would be the case, but I really wish there was a crackdown on this. Advertised range should be the mean of the distribution, not the max.
In fact EV manufacturers should be required to publish the distribution and they should have to pay a KL divergence penalty on it that will be distributed to EV buyers as rebates. It would also require the courts to learn about KL divergence, which I would really love to happen. We need countries run by engineers, not clowns.
> Advertised range should be the mean of the distribution, not the max.
Distribution of what? Assuming you mean the distribution of driving range achieved 'in the real world', how would that work before a car is sold? How often would it have to be updated in their advertising material? Over what sort of area would the distribution be calculated? How would anyone know if the advertised range of two different cars was even comparable?
Whilst the standardised tests could be improved, they are still the best way to compare products.
> should have to pay a KL divergence penalty on it that will be distributed to EV buyers as rebates
I get about 15% more range than advertised, should I have to pay a penalty for this?
> This really sounds like 'but think about a poor car vendor!'.
It was absolutely not meant to come across that way. I just think it wasn't thought all the way through.
> And a poor car vendor definitely can't build at least 10 pre-production cars, run them with both a lightest and heaviest loads and different patterns and calculate the mean and use it instead of the one with the maximum distance with a minimal load, right?
This just sounds like vendor controlled slightly-less-standardised testing, not the real world based system they seemed to be arguing for.
> I get about 15% more range than advertised, should I have to pay a penalty for this?
No. You are just one datapoint within the distribution. If the distribution aligns with manufacturer's advertised distribution, nobody gets a rebate. If distribution is not aligned, manufacturer is penalized and everyone gets a rebate for being misled.
Anyway Tesla has data from all their cars, they could use that.
> The US ranges are also way overestimated.
The same car measured under CLTC would have an even higher rated range.
A Chinese car rated under American regs would see a lower rated range.
https://www.aaa.asn.au/2025/12/new-test-results-to-help-ev-b...
AAA is the Australian Automobile Association
My point is that you can’t compare ratings done to different standards.
Chinese CLTC exaggerates real world range a lot more than any other major measure.
(xiaomi cars are not bad but they are also famous for marketing skills)
(e.g. 100 kWh, 400 miles -> 10 kWh / 100 miles or 4 miles / kWh)