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

Elon Musk tweets software upgrade will increase P85D range

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
So anyone care to guess where those extra 50-100 Wh/mile (compared to a RWD Model S) are going (3,25 to 6,5 kWh per hour of going 65 mph)??? We know they're not going towards propelling the car. Also, we know the added weight creates only slightly increased friction, nothing near 50-100 Wh/mile.

I would guess heat in the inverters and motors. If it is entirely that, the best case scenario is that we see a slight improvement after they figure out how to idle a motor.

The worst case scenario is that the reduced efficiency is due to increased unsprung weight, which may be impossible to fix with software. Does anyone know what a tesla's rotor weighs?
 
The question that has me scratching my head is, if Tesla knows the PD has better Wh-Hr/mile efficiency on the highway then they have, and have tested, firmware that drives both motors such that they can achieve that efficiency. If they have it, why not ship it on the first product and avoid this discussion in the first place? If they have based their public statements on modeling and not end configuration testing they would be leaving themselves open to not meeting target. That would seem to be a very high risk path for little to no gain.

BTW Johan, my focus goes where your's does. I really do not care about EPA range and battery charge mile/hour performance. There is no indication that Tesla has changed the battery or the on board chargers. All I really want to see is how the PD performs in the exact same driving regime as my previous P+ and, more specifically, that the PD matches or uses less Wh-Hr/mile on the highway.

+1

I find that Tesla's action here borders on incomprehensible, in communications. I'm perhaps more sympathetic on the technical side. I suspect that the Normal mode has not been released because they are having a hard time making it work well. I can imagine that completely cutting out one motor, and then re-activivating it instantly might not function smoothly without a lot of tweaking. They have a lot of operating scenarios to play with. Which motor runs when, based on present speeds, commanded speed change? it may be difficult optimize for efficiency while still providing responsive behaviour that you'd expect from the car. It supposed to be Normal mode, not DOg mode.

I suspect that Elon's comments about efficiency were based on early testing where they discovered that if you run the car at constant speed on the front motor, that it was more efficient than the RWD car. But the real world implementation required to get that theoretical benefit has been tougher than expected.

On the communications side, I wonder if they just don't know what to say. I can imagine them all sitting around the boardroom table. One of the more ballsy folks looks at Elon and say "Well, you told them that range was going up. It's not happening - so what are you going to tell them?" Silence falls across the room.
 
The question that has me scratching my head is, if Tesla knows the PD has better Wh-Hr/mile efficiency on the highway then they have, and have tested, firmware that drives both motors such that they can achieve that efficiency. If they have it, why not ship it on the first product and avoid this discussion in the first place? If they have based their public statements on modeling and not end configuration testing they would be leaving themselves open to not meeting target. That would seem to be a very high risk path for little to no gain.

BTW Johan, my focus goes where your's does. I really do not care about EPA range and battery charge mile/hour performance. There is no indication that Tesla has changed the battery or the on board chargers. All I really want to see is how the PD performs in the exact same driving regime as my previous P+ and, more specifically, that the PD matches or uses less Wh-Hr/mile on the highway.

The tweets on the subject cleared it up for me. It was saying that the P85D is currently running both motors all the time(that's why there's the extra 50-100 Wh/mile). Once they enable switching off one motor it's going to have the same P85+ range, and this makes sense beacuse the p85+ is running one motor. There is nothing inherently less efficient about the P85+ except for when it's running on two motors all the time.

As a software engineer I can see why they took the safe approach with having both motors enabled all the time initially. I'm sure there is some balancing that they need to do when engaging an idle motor i.e. cut 20% power to one smoothly and route 30% to the other for example. They need the correct tune for this so the car doesn't lurch forward.

I expect they will have normal mode available before February and the launch of the 85D as normal mode is probably the only mode the 85D is going to have.
 
Can you imagine what it would have been like to launch the PD saying range is down from the P+ in proportion to performance being up. Six months later, a firmware update comes out and, wham, highway performance is equal to the P+. They would get two rounds of hero time (positive press for the company) for the price of one configuration release.

All the hype at the launch came from raw speed and autopilot with the caviot that the AP functionality would not be available on day one. Spreading the release out across initial, AP and then efficiency would be a triple hit.
 
On the communications side, I wonder if they just don't know what to say. I can imagine them all sitting around the boardroom table. One of the more ballsy folks looks at Elon and say "Well, you told them that range was going up. It's not happening - so what are you going to tell them?" Silence falls across the room.

Like many of the complaints that have been on TMC, in six to eight months this will be another non-issue. A few examples of things you no longer hear about, or hear about far less often:

Hill hold (The hill assist is apparently enough to keep most folks happy.)
Windshield fogging
Badly aligned panels
Non-ANSI characters not displaying
Vampire drain (Still not zero, but far reduced from the 14 miles a day.)
Burning
Price of cargo shelf
Weak rear cover
Pano roof rattles and squeaks
HVAC temperature
Upgrade rollouts

Of course there will always be plenty of things to discuss because the Model S is just a car, albeit a great car, and no car is perfect. And yes, Elon gets excited, heck, if I was Elon, I'd be excited too. So far he's (eventually) delivered almost everything he's promised with the exception of lighted visor mirrors.
 
jerry,

I do not think it is a matter of if Tesla will do what they say they will for those of us that have been around for a few rounds. For me, it is the wholly unnecessary self inflicted wound of not making range on day one.

I remember picking up my very first Zero. I scheduled a buddy to drive his truck up the turnpike to pick me up at a toll plaza that was well within the promised range of the bike. I ended up having to stop early and have my bud come get me on the side of the road. None of that affected my use profile for the bike so I was ok but my very first impression of Zero was they did not tell me the truth about range.

Conversely, I did a 220 mile round trip shortly after getting my first P85 which was 80% highway at 70 mph in traffic and 20% stop and go in South Beach. I beat rated range (and the speedometer was dead on - yet another way other EV providers cheat) which impressed me as this was the very first EV provider I have bought from that actually did exactly what they said they would do.

We ole farts know Tesla will get it right but new customers attracted to the brand for performance or AWD reasons start off with a bad taste in their mouths. It is just a shame; that's all.
 
Can you imagine what it would have been like to launch the PD saying range is down from the P+ in proportion to performance being up. Six months later, a firmware update comes out and, wham, highway performance is equal to the P+. They would get two rounds of hero time (positive press for the company) for the price of one configuration release.

All the hype at the launch came from raw speed and autopilot with the caviot that the AP functionality would not be available on day one. Spreading the release out across initial, AP and then efficiency would be a triple hit.
That would be so easy to pull off and yet so far of from what they have done now. Now they face lacking range, lacking top speed, lacking autopilot and missing nextgen seats(partially not their fault) instead. At least they got the 0-60times correct:biggrin:

@jerry33 dont really feel most of the items in your list is really relevant here. Current p85Ds are delivered without promised features/speed and range. Your list is mostly of design flaws or convenient unsold features. I honestly dont understand some peoples need to excuse a potential loss of range of 25% as some is seeing.

Tesla messed up. Its as easy as that. No amout of old feelgood stories etc can change that. Personally I could care less about potential new firmware and old history if I'm not able to complete trips that would be possible with the promised range.

Of course Teala can fix this in 1-2-6 or even 18months, but fact remains they have messed up iwith initial cars here. And as lolachampcar wrote it could so easily been avoided.
 
Last edited:
erry33 dont really feel most of the items in your list is really relevant here. Current p85Ds are delivered without promised features/speed and range. Your list is mostly of design flaws or convenient unsold features. I honestly dont understand some peoples need to excuse a potential loss of range of 25% as some is seeing.

At the time the posts were just as adamant as they are with this topic. Yes, I agree Tesla could have handled it better, but they way they've handled it is consistent with how they've handled everything--only now there is no George Blankenship to smooth the process. When I purchased mine I thought I would be getting a car that would normally go 300 miles and than I could go a bit further with careful driving. What I received was a car that normally can go 250 miles and do 300 with careful driving. That's about 25% reduction as well.
 
The tweets on the subject cleared it up for me. It was saying that the P85D is currently running both motors all the time(that's why there's the extra 50-100 Wh/mile). Once they enable switching off one motor it's going to have the same P85+ range, and this makes sense beacuse the p85+ is running one motor. There is nothing inherently less efficient about the P85+ except for when it's running on two motors all the time.

As a software engineer I can see why they took the safe approach with having both motors enabled all the time initially. I'm sure there is some balancing that they need to do when engaging an idle motor i.e. cut 20% power to one smoothly and route 30% to the other for example. They need the correct tune for this so the car doesn't lurch forward.

I expect they will have normal mode available before February and the launch of the 85D as normal mode is probably the only mode the 85D is going to have.

But this is what I don't get: if say 100Wh each mile is fed in to the "inefficient" motor, how is that not contributing to propelling the car, thereby decreasing the power having to be fed to the "efficient" motor? It's not like either motor is going to be wildly inefficient at any speed/RPM. I stand by my theory that somehow the motors are "working against each other" or at least decreasing each other's efficiency in Sport/Insane mode (without decrease in performance).
 
At the time the posts were just as adamant as they are with this topic. Yes, I agree Tesla could have handled it better, but they way they've handled it is consistent with how they've handled everything--only now there is no George Blankenship to smooth the process. When I purchased mine I thought I would be getting a car that would normally go 300 miles and than I could go a bit further with careful driving. What I received was a car that normally can go 250 miles and do 300 with careful driving. That's about 25% reduction as well.
Well, right now it seems like the numbers for the P85D isnt even remotely possible to reach in perfect conditions. So I would say this is far worse. Numbers are way off and more close to 200miles than 285 when doing 65mph. At least judging by wk057 and his numbers so far given his long experience coming directly from a P85.

But even worse, how can "they have done this before" be used as an explanation/excuse? To me it just shows a company with no internal control of communications towards customers, and a company that takes no note of past lessons learned at all.

Right now I am still hopefull they will pull a range-rabbit out of their hats with the magical normal-mode. But if they dont I am afraid its final curtain call for them in Norway at least. Public image here is already very badly scarred after many many cars breaking down with drive unit issues lately.

- - - Updated - - -

But this is what I don't get: if say 100Wh each mile is fed in to the "inefficient" motor, how is that not contributing to propelling the car, thereby decreasing the power having to be fed to the "efficient" motor? It's not like either motor is going to be wildly inefficient at any speed/RPM. I stand by my theory that somehow the motors are "working against each other" or at least decreasing each other's efficiency in Sport/Insane mode (without decrease in performance).
very good points, all I can think of is the remote chance that the motors are actually doing some minimal "braking" by having their magnetics fields out of sync constantly front to rear motor. Would be much easier to map with the identical motors for the stamdard D.
 
The question that has me scratching my head is, if Tesla knows the PD has better Wh-Hr/mile efficiency on the highway then they have, and have tested, firmware that drives both motors such that they can achieve that efficiency. If they have it, why not ship it on the first product and avoid this discussion in the first place? If they have based their public statements on modeling and not end configuration testing they would be leaving themselves open to not meeting target. That would seem to be a very high risk path for little to no gain.

BTW Johan, my focus goes where your's does. I really do not care about EPA range and battery charge mile/hour performance. There is no indication that Tesla has changed the battery or the on board chargers. All I really want to see is how the PD performs in the exact same driving regime as my previous P+ and, more specifically, that the PD matches or uses less Wh-Hr/mile on the highway.

I suspect that Elon's comments about efficiency were based on early testing where they discovered that if you run the car at constant speed on the front motor, that it was more efficient than the RWD car. But the real world implementation required to get that theoretical benefit has been tougher than expected.

We do know that Tesla conducted the EPA testing for the PD and achieved 94 MPGe highway and an overall range of 242 miles with 21" wheels, down 6% from an S85 with 21" wheels. That has to be an actual test and not based on modeling.

I believe those figures are the best we can hope to achieve with the revised software when it comes. The current owner experience with the PD indicates that it is not running the same software used in the EPA testing because everyone's highway wh/mi is considerably worse than their S85/P85/P85+.
 
very good points, all I can think of is the remote chance that the motors are actually doing some minimal "braking" by having their magnetics fields out of sync constantly front to rear motor. Would be much easier to map with the identical motors for the stamdard D.

This actually sounds like a very reasonable theory on what's going wrong. If you are correct, and the problem can be resolved, not only will range increase, but performance will increase as well.

This would also translate to the motors heating up considerably more than they would otherwise, but as far as I know it's not possible for end users to see the temperatures on the motors.

- - - Updated - - -

We do know that Tesla conducted the EPA testing for the PD and achieved 94 MPGe highway and an overall range of 242 miles with 21" wheels, down 6% from an S85 with 21" wheels. That has to be an actual test and not based on modeling.

I believe those figures are the best we can hope to achieve with the revised software when it comes. The current owner experience with the PD indicates that it is not running the same software used in the EPA testing because everyone's highway wh/mi is considerably worse than their S85/P85/P85+.

It is supposed to be done with an actual car in a lab test -- but given the recent headlines from other automakers posting fake MPG numbers on their Monroney stickers, it is certainly possible that modeling is used to generate these numbers.
 
I read the Code of Federal Regulations that documents what is required. I was looking to try and understand when Tesla would have to retest, at the time I believed they'd have to re-test every model year. What I found was far different than this. They only have to test a given vehicle configuration once. A vehicle configuration is made up of certain parts such as the engine, transmission, and so on. Any vehicle that shares the same components that make up the vehicle configuration is the same vehicle as far as the EPA is concerned. Those components that make up a vehicle configuration is not in the window sticker requirements (which have been updated for Electric Vehicles). Instead it points at the definitions used in the emission standards, which of course are not oriented toward an electric vehicle whatsoever. In fact the only pieces of a vehicle component that apply to a Model S is the engine (if you presume that is the motor) and the weight. As such from a vehicle configuration standpoint the S85, P85 and P85+ are all the same vehicle. They only differ by an inverter, suspension and wheels (none of which are part of the vehicle configuration as defined by the law). As far as the EPA is concerned these are merely options on the same vehicle. Tesla actually treats this the same way with respect to the resale value guarantee (though going one step further since the S85 is just an option of an S60). The S60 is separate here due to the weight differences and probably Tesla needing to explain the differences between an S60 and S85.

The question then becomes what option have to be on the test vehicle. Again the emission standards determine this. They list some options as being required on the test vehicle if they are offered all (e.g. Air conditioning). But most options are only required if they are expected to be equipped on more than 33% of the vehicles. As long as fewer than 33% of the vehicles have a given option they are not obligated to include it in the test vehicle. Since the P85 and P85+ are just options, as long as the percentage of those vehicles against the whole of S85, P85 and P85+ vehicles doesn't reach 33% then they aren't included on the test vehicle. However, if they would reach those numbers you shouldn't see a separate rating for them, rather you should see the S85 rating lower.

The P85D and the 85D however, each have a different motor configuration, thus (if assuming an engine is equivalent to the motor) each are to be treated as independent vehicle configurations. This explains why Tesla is quoting the test results for the 21" wheel configuration. It's probably safe to assume that more than 33% of the P85D vehicles shipped with 21" wheels. Thus the window sticker shows the results with the 21" wheels, even on cars with 19" wheels. Tesla however, initially published both on their website and has since updated it to show the 250 number with an asterisk saying 21" wheels decrease the range by 3%. My guess would be they got approval from the EPA to do this because it made the comparison on the website misleading since all the other vehicles had 19" wheels. But they still have to use the 21" wheel numbers on the window sticker.

I haven't bothered to cite the links to the CFR sections that define all this. Mostly because it's Christmas afternoon and I don't really want to spend Christmas digging through the CFR to find the proper cites. If you really want them I'll dig them up for you later, but I can assure you this is there. If you want to find it yourself, start with CFR Title 40, Part 600 and follow the references to the other parts of the regulations:
eCFR Code of Federal Regulations

Thank you! That is fantastic information.
 
It is supposed to be done with an actual car in a lab test -- but given the recent headlines from other automakers posting fake MPG numbers on their Monroney stickers, it is certainly possible that modeling is used to generate these numbers.

It's so disappointing that Tesla would market range based on modeling vs anything close to real world range. I would expect better of them. Or at least put in an asterisk so we know. Feels deceptive.

That is an absurd accusation. The Kia and Ford misrepresentations were based on how they conducted the tests, not some theoretical numbers obtained through modeling. For example, Ford used only one body style (the most efficient one) in the Cmax case.

Submitting numbers to the EPA that were not based on an actual test would be defrauding the government, and would put Tesla out of business. So some version of the software achieved those numbers. Translating that into a version that meets NVH goals, handles all of the edge cases, etc. is the challenge.
 
That is an absurd accusation. The Kia and Ford misrepresentations were based on how they conducted the tests, not some theoretical numbers obtained through modeling. For example, Ford used only one body style (the most efficient one) in the Cmax case.

Submitting numbers to the EPA that were not based on an actual test would be defrauding the government, and would put Tesla out of business. So some version of the software achieved those numbers. Translating that into a version that meets NVH goals, handles all of the edge cases, etc. is the challenge.

I did/do not mean to imply fraud., and was unaware of the specifics of how the Ford/Kia misrepresentations happened. But nonetheless, mistakes can happen.
 
That is an absurd accusation. The Kia and Ford misrepresentations were based on how they conducted the tests, not some theoretical numbers obtained through modeling. For example, Ford used only one body style (the most efficient one) in the Cmax case.

Submitting numbers to the EPA that were not based on an actual test would be defrauding the government, and would put Tesla out of business. So some version of the software achieved those numbers. Translating that into a version that meets NVH goals, handles all of the edge cases, etc. is the challenge.

A Tesla employee told me that the 285 number was based on modeling. This was a few days ago at the Burlingame center. It should be obvious to everyone, given how real world results are not even in the ballpark of 285, that modeling might have been where the first number came from. Don't see what's absurd about that.
 
A Tesla employee told me that the 285 number was based on modeling. This was a few days ago at the Burlingame center. It should be obvious to everyone, given how real world results are not even in the ballpark of 285, that modeling might have been where the first number came from. Don't see what's absurd about that.

@randompersonx's comment was about the EPA test numbers that are on the P85D's Monroney sticker. That is the accusation that I was responding to. Submitting those numbers based on modeling rather than strictly following the EPA test procedures would be fraud.

We don't know if the constant 65 mph numbers were based on modeling or not. Just because some random Tesla employee at an SC says it doesn't make it so, as we have seen many times in the past.
 
@randompersonx's comment was about the EPA test numbers that are on the P85D's Monroney sticker. That is the accusation that I was responding to. Submitting those numbers based on modeling rather than strictly following the EPA test procedures would be fraud.

We don't know if the constant 65 mph numbers were based on modeling or not. Just because some random Tesla employee at an SC says it doesn't make it so, as we have seen many times in the past.

True, but given no one is getting in the same ballpark at that 285 number, it doesn't seem steeped in much reality at the moment. Time will tell.
 
All I really want to see is how the PD performs in the exact same driving regime as my previous P+ and, more specifically, that the PD matches or uses less Wh-Hr/mile on the highway.

I agree. And currently, after about 800 miles of driving the P85D, I can say that as of right now the P85 is substantially more efficient in all scenarios.

Hopefully this changes if/when this update Elon speaks of actually happens. You know, the update that should have shipped with the car? *sigh*

- - - Updated - - -

btw, for those interested, I posted the data from my 572 mile drive in the P85D here: P85D First long trip, range data, etc... - Page 6