[billjings]

Of course they are different things. But the choice to define "range" as the highest possible number is misleading: people ask the range so that they can know how many stops are required at a highway speed trip.

Using surface street numbers for that is....unhelpful, at best. It certainly doesn't help the Windows computer hoi polloi feel as if they have gotten what they paid for.

[jpgvm]

I think they should just delete that number and just show energy and energy remaining at destination. It will annoy some luddites but it's the only reasonable way to display the actually important information, i.e will I make it and how much juice will I have when I get there.

[bryanlarsen]

Yup. There's a preference to show percentage rather than theoretical range. The latter is much more useful IMO, but percentage should probably be the default because theoretical range is misleading until you understand it.

[Retric]

There’s really 3 distinct numbers that are all useful today.

“Charge” = total energy which is useful for charging but not specific route planning.

“Range” = charge * temperature which is a useful benchmark for known trips and drivers. The specific number isn’t as important vs knowing you can do regular trips between known locations in X units. ie you can commute 4 more days without charging.

“Remaining charge at destination” = most accurate route planning but requires a specific route and external temperature.

[bryanlarsen]

> Using surface street numbers for that is....unhelpful, at best.

Strong disagree here. When doing a trip we always use the nav computer so we always have the real number. (If only so the kids can look at the computer to see the number rather than asking "how much longer" continuously).

OTOH, in town we generally don't, so the top number being accurate for in town driving is very helpful.