Jallum.pa.us
Member
maybe it's just me or my imagination, but my p85d seems to use far more power when using cruise control than when I maintain a constant speed manually.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
maybe it's just me or my imagination, but my p85d seems to use far more power when using cruise control than when I maintain a constant speed manually.
With city driving, it's extremely hard for me to keep my D under 500 Wh/mi. Often times I'm up near 600. I'm not sure how worried I should be about this, but I see folks posting numbers in the 300s and that pretty much never happens for me.
City driving here in the northeast is such low mileage that range is not a concern in my daily driving, but I haven't taken an extended highway trip to see if I can get Wh/mi in the mid-to-low 300s.
City driving here in the northeast is such low mileage that range is not a concern in my daily driving, but I haven't taken an extended highway trip to see if I can get Wh/mi in the mid-to-low 300s.
dennis
Model S Plaid
Way to take something out of context. Here is the entire post:
I was responding to @ampedrealtors complaint that Tesla had changed the published numbers from 285 to 242 to 250. I wasn't making any statement about what the car is capable of doing with the current software.
70 on a freeway would create road rage in California! lol
- - - Updated - - -
No. I didnt. I think many of us struggle to realize that 285 range, even under perfect circumstances and a tailwind. In fact, I haven't seen anyone post that they have....have you (assuming that you have one)?
dennis
Model S Plaid
How could anyone have possibly achieved 285 at constant 65 mph when Tesla has not delivered the torque sleeping software that is required to achieve this? Again, I was talking about the range numbers that Tesla has claimed. No P85D owner has a chance of achieving those numbers until the software update is delivered. Did you not read JB's blog post?
bluenation
Member
maybe you coudl've have worded it much better.
no it does not. what you perhaps wanted to say was:
also
you got it backwards. they give us too little. that's piss poor customer service.
yes, i'd agree that's a consequence of having mostly engineers in charge of communications. or shoudl i say, lack thereof.
no it does not. what you perhaps wanted to say was:
also
you got it backwards. they give us too little. that's piss poor customer service.
yes, i'd agree that's a consequence of having mostly engineers in charge of communications. or shoudl i say, lack thereof.
I read it and your use of present tense language in your post. While I remain hopeful they get it right, you said (along with other words) "The P85D still goes 285 miles: at a constant 65 mph as originally stated". you continue to refer to "current software" in the post following...nothing current gets there...but regardless of your use of present or future tense, the fact is, we have no idea (reading other posts on the subject) what version of SW was supplied to achieve this rating or how 'real world' it will translate to us. We have never seen it and clearly, something wasnt ready for it to be released for public consumption.
Ultimately, while its not a popular view for the TM loyalists, if a person bought on that advertised number, and some did, which then was reduced via regulatory intervention, and still remains unachievable, I would say they have a right to point to that and cry foul. It doesn't have to be met with a "vote with your dollars" statement or some other comment to defend. In reality, this whole fiasco of mileage on what is their premiere model S has been managed poorly on their end.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
bluenation--It's one thing for you to argue with someone and show your own shortcomings by writing poorly and using poor grammar. But as a user of these forums I take issue with your putting your poorly written and grammatically incorrect words into "quote bubbles" that make it appear as if another user--in this case dennis--actually wrote the words. That's exactly what you did in the post two above this one, post number 226 in this thread, when you wrote, "what you perhaps wanted to say was:" and then proceeded to put your words in dennis' quote bubble. Someone casually scrolling through this thread might easily think dennis wrote those things. Luckily I know dennis writes a lot better than that, so I was not confused or misled by your tactics. But others may be. That was inappropriate.
dennis
Model S Plaid
I guess we will have to wait until we have the new software to see if customers can duplicate Tesla's claim of 285 miles at a constant 65 mph for the P85D. I'm of the belief that they actually measured that number, since it is part of the non-intuitive curve that shows the P85D having better range than the 85 below about 65 mph and worse range above it.
Krugerrand
Meow
Okay, so now what? Has been pointed out, foul cried... I'd say 'vote with your dollars' is an excellent example of one way to conclude the situation. While it's not a popular view for the non-TM loyalists, it can be quite productive as a whole to offer a solution and move on, rather than picking at the sore incessantly.
dennis
Model S Plaid
The real problem is that Tesla did not deliver the car with the software used to achieve either the 285 number or the EPA 242/250 numbers. If they had this whole fiasco would not have happened.
But you have no basis to claim there was "regulatory intervention". All cars must have mileage numbers submitted to the EPA before they can ship. Prior to the EPA test of the P85D, Tesla provided some mileage guidance with the "285 miles @ 65 mph" statement. They also said on the website that the S 85 achieved the same number. So if someone expected the P85D to have better range than the S 85 it wasn't because Tesla told them.
This is also no different than what Tesla did with the original Model S. Before they had EPA numbers they published a curve that showed the range vs. constant speed. They picked one data point (55 mph) and talked about 300 miles of range. When they completed their EPA testing they switched to advertising the range as 265 miles - the EPA number.
What would you have Tesla do? Not announce any new model until the EPA testing was complete and the number had been blessed by the EPA? Not provide any guidance on range at announcement? ("Since we haven't completed EPA testing we can't tell you want the range is of our new top-of-the-line model. But it will be good.") They provided one metric. They clearly stated how that number was determined. They provided a comparable number for their current product using the same metric.
Maybe they need to administer an IQ test before allowing someone to purchase the car.
Yeah so suck it up or move makes for such a great company moto. Give it a break - pushing internally and responding to market pressures is how a company becomes great.
People overly sensitive to what TM is accomplishing as a company see it as an attack; I don't. I see it as how the company gets better. And, lets face facts. This is really not about the product itself, rather, its about very poor communication and mismanagement of expectations from the TM marketing machine. It would be a VERY different discussion had they been more conservative in their pitch on range (which is FUNDAMENTAL to the usefulness of the car). Instead, they overstated.
Consider this - is there even value in this range measurement of 285 @ 65 miles?? If you have to discard the interior; turn off all accessories and hope for a tailwind with a slight downhill grade, what is the point? Wouldnt it be more appropriate to view this important data point from a measurement that is highly achievable; so much so that people are bragging on the forum about smashing through the posted range?? Instead, you find the exact opposite - people surprised, disappointed, angry, or (more positively) hopeful of a fix. And then the blindly loyal defending the cause and telling people to quit the club if they don't like it....hardly a solution that gives TM longevity. In dismissing them, you overlook that these people "picking at the sore" care about the company and its product as much as you. They are just conveying their message in a different way than you carry yours...its the beauty of a public forum.
Communication can make or destroy marriages, friendships, working relationships, and the customer experience. In the end, this is all controllable with the steps that TM makes in the market.
- - - Updated - - -
Ill assume that you didnt mean to be as condescending as that sounds and let it pass unchecked.
bluenation
Member
@skilly
totally agreed. too many fanboys (and girls...there are some here) are emotionally sensitive to any criticism of real issues, instead of taking it as what it is: customer frustrations that can be constructive criticism for product improvement.
see also: the unfortunate comment by dennis
totally agreed. too many fanboys (and girls...there are some here) are emotionally sensitive to any criticism of real issues, instead of taking it as what it is: customer frustrations that can be constructive criticism for product improvement.
see also: the unfortunate comment by dennis
breser
AutoPilot Nostradamus
Good grief guys. From what I've seen dennis has been plenty critical of Tesla on their handling of this. The disagreement here is basically if Tesla gave incorrect numbers for the initial numbers or if those numbers might still be possible to achieve with the software no owner has yet. Nobody knows yet and quite frankly even after we have it I'm sure there will be plenty of doubters. Those numbers are essentially the ideal range at 65mph. It's hard to get the ideal range even in an S85 without AWD.
The initial numbers (285/275) are not comparable to the EPA range numbers (253/250/242), I pointed this out way back on October 11th. Dennis made an unfortunate comment, but he's just frustrated because he appears to feel that those two sets of numbers can't be compared should be obvious and you guys are twisting what he's saying. Maybe he should have been clearer a few posts back when he said that the 285 was still achievable. But give the guy a break and take him at his word about what he meant and move on.
The initial numbers (285/275) are not comparable to the EPA range numbers (253/250/242), I pointed this out way back on October 11th. Dennis made an unfortunate comment, but he's just frustrated because he appears to feel that those two sets of numbers can't be compared should be obvious and you guys are twisting what he's saying. Maybe he should have been clearer a few posts back when he said that the 285 was still achievable. But give the guy a break and take him at his word about what he meant and move on.
Krugerrand
Meow
Not at all what I said.
I'll pretend you didn't type that.
I don't think it's an attack, but we do likely disagree about who's being overly sensitive at times.
Tesla isn't affiliated in any way with this forum, but they do have their own forum. Sometimes Tesla employees read this forum, but I'm not sure anyone knows how often or who. Nope, not saying people can't discuss their complaints here, just addressing your claim that everyone is for the betterment of the company. Complaining here comes across much of the time as being about venting and finding others who feel the same and therefore are supportive, because logically best results for customers AND Tesla is direct communication.
I've not dismissed or overlooked anyone. I can *hear* as plain as day and I understand the situation. The disagreement is on how best to get resolution and help the company improve. This isn't the first kick at the can on this forum. I've asked before what the results have been from past similar episodes.
Krugerrand
Meow
I hope Tesla pushes this update soon so that everyone, including myself, has less to complain about.
If JB? had the timeline correct, then it'll be within 23 days.
Similar threads
