After charging to 80% after yesterday's 160 mile drive from Vail back down to our home in the foothills the below is the result of charging status and range prediction - 352 miles, 80% charge. This would be 1.25 x 352 = 440 miles for 100% charge. Conclusion: we were experiencing unusually high range efficiency coming from 10,000 feet down to 6,000, over 160 miles.

However, we've driven the car about 500 miles since re receiving it earlier in the week. If I look at the car's record of consumption, I see this:

1. 271 kWH/1000 miles
2. .271 kWH/ mile
3. Assuming EQS battery capacity = 107.8, then
4. 107.8/.271 =397.786
5. The theoretical range experience over "some period of time" past has been 397 miles for a full charge.
6. 1..271 = 3.69 miles per kWH

What period of time was this for?

 

Even pumokins roll downhill

 

And here I was prepared to explain the equivalency of Potential Energy and mgh but your explanation was much more succinct and seasonal I might add.

 

I did a similar drive from a bit above Yosemite in the Sierras to sea level. A drive with over 4,500 vertical feet of regenerative braking. My battery was almost at the same level at the end of the drive as when I started. That messes up the predicted range; my car was claiming a 500 mile range on a single charge, and if I could keep going downhill, it would have been right. Unfortunately, most of my driving is on level ground, and after a couple of charge cycles the estimates were back to reasonable numbers.

 

There’s a military version to that, it’s quite crude, and politically incorrect.
It is about something rolling downhill though.

 

I sure appreciate you guys helping make EQS energy consumption click for me. I just imagine pumpkins, shopping carts, and other crazy non-round objects all tumbling downhill — and presto, electrons make sense. Basically, my car will even run on comedy if there is enough of an incline! 🤣