TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker or making a Paypal contribution here: paypal.me/SupportTMC

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

Discussion in 'Model S: Battery & Charging' started by Andyw2100, Feb 6, 2015.

  1. Andyw2100

    Andyw2100 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    5,395
    Location:
    Ithaca, NY
    #1 Andyw2100, Feb 6, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2015
    Some P85D owners are seeing great efficiency improvements with the firmware updates to versions .139 and .140. Some, including me, are not (or think we are not, but are not 100% certain.) The problem is we can't easily compare our own results with others' results we see posted here because there are just too many variables. The weather, the route, the wheels, the tires, etc. make comparisons of our individual numbers with anyone else's numbers somewhat meaningless. Our numbers would be meaningful in comparison to our own numbers if we could compare them to similar data recorded when we had earlier versions of the firmware installed, but for many of us we may not have recorded all the information we needed to in order for that data to be meaningful. There's nothing we can do to correct that now, since we don't have time machines.

    All of us have the ability to start recording trips, and all the relevant data now, and all of us can plug this data into EV Trip Planner and get an idea of where we stand relative to EV Trip Planner. That is easy to do.

    EV Trip Planner

    If those of us who think we are not seeing the improvement in efficiency as well as those people who know they are seeing an improvement in efficiency would please post just some of their results here, along with what EV Trip Planner expected their results to be, we'll all be able to get a pretty good idea of where we fall on the efficiency improvement curve. And if some of us are outliers, on one end of the curve or the other, that might wind up being useful information to Tesla. Having the evidence here will definitely be a benefit to any of us who find that we just are not seeing an improvement in efficiency if we do wind up having to demonstrate that to Tesla at some point in the future.

    When you post your information, please be as detailed as possible.

    I'll start by posting information 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 from this thread:

    http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/42027-Tool-to-estimate-the-head-wind-while-driving

    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.)

    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.

    The results are that both trips did somewhat worse than EV trip planner would have expected. Both trips were into a head wind. Without the headwind, the results would have been closer to what EV Trip planner expected, but still worse than expected, but probably not much worse. I'm going to estimate that without the headwind these results would have been about 3-5% worse than EV Trip Planner estimated.

    DistanceRMTotal EnergyAvg EnergyHwy SpeedCabin TempOutdoor TempWindElev ChangeConditionsEV Trip Planner Estimates:DistanceRMTotal EnergyAvg Energy
    58.47822.738965-70653211HW630Cloudy
    57.26920.8364
    546920.838565-7068146 HW(754)Little light snow
    52.66318.9360

    Manlius to Ithaca Feb 4-139.jpg Ithaca to Upstate Feb 5 - 13.jpg
     
  2. wk057

    wk057 Senior Tinkerer

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2014
    Messages:
    4,722
    Location:
    Hickory, NC, USA
    For the trip I did in the video I posted here: P85D vs. P85 Efficiency Testing, Take 2 - Page 8

    Eastbound trip (Actual data from P85D):
    56 miles
    18.3 kWh
    326 Wh/mi
    ~65 MPH Hwy
    62 rated miles
    Climate off, outside ~48F
    net elevation change negligible (-10ft)
    weather dry and sunny.

    Westbound trip (Actual data from P85D):
    56.3 miles
    17.1 kWh
    304 Wh/mi
    ~60-65 MPH Hwy
    59 rated miles
    Climate off, outside ~48F
    net elevation change negligible (+10ft)
    weather dry and sunny.


    Eastbound trip (EVTripPlanner, 85 w/21's, speed multiplier set appropriately):
    55.3 miles
    18.5 kWh
    335 Wh/mi
    62 rated miles
    Up feet 2,486, down feet 2,497

    Westbound trip (EVTripPlanner, 85 w/21's, speed multiplier set appropriately):
    55.5 miles
    18.7 kWh
    338 Wh/mi
    62 rated miles
    Up feet 3077, down feet 3,067


    Overall, I beat EVTripPlanner by a decent margin. I'm not sure why it shows such a drastic difference in up/down feet for the trip though.
     
  3. Denarius

    Denarius Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2013
    Messages:
    1,349
    Location:
    Utah
    #3 Denarius, Feb 6, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 13, 2016
    EV Trip Planner's numbers

    Distance25.9 miles
    Driving Time0:26
    Total Energy Used7.4 kWh
    25 RM
    Average Efficiency287 Wh/mile
    Net Elevation Change-708 feet
    Speed multiplier set to 1.15 to give correct speeds traveled, 19" Wheels (Michelin XICE XI3 tires).

    Temp outside 63º, Climate control set to 72º. Payload set to my weight +20lbs for backpack and other items in car. Cruise control was set to 80MPH but traffic and TACC brought that down for portions of the trip.

    MY RESULTS
    25.9 Miles (Car says 26.3)
    5.8 kWh
    219 Wh/mi
    19 Rated Miles
    Up feet 440, Down Feet 1,148

     
  4. Andyw2100

    Andyw2100 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    5,395
    Location:
    Ithaca, NY
    Thanks to those who have posted already.

    We only have three data points so far: one from me, who believes I'm not seeing an increase in efficiency, or seeing an insignificant one, and two from people who believe they are seeing significant increases in efficiency. So far, using EV Trip Planner as a benchmark seems pretty valid, as my numbers are slightly worse than EV trip planner would estimate, by 3-5%, and the two posters that have seen significant improvements in efficiency are both beating EV Trip Planner estimates by quite a bit.

    Also of note is that for all three, the cars think they went further than EV Trip Planner thinks they went. And in wk057s side by side, his P85D believes it traveled further than his fiance's P85. I'm wondering if there is, perhaps, something slightly off with the P85Ds' odometers.

    That's just one more reason for all of us to keep posting our real world data and EV Trip Planner comparisons.
     
  5. maddog1762

    maddog1762 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2014
    Messages:
    91
    Location:
    Rock Hill, SC
    I took delivery last Sunday. I had version .114, strange as I have not had anyone post that version. I was updated to .139 a few days ago. No trips outside a few miles to work. Is there a difference between .139 and .140? Thanks
     
  6. wk057

    wk057 Senior Tinkerer

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2014
    Messages:
    4,722
    Location:
    Hickory, NC, USA
    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).
     
  7. MarcG

    MarcG Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,669
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Ok Andy, even though I told you over PM that I wouldn't be doing this, a slow Friday afternoon at work had me curious so I went ahead and ran EVTripPlanner anyway for my morning commute (although I still think it's too short of a distance to be significant):


    DateDistanceTimeAvg SpeedRM UsedkWh UsedWh/miAvg TempCabinRoadsWeatherSW Version
    1/26/159.0 mi7m18s73.97 mph123.437010ºC/50ºFSeat Heater (2)DryCloudy6.1 (2.2.113)
    1/27/1510.1 mi8m34s70.74 mph123.332717ºC/63ºFNoneDryCloudy6.1 (2.2.113)
    1/28/159.6 mi7m51s73.38 mph133.637817ºC/63ºFNoneDrySunny6.1 (2.2.113)
    1/30/159.6 mi7m48s73.85 mph123.435912ºC/54ºFSeat Heater (1)DryCloudy6.1 (2.2.113)
    2/2/159.7 mi8m01s72.60 mph113.334312ºC/54ºFSeat Heater (1)DrySunny6.1 (2.2.113)
    2/4/159.7 mi8m14s70.69 mph93.031414ºC/57ºFNoneDryCloudy6.1 (2.2.139)
    2/5/1510.0 mi8m19s72.14 mph103.130814ºC/57ºFNoneDryCloudy6.1 (2.2.140)
    2/6/159.8 mi8m24s70.00 mph103.030215ºC/59ºFNoneDryCloudy6.1 (2.2.140)
    EVTP9.8 mi8m69 mph (1.25x)113.435315ºC/59ºF15ºC/59ºFN/AN/AN/A


    So make of that what you will, but I still prefer to compare EVTP to actuals on the longer trip I'll be taking to Tahoe this weekend.

    -Marc
     
  8. Andyw2100

    Andyw2100 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    5,395
    Location:
    Ithaca, NY
    Thanks, Marc. I appreciate it.

    I'm just wondering, though, about that 1.25 factor you used. I'm thinking you may have used that because you were doing 70 in a 55 MPH speed limit. If so, I wanted to make sure that you knew that the EV Trip Planner speed factors are actually based on the speed of traffic. If you click on the "Steps" tab, it will show you what the assumed speed is for a factor of 1. I'm guessing there's a good chance that if you were doing 70, the regular speed of traffic wasn't 55, and that EV Trip Planner may not be using 55 as the 1.0 speed. If I'm right, the EV Trip Planner numbers are high (because it computed your numbers based on a speed higher than the speed you were travelling.)

    Of course I definitely could be wrong. I just wanted to bring this to your attention, so that you could take a look at it.

    Thanks!
    Andy
     
  9. MarcG

    MarcG Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,669
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Yep, I'm totally aware of how EVTP works - thanks.

    FYI - I did not choose 1.25 randomly. I ran multiple scenarios in EVTP to reach an average speed of 70 mph over the total distance, and the 1.25 multiplier was it (yielded 69 mph, which is close enough).
     
  10. Andyw2100

    Andyw2100 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    5,395
    Location:
    Ithaca, NY
    OK, thanks.

    Someone on TMC a few days ago definitely thought a factor of 1 meant travelling the speed limit, so I thought that could be a common misconception. I should have known you'd be on top of it! :)
     
  11. Cottonwood

    Cottonwood Roadster#433, Model S#S37

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    5,062
    Location:
    Colorado
    Here are the stats on my Thursday trip across Colorado. See description of this drive at P85D range and highway battery performance - Page 23 As far as I know, this is the longest reported P85D, single charge, trip, yet.

    My Results:
    • 67˚ Cabin Temp
    • 40˚ outside temp (agerage)
    • Distance 241mi
    • Driving Time - 4:28
    • Total Energy - 67.1 kWh, 225 RM
    • Average Efficiency - 278 Wh/mi
    • Net Elevation - 1030

    EV Trip Planner Predictions:
    • 85 - 19"
    • 0.98 multiplier to get my travel time and speeds
    • 67˚ Cabin Temp
    • 40˚ outside temp (agerage)
    • Distance 239mi
    • Driving Time - 4:28
    • Total Energy - 73.6 kWh, 245 RM
    • Average Efficiency - 308 Wh/mi
    • Net Elevation - 1030

    To be fair, I used a speed pattern that is more efficient than the speed multiplier in EV Trip Planner. EV Trip Planner, does a multiply of the base speeds to get each segment. I use PSL+4 with a maximum cap. This saves me time on low PSL sections while saving me energy on high PSL sections. I believe that the current version of EV Trip Planner accounts for the lower air density at altitude. At my average elevation was a little over 8,000 feet MSL.

    In the end, getting 278 Wh/mi vs EV Trip Planner's prediction of 308 Wh/mi is about a 10% reduction in energy use vs the prediction.
     
  12. svp6

    svp6 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    297
    Location:
    MN
    #12 svp6, Feb 8, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2015
    No improvement for me either - on .139:

    My Results: P85D, range mode on, climate on ~80%, reduced / off 20%, 19" Tesla Pirelli winter tires

    • 69˚ Cabin Temp
    • 35˚ outside temp (average). Sunny and dry, minimal (if any) wind
    • Distance 184 mi
    • A sedated 65-72 mph TACC
    • Total Energy - 68.6 kWh, 230 RM
    • Average Efficiency - 373 Wh/mi
    • Net Elevation -26 feet

    EV Trip Planner Predictions (using 19" S/P85):

    • 85 - 19"
    • 1.0 multiplier to get my travel time and speeds
    • Distance 187.9 mi
    • Total Energy - 67.3 kWh, 224 RM
    • Average Efficiency - 358 Wh/mi
    • Net Elevation -26 feet

    I have done the same route couple weeks ago, in very similar weather - 380 Wh/mi. The only good thing about it is that the trip prediction software is fairly accurate (±2%). I was hoping to low 300 with that sedate driving and the reasonably good weather:confused:

    Still disappointing - until a supercharger is built in Minneapolis or the software really improves I have to drive grandma-style if I want to make it back without charging at a slow public station.
     
  13. joer00

    joer00 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    301
    Location:
    Tampa
    My data from a weekend trip Tampa/Orlando. I tested all possible settings every 15 miles to find out what settings affect the range. Here the results:

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

    Return:

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

    So the moral of the story, it's all about RANGE mode. READING the message when selecting Range mode, I saw that it says that range mode will result in torque distribution. As many of us did not see any improvements, I suspect that there is no torque sleep in non-range mode. From my results so far it also looks that there is no difference between Sport and Insane mode which would be great (at least not on the highway).
     
    • Informative x 1
  14. Andyw2100

    Andyw2100 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    5,395
    Location:
    Ithaca, NY
    #14 Andyw2100, Feb 8, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2015
    This is definitely not correct, as per multiple Tesla sources. I wrote a fairly detailed post on this in another thread yesterday. I'd link to it here, but I'm posting from my phone, and it would be a bit difficult. There are more efficiency gains from torque sleep in range mode, but there are some with range mode off. That is consistent with what many here are seeing. And those here not seeing improvements have tried range mode and still are not seeing improvements.

    Edited: Here it is: P85D vs. P85 Efficiency Testing, Take 2 - Page 11
     
    • Informative x 1
  15. MarcG

    MarcG Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,669
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Here's my promised data from the trip I took to Tahoe over this past weekend:

    DistanceAvg SpeedRM UsedEVTP RMkWh UsedEVTP kWhWh/miEVTP Wh/miNet Elev ≠Avg TempClimateWeatherRoads
    104.2 mi62.1 mph12411436.034.1345326164 ft15ºC/59ºF20ºC/68ºFRain/WindWet
    44.5 mi52.1 mph836724.120.15414523,149 ft10ºC/50ºF20ºC/68ºFRain/WindWet
    58.3 mi60.0 mph969227.727.54764732,588 ft5ºC/41ºF20ºC/68ºFRainWet
    53.0 mi59.8 mph433712.511.1236210-3,323 ft8ºC/46ºF20ºC/68ºFRainWet
    95.7 mi58.8 mph1059130.627.4320286-3,188 ft13ºC/55ºF20ºC/68ºFRainWet
    54.5 mi65.4 mph696320.118.8368345-125 ft18ºC/64ºFNoneInt. RainWet
    And as I mentioned in the other thread, the results are worse than I originally expected but it was raining very hard at times and the wind was also a big factor.

    Today it was clear again and the roads were dry, so I re-ran my commute numbers and the results were in-line with what I was seeing after upgrading to 2.2.139/140 (lower than EVTP estimates).
     
  16. Andyw2100

    Andyw2100 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    5,395
    Location:
    Ithaca, NY
    Thanks, Marc.

    Since the rain had such a big impact on your numbers, I'm wondering if just the roads not being dry could be what has been affecting mine. To be honest, I really haven't been paying that much attention to whether or not the roads have been dry or not. It's winter in upstate NY. If there's not actually snow or ice on the road, that's a plus. A little damp from melted snow from a few days ago? No one notices.

    I'd say I'd try to pay more attention to that, but it's possible I won't see truly dry roads for weeks. I'll give it a shot, though, and ask my wife to as well.

    Hope you had fun skiing, in spite of the rain on the way there and back.

    Thanks again!
    Andy
     
  17. darthy001

    darthy001 Love my car, hope Tesla can get as great!

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2012
    Messages:
    721
    Location:
    Bærum, Norway
    In my somewhat limited experience, with a VW e-up! the last year, heavy rain is much worse than just low temps or even packed snow. Last 2-3months have been a mix of these conditions and the days with rain is by far the worst.
     
  18. MarcG

    MarcG Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,669
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Yes it did seem like the car was pushing harder than usual when the rain created large pools of water on the road. Not quite aquaplaning, but traction was definitely hindered at times (not that I ever saw traction control warnings at all).

    Pleasure! Oh and we definitely had a great time on the slopes *thanks* to the rain, which at high elevations meant snow. Still too warm for my taste, but hey I'm not complaining! (until all the Tahoe resorts shut down for good..)
     

Share This Page