Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Better range after 7.0 upgrade?

I only had one day to drive around with v7.0 before I had to fly out of town.

I didn't pay too much attention to the Wh/mi, but I did get the feeling that the regenerative braking was not slowing me down as much, while at the same time the KW meter showed the same amount of generation.

This is on a P85D.

As I said though, this was only from one day with only a couple of trips, so I might be totally wrong.
 

scaesare

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2013
8,591
15,199
NoVA
Well, circling back to this after my afternoon commute home today. Somewhat confusing overall abservations.

Slightly chilly in the morning with low-mid 40's. Mild weather in the afternoon in the low 70's. Typically my 67.5 mile round trip would incur an average Wh/mi somewhere in the 300 range on a day like today, and I'd consume just over 20KWh total. I'd probably burn ~75-80 miles of rated range (including 4-5 miles of vampire draw while parked at work)

Today my average was 271 Wh/mi. My total energy usage was 18.3 KWh. Both of those represent a reduction of about 10%.

The odd part: I used 77 miles of rated range (incl. 4 miles of vampire draw... I checked). Typically I make, or beat rated range if I'm under a 275Wh/mi average. Excluding the vampire draw, that's 73 miles of range to go 68 miles... or missing rated range by 5 miles.

Weird.

I'm wondering if the trip/since last charge counters are not accounting for energy outside of locomotive draw, as the dash energy graph never seemed to do (i.e. my "since last charge" meter was always 10-20Kwh/mi higher than my dash graph for a stretch of driving).
 

Owner

Active Member
Dec 20, 2012
1,544
356
San Francisco Bay Area
Could be a different way of calculating numbers. (not that I suspect that is what VW) is doing.

in 5.8 I tested vampire draw as 1.3kW / day in December. Vampire 5.8 | TESLA OWNER

Perhaps what we are seeing on the screen "since last charge" somehow does not include vampire draw and before it did?


Well, circling back to this after my afternoon commute home today. Somewhat confusing overall abservations.

Slightly chilly in the morning with low-mid 40's. Mild weather in the afternoon in the low 70's. Typically my 67.5 mile round trip would incur an average Wh/mi somewhere in the 300 range on a day like today, and I'd consume just over 20KWh total. I'd probably burn ~75-80 miles of rated range (including 4-5 miles of vampire draw while parked at work)

Today my average was 271 Wh/mi. My total energy usage was 18.3 KWh. Both of those represent a reduction of about 10%.

The odd part: I used 77 miles of rated range (incl. 4 miles of vampire draw... I checked). Typically I make, or beat rated range if I'm under a 275Wh/mi average. Excluding the vampire draw, that's 73 miles of range to go 68 miles... or missing rated range by 5 miles.

Weird.

I'm wondering if the trip/since last charge counters are not accounting for energy outside of locomotive draw, as the dash energy graph never seemed to do (i.e. my "since last charge" meter was always 10-20Kwh/mi higher than my dash graph for a stretch of driving).
 

scaesare

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2013
8,591
15,199
NoVA
Could be a different way of calculating numbers. (not that I suspect that is what VW) is doing.

in 5.8 I tested vampire draw as 1.3kW / day in December. Vampire 5.8 | TESLA OWNER

Perhaps what we are seeing on the screen "since last charge" somehow does not include vampire draw and before it did?

I don't believe Since Last Charge ever did. The numbers there would not change after sitting all day, whereas my remaining range would...
 

FlasherZ

Sig Model S + Sig Model X + Model 3 Resv
Jun 21, 2012
7,028
1,025
I don't believe Since Last Charge ever did. The numbers there would not change after sitting all day, whereas my remaining range would...

That's why, even if Wh/mi is going down, we need to pay attention to remaining range differences on owners who regularly drive known, consistent routes - likely based in good weather (FL, CA, AZ, etc.) to eliminate a variable or two.
 

scaesare

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2013
8,591
15,199
NoVA
Well, following this back up, I drove another 25 miles tonight on a route I drive every week. I finished the day at 276wh/mi avg reported usage. Again this is about 10% less than normal for my well known routes in this type of weather. Also total Kwh used reported is proportionally less.

But, unlike when I completed my work commute earlier in the day, the remaining range seems to be more inline with what the 276 average would suggest.

All told, I drove 93 miles. I started with 172 rated range, and ended with 75, for a total of 97 range miles burned. That includes about 7 miles of vampire loss sitting throughout the day. So my net result is 93 miles traveled using 90 miles of rated range during actual driving.

I wonder if the car needs a few miles under it's belt with 7.0 to re-calibrate it's range estimates. Often folks would report optimistic range estimates after a firmware update, that would subsequently fade away. In this case I wonder if the increased efficiency made the previous calibration look pessimistic?
 

scaesare

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2013
8,591
15,199
NoVA
Not trying to monopolize the thread, but just provide additional data as I have a very consistent commute route, and relatively moderate weather.

Spot checked the dash power graph (set on 30 mile extent and average mode) at exactly 30 miles and compared it o the new dash trip meter. They were only 3 wh/mi apart. Essentially the same, allowing for update rate error. So those two dash widgets would seem to measure the same power usage.

My reported average this morning was ~297 wh/mi. Again about 10% better than before. Used 35 miles of range to drive 33 miles, which makes that 297 number believable.
 
So I'm relatively new to the Tesla world, having acquired my CPO S 85 "classic" about 6 weeks ago. In very limited driving after updating to 7.0 last weekend before flying back out of town, I was averaging about 300 Wh/M compared to my "lifetime" (6 weeeks) average of about 330 -- a solid 9% increase in efficiency. This seems too good to be true, but also consistent with what's reported in this thread and relatively consistent to what D drivers reported when torque sleep was activated in their cars earlier this year.

I'm wondering how consistent this range improvement is for the non-AP RWD cars, and more importantly: did I really just get about 20 miles of increased range from this update??
 

FlasherZ

Sig Model S + Sig Model X + Model 3 Resv
Jun 21, 2012
7,028
1,025
I'm wondering how consistent this range improvement is for the non-AP RWD cars, and more importantly: did I really just get about 20 miles of increased range from this update??

That's what we're trying to figure out. There are many variables, though - temperature, wind, etc. It could be that Tesla is just reporting a lower Wh/mi number but the range doesn't change, because they took a component out of the calculation (e.g., they if they removed A/C and heat usage from the Wh/mi calculation and just used power for locomotion only). That would result in no net difference from a range point of view but would make the car look more efficient.

So what we're looking for are data points from drivers who drive a regular, consistent, medium-range trip with a relatively predictable usage pattern to tell us whether or not they're arriving back at home at the end of the day with more miles, or about the same. What's most important there is the number of rated miles consumed.

Another forum member had an idea he sent to me in PM yesterday - he hasn't updated yet, and suggested he could spend a portion of a day driving a course twice, recharging to 90% again, upgrading, then driving the same course twice again, to see what difference may be observed. There may be some initial upgrade anomalies as scaesare mentioned earlier though, so if we couple that type of test with anecdotal information from people who drive regular patterns, we might be able to deduce whether there is some range gain from the apparent reduced Wh/mi.

(Of course, Tesla could simply re-run the EPA tests and tell us, but that wouldn't be fun. :) )
 
I never really paid attention to per trip Wh/M before v7.0 but I did track battery %. Prior to the update I would use about 6% on my way(downhill) to work and 7-8% on the way home. Today I paid attention to my trip in and it was at 5%. I will monitor the trip home and post my results here. The weather has been fairly consistent the last couple of weeks (had a cold snap last week but I have been tracking the % for the last 3 weeks prior). I rarely use HVAC this time of year so that has not been a variable and won't be today. More later.

Peace,
Father Bill
 

jvonbokel

John VonBokel
Nov 5, 2012
896
161
Belleville (St Louis)
Another forum member had an idea he sent to me in PM yesterday - he hasn't updated yet, and suggested he could spend a portion of a day driving a course twice, recharging to 90% again, upgrading, then driving the same course twice again, to see what difference may be observed. There may be some initial upgrade anomalies as scaesare mentioned earlier though, so if we couple that type of test with anecdotal information from people who drive regular patterns, we might be able to deduce whether there is some range gain from the apparent reduced Wh/mi.

That would be me. :) I'm still on 6.2 for now, and I'm thinking about doing a semi-controlled test. I found a route that's about 45mi round trip with relatively little elevation change. I suggested one trip, followed by an upgrade and a recharge, and then another trip. FlasherZ suggested two trips on each, but I'm not sure. Any body else have any suggestions? I thought about possibly turning the climate control off, to eliminate that variable, and minimize the weather impact. Maybe if I did two trips with each firmware version, I could do one each with and without climate control. That might be introducing more variables as opposed to eliminating them, though.
 

scaesare

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2013
8,591
15,199
NoVA
Another data point for my standard morning commute...

-Temps: ranged from 47-53
-Avg for trip: 288 Wh/mi
-Distance driven: 35 miles
-Range consumed: 37 miles

My pre-V7 usage at these temps would normally have been in the 320-330 range.


I too would be interested in that test jvonbokel. The only concerns I'd have would be that multiple trips might take long enough to introduce some temperature variation? The other is that my experience indicate there MAY be some range estimate re-calibration right after the upgrade... so there's some question as to if it would be completely believable... but it would be certainly more controlled than what we have now!
 

cantdecide

Member
Dec 21, 2012
384
237
Boulder, CO
I'm down 20 wh/m on my commute for same weather and traffic.
All figures are for round trip 26 miles...
Before: perfect weather 240-250 typical (225 record), in current weather 260-270.
Now: in current weather 240-250. We will see if the weather warms back up a little if I get to 220 consistently.
My overall for the month is 270 due to a mix of freeway driving... That value is highly dependent on the mix of driving so difficult to judge the change in that.
 

Owner

Active Member
Dec 20, 2012
1,544
356
San Francisco Bay Area
I've done a ton of testing in the past and its kind of hard. Mostly supercharger time stuff (check my blog). What I'd really try to aim for is weather consistency. Can you find a way to do the test and record temps / wind and do the same on the 7.0 when you get there. And as much as possible get rated range numbers etc... and be consistent with how you charge. Accurate tests aren't easy but you can PM me for more ideas.

What is really interesting to me is that here in California we are having a really warm October. Its basically summer (California coastal style - not hot just warm). So the many Bay Area folks are reporting about 10% more efficiency, which is fascinating.



That would be me. :) I'm still on 6.2 for now, and I'm thinking about doing a semi-controlled test. I found a route that's about 45mi round trip with relatively little elevation change. I suggested one trip, followed by an upgrade and a recharge, and then another trip. FlasherZ suggested two trips on each, but I'm not sure. Any body else have any suggestions? I thought about possibly turning the climate control off, to eliminate that variable, and minimize the weather impact. Maybe if I did two trips with each firmware version, I could do one each with and without climate control. That might be introducing more variables as opposed to eliminating them, though.
 

Products we're discussing on TMC...

About Us

Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


SUPPORT TMC
Top