teslamotorclub: P85D vs. P85 Efficiency Testing, Take 2 part 1

Update:
Final results!

P85: 111.3 miles, 35.0 kWh, 315 Wh/mi
P85D: 112.3 miles, 35.4 kWh, 316 Wh/mi

For comparison, the results of the previous test (pre-torque sleep) were:
P85: 111.3 miles, 34.1 kWh, 306 Wh/mi
P85D: 112.2 miles, 39.5 kWh, 352 Wh/mi

----------------

So, I did a preliminary test of the new firmware received this evening (v6.1 2.2.140) immediately and the results are very promising. Enough that I'm going to make sure that I talk my fiance into doing an updated side-by-side test with her P85 tomorrow like in my previous thread and video. She is returning early from a short trip, so, could work out!

Should be about the same conditions and route as last time.

Differences being:

that this time I will use TACC to pace the P85 instead of setting cruise to the same value and then having the P85 slowly pull away over the miles like it did last time (some reason the cars couldn't maintain perfect cruise sync)

No way to disable TACC or fall back to the old style cruise.

the P85D having torque sleep now

1000+ miles more on both cars/tires than last time

Hoping to try this tomorrow afternoon, heading to the same Japanese restaurant for lunch.

If I'm right in my estimates based on my ~35 mile drive tonight the P85D will use less energy than the P85 this time...

So, for the first fun part, here are the details of the test trip I did alone that have convinced me a new side-by-side is needed:

Total trip was 34.8 miles, 11.1 kWh, 318 Wh/mi

Battery was a little cold for the first part with regen limited around 35kW.

Trip included a single 0-60 insane/non-range mode launch

According to timing from my video, no improvement on this front yet and same power consumption as before according to the dash

That's not what I was going for tonight anyway. Just tested for completeness

Rest of trip was Sport/Range Mode

~6 miles of rural and in-town driving.

This leg is somewhat uphill

Last several trips on this stretch were 500+ Wh/mi in the P85D.

I reset trip B after the 0-60 launch (1.5 miles into this stretch) and the remaining 4.5 miles yielded a respectable 369Wh/mi, roughly on par with the P85.

Jumped on the interstate and set cruise at 65 MPH (minor interuptions due to TACC slowing as people moved around)

First 14 miles were a slight net uphill yeilding 319Wh/mi.

The first 3 miles of this part of the trip were < 180 Wh/mi!

Turned around, reset trip B

Return 13 miles were a slight net downhill yielding 233 Wh/mi.

Average for the round trip on the highway at 65 MPH: 277 Wh/mi.

First, I've never seen a Wh/mi in the 200s on the P85D... ever. Not even on short stretches. Second, this same trip (just about) I did in the car a few days ago at ~430 Wh/mi.

I'm impressed so far. Regen/coasting seems to work much more efficiently than previously. I noted a few times during the first side-by-side test that at some points the P85 would be in regen while the P85D was either still using power or barely breaking even on power. The P85D seems to so better with this now. I was seeing slight regen even on small downward inclines with cruise set. Pretty cool.

Additionally, I did note three independent instances of hiccups in the new firmware, all at < 10 MPH and while turning sharply and decelerating. (I'll be sending a note to Tesla after I finish this post.) Into my driveway, a U turn, and a left turn on to the highway on ramp. For anyone who has driven a manual ICE car, it felt like a sloppy downshift. Like if I had let the clutch out too fast when downshifting. I'm guessing this may relate to one of the motors engaging or disengaging it's regen at the time and not being smooth about it. Was exactly the same all three times. Probably pretty repeatable. In the final instance when I was turning right to prepare to back into my driveway I felt what I believe were the front wheels skip as it happened, as if they had locked or slowed substantially for a moment (split second).

Overall... seems like a very promising update. Can't wait until tomorrow! *puts GoPros on charge*

Edit: It is worth noting: At 277 Wh/mi that is roughly 270 miles @ 65 MPH (using the highest usage I've seen out of my P85's battery at ~75kWh). Consider the elevation changes in my @ 65 MPH test legs and factoring for the efficiency of regen... I think the original quoted 285 miles @ 65 MPH number may be completely doable on flat terrain.
It is also worth noting that I beat the P85D rated miles on this trip by several %. Usage was closer to (P)85 rated miles...
�

wk057 said: ?

So, I did a preliminary test of the new firmware received this evening (v6.1 2.2.140) immediately and the results are very promising. Enough that I'm going to make sure that I talk my fiance into doing an updated side-by-side test with her P85 tomorrow like in my previous thread and video. She is returning early from a short trip, so, could work out!
Click to expand...

Wow, this is awesome to hear, and thanks for all of your testing and postings on this topic. I have been traveling the last few days while my P85D sits at home in the garage waiting for me to start the update. The timing of this couldn't be better as I have to make a roadtrip to Detroit on Friday night, and the range increase will be very welcome. Last road trip to Detroit to attend the special Tesla NAIAS event turned into a bit of a charging nightmare for me between the subzero temperatures and "insane" energy use.
�

This is just awesome. A few days I was ready to downgrade my close-to-production P85D to an 85D, because of all the reported range issues (and your original comparison video). It looks like I get to keep the P after all!!! Thanks for the detailed report, and looking forward to the new comparison video 2.0.
�

@wk057, waiting with bated breath! Thank you for dedicating so much time and effort! My P85D is still on .139 and haven't had much chance to test it. Most of my driving has been in the city and I can't say I've seen much improvement. I'm hoping highway driving and .140 yields better results. Looking forward to your findings!
�

This is horribly unscientific, but for what it's worth, I've noticed an improvement in range on my P85D since the update. On the commute to downtown SF from the outer reaches of the East Bay, a 90 or so mile r/t with some nasty traffic, what used to use up about 100 miles of range now uses 92 or so.

I know, it's the wrong metric to really know what's going on, but I didn't even realize there had been an update and hadn't been tracking the WH/mi on this trip previously.
�

My unscientific observation after loading .140 this evening is I took a 120 mile roundtrip (60 miles each way) and don't see any noticeable improvement. 48 degrees F, no wind, all interstate with speed varying between 60 and 70 MPH. Range Mode = ON. Used 355 Wh/mi. Would have been about 300-310 Wh/mi in my P85+ with Range Mode OFF.

Obviously I won't pass judgement until I'm able to log more miles under varying conditions but my initial impression is not good.
�

I can't speak for any improvements between .139 to .140 because I never received .139 and went straight to .140. I can, however speak about improvements between delivery and .140.
�

wk057 said: ?

Additionally, I did note three independent instances of hiccups in the new firmware, all at < 10 MPH and while turning sharply and decelerating. (I'll be sending a note to Tesla after I finish this post.) Into my driveway, a U turn, and a left turn on to the highway on ramp. For anyone who has driven a manual ICE car, it felt like a sloppy downshift. Like if I had let the clutch out too fast when downshifting. I'm guessing this may relate to one of the motors engaging or disengaging it's regen at the time and not being smooth about it. Was exactly the same all three times. Probably pretty repeatable. In the final instance when I was turning right to prepare to back into my driveway I felt what I believe were the front wheels skip as it happened, as if they had locked or slowed substantially for a moment (split second).
Click to expand...

I absolutely experienced the same thing (I have .139 btw). My neighbors thought I was nuts as I rolled through my neighborhood going between 3-8 mph as I tested this thing "shift" over and over again. During slow "acceleration" you could clearly feel it shift, and when letting off the pedal under 10 mph it feels as though the regen kicks in hard, then smooths out. Not noticeable at higher speeds, but in a crawl you can definitely feel it.

As for the range.. the improvements are great. Had a 54 mile round trip today that would typically run me around 370-400 kW/mi. This time around it was 270. I'll take the shift issue all day for that range. Very happy.
�

Rice390 said: ?

I absolutely experienced the same thing (I have .139 btw). My neighbors thought I was nuts as I rolled through my neighborhood going between 3-8 mph as I tested this thing "shift" over and over again. During slow "acceleration" you could clearly feel it shift, and when letting off the pedal under 10 mph it feels as though the regen kicks in hard, then smooths out. Not noticeable at higher speeds, but in a crawl you can definitely feel it.

As for the range.. the improvements are great. Had a 54 mile round trip today that would typically run me around 370-400 kW/mi. This time around it was 270. I'll take the shift issue all day for that range. Very happy.
Click to expand...

Good to know I'm not crazy... and I did pretty much the same thing (after I got back and posted this thread) in front of the house.

Definitely something noticeable, but yeah I'll take it vs the old efficiency.
�

NOLA_Mike said: ?

My unscientific observation after loading .140 this evening is I took a 120 mile roundtrip (60 miles each way) and don't see any noticeable improvement. 48 degrees F, no wind, all interstate with speed varying between 60 and 70 MPH. Range Mode = ON. Used 355 Wh/mi. Would have been about 300-310 Wh/mi in my P85+ with Range Mode OFF.

Obviously I won't pass judgement until I'm able to log more miles under varying conditions but my initial impression is not good.
Click to expand...

@NOLA_Mike: I wonder why your experience is so different from that of everyone else who's reported efficiency improvements under .139/.140? It seems very odd, and I hope we can find a good explanation in the end.
�

wk. looking forward to seeing the results.
�

stevezzzz said: ?

I wonder why your experience is so different from that of everyone else who's reported efficiency improvements under .139/.140? It seems very odd, and I hope we can find a good explanation in the end.
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure, but, like I said... I've never seen Wh numbers in the 200s driving around here, ever, in the P85D... let alone ~233 Wh/mi over a dozen miles.

Looking more closely at my highway stretch:

The westbound part shows a net elevation change of +203 ft over ~14 miles. EV Trip Planner says 361 Wh/mi at 65 MPH. I achieved 319. (Included exiting the hwy and turning around)

The eastbound part (which was a hair shorter because I exited at a different exit) shows a net elevation change of -190 ft over ~13 miles. EV Trip Planner says 306 Wh/mi at 65 MPH. I achieved 233. (Included exiting the hwy and parking in a parking lot)

Interestingly enough the 15mi avg matched the Trip B avg for that eastbound stretch.

In between cruise was set at 65. This isn't a flat highway, many ups and downs. (I-40 a bit east of Asheville, NC)
�

wk057 said: ?

The westbound part shows a net elevation change of +203 ft over ~14 miles. EV Trip Planner says 361 Wh/mi at 65 MPH. I achieved 319. (Included exiting the hwy and turning around)

The eastbound part (which was a hair shorter because I exited at a different exit) shows a net elevation change of -190 ft over ~13 miles. EV Trip Planner says 306 Wh/mi at 65 MPH. I achieved 233. (Included exiting the hwy and parking in a parking lot)

Interestingly enough the 15mi avg matched the Trip B avg for that eastbound stretch.

In between cruise was set at 65. This isn't a flat highway, many ups and downs. (I-40 a bit east of Asheville, NC)
Click to expand...

Hahahaha. That's flat.

The test loop that I've been doing starts with -220 ft over 1 mile, followed by +500 ft over 5 miles, then flat for 2 miles, then back again. Like I said, it's hilly here.

Perhaps that's why I'm not seeing any improvement with .139, with Range Mode on or off. With all of this elevation change, maybe the rear motor isn't getting a chance to idle.

stevezzzz said: ?

@NOLA_Mike: I wonder why your experience is so different from that of everyone else who's reported efficiency improvements under .139/.140? It seems very odd, and I hope we can find a good explanation in the end.
Click to expand...

NOLA_Mike, what sort of terrain are you driving over? Hilly?
�

Any tests with range mode OFF?
�

stevezzzz said: ?

@NOLA_Mike: I wonder why your experience is so different from that of everyone else who's reported efficiency improvements under .139/.140? It seems very odd, and I hope we can find a good explanation in the end.
Click to expand...

Needless to say, I'm disappointed. I even rebooted the system at the midpoint of my drive to see if that would help on the return trip. I probably won't get a chance to test anything today but will be doing extensive testing over the weekend.

If everybody else gets dramatic improvement on .139/.140 then I guess I have to consider the possibility of something hardware related/wrong with my car that is not allowing the torque sleep to activate.

Mike

- - - Updated - - -

EarlyAdopter said: ?

NOLA_Mike, what sort of terrain are you driving over? Hilly?
Click to expand...

I-12/I-10 in south Louisiana - doesn't get any flatter than that...
�

wk057 said: ?

The eastbound part (which was a hair shorter because I exited at a different exit) shows a net elevation change of -190 ft over ~13 miles. EV Trip Planner says 306 Wh/mi at 65 MPH. I achieved 233. (Included exiting the hwy and parking in a parking lot)
Click to expand...

That is crazy talk! 233?! I didn't even think that was possible in a P85D. I'm sure hoping I see something like that when I get a chance to do some testing. That's very impressive.
�

NOLA_Mike said: ?

If everybody else gets dramatic improvement on .139/.140 then I guess I have to consider the possibility of something hardware related/wrong with my car that is not allowing the torque sleep to activate.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure I'm going to be joining you in the no or little improvement category, NOLA_Mike. I hadn't posted yet because my trip yesterday was into a head wind, and not exactly one that is taken quite as regularly as my wife's almost daily drive into work that she took this morning. I had her document that, and I'm going to compare the numbers to EV Trip Planner before posting, but based on other trips, I'm pretty sure we've seen little or no improvement. The only real variable is that I now have the ability to monitor windspeed, thanks to the new tool discussed in this thread: Tool to estimate the head wind while driving !

I didn't have that before. Today she was driving into a headwind of 5-7 MPH for some of the time. But I imagine that was true of some of her other trips as well.

I'll write up something more detailed when I have some more time later, but I just didn't want you to think you were all alone. I'm pretty sure you are not.

I have .139, but not .140, and have only taken those two trips with it.
�

wk057 were you going 65mph as well?
�

wk057 said: ?

So, for the first fun part, here are the details of the test trip I did alone that have convinced me a new side-by-side is needed:

Total trip was 34.8 miles, 11.1 kWh, 318 Wh/mi

Battery was a little cold for the first part with regen limited around 35kW.

Trip included a single 0-60 insane/non-range mode launch

According to timing from my video, no improvement on this front yet and same power consumption as before according to the dash

That's not what I was going for tonight anyway. Just tested for completeness

Rest of trip was Sport/Range Mode

~6 miles of rural and in-town driving.

This leg is somewhat uphill

Last several trips on this stretch were 500+ Wh/mi in the P85D.

I reset trip B after the 0-60 launch (1.5 miles into this stretch) and the remaining 4.5 miles yielded a respectable 369Wh/mi, roughly on par with the P85.

Jumped on the interstate and set cruise at 65 MPH (minor interuptions due to TACC slowing as people moved around)

First 14 miles were a slight net uphill yeilding 319Wh/mi.

The first 3 miles of this part of the trip were < 180 Wh/mi!

Turned around, reset trip B

Return 13 miles were a slight net downhill yielding 233 Wh/mi.

Average for the round trip on the highway at 65 MPH: 277 Wh/mi.

First, I've never seen a Wh/mi in the 200s on the P85D... ever. Not even on short stretches. Second, this same trip (just about) I did in the car a few days ago at ~430 Wh/mi.

I'm impressed so far.
Click to expand...

I'm jealous! I have .139 and did a test run this AM.

I ran approx 50km on mixed flat and mildly rolling hills, clear dry pavement with cruise control on, 58mph, sport mode. Car was fully preheated, in a heated garage and I ran it in range mode.

Average consumption: 488Wh/mile. I'm sure the temperature is a factor. Thermometer on the dash read -32C which is roughly -26F. Ugh.... I'm looking forward to March. That said, I haven't seen any noticeable improvement from .113 to .139.
�

sandpiper said: ?

Thermometer on the dash read -32C which is roughly -26F.
Click to expand...

Does range mode disable pack heating even in that temperature?
�

Matias said: ?

Does range mode disable pack heating even in that temperature?
Click to expand...

I don't know, but I suspect not. I suspect that it must maintain some degree of pack heating. It would be nice if the Tesla manual was a bit more technical. It's very poor at explaining these things.
�

Andyw2100 said: ?

I'm pretty sure I'm going to be joining you in the no or little improvement category, NOLA_Mike.

I'll write up something more detailed when I have some more time later, but I just didn't want you to think you were all alone. I'm pretty sure you are not.

I have .139, but not .140, and have only taken those two trips with it.
Click to expand...

Thanks - misery does love company!
�

Fezzik said: ?

wk057 were you going 65mph as well?
Click to expand...

Cruise was set at 65. A car passed me and got in front, which made TACC fall back once, but other than that 65.

Fiance got home a little bit ago, topping off her car and the P85D to 95% SoC like last time and preheating as much as possible since we did this with climate off last time too.

Preparation!
�

Subscribing to yet another nice WK thread.
Thanks for the good work.
�

@Lolachamp how are things looking for you in Florida? Do you have any of the recent updates? What's your lifetime average so far?
�

I got soooo excited about getting .139 and being able to test that I tried installing it out at the hangar while I flew. I got the dreaded Parking Sensors Disabled message and am awaiting correct flashing before testing It was my own fault for being impatient. I normally update at night plugged in.

Luckily we have members like WK..
�

So, everything worked fine last night. Parking sensors, TACC, etc.

Came to find the dreaded "Park assist disabled - Contact Tesla Service" message this morning. May be postponing test if I can't get that to clear.

Edit: My car was plugged in while updating last night, I hit install and left it alone for 90 minutes. All was well on my first test drive last night.
�

wk,
I read your post above to say you had a fully functional .140 installation THEN got the disabled message? If that is the case, then my error may not be failed flashing related after all.
�

lolachampcar said: ?

wk,
I read your post above to say you had a fully functional .140 installation THEN got the disabled message? If that is the case, then my error may not be failed flashing related after all.
Click to expand...

Yup, everything worked perfectly last night. Got it on video. lol. Car sat for ~12 hours, and now park assist is broken. If cruise control works (doubt it) I may do the test anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

Park assist working last night when I backed in.
�

CC will work just fine (it does on mine); it is only the ultrasonics that are packed up on my car. The radar works just fine.
�

lolachampcar said: ?

CC will work just fine (it does on mine); it is only the ultrasonics that are packed up on my car. The radar works just fine.
Click to expand...

Hmm.. might go for it then. I was looking forward to eating at that Japanese place ~45 miles away anyway

- - - Updated - - -

I'm going to try one last thing, and that is to wait a short time to let the P85D "fall asleep." Seems the slacker bug isn't fixed in this one, so, going to watch my wifi traffic until it falls off then try again.
�

wk057 said: ?

Cruise was set at 65. A car passed me and got in front, which made TACC fall back once, but other than that 65.

Fiancee got home a little bit ago, topping off her car and the P85D to 95% SoC like last time and preheating as much as possible since we did this with climate off last time too.

Preparation!
Click to expand...

a) Congratulations on your upcoming marriage. I hope that your fiancee will be arranging it so you can concentrate on the important stuff like Tesla-battery-based solar back-up systems.
b) Given that she's a willing participant in your efficiency tests, I think this marriage is going to work.
�

Good show

wk057 thanks for doing all the testing, I am currently overseas until March and my wife has been driving our D. She has been giving me updates on the efficiency improvements since .139 and now .140. She drove from Destin to Panama City (130 miles rt) and back and averaged 310wh/mi yesterday. She is doing it again today with Range mode on. Very exciting. Nice job.
�

Test in progress. At 14 miles the P85D is winning so far
�

wk057 said: ?

Test in progress. At 14 miles the P85D is winning so far
Click to expand...

Never been so exiting hitting refresh on my ipad
�

Howinhades do you have time to eat, let alone go to a restaurant 45 miles away, when yer suppozd to be finishing that magnificent PV-battery system for us all to drool over?
�

wk057 said: ?

I think the original quoted 285 miles @ 65 MPH number may be completely doable on flat terrain.
Click to expand...

And your car was running on 21'' - in the winter!

That should be good for 300 real miles at 65mph on 19'' in the summer.
�

wk057 said: ?

Test in progress. At 14 miles the P85D is winning so far
Click to expand...

Are we getting life tweets?
�

Arrived for lunch. P85... 325 Wh/mi. P85D...... drum roll...... more suspense.......... 326 Wh/mi.

So close!

The P85D seems to definitely win on the highway. The acceleration getting up to speed seems to skew against the P85D a hair, then move back in favor at constant speed.

My final crunch of the data later will help.

At this point.... too close to call, but already 15+% better than the first side by side for the P85D.

Good result.
�

wk057 said: ?

Arrived for lunch. P85... 325 Wh/mi. P85D...... drum roll...... more suspense.......... 326 Wh/mi.

So close!

The P85D seems to definitely win on the highway. The acceleration getting up to speed seems to skew against the P85D a hair, then move back in favor at constant speed.

My final crunch of the data later will help.

At this point.... too close to call, but already 15+% better than the first side by side for the P85D.

Good result.
Click to expand...

Any chance you could do a screen shot of the 30 mile energy screen in both cars? Wouldn't that show the difference in Hwy / non-Hwy energy draw?
�

NOLA_Mike said: ?

If everybody else gets dramatic improvement on .139/.140 then I guess I have to consider the possibility of something hardware related/wrong with my car that is not allowing the torque sleep to activate.

Click to expand...

Same here, it got a LITTLE better. Went from 433 wh/mile avg to around 400 wh/mile. My all time P85 avg was 351wh/mile so my D is still more than 10 % worse !
�

Swap cars on the way back! If your wife is lighter than you, the D will win!
Thanks for doing the test!
�

So, I'm sitting here eating with my fiance and we both hear someone mention "Tesla." A group of 8 folks at a table across the way are talking about Tesla manufacturing...

Of course I'm intrigued. I decide to head over, in my Tesla cap and jacket, and pry. Turns out there was a gentleman who is an engineer from the factory there meeting with a local manufacturer of a new rivit and rivit tool they're now using for the Model S and upcoming X.

Seriously, what the heck are the odds?

Long story short everyone thought it was an exciting coincidence. Made my day.

Aside from that, my dash cam isn't cooperating now for some reason, so hopefully I at least have footage for leg 1.

- - - Updated - - -

Dash pics with trip meters with 30 mile energy graphs.

- - - Updated - - -

Looking at pics, I'm honestly not sure why the temps are so different. Both cars parked in the sun right next to each other. Guess yellow vs blue. It is about 48 out.
�

I also note that the P85D is ahead on the 30 mile graph and has an extra half-mile on the trip odo.
�

joer00 said: ?

Same here, it got a LITTLE better. Went from 433 wh/mile avg to around 400 wh/mile. My all time P85 avg was 351wh/mile so my D is still more than 10 % worse !
Click to expand...

Maybe you have to have Park Assist Disabled. I've never seen that error after all these numerous updates. That power hungry Park Assist is eating up about 50 Wh/mi...:tongue:
�

LetsGoFast said: ?

I also note that the P85D is ahead on the 30 mile graph and has an extra half-mile on the trip odo.
Click to expand...

The odometer discrepancy was expected and is exactly the same as the last trip.
�

wk057 said: ?

Looking at pics, I'm honestly not sure why the temps are so different. Both cars parked in the sun right next to each other. Guess yellow vs blue. It is about 48 out.
Click to expand...

Sorry, slightly off topic... but... yellow????
�

wk057 said: ?

The odometer discrepancy was expected and is exactly the same as the last trip.
Click to expand...

I'm going to be posting some numbers shortly, and noticed a discrepancy between the odometer numbers and the estimated distance from EV Trip Planner, with the discrepancy also being that the P85D thinks it has travelled farther. In my case some of that will be due to my driveway, my wife driving around the parking garage, etc. But I'm wondering, Jason, since there are two of you, which of your odometers more closely matches EV trip planner? And if it is your fiance's P85, is this some weird little bug with P85Ds?
�

wk057 said: ?

Arrived for lunch. P85... 325 Wh/mi. P85D...... drum roll...... more suspense.......... 326 Wh/mi.

So close!

The P85D seems to definitely win on the highway. The acceleration getting up to speed seems to skew against the P85D a hair, then move back in favor at constant speed.

My final crunch of the data later will help.

At this point.... too close to call, but already 15+% better than the first side by side for the P85D.

Good result.
Click to expand...

Well given that the EPA numbers are skewed towards highway driving, I'm having difficulty believing this result. Especially after Tesla has confirmed that the P85D is, in fact, less efficient than the single motor cars. It's close, but I don't see how the argument can be made that the D is more efficient.

Driving Range for the Model S Family | Tesla Motors
�

apacheguy said: ?

Well given that the EPA numbers are skewed towards highway driving, I'm having difficulty believing this result. Especially after Tesla has confirmed that the P85D is, in fact, less efficient than the single motor cars. It's close, but I don't see how the argument can be made that the D is more efficient.

Driving Range for the Model S Family | Tesla Motors
Click to expand...

Difficulty believing my result? I'll be posting a video of my test like I did last time if you have doubts on my info...

Final results!

P85: 111.3 miles, 35.0 kWh, 315 Wh/mi
P85D: 112.3 miles, 35.4 kWh, 316 Wh/mi

For comparison, the results of the previous test (pre-torque sleep) were:
P85: 111.3 miles, 34.1 kWh, 306 Wh/mi
P85D: 112.2 miles, 39.5 kWh, 352 Wh/mi

Today was roughly the same temperature, however we had a bit of wind today compared to the last test which was pretty calm.

So, the P85 wins by 0.4 kWh. I'm going to say that within a reasonable margin of error the cars are now equal in terms of overall efficiency. This would correlate with the window sticker's EPA combined rating being the same for both cars.

Preliminary analysis shows almost without a doubt that the P85D is slightly more efficient at highway cruising speeds than the P85.

Going to gather up the data from my videos now. Unfortunately my dash cam decided not to work on the second leg of the trip, and my GoPro mount decided it didn't want to stay in place either. Looks like the first leg has all the video footage available from the two GoPros and dash cams, though. For the last leg I held my GoPro in place until it died about 15 miles shy of home.

More soon!
�

I am happy to see a few other P85D owners reporting that they have seen little or no increase in efficiency between .113 and .139. If I had to guess, I�d say I may be seeing some slight increase, but that�s more of a gut feeling than anything else, and the increase is certainly nothing like what wk057 is seeing and documenting in his change to .140. Perhaps there is hope for me yet, when I get to .140. (I'm not sure what to make of your situation, NOLA_Mike. And I may be right there with you when I get .140 too. Who knows.)

I am trying to do as good a job I can of recording data for the known trips we�re taking, so that when we get future firmware releases we�ll be able to make good comparisons. (MarcG�s post yesterday inspired me!)

Below are some numbers. They are not formatted nearly as well as Marc�s. They are for two trips, both of which included about 30 minutes on the highway and roughly the same amount of time on rural roads that have varying speed limits and at times stop lights, etc. I tried to note the windspeed on the highway, using the tool I mentioned in a another post. I compare the actual P85D numbers with EV trip planner numbers, but I did not try to use their wind adjusted rated mileage number. I did try to estimate payload accurately in EV Trip Planner, accounting for the fact that I weigh more than my wife, had my 50 pound dog in the car with me, etc.

I have the Tesla 19� winter tires (Pirelli Sottozero IIs) on Cyclone wheels. (The Cyclone wheels are supposed to help a bit, as per the JB Straubel blog post.)

As I mentioned upthread, the mileage is off a bit, with the P85D believing it travelled slightly further than EV Trip Planner�s route. Some of that is definitely due to the length of my driveway and my wife having to drive around her parking garage to park, but that would not account for the entire discrepancy. I checked the route, and it is correct, so I don�t know what to make of that.

Both trips were made with range mode on, in sport mode, and with the battery at least somewhat preheated.

Distance RM Total Energy Avg Energy Hwy Speed Cabin Temp Outdoor Temp Wind Elev Change Conditions EV Trip Planner Estimates: Distance RM Total Energy Avg Energy
58.4 78 22.7 389 65-70 65 32 11 HW 630 Cloudy
57.2 69 20.8 364
54 69 20.8 385 65-70 68 14 6 HW (754) Little light snow
52.6 63 18.9 360

�

I can't say for sure I understand why others aren't seeing an efficiency boost. Do keep in mind that the torque sleep stuff seems to be less effective in stop/go situations. At a constant speed, though, even a low speed, it seems to work wonderfully.
�

wk057 said: ?

I can't say for sure I understand why others aren't seeing an efficiency boost. Do keep in mind that the torque sleep stuff seems to be less effective in stop/go situations. At a constant speed, though, even a low speed, it seems to work wonderfully.
Click to expand...

For me, the two trips I documented include 30 minutes of pure, 65-70 MPH TACC highway driving. The rural stuff is a little stop and go, but that too has plenty of cruising at 40-55. These trips are by no means city, stop and go driving type trips. They are predominantly constant speed, with some stop and go mixed in.

I'm just hoping .140 makes the difference for me!
�

apache,
This is a very small sample but my D is definitely performing better at sub-highway speeds. I just saw similar numbers to my P+ on a very well know trip for me (picking my daughter up from school) where I travel at most 45 mph. There is a very distinct movement in the control firmware from an acceleration or transient mode to a steady state mode. I can feel the car "hunt" just a bit shortly after making the transition and I can also see the power usage drop. This is the first time I have seen less than 300 WHr/mile on this particular trip with my D but routinely would get between 250 and 275 with my P+. I was right at 270 today.

I believe torque sleep is used for any sustained steady state condition. The definition of sustained in this instance is establishing a speed for more than a few seconds. Any meaningful traffic requiring throttle modulation likely excludes torque sleep which is, I suspect, is why it is described as a highway feature. My trip just now has sustained periods at 45 mph and thus allowed the use of torque sleep.

I suspect that attempting to completely remove any perceivable hunting during the transition from non to torque sleep is what has delayed deployment. I've done a good bit of real time control and the work Tesla has done to allow seamless acceleration to regen in fine enough increments as to be imperceptible is nothing short of amazing. I am 100% confident they will get there with TS as well and will likely increase its usage though out all traffic patterns.

BTW
I've not touched a configuration button in the car so it is still on normal (not range) driving mode and Insane for acceleration.
�

Some more pics from the beginning, middle, and end of my trip:

�

Just wondering since you are using two cars at the same time, if you are drafting each other? Are you leaving a big enough cushion between the cars to not have that affect the test.
�

rage_777 said: ?

Just wondering since you are using two cars at the same time, if you are drafting each other? Are you leaving a big enough cushion between the cars to not have that affect the test.
Click to expand...

For both tests the P85D followed the P85. For this one I set the TACC at a middle value, which left a pretty good amount of space between us, as before. I seriously doubt it would be close enough to make any drafting difference given the profile of the Model S.
�

wk057 said: ?

For both tests the P85D followed the P85. For this one I set the TACC at a middle value, which left a pretty good amount of space between us, as before. I seriously doubt it would be close enough to make any drafting difference given the profile of the Model S.
Click to expand...

Just to make sure I can compare with my (not so good results). Your tests where done with INSANE mode and Range Mode Off ??

I tried on my way home from work to go in Sports and Range Mode and this indeed showed lower consumption at steady highway speed.

Will test over the weekend with different modes on and off.
�

joer00 said: ?

Just to make sure I can compare with my (not so good results). Your tests where done with INSANE mode and Range Mode Off ??

I tried on my way home from work to go in Sports and Range Mode and this indeed showed lower consumption at steady highway speed.

Will test over the weekend with different modes on and off.
Click to expand...

No, I used the same settings as the previous run, which was sport + range mode.
�

I just updated from .139 to .140. I'll see if I can make a run of my test loop tonight. I didn't see any efficiency gain on .139. Hoping that .140 shows an improvement.
�

I'm working on the perspective corrected 5-video composite for this trip now.
�

EarlyAdopter said: ?

I just updated from .139 to .140. I'll see if I can make a run of my test loop tonight. I didn't see any efficiency gain on .139. Hoping that .140 shows an improvement.
Click to expand...

I haven't really seen an improvement with .139 either. I don't have .140 yet. So I'm living vicariously through you, and probably hoping you see an improvement about as much as you do!
�

Andyw2100 said: ?

I haven't really seen an improvement with .139 either. I don't have .140 yet. So I'm living vicariously through you, and probably hoping you see an improvement about as much as you do!
Click to expand...

Ditto. I did some more short, unscientific trips this evening and I'm still averaging 405-410 Wh/mi like my lifetime average. I'm on .139 still; haven't been pushed .140 yet.
�

Well, Adobe Premiere is giving me all sorts of issues tonight. Pushing the video off until tomorrow.
�

wk057 said: ?

I can't say for sure I understand why others aren't seeing an efficiency boost. Do keep in mind that the torque sleep stuff seems to be less effective in stop/go situations. At a constant speed, though, even a low speed, it seems to work wonderfully.
Click to expand...

I think it would be worth suggedting that steady speed itself wouldn't be the issue, it would be the ability to stay within a particular power range. Rather like an automatic being able to avoid unlocking the torque converter. So significa t acceleration or maintaining speed on steep hills could wake up the rear motor.
�

ItsNotAboutTheMoney said: ?

I think it would be worth suggedting that steady speed itself wouldn't be the issue, it would be the ability to stay within a particular power range. Rather like an automatic being able to avoid unlocking the torque converter. So significa t acceleration or maintaining speed on steep hills could wake up the rear motor.
Click to expand...

Looking at power usage in my side by side video (that is now rendering) power usage of the P85 and P85D going up hills is nearly identical now, where before the P85D was using a bit more power consistently.

Unfortunately GPU acceleration in Adobe Premiere seems broken... no idea why. So, rendering on CPU is going to take something like 14 hours. Doh.
�

So, the impatient part of me uploaded a 2-minute preview of my latest video.

Hopefully the full thing will be done rendering tomorrow.

Edit: Replaced preview with full video

(Yes, I censored the park assist disabled message on my dash...)
�

wk057 said: ?

No, I used the same settings as the previous run, which was sport + range mode.
Click to expand...

Range mode on both cars or just the D ? I would love to see the same tests with the D in insane and normal mode.

- - - Updated - - -

Fantastic video wk057. However I see in the beginning pretty much what my consumption experience is. The D is WAY worse than the P. It seems only on the highway the torque sleep pays off. I reset the trip meter since 0139 and are now at 402 wh/mile vs 433 before. My P was at 351 all time consumption. So this is still about 15 % more than my old P ! I do want to see a Tesla employee driving my D and get the promised range in the city, it is impossible !
�

wk057 said: ?

So, the impatient part of me uploaded a 2-minute preview of my latest video.

Hopefully the full thing will be done rendering tomorrow.

(Yes, I censored the park assist disabled message on my dash...)
Click to expand...

Very cool Wk. Even more, it's great to see what you've confirmed - that we're not taking a significant penalty for having the big D.

Kudos to Tesla for delivering on promise. But seriously... the communications still leaves much to be desired.
�

joer00 said: ?

Range mode on both cars or just the D ? I would love to see the same tests with the D in insane and normal mode.

- - - Updated - - -

Fantastic video wk057. However I see in the beginning pretty much what my consumption experience is. The D is WAY worse than the P. It seems only on the highway the torque sleep pays off. I reset the trip meter since 0139 and are now at 402 wh/mile vs 433 before. My P was at 351 all time consumption. So this is still about 15 % more than my old P ! I do want to see a Tesla employee driving my D and get the promised range in the city, it is impossible !
Click to expand...

Yesterday under .139 I did a short round trip on city streets and a longer loop on the highway in my P85D. Temps were in the mid-50s (warmer than it's been by about 20�), but the efficiency improvements are so striking it's remarkable: the 11.1-mile city out-and-return came in at 278 Wh/mi and the 93-mile highway loop (much of it at 75+ mph) came in at 280 Wh/mi. Both were driven in Sport/RangeOn modes. Not scientific, I know, but nevertheless I'm convinced: Tesla has delivered the promised efficiency gains.

But I am sorely puzzled by those of you who aren't seeing any measurable improvement: I don't doubt your experiences are real, I just don't have an explanation for it, and that bothers me.
�

joer00 said: ?

Range mode on both cars or just the D ? I would love to see the same tests with the D in insane and normal mode.

- - - Updated - - -

Fantastic video wk057. However I see in the beginning pretty much what my consumption experience is. The D is WAY worse than the P. It seems only on the highway the torque sleep pays off. I reset the trip meter since 0139 and are now at 402 wh/mile vs 433 before. My P was at 351 all time consumption. So this is still about 15 % more than my old P ! I do want to see a Tesla employee driving my D and get the promised range in the city, it is impossible !
Click to expand...

The P85D is supposed to be slightly less efficient in city driving vs the (P)85. This was expected, but those numbers did certainly improve. The initial spike of energy is pretty normal since the average takes all kinds of things into account at first.

If you look at the final time I reset Trip B in the full video (uploading now), which was after we got off of the interstate, the P85D and P85 are only 2 Wh/mi apart... so I definitely wouldn't say "WAY worse." I'm actually seeing numbers better than Tesla predicted.
�

wk057 said: ?

So, the impatient part of me uploaded a 2-minute preview of my latest video.
Click to expand...

Very cool @wk057! I guess I need to do more realistic testing under .139 because I'm not seeing efficiency yet; I admit it's too early to say because of my mostly city driving so far. But...

Can I haz .140? lol :tongue:
�

stevezzzz said: ?

But I am sorely puzzled by those of you who aren't seeing any measurable improvement: I don't doubt your experiences are real, I just don't have an explanation for it, and that bothers me.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the update stevezzzz.

I'm anxious to get some more testing under way this weekend - I have seen "one off" trips before wherein I have used unusually high or low amounts of energy without an obvious explanation. I hope my initial 120 mile test immediately after installing .140 on my P85D falls into that case.

If not it will be time to get Tesla involved to figure out what's going on.

Mike
�

Full video is now up

�

I played with torque sleep this morning on my way to drop my daughter off at school.

The best way I can describe the original feel of my D was that it was "on the pipe" or immediately there on the throttle in almost a twitchy fashion. I can now feel the transition from twitchy to mellow or almost lethargic and can see a noticeable drop in power consumption with this transition. I can also delay or even stop this transition by gently modulating the throttle at the end of a normal acceleration to steady state speed. All of this was done at speeds less than 50 mph or what could be considered city. This leads me to believe that throttle actuation has a lot to do with if and how the torque sleep transition is made.

All the above was done in normal mode (not range) and insane acceleration mode. I've not changed any of these modes as all my experience to date have been with this configuration.

I am now very happy with my D's performance both city and highway. I just wish I knew how to get others the exact same experience.
�

lolachampcar said: ?

I played with torque sleep this morning on my way to drop my daughter off at school.

The best way I can describe the original feel of my D was that it was "on the pipe" or immediately there on the throttle in almost a twitchy fashion. I can now feel the transition from twitchy to mellow or almost lethargic and can see a noticeable drop in power consumption with this transition. I can also delay or even stop this transition by gently modulating the throttle at the end of a normal acceleration to steady state speed. All of this was done at speeds less than 50 mph or what could be considered city. This leads me to believe that throttle actuation has a lot to do with if and how the torque sleep transition is made.

All the above was done in normal mode (not range) and insane acceleration mode. I've not changed any of these modes as all my experience to date have been with this configuration.

I am now very happy with my D's performance both city and highway. I just wish I knew how to get others the exact same experience.
Click to expand...

This is an excellent description @lolachampcar. I can clearly imagine what my car should be doing. It's very strange that I'm not experiencing this and I've turned the music off and tried to pay close attention. I also have not changed my modes; I use normal (not range) and insane.

I'm sure you've mentioned this already, but are you on .139 or .140? I am on .139.

Regards, Ben
�

See my description at P85D range and highway battery performance - Page 23 where I drove 241 miles on a charge in a P85D with .140 and had 28 rated miles left n the battery. I don't think that I could have done that before .140
�

Ben,
I first saw the improvement with the installation of .139 but also got the dreaded parking sensors disabled message. The Service Center updated the car to .140 last night and I was able to reproduce my results from .139 this morning running .140. The only difference I THOUGHT I could tell was a little less herky jerky in the transition into torque sleep mode but more time it needed to confirm that (as in, it may have been my imagination).
�

I have another datapoint for consideration. On the instrument cluster, there is a major hashmark for 30kW, 60kW, etc., but there are also two minor hashmarks just below each major hashmark. Driving with constant power output at the first small hashmark under 30kW in insane mode with range mode off and HVAC off with outside temp of 55 degrees, I was able to maintain a 75mph cruising speed. I believe this first small hashmark represents 20kW. This is with firmware .140. I don't remember exactly, but it seemed that with .113 I had to be at or above 30kW to achieve 75mph cruising speed.
�

Reading these posts on the .139 and .140 efficiency and discrepancies amongst P85D drivers. One thing I have learned with the two Hybrids that we have had in our stable is that driving style has a lot to do with efficiency outcome. My wife drives her Prius IV like a normal car, foot fully on the accelerator pretty much at all times other than when breaking. Her MPG is usually low 40's. I, on the other hand, when I drive her Prius drive it differently... I give near full throttle to get to the speed desired, then take my foot off of the accelerator and then just feather the accelerator as if an egg were between my foot and the pedal. What happens then is the car coasts and goes into EV mode to maintain speed. My milage on that same car tends to be in the high 40's to mid 50's using this technique of pedal modulation. I suspect that the S Torque Sleep would react positively to my style of driving.

What does this have to do with the Tesla S you ask? Well first off, driving styles will have a effect on outcome. Also with about 100K miles of hybrid use, I noticed that uphill trips result in lower efficiency. Flat runs and downhill runs in higher efficiency IF (Big IF) your driving style matches well with the control gear of the auto. Now, many of you are using TACC in the tests which should mitigate variances. The trial course you choose may not be conducive to torque sleep. Cant help that really. Your terrain is yours, not much you can do about it.

One other comment on the test results... on posts I think it will be beneficial to all if testers would define their parameters and setting at the front of the post.

For Example:

Sport Mode, Range On, TACC Used, external and internal temps and settings, wheels, wind speed if known and overall trip elevation change +/-

These data setting and parameters my help others in their testing.

Lastly, I am glad to hear that LOLACHAMPCAR has actually felt the Torque Sleep Hunting or modulation in his testing. This is actually good to hear that some drivers are so well attuned to the P95D dynamics as to be able to know when the car is TS'ing. I was amazed that so many of you were not reporting a single tell that TS was actually happening via lack of feedback from the power trains.

I suspect a Torque Sleep Indicator is needed or probably coming... hint hint

Keep Up the Great Work Guys and Gals!

PS: just wish I had a P85D to do tests with, I have a test course in mind... I would run that course at 40, 50, 60 and 65 to show TS characterization based on speed.

PPS: Does the P85D have a trip computer that shows Average Speed in MPH? I never saw that mentioned?
�

Art,
I'm even simpler than that. My P+ was +18K miles with a lifetime under 290 WHr/mile so I have a well established history/driving style. Same style, location, conditions and my posts are not intended as guidance for others to achieve my results but a back to back comparison of different configurations.

That said, all of your points are valid.
�

I am one of the people with .139 who doesn't seem to be seeing significant improvement. I have posted some of my data as it compares to EV Trip Planner Data. I can't compare it to similar data before .139, because I was not recording it as accurately.

But what would be really helpful to me, and I'm sure to others who have .139 and are not experiencing the improved efficiency would be if a few of you who are would plug some data from a trip or two into EV Trip Planner and post the comparisons. My point is that right now, the only benchmark I have for comparison is where I stand relative to EV Trip Planner, as opposed to where you guys stand as compared to EV Trip Planner. We can't just compare other metrics, because of all the other variables. Right now, I seem to be doing somewhat worse than EV Trip Planner would predict, but not a heck of a lot worse. For all I know, before .139 I might have been doing much, much worse in comparison to EV Trip Planner. If you guys who have seen massive improvements plug some numbers into EV Trip Planner, and are also seeing EV Trip Planner predicting that you should be doing even better, (unlikely, I know) then my numbers may be fine, and perhaps I have seen an increase in efficiency. On the other, much more likely hand, if you guys are now beating EV Trip Planner expectations by a significant margin, those of us on .139 not doing so may have something to worry about. And if we get .140 and still aren't, we will definitely have something to worry about.

So again, if some of you who have experienced the improvement could plug a trip or two into EV Trip Planner, and then post the trip details, and what EV Trip Planner predicted, that would be very helpful. Similarly, if some of us thinking we're not getting the improvement could do the same. (I did that in this thread yesterday, and can continue to if people agree it will be helpful.)

Thanks!

Edit: I'm going to start a new thread for this, so as not to clutter up this one. I'll come back and post the link to it here.

New thread here: Comparing P85D Torque Sleep efficiency (versions .139 and .140) to EV Trip Planner

Please post your results and comparisons to EV Trip Planner if you are or are not seeing better efficiency. Thanks!
�

Has anyone tested for the small boost in the 0-60 time promised by the Twitter in Chief Elon?
�

lolachampcar said: ?

Art,
I'm even simpler than that. My P+ was +18K miles with a lifetime under 290 WHr/mile so I have a well established history/driving style. Same style, location, conditions and my posts are not intended as guidance for others to achieve my results but a back to back comparison of different configurations.

That said, all of your points are valid.
Click to expand...

I am wondering what your driving pattern is. As you have a McLaren and a D I assume you are not a "grandfather" driver, so how do you get to such low usage ? My old P average was 351 and I do not drive thaaaaat crazy.

The occasionally 3 second 0-60 runs do not have a real strong impact as I can see. 3 seconds has no meaning for the consumption for a 3 hour drive.
�

joer00 said: ?

I am wondering what your driving pattern is. As you have a McLaren and a D I assume you are not a "grandfather" driver, so how do you get to such low usage ? My old P average was 351 and I do not drive thaaaaat crazy.

The occasionally 3 second 0-60 runs do not have a real strong impact as I can see. 3 seconds has no meaning for the consumption for a 3 hour drive.
Click to expand...

I am sitting here laughing, at myself, actually.... The P85D is such a beast that in some ways trying to drive it with a bias towards WH/M efficiency is almost a blasphemy.
However that is not to say that the P85D cannot service multiple styles of driving and do so with excellence.
Not owning a P85D but having test driven one twice... there is a meter that in real time shows you ReGen and Power Draw, right?
I think if you try to keep that meter in the neutral position, given a correct speed, TS will take over.
Wonder how TS and mild ReGEN work in that regard... will the S coast more easily with TS and ReGEN set to minimum?
Said another way... Are TS and Normal (heavy) ReGEN at odds and provide the hunting that LOLA mentions??
�

joer,
I noticed early on with my first P85 that it did not really seem to matter how hard you accelerated (within reason of course) to get up to speed. I still seemed to use about the same amount of energy to get the car up to speed. What really makes all the difference in the world is NEVER using the brakes to scrub off speed. Anticipating traffic to keep from stopping at stop lights is magical. Coasting followed by regen to stop when you must helps a lot. I've always had an interest in the efficient use of energy which applies to just about any type of driving so it was natural to drive MS efficiently.

Of course it helps that I live in flat South Florida, do not have to drive in rush hour traffic and have year round reasonably moderate temperatures. This is why I try to keep my comments limited to my back to back results as opposed to outright efficiency numbers. We will all have different average WHr/mile results but what matters is if we have the equipment to achieve those averages or not.
�

ArtInCT said: ?

Wonder how TS and mild ReGEN work in that regard... will the S coast more easily with TS and ReGEN set to minimum?
Said another way... Are TS and Normal (heavy) ReGEN at odds and provide the hunting that LOLA mentions??
Click to expand...

This is an interesting question actually. I'm sure there's an engineering analysis somewhere which balances out the effect of reengaging the sleeping motor for regen purposes vs. just using the running motor in regen. I don't know if there's a cost in activating the sleeping motor frequently (every time you let off the accelerator); if there is then there has to be a point where the two efficiency lines cross. This would result in an algorithm which calculates at what exact point of pedal position to wake the sleeping beast to pull juice out of the kinetic energy resulting in a two-stage regen effect.
�

Just a thought, but thinking down the path that Torque Sleep might turn off or be ultra sensitive to throttle changes, for those that are seeing great improvements versus those that still are not with .139 and .140, maybe it has to do with using TACC and/or throttle driving technique? For those not seeing improvements, were you use TACC?
�

daviddavidw said: ?

Just a thought, but thinking down the path that Torque Sleep might turn off or be ultra sensitive to throttle changes, for those that are seeing great improvements versus those that still are not with .139 and .140, maybe it has to do with using TACC and/or throttle driving technique? For those not seeing improvements, were you use TACC?
Click to expand...

This makes sense to me - the way I understand things is that the bigger rear motor is being put to sleep - this means there is limited power, and limited regen available while TS is occurring - I expect that the throttle position and the rate of change of throttle position is used to determine when to come out of TS - so if you are driving at a steady 75 and slightly raise your right foot the car can assume you don't need huge amounts of regen and hence it can keep in TS, using the front motor. If you completely lift off the throttle, it has to assume you want full regen and hence it will use both motors. Similarly for increasing speed.

Accordingly those that have mentioned being very steady and deliberate on the throttle, or using TACC in light traffic will likely see much bigger improvements than someone who tends to use the throttle like an on/off switch
�

I should probably break down and get the CAN logging equipment out to sniff the OBDii port. ICE vehicles typically broadcast status messages. If Tesla is doing the same, it would be a simple matter to plot TPS (throttle position sensor) torque demand and torque sleep status to see exactly when torque sleep is initiated and just what it takes to disturb it.
�

daviddavidw said: ?

Just a thought, but thinking down the path that Torque Sleep might turn off or be ultra sensitive to throttle changes, for those that are seeing great improvements versus those that still are not with .139 and .140, maybe it has to do with using TACC and/or throttle driving technique? For those not seeing improvements, were you use TACC?
Click to expand...

I can't speak for the others, but yes, I and my wife have been using TACC on the highway and have not seen improvement, or at least not significant improvement. I am guessing most if not all of the other people not seeing improvement have also been using TACC when on the highway.
�

lolachampcar said: ?

I should probably break down and get the CAN logging equipment out to sniff the OBDii port. ICE vehicles typically broadcast status messages. If Tesla is doing the same, it would be a simple matter to plot TPS (throttle position sensor) torque demand and torque sleep status to see exactly when torque sleep is initiated and just what it takes to disturb it.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, there is only 12v power on the OBD2.
�

trils0n said: ?

As far as I know, there is only 12v power on the OBD2.
Click to expand...

Yeah, pretty sure there is no data there. You need to tap the CAN buses from the connector above the center cubby.
�

If there is only 12V and ground on the OBDii plug then it begs the question of why it is there at all. Some cars use a gateway to isolate the OBDii port from the chassis and engine CAN busses. They are quiet until queried.
�

I'm finally seeing efficiency improvement! The screenshot below shows my avg of 306 Wh/mi over 32.3 miles, much of it on highways and constant speeds using TACC, compared to my lifetime avg of 406 Wh/mi. (P85D with fw .139, insane, no range mode)

On an slightly unrelated note, I'm hearing a "click" noise from the front of the car (maybe the front motor?) when I come to a complete stop and when I take off again. It's not real loud but it's definitely obvious. Anyone else hearing this? I didn't notice it until this afternoon and I've been on fw .139 for quite a while. I had the radio off and the window open a bit so I could listen for torque sleep so maybe it's been happening but not loud enough over the music and closed windows. I'll try to get a video later.
�

Hmm.... no click noise here. Just the jitter that happens around a load shift (regen<->power) at low speeds sometimes...

I did some more driving with the car back in Insane/No Range mode. I'm not convinced that torque sleep works as well, if at all, in this setting. I switched back to sport/range mode and immediately noticed a huge drop in energy usage.
�

wk057 said: ?

Hmm.... no click noise here. Just the jitter that happens around a load shift (regen<->power) at low speeds sometimes...

I did some more driving with the car back in Insane/No Range mode. I'm not convinced that torque sleep works as well, if at all, in this setting. I switched back to sport/range mode and immediately noticed a huge drop in energy usage.
Click to expand...

Maybe that's what I'm hearing/feeling. I updated my post to say this was with insane mode and no range mode.
�

I have not seen any real improvement since getting the 139 update. I have not used sport mode and thought that might be the reason until I saw benjiejr's reply which said he saw improvement using insane mode and no range mode. I did try with and without range mode with little if any improvement.
�

Posted this in another thread, but it is relevant here:

wk057 said: ?

Regenerative braking seems to be more effective/efficient since the torque sleep update.

Something I think is happening with the new torque sleep setup is that more regen is happening at the front motor vs the rear. Elon and others have pointed out that the front motor is more efficient, so it would stand to reason they would map the regen efficiency curve of both motors as well as the power curves to work at their optimal points.

This would explain why trips with significant "down feet" elevation changes, even if the net elevation change is positive, are seeing significant improvements vs EV Trip Planner (and previous trips on the same route).
Click to expand...

�

rays427 said: ?

I have not seen any real improvement since getting the 139 update. I have not used sport mode and thought that might be the reason until I saw benjiejr's reply which said he saw improvement using insane mode and no range mode. I did try with and without range mode with little if any improvement.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I have only recently seen it since driving more on highway at constant speeds. In the city I saw no improvement although others are also seeing it in the city.
�

P85D here. Insane mode, ~30% city ~70% highway (TACC on on highway). Went from 387W/mi average to 363W/mi today That's the lowest I've ever seen on this route.. same route everyday. ( 28.5 Mile round trip )
�

benjiejr said: ?

I'm finally seeing efficiency improvement! The screenshot below shows my avg of 306 Wh/mi over 32.3 miles, much of it on highways and constant speeds using TACC, compared to my lifetime avg of 406 Wh/mi. (P85D with fw .139, insane, no range mode)

View attachment 71549

On an slightly unrelated note, I'm hearing a "click" noise from the front of the car (maybe the front motor?) when I come to a complete stop and when I take off again. It's not real loud but it's definitely obvious. Anyone else hearing this? I didn't notice it until this afternoon and I've been on fw .139 for quite a while. I had the radio off and the window open a bit so I could listen for torque sleep so maybe it's been happening but not loud enough over the music and closed windows. I'll try to get a video later.
Click to expand...

Yes I heard the click noise today too. I got .140 2 days ago.
�

NOLA_Mike said: ?

My unscientific observation after loading .140 this evening is I took a 120 mile roundtrip (60 miles each way) and don't see any noticeable improvement. 48 degrees F, no wind, all interstate with speed varying between 60 and 70 MPH. Range Mode = ON. Used 355 Wh/mi. Would have been about 300-310 Wh/mi in my P85+ with Range Mode OFF.

Obviously I won't pass judgement until I'm able to log more miles under varying conditions but my initial impression is not good.
Click to expand...

Repeated this drive this evening (same weather conditions as above). First leg of trip (home to Baton Rouge) was same result - no improvement in range. So, about midway there I pressed the Voice Command and stated "REPORT - no range improvement with latest firmware". Got the acknowledgement that it was reported and continued on to the Baton Rouge Supercharger. About 10 miles out of Baton Rouge I noticed what I perceived to be an improvement in energy usage but I had slowed from 70 MPH to 65 MPH.

Departed the Supercharger to head home and again set TACC to 65 MPH (60 MPH speed limit until well out of Baton Rouge). Traffic was a bit heavy so TACC was varying speed from 55 to 65 MPH. Increased speed to 70 MPH for the last 35 miles of the return trip.

While not as dramatic as some others are reporting, I've seen an improvement - as if someone flipped a switch shortly after I sent the report/logs...

Here is the last 30 miles:

The whole trip ended being 333 Wh/mi (with the first 50 miles consuming about 355 Wh/mi):

So, at this point I'm encouraged.
�

Maybe regen is more efficient. The more regen you demand out of one wheel the less efficient it is. Spread that same amount of regen to all 4 wheels and you get 4 wheels regening at a higher efficiency. Same amount of slowing but a larger part of that energy coming back into the pack.
�

EarlyAdopter said: ?

I just updated from .139 to .140. I'll see if I can make a run of my test loop tonight. I didn't see any efficiency gain on .139. Hoping that .140 shows an improvement.
Click to expand...

No difference for me on .140.

I guess I have to conclude that the terrain around here is not amenable to torque sleep.
�

All my results are in normal/insane and are substantial.
�

lolachampcar said: ?

joer,
I noticed early on with my first P85 that it did not really seem to matter how hard you accelerated (within reason of course) to get up to speed. I still seemed to use about the same amount of energy to get the car up to speed. What really makes all the difference in the world is NEVER using the brakes to scrub off speed. Anticipating traffic to keep from stopping at stop lights is magical. Coasting followed by regen to stop when you must helps a lot. I've always had an interest in the efficient use of energy which applies to just about any type of driving so it was natural to drive MS efficiently.

Of course it helps that I live in flat South Florida, do not have to drive in rush hour traffic and have year round reasonably moderate temperatures. This is why I try to keep my comments limited to my back to back results as opposed to outright efficiency numbers. We will all have different average WHr/mile results but what matters is if we have the equipment to achieve those averages or not.
Click to expand...

I drove VERY forward looking with my P and hardly ever used the brakes. The TACC is TERRIBLE in that sense, I will switch it off for my tests (I will go to Orlando now, let's see what the results are).

The average since my last charging session went UP to 436 wh/mile. I am hardly getting 150 miles out of a 90 % charge, that is frustrating.

From the video wk057 posted, I think this consumption might be normal for a D in Insane/No Range mode and city driving. His D was in the 500's in the beginning and stayed in the 400's for a long time until it finally got down on the highway.

I want to see how the Tesla stated city range can be achieved ! Must be a city with no traffic lights !
�

EarlyAdopter said: ?

No difference for me on .140.

I guess I have to conclude that the terrain around here is not amenable to torque sleep.
Click to expand...

Would you please consider including some data for a trip or two in the following thread, so we can see how your efficiency compares to mine, and hopefully to other people's who also aren't seeing improvement, as it compares to EV Trip Planner as a benchmark?

Comparing P85D Torque Sleep efficiency (versions .139 and .140) to EV Trip Planner

So far, using EV Trip Planner as a benchmark has been interesting, in that those people who have seen increases in efficiency are doing better than EV Trip Planner would predict, and my results have been worse than EV Trip Planner predicts. But to date, I am the only person who has posted who has not seen an improvement in efficiency. The thread would be more useful for everyone if more people--those of us not seeing improvements and those people who are--all participated.

Thanks!
�

Andyw2100 said: ?

Would you please consider including some data for a trip or two in the following thread, so we can see how your efficiency compares to mine, and hopefully to other people's who also aren't seeing improvement, as it compares to EV Trip Planner as a benchmark?

Comparing P85D Torque Sleep efficiency (versions .139 and .140) to EV Trip Planner

So far, using EV Trip Planner as a benchmark has been interesting, in that those people who have seen increases in efficiency are doing better than EV Trip Planner would predict, and my results have been worse than EV Trip Planner predicts. But to date, I am the only person who has posted who has not seen an improvement in efficiency. The thread would be more useful for everyone if more people--those of us not seeing improvements and those people who are--all participated.
Click to expand...

I put my 241 mile trip on there and worked hard to get EV Trip Planner tuned to the same trip time and average temps. I saw a 10% improvement over EV Trip Planner in my P85D with .140 - Comparing P85D Torque Sleep efficiency (versions .139 and .140) to EV Trip Planner - Page 2

I am sure that all are aware, but please remember that it appears that it is important to turn on "range" mode to get the torque sleep improvements.
�

Cottonwood said: ?

I put my 241 mile trip on there and worked hard to get EV Trip Planner tuned to the same trip time and average temps. I saw a 10% improvement over EV Trip Planner in my P85D with .140 - Comparing P85D Torque Sleep efficiency (versions .139 and .140) to EV Trip Planner - Page 2

I am sure that all are aware, but please remember that it appears that it is important to turn on "range" mode to get the torque sleep improvements.
Click to expand...

Thanks very much, Cottonwood.

And on the note about turning on range mode, I was about to post about this, and this seems as good a place as any.

I spoke with Tesla tech support today, to alert them to the fact that I was not seeing the torque sleep efficiency improvements, and to see if they could pull my logs to see if torque sleep was actually working on my car. The person I spoke to was very knowledgeable on the subject, and read me some information on torque sleep that I had not heard or seen before. It may well be new, though the first couple of sentences sounded very similar to (and may have been word for word) some of what we've heard from Jerome Guillen on the topic. I asked if he could email it to me, so I could post it, and he checked, but he was not allowed to do that. I'd urge anyone interested to call and have it read to you.

The gist of it is this:

There are definitely significant differences in how torque sleep functions with range mode on vs. range mode off. While there are some efficiencies gained with range mode off, significantly more are gained with range mode on. Torque sleep benefits are not only for highway driving. An example was given of the vehicle stopped at a light, not requiring torque. What was read to me also said very clearly that the front engine was more efficient. There was also something about it being possible, in range mode, that under acceleration users may hear or feel something from the front engine. A three-letter abbreviation was used, that I'm failing to remember now, but I think it started with an H and ended with a V, and seemed to be a euphemism for any number of sounds, whining, etc.

My impression was that it is unlikely that a future firmware update is simply going to move all the torque sleep efficiencies now found in range mode into all modes. I think that for a good long time, and possibly permanently, to get all the benefits of torque sleep we will have to use range mode.

As soon as I hung up the phone I started writing the following e-mail message, which I have now sent:

Suggestion for battery pre-heating and charge-end scheduling sent to Tesla
�

I'll get some more experience with TS as I have always used my car then switch (for the first time ever) over to Range mode
�

Andyw2100 said: ?

I spoke with Tesla tech support today, to alert them to the fact that I was not seeing the torque sleep efficiency improvements, and to see if they could pull my logs to see if torque sleep was actually working on my car. The person I spoke to was very knowledgeable on the subject, and read me some information on torque sleep that I had not heard or seen before.
Click to expand...

So, were they able to tell you anything on your particular car?
�

I will post details but here the base results from my orlando trip "fresh from the car browser while charging".

302 WH/mile @65 mph and 5-7 mph headwind

326 wh/mile @ 75-80 mph with 5-6 mph tailwind.

The key is indeed RANGE MODE.
�

NOLA_Mike said: ?

So, were they able to tell you anything on your particular car?
Click to expand...

Not yet. The logs did not show up immediately. I'm waiting to hear back.
�

Andyw2100 said: ?

Not yet. The logs did not show up immediately. I'm waiting to hear back.
Click to expand...

Well, whereas I did not see improvement for the first few days after getting .140, I am definitely seeing range improvement now - both with Range Mode ON and OFF. In fact, I believe I am now about where I was with my P85+. Mild weather and no wind and I'm able to achieve very close to my Rated Miles at 65 MPH (around 300 Wh/mi).

Mike
�

NOLA_Mike said: ?

Well, whereas I did not see improvement for the first few days after getting .140, I am definitely seeing range improvement now - both with Range Mode ON and OFF. In fact, I believe I am now about where I was with my P85+. Mild weather and no wind and I'm able to achieve very close to my Rated Miles at 65 MPH (around 300 Wh/mi).

Mike
Click to expand...

That's certainly promising.

Actually it was your saying that you started seeing an improvement as soon as you reported that you were seeing no improvement that prompted me to call in today. I'm mainly kidding, but I really did think that perhaps there would be some evidence visible that somehow something failed to actually enable torque sleep, and that something could be done to then have it properly enabled. I didn't have anything to lose by calling, so I did.

I mentioned to the rep I spoke to that there seemed to be at least a few other forum members with .139 experiencing the same thing I was, and wondered if there was some chance that somehow some versions of .139 somehow failed to actually initiate torque sleep on some cars. He said he hadn't heard of anything like that happening, but that stranger things have happened in the past.

I am still waiting to hear back.
�

I know this is off topic, but does anyone think the performance improvements Elon talked about for the P85 would be in these updates too? He said a coming soon firmware release would make the P85 slightly faster
�

Andyw2100 said: ?

There was also something about it being possible, in range mode, that under acceleration users may hear or feel something from the front engine. A three-letter abbreviation was used, that I'm failing to remember now, but I think it started with an H and ended with a V, and seemed to be a euphemism for any number of sounds, whining, etc.
Click to expand...

That TLA is NVH, which stands for Noise, Vibration and Harshness.

Noise, vibration, and harshness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
�

Andyw2100 said: ?

Actually it was your saying that you started seeing an improvement as soon as you reported that you were seeing no improvement that prompted me to call in today. I'm mainly kidding, but I really did think that perhaps there would be some evidence visible that somehow something failed to actually enable torque sleep, and that something could be done to then have it properly enabled. I didn't have anything to lose by calling, so I did.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I honestly don't believe the two events are related but the coincidence is hard to ignore.
�

RyanT said: ?

Maybe regen is more efficient. The more regen you demand out of one wheel the less efficient it is. Spread that same amount of regen to all 4 wheels and you get 4 wheels regening at a higher efficiency. Same amount of slowing but a larger part of that energy coming back into the pack.
Click to expand...

I don't believe "number of wheels" "spreading regen" to be a differentiator at all.

For one thing, there's a single motor for each pair of wheels, so comparing 1 wheel to 4 doesn't make sense... for a single motor car the back pair of wheels drive the single motor (in regen mode) at a given speed, producing regen.

The front pair of wheels will do the same with the front motor.

As has been earlier noted, there may be some inefficiencies in the newer MOTORS that allow for increased regen ability, but that has nothing to do with the number of wheels driving them.

One could argue that with weight shift during deceleration, front wheels could provide more traction, and hence more regen under circumstances... but unless the rears were losing traction under the same circumstances, that argument doesn't really hold either.
�

teslamotorclub

Thứ Bảy, 7 tháng 1, 2017

P85D vs. P85 Efficiency Testing, Take 2 part 1

Không có nhận xét nào:

Đăng nhận xét

Distance	RM	Total Energy	Avg Energy	Hwy Speed	Cabin Temp	Outdoor Temp	Wind	Elev Change	Conditions	EV Trip Planner Estimates:	Distance	RM	Total Energy	Avg Energy
58.4	78	22.7	389	65-70	65	32	11 HW	630	Cloudy		57.2	69	20.8	364
54	69	20.8	385	65-70	68	14	6 HW	(754)	Little light snow		52.6	63	18.9	360