Thứ Bảy, 7 tháng 1, 2017

P85D vs. P85 Efficiency Testing, Take 2 part 2

  • Feb 8, 2015
    joer00
    Cross post from the other range thread, here are my tests results. They CLEARLY show that Range mode is the key. So I do not believe you guys who posted that range is similar to a P85 in Insane Mode and Range mode off. I am sure you just had tail wind ! When testing please use the great new Tesla wind web page (http://matesla.ca/headwind.html), it makes a HUGE difference.

    Results:

    My data from a weekend trip Tampa/Orlando. I tested all possible settings every 15 miles to find out what settings affect the range. Here the results:

    Leg 1: 15 Miles @65 mph and 8.5 mph headwind, 74 F, Range OFF, Insane Mode: EV Trip Planner 350 wh/mile actual 342 wh/mile
    Leg 2: 15 Miles @65 mph and 8.5 mph headwind, 74 F, Range OFF, Sport Mode: EV Trip Planner 350 wh/mile actual 342 wh/mile
    Leg 3: 15 Miles @65 mph and 7.9 mph headwind, 74 F, Range ON, Sport Mode: EV Trip Planner 350 wh/mile actual 302 wh/mile

    Return:

    Leg 3: 15 Miles @75-80 mph and 6.9 mph tailwind, 74 F, Range ON, Sport Mode: EV Trip Planner 440 wh/mile actual 330 wh/mile

    So the moral of the story, it's all about RANGE mode. READING the message when selecting Range mode, I saw that it says that range mode will result in torque distribution. As many of us did not see any improvements, I suspect that there is no torque sleep in non-range mode. From my results so far it also looks that there is no difference between Sport and Insane mode which would be great (at least not on the highway).
    �
  • Feb 8, 2015
    BerTX

    Good job -- probably not enough to nail down conclusions yet, though. Also, seems that different cars (drivers?) get different results. Reasonable trend developing, though.

    You didn't mention TACC use on these runs. On or off?
    �
  • Feb 8, 2015
    ra-san
    With range mode on, have any of you experienced any driving performance changes in terms of acceleration or handling, either low speed or high? The hvac changes don't bother me, so whether or not I just always leave range mode on comes down to its effect on driving performance.
    The only mentions I've seen thus far was lolachamp's, and they didn't seem to bother him too much.
    �
  • Feb 8, 2015
    wk057
    So, I may be wrong... but the torque sleep stuff seems to have little if any effect above about 75 MPH. I know higher speeds result in more energy usage, but, with my P85 I could cruise at 78 and still stay under ~380 Wh/mi even on a bad day. P85D was in the low to mid 400s last night. I toggled range mode and sport/insane mode to see if it made a difference and it didn't seem to. *shrugs*

    Edit: Guess I may have to get a night time side-by-side together when there is little/no traffic to do constant 75-80 on the same route to see for sure.
    �
  • Feb 8, 2015
    joer00
    I just tested this as I also thought I will just leave range mode on. I feel a big difference if you slam the pedal, it's just not as fast with a noticeable delay . Will most likely eat the range penalty on normal driving and just go to sport/normal on Long Highway trips.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Have to Test this Again with no tailwind but mine stayed low yesterday driving between 75-80 mph.
    �
  • Feb 8, 2015
    Andyw2100
    You can suspect that, but unless you think Tesla is lying to us, you'd be wrong. Please see my post number 110 in this thread, as well as multiple people who have shared email from Jerome Guillen on the subject.
    �
  • Feb 8, 2015
    lolachampcar
    I will definitely try range mode. If it does better than what I have already noticed then it will be icing on the cake :)
    �
  • Feb 8, 2015
    majorlance
    The Rockville, MD service center installed .140 for me yesterday (I was having a center console installed). I spoke to the lead tech regarding torque sleep and he stated that it was always on (regardless of range or Sport or Insane) but you'd see a bigger impact with Range Mode On.

    In my own unscientific testing on my way back I noticed improved battery performance in my mixed driving overall. I also ran a (short 16 mile test) on the highway and averaged 302 wh/mile on the (relatively flat section) highway with Range Mode on and a 60 mph (which felt crazy slow on the parkway) speed.

    Regardless, range is improving...
    �
  • Feb 8, 2015
    NOLA_Mike
    So, I experimented a bit with this information today. At steady 40 MPH with Range Mode ON I could definitely hear the front motor with a feint whine. Switched Range Mode OFF while continuing at 40 MPH and the feint whine went away. Back on, whine back. This is a very feint whine that is really not bothersome at all and only noticeable with the radio muted and at low enough speeds that the tire noise is not drowning it out.

    Having said that, when my "switch flipped" during my trip on Friday night and I started seeing improvements in energy usage I can now see improvements with both Range Mode ON and OFF.

    Just got back from ~100 mile roundtrip and with a tail wind on the return leg I was below 300 Wh/mi. I actually gained on the rated miles for the first time since owning the P85D. I believe the P85D now achieves the same or possibly slightly better results than I got with my P85+.
    �
  • Feb 8, 2015
    gpetti
    One point I have not seen mentioned here is that, according to JB's graphs, the P85D is more efficient than a standard S85 from 40 mph to about 60 mph where they converge. Past speeds of about 65 mph the P85D gets less range than the S85. Thus for people who are routinely driving at or above 70 mph, they will probably be getting less range than a standard S85. I'm not sure what the graph would have looked like prior to Torque sleep but I'm assuming that above 65 mph they are probably similar. It seems if some of a measured journey is below 60 mph the P85D may show better efficiency.
    �
  • Feb 8, 2015
    dennis
    I'm not sure how you can draw the bolded conclusion above since there is no test shown with Range ON and Insane Mode.
    �
  • Feb 8, 2015
    CSFTN
    Great video! Thing I noted, other than the accelerated time frame, awesome yellow wrap, and the end result: this trip had quite a bit of mid-level roads. Looked to me like the D was much better on the interstate system, significantly worse on local roads, and slightly worse on the 2 lane highways.
    �
  • Feb 9, 2015
    lolachampcar
    I've not watched the video yet but is the significant power consumption drop noticeable on the display (as it is with my car)? I literally can accelerate to 45 mph using about 80 KW lightly lifting when I approach my target speed. The power drops for the lift and then, a second or so later when I am steady state at 45, the power falls significantly. This second fall is combined with a noticeable change in throttle response. I may be crazy here but I am reasonably sure I can tell exactly when TS engages.
    �
  • Feb 9, 2015
    Matias
    I guess it would be easy to create "TS always on" -choise on car's settings. You could use this when you think you need all the possible range. Of course kickdown could still wake up the rear motor.
    �
  • Feb 9, 2015
    lolachampcar
    My GUESS is that it is always on. It is just the thresholds for transition into and out of that change with Normal/Range mode selection.
    �
  • Feb 9, 2015
    ArtInCT
    Excellent observation Lolachapcar! Can other P85D drivers corroborate this TS feedback at the ~45 MPH range?
    Lola, did you feel and see the secondary power drop on the power gauge?

    �
  • Feb 9, 2015
    lolachampcar
    I just got back from dropping my daughter off and saw the transition on the power meter but definitely do not feel the "stutter" I felt with .139 (currently .140). The only thing I can feel is a little softness or lack of responsiveness in the throttle pedal when TS kicks in. I normally let off before I get to my set speed and gently slide up to my desired speed. That does not work as well with TS if TS engages before I get to my set speed. This is when I can sense the throttle getting lazy and some times I get too aggressive in response and it goes back out of TS.

    I really do wish someone else could confirm these observations. I'm beginning to feel like I'm off in my crazy corner imaging things.

    Oh, 10.5 miles with 265 WHr/mile average Normal/Insane settings.
    �
  • Feb 9, 2015
    Matias
    I ment, that if you would choose "always on", rear motor wouldn't start unless you kick nown.
    �
  • Feb 9, 2015
    benjiejr
    I did longer highway trips this weekend and I'll see if I can enter my data into the spreadsheet, but in summary, I am seeing torque sleep on my P85D with fw .139. I kept it in Insane Mode, I've tried both Range Mode ON and OFF, and I used TACC most of the time on the highway.

    Couple of points to reiterate what I've seen others state:
    - I am seeing torque sleep in both Range Modes, but more with Range Mode ON.
    - I have felt the lack of responsiveness in the throttle if torque sleep in engaged (and this is even with Range Mode OFF).
    - Over about 75 mph, I'm not sure that torque sleep engages. Lower speeds definitely make a big difference here.

    Here is a little sample data from two trips this weekend. Both of these were in Insane Mode with Range Mode ON:

    San Antonio to San Marcos Supercharger: 51.5 mi for avg of 285 Wh/mi
    Austin to San Marcos Supercharger: 106.4 mi for avg of 314 Wh/mi

    On this trip from San Antonio to Austin this weekend, I watched the 30 mi avg Consumption graph and I constantly saw numbers in the mid-200s (and sometimes lower) and for the first time I saw the Projected Range dotted line drop below the Rated Range line, meaning the 30 mi avg was less than 300 Wh/mi and the Projected Range was more than the Rated Range.
    �
  • Feb 9, 2015
    lolachampcar
    Thanks much for the throttle sensitivity confirmation......
    Those numbers make the PD a truly usable car and certainly remove any regrets I had when I first took delivery.
    �
  • Feb 9, 2015
    dennis
    In Tesla we trust. :biggrin:
    �
  • Feb 9, 2015
    benjiejr
    I totally agree. I'm looking forward to my redo of the San Antonio to Dallas (Irving) trip in June. I was a rookie when I first made this trip and I learned a lot. Having this new firmware will really make the trip even more enjoyable!
    �
  • Feb 9, 2015
    rays427
    I have seen little if any improvement since getting the 139 update. We live in the foothills and our travel since installing the update is driving into town which includes about 20 miles round trip of highway driving with an elevation change of about 1200 feet. Just wondering if the elevation change is preventing the torque sleep. Yesterday drove into town and back in sport and range modes and had the highest energy use since getting the car. It was raining at the time and I assume that was the cause but was surprised at the amount of range degradation.
    �
  • Feb 9, 2015
    majorlance
    I now have 140 and it seems to be much better at TS than 139. I'm seeing much lower energy usage in my overall driving (city, mixed and highway) than before.

    Also, as rays427 pointed out, rain seems to make a difference. This was pre torque sleep but I drove about back from Delaware (130 miles) in a heavy rain storm in January and used significantly more energy than my trip on the way out. I think rain is worse than a headwind! :)
    �
  • Feb 9, 2015
    Andyw2100
    As one of the people not seeing improvement with .139, I'm very happy to hear this.

    When did you receive .140? If you received it recently, I think you'll be the first to have reported having received it in the past few days.

    Edit: I just saw that the service center installed it for you a couple of days ago, so there's nothing those of us waiting for it via OTA update can infer from your having received it.
    �
  • Feb 10, 2015
    majorlance
    That's correct. I didn't have it via OTA (although I did receive all of the other updates almost immediately). Service center installed it and I did have a discussion with the senior tech there regarding the functionality.
    �
  • Feb 10, 2015
    gpetti
    I received .140 yesterday.
    albeit my car is in the wrap shop but I went in and scheduled it, and ultimately it installed .140
    �
  • Feb 15, 2015
    Andyw2100
    Since it has been a week now, I thought I'd bring people up to speed on this.

    I followed up and had learned that the person I spoke to was waiting to hear back from an engineer with respect to whether or not they thought anything odd was going on with my car.

    On Thursday evening I received an e-mail that basically just said that torque sleep was active on my car, and it included some numbers from before the .139 update and after that showed total power consumption, and also a breakout of HVAC and 12V consumption. While interesting, I didn't really find it helpful, in that it didn't demonstrate when torque sleep was active, or why it wasn't, and it showed an inconsequential reduction of 8 wh/mi after taking out the HVAC difference. I say inconsequential because I'm sure this could have been due to other factors, and even if it is due to torque sleep, it is not close to the magnitude of the increase in efficiency others have seen. I'll include below a copy of the e-mail I received.

    I responded to that e-mail on Thursday evening, asking for some information, in rough terms, of the percentage of time torque sleep was active on my car. I explained that something was not making sense because when I compared the data from some of my trips that I had started tracking very carefully to what EV Trip Planner predicted, I was seeing efficiency worse than what EV trip planner predicted, but when other P85D owners did the same thing, they were seeing efficiencies significantly better than what EV Trip Planner estimated for them. I included a copy of my spreadsheet which included the data, and asked if the rep I was dealing with would please pass it along, with my questions, to the engineer. I'll include a copy of that email below as well.

    I followed up just now, when I hadn't heard anything, and learned that the rep I had been dealing with had been busy, and had not actually acted on the email I had sent on Thursday evening. He said he'd be sending it along now, but thought that there was a pretty good chance no one in engineering would see it or respond until Tuesday, since tomorrow is a holiday.

    So that's the update. I'll post again when I have more information.

    The e-mail correspondence is below.



    --
    Email from Tesla rep to me:

    One of our field engineers reached back out to me regarding torque sleep on your vehicle.
    He said that torque sleep is active on your vehicle. When he looked at the logs for your vehicle, here is the information the car told us.

    1/23 through the end of 2/1 (before torque sleep update was pushed to your vehicle)
    Total Avg consumption: 417wh/mi
    Avg HVAC (A/C and Heater) Consumption: 47wi/mi
    Avg 12v consumption: 11wh/mi
    Total avg � avg HVAC � avg 12v = 359wh/mi

    2/2 through 2/12 (after torque sleep update was pushed to your vehicle)
    Total Avg consumption: 434wh/mi
    Avg HVAC (A/C and Heater) Consumption: 68wi/mi
    Avg 12v consumption: 15wh/mi
    Total avg � avg HVAC � avg 12v = 351wh/mi

    So it looks like any efficiency increase you gained from torque sleep, was canceled out by the increased usage of the HVAC system and the 12v battery (increase in 12v consumption could come from the seat heaters, radio, lighting, etc). He said your car is operating normally and torque sleep is enabled and working. He said that there are a lot of variables that can affect your efficiency, like speed, temperature, tire PSI, acceleration rate, cargo in the vehicle, and terrain.

    So at this point in time everything look like it is working properly on your vehicle. If you have more questions, let me know.

    *****

    Email from me to Tesla rep:

    Thanks for the information.

    What I�d like to know is in rough terms, what percentage of the time torque sleep is actually activating on my car. Because something is not right.

    I have been charting some trips very precisely, and comparing them to what EV Trip Planner would predict, with respect to range miles used, total energy, and average energy. My energy usage is coming out a little bit above what EV Trip Planner would estimate it to be, Yet other P85D owners with Torque Sleep are seeing energy usage numbers that are beating EV Trip Planner estimates by significant margins. I�m using the comparison to EV Trip Planner as a benchmark, since that accounts for the differences in temperature, terrain, etc.

    I�m attaching the spreadsheet I�m maintaining that shows my comparisons.

    I�m really interested in what the engineer can tell me about how much of the time torque sleep is active on my car, and why I�m still seeing numbers that are worse than what EV Trip Planner predicts for me, when other P85D owners are seeing numbers that are much better than those that EV Trip Planner predicts for them.

    Thanks.
    �
  • Feb 15, 2015
    wk057
    What I would like to know is why this breakdown of energy usage isn't available on my center screen...
    �
  • Feb 15, 2015
    BerTX
    ...and what other data has been deemed as beyond our comprehension that isn't available!?
    �
  • Feb 15, 2015
    ArtInCT
    Andy:
    I have noticed that many of the P85D owners who see significant TS gains in Wh/m efficiency seem to be in warmer climates with FLAT terrain.

    Now, I am not probably too far off in saying your environment is perhaps just the opposite of warm and flat. Probably cold, snowy and undulating at least.

    I suspect if you were where they are and they were where you are.... (Gee did I actually type that?)... then they would be sending your letter to TM....

    What is the typical temps up in Ithaca bout now? 15 to 20 degrees?

    Did you by chance get to read the latest Tesla Living blog entry on cold weather and Wh/m? Sobering...
    �
  • Feb 15, 2015
    Andyw2100
    Thanks, Art.

    I have not seen the blog entry you mentioned. I'll look for it.

    I had been wondering about the cold weather / warm weather relationship to torque sleep. It wouldn't surprise me if you were right, but if you are I'd like to hear that officially from Tesla. And I'd like them to tell me that in actuality my motors have not been utilizing torque sleep because it has been too cold, or whatever the case may be. I am fully cognizant of the fact that the cold affects overall efficiency negatively, but no one has said that it will also affect the ability of the motors to torque sleep, so in effect be a double-whammy. If that's the case and the explanation, that's fine. Just tell me that, and then I'll stop worrying about this until the spring.

    As for the typical temperatures here, yes, you've got that about right. It's actually -1 degree Fahrenheit right now, and one of the weather warnings I saw yesterday said it could get down to -25 Fahrenheit by tomorrow morning, and -40 Fahrenheit with windchill. (I know people aren't going to believe that, so I'm going to find it and copy and paste it below. To be fair, I think that's the coldest temperature I've ever seen predicted for my area.)

    --
    Weather Warning - Lines with relevant info bolded:

    NYZ009-016>018-025-036-037-044>046-057-160200-
    /O.CON.KBGM.WC.W.0003.150215T0600Z-150216T1500Z/
    /O.CON.KBGM.WW.Y.0009.000000T0000Z-150215T1200Z/
    NORTHERN ONEIDA-SENECA-SOUTHERN CAYUGA-ONONDAGA-TOMPKINS-MADISON- SOUTHERN ONEIDA-CORTLAND-CHENANGO-OTSEGO-DE-
    INCLUDING THE CITIES OF.BOONVILLE.SENECA FALLS.AUBURN.
    SYRACUSE.ITHACA.ONEIDA.UTICA.ROME.CORTLAND.NORWICH.
    ONEONTA.COOPERSTOWN.WALTON.DELHI
    856 PM EST SAT FEB 14 2015

    .WINTER WEATHER ADVISORY REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL 7 AM EST SUNDAY.
    .WIND CHILL WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT FROM 1 AM SUN TO 10 AM EST MONDAY.

    * LOCATIONS.FINGER LAKES REGION TO SYRACUSE UTICA & ROME TO DE..CORTLAND.MADISON.CHENANGO & OTSEGO COUNTIES.

    * HAZARDS.SNOW.BLOWING SNOW.HIGH WINDS & DANGEROUS WIND CHILL VALUES.

    * ACCUMULATIONS.4 TO 8 INCHES OF SNOW.

    * TEMPS.DROPPING TO NEAR ZERO BY SUN MORNING.FALLING TO 5 BELOW TO 10 BELOW BY SUN EVENING & TO 15 BELOW TO 25 BELOW BY MON MORNING.

    * WIND CHILLS.25 TO 40 DEGREES BELOW ZERO FROM LATE TONIGHT THROUGH EARLY MON MORNING.

    * WINDS.NORTHWEST 20 TO 30 MPH WITH GUSTS UP TO 45 MPH.

    * TIMING.PERIODS OF SNOW WILL CONTINUE THROUGH THE OVERNIGHT HRS. NW WINDS WILL INCREASE TO 20 TO 30 MPH WITH GUSTS TO 45 MPH OVERNIGHT LEADING TO CONSIDERABLE BLOWING & DRIFTING SNOW & LOCALIZED WHITE-OUT CONDITIONS IN OPEN AREAS.
    DANGEROUSLY COLD WIND CHILLS WILL BEGIN LATE TONIGHT & LAST SUNDAY.SUNDAY NIGHT & MON MORNING.

    * IMPACTS.DANGEROUS TRAVEL CONDITIONS FROM SNOW. BLOWING SNOW.& LOW VISIBILITY OVERNIGHT. FROM LATE TONIGHT THROUGH EARLY MONDAY.DANGEROUSLY COLD WIND CHILLS COULD RESULT IN FROSTBITE ON EXPOSED SKIN.OR EVEN HYPOTHERMIA. WIND GUSTS COULD CAUSE MINOR DAMAGE TO TREES & LEAD TO SPORADIC POWER OUTAGES OVERNIGHT & SUN MORNING.

    PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS.

    A WINTER WEATHER ADVISORY MEANS THAT PERIODS OF SNOW & BLOWING SNOW WILL CAUSE TRAVEL DIFFICULTIES. BE PREPARED FOR SLIPPERY ROADS & LIMITED VISIBILITIES.& USE CAUTION WHILE DRIVING.

    A WIND CHILL WARNING IS ISSUED WHEN WINDS COMBINE WITH BITTERLY COLD TEMPS TO CREATE EXTREMELY DANGEROUS CONDITIONS FOR EXPOSED SKIN. THE WIND CHILL WILL BE COLD ENOUGH TO CAUSE FROSTBITE IN ABOUT 15 MINUTES OR LESS.& COULD LEAD TO HYPOTHERMIA IF PROPER PRECAUTIONS ARE NOT TAKEN. IF YOU MUST GO OUTSIDE.REMEMBER THAT SEVERAL LAYERS OF CLOTHING WILL KEEP YOU WARMER THAN A SINGLE HEAVY COAT. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO COVER ALL EXPOSED FLESH TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM FROSTBITE.

    PLEASE REPORT SNOWFALL AND/OR ICE AMOUNTS TO THE NATL WEATHER SVC BY CALLING TOLL FREE AT 1-888-603-1402.OR BY EMAIL AT [email�protected].
    �
  • Feb 15, 2015
    NOLA_Mike
    Andy, I assume all this means you still have not seen any significant improvement in energy consumption?

    As far as using more energy in the cold - of course that's true but I would think you would still seem a similar percentage improvement (if you were using 500 Wh/mi in the cold before TS then I'd think you'd see 450 Wh/mi after if all was working properly). Aren't there others in similar cold/terrain that have seen improvement?

    Mike
    �
  • Feb 15, 2015
    Andyw2100
    Yes, I agree. That's been my position all along. Unless, of course, torque sleep just doesn't work in the cold. But Tesla hasn't said that yet.

    And no, I've seen basically no improvement.

    The caveat is that I was not tracking things very carefully before the update, but you can see some of my "before" numbers from the data Tesla sent.

    My basis for claiming that I'm not seeing the torque sleep efficiency is the benchmarking against EV Trip Planner. I'm consistently right around 5% above what EV Trip Planner would estimate, give or take a little bit. Others who have seen efficiency improvements are beating EV Trip Planner estimates by 10% or so. That 15% or so difference is right in line with the 15% efficiency improvement Tesla predicted. (See this thread: Comparing P85D Torque Sleep efficiency (versions .139 and .140) to EV Trip Planner)

    I don't know if anyone who lives in a really cold climate has seen significant efficiency improvement since torque sleep was introduced or not. I certainly have not.
    �
  • Feb 15, 2015
    ArtInCT
    Andy:
    I may have been confusing in my previous post.
    I do think TS works in cold weather.
    I do think TS works not as well in undulating terrain where you are going up and thus demanding torque.
    Those S driven in flat terrain have the luxury of attaining speed and then essentially coasting.
    Here in New England and where you are, that is not the case. We have ever present ups and downs.

    Now back to the cold... from what I have been reading, heat and heated seats do consume quite a bit of power.

    Also in deep cold, I here that regen is mitigated and at the worse case totally non-funtional until the battery pack is up to 45 degrees or more (from what I have read).

    So I think it is plausible that any savings that TS is giving you is being consumed by heating, seat heaters, defrosters, heated steering wheel and also perhaps heating the battery pack. And if there is wet roads or snow on them, then that can really put the kebosh on efficiency.
    I hope you can find the Tesla Living blog. I have put the link below. His blog is quite fun to read, there are many chapters that take you the reader on his Tesla Life.

    Tesla Living
    �
  • Feb 15, 2015
    Andyw2100
    While some of the terrain we drive in is hilly, there are enough relatively flat stretches of highway that torque sleep should be kicking in some of the time.

    The battery heating / regen stuff is completely a non-issue, as Iwe've been handling that exactly the same way before and after the update, with the slight variations due to range mode being on now when driving, while it wasn't before. This should give some efficiency anyway, not hurt it.

    We generally preheat the battery on shore power before leaving on the trips that I've been charting, and then also preheat some on battery power for the return trip. But as I said, we were doing that before the update too.

    Also if you look at the numbers Tesla sent me, after subtracting off HVAC and 12V, there is just a difference of 8 wh/mi, which is nothing. That's noise.

    I really hope Tesla can help get to the bottom of what is going on. They should be able to look at the logs and know exactly when torque sleep is active and when it isn't.
    �
  • Feb 15, 2015
    Bet TSLA
    This means nothing conclusive unless all other things are equal, which they aren't. The most likely cause for this is that EV Trip Planner has some systemic error in your situation, like maybe your tires are under inflated (a simple example that is not likely the case). To eliminate that possibility compare your car with another car (that saw an improvement when torque sleep appeared) doing the same exact trip at the same time. If your energy usage is worse than theirs then there's likely a problem with your car. But even so it could be something as simple as under inflated tires.
    �
  • Feb 15, 2015
    Andyw2100
    I had inflated all my tires to 45lbs using the device in this thread: Solution for easy and convenient maintenance of tire pressures at home

    As discussed in that thread, it wasn't clear what the real pressure was, but it was within 2lbs of that.

    I checked them using the a new digital tire gauge about two weeks ago, and they were all at about 42 lbs. I chose not to inflate them to 45 lbs at that time, because I wanted to be able to make valid comparisons if I was getting firmware updates. I suppose at this point I could reinflate them all to 45 pounds, but they are certainly all close enough to not be the cause of significant lack of efficiency.

    As for finding another P85D driver who has experienced the increase in efficiency and then driving the same route, that may be easy to accomplish in California, where from what I understand there's a Tesla in practically every driveway, but as far as I know, I've got the only P85D in a pretty big area in upstate NY. And I'm not going to bother another P85D driver over something Tesla should be able to help me with. I have pretty solid evidence that something is amiss. Using EV Trip Planner as a benchmark is a pretty reasonable way to compare my results to others'. It may not be the very best way, but it's a reasonable one, and it's the best one I have access to.
    �
  • Feb 16, 2015
    tezzla
    I think Andy drives too fast! In my experience, torque sleep is hardly used at 75+. I currently have 2k miles on my P85D, @ 367 wh/mile, my lifetime on my old P85 was 360 wh/mile after 16k miles. (Just for comparison, my lifetime with my S85 was 355 wh/mile with 6k miles.)
    �
  • Feb 16, 2015
    Andyw2100
    Speed is one of the things that I've been recording. Most of the trips my wife is the driver, and she has been setting TACC, when available, to 68. When it has not been available she almost certainly never goes above 70, and is probably closer to 65 most of the time, when on the highway. And about half the typical trip is not highway, but 50 or 55 MPH max speed, so I assure you we are not anywhere close to 70 or 75 MPH there. We also don't use TACC when not on the highway, because of how inefficient it is.

    The main trip--between home and work--is 52 miles and change, and the driving time in EV Trip Planner with a factor of 1, which is what we use most of the time (occasionally we use something slightly different, depending on what happened that trip) is exactly 60 minutes.

    The last trip I recorded I was the driver, and I actually set the TACC to 65, to try to see if speed might have been playing a factor, as someone here had indicated that they thought torque sleep wasn't kicking in at all at 70 MPH, and I normally would have set TACC at 70. It made no difference.

    I'll be recording another trip with me as the driver again today (the reverse of the last trip), and will again set the TACC to 65. I'll post all my data to date this evening.

    Driving speed does not explain why we're not seeing torque sleep efficiencies.

    Edit: By the way, this should be incredibly obvious, but tezzla--you know you can't compare your wh/mi numbers with mine, right?
    �
  • Feb 16, 2015
    gpetti
    Hey Andy,
    It seems you are doing everything right so it comes down to whether:
    - Torque sleep is just not working
    - Torque sleep is working but other consumption factors are hiding or minimizing the benefit you see relative to your pre .139 numbers (and relative to EV trip planner)

    Besides your own numbers and analysis, the numbers Tesla provided also indicate virtually no improvement so I understand your concern.
    As there are so many variables involved it makes it hard to prove to Tesla (particularly if you're working through various "middlemen"). One thing I wondered was whether you had tried to duplicate Lolachampcar's description of when and how the car switches into torque sleep. Others's have described how the energy usage changes when the rear motor drops out. If you were to do a flat run, warm battery, range on, heat off (temporarily) and have your wife do the necessary steps while you are videoing the dash along with before and after consumption figures. My understanding is that the change in energy usage should be very noticeable and comparable to the behavior described by others on the forum. Obviously if it seems to be working from this point of view, you are still left with questions; however, if it doesn't behave as expected you have some more ammunition to push Tesla service.
    �
  • Feb 16, 2015
    Andyw2100
    Exactly!


    That's a good idea, and if it comes to that, I guess I'll have to try that. I'm hoping I won't need to, though. At this point I don't think I've really had the attention of anyone at Tesla who would really understand the issue and be able to give me an answer yet. I think the engineer who my initial inquiry was passed on to just checked the logs, saw that torque sleep was enabled, and responded with the figures, and then the rep just passed that information along. I doubt the engineer understood that I had already been logging trips and already feared there was an issue with torque sleep not functioning properly, etc. I think I'll have a much better feel for how Tesla is going to react when I hear back next time. That should give me a pretty good idea of how much "proof" I'm going to have to provide that something other than what is expected is going on.

    If I am going to try to video torque sleep either happening or not happening, I'm not sure exactly how I'd go about that. For example, would I just get on the highway, set the TACC for, say 60 or 65, video the dash as we get up to speed, and then continue videoing the dash as I hopefully see a drop in energy consumption when the back motor drops out? My concern would be that if I see no drop in consumption, how do I know whether I'm seeing torque sleep not happening, as opposed to having seen torque sleep having kicked in very quickly just as the cruising speed was reached? Does that make sense?

    Similarly, I might hear the back motor drop out, but not hearing it doesn't prove torque sleep isn't happening.

    I guess what I'm saying is I think this test could prove that torque sleep is working, but I don't see how it could prove that it isn't, at least the way I envision doing the test. Perhaps there's a better way to do it that would allow for it to show if torque sleep isn't working, and I'm just not seeing it, or not understanding what you mean. If so, please explain it to me, as I very well may need to do this.

    Thanks!

    Also, even if I find out this way that torque sleep is working at times, that wouldn't be a complete answer, because I'd still wonder if it were working as frequently as it should be.

    Does that make sense?
    �
  • Feb 16, 2015
    wk057
    The torque sleep stuff definitely feels like it has little effect at 75+. I often set my cruise at 78 MPH on local 70 MPH highways... and I see only very minor improvement, if any, at this speed, in the P85D vs my old P85. It may be HVAC cancelling this out lately, though, since it's been unusually frigid here.

    I may have to do a night time (no traffic) side by side at 78 MPH to see if I'm crazy or not.
    �
  • Feb 16, 2015
    tezzla
    Absolutely, mine are in sunny SoCal. I was just giving numbers supporting my driving style. My comment about your speed was more in jest.
    �
  • Feb 16, 2015
    Andyw2100
    As promised, below is the data I've been recording. Some of it I have posted before.

    The most recent two trips the efficiency was a little better than EV Trip Planner predicted instead of a little worse. This could be due to one or a combination of a number of factors. For starters, I chose to set the TACC to 65 when on the highway, to purposely limit the speed. I tried to account for this in EV Trip Planner. Another factor is that I was the driver these two trips instead of my wife. All the other trips except the first one, she was the driver. Finally both of these two trips it was extremely cold, and I had preheated the cabin quite a bit, and then turned the cabin heat down to 64. While I did put the correct temperatures into EV Trip Planner, it's possible that at those extremes EV Trip Planner is less accurate, or perhaps my heat soaking is gaining me a lot of efficiency not being accounted for in EV Trip Planner. Either way, that would not be indicative of improved efficiency due to torque sleep suddenly working.

    I have highlighted my efficiency numbers in red when they have beaten the EV Trip Planner expected numbers, and bolded the ones that beat the EV Trip Planner numbers by a significant amount. Note that even those few numbers, which I believe are anomalies, are not beating EV Trip Planner by nearly as much as the numbers from the people who believe they have seen the real efficiency gains from torque sleep are beating EV Trip Planner by.













    		EV Trip Planner





    DateDistanceRMTotal EnergyAvg EnergyHwy SpeedCabin TempOutdoor TempWindElev ChangeConditionsEstimates: PayloadDistanceRMTotal EnergyAvg EnergySpd Factor
    2/4/1558.47822.738965-70653211 HW630Cloudy40057.26920.83641
    2/5/15546920.838565-7068146 HW(754)Little light snow17552.66318.93601
    2/5/1553.57822.642355-706886TW754Clear17552.27221.54120.9
    2/6/15546619.436065-706856TW(754)Clear17552.667203801
    2/6/1553.47321.339965-7068206HW754Clear17552.27020.94011
    2/12/15546318.734765-7068272CW(754)Some Sleet17552.65817.53321
    2/12/1553.47622.241665-7068115TW754Flurries17552.273224211
    2/13/15596820.534860-656432TW(630)Clear40057.77321.93790.96
    2/16/1558.57822.939160-656450630Clear, Rd Snow40057.37823.54100.92
    �
  • Feb 17, 2015
    xy46
    Regardless of speeds of 75 or greater, shouldn't torque sleep still activate/be active and create some efficiencies by utilizing only the front motor?
    �
  • Feb 17, 2015
    Denarius
    I always drive 75-80 and have seen great efficiency gains over my P85+.
    �
  • Feb 17, 2015
    xy46
    Thanks, Denarius. That makes sense to me and is what I was hoping to hear. It's been frigid here in Michigan most of this year already, and the few long trips I have taken have all been while it's been exceptionally cold - temps in the single digits to below zero. Despite that, it seems I have had significant efficiency gains on .139, although I haven't been able to test it at regular speeds above 70 due to road conditions.
    �
  • Feb 17, 2015
    Andyw2100
    Could you please enter a couple of your trips into EV Trip Planner, and then post the results, as I have? (Please see my post upthread.)

    I've been hoping that the reason my results haven't been good was that either the cold or the fact that I was still on .139 were preventing torque sleep from working properly. But if you are seeing great efficiency improvement in the cold, on .139, I am now even more concerned.

    Thanks.
    �
  • Feb 17, 2015
    George Parrott
    On freeway driving, at speed settings of 67-68 mph, I am seeing marked and impressive power reductions in my P85D compared to my previous S85 (362 hp) of about 5% lower watts/mile. I have my set at INSANE + RANGE for all my driving.
    �
  • Feb 17, 2015
    Denarius
    I already have here: Comparing P85D Torque Sleep efficiency (versions .139 and .140) to EV Trip Planner
    �
  • Feb 17, 2015
    Andyw2100
  • Feb 17, 2015
    Denarius
    I can see that now, my bad. :smile:
    �
  • Feb 18, 2015
    stevezzzz
  • Feb 19, 2015
    xy46
    Hey Andyw2100 - my apologies for the late follow-up on this, but it's been a crazy week, and I had to go back and reconstruct this information from various sources. My observations about seeing more efficiency has been almost as much anecdotal as anything else. On software version .115 and prior, average energy use never even got close to 400, except on the second trip recorded below, and I am fairly confident I had a strong tailwind on that drive. Typically, I was seeing mid-400's.

    After moving to .139, I have been seeing numbers in the upper 300's much more regularly. Unfortunately, my historical numbers don't have important data points like wind speed and direction, which obviously makes comparisons here difficult at best.

    Actual EfficiencyEVTripPlanner
    DateSoftwareDistanceRMTotal EnergyAvg EnergyAvg Hwy SpeedCabin TempOutdoor TempWindElev Change (Feet)ConditionsEstimates: Payload (Pounds)DistanceRMTotal EnergyAvg EnergySpd Factor
    12/30/146.0.x100.0
    		46.0460716818
    		-56Clear27599.714041.94201.00
    01/02/156.0.x156.3
    		60.8389716628
    		-10Clear275154.120361.03961.05
    01/02/156.0.x86.6
    		33.7389676640
    		10Clear27585.510832.43791.05
    02/06/15.13968.4
    		25.8378706628
    		-148Lightly snowing, roads clear27568.49628.94221.05
    02/13/15.139149.3
    		54.0361506722
    		-49Heavy snow, roads covered275146.016348.83340.72
    �
  • Feb 19, 2015
    Andyw2100
    I appreciate the response!

    So it looks like from the data above, there is really only one trip on .139 that wasn't in heavy snow--the trip on 02/06. And on that trip you beat EV Trip Planner expectations by a significant margin: 378 vs. 422 on wh/mi, or 44/422 = 10.4% on that metric and 25.8 vs. 28.9 or 3.1/28.9=10.7% on that metric. (It looks like you just didn't have range miles, right?) So this is more fuel for my fire that something may be wrong with my torque sleep, as I can't come close to beating EV Trip Planner by anything approaching that.

    Thanks!
    �
  • Feb 19, 2015
    xy46
    No problem - glad to be able to help. I may be making a short 30-40 mile trip tomorrow, and I think the roads should be clear. If so, I will see if I can collect some more data for you and post it here. At the risk of sounding stupid, I am not sure I understand how you are getting range miles for your tracking. Are you simply looking at the rated miles you have in charge before and after the trip?
    �
  • Feb 19, 2015
    Andyw2100
    Thanks.

    And yes, that's all I'm doing. It has been slightly complicated by the addition of having to turn range mode on and off, so the convention I've been using is to track the rated miles with range mode on.

    So, for example, I'll get in the car with range mode off, and a 90% charge showing 227. When I turn range mode on, that'll go up to 229. I have to remember to use 229 as my starting rated miles remaining, and not 227. When I end my trip, I have to check the rated miles remaining while still in range mode. As soon as I turn range mode off, which I do before exiting so that I can preheat the battery on shore power, the remaining rated miles will decrease a little.
    �
  • Feb 28, 2015
    sorka
    Would it make sense to also report the following:

    1) Wheel size.
    2) Carbon fiber spoiler or not.
    3) Ride height (for those that have air).
    4) Wheel alignment, if you had it done.

    Note, the ride height will change the camber which could also effect range in addition to the decrease in drag from lowering the car.
    �
    • Người đăng: vào lúc

    Không có nhận xét nào:

    Đăng nhận xét

    Đăng ký: Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)