I have to laugh at these tired anecdotes. You forget about the regenerative technology. Going up the mountain does consume a lot more range, but you get most of the excess back coming back down, with the added benefit of superior speed control without using your brakes.
From a Model S forum by folks who actually own and drive these cars:
Range performance in mountains:comparing steep uphill to descents
Submitted by ChetB on September 11, 2013
Hello everyone, this is my first post here. My father just ordered an S and I have been following the progress of Tesla Motors with great interest over the past few years.
I have a question about how much more quickly Rated Range declines when ascending long grades, such as the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada mountains from the California Central Valley floor to Tioga Pass, compared to driving an equivalent distance on the flats, and if there is in fact a more rapid loss of range going uphill is there a corresponding conservation of Rated Range when making long descents due to regeneration?
I live in the San Francisco Bay Area. My wife and I like to take trips to the mountains and based on the map at http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger of Supercharger stations that are being built out over the next couple of years, the closest station to the Sierra Nevada mountains on the west side is at Folsom, just east of Sacramento. A charge at that station will get an S85 to the South Lake Tahoe area and back, but it won't make it to the Yosemite / Sequoia area. Many of the places we stay at in the mountains do not yet offer a 240V outlet to their guests. We also like to go car camping where electrical outlets are even scarcer.
It is interesting to note on the Supercharger station map that it appears that no stations are planned to be built in the next 2+ years along Hwy 99 in the Central Valley. That is disappointing, as a station in the Merced/Fresno area would be well placed to support drives into the central Sierra Nevada mountains. The map does show a future station slightly east of the Bay Area and south of Sacramento but the map has so little detail that I can't determine where it will be located.
Thanks,
Barry
jbunn | September 11, 2013
It does gulp power on the way up, but you get about 80% of it back on the downhill if you stay off the brakes. I've found the car does really well on mountain passes based on several trips over the Grapevine, the range to the West of Coalinga (Harris Ranch), and the mountain range separating Oregon from California. It's a little scary going up as the mileage is dropping rapidly, but it's fun to watch the gauge recover on the way down.
Captain_Zap | September 11, 2013
This site will help you get an idea about how hills will impact range. You can choose your car, map your route, estmate your speed and get a good estimate.
GreenRace
Crow | September 11, 2013
I think a good rule of thumb is a mountain pass costs about 6 miles for every 1,000 feet in elevation. Depends on speed, temp, AC, heat, wind, grade. etc...
slipdrive | September 11, 2013
Here in Colorado I have recently been up and over several mountain passes over 11,000feet elevation. Yesterday was an example. 195 miles round trip over Berthoud pass and back for some mountian golf (no charging). The up-and-over was 150, and return only 45 range miles. My very rough estimate is the 2.8% average elevation gain up 6,800 ft, about doubled the kwh burn. I do use almost constant cruise control.
For all the mountain trips, I have seen the round trip range miles almost exactly equal flat range miles.
Nice to hear people in the hills with these great cars. Mountain driving all my years, I've never had so much fun....
ChetB | September 11, 2013
Thanks for all the quick responses. On steep descents with the regenerative function set on maximum (or whatever the term is) can speed be controlled pretty easily with minimal brake use?
Captain_Zap | September 11, 2013
@chetb
That is one of the beauties of regen. It is much easier to control speed while going downhill and no unnecessary brake wear.