Gizmotoy
Active Member
Could be pretty close to reality. Range-mode-only is a weird requirement otherwise. On the plus side, Tesla (almost) hit a date they promised. It's a Groundhog Day miracle! :wink:
-
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
It will be interesting to see more owner data points, and also some eventual disclosure from Tesla as to whether this release is a) part of promised torque sleep, b) all of promised torque sleep, or c) actually isn't torque sleep yet.
Intuitively, I feel as if many of the D owners are expecting much broader range benefits than they will actually get. Tesla has been pretty clear that improved range is for highway miles... where there is sustained, steady-speed driving that can benefit from the gear ratio of the front drive. The reason that can translate into higher EPA rated (theoretically) is because the EPA combined loop is biased towards highway (at least for me, a city-dweller!). So, if you are doing much city driving, suburban driving, any accelerator mashing, any sustained over-the-limit driving, significant hills... I suspect achieving rated range will be even more remote than it was P85 in same circumstances. And, I know if I got a P85D, I would be doing all of those things!
Intuitively, I feel as if many of the D owners are expecting much broader range benefits than they will actually get. Tesla has been pretty clear that improved range is for highway miles... where there is sustained, steady-speed driving that can benefit from the gear ratio of the front drive. The reason that can translate into higher EPA rated (theoretically) is because the EPA combined loop is biased towards highway (at least for me, a city-dweller!). So, if you are doing much city driving, suburban driving, any accelerator mashing, any sustained over-the-limit driving, significant hills... I suspect achieving rated range will be even more remote than it was P85 in same circumstances. And, I know if I got a P85D, I would be doing all of those things!
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
Heh. I was looking out for me too, and really all of us P85D drivers. The last thing we need is for people to somehow get the idea that some of us are satisfied with the range as it stands.
breser
AutoPilot Nostradamus
Obviously the red one goes faster and is less efficient.
I don't buy that Tesla did EPA ratings with range mode. Range mode is sticky so the best they could manage would be an average between range mode and no range mode (based on how the EPA traditionally deals with driving modes). But I can't imagine why Tesla would have the car show EPA rated range without range mode and more range with it if the tests were conducted with it.
Once again Tesla communication on this is terrible. There shouldn't be a debate about if they've delivered torque sleep or not. Ideally the release notes would update for every patch version (so we know what changed). But without this on an issue like this Tesla should tweet or something.
I'd really love to be able to reconcile what people are currently experiencing, plus any hypothetical gains from torque sleep, with the range calculator on the Tesla site. For example, for the P85D, in the city, at 0 degrees, and heat on, it shows a range of 213 miles (vs 209 for a regular 85).
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
I think you're being a little too critical, Jason. I'm sure somewhere in the world there must be a city where you can go downhill for 213 miles straight, with the wind at your back.
RobinF
Member
I keep hearing that the front drive unit has a taller gear than the rear... can someone say where that came from and what the exact value is?
roblab
Active Member
I remember back a little where people were complaining about Tesla not doing such and such to allow someone inside to make the handles present to someone walking up. Like when someone at the airport is walking up, or the wife is coming out and walking up without her key. Seems the only way people used to do it was to go to controls, and unlock the car. Or you'd have to put the car in Drive, and then back into Park. "I wish Tesla would fix this"!
I wand to report that they did. All it takes now is to push Park, even if it's already in Park, and the door handles present. I hope the people who needed this have noticed it was done.
Tesla heard us. And they fixed it. Thanks, Tesla!
I wand to report that they did. All it takes now is to push Park, even if it's already in Park, and the door handles present. I hope the people who needed this have noticed it was done.
Tesla heard us. And they fixed it. Thanks, Tesla!
I've posted some efficiency data under .139 in a different thread. My verdict concerning the existence of torque sleep improvements to P85D efficiency and range is: 'Probable': I managed 307 Wh/mi over a 90 mile loop, mostly at highway speeds up to 75+ mph. Temps today are moderate (mid-to-high fifties), but the wind is blowing.
P85D range and highway battery performance - Page 15
P85D range and highway battery performance - Page 15
Fairly new to Tesla here, and I need some help here to understand this better. I recently asked the same question of a Tesla Ranger who explained to me that the battery heater is a closed loop fluid system heated by an "electric heat circuit" that runs parallel to it. He said that this is not affected by "Range" mode. When I asked if preheating the cabin helps to warm up the battery, he said it really doesn't help much because the cabin heat is basically a "toaster oven" heater that is completely separate from the battery warming circuit.
Now I know I have read very much the opposite on these forums, so now I am a bit confused?
The only problem is that it doesn't match with my experience, nor does it match Tesla's documentation where they show the motor heating the battery. (There is also an electric heat circuit).
Where range mode helps the most is when the battery isn't preheated fully (typically because you forgot to turn range mode off when you parked). Range mode reduces the amount of power used to bring the battery up to temperature (unless the battery is below a certain threshold). This increases the amount of driving time it takes for the battery to become fully heated but doesn't use any significant amount of extra energy.
Totally non-scientific, and certainly not enough data to make any real judgment, but here are my last two drives to work in the morning. The red line is yesterday's commute into work (which I accidentally drew too far, in that it includes some of my drive home yesterday as well), and the green line is this morning's commute into work, after the .139 update. The drives were pretty much identical weather and traffic conditions.
Cottonwood
Roadster#433, Model S#S37
As far as I know, it is only speculation. If there is a reference, I would love to see it also.
Vger
Active Member
OK! So inspired by this great conversation and detective work, I just took my wife's P85D out for a little experiment, post- 2.2.139.
I did two laps of the same route on our island, the first with the "new" Range Mode OFF, the second with Range Mode ON. I kept the climate control completely OFF the whole time, hoping to show that any difference in the new Range Mode was in the power train and not in climate control power management.
The route is 19.5 km roundtrip, two-lane, curvy and with significant elevation changes (about sea level to about 200 m). Since speeds are low, I would expect this to be a sensitive test of power train efficiency. Aero drag will not dominate. There are significant climbs, and significant regen descents. The temperature was about 8ºC, it was calm, and the road was damp.
On each loop from Ganges to the turnaround point and back, I travelled the speed limit when possible, which is 80 km/h on most of the route, but drops to 50 km/h ~1.5 km outside Ganges. On the outbound legs, I used ACC to follow the traffic consistently, which was 60-75 km/h; on the return legs, both times, I travelled the 80 km/h speed limit on normal cruise control most of the way.
And the envelope, please:
First lap, Range Mode OFF = 205 Wh/km (330 Wh/mi)
Second lap, Range Mode ON = 188 Wh/km (303 Wh/mi)
That is just shy of the 10% increase in efficiency JB promised. Maybe we are getting somewhere!!
I did two laps of the same route on our island, the first with the "new" Range Mode OFF, the second with Range Mode ON. I kept the climate control completely OFF the whole time, hoping to show that any difference in the new Range Mode was in the power train and not in climate control power management.
The route is 19.5 km roundtrip, two-lane, curvy and with significant elevation changes (about sea level to about 200 m). Since speeds are low, I would expect this to be a sensitive test of power train efficiency. Aero drag will not dominate. There are significant climbs, and significant regen descents. The temperature was about 8ºC, it was calm, and the road was damp.
On each loop from Ganges to the turnaround point and back, I travelled the speed limit when possible, which is 80 km/h on most of the route, but drops to 50 km/h ~1.5 km outside Ganges. On the outbound legs, I used ACC to follow the traffic consistently, which was 60-75 km/h; on the return legs, both times, I travelled the 80 km/h speed limit on normal cruise control most of the way.
And the envelope, please:
First lap, Range Mode OFF = 205 Wh/km (330 Wh/mi)
Second lap, Range Mode ON = 188 Wh/km (303 Wh/mi)
That is just shy of the 10% increase in efficiency JB promised. Maybe we are getting somewhere!!
Similar threads
