-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Firmware 6.1
- Thread starter J1mbo
- Start date
Canuck
Well-Known Member
I see a whole new can of worms being opened if torque sleep is only available while in range mode, even if it's only temporary.
That is interesting. I'll be glad when I get the update and torque sleep is available at all for my longer trips... but it should be it's own option for sure.
On trips where range is a concern, I use range mode... so this kind of makes sense when you think about it.
Edit: I wonder if a new slider for torque sleep would make sense. Something like, "Automatic, FWD, RWD, AWD."
Ah well, hopefully I wake up to the update. :crying:
Last edited:
So I just drove the car for 40 miles on a planned route. Did the route last week. It was in the mid 60s out and late afternoon and got 304 Wh/mi and 90% highway and TACC on when on highway. Tonight it was around 50 degrees and I got 327 Wh/mi. Now I expected the colder weather to decrease the efficiency by around 5-10% but was expecting if true that the torque sleep was enabled and supposed 10% range increase to be true that it would cancel out the decreased efficiency due to the cold weather. Unfortunately it seems like 2.2.139 did not enable torque sleep. And I was driving with Range Mode on. But more testing will be required to know for sure.
Well, looks like the update *just* hit my P85D. Installing now. My traffic analyzer almost didn't pick up on it because it was much smaller than every other update I've seen on WiFi. Was only ~10MB...? But the bandwidth spike was there at least and the max-size inbound OpenVPN packets.
The range mode (i) doesn't seem to exist at all in .113.
I'll do some preliminary testing tomorrow. If it looks like it is having any effect at all I'll schedule a new side-by-side test with my fiance's P85, probably Wednesday afternoon and see how it shapes up. On Wednesday she is supposed to be making the trip east on the same route we used in the first test for something completely unrelated, so, I could just follow her with TACC
Edit: Weather looks nice for Wednesday too... sunny and upper 50s...
The range mode (i) doesn't seem to exist at all in .113.
I'll do some preliminary testing tomorrow. If it looks like it is having any effect at all I'll schedule a new side-by-side test with my fiance's P85, probably Wednesday afternoon and see how it shapes up. On Wednesday she is supposed to be making the trip east on the same route we used in the first test for something completely unrelated, so, I could just follow her with TACC
Edit: Weather looks nice for Wednesday too... sunny and upper 50s...
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
I had already posted my concerns about torque sleep only being available in range mode in the torque sleep thread. I actually don't think it makes sense at all.
We shouldn't have to limit our HVAC's functionality just to get the car to get closer to the range it was supposed to get in the first place. I certainly understand my HVAC's impact on range, but it should not be increased X-fold because the 10% efficiency savings that the car should have had in the first place is now only available to me if I limit the HVAC.
Probably more importantly for me is the fact that the battery won't preheat along with the cabin if the car is in range mode. If we have to use range mode to get torque sleep there is not question about the fact that we're not going to remember to unset it every time we get out of the car, which means there will be times we can't preheat the battery while plugged in when we use the app to preheat the cabin, which means we'll waste more battery power starting the trip and also won't have regenerative braking.
If this is just temporary, that's fine. If Tesla's plan is for this to be the permanent implementation, I hope they will reconsider this decision.
- - - Updated - - -
I'll do some preliminary testing tomorrow. If it looks like it is having any effect at all I'll schedule a new side-by-side test with my fiance's P85, probably Wednesday afternoon and see how it shapes up. On Wednesday she is supposed to be making the trip east on the same route we used in the first test for something completely unrelated, so, I could just follow her with TACC
You're the expert, but for your side by side testing I think you shouldn't use the TACC. For starters, you didn't have it available last time, so to keep the comparisons as similar as possible, I don't think TACC should be used this time. Also, we know that TACC does not drive efficiently. Why throw it in to the mix?
I agree we should be able to set it separately. However, I don't have a problem with how it is. At least torque sleep seems to actually exist. lol.
The P85D is going to less efficient in daily driving anyway, as noted by it's lower city MPGe. When I need range for a trip I enable range mode. While lower energy usage on a daily basis is definitely desired, I don't drive efficiently when driving on a regular basis anyway with random 0-45/60 launches for fun. Day to day range isn't really the issue overall, it's the longer distance trips where this is needed and where range mode is used anyway.
But again, I agree it should be it's own setting eventually. I definitely would prefer the car be as efficient as possible 100% of the time. I suggested a new slider in a post above: AWD, RWD, FWD, Automatic. (Automatic being torque sleep or otherwise efficiency optimized)
- - - Updated - - -
Unfortunately non-TACC cruise isn't available at all now on the P85D, so, I have little choice in the matter. I used regular cruise for 99% of the previous trip.
Edit: I think the main factor for the efficiency testing is maintaining the same or close to the same speed on both cars, as well as taking the same route at the same time. These things alone eliminate pretty much any other factors that would affect range. I wouldn't use TACC to stop the car, however, since I know for sure that I can do so more efficiently (and closer to how my fiance will stop her P85). But for the highway portion, I think TACC will make for a more accurate test, honestly, since I will actually match the P85's speed instead of slowly falling behind like I did last time.
Last edited:
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
I wasn't thinking about that. Good point!
In that case I guess you just have to do your best to minimize the TACC's energy wasting. I'm sure you'll cover it.
As for the slider and the modes, if I understand what Tesla is trying to do with torque mode, the slider shouldn't be necessary. Basically as I see it, the car would put itself in torque mode, disabling the rear motor, any time it "thought" it could to save energy. Since the rear motor can be reactivated almost instantaneously if power is called for, torque sleep shouldn't require a separate mode. We never want the car to just waste energy, so if it can save energy with no "cost" in power, acceleration, handling, etc., why not?
That was my understanding of how it was to be implemented. I could definitely be wrong, though.
You're probably right about it, although I can think of weather/winter/etc situations where you would want control over which wheels receive power. I suppose this is independent of the whole torque sleep thing, though.
EarlyAdopter
Active Member
Same here. No difference for me with Range Mode on or off on .139. Torque sleep appears absent still, or given our hilly terrain here isn't effective.
Details here.
Last edited:
MikeBur
ManualPilot
Latest update installed, did my usual short test drive for quick before/after fw comparison. Unfortunately, range mode is new as previous measurements were with range mode off.
First one, before update (range mode off), shows just over 2% battery use
Second snapshot is after update (with torque sleep, and therefore range mode, on) - shows < 1.5% battery use. Roughly same temp and wet roads.
again, can't disambiguate between torque sleep and range mode savings.
did note a few other things:
1) Appears to be preference toward front motor < 45 mph - higher pitched whine from front. Surprising as I thought front motor had taller gearing for freeway speeds?
2) can change range mode while moving, useful to compare noises and acceleration characteristics on same road easily
3) although insane + range is possible I am concerned it's not fully tested. I did a few launches with combinations of range on /off and sport/insane. Sport/range was marginally laggier than no range mode; insane/range was laggier and I heard a significant whine and felt judder from rear motor - I though initially this might just be traction control so returned to same piece of road with range mode off; no repeat of the issue. I'm only going to use sport / range combo.
as mentioned I have a few hundred mile trip tomorrow (--Sea->Portland++), so will get a much better feel for this update. Overall though, I laud the attempt and seems like there's some real possibility of benefit. I wish it were decoupled from range mode (indeed, would be great to have range mode on/off configureable by phone).
First one, before update (range mode off), shows just over 2% battery use
Second snapshot is after update (with torque sleep, and therefore range mode, on) - shows < 1.5% battery use. Roughly same temp and wet roads.
again, can't disambiguate between torque sleep and range mode savings.
did note a few other things:
1) Appears to be preference toward front motor < 45 mph - higher pitched whine from front. Surprising as I thought front motor had taller gearing for freeway speeds?
2) can change range mode while moving, useful to compare noises and acceleration characteristics on same road easily
3) although insane + range is possible I am concerned it's not fully tested. I did a few launches with combinations of range on /off and sport/insane. Sport/range was marginally laggier than no range mode; insane/range was laggier and I heard a significant whine and felt judder from rear motor - I though initially this might just be traction control so returned to same piece of road with range mode off; no repeat of the issue. I'm only going to use sport / range combo.
as mentioned I have a few hundred mile trip tomorrow (--Sea->Portland++), so will get a much better feel for this update. Overall though, I laud the attempt and seems like there's some real possibility of benefit. I wish it were decoupled from range mode (indeed, would be great to have range mode on/off configureable by phone).
Attachments
Wow, you really did upset Tesla with your range expose.
- - - Updated - - -
Out of curiosity - and possibly ignorance, is the Tesla Linux operating system subject to vulnerabilities such as the recently identified Ghost vulnerability? Just thinking that having to roll out a security patch might account for at least one update.
I agree. I find it odd that Tesla decided to go this route.
Edit: my car is updating as I type this.
One thing that is for certain is that this will certainly fuel the good old anti-ev argument that "in order to get decent range you have to turn of climate control, heating etc"
It's odd enough that I think there must be a reason why they did this. The completely obvious approach would be to add a "Normal" button next to "Sport" and "Insane". Including it in range mode will discourage people from using it and I can't help but wonder if that's the intent? Does this "torque sleep" cause some potential problems?
matbe81
Member
Have the people barking about range mode ever used it before? I had it on for 2 months this fall/winter and cabin heating was sufficient, did not notice a difference. Only loss was pre-heat and that can be worked around with toggle. Try it before you dis it!
Once Cottonwood and I both have .139 we'll be in a position to do side-by-side testing of any potential Range mode benefits using our identical P85Ds, both running on 19" Hakka R2 snow tires. Well, his is a different color... :biggrin:
I've been thinking about this and I'm not sure that it makes sense to use the Sport/Insane slider. That slider seems to only affect acceleration, which is presumably not affected by the torque sleep algorithm. So if the primary point of torque sleep is to provide greater efficiency at highway speeds, it makes sense to put it somewhere else. In the future, it probably would be better to simply have it use torque sleep 24/7 unless there is some known problem with it, but I'm OK with having the option to turn it on or off.
Also, as posted in the other thread, I believe I'm seeing improved economy on the interstate. Here is a graph of 30 miles at a constant 65mph on relatively flat terrain, with range mode and sport at 27F. No cabin heat.
Similar threads
